What is a research synthesis? How does a research synthesis differ from a summary? Post your research syntheses of two journal articles(Good Communication at work can open the gateway to better relations) and (Nonverbal Behavior and Communication in workp

Journal of Management Vol. 42 No. 5, July 2016 1044 –1074 DOI: 10.1177/0149206315621146 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 1044 Nonverbal Behavior and Communication in the Workplace: A Review and an Agenda for Research Silvia BonaccioJane O’Reilly Sharon L. O’Sullivan François Chiocchio University of Ottawa Nonverbal behavior is a hot topic in the popular management press. However, management scholars have lagged behind in understanding this important form of comm\ unication. Although some theories discuss limited aspects of nonverbal behavior, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of nonverbal behavior geared toward organizational scholars. Furthermore, the extant literature is scattered across several areas of inquiry, making the field appear disjointed and challenging to access. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on nonverbal behav- ior with an eye towards applying it to organizational phenomena. We begin by defining nonver - bal behavior and its components. We review and discuss several areas in the organizational sciences that are ripe for further explorations of nonverbal behavior. Throughout the paper, we offer ideas for future research as well as information on methods to study nonverbal behavior in lab and field contexts. We hope our review will encourage organizational scholars to develop a deeper understanding of how nonverbal behavior influences the social w\ orld of organizations.

Keywords: nonverbal behavior; communication; social interactions Acknowledgments: We wish to thank Xiaoxi Chang and YanHong Li for their \ help on the literature review and to acknowledge funding from the Telfer School of Management Cluster Program\ , administered by the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa. The Telfer School of Management does not have any control ove\ r the content of the research conducted or published with the support of these\ funds. The first and second authors con- tributed in equal parts to this paper; authorship is alphabetical.

Corresponding author: Silvia Bonaccio, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Ave. East, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.

E-mail: [email protected] 621146 JOM XX X 10.1177/0149206315621146Journal of ManagementBonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication research-article 2015 Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1045 Nonverbal behavior is a popular management press hot topic. In a Forbes \ blog post, for example, employees are encouraged to display 10 cues to show greater con\ fidence (Smith, 2013). Job seekers are told that interviewers form an opinion of them w\ ithin 7 s of meeting (Pitts, 2013). Leaders have a “silent language,” and body langua\ ge can win negotiations and build trust (Goman, 2011). Women are told to display specific “power poses” if they want to succeed (Cuddy, 2013). Finally, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook executive and author of Lean In, is not immune to body language criticism. Her 2013 Time magazine cover was condemned for making her look like “a little girl” (Wall Street Journal, 2013). Given the clear interest in the popular press for body language and nonv\ erbal behavior in general, it is surprising to notice that management scholars have lagged\ behind in understand- ing this seemingly important form of communication. Although some theories discuss limited aspects of nonverbal behavior, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of nonverbal behav- ior geared toward organizational scholars. Furthermore, the extant literature is scattered a\ cross several fields, most notably communication, gender studies, cross-cultur\ al studies, social psy- chology, anthropology, and criminology. Even some of the key researchers of nonverbal behav- ior have characterized aspects within the field as “disjointed” in\ several respects (Harrigan, Rosenthal, & Scherer, 2005: 137). As a result, it can be a challenge for organizational scientists interested in studying nonverbal behavior to access a concise treatment \ of this topic. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on nonverbal beh\ avior with an eye towards applying it to organizational phenomena. We begin by defining nonverbal behavior and its components. We then review several areas in the organizational sciences that are ripe for further explorations into nonverbal behavior. We organize our review around several nonverbal behavior functions that have implications for organizational life. We also discuss methodological considerations when relevant. By doing so, our review offers a helpful guide for organizational scholars wishing to navigate the vast literature on nonverbal behavior. To guide the reader and provide additional ideas and directions, we provide\ an overview of the five areas of inquiry relevant to management research, as well as pose s\ ome research ques- tions for future inquiry, in Table 1. We hope our review will encourage organizational schol- ars to develop a deeper understanding of how nonverbal behavior influenc\ es the social world of organizations—an important endeavor, given that it is estimated that 65% to 93% of all human interaction is fueled by nonverbal cues (Birdwhistell, 1970). Defining Nonverbal Behavior and Communication Early definitions of nonverbal communication highlighted that it does no\ t rely on words or language (see Knapp, 2011, for a historical overview). However, this definition draws a superfi- cial distinction between verbal and nonverbal communication. Indeed, non\ verbal communica- tion differs from verbal communication in that it is communication that is not linguistic (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Manusov, 2011), which is why American Sign Language, for instance, is consid- ered verbal communication. Adding a layer of complexity, both verbal and nonverbal communi- cation possess vocal characteristics, with verbal vocalic referring to t\ he content of the message and nonverbal vocalic to how the message is conveyed (e.g., voice tone,\ accent, pitch; Hargie, 2011). Thus, nonverbal communication is understood as “the sending and receiving of thoughts and feelings via nonverbal behavior” (Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010: 465). Any nonverbal behavior has the potential to communicate meaning (Burgoon et al., 2011).

We emphasize the term potential because while nonverbal behavior represents objective 1046 Table 1 A Functional Approach to the Role of Nonverbal Behaviors in Organizations Function Select Relevant Topics in Organizational Research Sample Organizational Research Questions and Problems Display Personal Attributes • • Recruitment, selection, and assessment • • Performance appraisal • • Detection of dishonesty • • Displays of integrity • • Which NVB cues are most relevant to assessment/selection decisions, and \ how do they influence assessors?

• • How might context moderate the influence of NVBs on assessment/selection\ decisions?

• • How might assessors best be trained to discern deception versus integrit\ y?

Exercise Social Control and Establish Hierarchy • • Power and dominance • • Abusive supervision • • Harassment/bullying • • Discrimination • • Negotiation • • Socialization • • Organizational culture • • Executive influence • • How might NVB displays of dominance influence negotiations or conflict management?

• • How might hostile NVB codes differ depending on relationship (e.g., sup\ ervisor- subordinate vs. coworker)?

• • How might sensitivity training help in detecting, documenting, and minim\ izing hostile NVBs in the workplace?

• • To what extent do hostile NVBs affect organizational climate?

Promote Social Functioning • • Charismatic leadership • • Motivation • • Trust • • Interactional justice • • Organizational commitment • • How might NVB denoting diversity (e.g., appearance cues, such as the we\ aring of religious symbols) influence ascriptions of charisma, credibility, and \ persuasiveness?

• • How might NVB enhance or detract from perceptions of interactional justi\ ce?

• • Are the different types of commitment associated with different NVBs?

Foster High- Quality Relationships • • Teams • • Mentoring • • Leader-follower exchange • • Workplace compassion • • Organizational identity • • How might NVB denoting rapport operate in specific organizational contex\ ts, such as mentor-mentee relationships and leader-member exchange?

• • How might NVB, other than chronemics, influence synchrony in team contex\ ts?

• • How does NVB mimicry develop in leader-follower or mentor/protégé \ relationships?

Emotional Displays • • Emotional labor • • Emotional management • • Emotional leakage • • Emotional contagion • • Which NVBs are most relevant to the suppression of negative emotions and\ the display of positive emotions?

• • Are some NVBs more likely to betray inauthentic emotional labor (or whi\ ch NVBs are more prone to leakage)?

• • How do NVBs support verbal communication to produce emotional contagion?\ Note: NVB = nonverbal behavior. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1047 manifestations, meaning resides in perceivers’ ascriptions and whether a nonverbal behavior is implicitly or explicitly noticed. The term behavior is best thought of as synonymous with cue, broadly defined as “any numerical, verbal, graphical, pictorial, or\ other sensory infor - mation which is available to a judge for potential use in forming a judgment” (Cooksey, 1996: 368). We offer this clarification for two reasons. First, this conceptualization dr\ aws a distinction between nonverbal behaviors as cues versus acts. A number of constructs studied in management (e.g., organizational citizenship and counterproductive behaviors) refer to behaviors as acts and, thus, do not fall under the rubric of nonverbal b\ ehavior. Second, the label behavior can be a misnomer as certain elements (e.g., physical environment, app\ ear - ance) are considered nonverbal behaviors, even though there is no disce\ rnible “movement” involved. Despite the distinction, nonverbal and verbal communication are related \ in several ways (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004). Nonverbal behavior can repeat verbal discourse (e.g., a nod to show agreement), substitute it (e.g., an eye roll instead of a statement of contempt), complement it (e.g., reddening while talking to an intimidating person), accent it (e.g., a slap on the back following a joke), or contradict it (e.g., wiping tears away while asserting that one is fine). Nonverbal behavior displays and the meaning attached to them depend on b\ oth biological and cultural origins. From a biological perspective, nonverbal behaviors\ , and their meanings, are a result of adaptation (Floyd, 2006). Supporting evidence points to the universality of certain nonverbal cues across cultures. For example, early work by Ekman\ (1972) indicates that displays of basic emotions (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, and surprise) are recognized across cultures. Yet cultural forces also shape nonverbal behavior (see Matsumoto, 2006). For example, social-based theories can explain some of the differences in men and women’s nonverbal displays. Compared to men, women tend to be more expressive \ in their face and body movements, prefer less physical distance, and use less speech dysfluencies (J.

A. Hall, 2006). Codes of Nonverbal Communication Nonverbal behaviors are organized into a typology of codes. “Codes are the systematic means through which meanings are created (encoded), transmitted, perce\ ived, and inter - preted (decoded)” (Burgoon et al., 2011: 240). A researcher’s focus can range from micro, concentrating on discrete codes (e.g., eye gaze, body posture), to macro, examining compos- ites of codes that represent a higher-level construct (e.g., the display of warmth; Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010). Theory will drive one’s focus and empirical approach. Codes can be grouped according to three categories, denoting the modalities of communication—body, sensory and contact, and spatiotemporal codes, as shown in Table 2. Body Codes Body codes encompass kinesics, physical appearance, and oculesics. Kinesics is commu- nication through body movement, including gestures, posture and gait, an\ d facial expression (Burgoon et al., 2011). Kinesics are a primary means of communicating, often supporting or \ even superseding verbal communication. Seminal work by Ekman and Friesen\ (1969b) 1048 Table 2 Codes of Nonverbal Communication and Examples of Commonly Used Methods a\ nd Measures in Nonverbal Behavior Research CategoryDefinitionNonverbal Examples Examples of Common Methods and Measures Body Codes Kinesics Communication through body movement Facial expressions, gestures, interactive synchrony, posture (the majority of the work has focused on movement of hands and head; Harrigan, 2005) Facial kinesics • • Facial Action Coding System (Ekman, Friesen, & Hager, 2002; Scherer & E\ kman, 2005): Most used coding scheme. See Cohn and Ekman (2005) for other c\ oding systems and how to evaluate coding systems.

• • Automated analysis: Computer software that automatically measures and re\ cognizes NVB, especially used to measure facial action (Cohn & Kanade, 2007). S\ ee Cohn and Ekman (2005) for technical considerations.

