research on communication styles

Is Your Workplace Communication Style As Effective As It Could Be?

Knowing your personal communication style—and adapting that style to the needs of your team—will help avoid misunderstandings and keep your team operating at peak effectiveness.

Mary Sharp Emerson

Your communication style and how you communicate with your team plays a critical role in how effective you are as a leader.

When thinking about how you communicate as a leader, it’s easy to focus on the basics. And indeed, there are many things you can do to improve your communication skills . 

However, truly effective communication requires a more comprehensive approach than simply choosing your words carefully. 

Your communication style can have a tremendous impact — positive or negative — on your ability to lead teams and organizations. Developing the ability to adapt your style to meet the needs of your team will help to create a positive workplace culture that motivates your team to work together for common goals. 

Once you understand your own communication style, you can begin to assess — and help your team members assess—their communication styles. 

This knowledge will help you — and your team — develop flexible communication techniques to improve how you communicate with your team and how your team communicates with each other. 

Types of Communication Styles — and How to Work With Them

People are more complex than any typology or framework. While we can divide communication styles into four types, most people don’t fit 100 percent into one particular category.

Still, a framework can be a useful way to assess your own style, and it offers a useful tool to discuss communication tactics with your team.

Here’s an overview of the four different styles of communication, and what they mean for your workplace:

Direct 

The direct ( analytical or dominant ) communicator prefers direct, no-frills communication, backed by hard facts. They are highly focused on the end result and are generally risk-tolerant. 

What you should know : Direct communicators can be intense and very blunt. They lack subtlety and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They are more likely to give commands than make polite requests. They struggle with small talk and emotional decision-making.

When working with a direct communicator: it’s most effective to be clear and concise, and avoid unnecessary details. While dominant communicators must continually work on patience and sensitivity, co-workers should try to avoid taking their bluntness and lack of subtlety as personal criticism. 

Functional 

The functional communicator (conscientious, sometimes also called analytical) likes process, precision, and details. They analyze a project or problem from multiple perspectives to ensure that every possible angle has been considered. 

What you should know: Functional communicators enjoy learning and demonstrating new skills. They thrive in environments with clear expectations, firm deadlines, and the opportunity to work independently. 

When working with a functional communicator: expect them to ask many questions before they feel comfortable moving forward. They may struggle with “big picture” thinking if they feel it’s not well thought-out. Like the direct communicator, they are uncomfortable with small talk and emotional decision-making. 

Browse all Communication programs.

Collaborative

Collaborative communicators are sometimes called harmonizers (also steady or intuitive). They are focused on people over end results. Their goal is to find solutions that work for everyone.

What you should know : Collaborative communicators work best in an environment that prioritizes cooperation, loyalty, and stability. They are great at thinking about the big picture, but can struggle with decision-making. They may not feel comfortable moving forward until everyone on the team has had a chance to provide input. 

When working with a collaborative communicator : ensure that you listen before issuing directives; they will resist being told what to do if they feel their perspective has not been heard. Because they can, at times, struggle keeping track of small details, managers and co-workers should be prepared for multiple follow-up conversations throughout a project to help harmonizers make decisions and stay on track.

Influencer 

The classic “people person”, the influencer (personal or expressive communicator) believes that the emotional connections among team members bring success. They focus on building interpersonal relationships and are great collaborators.

What you should know : Influencers are more focused on “the why” than “the how”, and are excellent visionaries. They prefer informal discussions to formal meetings, and enjoy friendly small talk among team members. They are very comfortable expressing their feelings and navigating emotional decision-making. 

When working with an influencer: enable them to collaborate to maximize their potential. They may need help developing practical solutions. Because they can struggle with details and follow-through, organizing projects with short timeframes can be helpful. 

Not sure where you fit into this framework?

Online questionnaires such as the DiSCProfile or LeadershipIQ can help you with your self-assessment. And a group activity focused on communication styles can be a great team-building exercise.

Adopting Flexible Communication Styles

Wherever you fall in this framework, your goal should be to adapt your style of communication to meet the needs of your employees. 

For example, many leaders are naturally direct communicators. 

However, a direct communication style may be counterproductive when working with employees who lean toward a steady or influencer-style of communication. For an influencer, for example, an unwillingness to share weekend plans may be seen as lack of interest in their well-being. A direct, “tell-it-like-it-is” style of communication may be interpreted as overly critical to an employee who is sensitive to criticism, no matter how constructive.

How can you adopt a more flexible communication style?

Be honest with yourself about how you communicate. Honest self-assessment, as difficult as it can be, is always the first step to embracing necessary change.

Analyze past miscommunications to think about what went wrong. Again, be honest about the part your communication style might have played in that situation. Identify ways that you might have approached the situation differently to achieve a more constructive outcome.

Practice active listening . Active listening requires clearing your mind of potential responses so you can really hear the other side of the conversation. Repeating back what you heard (“what I hear you saying is…”) before you reply lets the other person know they were heard. 

Improve your emotional intelligence . Emotional intelligence involves self-awareness, self-control, and social awareness. If you can improve your own emotional intelligence, you’ll find yourself more capable of adapting your communication style to meet the needs of others.

Take a professional development program focused on communication. Program instructors can guide self-assessment, offer new communication techniques, and provide an outside perspective on how to become more flexible in how you communicate with your team.

Misunderstandings and miscommunications are an inevitable part of human interactions. However, by thinking about how you communicate — as well as what you communicate — you can create a team environment conducive to open, productive, professional conversations. And doing so will keep your team engaged and your organization on the road to success.

Ready to get started? Find the program that’s right for you.

Browse all Professional & Executive Development programs.

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

Emerson is a Digital Content Producer at Harvard DCE. She is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale University and started her career as an international affairs analyst. She is an avid triathlete and has completed three Ironman triathlons, as well as the Boston Marathon.

How to Convince Your Boss to Pay For Professional Development

Many organizations have money set aside for employee career development. Learn how to tap into those funds.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Verbal communication styles and culture.

• Meina Liu Meina Liu Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.162
• Published online: 22 November 2016

A communication style is the way people communicate with others, verbally and nonverbally. It combines both language and nonverbal cues and is the meta-message that dictates how listeners receive and interpret verbal messages. Of the theoretical perspectives proposed to understand cultural variations in communication styles, the most widely cited one is the differentiation between high-context and low-context communication by Edward Hall, in 1976. Low-context communication is used predominantly in individualistic cultures and reflects an analytical thinking style, where most of the attention is given to specific, focal objects independent of the surrounding environment; high-context communication is used predominantly in collectivistic cultures and reflects a holistic thinking style, where the larger context is taken into consideration when evaluating an action or event. In low-context communication, most of the meaning is conveyed in the explicit verbal code, whereas in high-context communication, most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, with very little information given in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. The difference can be further explicated through differences between communication styles that are direct and indirect (whether messages reveal or camouflage the speaker’s true intentions), self-enhancing and self-effacing (whether messages promote or deemphasize positive aspects of the self), and elaborate and understated (whether rich expressions or extensive use of silence, pauses, and understatements characterize the communication). These stylistic differences can be attributed to the different language structures and compositional styles in different cultures, as many studies supporting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis have shown. These stylistic differences can become, in turn, a major source of misunderstanding, distrust, and conflict in intercultural communication. A case in point is how the interethnic clash between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be exacerbated by the two diametrically opposite communication patterns they each have, dugri (straight talk) and musayra (to accommodate or “to go along with”). Understanding differences in communication styles and where these differences come from allows us to revise the interpretive frameworks we tend to use to evaluate culturally different others and is a crucial step toward gaining a greater understanding of ourselves and others.

• communication styles
• cultural values
• thinking styles
• high-context
• low-context
• communication accommodation

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

Communication Styles and Patterns

Basic Typologies and Patterns of Communication

• First Online: 04 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Ulf Lubienetzki 3 &
• Heidrun Schüler-Lubienetzki 3  

958 Accesses

Communication is not something abstract. Each and everyone of us experiences it every day. Moreover, we can observe it at any time and examine observable patterns. Schulz von Thun has summarised these patterns in eight communication styles, which we will address at the beginning of the chapter. In order to examine these communication styles and patterns more closely, we can use different “tools”. We will deal with an exemplary selection of these tools in this chapter. In addition, we deal with vicious circles in communication, which illustrate that some communication styles harmonise better with each other than others. Within the framework of the values and development square, we learn how to return exaggerated values to their positive initial value. Finally, we use the drama triangle from transactional analysis and analyse drama as a communication pattern using examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy . Grove Press.

Google Scholar  

Berne, E. (1966). Games people play. The psychology of human relationships . Deutsch.

Gührs, M., & Nowak, C. (2014). Das konstruktive Gespräch. Ein Leitfaden für Beratung, Unterricht und Mitarbeiterführung mit Konzepten der Transaktionsanalyse [The constructive conversation. A guide to coaching, teaching and personnel management involving concepts from transaction analysis] (7th ed.). Christa Limmer.

Helwig, P. (1965). Charakterologie [aracterology] (4th ed.). Klett.

Lubienetzki, U., & Schüler-Lubienetzki, H. (2016). Was wir uns wie sagen und zeigen. Menschliche Kommunikation [What we say and show to each other and how. Human communication] (study letter of the Fresenius University of Applied Sciences online plus GmbH). Hochschule Fresenius online plus GmbH.

Schulz von Thun, F. (2008). Miteinander Reden 2 – Stile, Werte und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung [Talking to one another 2 – Styles, values and personality development] (32th ed.). Rowohlt.

Schulz von Thun, F. (2013). Miteinander Reden 1 – Störungen und Klärungen [Talking to one another 1 – Disturbances and clarifications] (50th ed.). Rowohlt.

Thomann, C., & Schulz von Thun, F. (2005). Klärungshilfe 1 – Handbuch für Therapeuten, Gesprächshelfer und Moderatoren in schwierigen Gesprächen [Clarification aid 1 – manual for therapists, conversation helpers and facilitators in difficult conversations] (2nd ed.). Rowohlt.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes . Faber and Faber.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

entwicklung GbR, Hamburg, Germany

Ulf Lubienetzki & Heidrun Schüler-Lubienetzki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Lubienetzki, U., Schüler-Lubienetzki, H. (2022). Communication Styles and Patterns. In: How We Talk to Each Other - The Messages We Send With Our Words and Body Language. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64437-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64437-9_3

Published : 04 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-662-64436-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-662-64437-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes

Reinout e. de vries.

1 Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Angelique Bakker-Pieper

Wyneke oostenveld.

2 University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between leaders’ communication styles and charismatic leadership, human-oriented leadership (leader’s consideration), task-oriented leadership (leader’s initiating structure), and leadership outcomes.

Methodology

A survey was conducted among 279 employees of a governmental organization. The following six main communication styles were operationalized: verbal aggressiveness, expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness, supportiveness, and argumentativeness. Regression analyses were employed to test three main hypotheses.

In line with expectations, the study showed that charismatic and human-oriented leadership are mainly communicative, while task-oriented leadership is significantly less communicative. The communication styles were strongly and differentially related to knowledge sharing behaviors, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment. Multiple regression analyses showed that the leadership styles mediated the relations between the communication styles and leadership outcomes. However, leader’s preciseness explained variance in perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader above and beyond the leadership style variables.

Implications

This study offers potentially invaluable input for leadership training programs by showing the importance of leader’s supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when communicating with subordinates.

Originality/value

Although one of the core elements of leadership is interpersonal communication, this study is one of the first to use a comprehensive communication styles instrument in the study of leadership.

Introduction

Several authors have noted that communication is central to leadership (Awamleh and Gardner 1999 ; Den Hartog and Verburg 1997 ; Frese et al. 2003 ; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 ; Riggio et al. 2003 ; Shamir et al. 1994 ; Spangler and House 1991 ; Towler 2003 ), but, except for studies devoted to oratory skills and content in highly specific speech-like contexts, few have attempted to operationalize the communication styles leaders use in their daily transactions with subordinates. Even fewer have attempted to find out what the relations are of these communication styles with general leadership styles and outcome variables. This is somewhat surprising, given that one of the core elements of leadership is a leader’s interpersonal communication style. In this study, we will consider leadership from this communicative perspective, and we will define a leader’s communication style as a distinctive set of interpersonal communicative behaviors geared toward the optimization of hierarchical relationships in order to reach certain group or individual goals. In line with Daft ( 2003 ) and McCartney and Campbell ( 2006 ), we make a distinction between the interpersonal aspects of leadership, which revolve around communicative activities in interpersonal relationships, and the managerial aspects of leadership, which revolve around non-interpersonal activities such as planning, organizing, decision-making, problem-solving, and controlling, and we will focus our work on the first of these two, i.e., a leader’s interpersonal communicative behaviors. The goal of this paper is to operationalize a leader’s interpersonal communication style, to uncover the relations between common leadership style measures and our measure of a leader’s communication style, and to find out about the differential and incremental prediction of several important leadership outcomes using both common leadership style measures and our leader’s communication style measure.

The Nature of Communication Styles

Although there are a great number of instruments to measure somebody’s interpersonal communication style, several authors have noted the lack of parsimony and integration in the burgeoning area of communication style studies (McCroskey et al. 1998 ). Several authors have attempted to redress this state of affairs by integrating diverse communication style scales with the interpersonal circumplex model (Leary 1957 ), which consists of the following two main interpersonal (communicative) dimensions: friendliness/affiliation and dominance (Dillard et al. 1999 ; Hansford and Hattie 1987 ; Sorenson and Savage 1989 ). Others have suggested that there are more than two communication style dimensions. For instance, Gudykunst et al. ( 1996 ) factor-analyzed 96 items from existing communication style instruments (Booth Butterfield and Booth Butterfield 1990 ; Norton 1978 ; Singelis 1994 ; Takai and Ota 1994 ; Wiemann et al. 1986 ) and 62 additional items based on Hall’s ( 1976 ) and Gudykunst and Ting Toomey ( 1988 ) conceptualization of low- and high-context communication, and arrived at eight factors: Inferring Meaning, Indirect Communication, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Dramatic Communication, Use of Feelings, Openness, Preciseness, Positive Perception of Silence. However, according to De Vries et al. ( 2009 ), some of the scales based on these factors (e.g., Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perception of Silence) do not pertain to interpersonal communication styles, but to intrapersonal cognitions and feelings with respect to communication, and consequently may be less useful in assessment situations or in cases in which an observer (e.g., a subordinate) has to rate somebody else’s (e.g., a leader’s) interpersonal communication style.

