Workplace Friendship in the Electronically Connected Organization

Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Workplace Friendship in the ElectronicallyConnected Organization

Patricia M. Sias1, Hannah Pedersen2, Erin B. Gallagher3, & Irina Kopaneva2

1 Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA2 Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington,

DC 99164-0000, USA3 School of Arts and Communication, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

This study examined information communication technologies and workplace friendshipdynamics. Employees reported factors that influenced their initiation of friendship with acoworker and reported patterns and perceptions of communication with their workplacefriend via different communication methods. Results indicated that personality, sharedtasks, and perceived similarity are the most important factors to coworker friendshipinitiation, and the importance of physical proximity to workplace friendship is diminishingin the electronically connected workplace. Results confirm the primacy of face-to-faceinteraction for workplace friendship initiation and maintenance. E-mail, phone, andtexting were also central to communication among workplace friends. The amount of timespent telecommuting affected workplace friendship initiation and communication. Finally,generational differences were identified with respect to Internet-based communicationmethods.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01428.x

Technological innovations have always had profound influence on societies (Chesley& Johnson, 2010). While many, such as assembly line technologies, have enabledchanges in organizational production processes, communication technologies suchas the Internet, e-mail, cell phones, teleconferencing, and other forms of informa-tion communication technologies (ICTs) have dramatically altered organizationalcommunication practices. As Bleecker observed in 1998,

In the 1980s we noted proudly that we were a wired society. Soon we canproudly say we are an unwired society. It’s the age of emancipation. Time andspace will collapse, and the barriers to communications will fall away. It won’tmatter if you are in America and your trading partner is in Bulgaria. You will betruly connected—linked to one another by an invisible web of communicationsnetworks and intelligent, integrated appliances: the electronic virtualoffice. (p. 47).

Corresponding author: Patricia M. Sias; e-mail: [email protected]

Human Communication Research 38 (2012) 253–279 © 2012 International Communication Association 253

Workplace Friendship P. M. Sias et al.

The large-scale connectedness communication technologies enable has fundamen-tally changed not only organizational operations but also employee interaction,which likely affects employee relationships. As Wheatley (1994, 2001) noted, rela-tionships are the basis of living systems, including organizations. Thus, understandingorganizations requires understanding the interpersonal relationships that comprisethem. Moreover, interpersonal relationships are socially constructed entities (Sigman,1995). They are produced and reproduced in the partners’ interaction. Accordingly,understanding coworker relationships requires understanding the communicationpractices and patterns that characterize those relationships. Developing knowledgeabout the role of ICTs in those communication practices is particularly importantgiven the wide array of ICTs available in today’s organizations. To date, however,links between ICTs and employee relationships have been largely ignored.

Along with developments in communication technology, organizations havechanged in two other fundamental ways that likely have implications for workplacefriendship dynamics. First, ICTs have enabled employees to increasingly engage intelecommuting (i.e., working some or all the time from an off-site location) and,second, organizations are increasingly populated by employees from generationsas varied as millennials, generation X and Y, baby boomers, and the ‘‘greatestgeneration’’ (Carlson, 2008; New Politics Institute, 2008). Again research has ignoredthe implications of such trends for workplace friendship. This study addressed theseimportant voids.

Communication technology and workplace friendship initiationScholars have long acknowledged the importance of workplace relationships toorganizational processes (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Jablin, 1979; Sias, 2009).Peer relationships, or relationships among employees at the same hierarchical leveland with no formal authority over one another, are the most common (Porter& Roberts, 1973), and often the most important, workplace relationships. As Sias(2009) explained,

Most people have one supervisor and several peer coworkers. Consequently,most of us spend more time with our peer coworkers than with anyone else atwork [Comer, 1991]. And many of us spend more time with our peer coworkersthan we spend with our family and friends. (p. 57)

Peer workplace relationships often develop into affiliative bonds known asfriendships (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias, Smith, & Avdeyeva, 2003). Workplace friendshipsdiffer from other workplace relationships in two primary ways. First, they arevoluntary; that is, even in highly regulated work environments individuals choosewhom to befriend. Friendship development is an ongoing and privately negotiatedprocess that depends on the free will of the persons involved (Rawlins, 1992; Wright,1978). Second, friendships have a personalistic focus in which the individuals come toknow and interact with each other as whole persons beyond their direct organizationalroles (Sias, 2006).

254 Human Communication Research 38 (2012) 253–279 © 2012 International Communication Association

P. M. Sias et al. Workplace Friendship

Although friendships can create strain among coworkers (Litwin & Hallstein,2007) and ‘‘chain’’ them to unhealthy work environments (Sias & Cahill, 1998),research indicates their effects are largely positive for individuals and organizations.Workplace friends provide each other with instrumental and emotional support(Kram & Isabella, 1985). They become a ‘‘second set of eyes and ears’’ (Rawlins,1992) for each other by sharing important information related to the organization.Friendships also facilitate employee career advancement and serve as buffers betweensubordinates and supervisors and as sources of support for those experiencing anxietyor stress (Sias, 2009). Workplace friendships are linked to higher quality informationsharing, decision-making influence, and enhanced creativity (Marks, 1994; Sias,2005; Yager, 1997). Peer friendships help employees make sense of their workingenvironments (Fritz, 1997; Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Miller & Jablin, 1991)and provide a source of intrinsic reward for employees, increase job satisfaction, andreduce turnover (Kram & Isabella, 1985).

Given their importance, research has focused on understanding how workplacefriendships initiate and develop. These studies indicate two primary types of factorsaffect workplace friendship development—individual and contextual (Sias & Cahill,1998; Sias et al., 2003). Individual factors are those that derive from the individualpartners themselves and include personality and perceived similarity. Research con-sistently shows that individuals tend to seek ties with similar others and tend to formrelationships with people whose personality traits they like and admire (Sias & Cahill,1998; Sias et al., 2003).

Contextual factors derive from the contexts in which the friendship exists, includ-ing those internal and external to the organization (Sias & Cahill, 1998). Externalcontextual factors include significant life events, such as divorce, illness, and soforth, and socializing outside the workplace. Internal contextual factors refer toelements within the workplace such as physical proximity, shared tasks and projects,and work-related problems. Proximity refers to having workspaces (e.g., desks andstations) physically near one another. This creates opportunities to interact andlearn about coworkers as people beyond their specific role. Shared tasks and projectsrequire that people work together on specific tasks. Thus, coworkers are more likelyto become friends in organizations with more interactive potential, as opposedto those with individual or highly supervised operations (Hodson, 1996; Shah,1998). Work-related problems, such as issues with a supervisor, lead employeesto seek support from their coworkers, which contributes to closer relationships(Sias & Jablin, 1995).

Personal and contextual factors influence workplace friendships differently atdifferent stages of friendship development. Of particular relevance to this study, thefactors most important to the initiation of a workplace friendship are proximity,similarity, personality, shared tasks, and socializing (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias et al.,2003). These factors enhance friendship initiation because they provide opportunitiesfor employees to interact with one another (e.g., proximity, shared tasks, andsocializing), and such interaction enables employees to get to know one another’s



personalities, interests, and backgrounds (e.g., personality and similarity). In contrast,life events and work-related problems tend to be more important as workplacefriendships develop into close and very close friendships. These factors provideissues about which employees can communicate in a more intimate and openmanner, which requires the levels of trust enjoyed between close friends (Sias &Cahill, 1998).

To date, research has ignored the role of ICTs in workplace friendship processes.Given the increased communication media choices available to employees and theincrease in the number of individuals who accomplish their work from remotelocations (Rabby & Walther, 2003), such investigation is necessary to develop anunderstanding of workplace friendship initiation in the contemporary ‘‘electronicallyconnected’’ organization.

Developmental factors in friendship initiationQuan-Haase and Wellman (2004) coined the term ‘‘local virtualities’’ to refer tothe increased reliance of employees on computer-mediated communication andICTs. Their research indicates that employees rely heavily on such technologies tocommunicate with one another even when they are in the same physical location(Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004; Wellman, Quan-Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001).Thus, they simultaneously communicate virtually and locally.

