Download Rachel Morrison: Impact of informal relationships on the workplace

The Impact of Friendships in
the Workplace:
Testing a model of
Organisational Relationships
Rachel Morrison
Massey University
Albany
The aim of this research was to develop and
test a theoretical model of friendships in the
workplace
1.
To see if these relationships have a
positive or a negative impact on
organisational variables such as job
satisfaction, organisational commitment
and retention.
2.
To understand how organisational or
workgroup variables might impact on the
relationships of individuals in an
organisation.
Why is the study of
informal relationships
important?
Informal social relationships
may offer significant and
rewarding benefits to
individuals in organisations.
 Friendships
can provide increased
communication, trust, respect, cooperation, support and security which,
in turn, can influence work related
attitudes and behaviours.
BUT there may also be negative
consequences of close friendships.

The potentially incompatible demands
associated with the role of "friend" and the
role of "work associate" may cause very real
stress for individuals in organisations.
On an Organisational Level
• Informal relationships developed within
the workplace represent a key element in
the informal structure of an organisation.
• Friendships are potentially powerful
structural units that can either hinder or
facilitate organisational effectiveness.
• The question of how friendships might
impact on organisational variables such
as satisfaction and commitment in an
organisation is one that has yet to be
answered fully; and one which I address
in this study.
Variables Measured
Opportunities for, and Prevalence of, friendship
Measured by the Workplace Friendship Scale (Nielsen et
al., 2000)
Job Satisfaction
Measured by the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Warr,
Cook and Wall, 1979).
Organisational Commitment
Measured by the the OCQ (Meyer & Allen, 1991)
Cohesion
Workgroup Cohesion Measure (Campion,1993)
Needs
Measured by the Needs Assessment Questionnaire
(Heckert et al., 2000)
Autonomy / Interdependence of job
The Hypothesised
Model
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
Friendship
prevalence
Organisational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
Intention to
leave
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
Friendship
prevalence
Organisational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
Intention to
leave
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
Friendship
prevalence
Organisational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
Intention to
leave
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
Friendship
prevalence
Organisational
commitment
Job
satisfaction
Intention to
leave
Previous models
Riordan and
Griffeth’s (1995)
Latent Variable
Representation of
Friendship
Opportunity Model
Job
Involvement
y1
y3
x1
Friendship
Opportunities
Organisational
Commitment
Job
Satisfaction
y2
Intention to
Turnover
y4
Richer, Blanchard and Vallerand’s (2002)
Motivational Model of Work Turnover
Task
characteristics
+
+
Emotional
exhaustion
+
Feelings of
competence
+
+
Work
motivation
Turnover
intentions
+
+
Work
satisfaction
+
Feelings of
relatedness
-
Study 1
Testing a model of Organisational
Relationships in a NZ Hospital
Sample
• Questionnaires were sent to 400 employees
of the Waitemata District Health Board
• 124 Questionnaires were returned
•
•
•
•
Demographics
95% female
Mean age 44 years
Over half had been employed
for more than 5 years
• 89% European, 6% Maori,
3% Pacific Island
Results
• Variables which were hypothesised to
correlate at the simple bivariate level, did…
• Path analysis and linear regression were
used to test the model
• Some of the relationships between variables
were found to be “mediated relationships”.
Results
v1
Friendship
opportunities
0.230
(p<0.05)
0.307
(p<0.05)
v2
Cohesion
0.314
(p<0.05)
0.165
(ns)
(p<0.1)
0.287
(p<0.05)
-0.001
(ns)
-0.039
(ns)
0.271
(p<0.05)
v3
Friendship
Prevalence
v4
-0.154
(p<0.5)
Job
satisfaction
v5
Organisational
commitment
0.586
(p<0.05)
-0.297
(p<0.05)
-0.242
(p<0.05)
Intention to
leave
v6
Path from friendship opportunities
and cohesion to organisational
commitment
Cohesion
0.287
(p<0.05)
Job
satisfaction
0.314
(p<0.05)
Friendship
opportunities
0.271
(p<0.05)
0.586
(p<0.05)
Organisational
commitment
Path from job satisfaction and
organisational commitment to
intention to leave
Job
satisfaction
-0.297
(p<0.05)
Intention to
leave
0.586
(p<0.05)
Organisational
commitment
-0.242
(p<0.05)
Path from friendship opportunities
and cohesion to friendship
prevalence
Cohesion
0.230
(p<0.05)
Friendship
prevalence
0.314
(p<0.05)
Friendship
opportunities
0.307
(p<0.05)
Path from friendship opportunities to
intention to leave
0.088
(ns)
0.307
(p<0.05)
Friendship
prevalence
-0.154
(p<0.05)
Intention to
leave
Friendship
opportunities
0.271
(p<0.05)
Job
satisfaction
-0.297
(p<0.05)
Model 1
redrawn
showing only
the significant
regression
weights
v1
v2
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
0.314
(p<0.05)
0.230
(p<0.05)
0.287
(p<0.05)
0.307
(p<0.05)
0.271
(p<0.05)
v3
Friendship
prevalence
v4
-0.154
(p<0.1)
v5
Job
satisfaction
Organisational
commitment
0.586
(p<0.05)
-0.297
(p<0.05)
-0.242
(p<0.05)
Intention to
leave
v6
Study 2
Internet based study: Testing the
generalisibilty of the theoretical
model
Study 2
• 412 responses to an online questionnaire were
used to test the proposed model
• Wide range of respondents in terms of country of
origin, job, gender, age.
• 31% were male.
• Most respondents were from New Zealand (68%)
with 13% being from the United States.
• Respondents ranged in age from 19 years to 64
years, with a mean age of 35.
• The largest reported sector was tertiary education
(universities and polytechnics, n = 92) followed by
health care (including psychology, psychiatry and
physiotherapy n = 53).
• Larger sample size allowed more in depth
data analysis
• Structural Equation Modelling was used to
analyse the data and, again, results
supported the model
SEM (AMOS):
Study 2
1
The AMOS output indicated
that all the regression paths
shown here were significant
(p<0.05).
1
Fr 4
1
Fr 2
1
Fr 1
1
ef4
ef2
ef1
1 res1
1
c1 c 3 c 7 c8 c 9
1
1
1
1
1
c6 c5 c4
1
1
1
ec1 ec3 ec7 ec8 ec9
ec6 ec5 ec4
WFP
Job 4
Job 5
Job 12
Job 1
Job 3
1
1
1 Satisfaction with
interpersonal
interactions and
workplace
Fr 12 Fr 8 Fr 7
1
1 1
In addition the indices of fit
indicated that a good fit to
the data
cohesion
workload share
cohesion
social support
WFO
1
ef12 ef8 ef7
1
1
1
1
1
ej4
ej5
ej12
ej1
ej3
OC1
res2
1
res3
1
OC 3
OC4
2 Satisfaction with
actual job performed
OCQ
OC 6
1
1
OC 5
res4
OC7
Job 6 Job 14 Job 8
1
1
1
OC8
OC 9
ej6
ej14
ej8
1
eo1
1
eo3
1
eo4
1
eo5
1
eo6
1
eo7
1
eo8
1
OC12
1
1
ITL
1
1
itl 3
1
itl 1
1
il3
il1
res5
eo9
eo12
OC 13 eo13
1
OC 14 eo14
1
OC 15 eo15
Indices of fit of the data to the hypothesised model SEM
analysis performed using AMOS computer programme
(Arbuckle, 1999)
Index
Result
2
df
1239.70
582
PCFI
CFI
RMSEA
.85
.91
.05
Criteria for good fit
(Byrne, 2001)
>.50
>.90
<.08
covariance = 0.094
correlation = 0.199
covariance = 0.205
correlation = 0.560
Model showing
Significant
regression
paths:
covariance = 0.434
correlation = 0.622
Social
support &
Cooperation
Cohesion
Friendship
opportunities
Workload
sharing
Cohesion
Cohesion
Reg = 1.081
Stand reg = 0.550
Reg = 0.443
Stand reg = 0.228
Reg = 1.112
Stand reg = 0.389
Reg = 0.410
Stand reg = 0.273
Friendship
Prevalence
Study 2
Satisfaction with
interpersonal
interactions /work
environment
Reg = 0.546
Stand reg = 0.658
Reg = 0.672
Stand reg = 0.647
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
with job itself
Reg = 0.265
Stand reg = 0.212
Reg = -0.513
Stand reg = -0.277
Organisational
commitment
Reg = -0.575
Stand reg = -0.389
Intention to
leave
Model showing
Significant
regression
paths:
v1
Friendship
opportunities
Cohesion
0.314
(p<0.05)
0.230
(p<0.05)
0.287
(p<0.05)
0.307
(p<0.05)
Study 1
v2
0.271
(p<0.05)
v3
Friendship
prevalence
v4
-0.154
(p<0.1)
v5
Job
satisfaction
Organisational
commitment
0.586
(p<0.05)
-0.297
(p<0.05)
-0.242
(p<0.05)
Intention to
leave
v6
Comparison of the two models
• Factor analysis of scales in the second
study indicated both cohesion and
satisfaction to have two factors (only 1 in
first study).
• The main difference between the two
models however is the relationship between
friendship prevalence and intention to leave,
which was significant in study 1 but not in
study 2.
An explanation
• Sample in study 1 was primarily middle-aged
women, a group who have been shown to place
great importance on their relationships.
• The salience of friendships for this group may
mean that there will be a direct relationship
between friendships and leaving intentions, i.e., a
friend at work will be enough to influence leaving
decisions.
• While for a more heterogeneous, widely spread
group (as in study 2), job satisfaction and
organisational commitment will be more influential
in the decision to leave than will friendship
prevalence.
Study 3
FRIENDSHIPS AT WORK, JOB TYPE AND
NEEDS:
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPACT
OF FRIENDISHIPS ON ORGANISATIONAL
OUTCOMES
Study 3
Investigated the hypothesis that there will be
individual differences in the impact of
informal relationships, specifically:
– That those with high needs for affiliation or
autonomy will be differently affected by the
presence or absence of close friends at work
than those without such needs.
– That the level of interdependence of work role
(i.e. working in roles requiring social interaction)
will impact on the salience friends will have.
Hypothesis 1
That the previously supported model will be
invariant across two groups of randomly assigned
respondents, thereby validating the model.
Hypothesis 2
That the model will be non-invariant (i.e. different)
across groups of individuals who report having:
(a) relatively less or more interdependent jobs.
(b) relatively high versus low needs for affiliation.
(c) relatively high versus low needs for autonomy.
Invariance-testing strategy
• This procedure is outlined by Byrne (2001)
and involves comparing a constrained
model with a multi group model, in which no
equality constraints are imposed, to
determine if the causal structure is invariant.
• The change in chi-square value (2)
provides the basis for comparison with the
initial multi group model.
Results
2
df
Significance
Random sample
(calibration
versus validation
sample)
13.20
12
Non significant
High versus low
interdependence
of job
23.99
12
p < .05
High versus low
Affiliation needs
3.74
12
Non significant
High versus low
Autonomy needs
11.20
12
Non significant
When groups were compared in terms of the
interdependence of their work roles…
In order to fulfil my duties at work, regular
communication and/or interaction with my
colleagues is important.
The type of work I do can be done
satisfactorily on my own, without regular
interaction and/or communication with my
colleagues (R).
… the change in Chi square (23.99) with 12
degrees of freedom (2(12) = 23.99) is significant
Thus the group of respondents reporting
having relatively more autonomous work
roles are significantly different from the
group
occupying
relatively
more
interdependent work roles.
The data from the high interdependence
group was better fitting indicating the causal
model (showing the impact of workplace
friends on organisational outcomes) is more
“true” for those in highly interdependent
work roles.
On the other hand findings indicate
invariance in the causal model when the
samples compared were divided on the
basis of needs for affiliation or autonomy
Thus, respondents’ reported needs seem
not to influence the way the measured
variables in the tested model relate to each
other.
It seems reasonable to expect that data gathered
from individuals with high needs for affiliation or
autonomy would differentially fit a causal model of
friendships compared to those not reporting such
needs. But this was not found.
A possible explanation for this unexpected finding
may be that individuals expressing higher order
needs are having them fulfilled outside the
workplace.
This relates to the concept of “compensation” from
the work-family balance literature (Campbell-Clark,
2001; Lambert, 1990; Sumer & Knight, 2001).
Conclusion
It seems that the degree of interdependence in an
individual’s job influences the relationships
between the measured variables, while the
subjective needs of employees will not.
I.e. the actual job someone does, and whether or
not it is necessary to work with others in order to
perform ones job, will affect the salience of
informal interpersonal relationships at work, while
whether or not individuals self-report having needs
for autonomy and affiliation, will not.
Quotes from respondents:
How have friends benefited you at work?
• “Friendships encourage openness, cooperation and joy in ones
work.” (#33)
• “I feel the friendships at work make the shifts more enjoyable
on a busy day we help each other and offer support and
encouragement to each other.” (#126)
• “Friendships help us to work cooperatively with each other and
support each other at times of stress. A friendship that
continues outside the work environment is also an opportunity
to debrief and put things into perspective if necessary.” (#125)
• “Having a social side gives you a fuller happier life, so you are
happier person at work.” (#120)
• “Makes work more pleasant, knowing there are people who
are pleased to see you each day.” (#118)
• “Has given me someone to confide in, in regards to work
situations, and has improved my job satisfaction.” (#103)
• “We have enhanced each other’s work and commitment at
times. [Friends at work] build confidence and enabled me
to challenge myself and apply myself to new skills.” (#93)
• [Friends at work] “… make it more enjoyable to go to work
each day.” (#30)
• [Friends at work] “… increase happiness, contentment,
security” (#28)
An End Note
“Work is about a search for daily meaning as
well as daily bread, for recognition as well
as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor,
in short, for a sort of life rather than a
Monday through Friday sort of dying.”
Studs Terkel (1972)
Peer Types
• Definition of a Special Peer (friend)
You consider this person a best friend. You
would be friends with this person even if you
didn’t work together. You consider this person
much more than merely a co-worker and feel
you know each other very well.
• Adapted from : Kram, K. and L. Isabella (1985). “Mentoring
alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career
development.” Academy of Management Journal 28: 110132
• Definition of a Collegial Peer
This person is a work buddy. You might not
share every detail of your life with this person,
but this person is more than merely an
acquaintance. You may consider this person a
friend or a colleague and interact with this
person fairly regularly on an equal basis.
• Definition of a Information Peer
You do not know this person very well or feel
very close to this person. You consider this
person an acquaintance more than a friend.
You do interact with this person on a fairly
regular basis but you would probably not
continue the relationship if you did not work
here.
• Definition of Negative Relationship
This person is not one of your friends. You do
interact with this person on a fairly regular
basis but you would definitely not continue the
relationship if you did not work here. Your
interaction with this person is characterised by
conflict, disagreement, dislike, animosity and/or
disrespect. You would rather not have to
interact with this person.