Sue Roffey
Reis and Gable (2003) consider that relationships may be the most important source of life satisfaction and well‐being. The quality of our relationships at work matters not only for our ability to flourish personally, but is also likely to enhance our sense of achievement. Proactive interventions to promote high levels of social capital across all levels of an organization can add value to business outcomes and embed the economic success of enterprises.
Our lives at work have changed dramatically, especially since the advent of digital communications. What people do, how they do it, the influence of technology, globalization, and female education have altered both our relationship with work and consequently relationships at work. The first section of this chapter sets the scene by addressing this changing nature of work: What does work now mean in the context of people’s lives? There are cultural differences but also many global similarities. The chapter then examines the multiple relationships people have at work – with colleagues, clients, and management – and how the changing relationship with work is influencing a new paradigm for relationships at work. The section concludes with a summary of well‐being in the workplace and how positive psychology research is defining practices that enable people to flourish at work.
The second section provides a rationale for the development of positive practices. Why is it valuable for both individuals and for the organization? What motivates people to give of their best, to work collaboratively with others? What is the place of positive relationships in the bigger picture of productivity?
The third section describes the practices of positive relationships. How can we grow social capital in an organization and what is the place of relational values and emotional literacy? What enables people to feel they belong and their contributions are valued? How do people learn to work effectively together and deal constructively with difference and conflict?
The chapter concludes by exploring what further research is needed to help better understand positive relationships at work.
Following the industrial revolution many individuals in the “developed” world would have been defined by what they did to earn a living. You were perhaps a miner, a policeman, a teacher, or a banker – and that is what you did for most of your working life. You entered a certain profession and for the most part stayed put. Your workmates were a fixed feature and there was a clear delineation between work and home. Before the middle of the 20th century you were only likely to be in paid professional employment if you were a man; women certainly worked, but rarely with the status afforded by a higher education. What many people do every day and the conditions under which they do it has changed almost out of recognition in the last 50 years. There has been a significant decline in both agriculture and manufacturing jobs in many Western countries. Between 1940 and 2002 the percentage of the U.S. working population in manufacturing declined from 48% to 28% (Employment Policy Foundation, 2003) and in Australia between 1983 and 1999 it dropped from 18.1% to 12.8% (Pusey, 2003). This is, however, the opposite of other countries, such as Korea, where it has increased by similar margins and China now has the highest number of employees in manufacturing across the world.
The decrease in manufacturing and agricultural employment in Europe, the USA, and Australasia has been replaced by a need for more professional, technical, and administrative work together with service‐related occupations such as tourism, education, and hospitality. Unskilled work is still needed, but these jobs are particularly vulnerable to shifting demand.
In the second half of the 20th century most working people in the developed world belonged to their trade union or professional association, who negotiated with employers on their behalf. Governments in the UK and USA have successfully reduced the power of the unions and there has been a steady decline in union membership (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2014). This has implications for both pay and working conditions that impact on a sense of security in the workplace (WHO, 1999). Some countries, however, such as Germany, Belgium, and the Nordic countries, continue to have unions for specific trades affiliated to strong national confederations.
Incomes Data Service in the UK (2014) found that between 2000 and 2014 the median total earnings for FTSE 100 bosses rose by 278%, while the corresponding rise in total earnings for full‐time employees was 48%. Gender differentials also remain a concern in many but not all countries. In 2014 the average gender pay gap in the UK was 19.1%, with the gap in the private sector larger than in the public (Office for National Statistics, 2014a). In Australia the differential is 18.8% (Australian Government, 2015) and in the USA 21.7% (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2015). As the well‐being research consistently finds that equality matters (Huppert & So, 2011; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010), these figures are likely to impact on both relationships and well‐being at work.
Since the 1980s work has become a more fluid activity (HSE, 2006). Some individuals will be working full‐time, but part‐time and job shares are increasingly common. Companies increasingly employ people on short‐term contracts or as agency workers. Relationships at work might become more functional and role driven as people come and go.
In the past one often stayed in one location, not only working one’s way up the same organization but probably staying in the same town and keeping the same network of friends and family. Today people may go where the work is – and this may not only be another town but even another country. Mobility for work across Europe has become a political issue. By contrast, families in the USA are more likely to live and work in the same town, or at least the same state, in which they were born. Mobility there appears to be decreasing rather than increasing (Cohn & Morin, 2008). Relationships at work may take on greater significance when there is no access to socialization with an established local network. Loyalty will be less toward a particular company than in the relationships that people form there (Ragins & Kram, 2007). The social and relational dimensions of work may therefore have more influence than economic considerations in retention of staff.
