This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 05 October 2014, At: 13:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Western Journal ofCommunicationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

From coworkers to friends:The development of peerfriendships in the workplacePatricia M. Sias a & Daniel J. Cahill ba Assistant Professor in the Murrow School ofCommunication , Washington State University ,Pullman, WA, 99164–2520b Doctoral student at the University ofCincinnatiPublished online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Patricia M. Sias & Daniel J. Cahill (1998) From coworkers tofriends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace, Western Journalof Communication, 62:3, 273-299, DOI: 10.1080/10570319809374611

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319809374611

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other

liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Western Journal of Communication, 62(3) (Summer 1998), 273-299

From Coworkers to Friends:The Development of Peer Friendshipsin the Workplace

Patricia M. SiasDaniel J. Cahill

This paper reports the results of our analysis of interviews with 38 individuals(representing 19 peer friendships) in which we explored factors and communicationchanges associated with the development of workplace friendships. We found that peerfriendships experienced three primary transitions: from coworker/acquaintance-to-friend, friend-to-close friend, and close friend-to-almost best friend. The co-worker-to-friend transition was perceived to be caused primarily by working together in closeproximity, sharing common ground, and extra-organizational socializing. Communica-tion at this transition became broader, yet remained relatively superficial. The friend-to-close friend transition was associated primarily with problems in one's personal and workexperiences. Communication at this transition became broader, more intimate, and lesscautious. The close friend-to-almost best friend transition was associated primarily withlife events, work-related problems, and the passage of time. Communication became lesscautious and more intimate. Results also provide insights into the role of communicationin the joint construction of relationship perceptions and highlight the impact of theworkplace context on friendship development.

ALTHOUGH AN INDIVIDUAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE more peer relationshipsthan any other kind of relationship in the workplace (e.g., superior-

subordinate, mentor-protegee), peer relationships have been largelyignored by researchers. Kram and Isabella (1985) have highlighted theimportance of peer relationships which provide employees instrumen-tal and emotional support and alternatives to traditional mentoringsources. They also note that peer relationships can provide a source ofintrinsic reward for employees, can buffer job-related stress, and canreduce job dissatisfaction and turnover (Kram & Isabella, 1985).Clearly, peer coworkers can have a significant impact on an individual's

Patricia Sias (Ph.D., University of Texas, Austin, 1993) is Assistant Professor in theMurrow School of Communication at Washington State University, Pullman, WA99164-2520. Daniel J. Cahill (M.A., University of Washington, 1997) is a doctoral studentat the University of Cincinnati. We thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers fortheir very helpful suggestions and advice. We are also indebted to the individuals thathelped with data collection and the respondents who generously shared their friendshiphistories with us.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

274 Peer Friendship

life. For many, these workplace peers become more than simplycoworkers; they may also become friends.

Workplace friendships have several important organizational func-tions. As Rawlins (1992) points out, "Friendships at work are part ofinstitutional participation and personal career-building, serving impor-tant purposes for both organizations and individuals" (p. 165). Forindividuals, "friends help in finding jobs and opportunities for promo-tions, provide support and third party influence on important decisions,and convey warnings about policy changes and 'rumblings upstairs'"(pp. 165-166). They can also make work more enjoyable and enhanceindividual creativity (Yager, 1997). From the organization's perspec-tive, workplace friendships can enhance employee commitment to theorganization (Rawlins, 1992), and can increase morale and reduceturnover (Kram & Isabella, 1985).

Although extant literature tends to highlight positive aspects ofworkplace friendships, these relationships can also have some adverseconsequences. Fine (1986) points out, for example, that workplacefriendships provide organizations with an unobtrusive form of controlover employees by "providing a personal motivation to accept the worldas it is, rather than disassociate oneself through alienation" (p. 201).Bridge and Baxter (1992) found that inherent in workplace friendshipsare a variety of dialectical tensions that can create stress for theemployee if not properly managed.

Good or bad, however, the fact remains that workplace friendshipsare a significant part of the organizing process. As Lincoln and Miller(1979) explain,

Friendship networks in organizations are not merely sets of linked friends. They aresystems for making decisions, mobilizing resources, concealing or transmitting informa-tion, and performing other functions closely allied with work behavior and interaction,(p. 196)

Despite their significance, however, we know surprisingly little aboutworkplace friendships. In particular, we know virtually nothing abouthow and why peer workplace friendships form and develop over time.Yet an understanding of how workplace friendships evolve is necessaryto obtain a fuller understanding of their role in the organizing process(Glaman, Jones, & Rozelle, 1996). Examining workplace friendshipdevelopment would provide information regarding the various organi-zational and personal factors that influence the formation and growthof these important relationships, and the role of communication in thatprocess. Such information could, in turn, provide insights into the waysdecision-making coalitions form, why some individuals experiencefaster career progression than others, how informal communicationnetworks emerge, and a variety of other important workplace phenom-ena. This study examined peer workplace friendships from a develop-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 275

mental perspective. In particular, we explored the factors and commu-nication changes associated with the development of peer friendshipsin the workplace.

Literature Review and Research Questions

Much research has been devoted to the study of relationships.Accordingly, we begin by reviewing research which discusses thecharacteristics that distinguish friendships from other types of relation-ships. One such characteristic is voluntariness (Rawlins, 1992; Wright,1978). As Rawlins (1992) explains, "Friendship cannot be imposed onpeople; it is an ongoing human association voluntarily developed andprivately negotiated" (p. 9). Thus, friendships develop by choice, notcompulsion. This characteristic distinguishes friendship from compul-sory ties such as kinship relationships, teacher-student or supervisor-subordinate relationships. Voluntariness also distinguishes peer friend-ships from peer relationships in general. Individuals typically havelittle say, if any, in choosing their peer coworkers. Peer friends,however, choose to spend time with one another beyond that expectedby the formal role relationship. Friendships are also marked by apersonalistic focus; that is, the partners react to one another "as 'wholepersons' rather than as packages of discrete attributes or mere roleoccupants" (Wright, 1978, p. 199). This characteristic distinguishespeer friends from other peer relationships which may be more focusedon the organizational role of the individuals.

Friendships differ from romantic relationships in the nature of theiraffective ties. Although friends may have positive, affectionate andcaring feelings for one another, and may even love one another, "thelove of friendship is usually distinguished from sexual or romanticloving, with their overtones of possessiveness and exclusivity" (Rawl-ins, 1992, p. 12). Friendships also appear distinct from other relation-ships in the nature of their development. While romantic and mentoringrelationships tend to be punctuated by a series of "turning points," ordiscrete events associated with significant changes in the relationship(e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Bullis & Bach, 1989), friendships seem lesslikely to develop through a series of specific, identifiable events. Rather,their development seems to be more gradual and less deliberate(Levinger, 1983). Accordingly, friendship development research tendsto focus on identifying factors associated with development, rather thanon identifying particular events that result in a qualitative change inthe relationship.

Although friendship has been the subject of much research, thatresearch has focused almost exclusively on friendships outside theworkplace. Exceptions are work by Fine (1986) and Bridge and Baxter(1992). Fine (1986) considered the relationship between organizational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

276 Peer Friendship

culture and organizational friendships and identified some factors thatenhance "friendly relations" among coworkers such as humor, extraorganizational activities, and shared tasks. Bridge and Baxter (1992)examined the dialectical tensions inherent in "blended relationships"(i.e., coworker friendships) and the various ways employees communi-catively manage those tensions. While these studies provide insightsinto important aspects of workplace friendships and conceptualizeworkplace friendship as a dynamic, rather than static, phenomenon,they tend to treat friendships as category-bound. Further, what re-mains largely unexamined is the developmental nature of organiza-tional friendship. Such a developmental perspective is importantbecause the nature and functions of workplace friendships vary qualita-tively over dyads and over time. As Rawlins (1992) explains, "workaffiliations range from patently 'friendly relations' to more involvedbonds transcending the work setting [Kurth, 1970]" (p. 118). While"friendly relations" may function primarily to further one's careeradvancement (Maines, 1981) and provide outlets for some personal-ized, informal interaction (Wright, 1978), closer friendships provideemotional support, interdependence, self-affirmation, and the like(Wright, 1985). Examining the ways "friends" become "close friends,"and "best friends" provides a deeper understanding of these phenom-ena.

