Atlantic Journal of Communication

ISSN: 1545-6870 (Print) 1545-6889 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hajc20

Affinity-Seeking Strategies and Open

Communication in Peer Workplace Relationships

Jason Gordon & Rosanne L. Hartman

To cite this article: Jason Gordon & Rosanne L. Hartman (2009) Affinity-Seeking Strategies and
Open Communication in Peer Workplace Relationships, Atlantic Journal of Communication,
17:3, 115-125, DOI: 10.1080/15456870902873184

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870902873184

Published online: 04 Aug 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2350

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajc20
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17:115–125, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1545-6870 print/1545-6889 online
DOI: 10.1080/15456870902873184

Affinity-Seeking Strategies and Open

Communication in Peer Workplace Relationships
Jason Gordon and Rosanne L. Hartman
Department of Communication Studies
Canisius College

This study examines peer relationships in the workplace in relation to open communication and
the use of affinity-seeking strategies. Findings indicate that special peers use affinity-seeking
strategies significantly more often than do informational peers but not significantly more often
than collegial peers. Open communication strategies are used significantly more often by special
peers than informational peers. Discussion includes why these concepts are critical to understanding
friendships in the workplace.

On average, individuals are spending approximately 50 hr per week in the workplace (Stokes,
Henley, & Herget, 2006). Because people spend a large portion of their lives at work, individuals
are blending their work and social relationships. The result is workplace friendships. Friendships
are formed among coworkers because of the long work hours individuals spend together, the
close proximity among coworkers, and the need to depend on each other to get work done
(Martin & Rubin, 1998). The connection individuals feel with one another and the friendships
that are formed in an organization strengthens organizational identification. Organizational
identification leads to more committed and productive employees (Roach, 1998).
Workplace friendships can both hinder and facilitate organizational functioning (Morrison,
2004). However, most empirical studies highlight the positive effects of these relationships and
many organizations are condoning and promoting workplace friendships (Berman, West, &
Richter, 2002; Morrison, 2004; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002). For example, workplace
friendships lead to more cohesive work groups, more satisfied and committed employees,
greater productivity, greater goal attainment, increase positive feelings about the organization,
can make both good and bad jobs better, and are a factor in preventing turnover and intention
to leave (Feeley, Hwang, & Barnett, 2008; Morrison, 2004; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995; Shadur,
Kienzle, & Rodwell, 1999; Sias & Cahill, 1998).
Conversely, workplace friendships may create problems among coworkers and with orga-
nizational functioning. Workplace relationships may have inequality built into the relationship

Correspondence should be addressed to Rosanne L. Hartman, Communication and Leadership, Department of

Communication Studies, Canisius College, 318 Lyons Hall, 2001 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14208-1098. E-mail:
hartmanr@canisius.edu

115
116 GORDON AND HARTMAN

so that friends may be of unequal status in the organization. The unequal status may mean
one individual has greater control over rewards and punishments and therefore more power.
The challenges of such a relationship may lead to competition, envy, and the risk of office
gossip (Berman et al., 2002). Alliances may form among friendship dyads that may lead
to less effective decision making. Finally workplace friendships may be used to condone
inappropriate behavior and be a distraction from work related activities (Berman et al., 2002).
The contradictory findings about friendship in the workplace highlight the need to further
research the effect of friendships in organizations.
The building of workplace friendships depends upon communication relationships and the
expected rewards and obligations created in these relationships. As relationships develop,
systematic changes in communication occur that lead to several expectations for affinity-
seeking strategy use (Tolhuizen, 1989). Establishing affinity with others is a primary function
of communication (McCrosky & Wheeless, 1976), so that the successful use of these strategies
may determine which relationships develop into friendship relationships and the level to which
they progress. Developmental changes of friendship relationships leads to fundamental changes
and expectations. Therefore, affinity-seeking strategies will vary depending upon the level of
friendship between coworkers.
In addition to affinity-seeking strategies, open communication effects the progression of
friendship relationships. Workplace friendships are relationships based on similar interests,
shared values, trust, mutual commitment and liking between the friends (Berman et al., 2002).
As trust develops among coworkers, more frequent and less cautious conversations occur with
increasingly more intimate discussions (Sias & Cahill, 1998). When relationships move toward
deeper friendship, there is an increase in open communication.
Despite the frequency in the occurrence of workplace friendships, there is a lack of empirical
research examining behavioral and attitudinal consequences of these relationships within the
organizational context (Fritz, 1997; Morrison, 2004). Further, peer relationships have been
ignored in the organizational literature (Sias & Cahill, 1998) even though the effect of friendship
relationships on organizational processes and outcomes has been researched (Berman et al.,
2002; Feeley et al., 2008; Morrison, 2004; Richer et al., 2002; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995;
Shadur et al., 1999; Sias & Cahill, 1998). However, because friendship relationships exist at
different levels, it would be fruitful to examine more closely the role the level of friendship has
on communication. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to uncover the relationship between
peer workplace relationships and the use of affinity-seeking strategies and open communication.

FRIENDSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE

Workplace friendships develop based on rewards and obligations. As individuals repay obli-
gations and debts, trust increases between them and leads to more exchanges. The level of
desired, expected, and received exchanges differentiates levels of peer friendship relationships
in the workplace. Friendships between coworkers may develop as a result of out-of-work
activities, the use of humor, and working on projects together (Sias & Cahill, 1998). Also,
proximity increases the possibility of interaction among individuals increasing the likelihood
that friendships will develop. Exchanges used to create and build workplace friendships are
often supported by the organization.
 AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES 117

Social relationships build trust aiding in information sharing, organizational flexibility and
increased problem solving (Brass, 1984; Uzi, 1997; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998).
Workplace friendships develop coworker support, create a positive environment, and help to
provide better communication among coworkers to complete assigned tasks.
The strengthening of friendships creates concern for the other’s welfare and increases the
support systems within an organization. This support leads to less job-related stress (Berman
et al., 2002). Also, friendship is associated with a greater willingness to work cooperatively and
exchange a great variety of resources (Berg, Piner, & Frank, 1993; Jehn & Shah, 1996; Pruitt
& Rubin, 1986). Workplace friendships are associated with higher levels of trust, less concern
over equality in any exchange, and help to facilitate agreement when negotiating (Olk &
Elvira, 2001). Friendships also strengthen organizations in other ways. Specifically, workplace
friendships can simplify the decision-making process for coworkers, lead to organizational
commitment, and be helpful in increasing the workplace morale (Sias & Cahill, 1998). The
quality of friendships within the workplace is positively related to job satisfaction (Markiewicz,
Devine, & Kausilas, 2000).
However, friendship relationships in an organization can both support and impede organi-
zational processes. Workplace relationships often involve people of unequal age, status, and
power in an organization. Supervisor and subordinate friendships can lead to alliances and self-
interest that may create a climate of favoritism. Workplace friendships may affect individual
judgment and have the potential for influencing decisions and actions (Berman et al., 2002;
Rogers & Kincaid, 1980). Other managerial concerns of workplace friendships are gossip,
office romances, distractions from work-related activities, and uses of friendship relationships
to condone or excuse inappropriate conduct (Berman et al., 2002). When friendships deteriorate,
there are other consequences affecting the workplace such as turnover, emotional stress, and a
reduced ability to perform tasks (Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, & Fix, 2004).
Clearly, workplace friendships affect organizational life. One way to understand the role of
friendship relationships in an organization is through the examination of peer relationships. Peer
relationships allow for the distinction among friendship levels to better understand the effect
of friendships within an organization. These relationships provide instrumental and emotional
support for individuals and the organizational outcomes may depend on the level of peer
relationship. There are three levels of peer relationships in the workplace: information, collegial,
and special (Meyers, Knox, Pawlowski, & Ropog, 1999). The first-level peer relationship is the
informational peer who shares information relating to the organization with the coworker. The
second level is the collegial peer who supports their coworker on work and family issues and
by providing feedback pertaining to the job. The third level of peer relationship is the special
peer. The main purpose of special peer relationships is to be there for coworker as a friend by
providing emotional support.
Peer relationships have different communication functions, levels of trust and self-disclosure
(Odden & Sias, 1997). As peer friendships develop, the communication alters to meet the
needs and expectations of the individuals in the relationship. The higher the level of peer
relationship, the greater the friendship, the closer the employees are and the more intimate they
interact (Meyers et al., 1999). Little has been done to examine ways in which communication
changes as friendships develop in an organization (Sias & Cahill, 1998). To uncover how
communication strategies develop or change in peer relationships over time, the use of affinity
seeking strategies and open communication will be used. Specifically, affinity-seeking strategies
118 GORDON AND HARTMAN

