I need an ENG COM 101 final paper completed in 3.5 hours. Who's down?

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2329488416664176 journals.sagepub.com/home/job Article A Look at Leadership Styles and Workplace Solidarity Communication Stephanie Kelly 1 and Patrick MacDonald 2 Abstract Leadership styles that promote upward and downward communication have been shown to foster a plethora of positive outcomes within the workplac\ e, group collaborations, and team contexts. Similarly, supervisor-subordina\ te solidarity communication has been related to desirable workplace outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate leadership styles as related to solidarity communication. The authoritarian leadership style was associated with th\ e lowest solidarity and consistently yielded the least job satisfaction and highe\ st burnout in subordinates. Furthermore, subordinates with authoritarian leaders did n\ ot fit the supervisor-subordinate solidarity model. A more nuanced explanation of l\ eadership communication as related to solidarity is discussed.

Keywords leadership, solidarity, job satisfaction, burnout, communication Over the past century, scholars have continuously demonstrated the positive and nega- tive influences that communication has within the workplace. Workplace communica- tion can have lasting impacts on employee psychological and physical health (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003). Much research in business communication had focused on the role of leadership in the workplace, identifying that leadership styles that encourage supervisor-subordinate communication are the most effective (Hackman & Johnson, 2013). Subordinates who feel comfortable communicating with \ their 1North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA2Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA Corresponding Author:

Stephanie Kelly, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 E Market Stre\ et, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA.

Email: [email protected] 664176 JOB XX X 10.1177/2329488416664176International Journal of Business CommunicationKelly and MacDonald research-article 2016 Kelly and MacDonald 433 supervisor and who believe that their ideas are valued are more content \ than subordi- nates who are missing such a relationship with their supervisor. Research has consistently identified positive outcomes associated with c\ lear, open supervisor-subordinate communication (Barrett, 2013; Carter, 2002; Hackman & Johnson, 2013; Madlock, 2008; Schnake, Dumler, Cochran, & Barnett, 1990).

However, little research has attempted to explain the psychological influence o\ f this communication. Recently, the literature has given attention to solidarity and rapport between supervisors and subordinates (MacDonald, Kelly, & Christen, 2014; White, Campbell, & Kacmar, 2012). When communication fosters this type of psychological connection (i.e., solidarity) between supervisors and subordinates, su\ bordinates have more positive intrinsic work dispositions, including higher motivation, \ lower burnout, and higher job satisfaction. In short, the same types of interpersonal e\ xchanges needed to develop solidarity are those that distinguish leadership styles. Therefore, this article will investigate the potential connection betwee\ n leadership styles and solidarity. It is possible that leadership styles that promote supervisor- subordinate communication, those that are open to the interpersonal communication necessary for rapport to be built, will have higher levels of solidarity\ than those that do not. As such, the purpose of this article is to provide a more nuanced unders\ tanding of the important role of leadership in the supervisor-subordinate relationship.

Leadership The study of leadership has received significant attention in organizational psychology research (Fairhurst, 2001), and with this increased attention, there h\ as emerged an understanding of the centrality of communication within the construct of\ leadership (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014). The communicative nature of leadership has pro- vided a perspective that does not solely focus on the leader as the infl\ uencing agent but instead sees leadership as a relational communication process between th\ e leader and the follower. For individuals who desire to be more effective leaders and for organiza- tions that have training programs dedicated to leadership development, u\ nderstanding the antecedents of effective leadership, grounded in communication, is essential. Each leader chooses the way in which he or she influences, interacts wit\ h, and facilitates task completion with their subordinates. Lewin, Lippitt, and\ White’s (1939) seminal research approached leadership by categorizing it into three dif\ ferent styles:

authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Each style is characterize\ d by the way in which leaders communicate with their followers, both in intention and sk\ ill.

Authoritarian. The first of these styles is authoritarian; leaders that utilize this st\ yle are particularly focused on control. To keep and maintain control, an authoritarian leader is quick to confirm the status quo by emphasizing hierarchical differences between the supervisor and subordinate; this is often accomplished through definitio\ nal reminders and the forced use of titles. An authoritarian leader’s desire to clearly establish and main- tain control is a likely precursor to him or her utilizing abusive super\ visory strategies (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). These abusive tendencies include threats and 434 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) punishments to those lower in power (Likert, 1961), which leads to poo\ r communication and decreased team-work (Cole, 2004). Authoritarian leaders’ self-centered motives are often displayed through disregarding or discounting their subordinate’\ s ideas or contri- butions (Aryee et al., 2007; Farh & Cheng, 2000). From this perspective, communica- tion between hierarchal levels comes from the top and feedback from the \ lower levels is neither desired nor appreciated. Subordinates perceive this type of lead\ er to be overbear - ing, disrespectful, and self-centered (Chan, Huang, Snape, & Lam, 2012)\ . These percep- tions are also likely to induce retaliatory intentions and/or actions from subordinates (Blau, 1964), which can be targeted at either the leader or the organization that the leader represents (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Levinson, 1965).