The local virtualities concept suggests that the importance of various devel-opmental factors to friendship initiation has likely changed since earlier workthat examined these issues before the widespread proliferation of ICTs (e.g., Sias& Cahill, 1998). For example, a key precursor to workplace friendship initiationnoted above is physical proximity between individuals. In fact, past research foundproximity to be one of the most important factors to workplace friendship initi-ation (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias et al., 2003). Those studies, however, ignored thepotential role of technology in friendship dynamics. ICTs remove the necessityof physical proximity or direct face-to-face communication between employees(Fehr, 1996). As mentioned above, Quan-Haase and Wellman (2004) found thatemployees rely heavily on ICTs even when they worked in the same physicallocation. In addition, Mok, Wellman, and Carrasco (2010) found that people usee-mail and telephone similarly to communicate with friends and relatives regardlessof distance; however, the use of face-to-face interaction was linked to distancesbetween the interaction partners of 5 miles or less. Moreover, work practices suchas telecommuting, flextime and virtual offices alter people’s perceptions of timeand space. Synchronous communication, when individuals can receive immediateresponse no matter the distance, results in technological, spatial, and temporalsimultaneity (Paragas, 2009). Mobile technologies compress time to such an extentthat every ‘‘dead’’ moment (e.g., on the road) can be filled with communication(Arminen, 2009). According to Arminen, ‘‘mobile communication is reshapingperson-to-person communication: there will be more contacts, shorter exchanges,and new multi-modal, real-time communicative practices’’ (p. 102). Taken together,



the above suggest that physical proximity may be less important to the initiationof friendships among employees who have access to multiple mediated forms ofcommunication.

ICTs lack the richness (e.g., speed of feedback, formality, and structure) thatcharacterizes face-to-face communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Rice, Chang, &Torobin, 1992). In addition, social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie,1976) argues that mediated communication also lacks social presence (e.g., socia-bility, warmth, personalness, and sensitivity). This suggests that ICTs may impedeemployees’ abilities to learn more about each other’s background and personality.Others, however, note that ICTs vary in the extent to which they enable or hindersocial presence (Walther, 1996). Group decision software systems, for example, tendto foster impersonal interaction, while others such as e-mail and chat rooms canactually enable ‘‘hyperpersonal’’ communication or interaction that surpasses ‘‘thelevel of affection and emotion of parallel FtF [face-to-face] interaction’’ (Walther,1996, p. 17). This is due to a variety of factors, including the fact that individuals oftenfind it easier to manage their impressions (Godwin, 1994) and focus on messagesrather than physical and other contextual aspects of the communication situation(Daly, Weber, Vangelisti, Maxwell, & Neel, 1989) using ICTs than using face-to-faceinteraction. At the same time, the weight of personal acquaintance may be decreasingin an era in which social networking systems, such as MySpace or Facebook, enableindividuals to have a few hundred ‘‘friends’’ and all we need ‘‘to friend’’ someoneis click ‘‘accept.’’ Accordingly, we expect personal factors such as personality andsimilarity to be less important for friendship initiation for employees with access tomultiple forms of mediated communication.

ICTs do, however, enable and often enhance employees’ abilities to worktogether (Fonner & Roloff, 2010). Employees who work on shared tasks andprojects must communicate with one another to do so. Communication meth-ods that enable contact and information exchange likely enhance shared taskaccomplishment. ICTs have been shown to enable quality information exchangeamong telecommuting coworkers (Fonner & Roloff, 2010). Thus, shared taskslikely remain important to friendship initiation among employees. Accordingly, wepropose,

H1: Employees will perceive shared tasks as more important to workplace friendshipinitiation than physical proximity, personality, and perceived similarity.

Telecommuting and workplace friendship initiationAmong the many outcomes of the increased use of ICTs in organizations is telework.Telework refers to ‘‘an arrangement between employers and employees in whichemployees work part- or full-time from alternate locations, such as their homesor telework centers’’ (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, p. 1).Employees in such arrangements are called telecommuters (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton,2006). ICTs enable employees to work at a distance and accomplish tasks, includingthose that require communicating with other employees and customers/clients, from



various physical locations. Not surprisingly, as ICTs have become more widespread,so has telecommuting. Recent research indicates employees in North Americanorganizations spend an average of 20% of their time on the job doing telework(Forrester Research, 2009).

Proximity is difficult, if not impossible, for employees who telecommute part-or full-time. Increased time spent offsite means less time in the physical proximityof coworkers. Given the social presence afforded by face-to-face interaction, it isalso likely that the more time an employee spends working offsite, the less theyare able to learn about and enjoy their coworkers’ personality and backgrounds. Asnoted above, however, ICTs enable employees to work together on shared tasks andprojects. Shared tasks may, therefore, be more important for friendship initiationas employees’ time working offsite increases. Accordingly, we propose the followinghypothesis:

H2: The amount of time employees spend telecommuting will be negatively associatedwith the importance of physical proximity, personality, and similarity and positivelyrelated to the importance of shared tasks to the initiation of their workplacefriendships.

Communication and workplace friendshipThe above hypotheses address links between ICTs and workplace friendship ini-tiation, suggesting ways in which access to ICTs may influence the importanceof contextual and personal factors to relationship initiation. In addition to theconcept of local virtualities, we ground our study in social construction theory(Allen, 2005; Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Specifically, we conceptualize workplacefriendships as socially constructed entities, constituted and maintained in interaction(Sias, 2009; Sigman, 1995). Communication is, therefore, crucial to the initiation,development, and maintenance of workplace friendships, because communicationconstitutes the relationship itself. In the following sections, we develop a set ofhypotheses addressing the communication practices of coworkers once they haveinitiated a friendship and as they work to maintain that friendship. Specifically, weaddress the frequency with which they communicate using various methods, theperceived quality of their communication with one another using various methods,and the importance of different communication methods to the maintenance of theirfriendships.

Communication frequencyEmployees generally have a variety of media from which to choose to communicatewith their coworkers and much research has identified factors that influence anindividual’s media choice. Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), for example,posits that people will choose ‘‘rich’’ media (i.e., those that provide multiplecues and enable instant feedback such as face-to-face conversation) in situationsinvolving complex or equivocal messages and ‘‘lean’’ media (i.e., those that providelimited cues and do not enable quick feedback such as written documents) in



situations involving simple, unequivocal messages. Others note that individualcharacteristics (e.g., organizational level and communicator style) influence mediachoice (e.g., Norton, 1983; Trevino, Lengel, Gerloff, & Muir, 1990). Social influencemodels, on the other hand, suggest people choose communication media basedon what they hear others say about it (Fulk, 1993). As Fulk found, for example,employees’ use of technology was influenced primarily by what their coworkers saidabout the technology, not by the technology itself.

Another factor, however, may be the opportunities (or lack of opportunities) toengage in various types of communication. Employees who spend much or all theirtime telecommuting, for example, likely communicate more frequently using text,e-mail, and other forms of ICTs than do onsite employees, not necessarily becausethey choose to, but because other physically copresent methods are less available tothem. Thus,

H3: The more time employees spend telecommuting, the less frequently they useface-to-face interaction to communicate with their workplace friends and the morefrequently they will use ICT modes of communication.

Communication quality

Because relationships are socially constructed, communication quality is closely tiedto relationship quality (Emmers-Sommer, 2004; Keeley & Hart, 1994)—the higherthe quality of communication between relationship partners, the higher the quality ofthe relationship. We know little, however, about the extent to which a communicationmedium enables quality interaction. In general, interpersonal scholars conceptualizequality communication to be smooth, relaxed, positive, intimate, and open (Duck,Rutt, Hurst, & Strejc, 1991; Montgomery, 1998). Montgomery provided the mostcomprehensive conceptual definition of communication quality in the context ofinterpersonal relationships. She conceptualized quality communication betweenrelationship partners as positive (e.g., supportive, cheerful, and agreeable), intimate(e.g., the partners disclose information about themselves to one another), and incontrol (e.g., the partners are able to produce coherent conversations and developshared meaning).

Communication methods likely vary in the extent to which they enable qualitycommunication. Face-to-face interaction, for example, enables intimate commu-nication via rich verbal and nonverbal cues and immediate feedback that enablescoherent conversations and shared meaning, and thus, a positive experience. Intimateself-disclosure may be more difficult to accomplish via text messages, social networks,or written documents. Additionally, the asynchronous nature of those media mayinterfere with conversational coherence. As Fonner and Roloff (2010) found, how-ever, employees who communicate primarily via ICTs perceive their informationexchange to be as high in quality as do onsite employees, indicating that ICTscan enable quality communication. To address the extent to which communicationmedia enable or hinder quality communication and the extent to which perceptions



of communication are associated with telecommuting, we examined the followingresearch questions:

RQ1: What is the relative perceived quality of communication between workplace friendsusing different communication methods?