may be most effective during initial interaction (Bell, Tremblay, & Buerkel-Rothfuss, 1987)
whereas the use of open communication may be a stronger indicator of the progression of a
peer friendship relationship. Because communication openness is more likely to occur within
a trusting work environment (Olk & Elvira, 2001), it may be a better predictor of collegial
and special peer relationships. However, the relationship between affinity-seeking and peer
relationship development is still unclear.

AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES

Affinity seeking is the use of communication to bring about liking and the creation of positive
feelings. Liking is one basic dimension of positive relational development (Daly & Kreiser,
1994). Four motives of affinity seeking exist: antecedent factors such as the motives, goals,
and consciousness of individuals involved; constraints of the individuals involved such as
experience, social skills, and disposition; strategic use of strategies; and the targets’ response
to the affinity seeking (Bell & Daly, 1984; Martin & Rubin, 1998). Individuals who use affinity-
seeking strategies have different motives and the use of these strategies occur at the conscious
and subconscious level.
Affinity-seeking competence may be more relevant during initial interaction because liking
determines if the relationship will begin and progress (Bell et al., 1987). Initial friendships
also develop based on similarity in areas such as lifestyle, beliefs and values (Cialdini, 1984).
Because similarity leads to liking and liking leads to friendship, it seems reasonable to assume
affinity-seeking behaviors would be most utilized in earlier stages of friendship. However,
Tolhuizen (1989) found that individuals in fully developed friendships reported greater overall
use of affinity-seeking strategies and use of a greater variety of strategies. Individuals using
affinity-seeking strategies are perceived as being more likeable, successful, and satisfied (Bell &
Daly, 1984; Davis, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986). As friendships develop and affinity-seeking
continues, liking increases (Martin & Rubin, 1998). Therefore, affinity-seeking strategies may
increase as peers move from informational levels to collegial and special peers. Based on this
premise,

RQ1: Special peers are more likely to use affinity-seeking strategies in the workplace than
collegial peers.
RQ2: Special peers are more likely to use affinity-seeking strategies in the workplace that
information peers.

OPEN COMMUNICATION

Peer relationship levels influence how open coworkers are with each other so that commu-
nication strategies will be different based on the level of peer relationship. One strategy
is communication openness. Communication openness is the willingness to communicate
and share opinions, ideas, and criticisms with each other (Meyers et al., 1999). Friendship
relationships allow people to express their opinion and to openly engage in conflict whereas
groups consisting of acquaintances are less forthright (Ross, 1997). Openness is a key factor
 AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES 119

in relational maintenance and directly affects an organization in terms of process and outcome
(Oswald, Clark, & Kelly, 2004).
There are different motives for communicating in the workplace. When coworkers fulfill
needs through communication, they are more likely to develop lasting friendships and be
satisfied (Anderson & Martin, 1995). Employees communicate for closeness and intimacy
increasing job satisfaction, commitment, and satisfaction with bosses (Anderson & Martin,
1995). Sias and Cahill (1998) concluded that friendships at work are desirable because they
relieve job-related stress, decrease job dissatisfaction, decrease turnover, and are internally
rewarding to individuals. Also, work groups consisting of friends outperform groups consisting
of acquaintances partially because of increases in trust (Jehn & Shah, 1996).
Because levels of friendship develop via communication processes, it is crucial to distinguish
how the content of communication affects the process. The more open the communication is
between coworkers, the development and level of peer friendships increases (Meyers et al.,
1999). Workplace friendships allow for the sharing of opinions and ideas building trust fur-
thering the openness. Therefore, one might assume that special peers would be more likely to
use open communication in the workplace than either collegial or informational peers.

RQ3: Special peers are more likely to use open communication in the workplace than do
collegial peers.
RQ4: Special peers are more likely to use open communication in the workplace than do
informational peers.