Democratic . The democratic leadership style is often contrasted with the authoritari\ an style because of their incompatibility (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Where authoritarian leaders use their power and position to maintain control of their subord\ inates, demo- cratic leaders utilize their power and position to encourage the shared \ decision making process with their subordinates (Bass, 2008). Democratic leaders are also called par- ticipatory leaders because of their encouragement of shared responsibilities and are characterized as having communication that is oriented on shared respons\ ibilities with subordinates (Mullins, 1999). Leaders utilizing this style solicit the\ input of their sub- ordinates (Kushalappas & Pakkeerappa, 2014), are seen as more helpful \ and friendly (Luthar, 1996; Wilson, George, Wellins, & Byham, 1994), and are open to subordinates communicating their ideas (Bhatti, Maitlo, Shaikh, Hashmi, & Shaikh, 20\ 12). Demo- cratic leadership is concerned with both productivity and with people; as such, it has been shown to induce employee productivity, satisfaction, and commitment (Puni, Ofei, & Okoe, 2014). Linski (2014) suggests that increased encouragem\ ent from sub- ordinates provides a feedback loop that increases organizational ability to facilitate change across all its levels. Subordinates who share two-way communicati\ on with their supervisors are also less likely to experience role ambiguity than subor\ dinates whose leaders do not promote two-way communication (Johlke & Duham, 2001).

Laissez-Faire. In contrast, laissez-faire leadership does not emphasis structure in any\ way, almost to the point of disregard. According to Lewin et al. (1939), laissez-faire leaders are physically present but absent in leadership. In more modern \ definitions, laissez-faire leadership has been defined as “marked by a general fai\ lure to take responsibility for managing” (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Engen, 2003, p. 571) and as “leaders who avoid making decisions, hesitate in taking action\ , and are absent when needed” (Piccolo et al., 2012, p. 569). Absence of a leader’s guidance in this regard may go beyond a leader being neutral about his or her responsibil\ ities to fail- ure to perform the basic criteria of his/her position, such as absence d\ uring decision- making moments. Leaders of this type are characterized as keeping a low \ profile and seeking to not “rock the boat” (Puni et al., 2014). Laissez-faire leadership tendencies have been shown to decrease subordinate satisfaction and perceived leade\ r effective- ness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) as well as increase safety concerns among\ group mem- bers (Zohar, 2002). This type of leader is likely to avoid commanding or instructing Kelly and MacDonald 435 her or his subordinates unless it is required or absolutely necessary. This lack of com- munication can lead to role conflict and role ambiguity of workgroup mem\ bers (Johlke & Duham, 2001; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), which can result in internal conflicts between members (Einarsen, 1999)\ .

Bureaucratic . Decades later, the bureaucratic style of leadership was proposed (Yukl, 2002). Bureaucratic leaders tend to focus on workplace status and privi\ lege and are not considered to be independently oriented (Brodbeck, Frese, & Javidan, 2002). Status and privilege focus increases this style’s reliance on workplace procedures and rules, leading to bureaucratic leadership also being labeled as the procedural style (Javidan, Dorfman, Howell, & Hanges, 2010). Organizations that desire their leaders to utilize independent thought to determine best practices within the workplace can\ be frustrated by a bureaucratic leader’s rule rigidness and view it as a detriment to effectiveness.

Conversely, subordinates that desire lower uncertainty are more appreciative of le\ ad- ers who follow established norms or procedures. Because creativity and innovation lead to greater uncertainty in the workplace, bureaucratic leaders guide\ their followers in ways that do not encourage independent thinking (Javidan, 2004). Co\ mmunication within this type of dyad consists of the followers utilizing hierarchica\ l structures to bring any issues or questions to their leader, and in turn the leader is expected to pro- vide policy-based answers to their followers (Javidan et al., 2010). Each of the leader - ship styles have been summarized in Table 1.

