This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 18 November 2014, At: 06:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of StrategicCommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hstc20

Strategic Dissent: Expressions ofOrganizational Dissent Motivated byInfluence GoalsJohny T. Garner aa Pepperdine University , United States of AmericaPublished online: 13 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Johny T. Garner (2009) Strategic Dissent: Expressions of Organizational DissentMotivated by Influence Goals, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3:1, 34-51, DOI:10.1080/15531180802606471

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15531180802606471

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3: 34–51, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1553-118X print / 1553-1198 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15531180802606471

HSTC1553-118X1553-1198International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 3, No. 1, November 2008: pp. 1–43International Journal of Strategic Communication

Strategic Dissent: Expressions of Organizational Dissent Motivated by Influence Goals

Strategic Dissent GoalsGARNER Johny T. GarnerPepperdine University, United States of America

Organizational dissent is important in promoting better decision-making and increasing employeecommitment and satisfaction, yet expressing dissent can be risky in many organizations wheredisagreement is discouraged. This study proceeded from the perspective that employees dissentstrategically and that the relationship between conversational goals and dissent messages is importantin helping employees feel more satisfied at work and helping organizations better use employeefeedback. Results showed that goals of getting advice and information were prevalent primary goals,suggesting that employees may often express dissent for sense-making reasons rather than to accom-plish organizational change. The most common secondary goals reported were identity and conver-sation management. Further analyses indicated that goals were associated with specific messages.These results demonstrate the strategic nature of organizational dissent. The implications of thisstudy also suggest dissent effectiveness cannot be judged solely by measuring whether or notfrustrating circumstances change, but must also consider other potential goals for employee voice.

Most organizational actors experience times when they are dissatisfied at work and feel the needto say something. Some people may assume that employees expressing dissent are alwaysmotivated to change their situation, but dissent may be motivated by multiple goals. Research oninterpersonal strategies and goals is relevant for organizational dissent, particularly in light ofthe importance of workplace relationships in organizational interactions. Framing organizationaldissent from the perspective of goal-driven action allows conceptualizations of influence goalsto function as theoretical mechanisms from which one can understand how people choose toexpress workplace complaints. This conceptual move has practical significance given that employ-ees who disagree may feel pressure to keep silent (Klaas, 1989; Shaia & Gonzenbach, 2007)even though dissent can contribute both to the organization’s effectiveness and to the individ-ual’s job satisfaction (Hegstrom, 1990; Redding, 1985; Stanley, 1981). Although Kellermann(1992) argued that all communication is strategic, little research is available connecting employees’communication to strategic motives. Harrison (1995) stated that the organizational members actstrategically in such ways as “to decrease uncertainty and increase the likelihood that actors willbe able to achieve their respective goals” (p. 252). Harrison argued that while the actions thatreproduce bureaucratic structures have been addressed in previous research, the communicativeactions that reproduce democratic structures have been understudied. Dissent is strategic

Correspondence should be sent to Johny T. Garner (PhD, Texas A&M University), Communication Division, PepperdineUniversity, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263-4211, USA. E-mail: johny.garner@pepperdine.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 35

communication in that employees’ dissent messages are motivated by goals. However, a varietyof goals may be connected to employees’ communication, and understanding how those goalsconnect to dissent messages aligns with Harrison’s call for more attention to democraticdiscourse in organizations.

Dissent, in particular, is important to understand from a strategic lens for two reasons. First,dissent involves risk because organizations often sanction those who express disagreement(Klaas, 1989; Klaas & DeNisi, 1989), and employees often understand that risk when choosingto express dissent (Sprague & Ruud, 1988). Second, better understanding the motivations of dis-sent and the ways those motivations connect to dissent messages can help employees to voicefrustrations in the workplace more effectively. Thus, the purpose of this article is to explorewhat goals may underlie dissent and what dissent messages are likely connected to particulargoals. What follows is a consideration of relevant literature before presenting the results of astudy that connected goals to messages in workplace dissent.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to establish a link between dissent and influence goals, this literature review describestwo streams of literature. First, research from strategic and organizational communication isexamined to highlight previous research on dissent, followed by a consideration of scholarshipon workplace relationships and interpersonal influence.

Organizational Dissent

Dissent has been closely linked with conceptualizations of employee voice (Kassing, 1997), andone common way of considering employee voice is based on Hirschman’s (1970) Exit-Voice-Loyalty model. Following Hirschman’s model, employees have two choices when they aredissatisfied with an aspect of their organization. They can leave the organization (exit), or theycan express their dissatisfaction (voice). Hirschman argued that choice would be based on howloyal the employee was to the organization. Scholars have argued that dissent is a particularform of voice where employees express their divergence from organizational or managerialpractices or imperatives (Hegstrom, 1995; Kassing, 1997, 2002).

Examining the messages of dissenters is central to understanding organizational dissent. Aspeople express frustrations with their work environment, what do they say? Kassing (2002)categorized five strategies for dissenting to supervisors: direct-factual appeal, repetition,solution presentation, circumvention, and threatening-resignation. For instance, direct-factualappeals used facts and experiences to support a position whereas circumvention concernedintentionally going over the audience’s head. Gossett and Kilker (2006) found several themes ofdissent that might be analogous to message types such as problem-solving, asking for moreinformation, and providing emotional support for each other. Related to dissent and perhapsmore widely researched are “upward influence attempts” (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980;Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Garner (in press) integrated dissent andupward influence and found support for eleven types of dissent messages—solution presenta-tion, pressure, coalitions, direct-factual appeals, venting, circumvention, exchange, inspiration,humor, repetition, and ingratiation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

36 GARNER

The present study builds on considerations of dissent messages, seeking to connect dissent toother communication constructs (Hegstrom, 1995; Waldron, 1999). The reframing proposedhere advances communication research by considering dissent strategically and examining thegoals that underlie dissent messages. The next section builds on organizational dissent by con-sidering the communication of influence in interpersonal dyads.