• • Electromyography: Uses electrodes to measure muscular activity. It is us\ eful for capturing emotional responses that are quick and short (Cohn & Ekman, 2\ 005).

Nonfacial kinesics • • Ekman and Friesen (1969b). Codes for adaptors, emblems, illustrators, \ regulators, and affect display. Still widely used.

• • Harrigan and Carney (2005; see also Harrigan, 2005: 181). Codes for bo\ dy positions, body actions, head actions, and proxemics.

• • The Bernese System: Kinesics are recorded by numerical codes plotted on \ Cartesian axes (see Harrigan, 2013).

• • Software for coding audiovisual data: http://www.anvil-software.org/.

Appearance (including chromatics) Communication through one’s appearance Attire, makeup, height, weight, attractiveness See Todorov, Olivola, Dotsch, and Mende-Siedlecki (2015) for a review \ of work on social attributions made from facial appearance (see also Facial Kinesi\ cs, above).

Oculesics Communication via the eyes Eye contact, pupil dilation, blinking, eye movements Eye-tracking instruments and software: (Eizenman et al., 2003; Harrigan, 2005).

Frequency/total/average duration of individual gaze/proportion of time g\ azing.

Recording facial orientation: Used as a proxy for gaze (Harrigan, 2013)\ .

Sensory and Contact Codes Haptics Communication through touch Types of touch, touch avoidance Touch Log Record (Jones, 2005) and The Body Chart (Andersen & Guerrer\ o, 2005) record the location and characteristics of touch.

(continued) 1049 CategoryDefinitionNonverbal Examples Examples of Common Methods and Measures Vocalics (paralanguage or prosody) Communication through voice qualities Characteristics (e.g., laugh), qualifiers (e.g., pitch, volume), segregates (e.g., “eh,” “hmm”), silence Checklist of qualities associated with vocal production (see http://ncv\ s.org/e-learning/ tutorials/qualities.html).

Software: for example, PRAAT (freely available at http://www.fon.hum.uv\ a.nl/praat/).

National Center for Voice and Speech (http://www.ncvs.org/). See their\ tutorials for a helpful guide: http://ncvs.org/e-learning/tutorials/index.html.

Olfactics Communication through smell Body odor, use of perfume or cologne The Sniffin’ Sticks Test assesses threshold, discrimination, and iden\ tification of odors (Hummel, Sekinger, Wolf, Pauli, & Kobal, 1997).

The proxemics notation system (E. T. Hall, 1973) includes an olfaction\ component.

Spatiotemporal Codes Proxemics Communication through physical space Personal space, territory Projective approaches ask participants to imagine their comfort distance\ with another person and indicate it by manipulating figurines or choosing among sever\ al photographs, for example. See also the Comfort Interpersonal Distance Sc\ ale (Duke & Nowicki, 1972).

The proxemics notation system (E. T. Hall, 1973) includes distance, po\ sture, orientation of body, touch, vision, audition, olfaction, and temperature.

Harrigan and Carney (2005; see Kinetics, above).

Chronemics Communication through the use of time Talk time, body speed Software designed to analyze voice quality (such as PRAAT) can measure\ speech rate (also called velocity of speech; see Juslin & Scherer, 2005).

Response latencies in computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail.

Gait speed can be assessed via technology, such as GPS, infrared sensors\ , or stopwatches (i.e., manual chronometry; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleerema\ ns, 2012).

Individual and organizational differences in time preferences can be ass\ essed through questionnaires (e.g., Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999; Popos\ ki & Oswald, 2010).

Environment and Artifacts Communication through objects Built environments, design and objects, landscape of natural environments The servicescape literature (e.g., see Table 1 in Ezeh & Harris, 2007)\ discusses aspects of the physical environment that contain communicative properties.

Approaches to organizational culture that focus on artifacts (e.g., Raf\ aeli & Pratt, 2006).

Note: NVB = nonverbal behavior. Table 2 (continued) 1050 Journal of Management / July 2016 identifies five categories of nonverbal communication through kinesics. First, adaptors refer to self-touch, which often reveals someone’s internal state. For example, touching one’s face or hair in an interview may reveal anxiety. Second, emblems are gestures that have a socially understood meaning, such as a thumbs-up to denote good performance. Third, illustrators are gestures that accompany verbal messages. Illustrators include batons (using hands to empha- size a point), ideographs (sketching a relationship or a direction), pointers/deictic movements (pointing to an entity or object), spatials (depicting the distance or size), rhythmic movements (gestures that convey rhythm or timing), kinetographics (mimicking human or nonhuman action), and pictographs (drawing a picture or shape in the air). Emblems and, to a lesser extent, illustrators are culturally specific. Fourth, regulators help maintain the flow of the conversation (e.g., nods). And fifth, affect displays refer to facial expressiveness. An example of management-related research that focuses on kinesics is the embodiment of power through “power postures” (e.g., Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010; Park, Streamer, Huang, & Galinsky, 2013). High power postures are generally defined by physical expan- siveness (Carney et al.), such as standing straight with a broad chest and hands on hips. In contrast, a low power posture could be characterized by standing hunched\ with arms folded and head lowered. Kinesics can be controlled to different degrees. Genuine facial expressions are generally considered to be involuntary (Ekman & Friesen, 1974), and the face can\ often reveal verbal deception (Vrij, 2006). It can be difficult to suppress certain behaviors, such as reddening when embarrassed or fidgeting when uncomfortable, but other gestures can\ be trained. Public speakers often enact scripted hand gestures and trunk posture to emphasi\ ze their verbal mes- sage. In organizations, the importance of gestures in complementing inspirational visions is recognized as a central component of charismatic leadership training (F\ rese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003). Another broad category, physical appearance, ranges from characteristics such as height, weight, skin, and eye and hair color to style and color of cloth\ ing and accessories, body art, and grooming (Burgoon et al., 2011). While some of these communication codes are easily alterable (e.g., clothing, hair color), others are less so \ (e.g., skin color). The evaluation of physical appearance contains a certain degree of within-cu\ lture and cross- cultural consistency. Physical characteristics are interpreted as signals of traits, and ste\ reo- types are often rooted in these interpretations. For example, adults cha\ racterized by “baby-facedness” are seen as warmer and more honest, and such a fa\ ce can help African American men climb up the ranks of their organizations (Livingston & Pearce, 2009).

Furthermore, positive ascriptions of intelligence, competence, courage, \ and health are made for physical attractiveness (see Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Strom, 20\ 13, for a review).

Research has shown that interviewers are sensitive to physical appearanc\ e. Applicants with a facial scar or port-wine stain birthmark on a cheek were rated as less\ desirable than their nonstigmatized counterparts in a selection interview, and the interviewers recalled less information about them (Madera & Hebl, 2012). Finally, oculesics has to do with eye gaze, eye contact, and ocular expression (Harrigan, 2005). Eye contact during conversations is culturally prescribed and pa\ rt of conversational norms (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). Eye movements, blinking, and pupil di\ lation are also considered oculesics. By and large, oculesics is involuntary, except for eye contact, which can be controlled. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1051 Sensory and Contact Codes These codes encompass haptics, vocalics, and olfactics. The act of touching another per - son as a form of communication is known as haptics (Andersen, Gannon, & Kalchik, 2013).

The location of touch as well as the intensity and type of touch (e.g.,\ a stroke, a pat, a slap) convey different meanings (Burgoon et al., 2011). Norms for touch vary across cultures.

Individuals from “contact cultures” (e.g., Latin American, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and to some extent North American countries) engage in greater frequency of touching as compared to individuals from “noncontact cultures” (e.g., norther\ n European and Asian countries; Andersen et al.). A number of types of touch exist, and each communicates varying levels of intimacy (Andersen et al.). At work, touch carries generally one of two purposes:

The functional-professional touch occurs as part of a job requirement (\ e.g., between a physi- cian and a patient), and the social-polite touch occurs to assist socia\ l interactions. The impor - tance of the social-polite touch is exemplified by preferences for firm handshakes over limp ones (Stewart, Dustin, Barrick, & Darnold, 2008). Whether the friendship-warmth touch is appropriate nonverbal work behavior may depend on the norms of the organization and the individuals involved. For example, a subordinate may welcome a brief con\ gratulatory hug from a supervisor in an egalitarian work culture but not in a hierarchic\ al one. Second, the auditory aspects of how a verbal message is conveyed are kno\ wn as vocalics (Burgoon et al., 2011). Vocalics are just as important as the message itself: Pitch level, range,\ intonation, volume, accent, and pronunciation influence discourse percep\ tion. For example, uptalk, a speech pattern in which declarative statements are pronounced with t\ he rising into- nation of an interrogation, is associated with displays of uncertainty (\ Linneman, 2013).

Dysfluencies, such as excessive pauses or segregates (e.g., “hmm”), and other vocal cues tend to involuntarily convey emotions. In organizations, vocal cues, such as pitch and vol- ume, are related to hierarchy such that listeners can infer speakers’\ hierarchy on the basis of vocalics, and speakers adopt different vocalics on the basis of their hierarchy (Ko, Sadler, & Galinsky, 2015). Finally, olfactics is communication through scent and smell (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004). Scent plays a role in social functioning—pleasant scents serv\ e to attract, and unpleas- ant ones to deter, others. One’s scent is influenced by natural body odor, habits (e.g., hygiene, use of perfume), activities (e.g., sweat-inducing exercise), and heal\ th (e.g., certain illnesses have an odor). In organizations, scent is less studied than the other codes discussed herein\ .

Nonetheless, the importance of smell is seen in “scent-free” organizational policies (De Vader & Barker, 2009) or managers’ dilemma of confronting a foul-smelling employee. Spatiotemporal Codes These codes include proxemics, chronemics, and environment. Proxemics refers to the use of personal space to communicate (Andersen et al., 2013). What is considered appropri- ate personal space is dictated by culture (e.g., North Americans prefer greater physical space during a conversation than Mediterraneans or South Americans; see Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013) and the relationship between two individuals (e.g., standing closer to a friend than a supervisor). North Americans prefer public interactions to occur at greater than 8 feet apa\ rt, professional interactions to occur between 4 and 8 feet apart, friendly \ interactions to occur between 1.5 and 4 feet, and intimate interactions to occur closer (E. T. Hall, 1968). A 1052 Journal of Management / July 2016 violation of personal space can be communicative of a threat (e.g., from a bully to a victim) or an overture (e.g., when flirting with another) and experienced nega\ tively if it is unwanted.

The importance of respecting personal space is seen in guidelines for ex\ patriate employees.