Supervisor-Subordinate Solidarity Model Understanding how to strategically use appropriate leadership styles is \ important for organizational success. Leaders who promote informal communication with their subor - dinates are more likely to induce positive attitudes from them (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004; Sanders, Flache, van der Vegt, & van de Vliert, 2006). These positive attitudes lead to positive workplace outputs. What is not evident is the psychological change that influ- ences the outputs. A potential explanation is that the communication fosters supervisor- subordinate solidarity, which leads to the outputs associated with effective leadership.

Table 1. Leadership Style Definitions.

Style Defined as a leader who . . .

Authoritarian Makes most decisions without group discussion, communicates with subordinates mostly to convey directions, and is very focused on tasks Democratic Encourages subordinate input in decisions and engages in two- way communication with his/her subordinates Laissez-faire Is hands-off, leaving decision-making and problem-solving power to the subordinates Bureaucratic Leads by the rules, relies on regulations, and is impersonal with subordinates 436 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) MacDonald et al.’s (2014) supervisor-subordinate solidarity model explained the influence of supervisor-subordinate solidarity on subordinate’s job satisfaction, moti- vation, and burnout. In short, higher supervisor-subordinate solidarity as perceived by the subordinate results in higher job satisfaction, higher motivation, a\ nd lower burnout for the subordinate. The model (Figure 1) indicates that a subordinate’s contentment with their job (job satisfaction; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) media\ tes solidarity and the outputs of being driven to perform (motivation; Martin, 2004) \ and emotional exhaustion (burnout; Malach-Pines, 2005). Solidarity has a plethora of definitions, including relationship intimac\ y (Baus & Allen, 1996), psychological closeness (Wheeless, 1978), and rapport (\ Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). Stretched across all of the definitions of solidarity is the e\ xplanation that solidarity is the psychological result of holistically perceiving i\ nterpersonal com- munication with, and self-disclosure of, another (MacDonald et al., 2014). So, while solidarity is not in and of itself a type of communication, it is the ps\ ychological result of interpersonal communication and self-disclosure, which develops trust\ and a sense of synchronicity among communicators. Solidarity between a supervisor and subordinate is unique, in that it cannot be formed unless instigated by the supervisor (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). B\ usiness com- munication etiquette dictates that the party with most power is the one \ allowed to set the relational and communication norms with subordinates (MacDonald et al., 2014).

Therefore, solidarity cannot be formed between supervisors and subordina\ tes unless the supervisor invites the level of interpersonal disclosure necessary t\ o establish it.

Interpersonal communication must be present to form solidarity (MacDona\ ld et al., 2014; Baus & Allen, 1996). However, not all interpersonal supervisor-subordinate communication is constructive, nor positive for the subordinate (Carter\ , 2002).

Therefore, only leadership styles that promote open supervisor-subordinate commu- nication have the potential to build perceptions of solidarity between t\ hose commu- nicators, but the presence of that communication does not necessitate th\ e formation of solidarity. Solidarity Job Satisfactio n Motivation Burnout + + – Figure 1.

The Supervisor-Subordinate Solidarity Model.Source: MacDonald et al. (2014, p. 6). Kelly and MacDonald 437 Rationale There are a number of leadership typologies in the literature (e.g., tr\ ansactional vs.

transformational leadership [Burns, 2012], The Leadership Grid [Blake & McCanse, 1991], emotional styles (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). While each of these typologies offer unique insight into leadership, the authoritarian, democratic, laiss\ ez- faire, and bureaucratic leadership typology has the most nuances that co\ uld be influ- ence solidarity. Again, the presence of supervisor-subordinate communication does not guarantee the formation of solidarity, but solidarity cannot be formed without that open, two-way communication. As such, it is unlikely that authoritarian leaders, char - acterized by one-way communication, would develop solidarity with subord\ inates.

Contrariwise, democratic leaders who are characterized by encouraging tw\ o-way communication are most likely to provide the foundation necessary to dev\ elop solidar - ity. In between these two leadership styles in terms of volume of superviso\ r-subordi- nate communication are laissez-faire and bureaucratic leadership styles,\ neither of which completely avoid two-way communication nor seek opportunities to i\ nstigate it.

With the bureaucratic style of leadership, regular supervisor-subordinate communica- tion is expected as long as it conforms to understood protocol, making t\ ask-based supervisor-subordinate communication regular but interpersonal communication min- imal. Among laissez-faire leaders, supervisor-subordinate communication is minimal, typically instigated by the subordinate, but protocols are not strictly \ enforced that would forego interpersonal communication. Therefore, the quantity and context of supervisor-subordinate communication across these leadership styles provide differ - ing communicative foundations for solidarity to form. The following research ques- tions and hypothesis will be tested:

Research Question 1: Which leadership style(s) result(s) in the highest perceived solidarity?

