from the look of things: assessing perceptions of organizational dissenters

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY /FEBRUARY 2001Kassing / DISSENT PERCEPTION

FROM THE

LOOKS OF THINGSAssessing Perceptions of

Organizational Dissenters

JEFFREY W. KASSINGArizona State University West

442

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank Ted Zornand three anonymous reviewers for their helpful commentson earlier versions of this article. An earlier version of thisresearch was presented at the 2000 National Communica-tion Association Convention in Seattle. Correspondenceconcerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey W.Kassing at the Department of Communication Studies, Ari-zona State University West, Phoenix, AZ 85069; e-mail:[email protected].

“. . . employees

make assessments

about motives and

restraints when

others dissent and

use this

knowledge to

inform their own

decisions about

when and how to

dissent.”

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, February 2001 442-470© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

The purpose of this study was to examine how people perceive em-ployee dissenters. Respondents, who were full-time working adultsfrom various organizations, received questionnaires that containeda scenario depicting a fictitious organizational character engagingin either articulated or latent dissent. Participants then providedtheir perceptions of the dissenter depicted in the scenario via a set ofother-report indexes. Results indicated that respondents perceivedarticulated and latent dissenters differently. Respondents perceivedarticulated dissenters to be less verbally aggressive and less argu-mentative, more identified with their organizations, and more satis-fied employees than latent dissenters. In addition, articulated dis-senters, compared with latent dissenters, were seen as employees whohave better relationships with their supervisors, as employeeswho see management as more open to employee input, and as employ-ees who exercise more influence in their organizations.

A recent line of research reveals that employees choose dis-sent strategies in light of individual, relational, and organi-

zational influences that exist within organizations (Kassing, 1997,1998, in press-a, in press-b; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). These influ-ences serve as a backdrop from which employees assess two pri-mary questions: (a) Will dissent be perceived as adversarial or con-structive? and (b) Will dissent result in retaliation? (Kassing,1997). Employees rely heavily on perceptual data gleaned from theenvironment to make these assessments. Researchers have sug-gested that employees have a relatively clear sense of how dissentwill be characterized in their organizations (Hegstrom, 1999;Sprague & Ruud, 1988).

According to Weick’s (1979, 1995) sense-making model, em-ployees come to understand and make sense of their organizationalenvironments through interaction. Interaction serves to reducevarying interpretations, or equivocality, of organizational events.Organizational members enact dissent episodes, thereby constitut-ing organizational reality. The enacted reality, in turn, necessitatesexplanation. Explanation of dissent episodes occurs through resid-ual talk about enacted episodes and usable explanations are retained

Kassing / DISSENT PERCEPTION 443

to make sense of future episodes. Through this sense-making pro-cess, employees explain when and why employee dissent variesand draw conclusions from the context about fellow employees’motives for dissenting and about the restraints that prevent employ-ees from dissenting. Thus, dissent enactment and the perception ofenacted dissent inform one another. That is, employees makeassessments about motives and restraints when others dissent anduse this knowledge to inform their own decisions about when andhow to dissent. One means, then, by which employees come to evalu-ate, understand, and, in conjunction with other influences, selectdissent strategies is through observation of dissent episodes withinorganizational settings. The purpose of this study was to assess howemployee dissenters that use commonplace, internal strategies forexpressing dissent are perceived.

LITERATURE REVIEW

DISSENT MESSAGES AND STRATEGIES

Dissent entails the expression of disagreement or contradictoryopinions in the workplace (Kassing, 1997). Researchers focusingon dissent have considered the nature of dissent messages. Forexample, Graham (1986) suggested that employees use either per-sonal-advantage dissent messages (e.g., disagreeing when one’swork hours are cut or when one is called on to perform extra duties)or principled dissent messages (i.e., disagreeing about unethical orquestionable business practices). Hegstrom (1999) found that bothpersonal-advantage and principled motives were evident concur-rently when employees expressed dissent. Other researchers haveconsidered the audiences to which dissenters direct their messages(Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Near & Jensen, 1983; Sprague & Ruud,1988; Stewart, 1980). Accordingly, boat rocking involves the ex-pression of dissent to internal organizational audiences (Sprague &Ruud, 1988), whereas whistle-blowing (Dozier & Miceli, 1985;

444 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2001

Near & Jensen, 1983; Stewart, 1980) involves the expression of dis-sent to external organizational audiences such as regulatory bodiesor the media.

Recent research indicates that employees use various strategiesfor expressing dissent (Kassing, 1998). Accordingly, articulateddissent involves expressing dissent openly and clearly within anorganization to audiences who can effectively influence organiza-tional adjustment (i.e., corporate officers, managers, and supervi-sors). Latent dissent occurs when employees resort to expressingtheir contradictory opinions and disagreements aggressively toineffectual audiences across the organization or in concert withother frustrated employees. Displaced dissent involves the expres-sion of dissent to external audiences (e.g., non-work friends, spouses/partners, strangers, and family members) other than media or polit-ical sources sought by whistle-blowers. Both whistle-blowing anddisplaced dissent entail expressing dissent to audiences that areexternal to one’s organization. However, whistle-blowing is dis-tinct from displaced dissent because it involves externally express-ing dissent to public audiences such as organizational governingbodies or media sources, whereas displaced dissent involvesexpressing dissent externally to local, private audiences such asfamily and friends (Kassing, 1997, 1998).

FACTORS INFLUENCING DISSENT EXPRESSION

The process by which employees select verbal dissent strategiesoccurs amid a complex backdrop of organizational, relational, andindividual influences (Kassing, 1997).

Individual Influences

Individual influences concern predispositions that employeesbring to organizations, expectations they import from outside oforganizations, and behaviors they enact within organizations. Re-search suggests that employees’ sense of powerlessness, prefer-


ences for avoiding conflict, senses of right and wrong, and organi-zational roles influence their decisions to dissent (Hegstrom, 1999;Kassing & Avtgis, 1999; Sprague & Ruud, 1988).