To arrive at a framework of communication styles, De Vries et al. ( 2009 ) carried out a lexical study to uncover the main communication style dimensions. The basis of a lexical study is the idea that anything which can be said about a construct, such as somebody’s communication style, will become encoded in language (Galton 1884 ; Goldberg 1990 ). Factor-analysis of a sample of all dictionary words which pertain to communication should provide the best description of the nature, number, and size of the principal communication style dimensions. Having carried out a lexical study using 744 adjectives and 837 verbs, De Vries et al. ( 2009 ) arrived at seven main communication style dimensions, which they labelled: Expressiveness, Preciseness, Niceness, Supportiveness, Verbal Aggressiveness, (Expressed) Emotional Tension (or, reversed, Assuredness), and Argumentativeness. Regression of the Communication Style Scale (CSS) of Gudykunst et al. ( 1996 ) on the lexical communication factors revealed strong correspondence between Gudykunst et al.’s Openness and Dramatic Communication on the one hand and lexical Expressiveness on the other, Gudykunst et al.’s Preciseness and lexical Preciseness, and Gudykunst et al.’s Interpersonal Sensitivity and lexical Niceness. The so-called intrapersonal communication scales of Gudykunst et al. ( 1996 ) were less well covered by the lexical scales. Conversely, lexical (Expressed) Emotional Tension, Verbal Aggressiveness, and Argumentativeness were less represented in Gudykunst et al.’s scales.

Outcomes Associated with Communication Styles

Although it appears that there are more than two main communication style dimensions, until now, when investigating communication styles, most scholars have focused on the two styles that are most closely associated with the interpersonal circumplex, i.e., friendliness and dominance. Communication styles have been an especially welcome topic for scholars interested in doctor–patient communication (Bultman and Svarstad 2000 ; Hailey et al. 1998 ; Street 2002 ; Van Dulmen and Bensing 2002 ; Yedidia et al. 2003 ), teacher–pupil communication (Noels et al. 1999 ; Prisbell 1994 ), parent–child communication (Bugental et al. 1999 ; Hawes 1996 ; Ritchie and Fitzpatrick 1990 ), and communication among married or dating couples (Bienvenu 1970 ; Christensen 1988 ; Noller and White 1990 ).

Results of doctor–patient studies suggest that especially a supportive (i.e., friendly and caring) communication style is associated with higher satisfaction among patients (Buller and Buller 1987 ; Schmid Mast et al. 2007 ), while a dominant style is associated with less satisfaction among patients and less favorable outcomes, such as malpractice claims (Ambady et al. 2002 ; Buller and Buller 1987 ; Burgoon et al. 1987 ; Levinson et al. 1997 ). Results of classroom studies suggest that a supportive communication style is associated with greater satisfaction among students (Prisbell 1994 ) and that a dominant (controlling) communication style is associated with less intrinsic motivation (Noels et al. 1999 ). In the family setting, however, children were found to be more attentive and task-oriented when parents used an unambiguous and dominant communication style (Bugental et al. 1999 ; Rasku Puttonen 1988 ).

The above studies seem to indicate that satisfaction is more often associated with a friendly communication style, while a dominant communication style may be associated with performance, but only in some instances (e.g., strong dependence situations). One important intermediate concept, which may be determined by communication styles on the one hand, and which determines team performance (Srivastava et al. 2006 ) and may determine satisfaction, is the concept of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing has been defined as the process where individuals mutually exchange their (tacit and explicit) knowledge and jointly create new knowledge (Van den Hooff and De Ridder 2004 ). Knowledge sharing may be an interesting variable in relation to communication styles, because the exchange process assumes a communication process. Even when people have ready access to the internet or a firm’s intranet, people are more likely to turn to other people for information than to impersonal sources (Levin and Cross 2004 ). Consequently, the communication style of a team member is likely to have an effect on the willingness and eagerness of team members to share knowledge with each other. In a study by De Vries et al. ( 2006 ), team members were found to be more likely to be willing to share knowledge with team members who were more agreeable and extraverted in their communication style. Consequently, not only satisfaction is likely to be affected by the communication style of a communication partner, but also the likelihood that one shares knowledge with a communication partner.

Leaders’ Communication Styles

The question is: are the findings of the communication style literature replicable in the leadership context? The leadership style literature may be characterized by referring to two main phases: approximately 30 years of studying leader consideration and initiating structure from 1953 until the middle of the 1980s and approximately 25 years of studying charismatic-transformational leadership from the middle of the 1980s until the present. Studies on leaders’ communication styles have kept up with this shift in focus. In a review of the relations between interpersonal communication behaviors and leadership consideration and initiating structure, Penley and Hawkins ( 1985 ) conclude that consideration (or: human-oriented leadership) is mainly communicative, while initiating structure (or: task-oriented leadership) is much less so. According to Penley and Hawkins ( 1985 ), the close correspondence between human-oriented leadership and communication is due to the fact that consideration is heavily saturated with relational aspects of communication, such as interpersonal concern and warmth, while task-oriented leadership is much more saturated with the actual content of the information provided instead of the style of communication.

Given the explosion of studies on charismatic-transformational leadership, it is surprising that the number of studies linking communication to charismatic-transformational leadership is relatively sparse and directed mostly at oratory skills and content (Awamleh and Gardner 1999 ; Den Hartog and Verburg 1997 ; Frese et al. 2003 ; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 ; Riggio et al. 2003 ; Shamir et al. 1994 ; Spangler and House 1991 ; Towler 2003 ). For instance, with respect to communication styles, charismatic leadership training studies have looked at the effects of training inspirational delivery style on the trainees and their public (Frese et al. 2003 ; Towler 2003 ), showing positive effects of the training on the trainees and on the attitudes and performance of their public. An experimental study by Awamleh and Gardner ( 1999 ) focused on the effects of vision content and delivery style on perceptions of charismatic leadership and effectiveness. The study showed that an expressive (enthusiastic) delivery style had a much stronger effect than the content of the speech. Because charismatic leadership has been found to be strongly related to human-oriented leadership (De Vries et al. 2002 ) and because human-oriented and charismatic leadership are much more saturated with relational content than task-oriented leadership, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Communication styles are more strongly related to charismatic and human-oriented leadership than to task-oriented leadership.

We do expect, however, the determinants of charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership to be different. While human-oriented leadership will be mainly determined by a supportive communication style, charismatic leadership will be determined by all communication styles that have a positive connotation, i.e., expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness, supportiveness, argumentativeness, and a lack of verbal aggressiveness.

Leadership, Communication Styles, and Outcomes

The literature on communication styles and outcomes and on communication styles and leadership styles implies that communication styles are meaningfully related to a number of outcome variables and to some, but not all, leadership styles. The question is whether communication styles of a leader are similarly related to outcome variables as the traditional leadership styles. In comparison with the communication styles literature, there has been an abundance of studies associating outcomes with charismatic, human-oriented, and task-oriented leadership. To combine these studies, several meta-analyses have been conducted to investigate the relations between leadership styles and both organizational and individual outcomes (DeGroot et al. 2000 ; Fuller et al. 1996 ; Judge and Piccolo 2004 ; Lowe et al. 1996 ; Stewart 2006 ). For instance, the meta-analysis of Judge and Piccolo ( 2004 ) revealed positive relations between both transformational and charismatic leadership and subordinates’ job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, motivation, leader effectiveness, and group performance. Judge and Piccolo ( 2004 ) did not find any significant differences in results between charismatic and transformational leadership, which shows that these constructs are by-and-large interchangeable. A meta-analysis on leader’s consideration (e.g., human-oriented leadership) and initiating structure (e.g., task-oriented leadership) also revealed positive effects on outcomes for these two styles (Judge et al. 2004 ). Most notable, leader’s consideration was more strongly related to subordinates’ job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, and leader effectiveness than initiating structure.

Lately, there has been an increased interest in the predictors of knowledge sharing. (De Vries et al. 2006 ; Srivastava et al. 2006 ). Especially leadership may play a central role in inspiring and supporting knowledge sharing behaviors. Consequently, both charismatic and human-oriented leadership are likely to have a positive effect on both knowledge collecting and donating behaviors. Srivastava et al. ( 2006 ) looked at the relation between empowering leadership and knowledge sharing. Encouragement of self-management, a concept akin to empowering leadership, has been found to be very strongly related to human-oriented and charismatic leadership (De Vries et al. 2002 ). Srivastava et al. ( 2006 ) found a positive relation of empowering leadership on knowledge sharing, which suggests that both human-oriented and charismatic leadership will be related to knowledge sharing.

The question is: To what degree do these results reflect the relation of communication styles with these outcomes. According to the literature on communication styles (see above), we may expect to find significant relations with satisfaction. In line with the study on team communication styles and outcomes (De Vries et al. 2006 ) there may also be significant relations with knowledge sharing. Consequently, in general, we expect the communication styles to be significantly related to the outcomes in this study. Based on the notion that especially charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership represent communication styles, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2

Both the communication styles and the charismatic and human-oriented leadership styles explain a significant amount of variance in perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, subordinates’ commitment, and both donating and collecting knowledge sharing of a subordinate with his/her leader.

Note that we expect charismatic and human-oriented leadership to be positively related to these outcomes. Again, as noted in hypothesis 1, we expect the effects of a supportive communication style to resemble the effects of human-oriented leadership. However, because we expect charismatic leadership to be characterized by a profile of high scores on expressiveness, preciseness, supportiveness, assuredness, and argumentativeness, and low scores on verbal aggressiveness, these communication styles will tend to correlate with the outcome variables which are related to charismatic leadership.

The last hypothesis concerns the direction of the effects we propose for this study. Several authors have noted that attributional processes play a key role in leadership ratings. Conger and Kanungo ( 1988 , p. 79) note, for instance, that “charismatic leadership is an attribution based on follower’s perceptions of their leader’s behavior.” One of the most important attributional processes is a recognition-based process (Lord and Maher 1993 ). Recognition-based processes involve the perception of leadership behaviors on the one hand and the matching of these behaviors with relevant implicit leadership theories on the other hand. Implicit leadership theories seem to be to a large extent culturally universal (Den Hartog et al. 1999 ), and thus, of these two subprocesses (i.e., behavior perception and matching using an implicit leadership theory), the perception process of actual observable behaviors seems to be most important in the judgment of a person’s leadership style.

An example of the influence of observable communication behaviors on the perception of leadership is a study by Naidoo and Lord ( 2008 ) on the relation between leader speech imagery and followers perceptions of charismatic leadership. Use of speech imagery, which links to sensory experiences, was positively associated with ratings of charismatic leadership. In a similar vein, Awamleh and Gardner ( 1999 ) found both communication content and delivery style to be positively related to perceptions of charisma and perceived leader effectiveness. This study’s communication styles reflect more observable behaviors (i.e., all items pertain to communication acts) than the leadership styles, which contain attributional—not directly observable—elements (e.g., “My leader trusts his/her subordinates” for human-oriented leadership 1 and “My leader has a vision and image of the future” for charismatic leadership). Consequently, we believe attributed human-oriented leadership and charismatic leadership to be mediators of the relation between the communication styles and the outcomes in this study and thus we propose the additional third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3

Charismatic and human-oriented leadership mediate the relations between the communication styles of a leader and the outcomes of this study, i.e., perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, subordinates’ commitment, and both donating and collecting knowledge sharing.

The advantage of this study’s model, which links communication styles to leadership, is that models based on personality traits, which can be considered to be the primary determinants of leadership styles, predominantly either omit the most central feature of leadership, i.e., interpersonal communication, or do not capture it adequately. Although studies have shown that personality traits are related to leadership (De Hoogh et al. 2005 ; Judge and Bono 2000 ; Lord et al. 1986 ), it is doubtful whether the questions used in standard personality research, such as pertaining to eating, movie watching, or holiday habits (all taken from the NEO-PI-R, Costa and McCrae 1992 ), are able to capture the behaviors exhibited in leader-subordinate interactions. Although communicative behaviors can be regarded as a subset of personality, what exactly constitutes this subset has not been properly investigated until recently (De Vries et al. 2009 ). By relying on a measure derived from lexical research, this study will be able to more adequately capture somebody’s communication style in general and a leader’s communication style in particular, and to explore the links with several important outcomes.

Participants

A survey was distributed to the employees of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The Ministry was in the process of assessing the organizational culture, and investigating the leadership and communication styles of leaders was part of the overall research. Of 279 respondents 52.0% was male and 16.7% of the participants occupied a leadership position. Participants indicated that 65.8% of their supervisors was male. The age of the participants who completed the survey ranged from 20 to 65 with a median of 44 years; 64.3% completed a university education.

Instruments

A computerized survey was used, consisting of 16 background questions and 138 items. The items were selected from existing questionnaires. Answers were provided on a five-point (disagree–agree) scale. For measuring task- and human-oriented leadership styles, the short version of Syroit’s ( 1979 ; De Vries et al. 2002 ) Dutch translation of the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ; Fleishman 1953 ) was used. For measuring the charismatic leadership style a short Dutch version of Bass’ ( 1985 ) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (De Hoogh et al. 2004 ; Den Hartog et al. 1997 ) was used. In previous studies, these scales have consistently shown strong reliabilities, i.e., .84 for task-oriented leadership, .92 for human-oriented leadership, and .88 for charismatic leadership (De Hoogh et al. 2004 ; De Vries et al. 2002 ). In the current research Cronbach’s alphas were .86 for task-oriented leadership, .91 for human-oriented leadership, and .90 for charismatic leadership.

The questionnaire which measured a leader’s interpersonal communication style was based on the outcomes of a lexical study, which identified seven main communication dimensions (for a detailed explanation of this study: see De Vries et al. 2009 ). To measure these seven dimensions, 87 items, representing each of the poles of the seven dimensions, were written. A Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. Based on the scree plot and the content of the items we identified six factors, which explained a total of 56.3% of the variance. No reliable scales could be constructed from additional factors. 2 The following names were given to the scales constructed by summing the highest loading items of these six dimensions: leader’s verbal aggressiveness (10 items, in the current study α  = .92), expressiveness (10 items, α  = .89), preciseness (10 items, α  = .90), assuredness (10 items, α  = .81), supportiveness (9 items, α  = .89), and argumentativeness (4 items, α  = .68). Five of the 15 possible correlations between the communication scales were above the .40 level; e.g., supportiveness correlated −.57 with verbal aggressiveness and .54 with expressiveness (see Table  1 ). Examples of items of the communication style scales were: “If things don’t work out, my leader becomes very angry” (verbal aggressiveness), “My leader often tells a lively story” (expressiveness), “My leader expresses him-/herself in a concise manner” (preciseness), “Often, my leader lets others resolutely know what s/he thinks” (assuredness), “My leader often gives somebody a compliment” (supportiveness), and “My leader likes to analyze everything” (argumentativeness).