Career paths can take twists and turns and there are blurred boundaries around the working day for many. The culture of an organization still matters but will depend less on history than on current processes of engagement and management.
According to Landy and Conte (2010), workplaces are far more diverse than ever. In most organizations there will be a range of social and cultural backgrounds. Also, many people do not go “out” to work but carry out tasks in a “virtual” environment, such as telemarketers. Across the board, industries engaged in manufacturing, retail, service provision, financial and artisan services use technology – even landscape designers use computer programs in their creative endeavors – so our primary communication at work may be with a computer: it is where we find information, record data, play with ideas, connect remotely with colleagues and clients, and even manage human resources. All these changes in people’s relationships with work have implications for relationships at work. The next section addresses some of these implications.
When individuals travel away to work, their primary relationships as an adult are less likely to be with the people they knew in childhood including their original family. For some, work itself is away from home, perhaps for weeks at a time. Those in the military, working on oilfields or in mines, employed as international consultants or as entertainers “on tour” may leave children and spouses behind. This can put family relationships at risk (Green & Canny, 2003) and is particularly hard for maintaining positive contact with children after family breakdown – an issue for the well‐being of young people (Dowling & Elliot, 2012). Primary relationships may be at work rather than at home – and even these may be short‐term as people move on or out.
On the other hand, the location of work has become much more flexible. In the UK 13.5% of those in work are based at home (Office for National Statistics, 2014b) and many employees work from home at least a few days a week. Initial research on working remotely (telecommuting) is mixed: there are positive outcomes for family relationships and a sense of autonomy but collegial relationships may not fare well when there is little chance for face‐to‐face interaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
An individual in an organization will have relationships with line managers, colleagues, team members, mentors, clients/customers, trainees/apprentices, and other employees such as cleaners and caterers. Although each of these roles will differ, some of the basic premises for a positive relationship are common across all of them. Knowing how to establish a positive relationship, use emotional literacy in everyday communications, and address difficulties with a thoughtful “win–win” approach can make all the difference to the working environment, even where communications are primarily conducted via technology. Although a strong industry‐specific knowledge base is still relevant in the workplace, personality and interpersonal skills are having more attention than ever. How people relate to each other matters, not only for personal well‐being but also for meeting company goals.
Relational quality in an organization is ecological – it does not depend solely on the micro level, which focuses on interactions between individuals, but also on management, organizational culture, and expectations across the workplace. Leadership style, communication practices, strengths‐based approaches, and human services policies all contribute. This ranges from how diversity is valued, what happens when a female employee returns after maternity leave, how meetings are run, the norms for interaction and teamwork, consultation procedures, induction practices, and how someone is acknowledged for long service. All these things – and more – matter to whether or not the working environment is healthy or toxic.
The nature of interactions can either promote trust, respect, and collegiality, enabling mutually agreed goals to be met, or do the opposite. Dutton and Heaphy (2003) discuss “relational micro‐moments” and how the experience of a high‐quality connection can leave people feeling more energized. Individuals seek out interactions that make them feel energized and avoid those that deplete them. This can mean that someone will approach a less knowledgeable colleague because that person feels more accessible (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008). Relational energy (Owens, Baker, Sumpter, & Cameron, 2015) is a construct that captures how interactions impact on motivation and are positively associated with job performance.
It is the executive group in an organization that usually determines the goals and sets the tone for the quality of the working environment. It is the values of leaders, either overt or covert, that predominate in the development of organizational culture. The literature sometimes distinguishes those who are leaders from those who are managers (e.g., Channer & Hope, 2001). It has been said that managers are concerned with doing things right, while leaders are concerned about doing the right thing: managers control, while leaders facilitate, managers work in the organization, whereas leaders work on the organization (Ellyard, 2001). Managers focus on rules, leaders on relationships.
A leader sets the vision but doesn’t stop there. A leader listens, understands, motivates, reinforces and makes the tough decisions. A leader passes out praise when things go well and takes responsibility and picks up the pieces when things fall apart. Leadership is about relationships. (Hoerr, 2006)
Armstrong (2012) argues for a new paradigm for future leadership – one that does not see a leader as a superhero or hero‐innovator or someone who has more knowledge than anyone else. She asserts that effective leadership is based less on technical expertise and hierarchical power, and more on relational understanding and facilitative skills. These are sometimes denigrated as “soft skills” but comprise complex social and emotional intelligences that enable leaders to engage, motivate, and stimulate people – both individually and in teams. This approach recognizes that no one is a “born” leader but that leadership is a social endeavor, a leader does not exist without a follower, and that the ability to connect well with others is paramount.