Interpersonal Influence

Given the importance of workplace relationships on organizational interaction (Sandelands &Boudens, 2000; Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, & Fix, 2004; Sias, Krone, & Jablin, 2002; Waldron,2000), conceptualizing dissent as interpersonal influence is not a difficult theoretical leap(Garner, in press; Waldron, 1999). Dillard, Anderson, and Knobloch (2002) defined interper-sonal influence as “symbolic efforts designed (a) to preserve or change the behavior of anotherindividual or (b) to maintain or modify aspects of another individual that are proximal tobehavior, such as cognitions, emotions, and identities” (p. 426). When we express dissent to asupervisor, we may be trying to make him or her aware of the situation (modifying cognitions),attempting to have him or her change the triggering situation (change the behavior of anotherindividual), arousing pity without arousing anger (maintaining/modifying emotions), or a hostof similar goals that fit that definition of influence. This study proceeds from the perspectivethat, whether to supervisors or coworkers, dissent can be usefully conceptualized as an influ-ence process.

Influence goals. The issue of goals is particularly relevant in organizational dissent. Inconsidering upward influence within the organizational context, Waldron (1999) noted, “nearlyall of the empirical work conceptualizes upward influence (if only implicitly) as a deliberateattempt . . . to select tactics that will bring about change . . . and facilitate achievement of apersonal or organizational objective” (p. 253). Dillard (1989) defined an influence goal as “themotivations underlying attempts to produce behavior change in a target person” (p. 294). As wecommunicate, we do so with an objective, whether to change a supervisor’s mind about a partic-ular policy, strengthen relationships with coworkers, or experience a cathartic release ofemotions. Seeking to examine what goals are salient in interpersonal interactions, severalresearch programs have contributed a variety of typologies of goals (Cody, Canary, & Smith,1994; Dillard, 1990b; Kellermann, 2004; Rule & Bisanz, 1987). These typologies have includedgoals such as getting advice, gaining assistance, changing someone’s opinion, changing arelationship, obtaining information, and changing the other person’s behavior.

Typologies are important in considering very specific issues involved in influence goals, butothers have argued for a more abstract consideration of the influence goal construct with twolevels—primary and secondary goals (Dillard, 2004; Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989; Meyer,2002; Waldron, 1991). This conceptualization considers the typologies of influence goalspreviously discussed as “primary” goals (e.g., what does the interactant wants to accomplish inthe influence attempt) and defines secondary goals to include identity goals, conversationmanagement goals, personal resource goals, relational resource goals, and affect managementgoals (Dillard, 2004; Dillard et al., 1989). Dillard (1990a) argued that primary goals drive inter-actions while secondary goals “act as a counterforce to [the influence episode] and as a set ofdynamics that help to shape planning and message output” (p. 46). Put another way, primary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 37

goals initiate and maintain social interaction, while secondary goals create boundaries, and iden-tify verbal choices available to interactants.

Influence and Organizations. The majority of the research regarding influence behaviorsand goals has been conducted in romantic encounters (i.e., Dillard, 1989), but some researchersexamined influence within organizational contexts (Kipnis et al., 1980; Krone, 1992; Krone &Ludlum, 1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Kipnis et al. (1980) identified goals that could motivateorganizational influence as well as a relationship between the frequencies of each of the organi-zational influence tactics in their proposed typology to the communicator’s influence goal. Forexample, Kipnis et al. found that people who wanted to obtain assistance from a boss orcoworker would most likely use ingratiation tactics and people who wanted to receive personalbenefits from a boss or coworker would most likely convince someone to accept exchange oringratiation.

However, the connections between goals and messages may be more problematic than thatillustration suggests. In an organizational setting, a person is potentially embedded in organi-zational objectives and the workplace context, which may highlight the presence of multiplegoals (Krone & Ludlum, 1990; Meyer, 2002), particularly those goals that contradict eachother. As goals conflict, they may require organizational actors to either construct contradictingmessages or to make choices between objectives important for organizational life. For exam-ple, an employee may try to marshal support against a controversial organizational policy, andone way to gain that support is through expressing dissent to coworkers. Yet, the dissentermay not be certain that his or her coworker will join in the dissent or support the supervisor.So the primary goal might be to influence that coworker to oppose the supervisor or policy,while the secondary goal might be communicating with coworkers according to the norms ofwhat is appropriate for the interaction (what Dillard, 2004 called a conversation managementgoal).

Also problematic is that many of the previously discussed goals may not necessarily apply inthe organizational context or in the relatively specific situation of expressing dissent. To thatend, there is a need to understand what goals organizational dissenters are pursuing. As statedearlier, the majority of research on influence goals primarily deals with romantic encounters,which include some goals that would be irrelevant in workplace relationships and excludepotentially important objectives in workplace relationships that might not emerge as clearly inromantic relationships. Because of the limited overlap between romantic and organizationalcontexts, several studies were examined prior to the present project (Cody et al., 1994; Dillard,1989; Kellermann, 2004; Kipnis et al., 1980; Rule & Bisanz, 1987). Kellermann compiled a listof goals drawing from a number of research programs and argued for 13 primary goals, butagain, not all of those are relevant for organizational dissent.