Table 1

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas (on the diagonal) of the variables in this study ( N  = 269, except for age, N  = 261)

Note : all correlations exceeding the |.11| level are significant at p  < .05, gender: 1 = male, 2 = female

We measured the following leadership outcomes: knowledge donating and collecting, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment. To measure knowledge donating and collecting behaviors the questionnaire of Van den Hooff and Hendrix ( 2004 ; see also De Vries et al. 2006 ) was used. The items were adapted to reflect a subordinate’s knowledge sharing behavior with his/her supervisor. Cronbach’s alphas in De Vries et al.’s ( 2006 ) study were .84 for Donating Knowledge Sharing and .75 for Collecting Knowledge Sharing. In this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .76 and .67, respectively. To measure subordinate’s perception of leader performance and their satisfaction with the leader two scales were constructed, each consisting of four items. An example of a leader performance item is: “My superior is not very efficient.” An example of a reverse coded item to measure satisfaction with the leader is: “I sometimes think: ‘I wish I had another superior’”. The Cronbach’s alphas for these scales were .80 and .93, respectively. To measure employee commitment the short version of the Dutch translation of Allen and Meyer’s ( 1990 ) questionnaire was used (De Gilder et al. 1997 ); in this study the Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

First of all, we checked the data to assess deviant answering patterns. We calculated the within-person mean and standard deviation for all variables in the study . We visually checked the answers for those cases in which the within-person mean was >4.5 or <1.5 or the standard deviation was close to 0. We decided to exclude 10 cases from further analyses. Apart from Pearson’s correlations, we used multiple regression analyses to inspect the relations between the leader communication styles, leadership styles, and leadership outcomes. Based on the multiple regression analysis, we checked whether, statistically, 3 mediation occurred in the relation between the leader communication styles and leadership styles on the one hand and the leadership outcomes on the other using the procedure advocated by Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ). Thus, we checked: (1) whether the communication styles were significantly related to the outcome variables, (2) whether the communication styles were significantly related to the proposed mediators (the leadership styles), and (3) whether the mediators were significantly related to the outcome variables. When mediation occurred, we conducted additional analyses using separate variables (i.e., one independent variable, one dependent variable, and one mediator) to establish the nature and significance of the mediation effect (Mathieu and Taylor 2006 ; Sobel 1982 ). A leadership style fully mediated the relation between the communication style and the outcome variables if the relation between the communication style and leadership outcome after controlling for the leadership style was no longer significant (Baron and Kenny 1986 ). If the relation between the communication style and leadership outcome was still significant, but less strong, partial mediation occurred.

The correlations between the variables in this study are reported in Table  1 . Gender and age were unrelated to the rest of the variables in this study, except for two minor, but significant, correlations between gender and both leader expressiveness ( r  = .12, p  = .05) and subordinate’s knowledge collecting ( r  = .13, p  = .03). Female subordinates rated their leader slightly higher on expressiveness and reported slightly more knowledge collecting than male subordinates.

Table  1 reveals several strong correlations between the communication styles of a leader and his/her leadership style. The two strongest correlates of charismatic leadership were leader’s supportiveness ( r  = .66, p  < .01) and leader’s assuredness ( r  = .64, p  < .01). The two strongest correlates of human-oriented leadership were again leader’s supportiveness ( r  = .87, p  < .01) and leader’s verbal aggressiveness ( r  = −.62, p  < .01). The relations of the communication styles of a leader with task-oriented leadership were less strong, but still significant, with the two strongest correlates leader’s assuredness ( r  = .48, p  < .01) and leader’s preciseness ( r  = .35, p  < .01). Note that verbal aggressiveness had a strong negative correlation with human-oriented leadership and a medium-sized negative one with charismatic leadership, but a small (but not significant) positive correlation with task-oriented leadership. Of all communication variables, leader’s argumentativeness was the weakest correlate of all three leadership styles.

With respect to the outcome variables in this study, the main communication style correlate of the outcomes was leader’s supportiveness, with correlations varying between .36 for subordinate’s knowledge collecting and .71 for satisfaction with the leader. One exception was the correlation between leader’s preciseness and perceived leader’s performance ( r  = .61, p  < .01), which was just slightly higher than the correlation between leader’s supportiveness and perceived leader’s performance ( r  = .60, p  < .01). Leader’s verbal aggressiveness correlated negatively with all outcomes. The lowest correlations between the communication styles and the outcomes were for leader’s argumentativeness, with correlations ranging between .03 (for subordinate’s knowledge donating behaviors) and .15 (for both satisfaction with the leader and subordinate’s team commitment). Charismatic and human-oriented leadership correlated even stronger with perceived leader’s performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s commitment than leader’s supportiveness and had similar-sized correlations with the two knowledge sharing behavior variables; all of these correlations were stronger than the correlations involving task-oriented leadership.

In Table  2 the regression analyses of the leadership styles on the communication style variables are reported. Apart from the standardized beta coefficients, we also report the semi-partial r 2 ’s, which can be interpreted as the incremental variance of each of the communication style variables separately. Charismatic leadership was significantly related to five of the six communication style variables. Somewhat surprisingly, leader’s expressiveness did not explain any incremental variance in charismatic leadership, while all other communication style variables did. The two strongest predictors of charismatic leadership were leader’s assuredness ( β  = .45, p  < .01) and leader’s supportiveness ( β  = .34, p  < .01). In line with expectations, human-oriented leadership was strongly associated with leader’s supportiveness ( β  = .67, p  < .01); the two other significant regression coefficients, although much less strong, involved verbal aggressiveness ( β  = −.19, p  < .05) and expressiveness ( β  = .09, p  < .05). Compared to charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership, the relations between the communication styles and task-oriented leadership were less strong; the two strongest correlations were between task-oriented leadership and leader’s assuredness ( β  = .34, p  < .01) and verbal aggressiveness ( β  = .27, p  < .01). Note that the relation between task-oriented leadership and leader’s verbal aggressiveness was opposite to the relations of leader’s verbal aggressiveness with charismatic and human-oriented leadership.

Table 2

Multiple regression of charismatic, human-oriented, and task-oriented leadership on leader’s communication styles ( N  = 269)

* p  < .05; **  p  < .01

The communication styles explained more variance in charismatic leadership ( R 2  = .69, p  < .01) and human-oriented leadership ( R 2  = .79, p  < .01) than in task-oriented leadership ( R 2  = .30, p  < .01). A test of the difference of dependent multiple R ’s, after conversion to z-scores, revealed a significant difference between the communication styles—charismatic leadership multiple R and the communication styles—task-oriented leadership multiple R ( z  = 5.72, p  < .01) and between the communication styles—human-oriented leadership multiple R and the communication styles—task-oriented leadership multiple R ( z  = 8.84, p  < .01). These results offer support for hypothesis 1. Additionally, we checked whether the profiles of beta’s of the communication styles differed significantly in the three regression analyses reported in Table  2 . 4 All three of the contrasts proved to be significantly different, that is, the communication styles had a different profile of beta’s when comparing the profile of charismatic leadership with the profile of human-oriented leadership ( F  = 28,25, p  < .01), when comparing the profile of charismatic leadership with the profile of task-oriented leadership ( F  = 19,61, p  < .01), and when comparing the profile of human-oriented leadership with the profile of task-oriented leadership ( F  = 40,86, p  < .01). The results show that not only do the leadership styles differ in the extent to which communication styles in general play a role in the perception of leadership, but also in the extent to which different communication styles play a role.

To test hypothesis 2, i.e., the relations between the leadership styles and communication styles on the one hand, and the outcome variables on the other, we conducted multiple regression analyses with each of the outcome variables. In Table  3 the multiple regression analyses of the knowledge sharing behaviors are reported; Table  4 reports the multiple regression analyses involving perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment. The first column of the outcome variables in the tables pertains to the relations of the communication styles to the outcome variables, the second one involves the leadership styles, and the third column contains all of the variables together. The results in the first columns show that the communication style variables explained a significant amount of variance in all of the outcome variables with multiple R ’s ranging from .41 for knowledge donating behaviors to .80 for satisfaction with the leader. The multiple R ’s involving the leadership styles were almost similar to the ones involving the communication styles, ranging from .46 for knowledge donating behaviors to .83 for satisfaction with the leader. Of the communication style variables, leader’s supportiveness was the strongest statistical predictor of knowledge donating behaviors. Of the leadership style variables, human-oriented leadership was the strongest statistical predictor of knowledge donating behaviors, but task-oriented leadership also explained incremental variance in knowledge donating behaviors. The main communication style predictors of knowledge collecting behaviors were leader’s supportiveness, leader’s preciseness, and leader’s expressiveness, 5 while the main leadership style predictors of knowledge collecting behaviors were charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership.

Table 3

Multiple regression of knowledge sharing on leader’s communication styles (LCS) and leadership styles (LS) ( N  = 269)

*  p  < .05; ** p  < .01

Table 4

Multiple regression of leadership outcomes on leader’s communication styles (LCS) and leadership styles (LS) ( N  = 269)

* p  < .05; ** p  < .01

Of the outcome variables reported in Table  4 , except for leader’s expressiveness, all communication style variables were significantly related to perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader. For subordinate’s team commitment, this was only true for leader’s supportiveness and leader’s assuredness. Of the leadership style variables, charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership had positive significant relations with all three outcomes in Table  4 . Task-oriented leadership only had a positive significant relation with perceived leader performance. These results support hypothesis 2, i.e., both the communication styles and the charismatic and human-oriented leadership styles explain a significant amount of variance in all of the outcome variables.

The third column of each outcome variable in Tables  3 and ​ and4 4 reports the multiple regression of all communication and leadership style variables combined. In conjunction with Tables  1 and ​ and2 2 and the first two columns of each outcome variable in Tables  3 and ​ and4, 4 , it shows that the leadership styles statistically mediated the relations between the communication styles on the one hand and the outcome variables on the other. With respect to knowledge donating and collecting behaviors (Table  3 ), none of the regression coefficients of the communication style variables remained significant when the leadership style variables were entered as well. Additional analyses, leaving out task-oriented leadership and human-oriented leadership separately in the regression equation, showed that this effect was entirely due to human-oriented leadership. When only charismatic leadership and task-oriented leadership were entered in the regression equation together with the communication styles, leader’s supportiveness was still significantly related to knowledge donating behaviors ( β  = .28, p  < .01), while this was not true when leader’s supportiveness was entered in the regression equation together with charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership ( β  = .11, p  < .37). A mediation analyses based on Mathieu and Taylor’s ( 2006 ) decision tree, which helps to distinguish between indirect effects, full mediation effects, and partial mediation effects, showed that human-oriented leadership fully statistically mediated the relation between leader’s supportiveness and knowledge donating behaviors. A Sobel ( 1982 ) test indicated a significant indirect effect of leader’s supportiveness on knowledge donating behaviors through human-oriented leadership ( z  = 7.31, p  < .01).

Table  3 also shows that charismatic leadership statistically mediated the relations between leader’s supportiveness, leader’s preciseness, and leader’s expressiveness on the one hand and knowledge collecting behaviors on the other. Separate mediation tests (and Sobel indirect effect tests) showed that the relation between knowledge collecting behaviors and leader’s expressiveness was partially statistically mediated by charismatic leadership (with a significant indirect effect; z  = 5.88, p  < .01), while the relations between knowledge collecting behaviors and both leader’s preciseness and leader’s supportiveness were fully statistically mediated by charismatic leadership (with significant indirect effects; respectively, z  = 6.41, p  < .01 and z  = 7.24, p  < .01).

Statistical mediation was also shown when perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment were the outcome variables. For perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader, only partial statistical mediation was found. Leader’s preciseness explained incremental variance in perceived leader performance when entered together with charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership and both leader’s preciseness and leader’s verbal aggressiveness explained incremental variance in satisfaction with the leader when entered together with charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership. Except for the relation between leader’s preciseness and perceived leader performance and except for the relations between leader’s preciseness and verbal aggressiveness and satisfaction with the leader, the results offer support for Hypothesis 3. Further mediation analyses using the separate variables based on Mathieu and Taylor’s ( 2006 ) decision tree showed that human-oriented leadership, but not charismatic leadership, 6 fully statistically mediated the relations between leader’s verbal aggressiveness and leader’s supportiveness on the one hand and perceived leader performance on the other (with significant indirect effects; respectively, z  = 9.82, p  < .01 and z  = 13.25, p  < .01), while charismatic leadership, but not human-oriented leadership, fully statistically mediated the relation between leader’s assuredness and perceived leader performance (with a significant indirect effect; z  = 10.54, p  < .01).

Similar results were found for satisfaction with the leader and subordinate’s team commitment. Human-oriented leadership, but not charismatic leadership, fully statistically mediated the relations between leader’s supportiveness on the one hand and satisfaction with the leader and subordinate’s team commitment on the other (with significant indirect effects; respectively, z  = 16.86, p  < .01 and z  = 11.25, p  < .01), while charismatic leadership, but not human-oriented leadership, fully statistically mediated the relation between leader’s assuredness and satisfaction with the leader (with a significant indirect effect; z  = 10.69, p  < .01). However, human-oriented leadership also fully statistically mediated the relation between leader’s assuredness and subordinate’s team commitment (with a significant indirect effect; z  = 5.01, p  < .01).

Conclusions and Discussion

According to Yukl ( 1999 ), there is a ‘considerable ambiguity about the essential behaviors for charismatic and transformational leadership’ (p. 301), and conceptual weaknesses in charismatic and transformational leadership are ‘similar to those in most of the earlier leadership theories’ (p. 286). This study has tried to clarify the essential ingredients of charismatic and human-oriented leadership. According to this research, both charismatic and human-oriented leadership styles are to a considerable extent grounded in communication styles. In contrast, task-oriented leadership is much less communicative and may be regarded, following Daft ( 2003 ) and McCartney and Campbell ( 2006 ), more as a managerial than as a leadership style. Consequently, the question whether leadership = communication can be answered in the affirmative for charismatic and human-oriented leadership and is disconfirmed for task-oriented leadership.