Wolff, Pescosolido, and Druskat (2002) claim that leadership often emerges when someone is able to influence and manage emotions within a group, providing direction in times of ambiguity. This involves both empathy and modeling of emotional responses that increase solidarity and help others make meaning of a situation.
When Scott (2003) asked school principals about the most challenging aspects of their job, they were primarily concerned with relationships. They ranked the qualities of effective school leaders as:
Like Dutton and Spreitzer (2014), Armstrong highlights the minutiae of interactions – the everyday conversations that make a difference. Whether those connections are public or private, formal or informal, the feelings engendered by them are critical. Dutton (2014) refers to high‐quality connections (HQCs) as those that: (a) show willingness to listen attentively to what others have to say; (b) are constructively responsive; (c) make requests rather than demands; (d) are task enabling; (e) show trust by relying on others to meet their commitments; and (f ) encourage playfulness!
Cameron (2014) says that the key tasks of effective leaders are to model and foster HQCs among all their employees. They can do this by providing professional development in relational skills, acknowledging and rewarding those who demonstrate HQC, and embedding good practice in meetings, induction programs and conversations around values such as kindness, compassion, acceptance, honesty and forgiveness.
Even when difficult decisions have to be made, such as downsizing leading to job loss, a high level of trust in the executive can limit the adverse reactions of this from employees (Brockner, Seigel, Daley, Tyler, & Martin, 1997). The effects of what we do depend on how we do it. Brockner’s research suggests that if downsizing is done with fairness, justice, and compassion it can lead to significantly more positive outcomes for both those who leave and those who stay.
The New Economics Foundation in the UK (2014) summarized the literature on well‐being at work, and concluded that people’s personal lives and working lives are inextricably intertwined and that there is a need for a more well‐rounded approach to fostering well‐being at work. Their specific findings and recommendations include:
A meta‐analysis of research appears to indicate that when people experience high levels of job satisfaction there is lower absenteeism, higher retention rate, and better performance (Judge, Thorensen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
The following are specific but inter‐related reasons for the promotion of positive relationships in the workplace. Some are primarily concerned with the individual and others with the quality of interactions among individuals. All contribute to promoting the effectiveness of the organization. They include:
Flourishing at work is a complex construct including engagement, motivation, growth, and learning. Dutton, Roberts, and Bednar (2011) talk about how work‐related identities are formed in the workplace, and that when they become more positive there is enhanced psychological and social functioning and more positive feelings. Work engagement promotes greater adaptive behavior and innovation that consequently affects productivity, profits, and customer satisfaction.
There have been a number of studies (e.g., Twenge, 2000) illustrating that the focus on economic prosperity and growth has not been matched by an increase in people’s well‐being. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 400 million people worldwide experience mental health difficulties (WHO, 2001) although only a small proportion have complex and debilitating conditions.
Czabala, Charzynska, and Mroziak (2011) reviewed studies published between 1988 and 2009 that addressed mental health promotion in the workplace. The authors identified 4,865 studies and selected 315 for abstract screening and 79 for final detailed review. They found that interventions were still predominantly focused on stress reduction rather than mental health promotion and also that strategies were overwhelmingly individual, including education programs, relaxation techniques, coping skills, and mindfulness. Others were concerned with organizational structure such as guaranteed breaks, but few addressed social dynamics.
Positive relationships not only improve psychological well‐being, they also impact on physical health. Positive emotions and a consequent reduction in stress affect our hormonal, cardiovascular, and immune systems (Lewis, 2011). One principal who actively promotes healthy relationships throughout his school has enough in his budget to pay for a high level of professional development for staff – he says that this is because of a routine under‐spend on sickness cover (Roffey, 2007). Teacher attrition is a concern in many parts of Europe, Australia, Canada, and the USA. Buchanan et al. (2013) explored the experiences of 329 early career teachers and identified six factors that made a difference. These included collegiality and support and how this impacted on their own self‐worth and levels of isolation.
Fay, Shipton, West, and Patterson (2014) analyzed data from 45 UK organizations in the manufacturing sector and discovered that the more widespread the use of teamwork, the more innovation there was in the organization. However, putting people together does not necessarily form an effective team. Stewart’s (2006) meta‐analysis of the relationship between team design features and performance found that factors that correlated with higher performance were autonomy, intra‐team coordination, and transformational leadership.
According to Richardson and West (2010), an effective team needs to have a task that inspires and engages team members, be able to both value and use diverse strengths of individuals, and ensure clarity of expectation and that roles evolve as the task progresses. Positive team relationships and a sense of belonging are encouraged by frequent interaction, quick successes, appreciation of each person’s efforts, and shared rewards.