METHODS

Procedure
Participants in the study were randomly selected from an e-mail database in a human resources
firm using two locations: one in the Northeast and the other location in the West. The
367 participants were e-mailed a cover letter stating the purpose of the study, an explanation
of the survey instrument, and an informed consent process. Once the participant agreed to
take part in the study, one of three surveys was e-mailed based on work group: information
peer survey (127 surveys sent), collegial peer survey (107 surveys sent), or special peer survey
(133 surveys sent), each of which included some demographic information. After completing
the survey, respondents were asked to save the informed consent form and completed survey in
an Microsoft Word document and e-mail the document back to the researcher. Out of the total
367 surveys sent, 153 participants completed the survey for an overall response rate of 42%.
Specifically, of the 153 respondents, 52 respondents completed the information peer survey
(33.98%), 50 respondents completed the collegial peer survey (32.67%) and 51 respondents
completed the special peer survey (33.33%).

Participants
Of the total 153 participants, 42% were male, 55% were female, and 3% left that demographic
blank. Out of the total participants, 54% were in nonmanagement positions and 46% were in
120 GORDON AND HARTMAN

management positions, with 21.6% having worked 1 year or less, 37.9% working from 2 to
5 years, 9.8% working for 6 to 10 years, and 30.7% working for more than 10 years. The
breakdown by age is as follows: 16.3% younger than age 25, 28.1% between the ages of 26
and 30,19.0% between the ages of 31 and 35, 15.0% between the ages of 36 and 40, 9.2%
between the ages of 41 and 45, and 12.4% are 46 or older.

Research Instruments
Two instruments were used to develop a comprehensive survey to measure communication
openness and affinity-seeking competence. The Communication Openness Scale developed by
Donald Rogers (1987) asks the respondent to think of a peer that falls into one of three peer
relationships: informational, collegial, or special. The respondent completes the survey with
the one peer in mind and ranks the coworker on whether the coworker exhibits certain traits
of communication openness. A 7-point Likert scale was used ranging from 7 (very strongly
agree) to 1 (very strongly disagree).
The Affinity-Seeking Instrument was created by Bell et al. (1987). This section of the scale
is a self-assessment of performance of affinity-seeking behaviors used when dealing with the
peer selected above. A 7-point Likert scale was used ranging from 7 (very strongly agree) to
1 (very strongly disagree).
Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess reliability for both survey instruments. The Communi-
cation Openness Measure had a Cronbach’s alpha of .92, an acceptable rate, and the Affinity-
Seeking Instrument had a Cronbach’s alpha of .768, again an acceptable rate for reliability.

RESULTS

The results of the four independent sample t tests using one-tailed hypotheses are as follows.
First, RQ1 predicted that special peers were more likely to use affinity-seeking strategies in
the workplace than collegial peers. No significant difference was found between the mean of
the special peers (M D 49.67, SD D 4.771) and that of collegial peers (M D 48.39, SD D
5.708), t(96) D 1.210, p D .229; d D .2433, r D .120).
RQ2 predicted that special peers were more likely to use affinity-seeking strategies in the
workplace than information peers. The mean of the special peers was significantly higher (M D
49.67, SD D 4.771) than the mean of the information peers (M D 42.90, SD D 5.716), t(99) D
6.441, p D .0001 (d D 1.285, r D .5408). Therefore H2 is supported. Special peers are more
likely to use affinity-seeking strategies in the workplace than information peers. However, using
Cohen’s (1988) standards, the effect size is considered large.
RQ3 predicted that special peers would be more likely to use open communication in the
workplace than collegial peers. A significant difference not was found, t(99) D 1.849, p D
.067. The mean of the special peers was not significantly higher (M D 53.88, SD D 5.837)
than the mean of the collegial peers (M D 51.64, SD D 6.343), t(99) D 1.849, p D .067
(d D .367, r D .1807). Therefore, H3 is not supported. Special peers are not more likely to
use open communication in the workplace than collegial peers.
Finally, RQ4 predicted that special peers would be more likely to use open communication
in the workplace than information peers. The mean of the special peers was significantly higher
(M D 53.88, SD D 5.837) than the mean of the information peers (M D 41.63, SD D 8.536),
 AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES 121

t(101) D 8.484, p D .0001 (d D 1.675, r D .6421). Therefore, H4 is supported. Specials