Friendship literature suggests friendship development is influencedby both individual and contextual factors (Fehr, 1996). Individualfactors include influences deriving from the individuals involved in thefriendship. Many scholars, for instance, suggest similarity with respectto attitudes, values, and interests facilitates friendship formation (e.g.,Brehm, 1985; Kurth, 1970; Newcomb, 1961). Contextual factors includeinfluences exerted by the context in which the friendship develops.Several researchers, for example, note the importance of physicalproximity to friendship development (e.g., Griffin & Sparks, 1990;Holahan, Wilcox, Burnham, & Culler, 1978; Nahemow & Lawton,1975). Similarly, Zajonc (1968) found that frequent exposure to anotherleads to more positive evaluations of that other person, therebyincreasing the likelihood of developing a friendship.

Although these models appear to generally represent friendshipdevelopment in interpersonal relationships, the development of work-place friendships may be somewhat unique. Workplace friendships areliterally defined by the context in which they develop. In fact, manyscholars have noted the importance of the workplace as a source ofpotential friends (Fehr, 1996; Pogrebin, 1987). However, they also notethat organizational context is not merely a "container" for the relation-ship; it is integral to the relationship process itself (Werner, Brown,Altman, & Staples, 1992). Accordingly, contextual factors may play animportant role in the development of these friendships.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 277

Extant organizational research identifies a variety of contextualfactors that impact employee communication, and which may, in turn,influence employee friendships. Several studies, for instance, indicatephysical proximity is positively related to the amount of interactionamong employees (e.g., Allen, 1977; Fine, 1986; Monge & Kirste, 1980).This increased interaction may lead to the development of a friendship(e.g., Hays, 1989). In addition, Fine (1986) found that shared, coopera-tive tasks facilitated communication and the initial formation offriendships among restaurant employees. Similarly, Odden and Sias(1997) found employees formed more intimate peer relationships whencoworkers were perceived to be cohesive (primarily denned as cooperat-ing and working together).

Peer communication and peer relationships have also been associ-ated with the supervisor's behavior. Odden and Sias (1997) foundemployees were more likely to form intimate relationships with theircoworkers when they perceived their supervisor as unsupportive,unfair, untrustworthy, and unwilling to provide recognition of em-ployee accomplishments (i.e., low in "supervisor consideration"). Simi-larly, Sias and Jablin (1995) found peer coworkers became closer whenthey perceived their supervisor had treated group members unfairly.Their results indicate coworkers increasingly rely on one another foradvice and support in dealing with an inconsiderate supervisor; thisreliance draws the peers together in more intimate relationships.Taken together, these studies indicate that contextual factors in theworkplace such as shared tasks, proximity, and supervisor consider-ation may influence the development of peer friendships.

Workplace friendships are not influenced only by the workplacecontext, however. Current scholarship is moving away from the notionthat an individual's personal and work lives are distinct and separate.Eisenberg and Goodall (1997) note that organizational employees aresituated in multiple contexts (e.g., the workplace, home, church, andother voluntary associations) and that their behavior "is both guidedand constrained by these various contexts" (p. 36). Similarly, Stohl(1995) notes that "private and work lives are more diffuse than distinct.It is impossible to separate these areas of activity" (p. 5). Because it isimpossible to leave one's personal life "at the office door," life events(e.g., marital problems, health issues, etc.) likely influence workplacefriendships. This notion is supported by a large body of literature thatindicates coworkers are often a valuable source of emotional supportwhen individuals are dealing with important events in their personallives (e.g., see Albrecht & Adelman, 1987).

As mentioned earlier, individual factors can influence friendshipdevelopment. Scholars suggest that one of the most influential of theseis similarity. Brehm (1985), in fact, asserts that similarity is "one of themost basic principles that has come from the study of interpersonalattraction" (p. 70). It is important to distinguish between actual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

278 Peer Friendship

similarity and perceived similarity, however. Duck (1994) contends thatperceived similarity can have a profound impact on relationshipdevelopment. As he explains, " 'Being similar' and Tcnowing or believ-ing that they are similar' are two different social phenomena forpartners. The belief that something is shared is an important triggerfor social relational effects" (p. 113). The type of similarity perceived byfriends is also relevant. By definition, organizational peers are similarwith respect to status level. In addition, peers perform similar work insimilar occupations. Thus, all organizational peers begin their relation-ships with actual similarity in occupation and authority. Consequently,peer friends are likely attracted to one another because of perceptionsof other types of similarity such as demographic similarity (e.g., age,gender, ethnicity), as well as perceived similarity in attitudes, values,and interests.