Quick, Gavin, Cooper, and Quick (2004) summarize the pros and cons of a competitive versus a collaborative working environment, believing that each has a place in the achievement of excellence. They come to the conclusion that a win–lose paradigm can lead to a lose–lose one and that a balance between both paradigms can be found in competition between teams. Intergroup competition has better outcomes for both.
Poor‐quality connections can leave people feeling “diminished, frustrated, demotivated, demoralised, disrespected or worse – this can lead to being revengeful, despairing or annihilated” (Lewis, 2011, p. 180). Not only do poor relationships cost individuals in terms of their psychological well‐being, they also cost organizations in lack of collaboration, reduced innovation, wasted time, and absenteeism. Conflict is normal – differences between people are inevitable in any relationship; it is how this difference is managed that matters. Both intra‐ and interpersonal skills are needed to reduce the frequency, intensity, and destructiveness of conflict (Edmund, 2012). Effective approaches include acknowledging interdependence, exploring intention, and analyzing communication – especially how misunderstandings might have developed. The promotion of positive feelings and behaviors can also mitigate the more unpleasant and undesirable aspects of conflict.
Restorative approaches to address conflict in schools and courts are familiar to many, but there is now interest in how such approaches might be integrated into the workplace. This is a way of addressing behaviors that are seen as undermining community connectedness, and acknowledges the ripple effect of the impact on those who might not be directly involved. In seeking to repair harm and resolve conflict, relationships and feelings are paramount. Lambert, Johnstone, Green, and Shipley (2011) carried out action research in an organization in Hull, UK, and found that although there were challenges, and the process of implementation and training were critical, there were some promising developments over time. These included an understanding by staff of how to address problematic issues themselves, usually before they were referred to management; and increased engagement in team meetings and decision‐making. The restorative approach resolved some poor communication practices between departments and integrated restorative approaches and language throughout organizational culture. This saved time, greatly reduced grievance procedures, and freed managers for more constructive tasks.
Pink (2009) challenged the idea that people were mostly motivated by extrinsic rewards and that the more you paid someone the more productive they would be. He summarizes motivation at work as a combination of purpose, meaning, and mastery. Once you pay people enough – and fairly – they give of their best for intrinsic reasons. Dik, Byrne, and Steger (2013) distinguish between meaning in work (how meaningful is your work?) and meaning of work (what makes it so?). For many, the source of meaning is those with whom you work, whether these are your co‐workers, clients, or the community you serve (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). Khan and Fellows (2013) outline four dimensions that describe people who are fully engaged in what they are doing: they are fully present and attending closely to what is happening; they are connected either with others working toward the same ends or to the bigger picture or purpose; they are integrated so that they bring their thoughts, intuitions, energies, and feelings to the work; and they are absorbed – fascinated and focused – the opposite of being distant or standing apart. This brings to mind Csikszentmihalyi’s construct of “flow” (1990). Relationships at work can enable or inhibit the conditions that promote such engagement.
In a competitive global environment, creativity and innovation are a foundation of competitive advantage. Saccheti and Tortia (2013) explored the organizational features that favor the accomplishment of creativity and creativity‐related satisfaction with work. They define creativity as the ability to see and enact in new ways. Self‐determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) suggests that such fulfillment relies on specific contextual conditions that allow individuals to pursue ends harmoniously with their own needs and aspirations. Saccheti and Tortia, however, found that satisfaction with creativity is supported by teamwork, autonomy, domain‐relevant competences, and inclusive, fair processes and relationships. Janssen, Van De Vliert, and West (2004) reviewed the factors that contributed to innovative teamwork. These include knowledge sharing and job rotation, a climate of trust and reciprocal respect, support and backing from management, and participation in decision‐making.
Seybold, Marshak, and Lewis (2001) suggest that customers now have greater control in how they choose and use services. They have access to many sources of information giving them both options and a level of expertise. The relationship with clients and their experience therefore matters even more than it used to (Gillies, 2012). Brand loyalty in the market depends on customer satisfaction and this includes both price and service. Hanif, Hafeez, and Riaz (2010) concluded in their study of mobile phone providers that “if customers are provided with courteous behavior of sales person or complaint officer then they feel emotional attachment with their brand of cellular company. Similarly, if their complaints are solved promptly and commitments are fulfilled then it would provide a sense of belongingness to the brand” (p. 50).
Those companies who encourage staff to respond to queries promptly, take clients, views seriously, and are clear and courteous at all times are likely to have a competitive advantage. In an ecological model it is easier to relate well to customers if that is modeled within the organization and everyone feels valued by managers and colleagues.