Two additional individual influences are verbal aggressivenessand argumentativeness, which represent aggressive communica-tion predispositions that employees bring to their respective organi-zations (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Kassing &Avtgis, 1999). Verbal aggressiveness involves attacking the self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person’sposition on a topic (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Argumentativenessrefers to people’s tendencies to argue about controversial issues(Infante & Rancer, 1982). Researchers have demonstrated that sub-ordinates’ argumentativeness relates to higher levels of subordi-nates’ effectiveness (Infante & Gorden, 1989), that supervisors’argumentativeness relates to less use of supervisors’ compliancegaining (Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herington, & Kim, 1993), andthat supervisors perceive argumentativeness to be associated withconstructive disagreement styles (Gorden, Infante, & Izzo, 1988).Dissent research indicates that potential dissenters consider thestrength of their arguments when deciding whether to express theirconcerns (Hegstrom, 1999). Kassing and Avtgis (1999) found thatargumentativeness predicted articulated dissent use, whereas ver-bal aggressiveness predicted latent dissent use.

Employee satisfaction represents another individual-level factorthat relates to employee dissent. Employees have reported desir-ing more freedom of speech opportunities within organizations(Gorden, Holmberg, & Heisey, 1994) and being more satisfied whenthey perceived that such opportunities were available (Gorden &Infante, 1991). Kassing (1998) found that employees’ scores on aglobal measure of employee satisfaction related positively to artic-ulated dissent use and negatively to latent dissent use. These find-ings do not establish causality; rather, it appears that dissent is botha consequence of and an antecedent to employee satisfaction.

Previous research indicates that articulated dissenters, in com-parison to latent dissenters, are more argumentative, less verballyaggressive, and more satisfied (Kassing, 1998; Kassing & Avtgis,


1999). It is reasonable to suggest, then, that articulated dissenterswill be perceived as more satisfied, more argumentative, and lessverbally aggressive, whereas latent dissenters will be perceived asless satisfied, less argumentative, and more verbally aggressive. Totest this assertion, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 1: Articulated dissenters will be perceived as more satis-fied, more argumentative, and less verbally aggressive than latentdissenters.

Relational Influences

Relational influences include the types and quality of relation-ships people maintain within organizations (Kassing, 1997).Sprague and Ruud (1988) found that employees chose to expressdissent most readily in face-to-face interactions with their supervi-sors. Management theorists (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982;Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Liden & Graen, 1980) have contendedthat supervisors manage subordinates via two distinct types of rela-tionships: (a) in-group, high-quality relationships characterized byleadership and (b) out-group, low-quality relationships character-ized by supervision. High-quality relationships facilitate moreopen and direct communication (Krone, 1992; Waldron, 1991),more decisional involvement (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987), andmore mutual persuasion (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). Employeeswho perceived having higher quality relationships with their super-visors used more articulated dissent than did employees who per-ceived having lower quality relationships with their supervisors(Kassing, in press-b).

Low-quality superior/subordinate relationships involve moreimpression management (Waldron, 1991) and more avoidance bysubordinates (Waldron, Hunt, & Dsilva, 1993). In addition, moreuse of political influence tactics, competitive conflict, and powergames are present in low-quality superior/subordinate relation-ships (Fairhurst, 1993; Krone, 1992). Employees who perceivedhaving lower quality relationships with their supervisors used


significantly more latent dissent than their counterparts who per-ceived they had a high-quality relationship with their supervisors(Kassing, in press-b).

Previous research thus suggests that articulated dissenters shouldbe perceived as employees who have higher quality relationshipswith their supervisors, whereas latent dissenters should be perceiv-ed as employees who have lower quality relationships with theirsupervisors. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Articulated dissenters will be perceived as employeeswho possess higher quality relationships with their supervisors thanlatent dissenters.

Organizational Influences

Organizational influences concern how organizations relate totheir members (Kassing, 1997). This set of influences incorporateshow employees identify with organizations, how tolerant employ-ees perceive their respective organizations to be of dissent, and howemployees learn the organizational norms governing dissentthrough socialization practices (Jablin, 1987). Organizationalscholars have suggested that organizations foster organizationalcultures and communication climates that either are conducive orrestrictive of organizational dissent (Graham, 1986; Hegstrom,1990; Sprague & Ruud, 1988). Research suggests that employeeswere aware of organizational cultures and climates that fostered orsuppressed employee dissent (Hegstrom, 1999; Sprague & Ruud,1988) and that these factors influenced how they enacted andexpressed dissent and how they identified with their organizations(Graham, 1986; Hegstrom, 1990, 1999; Kassing, in press-a).

When management in general and supervisors in particularsolicit and respect employee opinion, organizational membersbelieve that they can influence their respective organizations anduse more articulated dissent to do so (Kassing, 1998). Conversely,employees who choose latent dissent do so in part because theyperceive that management is closed to employee input and that



they consequently exercise little personal influence in their orga-nizations (Kassing, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis isoffered:

Hypothesis 3: Articulated dissenters will be perceived as (a) employ-ees who are more identified with their organizations than latent dis-senters, (b) employees who hold stronger beliefs about manage-ment’s openness to employee input than latent dissenters, and (c)employees who hold stronger beliefs about their ability to influencetheir organizations than latent dissenters.

Besides demonstrating that employees choose dissent strategiesin response to a complex set of influences that exist at individual,relational, and organizational levels, dissent research providesemergent profiles of articulated and latent dissenters (Hegstrom,1999; Kassing, 1997, 1998; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999; Sprague &Ruud, 1988). The intention of the current research is to examine thedegree to which the profiles of articulated and latent dissenters thathave emerged through previous research will be manifested in per-ceptual data provided via other-reports. Conceptually, this is animportant endeavor because the other-report method and the per-ceptual data it produces provide a locus for triangulating existingself-report data and a means by which to test previous findings viaan alternative method. Pragmatically, the research provides anopportunity to explore the consequences of dissent behavior.