For example, the goal of getting a date was seen as irrelevant for this context. Goals of initiaterelationship, move relationship forward, and end relationship were seen as potentially lessimportant in the context of organizational dissent. Share time together was also seen as lessimportant. However, the goal of emotional support, which was not included in Kellermann’s list,was seen as a potential goal for dissent. Emotional support may be the most important attributeof social connections in the workplace (Hinson Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997;House, 1981), and certainly dissent and the accompanying emotions of frustration, disappointment,or anger may be expressed in efforts to seek that emotional support. Following Kellermann,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

38 GARNER

goals of providing guidance, getting advice, obtaining information, and changing opinions wereall seen as potential goals for organizational dissent.

Several other goals from Kellermann were seen to relate together and were grouped underchange behavior. Finally, Kellermann chose to exclude goals of gaining assistance, although allof the other research programs listed here include this as a potential influence goal. Within thecontext of organizational dissent, this seemed particularly important. Thus, the present studyconsiders seven primary goals: providing guidance, getting advice, obtaining information,changing the audience’s opinion, changing the audience’s behavior, gaining assistance, andseeking emotional support.

RQ: What Goals Most Frequently Shape Dissent Interactions?

Influence goals affect what a person says in expressing dissent. Previous research on influence(Dillard, 1990a; Dillard, 2004; Kipnis et al., 1980) indicates that influence goals would affectthe communicative action of the dissenter. As previously mentioned, Garner (in press) foundsupport for eleven types of dissent messages, and the goals of a dissenter are likely to influencewhich types of messages are used to express dissatisfaction. If a dissenter is trying to provideguidance to someone else regarding a particular problem, it is likely that the dissenter mayprovide a solution or at least present reasons as to why the situation is a problem. Messages ofexchange offer to exchange something for help with a problem (or remind the audience of favorsowed based on previous exchanges). Humor messages use offhand comments or sarcasm toconvey dissatisfaction. These messages may also be used to provide guidance in ways that seemless threatening to the dissenter. A dissenter may repeatedly try to provide guidance to anotherperson, which suggests that repetition may also be a common message associated with this goal.

H1: The goal of providing guidance will be positively associated with messages of solutionpresentation, direct-factual appeals, exchange, humor, and repetition.

On the other hand, when one is seeking guidance or advice, there may be less of a tendency touse rational messages, and more of a tendency to vent about a problem. It is also not a stretch toexpect dissenters to seek advice from someone with greater organizational status, whichsuggests that circumvention may be a common message type associated with this goal.

H2: The goal of getting advice will be positively associated with messages of venting andcircumvention.

Garner (in press) reported that questions including requests for information loaded on a factorthat primarily represented solution presentation. One possible explanation for this is that dissentersseeking to obtain information about a dissatisfying circumstance may provide a solution to thatcircumstance in hopes that the audience can provide support for that solution or an explanationof why that solution has not or cannot be implemented. It may also be reasonable to expectdissenters to attempt to offer something in exchange for additional information.

H3: The goal of obtaining information will be positively associated with messages of solutionpresentation and exchange.

Given the rational bias in organizations (Dougherty & Drumheller, 2006) and the findings ofKipnis et al. (1980) that those who sought to initiate change would use more rational tactics, it is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 39

likely that solution presentations and direct-factual appeals would also be commonly associatedwith goals trying to change someone’s opinion or behavior. Additionally, Falbe and Yukl (1992)argued that inspirational appeals were among the more successful messages in changing theaudience’s opinion on a topic.

H4: The goal of changing someone’s opinion will be positively associated with messages ofsolution presentation, direct-factual appeals, and inspiration.

Similarly to changing someone’s opinion, it is likely that solution presentation and direct-factualappeals would be common in attempts to change someone’s behavior. Circumvention may alsobe seen as effective in changing someone’s behavior even if it may not be effective in changingthat person’s opinion (Kassing, 2007). Repetition may also be perceived as a possibility giventhe cliché about the “squeaky wheel getting the grease.”

H5: The goal of changing someone’s behavior will be positively associated with messages ofsolution presentation, direct-factual appeals, circumvention, exchange, and repetition.

Almost by definition, the goal of gaining assistance should be associated with messages ofcoalitions and circumvention, messages that have gaining assistance built into their nature. Onewould also expect inspiration messages to be a choice for dissenters seeking assistance, giventhat such messages rely on an appeal to common values. Again, the perception that repetitionmay be rewarded with action may also suggest that repetition is a possible message to accom-plish this goal.

H6: The goal of gaining assistance will be positively associated with messages of coalitions,circumvention, inspiration, and repetition.

The goal of emotional support is almost inherent in several message types most notably ventingand humor. Emotional support may also be a key component in some coalitions as membersseek understanding from each other.

H7: The goal of emotional support will be positively associated with messages of venting,humor, and coalitions.

The preceding hypotheses assume that primary goals lead to particular messages. That is,the goal of providing guidance may serve to motivate the dissenter to express dissatisfactionusing solution presentation. Thus, the hypotheses associated with these primary goals suggestthat if that goal is a goal motivating dissent, the dissenter will be more likely to use one ofthose message types. Although those goals serve as the reason the dissenter says something tobegin with, they may not be the most important concern. Instead, secondary goals may be ofoverriding importance as they constrain what the dissenter feels he or she can say. These goalsmay make some message types more appealing but may make other message types lessappealing. The secondary goal of identity deals with being true to oneself and one’s values.Again, a rational emphasis in organizations (Dougherty & Drumheller, 2006) may suggestthat solution presentation and direct factual appeals are fulfilling that goal. Likewise, inspira-tion may also allow the dissenter to be true to him- or herself. On the other hand, the use ofsarcasm in humor messages or the intimidation in pressure messages may not fit with one’sself-image.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

40 GARNER

H8a: The secondary goal of identity will be positively associated with messages of solution pre-sentation, direct-factual appeals, and inspiration.