There are several noteworthy findings in this study. First of all, charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership are characterized by a different communication style profile. Human-oriented leadership is strongly associated with the communication style supportiveness, and to a lesser extent with leader’s expressiveness and (a lack of) leader’s verbal aggressiveness. In contrast, charismatic leadership is characterized by a profile which includes five out of the six communication styles. Charismatic leaders are characterized by an assured, supportive, argumentative, precise, and verbally non-aggressive communication style. Surprisingly, expressiveness was found to be unrelated to charismatic leadership when entered in the regression equation together with the other communication styles. On the one hand, it may be true that charismatic leaders do not need to be particularly expressive to reach their desired effect, as for instance less expressive but notable charismatic leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi, have shown. On the other hand, cultural ‘styles’ may play a role, with subjects from the Netherlands valuing a less ‘expressive’ style of interaction than for instance people from Southern Europe (Pennebaker et al. 1996 ).

Secondly, task-oriented leadership is much less strongly related to communication styles than charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership. Task-oriented leaders are characterized by assuredness and, more than charismatic and human-oriented leadership, by preciseness. However, in contrast with human-oriented and charismatic leadership, task-oriented leadership is also characterized by the presence of (some) verbal aggressiveness. An explanation of this finding may be that items pertaining to task-oriented leadership, more than items pertaining to human-oriented leadership and charismatic leadership, reflect content (e.g., rules, planning, and goal-setting) instead of style (e.g., friendliness, trust, and inspiration).

Thirdly, both the communication styles and leadership styles explain an almost comparable—the leadership styles slightly more—amount of variance in the outcome variables used in this study. The mediational analyses suggest that the relations of the communication styles with the leadership outcomes are statistically mediated by the leadership styles. One notable exception is leader’s preciseness, which was found to have significant positive relations with perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader even when controlling for charismatic and human-oriented leadership. Additionally, leader’s preciseness was, together with leader’s supportiveness, the most important predictor of subordinate’s knowledge collecting from a leader. Consequently, leader’s preciseness seems to be an important construct, which is surprisingly absent in theories on leadership. Precise, or structured, communication is regarded as an important communication skill in for instance the medical sciences (Yedidia et al. 2003 ), but may be just as important in the supervision process. However, in contrast to doctors, there are no ‘fixed’ protocols for leaders which help them handle specific situations in a precise way. Instead, leaders may have to rely on more general ‘conversation models’ (Van der Molen and Gramsbergen-Hoogland 2005 ) to deal with different situations. Future studies might like to investigate the effects of training in communication skills—which are designed to help organizational leaders to practice and generalize different organizational ‘conversation models’—on the preciseness with which leaders communicate (Baldwin 1992 ; Frese et al. 2003 ; Hunt and Baruch 2003 ; Towler 2003 ; Van der Molen and Gramsbergen-Hoogland 2005 ).

Leader’s supportiveness seems to be the most important communication style variable, having positive relations with all of the leadership styles and outcomes, even after controlling for the other communication style variables. Supportive communication of a leader enhances knowledge donating behaviors to the leader and knowledge collecting behaviors from the leader. In the regression analyses, leader’s assuredness was related to perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment, but not to knowledge donating and collecting behaviors. Having a leader who radiates certainty may help to give a team direction and purpose, but may also cancel some of the positive effects in knowledge sharing situations by instilling uncertainty in employees who are willing to share or ask for information. In contrast with leader’s supportiveness, leader’s preciseness, and leader’s assuredness, leader’s argumentativeness had the weakest relations with the leadership styles and outcome variables. However, leader’s argumentativeness was significantly related to charismatic leadership in the regression equation, which is notable, given the relatively low reliability of leader’s argumentativeness and the fact that we did not distinguish between the different components of transformational leadership in this study. However, some of the items of charismatic leadership refer to visionary and intellectually stimulating leadership, which may involve an argumentative communication style.

Although there are several noteworthy findings in this study, it also has some limitations. Most importantly, it was impossible in this organization to obtain data from different sources or to use different methods to measure the predictor and criteria variables. Consequently, the outcomes may suffer from common method biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003 ). 7 Note, however, that this is the first study of its kind to use a communication style framework based on the lexical paradigm in a study of leadership. Further research needs to be conducted to substantiate these findings using different methods and samples. A suggestion for future research is to construct an observational based measure of the six communication styles employed in this study and to use observers to rate the extent to which leaders employ these communication styles. In line with a recent study by Naidoo and Lord ( 2008 ), another suggestion is to use an experimental setting in which one or more of the communication styles are manipulated and the effects on perceived leadership and actual criteria are observed.

Although common method bias is a potential liability of this study, the results do show that in the assessment of charismatic and human-oriented leadership styles by subordinates, the leader’s communication style seems to play a crucial role. Although the results do point out that, when explaining outcomes, measures of leadership styles are more parsimonious than measures of communication styles, a practical limitation of the use of leadership styles, such as charismatic leadership, instead of communication style measures, is that the leadership styles do not offer conceptual insights into the underlying (communicative) behavioral acts that take place in the interaction between the leader and the led (Yukl 1999 ). Furthermore, for training purposes, research into the communication styles of leaders is more likely to offer trainers and trainees clear guidelines to understand the behaviors that are likely to lead to positive results. By showing that charismatic and human-oriented leadership are to a considerable extent communicative—and task-oriented leadership is less communicative—and by showing the differential prediction of the communication styles, we believe this research offers an important foundation for the study and training of leadership.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

1 Note that several authors (e.g., Eden and Leviatan 1975 ; Rush et al. 1977 ) have shown that ratings on consideration (Fleishman 1953 ), on which human-oriented leadership is based (see De Vries et al. 2002 ), are also brought about by a recognition-based attributional process.

2 A full description of the Principal Axis Factoring analysis can be obtained from the first author.

3 Note that we will use the term ‘statistical mediation’ to distinguish it from ‘causal’ mediation which, some argue, only occurs when two or more randomized experiments are conducted (see Stone-Romero and Rosopa ( 2008 )—but also see James ( 2008 ) and Kenny ( 2008 ) for a rebuttal).

4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

5 However, because gender was significantly related to both leader’s expressiveness and knowledge collecting behaviors, we reran the analysis with gender as a control variable. The relation of leader’s expressiveness with knowledge collection, which was marginally significant ( r  = .14, p  = .05) in the first place, turned to be nonsignificant with gender in the equation ( r  = .13, p  = .08). No other changes in the regression coefficients were observed.

6 In this case (and subsequent cases), partial mediation occurred.

7 We did extract an acquiescence scale, which is a person’s mean on all the (non-recoded) items in the questionnaire. Although this scale was not strongly related to the communication styles scales (which contain both positively and negatively worded items), it was strongly related to the traditional leadership scales (especially charismatic leadership and human-oriented leadership, which are unipolar), making the acquiescence scale confounded with systematic variance and unsuitable for further analyses.

Contributor Information

Reinout E. de Vries, Phone: +31-20-5988718, Email: [email protected] .

Angelique Bakker-Pieper, Email: [email protected] .

Wyneke Oostenveld, Email: [email protected] .

• Allen NJ, Meyer JP. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1990; 63 :1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ambady N, LaPlante D, Nguyen T, Rosenthan R, Chaumeton N, Levinson W. Surgeons’ tone of voice: A clue to malpractice history. Surgery. 2002; 132 :5–9. doi: 10.1067/msy.2002.124733. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Awamleh R, Gardner WL. Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 1999; 10 (3):345–373. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin TT. Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992; 77 (2):147–154. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.147. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51 :1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bienvenu MJ. Measurement of marital communication. Family Coordinator. 1970; 19 (1):26–31. doi: 10.2307/582142. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth Butterfield M, Booth Butterfield S. Conceptualizing affect as information in communication production. Human Communication Research. 1990; 16 (4):451–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00219.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bugental DB, Lyon JE, Lin EK, McGrath EP, Bimbela A. Children “tune out” in response to the ambiguous communication style of powerless adults. Child Development. 1999; 70 (1):214–230. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buller MK, Buller DB. Physicians’ communication style and patient satisfaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1987; 28 (4):375–388. doi: 10.2307/2136791. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bultman DC, Svarstad BL. Effects of physician communication style on client medication beliefs and adherence with antidepressant treatment. Patient Education and Counseling. 2000; 40 (2):173–185. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00083-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgoon JK, Pfau M, Parrott R, Birk T, Coker R, Burgoon M. Relational communication, satisfaction, compliance-gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and patients. Communication Monographs. 1987; 54 (3):307–324. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390235. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen A. Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In: Noller P, Fitzpatrick MA, editors. Perspectives on marital interaction. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger JA, Kanungo RN. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daft RL. Management. 6. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Gilder D, Van den Heuvel H, Ellemers N. Het 3-componenten model van commitment. /A three component model of organizational commitment. Gedrag & Organisatie. 1997; 10 :95–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL. The development of the CLIO: A questionnaire for measuring charismatic leadership in organizations / de ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie. 2004; 17 (17):354–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL. Linking the Big Five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005; 26 (7):839–865. doi: 10.1002/job.344. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vries RE, Bakker-Pieper A, Alting Siberg R, Van Gameren K, Vlug M. The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research. 2009; 36 :178–206. doi: 10.1177/0093650208330250. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vries RE, Roe RA, Taillieu TCB. Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002; 13 (2):121–137. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00097-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vries RE, Van den Hooff B, De Ridder JA. Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research. 2006; 33 (2):115–135. doi: 10.1177/0093650205285366. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGroot T, Kiker DS, Cross TC. A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. 2000; 17 :356–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Den Hartog DN, House RJ, Hanges PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Dorfman PW, Globe-Associates Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly. 1999; 10 :219–256. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00018-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Den Hartog DN, Van Muijen JJ, Koopman PL. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1997; 70 (1):19–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Den Hartog DN, Verburg RM. Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly. 1997; 8 (4):355–391. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90020-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillard JP, Solomon DH, Palmer MT. Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs. 1999; 66 (1):49–65. doi: 10.1080/03637759909376462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden D, Leviatan U. Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975; 60 :736–741. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleishman EA. The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1953; 37 :1–6. doi: 10.1037/h0056314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frese M, Beimel S, Schoenborn S. Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology. 2003; 56 (3):671–697. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00754.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuller JB, Patterson CEP, Hester K, Stringer DY. A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports. 1996; 78 (1):271–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton F. Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review. 1884; 36 :179–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 59 (6):1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudykunst WB, Matsumoto Y, Ting Toomey S, Nishida T, Kim K, Heyman S. The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research. 1996; 22 (4):510–543. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudykunst WB, Ting Toomey S. Culture and affective communication. American Behavioral Scientist. 1988; 31 (3):384–400. doi: 10.1177/000276488031003009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hailey BJ, Willoughby SG, Butler MN, Miller L. Effects of communication style on women’s satisfaction with physicians. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 1998; 3 (4):435–438. doi: 10.1080/13548509808400617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall ET. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansford BC, Hattie JA. Perceptions of communicator style and self-concept. Communication Research. 1987; 14 (2):189–203. doi: 10.1177/009365087014002003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawes DJ. Who knows who best: A program to stimulate parent-teen interaction. School Counselor. 1996; 44 (2):115–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt JW, Baruch Y. Developing top managers: The impact of interpersonal skills training. Journal of Management Development. 2003; 22 (8):729–752. doi: 10.1108/02621710310487882. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• James LR. On the path to mediation. Organizational Research Methods. 2008; 11 :359–363. doi: 10.1177/1094428107308016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Bono JE. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85 (5):751–765. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Piccolo RF. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004; 89 (5):755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004; 89 (1):36–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny DA. Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods. 2008; 11 :353–358. doi: 10.1177/1094428107308978. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996; 81 :36–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leary T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality; a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Oxford: Ronald Press; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin DZ, Cross R. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science. 2004; 50 (11):1477–1490. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. Journal of American Medical Association. 1997; 277 :553–559. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.7.553. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, de Vader CL, Alliger GM. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986; 71 :402–410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, Maher KJ. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe KB, Kroeck KG, Sivasubramaniam N. Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly. 1996; 7 :385–425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathieu JE, Taylor SR. Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2006; 27 :1031–1056. doi: 10.1002/job.406. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCartney WW, Campbell CR. Leadership, management, and derailment: A model of individual success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2006; 27 (3):190–202. doi: 10.1108/01437730610657712. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCroskey JC, Daly JA, Martin MM, Beatty MJ. Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Naidoo LJ, Lord RG. Speech imagery and perceptions of charisma: The mediating role of positive affect. The Leadership Quarterly. 2008; 19 :283–296. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noels KA, Clement R, Pelletier LG. Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal. 1999; 83 (1):23–34. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noller P, White A. The validity of the communication patterns questionnaire. Psychological Assessment. 1999; 2 (1):478–482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton RW. Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research. 1978; 4 (2):99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00600.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penley LE, Hawkins B. Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal. 1985; 28 (2):309–326. doi: 10.2307/256203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennebaker JW, Rimé B, Blankenship VE. Stereotypes of emotional expressiveness of northerners and southerners: A cross-cultural test of Montesquieu’s hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 70 (2):372–380. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.372. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prisbell M. Students’ perceptions of instructors’ style of communication and satisfaction with communication in the classroom. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1994; 79 (3):1398. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasku Puttonen H. Communication between parents and children in experimental situations. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology & Social Research. 1988; 65 :1–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggio RE, Riggio HR, Salinas C, Cole EJ. The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2003; 7 :83–103. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.83. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie LD, Fitzpatrick MA. Family communication patterns—measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research. 1990; 17 (4):523–544. doi: 10.1177/009365090017004007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rush MC, Thomas JC, Lord RG. Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1977; 20 :93–110. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(77)90046-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Roter DL. Disentangling physician sex and physician communication style: Their effects on patient satisfaction in a virtual medical visit. Patient Education and Counselling. 2007; 68 (1):16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.020. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir B, Arthur MB, House RJ. The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly. 1994; 5 :25–42. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(94)90004-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singelis TM. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994; 20 (5):580–591. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S, editor. Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1982. pp. 290–312. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorenson RL, Savage GT. Signaling participation through relational communication: A test of the leader interpersonal influence model. Group and Organization Studies. 1989; 14 (3):325–354. doi: 10.1177/105960118901400307. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spangler WD, House RJ. Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991; 60 :439–455. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.439. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Srivastava A, Bartol KM, Locke EA. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2006; 49 (6):1239–1251. doi: 10.2307/20159830. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart GL. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management. 2006; 32 :29–55. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277792. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone Romero EF, Rosopa PJ. The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods. 2008; 11 :326–352. doi: 10.1177/1094428107300342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Street RL. Gender differences in health care provider-patient communication: Are they due to style, stereotypes, or accommodation? Patient Education and Counseling. 2002; 48 (3):201–206. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00171-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syroit J. Mens- en taakgerichtheid: Constructie en validering van een verkorte leiderschapsschaal [Human- and task-orientation: Construction and validation of a short leadership scale] Gedrag, Tijdschrift voor Psychologie. 1979; 3 :176–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Takai J, Ota H. Assessing Japanese interpersonal communication competence. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1994; 33 (3):224–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Towler AJ. Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology. 2003; 56 (2):363–381. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00154.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Hooff B, De Ridder JA. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2004; 8 (6):117–130. doi: 10.1108/13673270410567675. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Hooff, B., & Hendrix, L. (2004). Eagerness and willingness to hare: the relevance of different attitudes towards knowledge sharing . Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities: Innsbruck, Austria.
• Van der Molen HT, Gramsbergen-Hoogland YH. Communication in organizations: Basic skills and conversation models. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Dulmen AM, Bensing JM. Health promoting effects of the physician-patient encounter. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2002; 7 (3):289–300. doi: 10.1080/13548500220139421. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiemann, J., Chen, V., & Giles, H. (1986). Beliefs about talk and silence in cultural context . Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association convention, Chicago.
• Yedidia MJ, Gillespie CC, Kachur E, Schwartz MD, Ockene J, Chepaitis AE, Snyder CW, Lazare A, Lipkin M., Jr Effect of communications training on medical student performance. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 290 (9):1157–1165. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.9.1157. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly. 1999; 10 (2):285–305. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Styles of Communication