Researchers have demonstrated the importance of consideringthe relationship between communication and perceptual issueswithin organizations (Haunani-Solomon & Miller-Williams, 1997;Sias & Jablin, 1995). Perceptual data have been particularly effec-tive in furthering our understanding of sexual harassment (Haunani-Solomon & Miller-Williams, 1997; Keyton & Rhodes, 1999), anorganizational phenomenon that is at once an organizational, rela-tional, and individual issue. Similarly, the expression of dissentrepresents a complex communicative phenomenon that organiza-tional members will observe and of which they will attempt to makesense.

METHOD

SAMPLE

Three hundred sixteen (N = 316) employees who worked fororganizations throughout the Southwestern United States partici-pated in this study. Respondents worked for a variety of organiza-tions that included sales (n = 60), health care (n = 36), service (n =60), education (n = 36), manufacturing (n = 38), banking/financialservices (n = 16), insurance (n = 12), computers/information tech-nology (n = 3), law (n = 5), telecommunications (n = 2), retail sales(n = 7), government (n = 19), engineering (n = 4), nonprofit (n = 6),real estate (n = 2), recreation (n = 2), and avionics (n = 2). Sixrespondents did not classify their organizations.

The sample was composed of 164 men (52%) and 152 women(48%). The ages of employees participating in this study rangedfrom 18 to 74 years (M = 35.56, SD = 11.49), job tenure rangedfrom less than a year to 32 years (M = 5.77, SD = 6.10), total yearsof work experience ranged from 1 year to 55 years (M = 15.51, SD =9.78), and the number of employers that participants reported theyhad worked for full-time ranged from 1 to 20 (M = 4.29, SD = 3.07).Approximately 6% of the respondents reported holding top man-agement positions, 33% management positions, 54% nonmanage-ment positions, and 6% other organizational positions. Threerespondents did not report their organizational position. Approxi-mately 72% of respondents reported their ethnicity as Caucasian,16% as Hispanic, 6% as African American, 2% as Asian, 1% asNative American, and 2% as something other than the choices pro-vided. The remaining 1% of respondents did not report theirethnicity.

INSTRUMENTATION

The instrument used in this research consisted of two compo-nents: (a) a workplace scenario depicting an employee dissenter


and (b) an other-report instrument designed to assess respondents’perceptions of the fictitious character portrayed in the workplacescenario. Respondents were instructed to read the scenario first andthen to respond to the other-report items that followed while con-sidering their impressions of the character depicted in the work-place scenario.1

The scenarios were created particularly for use in this study.They were drafted to reflect a fictitious character (i.e., Steve orMary) engaging in either articulated dissent or latent dissent. Withthe exception of the type of dissent depicted and the sex of the dis-senter depicted, the scenarios were held consistent. That is, the typeof work (grocery store employee), the issue about which the dissentoccurred (change in product line), and the rationale the characterprovided for dissenting (insensitivity to customers) remained con-stant across scenarios. Respondents received a scenario thatdepicted one of the following: a male articulated dissenter (n = 77),a female articulated dissenter (n = 79), a male latent dissenter (n =80), or a female latent dissenter (n = 80).2

A manipulation check was performed prior to data collection totest the degree to which the scenarios reflected different and accu-rate representations of dissent. Students in an undergraduateresearch methods class at a Southwestern U.S. university (N = 20)were provided with a set of directions3 and definitions of the twotypes of dissent portrayed in the scenarios. They then read either thearticulated or latent dissent scenario and reported the type of dis-sent that they believed it portrayed. In all cases, regardless of thesex of the dissenter or the type of dissent depicted, students accu-rately perceived the intended type of dissent portrayed.

After reading a scenario, respondents in the sample were askedto provide their impressions of the fictitious character by respond-ing to 28 declarative statements that were written as other-reportitems using the character’s name (e.g., “Steve/Mary is free to dis-agree with his/her immediate supervisor”). Participants respondedusing a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (strongly dis-agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items for the perceptual measure weredrawn from a variety of communication instruments. The percep-tual measure appears in Appendix A.


Three indexes were used to assess individual-level variables:argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and satisfaction. Toassess perceptions of argumentativeness, four items were drawnfrom the Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Thescale measures people’s tendencies to approach or avoid arguments(e.g., “Steve/Mary tries to avoid getting into arguments”). One itemwas dropped for analysis because it damaged the alpha of the indexconsiderably (“Steve/Mary has the ability to do well in an argu-ment”). The three-item index produced an alpha of .63 (M = 10.35,SD = 2.35). To assess perceptions of verbal aggressiveness, fouritems were drawn from the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Infante &Wigley, 1986). The scale measures people’s tendencies to attackother people instead of or along with their arguments (e.g., “Steve/Mary makes people defensive by attacking their competence andcharacter”). The four-item index produced an alpha of .84 (M =10.04, SD = 3.58). Perceptions of satisfaction were assessed with asingle item (“Steve/Mary is a satisfied employee”; M = 2.83, SD =1.18) intended to measure general satisfaction rather than dimen-sions of satisfaction (e.g., with supervisor, pay, coworkers, job).4

Items were drawn from the Supervisor subscale of the Organiza-tional Communication Relationships Scale5 (Downs, 1988) toassess relational-level variables. The Supervisor subscale assessesthe relationship quality of superior/subordinate relationships (e.g.,“Steve/Mary can tell his/her immediate supervisor when things aregoing wrong”). The four-item index produced an alpha of .81 (M =13.81, SD = 2.87).