H8b: The secondary goal of identity will be negatively associated with messages of pressure andhumor.

Conversation management is a secondary goal that addresses the need to be appropriate inconversations. For organizational dissent, this goal might suggest solution presentation anddirect-factual appeals given their rational slant. By contrast, conversation management goalsmay steer a dissenter away from pressure messages, which include threats and/or intimidation.

H9a: The secondary goal of conversation management will be positively associated withmessages of solution presentation and direct-factual appeals.

H9b: The secondary goal of conversation management will be negatively associated withmessages of pressure.

The secondary goal of personal resources is based on a desire to talk without threatening one-self. In an organization, personal resources could include salary/wages, benefits, favored shifts,time off, or access to people higher in the organization. If one communicates dissent in such away as to protect those resources, it might not be unusual to offer something in return for helpwith dissent, which suggests exchange messages might be associated with this secondary goal.Additionally, praising the audience or giving him or her credit for the solution may give thedissenter the opportunity to express frustration while protecting resources. On the other hand,more direct messages such as solution presentation or direct-factual appeals may make thedissenter feel more vulnerable to losses of personal resources. Additionally, dissenters may stayaway from pressure messages that threaten the audience if they feel that personal resources areon the line.

H10a: The secondary goal of personal resources will be positively associated with messages ofexchange and ingratiation.

H10b: The secondary goal of personal resources will be negatively associated with messages ofsolution presentation, direct-factual appeal, and pressure.

Relational resources, on the other hand, include those intangibles that come with being partof a collective such as closeness with one’s supervisor, trust, and organizational climate.Messages of inspiration or ingratiation may seem particularly appealing when relationalresources are a concern because these messages place emphasis on honoring the audience, eitherthrough shared values or through praise. By contrast, messages of pressure, circumvention,repetition, and humor are all tactics that may take their toll on a relationship.

H11a: The secondary goal of relational resources will be positively associated with messages ofinspiration and ingratiation.

H11b: The secondary goal of relational resources will be negatively associated with messages ofpressure, circumvention, repetition, and humor.

Finally, affect management involves protecting oneself from circumstances that cause anxietyor worry. If this goal is constraining dissent, the dissenter is less likely to engage in any behaviorthat may increase nervousness. Direct approaches to dissatisfying circumstances such assolution presentation or direct-factual appeals may seem too forward for dissenters constrained

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 41

by this goal. However, approaches such as coalitions, humor, or ingratiation may allow thedissenter to say something with less worry than would accompany more direct messages.

H12a: The secondary goal of affect management will be positively associated with messages ofcoalitions, humor and ingratiation.

H12b: The secondary goal of affect management will be negatively associated with messages ofsolution presentation and direct-factual appeals.

METHODS

To address this research question and these hypotheses, a survey measured the goals of dissentersand the messages they were likely to use in expressing dissatisfaction. The following sectionsexplain this process in more detail, describing the participants and instrumentation used toexplore the connections between goals and messages.

Participants

During consecutive semesters, students in undergraduate speech and research methods classesrecruited participants in exchange for extra credit. Each student was asked to recruit four partic-ipants who had worked in their current job for at least one year, who work at least 25 hours perweek, who were not self-employed, and who could not be considered “management” by peoplein the organization. Students asked participants to sign informed consent forms and to providetheir email address. A link to the survey was then sent to those email addresses via Survey Monkey,an online survey utility designed to distribute surveys, and a reminder was sent to recruits whohad not responded after two weeks. Two weeks following that reminder, the survey was closed.The final sample was 448 participants with a 59% response rate of those participants who hadbeen emailed the survey link. Most participants completed the survey in approximately 15 minutes.Of the participants, 249 were female and 291 were full-time workers. Participants had worked intheir current job for 1 to 35 years (M = 6.02, s.d. = 7.25) and were 18 to 75 years old (M = 34.19,s.d. = 14.17).

Instrumentation

The survey asked participants to recall a conversation with a supervisor or coworker in whichthey complained about a dissatisfying circumstance at work involving a policy or supervisor.The directions instructed participants to keep this conversation in mind as they answered theremainder of the survey.

Because no suitable measure of primary goals was available, an instrument was developed tomeasure the goals associated with dissent. The directions for this section of the instrument beganwith the prompt “As you think about your goals and plans for this conversation with this super-visor or coworker, to what extent are you trying to . . .” Research assistants examined eachprimary goal developed from Kellermann’s (2004) typology adapted for the organizational dis-sent context. Research assistants wrote three to four items to address each goal that could followthe prompt and that could be answered with 5-point, Likert-type responses. Because of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

42 GARNER

length of the survey, the instrument presented these questions in two sections the survey askedparticipants to recall the situation and reminded them of the prompt. After they had responded tohalf of the questions. Table 1 displays the factor loadings of each question on the correspondingprimary goal, and Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha scores, andcorrelations of each of these subscales.

Two other instruments comprised the remainder of the survey. Questions 6 through 25 ofDillard et al.’s (1989) 25-item scale were adapted to examine secondary goals in dissent. Themeans, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha scores, and correlations of these five secondarygoals are given in Table 3. Although Dillard et al. found these scales to have good alpha reliabil-ity, that was not the case in the present study. Four of the scales had borderline reliability, andone of the scales, relational resources, had entirely unacceptable reliability that could not beadequately improved by dropping an item. Given the scales’ performance in Dillard et al., thepresent study was conducted using the four scales with reliability above .65, but the remaininganalyses in this study did not consider relational resources.