Research Question 2: Which leadership style(s) result(s) in the highest job satisfaction?

Research Question 3: Which leadership style(s) result(s) in the lowest burnout?

Hypothesis: Leadership style(s) that result(s) in the highest perceived solidarity will also result in the highest job satisfaction and lowest burnout.

Method Procedures Snowball sampling was used to solicit participation using social media a\ nd e-mail.

The study was described as an investigation in workplace communication a\ nd requested participation from anyone who was at least 18 years old and cu\ rrently employed. These status requests also included a hyperlink to the online questionna\ ire.

Participants who clicked the hyperlink were directed to an informed cons\ ent, which proceeded to the survey instrument. Completion of the survey took approximately 15 438 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) minutes. Eligibility to enroll in a drawing for a $25 gift card was pres\ ented as an incen- tive for participation. Those interested in entering the gift card drawing were asked to provide their phone number, which was stored and downloaded in a data file separate from participant responses.

Subjects The sample consisted of 340 participants. On average, participants were \ 28.9 (SD = 10.33) years old and had worked at their current job for an average of \ 4.13 (SD = 6.20) years. Participants consisted of 127 males, 210 females, and 3 participa\ nts who chose not to identify their sex. The job description of participants broke down as follows:

23.8% sales, 12.9% skilled labor, 10.3% education, 9.1% managerial, 7.6% clerical, 2.6% factory, 2.1% transportation, 1.5% military, .9% nonfarm labor, 28.2% other, and .9% undisclosed.

Instrumentation MacDonald et al.’s (2014) solidarity measure was used. This measure consisted of 12 items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly. The reliability score observed in the present study for this measure was\ α = .91. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all continuous measures\ . Andrews and Withey’s (1976) assessment of job satisfaction was utilized. The mea- sure is composed of five items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale\ with ranging from Terrible to Delighted. Reliability of the measure as observed in the present study was α = .88. Rentsch and Steel (1992) reported that the measure has\ strong convergent validity. Malach-Pines’ (2005) assessment of burnout was utilized. The measure is com- posed of 10 items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale with ranging from Never to Always. Reliability of this measure as observed in the present study was α = .93.

Malach-Pines (2005) found the measure to have good construct validity. Supervisor leadership style was assessed through short, qualitative desc\ riptions.

Participants were asked to identify which description best matched their\ supervisor.

The descriptions were chosen as assessment because no measure of bureauc\ ratic leadership was available and because descriptions made the length of the\ question- naire manageable. Prior to administering this questionnaire, the descrip\ tions were pilot tested using Northouse’s (2012) measures of authoritarian, democratic, and Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Measure MSDMin.-max. SkewKurtosis Solidarity 3.881.36 1.00-7.00 .07−.59 Job Satisfaction 4.981.26 1.00-7.00 −.50.03 Burnout 2.771.36 1.00-7.00 .74.17 Kelly and MacDonald 439 laissez-faire leadership adapted so that respondents answered in accorda\ nce with their supervisors’ behavior instead of their own. There was a 100% match between description selection and measurement results for the three assessed lea\ dership styles, whereas those who selected a bureaucratic style description did not stro\ ngly align with any of the three assessed styles. The descriptions were as follows: • • Authoritarian: My supervisor makes most decisions without group discussion, communicates with subordinates mostly to convey directions, and is very \ focused on tasks.

• • Democratic: My supervisor encourages subordinate input in decisions, tries to be a leader, and engages in communication with his/her subordinates.

• • Laissez-faire: My supervisor is hands-off, leaving decision making and prob- lem-solving power to the subordinates.

• • Bureaucratic: My supervisor leads entirely by the rules, relies on regulations, and is impersonal with subordinates.

Results Research Question 1 asked whether particular leadership style(s) would coincide with higher level(s) of solidarity between supervisors and subordinates as \ perceived by subordinates. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Tukey post hoc was used to test the research question. Results indicated that democratic su\ pervisors were perceived to have more solidarity with their subordinates than authorita\ rian supervi- sors with no other statistically significant differences between groups, F(3, 336) = 11.21, p < .05. Post hoc results are displayed in Table 3.

Research Question 2 asked which leadership style(s) would coincide wit\ h the high- est level(s) of job satisfaction among subordinates. A one-way ANOVA with a Tukey post hoc was used to test the research question. Again, the results indicated that demo- cratic supervisors had supervisors who were more satisfied than authorit\ arian supervi- sors with no other statistically significant differences between groups, F(3, 336) = 8.71, p < .05. Post hoc results are displayed in Table 4.

