IBAM 8 - San Diego, CA November 9-11, 2000

Commitment as a Communicative Process:

Using Communication Boundary Management when Disclosing Private

Information at Work

Melody L. Wollan

Clemson University

Why commitment is important...

How employees are perceived impacts mentor resources and promotability

Serves to categorize an employee’s intentions with the organization, their career, their jobs, and loyalty to supervisor

Impacts the amount of resources (training, assignments) invested in employees

Assessing Commitment

Should be assessed on the basis of two distinct constructs: – Level of commitment (normative, affective,

continuance– Foci (Supervisor, Job, Organization, Career

Is assessed through communicative processes

Communication of Commitment

Commitment is a symbolic process involving identification with organizational structures and strategies

Employee shares private information as way of managing identities

However, once engaged in disclosure, sender loses ability to control message the receiver(s) interpret

Communication Boundary Management Theory

Petronio (1991, in press) Theoretical model and is just starting to be

used in exploratory empirical situations Four parts of boundary structure: control,

ownership, levels and permeability System is: formation of rules, rule choices,

rule coordination, violation management

CBM

Boundary Structure

Control: Risks vs. Gains of Disclosing– Lack of Control once private info is disclosed

and how that information is utilized

Ownership: Receiver(s) own information and go through CBM process independent of the original sender

Boundary Structure (continued)

Levels: Where can information be shared? Peers, Subordinates, Superiors

Permeability: Level of concealment vs. revealing – New Employee information might be revealed

until they have proven themselves

Boundary Rule Foundation

Formation of Rules:– Using criteria such as culture, individual

characteristics, gender and motivation

Culture: determines openness/privacy– High organizationally committed employees

may be become unethical/illegal due to culture of org to keep information within organizational boundaries

Boundary Rule Foundation

Individual Characteristics: tolerance of ambiguity or locus of control – low toa employee will have higher levels of

commitment in org and job that is highly structured

Gender:– women more likely to disclose private

information at work

Boundary Rule Foundation

Motivation: – Motivation to disclose based on control needs

in organizations based on structure and hierarchy or Needs fulfillment in jobs where high levels of job commitment or lack of opportunity to promote

Boundary Rule Foundation

Choices of Rules:– Topic– Content– Target– Timing– Depth – Breadth

Rules become triggered and routinized

Boundary Rule Coordination

Interaction and coordination of the sender and the receiver(s)’s rules

Strategies developed to thwart or cope disclosures and private information

The better the coordination, the better management of people skills, org. citizenship behaviors

Boundary Rule Turbulence

Negotiation phase of coordination and rewriting of rules and choices when violations occur in handling private information and disclosures at work

Inadequate coordination and negotiation leads to lower levels of commitment and person-job/person-organization fit issues

Dual obligation turbulence (to organization and to employee)

CBM and Commitment The disclosure of private information is part

of the process of being perceived as a committed employee

Early exploration applying a new communication model in an organizational context

Empirical evidence needed and development of major vs. minor parts of the model