RQ2: How is the amount of time spent telecommuting associated with the perceivedquality of communication between workplace friends using different communicationmethods?

ICTs and workplace friendship maintenanceOnce a friendship begins, the partners communicate with each other in ways thatfurther develop the relationship, accomplish distancing from the relationship, ormaintain the relationship at a desired level. Because relationships are central ele-ments in organizational processes, relationship maintenance is important for stableorganizational functioning (Sias, Gallagher, Kopaneva, & Pedersen, 2012). Friendshipinitiation is an identifiable short-lived phase of a relationship’s trajectory (e.g., thefirst meeting and the first few conversations). In contrast, relationship maintenanceis an ongoing accomplishment that lasts as long as the relationship itself.

Relationship maintenance has been conceptualized in a variety of ways, includingkeeping the relationship in a ‘‘satisfactory condition’’ (Dindia, 2003, p. 3). Thisconceptualization refers to a general concern for maintaining the relationship, butnot specific concerns that are responsive to actions by the partner (e.g., concerns thatthe partner wants the relationship to grow closer or more distant), in other words,routine relationship maintenance situations (Lee, 1998).

Again, because workplace friendships are socially constructed entities, their main-tenance is accomplished communicatively. Along these lines, studies indicate thatroutine relationship maintenance is accomplished via consistent, regular interactionthat shows positive regard for the other (e.g., Dainton, 2007; Lee, 1998). This suggeststhat ICTs can both enable and hinder workplace friendship maintenance. ICTssuch as telephone, e-mail, texting, and social networking provide opportunities forcoworkers to interact frequently and regularly, regardless of whether they work inphysical proximity or at a distance. Along these lines, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe(2007) found that students’ use of the social networking site, Facebook, helped themmaintain their social relationships. On the other hand, as noted earlier, such tech-nologies vary in the extent to which they provide the level of social presence requiredto express the positive regard and affection required for interpersonal relationshipmaintenance. Ledbetter (2010), for example, found that face-to-face interaction wasmore influential in (nonwork) interpersonal friendship maintenance than was onlinecommunication, concluding that ‘‘. . .online maintenance (more globally, i.e., themedium-oriented construct) does not substitute or compensate for lack of accessto face-to-face contact’’ (p. 950). Thus, although ICTs enable quality informationexchange (Fonner & Roloff, 2010), that exchange does not necessarily enhanceaffiliative goals. Other communication methods such as face-to-face interaction and



telephone may, therefore, be more important for relationship maintenance. Foremployees who telecommute all or much of the time, however, ICTs will likelybe very important to relational maintenance because of the lack of opportunitiesto interact face-to-face. To address these possibilities, we examined the followingresearch questions:

RQ3: What is the relative importance of different communication methods formaintaining workplace friendships?

RQ4: How is telecommuting associated with the relative importance of differentcommunication methods for workplace friendship maintenance?

ICTs, age, and workplace friendship communicationThe preceding section set forth a number of hypotheses and research questionsregarding ICTs and workplace friendship. Along with the increasing array of com-munication media available to employees, the U.S. workplace has changed in anotherimportant way. Specifically, scholars and practitioners note the multigenerationalnature of today’s workplace. As employees increasingly delay retirement, organi-zations increasingly comprise workers representing different age cohorts (Buckley,Beu, Novicevic, & Sigerstad, 2001; D’Aprix, 2010). The workplace now includesemployees from age cohorts as varied as millenials and generation X—generallyconsidered to be under the age of 40—along with older cohorts labeled young or‘‘echo’’ baby boomers, older baby boomers, and the ‘‘silent,’’ ‘‘greatest,’’ or ‘‘GI’’generation (Carlson, 2008; New Politics Institute, 2008). Consequently, employeesare increasingly working and interacting with coworkers from different generationalcohorts.

Research indicates generational differences with respect to the use of some ICTs,particularly those enabled by the Internet. According to the most recent Pew survey,people from generations ranging from 18 to 74 years of age use e-mail with similarfrequency. However, those from younger generations such as ‘‘millenials’’ and ‘‘genX’’ are more likely to use social networking and instant messaging than are olderemployees (Pew Research Center, 2010). Another recent survey examined technologyuse in the workplace setting and found similar patterns (WorldOne Research, 2009).Specifically, its results indicated that respondents from younger generational cohorts(i.e., millenials and generation X) use Internet media such as bulletin boards,multimedia sharing, and social networking more frequently than people from oldergenerations. The cohorts did not differ, however, in their use of other communicationmethods such as face-to-face, e-mail, and phones.

This suggests that perhaps individuals from different generations experiencecommunication technologies differently. With respect to the current study, thefindings mentioned above indicate that older people may not experience socialpresence or hyperpersonal communication via Internet-based communication asmuch as the younger cohort. Because of the importance of social presence tofriendship communication, it is likely that older and younger employees use different



methods to communicate with their friends. It is important to note, however, thatthese studies examined technology use generally and did not specify with whomthe respondent was communicating via the various methods. Employees may usecommunication media differently with different people for different reasons. Forexample, one might be less likely, regardless of age, to communicate with a supervisorvia social networking than with a friend. In addition, they only examined thefrequency of use, not the perceived quality and importance of interaction via thevarious methods. Accordingly, we examined the following research question in lieuof specific hypotheses:

RQ5: How is employee age associated with the use, perceived quality, and importance toworkplace friendship maintenance of different communication methods?

Method

SampleWe distributed an online survey to 274 adults employed full-time at a variety oforganizations. Participants were recruited by students in a large undergraduate classat a midsized public university in the United States. After securing permissionfrom participants, the students provided participants’ e-mail addresses to the seniorresearcher who contacted participants directly, confirmed their willingness to par-ticipate, and forwarded them the survey link via e-mail. Students received extraclass credit for recruitment. Of the 274 participants contacted, 145 completed thesurvey. After discarding five surveys that were either substantially incomplete ornoticeably biased (e.g., answering ‘‘3’’ for every item), the final sample consisted of140 respondents, for a final response rate of 51%. In total, 52 (37%) participantswere male and 77 (55%) were female. Eleven respondents did not report their sex.With respect to the sex composition of the referent friendship dyads, 66 (44%) werefemale–female, 38 (27%) were male–male, and 22 (16%) were male–female. A totalof 5 employees (3%) were 18–21 years old, 16 (11%) were 22–25 years old, 12 (9%)were 26–30 years old, 7 (5%) were 31–40 years old, 45 (32%) were between 41 and50 years old, 42 (30%) were 51–60 years old, and 9 (6%) were over the age of 60.Four participants declined to report their age. Most participants were Caucasian(84%) and had worked at their current organization for an average of 9 years (range1 month to 41 years). They reported that at the time of the survey, they had knowntheir referent coworker/friend an average of 7 years (range 1 month to 35 years). Thesample represented a wide variety of occupations and industries, including schoolsuperintendent, bookkeeper, probation officer, speech therapist, real estate broker,loan officer, teacher, lawyer, restaurant server, and engineer, to name a few.

MeasuresCommunication frequency, quality, and importanceParticipants reported the frequency with which they communicate with their coworkerusing eight different methods, including telephone, e-mail, texting, face-to-face



conversation, paper documents, teleconferencing/videoconferencing/Skype, socialnetworking (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter), and instant mes-saging, using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 indicated never and 7 indicatedvery often.

We assessed the importance of the communication methods to the routinemaintenance of coworker friendship by asking respondents ‘‘How important doyou think each of the following communication methods are to maintaining yourfriendship with this coworker?’’ For each method, respondents used a 7-pointLikert-type scale where 1 indicated extremely unimportant and 7 indicated extremelyimportant.

We used Emmers-Sommer’s (2004) instrument to assess the communicationquality of each of the above-listed communication methods. Specifically, partic-ipants rated each method on a series of five 9-point semantic differential scalesthat included the following dimensions: in-depth–superficial, free of commu-nication breakdowns–laden with communication breakdowns, relaxed–strained,personal–impersonal, and free of conflict–laden with conflict. The prompt for thissection read, ‘‘Please indicate your feelings about typical communication with yourcoworker/friend using various communication methods by checking a box on eachline for each of the five dimensions provided.’’ A series of principal componentsanalyses of these items (a separate analysis for each medium) indicated that the eightitems for each medium represented a single dimension. Thus, we created commu-nication quality scores for each method by averaging the scores on the eight items.Alpha coefficients for the resulting communication quality scales ranged from .75 to.86, indicating that the scales were reliable.