What makes people want to get up, go to work, and give of their best? What feelings do they have about themselves, their colleagues, and what they are doing? What do we know helps to promote the positive in the workplace?
As Dutton and Ragins (2007) acknowledge, there is no overarching consensus on the definition of a positive relationship at work. It is a complex and multifaceted construct with differing emphases depending on specific perspectives and positions.
The relational beliefs and behavior of everyone in an organization, however, matter in the creation of a relational culture, and each affects the other in a bi‐directional ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Roffey, 2008). The way teachers are treated in a school by the executive, for instance, has impact on how they relate to students (Roffey, 2012).
There are, however, commonalities for positive relationships that apply across various contexts and together lead to an increase in social capital. A toxic environment develops where people are silenced, intimidated, unvalued, and demotivated. Social capital is the opposite of this, but requires awareness and active intervention to promote in the workplace.
Lewis (2011) defines social capital as the quality of relationships and interactions within organizations, and that the key to building good reserves of social capital is an affirmative bias within organizational life. Social capital facilitates respectful communication and cooperation and enhances employee commitment. According to Lewis, a high level of social capital has benefits for individuals in that it can inoculate against a range of dysfunctional behaviors and promote the factors that enhance both psychological resilience (Werner & Smith, 2001), and optimal physical well‐being (Baker & Dutton, 2007; Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). At an organizational level, social capital helps organizations be connected, optimistic, proactive, and effective.
Positive relationships are imbued with positive feelings about the self and others. Positive feelings lead to behaviors that grow social capital. So how can we enhance the relationships that promote both the behaviors and feelings that enable people to give of their best in the workplace and have an optimal working experience? The list below summarizes key findings from the literature on positive relationships at work.
The ASPIRE principles have provided a framework for the development of positive relationships and group interaction in educational contexts (Dobia et al., 2014; Roffey, 2013), but are applicable across a range of organizational settings. ASPIRE is an acronym for Agency, Safety, Positivity, Inclusion, Respect, and Equality. This section explores how these relational values are validated in the research, incorporate relevant constructs such as self‐determination, trust, compassion and fairness, and how these might be translated into relational practices in the working environment. There is overlap between these principles and they foster each other in a virtuous cycle.
This principle in a relationship refers to the amount of control someone has over actions and decision‐making. Empowerment of employees in a work context gives them encouragement to take initiative, take pride in their work, and experience ownership (Wagner et al., 2010). It would appear to be beneficial to both the individual and the organization (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011).
Agency incorporates one of the determinants of well‐being – self‐determination. Those who see themselves as choosing to engage in a task rather than being controlled by demands or being externally regulated are more likely to see meaning in what they do. Those who are given some choice in the way a task is undertaken, and find that task both challenging within their sphere of competence and in line with their goals, will experience a degree of autonomous motivation. This contrasts with pressure that comes from external non‐negotiable demands and extrinsic rewards. These are insufficient to enhance motivation and work performance (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) found that managers supported autonomy when they acknowledged subordinates’ perspectives, provided relevant information in a non‐controlling way, offered choice, and encouraged self‐initiation. This was associated with employees being more satisfied with their jobs, having a higher level of trust in corporate management, and displaying other positive work‐related attitudes. An example of agency/autonomy in practice is Google, who give their employees one day a week to work on whatever they choose. The outcomes have been a range of new ideas and solutions (Pink, 2009).
A hallmark of a healthy relationship is where people feel physically and emotionally safe. This does not happen in workplaces imbued with a culture of bullying and intimidation. Workplace bullying occurs where an employee is subjected to systematic and negative behaviors that cause humiliation and distress (Trepanier, Fernet, & Austin, 2015). This can include persistent criticism, belittling competencies, unreasonable deadlines, exclusion, excessive teasing, and shouting and threatening behaviors. The outcomes of workplace bullying include absenteeism, poor retention of staff, psychological stress, and physical ill health. It is associated with poor employee functioning, expressed through disengagement, job dissatisfaction, and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and burnout. As organizations can condone, and even reward, bullying behaviors there is a need to rethink organizational culture to promote collaboration over rivalry, enhance social support, and foster a safe environment (Yamada, 2010). Workplace safety is exemplified where there are high levels of trust in which people are able to acknowledge vulnerability and ask for guidance.
Trust is a critical facet of a strong relationship. This multidimensional construct is being given increasing attention in the literature on well‐being at work (e.g., Helliwell & Huang, 2011). Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) suggest that components include trust in someone’s ability and competence to carry out a task, trust in their benevolence and goodwill, and in their integrity – a belief that they will act within a set of ethical principles. According to Frost and Moussavi (1992), having power without being trusted diminishes a person’s influence within the workplace. Church and Waclawski (1999) go on to say that, in today’s less authoritarian environment, individuals must work within relationships that require trust and the ability to influence others in both lateral and hierarchical relationships.