Table 3. Solidarity Tukey.

Leadership N Subset for α = .05 1 2 Authoritarian 903.3074 Laissez-faire 373.4754 3.4754 Bureaucratic 173.9510 3.9510 Democratic 196 4.2113 Sig. .130.062 Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. 440 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) Research Question 3 asked which leadership style(s) would coincide wit\ h the low- est level(s) of burnout among subordinates. A third one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc was used to test the research question. Results were consistent with\ laissez-faire supervisors having subordinates that were less burnt-out than authoritar\ ian supervisors with no other statistically significant differences between groups, F(3, 336) = 7.52, p < .05. Post hoc results are displayed in Table 5. Finally, the hypothesis predicted consistency in findings, such that leadership\ style(s) that yielded the highest perceived solidarity would also coin\ cide with in the highest job satisfaction and lowest burnout among subordinates. Indeed, \ the results were consistent in that authoritarian supervisors were always the least \ effective, hav- ing subordinates with the least perceived solidarity and job satisfactio\ n as well as the highest burnout. Interestingly though, while democratic supervisors had subordinates with the most solidarity and job satisfaction, laissez-faire leaders’\ subordinates had the least burnout.

Supplemental Analysis Given that subordinates with authoritarian supervisors were consistently\ moderated from at least one of the other types of leadership, it is worthwhile exa\ mining the Table 4. Satisfaction Tukey.

Leadership N Subset for α = .05 1 2 Authoritarian 904.4511 Bureaucratic 174.7882 4.7882 Laissez-faire 374.9838 4.9838 Democratic 196 5.2357 Sig. .214.364 Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

Table 5. Burnout Tukey.

Leadership N Subset for α = .05 1 2 Laissez-faire 372.5284 Democratic 1962.5485 2.5485 Bureaucratic 172.9680 2.9680 Authoritarian 90 3.3178 Sig. .456.051 Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Kelly and MacDonald 441 Table 6. Correlation Matrix Authoritarian.

Measures 12 3 1. Solidarity .60*.08 2. Job Satisfaction .54* −.41* 3. Burnout .07−.37* Note. Uncorrected correlations are above the diagonal and corrected correlati\ ons are below.

*p < .05.

simple causal string of solidarity to job satisfaction to burnout among \ authoritarian supervisors versus all other supervisors, as predicted by the supervisor-subordinate solidarity model (MacDonald et al., 2014). Ordinary least square (OLS) estimation will be used to test the causal chain because it is a conservative model\ test that exam- ines fit both before and after correction for attenuation due to measurement error (Boster, 2003; Kelloway, 1995). Using OLS avoids a claim of model fit due to Type 1 error. Testing with OLS, if a simple causal chain fits then the observed indirec\ t effect will be within sampling error of the predicted indirect effect. The correlation matrices for authoritarian supervisors and all other supervisors are lis\ ted in Table 6.

The model was first tested among the 90 participants with authoritarian \ supervi- sors. The observed relationship between solidarity and burnout was r = .07, which is beyond sampling error of the predicted relationship ŕ = −.20 (−.39 < ρ < .01). As such, for authoritarian supervisors, the patterns observed in MacDonald et al. (2014) are inconsistent with this data (see Figure 2). Second, the model was tested with the 250 participants who had democrati\ c, laissez- faire, or bureaucratic supervisors. The observed relationship between solidarity and Solidarity Job Satisfactio n Burnout .60 –.41 Figure 2. Authoritarian model: Failed.

Correlation Matrix Other.

Measures 12 3 1. Solidarity .40*−.12 2. Job Satisfaction .36* −.60* 3. Burnout −.11−.54* Note. Uncorrected correlations are above the diagonal and corrected correlat\ ions are below.

*p < .05. 442 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) burnout was r = −.11, which is within sampling error of the predicted relationship ŕ = −.19 (−.31 < ρ < −.07). Correcting for attenuation due to \ measurement error, the observed relationship between solidarity and burnout was r = −.12, which is within sampling error of the predicted relationship ŕ = −.24 (−.35 < ρ < −.12). As such, the model fits among subordinates with democratic, laissez-faire, or bureaucratic supervisors\ (see Figure 3).