Telecommuting statusAs noted earlier, few employees telecommute 100% of the time and most employeestend to engage in telecommuting at various degrees (Forrester Research, 2009).To assess the amount of time respondents telecommuted for their jobs, we askedparticipants to: ‘‘Please estimate the percentage (0%–100%) of your total work timeper month that you conduct your work from an offsite location.’’ Respondentsreported they spent, on average, 20% of their work time working from an offsitelocation (range = 0–100%). This is consistent with recent estimates that employeesin North American organizations spend an average of 20% of their time telecom-muting (Forrester Research, 2009); thus, the sample is representative of the relevantpopulation.

Friendship developmental factorsSias et al.’s (2003) 28-item instrument was used to assess the importance of variousdevelopmental factors for the initiation of participants’ workplace friendship. Theprompt read, ‘‘The following are factors which may contribute to friendship initiation.Please think back to the time during which your relationship with this coworkerturned into a friendship. Please rate the extent to which each factor was important in



causing you and your coworker to go from being acquaintances/coworkers to being‘friends’.’’ Participants rated the items on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicatingextremely unimportant and 7 indicating extremely important.

To assess the validity of the Sias et al. (2003) instrument, we first tested the items inan exploratory factor analytic framework using the maximum likelihood estimationprocedure included in the Mplus statistical software package. The appropriate numberof factors was established by examining the Eigenvalues and global fit statistics, toinclude chi-square, confirmatory fit index (CFI), standardized root mean squareresidual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Thespecific parameter estimates were also examined, in addition to the overall modelfit, to verify which items loaded onto which factors. The initial exploratory factoranalysis revealed one item representing shared tasks that performed poorly and wasremoved before further analysis. In addition, the items representing life events andwork problems did not clearly load onto separate factors, but grouped together asone factor. Thus, we combined these two elements of friendship development intoa single factor called work/life events for the remainder of the analyses. The resultingsix-factor solution provided a good global fit: χ2 (225, N = 140) = 371.92, p = .00,CFI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.069, SRMR = 0.043.

We then used a maximum likelihood estimation procedure to empirically testthe six-factor model in a confirmatory factor analytic framework. The standardizedloadings of the items onto their corresponding factors were generally high, indicatingsupport for the empirically derived model. The global fit of the model, however,was lower than ideal, indicating a substantial difference between the hypothesizedmodel and the actual data, χ2 (303, N = 140) = 444.23, p < .00, CFI = 0.893,RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = 0.074.

We made two modifications to the model to establish a better overall fit to thedata. The combined EFA factor representing work/life events comprised eight items.We dropped two items with weak loadings to trim the factor and make it moresimilar to the other factors with respect to the number of items per factor. We alsodecided to allow a correlated error between the items work problems 1 and workproblems 2, based on the modification indices produced by Mplus. These two itemsare very similar, thus the modification represents an acceptable change to the model.The final CFA model provided a good fit to the data, χ2 (236, N = 140) = 335.67,p < .00, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.075. Although a nonsignificantchi-square is ideal, the statistic is sensitive to sample size. Consequently, the other fitstatistics are more accurate for assessing model fit. The final solution comprised fivefactors. Table 1 provides the factor loadings.

Factor 1, shared tasks, contained three items (α = .76). Factor 2 contained fouritems representing extra organizational socializing (α = .93). Factor 3 comprised fouritems representing personality (α = .81). Four items made up Factor 4, which repre-sented perceived similarity (α = .81). As noted above, the final factor, work/life events,comprised six items representing work-related problems and life events (α = .81)

Table 2 provides the means, standard deviations, and score ranges for all variables.



Table 1 Developmental Factor Item Loadings

Item SocializingWork/Life

Events Personality SimilaritySharedTasks

Spending time together afterwork or on weekends

0.82∗ 0.07 0.07 0.12 −0.15

Socializing after work 0.91∗ 0.04 −0.02 0.18 0.05Spent time together outside the

workplace0.92∗ −0.01 0.01 0.21 0.05

Started going out away fromwork

0.82∗ −0.01 0.05 0.18 −0.11

Problems with a boss orcoworker(s)

−0.18 0.78∗ −0.03 −0.16 0.08

Office politics/problems −0.09 0.74∗ 0.03 0.13 −0.04Work-related problems −0.05 0.72∗ −0.02 −0.04 0.12Personal problems/issues 0.16 0.41∗ 0.08 0.10 0.14Important changes in our

personal lives0.22 0.62∗ 0.27 0.04 0.17

Events in our personal lives 0.17 0.59∗ 0.15 0.14 0.18Enjoying his/her personality 0.01 −0.01 0.83∗ 0.08 0.06She/he is a nice person −0.09 0.10 0.81∗ 0.21 0.18I liked him/her −0.02 0.13 0.62∗ 0.10 −0.02Attraction to his/her

personality0.24 0.05 0.58∗ 0.26 0.05

Share similar values andinterests

0.21 −0.05 0.35 0.66∗ −0.02

Share similar values/attitudes 0.07 0.11 0.53 0.45∗ 0.13Having a lot in common 0.31 0.09 0.28 0.76∗ −0.02S/he is a lot like me 0.37 0.13 0.19 0.61∗ −0.04Working together on a

project(s)0.02 0.02 0.10 −0.02 0.72∗

Sharing tasks −0.06 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.75∗

Helping each other with tasks −0.01 0.26 0.13 −0.04 0.69∗

∗Loaded on this factor.

Results

H1 predicted that employees would perceive shared tasks as more important to theinitiation of their workplace friendships than proximity, personality, and similarity.A series of paired t-tests were used to test H1. A Bonferroni adjustment was usedto correct for the number of planned pairs tested (n = 3), resulting in a requiredp-value of at least .02. Results of paired t-tests provided partial support for thishypothesis. As expected, respondents perceived shared tasks (M = 5.01; SD = 1.02)as more important to friendship initiation than physical proximity (M = 4.26,SD = 1.25), t(139) = 6.85, p < .01, d = 0.61. Contrary to expectations, however,



Table 2 Means, Range, and Standard Deviations

Variable Mean Range SD

Communication method frequencyFrequency—face-to-face 4.27 1–5 0.76Frequency—phone 3.20 1–5.0 0.99Frequency—e-mail 3.39 1–5 1.12Frequency—text 2.86 1–5 1.36Frequency—teleconference 1.43 1–5 0.92Frequency—social networking 1.95 1–5 1.23Frequency—instant messaging 1.75 1–5 1.19Frequency—paper documents 1.86 1–5 0.97Communication method—qualityQuality—face-to-face 7.93 3.2–9 1.21Quality—phone 7.24 2.4–9 1.38Quality—e-mail 6.26 1–9 1.43Quality—text 5.95 1.4–9 1.70Quality—teleconference 4.89 1–8.2 1.81Quality—social networking 4.61 1–9 1.89Quality—instant messaging 4.74 1–9 1.91Quality—paper documents 4.77 1–9 1.61Communication method—importanceImportance—face-to-face 6.22 1–7 1.23Importance—phone 4.93 1–7 1.44Importance—e-mail 4.7 1–7 1.40Importance—text 3.8 1–7 1.86Importance—teleconference 2.58 1–7 1.70Importance—social networking 2.84 1–7 1.67Importance—instant messaging 2.87 1–7 1.75Importance—paper documents 3.02 1–7 1.67Developmental factors—importance to friendship initiationPersonality 5.83 2.25–7 0.79Similarity 5.23 2.0–6.75 0.87Shared tasks 5.01 1.67–7.0 1.02Extra-org socializing 4.52 1–6.75 1.4Events 4.49 1–6.67 0.87Proximity 4.26 1–7 1.25

respondents perceived shared tasks as significantly less important than personality(M = 5.83, SD = 0.79), t(139) = −8.03, p < .01, d = −0.70. In addition, althoughnot statistically significant, respondents also perceived shared tasks as less importantthan similarity (M = 5.23, SD = 0.87), t(139) = −2.0, p < .05, d = −0.18. A seriesof post hoc, paired t-tests also indicated that personality was perceived as moreimportant than similarity, t(139) = 8.60, p < .01, d = 0.77, and proximity, t(139) =13.49, p < .01, d = 0.78, and similarity was significantly more important than



proximity, t(139) = 7.94, p < .01, d = 0.72. In sum, personality was perceived as themost important factor to workplace friendship development, followed by similarityand shared tasks. Physical proximity was the least important factor.