Helliwell and Huang (2011) report on studies that found that trust in management has a value in terms of life satisfaction of more than a 30% increase in monetary income. There is a significant gender difference across the USA, Canada, and the UK with women rating social relationships at work more highly than men. When someone is trusted, their actions are seen as predictable and dependable. There is a tension in many workplaces between levels of trust and the need for accountability (Ammeter, Douglas, Ferris, & Goka, 2004) and a suggestion that formal mechanisms for accountability that ignore the social and value dimensions of work have undermined trust, initiative, and well‐being in the workplace (Berryhill, Linney, & Fromewick, 2009). As Lee and Teo (2005) found in their study in Singapore, trust is under threat when significant changes are required of employees. This can be mitigated by involving personnel in restructuring.
Relationships and emotions exist within the workplace all day and every day, impacting on both human and social capital. It makes sense to actively promote the positive, both for the individual and the effectiveness of the organization. Relationships are enhanced by both the experience and expression of positive emotions (Barsade & Gibson, 2007), whereas negativity undermines the ability to “think straight.” Fredrickson (2001) found that positive emotions promote problem‐solving and creative thinking. This can help organizations come up with fresh ideas that give them the edge over competitors (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). Positive emotions also facilitate collaboration, reduce conflict, raise resilience, promote socially responsible and helpful behavior, increase the ability to learn and integrate complex information, enhance more thorough decision‐making, and enable change (Isen, 2005). But positive emotion is a broad term: what do we mean by this? Some aspects are addressed in other sections of this chapter so our focus here is on the specific emotions generated by presence, playfulness, kindness, gratitude, and celebration.
The Fish philosophy, initiated originally in the Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle, is a framework for developing more positive relationships at work – both within the organization and in providing customer service. The four pillars below summarize much of the literature on positive organizational practice, especially that developed by Dutton (2014) on high‐quality connections.
Positivity and gratitude: Grateful people feel better about themselves and the world they are in; they feel more support from others and give more support. Studies on the efficacy of gratitude‐related exercises have shown that noticing what you can be thankful for promotes a sense of optimism and reduces depression (Seligman, Parks, & Steen, 2005). Rather than gratitude simply being a way of thinking, Howells (2012) suggests that it is relational: her work, based within educational settings, turns gratitude into action to impact on organizational culture. Buote (2014) cites an American study that found 29% of respondents never thank a co‐worker and 35% of respondents never thank their boss. Gratitude begins by noticing – one of the five ways to well‐being suggested by the New Economics Foundation (2014). Noticing a clean office, contributions by colleagues, a supportive gesture by a manager needs to be followed by an expression of gratitude. “A simple ‘thank you for …’ can have a spiral of positive consequences for promoting pro‐social behavior and a sense of connection” (Grant & Gino, 2010).
Celebration is one step on from gratitude. Couple research indicates that active constructive responses when one person has been successful strengthens relationships (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). This contrasts with disinterest, envy, or pointing out the negatives. Acknowledgment and celebration of team success bonds people together, shares the good feelings in accomplishment, and reinforces expectations for the future. We are not as good at celebration in the workplace as we might be – the term is absent from much of the literature.
The neurology of emotion: Mirror neurons in our brains make us hard wired to respond and replicate the emotions of others. This has major implications for the emotional climate of the workplace (Mukamel, Ekstrom, Kaplan, Iacoboni, & Freid, 2010). As all emotions are contagious, an emotionally literate leader will know that their emotional presence will have an impact on the team and will do what they can to promote the positive. Our experiencing of emotion and the embodiment of this is bi‐directional. This means that not only do we smile when we feel good – the very act of smiling increases our sense of well‐being (Wenner, 2009). The opposite is also true – frowning increases our negative mood and can affect the demeanor of others. Anyone who injects gentle humor into the workplace, greets others as valued colleagues, or celebrates another’s success is not only doing a service to individuals, they are promoting a more successful organization.
A sense of connectedness is increasingly recognized as a basic psychological need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and a protective factor in resilience and well‐being (Werner & Smith, 2001).
Putnam (2000) extends the concept of social capital into bonding capital, that relates to in‐group connections, and bridging capital, that relates to intergroup connections. He illustrates this with a vivid metaphor: bonding social capital constitutes a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a “sociological WD‐40” (Putnam, 2000, p. 23).
Healthy relationships require both but the former can lead to “exclusive” belonging where those who are not part of the “in‐group” can be demonized and scapegoated (Roffey, 2013).