Discussion It is unsurprising that authoritarian leaders had lower perceived solida\ rity with subordi- nates and lower job satisfaction than subordinates with democratic leade\ rs. (Notably, authoritarian leaders had subordinates with the lowest perceived solidar\ ity and satisfac- tion across all leadership types, but only statistically significantly l\ ess than democratic leaders.) Authoritarian leaders engage in minimal communication with subordinates,\ leaving little opportunity to foster solidarity. Additionally, what communication author - itarian leaders do engage in is often one-way, allotting little time to simply listen to subordinates (Aryee et al., 2007). This is in stark contrast to democratic leaders who solicit feedback from subordinates (Kushalappas & Pakkeerappa, 2014). \ Indeed, this lack of communication between authoritarian leaders and their subordinat\ es likely explains why this portion of the sample did not fit the supervisor-subordinate solidarity model. Solidarity cannot be an influencing variable if it does not exist\ . The lack of two- way communication characterized by authoritarian leadership prevents the\ necessary interpersonal exchanges that form solidarity. Thus, the findings of this study shed some light on the ineffectiveness of authoritarian leadership. Indeed, authoritarian leadership is recognized as one of the least effective leadership styles (Hackman & Johnson, 2013; Ley, 1966). Subordinates who must work with author - itarian leaders often find themselves feeling dissatisfied. Notably, supervisor-subordinate solidarity is a direct influence of job satisfaction and an indirect inf\ luence of burnout (MacDonald et al., 2014). As such, subordinates who are unable to form solidarity with their supervisor because their supervisor refuses to engage in interpers\ onal communica- tion are disadvantaged in the workplace, as they are given fewer opportu\ nities to achieve job satisfaction and avoid burnout. Contrarily, subordinates who have democratic, laissez-faire, and bureaucratic supervisors may have the communicative prerequisites to achieve higher j\ ob satisfac- tion and lower burnout through solidarity. This provides a more nuanced insight into to why these leadership styles are more effective than authoritarian: the supervisor- Solidarity Job Satisfactio n Burnout .40 –.60 Figure 3. Other leadership styles model: Fit. Kelly and MacDonald 443 subordinate communication provides opportunities for supervisor-subordinate solidar - ity to form, which in turn influences those outputs. A shortcoming of this explanation is that democratic supervisors encourag\ e the most two-way communication, therefore giving these leaders the most oppo\ rtunities to foster perceived solidarity among subordinates. As such, they should also have the strongest impact on subordinates’ burnout, indirectly through that solidarity. Yet the findings of this study indicated no statistically significant difference in the amount of burnout experienced by subordinates of democratic, bureaucratic, or auth\ oritarian leaders. The only statistically significant difference in the burnout findings was that subordinates of laissez-faire leaders were statistically significantly less burnt-out than subordinates with authoritarian supervisors. There are two potential explana- tions for this. First, in leaving most of the work to subordinates, laissez-faire superv\ isors do allow subordinates a great deal of autonomy (Bass, 2008). This autonomy would allow sub- ordinates to make changes to their routine and procedures to avoid burno\ ut. However, this is an unlikely explanation because the higher autonomy should be as\ sociated with higher job satisfaction as well (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The more likely explanation rests in the development of burnout. Burnout\ is emo- tional exhaustion that often develops from interpersonal interactions (\ Malach-Pines, 2005). The legitimate authority of a supervisor allows them to greatly contribute to feelings of depersonalization and low personal accomplishment, which contributes to subordinate burnout. Because laissez-faire leaders are characterized by \ avoidance, lack of feedback, and low involvement (Bass, 2008), their subordinates\ feel ignored (Loi, Mao, & Ngo, 2009) but may not experience the emotional exhaustio\ n that may be induced by greater interpersonal interactions with their supervisor.

Implications for Future Research In short, the findings of this study reveal moderation in the supervisor\ -subordinate solidarity model, specifically that subordinates of authoritarian leader\ s do not fit the patterns of the model. Subordinates of authoritarian leaders were found to have statistically significantly less perceived solidarity with supervisors and job satisfac- tion than subordinates of democratic leaders and statistically significa\ ntly more burnout than subordinates of laissez-faire leaders. Although speculation is possible, the present data do not provide evidence to conclude why these specific \ differences occurred. Simply more supervisor-subordinate communication is not panacea (Carter, 2002).