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Understanding The 4 Communication Styles in the Workplace

How to improve yours and navigate others

Hinterhaus Productions / Getty Images

We encounter a ton of different personalities at work. Some are easy to get along with; whereas, others are harder to vibe with. How well we're able to work with people often depends on our workplace communication style.

So, what exactly is a workplace communication style? Your workplace communication style is the manner in which you share ideas, information, and issues in a professional setting. A combination of verbal and nonverbal cues, it affects how you interact, learn, share, and collaborate.

Research shows that effective and appropriate communication is linked to greater productivity, better organizational health, and increased employee satisfaction. How we communicate can also play a huge role in determining our personal and professional growth and success.

Our communication style is based on our unique characteristics, which drive our approach to sharing and exchanging information with others, says Octavia Goredema, a career coach and author of “Prep, Push, Pivot.”

Identifying your communication style will allow you to enhance your interactions with others and play an important role in building your personal brand.

Apart from defining your own communication style, it’s also important to recognize other people’s communication styles. This is crucial because we all have different ways of interacting, processing, and conveying information, says Goredema. If you can recognize the differences, you can use your emotional intelligence to adapt to the needs and preferences of others, she adds.

Keep reading to explore passive, passive-aggressive, aggressive, and assertive workplace communication styles.

Passive Communication Style

These are some of the characteristics of a passive workplace communication style:

• Reluctance to speak up: Someone with a passive workplace communication style may hesitate to express their thoughts, opinions, ideas, and needs. Instead of speaking up, they may wait for others to take the lead.
• Conflict avoidance: Passive communicators often go to great lengths to avoid conflicts or disagreements. They may choose not to give others feedback or address issues directly.
• Difficulty setting boundaries: They may find it difficult to decline requests or express their own limitations. They might agree to tasks or responsibilities they are uncomfortable with because they are unable to say “no.”
• Indirect communication: They may use indirect language or non-verbal cues to convey their thoughts or emotions, which can sometimes cause misunderstandings and confusion.
• Low self-confidence: A passive communication style often stems from a lack of self-confidence. The person may doubt their own abilities, which can prevent them from expressing themselves openly. They may fear rejection , so they may hold back their ideas or opinions.

You may choose to remain passive in situations where you have little interest or involvement. However, in other situations a passive communication style may be ineffective and a more assertive communication style may be required.

What to Do If You’re a Passive Communicator

If you’re a passive communicator, these are some strategies that can help you be more assertive :

• Define your goals: Set specific communication goals for yourself. Whether it's speaking up in meetings, asking for help when needed, or providing honest feedback, having clear objectives can be helpful.
• Practice assertive language: Use clear, concise, and direct language to express your thoughts and ideas. Avoid overly apologetic or overly deferential language that can weaken your message.
• Rehearse what you want to say: If you find it difficult to be spontaneously assertive, it can be helpful to prepare what you want to say in advance. Rehearsing it can boost your confidence and help you feel more in control.
• Set boundaries: Clearly communicate your boundaries to colleagues and supervisors. Learn to politely but firmly say "no" when you genuinely can't take on additional tasks or commitments.
• Remind yourself of your qualifications: If you feel shy or timid, or worry that others won't value your ideas, career coach Krystin Morgan recommends reminding yourself of your credentials and accomplishments. “Remember that you deserve to have a seat at the table and share your opinion.”

How to Interact With a Passive Communicator

These are some strategies that can help you interact with a passive communicator:

• Include them in discussions: If someone rarely speaks up or shares their thoughts, Morgan recommends making space for them to engage in the conversation. “For instance, in a group setting, this could mean asking the person for their thoughts or ideas.”
• Consider alternative forms of communication: Some people feel intimidated by large groups and communicate better one-on-one instead, says Morgan. Others prefer written communication and may be more willing to share their thoughts over email.
• Offer reassurance: Assure the person that their thoughts and opinions are valued and respected. Show appreciation for their ideas and contributions.
• Be approachable: Create a dynamic where the person feels comfortable approaching you. Be friendly, open, and non-judgmental in your interactions.
• Avoid pressuring them: While you want to encourage them to speak up, avoid putting them on the spot or pressuring them to talk.

Aggressive Communication Style

These are some of the characteristics of an aggressive workplace communication style:

• Dominance: People who communicate aggressively tend to try and control conversations and situations. They may interrupt others, raise their voice unnecessarily, or use forceful body language to assert dominance.
• Bluntness: Aggressive communicators may be blunt and direct in their communication, sometimes to the point of being rude or tactless.
• Disregard for boundaries: They may ignore personal or professional boundaries , which can be inappropriate and uncomfortable.
• Resistance to compromise: They may resist compromise and aggressively try to put their point across or ensure things are done their way.
• Personal attacks: This communication style can involve insults, personal attacks, or name-calling. The person may attack someone's character or abilities in an attempt to assert their own superiority . In turn, they may be defensive when questioned or challenged.

Research shows that men who are aggressive communicators are often lauded for vigorously pursuing their goals; whereas, women who are aggressive communicators are regarded more negatively.

What to Do If You’re an Aggressive Communicator

If you’re an aggressive communicator, these are some strategies that can help you be more respectful of others in the workplace:

• Identify your triggers: Identify what triggers your aggressive responses. Understand the underlying emotions or situations that cause you to respond aggressively. Keeping a journal can help you track and manage your triggers and responses.
• Pause before you respond: When you feel the urge to respond aggressively, pause and take a deep breath. This brief moment can help you collect your thoughts and respond more calmly.
• Choose your words carefully: Pay attention to your choice of words. Use respectful language that reflects a willingness to collaborate and engage in a positive discussion. Practicing or role-playing important discussions in advance can help you be more calm and composed in the moment.
• Practice empathy: Put yourself in the other person’s shoes and consider their perspective. This can help you understand their feelings and be more empathetic toward them.
• Apologize and make amends: If you've acted aggressively toward someone in your workplace in the past, acknowledge your behavior and apologize to them.

How to Interact With an Aggressive Communicator

These are some strategies that can help you interact with an aggressive communicator:

• Remain calm: Though it can be difficult in the moment, it's important to stay calm and composed when faced with aggression. Responding with anger or defensiveness can escalate the situation further. Maintain a professional demeanor and avoid engaging in personal attacks.
• Focus on the issue: Separate the aggressive tone from the content of the message. Concentrate on addressing the core issue being discussed, rather than reacting to the aggression. Keep the conversation focused on working together to find solutions.
• State your boundaries: Politely but firmly communicate your boundaries . Let the person know that you expect to be addressed respectfully and will not engage in aggressive exchanges.
• Stay empathetic: Try to understand the underlying reasons for the person’s aggression. They might be experiencing stress, frustration, or pressure that's influencing their communication style.
• Seek support: If the aggression is frequent, inappropriate, or escalates to the point of harassment, seek the support of your manager, HR, or other appropriate channels.

Passive-Aggressive Communication Style

A passive-aggressive communication style combines elements of both passive and aggressive behavior. These are some of the characteristics of this communication style:

• Covert criticism: Passive-aggressive communicators may use sarcasm, backhanded compliments, eye-rolls, or disrespectful gestures to indirectly mock or criticize someone’s ideas or actions.
• Indirect communication: Rather than addressing issues head-on, people who communicate passive-aggressively resort to more subtle, indirect tactics. They use veiled language that leaves room for ambiguity and later gives them an opportunity to deny their words.
• Silent treatment: Rather than communicating clearly, they might give people the silent treatment or withhold important information as a form of expressing displeasure.
• Subtle sabotage: They may subtly engage in actions that undermine other people’s projects or initiatives.
• Involvement of others: Instead of addressing issues directly with the concerned parties, they might complain to colleagues or superiors to garner sympathy or support. They might frame themselves as victims, deflecting responsibility for their passive-aggressive behavior.

A passive-aggressive communication style breeds mistrust and misunderstandings. It can cause tension to build among team members, which can eventually lead to conflict in the team.

What to Do If You’re a Passive-Aggressive Communicator

If you’re a passive-aggressive communicator, these are some strategies that can help you be more direct and assertive in the workplace:

• Reflect on your communication style: Recognize and acknowledge your passive-aggressive tendencies. Understand the negative impact they have on your relationships and team dynamics.
• Work on being more direct: Make an effort to express your thoughts, concerns, and opinions directly and honestly. Work on sharing ideas openly, praise generously, and feedback constructively.
• Be mindful of your tone: Pay attention to your tone and body language . Aim to communicate in a way that is respectful and collaborative.
• Don’t let issues fester: Don't let issues pile up and fester. Address things in a timely manner, while they are still manageable, to prevent resentment and passive-aggressive behavior from setting in.
• Seek constructive outlets: Instead of resorting to passive-aggressive tactics, find constructive ways to express frustration or disagreement with colleagues.

How to Interact With a Passive-Aggressive Communicator

These are some strategies that can help you interact with a passive-aggressive communicator:

• Stay professional: Respond to their behavior calmly and professionally. Avoid reacting with frustration or aggression, as this might give them more ammunition to use against you.
• Focus on the facts: Stay focused on the facts of the situation. Address the actual issue at hand, rather than getting caught up in their passive-aggressive comments or behavior.
• Seek clarifications: If their communication is unclear or ambiguous, ask them to clarify their intentions or concerns. It may be helpful to get things in writing, so there’s no room for misinterpretation.
• Be direct: Encourage open and direct communication. If you sense passive-aggressive behavior , gently encourage them to express their thoughts and feelings more directly. Let them know that you value open and honest communication and that disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
• Address the pattern: If you notice a consistent pattern of passive-aggressive behavior, address it politely but firmly. For example, you could say: "I sense some frustration in your tone and I'd like to understand what's causing it. Can we talk about what’s bothering you?" or “If you’re facing any challenges or in disagreement about something, I’m willing to listen and work with you to find a solution.”

Assertive Communication Style

These are some of the characteristics of an assertive workplace communication style:

• Straightforwardness: Assertive communicators express themselves clearly, using straightforward language to convey their thoughts and ideas. They are often direct and to the point, says Morgan. They can say “no” or set boundaries when necessary.
• Confidence: People who communicate assertively speak with conviction, projecting confidence and self-assurance.
• Respect: Assertive people respect others’ opinions, feelings, and autonomy. They acknowledge differing viewpoints and seek common ground.
• Ownership: Assertive individuals take ownership of their feelings and communicate them without blaming others. They use "I" statements to express emotions.
• Expressive body language: They use open and engaged body language while communicating. For instance, they maintain eye contact and use gestures to reinforce their messages.

An assertive communication style fosters a positive, respectful, and collaborative work environment. While it may take some getting used to, working with someone who communicates assertively can be a real positive because you never have to wonder what they mean or where you stand, says Morgan.

What to Do If You’re an Assertive Communicator

If you’re an assertive communicator, these are some strategies that can help you improve your communication skills further:

• Keep an open mind: While being assertive can help you get your point across, it’s also important to be flexible and keep your mind open to other people’s ideas and approaches.
• Be adaptable: Remember that different situations may require different communication styles. It's important to tailor your style to individuals and situations whenever possible, so Morgan recommends being mindful of who you're speaking with and how they prefer to communicate.
• Be patient: Sometimes, assertive communicators can be impatient with people who don’t get directly to the point. Try to cultivate patience and remain calm and composed.
• Offer reassurance: Not everyone will understand your communication style—some people may feel intimidated or feel as though you aren't being "nice" enough, says Morgan. It can be helpful to offer reassurance on occasion so people know you mean well.

How to Interact With an Assertive Communicator

These are some strategies that can help you interact with an assertive communicator:

• Avoid beating around the bush: Assertive communicators tend to prefer to have folks communicate directly back to them, so focus on speaking confidently and concisely to them, says Morgan. Avoid beating around the bush and come to the point succinctly when you’re interacting with them.
• Respect their perspective: Even if you have differing opinions, acknowledge and respect their viewpoint. A healthy exchange of ideas can lead to better understanding.
• Give honest feedback: If the conversation involves feedback, provide it in a clear and straightforward manner, focusing on behaviors and outcomes. They are likely to appreciate constructive, actionable feedback.

What Kind of Communicator Are You?

Our fast and free communication styles quiz can help give you some insight into how you interact with others and what it could mean for your interpersonal relationships, both at work and at home.