H2 predicted that the amount of time employees spend telecommuting wouldbe negatively related to the importance of physical proximity, personality, similarity,and socializing and positively related to the importance of shared tasks to theinitiation of their workplace friendships. Results of regression analyses indicatedpartial support for H2. As predicted, telecommuting was negatively associatedwith the importance of personality to workplace friendship initiation, b = −0.23,t(138) = −2.55, p < .02, R2 = .05, and positively related to the importance of sharedtasks, b = 0.18, t(138) = 2.03, p < .05, R2 = .02. The remaining developmentalfactors did not enter the equation at a significant level.

H3 predicted that the amount of time spent telecommuting would be negativelyrelated to the frequency of using face-to-face interaction and positively relatedto the frequency of using ICT methods to communicate with their workplacefriends. Results of regression analyses provided partial support for this hypothesis.As expected, telecommuting was negatively related to using face-to-face interaction,b = −0.20, t(138) = −2.41, p < .02, R2 = .04, and positively related to using paperdocuments, b = 0.21, t(138) = 2.50, p < .02, R2 = .07, and teleconferencing b =0.21, t(138) = 2.43, p < .02, R2 = .04. The remaining communication methods didnot enter the model at a significant level.

RQ1 asked about the perceived quality of communication between workplacefriends using different communication methods. Table 3 presents the mean qualityscores for the communication methods. Respondents perceived face-to-face interac-tion as the highest quality form of communication, followed by telephone, e-mail,texting, paper documents, teleconferencing, instant messaging, and social network-ing, in that order. A series of paired t-tests were computed to examine differencesbetween the perceived quality scores (Table 3). Because of the large number of pairstested, a Bonferroni adjustment resulted in a required p-value of .0001. Results indi-cated that all the methods differed significantly from each other at p = .0001, withthe exception of teleconferencing and social networking, teleconferencing and paperdocuments, teleconferencing and instant messaging, social networking and instantmessaging, social networking and paper documents, paper documents and instantmessaging, and e-mail and texting.

RQ2 asked how the amount of time telecommuting is related to the perceivedquality of communication via the various methods. Regression analysis indicated thattelecommuting was negatively related to the quality of both social networking, b =−0.28, t(138) = −2.63, p < .01, R2 = .07, and face-to-face interaction, b = −0.22,t(138) = −2.04, p < .05, R2 = .05. The remaining methods did not enter the modelat a significant level.

RQ3 sought information about the importance of different communication meth-ods for maintaining workplace friendships. As seen in Table 3, respondents perceivedface-to-face interaction as most important to workplace friendship maintenance,



Table 3 Paired t-Test Results for Communication Frequency, Quality, and Importance

Comm. Method—Mean Compared to—Mean t-Value Cohen’s d p-Value

Frequency of useFace-to-face interaction—4.27 Telephone—3.20 9.29∗ 0.80 .000

E-mail—3.39 7.47∗ 0.67 .000Texting—2.86 11.25∗ 1.45 .000Teleconference—1.43 27.66∗ 2.33 .000Social networking—1.95 20.03∗ 1.73 .000Instant message—1.75 21.26∗ 1.84 .000Paper docs.—1.86 21.81∗ 2.05 .000

Telephone—3.20 E-mail—3.39 −1.80 −0.15 .074Texting—2.86 2.93∗ 0.24 .004Teleconference—1.43 17.90∗ 1.55 .000Soc. network—1.95 11.30∗ 0.97 .000Instant message—1.75 11.45∗ 0.98 .000Paper docs.—1.86 11.90∗ 1.05 .000

E-mail—3.39 Texting—2.86 3.40∗ 0.30 .001Teleconference—1.43 18.89∗ 1.67 .000Soc. network—1.95 10.69∗ 0.92 .000Instant message—1.75 13.58∗ 1.17 .000Paper docs.—1.86 13.65∗ 1.22 .000

Texting—2.86 Teleconference—1.43 10.60∗ 0.94 .000Soc. network—1.95 8.45∗ 0.73 .000Instant message—1.75 8.68∗ 0.72 .000Paper docs.—1.86 6.19∗ 0.69 .000

Teleconference—1.43 Soc. network—1.95 −4.90∗ −0.44 .000Instant message—1.75 −3.33∗ −0.29 .001Paper docs.—1.86 −4.06∗ −0.37 .000

Social networking—1.95 Instant message—1.75 1.78 0.15 .079Paper docs.—1.86 0.65 0.06 .517

Instant messaging—1.75 Paper docs.—1.86 0.83 −0.08 .408Communication qualityFace-to-face interaction—7.93 Telephone—7.24 6.23∗ 0.60 .000


Telephone—7.24 E-mail—6.26 7.86∗ 0.68 .000Texting—5.95 7.70∗ 0.71 .000Teleconference—4.90 10.80∗ 1.10 .000Soc. network—4.61 11.62∗ 1.17 .000Instant message—4.74 10.38∗ 1.10 .000Paper docs.—4.77 12.45∗ 1.28 .000



Table 3 Continued

Comm. Method—Mean Compared to—Mean t-Value Cohen’s d p-Value

E-mail—6.26 Texting—5.95 1.28 0.17 .202Teleconference—4.90 6.45∗ 0.73 .000Soc. network—4.61 8.07∗ 0.89 .000Instant message—4.74 7.90∗ 0.85 .000Paper docs.—4.77 8.66∗ 0.94 .000


Teleconference—4.90 Soc. network—4.61 2.41 0.25 .018Instant message—4.74 1.50 0.09 .136Paper docs.—4.77 1.27 0.09 .208

Social networking—4.61 Instant message—4.74 −0.73 −0.10 .471Paper docs.—4.77 −0.82 −0.12 .413

Instant messaging—4.74 Paper docs.—4.77 −0.39 −0.10 .695Importance to friendship maintenanceFace-to-face interaction—6.22 Telephone—4.93 9.61∗ 0.82 .000


Telephone—4.93 E-mail—4.70 1.72 0.15 .088Texting—3.80 6.42∗ 0.56 .000Teleconference—2.58 13.23∗ 1.16 .000Soc. network—2.84 11.74∗ 1.00 .000Instant message—2.87 10.71∗ 0.98 .000Paper docs.—3.02 11.87∗ 1.01 .000

E-mail—4.70 Texting—3.80 4.73∗ 0.41 .000Teleconference—2.58 12.54∗ 1.12 .000Soc. network—2.84 10.79∗ 0.89 .000Instant message—2.87 9.75∗ 0.92 .000Paper docs.—3.02 10.26∗ 0.92 .000


Teleconference—2.58 Soc. network—2.84 −1.44 −0.15 .153Instant message—2.87 −1.49 −0.05 .139Paper docs.—3.02 −3.07∗ −0.26 .003

Social networking—2.84 Instant message—2.87 −1.04 −0.02 .176Paper docs.—3.02 −0.58 −0.08 .501

Instant messaging—2.87 Paper docs.—3.02 −0.97 −0.07 .423

∗p < .0001.



followed by telephone, e-mail, texting, paper documents, instant messaging, socialnetworking, and teleconferencing, in that order. A series of paired t-tests were com-puted to examine differences between the perceived importance scores (Table 3).Because of the large number of pairs tested, a Bonferroni adjustment resulted ina required p-value of .0001. Results indicated that all the media differed signifi-cantly from each other at p = .0001, with the exception of e-mail and telephone,teleconferencing and instant messaging, teleconferencing and social networking,teleconferencing and paper documents, paper documents and instant messaging,and paper documents and social networking. In sum, face-to-face interaction wasperceived as the most important form of communication for workplace friendshipmaintenance, telephone, e-mail and texting were the next most important, andteleconferencing, social networking, instant messaging, and paper documents weresignificantly less important.

RQ4 asked how telecommuting is associated with the importance of differentcommunication methods for routine workplace friendship maintenance. Regres-sion analysis indicated that telecommuting was positively related to the perceivedimportance of teleconferencing to friendship maintenance, b = .24, t(138) = 2.62,p < .01, R2 = .06. The remaining communication methods did not enter the modelat a significant level.

RQ5 sought information regarding generational use and perceptions of thevarious communication methods. We created a dummy variable to examine thisquestion by splitting the sample into two groups—those older than 40 years of(N = 96) and those 40 or younger (N = 40). We then computed a series of t-testsfor difference in means to examine the research question. A Bonferroni adjustmentfor each set of tests (N = 8 per set) resulted in a required p-value of <.01. Table 4presents the means for both age groups.

