RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 1

RESPECTFUL INQUIRY:

A MOTIVATIONAL ACCOUNT OF LEADING THROUGH ASKING QUESTIONS

AND LISTENING

Niels Van Quaquebeke

Khne Logistics University (KLU)

[email protected]

Will Felps

University of New South Wales (UNSW)

[email protected]

in press at

Academy of Management Review

Author note: We would like to thank Associate Editor Russel Johnson, our three anonymous

Reviewers, Eliza Byington, David Day, Gail Fairhurst, Marion Fortin, Marylne Gagn,

Avraham Kluger, Daan Stam, Christian Trster, and Nick Wang for their tremendously helpful

comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Additional thanks go out for the feedback and

encouragement from many other academics and executives that we have discussed the papers

ideas with over the last six years.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 2

Abstract

Practitioners repeatedly note that the everyday behavior of asking followers open questions and

attentively listening to their responses is a powerful leadership technique. Yet, despite such

popularity, these practices are currently under-theorized. Addressing this gap, we formally define

the behavioral configuration of asking open questions combined with attentive listening as

Respectful Inquiry, and then draw on Self-Determination Theory to provide a motivational

account of its antecedents, consequences, and moderators within a leader-follower relationship.

Specifically, we argue that Respectful Inquiry principally satisfies followers' basic psychological

needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Against this background, we highlight ironic

contexts where Respectful Inquiry is likely to be especially rare, but would also be especially

valuable. These ironic contexts include situations where interpersonal power difference, time

pressure, physical distance, cognitive load, follower dissatisfaction, or organizational control

focus are high. We additionally outline how the effect of Respectful Inquiry behaviors critically

hinges upon the interaction history a follower has with a leader. More generally, we make the

suggestion that the leadership field would benefit from complementing its traditional focus on

gestalt leadership styles with research on concrete and narrow communicative behaviors, such

as Respectful Inquiry.

Keywords: Respectful Inquiry, Self-Determination Theory, communication, question asking,

basic psychological needs, competence, relatedness, autonomy, control, dominance, listening

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 3

As Pondy (1989) succinctly put it, Leadership is a language game, a statement many

managers seem to agree with (Groysberg & Slind, 2013; Hildebrandt, Bond, Miller, & Swinyard,

1982). And indeed, communication constitutes approximately 70% to 80% of managers daily

work (Mintzberg, 1973; Wajcman & Rose, 2011). The majority of that communication is with

subordinates (Dubin & Spray, 1964; Tengblad, 2006). Hence, somewhat unsurprisingly, leader

communication skills have been found to be directly related to managerial performance (Penley,

1991). However, we believe, that the day-to-day language game of managing subordinates

motivation a core responsibility of managers is currently under-theorized.

Interestingly, when successful modern leaders are asked how they motivate followers,

many refer to the value of asking questions and attending to responses (for some popular press

accounts, see: Cohen, 2009; Ferrari, 2012; Groysberg & Slind, 2013; Leeds, 2000; Marquardt,

2005; Maxwell, 2014). Yet, the everyday practice of asking questions and listening has not been

met with similar enthusiasm by business academics (e.g., Brink & Costigan, 2015). In the vein of

engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007), we take the insight from practice seriously that there is

motivational power in asking open questions and listening, a configuration that we come to

formally define as Respectful Inquiry.

Although sparse, the available empirical leadership research is suggestive of the power of

asking questions. For instance, large-scale, cross-industry surveys have found that leaders who

regularly ask for input are seen as increasing in effectiveness (Goldsmith & Morgan, 2004: 75).

Respectful questions from leaders seem to create more encouraging work relationships (Wodak,

Kwon, & Clarke, 2011), while a leaders verbal dominance decreases group performance (Tost,

Gino, & Larrick, 2012). On a more detailed level, Bales (1950) interaction process analysis

revealed that only 6% of all speech acts are questions, yet around 60% of all speech acts are in
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 4

response to a previous question. In other words, the 6% of questions drive 60% of the

conversation. Correspondingly, Bechter and Johnson (1995, 1998) found in their video-coding of

group discussions that those who ask and listen are also more likely to be perceived as leaders.

And most recently, Edgar Schein (2013), writing on the gentle art of asking and not telling,

predicts that the future of leadership will be defined by a humble, inquisitive leadership style.

Having said that, any proposition that focuses on questions as a means for leaders to gain

new information is unlikely to offer novel insights. Research on feedback seeking, information

seeking, environmental scanning, participation, exploration, and reflexivity are all undergirded

by the common-sense notion of seek, and ye shall find. Similarly, research on participation,

voice, and conflict resolution all establish that seeking input from followers often increases the

chance of compliance with leaders decisions. Both the informational and compliance

consequence of question-asking were comprehensively addressed many years ago in Vroom and

Yettons (1973) participative leadership theory. However, from our point of view, the leadership

literature has missed one of the most valuable potential benefits of asking questions and

listening: namely, that these behaviors can motivate followers.

The present article is an attempt to provide such a motivational account of Respectful

Inquiry in a leadership context. To do so, we build on the theoretical foundation of Self-

Determination Theory (SDT), which includes the notion that all humans have basic

psychological needs, which social interactions such as those between followers and leaders

may support or thwart (Gagn & Deci, 2005; Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, & Judge, 2003).

The SDT perspective thus not only allows generalizable theorizing but also helps explain how

motivation can be externally fueled but still experienced as autonomous. Moreover, because

leaders and followers have the same basic psychological needs, the same motivational lens can
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 5

be used to explain the behavior of both leaders and followers in a model of antecedents and

outcomes that is systematic and parsimonious.

By connecting research on communication and motivation, we seek to make three

contributions to leadership theorizing. First, while there is a growing body of scholarship on

unidirectional and major leader communication events such as visionary speeches (e.g., Bligh,

Kohles, & Meindl, 2004; Carton, Murphy, & Clark, 2014; Stam, Lord, van Knippenberg, &

Wisse, 2014), there is considerably less work on the more commonly occurring communication

acts between leaders and followers. Our exploration of Respectful Inquiry extends previous

theorizing on leadership communication by showing how an everyday dyadic communication

behavior can motivate followers.

Second, unlike prior scholarship (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Stam, van

Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010; Steffens & Haslam, 2013), our theorizing focuses on the form of

leader communication rather than the content of what leaders say. As such, our investigation is

topic agnostic; Respectful Inquiry may be used when setting goals, providing feedback,

explaining decisions, coaching, monitoring, or simply in small talk. In doing so, our approach is

different from that usually taken in discursive research, much of which is committed to a social

constructivist / interpretivist philosophy of science (for reviews, see Fairhurst, 2007; Fairhurst &

Connaughton, 2014). This view of leadership often rejects variable-based theorizing and

behavioral definitions of leadership concepts. We reject these rejections, and instead highlight

the benefits of focusing on leaders concrete behavioral communication acts.

Third, in contrast to work on leadership styles, we emphasize a different level of analysis.

This article focuses on elements of leadership at the level of specific communication behaviors.

Behavioral theories of leadership effectiveness can provide a foundation on which to build a

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 6

more integrated leadership field (Day & Antonakis, 2012), a field that has been labeled

curiously unformed (Hackman & Wageman, 2007: 43). To draw an analogy from Chemistry,

we hope that developing an understanding of single elements (e.g., discrete leader

communication behaviors) will ultimately help build a sounder taxonomy of compounds (e.g.,

gestalt leadership styles).

To preview the structure of the article, we first define Respectful Inquiry as a multi-

dimensional behavioral construct and argue for the level of our investigation. Then, drawing on

Self-Determination Theory as a motivational framework, we outline why Respectful Inquiry can

be expected to lead to improved follower satisfaction and performance. Continuing with the

same motivational lens, we also identify leader self-determination as an antecedent to Respectful

Inquiry. Thereafter, we focus on contextual factors that render Respectful Inquiry unlikely, but

highly valuable. We describe these latter settings as ironic, given that they contradict the

expectation that leaders will use Respectful Inquiry when it would be most effective. Finally, we

note that the experience of Respectful Inquiry critically hinges on the interaction history between

leader and follower. The elements of our model are depicted in Figure 1. We conclude with a

discussion of the models boundary conditions as well as implications for communication-based

leadership research and practice.

--------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------

WHAT IS RESPECTFUL INQUIRY?

We define Respectful Inquiry as the multidimensional construct of asking questions in an

open way and subsequently listening attentively, which in their interplay signal the degree to

which a person invites an addressee to (continue to) share his/her thoughts on a subject during a
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 7

conversational episode. There are several things to note about this definition. First, we refer to

such communication as respectful because inviting the thoughts of addressees without

preemptively limiting the range of appropriate answers carries a signal of equal worth and

dignity (Carmeli, Dutton, & Hardin, 2015; Van Quaquebeke, Henrich, & Eckloff, 2007). Second,

like many motivational concepts having to do with managerial behavior (e.g., goal-setting,

feedback, OB modification), Respectful Inquiry is episodic. As such, an individual can engage in

Respectful Inquiry to different degrees across different conversations. Third, we theorize that a

set of three components i.e., asking questions, question openness, and attentive listening

combine into the multidimensional construct (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998) of Respectful

Inquiry. Each of these three components is necessary to specify the level of Respectful Inquiry.

Through these, the construct ranges from Respectful Inquiry (positive pole) to Disrespectful

Inquiry (negative pole). Each of the three components of Respectful Inquiry, as well as their

interplay, and their partly nested structure are considered next.