If more supervisor-subordinate communication automatically resulted in higher super - visor-subordinate solidarity and its associated outputs, then the data would \ have likely shown democratic leaders as having the most desirable outputs throughout\ the data, at least juxtaposed to subordinates of authoritarian leaders. Instead, lais\ sez-faire leaders, who engage in minimal two-way, supervisor-subordinate communication, had the sub- ordinates with the least burnout, statistically significantly less than \ subordinates of authoritarian leaders. Given that, this study raises questions about the\ type of 444 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) supervisor-subordinate communication that fosters solidarity and job satisfaction.\ It also raises questions of potential moderating variables, such as subordi\ nate autonomy, which can be expected in abundance among subordinates of laissez-faire l\ eaders, that should be explored in future research. Furthermore, future research should test the soundness of the supervisor-subordi- nate communication model across cultures. The characteristics of effective organiza- tional leadership varies across cultures as expectations of formality, communication frequency, and context differ (Bandyopadhyay, Robicheaux, & Hill, 1994; Barker & Gower, 2010). In this increasingly globalized workforce, understanding how to effec- tively engage in business communication, particularly being aware of practices that are not interpreted uniformly across cultures, is imperative (Fall, Kel\ ly, MacDonald, Primm, & Holmes, 2013; Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006; Varner, 2000).

Limitations This study was limited by the nominal data assessment of leadership styl\ es. Though we had confidence in the validity of this method, the lack of variance i\ n data limited the assessments available to test research questions and hypotheses. Fur\ thermore, the study was limited by the age of participants, which represented primarily a young workforce with limited job descriptions. Future research should work tow\ ard a mea- sure of bureaucratic leadership so that a more nuanced analysis can be p\ erformed as well as identifying a more diverse sample of participants with richer da\ ta on the nature of their jobs.

Conclusion In sum, this research informs which leadership styles are more conducive to building solidarity. While it was not surprising that authoritarian leaders comprised the gro\ up of supervisors who built the least solidarity with their subordinates, a\ nd therefore miss the benefits of solidarity communication, this article gives more insight into how com- munication shapes leadership outcomes. It also builds upon the superviso\ r-subordinate solidarity model, showing authoritarian leadership as a moderation in th\ e model.

Notably, while authoritarian leaders had subordinates with the least desirable \ out- comes across leadership styles, the statistically significant differences were observed compared to democratic and laissez-faire leaderships, the two leadership\ styles that do not actively avoid interpersonal communication with subordinates through\ a need for control or to follow protocol. The implications of this study are that the solidarity formed through the communication, fostered specifically by rapport-build\ ing among supervisors and subordinates, is in and of itself partially responsible \ for those associ- ated positive outcomes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect\ to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Kelly and MacDonald 445 Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorsh\ ip, and/or publication of this article.

References Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s percep- tions of life quality. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y, & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents\ and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-201.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191 Bandyopadhyay, S., Robicheaux, R. A., & Hill, J. S. (1994). Cross-cult\ ural differences in intra- channel communications: The United States and India. Journal of International Marketing, 2, 83-100.

Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelli\ ng in organizations toward effective communication in a diverse world. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 295-312. doi:10.1177/0021943610369782 Barrett, D. (2013). Leadership communication (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bass, B. M. (2008). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and mana\ ge- rial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Baus, R. D., & Allen, J. R. (1996). Solidarity and sexual communication as selective filters: A report on intimate relationship development. Communication Research Reports, 13, 1-7.

doi:10.1080/08824099609362064 Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., & Shaikh, F. M. (\ 2012). The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5, 192-201. doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192 Blake, R., & McCanse, A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas: Grid solutions. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Boster, F. J. (2003). Advanced communication research design and analysis. East Lancing: Michigan State University Press.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Javidan, M. (2002). Leadership made in G\ ermany: Low on com- passion, high on performance. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 16-30. doi:10.5465/ AME.2002.6640111 Burns, J. M. (2012). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Carter, T. J. (2002). The importance of talk to midcareer women’s d\ evelopment: A col- laborative inquiry. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 55-91. doi:10.1177/ 002194360203900104 Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2012). The Janus f\ ace of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-ba\ sed self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 108-128. doi:10.1002/job.1797 Cole, N. D. (2004). Gender differences in perceived disciplinary fairn\ ess. Gender, Work & Organization, 11, 254-277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00231.x Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Tr\ ansformational, trans- actional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing\ women and men.

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569 Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A \ meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233 446 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 16-27. doi:10.1108/01437729910268588 Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F. M. Jab\ lin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379-439). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communica\ tive perspective. Leadership, 10, 7-35. doi:10.1177/1742715013509396 Fall, L. T., Kelly, S., MacDonald, P., Primm, C., & Holmes, W. (2013).\ Intercultural com- munication apprehension and emotional intelligence in higher education: \ Preparing business students for career success. Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 412-426.

doi:10.1177/1080569913501861 Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalist\ ic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94-129). London, England: MacMillan.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in \ service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3, 82-102. doi:10.1177/109467050031006 Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design \ of work: Test of a the- ory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. doi:10.1016/0030- 5073(76)90016-7 Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation \ of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of \ the relationship.