Results indicate that respondents from the younger cohort used social networking,t(139) = 7.28, p < .01, d = 1.37, instant messaging, t(139) = 3.03, p < .01, d =0.57, texting, t(139) = 4.85, p < .01, d = 0.91, and face-to-face interaction, t(139) =2.78, p < .01, d = 0.52, more frequently to communicate with their workplace friendsthan did respondents from the older cohort. Younger employees also perceivedcommunication with friends via social networking, t(139) = 3.51, p < .01, d = 0.66,instant messaging, t(139) = 2.47, p < .01, d = 0.47, and texting, t(139) = 2.93,p < .01, d = 0.55, to be of higher quality than did older employees. Finally, employeesfrom the younger generations perceived communicating with friends via texting,t(139) = 3.66, p < .01, d = 0.69, and social networking, t(139) = 4.44, p < .01,d = 0.84, as more important for maintaining their workplace friendships than didolder employees.

Discussion

Communicating via ICTs and the telecommuting such technologies enable haveincreased dramatically over the past decade. These changes have substantially altered



Table 4 Generational Communication Method Preferences

Comm. Method Over 40 40 and Younger

Frequency of useFace-to-face∗ 4.15 4.54Telephone 3.14 3.38E-mail 3.46 3.25Texting∗ 2.53 3.68Social networking∗ 1.54 2.98Instant message∗ 1.56 2.23Teleconferencing 1.34 1.68Paper documents 1.96 1.62Perceived qualityFace-to-face 7.98 7.77Telephone 7.28 7.09E-mail 6.30 6.22Texting∗ 5.65 6.62Social networking∗ 4.19 5.51Instant message∗ 4.41 5.38Teleconference 4.72 5.23Paper documents 4.58 5.15Importance to friendship maintenanceFace-to-face 6.17 6.35Telephone 4.83 5.10E-mail 4.78 4.54Texting∗ 3.44 4.67Social networking∗ 2.46 3.78Instant message 2.78 3.08Paper documents 3.15 2.73

∗Statistically significant difference in means at p < .01.

how people communicate with one another, both in their personal and occupationalspheres (Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Rabby & Walther, 2003). This study contributes tothe body of knowledge regarding communication and relationships among workplacefriends by examining the links between ICTs and workplace friendship dynamics.Results have important implications for theory and practice.

Theoretical implicationsICTs and friendship initiationResults regarding ICTs and workplace friendship initiation demonstrate both consis-tencies and differences with past work. Consistent with past research (Sias & Cahill,1998), respondents reported that personality, similarity, and shared tasks remaincentral to the initiation of friendships with coworkers. Although we expected theinfluence of personality and similarity to be mitigated by the lack of social presence



ICTs afford, these factors retained their important roles in workplace friendshipinitiation. Consistent with research suggesting certain ICTs can enable personal,even hyperpersonal, communication (Walther, 1996), the employees in the currentstudy appeared to be able to glean insights into their coworkers’ personalities andbackgrounds sufficient for friendship initiation via many communication methods.However, results also indicated that the more time employees spent telecommuting,the less important personality was to their workplace friendship initiation, suggestingthat the lack of social presence does somewhat hinder employees’ abilities to learnabout one another’s personalities or perhaps renders personality less important.

Also consistent with prior work (Sias & Cahill, 1998), we found that opportunitiesto work together on shared tasks remain an important catalyst for coworker friendshipinitiation. Results further indicate that the more time employees spend telecommut-ing, the more important shared tasks were to friendship initiation, suggesting thatthis factor is particularly important for employees who telecommute.

In contrast, past research highlighted the importance of physical proximity to theinitiation of workplace friendships (Sias & Cahill, 1998; Sias et al., 2003). However,our respondents reported that physical proximity was the least important factorin the initiation of their friendships. In fact, proximity was even less importantthan work/life events, which traditionally play their greatest role in later stages ofrelational development (Sias & Cahill, 1998). Moreover, contrary to expectations,the importance of proximity was unrelated to telecommuting. Thus, employeesreported proximity as the least important factor to their workplace friendshipinitiation regardless of the amount of time they spent working offsite. Theseresults are consistent with the local virtualities concept identified in prior work(Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004) and demonstrate that the importance of physicalproximity to workplace friendship is diminishing in the electronically connectedworkplace.

In sum, this study indicates that personality, shared tasks, and similarity are themost important factors to coworker friendship initiation in today’s electronicallyconnected workplace. Shared tasks become particularly important, and personalityless important, as employees spend more time telecommuting.

Technology and coworker communicationResults regarding frequency of use, quality, and importance of the communicationmethods indicate a clear hierarchy across the board. Face-to-face interaction remainsthe primary communication method for workplace friends. Respondents reportedusing that method most frequently, that it enables the highest quality communication,and is the most important form of communication for maintaining a workplacefriendship. Thus, despite the increased variety of choices available, face-to-faceinteraction was still the most used and the most valuable for workplace friends.Consistent with Wellman et al. (2001) and Ledbetter (2010), our results indicatethat ICTs do not substitute for, but rather supplement, face-to-face interaction withrespect to friendship communication and maintenance.



After face-to-face interaction, respondents showed a clear preference for tele-phone, e-mail, and texting. These communication methods were used with similarfrequency and perceived as generally similar in quality and importance. Theseresults indicate that telephone, e-mail, and texting have become central to coworkercommunication.

Next, and lowest, in the communication method hierarchy were teleconferenc-ing, social networking, instant messaging, and paper documents. These methodsconsistently grouped together and received the lowest ratings with respect to fre-quency of use, quality of communication, and importance to workplace friendshipmaintenance. These results indicate that, for our respondents, these forms of com-munication generally played a tangential, rather than central, role in coworkercommunication and friendship maintenance. These results are also consistent withresearch examining nonworkplace relationships, which suggests that with respectto relationship maintenance, ICTs supplement, rather than replace, face-to-faceconversation (Rabby & Walther, 2003; Wellman et al., 2001).

The time employees spend telecommuting matters, however. As expected, themore an employee telecommuted, the less frequently they communicated withtheir friend using face-to-face interaction. Time spent telecommuting did not pre-dict communication method quality or importance, however. Thus, telecommutingemployees appeared to use face-to-face interaction less frequently by necessity, notchoice. Time spent telecommuting was positively related to frequency of teleconfer-encing, indicating that telecommuting employees replaced face-to-face interactionwith teleconferencing to communicate with their workplace friends. This makes sensebecause teleconferencing is the most similar to face-to-face interaction with respectto both richness and social presence—the parties can see and hear each other andprovide immediate feedback as they converse.

Results indicated some generational differences with respect to communicationand workplace friendship. Consistent with recent surveys (Pew Research Center,2010; WorldOne Research, 2009), employees from younger generations used socialnetworking and instant messaging more frequently to communicate with theirworkplace friends than did employees from older generational cohorts. Youngeremployees also perceived communication via those methods to be of higher qualitythan did older employees. Thus, social networking and instant messaging appearto play more central roles in workplace friendship communication for youngeremployees. Results also indicated generational differences with respect to texting—acommunication method unexamined in the Pew Research Center and WorldOneResearch surveys. Specifically, younger employees reported communicating morefrequently with their workplace friends via texting, perceived that interaction to be ofhigher quality, and more important to the maintenance of their workplace friendshipthan did older employees.

No generational differences were found with respect to the other communi-cation methods, with the exception of the frequency of face-to-face interaction(younger employees communicate with their friends more frequently via face-to-face



interaction than did older employees). In sum, our results indicate that social net-working, texting, and instant messaging are more central to communication amongworkplace friends for employees under 40 years of age (i.e., millennials, gen Y, andgen X) than for those over 40 (i.e., younger and older baby boomers and the silent,greatest, and GI generations). This suggests that perhaps employees of younger gen-erations are more likely to experience social presence and engage in hyperpersonalcommunication via ICTs than are those from older generations.

Despite the differences described above, it is important to note that employeesfrom both age groups reported essentially the same preference hierarchy discussedearlier. As seen in Table 4, both older and younger employees rated face-to-faceinteraction, telephone, e-mail, and texting clearly above the other communicationmethods with respect to frequency of use, quality, and importance to friendshipmaintenance. Thus, regardless of age or generation, those communication methodsremain primary elements in communication among workplace friends.