Three indexes were used to assess organizational-level vari-ables: organizational identification, beliefs about management,and beliefs about personal influence. To assess organizational iden-tification, eight items were drawn from the Organizational Identifi-cation Questionnaire (Cheney, 1983). The scale measures thedegree to which employees identify with their respective organiza-tions (e.g., “Steve/Mary finds it easy to identify with his/her organi-zation”). The eight-item index produced an alpha of .82 (M = 25.95,SD = 5.91). To assess employees’ beliefs about management andpersonal influence, the Top Management and Personal Influencesubscales of the Organizational Communication Relationships


Scale (Downs, 1988) were administered. The Top Managementsubscale is a three-item index that assesses the degree to whichemployees believe management is open to employee input (e.g.,“Steve/Mary trusts top management”; M = 7.81, SD = 3.15, � =.90). The measure was used in previous research to assess relation-ships between dissent and management’s openness to employeeinput (Kassing, 1998). The Perceived Influence subscale is afour-item index that assesses the degree of influence that employ-ees perceive they have on decision making and policy making inorganizations (e.g., “Steve/Mary has a say in decisions that affecthis/her job”; M = 12.48, SD = 3.46, � = .81). Correlations amongthe indexes used in the current study appear in Table 1.

DATA ANALYSIS

In her review of literature related to gender and communicationin organizational settings, Baker (1991) concluded that menemphasized image-centered or instrumental objectives, whereaswomen emphasized interpersonal objectives. Baker suggested thatthis contrast occurs due to gender role spillover or “how expecta-tions based on traditional gender roles can affect the way peoplecommunicate and the way they interpret communication acts”(p. 59). To test the possibility that men and women portrayed as dis-senters would be perceived differently and that men and women asrespondents would perceive dissent differently, preliminary analy-ses were conducted. In addition, preliminary analyses were run to


TABLE 1: Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Argumentativeness2. Verbal aggressiveness –.17*3. Satisfaction –.15* –.54*4. Relationship quality –.08 –.48* .59*5. Organizational identification –.08 –.57* .67* .53*6. Top management –.15* –.58* .78* .63* .70*7. Personal influence –.01 –.46* .65* .61* .59* .72*

*p < .01, two-tailed.

determine if job classification of the respondents influenced theirperceptions of dissenters.

Several 2 × 2 MANOVA were computed in which the type of dis-sent depicted (articulated or latent) was paired with either sex ofdissenter, sex of respondent, or job classification (management ornonmanagement) to serve as independent variables.6 Summatedscores on the indexes adapted for this study served as dependentvariables. The MANOVA analysis for dissent type and sex of thedissenter was not significant, F(7, 306) = 1.53, p = .16, λ = .97. Nei-ther was the MANOVA analysis for dissent type and sex of therespondent, F(7, 306) = 1.16, p = .33, λ = .97; nor the MANOVAanalysis for dissent type and job classification of the respondent,F(7, 285) = .42, p = .89, λ = .99. Results of the preliminary analysesindicated that there were no interaction effects among sex of thedissenter, sex of the respondent, or job classification of the respon-dent to confound the relationship between type of dissent and theset of dependent variables.

Because there were several significant correlations (see Table 1)among the seven dependent variables, the research hypotheseswere addressed with a single MANOVA. Type of dissent as depict-ed in the fictitious scenarios, articulated (n = 156) and latent (n =160), served as the independent variable. Summated scores on theindexes used to measure argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness,employee satisfaction, superior/subordinate relationship quality,organizational identification, beliefs about management, andbeliefs about personal influence served as dependent variables. Apriori comparisons were requested for type of dissent and alldependent variables. Tukey’s honestly significant difference testwas used to adjust observed significance levels for multiple com-parisons and to ensure that the probability of a Type I error was heldconstant across comparisons.

RESULTS

Results of the MANOVA indicated that a significant relationshipexists between type of dissent and the perceptions of dissenters,


F(7, 308) = 67.20, p < .001, λ = .40. Pairwise comparisons revealedsignificant differences for argumentativeness, F(1, 314) = 36.47,p < .001; verbal aggressiveness, F(1, 314) = 137.46, p < .001;employee satisfaction, F(1, 314) = 298.43, p < .001; superior/subordinate relationship quality, F(1, 314) = 172.23, p < .001; orga-nizational identification, F(1, 314) = 197.24, p < .001; beliefs abouttop management, F(1, 314) = 313.05, p < .001; and beliefs aboutpersonal influence, F(1, 314) = 179.44, p < .001.

The first hypothesis suggested that articulated dissenters wouldbe perceived as more satisfied, as more argumentative, and as lessverbally aggressive than latent dissenters would. Comparison ofmean scores indicated that respondents perceived articulated dis-senters to be less argumentative (M = 9.58) than latent dissenters(M = 11.10), to be less verbally aggressive (M = 8.05) than latentdissenters (M = 11.99), and to be more satisfied (M = 3.66) thanlatent dissenters (M = 2.02). Thus, there was partial support forHypothesis 1.

The second hypothesis posited that articulated dissenters wouldbe perceived as employees who possessed higher quality relation-ships with their supervisors than latent dissenters. Comparison ofmean scores revealed that respondents perceived articulated dis-senters as having higher quality relationships with their supervisors(M = 15.55) than latent dissenters had with their supervisors (M =12.13). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

The third hypothesis stated that articulated dissenters would beperceived as (a) employees who were more identified with theirorganizations than latent dissenters, (b) employees who held stron-ger beliefs about management’s openness to employee input thanlatent dissenters, and (c) employees who held stronger beliefs abouttheir ability to influence their organizations than latent dissenters.Examination of mean scores indicated that respondents perceivedarticulated dissenters as employees who were more identified withtheir organizations (M = 29.66) than latent dissenters (M = 22.33),employees who were more likely to believe that management wasopen to employee input (M = 10.07) than latent dissenters (M =5.63), and employees who exercised more influence in their organi-


zations (M = 14.59) than latent dissenters (M = 10.42). Thus,Hypothesis 3 was supported.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that employees depicted asusing either articulated or latent dissent were perceived quite differ-ently. In addition, the perceptual findings produced by other-reportdata in this study converge with previous research findings thatincorporated self-reported influences contributing to the selectionof verbal dissent strategies (Kassing, 1998, in press-a, in press-b;Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). This conclusion holds when consideringindividual, relational, and organizational factors that influence dis-sent strategy selection. Previous research on individual factors con-tributing to dissent strategy selection indicates that employee satis-faction correlates positively with self-reported articulated dissentuse and negatively with self-reported latent dissent use (Kassing,1998). These findings are mirrored in the current results, whichindicate that respondents perceived articulated dissenters to bemore satisfied than latent dissenters. Similarly, previous researchindicated that self-reported levels of verbal aggressiveness pre-dicted use of latent dissent (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Again, these


