Hierarchical level, length, and quality of supervisory relationship as predictors of subordinates' use of maintenance tactics

Effective maintenance communication in superior‐subordinate relationships

“…For example, Waldron's research (Waldron, 1991;Waldron & Hunt, 1992) found that subordinates in relationships characterized by a higher degree of mutual trust, support, and influence (i.e., "in-group" vs. "out-group") engaged in more personal, contractual, and direct, but less regulative strategies for upward maintenance. Lee and Jablin (1995) found that subordinates reported using different maintenance communication strategies based on perceptions of their relationships with superiors.…”

“…Further, several studies have found that the quality of leadermember exchange and individuals' levels in the organizational hierarchy may be important factors affecting maintenance communication between superiors and subordinates (e.g., Lee & Jablin, 1995;Waldron, 1991;Waldron & Hunt, 1992). For example, Waldron's research (Waldron, 1991;Waldron & Hunt, 1992) found that subordinates in relationships characterized by a higher degree of mutual trust, support, and influence (i.e., "in-group" vs. "out-group") engaged in more personal, contractual, and direct, but less regulative strategies for upward maintenance.…”

Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent

“…Employees have reported using varying influence tactics (Krone, 1992;Yukl & Fable, 1990), relationship maintenance strategies (Waldron, 1991;Waldron & Hunt, 1992), conflict strategies (Martin & Cusella, 1986), disagreement styles (Gorden, Infante, & Izzo, 1988), and power bases (Richmond, McCroskey, & Davis, 1986) within organizations. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that people will vary in the ways they express dissent.…”

Towards a threat management model of upward communication: A study of influence and maintenance tactics in the leader‐member dyad

“…These enduring factors are not immune to change, but are relatively stable points of reference that help the subordinate define the threat potential of a given upward communication episode. Subordinate perceptions of relationship quality, operationalized in this study as Leader-Member Exchange quality, can stabilize within three months (Graen & Scandura, 1987;Waldron & Hunt, 1992). Though not the concern of this study, factors which initially determine exchange quality may include feedback regarding task performance (Graen & Scandura, 1987), significant early communication encounters, and individual differences (e.g., personality).…”

“…For example, subordinates with high levels of legitimate power use more direct communication with their supervisors (Waldron & Hunt, 1992), an indication that status mediates perceived threat. The existence of standardized procedures for influencing the supervisor may legitimize upward influence and reduce perceived threat.…”