How to Improve Your Communication Skills

These are some strategies that can help you improve your workplace communication skills, according to the experts:

• Develop self-awareness: Take some time to self-reflect and become more aware of your communication style at work. Identify your strengths and pay attention to areas that could use improvement. It can also be helpful to ask your colleagues for feedback on your communication style.
• Decide what you want to be known for: Goredema recommends deciding what you want to be known for at work and then considering how your communication style can support that reputation.
• Listen actively to others: Active listening is a strategy that will serve you well, says Goredema. She explains that it involves listening fully to what the other person is saying, without interrupting, making assumptions, or jumping to conclusions based on their words or nonverbal cues. You can show the person that you're engaged and actively listening by nodding, maintaining eye contact, and asking clarifying questions during the conversation.
• Ask open-ended questions: Close-ended questions typically evoke a “yes” or “no” response, whereas open-ended questions can reveal underlying motivations, beliefs, and attitudes that may not be apparent at the outset, says Goredema.
• Adapt to your audience: Tailor your communication style to the preferences and needs of your audience. Adjust your approach depending on whether you're speaking with colleagues, clients, or superiors.
• Learn from your mistakes: If you become aware of a miscommunication, address it promptly and openly. Learn from these situations to avoid similar issues in the future.

de la Torre GG, Ramallo MA, Gonzalez-Torre S, et al. Communication styles and attention performance in primary school children . Behav Sci (Basel) . 2021;11(12):172. doi:10.3390/bs11120172

Hicks JM. Leader communication styles and organizational health . Health Care Manag (Frederick) . 2020;39(4):175-180. doi:10.1097/HCM.0000000000000305

Abed LG, Abed MG, Shackelford TK. Interpersonal communication style and personal and professional growth among Saudi Arabian employees . Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2023;20(2):910. doi:10.3390/ijerph20020910

Maloney ME, Moore P. From aggressive to assertive . Int J Womens Dermatol . 2019;6(1):46-49. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.09.006

Richard C, Lussier MT, Millette B, Tanoubi I. Healthcare providers and patients: an essay on the importance of professional assertiveness in healthcare today . Med Educ Online . 2023;28(1):2200586. doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2200586

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

New research study explores impact of communication styles

Nov 1, 2021 | Trend spotting | 0 comments

Can you describe your communication style?

What does it even mean to have a communication style? And what are the benefits of becoming aware of your communication style?

Source: https://blog.readytomanage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/communication-cartoon.jpg

These questions are important to consider in today’s world of work, and they are the focus of a research project now underway in the Corporate and Organizational Communication program at the College of Professional Studies. New students in our master’s program learn about their communication style by completing an online communications assessment tool called icEdge . The icEdge survey assesses your communications style and provides a detailed report to promote self-awareness of your communication style preferences. The communication styles are categorized into four main buckets: Relational, Messaging, Time Management, and Sensory. The report offers insights into each communication style bucket, along with related characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors

The assessment highlights opportunities for growth based on different communications styles people have across a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures. This discernment helps to increase awareness of how to connect effectively with people who have different communication styles. Additionally, the knowledge gained is useful not just on a personal level, but helps to strengthen interpersonal skills, influencing team-level communication. Moreover, these same principles can be applied within organizations to positively impact effective communication across broad and diverse audiences.  The icEdge graphic below conveys research findings about the relationship of the four categories with both individual skills and organizational impact.

Starting Fall 2021, our program is participating with two other universities in an impact research study. We have requested student volunteers who recently started our program to complete pre/post surveys and reflection worksheets in addition to the icEdge assessment. Multiple hypotheses are being analyzed relating to diversity values, cultural intelligence, team learning, and performance. The data will be evaluated to explore student perceptions of how icEdge communication styles impact their interactions with others, along with recommendations of how this tool can be applied in a team setting. We’ll be sharing the results of the research study in a future post.

Posted by Patty Goodman, Faculty

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• International spotlight (15)
• Program News (20)
• Resources for alumni (11)
• Student and Alumni perspectives (56)
• Trend spotting (57)
• Uncategorized (6)

Online Students

For All Online Programs

International Students

On Campus, need or have Visa

Campus Students

For All Campus Programs

Types of Communication Styles And How to Identify Them

Communication allows us to express our thoughts, share information and connect with other people. From sending a quick text to chatting with a friend over coffee, you are interacting with the people around you all the time. Whether it's verbal or nonverbal, communication makes up a big part of your life.

But who we are also shapes how we communicate. Just like no two people are exactly the same, everyone has their own unique communication style. Knowing what these styles look like — and how to identify them — can help you better communicate and work with other people.

What are the 4 Types of Communication Styles?

There are many ways to describe how a person communicates. One way is through their communication style.

Dr. Daria S. LaFave , a communication instructor at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), points to these styles as a tool that can help you understand others. In addition to her work as an instructor, LaFave works as a consultant for online course development and conducts research on subjects such as instructor-student relationship building and instructional design.

According to LaFave and other business leaders , communication can be categorized into four main styles:

• Passive Communication often looks like not communicating at all for fear of speaking up. This can lead to misunderstandings.
• Aggressive Communication tends to be driven by anger and judgment and can also result in inflexibility. This can create a hostile environment.
• Passive-Aggressive Communication might mean you don’t directly communicate your feelings, but you hold on to negative emotions and let those affect your actions. This can cause confusion and resentment.
• Assertive Communication is confident but also respectful of others' thoughts and feelings. Assertive communication creates space for honest conversations and promotes healthy connections between individuals.

According to LaFave, you may feel as though you align with one of these communication styles, or you might feel like you use a mix of all four. For example, a person may adopt a more assertive communication style in a professional setting but switch to a more passive style when talking with family or close friends. "Style fluidity is a useful strategy for anyone who is looking to become a competent communicator," said LaFave.

What Other Factors Affect How Someone Communicates?

While sorting types of communicators can help you understand someone's habits or reactions, these styles don’t always tell the whole story.

"Interpersonal communication is multifaceted," said Dr. Jim Owston , a communication instructor at SNHU. According to Owston, it's hard to define someone by just one communication style. If someone is using an aggressive communication style in a meeting, that doesn't mean it's the style they use all the time.

With over 30 years of teaching experience and 20 years working in broadcasting, Owston points to some key factors that he has seen impact how someone communicates, including:

• Cultural and social conventions
• Gender and social roles
• Emotions and perception
• Environment or medium

These additional factors can explain why someone communicates the way they do. But they can also explain how other people interpret those messages.

For example, being an assertive communicator is often seen as a good thing. An assertive communicator is direct with their message while still being respectful of others' thoughts and feelings.

"In some instances (though)," LaFave said, "assertiveness can come across as aggression, which could have negative impacts on the person who is asserting themselves."

LaFave points to gender as one outside factor that can negatively affect how communication is interpreted. While assertiveness may be praised in men, "women are more likely to be seen as aggressive when they assert themselves," she said. It's important to think about how your communication style comes across and what factors may affect how you view someone else's style, too.

Find Your Program

How do you identify communication styles.

According to LaFave, being able to identify someone's communication style can help you:

• Develop and deliver your message clearly
• Avoid or prevent conflicts
• Achieve your goals
• Build successful relationships

But how do you go about analyzing their style? The answer may mean looking at a range of factors.

1. Consider Your Relationship

“If you are dealing with a superior, it might help to identify that person’s leadership style and leadership traits,” said Owston. On the other hand, if you want to know how a romantic partner communicates, it may be more helpful to learn about their love language.

According to Owston, understanding how someone communicates is crucial in building effective relationships. He encourages first recognizing how your relationship may influence your interactions. You can tailor your approach to that specific scenario.

2. Employ Active Listening

Active listening is a useful strategy that can help you identify someone’s communication style.

"Active listening means listening not just with our ears but also with our eyes and with our heart," said LaFave. "We can do that by asking questions that seek to understand the meaning behind what is being spoken." To LaFave, active listening also means not jumping to conclusions.

For example, if someone is speaking in a direct and concise manner, active listening can help you determine the reasons behind that choice. You might assume they are being aggressive, but in reality, they may just be short on time.

“Different communication styles emerge in an interaction," LaFave said, "but accurate understanding of the style comes with time and patience."

3. Think About Emotional Intelligence

To help you understand someone's communication style, both LaFave and Owston recommend reflecting on your level of emotional intelligence  as well as that of the person you're talking to.

LaFave points to five aspects of emotional intelligence that can contribute to our communication patterns:

• Empathy : The ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, acknowledging their emotions and experiences.
• Self-awareness : Being able to recognize your own emotions, strengths and weaknesses and how these impact others as well as your own decision-making.
• Social skills : How you connect with people to build positive and meaningful relationships.
• Self-regulation : Not allowing negative feelings to get the best of you in tough situations.
• Motivation : Knowing what is inspiring the choices that you make.

"The balance of these elements impacts the style of our communication," said LaFave. "For example, people who struggle with empathy or self-regulation may be more prone to communicate aggressively or passive-aggressively."

In LaFave’s experience, people with more skill in these areas often have higher emotional intelligence; therefore, they tend to communicate more successfully with other people.

"Identifying a person’s emotional intelligence will best help in understanding how and why a person communicates," said Owston. "But understanding your own emotional quotient will also aid in communicating with others."

How Does Culture Affect Communication Styles?

Culture is a big part of communication. Everyone comes into an interaction with their own set of values, beliefs and experiences.

According to the U.S. Department of State , someone's communication style can be impacted by the role context plays in their culture:

• High context communication : This style tends to focus more on relationships, formality and hierarchy, with someone shifting how they communicate based on a specific scenario.
• Low context communication : This style is often straightforward and personal, with people saying exactly what they mean and focusing on getting tasks done.

It can be confusing when somebody else communicates in a style you're not used to. You may not be sure how to respond in some situations. Or maybe you don't understand why someone reacted to something that seemed normal to you.

"We all carry with us implicit biases that we may or may not be aware of," said LaFave. "Before we even begin speaking, we form impressions of another person based on our initial observations, past experiences and even biases that we may or may not be aware of."

Miscommunications and misunderstandings can get in the way of building strong relationships, so it can be helpful to know that everyone speaks in their own way. When working with someone from another culture or country, take some time to learn more about their cultural communication norms.

What Do Communication Styles in the Workplace Look Like?

Communication is an important soft skill to work on and can benefit both your personal and professional life. In the workplace, you may find that your personal style complements or clashes with the styles of your coworkers.

"Someone with an aggressive communication style may come across as hostile and authoritarian, alienating others and creating a harmful work climate," said LaFave. But sometimes, a more aggressive style can be helpful in a specific situation. She said the same aggressive communicator can be the perfect fit for a different project or organization needing to optimize time and resources.

In addition to someone's communication style, a project can also be affected by how clear someone's message is.

"If instructions and the nature of the task are not clear to those (working on) the project, there will be problems," Owston said. "It is important for the leader of the project to clearly communicate the goals and outcomes of the project. SMART goals  are one tool that can help in this regard."

If someone's communication is vague, it can lead to misunderstandings and delays in completing tasks. Clear and concise communication means everyone understands their roles and responsibilities, leading to more efficient collaboration and successful outcomes.

How Do Digital Spaces Affect Communication Styles?

You may be used to doing a lot of your communication online, either via text message or email. Your communication style online will be similar to your style face-to-face, but you may have to make some adjustments.

“The primary problem with digital communication is that it lacks significant nonverbal cues,” said Owston. “Nonverbal cues can be expressed when someone types in ALL CAPS, marks up passages in bold text or underlined text or has an overuse of exclamation points!!!!!! These can all be perceived negatively.”

Without nonverbal cues, the reader can insert their feelings and emotions into your message. What you intended to sound assertive can come off sounding aggressive if someone reads your message the wrong way. Being aware of what you’re writing — and how you’re writing it — can ensure that your message is clear over text or email.

To Owston, this means:

• Choosing your words carefully.
• Avoiding “you” language, as it implies the sender is pointing fingers at the receiver.
• Typing messages in a word processor first to avoid accidental sending.
• Using spell check and grammar check on all of your messages.

If you're going to send something that may be misunderstood or taken in the wrong way, Owston encourages waiting 24 hours before sending that text or email. "See if you have the same feeling that you did the previous day," he said. "You probably won’t."

How Can Someone Improve Their Communication Skills?

Some people seem to be natural communicators, but communication is a skill that you can build over time.

"The best way to improve our communication  is to learn and to practice," said LaFave. "It helps to set specific goals and work through them as we engage in everyday interactions."

One way to improve your communication skills is to focus on your listening skills. "This might look like practicing active listening and trying to identify another question to ask about whatever is being discussed," said LaFave. Instead of simply reacting to what someone is saying, responding thoughtfully might be a good goal to set.

Owston adds that there are small ways you can work on your communication skills every day. He encourages anyone trying to be a better communicator to:

• Ask questions.
• Make interactions about the individual and not about yourself.
• Remember how you say something is more important than what you say.

Strong communicators are an important part of any successful team. Working on your communication skills might not only be about identifying other people's communication styles — but also reflecting on your own. By putting effort into being a skilled communicator, you can improve your relationships, prevent misunderstandings and understand other people better. 

Discover more about SNHU's communication degree : Find out what courses you'll take, skills you'll learn and how to request information about the program.

Meg Palmer '18 is a Southern New Hampshire University graduate and a writer, who also teaches English at the university level.

Explore more content like this article

What is a Creative Writer and What Do They Do?

What Does a Technical Writer Do?

Is a Liberal Arts Degree Worth It?

About southern new hampshire university.

SNHU is a nonprofit, accredited university with a mission to make high-quality education more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Founded in 1932, and online since 1995, we’ve helped countless students reach their goals with flexible, career-focused programs . Our 300-acre campus in Manchester, NH is home to over 3,000 students, and we serve over 135,000 students online. Visit our about SNHU  page to learn more about our mission, accreditations, leadership team, national recognitions and awards.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Communication Styles Training

Communication Styles

The Four Communication Styles

When you take the Straight Talk ®   Survey , the first payoff is discovering the communication styles you use most often – Director, Expresser, Thinker, or Harmonizer . We tend to favor two styles over the others, but we have the ability to use any of the styles in different situations.

To read about the four basic communication styles,  Download the PDF .

The Director talks about actions. Directors don’t have much time for small talk or social niceties. In fact, they can be a little uncomfortable around people. They’re quick to make decisions, quick to assign tasks, always on the move. Imagine Orson Welles in Citizen Kane and you’ve got a good mental image of the Director.

Directors tend to focus on doing, not listening. They don’t tell long stories or inquire into the health of your children. But they do talk about goals, about getting a jump on the competition, about the importance of getting the job done. That’s the key for the Director: completion; getting it done. Now, not later. “Give me the bottom line” – that is one of the Director’s favorite phrases.