At first glance, the findings regarding physical proximity and face-to-face inter-action seem counterintuitive. Recall, however, that proximity refers to coworkers’work spaces (e.g., desks and stations) being physically near each other. Face-to-faceinteraction refers to friends talking to each other in physical proximity, but thatdoes not necessarily mean that their work areas are near each other. In other words,the results suggest that people like and need face-to-face interaction to initiate andmaintain friendships, but they do not need to work near each other to engage in thatinteraction. Taken together, the results indicate that ICTs appear to reduce the needto work in physical proximity by providing employees other ways of connecting.In addition, employees are able to find opportunities (e.g., via shared tasks) tocommunication face-to-face regardless of whether they work in physical proximity.

Practical implicationsThe study provides important implications for practitioners. First, practitionersshould provide opportunities for face-to-face interaction among employees wheneverpossible. This is not difficult in organizations where employees work primarily on-site.In organizations in which employees telecommute frequently, however, practitionersshould design organizational processes so that employees meet and work in face-to-face proximity on a regular basis. This could be accomplished by scheduling regularon-site meetings or meetings at a satellite location, telework center, professionalconference, or similar venue. Designing opportunities for face-to-face interactionwill provide opportunities to develop the personal understanding and connectionrequired for friendship initiation and maintenance.

Practitioners should also encourage employees to work together on shared tasksand projects. Such work need not be accomplished in physical proximity. In fact,the many ICT methods available can support and enhance shared work amongemployees. This is particularly important for employees who telecommute much orall the time. Having them work in collaboration with others can minimize the senseof isolation that can result from telework and enrich coworker relationships.



We also recommend that practitioners ensure telecommuters have access toand opportunities to use teleconferencing to communicate with their coworkers.Teleconferencing helps compensate for the social presence lost when employeescannot communicate face-to-face. Enabling employees to teleconference can helpemployees initiate and maintain workplace friendships when physical proximity andface-to-face interaction are difficult or impossible to access.

Limitations and future researchThe study by design only examined developmental factors as they affected friendshipinitiation. Yet it is likely that the effects of various factors at later stages of friendshipdevelopment have changed as ICT methods have become more ubiquitous inworkplace settings. We encourage future work examining these issues as workplacefriends become close and even best friends. Friendships at these later stages aremarked by increased communication intimacy and openness. Understanding whatcommunication methods enable such interaction and relational development wouldprovide important contributions to theory and practice.

The developmental factor structure derived from the Sias et al. (2003) instrumentwas somewhat different from previous studies. Specifically, the single life/work eventsfactor in this study loaded as two separate factors in prior research. This couldbe due, in part, to the fact that this study examined friendship initiation only.Prior research indicates that work-related problems and life events do not playimportant roles in friendship initiation; rather, they influence workplace friendshipdevelopment into close-friend and best-friend levels. Because respondents only ratedthe importance of the various developmental factor items for initiating a friendship,distinctions between work problems and life events may have been masked. Becauseour hypotheses only addressed friendship initiation, however, this limitation did notpose an important threat to the study.

This study provided only quantitative insights into ICTs and workplace friend-ship dynamics. Thus, for example, while we know that the more employeestelecommute, the more they rely on teleconferencing, we do not know why theydo so. Future research that obtains qualitative insights into these issues wouldenhance our understanding of workplace friendship dynamics in the electroni-cally connected organization. In addition, the small and homogeneous samplesize limits our ability to generalize our findings to a broader population. Weencourage future work examining these issues with a larger and more diversesample.

Finally, although we examined how respondent age was associated with com-munication with workplace friends, we did not address communication dynamicswithin intergenerational friendship dyads. Existing research has highlighted thesometimes problematic issues that arise from employees of different generationsworking together (Buckley et al., 2001; D’Aprix, 2010). Given younger employees’preferences for certain methods (i.e., social networking, instant messaging, andtexting), future research should examine communication dynamics in friendships



comprising relationship partners from different generational cohorts. Such researchwould provide new and useful insights into intergenerational coworker dynamics.

Conclusion

Overall, our results confirm the long-lasting primacy of face-to-face interaction forworkplace friendship initiation and maintenance. Despite innovations in communi-cation technology, employees continue to prefer talking with their workplace friendsin person. At the same time, employees also rely heavily on ICTs such as phone,e-mail, and texting, indicating that these methods are also central to coworker com-munication. Face-to-face interaction, however, was still rated significantly higher infrequency, quality, and importance by employees.

Our findings indicate, however, that two fundamental changes in the natureof organizations affect the developmental factors and communication preferencesnoted above. First, increased telecommuting reduces employee access to face-to-facecommunication; thus, the more time employees engage in telecommuting, the morethey rely on teleconferencing to communicate with their friends—a technology thatprovides a degree of social presence unavailable with other forms of ICTs. Second,our results indicate that younger employees are more likely to rely on ICTs tocommunicate with their workplace friends than are older employees.

References

Allen, B. J. (2005). Social constructionism. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engagingorganizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35–54).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arminen, I. (2009). New reasons for mobile communication: Intensification of time-spacegeography in the mobile era. In R. Ling & S. W. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction ofspace and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 89–108). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in thesociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

Bleecker, S. E. (1998). The virtual organization. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leadingorganizations: Perspectives for a new era (pp. 44–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buckley, M. R., Beu, D. S., Novicevic, M. M., & Sigerstad, T. D. (2001). Managing generationneXt: Individual and organizational perspectives. Review of Business, 22, 81–85.

Carlson, E. (2008). The lucky few: Between the greatest generation and the baby boom. Springer.Chesley, N., & Johnson, B. E. (2010, June). Information and communication technology,

work and family. Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Boston College. RetrievedNovember 19, 2010, from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=17210&area=All

Comer, D. R. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers.Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64–89.

D’Aprix, R. (2010). Leadership in a multi-generational workplace. Strategic CommunicationManagement, 14, 13.



Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, mediarichness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Dainton, M. (2007). Attachment and marital maintenance. Communication Quarterly, 55,283–298.

Daly, J. A., Weber, D. J., Vangelisti, A. L., Maxwell, M., & Neel, H. (1989). Concurrentcognitions during conversations: Protocol analysis as a means of exploring conversations.Discourse Processes, 12, 227–244.

Dindia, K. (2003). Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication.In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication:Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duck, S., Rutt, D., Hurst, M., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversationsin everyday relationships. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Socialcapital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 12. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantityindicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 21, 399–411.

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than

are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 38, 336–361.

Forrester Research. (2009). It’s time to review and renew your telecommuting policy.Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/time_to_review_%26%238212;_and_renew_%26%238212;/q/id/48141/t/2/.

Fritz, J. (1997). Men’s and women’s organizational relationships: A comparison. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 34, 27–46.

Fulk, J. (1993). The social construction of communication technology. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36, 921–950.

Godwin, M. (1994, April). ASCII is too intimate. Wired, 69–70.Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Hunt (Eds.), Leadershipfrontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the workplace under participative management: Alienationand freedom revisited. American Sociological Review, 61, 717–739.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior–subordinate communication: The state of the art.Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201–1222.

Keeley, M. P., & Hart, A. J. (1994). Nonverbal behavior in dyadic interactions. In S. W. Duck(Ed.), Dynamics of relationships (pp. 135–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundarymanagement: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–familyeffectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367.

Kram, K., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships incareer development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110–132.



Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). Content- and medium-specific decomposition of friendshiprelational maintenance: Integrating equity and media multiplexity approaches. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 27, 938–955.

Lee, J. (1998). Maintenance communication in superior–subordinate relationships: Anexploratory investigation of group social context and the ‘‘Pelz effect.’’ SouthernCommunication Journal, 63, 144–159.

Litwin, A. H., & Hallstein, L. O. (2007). Shadows and silences: How women’s positioningand unspoken friendship rules in organizational settings cultivate difficulties amongsome women at work. Women’s Studies in Communication, 30, 111–142.

Louis, M., Posner, B., & Powell, G. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socializationpractices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866.

Marks, S. R. (1994). Intimacy in the public realm: The case of co-workers. Social Forces, 72,843–858.

Miller, V., & Jablin, F. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences,tactics and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120.

Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J. (2010). Does distance matter in the age of the internet?Urban Studies, 47, 2747–2783.

Montgomery, B. M. (1998). Quality communication in personal relationships. InS. W. Duck, D. F., Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbookof personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 343–359). Chichester,England: Wiley.

New Politics Institute. (2006, February 28). Politics of the millennial generation. RetrievedJanuary 24, 2011, from http://newpolitics.net/node/89.

Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, application, and measures. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Paragas, F. (2009). Migrant workers and mobile phones: Technological, temporal, and spatialsimultaneity. In R. Ling & S. W. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time:Mobile communication practices (pp. 39–66). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Pew Research Center. (2010). Pew generations online 2010. Retrieved December 5, 2010, fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Generations-2010/Overview.aspx.