Chronemics includes walking speed, work speed, promptness, and punctuality, all of which communicate meaning about how time is perceived, interpreted, and \ used by a person or in a culture (McGrath & Tschan, 2004; White, Valk, & Dialmy, 2011). Recently, leadership and team research has advanced with the inclusion of temporal individual differences, such as time urgency (feeling hurried or not), polychronicity (a preference for mult\ itasking), time perspective (focusing on past, present, or future), and pacing style (\ Mohammed & Harrison, 2013). For example, Mohammed and Nadkarni (2011) showed that temporal team leaders, those who help structure, coordinate, and manage the pacing of work, hav\ e positive influ- ences on team performance, especially when teams differ in temporal composition. Environment is considered a nonverbal spatiotemporal code (Burgoon et al., 2011) because one’s surroundings (e.g., an office’s floorplan or decor) convey meaning. Symbols in organizations possess communicative properties. Artifacts conveying status (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004) and servicescapes influencing a patron’s experience in a service orga- nization (Ezeh & Harris, 2007) are illustrations of the communicative \ properties of this code. Nonverbal Behaviors and Organizational Research Nonverbal behavior is a ubiquitous element of communication and has the \ ability to produce meaning across all forms of social interaction. While most progress in nonverbal behavior research has occurred in other fields, nonverbal behavior and i\ ts communicative properties have not been entirely ignored in management research, as our\ examples have already illustrated. Yet it is our assertion that management research could benefit from fur - ther systematic application of nonverbal behavior research. Thus, the purpose of this section is two-fold. First, we review a selection of management research that ha\ s recognized non- verbal behavior in some capacity. Second, we highlight specific nonverbal behavior–related research questions that could be answered to better understand and enhance organizational functioning. For management scholars wishing to address these and other \ questions, we provide a list of useful empirical instruments (Tables 2 and 3), discuss essential method- ological considerations (see Table 4), and suggest other readings (Gray & Ambady, 2006; Harrigan, 2013; Harrigan et al., 2005; Manusov, 2005). The methodological considerations discussed in Table 4 are relevant to any research design aimed at the study of nonverb\ al behavior, but we provide some illustrations of how these considerations come int\ o play throughout the next sections. We organize our review and research agenda around several nonverbal behavior \ functions relevant for organizational research. Functional models of nonverbal behavior recognize\ nonverbal behaviors as socially pragmatic—they either implicitly or explicitly achieve social goals (Patterson, 1991). According to Patterson, nonverbal behaviors are meaningful primar - ily once they are considered in terms of an interpersonal exchange. The functional perspec- tive of nonverbal behavior is consistent with work that has put an empha\ sis on understanding emotional displays as pieces of social information (Van Kleef, 2014). Consistent across both perspectives is the assumption that the social world can be ambiguous and nonverbal behav- iors can help to coordinate and bring clarity to social interactions. Emotional displays are Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1053 encompassed within nonverbal behaviors broadly, but as we describe below, emotional dis- plays also uniquely affect certain social processes and are worthy of specific attention.

Our review of the literature identified five functions of nonverbal beha\ viors that have implications for organizational life: displaying personal attributes, exercising social con\ trol and establishing hierarchy, promoting social functioning, fostering high-quality relation- ships, and displaying emotional expression. These functions are not mutually exclusive, but for the sake of clarity, we discuss each independently. We also review a selection of related organizational topics to illustrate the relevance of each function. Given \ the centrality of non- verbal behavior in human communication, it is perhaps not surprising tha\ t a wide variety of topics typically found in management research are related to at least one function. An exhaus- tive discussion of each of these topics is beyond the scope of a single \ article, so we suggest additional topics in Table 1.

Function 1: Display Personal Attributes One of the primary functions of nonverbal behaviors is that they reveal \ information about a person’s personality, intentions, and attitudes (Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000).

Goffman (1959) noted that we are constantly “giving off signals” via nonverbal behavior that are interpreted by those around us (either accurately or inaccurately) as expressive of our underlying attributes. In fact, some consider nonverbal behaviors to be \ irrepressible (DePaulo, 1992); even a seeming lack of nonverbal behavior will be interpreted by\ an observer as an Table 3 Examples of Assessments of Competence in Nonverbal Behavior Research Nonverbal Competence Examples of Measures Decoding competence Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA; Nowicki & Duke, 2001)\ : Photographs of emotional expressions (anger, fear, happiness, and sadness). In the\ DANVA-2, the emotions vary in intensity and different races are used. Vocal cues are also avai\ lable. Response accuracy is scored with a key. See also Japanese and Caucasian Brief Aff\ ect Recognition Test (Matsumoto et al., 2000): Series of photographs of faces showing emotions (happiness\ , sadness, disgust, fear, surprise, anger, and contempt). Males and femal\ es and Caucasian and Japanese individuals are represented in the photographs. Photographs are\ projected for less than one-fifth of a second.

Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & \ Archer, 1979): Test for accuracy in decoding affective nonverbal cues (face, body, voice tone)\ . Two hundred twenty 2-s audio, video, or combined audio/video clips. Short forms (audio or \ video only) are also available (see http://repository.neu.edu/collections/neu:193290/content\ s/0).

Interpersonal Perception Task (Archer, Constanzo, & Ackert, 2001): Fil\ med interactions of kinship, deception, competition, status, and intimacy. Thirty-item and 1\ 5-item versions are available. Multiple-choice questions with objectively correct answers ar\ e available.

Test of Nonverbal Cue Knowledge (Rosip & Hall, 2004): Individual diffe\ rences in knowledge of meaning and use of nonverbal cues assessed via an 81-item true/false tes\ t.

Encoding competence Cultural Intelligence Scale–Observer Report: Ability to modify verbal\ behavior and nonverbal behavior in a culturally appropriate manner (van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008\ ).

Emotional intelligence measures (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitare\ nios, 2003) assess both encoding and decoding competence. 1054 Table 4 Methodological Considerations When Studying Nonverbal Behaviors Issue Choices Details Variable type Independent vs.

dependent vs. both One’s research question will guide whether NVB is studied as an IV, a\ DV, or both an IV and a DV. For example, the effect of leader eye contact with follower (IV) on follower persua\ sion, leader persuasion on follower eye contact with leader (DV), and leader eye contact on follower eye conta\ ct (IV/DV).

Focus Individual vs. interactions between individuals Research focus can rest on individuals’ specific displays of NVBs or \ on the interactive displays of NVBs within dyadic and group interpersonal interactions.

Sampling decisions (Scherer & Ekman, 2005) NVB sampling/unit of analysis Unit of analysis can range from micro (i.e., isolated NVB, such as a sm\ ile) to macro (i.e., composite of NVBs related to a trait or attribute, such as all NVBs that can convey warmth\ ).

Stimuli sampling This consideration is important when the research question involves NVB \ as an IV. Using several stimuli with a common attribute of interest (e.g., multiple pictures of power poses)\ increases generalizability and validity.

Must also determine: Single sex or not? Single-culture or cross-cultural\ research?

On a related note, researchers must consider how the demographic and bac\ kground details of study participants will influence results. For example, the meaning of an NVB can differ ac\ ross cultures.

Setting decisions (Scherer & Ekman, 2005) Laboratory vs. field The setting of the study will drive many decisions for both IVs and DVs \ of NVB. Lab research is not only for scripted NVB; partners can come to the laboratory to be observed in free\ form interactions.

Naturally occurring vs. staged/scripted behavior Is the NVB stimulus observed as it naturally unfolds or is it staged? Ar\ e confederates involved? This question is related to internal and external validity decisions. Scripted behavior o\ ffers the most experimental control, while sampling naturally occurring behavior offers the least.

Live vs. recorded behaviors Do observers view the NVB live or is it recorded? A benefit of recording\ is that coders can slow it down and replay it (see Frank, Juslin, & Harrigan, 2005, for technical points on\ recording).

Coding (Cohn & Ekman, 2005) Judgment-based vs. sign- based coding Judgment coding relies on raters’ evaluations based on NVB displays. \ Sign coding relies on raters’ recording of specific NVB cues. Judgment and sign coding yield different informati\ on. For example, if a researcher is interested in warmth, judgment coding captures whether one is perceived \ as warm as a result of his or her NVBs; sign coding captures which NVBs convey warmth.

Considerations: selection of judges, calculations of reliability indices\ , and forming composite variables (Rosenthal, 2005).

(continued) 1055 IssueChoices Details Technological considerations for generating and recording samples of NVB Standard content (J.

A. Hall, Bernieri, & Carney, 2005) Participants read standardized material of neutral affective content (e\ .g., the alphabet). Used to study paralanguage.

Mood induction (Westerman, Spies, Stahl, & Hesse, 1996) Moods are induced by techniques such as exposing participants to emotion\ -laden stimuli or by asking them to recall emotional events. Affords some experimental control while capturi\ ng natural expressions.

Photographs/still images Photos can be used to present IV or record DV.

Voice recording (Juslin & Scherer, 2005) For paralanguage and chronemics, as IV and DV. Decisions include which v\ ocal qualities to record (pitch, intensity, temporal cues, and voice quality) and how to segment the spe\ ech (see Frank et al., 2005).

Random splicing is a voice recording split into short segments, randomiz\ ed, and rendered unintelligible while retaining vocalic qualities. Useful when message content can influence a\ ppraisal (J. A. Hall et al.).

Douglas-Cowie, Campbell, Cowie, and Roach (2003) list speech recording\ databases.

Video (Frank et al., 2005)Technical decisions include shot angle, lighting, staging, and camera po\ sitioning/hiding.

Thin slices (Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000) Presentation of a “brief excerpt of expressive behavior sampled from \ the behavioral stream” (Ambady et al., 2000: 203). NVB as the IV.

Point light displays (Johansson, 1973) Stimulus moves in the dark with lights positioned at specific points of \ the body. Permits evaluations of NVBs, such as kinesics, proxemics, or chronemics, without other visual cues.

Note: NVB = nonverbal behavior; IV= independent variable; DV = dependent var\ iable. Table 4 (continued) 1056 Journal of Management / July 2016 indicator of some attribute. For example, observers may interpret one’\ s lack of expression (in an attempt to display neutrality) as an expression of aloofness or disi\ nterest (Keating, 2006) and react accordingly. At the same time, Goffman recognized that people can also “give sig- nals” in a more controllable sense. Thus, nonverbal behavior plays an important role in both impression formation and impression management. Past research on personn\ el decisions— such as selection and performance appraisal—has recognized these impa\ cts.

Personnel selection and performance appraisal. Research has shown not only that peo- ple make relatively quick judgments of others on the basis of their nonverbal behavior (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988) but also that brief observations (labeled “thin slices”)\ of nonverbal behavior can result in accurate impressions (Ambady et al., 2000). Accuracy is measured on the basis of the correspondence between raters’ judgments and other measures of effectiveness. For example, ratings from thin slices correspond to supervi\ sor ratings, objective measures of job performance, and other relevant outcomes, such as customer satis- faction (Ambady et al., 2000; Ambady, Krabbenhoft, & Hogan, 2006; DeGroot & Motow- idlo, 1999; J. A. Hall, Roter, & Rand, 1981; Hecht & LaFrance, 1995). However, the extent to which raters’ perceptions are accurate depends on the attribute being inferred (Bork\ enau & Liebler, 1992; Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). For example, individuals tend to be more accurate when relying on nonverbal behaviors to assess social skills tha\ n to assess work motivation (Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985). Other research has looked at micro (or discrete) nonverbal behaviors a\ nd attributions in the selection and assessment process. A firm, brief handshake, for example, can confer socia- bility, friendliness, and confidence and is positively associated with hiring \ decisions (Chaplin, Phillips, Brown, Clanton, & Stein, 2000). Other nonverbal behaviors tha\ t can influence inter - viewers’ assessments include smiles, eye contact, expressiveness, hand gesturing, facial appearance, and head nodding (e.g., Burgoon, Manusov, Mineo, & Hale, 1985; Howard & Ferris, 1996; McElroy, Summers, & Moore, 2014; McGovern & Tinsley, 1978; Woodzicka, 2008). While some research indicates that physical appearance affects interviewers’ assess- ments (Riggio & Throckmorton, 1988), other research suggests that this impact is not re\ le- vant once other nonverbal behaviors and contextual factors are taken int\ o account (Tsai, Huang, & Yu, 2010). Consistent with the functional perspective of nonverbal behaviors, resul\ ts show that the interviewer and interviewee will influence the nonverbal behaviors e\ ach displays (Dipboye, 1982; Liden, Martin, & Parsons, 1993; see also Cuperman & Ick\ es, 2009).

Similar findings are shown in assessment center exercises (Oliver, Hausdorf, Lievens, & Conlon, in press). A critical research question is whether nonverbal behavior is a source of\ impression man- agement, or relatedly, a source of bias. That is, to what extent can people use nonverbal behaviors intentionally or strategically? Impression management captures\ efforts to manage others’ favorable impressions of oneself and can involve verbal and nonverbal t\ actics (Lievens & Peeters, 2008; Peeters & Lievens, 2006). Scholars generally\ conceptualize non- verbal behavior as contaminants in the interview process (Kristof-Brown\ , Barrick, & Franke, 2002; McFarland, Yun, Harold, Viera, & Moore, 2005) and advocate the use of more struc- tured interviews to eliminate potential biasing effects of impression management (Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009; Howard & Ferris, 1996; Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2005). Although Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1057 structured interviews are not completely immune (McFarland et al.), research has shown that nonverbal behavior is both less controllable and less adversely impactfu\ l as an impression management tactic compared to verbal tactics (Lievens & Peeters; Peeter\ s & Lievens). Nonverbal behavior can even overcome other sources of perceiver bias. Fo\ r example, women often face backlash when they use verbal self-promotion, but a fir\ m handshake can be used to make a positive first impression (Chaplin et al., 2000). Using nonverbal cues to convey warmth and/or competence can help individuals of certain social g\ roups overcome being unfairly stereotyped (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011).

Future research. Whether and how nonverbal behaviors influence personnel selection and performance appraisals warrants further research attention. However, a deeper understanding of the nonverbal behavior literature suggests that the research question\ should ultimately be more nuanced than this. If nonverbal behaviors are indeed ubiquitous and\ pragmatic, then it is reasonable to assume that they do have a functional role in personnel de\ cisions. The goal should be to build an understanding of which behaviors are relevant, how the co\ ntext might influence nonverbal cues, and how to best distinguish between genuine versus inaut\ hentic nonverbal behavior. DeGroot and Gooty support this assertion; they argue that “no matter how much an interview is structured, nonverbal cues cause interviewers to make attributions” (2009: 179).

They also advocate that rather than try to eliminate the impact of nonverbal displays, interview- ers should be equipped with the “social tools” needed to be able to recognize valid and invalid nonverbal cues. DeGroot and Gooty’s proposition is intriguing, but further empirical research is needed to apply it. This is no small task, given that detecting suspicious behavior is difficult, even when it is essential to good task performance (e.g., police officers; Vrij, 2006). In short, while nonverbal forms of communication are more difficult to use strategically than verbal forms, it can still be difficult to assess when nonverbal behavior is used deceptively (Ekman & Friesen, 1969a; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 2006; Vrij). One promising avenue is developing training programs that enhance individuals’ implicit understanding of nonverbal behavior broadly rather than focusing on expl\ icit nonverbal behaviors. For example, research on lie detection has indicated that our\ tacit notions of deception cues are more accurate than our explicit knowledge (Hartwig &\ Bond, 2011). This approach is in line with organizational scholars’ call to better understand the role of intuition in management decision making (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Thin slices are likely a particularly useful approach to expose intuitive processes regarding nonverbal behavi\ or (see Table 4; Ambady et al., 2000). Another relevant research endeavor using nonverbal behavior is the focus on enhancing employees’ emotional intelligence (i.e., the ability to understand one’s own and others’ emotions and to respond accordingly; Côté & Miners, 2006) broadl\ y rather than focusing training programs on specific nonverbal cues (e.g., Kotso\ u, Nelis, Grégoire, & Mikolajczak, 2011; see also Sheldon, Dunning, & Ames, 2004). Typically, emotional intel- ligence will be assessed through self- and other-report. However, the nonverbal literature highlights a critical empirical limitation of this approach: It is impor\ tant to distinguish between self-report measures of decoding of nonverbal cues and objective\ empirical mea- sures of participants’ actual decoding skills (Riggio, 2006). We encourage researchers study- ing emotional intelligence to use these objective measures (see Table 3 for measures employed to assess individual differences in nonverbal behavior encoding and decoding ability; see 1058 Journal of Management / July 2016 also Riggio). Self-reports of emotional displays differ from actual displays (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004), and self-reports of one’s ability to decode others’ emotions do not capture objective ability (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998).

Function 2: Exercise Dominance and Establish Hierarchy Another function of nonverbal behavior is to communicate dominance and establish social hierarchy (Burgoon & Dunbar, 2006; J. A. Hall, Coats, & Smith Lebeau, 2005; Ridgeway, Berger, & Smith, 1985). In healthy and successful social systems, nonverbal c\ ues of power are responded to with nonverbal cues that signify submission (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2013). While concepts such as power, dominance, and sta- tus are not synonymous, they are related; each is concerned with the vertical dimension of human relationships (J. A. Hall et al.). The vertical dimension is associated with social con- nection through the use of control and is contrasted with the horizontal dimension, which refers to social connection through liking and trust. The vertical dimension and its associated function of dominance and hierarchy is particularly relevant for organizational research, given that organizations represent structured social relations that generally entail \ some degree of hierarchy. The aforementioned “power posture” is an example of a nonverbal cu\ e representing power. Other nonverbal behaviors associated with power include talking time a\ nd interrup- tion (Mast, 2002), eye contact (Kleinke, 1986), vocal pitch (Stel, \ van Dijk, Smith, van Dijk, & Djalal, 2012), facial appearance (Olivola, Eubanks, & Lovelace, 2014\ ; Spisak, Grabo, Arvey, & van Vugt, 2014), and size and strength (Hamstra, 2014). Consistent with th\ e bio- logical perspective, results show that certain nonverbal markers of powe\ r and status are uni- versal across cultures (Tracy et al., 2013). However, culture can influence particular nuances.

For example, feet up on one’s desk is considered a power posture to Americans but not to East Asians (Park et al., 2013; see also Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011). A selected area of organizational research has looked at differences between displays of, and reactions to, the power cues for men and women.

Gender differences in power cues. Gender influences both what constitutes nonverbal displays of power for each sex (e.g., Aguinis & Henle, 2001; Aguinis, Simonsen, & Pierce, 1998) and the extent to which having power will influence one’s nonverbal behavior (e.g., Brescoll, 2011; Mast, 2002; Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011). In explaining the differences between communication patterns and power between men and women, scholars\ have relied on two broad theoretical perspectives: the socialization/expectations perspective, which sug- gests that men and women develop different norms for their communication through stereo- types and their experiences growing up (e.g., Tannen, 1990), and the structuralist perspective, which suggests that men and women differ because of different opportunities linked to their distinct stratified roles within society (e.g., Henley, 1977). 1 Johnson (1994) tested both per - spectives simultaneously in a series of leader-subordinate conversations. She found that gen- der expectations had a stronger effect on nonverbal behavior (laughing and smiling) but that formal authority influenced verbal communication more so than gender exp\ ectations. Others have shown that expectations about how women should behave have a potent impact on their nonverbal behavior and others’ perceptions (Ridgeway et al., 1985). Having power is Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1059 associated with greater volubility (i.e., the total talking time in a g\ roup) for men but not women, and the threat of backlash prevents powerful women from increasin\ g volubility (Brescoll). Relatedly, followers tend to direct more negative nonverbal displays towards female, compared to male, leaders (D. Butler & Geis, 1990), and men wh\ o convey anger are conferred more social status, whereas women who convey anger are conferr\ ed less (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008).

Future research. Nonverbal cues that signify power and dominance are no doubt impor - tant for a host of organizational topics, including research on negotiations (e.g., Curhan & Pentland, 2007; de Melo, Carnevale, Read, & Gratch, 2014) and superviso\ r-subordinate rela- tionships (Farmer & Aguinis, 2005). One specific area of organizational research that we have identified as benefiting from a greater application of research on nonverbal displays of power is mistreatment in organizations. Mistreatment, broadly, is intrinsically linked to power differences (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Furthermore, scholars have implicit\ ly recog- nized that toxic interactions often involve at least some degree of nonv\ erbal behavior. Bully- ing, for example, can involve a sustained stare or uninvited invasion of personal space (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaersa, 2009). As organizations and society at large continue to adopt policies against overt workplace mistreatment, and punish those who verb\ ally threaten, belit- tle, or intimidate others, it is likely that workplace mistreatment will\ be accomplished through more covert means, including subtle nonverbal cues. Such a trend has bee\ n recognized in the literature on racism via microaggressions, subtle behaviors that can communicate denigra- tion (Nadal, 2011; see also Cortina, 2008). Subtle discrimination includes hostile body\ lan- guage, such as less smiling, a rude tone of voice, or little eye contact\ (Hess, 2013; King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, 2006). These behaviors are likely not as recognized by observers and not punished in organizations as frequently as overt mistreatment. A number of research questions surround nonverbal cues and mistreatment. \ For example, how do hostile nonverbal behaviors impede or facilitate interpersonal co\ nflict management?

How do hostile nonverbal behaviors contribute to the overall social clim\ ate of an organiza- tion? Perhaps a starting point for this line of research is to build a repertoire of instruments to identify and study a wide range of subtle nonverbal hostile behaviors, p\ articularly in a field setting. One option can be found in King et al. (2006), in which observers used a coding scheme to rate another’s subtle hostile nonverbal cues. Additional empirical instruments that could potentially be adapted for such an endeavor are provided in Table 2. Technological advances can also help researchers capture subtle (non)hostile cues in\ a field setting. Such advances include computer software that can analyze nonverbal cues in pi\ ctures and videos (e.g., software assessing kinesics, oculesics, and vocalics; see Table 2) and wearable “emo- tion detection devices” that can be used in a real-time interaction (\ Khatchadourian, 2015).