Directors take risks. They’re willing to make tough decisions and gamble. Directors like to be in charge. Because Directors focus on getting things done, not on people, they can at times appear insensitive—even intimidating. We’ll explore later how to deal with this.

In sum, Directors emphasize action and results. They’re great at setting goals. Without the Director’s drive, vision, and decisiveness, the world would be a much more static place.

Imagine David Letterman or Carol Burnett. Expressers have lots of ideas and thoughts going on at once, sometimes so many that the ideas tumble out of their mouths before they’ve had a chance to edit them. In fact, thinking aloud is one trademark of the Expresser.

Expressers are creative, always trying to find new ways to do things. They’re willing to take chances, especially if their creative reputation is on the line. They’re fun to invite to a brainstorming meeting—they’re always coming up with an out-of-the-box idea. Yet they can also be disorganized and lack follow-through.

Expressers have a hard time focusing on one topic and listening. They lack a long attention span for something that doesn’t involve or interest them. This can be frustrating for the people around them. So Expressers can demand a lot of patience. At the same time, Expressers tend to be sensitive to other people’s feelings, and they express great embarrassment once they realize they’ve said something that hurt someone else.

In short, Expressers are dynamic, dramatic, exciting, engaging, and entertaining. They may not always be organized. But without them, the world would be a much less interesting place.

If a Thinker is considering buying a new computer system, for example, she’ll ask for all the comparative data. She’ll make sure she has all her facts exactly in order. She’ll make a list of the features she wants ( the list is a trademark of the Thinker ). Often she’ll postpone making a decision until she’s certain she’s got every piece of information she can find—much to the frustration of Directors, who’d like things to move more quickly.

Problem-solving is of paramount importance to Thinkers. Imagine the character played by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park and The Lost World . The Thinker possesses a marvelously honed ability to focus entirely on the problem at hand—often to the exclusion of the bigger picture. Thinkers can seem tedious at times. But details are not tedious to the Thinker. All those questions are crucial to getting the job done right. And their attention to detail can make Thinkers very valuable to have around.

As you might surmise, Thinkers tend to be more cautious than either Directors or Expressers. They play out scenarios in great detail in their minds, thus they’re likely to consider other people’s needs and feelings before acting. They like to discuss these details with others, to make sure they’ve considered every angle.

Thinkers tend to underestimate the amount of time they need to complete a project. Unlike Directors, who rarely miss a deadline, Thinkers will give themselves “extensions” in order to make sure the project is done correctly the first time.

In sum, Thinkers are the world’s problem solvers. They ask questions and revel in details. They may miss an occasional deadline, but no one is more superbly equipped than the Thinker to think things through.

Harmonizers

These people—the Harmonizers—are caregivers and healers. They bring muffins to work in the morning. They give special presents on holidays. People naturally turn to them for comfort in times of trouble. They speak warmly and lovingly to other people, who in turn speak warmly and lovingly of them. Harmonizers may not be decisive or daring, but they keep people working happily together, often in subtle ways.

Harmonizers are attuned to people’s feelings, and they like to talk about people —not in the same animated or aggressive way Expressers do, but more quietly, with less attention drawn to themselves. They’re focused on the group’s well-being; one of the Harmonizer’s trademarks is being a team player. At lunch or at a company picnic, you’ll see the Harmonizers sitting together talking quietly—or not talking at all. Harmonizers aren’t trailblazers. In social situations, they’ll rarely say anything inflammatory or unconventional. Harmonizers prefer to fit in, not stand out.

Harmonizers seeks to avoid conflict. When a stranger comes into their midst, they are careful, guarded. You can only get to know them gradually, not right away. Because they like to please other people, they’ll say “yes” to something even though it would be better all-around if they declined. As a result, Harmonizers can take on too much and feel overwhelmed.

In short, Harmonizers are quiet, caring people who express pride in the accomplishments of the team. Without them, the world would be a far less caring place.

Here are four key points to keep in mind:

• Most people use two styles more frequently than the other two.
• Your blend of styles determines the way you communicate.
• It’s especially important to understand your primary style, the one you use most often.
• No one style is better than the others, but it may be to your advantage to play up one style over another, depending on the situation.

You may wonder whether men or women favor a particular style.  There’s no evidence that they do. Some styles may strike you as slightly more “male” or “female” – or as more consistent with our traditional stereotypes of male and female behavior. But research shows that gender has no correlation to a particular style.

You may also wonder whether people from different countries or places of origin prefer certain styles.  Our research shows that the styles are universal to all people. Yet certain cultural tendencies may favor one style over another, and a full appreciation of communication styles must factor in the particular habits of each culture.

One of the earliest efforts at understanding human nature was led by a school of Greek philosophers who maintained that people’s characters were determined by four special “humors.” Each humor was concentrated in a particular bodily fluid. High levels of blood resulted in an enthusiastic type; an excess of black bile resulted in a melancholy character; high amounts of yellow bile caused one to be irritable; and an excess of phlegm created a slow, apathetic personality.

In this lesson, you’ve learned about the four communication styles—a modern counterpart of the four “humors.” By training yourself to identify and understand each style, you’ll quickly learn to appreciate some of the subtleties in people’s communications—the hidden meanings behind their words, the types of things they pay attention to. This, in turn, will lead to more satisfying and more successful interactions.

More important, as you begin to appreciate how people see things in four very different ways, you will begin to appreciate how around us revolve four different worlds—the worlds of the Director, Expresser, Thinker, and Harmonizer.

Learn more about how communication styles affect our Leadership Styles .

IMPROVING YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH STRAIGHT TALK®

TEN TIPS FOR  IMPROVING COMMUNICATION

Subscribe to receive the PDF download  and future updates!

16 Comments

[…] Lesson 5: The Four Communication Styles […]

[…] Lesson 4: The Four Communication Styles […]

[…] Understanding your style of communicating would be relatively easy if you limited yourself to one of the four basic styles. […]

[…] see, research shows that people tend to communicate in four measurably different ways that reflect differences in what they choose to hear and […]

[…] research has shown that there are four basic styles of communicating. These styles affect all of our communications with other […]

[…] Psychology, and particularly research into personality, further reinforces the idea that there are four distinct communication styles. […]

[…] Talk, a company designed to help people identify and maximize their communication styles, there are four basic styles of communicators. They are: director, expresser, thinker and […]

[…] The Four Communication Styles […]

[…] that you’ve learned about your style of communicating and the styles of the people around you, how can it help you become a more competent communicator? […]

[…] shows us people have four different styles of communicating. We call these styles: Director, Expresser, Thinker and Harmonizer. Each style has its own way of […]

[…] more complicated than that, are the 4 communicator styles which speak to not only how you offer but how you RECEIVE communication.  I know I tend to […]

[…] particular style, and this style influences all of our communication and decision making. There are four different ways of seeing the world, and most people only use one. Without understanding all four, your ability to communicate is […]

[…] Douglas, president of Leading Resources, Inc. in Sacramento and senior associate with San Francisco media consultant BMR Associates, uses the book to outline what he sees as the four basic communication styles: […]

[…] shows us people have four different styles of communicating. We call these communication styles: Director, Expresser, Thinker and Harmonizer. Each style has its own way of seeing the world. Each […]

[…] The Four Communication Styles […]

+ Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More From Forbes

Which of these 4 communication styles are you.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

What’s your communication style? You have a particular style of communicating, of course, but do you know what it is, including its strengths and weaknesses, and how it compares to the styles of others? Over the past two decades of research, my team and I have found that there are four fundamental communication styles: Analytical, Intuitive, Functional and Personal.

No one communication style is inherently better than another. But picking the wrong style for a particular audience, whether it’s one person or a thousand, shuts down listening and can spell trouble. Learning to build flexibility around your preferred style allows others to more successfully hear the important things you need to communicate. (There’s a free communication styles assessment to assess your preferred style.)

One major philosophical difference that separates the four communication styles is the extent to which you communicate with emotions or with data. For example, would you say something like ‘I feel like we’re off to a good start this quarter’ (emotions). Or would you say ‘this quarter sales are up by 7.2%’ (data).

Another major philosophical difference is the extent to which you communicate in a linear way (e.g. do you like to start with A then B then C then D, all the way to Z) or in a freeform way (e.g. do you like to skip over most of the details and jump right to Z).

Of course, there’s a lot more to the four communication styles than just these two philosophical differences. But as a starting point, these are emblematic of the myriad ways that we like to communicate.

Here are descriptions of each of the four communication styles (Analytical, Intuitive, Functional and Personal). See which style you think resonates with you, and take the communication styles assessment to corroborate your intuition.

The Analytical Communicator

As an Analytical communicator, you like hard data, real numbers, and you tend to be suspicious of people who aren’t in command of the facts and data. You typically like very specific language and dislike vague language. For example, when someone tells you ‘sales are positive’ you’re likely to think ‘what does positive mean? 5.2% or 8.9%? Give me a number!’ And those with an Analytical communication style often have little patience for lots of feeling and emotional words in communication.

One big plus of having an Analytical communication style is that because you like communication to be fairly unemotional, you’re often able to look at issues logically and dispassionately. This means others tend to see you as having high-levels of data and informational expertise.

The potential downside of having an Analytical communication style is that you may strike certain people as being cold or unfeeling. For example, when interacting with people like Personal communicators (who tend to like warm and chatty personal relationships), it’s possible for Analytical communicators to get irritated and terse. This sometimes has negative political and relational consequences.

The Intuitive Communicator

As an Intuitive communicator, you like the big picture, you avoid getting bogged down in details, and you cut right to the chase. You don’t need to hear things in perfect linear order but prefer instead a broad overview that lets you easily skip right to the end point. For example, some people, like Functional communicators, will tell you things step-by-step (they start with A, then go to B, then C, then D, then E, etc.). But this can drive you nuts; you’d rather jump right to Z.

One big plus of having an Intuitive communication style is that your communication is quick and to the point. You don’t get stalled by needing too many details, and you’re comfortable with big ideas and out-of-the-box thinking. Because you’re good with thinking big, you can also enjoy challenging convention.

The potential downside of having an Intuitive communication style is that you may not always have enough patience when you’re in a situation that actually requires getting into nitty-gritty detail (and you may risk missing an important point). Typically, Intuitive communicators have the most difficulty dealing with Functional communicators (those are the 'process-driven' people, they’re very methodical, walk through things step-by-step, and like nitty-gritty detail).

The Functional Communicator

As a Functional communicator, you like process, detail, timelines and well-thought-out plans. You like to communicate things in a step-by-step fashion so nothing gets missed. By contrast, there are some people, like the Intuitive communicators, who like to skip all the detail and just jump right to the end. But this can drive you nuts; especially when you think about all the important bits of information the Intuitive person is potentially missing.

One big plus of having a Functional communication style is that your communication generally hits all the details and nothing gets missed. When you’re on a team, people will often turn to you to be the implementer, because they have confidence in your love of process and detail. And because you’re focused on things like process and detail, you’re the person who is typically asked to play Devil’s Advocate.

The potential downside of having a Functional communication style is that you may risk losing the attention of your audience, especially when you’re talking to Intuitive communicators (those are the 'big picture' people who skip to the end and don't get bogged down in too much detail).

The Personal Communicator

As a Personal communicator, you value emotional language and connection, and use that as your mode of discovering what others are really thinking. You find value in assessing not just how people think, but how they feel. You tend to be a good listener and diplomat, you can smooth over conflicts, and you’re typically concerned with the health of your numerous relationships.

One big plus of having a Personal communication style is that your communication allows you to build deep personal relationships with others. People will often turn to you as the ‘glue’ that holds groups together. And you’re typically able to pick-up ‘vibes’ that others may miss because you’re attuned to the emotional aspect of communication.

The potential downside of having a Personal communication style is that you may occasionally be derided as ‘touchy-feely.’ For example, when dealing with Analytical communicators (people who like data, hard numbers, logical discussions, and dislike that 'warm-and-fuzzy' stuff), it’s possible for Personal communicators to become exasperated and emotionally upset.

So, what’s your communication style? As I said at the beginning, one style isn’t better than another. The key is to first understand your own particular communication style so you can match your communication style to that of your audience. Whether you’re speaking with your boss, a small sales meeting, your employees or an audience of thousands, matching your communication styles to the folks you need to hear your words is an essential step to effective communication.

Mark Murphy is NY Times bestselling author, Founder of Leadership IQ, a sought-after leadership training speaker, and creator of the leadership styles assessment .

Also on Forbes:

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Login | Register

• Sponsorship
• Policies and Guidelines
• Editorial Policies
• Section Policies
• Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
• Special Issues
• Editorial Team
• Become a Reviewer
• Harvard Citation Style
• Vancouver Citation Style
• APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

“Academic Publishing is a Business Interest”: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University

• Cassie Thayer-Styes (Willoughby-Eastlake Public Library)

Introduction: This article explores faculty conceptions of academic publishers, their willingness to circumvent paywalls and share content, and their understanding of who holds the responsibility to pay for this body of scholarly work to which they all contribute.

Methods: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 faculty at their Carnegie R2 university to explore scholars’ perspectives with respect to the costs of serials and the responsibilities of the University and library in support of scholarly publishing.

Results: Participants reported a broad spectrum of perspectives with respect to circumventing publisher paywalls and offered nuanced practices for interacting with paywalled content. They explained which library services work well and offered suggestions on how best to support faculty needs for serial literature. Although most participants agree that the University has the responsibility of making academic literature available to the community, they differ in their conceptions of academic publishers as good-faith partners in the knowledge enterprise.

Discussion: The results suggest a great deal of ambiguity and diversity of beliefs among faculty: some would support boycotting all commercial publishers; some understand academic publishers to be integral to the dissemination of their work, not to mention tenure and promotion processes; and many acknowledge a variety of tensions in what feels to them an exploitative and fraught relationship. These findings have implications for library services in acquisitions, collection management, scholarly communication, discovery, and access.

Conclusion: The data provide insight into the nuanced perceptions that faculty members at a Carnegie R2 hold concerning the costs of scholarly publishing and the role of academic publishers within scholarly communication.

