Workplace relationships between supervisors and subordinates define

Coworker relationships move from strangers to friends much like other friendships. Perceived similarity may lead to more communication about workplace issues, which may lead to self-disclosure about non-work-related topics, moving a dyad from acquaintances to friends.

Coworker friendships may then become closer as a result of personal or professional problems. For example, talking about family or romantic troubles with a coworker may lead to increased closeness as self-disclosure becomes deeper and more personal.

Interestingly, research has shown that close friendships are more likely to develop among coworkers when they perceive their supervisor to be unfair or unsupportive. In short, a bad boss apparently leads people to establish closer friendships with coworkers, perhaps as a way to get the functional and relational support they are missing from their supervisor.

Friendships between peer coworkers have many benefits, including making a workplace more intrinsically rewarding, helping manage job-related stress, and reducing employee turnover. Friendships across departmental boundaries in particular have been shown to help an organization adapt to changing contexts.

Workplace friendships may also have negative effects. Obviously information chains can be used for workplace gossip, which can be unproductive. Although this section has focused on peer coworker friendships, some friendships have the potential to develop into workplace romances. Romantic Workplace Relationships Workplace romances involve two people who are emotionally and physically attracted to one another Sias, For example, the president of the American Red Cross was fired in for having a personal relationship with a subordinate.

That same year, the president of the World Bank resigned after controversy over a relationship with an employee Boyd, So what makes these relationships so problematic? Some research supports the claim that workplace romances are bad for business, while other research claims workplace romances enhance employee satisfaction and productivity. Despite this controversy, workplace romances are not rare or isolated, as research shows 75 to 85 percent of people are affected by a romantic relationship at work as a participant or observer Sias, People who are opposed to workplace romances cite several common reasons.

More so than friendships, workplace romances bring into the office emotions that have the potential to become intense. Additionally, romance brings sexuality into workplaces that are supposed to be asexual, which also creates a gray area in which the line between sexual attraction and sexual harassment is blurred Sias, Obviously, this is not a debate that we can settle here.

Individuals may engage in workplace romances for many reasons, three of which are job motives, ego motives, and love motives Sias, Job motives include gaining rewards such as power, money, or job security. Love motives include the desire for genuine affection and companionship.

Despite the motives, workplace romances impact coworkers, the individuals in the relationship, and workplace policies. Romances at work may fuel gossip, especially if the couple is trying to conceal their relationship. This could lead to hurt feelings, loss of trust, or even jealousy.

If coworkers perceive the relationship is due to job motives, they may resent the appearance of favoritism and feel unfairly treated. The individuals in the relationship may experience positive effects such as increased satisfaction if they get to spend time together at work and may even be more productive.

Romances between subordinates and supervisors are more likely to slow productivity. If a relationship begins to deteriorate, the individuals may experience more stress than other couples would, since they may be required to continue to work together daily.

Over the past couple decades, there has been a national discussion about whether or not organizations should have policies related to workplace relationships, and there are many different opinions. This requires individuals who are romantically involved to disclose their relationship to the company and sign a document saying that it is consensual and they will not engage in favoritism. Some businesses are taking another route and encouraging workplace romances.

Southwest Airlines, for example, allows employees of any status to date each other and even allows their employees to ask passengers out on a date. Key Takeaways The supervisor-subordinate relationship includes much information exchange that usually benefits the subordinate. However, these relationships also have the potential to create important mentoring opportunities. Peer coworker relationships range from those that are purely information based to those that are collegial and include many or all of the dimensions of a friendship.

Workplace romances are controversial because they bring the potential for sexuality and intense emotions into the workplace, which many people find uncomfortable. However, research has shown that these relationships also increase employee satisfaction and productivity in some cases. Exercises Describe a relationship that you have had where you were either the mentor or the mentee.

How did the relationship form? What did you and the other person gain from the relationship? Think of a job you have had and try to identify someone you worked with who fit the characteristics of an information and a collegial peer. What led you to move from information peer to collegial peer with the other person? Remember that special peers are the rarest, so you may not have an experience with one.

If you do, what set this person apart from other coworkers that led to such a close relationship? If you were a business owner, what would your policy on workplace romances be and why? References Boyd, C. Kram, K. Sias, P. For example, complimenting each other on a job well done, bringing each other a small treat like a donut, or simply stopping by to have a friendly chat.

These acts of kindness exemplify the respect supervisors and supervisees can have for each other. Create a Foundation of Trust In a relationship between an employee and a supervisor who must work together on a regular basis, trust is critical. At times, the supervisor and supervisee may disagree on certain aspects of work, like a particular process or method of doing a task. Guidance and feedback in the workplace are helpful and lead to productivity, but micromanaging can be disruptive, cause frustration and strain supervisor-supervisee relationships.

If a supervisor is micromanaging a member of their team or not extending trust in their abilities, it can negatively affect the whole company. The employee may lose self-confidence and feel like their input is not valued by the organization. Improve the Working Relationship With a Manager Provide all team members with best practices for office relationships. Office Vibe suggests sharing the company vision so supervisors and supervisees can come together to achieve a bigger goal.

Be sure to emphasize company values so employees understand what is important to the business. Equip supervisors and supervisees with training on employee relationships so they are qualified to deal with tense situations, conflicts and disagreements. References Office Vibe: The 4 Pillars of Employee Relations Writer Bio Anam Ahmed is a Toronto-based writer and editor with over a decade of experience helping small businesses and entrepreneurs reach new heights.