Table 4 further details coding and technical considerations researchers w\ ill want to attend to when designing their research protocols, whether they take place in a la\ b or field settings. This area of research could also be extended and applied to creating mor\ e effective sensi- tivity training programs. Often, nonverbal cues that convey disdain and \ hostility are uncon- scious—people do not recognize that they are engaging in these behavi\ ors (Lakin, 2006).

Becoming aware of the nonverbal behavior messages one is inadvertently s\ ending could help change one’s behavior. Respect-based training programs have shown some success in 1060 Journal of Management / July 2016 building more respectful interpersonal climates (e.g., Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Oore, 2012), and incorporating nonverbal behaviors into these programs will likely en\ hance their effectiveness.

Function 3: Promote Social Functioning Another function of nonverbal behaviors is to promote social functioning\ . Beyond influ- encing others via dominance and power cues, followership and social coor\ dination can be achieved via nonverbal displays of competence, prestige, and persuasion \ (Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993). People are more likely to follow those who exhibit char\ isma, enthusiasm, and capability, and nonverbal behaviors can be an effective tool in communicating these elements in charismatic leaders (Bass, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Tskhay, Xu, & Rule, 2014).

Charismatic leadership. Nonverbal behaviors can augment a charismatic leader’s vision- ary message and strengthen the influence of verbal communication via a strong delivery (characterized by eye contact, verbal fluency, facial and body expressions, vocal tone and variety). How a message is delivered, regardless of its content, has a \ positive impact on lis- teners’ perceptions of charisma and subsequent attitudes (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; DeGroot, Aime, Johnson, & Kluemper, 2011; Howell & Frost, 1989). The combination of a nonvisionary message with a strong delivery is more effective than the combination of a visionary message with a weak delivery (Holladay & Coombs, 1994). Beyond competence and credibility, charismatic leadership is also associated with persua- sion through immediacy and mimicry. Immediacy includes nonverbal behaviors that convey liking and approach, such as genuine smiling and leaning towards another\ (Mehrabian, 1967).

Mimicry is the automatic imitation of nonverbal cues and can be important for p\ romoting social functioning (see Chartrand & Lakin, 2013, for a review). Immediacy and\ mimicry capture categories of nonverbal behaviors that help interacting partners develop a smooth, natural, and reciprocal pattern of exchanges (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991). Charisma\ tic leaders who effec- tively use immediacy tend to be socially contagious (i.e., produce more\ mimicry; Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). Finally, conveying passion through body language, such as animated body gestures and voice and message-appropriate expressions, al\ so contributes to a charismatic leader’s effectiveness (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Frese et al., 2003; Towler, 2003; see also Babad, 2007). Training programs for charismatic leadership have incorporated these non- verbal behaviors (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2012).

Future research. The extent to which cross-cultural similarities and differences influence the effective use of nonverbal cues in leadership is understudied. Whether nonverbal behav- iors are universal or culturally specific is a complex issue. Yet some important cross-cultural differences do exist and they likely influence leadership effectiveness. The same nonverbal behavior can be interpreted or valued differently across cultures. In particular, the nonverbal behaviors that convey immediacy, noted above as an important element of charismatic lead- ership, can vary. For example, immediacy can be conveyed through seating position; how- ever, some cultures prefer to sit side by side, while others prefer to sit f\ ace-to-face (Cline & Puhl, 1984). Cultures also differ in the degree of immediacy they deem appropriate. For Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1061 example, standing close to an interaction partner would be appropriate i\ n contact cultures but impolite in noncontact cultures (Andersen et al., 2013). These proxemics preferences can be assessed through observation, self-report, or projective approaches, as \ described in Table 2. Cultural differences also shape prototypical leadership attributes (Javidan, Dorfma\ n, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). For example, Gaal (2007) found that p\ articipants in the United States and Hungary perceived nonverbal behaviors, such as voice t\ one, eye contact, and natural hand movements, as charismatic. However, participants from Hungary perceived aggressive hand and arm gestures as charismatic, while those from the Un\ ited States did not.

We can thus expect cultural differences in leaders’ effective use of, and followers’ responses to, nonverbal behaviors. Appropriate follower behaviors are also shaped by culture. For example, looking down conveys respect in some cultures (Kleinke, 1986), yet Western lead- ers would consider averted gaze as impolite. Finally, nonverbal behaviors can be understood and used effectively only “in context.” People either naturally or through socialization come to expect certain nonverbal behaviors in particular interactions (Burgoon et al., 2011). When a person’s nonverbal behavior is inconsistent with an interacting partner’s expectations, it can cause interpersonal discomfort.

Thus, effective leadership requires one to be able to decode others’ nonverbal behaviors in a given context and encode proper nonverbal behaviors in response (Remlan\ d, 1981).

Function 4: Foster High-Quality Relationships Beyond promoting followership through affiliation, a fourth relevant function of nonver - bal behavior is that it helps generate and maintain trusting and committ\ ed interpersonal rela- tionships. Developing high-quality relationships is directly in line wit\ h the aforementioned horizontal dimension of relationships. A relevant concept within this function is rapport, defined as a meaningful human experience characterized by a harmonious c\ onnection with those around us (Tickle-Degnen, 2006). To have a rapport with others requires mutual atten- tiveness and seamless responsiveness to others’ intentions, emotional states, and attitudes. Nonverbal behaviors can both promote and threaten the development of rap\ port (Grahe & Bernieri, 1999). One nonverbal element of rapport is self-expression; i\ ndividuals must be willing to reveal potentially vulnerable aspects of themselves through t\ heir nonverbal dis- plays (e.g., E. A. Butler, Egloff, Wilhelm, Smith, Erickson, & Gross, 2003). However, nega- tive nonverbal expression (such as conveying panic) without a shared e\ xperience, in a chaotic environment, or in the early stages of a relationship can erode rapport (Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996; Boone & Buck, 2003). Finally, coordination behaviors, such as immediacy and mimicry, can also help rapport via the creation of affiliation and trust (Tickle-Degnen, 2006) and by promoting prosocial behavior (van Baaren, Holland, Kawaka\ mi, & Van Knippenberg, 2004). Despite these findings, the impact of nonverbal behaviors on the development of high- quality relationships has not received much explicit scholarly attention\ in organizational research. This is surprising, given that rapport is intricately connected to a num\ ber of con- structs commonly studied in management research, such as commitment, trust, and cohesion.

Relatedly, research on the mentor-mentee relationship has shown that the concept of psycho- logical intimacy is important in successful mentorship (e.g., Lobel, Quinn, St. Clair, & Warfield, 1994). However, little research has investigated the nonverbal dynamics that 1062 Journal of Management / July 2016 contribute to psychological intimacy. One area of organizational research that has recognized nonverbal behaviors and the development and maintenance of high-quality \ relationships is compassion in the workplace.

Compassion in the workplace. Relationships in the workplace can be an important source of compassion, which can be conveyed through nonverbal behavior. The link between high- quality relationships and compassion is likely reciprocal—a relations\ hip characterized by rapport will produce more compassionate nonverbal behaviors, which in tu\ rn reinforce rap- port. Much of the field research on rapport has occurred in “compassi\ on industries,” such as the therapist-client and doctor-patient relationships (Tickle-Degnen, 2006). While compas- sion need be expressed not only through nonverbal behaviors, narratives \ of compassion have recognized their existence predominately through compassionate touch (e.g., hugs; Frost, Dutton, Worline, & Wilson, 2000). Gentle nonthreatening touch can produce an instant con- nection even amongst strangers (Andersen et al., 2013; Crusco & Wetzel, 1984). Further- more, nonverbal rapport is present both prior to and after compassionate\ touch: Nonverbal behaviors denoting rapport lead to nonverbal behaviors denoting compassi\ on and vice versa (Miller, 2007).

Future research. Understanding the role of nonverbal behaviors in developing high-qual- ity relationships characterized by rapport offers many opportunities for organizational research. First, “touch” is one of the least understood nonverbal \ codes (Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992), and the workplace offers a unique opportunity to better understand this form of communication. Indeed, touch in the workplace is provocative because \ it can come in many forms and be interpreted in myriad ways from positive (e.g., compa\ ssion) to negative (e.g., threatening; Lee & Guerrero, 2011). Variables such as culture, gender, sexual orienta- tion and relative hierarchical position of interaction partners, locatio\ n, duration and type of touch (e.g., social polite vs. functional; see Table 2), and presence of an audience may all influence whether touch strengthens or hinders rapport. Touch avoidance is an equally inter - esting avenue of inquiry (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004). Rapport can be impeded when social-polite touch is appropriate (e.g., shaking hands) but avoided by one party (e.g., as a result of religious beliefs). Another focus of study could be on the use of social coordination behavi\ ors to develop rapport amongst organizational team members. We have already noted two overarching social coordination behaviors: immediacy and mimicry. In addition, synchrony behaviors capture the degree to which interaction partners’ nonverbal behaviors are rhythmic and simultaneous (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991). Research on verbal dynamics\ in teams shows that synchrony behaviors influence, and are influenced by, coordination behaviors (Chiocchio & Lafrenière, 2009). This may translate to nonverbal behavior. It may be that the develop- ment of teams’ mental models (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010) is facilitated b\ y synchrony in nonverbal behaviors among team members or, alternatively, that nonverbal synchrony emerges as team mental models are developed. Empirical work could examine th\ e causality. Finally, the leader-member exchange perspective of leadership could also benefit from a nonverbal focus. This theory recognizes that the quality of the relationships between lea\ ders Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1063 and their individual followers can vary (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Future work could explore what nonverbal behaviors characterize quality relationships and how team dynamics change when leaders display rapport-building nonverbal behaviors with some team members and not others. Researchers interested in these interpersonal processes will hav\ e to make several decisions related to setting, as detailed in Table 4.

Function 5: Display Emotions A fifth function of nonverbal behaviors is that they display emotions. Im\ portantly, emo- tions broadly, and emotional displays specifically, serve multiple social purposes (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). The use of nonverbal cues to display emotions is relevant to each of the afore- mentioned functions (see Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Van Kleef, 2014). However, we highlight emotional displays as a fifth function because they influence several un\ ique social processes.