Garner’s (in press) Dissent Messages Scale measured dissent messages. Garner found sup-port for eleven types of dissent message based on previous research (Gossett & Kilker, 2006;Kassing, 2002; Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990) and developed a 32-item Dissent Mes-sages Scale to measure the relative likelihood of those message types. This scale presents partic-ipants with potential ways of expressing dissent and asks the degree to which what they said inresponse to a dissatisfying circumstance resembled each message. For example, solution presen-tation was measured by “let them know how you thought the situation could be resolved” andventing was measured by “tell them exactly how angry this makes you feel.” As previously indi-cated, the message types covered in this instrument were solution presentation, direct-factualappeals, inspiration, pressure, coalitions, circumvention, repetition, venting, exchange, humor,and ingratiation, and participants responded to these questions on 5-point Likert scales. Themeans, standard deviations, Cronbach alpha scores, and correlations of these message types aregiven in Table 4.

Because the instrument and subsequent analyses involved a number of subscales, a confirmatoryfactor analysis was conducted on the measurement model to ascertain whether the data reflectedthe 22 variables (7 primary goals, 4 secondary goals, and 11 message types) that were assumedto be present. The CFA yielded an SRMR of .078 and an RMSEA of .040 (C.I.: .038, .042),which indicates acceptable fit between the data and the proposed model (Hu & Bentler, 1999).Thus, these subscales were used in the ensuing analyses.

RESULTS

Goals motivating organizational dissent may differ from those motivating romantic relationshipsand so the research question asked what influence goals motivate dissent. Confidence intervalsof two standard errors were constructed around the means of goals in order to determine whichgoals more frequently motivated or constrained dissent. Goals with nonoverlapping confidenceintervals were significantly different in terms of frequency at p < .05. The rank order of goals isshown in Table 5, and overlapping confidence intervals are illustrated using common subscripts.The secondary goal of identity was the most frequently reported goal for dissent, while thesecondary goal of personal resources was the least frequently reported goal. The primary goal of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 43

TABLE 1Factor Loadings of Items Measuring Primary Goals

Survey Items

Factor

Change Opinion

Get Advice

Emotional Support

Provide Guidance

Obtain Information

Gain Assistance

Change Behavior

. . . change your supervisor’s/coworker’s mind?

0.86

. . . change his/her opinion of the situation?

0.80

. . . persuade your supervisor or coworker to agree with you?

0.77

. . . make your supervisor or coworker understand and agree with your dissent?

0.70

. . . ask what you should do about the situation?

0.87

. . . get recommendations on what to do about this situation?

0.84

. . . receive your supervisor’s/coworker’s advice?

0.80

. . . to receive some direction about what you need to do next?

0.74

. . . release tension? 0.81

. . . express your emotions to your supervisor/coworker?

0.79

. . . “get this off your chest”? 0.79

. . . tell someone how you feel? 0.70

. . . give advice as to how to improve your supervisor’s/coworker’s performance?

0.87

. . . explain how your supervisor/coworker can do their job better?

0.86

. . . provide guidance to your supervisor/coworker?

0.68

. . . get more data or details regarding the situation?

0.87

. . . to gain facts about the situation? 0.85

. . . get more information about the situation?

0.83

. . . gain support from people? 0.80

. . . get your supervisor/coworker on your side in order to change someone else’s behavior?

0.66

. . . build support for your position? 0.62

. . . change the behavior of the person you think is causing the problem?

0.84

. . . change the behavior of your supervisor or coworker?

0.67

Note. Principle Components Analysis with Promax, Oblique Rotation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

44 GARNER

obtaining information was reported more frequently than other primary goals, while the primarygoal of providing guidance was reported less frequently than other primary goals.

The hypotheses argued for specific connections between messages and goals, and a seriesof regressions tested those specified connections. However, demographic variables had aneffect on the dependent variables, and whether the person was talking to a supervisor orcoworker also produced an effect. Therefore, hierarchical regression was used to control forthese effects before regressing the goals on messages. Step one in the regression included gender,age, tenure in the job, and full- or part-time status. Audience (supervisor or coworker) wasentered into the regression in step two. Finally, step three included the primary and secondarygoals. A significant change in r-squared values would indicate unique effects from goals aftercontrolling for demographic variables and audience. Each message type demonstrated signifi-cant r-squared improvement after controlling for these variables. Table 6 displays the betacoefficients and adjusted r-squared scores for step three, excluding any effect from the firsttwo steps.

As can be seen in Table 6, most of the hypotheses were supported with few exceptions.Hypotheses 11a and 11b were dropped due to poor reliability scores on the relational resourcesscale. Data from other scales indicate significant connections between goals and messageswhere particular messages predict the use of particular types of dissent messages.

TABLE 2Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Primary Goals

Primary Goals M s.d. alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Provide Guidance 2.80 1.08 0.78 –2. Get Advice 3.51 1.01 0.86 0.21** –3. Obtain Information 3.71 1.02 0.88 0.29** 0.57** –4. Change Opinion 3.36 0.99 0.84 0.37** 0.23** 0.28** –5. Change Behavior 3.06 1.11 0.78 0.43** 0.19** 0.18** 0.59** –6. Gain Assistance 3.24 1.01 0.72 0.32** 0.40** 0.30** 0.48** 0.44** –7. Emotional Support 3.27 1.03 0.80 0.17** 0.25** 0.20** 0.14** 0.32** 0.43**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

TABLE 3Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations for Secondary Goals

Secondary Goal M s.d. alpha 1 2 3 4

1. Identity 3.82 0.82 0.66 –2. Conversation Management 3.59 0.84 0.66 0.49** –3. Personal Resources 2.22 0.96 0.65 0.00 0.17** –4. Relational Resources 3.43 0.84 0.41 0.13** 0.26** −0.18** –5. Affect Management 2.83 0.90 0.67 0.10* 0.45** 0.45** 0.12*

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

45

TA

BLE

4M

eans

, Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

, Rel

iabi

litie

s, a

nd C

orre

latio

ns fo

r D

isse

nt M

essa

ges

Mes

sage

Typ

eM

s.d.

alph

a1

23

45

67

89

10

1. S

olut

ion

Pres

enta

tion

3.92

0.86

0.82

–2.