Fundamentally, a question can be defined as any statement or nonverbal act that invites

an answer (Stewart & Cash, 2000: 79). In that sense, the essential function of a question is to

elicit a verbal response from those to whom the question is addressed (Hawkins & Power, 1999:

236). This function, also called the illocutionary point, serves as the questions purpose (Searle

& Vanderveken, 1985). Although all questions have via their syntax seemingly the same

illocutionary point i.e., to invite an answer some questions have more illocutionary strength

than others. Illocutionary strength refers to the extent to which a speakers language emphasizes

a commitment to what they are saying (e.g., a promise reflects more illocutionary strength than

merely saying sure) (Searle & Vanderveken, 1985; Vanderveken, 2009). Importantly, the

strength of the illocutionary point is a property of the language used rather than the true intent of
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 8

the speaker.

In order to engage in Respectful Inquiry with a high degree of illocutionary strength,

simply asking questions is necessary but insufficient. A second component of Respectful Inquiry

involves the degree of question openness. Such openness can range from closed (e.g.,

rhetorical questions, commands phrased as a question) to limited openness questions (e.g.,

closed yes/no questions), to completely open questions that invite an elaborate and

undetermined response (Kearsley, 1976). More open questions have more illocutionary strength

because they indicate more commitment to the message that the addressee is welcome to share

his/her thoughts (Jablin, 1979). In contrast, closed questions curtail the range of possible

responses deemed acceptable. One of the more closed types of question is the kind of cold call

where only one possible answer is acceptable and the addressee is compelled to try to provide the

right answer as determined by the questioner (cf. in an educational context, Reeve & Jang,

2006). Here, it is important to note that while part of question openness resides in the pure syntax

of a question i.e. wh-questions are usually more open than questions that can be answered with

a yes or no another part is the tone of the question (OConnor & Arnold, 1973). For example, a

question like What is the problem? can be asked in a way that suggests that the addressee

should not respond at all or in a way that honestly invites elaboration (Thompson, 1995).

To conclusively decipher the illocutionary point and strength of a question, it is necessary

to include listening behaviors as part of the relevant communication episode. Following a

question, verbal and non-verbal signals of listening reflect whether the leader is interested in the

response (Hargie & Dickson, 2004, ch. 7). Thus, listening behavior can reinforce the original

illocutionary point that the questioner is interested in the addressees thoughts on a particular

subject (Pasupathi & Billitteri, 2015). Attentive listening behavior includes adequate eye contact,
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 9

appropriate facial expressions (e.g., expressions consistent with the emotional tone of the

speaker), head movements that convey understanding (e.g., nodding), occasional verbal

reassurances that encourage the speaker to continue (e.g., saying uh huh or sure), and

showing that the content resonates (e.g., wincing or exclaiming) (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson,

2000; Hargie & Dickson, 2004, ch. 7; Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010).1 As a study

by Pasupathi and Rich (2005) suggests, however, it is not important that the listener agrees with

the speaker. Instead, it is the signal of alertness and responsiveness that is crucial for the

conversation as these perceived listening cues indicate to the speaker whether what they have to

say is valuable and worth remembering (Bavelas et al., 2000; Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2010).

In contrast, low listening contradicts the illocutionary point of the question itself when,

for instance, leaders ask a question but then fail to listen in a way that shows they are interested

in the response. This could occur when leaders ask a question and then gaze off, check their

phone, interrupt the response, or otherwise demonstrate that they were not listening to the

follower. Such a configuration can confuse, hurt, or offend as an initially expected illocutionary

point (conveyed interest in an answer) is reversed (conveyed disinterest in an answer). This

blowback effect can be assumed to be even stronger when a speakers commitment to the

question was initially reinforced by the openness of the question, i.e. when the illocutionary

strength was high. Not listening after asking a question thus presents a disrespectful form of

inquiry. The proposed dynamic is analogous to other types of psychological contracts that

1
While we employ a straightforward, narrow, and behavioral conception of listening, others take a broader
approach. For instance, some scholars incorporate the inquiry aspect itself in the concept of listening (e.g., Bechler
& Johnson, 1995; Kluger & Zaidel, 2013) or they focus on the kind of things that listeners pay more or less attention
to (e.g., Bodie & Worthington, 2010).
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 10

provoke negative reactions when implicit expectations are broken (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, &

Bravo, 2007). Thus, poor listening can contradict the illocutionary point of an (open) question.

To summarize, we have outlined three components that combine into the construct

Respectful Inquiry. Figure 2 illustrates the nested nature of the component interplay in that the

openness of a question enhances the illocutionary point of asking a question. This illocutionary

point is predicted to be fully qualified by listening, in that it is either enhanced by subsequent

attentive listening or, because of shattered expectations, completely reversed by cues of non-

listening. Due to the nested structure, and as implied in the figure, each element is necessary to

identify the degree of Respectful Inquiry. Notably, non-inquiry i.e., asking zero questions in a

conversational episode is not a meaningful part of the construct because at least one question is

logically required for the level of question openness and listening to be specified. However,

given that few people say nothing or only communicate in statements, this point is more

philosophical than practical.

--------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------------

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS LEVEL OF ANALYSIS?

Naturally, because Respectful Inquiry pertains to a discrete and narrow set of

communication behaviors in a communication episode, it can surface as part of many broader

leadership concepts. Indeed, it would be hard to picture empowering, servant, humble,

participative, respectful, or any other generally considerate leadership style without leaders

asking questions and listening to their followers once in a while. Rather, this article emphasizes

that discrete communication behaviors constitute basic building blocks of leadership. As these

aggregate over time together with other communication behaviors, communication content, and

leadership decisions, the amalgam is then interpreted as a certain leadership style.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 11

Similarly, Respectful Inquiry can be a communicative element of interpersonal (e.g.,

showing respect), informational (e.g., accuracy and quality of explanations), or procedural (e.g.,

giving voice) justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001) even though the

corresponding literature tends to focus on providing better explanations rather than focusing on

how to engage in the specific art of asking questions. As with leadership concepts, these (partly

overlapping) justice concepts are often an amalgam of diverse agent behaviors, organizational

structures, and routines.

While the level of conceptual abstraction pursued in scholarship is somewhat a matter of

taste and scholarly cycles (Hirsch & Levin, 1999; Yg, 1989), we believe there are two clear

advantages to a focus on discrete and concrete forms of communication (see also van

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

First, broader approaches to leadership or justice try to identify meaningful clusters of

covarying elements that can be conceptualized under one label. Key conceptual challenges

associated with such broad theories include tautology (Day, 2014, ch. 38), statistically erroneous

aggregation (Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic, 2011), failure to provide theoretically sound

inclusion and exclusion criteria (Johnson, Rosen, & Chang, 2011), concept traveling (Yg, 1989),

and vagueness (Hirsch & Levin, 1999), with the result being definitional wrangling about how

various concepts should be defined (see, for example, Colquitt et al., 2001; van Knippenberg &

Sitkin, 2013) and what their effects are (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2014). In

contrast, narrowly focused concepts have a clear denotation and a narrow connotation that is at

low risk of being stretched into something so general that it become almost meaningless (Yg,

1989). As such, precise basic-level behavioral conceptualizations can provide solid building

blocks for better understanding or constructing higher-level, gestalt styles of leadership.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 12

Second, higher-level gestalt styles of leadership come with two key challenges in

operationalization. First, in order to cover the whole construct, the scales associated with these

constructs usually refer to vague classes of behaviors (some examples from published leadership

and justice scales: treats me in a polite manner., gives me power., treats me in a fair

way., treats me with respect., or understands how to inspire me.). Yet, such abstract

operationalizations run the risk of measuring overall positive attitudes (i.e., halo) instead of

actual behaviors (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Second, broad concepts open the

possibility for different scholars to operationalize the same broad concept in widely different

ways (Lee, Martin, Thomas, Guillaume, & Maio, 2015). In contrast, locating Respectful Inquiry

at a lower level of analysis facilitates the use of consistent operationalizations in future

scholarship, which in turn allows programmatic accretion of knowledge. As such, we believe that

theoretical and empirical contributions of a lower, i.e. behavioral level of analysis are intertwined

(van Maanen, Srensen, & Mitchell, 2007). Ultimately, such knowledge about basic building

blocks is not only relevant for subsequent theorizing, but also for creating more actionable, to the

point interventions for practice.

WHAT ARE THE (MOTIVATIONAL) CONSEQUENCES

OF RESPECTFUL INQUIRY?

We propose that Respectful Inquiry is powerful in leader-follower interactions because it

sends three meta-messages that followers need to hear in order to be autonomously motivated: a)

you have control, b) you are competent, and c) you belong with each message mapping on one

of the three basic psychological needs as indicated by Self-Determination Theory (SDT):

autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, &

Rosen, in press). Before describing how Respectful Inquiry relates to the three needs, however, it
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 13

is important to understand some of the basic tenets of SDT and its importance in a work context.

Self-Determination at Work

Self-Determination Theory is an elaborate theory of human motivation that has been

widely applied in different fields (Deci & Ryan, 2012). While SDT is a broad framework that

organizes the study of human motivation ranging from extrinsic to more intrinsic forms, it also

offers specific sub-theories that are distinct from other motivation theories in the field (for a

good review, see Gagn & Deci, 2005). One of these sub-theories in SDT emphasizes that

humans have three universal and basic psychological needs: 1) to feel in control and have

options, which is referred to as the need for autonomy, 2) to feel adequately challenged so that

one can experience mastery, which is referred to as the need for competence, and 3) to feel that

one belongs, which is referred to as the need for relatedness.