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007 Holdsworth, L., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Empowerment, stress and satis\ faction: An exploratory study of a call centre. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24, 131-140.

doi:10.1108/01437730310469552 Javidan, M. (2004). Empirical findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, \ M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societ- ies. (pp. 235-281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., & Hanges, P. J. (2010). Le\ adership and cultural context: A theoretical and empirical examination based on project GLOBE.\ In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial col- loquium on advancing leadership (pp. 334-376). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Johlke, M. C., & Duham, D. F. (2001). Supervisory communication practi\ ces and bound- ary spanner role ambiguity. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 87-111. doi:10.1177/ 109467050032004 Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural com\ petence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525-543.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactio\ nal leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215-224. doi:10.1002/job.4030160304 Kelly and MacDonald 447 Kushalappas, S., & Pakkeerappa, P. (2014). Participative leadership st\ yle: An effective tool for change management. International Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives, 3, 1095-1100.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and o\ rganization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. doi:10.2307/2391032 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 279-299.

Ley, R. (1966). Labor turnover a function of worker differences, work \ environment, and author- itarianism of foremen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 497-500. doi:10.1037/h0024045 Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Linski, C. M., III. (2014). Transitioning to participative management.\ Organization Development Journal, 32, 17-26.

Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. Y. (2009). Linking leader-member exchange \ and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5, 401-422. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00149.x Luthar, H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance \ and leadership ability. Autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 35, 337-361. doi:10.1007/BF01664773 MacDonald, P., Kelly, S., & Christen, S. (2014). A path model of workplace solidarity, satisfac- tion, burnout, and motivation. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 1-19.

doi:10.1177/2329488414525467 Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator\ competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78. doi:10.1177/0021943607309351 Malach-Pines, A. (2005). The Burnout Measure, Short Version. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 78-88. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78 Martin, A. J. (2004). The role of positive psychology in enhancing sat\ isfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 113- 133. doi:10.1300/J075v24n01_07 Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and organizational behaviour. London, England: Financial Times.

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge\ , T. A. (2012). The rela- tive impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? Leadership Quarterly, 23, 567-581. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.008 Puni, A., Ofei, S. B., & Okoe, A. (2014). The effect of leadership sty\ les on firm performance in Ghana. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6, 177-185. doi:10.5539/ijms.v6n1p177 Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent valida\ tion of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 357-367. doi:0.1177/0013164492052002011 Sanders, K., & Emmerik, H. V. (2004). Does modern organization and gov\ ernance threat solidar- ity? Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 351-372. doi:10.1007/s109970044128-9 Sanders, K., Flache, A., van der Vegt, G., & van de Vliert, E. (2006).\ Employees’ organi- zational solidarity within modern organizations: A framing perspective o\ n the effects of social embeddedness. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Fleche, A. Buunk, & S. Linde\ nberg (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and ps\ ychological per- spectives (pp. 141-156). New York, NY: Springer.

Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Leadership and solidarity behavior: Consensus in perception of employees within teams. Personnel Review, 35, 538-556. doi:10.1108/00483480610682280 448 International Journal of Business Communication 56(3) Schnake, M. E., Dumler, M. P., Cochran, D. S., & Barnett, T. R. (1990)\ . Effects of differences in superior and subordinate perceptions of superiors’ communication p\ ractices. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 37-50.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. \ (2007). The destruc- tiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80 Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Varner, I. I. (2000). The theoretical foundation for intercultural bus\ iness communication: A conceptual model. Journal of Business Communication, 37, 39-57. doi:10.1177/ 002194360003700102 Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157. doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x White, C. D., Campbell, K. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2012). Development and validation of a mea- sure of leader rapport management: The LRM scale. Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management, 121-149. Retrieved from http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol13/ No2/White_Article_3.pdf Wilson, J. M., George, J., Wellins, R. S., & Byham, W. C. (1994). Leadership trapeze: Strategies for leadership in team-based organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate\ , and assigned priori- ties on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75-92.

doi:10.1002/job.130 Author Biographies Stephanie Kelly is an assistant professor of business communication at North Carolina A&\ T State University.

Patrick MacDonald is pursuing a master’s degree in industrial and labor relations at Co\ rnell University. Copyright ofInternational JournalofBusiness Communication isthe property ofAssociation for Business Communication anditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesor posted toalistserv without thecopyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,users may print, download, oremail articles forindividual use.