Pre

ssur

e1.

430.

770.

860.

29**

–3.

Coa

litio

ns3.

220.

960.

790.

21**

0.07

–4.

Dir

ect-

Fac

tual

App

eal

3.90

0.84

0.66

0.55

**−0

.32

0.26

**–

5. V

entin

g2.

561.

090.

71−0

.04

0.25

**0.

14**

0.11

**–

6. C

ircu

mve

ntio

n2.

661.

080.

790.

13**

0.27

**0.

37**

0.13

**0.

15**

–7.

Exc

hang

e2.

160.

930.

700.

030.

42**

0.21

**−0

.07

0.19

**0.

25**

–8.

Ins

pira

tion

3.40

0.93

0.70

0.35

**−0

.05

0.33

**0.

38**

0.16

**0.

22**

0.15

**–

9. H

umor

2.47

0.99

0.66

−0.0

90.

34**

0.24

**−0

.09

0.31

**0.

17**

0.28

**0.

08–

10. R

epet

ition

2.76

1.10

0.76

0.19

**0.

31**

0.27

**0.

13**

0.30

**0.

36**

0.20

**0.

22**

0.23

**–

11. I

ngra

tiat

ion

2.45

1.02

0.72

0.13

**0.

22**

0.06

−0.0

2−0

.01

0.10

*0.

28**

0.13

**0.

10*

0.11

*

Not

e. *

p <

.05,

**

p <

.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

46 GARNER

DISCUSSION

This study set out to explore the relationship between goals and dissent messages, and two typesof goals were considered—primary and secondary goals. To that end, a survey measured thedegree to which participants reported various goals and messages, and tests on that dataindicated which goals most frequently motivated dissent and what relationships existed betweendissent goals and messages. The following paragraphs interpret these results in terms of dissentresearch as well as discussing directions for future research and application.

The primary goals that were used most frequently by participants in this study were those thatmight seem less dominating on the part of the dissenters— getting more information about theproblem and getting advice on how to deal with a dissatisfying circumstance. Compared withother primary goals in this study, these two goals may be more prevalent because they imposeless on the autonomy of the audience, so dissenters in the present study may have seen them asmore acceptable. On the other hand, the goal of providing guidance may have been seen as tooforward or presumptuous and therefore, that goal was reported significantly less. These resultsare important in that they suggest that dissent may be more about getting advice or informationthan it is about actually changing the circumstance causing dissatisfaction. Employees partici-pating in this study expressed their dissatisfaction in sense-making efforts rather than to resolvethe source of their frustrations. Alternatively, these goals could represent the first goals thatparticipants pursued in expressing dissent, potentially following with more imposing goals.Previous research has indicated important insights based on the order in which employees useupward influence tactics (Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993), and future research could benefit frompursuing this idea of sequencing goals in dissent.

Secondary goals showed significant differences as identity and conversation managementgoals were reported more frequently than personal resource and affect management goals byparticipants in the present study, meaning that the former were felt as greater limits to messages

TABLE 5Confidence Intervals for Primary and Secondary Goals

Goal

Confidence Intervals

M SE High Low

Identity 3.82a 0.04 3.89 3.74Obtain Information 3.71 a, b 0.05 3.80 3.61Conversation Management 3.59 b, c 0.04 3.67 3.51Get Advice 3.51 c, d 0.05 3.61 3.42Change Opinion 3.36 d, e 0.05 3.46 3.27Emotional Support 3.27 e, f 0.05 3.36 3.17Gain Assistance 3.24 e, f, g 0.05 3.33 3.14Change Behavior 3.06 g 0.05 3.16 2.95Affect Management 2.83 h 0.04 2.91 2.74Provide Guidance 2.80 h 0.05 2.90 2.70Personal Resources 2.22 i 0.05 2.31 2.13

Note. Means with common subscripts are not significantly different.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 47

than the latter. Dissenters in this sample felt that ethical or self-concept concerns and appropri-ateness concerns placed boundaries on messages. These findings are consistent with Graham(1986), who argued that dissenters express dissatisfaction for reasons of justice, honesty, ororganizational benefit, what she labeled “principled dissent.” It is also not surprising that con-versation management goals placed bounds on dissent messages in these data. Kellermann(2004) argued that appropriateness would be a major factor in the connection between compli-ance gaining goals and messages, and the effect of conversation management goals on dissentmessages supports that claim.