Porter, L., & Roberts, K. (1973). Communication in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2004). Local virtuality in a high-tech networkedorganization. Anaylse & Kritik, 26, 241–257.

Rabby, M. K., & Walther, J. (2003). Computer-mediated communication effects onrelationship formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and culturalvariations (pp. 141–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rawlins, W. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.

Rice, R. E., Chang, S., & Torobin, J. (1992). Communicator style, media use, organizationallevel, and use and evaluation of electronic messaging. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 6, 3–33.

Shah, P. P. (1998). Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective todetermine referent others. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 249–268.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.London: Wiley.



Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences.Communication Studies, 56, 375–396.

Sias, P. M. (2006). Workplace friendship deterioration. In J. H. Fritz & B. L. Omdahl (Eds.),Problematic relationships in the workplace (pp. 69–85). New York: Peter Lang.

Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives onworkplace relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. (1998). From co-workers to friends: The development to peerfriendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273–299.

Sias, P. M., Gallagher, E. M., Kopaneva, I., & Pedersen, H. (2012). Peer workplace friendshipmaintenance: Impact of task interdependence, attachment style, and gender.Communication Research, 39, 239–268.

Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. (1995). Differential superior–subordinate relations, perceptions offairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22, 5–38.

Sias, P. M., Smith, G., & Avdeyeva, T. (2003). Sex and sex-composition differences andsimilarities in peer workplace friendship development. Communication Studies, 54,322–340.

Sigman, S. J. (1995). Order and continuity in human relationships: A social communicationapproach to defining ‘‘relationship.’’ In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches tocommunication (pp. 188–200). New York: Guilford Press.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., Gerloff, E. A., & Muir, N. K. (1990). The richness imperativeand cognitive styles: The role of individual differences in media choice behavior.Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 176–197.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2005, January). Telework programs:Implementing commuter benefits as one of the nation’s best workplaces for commuters.Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/telework_07.pdf.

Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal andhyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase,decrease, or supplement social capital: Social networks, participation, and communitycommitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436–455.

Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from anorderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. (2001). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

WorldOne Research. (2009). LexisNexis Technology Gap Survey. Retrieved December 5,2010, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/media/pdfs/LexisNexis-Technology-Gap-Survey-4-09.pdf.

Wright, P. H. (1978). Toward a theory of friendship based on the conception of self. HumanCommunication Research, 4, 196–207.

Yager, J. (1997). Friendshifts: The power of friendship and how it shapes our lives. Stamford,CT: Hannacroix Creek Books.


电子联络组织里的职场友谊【摘要：】

本研究探讨信息通信技术（ICT）和工作场所的友谊动态。员工们自报影响他们和同事友谊开始的因素以及不同的沟通方法对交流的模式和感想所起作用的看法。结果表明，个性，共同的任务，与感觉相似性是同事友谊开始的最重要因素。在依赖电子联络的组织里，地理接近在职场友谊中的重要性逐渐减少。结果证实了面对面互动对职场友谊的萌生和维护的首要地位。电子邮件，电话，短信也在职场友谊中扮演重要的沟通作用。电子沟通花费的时间影响职场友谊的萌生和沟通。最后我们也确定了互联网的通信方式有代际差异。

Les amitiés au travail dans l’organisation connectée électroniquement

Résumé

Cette étude a examiné les technologies d’information et de communication (TIC) et la

dynamique de l’amitié au travail. Des employés ont signalé des facteurs qui influençaient

leur initiation d’une amitié avec un collègue de travail. Ils ont signalé des régularités et

des perceptions de communication avec leur ami au travail par différentes méthodes de

communication. Les résultats indiquent que la personnalité, des tâches partagées et une

perception de similarité sont les facteurs les plus importants dans l’initiation d’une amitié

avec un collègue, et que l’importance de la proximité physique pour l’amitié au travail

diminue dans le contexte d’un lieu de travail connecté électroniquement. Les résultats

confirment la primauté des interactions face à face pour l’initiation et l’entretien des

amitiés au travail. Le courriel, le téléphone et les messages texte étaient eux aussi

centraux à la communication entre amis au travail. La quantité de temps passé à faire du

télétravail influençait l’initiation et la communication amicale au travail. Enfin, des

différences générationnelles ont été identifiées en lien avec les méthodes de

communication basée dans l’Internet.

Freundschaften am Arbeitsplatz im elektronisch vernetzten Unternehmen

Diese Studie untersucht Informationskommunikationstechnologien und Dynamiken vonFreundschaften am Arbeitsplatz. Angestellte machten Aussagen zu Faktoren, welche dieAnbahnung einer Freundschaft mit einem Kollegen beeinflussten und äußerten sich zuMustern und der Wahrnehmung von Kommunikation mit ihren Freunden am Arbeitsplatzmittels verschiedener Kommunikationsmethoden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dassPersönlichkeit, gemeinsame Aufgabenfelder und wahrgenommene Ähnlichkeit diewichtigsten Faktoren für die Anbahnung einer Freundschaft mit einem Kollegen sind,wohingegen sich die Bedeutung physischer Nähe für Freundschaften am Arbeitsplatz beielektronisch vernetzten Arbeitsplätzen verringert. Die Ergebnisse stützen das Primat derFace-to-Face Interaktion für die Initiierung und Aufrechterhaltung von Freundschaften amArbeitsplatz. E-Mail, Telefon und Textbotschaften nahmen eine zentrale Rolle bei derKommunikation zwischen Freunden am Arbeitsplatz ein. Die Menge an Zeit, die mitTelekommunikation verbracht wurde, beeinflusste die Initiierung und Aufrechterhaltung vonFreundschaften am Arbeitsplatz. Letztlich zeigten sich mit Blick auf internetbasierteKommunikationsmethoden Generationsunterschiede.

전자적으로 연계된 조직내에서의 작업장 우정에 관한 연구

요약

본 연구는 정보통신기술들과 작업장 우정의 역동성에 관한 연구이다. 고용자들은 동료들

과의 우정을 만들어나가는데 있어 영향을 준 요소들을 보고하도혹 하였으며, 동료들과

의 커뮤니케이션 개념들이 다양한 커뮤니케이션 방법들을 통하여 보고되었다. 결과들은,

개인성격, 공유된 작업들, 그리고 인지된 유사성들이 동료들과의 우정을 만들어 나가는

초창기에 있어 가장 주요한 요소들이었으며, 작업장내에서의 우정에 있어 육체적 유사성

의 중요성은 전자적으로 연계된 작업장에서 감소함을 보여 주었다. 결과들은 작업장내

에서의 우정 형성과 유지에 있어 면대면 접촉의 주요성을 확인하였다. 이메일, 전화, 그

리고 텍스트가 작업장 친구들 사이의 커뮤니케이션의 핵심이었다. 텔레커뮤니케이션을

위한 시간의 양은 작업장 우정 초기화와 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 주었다. 마지막으로 세

대간 차이는 인터넷에 근거한 커뮤니케이션 방법들과 상이햐게 일치하는 것으로 나타났

다.

La Amistad en el Lugar de Trabajo en una Organización Conectada Electrónicamente

Resumen

Este estudio examinó las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (ICTs) y las dinámicas de las

amistades en el lugar de trabajo. Los empleados reportaron factores que influenciaron en la iniciación de la

amistad con un compañero de trabajo, y reportaron pautas de las percepciones de la comunicación con su amigo en

el lugar de trabajo a través de modelos de comunicación diferentes. Los resultados indicaron que la personalidad, el

compartimiento de tareas, y la percepción de similitud fueron los factores más importantes en la iniciación de

amistad entre los compañeros de trabajo, y que la importancia de la proximidad física de la amistad en el lugar de

trabajo es disminuido cuando el lugar de trabajo está conectado electrónicamente. Los resultados confirman la

primacía de la interacción cara a cara para la iniciación y el mantenimiento de la amistad en el lugar de trabajo. El

correo electrónico, el teléfono, y el escribir un texto fueron también centrales para la comunicación entre los amigos

en el lugar de trabajo. La cantidad de tiempo pasado en el trabajo a distancia impactó la iniciación y la

comunicación de la amistad en el lugar de trabajo. Finalmente, las diferencias generacionales fueron identificadas

con respecto a los métodos de comunicación basados en el internet.

Documents

Workplace Friendship in the Electronically Connected Organization