TABLE 2: Type of Dissent Depicted and Respondents’ Perceptions of Dissenters

Type of Dissent Depicted

Articulated Latent F*

Argumentativeness 9.58 11.10 36.47Verbal aggressiveness 8.05 11.99 137.46Satisfaction 3.66 2.02 298.43Relationship quality 15.55 12.13 172.23Organizational identification 29.66 22.33 197.24Top management 10.07 5.63 313.05Personal influence 14.59 10.42 179.44

*All F values significant at p < .001.

findings were reflected in the perceptual data generated in the cur-rent study. That is, respondents perceived latent dissenters as sig-nificantly more verbally aggressive than articulated dissenters.

One anomaly in the current findings concerned the perception ofargumentativeness. Previous findings suggested that potential dis-senters considered the strength of their arguments when decidingwhether to voice their concerns (Hegstrom, 1999) and that argu-mentativeness predicted articulated dissent use (Kassing & Avtgis,1999). However, in this study, respondents did not perceive articu-lated dissenters to be more argumentative than latent dissenters. Tothe contrary, respondents perceived that latent dissenters were sig-nificantly more argumentative than articulated dissenters. Theanomaly in the current findings may be attributed to measurementerror (one item was dropped from the original four-item index andthe three items that were retained produced a questionable alpha,α = .63) or to conceptual clarity. In some studies, researchers havefound that argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness correlatedsignificantly and considerably (Boster & Levine, 1988; Infante,Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Roberto & Finucane, 1998). There was amoderate, yet significant correlation between the two types ofaggressive communication in the current research, r = .17. Concep-tual clarity in the current research, then, may account for this find-ing. However, it is also important and necessary to raise the possi-bility that argumentativeness contributes to organizationalmembers’ decisions about using articulated dissent, but it is notreflected in how they are perceived by their coworkers. That is,argumentativeness may steer an employee toward using more artic-ulated dissent but he or she may be perceived as aggressive ratherthan or in addition to being perceived as argumentative. This maybe due to the fact that contemporary organizations do not alwaysfoster argumentation within the workplace (Redding, 1985;Sanders, 1983).

At the relational level, additional literature suggests that em-ployees in high-quality superior/subordinate relationships use morearticulated dissent, whereas employees in lower quality superior/subordinate relationships use more latent dissent (Kassing, in press-b). The current findings converge with previous research by dem-


onstrating that people perceived articulated dissenters as havinghigher quality relationships with their supervisors and latent dis-senters as having lower quality relationships with their supervisors.Higher quality superior/subordinate relationships foster more deci-sional involvement (Fairhurst et al., 1987) and mutual persuasion(Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989), more open upward influence (Krone,1992), and more personal and direct relational maintenance tacticuse (Waldron, 1991). It follows then that higher quality relation-ships would be associated perceptually with articulated dissent use,which entails voicing concerns upward to supervisors, managers,and corporate officers. This would occur more readily when higherquality relationships are present.

Previous research exploring organizational-level influences onemployee dissent strategy selection suggests that employeesexpressed more articulated dissent when they perceived that theirorganization was relatively tolerant of dissent and when they werehighly identified with their organization (Kassing, in press-a).Research also indicates that perceptions of top management’sopenness to employee input and employees’ levels of perceivedinfluence within organizations related positively to articulated dis-sent use and negatively to latent dissent use (Kassing, 1998). Onceagain, the current perceptual findings reflect findings generatedthrough self-report data. Results indicated that articulated dissent-ers were seen as more identified with their organizations. They alsowere seen as employees who held more positive beliefs about man-agement’s openness to employee input than latent dissenters heldand as employees who believed they exercised more personal influ-ence within their organizations than latent dissenters did.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND RESEARCH

The findings of the current study suggest that articulated dissentuse and latent dissent use are associated with clear patterns of attri-bution. They also suggest that the attribution patterns revealed hereparallel profiles of articulated and latent dissenters that are evidentin self-report data (Kassing, 1998, in press-b; Kassing & Avtgis,


1999). The clearly distinct perceptual profiles of dissenters evidentin this work invite speculation about established attributional tem-plates of dissenters. Have organizational members been indoctri-nated to the “go along to get along” ideology (Redding, 1985) to thedegree that they fall back on a set of expectations about dissentersmore readily than making an active assessment of dissenters’motives and restraints? Exploring the degree to which employeesdevelop distinct preconceived notions about dissenters throughprevious work experience represents an important question forfuture research to address.

In addition, the findings hold important implications for organi-zational sense-making. Sias and Jablin (1995) found that the major-ity of employees interviewed in their sample reported that they con-versed about episodes of differential treatment by supervisors forsense-making purposes (i.e., to make sense of why it was happen-ing). They also reported that members spoke more about episodesof unfairness than episodes of fairness and that people spoke aboutdifferential treatment to assess fairness. Similar patterns of sense-making may be present when dissent episodes occur. Organiza-tional members may engage in discussions of dissent episodes tomake sense of such experiences, to further refine their sense oforganizational tolerance for dissent, to determine what issues meritdissent, and to inform their future dissent strategy choices. Futureresearch should investigate these possibilities by specificallystudying the discourse that occurs among organizational membersfollowing dissent episodes.

However, if organizational members are rigid in their distinctinterpretations of employee dissent, then perhaps discussion of dis-sent episodes remains restricted to talk and explanations that sup-port the indoctrinated expectations of dissenters. In this fashion,residual discourse about dissent episodes may exhibit discursiveclosure whereby organizational members limit their discussion ofdissenters’ motives and expressions to established expectations.Employees who hold particular conceptions of dissenters and whocontinue to sustain those conceptions through discourse propagateexpectations about which employees can dissent and about howand when they can do so. Deetz (1998) demonstrated how employ-


ees strategized their own subordination by consenting to a discur-sive formation that enabled self-surveillance and self-control. Dis-course about dissenters may function similarly. Ironically, then,dissent expression, potentially a form of employee resistance(Kassing, 1998), could serve as means by which employees subor-dinate themselves and engage in self-control.

