Communication Accommodation theory
Communication Accommodation Theory is the altering of one's communication methods to match a specific audience. Demonstrations can be performed through in-group interactions, as seen in convergent strategies, whereby one individual will conform to the traits of another; or through out-group interactions, as seen in divergent strategies, whereby an accentuation of another's differences is compared to oneself (Giles and Ogay, 2009). In the workplace, an employee might change their rate of speech or vocabulary to match that of a supervisor or new peer in order to gain approval. The new employee looks to join an established social group of coworkers and over time might adopt a change in accent. The biggest component of convergent strategies is that they are formed at an individual level.
In contrast, divergent strategies, as previously mentioned, seek to construct a social identity of distinction based on membership in a group. In the workplace, conflict resolution is a critical component of group interactions. When a subordinate is yelling and being disruptive, a supervisor might maintain a position of professionalism and calm demeanor in efforts to diffuse the situation. The supervisor is distinguishing him/herself as being of superior status by not conforming to the subordinate's behavior. Fostering a power distance through divergent strategies promotes inter-group pride and self-worth within individuals within the group (as seen by the supervisor identifying as a part of a larger group of management personnel and the subordinate as a lower level worker).
Through such strategies, Communication Accommodation Theory can be both a benefit and a hindrance in the workplace. While employees might alter their vocabulary or rate of speech in order to gain respect or acceptance, over time this contrast might result in an identity crisis. Accommodation is oftentimes unconsciously performed in the workplace, as evidenced through communication between distinguished age groups, in that a change in tone could be demeaning to an audience of older workers. For instance, overaccommodation toward a disabled worker could result in embarrassment (Giles and Ogay, 2009). Even with the potential for negative impacts, accommodation is overwhelmingly evaluated as positive due to efforts in promoting diversity. Bridging the social, cultural, and power distances through communication methods allows for a willingness to collaborate and result in a more effective team environment.
In contrast, divergent strategies, as previously mentioned, seek to construct a social identity of distinction based on membership in a group. In the workplace, conflict resolution is a critical component of group interactions. When a subordinate is yelling and being disruptive, a supervisor might maintain a position of professionalism and calm demeanor in efforts to diffuse the situation. The supervisor is distinguishing him/herself as being of superior status by not conforming to the subordinate's behavior. Fostering a power distance through divergent strategies promotes inter-group pride and self-worth within individuals within the group (as seen by the supervisor identifying as a part of a larger group of management personnel and the subordinate as a lower level worker).
Through such strategies, Communication Accommodation Theory can be both a benefit and a hindrance in the workplace. While employees might alter their vocabulary or rate of speech in order to gain respect or acceptance, over time this contrast might result in an identity crisis. Accommodation is oftentimes unconsciously performed in the workplace, as evidenced through communication between distinguished age groups, in that a change in tone could be demeaning to an audience of older workers. For instance, overaccommodation toward a disabled worker could result in embarrassment (Giles and Ogay, 2009). Even with the potential for negative impacts, accommodation is overwhelmingly evaluated as positive due to efforts in promoting diversity. Bridging the social, cultural, and power distances through communication methods allows for a willingness to collaborate and result in a more effective team environment.
role conformity and basis of power
Hierarchical status systems are commonly used in organizational work environments to establish the differentiation of power and prestige amongst its employees. When an individual is hired, he or she is assigned a position or role within the status system. These roles are correlated with behavioral expectations, frequently laid out by the organization in the form of a job description corresponding to job responsibilities. Being assigned a role often leads to the internalization of the role, resulting in greater role-conformity, as demonstrated in Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo's 1973 prison experiment. In the experiment, students were instructed to role-play as either a guard or a prisoner. Participants internalized their roles to such an extreme that the experiment was terminated early.
Problems with role conformity have been observed to increase tension and turn-over rates, while decreasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Role ambiguity occurs when the employee lacks knowledge about their role. Role dissensus is exhibited when the occupant of another role does not approve of the methods being implemented. For example, if an employee believes his/her supervisor has inaccurately handled or worsened a business dispute (Levine & Moreland, 1995).
Status systems also help establish a basis of power. French and Raven (1960, as cited in Warren, 1995) considered basis of power the extent to which a person exercising power has control over a person subject to power and noted that, “the stronger the power basis, the greater the power.” Studies have identified five bases of power.
Coercive power is seen when the wielder of authority can elicit punishment based on the failure of a subordinate to conform to administrative goals. A coercive power source is more common in work environments where productivity is held in high regard and supervisors are viewed by subordinates as having superior ranking within the status system. Reward power is opposite to coercive power in that conforming can lead to positive valences administered by the wielder of power. These bases of power more readily elicit behavioral conformity (Warren, 1969).
A specialist who is entrusted as being credible entails expert power. Wielders of legitimate power are accepted by subordinates as having the right to influence (Warren, 1969). These leaders are generally viewed as competent and committed to group goals (Levine & Moreland, 1995). Finally, referent power is demonstrated when an employee conforms to the perspectives and behaviors of the wielder of power in an attempt to attain a feeling of belonging. These bases of power are more likely to elicit attitudinal conformity (Warren, 1969).
Problems with role conformity have been observed to increase tension and turn-over rates, while decreasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Role ambiguity occurs when the employee lacks knowledge about their role. Role dissensus is exhibited when the occupant of another role does not approve of the methods being implemented. For example, if an employee believes his/her supervisor has inaccurately handled or worsened a business dispute (Levine & Moreland, 1995).
Status systems also help establish a basis of power. French and Raven (1960, as cited in Warren, 1995) considered basis of power the extent to which a person exercising power has control over a person subject to power and noted that, “the stronger the power basis, the greater the power.” Studies have identified five bases of power.
Coercive power is seen when the wielder of authority can elicit punishment based on the failure of a subordinate to conform to administrative goals. A coercive power source is more common in work environments where productivity is held in high regard and supervisors are viewed by subordinates as having superior ranking within the status system. Reward power is opposite to coercive power in that conforming can lead to positive valences administered by the wielder of power. These bases of power more readily elicit behavioral conformity (Warren, 1969).
A specialist who is entrusted as being credible entails expert power. Wielders of legitimate power are accepted by subordinates as having the right to influence (Warren, 1969). These leaders are generally viewed as competent and committed to group goals (Levine & Moreland, 1995). Finally, referent power is demonstrated when an employee conforms to the perspectives and behaviors of the wielder of power in an attempt to attain a feeling of belonging. These bases of power are more likely to elicit attitudinal conformity (Warren, 1969).