Importantly, and in contrast to some other need-based views on motivation, SDT research

de-emphasizes individual differences in need strength, but instead focuses on the extent to which

different situations allow these generally important needs to be satisfied (Gagn & Deci, 2005).

This perspective stems from evidence suggesting that autonomy, competence, and relatedness

are each innate, universal, and readily salient needs (Sheldon, 2011).

Central to SDT is the tenet that humans are embedded in social environments that may

support or thwart their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Reis, Sheldon, Gable,

Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000). Given that work is a central aspect of the social environmental for many

people, organizational stressors and resources unsurprisingly have a profound influence on

peoples basic psychological needs (for an overview see: Van den Broeck et al., in press).

Among these, leaders are particularly influential, acting as a critical source of basic

psychological need satisfaction at work (e.g., Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Van Quaquebeke, & van
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 14

Dick, 2012; Lanaj, Johnson, & Lee, 2016; Van Quaquebeke & Eckloff, 2010).

SDT holds that, when an environment facilitates the experience of autonomy,

competence, and relatedness, the individual will not only be satisfied due to basic psychological

needs being met, but also experience autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Gagn &

Deci, 2005). Autonomous motivation can be defined as freely choosing to strive in a particular

direction. It is characterized by a sense of choicefulness, endorsement, and ownership of

behavior (Meyer & Gagn, 2008). As such, in a work setting, autonomous motivation can range

from work maintenance behaviors (such as continuing to work as requested even when nobody is

watching) to more proactive work behaviors (such as scanning the environment and initiating

change). Regarding the latter, the freedom implied in autonomous motivation can guide

followers toward novel approaches or solutions that are beyond their regular job descriptions.

Some of these approaches might be good, others not. Fostering autonomous motivation thus may

not only raise the mean but also the variation in follower performance (e.g., Chan, 2006).

However, on balance, the literature suggests that the good effects of proactive behaviors

outweigh the bad (e.g., Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010).

In sum, and consistent with prior research, the experience of autonomy, competence, and

relatedness improves employee satisfaction and autonomous motivation, which are themselves

linked to retention and job performance. As these conclusions are adequately established in the

literature (Van den Broeck et al., in press), we do not formalize them as propositions. However,

they are important because subsequent theory hinges on the assertion that, ceteris paribus, it is

desirable for followers to experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Respectful Inquiry and the Satisfaction of Followers Basic Psychological Needs

Having outlined how the three basic psychological needs fuel follower satisfaction and
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 15

motivation, we will now argue that Respectful Inquiry supports each of these three needs. First,

by engaging in Respectful Inquiry, leaders signal that they accept followers autonomy. Quite

literally, just by the act of asking, whether Hows it going? or What do you think?, leaders

relinquish control over the conversation. Beyond relinquishing conversational control,

Respectful Inquiry also gives the addressee the autonomy to make sense of the situation from

his/her perspective (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The freedom to make sense rather than be

given sense is likely play a key role in explaining the relationship between Respectful Inquiry

and follower sense of autonomy. In sum, Respectful Inquiry sends the meta-message to

followers: you have control.

Proposition 1: Leader Respectful Inquiry increases followers experience of autonomy.

Second, Respectful Inquiry also supports a followers competence needs, which involves

the desire to successfully meet new challenges. As outlined above, by asking somebody a

question, control is relinquished, which, if paired with attentive listening, signals a leaders trust

and confidence that the addressee can capably respond. Respectful Inquiry by a leader thus

conveys the message that the follower is assumed competent enough to give an informative or

otherwise valuable answer; and the more open the question is, the more confidence is signaled to

the follower. In addition, Respectful Inquiry by leaders offers followers the opportunity to reveal

their competence. For example, if a leader asks the question, What are your takeaways? or

Are we missing anything?, it converts the follower from a passive message receiver into an

active message creator, thereby also challenging him or her to make good use of that

opportunity. Respectful Inquiry therefore generally sends the meta-message: you are deemed

competent.

Proposition 2: Leader Respectful Inquiry increases followers experience of competence.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 16

Third, the verbal act of Respectful Inquiry itself also causes the conversation to become

bidirectional, irrespective of whether the question is What is our objective here? or How are

you today?. As such, respectful Inquiry opens the communication to dyadic contributions,

thereby communicating We are in this together. More pointedly, the nature of a directed

question as well as the resources spent on attentive listening (e.g., attention and time) imply I

care about you personally. These signals culminate in the meta-message: you belong.

Proposition 3: Leader Respectful Inquiry increases followers experience of relatedness.

Note that, even though we listed some examples for better understanding, our focus is on

the form of communication rather than the content of communication. Certainly, different

contents may relate to different needs. That said, a seemingly competence-need related question

such as What is your opinion? may just as easily also satisfy a respondents need for

relatedness or autonomy. Likewise, since Respectful Inquiry shifts control of the conversation to

the receiver, the content of a question does not completely predetermine the way followers

answer. Thus, regardless of the content, an open question can provide a follower with the

opportunity to shift the conversation to, for example, topics that display his/her competence. For

example, a leaders Hows it going? might evoke a response from the follower about recent

successes in solving a technical challenge. In this case, Respectful Inquiry itself (rather than the

content of the question) allows the follower to direct the conversation to fulfill their need to

demonstrate competence.

WHAT ARE THE MOTIVATIONAL ANTECEDENTS OF RESPECTFUL INQUIRY?

Given the propositions that leader Respectful Inquiry should be generally satisfying and

motivating for followers and thus generally beneficial for organizations, we continue to build our

model by focusing on what spurs such communication. While a range of largely dispositional
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 17

factors may prompt Respectful Inquiry (e.g., humility, non-arrogance, agreeableness, learning

orientation), these are often not malleable and thus provide little opportunities for organizations

to intervene in ways that increase leaders Respectful Inquiry. Instead, this article thus focuses on

the three basic psychological needs identified by Self-Determination Theory, which can be

influenced by organizational practices.

First, as noted earlier, Respectful Inquiry involves giving up autonomous control of the

conversation. As such, Respectful Inquiry is less likely if a leader is experiencing an autonomy

deficit. There are two related reasons for this. First, according to SDT theorizing, autonomy can

be considered a resource that individuals seek to restore if depleted (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Thus,

leaders will be reluctant to give up conversational control when their own autonomy needs are

depleted. Second, low control experiences likely result in a dynamic akin to what has been called

threat-rigidity (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). As such, low control experiences are

related to constricted attention, less perspective taking, reduced adaptive communication, and

more rigid decision-making (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Roxssnagel, 2000).

As a likely result of both reasons, students ask fewer questions when they feel that their

academic performance is beyond their control (e.g., Daly, Kreiser, & Roghaar, 1994) or when

they are concerned about their own autonomy (Butler & Neuman, 1995). Also experimental

studies show that a thwarted autonomy need provokes both defensiveness (Hodgins, Yacko, &

Gottlieb, 2006) and an increase in independence striving (Radel, Pelletier, Sarrazin, &

Milyavskaya, 2011). In sum, based on a resource-maintenance perspective on autonomy and a

threat-rigidity perspective on information processing, we thus expect that a leader who

experiences low autonomy is likely to communicate to followers through orders, statements, or

closed questions, rather than open questions accompanied by attentive listening.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 18

Proposition 4: Leaders are more likely to engage in Respectful Inquiry to the

extent that their own need for autonomy is satisfied.

Second, we argue that a leader will be more reluctant to engage in Respectful Inquiry if

he or she does not feel competent. Any kind of open inquiry involves an admission, both to the

leaders themselves and their followers, that the leader does not know every relevant piece of

information. Hence, leaders who are insecure about their own competence may not feel safe to

ask genuine questions because it threatens to further undermine their sense of competence (even

though, paradoxically, asking questions could make them more competent over time). As a

result, when challenge outstrips skill, leaders are unlikely to seek out new information (Staw et

al., 1981) or appreciate their followers desire to share their perspectives (Roxssnagel, 2000).

Education research, for instance, shows that teachers use less inquiry in the classroom when they

are less knowledgeable (Dobey & Schafer, 1984). Similarly, students with lower self-perceived

academic performance and efficacy were found to ask fewer questions in class (Daly et al., 1994;

Ryan & Shin, 2011) due to a threatened sense of competence (van der Meij, 1988). The same

seems true in organizations. Argyris (1982) classic work points to the desire to protect ones ego

as a key barrier to asking questions. Ironically, for instance, Lee (2002) found that contrary to

her expectation, physicians and nurses in a hospital asked less questions when overwhelmed by a

new IT system, and more when working in well-known environments. And indeed, asking others

for help is often considered a sign of incompetence, inferiority, and dependence (Lee, 1997), and

is experienced as especially threatening when the question addressee is of lower-status (Druian

& DePaulo, 1977; Lee, 2002). As a result, rather than respectfully inquire, it seems that many

leaders become more aggressive toward others when they do not feel competent (Fast & Chen,

2009).
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 19

Proposition 5: Leaders are more likely to engage in Respectful Inquiry to the

extent that their own need for competence is satisfied.

Third, we argue that when leaders feel like they do not belong i.e. when the relatedness

need is thwarted in their lives (with work being a major portion of that life for most leaders)

the resulting social insecurity will decrease their willingness to ask genuine questions because

these would render the leader even more vulnerable. As such, when relatedness needs are not

met, leaders communication can be expected to become more risk-averse and conservative

(Park & Baumeister, 2015), with less propensity towards Respectful Inquiry.