For example, one’s emotional displays influence others’ emotional experiences. This element of emotional displays is relevant for phenomena such as emotion contagio\ n (Barsade & Gibson, 2012) and emotion cycles (Hareli & Rafaeli). These social processes can have a wide range of impacts on organizational functioning and the social climate of a workplace. For example, positive emotions can broaden individuals’ otherwise habitual modes of thinking, and when displayed, this process can spread to others and elevate organizational functioning as a whole (Fredrickson, 2000). Second, emotional displays also provid\ e information about not only the actor but also the context at large. For example, if an employee leaves the boss’ office with a look of distress, it can signal to bystanders that something\ is amiss. As a result, one’s emotional displays contribute to others’ understanding and interpretation of the work environment. Emotions are manifested via facial expressions, bodily gestures, and ton\ e of voice as well as the verbal language used in the interaction (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989)\ . Indeed, most of the body, sensory, and contact codes listed in Table 2 are relevant to the study of authentic or managed displays of emotions. From an organizational perspective, the controllability of emotional displays has important practical implications regarding the ad\ herence to formal and informal emotional display rules (norms) of a given workplace (Ra\ faeli & Sutton).

Emotional displays at work. Research on emotional displays has often focused on work contexts that have a customer service component (e.g., restaurant and h\ ospitality industry, Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; supermarkets, Rafaeli & Sutton\ , 1990).

When employees are required to manage or alter their emotional displays,\ management researchers speak of emotional labor (e.g., Grandey et al.). Emotional expressions are an important part of work interactions because they influence individual and organizational performance. For example, smiling and eye contact lead to posi- tive outcomes for the actor (e.g., larger tips; see Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). However, how emotional displays are perceived by others depends on the authenticity o\ f this nonverbal behavior. Authenticity refers to the consistency between an emotion experienced an\ d an emotion displayed. Very subtle variations in the muscles associated with smiling can reveal (in)authenticity (Ekman, Friesen, & O’Sullivan, 1988). Inauthenti\ c displays may be susceptible to leakages in the form of subtle microexpressions that reveal one’s “true emotions” (Ekman & Friesen, 1968). Consistent with these findings, results show that cus\ tomers in service 1064 Journal of Management / July 2016 encounters can detect inauthentic (vs. authentic) emotional displays (\ Grandey et al., 2005; Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009). Furthermore, as compared to inauthentic smiles, authentic smiles (i.e., Duchenne smiles; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 2006) \ lead to greater positive customer emotional reactions and perceptions of good customer-employee rapport, which itself influences customer satisfaction (Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006; see also Groth et al.). Finally, meta-analytic estimates further indicate that authentic positive emo- tional displays lead to greater customer satisfaction and third-party pe\ rceptions of employee “emotional performance” (adherence to organizational display rules), whereas inauthentic dis- plays had negative relationships with these constructs (Hülsheger & \ Schewe, 2011). The effects of nonverbal emotional displays may also depend on the relational quality between the interaction partners and the context of the interaction. Gabriel, Acosta, and Grandey (2015) found that positive emotional displays matter most when\ employees and customers are less familiar with one another. Furthermore, Wang and Groth (2014) showed that inauthentic displays of emotions via suppressing negative emotions \ are more detrimental to customer satisfaction when the employee-customer relationship is weak and that inauthen- ticity is more detrimental to satisfaction when customers expect personalized service (e.g., a doctor’s visit vs. a supermarket visit). Much research on emotional labor has focused on the display of positive \ emotions and the suppression of negative emotions. Also important is research on the display of negative emo- tions and the suppression of positive ones. Negative emotions are releva\ nt to task perfor - mance in some occupations, such as bill collectors or interrogators (Ra\ faeli & Sutton, 1989), and may be a relevant component of many jobs. For example, displays of a\ nger can help negotiators obtain concessions from opponents (Van Kleef, van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & van Beest, 2008). Anger can also help leaders influence followers to work harder (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005), especially when followers are motivated to pay attention to these displays (Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, & Damen, 2009). Again, the authenticity of anger displays matters. When negotiators display inauthentic anger, oppo- nents tend to become intransigent and are less satisfied with the negoti\ ation. When negotia- tors display authentic anger, opponents are less demanding and the negotiator is perceived to be tougher (Côté, Hideg, & Van Kleef, 2013).

Future research. Research on emotional displays in organizations would benefit further from a more specific application of the nonverbal behavior perspective. However, given the extant work, our recommendations focus on the importance of paying close\ r attention to how nonverbal emotional displays are operationalized in empirical work. Indeed, regardless of whether the focus is on the effect of positive or negative emotions on organizational pro- cesses, studies vary in how emotions are manipulated or measured. Manipu\ lations range from written scenarios containing no nonverbal interactions between part\ ners (e.g., Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner, 2005; Van Kleef & Côté, 2007) to specific manipulations of nonverbal emo\ - tional displays (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2009). Measurement varies from self-report (e.g., Wang & Groth, 2014) to third-party observation of nonverbal behavior (e.g.,\ Gabriel et al., 2015, Study 2). Furthermore, nonverbal behaviors are often treated globally rather than discretely such that nonverbal emotional displays are operationalized through different cues in different studies. For example, bodily posture is included in the manipulation of \ positive emotional Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1065 displays in Van Kleef et al. but not in the assessment of emotional displays in Gabriel et al.

(Study 2). This difference in operationalization may become problematic for meta-analytic efforts, given that a full-body manipulation of nonverbal emotional displa\ ys may be stronger than one that does not take into account the entire range of nonverbal c\ ues (see Table 4 for a discussion of decisions related to sampling of nonverbal behavior). In \ this vein, we also encourage future researchers to be more explicit in terms of how they manipulate or measure nonverbal emotional displays (for examples to follow, see Côté et al., 2013; Van Kleef et al.).

Second, researchers wishing to manipulate emotional displays must also consider the most appropriate control condition. We have already noted that a lack of nonverbal behavior can still “mean” something to an observer (DePaulo, 1992). Keati\ ng goes further to argue that “when it comes to the nonverbal engine that powers self-presenta\ tion, there seems to be no ‘neutral’ gear, only ‘forward’ and ‘reverse’” (2006: 324). Nonverbal cues either draw the interaction partner in (e.g., eye gaze, smiling) or push the partner a\ way (e.g., frowns, gaze avoidance). Attending to such nonverbal cues is important when manipulating emotion \ (or lack thereof) as even a supposedly neutral display might influence part\ icipants’ attributions and study findings. Control conditions should be pretested to ensure tha\ t they do not convey something a researcher does not intend. Finally, because the face is the primary physical medium for emotional displays, research has focused mostly on facial expressions and associated vocalics. Howeve\ r, many of the codes described in Table 2 can accompany facial emotional displays or even convey emo- tions independently of facial displays. For example, haptics (touch) c\ an accompany positive facial emotions, while trembling hands can betray an interviewee who oth\ erwise appears poised. Concluding Remarks Throughout this review, we have defined nonverbal behaviors and communication and summarized five functions that have important implications for a vast ar\ ray of organizational phenomena. The breadth of the topics covered in this review speaks to the ubiquitou\ s nature of nonverbal behaviors in organizations. In line with nonverbal scholars who have argued that a complete understanding of human communication and interaction must incorporate the role of nonverbal behavior, we believe that a systematic focus on nonverbal behavior can produce a more comprehensive understanding of organizational life. The social context in which work occurs has a pervasive influence on employee attitudes and be\ haviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), and relationship-based views of organizations suggest that the interpersonal connections employees form is one of the fundamental elements of organizational effective- ness (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Drawing from the functional perspective of nonverbal behav- iors, we have demonstrated that nonverbal behaviors convey important pieces of social information and contribute to the nature of the relationships that form \ in organizations. We hope our review will encourage the development of a management research \ paradigm that formally recognizes the importance of nonverbal behaviors in the social \ context of organiza- tions and supports the notion that even seemingly minor and fleeting cue\ s can have wide- spread repercussions. Moving forward with such a goal is not without its challenges. Empirical\ research on nonverbal behavior is complex, and a researcher must consider a number o\ f theoretically driven methodological choices. An informed decision must take into account at least three 1066 Journal of Management / July 2016 elements: the nonverbal cues senders convey, the meaning receivers interpret, and the inter - action between the two. This process becomes exponentially more complex and, thus, an area ripe for empirical work when studying group dynamics. Given that nonverb\ al research includes both an objective component (i.e., the cues or actual displays\ ) and a subjective com- ponent (i.e., the interpreted meaning), it may be difficult to ascertain which is the best start- ing point—the cues or the meaning. Where a researcher begins depends on one’s research question and what has already been established in the literature. Additionally, nonverbal behavior is ubiquitous, and even a lack of nonverbal display can provide tacit meaning. In any given social interaction, an infinite number of cues can be present,\ and combinations of cues might carry meaning in a way that individual cues cannot. As a result, while remaining cognizant of the need to attend to multiple cues, a researcher must make\ educated decisions regarding which cues are meaningful to examine in a given context and at\ what level of granularity (i.e., composite of cues vs. distinct cues). We help to simplify these challenges by compiling measures and methods from across the nonverbal behavior litera\ ture and by sum- marizing methodological decisions researchers must make in Tables 2 and 3 and in Table 4, respectively. Furthermore, by providing a glossary of nonverbal behavior terms in Table 2, we hope to have rendered this literature more accessible for management \ researchers. Finally, systematically incorporating nonverbal behaviors into organizational research offers a number of practical implications. Specifically, understanding nonverbal behavior and communication will allow us to develop evidence-based tools to bette\ r equip managers to address a host of workplace challenges. Throughout this review, we have highlighted a number of research directions, including developing better selection ins\ truments and inter - viewer training programs that incorporate nonverbal behaviors; understan\ ding the role of nonverbal behaviors in interpersonal conflict and discrimination, and co\ mbining this knowl- edge with preexisting civility training programs for better results; and\ enhancing leadership nonverbal behaviors and communication across cultures. Given the pervasi\ ve nature of non- verbal behavior, there are insights to be gained across a number of areas in management\ theory and practice. In closing, Sapir stated in 1949 that nonverbal communication is “an \ elaborate secret code that is written nowhere, known by none, and used by all” (as quoted in Hall, Bernieri, & Carney, 2005: 240). We hope to have provided a comprehensive and up-to-date treatment of nonverbal behavior to shed light on this “secret code” and to enco\ urage future management research in this area. Note 1. In addition, certain power cues, such as facial width to height ratio\ , are more relevant for men than women because of biological origins of nonverbal behavior (e.g., Wong, Ormiston, & Haselhuhn, 2011). References Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. 2001. Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of a female employee’s power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141: 537-549.

Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. 1998. Effects of nonverbal\ behavior on perceptions of power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138: 455-469.

Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. 1988. Consensus in personali\ ty judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 387-395. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1067 Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. 2000. Toward a histology \ of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32: 201-271.

Ambady, N., Krabbenhoft, M. A., & Hogan, D. 2006. The 30-sec sale: Using thin-slice judgments to evaluate sales effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16: 4-13.

Ambady, N., & Weisbuch, M. 2010. Nonverbal behavior. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: 464-497. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Andersen, P., Gannon, J., & Kalchik, J. 2013. Proxemic and haptic intera\ ction: The closeness continuum. In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: 295-329. Boston: DeGruyter.

Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. 2005. Measuring live tactile interact\ ion: The Body Chart Coding approach. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: 83-92. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. 2011. Can charisma be taught? T\ ests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 374-396.