Perceptual rigidity of dissenters also holds important implica-tions for the communicative enactment of organizational democ-racy. Cheney (1995) recognized that for organizational democra-cies to be successful they must retain buffers to outside pressuresthat may alter core values and practices. Historically, bureaucraticorganizations suppress and resist dissent. Employees’ exposure tosuch efforts may lead them to conclude that dissenters are per-ceived and treated inflexibly. Perhaps, then, formalized perceptionsof dissenters, which organizational members develop throughtheir work history via association with and exposure to traditionalbureaucratic workplaces, represent an inherent threat to organiza-tional democracy. The residue of formalized perceptions of dis-senters may be difficult to shed even in the most democratic of orga-nizations. When employees in democratic workplaces dissentbased on their preconceived notions of who dissents and underwhat conditions, they challenge the actuality (i.e., the authenticityof participation and the extent of actual influence employees exer-cise within organizations) of organizational democracy (Cheney,1995). They also forfeit their ability to create and recreate democ-racy in organizations through self-critical and self-correcting pro-cesses (Cheney, 1995). Rather, they limit democracy in organiza-tional settings by formalizing the type and nature of dissent thatmembers perceive collectively as permissible.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Many contemporary organizations actively attempt to integrateemployee opinion into their organizational functions (Cotton,1993). The current findings coupled with previous research indi-cate that organizations can facilitate employee input by attending to


the mechanisms and practices by which they solicit employeeinput. Apparently, attending to these not only affects the dissenter’swillingness to articulate his or her dissent but also coworkers’ per-ceptions of the dissenter’s motives and the organization’s recep-tiveness to dissent. Similarly, training supervisors to be receptive,open, and responsive to employee dissent could encourage not onlythe immediate dissenter to express future concerns but also couldrepresent a communicative practice by which supervisors signalenduring receptiveness to entire workgroups. In contrast, the per-ceptual distinctions revealed here may signal a need for organiza-tions to revisit the mechanisms that they use to solicit employeeinput and to assess the degree to which they appeal to and are usedby only select employees. Critical evaluation of the form and natureof dissent-fostering mechanisms within organizations may revealthat they in fact exclude some employees from expressing opinionsand privilege others.

LIMITATIONS

There are some inherent limitations in the current researchdesign. First, fictitious portrayals of dissenters were used to solicitperceptual data from respondents. Control was exercised in the cur-rent study by keeping the scenarios static with the exception of thetype of dissent portrayed. This practice resulted in a limited por-trayal of the issues about which employees dissent. More naturalis-tic scenarios could be used in future research to incorporate dissentepisodes that center on varying issues. For example, researcherscould cull examples of dissent episodes from respondents in a pilotstudy and then create scenarios based on respondents’ reports. Itwould be interesting to consider in future research if dissenters areperceived differently when they dissent about different issues (e.g.,personal advantage issues vs. issues of principle). In addition, theexclusive reliance on closed-ended questions limited the type andnature of feedback that respondents could provide about how dis-senters were perceived. Several variables were assessed at the per-ceptual level in this study, but certainly there are numerous others


that were not operationalized in the current work that would con-tribute to our understanding of how dissenters are perceived. Inaddition, the redundancy evident in the high degree of multi-collinearity among dependent measures may have potentiallyrestricted the range of how people perceived dissenters. Perhaps amuch richer picture of how organizational members perceive dis-senters is possible. Incorporating open-ended questions that allowrespondents to provide varied and more detailed feedback thanthe current methods provided could achieve this. Future researchshould incorporate a broader perspective of how dissenters poten-tially could be perceived.

The sample in the current research was drawn from multipleorganizations across various industries. This lends to thegeneralizability of the findings. However, dissent expression mayvary as a result of organizational climates, industry expectations,and professional ethics (Kassing, in press-a; Sprague & Ruud,1988; Westin, 1986). For example, in a study of more than 800chemical and mechanical engineers, Westin found ethical dissentwas prevalent. Similarly, Sprague and Ruud (1988) found thatinstances of boat rocking were prevalent in the high-tech organiza-tions. In organizations and industries where dissent occurs more orless often, dissent expressions may be perceived considerably dif-ferently. Future research should assess perceptions of dissenters inspecific and varying industries and organizations.

In summary, these findings indicate that articulated and latentdissenters are perceived differently in terms of the individual, rela-tional, and organizational factors considered. In addition, whencompared to previous dissent research, the current findings indicatethat a high degree of symmetry exists between how dissentersreport about factors contributing to their dissent strategy choicesand how others perceive dissenters to be in terms of those same (orsimilar) factors. Last, the current work initiates a line of researchthat accentuates existing dissent research by focusing on how dis-senters are perceived in addition to how they assess and make deci-sions about expressing their dissent. Ideally, the two lines ofresearch can be integrated in future work to reveal how perceptionsof other dissenters and how personal beliefs about how one is per-


ceived as a dissenter shape employees’ choices about expressingorganizational dissent.

APPENDIX A

This questionnaire asks you to provide your impressions of Mary basedon the description of her communication at work that you just finishedreading. Not all items refer to aspects portrayed in the description. Attimes you will have to provide your impressions of Mary as an employeebased on your general sense rather than on specific information containedin the description. Do not hesitate to do this. Keep in mind there are noright or wrong answers, only your impressions.

Read each statement carefully and using the scale below indicate yourdegree of agreement with each statement by placing the appropriate num-ber in the blank to the left of the statement.

1 = strongly disagree2 = disagree3 = undecided4 = agree5 = strongly agree

1. _____ Mary has the ability to do well in an argument.2. _____ Mary enjoys a good argument over a controversial issue.3. _____ Mary is energetic and enthusiastic when arguing.4. _____ Mary tries to avoid getting into arguments.5. _____ Mary makes people defensive by attacking their competence

and character.6. _____ When people simply will not budge on a matter of impor-

tance, Mary loses her temper and says rather strong thingsto them.