She has experience ghostwriting and editing business books, especially those in the "For Dummies" series, in addition to writing and editing web content for the brand. Anam works as a marketing strategist and copywriter, collaborating with everyone from Fortune companies to start-ups, lifestyle bloggers to professional athletes.

As a small business owner herself, she is well-versed in what it takes to run and market a small business. Anam earned an M. Learn more at www. Related Articles.

Criticising advise ind vs aus world cup semi betting prediction not

This means communication needs to be clear and ongoing between you. Both of you need to be able to express concerns without fear of the other person's reactions, and you need to be open to constructive criticism. Perhaps the most important element of building a working rapport is embracing goals and visions for the future.

Encourage your employee to express her desires for obtaining new skills and work with her on strategies to achieve these objectives. Learn to read body language so you can pick up on unspoken problems. Be equally aware of what your own gestures and postures project, as you want them to be positive and empathetic. Clarification of Roles The relationship between supervisor and subordinate is defined by their positions in the company.

You need to be the leader of your employee, as you have the professional authority and responsibility to embody that role. The subordinate, likewise, needs to understand his role as an employee and be committed to following your directives even if they conflict with his own ideas. This does not mean he should not feel free to come to you with his own concepts, which you should consider, but it does mean the final decision is yours to make as his supervisor.

While you want your relationship to be friendly, it is your duty as manager to maintain the clearly defined roles of supervisor and subordinate. Maintaining Boundaries Boundaries must be established in your relations with a staff member. It has to remain professional in nature. Even if your company manual does not have a specific protocol forbidding fraternization with employees, you should make it a personal rule not to become involved romantically with a subordinate.

This helps protect you and your employee from accusations of preferential treatment — and it protects you from accusations of sexual harassment. You should also avoid becoming too personally involved in a friendship with your subordinate. VDL theory questioned the prevailing assumptions that supervisors treat employees similarly and that subordinates are generally passive.

Instead, VDL theory maintained that supervisors form different types of relationships with their various employees and these relationships vary with respect to quality. In high-quality relationships, leaders and members rely on one another for support and encouragement. Moreover, leader—member relationships i. Parallel to the evolution of theory regarding leadership and supervisory relationships, scholars conducted a great deal of research on supervisor—subordinate communication.

This body of work focused on identifying supervisor—subordinate communication patterns and functions that were more or less effective with effectiveness typically measured with respect to employee productivity, turnover, and satisfaction. Communication openness also contributes to supervisors and subordinate employees having more similar understandings of their tasks, abilities, and responsibilities.

Communication research also indicates that information exchange is a crucial function of supervisor—subordinate relationships. Supervisors are one of the most important sources of information for both newly hired and veteran employees Jablin Likewise, supervisors depend on subordinate employees for information to ensure they make appropriate decisions Sias Power And Influence Because hierarchy is a defining characteristic of the supervisor—subordinate relationship, much research has examined power and influence processes among supervisors and subordinate employees.

Again, early work tended to be unidirectional, focusing on how supervisors control and influence employees. Power was conceptualized as a relatively simplistic downward process in which supervisors gave orders to employees and employees were disciplined if they failed to carry out those orders effectively.

Later theorists in the human resources movement, such as Mary Parker Follett and Rensis Likert, maintained that subordinate employees are more competent and knowledgeable than earlier theories suggested and not easily or effectively controlled through direct orders. They advocated participatory processes in which subordinates participated in decisions and exerted greater control over their tasks and work processes.

The tactics fall into three broad categories: hard e. A recent meta-analysis Higgins et al. Developmental Processes Studies of supervisor—subordinate relationship development began largely with the introduction of LMX theory, which maintains that supervisors form different types of relationships with their various subordinate employees. An important issue, therefore, is how and why some employees develop higher or lower quality relationships with their supervisor than other employees.

The supervisor and subordinate exhibit mutual trust, respect, and support for one another. Not all supervisor—subordinate relationships reach the maturity phase, however, and scholars have examined the factors that affect this developmental process.

Gender, liking, and similarity also influence the development of leader—member relationships. Communication scholars conceptualize relationship development as a communicative process. Gail Fairhurst and her colleagues demonstrated that supervisor—subordinate relationships are socially constructed during routine conversations. The differential nature of such conversations constructs differential relationships.

Research indicates, for example, that high-quality relationships are characterized by communication in which supervisors and subordinates minimize power distance, using communication patterns such as insider talk, value convergence, and nonroutine problem solving. Communication also enables individuals to maintain stability in their supervisor— subordinate relationships. Strategy use varies depending on the quality of the supervisor— subordinate relationship e.

Supervisor—subordinate relationship quality has important consequences for both supervisors and subordinate employees. Employees who perceive they have a high-quality relationship with their supervisor tend to experience faster career progression, higher levels of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, influence on decision-making, and job enrichment Duchon et al.

References: Bauer, T. The development of leader—member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, — Deluga, R. The relationships of subordinate upward influencing behavior, satisfaction, and perceived supervisor effectiveness with leader—member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, — Duchon, D. Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56— Fairhurst, G.

Social structure in leader—member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56, — Ghiselli, E. Intelligence and managerial success.