Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
PurposeAn “open communication culture” in the workplace is considered a key contributor to high-quality interaction and providing means to address problems at work. We study how the ideals of “open communication” operate in healthcare.Design/methodology/approachWe use discourse analysis to investigate the audio-recorded data from 14 workshop team discussions in older people services.FindingsWe found four imperatives concerning the interactional conduct of their colleagues in problematic situations that nursing professionals prefer: (1) Engage in direct communication and avoid making assumptions, (2) Address problems immediately, (3) Deal directly with the person involved in the matter and (4) Summon the courage to speak up. Through these imperatives, the nursing professionals invoke and draw upon the “open communication” discourse. Although these ideals were acknowledged as difficult to realize in practice and as leading to experiences of frustration, the need to comply with them was constructed as beyond doubt.Practical implicationsWorkplace communication should be enhanced at a communal level, allowing those with less power to express their perspectives on shaping shared ideals of workplace interaction.Originality/valueThe expectation that an individual will simply “speak up” when they experience mistreatment by a colleague might be too much if the individual is already in a precarious position.
PurposeAn “open communication culture” in the workplace is considered a key contributor to high-quality interaction and providing means to address problems at work. We study how the ideals of “open communication” operate in healthcare.Design/methodology/approachWe use discourse analysis to investigate the audio-recorded data from 14 workshop team discussions in older people services.FindingsWe found four imperatives concerning the interactional conduct of their colleagues in problematic situations that nursing professionals prefer: (1) Engage in direct communication and avoid making assumptions, (2) Address problems immediately, (3) Deal directly with the person involved in the matter and (4) Summon the courage to speak up. Through these imperatives, the nursing professionals invoke and draw upon the “open communication” discourse. Although these ideals were acknowledged as difficult to realize in practice and as leading to experiences of frustration, the need to comply with them was constructed as beyond doubt.Practical implicationsWorkplace communication should be enhanced at a communal level, allowing those with less power to express their perspectives on shaping shared ideals of workplace interaction.Originality/valueThe expectation that an individual will simply “speak up” when they experience mistreatment by a colleague might be too much if the individual is already in a precarious position.
The world of work is replete with daily hassles that make the experience of negative emotions ubiquitous. Conversations between leaders and followers during challenging times are often characterized by negative emotions, and thus, are of central importance in modern organizations. Yet, the intersection of negative emotion, difficult conversations and leader–follower relationships is often ignored, and these topics are treated as separate areas of study. We integrate these various streams with research on asymmetrical leader negative emotion displays to identify when and how difficult conversations laden with negative emotions result in benefits to leader–follower relationships. Using a grounded theory approach, we build a theoretical model based on interviews with 21 leaders and 17 followers describing 166 difficult conversations. Our work depicts specific communication strategies that leaders use to facilitate difficult conversations. These strategies, in turn, create shared meaning and validate followers' feelings during difficult conversations, which allows for beneficial relationship‐specific outcomes to ensue. We unpack these findings in the context of the power differential between leaders and followers to advance current thinking on the intersection of negative emotions and communication in leader–follower relationships.
How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Plain Summary Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.