At work, there are various resources that can make people feel that they belong. Among

these, most significant are social ties and the support they represent (Van den Broeck et al., in

press). For instance, if an individuals connection to their own supervisor is of a high quality, the

individuals relatedness needs are more satisfied (Van den Broeck et al., in press). Conversely,

we would expect that leaders relatedness needs may also be fueled via the relationships they

have with their followers with consequences for communication as outlined above. And

indeed, relationship quality between leader and follower seems to affect whether leaders engage

in overriding communication (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987) and whether their communication

is involving rather than adversarial (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). We thus propose that:

Proposition 6: Leaders are more likely to engage in Respectful Inquiry to the extent that

their need for relatedness is satisfied.

WHEN IS RESPECTFUL INQUIRY PARTICULARLY VALUABLE BUT RARE?

Having argued that Respectful Inquiry is beneficial for follower motivation, we now adopt a

pragmatist approach to theory building (cf. Kilduff, Mehra, & Dunn, 2011) and focus on contexts

where there are likely to be large gaps between normal behavior and effective behavior, between
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 20

is and ought. In other words, we focus on contexts that elicit ironic dynamics in that they

may prevent a leader from engaging in Respectful Inquiry in exactly those situations where

Respectful Inquiry would be most beneficial. These contexts can be organized into ironic

dynamics due to the leaders job, due to organizational culture, and due to relational aspects.

They are discussed in the order they appear in Figure 2 from left to right.

Ironic Dynamics due to Leader Job Contexts

Three aspects of a leaders job are likely to elicit an ironic Respectful Inquiry dynamic:

time pressure, physical distance from subordinates, and cognitive load. For each aspect, we first

describe in the following why the value of Respectful Inquiry increases under the condition, and

then argue why Respectful Inquiry likely decreases in the self-same situation.

Time pressure. At least since Mintzberg (1973), it has been recognized that many

managers operate in a time-starved environment. As a result, leaders often experience time

pressure as deadlines loom (Hall & Lawler, 1970). When leaders are time-starved, they have less

capacity to closely monitor and guide the behavior of followers toward high performance. In

such contexts, it is important that followers are willing and able to work independently without a

need for close supervision, and that the followers themselves maintain a devotion to the assigned

tasks and proactively engage with their work environment (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker et al.,

2010). In other words, when leaders are under time pressure, it becomes more critical that their

followers are autonomously motivated.

Proposition 7: Follower performance becomes more dependent on follower autonomous

motivation the more time pressure their leaders are under.

Time pressure is, however, also listed by managers as one of the prime reasons why they

cannot communicate with their followers as much as they desire (Smeltzer & Fann, 1989).
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 21

Indeed, perceived time pressure may inhibit Respectful Inquiry simply because directive

statements seem like a way of saving time (negative direct effect).

In addition, time pressure may indirectly reduce Respectful Inquiry through the mediating

mechanism of reduced feelings of control, i.e. deadlines control the leader. The link between

time pressure and the experience of control loss can be delineated from experimental (Maule,

Hockey, & Bdzola, 2000; Muraven, Gagn, & Rosman, 2008) as well as field research. For

example, teachers who feel that they do not have enough time in the classroom report feeling less

in control (Fernet, Guay, Sencal, & Austin, 2012). Similarly, hospital physicians were found to

perceive the efforts by hospital management to micromanage their time as a breach of their

autonomy (Epstein, 2000), which then inclined said physicians to limit their students autonomy

when they taught (Williams & Deci, 1998). Correspondingly, and consistent with the autonomy

as a resource perspective, research finds that time pressure often results in control maintaining

effects, such as constricted attention, a decrease in perspective taking, reduced adaptive

communication, and more rigid decision-making (Epley et al., 2004; Roxssnagel, 2000). As

such, we propose:

Proposition 8: Leaders experience of time pressure reduces their tendency to engage in

Respectful Inquiry, in part because time pressure threatens their sense of autonomy.

Physical distance. Physical distance between leaders and followers is common

(Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). While it is theoretically possible for distant leaders to maintain a

high level of communication with their followers, such communication is more effortful and

requires explicit scheduling (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003). Regular communication is challenging

when followers are located on different floors or buildings (Davis, 1984), but becomes a

herculean challenge when followers are working across time zones (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003).
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 22

Under conditions of distance, the variety of informal conversations, via which leadership so

often takes place, suffers. As a result, leaders are not only able to exert less control over their

followers, but they are also less aware of the actual organizational environment their distant

followers operate in. Under these circumstances, it becomes more critical to have self-

determined followers with autonomous motivation, i.e., who work independently and proactively

engage with the environment.

Proposition 9: Follower performance becomes more dependent on follower

autonomous motivation the more physically distant their leaders are.

At the same time, we posit that physical distance also leads to less Respectful Inquiry.

The argument again includes both direct and indirect effects. First, being physically distant

simply means there is less opportunity for interactions and therefore the chance of being able to

easily ask questions simply decreases (a direct effect).

Second, we propose that physical distance is, in part, responsible for thwarting the

leaders relatedness need, which then decreases Respectful Inquiry (an indirect effect). While it

may be debatable whether it is really lonely at the top (Waytz, Chou, Magee, & Galinsky,

2015), at least feelings of belongingness are unlikely to be salient in the context of impoverished

leader-follower relationships (Lee & Tiedens, 2001). Indeed, physical distance from followers

makes it especially difficult for leaders to be included in the sort of light-hearted informal

conversations, lunches, coffees, and after work drinks that are the basis of belongingness and

relationship quality (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003; Mueller & Lovell, 2015).

Moreover, physical distance usually means that the bulk of interaction occurs through email

exchanges, which are less warm than face-to-face exchanges and more prone to relationship

imparing conflict (Friedman & Currall, 2003). Thus, physical distance may reduce experiences
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 23

of belongingness in the context of leader-follower interactions, which may lower a leaders

overall sense of relatedness, and as such may decrease Respectful Inquiry. Needless to say that a

leaders sense of relatedness may also be fueled in other life domains. However, for most people

and leaders in particular, the work domain is an important part of ones life (Harpaz & Fu, 2002).

Thus, ceterus paribus:

Proposition 10: Leaders experience of physical distance reduces their tendency to

engage in Respectful Inquiry, in part because physical distance threatens their sense of

relatedness.

Cognitive overload. Cognitive load refers to the total amount of mental effort that needs

to be spent to solve a certain problem (Plass, Moreno, & Brunken, 2010). When the mental effort

associated with a task/role outstrips the resources available in attention and working memory, an

individual becomes cognitively overloaded. Cognitive overload is thus a function of (a) how

inherently cognitively challenging a job is, relative to (b) the individuals information processing

and memory capabilities (Jackson & Farzaneh, 2012).

When leaders are cognitively overloaded, we predict that Respectful Inquiry will be

particularly beneficial. The argument has two parts. First, under high cognitive load, leaders will

find it harder to spare the cognitive resources needed to closely oversee and guide their

followers. Under these circumstances, it becomes more critical to have autonomously motivated

followers. Second, in order to be effective, leaders must have an information-processing capacity

that matches the information-processing requirements of their environment (Driver & Streufert,

1969). If the cognitive load outstrips the leaders capacity, the followers may lend their

information processing capacities (Huber & Lewis, 2010). More specifically, autonomously

motivated followers may proactively help the leader by independently thinking through
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 24

problems. Thus, both dynamics result in:

Proposition 11: Follower performance becomes more dependent on follower autonomous

motivation the more their leaders experience cognitive overload.

Yet, cognitive overload is also likely to keep leaders from engaging in Respectful Inquiry

simply because the mental strain makes it more difficult to engage in meaningful conversations

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998) and because not asking questions seems like

a straightforward way to reduce further outside input (a direct effect).

In addition, we propose an indirect effect, in that, when a leaders information-processing

capacity does not match the information-processing requirements of the role, cognitive overload

is likely to represent a threat to the leaders sense of competence, simply because the leader is

less likely to be competent in such settings (Bawden & Robinson, 2008; Eppler & Mengis,

2004). Or, in other words, cognitive overload would lead to the opposite of what Ryan and Deci

(2002) argue is necessary for a satisfied competence need, i.e. a felt sense of confidence and

effectance in action (p.7). This diminished sense of competence would then, as argued above,

translate into lower Respectful Inquiry. Support for the link can be delineated from some

adjacent research. Fernet and colleagues (2013), for instance, find a negative correlation between

self-perceived role overload (i.e. experience of unreasonably many and complex role

expectations) and self-perceived competence among school board members. Related

considerations have been put forward by Krasikova, Green, and LeBreton (2013), who more

generally posit that when leaders lack sufficient resources to meet their jobs demands, they

experience a goal blockage, which they argue ultimately negatively impacts their interactions

with followers. And more directly related to cognitive overload, empirical research finds that,

leaders self-regulation becomes impaired when task difficulty outstrips leaders available
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 25

cognitive resources, which subsequently leads to less perspective taking (Roxssnagel, 2000) and

to higher levels of abusive supervision (Collins & Jackson, 2015). Thus, we suggest:

Proposition 12: Leaders experience of cognitive overload reduces their tendency to

engage in Respectful Inquiry, in part because cognitive overload threatens their sense of

competence.