Keywords: academic libraries, academic publishing, scholarly communication, collection development, acquisitions, qualitative research

Scott, R. E., Shelley, A., Buckley, C. E., Thayer-Styes, C. & Murphy, J. A., (2024) ““Academic Publishing is a Business Interest”: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University”, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 12(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16232

© 2024 The Author(s). License: CC BY 4.0

Downloads: Download PDF View PDF

• Illinois State University

28 Downloads

Published on 15 aug 2024, peer reviewed, creative commons attribution 4.0, harvard-style citation.

Scott, R , Shelley, A , Buckley, C , Thayer-Styes, C & Murphy, J. (2024) '“Academic Publishing is a Business Interest”: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University', Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication . 12(1) doi: 10.31274/jlsc.16232

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Scott, R , Shelley, A , Buckley, C , Thayer-Styes, C & Murphy, J. “Academic Publishing is a Business Interest”: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2024 8; 12(1) doi: 10.31274/jlsc.16232

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Scott, R Shelley, A Buckley, C Thayer-Styes, C & Murphy, J. (2024, 8 15). “Academic Publishing is a Business Interest”: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 12(1) doi: 10.31274/jlsc.16232

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

Effective ways to communicate research in a journal article

Oxford Academic: Journals

We publish over 500 high-quality journals, with two-thirds in partnership with learned societies and prestigious institutions. Our diverse journal offerings ensure that your research finds a home alongside award-winning content, reaching a global audience and maximizing impact.

• By Megan Taphouse , Anne Foster , Eduardo Franco , Howard Browman , and Michael Schnoor
• August 12 th 2024

In this blog post, editors of OUP journals delve into the vital aspect of clear communication in a journal article. Anne Foster (Editor of Diplomatic History ), Eduardo Franco (Editor-in-Chief of JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute and JNCI Monographs ), Howard Browman (Editor-in-Chief of ICES Journal of Marine Science ), and Michael Schnoor (Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Leukocyte Biology ) provide editorial recommendations on achieving clarity, avoiding common mistakes, and creating an effective structure.

Ensuring clear communication of research findings

AF : To ensure research findings are clearly communicated, you should be able to state the significance of those findings in one sentence—if you don’t have that simple, clear claim in your mind, you will not be able to communicate it.

MS : The most important thing is clear and concise language. It is also critical to have a logical flow of your story with clear transitions from one research question to the next.

EF : It is crucial to write with both experts and interested non-specialists in mind, valuing their diverse perspectives and insights.

Common mistakes that obscure authors’ arguments and data

AF : Many authors do a lovely job of contextualizing their work, acknowledging what other scholars have written about the topic, but then do not sufficiently distinguish what their work is adding to the conversation.

HB : Be succinct—eliminate repetition and superfluous material. Do not attempt to write a mini review. Do not overinterpret your results or extrapolate far beyond the limits of the study. Do not report the same data in the text, tables, and figures.

The importance of the introduction

AF : The introduction is absolutely critical. It needs to bring them straight into your argument and contribution, as quickly as possible.

EF : The introduction is where you make a promise to the reader. It is like you saying, “I identified this problem and will solve it.” What comes next in the paper is how you kept that promise.

Structural pitfalls

EF : Remember, editors are your first audience; make sure your writing is clear and compelling because if the editor cannot understand your writing, chances are that s/he will reject your paper without sending it out for external peer review.

HB : Authors often misplace content across sections, placing material in the introduction that belongs in methods, results, or discussion, and interpretive phrases in results instead of discussion. Additionally, they redundantly present information in multiple sections.

Creating an effective structure

AF : I have one tip which is more of a thinking and planning strategy. I write myself letters about what I think the argument is, what kinds of support it needs, how I will use the specific material I have to provide that support, how it fits together, etc.

EF : Effective writing comes from effective reading—try to appreciate good writing in the work of others as you read their papers. Do you like their writing? Do you like their strategy of advancing arguments? Are you suspicious of their methods, findings, or how they interpret them? Do you see yourself resisting? Examine your reactions. You should also write frequently. Effective writing is like a physical sport; you develop ‘muscle memory’ by hitting a golf ball or scoring a 3-pointer in basketball.

The importance of visualizing data and findings

MS : It is extremely important to present your data in clean and well-organized figures—they act as your business card. Also, understand and consider the page layout and page or column dimensions of your target journal and format your tables and figures accordingly.

EF : Be careful when cropping gels to assemble them in a figure. Make sure that image contrasts are preserved from the original blots. Image cleaning for the sake of readability can alter the meaning of results and eventually be flagged by readers as suspicious.

The power of editing

AF : Most of the time, our first draft is for ourselves. We write what we have been thinking about most, which means the article reflects our questions, our knowledge, and our interests. A round or two of editing and refining before submission to the journal is valuable.

HB : Editing does yourself a favour by minimizing distractions-annoyances-cosmetic points that a reviewer can criticize. Why give reviewers things to criticize when you can eliminate them by submitting a carefully prepared manuscript?

Editing mistakes to avoid

AF : Do not submit an article which is already at or above the word limit for articles in the journal. The review process rarely asks for cuts; usually, you will be asked to clarify or add material. If you are at the maximum word count in the initial submission, you then must cut something during the revision process.

EF : Wait 2-3 days and then reread your draft. You will be surprised to see how many passages in your great paper are too complicated and inscrutable even for you. And you wrote it!

Featured image by Charlotte May via Pexels .

Megan Taphouse , Marketing Executive

Anne Foster , (Editor of Diplomatic History)

Eduardo Franco , (Editor-in-Chief of JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer institute and JNCI Monographs)

Howard Browman , (Editor-in-Chief of ICES Journal of Marine Science)

Michael Schnoor , (Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Leukocyte Biology)

• Publishing 101
• Series & Columns

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

There are currently no comments.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Board of Directors
• Position Statements
• Communications
• Constitution, Bylaws & Resolutions
• Emergency Management
• Hazardous Materials
• Human Relations
• Tech Council
• Terrorism and Homeland Security
• Training and Education Development
• Urban Search & Rescue
• Wildland Fire Policy
• COS Election
• COS Resources
• Coaching Program
• EVMS Elections
• About EMS Section
• EMS Election
• Latest Updates
• Recommended Reading
• FRM Conference
• Heart Safe Community Awards
• James O. Page Award
• EFO Election
• Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP)
• EFO Symposium & Awards
• Federal & Military Fire Services
• FLSS Election
• FLSS Resources
• FLSS Awards
• Low Frequency Alarm Committee
• IFSS Election
• IFSS Updates
• Metro Chiefs
• Meet the SHSS Board
• SHSS Election
• SHSS Resources
• SHSS Awards
• Volunteer & Combination Officers
• Bugle Partners
• Bugle Program
• Careers at IAFC
• Career Center
• International Fire Service Research Center and Policy Institute
• Chief Officers
• Company Officers
• Conferences
• Officer Development Program Leadership Development Certification Series
• IFP Frequently Asked Questions
• Online Learning
• IAFC Academy
• Webinar Library
• Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant & Substance Abuse Program
• Technology Council
• IAFC Frequency Coordination
• UAS Toolkit
• Department Administration
• Fire Prevention
• Lithium-Ion and Energy Storage Systems
• Large-Scale Response
• Our Facilitators
• LMA Conference
• Services & Products
• Wellness/Fitness Program Summary
• Candidate Physical Ability Test
• IAFC Recruiting App
• Suppression News
• Fire Adapted News
• Wildland Landscapes News
• Wildland Policy News
• News Details
• Position Details
• Wildland Events
• Wildland Resource
• Wildland News
• All Resources
• Buyer's Guide
• Consulting Services
• Grant Funding
• Affordable Care Act
• Federal Taxation
• Homeland Security
• Volunteer and Combination
• Wildland Fire
• Contact NMAS
• Hurricane Preparation/Response
• Chief's Edge
• Community Risk Reduction
• Fire-Rescue International
• Fire-Rescue Med
• Hazmat Conference
• Symposium in the Sun
• Technology Summit International
• WUI Conference
• Upcoming Events
• Life Membership
• Update Profile
• Member Benefits
• Get Involved
• KnowledgeNet
• Bugle Brief
• Daily Dispatch
• Topics & Tools /
• All Resources /
• Resource Single

This free Healthcare Provider’s Guide to Firefighter Physicals was developed by the IAFC and is available for you to bring to your physician to help them understand the physiological demands of the job.

• Featured Latest (IAFC)
• Section SHS
• Safety & Health
• Featured Home (IAFC)
• Featured Safety & Health
• {{Title}} Remove

No categories have been created yet.

• Featured Active Shooter Toolkit
• Featured Blog
• Featured Communications & Technology
• Featured Conf & Events
• Featured Department Administration
• Featured EMS
• Featured FDX Blog
• Featured FDX home
• Featured FDX Resource
• Featured Fire Prevention
• Featured Grant News
• Featured Hazmat
• Featured HFC home
• Featured HFC Training & Resources
• Featured HFC Transport & Commods
• Featured Hurricanes
• Featured iChiefs
• Featured iChiefs List
• Featured Large Scale Response
• Featured Leadership
• Featured Learn & Develop
• Featured Learn & Develop Courses & Training
• Featured Legislative News
• Featured Lithium Battery
• Featured Opioid, Stimulant & Substance Abuse
• Featured PDC Reading Recommendations
• Featured Personnel
• Featured Press Releases
• Featured Research
• Featured Safety & Health
• Featured Smart Alarm Choices
• Featured Tools & Topics
• Featured Traffic Safety
• Featured Volunteer
• Featured Wildland
• Featured Fire Adapted
• Featured Resilient Landscapes
• Featured Supression
• Featured Wildland Policy
• Featured WS A-RIT
• featured-vws-a-rit
• Active Shooter
• Frequency Coordination
• Interoperability
• Narrowbanding
• Public Safety Broadband Network
• Community Relations
• Customer Service
• Marketing & Media
• Crisis Communication
• Data & Analysis
• Economic Environment
• Fundraising
• Legal Issues
• Human Resources
• Recruitment2
• Volunteer/Career Relations
• Information Technology
• LODD, PSOB & Ceremonies
• Strategic Planning
• Epidemics/Emerging Diseases
• Fire-based & Private EMS
• Firefighter Rehab
• (Lightweight) Construction
• Alarms and Detectors
• Building Codes
• Extinguishers
• Fire Inspections
• Low Frequency Alarms
• Public Education
• Government Relations
• State Legislation, Regulations
• Lithium Battery
• Transport Air
• Transport Highway
• Transport Pipeline
• Transport Rail
• Transport Water
• Human Relations, Diversity & Inclusion
• IAFC Info/News
• IAFC Partnerships
• Organizational
• Homeland Security/Terrorism
• Natural Disasters
• state: Florida
• state: Georgia
• state: Louisiana
• state: Mississippi
• state: North Carolina
• state: South Carolina
• state: Texas
• state: Virginia
• Generational Differences
• Leadership Styles
• Motivating People
• Learn & Develop
• Professional Development
• Training, Capabilities & Competencies
• Fire Behavior
• Tech Rescue
• Labor/Management Relations
• Protected content
• Safety & Health
• Traffic Safety
• Recruitment
• Fire-Adapted
• Resilient Landscapes
• Suppression
• Bugle ptnr 3
• Bugle ptnr 4
• Bugle ptnr 5
• Cardiac TK org supporters
• COVID Vaccine Comments
• Professional Development Committee
• Project - Whole Community
• Project ALERT
• Project FSTAR
• Project HFC
• Project VWS
• Project: NFIRS
• Project: Opioid
• Project: PERC
• Project: SafeQuickClear
• Section COS
• Section EFO
• Section EMS
• Heart Safe Community Award
• Section EVMS
• Section FedMil
• Section FLSS
• Section Industrial
• Section VCOS
• USR Committee
• USR Purpose
• Public education material
• 1-pager/ summary/ infographic
• Code/ regulation/ advisory
• Field operating guide
• Guide/ toolkit/ template
• Presentation
• Report/ publication
• Strategy development tool
• Safety Health Survival Section
• Canadian Division
• Communications Committee
• Company Officers Section
• Constitution Bylaws Resolutions Committee
• Eastern Division
• Elections Committee
• Emergency Management Committee
• Emergency Vehicle Management Section
• EMS Section
• Environmental Sustainability Committee
• Executive Fire Officers Section
• Fed/Mil Fire Services Section
• Fire Life Safety Section
• Great Lakes Division
• Hazardous Materials Committee
• Hazmat Fusion Center
• Human Relations Committee
• IAFC Foundation
• IAFC On Scene
• Industrial Fire Safety Section
• Metro Chiefs Section
• Missouri Valley Division
• National Safety Culture Change Initiative
• New England Division
• Policy Institute
• Program Planning Committee
• Ready Set Go
• Southeastern Division
• Southwestern Division
• Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee
• Volunteer Combination Officers Section
• Western Division
• Whole Communities
• Wildland Fire Policy Committee

Related Resources

• Women's Healthcare Provider’s Guide to Firefighter Physicals This free Women's Healthcare Provider’s Guide to Firefighter Physicals was developed by the IAFC and is available for you to bring to your physician to help them understand the physiological demands of the job and the specific threats posed to ... read more
• Responding to Propane / Flammable Gas Incidents Bulletin This bulletin is provided by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) in partnership with the Propane Education and Research Council (PERC) and pertains to emergency response to propane gas incidents involving structures. Purpose: To provide general guidance and best practices to fire ... read more
• NIOSH: Safety and Health Considerations for Junior Firefighters DHHS (NIOSH) PUBLICATION NUMBER 2024-114 This safety and health advisory provides fire departments actions they can take to help protect the health and safety of junior firefighters. Some states have laws allowing junior firefighters to engage in training activities more consistent ... read more
• Oct 29 E.S.C.A.P.E. Oct 29, 2024 Online
• Nov 14 Symposium in the Sun 2024 Nov 14-17, 2024 Clearwater FL
• Aug 13 Fire-Rescue International - 2025 Aug 13-15, 2025 Orange County Convention Center Orlando FL
• Welcome and congratulations to incoming our three incoming executive committee leaders August 16, 2024
• Oregon firefighter honored with 2024 Ben Franklin Award for Valor August 15, 2024
• Pierce and IAFC Celebrate Leadership with 2024 Fire Chief of the Year Awards August 15, 2024

• Terms of Use & Copyright
• Privacy Policy
• IAFC Logo Usage Policy
• Discrimination & Harassment Policy

8251 Greensboro Drive, Suite 650, McLean, VA 22102 | Tel: 703-273-0911 © 1999 - 2024 International Association of Fire Chiefs. All Rights Reserved.

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics