The informal rules of working relationships

It was expected that there would be informal rules of several kinds for working relationships. In the first study subjects rated 33 common rules and a number of relationship-specific rules for three work roles. It was found that certain rules were strongly endorsed for work-mates, superiors and subordinates. These provide a maintenance function by regulating general and relationship-specific sources of conflict. Rules about cooperation, help and fairness applied strongly to work-mates, rules about consideration and skilful use of power to supervisors, rules about using initiative and accepting orders and criticism to subordinates. Rules about reward were also obtained and these tended to be task-focused rather than intimacy sustaining. In the second study one hundred and twenty-four subjects rated the degree of dissatisfaction which they would feel for 11 types of rule violation by each of four work colleagues varying in degree of intimacy. Some level of dissatisfaction was expressed for each rule violation particularly maintenance rules, and the degree of expressed dissatisfaction increased with increased closeness to the work colleague. Study I was replicated in three other countries — Italy, Hong Kong and Japan, and cross-cultural comparisons were made. While there was some cross-cultural consistency for certain maintenance rules, there were cultural differences both in the type of rules endorsed and the strength of endorsement. Japanese relationships in particular were most dissimilar to other countries, characterized by greater homogeneity of overall rule structure within the four work roles, and by lower levels of intimacy and emotional expressiveness towards the other person in each relationship.

[1]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[2]  Rom Harré,et al.  The Rules of Disorder , 1978 .

[3]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. , 1981 .

[4]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Rules of Friendship , 1984 .

[5]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .

[6]  Adrian Furnham,et al.  Social Situations by Michael Argyle , 1981 .

[7]  The Value of Belonging to a Group in Japan , 1983 .

[8]  Richard H. Price,et al.  Behavioral appropriateness and situational constraint as dimensions of social behavior. , 1974 .

[9]  M. Argyle,et al.  Sources of Satisfaction and Conflict in Long-Term Relationships. , 1983 .

[10]  T. Schwinger,et al.  Laypersons' Conceptions of Social Relationships: A Test of Contract Theory , 1984 .

[11]  S. Durlabhji.  Japanese-Style American Management: Primary Relations and Social Organization , 1983 .

[12]  R. Edelmann,et al.  Book reviewThe anatomy of relationships: M. Argyle and M. Henderson: Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx. (1985). 359 Pages, £3.95. , 1986 .

[13]  M. Argyle,et al.  The rules of social relationships , 1985 .

[14]  Yuichi Iizuka,et al.  CROSS‐CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP RULES , 1986 .

[15]  M. Argyle.  The social psychology of work , 1972 .

[16]  別府 春海,et al.  Japan : an anthropological introduction , 1971 .

[17]  M. Argyle,et al.  Social support by four categories of work colleagues: Relationships between activities, stress and satisfaction , 1985 .

[18]  D. Clarke,et al.  The Characteristic Affective Tone of Seven Classes of Interpersonal Relationship , 1985 .

[19]  M. Deutsch,et al.  Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. , 1976 .

[20]  Emory L. Cowen,et al.  Interpersonal helping behavior of industrial foremen. , 1981 .

[21]  F. J. Roethlisberger,et al.  Management and the Worker , 1941 .

[22]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being. , 1978 .

[23]  M. Bond,et al.  3 – China: Aggressive Behavior and the Problem of Maintaining Order and Harmony , 1983 .

[24]  Intercultural Communication: A Guide to Men of Action , 1960 .