Sex and sex‐composition differences and similarities in peer workplace friendship development

Cleaning out my Journals.  This one was fascinating, for reasons that have nothing to do with my research.

From: Patricia M. Sias , Guy Smith & Tatyana Avdeyeva (2003) Sex and sex‐composition differences and similarities in peer workplace friendship development, Communication Studies, 54:3, 322-340, DOI: 10.1080/10510970309363289

Two defining characteristics of friendship make workplace friendships a unique type of workplace relationship.

• First, friendships are voluntary (Rawlins, 1992; Wright, 1978). They develop by choice, not compulsion. This characteristic distinguishes workplace friendships from, other peer coworker relationships in that individuals do not typically choose their peer coworkers. They do, however, choose which of those coworkers to befriend. 
• Second, friendships are characterized by a personalistic focus where partners treat one another as whole persons rather than mere role occupants (Wright, 1978). This distinguishes peer friendships from, other peer relationships which may be focused solely on the individuals9 organizational roles. 

Despite their importance, workplace friendships have received little research attention, particularly with respect to how such friendships develop. Workplace relationships vary from "friendly relations" to closer friendships that transcend the workplace boundary (Rawlins, 1992). The functions of these relationships vary as well from career advancement to emotional, support, affirmation, and interdependence (Maines, 1981; Wright, 1978, 1985)...

Interpersonal research indicates that friendships develop due to both individual and contextual factors (Fehr, 1996).

• Individual factors are those that derive from the relationship partners themselves such as personality and perceived similarity. 
• Contextual factors derive from the context in, which the friendship exists, such as important events in, the friends' lives (e.g., marital, problems, health, concerns) and proximity (e.g., neighbors). 

This body of literature focuses on friendships outside the organization, however. Only one study to date has examined, the development of workplace friendships. In that study, Sias and Cahill (1998) found that, like extraorganizationaJ friendships, peer workplace friendships were also influenced by individual and, contextual factors.

• In particular, individual factors such as personality and similarity were perceived as important to the development of workplace friendships. 
• However, they found workplace friendships were impacted by two distinct types of contextual factors. 

1. Extraorganizational contextual factors derived from the individuals' lives outside the organization and include life events, extra-organizational socializing, and the passage of time. 
2. Workplace contextual factors, in contrast, were unique to workplace friendships in that they derived from the workplace context specifically. Such factors included shared tasks (e.g., working on a project together), physical work proximity (e.g., having desks or offices near one another), work-related problems (e.g., dealing with a problematic supervisor), and, slack time (e.g., significant amounts of "down" time on the job)...

A large body of literature... suggests men and women perceive and enact friendship in distinct ways — men tend to perceive friendship as a domain for sharing activities, while women view friendship as a domain for the sharing of feelings, emotions, and information (e.g., Cancian, 1987; Paul & White, 1990; Swain, 1989; Wood & Inman, 1993). Although recent work indicates these differences are more variable than dichotomous (Wright, 1998), in general, women's friendships tend to be "face-to-face" while men's tend to be "side-by-side (Wright, 1998). Men and women tend to differ in the ways they express intimacy in friendships. In particular, women are more likely than men to define intimacy as a communicative activity enacted in self-disclosure and socioemotional interaction. Men, in contrast, tend to define intimacy in activity enacted in shared activities with friends (Wood, 1994; Wood & Inman, 1993; Wright, 1998). Thus, women's friendships are more likely than men's to be characterized by emotional support which contributes to the development of the friendship...

[T]hese studies suggest women's friendships are more likely than men's to be influenced by work-related problems and life events, which involve the sharing of feelings or emotion. Because men, on the other hand, are more likely to view friendship as a domain for sharing activities, they may be more likely to perceive their workplace friendships were influenced by sharing tasks and extra organizational socializing, which involve the sharing of activities...

Several researchers have examined the ways communication between relationship partners changes as the relationship becomes closer. In general, models suggest that as relationships become closer, the breadth and depth of communication increases, so that relationship partners discuss a greater variety of topics at a more intimate level (Altaian & Taylor, 1973; Knapp, 1978). Recent work, grounded in social construction theory, provides a more complex understanding of communication's role in relational development. This body of research asserts that relationships, and individuals' perceptions of their relationships, are constructed through communication (Duck & Sants, 1983). Duck and Pittman (1997) explain, "Relational growth is a social and communicative achievement, not something automatically generated by the mixing of two persons' individual characteristics'' (p. 678), nor, we would add, by the mixing of contextual characteristics. Thus, relationships are created and projected through talk; not just talk about the relationship itself, but also through everyday, routine conversations among relationship partners. With each conversation, partners construct and "essentialize" their relationship (Duck & Pittman, 1997)...

Sias and Cahill's (1998) results indicate several ways communication changes as individuals socially construct new boundaries, definitions, and parameters for their peer workplace relationships. Specifically, their respondents reported, communication frequency increased as coworker friendships developed, particularly in the acquaintance-to-friend transition. Communication intimacy also increased, but this increase was reported primarily in the friend-to-close friend and close friend-to-very close/best friend transitions. Thus, as their friendships began, coworkers reported they increased the amount of time they interacted beyond that required by their workplace role — an indication of the voluntary component of friendship. Their communication, however, was not perceived as particularly intimate until the coworkers became close or very close/best friends. Sias & Cahill (1998) also found the content of communication changed as friendships developed between peer coworkers. In particular, coworkers increased their discussion of non-work topics throughout all three friendship transitions. Consistent with the social construction perspective, such discussion is essential for constructing the personalistic focus that characterizes friendships — as communication begins to transcend the organizational boundary, so does the relationship. Employees also increased their discussion of work-related problems as their friendships developed (including opinion-sharing and complaints), particularly during the friend-to-close friend and close friend-to-best friend transitions when the trust required for increased communication intimacy was established.

Several studies suggest that when asked what they would most like to do with a friend, women are more likely to choose "talking" than men who are more likely to choose some other type of activity such as attending or participating in athletic events (Johnson & Aries, 1983; Pulakos, 1989; Woolsey & McBain, 1987). Recent reviews of this body of literature, however, suggest men's preferences for activity are much stronger than women's preferences for talk. In other words, "men more likely emphasize activities with their friends, whereas women are more evenly divided in their preferences for talk versus activities" (Wright, 1998, p. 49)...

Men and women also appear to differ with respect to the intimacy of their communication. Several studies indicate that women communicate with their friends in a more intimate way than do men (Davidson & Duberman, 1982; Oliker, 1989). In a recent meta-analysis, Reis (1998) concluded that existing research provides substantial evidence men communicate less intimately than do women and that these differences (with an overall average effect size of .85 using Cohen's d) are not only perceived differences but are observed in actual interaction. Of particular interest to the present study, Reis's analysis provides strong evidence that "men's friendships are substantially less intimate than those of women" (p. 226)... Finally, men and women appear to differ with respect to what they talk about with their friends. In particular, women appear more likely to discuss their problems with friends than are men (Booth, 1972; Johnson & Aries, 1983; Swain, 1992) and women's friendships tend to be more socioemotionally expressive than men's (Reis, 1998). Along these lines, Cahill and Sias (1997) found men perceived talking to others about their work-related problems to be significantly less important than did women....