Archer, D., Costanzo, M., & Ackert, R. 2001. The interpersonal perceptio\ n task (IPT): Alternative approaches to problems in theory and design. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), \ Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and mea- surement: 89-101. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. 2004. A relational model of workplace victimiz\ ation: Social roles and patterns of victim- ization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1023-1034.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. 1999. Perceptions of leader charisma and e\ ffectiveness: The effects of vision con- tent, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10: 345-373.

Babad, E. 2007. Teachers’ nonverbal behavior and its effects on students. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective: 201-261. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. 2009. What you see may\ not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job perform\ ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1394-1411.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. 2012. Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21: 119-123.

Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact\ . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. 1996. Dyad \ rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 110-129.

Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. 1991. Interpersonal coordination: Behav\ ior matching and interactional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior: 401-432. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Birdwhistell, R. L. 1970. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. 1999. P\ olychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamenta\ l dimension of organizational cul- ture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14: 205-230.

Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood cont\ agion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 317-334.

Boone, R. T., & Buck, R. 2003. Emotional expressivity and trustworthiness: The role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27: 163-182.

Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. 1992. Trait inferences: Sources of validity \ at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 645-657.

Bosson, J. K., Haymovitz, E. L., & Pinel, E. C. 2004. When saying and do\ ing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus non-verbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 247-255.

Brescoll, V. L. 2011. Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and vo\ lubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56: 621-640.

Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. 2008. Can an angry woman get ahead? St\ atus conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19: 268-275.

Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. 2006. Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 279-297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Manusov, V. 2011. Nonverbal signals. \ In M. L. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication: 239-280. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1068 Journal of Management / July 2016 Burgoon, J. K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P., & Hale, J. L. 1985. Effects of g\ aze on hiring, credibility, attraction and relational message interpretation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9: 133-146.

Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. 1992. Interpretations, \ evaluations and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19: 237-263.

Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. 1990. Nonverbal affect responses to male and f\ emale leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 48-59.

Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A.\ , & Gross, J. J. 2003. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3: 48-67.

Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. 2007. A thin slice perspecti\ ve on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41: 1054-1072.

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. 2010. Power posing brief nonve\ rbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21: 1363-1368.

Chaplin, W. F., Phillips, J. B., Brown, J. D., Clanton, N. R., & Stein, \ J. L. 2000. Handshaking, gender, personality, and first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 110-117.

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. 2013. The antecedents and consequences \ of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64: 285-308.

Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., & Miller, S. R. 2001.\ Charisma is contagious: The effect of lead- ers’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 2149-2159.

Chiocchio, F., & Lafrenière, A. 2009. A project management perspectiv\ e on student’s declarative commitments to goals established within asynchronous communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25:

294-305.

Cline, R. J., & Puhl, C. A. 1984. Gender, culture, and geography: A comp\ arison of seating arrangements in the United States and Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8: 199-219.

Cohn, J. F., & Ekman, P. 2005. Measuring facial action. In J. A. Harriga\ n, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 9-64. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohn, J. F., & Kanade, T. 2007. Automated facial image analysis for meas\ urement of emotion expression. In J. A. Coan & J. B. Allen (Eds.), The handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment: 222-238. New York: Oxford University Press.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. 1988. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organization effectiveness\ . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooksey, R. W. 1996. Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

Cortina, L. M. 2008. Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discriminati\ on in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33: 55-75.

Côté, S., Hideg, I., & Van Kleef, G. A. 2013. The consequences of \ faking anger in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49: 453-463.

Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. 2006. Emotional intelligence, cognitive \ intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 1-28.

Crusco, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. 1984. The Midas touch: The effects of int\ erpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10: 512-517.

Cuddy, A. 2013. Want to lean in? Try a power pose [Harvard Business Review blog post]. March 20. http://blogs. hbr.org/2013/03/want-to-lean-in-try-a-power-po-2/. Accessed June 18, 201\ 4.

Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their out- comes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 73-98.

Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. 2009. Big Five predictors of behavior and perc\ eptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “di\ sagreeables.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97: 667-684.

Curhan, J. R., & Pentland, A. 2007. Thin slices of negotiation: Predicti\ ng outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 802-811.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in manag\ erial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32: 33-54.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. 1998. Emotional intelligence: \ In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 989-1015.

DeGroot, T., Aime, F., Johnson, S. G., & Kluemper, D. 2011. Does talking\ the talk help walking the walk? An examination of the effect of vocal attractiveness in leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22:

680-689. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1069 DeGroot, T., & Gooty, J. 2009. Can nonverbal cues be used to make meanin\ gful personality attributions in employ- ment interviews? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24: 179-192.

DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1999. Why visual and vocal interview cue\ s can affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 986-993.

de Melo, C. M., Carnevale, P. J., Read, S. J., & Gratch, J. 2014. Readin\ g people’s minds from emotion expressions in interdependent decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106: 73-88.

DePaulo, B. M. 1992. Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 203-243.

De Vader, C. L., & Barker, P. 2009. Fragrance in the workplace is the ne\ w second-hand smoke. Proceedings of the ASBBS, 16(1). http://asbbs.org/files/2009/PDF/D/De%20VaderC.pdf.

Dipboye, R. L. 1982. Self-fulfilling prophecies in the selection-recruit\ ment interview. Academy of Management Review, 7: 579-586.

Douglas-Cowie, E., Campbell, N., Cowie, R., & Roach, P. 2003. Emotional speech: Towards a new generation of databases. Speech Communication, 40: 33-60.

Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C. L., & Cleeremans, A. 2012. Behavioral p\ riming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE, 7(1): e29081. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/jo\ urnal.pone.0029081.

Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. 1993. Task cues, dominance cu\ es, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 51-60.

Duke, M. P., & Nowicki, S., Jr. 1972. A new measure and social-learning \ model for interpersonal distance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6: 119-132.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high-quality connectio\ ns. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 3: 263-278.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaersa, G. 2009. Measuring exposure to bul\ lying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised. Work Stress, 23: 24-44.

Eizenman, M., Yu, L. H., Grupp, L., Eizenman, E., Ellenbogen, M., Gemar,\ M., & Levitan, R. D. 2003. A natural- istic visual scanning approach to assess selective attention in major de\ pressive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 118: 117-128.

Ekman, P. 1972. Universals and cultural differences in facial expression\ s of emotions. In J. K. Coles (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: 207-283. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1968. Nonverbal behavior in psychotherapy re\ search. In J. M. Shield (Ed.), Research in psychotherapy: 179-216. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1969a. Nonverbal leakage and clues to decept\ ion. Psychiatry, 32: 88-106.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1969b. The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1: 48-98.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. 1974. Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 288-298.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. 2002. Facial action coding system. Salt Lake City: Research Nexus, Network Research Information.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & O’Sullivan, M. 1988. Smiles when lying. \ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 414-420.

Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. 2006. From flawed self-assessment to blat\ ant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24: 673-686.

Ezeh, C., & Harris, L. C. 2007. Servicescape research: A review and a re\ search agenda. The Marketing Review, 7: 59-78.

Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. 2005. Accounting for subordinate perception\ s of supervisor power: An identity- dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1069-1083.

Floyd, K. 2006. An evolutionary approach to understanding nonverbal communication. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 139-157. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frank, M. J., Juslin, P. N., & Harrigan, J. I. 2005. Technical issues in\ recording nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 449-470. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2000. Why positive emotions matter in organizations: \ Lessons from the broaden-and-build model. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 4: 131-142.

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. 2003. Action training for charis\ matic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a visi\ on. Personnel Psychology, 56: 671-698. 1070 Journal of Management / July 2016 Frost, P. J., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Wilson, A. 2000. Narratives of compassion in organizations. Emotion in Organizations, 2: 25-45.

Gaal, M. 2007. Cross-cultural comparison of nonverbal communication, culture, and the a\ ttribution of charismatic leadership among Hungarian and American university students. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI no. 3283799).

Gabriel, A. S., Acosta, J. D., & Grandey, A. A. 2015. The value of a smile: Does emotional performance matter more in familiar or unfamiliar exchanges? Journal of Business and Psychology, 30: 37-50.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–me\ mber exchange theory: Correlates and con- struct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827-844.

Gifford, R., Ng, C. F., & Wilkinson, M. 1985. Nonverbal cues in the empl\ oyment interview: Links between appli- cant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 729-736.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

Goman, C. K. 2011. The silent language of leaders: How body language can help or hurt how you lead. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Grahe, J. E., & Bernieri, F. J. 1999. The importance of nonverbal cues i\ n judging rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23: 253-269.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. 2005. Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96: 38-55.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. 2005. Must “service wit\ h a smile” be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 893-904.

Gray, H. M., & Ambady, N. 2006. Methods for the study of nonverbal communication. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 41-58. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. 2009. Customer reactions to em\ otional labor: The roles of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 958-974.

Hall, E. T. 1968. Proxemics. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hall, E. T. 1973. Handbook for proxemics research. Washington, DC: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.

Hall, J. A. 2006. Women’s and men’s nonverbal communication. In V.\ Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 201-218. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, J. A., Bernieri, F. J., & Carney, D. R. 2005. Nonverbal behavior a\ nd interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 237-281.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith LeBeau, L. 2005. Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131: 898-924.

Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., & Rand, C. S. 1981. Communication of affect b\ etween patient and physician. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22: 18-30.

Hamstra, M. R. 2014. “Big” men: Male leaders’ height positively\ relates to followers’ perception of charisma. Personality and Individual Differences, 56: 190-192.

Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. 2008. Emotion cycles: On the social influence \ of emotion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 35-59.

Hargie, O. 2011. Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

Harrigan, J. A. 2005. Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. In J. A. Harrigan, \ R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 137-198. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Harrigan, J. A. 2013. Methodology: Coding and studying nonverbal behavio\ r. In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: 35-68. Boston: DeGruyter.

Harrigan, J. A., & Carney, D. R. 2005. A coding method for body/head positions and actions: Laboratory manual.

Fullerton, CA: California State University.

Harrigan, J. A., Rosenthal, R., & Scherer, K. R. 2005. The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F., Jr. 2011. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens m\ odel meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137: 643-659.

Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. 1995. How (fast) can I help you? Tone of \ voice and telephone operator efficiency in interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 2086–2098. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1071 Henley, N. M. 1977. Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. 2006. Are all smiles created equal? How emotional con- tagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70(3): 58-73.

Hess, K. P. 2013. Investigation of nonverbal discrimination against wome\ n in simulated initial job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43: 544-555.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. 1994. Speaking of visions and visions b\ eing spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8: 165-189.

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. 1996. The employment interview context: S\ ocial and situational influences on inter- viewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26: 112-136.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic le\ adership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.

Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. 2011. On the costs and benefits of \ emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16: 361-389.

Hummel, T., Sekinger, B., Wolf, S. R., Pauli, E., & Kobal, G. 1997. “Sniffin’sticks”: Olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimina\ tion and olfactory threshold. Chemical Senses, 22: 39-52.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. 2006. In\ the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 67-90.

Johansson, G. 1973. Visual perception of biological motion and a model f\ or its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14: 201-211.

Johnson, C. 1994. Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate c\ onversation. American Sociological Review, 59: 122-123.

Jones, S. E. 2005. The Touch Log Record: A behavioral communication meas\ ure. In V. L. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words: 67-81. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Juslin, P. N., & Scherer, K. R. 2005. Vocal expression of affect. In J. \ A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 65-135. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keating, C. F. 2006. Why and how the silent self speaks volumes. In V. M\ anusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 321-339. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. 1999. Social functions of emotions at four leve\ ls of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13: 505-521.

Khatchadourian, R. 2015. We know how you feel: Computers are learning to\ read emotions, and the business world can’t wait. New Yorker, January 19: 50-59.

King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. 2006. The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of int\ erpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 579-593.

Kleinke, C. L. 1986. Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100: 78-100.

Knapp, M. L. 2011. An historical overview of nonverbal research. In V. M\ anusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 3-19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ko, S. J., Sadler, M. S., & Galinsky, A. D. 2015. The sound of power: Co\ nveying and detecting hierarchical rank through voice. Psychological Science, 26: 3-14.

Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Grégoire, J., & Mikolajczak, M. 2011. Emotiona\ l plasticity: Conditions and effects of improv- ing emotional competence in adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 827-839.

Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. 2002. Applicant impressi\ on management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28: 27-46.

Lakin, J. 2006. Automatic cognitive processes and nonverbal communication. In In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 59-78. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lee, J. W., & Guerrero, L. K. 2001. Types of touch in cross-sex relation\ ships between coworkers: Perceptions of rational and emotional messages, inappropriateness, and sexual harassmen\ t. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29: 197-220.

Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. 2012. The im\ pact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1258-1274.

Liden, R. C., Martin, C. L., & Parsons, C. K. 1993. Interviewer and appl\ icant behaviors in employment interviews. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 372-386. 1072 Journal of Management / July 2016 Lievens, F., & Peeters, H. 2008. Interviewers’ sensitivity to impress\ ion management tactics in structured interviews. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24: 174-180.

Linneman, T. J. 2013. Gender in jeopardy! Intonation variation on a tele\ vision game show. Gender & Society, 27: 82-105.

Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. 2009. The teddy-bear effect: Does hav\ ing a baby face benefit Black chief execu- tive officers? Psychological Science, 20: 1229-1236.

Lobel, S. A., Quinn, R. E., Clair, L. S., & Warfield, A. 1994. Love with\ out sex: The impact of psychological inti- macy between men and women at work. Organizational Dynamics, 23: 5-16.

Madera, J. M., & Hebel, M. R. 2012. Discrimination against facially stig\ matized applicants in interviews: An eye- tracking and face-to-face investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 317-330.

Manusov, V. 2005. The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mast, M. 2002. Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time\ : A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28: 420-450.

Matsumoto, D. 2006. Culture and nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L\ . Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE hand- book of nonverbal communication: 219-236. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. 2013. Culture and nonverbal communication.\ In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: 697-728. Boston: DeGruyter.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J. M., Kooken, K., \ Ekman, P., Yrizarry, N., Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., & Yee, A. 2000. A new test to measure emotion recognition ab\ ility: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24: 179-209.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. 2003. Measuri\ ng emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3: 97-105.

McElroy, J. C., Summers, J. K., & Moore, K. 2014. The effect of facial p\ iercing on perceptions of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125: 26-38.

McFarland, L., Yun, G. J., Harold, C. M., Viera, L., & Moore, L. G. 2005\ . An examination of impression manage- ment use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role \ of competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58: 949-980.

McGovern, T. V., & Tinsley, H. E. 1978. Interviewer evaluations of inter\ viewee nonverbal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13: 163-171.

McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. 2004. Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the\ lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mehrabian, A. 1967. Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communi\ cation. Journal of Communication, 17: 324-332.

Miller, K. I. 2007. Compassionate communication in the workplace: Explor\ ing processes of noticing, connecting, and responding. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35: 223-245.

Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. 2010. Metaphor no more: A 15-\ year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36: 876-910.

Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. 2013. The clocks that time us are not the s\ ame: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122:

244-256.

Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. 2011. Temporal diversity and team performan\ ce: The moderating role of temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 489-508.

Nadal, K. L. 2011. The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)\ : Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58: 470-480.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. 2001. Nonverbal receptivity: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA). In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement: 183-198.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oliver, T., Hausdorf, P., Lievens, F., & Conlon, P. in press. Interperso\ nal dynamics in assessment center exercises effects of role player portrayed disposition. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206314525207 Olivola, C. Y., Eubanks, D. L., & Lovelace, J. B. 2014. The many (disti\ nctive) faces of leadership: Inferring leader- ship domain from facial appearance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 817-834.

Park, L. E., Streamer, L., Huang, L., & Galinsky, A. D. 2013. Stand tall\ , but don’t put your feet up: Universal and culturally-specific effects of expansive postures on power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49:

965-971. Bonaccio et al. / Workplace Nonverbal Behavior and Communication 1073 Patterson, M. L. 1991. A functional approach to nonverbal exchange. In R\ . S. Feldman & B. Rime (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior: 458-495. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. 2006. Verbal and nonverbal impression managem\ ent tactics in behavior description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14: 206-222.

Pitts, A. 2013. You only have 7 seconds to make a strong first impressio\ n. Business Insider, April 8. http://www. businessinsider.com/only-7-seconds-to-make-first-impression-2013-4. Acce\ ssed June 18, 2014.

Poposki, E. M., & Oswald, F. L. 2010. The Multitasking Preference Invent\ ory: Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity. Human Performance, 23: 247-264.

Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. G. 2006. Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism. New York: Psychology Press.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1989. The expression of emotion in organiza\ tional life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11: 1-42.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1990. Busy stores and demanding customers: \ How do they affect the display of positive emotion? Academy of Management Journal, 33: 623-637.

Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. 2004. Emotion as a connection of physic\ al artifacts and organizations. Organization Science, 15: 671-686.

Remland, M. 1981. Developing leadership skills in nonverbal communicatio\ n: A situational perspective. Journal of Business Communication, 18: 17-29.

Richmond, V. A., & McCroskey, J. C. 2004. Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. 1985. Nonverbal cues and status\ : An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90: 955-978.

Riggio, R. E. 2006. Nonverbal skills and abilities. In V. Manusov & M. P\ atterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 79-96. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riggio, R. E., & Throckmorton, B. 1988. The relative effects of verbal a\ nd nonverbal behavior, appearance, and social skills on evaluations made in hiring interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18: 331-348.

Rosenthal, R. 2005. Conducting judgment studies: Some methodological iss\ ues. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 199-234. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D.\ 1979. Sensitivity to nonverbal communica- tions: The PONS Test. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. 2004. Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, a\ nd nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28: 267-286.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing app\ roach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.

Scherer, K. R., & Ekman, P. 2005. Methodological issues in studying nonv\ erbal behavior. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research: 471-512.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Semnani-Azad, Z., & Adair, W. L. 2011. The display of “dominant” n\ onverbal cues in negotiation: The role of culture and gender. International Negotiation, 16: 451-479.

Sheldon, O. J., Dunning, D., & Ames, D. R. 2014. Emotionally unskilled, \ unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 125-137.

Smith, J. 2013. 10 nonverbal cues that convey confidence at work. Forbes, March 11. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ jacquelynsmith/2013/03/11/10-nonverbal-cues-that-convey-confidence-at-wo\ rk/. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Spisak, B. R., Grabo, A. E., Arvey, R. D., & van Vugt, M. 2014. The age \ of exploration and exploitation: Younger- looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking leaders endorsed f\ or stability. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 805-816.

Stel, M., van Dijk, E., Smith, P. K., van Dijk, W. W., & Djalal, F. M. 2012. Lowering the pitch of your voice makes you feel more powerful and think more abstractly. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3: 497-502.

Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R., & Darnold, T. C. 2008. Ex\ ploring the handshake in employment inter- views. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1139-1146.

Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impa\ ct of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 295-305.

Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in communication. New York: Ballantine Books. 1074 Journal of Management / July 2016 Tickle-Degnen, L. 2006. Nonverbal behavior and its functions in the ecosystem of rapport. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 381-401. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. 2003. Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 558-568.

Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. 2015. Soc\ ial attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66: 519-545.

Towler, A. J. 2003. Effects of charismatic influence training on attitud\ es, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 56: 363-381.

Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. 2013. Cross-cultur\ al evidence that the nonverbal expression of pride is an automatic status signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142: 163-180.

Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. 2005. Exploring boundaries of th\ e effects of applicant impression manage- ment tactics in job interviews. Journal of Management, 31: 108-125.

Tsai, W., Huang, R., & Yu, H. 2010. Investigating the unique predictabil\ ity and boundary conditions of applicant physical attractiveness and non-verbal behaviours on interviewer evaluations in job interviews. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85: 60-79.

Tskhay, K. O., Xu, H., & Rule, N. O. 2014. Perceptions of leadership suc\ cess from nonverbal cues communicated by orchestra conductors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 901-911.

van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. 2\ 004. Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15: 71-74.

van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. 2008. Development and validation of the\ CQS: The Cultural Intelligence Scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications:

16-38. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Van Kleef, G. A. 2014. Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Human Relations, 67: 1145-1164.

Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. 2007. Expressing anger in conflict: W\ hen it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1557-1569.

Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kn\ ippenberg, B., & Damen, F. 2009. Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 562-580.

Van Kleef, G. A., van Dijk, E., Steinel, W., Harinck, F., & van Beest, I\ . 2008. Anger in social conflict: Cross- situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17: 13-30.

Vrij, A. 2006. Nonverbal communication and deception. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication: 341-359. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wall Street Journal. 2013. Body language expert Sharon Sayler says Shery\ l Sandberg falls flat, not leans in. June 11. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130611-905369.html?mod=googlenews_\ wsj. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Wang, K. L., & Groth, M. 2014. Buffering the negative effects of employe\ e surface acting: The moderating role of employee–customer relationship strength and personalized services.\ Journal of Applied Psychology, 99:

341-350.

Westerman, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. 1996. Relative effec\ tiveness and validity of mood induction procedures: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26: 557-580.

White, L. T., Valk, R., & Dialmy, A. 2011. What is the meaning of “on time”? The sociocultural nature of punctual- ity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42: 482-493.

Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Haselhuhn, M. P. 2011. A face only an in\ vestor could love: CEO’s facial structure predicts their firm’s financial performance. Psychological Science, 22: 1478-1483.

Woodzicka, J. A. 2008. Sex differences in self-awareness of smiling during a mock job interview. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32: 109-121.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Strom, M. A. 2013. Face and body physiognomy: Nonverbal cues for trait impressions. In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: 263-294. Boston: DeGruyter.