7. _____ When Mary tries to influence people, she makes a greateffort not to offend them.

8. _____ When Mary attacks people’s ideas, she tries not to damagetheir self-concepts.

9. _____ Mary is willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond thatnormally expected in order to help her organization besuccessful.

10. _____ Mary feels very little loyalty to her work organization.


11. _____ Mary is proud to tell others that she is a part of herorganization.

12. _____ Mary really cares about the fate of her work organization.13. _____ Mary attempts to make on-the-job decisions by considering

the consequences of her actions for her organization.14. _____ In general, Mary views her organization’s problems as her

own.15. _____ Mary finds that her values and the values of her organization

are very similar.16. _____ Mary finds it easy to identify with her organization.17. _____ Mary’s immediate supervisor is honest with her.18. _____ Mary is free to disagree with her immediate supervisor.19. _____ Mary can tell her immediate supervisor when things are

going wrong.20. _____ Mary’s immediate supervisor understands her job needs.21. _____ Mary trusts top management.22. _____ Mary believes that top management is sincere in its efforts to

communicate with employees.23. _____ Mary’s relationship with top management is satisfying.24. _____ Mary feels her organization encourages differences of

opinion.25. _____ Mary has a say in decisions that affect her job.26. _____ Mary influences operations in her unit or department.27. _____ Mary has a part in accomplishing her organization’s goals.28. _____ Mary is a satisfied employee.

APPENDIX BArticulated Dissent Scenario

Mary works for a local grocery store. She recently learned that the storewould no longer carry an inexpensive economy brand of cola soft drink.Mary decides to speak to her manager about this decision.

She approaches her manager in the store and says, “So we’re not carry-ing the store brand cola anymore?” The manager responds, “No I’m afraidnot. We’re going to use the shelf space for more Coke and Pepsi.” So Marysays, “But won’t that limit our selection? One of the particular things wetry to do around here is provide selection for the shoppers, right?” Hermanager responds, “Right, but in this case we felt selection wasn’t as


important as stocking what the customers buy.” Mary responds, “But noteveryone buys Coke or Pepsi.” Her manager replies, “But most people do,so we’re going to cater to those folks.”

In response Mary asks, “But what about the people who choose to buythe economy brand because of cost, not taste?” Her manager replies,“Well, I don’t mean to sound crass, but those people will just have to shopfor cheaper soda somewhere else.” To this, Mary responds, “But we havean extensive line of economy brand products that offer savings to shop-pers. So I doubt people will go somewhere else just for soda.” Her man-ager replies, “Exactly, and they’ll probably spend the extra 20 cents to buyCoke or Pepsi here then. So we keep their business and we can sell moreCoke and Pepsi. I don’t understand why this is such a big issue. Don’t youthink people will pay the extra couple of cents? I do.”

Mary waits a brief moment and responds, “Look, I’m not trying to be apain here, but I think this is about more than just the type of cola we carry.It’s about cutting economy brands. We have lots of people that shop herethat are on a limited budget. Consider all the local senior citizens in thearea. Paying an additional 20 cents for soft drinks won’t break them, but itdoes send the message that we don’t feel the need to keep economy brandsin the store. I could easily see how shoppers would get concerned andwonder which economy brand product the store will drop next. Ice cream?Potato chips? Bread?”

APPENDIX CLatent Dissent Scenario

Steve works for a local grocery store. He recently learned that the storewould no longer carry an inexpensive economy brand of cola soft drink.Steve decides to speak to his coworkers about this decision during a coffeebreak.

“So we’re not carrying the store brand cola anymore?” Steve says dur-ing the coffee break. A coworker says, “I guess not.” Steve responds, “Isuppose they’re not worried about us limiting our selection. Isn’t that whatwe’re supposed to be about? Selection? Or is that just BS? Ever since I’veworked here this store has bragged about having the best selection intown.” A coworker adds, “It won’t be the first time management’s contra-dicted themselves.”


Steve continues, “Right, and they obviously don’t care about the peo-ple who buy the economy brand because they don’t want to spend extramoney on Coke and Pepsi.” Another coworker breaks in, “So they’ll paythe extra 20 cents, so what?” Steve responds, “So what? You sound like amanager. So only people with deep pockets can shop here anymore? Is thathow it’s going to be? There are lots of economy brands in the store. Arethey going to start cutting them one by one? What’s next? Ice cream?Potato chips? Bread?”

Steve looks around to see the reaction from his coworkers. He contin-ues, “Look—this may not seem like a big deal to you all, but I think it’swrong. We have lots of people that shop here who are on a limited budget.Consider all the local senior citizens in the area. Paying an additional 20cents for soft drinks won’t break them, but it creates the impression thatthe store’s going to start cutting economy brands.”

NOTES

1. The instructions provided to respondents before the scenario read as follows:

This questionnaire asks about your impression of communication that occurs in theworkplace. To begin, read the description provided below. Then proceed to the nextpage and answer the questions. You will be asked to provide your impressions of theworkplace communication depicted in the scenario, so read the description carefully.

2. Scenarios were of equal length (one page). Truncated versions of the articu-lated dissent and latent dissent scenarios appear in Appendixes B and C, respec-tively. Complete scenarios are available from the author.

3. Instructions provided to students assisting in the manipulation check read asfollows:

Below is a description of workplace communication that depicts an episode ofemployee dissent (i.e., the expression of disagreement about organizational prac-tices, policies, etc.). Employees may choose different strategies for expressing dis-sent. Two strategies, articulated and latent, are defined below. Read these definitionsand then read the scenario. After reading the scenario, please choose the type of dis-sent that you believe the scenario depicts or portrays by placing an X in the space nextto the definition.