Personal resources and affect management goals were reported significantly less frequently,which might indicate a tendency for participants in this study to deny more personal concerns inorder to express their frustrations. The lack of reliability in items measuring relational resourceswas dissappointing. Waldron and Hunt (1992) argued that relational concerns may be importantto those engaging in organizational influence, and one can certainly see important connections

TABLE 6Regression Weights of Goals on Message Types

Message TypeR2

Change ConstantProvide

Guidance Get AdviceObtain

InformationChange Opinion

Change Behavior

Gain Assistance

Solution Presentation 0.29** 2.02** 0.12** 0.14** 0.11** 0.13** 0.06 −0.03Pressure 0.17** 1.70** 0.06 −0.06 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.05Coalitions 0.33** 0.88* −0.05 0.08 −0.01 0.04 0.01 0.50**Direct-Factual Appeal 0.23** 2.28** −0.09* 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.14** 0.04Venting 0.19** 2.08** 0.03 −0.11 0.06 0.08 −0.05 −0.01Circumvention 0.17** 1.13* −0.03 0.20** 0.02 −0.05 0.14* 0.31**Exchange 0.12** 1.65** 0.10* −0.09 0.12* 0.00 0.09 −0.03Inspiration 0.25** 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.12* 0.14* 0.01 0.12*Humor 0.11** 2.05** 0.11* −0.12* 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.08Repetition 0.20** 1.73** 0.14** 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.12* 0.25**Ingratiation 0.11** 0.95* 0.09 −0.04 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.04

Message Type Emotional Support IdentityConversation Management Personal Resources Affect Management

Solution Presentation 0.02 0.11* 0.13* −0.15** −0.12*Pressure −0.02 −0.17** −0.12* 0.25** 0.03Coalitions −0.11* 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.07Direct-Factual Appeal 0.09* 0.12* 0.12* −0.15** −0.11*Venting 0.48** −0.01 −0.13 0.13* −0.11Circumvention −0.11 0.01 −0.08 0.09 −0.07Exchange −0.05 −0.06 0.01 0.25** 0.03Inspiration 0.06 0.25** 0.02 0.09 0.01Humor 0.15** −0.15* 0.03 0.06 0.05Repetition 0.04 −0.05 −0.08 −0.03 –0.05Ingratiation −0.08 −0.02 0.12 0.22** 0.07

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

48 GARNER

between relational concerns and organizational dissent. Future research should further explorethese connections.

The hypotheses stated that dissent message types would vary according to the goals thatmotivated them. Every message type was motivated by some combination of goals. That is tosay, a person’s goal for a dissent encounter was significantly related to what that person says toexpress dissent. Primary goals affected many of the choices between messages, possibly becauseparticipants saw some messages as more likely than others to accomplish those goals. Forexample, a dissenter in this study may have perceived that the best way to change the audience’sopinion on a problem was to present a solution to that problem. Secondary goals affected partic-ipants’ message choices by making some messages seem more fitting to the situation. For example,if the audience had the power to sanction the participant’s personal resources (i.e., a demotion orpay cut), he or she might have been more apt to use ingratiation or exchange. Pressure tacticsmight have been associated with personal resource concerns because such messages could havebeen seen as last resorts, an interpretation consistent with the low frequency of reported use ofpressure messages.

The connections between goals and dissent messages build important links between organi-zational dissent and interpersonal influence. Kassing (1997) argued that various individual,relational, and organizational variables contributed to a dissenter’s choice of audience, and thisstudy adds to that and other considerations of dissent by arguing for a model where influencegoals are linked to dissent messages. In other words, this article adds a strategic lens to previousresearch on organizational dissent. Future theorizing can build on this study by continuing toexamine the connections between messages and influence goals.

The next step in this goal-oriented approach to dissent is to examine which messages aremore effective in accomplishing various goals. One may think of effectiveness of dissent prima-rily in terms of removing a dissatisfying circumstance. However, if dissent is motivated by avariety of influence goals as indicated by this study, then it stands to reason that measuring theeffectiveness of dissent messages may be more complicated than looking for organizationalchange. Instead, examining dissent effectiveness would involve measuring the degree to which adissenter felt that his or her goals were satisfied. That is, if a researcher begins from the perspectivethat an assortment of multiple and potentially conflicting goals may underlie dissent, effective-ness then becomes a question of the achievement of those various objectives. This multifacetedapproach to dissent effectiveness is particularly important given the fact that the most frequentlyreported goals in this study were not associated with organizational change. More research isneeded to examine conceptualizations of effectiveness and multiple goals for dissent messages.

Like any study, this project is not without limitations. Perhaps the most important limitationcenters on the nature of data collection. Self-report data can sometimes be suspect. Particularlyin terms of recalling goals for a conversation, it is possible that participants did not accuratelyrecall their conversational goals, but were retrospectively enacting what they wanted to desire.In reflecting back on their conversation, they could have reported getting advice or seekinginformation more frequently because those goals seemed more acceptable than actually trying todo something about the source of their dissatisfaction. Similarly, participants might have under-reported goals such as personal resources because they did not think that such concerns werenoble or socially acceptable. The convenience sample in this study also represents a significantlimitation. Although the procedures used ensured that participants would be working adults andwould likely come from a wide cross-section of organizations, this cannot substitute for a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 49

random sample. Thus, the results of this study should be taken tentatively and should not beassumed to generalize beyond the sample reported here.

This study explored the goals that motivated and constrained expressions of organiza-tional dissent and then connected those goals to the messages that employees used to conveytheir dissatisfaction. The most significant contributions of this study to dissent research aretwofold. First, this study provides empirical support to the notion that multiple goals underliedissent. Some people may have the preconception that employees expressing dissent arealways doing so to change the organization, but the participants in this study were morelikely to be seeking information or advice. Second, the goals a dissenter has for a conversa-tion will likely predict the messages that he or she uses to express that dissent. This hasimportant implications for managers because it indicates that some messages are more likelythan other to be associated with change-driven goals. Recognizing these connections couldmake dissent less threatening to managers. Both of these contributions emphasize the strate-gic nature of dissent. Because multiple goals motivate employee dissent, this form of voicecannot be conceptualized as automatic or unconscious as previous research has suggested(Sprague & Ruud, 1988). Instead, participants indicated that they associated specific mes-sages with specific goals—they strategically chose messages based on the goals they had forthe situation.