Although the friendship and organizational literature provide sug-gestions regarding workplace friendship development, they bear impor-tant limitations. Friendship research provides insights into factorsassociated with friendship development, but it is largely limited tointerpersonal relationships outside the organizational sphere. As dis-cussed above, the organizational context is likely to impact peerfriendships in unique and important ways that distinguish the develop-ment of these relationships from extra-organizational friendships.Organizational literature considers the influence of the organizationalcontext; however, employee communication and peer relationships tendto be conceptualized as category-bound. No organizational research hasexamined how the nature of peer workplace friendships changes overtime.

This study links these two bodies of literature by examining thedevelopment of workplace friendships. Extant research suggests somecontextual and individual factors that may impact these relationshipssuch as shared tasks, physical proximity, lack of supervisor consider-ation, life events, and perceived similarity. However, no research hasempirically examined these factors with respect to workplace friend-ships specifically. In addition, the factors described above may not beexhaustive; there are likely other developmental factors of which weare unaware. Accordingly, rather than forwarding a specific hypothesis,this study examined the following research question:

RQ1: What factors are associated with the development of peerfriendships in the workplace?

Researchers who study interpersonal relationships indicate thenature of communication between relationship partners tends tochange as the relationship develops over time. In general, these modelssuggest that as interpersonal relationships become closer, the breadthand depth of communication increases, so that relationship partnersdiscuss a greater variety of topics at a more intimate level (Altaian &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 279

Taylor, 1973; Knapp, 1978). In addition, communication appears tobecome more informal and relaxed as a friendship evolves (e.g., Jerome,1984; Planalp & Benson, 1992). Although such "stage" models havebeen criticized for being overly linear and sequential (e.g., Baxter &Montgomery, 1996; Cate & Lloyd, 1992), their underlying assertionthat communication between relationship partners changes both quali-tatively and quantitatively as the relationship changes appears to bevalid. Wright (1978), for example, notes that communication during theinitial phase of a friendship tends to be more "superficial and 'safe' "than communication in later phases (p. 202).

Again, however, no research has examined the ways communicationchanges as workplace friendships develop. Communication in work-place friendships may generally change in ways predicted by thesemodels—as the friendship develops, communication may increase inbreadth and depth and become generally easier and more informal. Wehave argued above, however, that the organizational context exertsunique influences on employee communication. Thus, communicationin workplace friendships may sound different, and develop differently,than in other interpersonal relationships. One might imagine, forinstance, a great deal of talk among peers about their jobs and theorganization. The nature of this work-related communication mightchange in important ways as the peers become friends. In particular,because of the increased communication intimacy predicted by extantinterpersonal models, communication among peers may include in-creased sharing of feelings and opinions about their work environmentas they become friends. Accordingly, to obtain deeper insights into therole of communication in workplace friendship development, we posethe following research question in lieu of a specific hypothesis:

RQ2: How does communication change over the development ofworkplace peer friendships?

As Baxter and Bullis (1986) point out, although a relationship is ajointly-constructed entity, "each relationship partner holds his or herown perceptions of that construction process" (p. 473). Similarly, Duck(1985) argues, "partners' views of [a] relationship are as likely to differas they are to coincide" (p. 679). An examination of the degree ofperceptual congruence between friends could provide insight into theextent to which a relationship is a relatively "objective" phenomenonthat is experienced and perceived similarly by both partners or aunique phenomenological experience for each relationship partner.

Examination of perceptual congruence with respect to the history ofthe friendship provides other important information. Guided by a socialconstruction perspective, Duck (1994) argues that an individual'sperceptions or the "meaning" s/he accords his or her relationship isconstructed through talk with his or her partner. As Duck explains,"talk is also used to compare and construct shared meaning for a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

280 Peer Friendship

relationship. Shared relational histories of the origin of a relationship. . . are stories constructed between two persons that encapsulate thejointness of their relationship in a symbolic fashion [Johnson, 1982]"(Duck, 1994, p. 149). In a similar vein, Sillars and his colleagues havedemonstrated the ways married couples develop shared understandingof their relationships through their conversations with one another(e.g., Sillars, Weisberg, Burggraf, & Wilson, 1987; Sillars, Burggraf,Yost, & Zietlow, 1992). Accordingly, we may expect greater perceptualcongruence among friends who talk with one another about theirrelationship as it develops over time.