Ironic Dynamics due to Organizational Context

Organizational culture is an important element of the organizational context that can

influence Respectful Inquiry dynamics. Indeed, organizational culture shapes leadership

practices and expectations, and as such may simultaneously affect whether Respectful Inquiry

occurs and what its effects are. Of particular relevance to our reasoning is the Competing Values

Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), which suggests that a core dimension of organizational

culture is the emphasis on control versus flexibility. Control-oriented cultures accomplish tasks

through deference to authority and an emphasis on measurement, goal setting, and rational

planning. They are consistent with a neo-Weberian bureaucracy (Heugens, 2005). Because such

depersonalizing cultures tend to formalize processes in ways that reduce both individual

discretion and interpersonal communication, employees in such contexts likely feel less

satisfaction on all three basic psychological needs.

Notably, though, people often respond positively to need supportive leadership in such a

setting (Gagn & Deci, 2005). Indeed, need supportive leadership can more easily raise the sense

of self-determination in contexts that have thwarted individuals self-determination simply

because these contexts provide the opportunity for a bigger change. Analogous to this argument,

a study by Black and Deci (2000) found that the relationship between an instructors autonomy

support and student performance was highest for those students who were initially low in
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 26

autonomous regulation. In control-oriented contexts, Respectful Inquiry may hence be

experienced as a breath of fresh air and more easily satisfy previously unmet needs. As such, we

predict that Respectful Inquiry is especially powerful in contexts where people are not used to

such leadership.

Proposition 13: The positive effect of Respectful Inquiry on followers basic

psychological need satisfaction is stronger in control-oriented organizational cultures.

While Respectful Inquiry may be particularly satisfying in control-oriented organizations,

it is also likely to be particularly rare in said organizations. Given that Respectful Inquiry

involves leaders giving up control and reacting flexibly to followers views, it seems plausible

that Respectful Inquiry will be deemed more appropriate in flexibility-oriented organizations and

less appropriate in control-oriented organizations. For example, Courtright, Fairhurst, and Rogers

(1989) found that questions were common in a manufacturing plant organized by an organic,

self-managing team philosophy. In contrast, in a different plant driven by a mechanistic

philosophy, commands without conversational elaboration were more typical. Interactionist

theories of organizational behavior would accordingly lend support by arguing that a leader will

inhibit any tendencies toward Respectful Inquiry if discouraged by a strong situational pressure

(Tett & Burnett, 2003). Indeed, if leaders fail to inhibit these tendencies in a control-oriented

culture, they may even cease to be seen as a leader (Lord & Maher, 1991). Thus, we predict:

Proposition 14: Control-oriented organizational cultures decrease leaders

Respectful Inquiry.

Ironic Dynamics due to Relational Contexts

Finally, we turn to relational context in which leaders and followers interact. Specifically,

we consider a) differences in power between the leader and follower, and b) whether the
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 27

followers basic psychological needs are already satisfied. For both aspects, we again highlight

when Respectful Inquiry would be particularly beneficial, only to then argue why the self-same

situation likely reduces engagement in Respectful Inquiry.

Interpersonal power asymmetry. Throughout our theorizing, we have focused on

leaders asking followers questions, even though anybody, not just leaders, can ask and listen.

However, in this section, we will explain why the messages conveyed through Respectful

Inquiry i.e., you are autonomous, competent, and belong are more motivationally

consequential the more powerful the sending individual is. While there are various approaches to

conceptualizing interpersonal power, a recent review summarizes it as having the discretion and

the means to asymmetrically enforce ones will over others (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015: 139).

Accordingly, the powerful enjoy freedom from others influence and the right to decide ones

own fate (2015: 138), while the less powerful need to pay close attention and properly decipher

what the more powerful want (Fiske et al., 1996).

Within organizations, leaders have power. Leaders not only control the allocation of

resources, but also govern to a significant extent the allocation of intragroup status (Tyler &

Lind, 1992; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Thus, less powerful people devote substantial

sensemaking energy to the communications of more powerful people (Fiske, Morling, &

Stevens, 1996). Put differently, the bigger the asymmetry in interpersonal power, the higher the

stakes for followers, and hence the bigger the need to attend to the communicative messages sent

by leaders (Fiske et al., 1996). As such, interactions with leaders are more likely to be ruminated

upon. This is especially true if contextual factors (sub)consciously reactivate memories of that

communication episode (Higgins, 1996). Against this background, we propose that the three

meta-messages inherent in Respectful Inquiry (you have control, you belong, you are competent)
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 28

will be more attended to, given more weight, and will have more sustainable impact beyond the

conversational episode in relational contexts where the leader is powerful vis--vis the focal

follower.

Proposition 15: The more power a leader has over a follower, the more the leaders

Respectful Inquiry will affect the followers basic psychological need satisfaction.

Yet, while more interpersonally powerful leaders may elicit larger reactions when

engaging in Respectful Inquiry, power is simultaneously likely to cause psychological

distancing (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), which, we posit, makes it less likely that these

individuals will engage in meaningful, bidirectional conversations, such as Respectful Inquiry.

For instance, research by Galinsky and colleagues (2006) suggests that high power individuals

are unlikely to ask questions because they are rather self-oriented, anchored heavily in self-

knowledge, and less able to read emotional expressions. Relatedly, research has found that power

holders also objectify (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008) and are more likely to

stereotype others than to see them as individuals (Fiske, 1993). Similarly, powerful individuals

tend to experience a diminished sense trust and a certain cynicism toward lower power

individuals (Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012). Correspondingly, studies in the realm of

communication suggest that more powerful individuals are less likely to listen to others (See,

Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011) and are more likely to verbally dominate conversations (Tost

et al., 2012). Thus, we propose:

Proposition 16: The more power a leader has over a follower, the less the leader will

engage in Respectful Inquiry.

Saturation of followers basic psychological needs. One of the basic premises of our

theorizing is that leader Respectful Inquiry satisfies follower basic psychological needs. Yet, if
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 29

basic psychological needs are saturated, and, as such, followers already feel satisfied and are

intrinsically motivated, a leaders Respectful Inquiry is unlikely to push the needle by much.

Such reasoning is in line with the substitutes for leadership literature, which shows that even the

best leadership has little effect if employees are already intrinsically motivated (e.g., Nbold,

Muck, & Maier, 2013; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). In our framework, several

such substitutes can be found in the various demands-resources models vis--vis basic

psychological needs (cf. Van den Broeck et al., in press). No matter the specific resource (e.g.,

job control, skill utilization, social support), the basic idea would be the same: If resources at

work already clearly convey the message you have control, you are competent, and you

belong, a leaders Respectful Inquiry will likely only have a diminished return on a followers

basic psychological need satisfaction. The same also holds for the effect of Respectful Inquiry

itself. If a leader has consistently employed Respectful Inquiry in the past, then additional

engagements in Respectful Inquiry likely depreciate in impact.

Proposition 17: The relationship between Respectful Inquiry and follower basic

psychological need satisfaction is weaker the more follower needs are already met.

Yet, while employees, whose basic psychological needs have not been met, present an

opportunity for especially impactful Respectful Inquiry, we also posit that leaders will be less

likely to engage in Respectful Inquiry with these individuals. The argument is straightforward.

Need-thwarted employees are more likely to respond to Respectful Inquiry by sharing their

dissatisfaction and demotivation. Like most people, on an interpersonal level leaders likely want

to avoid or at least curtail negative interactions (Solomon, 2016). As such, when dealing with

employees whose basic psychological needs have not been met, leaders may opt for

unidirectional statements over Respectful Inquiry. Conversely, it likely is more enjoyable for a
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 30

leader to approach and engage in open conversation with followers who are satisfied and

autonomously motivated.

Proposition 18: Leaders will engage in more Respectful Inquiry with a follower the more

the followers basic psychological needs are met.

Together these dynamics suggest a self-perpetuating cycle in which the more motivated

followers are engaged with Respectful Inquiry and thus stay motivated, while demotivated

followers are submitted to controlling statements, which will not lift their motivation.

WHAT ROLE DOES LEADER-FOLLOWER HISTORY PLAY?

The final aspect of our theorizing pertains to the interaction history between leader and

follower. Indeed, given that it is usually not the first time that the leader and follower have

interacted, it seems prudent to consider how prior leader-follower interactions may affect a focal

communication episode. For example, if a leader previously engaged in Respectful Inquiry but

then used the situation/information disclosed to embarrass, reject, or punish the follower, then

future Respectful Inquiry is likely to be interpreted skeptically by the follower. While we argued

above that, in the main, open questions and attentive listening are generally signals of respect,

previous experiences may have taught the follower that Respectful Inquiry can be used

abusively. Under such circumstances Respectful Inquiry can be perceived as a Trojan horse,

designed to lure the follower into a trap. In other words, if previous encounters with a leaders

question asking have led the follower to a sinister and malevolent interpretation of the leaders

intentions (Lapidot, Kark, & Shamir, 2007), then current Respectful Inquiry likely will not

support a followers basic psychological needs, but rather would be interpreted as a cloaked

attack on the very same (e.g., the leaders questions are interpreted signaling to the follower that

s/he really has no control, is incompetent, and does not belong).

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 31

Proposition 19: The more a leader has abusively used previous engagements in

Respectful Inquiry to subdue, embarrass, or exclude a follower, the more likely it

is that current Respectful Inquiry will weaken the followers sense of autonomy,

competence, and relatedness.

Of note, while our description above pertains to the focal leader and follower dyad, these

abusive experiences of Respectful Inquiry could be learned from other sources. For example, a

follower could have observed such interactions between the leader and other followers. The

degree to which such social learning will take place, however, is likely to depend on the

perceived similarity between other followers and focal follower (Bandura, 1977). Alternately, a

follower may have had abusive experiences with a previous leader, and then transfer this

interpretation onto the current leaders Respectful Inquiry (Ritter & Lord, 2007).