Additionally, the specific connections between goals and messages problematize dissenteffectiveness. Effectiveness must now be measured based on whether the dissenter achievedhis or her goal, rather than simply whether the organization responded positively to the dissent.More broadly, an important implication for strategic communication from this study is the needfor organizations to more purposefully consider employee voice and to pursue ways of drawingout dissent from workers, both for the sake of the organization and for the sake of theemployee.

Dissent is an important arena of study because of the positive effects that it can have on theorganization as well as the importance of giving employees voice. This study found that partici-pants strategically chose dissent messages based on multiple goals. The next step in this researchis to measure the effectiveness of messages, but because multiple goals may motivate dissent,the measurement of dissent effectiveness will involve the extent to which a dissenter’s goals arefulfilled. Future research needs to consider such a multidimensional conceptualization of dissenteffectiveness. This project represents an important first step in discovering how employees canbe more effective in strategically pursuing workplace goals.

REFERENCES

Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994). Compliance gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors’ goaltypes, strategies, and successes. In J. Daly & J. Weimann (Eds.), Communicating strategically (pp. 33–90).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dillard, J. P. (1989). Types of influence goals in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,293–308.

Dillard, J. P. (1990a). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: Theproduction of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Dillard, J. P. (1990b). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin(Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70–90). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

50 GARNER

Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Per-spectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002). Interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.),Handbook of interpersonal communication, 3rd ed. (pp. 423–474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influ-ence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–38.

Dougherty, D. S., & Drumheller, K. (2006). Sensemaking and emotions in organizations: Accounting for emotions in arational(ized) context. Communication Studies, 57, 215–238.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tac-tics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.

Garner, J. T. (2006, November). When things go wrong at work: Organizational dissent messages and audience. Paperpresented at the National Communication Association Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Garner, J. T. (in press). When things go wrong at work: An exploration of organizational dissent message. CommunicationStudies.

Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locations for organiza-tional member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 63–90.

Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Harrison, T. M. (1995). Communication and interdependence in democratic organizations. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communi-cation Yearbook (Vol. 17, pp. 247–274). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hegstrom, T. G. (1990). Mimetic and dissent conditions in organizational rhetoric. Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, 18, 141–152.

Hegstrom, T. G. (1995). Focus on organizational dissent: A functionalist response to criticism. In J. Lehtonen (Ed.) Crit-ical perspectives on communication research and pedagogy (pp. 83–94). St. Ingbert, Germany: Rohrig UniversityPress.

Hinson Langford, C. P., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social support: A conceptual analysis.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 95–100.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication

Studies, 48, 311–332.Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication

Quarterly, 16, 187–209.Kassing, J. W. (2007). Going around the boss: Exploring the consequences of circumvention. Management Communica-

tion Quarterly, 12, 55–74.Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic. Communication Monographs, 59,

288–300.Kellermann, K. (2004). A goal-directed approach to gaining compliance: Relating differences among goals to differ-

ences in behaviors. Communication Research, 31, 397–445.Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s

way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.Klaas, B. S. (1989). Determinants of grievance activity and the grievance system’s impact on employee behavior: An

integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 14, 445–458.Klaas, B. S., & DeNisi, A. S. (1989). Managerial reactions to employee dissent: The impact of grievance activity on

performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 705–717.Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship effects on subordinates’ upward influ-

ence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 1–15.Krone, K. J., & Ludlum, J. T. (1990). An organizational perspective on interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.),

Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 123–142). Scottsdale, AZ: GorsuchScarisbrick.

Meyer, J. R. (2002). Contextual influences on the pursuit of secondary goals in request messages. CommunicationMonographs, 69, 189–203.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STRATEGIC DISSENT GOALS 51

Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication. Communication Educa-tion, 34, 245–258.

Rule, B. G., & Bisanz, G. L. (1987). Goals and strategies of persuasion: A cognitive schema for understanding socialevents. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5,pp. 185–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sandelands, L. E., & Boudens, C. J. (2000). Feeling at work. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in Organizations, 2nd ed.(pp. 46–63). London: Sage.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics use by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysisof the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246–257.

Shaia, J. S., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2007). Communications with management in times of difficulty and crisis: Silenceexplained. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1, 139–150.

Sias, P. M., Heath, R. G., Perry, T., Silva, D., & Fix, B. (2004). Narratives of workplace friendship deterioration.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 321–340.

Sias, P. M., Krone, K. J., & Jablin, J. M. (2002). An ecological systems perspective on workplace relationships. InM. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 3rd ed. (pp. 615–642). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Sprague, J., & Ruud, G. L. (1988). Boat-rocking in the high-technology culture. American Behavioral Scientist, 32,169–193.

Stanley, J. D. (1981). Dissent in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 6, 13–19.Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality

of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289–306.Waldron, V. R. (1999). Communication practices of followers, members, and proteges: The case of upward influence

tactics. In M. E. Roloff & G. D. Paulson (Eds.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 251–299). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Waldron, V. R. (2000). Relational experiences and emotion at work. In S. Fineman (Ed.) Emotion in Organizations,2nd ed. (pp. 64–82). London: Sage.

Waldron, V. R., & Hunt, M. D. (1992). Hierarchical level, length, and quality of supervisory relationships as predictorsof subordinates’ use of maintenance tactics. Communication Reports, 5, 82–89.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.

Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and OrganizationManagement, 18, 5–28.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

6:06

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14