peers are more likely to use open communication in the workplace than information peers.
However, using Cohen’s (1988) standards, the effect size is considered large.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine workplace peer friendship relationships with the
use of affinity-seeking strategies and open communication. Although there are positive and
negative outcomes for an organization when friendship relationships exist, it is beneficial
for organizations to understand the role of communication in building these relationships
(Berman et al., 2002). For organizations focusing on supporting friendship relationships, these
relationships have been found to reduce workplace stress, help in the process of organizational
change, and increase communication and the likelihood of task completion (Berman et al.,
2002). The negative impact of friendship seems to occur within relational disintegration phases
or when friendship bonds are stronger than organizational commitment.
Two of the four hypotheses were supported. Special peers are more likely to use affinity-
seeking strategies than do informational peers. However, special peers do not use affinity-
seeking strategies more often than collegial peers. In other words, once we obtain liking,
we continue to use the strategies that helped us achieve that outcome. This is important to
note because in stable workplace friendships, affinity-seeking strategies may be continually
employed by workplace peers to enhance the probability that liking will continue. Organizations
seeking to promote and support peer friendships will need to include communication models,
employee incentives, rules and regulations that address both the emotional and knowledge
needs of employees (Sopow, 2006). These issues are related to organizational climate and are
influenced by peer friendship relationships.
The second finding supported in this research is that communication openness is used
more by special peers than informational peers. Because the main purpose of communication
with informational peers is to exchange work related information, communication focusing on
building a more intimate friendship relationship would not be expected. However, no significant
difference existed between special peers and collegial peers in the use of communication
openness. It appears that once communication openness is present in a friendship relationship,
it remains as a strategy for sharing opinions, ideas, and criticisms.
Unclear in this research is how open communication strategies might differ in level, amount
and depth based on peer relational type. Similar to friendship relationships outside of the
workplace, friendships at the collegial and special peer level may allow for more divergent
views, support more openness and sharing of ideas, and allow for more conflict to occur.
Special peers consider the other coworker to be a good friend whom they know well, with
whom they share a high level of trust, and with whom they self-disclose (Meyers et al., 1999;
Odden & Sias, 1997). Conversely, collegial peers provide feedback and support that pertains
to the job. Therefore, the level of communication openness and the ideas that are expressed in
these relationships may differ among special peers and collegial peers. Future research should
seek to uncover communication openness differences among these two peer groups. Findings
might indicate which peer group helps to facilitate a more supportive communication climate in
the workplace, an important factor for employee involvement and organizational effectiveness
(Shadur et al., 1999).
122 GORDON AND HARTMAN

Sias, Smith, and Avdeyeva (2003) found differences in the influence and variety of com-
munication among same sex friendships and cross-sex friendships. Specifically, in same-sex
friendships, the influence of workplace contextual factors, such as sharing tasks, decreases
while organizational influences increase as friendships become closer. Conversely, in cross-sex
friendship relationships the workplace contextual factors retain their importance throughout
friendship development. These findings suggest that individuals in cross-sex and same-sex
friendship relationships define workplace friendships differently. Motives to remain platonic in
cross-sex friendships relationships include the use of positive and proactive relational mainte-
nance behaviors (Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000). Other research suggests men and women
perceive and enact friendship in distinct ways: Men perceive friendship as a way to share
activities, whereas women perceive friendship as a way for sharing emotions, feelings, and
information (Paul & White, 1990; Wood & Inman, 1993). As a result, future research should
focus on how same-sex and cross-sex friendship relationships develop using workplace peer
friendship relationships as a framework. Such research may provide further insight into how
and why men and women perceive and enact friendship differently.
Previous research highlights the use of affinity-seeking strategies in initial interaction (Bell
et al., 1987). However, the day-to-day interaction among coworkers may deem the use of
affinity-seeking strategies as a tool for getting the task done. Friendships are considered
voluntary, but workplace relationships are often dependent upon the role and function of
the individual. The friendship relationships that develop from one’s role and function help
to build networks necessary to succeed in the workplace. It is the informational and collegial
peer friendship roles that use communication practices directly related to work-related activity.
Therefore, organizations looking to build and support friendship relationships may want to
focus on supporting these levels of peer relationships.
Affinity-seeking strategies have been found to effect organizational processes. For example,
when used by managers, affinity-seeking strategies affect subordinate satisfaction (Richmond,
McCroskey, & Davis, 1986). Also, when affinity-seeking strategies are not used often, it may
mean a lack of cohesion among coworkers (Odden & Sias, 1997). The presence or absence
of affinity-seeking strategies is an indicator of climate dimensions within an organization.
Climate deals with member perceptions of the organization in relation to policies, practices,
and procedures including both formal and informal (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It reflects
an orientation based on personal values exerting a strong influence on the behavior of organi-
zational members and the culture (Hartman & Johnson, 1989, 1990; Sopow, 2006; van Vianen
& Prins, 1997).
The work environment and friendship relationships provide individuals with access to
information, resources, support and the opportunity to learn and develop within the organization
(Kanter, 1993). Employee perceptions play a significant role in the success of involvement pro-
grams so that supportive climates and commitment significantly predict employee involvement
(Shadur et al., 1999).
However, in emotionally supportive friendship relationships, as is the case in special peer
relationships, commitment to the friendship relationship may supercede commitment to the
organization. In these instances, the friendship may hinder the organizational functioning and
processes in areas such as decision making, problem solving, and involvement. Therefore, it
would be useful for future studies to look at how peer friendship relationships influence the
involvement processes of organizational members.
 AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES 123