Notably there is a difference between malevolent leader responses, like the ones

described above, and the question of whether leaders incorporate the follower views into future

action. In particular, for questions that call for input, it could be guessed that Respectful Inquiry

might create expectations that the leader will subsequently behave in line with the followers

voiced perspective. If these expectations are later unmet, then blowback could be a plausible

result. However, the available empirical evidence on this subject is interesting. It suggests that

having the opportunity for voice may be more important than whether the subsequent outcome is

consistent with the opinions voiced (Bies & Shapiro, 1988). Recent research on organizational

suggestion systems seconds this notion by showing that declining to act on peoples suggestions

does not demotivate (Deichmann & van den Ende, 2014). Thus, while Respectful Inquiry is

likely to lose its benefits if used malevolently to harm the follower, it does not seem to obligate

the leader to behave in ways consistent with the views expressed by the follower.
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 32

DISCUSSION

To summarize, this article introduces and develops theory around the concept of leaders

engaging in Respectful Inquiry. Respectful Inquiry was defined as a multidimensional construct

of asking questions in an open way and subsequently listening attentively. Respectful Inquiry is

generally expected to increase followers sense of self-determination, which is then expected to

boost retention via job satisfaction, and job performance via autonomous motivation. However,

the relationship between Respectful Inquiry and autonomous motivation is expected to be

qualified by the degree that previous experiences cause followers to assume a malevolent intent

behind a leaders Respectful Inquiry. Respectful Inquiry is predicted to be more likely when

leaders feel self-determined and when the organizational culture endorses such behavior. We

further developed the argument that leaders will feel a lack of self-determination, and thus avoid

Respectful Inquiry, when under time pressure, physically distant, or faced with high cognitive

load. Similarly, we argued that leaders are less likely to engage in Respectful Inquiry when they

are powerful and when their followers needs have not been satisfied. Ironically, we predict that

these are precisely the contexts where leaders would benefit most from engaging in Respectful

Inquiry.

Where to go from here?

This article can inform future research by a) testing the model, b) exploring potential

boundary conditions, and c) broadening the scope beyond leadership research.

Testing the proposed model. A key component of testing the proposed model is

measuring Respectful Inquiry. One approach, involving behaviorally anchored rating scales,

would ask followers to rate their leaders communication based on the number of questions

asked, the openness of the respective questions, and whether their leaders show listening
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 33

behavior. Of course, this kind of data collection is subject to a number of biases and thus not

necessarily advisable (Baumeister et al., 2007; Lord & Maher, 1991; Meindl, Ehrlich, &

Dukerich, 1985). Fortunately, other research designs are available.

Experimental designs could, for instance, not only address causality concerns, but also

enable clear behavioral manipulation. For example, a confederate could be trained to engage in

different configurations of Respectful Inquiry with followers, with researchers observing the

consequences. Alternately, a nave subject could be assigned as a leader and simply encouraged

to engage in Respectful Inquiry. Should such lab designs bring about the proposed positive

effects, a next step could be to conduct field experiments. For instance, leaders in a treatment

condition could be assigned to a Respectful Inquiry workshop, with researchers tracking

subsequent changes in follower motivation, satisfaction, performance, and retention.

An alternative measurement approach would be to record and code everyday leadership

communication in situ (Fairhurst, 2007). For face-to-face communication, this could be done

through video or voice recordings (e.g., Courtright et al., 1989; Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard,

2010; Wodak et al., 2011). For written communication, letters, emails, or instant messages can

be used to create a corpus of conversations (Fanelli, Misangyi, & Tosi, 2009; Fragale, Sumanth,

Tiedens, & Northcraft, 2012). Naturally, with written forms of communication, one will need to

identify proxies for actual listening. For instance, in the context of email, indications of

listening could include quoting a followers prior comments, or responding to each point a

follower raised. More generally, a variety of different coding instruments can be employed (for a

review see Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). For coding statements and questions, researchers may

want to revisit Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) (Bales, 1950) or its variant SYMLOG (Bales,

Cohen, & Williamson, 1979), or turn to promising recent developments such as the Discussion
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 34

Coding System (DCS) (Schermuly & Scholl, 2012). Alternatively, experience-sampling methods

(via smartphone apps) could allow followers or leaders to directly code communication

behaviors after interactions (Beal & Weiss, 2003). If simultaneously paired with indications of

basic psychological need satisfaction, such approaches could also expose the within-person

variation of leader communication and its within-person effects on followers.

Potential further boundary conditions of the model. While the present article outlines

a core model, further boundary conditions and contingencies may exist. Below, four potential

boundary conditions are considered: 1) when Respectful Inquiry crowds out other leader

communication, 2) when Respectful Inquiry with one follower creates dissent among other

followers, 3) when people lack the skills to encode and decode Respectful Inquiry, and 4) when

Respectful Inquiry is inconsistent with gender stereotypes.

A first boundary condition that future studies may explore is that it seems possible that

there is such a thing as too much Respectful Inquiry (cf. Grant & Schwartz, 2011), especially if a

reliance on Respectful Inquiry crowds out advocacy and constructive feedback. A leader who

always inquires and never discloses his/her own views misses the opportunity to express vision

and values, which in turn may carry detrimental effects for identification, liking, and trusting

(Collins & Miller, 1994). As several scholars have noted, a combination of advocacy and inquiry

may be superior to either alone (e.g., Ames, Maissen, & Brockner, 2012; Rudolph, Simon,

Rivard, Dufresne, & Raemer, 2007). While this is a definite theoretical possibility, we suspect

that few leaders currently engage in too much Respectful Inquiry.

Second, we have looked at leadership as a dyadic phenomenon. However, leadership is

often enacted within a group and leaders may have different relationships with different group

members (cf. LMX differentiation). In a naturally occurring setting, it is thus also likely that
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 35

some followers will be asked and listened to more than others, potentially creating jealousy or

feelings of inadequacy based on social comparisons (Thau, Trster, Aquino, Pillutla, & de

Cremer, 2012). This articles model does not speak to the possibility that asymmetries in

Respectful Inquiry may spur dysfunctional team dynamics, though that is indeed a possibility.

Third, our model rests on the assumption that followers are adept in interpreting

communicative verbal and non-verbal cues from leaders. However, for some individuals this

may be harder to achieve than for others. For instance, those on the autistic spectrum may find it

more difficult to fully decipher how open a question is meant to be, or whether a leader is

interested in their response. If followers cannot decode the implicit messages sent by Respectful

Inquiry, it is unlikely to have the anticipated effects.

Fourth, future research may also investigate whether Respectful Inquiry is seen as more

or less appropriate for certain genders. There is some evidence that the social costs of seeking

help are higher for males than for females (Lee, 2002; Rosette, Mueller, & Lebel, 2015). While

Respectful Inquiry is different from seeking help, it nevertheless seems worthy to explore

whether Respectful Inquiry is perceived as more communal and thus role-appropriate for females

(Eagly & Karau, 2002).

Broadening the scope beyond leadership research. The ideas presented in our

theorizing may also be linked with other literatures. For example, research could consider how

leaders Respectful Inquiry relates to organizational innovation (e.g., Cohen, 2009; Dyer,

Gregersen, & Christensen, 2009), to organizational learning (e.g., Argyris, 1982), to decision-

making (e.g., Schwenk, 1990; van Knippenberg, 2014), and to organizational change (e.g.,

Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008). All of these literatures have partly incorporated notions

of inquiry for instance, that leader inquiry can help people disrupt and challenge the status quo,
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 36

adopt learning mindsets, weigh options properly, or overcome resistance to change.

Needless to say that Respectful Inquiry, because it is an everyday communication

behavior, need not only apply within leader-follower relationships. For instance, Respectful

Inquiry can also be used with peers, superiors, or clients. Shifting the audience lens would open

yet other fields for investigation. Correspondingly, applications in the domains of peer coaching,

upward social influence, or consultative selling seem promising. Likewise, we assume that the

core dynamics of Respectful Inquiry also apply in non-work domains such as communication in

the classroom, in the family, or in other personal relationships. Future research may thus inspire

or be inspired by these research fields.

Implications for Practice

As we highlighted in the beginning, the practitioner literature acknowledges the potency

of asking open questions and listening (e.g., Cohen, 2009; Ferrari, 2012; Groysberg & Slind,

2013; Leeds, 2000; Marquardt, 2005; Maxwell, 2014). However, if the model developed in this

article is supported by future research, it could add substantial specificity around why and when

practitioners should use Respectful Inquiry. A particular pragmatic value of the model is that it

highlights how leaders may be caught up in psychological dynamics that keep them from

engaging in Respectful Inquiry in precisely those situations where it would be most valuable.

Specifically, the implication of our model is: If leaders want to increase their followers

autonomous motivation, they should try to engage in more Respectful Inquiry, particularly when

they operate in a context that is characterized by time pressure, physical distance, cognitive

overload, and a control-orientated organizational culture. To harness the fullest effect of

Respectful Inquiry, leaders are further advised to overcome their tendency to seek out and

engage highly-motivated followers but rather to focus on those followers whose psychological
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 37

needs have not yet been been met.

However, these implications are easier stated than accomplished. The important practical

challenge is how to get people to change their communication behavior (Willer, Bell, &

Andersen, 1987). One method is to encourage leaders to practice ask open questions and listen

attentively. Self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory would both suggest that if a

leader can be encouraged to engage in Respectful Inquiry behaviors, their attitudes will

ultimately change to be consistent with those behaviors (Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1977).