In order to feel we belong, others must act in a certain way (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). We are unlikely to experience a deep sense of belonging if others are simply pleasant but do not put themselves out in any way. They need to be positively welcoming and not distant or indifferent to our presence. When they attend to what we say and treat us an ally then we will feel we are significant to the organization and it matters that we are there. We also need to be able to rely on others to be supportive and committed to our welfare. Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, and Hawkins (2004) say something similar about connectness in the school environment: a safe, supportive environment is essential for belonging, but organizations also need to be places where strengths are identified and each individual sees themselves as progressing, achieving, and contributing.
There are particular challenges for promoting a sense of belonging in an organization when employees work remotely or on restricted hours.
“We have discovered that in order to get respect you have to give respect” (Feedback from the Aboriginal Girls Circle, Dobia et al., 2014). The first pathway to building high‐quality connections at work (Dutton & Spreitzer, 2014) is to “respectfully engage with others.” Respect is no longer a “given” that comes with authority: it is demonstrated by giving messages that the people with whom you are engaging are important. Both verbal and non‐verbal messages can be subtle but powerful: they can make people feel acknowledged, heard, and valued or the opposite. Being fully attentive to another is hard for busy people – especially leaders – as it is assumed that this will take up valuable time that could be better spent. Relationships can be built, however not by doing more but by small changes in how interactions take place and with a greater sense of awareness of the longer‐term benefits. Simply greeting someone by name and with a smile can promote feelings of value (Roffey, 2005). Acknowledging a mistake, poor judgment, or lateness and offering an apology prioritizes the relationship rather than the ego. The seating arrangements in a meeting can give messages of power and position in the same way that the depth of a bow in Japan lets everyone know who is most important. Egan (2002) defines a respectful interaction as one in which one person does not overwhelm the other with her or his own agenda and does not rush to judgment. Active listening means turning off your phone, tuning into what is being said, asking for clarification, and building on ideas. Respect means showing interest in the other person and what they can offer. Beginning both conversations and emails with a positive comment or query personalizes the interaction, shows value to the individual, and makes it easier to focus on what comes next.
Appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, Sorenson, Yaegar, & Whitney, 2001) is a way of putting respect into practice and is congruent with positive psychology approaches by building on strengths, focusing on an imagined ideal future and making meaning within a collaborative framework. It is particularly valuable when work environments are undergoing changes (Lewis, 2011). As the name suggests, it is more about asking, finding out and collaboratively crafting ways forward, than making statements and demands.
Chinese working practices are imbued with the principle of Guanxi ‐ which acknowledges the centrality of relationships. Business transactions can only proceed once a level of trust and familiarity has been established. Multinational companies need to understand how this operates in order to conduct successful discussions that the Chinese regard as respectful (Gold, Guthrie, & Wank, 2004).
“The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’ … they don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we’; they think ‘team’. They accept responsibility and don’t sidestep it, but ‘we’ gets the credit” (Peter Drucker, cited in Collins & Thompson, 2008).
McCashen (2005) talks about the essence of the strengths‐based approach as being “power with,” rather than “power over”. It is about having a high regard for uniqueness and diversity and also respect for the commonalities between people. An inclusive and democratic work culture needs opportunities to discover commonalities in values and goals.
Such activities can acknowledge shared vulnerability and this can promote empathy. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally and we all face adversity and challenges from time to time. There is often a denial of this in the workplace where people have to be seen to be on top of everything.
Equal access to information enhances trust. McCashen refers to this as transparency. It enables personnel to be open and honest about both possibilities and challenges and not engaging in cliques and secret agendas. Such “empire‐building” undermines ownership of organizational development and can foster a toxic environment.
The human need for fairness is hard‐wired. The brain’s reward center is activated when fairness and cooperation are experienced (Tabibnia & Leiderman, 2007).
Fairness does not, however, mean rigid sameness – it means acknowledgment of different circumstances and flexibility in response to these. This includes recognition and understanding for those who have young families or aging parents who may be on call at any time. Supervisors who model good home–life balance have employees who feel they are able to do the same and are consequently less exhausted and more engaged in the workplace (Koch & Binnewies, 2015).
Communication in an organization covers a number of functions, some of which overlap. These include information giving and seeking, sharing ideas, decision‐making, persuading, directing, motivating and supporting, resolving difficulties, and otherwise relationship building.