4. The general assessment of satisfaction mirrored the technique used in previ-ous dissent research (Kassing, 1998) that employed Kunin’s (1955) Faces Scale,which is a global satisfaction measure that asks respondents to provide a generalassessment of their overall satisfaction. The single-item measure also helped to


keep the length of the other-report measure manageable. More sophisticated mea-sures that assess multiple dimensions of satisfaction are available and should beconsidered for use in future research. For example, the Communication Satisfac-tion Questionnaire (Downs, 1988) is a multidimensional instrument that providesa comprehensive assessment of employee satisfaction in terms of informationflow and relationship variables within organizations.

5. This scale was chosen over the more widely used seven-item Leader-Mem-ber Exchange Scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984) because the response format of themeasure was more readily adapted for the current use. The seven-item Leader-Member Exchange Scale uses a 4-point Likert-type response scale that varies witheach item. Adapting the scale to use in this particular administration would nothave allowed for preservation of the original response format.

6. Collapsing the four categories into two categories created the dichotomousdistinction between management and nonmanagement employees for the job clas-sification variable, which was originally assessed with four distinct categories (topmanagement, management, nonmanagement, other). Accordingly, respondentswho reported being either top management and management were summed to cre-ate the management category (n = 105), whereas respondents who reported beingeither nonmanagement or other were summed to create the nonmanagement cate-gory (n = 190).

REFERENCES

Baker, M. A. (1991). Gender and verbal communication in professional settings:A review of research. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 36-63.

Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. (1988). Individual differences and compliance gainingmessage selection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness,dogmatism, and negativism. Communication Research Reports, 5, 114-119.

Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational mem-bership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Mono-graphs, 50, 342-362.

Cheney, G. (1995). Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from theperspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research,23, 167-200.

Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performanceand work attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Deetz, S. (1998). Discursive formations, strategized subordination and self-sur-veillance. In A. McKinlay & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, management, andorganization theory (pp. 151-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downs, C. W. (1988). Communication audits. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.


Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: Aprosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10, 823-836.

Fairhurst, G. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders inindustry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.

Fairhurst, G., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interac-tion. Communication Monographs, 56, 215-239.

Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate controlpatterns and judgments about the relationship. Communication Yearbook, 10,395-415.

Gorden, W. I., Holmberg, K., & Heisey, D. R. (1994). Equality and the Swedishwork environment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7, 141-160.

Gorden, W. I., & Infante, D. A. (1991). Test of a communication model of organi-zational commitment. Communication Quarterly, 39, 144-155.

Gorden, W. I., Infante, D. A., & Izzo, J. (1988). Variations in voice pertaining todissatisfaction/satisfaction with subordinates. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 2, 6-22.

Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-memberexchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dualattachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30,109-131.

Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyadlinkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.

Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay.Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 1-52.

Haunani-Solomon, D., & Miller-Williams, M. L. (1997). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work as sexually harassing. Management Communi-cation Quarterly, 11, 147-184.

Hegstrom, T. G. (1990). Mimetic and dissent conditions in organizational rhetoric.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 141-152.

Hegstrom, T. G. (1999). Reasons for rocking the boat: Principles and personalproblems. In H. K. Geissner, A. F. Herbig, & E. Wessela (Eds.), Business com-munication in Europe (pp. 179-194). Tostedt, Germany: Attikon Verlag.

Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993).Subordinates’ satisfaction and perceptions of superiors’ compliance-gainingtactics, argumentativeness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly,6, 307-326.

Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skilldeficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56,163-177.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming commu-nicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates.Communication Quarterly, 37, 81-90.


Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure ofargumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interper-sonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin,L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-tional communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model ofemployee dissent. Communication Studies, 48, 311-332.

Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the Organizational DissentScale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 183-229.

Kassing, J. W. (in press-a). Exploring the relationship between workplace freedomof speech, organizational identification, and employee dissent. Communica-tion Research Reports.

Kassing, J. W. (in press-b). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Re-search Reports.

Kassing, J. W., & Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Examining the relationship between orga-nizational dissent and aggressive communication. Management Communica-tion Quarterly, 13, 76-91.

Keyton, J., & Rhodes, S. C. (1999). Organizational sexual harassment: Translatingresearch into application. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27,158-173.

Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationshipeffects on subordinates’ upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly,40, 1-15.

Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. PersonnelPsychology, 8, 65-77.

Liden, R., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage modelof leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.

Near, J. P., & Jensen, T. C. (1983). The whistleblowing process: Retaliation andperceived effectiveness. Work and Occupations, 10, 3-28.

Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speechcommunication. Communication Education, 34, 245-258.

Roberto, A. J., & Finucane, M. E. (1998). The assessment of argumentativenessand verbal aggressiveness in adolescent populations. Communication Quar-terly, 45, 21-36.

Sanders, W. (1983). The first amendment and the government workplace: Has theconstitution fallen down on the job? Western Journal of Speech Communica-tion, 47, 253-276.


Scandura, T., & Graen, G. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-memberexchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, 428-436.

Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations,perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communica-tion Research, 22, 5-38.

Sprague, J. A., & Ruud, G. L. (1988). Boat rocking in the high technology culture.American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 169-193.

Stewart, L. P. (1980). “Whistle blowing”: Implications for organizational commu-nication. Journal of Communication, 30(4), 90-101.

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinaterelationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Com-munication Monographs, 58, 289-306.

Waldron, V. R., Hunt, M. D., & Dsilva, M. (1993). Towards a threat managementmodel of upward communication: A study of influence and maintenance tac-tics in the leader-member dyad. Communication Studies, 44, 254-272.

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Westin, A. F. (1986). Professional and ethical dissent: Individual, corporate and

social responsibility. Technology in Society, 8, 335-339.

Jeffrey W. Kassing (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1997) is an assistant pro-fessor in the Department of Communication Studies at Arizona State Uni-versity West in Phoenix. His research focuses on employee dissent, advo-cacy within organizations, and superior/subordinate communication. Hisresearch has been published in Management Communication Quarterly,Communication Studies, and Communication Research Reports.


from the look of things: assessing perceptions of organizational dissenters

Documents