Beyond direct training in Respectful Inquiry, a second approach is to reshape leaders

jobs such that their basic psychological needs are met. For instance, the threat to autonomy

inherent in time pressure could be countered with time management seminars that give leaders

back their sense of control (Macan, 1994). The threat that physical distance imposes on feeling

related toward followers may be countered with video-conferencing and regularly scheduled off-

site meetings. The threat to competence inherent in high cognitive load may be countered by an

ex ante delegation of responsibilities into the group, such that the required information-

processing capacity is shared throughout the team (Huber & Lewis, 2010). Naturally, whenever

vulnerability is involved, a climate of psychological safety, where mistakes and missteps are not

considered personal failures but learning opportunities (Edmondson, 1999), should be helpful.

A final thought on Respectful Inquiry in practice: Given that need satisfaction is posited

to be a consequence and an antecedent of Respectful Inquiry, Respectful Inquiry may represent a

potent communication mechanism via which basic psychological need satisfaction can trickle-

down in an organization, from directors to managers to team leaders to entry-level employees.

Thus a simple adaption in syntax at the top may go a long way down.
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 38

CONCLUSION

Two decades ago, Hambrick (1994) asked the provocative question: What if the

Academy actually mattered? With the present analysis, we investigated a behavioral

configuration that seems to matter to many in practice. Maybe Peter Drucker was right when

prophesizing: The leader of the past was a person who knew how to tell. The leader of the

future will be a person who knows how to ask (as described in Goldsmith & Morgan, 2004).
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 39

REFERENCES

Ames, D., Maissen, L. B., & Brockner, J. 2012. The role of listening in interpersonal influence.

Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3): 345349.

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. E. 2002. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory.

Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 673704.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2014. Causality and Endogeneity:

Problems and Solutions, In D.V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and

organizations: 93-117. New York: Oxford University Press.

Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bales, R. F. 1950. Interaction process analysis: A method or the study of small groups.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. 1979. SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level

observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the

active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5): 1252

1265.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. 2007. Psychology as the science of self-reports

and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 2(4): 396403.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 79(6): 941952.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 40

Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. 2008. The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other

paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2): 180191.

Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. 2003. Methods of ecological momentary assessment in

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4): 440464.

Bechler, C., & Johnson, S. D. 1995. Leadership and listening: A study of member perceptions.

Small Group Research, 26(1): 7785.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. 1988. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness

judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 676685.

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. 2000. The effects of instructors autonomy support and students'

autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory

perspective. Science Education, 84(6): 740756.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. 2004. Charting the language of leadership: A

methodological investigation of President Bush and the crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(3): 562574.

Bodie, G. D., & Worthington, D. L. 2010. Revisiting the listening styles profile (LSP-16): A

confirmatory factor analytic approach to scale validation and reliability estimation.

International Journal of Listening, 24(2): 6988.

Brink, K. E., & Costigan, R. D. 2015. Oral communication skills: Are the priorities of the

workplace and AACSB- accredited business programs aligned? Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 14(2): 205221.

Butler, R., & Neuman, O. 1995. Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking

behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2): 261271.

Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. 2015. Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 41

respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees

and teams. Human Relations, 68(6): 10211047.

Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. 2014. A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader

rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of Management Journal,

57(6): 154.

Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. 2003. E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics,

31(4): 362376.

Chan, D. 2006. Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality

on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2): 475481.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Its all about me: Narcissistic Chief Executive Officers

and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,

52(3): 351386.

Cohen, G. B. 2009. Just ask leadership: Why great managers always ask the right questions.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.

Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. 2015. A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How

attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 26(3): 386401.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. 1994. Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 116(3): 457475.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at

the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 425445.

Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. 2008. Appreciative inquiry handbook: For
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 42

leaders of change (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, L. E. 1989. Interaction patterns in organic and

mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 773802.

Daly, J. A., Kreiser, P., & Roghaar, L. 1994. Question-asking comfort: Explorations of the

demography of communication in the eighth grade classroom. Communication Education,

43(1): 2741.

Davis, T. R. V. 1984. The influence of the physical environment in offices. Academy of

Management Review, 9(2): 271283.

Day, D. V. 2014. The future of leadership: Challenges and prospects. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The

Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations: 859867. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. 2012. Leadership: Past, present, and future. In D. V. Day & J.

Antonakis (Eds.), The Nature of Leadership (2nd ed.): 329. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2012. Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.

Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Vol. 1:

416437. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deichmann, D., & van den Ende, J. 2014. Rising from failure and learning from success: The

role of past experience in radical initiative taking. Organization Science, 25(3): 670690.

Dobey, D. C., & Schafer, L. E. 1984. The effects of knowledge on elementary science inquiry

teaching. Science Education, 68(1): 3951.

Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. 1969. Integrative complexity: An approach to individuals and

groups as information-processing systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2): 272.

Druian, P. R., & DePaulo, B. M. 1977. Asking a child for help. Social Behavior and
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 43

Personality, 5(1): 3339.

Dubin, R., & Spray, S. L. 1964. Executive behavior and interaction. Industrial Relations, 3(2):

99108.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. 2009. The innovators DNA. Harvard

Business Review, 87(12): 6167.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3): 573598.

Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350383.

Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. 2004. Perspective taking as egocentric

anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3): 327339.

Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. 2004. The concept of information overload: A review of literature.

The Information Society, 20(5): 325344.

Epstein, R. M. 2000. Time, autonomy, and satisfaction. Journal of General Internal Medicine,

15(7): 517518.

Fairhurst, G. T. 2007. Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. 1989. Social structure in leader-member interaction.

Communication Monographs, 56(3): 215239.

Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. 1987. Manager-subordinate control patterns and

judgments about the relationship. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook

10: 395415. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2012. Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 44

leadership as a relational process. Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 10431062.

Fanelli, A., Misangyi, V. F., & Tosi, H. L. 2009. In charisma we trust: The effects of CEO

charismatic visions on securities analysts. Organization Science, 20(6): 10111033.

Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. 2009. When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and

aggression. Psychological Science, 20(11): 14061413.

Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. 1977. Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative

view of each theorys proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 13(5): 464479.

Fernet, C., Austin, S., Trpanier, S.-G., & Dussault, M. 2013. How do job characteristics

contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy,

competence, and relatedness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

22(2): 123137.

Fernet, C., Guay, F., Sencal, C. B., & Austin, S. 2012. Predicting intraindividual changes in

teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4): 514525.

Ferrari, B. T. 2012. Power listening: Mastering the most critical business skill of all. New

York, NY: Portfolio.

Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American

Psychologist, 48(6): 621628.

Fiske, S. T., Morling, B., & Stevens, L. E. 1996. Controlling self and others: A theory of anxiety,

mental control, and social control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2): 115

123.

Fragale, A. R., Sumanth, J. J., Tiedens, L. Z., & Northcraft, G. B. 2012. Appeasing equals:
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 45

Lateral deference in organizational communication. Administrative Science Quarterly,

57(3): 373406.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the

21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 133187.

Friedman, R. A., & Currall, S. S. 2003. E-mail escalation: Dispute exacerbating elements of e-

mail communication. Human Relations, 56(11): 13251347.

Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26(4): 331362.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2006. Power and perspectives

not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12): 10681074.

Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. a., & Balthazard, P. 2010. Visionary communication qualities as

mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma.

Personnel Psychology, 63(3): 509537.

Goldsmith, M., & Morgan, H. 2004. Leadership is a contact sport: The follow-up factor in

management development. Strategy and Business, (36): 7179.

Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. 2011. Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of

the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1): 6176.

Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. 2013. Talk, Inc.: How trusted leaders use conversation to power

their organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Power and the

objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1): 111

127.

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. 2007. Asking the right questions about leadership: Discussion
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 46

and conclusions. American Psychologist, 62(1): 4347.

Hall, D. T., & Lawler, E. E. I. 1970. Job characteristics and pressures and the organizational

integration of professionals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(3): 271281.

Hambrick, D. C. 1994. What if the Academy actually mattered? Academy of Management

Review, 19(1): 1116.

Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. 2004. Skilled interpersonal communication (4th ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. 2002. The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst

change. Human Relations, 55(6): 639667.

Hawkins, K. W., & Power, C. B. 1999. Gender differences in questions asked during small

decision-making group discussions. Small Group Research, 30(2): 235256.

Heugens, P. 2005. A neo-Weberian theory of the firm. Organization Studies, 26(4): 547567.

Higgins, E. T. 1996. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T.

Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles:

133168. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hildebrandt, H. W., Bond, F. A., Miller, E. L., & Swinyard, A. W. 1982. An executive appraisal

of courses which best prepare one for general management. Journal of Business

Communication, 19(1): 515.

Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. 1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle

model. Organization Science, 10(2): 199212.

Hodgins, H. S., Yacko, H. A., & Gottlieb, E. 2006. Autonomy and nondefensiveness. Motivation

and Emotion, 30(4): 283293.

Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. 2010. Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 47

performance. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 626.

Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. 2012. How power corrupts relationships:

Cynical attributions for others generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

48(4): 795803.

Jablin, F. M. 1979. Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological

Bulletin, 86(6): 12011222.

Jackson, T. W., & Farzaneh, P. 2012. Theory-based model of factors affecting information

overload. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6): 523532.

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Chang, C. H. D. 2011. To aggregate or not to aggregate: Steps

for developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 26(3): 241248.

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. 2011. Assessing the impact of common method

variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology,

96(4): 744761.

Johnson, S. D., & Bechler, C. 1998. Examining the relationship between listening effectiveness

and leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small Group Research,

29(4): 452471.

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. 2003. The interactive effect of leader-

member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(4): 764772.