Communication is, however, not an event so much as an unending social and emotional process of sense‐making (Lewis, 2011). It takes place within a context of history, relationships, expectations, and the present setting. And communication is not merely verbal or written – it exists in timing, gestures, and settings. Effective communication processes require a level of emotional literacy that enables the participants to tune into their own reactions to what is being discussed, the emotional context in which interactions are taking place, and to be able to read and take account of the responses of others. The quality of communication at work can create or destroy relationships (Langley, 2012). The language used can either expand or contract conversation and not only does this have an outcome on the generation of ideas but it also promotes or inhibits the ASPIRE principles described above. Expansive communication includes acknowledging the value of what someone has said and asking others their views. It is putting into operation the “no put‐down” rule, which does not denigrate or dismiss someone but engages with “personal positives” instead.
Losada and Heaphy (2004) found that high‐performing teams had a ratio of five positive interactions to each negative one. They also had an equal balance of inquiry to advocacy statements and the same for self‐ to other‐oriented comments. Poorly performing teams had a ratio of 20 to 1 for advocacy and self‐orientation, indicating a lack of collaboration or connectivity. Lewis (2011) makes the observation that high performance does not depend on public criticism when someone underperforms but on generosity, forgiveness, appreciation, encouragement, and positive feedback – especially when times are tough.
People need to disagree, but how this takes place matters. Giving critical feedback is challenging for some supervisors, which is why some may go at this with all guns blazing, but ignoring rather than addressing poor practices just condones and increases them. Negative feedback needs to be on actions, never on personalities and blame must be fairly apportioned – what could you have done differently, what could others have done differently, and what part did chance play. Listen to what the other person says, but getting into arguments or going on the defensive does not help. Importantly, ensure that the person knows what future expectations are and the rationale for these, linked to organizational values and goals.
There are many challenges for the future of relationships at work as the nature of working lives continues to change. Among the issues that have arisen in this chapter are the balance of relationships at work with those at home as boundaries become increasingly blurred, the dichotomy between competitive and collaborative cultures in a world were work is increasingly focused on economic advantage, new paradigms for leadership, the nature of high‐quality connections and how these are perceived and promoted, and how to understand and work with relational differences across cultures.
The vast majority of studies on positive psychology at work are based in the developed world, within a Western and capitalist ideology. We therefore do not know so much about the working lives of those in the developing world. There also appears to be a preponderance of studies related to professional, white‐collar occupations.
Positive psychology at work is a broadening field and needs to be able to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. The values and beliefs within a positive psychology paradigm, however, are not always congruent with those often espoused in a business environment. A positive psychology approach may need to address these bigger issues, such as: How do you continue to maintain a focus on the well‐being of those who work across a wide range of roles when economic imperatives undermine this? How can people continue to be treated as valuable human beings when their role becomes redundant?
Many of the constructs within the field such as empowerment, gratitude, and emotional literacy have traction in the evidence for relationships at work although contextual factors matter to their impact and sustainable efficacy (Mills, Fleck, & Koziowski, 2013). You cannot impose a positive psychology intervention without taking account of organizational culture. This is exemplified in many studies within education where a whole school approach for well‐being is advocated (Noble, McGrath, Roffey, & Rowling, 2008). Organization culture is ecological and combines the structural with the psychological – what part do relationships have to play in the changes that lead to both individual well‐being and flourishing enterprises and what is the interplay between them?
The ASPIRE framework addresses how relational values might impact on behaviors. Although not specific to the workplace this takes account of the multiple interactive factors that support high‐quality connections across contexts. As an entity, however, it requires empirical validity.
Although the literature on positive relationships has offered significant insights, there are still questions to be answered on how to identify, deconstruct, and maintain the positive across time and place. Relationships are complex, bi‐directional, and fluctuating: how people feel about themselves and others is embedded in an ecological and often chronological framework. Measuring outcomes of specific interventions does not guarantee efficacy across contexts or time. More information about people’s lived experiences would be valuable. Much of the data is positivistic and linear, so does not capture the narratives that illuminate the minutiae of difference.
There is much evidence on what works for well‐being in relationships, but how does this translate into policy and practice holistically across large institutions and at the macro socio‐political level? On the one hand, for instance, we have evidence for positive outcomes for a flatter organizational structure and more equality, but hierarchical cultures and management behaviors persist. How do we address power issues in relationships at work and what is the impact of individual psychologies on organizational systems (Case & Maner, 2014). How can we make the evidence of what enables both individuals and organizations to flourish become a reality for everyday working lives?
In this chapter I have reviewed the role of positive relationships within the changing environment of work. While there are some interestingly cultural differences, a number of key characteristics can enhance the experience of work. These characteristics have been summarized by the ASPIRE framework. The area of positive relations is a relatively new and emerging area within positive psychology and thus further research is required to deepen and broaden our understanding.