Organizational climate needs to match the organizational strategies and practices being
implemented (Shadur et al., 1999). During the process of organizational alignment, information
is needed about the effects of the organizational climate on employee involvement. Specifically,
strategic decision making is based on the understanding of the organizational contextm which
includes employee perception and involvement (Shadur et al., 1999). Although several organiza-
tional climate measurements exist (Koberg & Chusmir, 1987; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Oliver &
Anderson, 1994), there is overlap between practice dimensions of these climate measurements
and organizational culture (Shadur et al., 1999). Further, these measures do not include specific
information relating to peer friendship relationships and their effect on individual perceptions
of the workplace. Because workplace friendships effect individual perception, behavior, and
organizational outcomes, peer friendship relationships should be considered when developing
measures of organizational climate.
This study has several limitations. First, the respondent pool is limited to one organization
so that the findings may not be generalizable. The organizational climate may play a role in
the openness among coworkers. Therefore, organizational climate should be considered in the
process of developing research using peer friendship relationships. Second, the three surveys
focusing on informational, collegial, and special peers were given to three distinct groups. The
group culture may affect how individuals responded to the surveys. Third, a larger sample size
including several types of organizations would be useful.
This study highlights the continuous use of affinity-seeking strategies among collegial and
special peers in the workplace. It would be interesting to identify specific variations in the
types of strategies used among special and collegial peers. Although both peer groups use
affinity-seeking strategies, it would be important for organizations to further understand their
use for developing mentoring and coaching relationships and employee involvement. The goals
of mentoring programs are to identify employees with high potential, develop relationships
between the mentor and mentee, and enhance leadership skills for career development (Eby
& Lockwood, 2005). These relationships require trust often built through the mentor’s use
of affinity-seeking strategies. Problematic in some formalized mentoring relationships is dis-
comfort felt by the both individuals (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Hence, it may be useful to
understand which affinity-seeking strategies may lessen discomfort and build report leading to
a more fruitful outcome.
Communication openness leads to cohesion among teams, organizational commitment, less
job stress, and better communication between coworkers. In this study, levels of openness differ
among the peer friendship relationships. Organizations seeking to facilitate openness could
screen potential newcomers in an attempt to identify individuals who fit the existing workforce
and culture. If organizational leadership strives to create friendship relationships, the similarities
that exist may make the assimilation and orientation process smoother. As assimilation occurs,
friendships should develop at a faster and stronger pace. Organizations should make the extra
effort to build a support system of friendships that create the communication networks necessary
to get the work done.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and
organizational satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 249–265.
124 GORDON AND HARTMAN

Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication. Communication Monograph, 51,
91–115.
Bell, R. A., Tremblay, S. W., & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. (1987). Interpersonal attraction as a communication accom-
plishment: Development of a measure of affinity-seeking competence. Western Journal of Speech Communication,
51, 1–18.
Berg, J. H., Piner, K. E., & Frank, S. M. (1993). Resource theory and close relationships. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse, &
K. Y. Tornblom (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 169–196). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, Jr., M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences
(according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62, 2, 217–230.
Brass, D. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The new psychology of modern persuasion (pp. 163–202). New York: Quill.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daly, J., & Kreiser, P. (1994). Affinity-seeking. In J. Daly & J. Weimann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication
(pp. 109–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, L. M., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). The relationship of supervisor use of power and affinity-
seeking strategies with subordinate satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 34, 178–193.
Eby, L. T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés and mentor’s reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs:
A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441–458.
Feeley, T. H., Hwang, J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Predicting employee turnover from friendship networks. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 36, 56–73.
Fritz, J. H. (1997). Men’s and women’s organizational peer relationships: A comparison. The Journal of Business
Communication, 34, 27–46.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1996). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating
processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. In L. N. Dosier & J. B. Keys (Eds.), Academy of Management
Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 279–283). Pleasantville, NY: Academy of Management.
Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity: As predictors of commitment and role
ambiguity. Human Communication Research, 15, 523–548.
Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1990). Formal and informal group communication structures: An examination of
their relationship to role ambiguity. Social Networks, 12, 127–151.
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Koberg, C. S., & Chusmir, L. (1987). Organizational culture relationships with creativity and other job-related variables.
Journal of Business Research, 15, 397–409.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Markiewicz, D., Devine, I., & Kausilas, D. (2000). Friendships of women and men at work. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 15, 161–184.
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Affinity-seeking in initial interactions. The Southern Communication Journal,
63, 131–143.
McCroskey, J. C., & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Introduction to human communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Messman, S., Canary, D., & Hause, K. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies
in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67–94.
Meyers, S., Knox, R., Pawloski, D., & Ropog, B. (1999). Perceived communication openness and functional commu-
nication skills among organizational peers. Communication Reports, 12, 71–81.
Morrison, R. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and turnover intentions. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 114–128.
Odden, C. M., & Sias, P. M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological climate. Communication
Quarterly, 45, 153–166.
Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the consequences of behavior and outcome based sales
control systems. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–67.
Olk, P., & Elvira, M. (2001). Friends and strategic agents: The role of friendship and discretion in negotiating strategic
alliances. Group and Organizational Management, 26, 124–164.
 AFFINITY-SEEKING STRATEGIES 125

Oswald, D. L, Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An analysis of individual and dyad
behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 413–441.
Paul, E. L., & White, K. M. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence. Adolescence, 25,
375–400.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal
and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, U., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 2089–2113.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Davis, L. M. (1986). The relationship of supervisor use of power and affinity
seeking strategies with subordinate satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 34, 178–193.
Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). The opportunity for friendship in the workplace: The underexplored construct.
The Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 141–154.
Roach, D. K. (1998). Management view, power use, and affinity-seeking: Effects on college student employee
identification. Communication Research Reports, 15, 354–364.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1980). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York:
The Free Press.
Ross, J. A. (1997). Does friendship improve job performance? Harvard Business Review, 75, 8–9.1.
Shadur, M., Kienzle, R., & Rodwell, J. (1999). The relationship between organizational climate and employee
perceptions of involvement. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 479–504.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace.
Western Journal of Communication, 62, 3, 273–299.
Sias, P. M., Smith, G., & Avdeyeva, T. (2003). Sex and sex-composition differences and similarities in peer workplace
friendship development. Communication Studies, 54, 322–343.
Sias, P. M., Heath, P., Perry, T., Silva, D., & Fix, B. (2004). Narratives of workplace friendship deterioration. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 321–340.
Sopow, E. (2006). The impact of culture and climate on change programs: Distinguishing between culture and climate
to change the organization. Strategic Communication Management, 10, 14–17.
Stokes, G., Henley, N., & Herget, C. (2006). Creating a culture of wellness in the workplace. North Carolina Medical
Journal, 67, 445–448.
Tolhuizen, J. H. (1989). Affinity-seeking in developing relationships. Communication Reports, 2, 83–91.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
van Vianen, A. E., & Prins, M. G. (1997). Changes in newcomers’ person-climate fit following the first stage of
socialization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 101–114.
Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 21, 279–295.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and
interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141–159.