Kearsley, G. P. 1976. Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A cross-disciplinary

review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(4): 355375.

Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: A
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 48

philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management

Review, 36(2): 297317.

Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. 2013. Are listeners perceived as leaders? International Journal of

Listening, 27(2): 7384.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & van Dick, R. 2012. How do

transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination based

analysis of employees needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

33(8): 10311052.

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. 2013. Destructive leadership: A theoretical

review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5): 1308

1338.

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. 2016. Benefits of transformational behaviors for leaders:

A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 101(2): 237-251.

Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2007. The impact of situational vulnerability on the

development and erosion of followers trust in their leader. Leadership Quarterly, 18(1):

1634.

Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. H. 1998. Toward a taxonomy of constructs

multidimensional. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 741755.

Lee, A., Martin, R., Thomas, G., Guillaume, Y., & Maio, G. R. 2015. Conceptualizing leadership

perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process.

Leadership Quarterly, 26(6): 910934.

Lee, F. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 49

motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

72(3): 336363.

Lee, F. 2002. The social costs of seeking help. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1):

1735.

Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. 2001. Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of

power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 4391.

Leeds, D. 2000. The 7 powers of questions: Secrets to successful communication in life and at

work. New York, NY: Perigee.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions

and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Macan, T. H. 1994. Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology,

79(3): 381391.

Marquardt, M. J. 2005. Leading with questions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Maule, A. J., Hockey, G. R. J., & Bdzola, L. 2000. Effects of time-pressure on decision-making

under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta

Psychologica, 104(3): 283301.

Maxwell, J. C. 2014. Good leaders ask great questions: Your foundation for successful

leadership. New York, NY: Center Street.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 30(1): 78102.

Meyer, J. P., & Gagn, M. 2008. Employee engagement from a self-determination theory

perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1): 6062.

Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 50

Mueller, M. B., & Lovell, G. P. 2015. Theoretical constituents of relatedness need satisfaction in

senior executives. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(2): 209229.

Muraven, M., Gagn, M., & Rosman, H. 2008. Helpful self-control: Autonomy support, vitality,

and depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3): 573585.

Nbold, A., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. 2013. A new substitute for leadership? Followers

state core self-evaluations. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1): 2944.

OConnor, J. D., & Arnold, G. F. 1973. The intonation of colloquial English (2nd ed.). London:

Longman Group Ltd.

Park, J., & Baumeister, R. F. 2015. Social exclusion causes a shift toward prevention motivation.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56: 153159.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making things happen: A model of proactive

motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4): 827856.

Pasupathi, M., & Billitteri, J. 2015. Being and becoming through being heard: Listener effects on

stories and selves. International Journal of Listening, 29(2): 118.

Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. 2010. Silence and the shaping of memory: How distracted listeners

affect speakers subsequent recall of a computer game experience. Memory, 18(2): 159

169.

Pasupathi, M., & Rich, B. 2005. Inattentive listening undermines self-verification in personal

storytelling. Journal of Personality, 73(4): 10511085.

Penley, L. E. 1991. Communication abilities of managers: The relationship to performance.

Journal of Management, 17(1): 5776.

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (Eds.). 2010. Cognitive load theory. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 51

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Meta-analysis of the relationships

between Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role

perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4): 380399.

Pondy, L. R. 1989. Leadership is a language game. In H. J. Leavitt, L. R. Pondy, & D. M. Boje

(Eds.), Readings in managerial psychology (4th ed.), vol. 44: 224233. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a

competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3): 363

378.

Radel, R., Pelletier, L. G., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. 2011. Restoration process of the need

for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

101(5): 919934.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. 2006. What teachers say and do to support students autonomy during a

learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1): 209218.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. Daily well-being: The

role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26(4): 419435.

Ritter, B. A., & Lord, R. G. 2007. The impact of previous leaders on the evaluation of new

leaders: An alternative to prototype matching. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6):

16831695.

Rosette, A. S., Mueller, J. S., & Lebel, R. D. 2015. Are male leaders penalized for seeking help?

The influence of gender and asking behaviors on competence perceptions. The Leadership

Quarterly, 26(5): 749762.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 52

Roxssnagel, C. 2000. Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic-controlled

distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3): 429

445.

Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Rivard, P., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. 2007. Debriefing with

good judgment: Combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiology

Clinics, 25(2): 361376.

Ryan, A. M., & Shin, H. 2011. Help-seeking tendencies during early adolescence: An

examination of motivational correlates and consequences for achievement. Learning and

Instruction, 21(2): 247256.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1): 6878.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic

dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination

research. Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2008. From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning

the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,

2(2): 702717.

Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. 2012. The Discussion Coding System (DCS)A new

instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and

Measures, 6(1): 1240.

Schwenk, C. R. 1990. Effects of devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A

meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1): 161176.

Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK:
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 53

Cambridge University Press.

See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. 2011. The detrimental effects of

power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 116(2): 272285.

Sheldon, K. M. 2011. Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives

on psychological needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118(4): 552569.

Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. a. 2003. Applying

self-determination theory to organizational research. Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 22(3): 357393.

Smeltzer, L. R., & Fann, G. L. 1989. Comparison of managerial communication patterns in

small, entrepreneurial organizations and large, mature organizations. Group &

Organization Management, 14(2): 198215.

Solomon, L. 2016. Two-thirds of managers are uncomfortable communicating with employees.

Harvard Business Review, March, hbr.org/2016/03/two-thirds-of-managers-are-

uncomfortable-communicating-with-employees.

Stam, D. A., Lord, R. G., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2014. An image of who we might

become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science,

25(4): 11721194.

Stam, D. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2010. The role of regulatory fit in visionary

leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4): 499518.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational

behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501524.

Steffens, N. K., & Haslam, S. A. 2013. Power through us: Leaders use of we-referencing
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 54

language predicts election victory. PloS One, 8(10): e77952.

Stewart, C., & Cash, W. 2000. Interviewing: Principles and practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill.

Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. 2015. Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research

agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1): 136163.

Tengblad, S. 2006. Is there a new managerial work? A comparison with Henry Mintzbergs

classic study 30 years later. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7): 14371461.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3): 500517.

Thau, S., Trster, C., Aquino, K. F., Pillutla, M., & de Cremer, D. 2012. Satisfying individual

desires or moral standards? Preferential treatment and group members self-worth, affect,

and behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1): 133145.

Thompson, S. 1995. Teaching intonation on questions. ELT Journal, 49(3): 235243.

Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. 2012. When power makes others speechless: The negative

impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5):

14651486.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25: 115191. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. in press. Review of research on

self-determination theorys basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management.

van der Meij, H. 1988. Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of Educational
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 55

Psychology, 80(3): 401405.

van Knippenberg, D. 2014. Leadership and decision making: Defining a field. In S. Highhouse,

R. S. Dalal, & E. Salas (Eds.), Judgment and decision making at work: 140158. New

York, London: Routledge.

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness

in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 243295.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic

transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management

Annals, 7(1): 160.

van Maanen, J., Srensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and

method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 11451154.

Van Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. 2010. Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can

be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics,

91(3): 343358.

Van Quaquebeke, N., Henrich, D. C., & Eckloff, T. 2007. Its not tolerance Im asking for, its

respect! A conceptual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and (two

types of) respect. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38(2): 185200.

Vanderveken, D. 2009. Meaning and speech acts: Volume 1, Principles of language use.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. 1973. Leadership and decision-making. London, UK:

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wajcman, J., & Rose, E. 2011. Constant connectivity: Rethinking interruptions at work.

Organization Studies, 32(7): 941961.

 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 56

Waytz, A., Chou, E. Y., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2015. Not so lonely at the top: The

relationship between power and loneliness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 130: 6978.

Willer, L. R., Bell, K. D., & Andersen, P. A. 1987. Is what we teach about organizational

communication what they practice in organizations? Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 15(1-2): 95112.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. 1998. The importance of supporting autonomy in medical

education. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(4): 303308.

Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. 2010. Eye gaze as relational

evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7): 869882.

Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. 2011. Getting people on board: Discursive leadership for

consensus building in team meetings. Discourse & Society, 22(5): 592644.

Yg, C. A. B. O. 1989. Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management

Review, 14(4): 579594.

Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. 2007. The impact of psychological

contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3):

647680.
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 57

FIGURE 1

Proposed model of Respectful Inquiry including antecedents, consequences, and moderators.

Leader Follower

Need Satisfaction Respectful Inquiry Interpersonal Need Satisfaction

Power
Time Asymmetry
Autonomy Listening Autonomy Satisfaction Retention
Pressure

Physical Question
Relatedness Relatedness
Distance Amount

Cognitive Question Abusive Autonomous

Competence Competence Performance
Load Openness
Respectful Inquiry Motivation
Experiences

Control-Oriented Culture

Organization

Positive relationship
Negative relationship
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 58

FIGURE 2

The multidimensional construct of Respectful Inquiry

Respectful
Inquiry
No
Inquiry
Disrespectful

Very Few Many

Questions Questions
 RESPECTFUL INQUIRY 59

Niels Van Quaquebeke ([email protected]) is Professor of Leadership and

Organizational Behavior at the Management Department of the Khne Logistics University

(KLU) in Hamburg, Germany. Among others, he explores the communicative bases of

successful leadership, the importance of values in leadership, and the function of interpersonal

respect.

Will Felps ([email protected]) is a senior lecturer at the UNSW Business School, University

of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. His diverse topics of interests are linked together by a

desire to help management science to become more valid, useful, and efficient.