Explicit talk about the relationship is not the only way partnersconstruct shared meaning, however. Duck (1994) distinguishes be-tween talking about the relationship and talking within the context ofthe relationship—both kinds of talk contribute to shared meaning ofthe partners. In particular, Duck notes the role of everyday talk in theconstruction of shared meaning. According to Duck (1994), everydaytalk is "an active, ongoing social process that constitutes views of manymore things than at first appears—including the relationship betweenthe speaker and listener" (p. 142). Through everyday talk, partnerslearn many things including how their partner segments, remembers,describes, and interprets his/her experiences (Duck, 1994, p. 142). Suchknowledge can lead to greater joint understanding of each other and ofthe relationship. This suggests that the more frequently and moreopenly friends talk to each other, the greater their joint understandingof the relationship. As discussed in the preceding section, communica-tion between relationship partners may increase in breadth and depthas the relationship develops and becomes closer. These changes incommunication allow friends to obtain more information about oneanother and learn more about their views of the world and therelationship. Consequently, individuals reporting the history of a closeor very close friendship may show greater perceptual congruence aboutthat history than partners reporting the history of a less intimate orclose friendship. Accordingly, we formulated the following generalresearch question:

RQ3: To what extent do relationship partners agree in their identifi-cation of the factors and communication changes associated with peerfriendship development?

Based on existing research, however, we formulated these hypoth-eses:

Hi: Partners who report talking with one another explicitly about their friendship will showgreater agreement in their identification of the factors and communication changesassociated with peer friendship development than those who state they have nevertalked about their friendship with one another.

H2: Partner agreement in identification of factors and communication changes associatedwith peer friendship development will increase as friendships become closer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 281

Method

Participants

Forty-six adults employed full-time in a variety of organizationsparticipated in the study. They were recruited by advanced undergradu-ate and graduate students enrolled in an Advanced OrganizationalCommunication class at a medium-size university in the Northwest.Each student recruited one employed adult and interviewed him/herregarding his/her relationship with a peer coworker (denned as acoworker of equivalent hierarchical status with whom there is noformal reporting relationship) whom s/he considered to be a good orclose friend. Criteria for participation in the study were that therespondent be over 21 years of age and employed full-time.1 Thecoworker/friend who was the subject of that interview also wassubsequently interviewed. Using this snowball sampling method,interviews were conducted with 46 individuals regarding 23 relation-ships.2 The interviews lasted an average of 20-30 minutes and wereaudiotaped with the permission of the respondents. Data from eight ofthese interviews (representing four peer relationships) were not ana-lyzed. Two sets of interviews were dropped from the sample becauseaudiotapes of the interviews were unusable due to technical problems.The other two sets of interviews had to do with superior-subordinate,not peer, relationships and were, therefore, excluded from the study.The resulting sample consisted of 38 individuals, representing 19 peerfriendships.

Twenty-seven respondents were female; 11 were male. They were 21to 60 years of age (m = 35) and represented a variety of occupationsincluding waitpersons, bartenders, clerical staff, mid- and upper-levelmanagers, sales representatives, public relations professionals, foodservice personnel, grocery clerks, technical staff, and elementary schoolteachers. The average tenure of the respondents in their organizationwas approximately 6 years (range = 2 months-24 years; s.d. = 72months).

Procedures

Data were obtained using the Retrospective Interview Technique(RIT). The RIT has been used by researchers to examine developmentalprocesses in romantic relationships (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986) andmentoring relationships (Bullis & Bach, 1989). Although the RIT hastraditionally been used to examine specific events or "turning points"that lead to relational change, the method can also be used to obtaininformation regarding factors, other than turning points, that respon-dents perceive influence the development of a relationship. The RIT isparticularly useful in a study using multiple interviewers because itsclearly structured interview protocol enhances comparability of dataacross interviews.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

282 Peer Friendship

The RIT involves asking respondents to identify points at whichtheir relationship changed by plotting these points on a graph whosex-axis represents time (in this study, the length of time from initialmeeting to the time of the interview) and whose y-axis ordinarilyreflects an index of relational development such as commitment,intimacy, or self-disclosure. Because such indices may represent afeminine model of friendship that is less applicable to males (Wood &Inman, 1993), a hierarchical system that allowed respondents tointerpret the concept of "friend" in their own way was used for they-axis. In particular, a modified version of the typology used by Bridgeand Baxter (1992) in their study of "blended relationships" wasemployed. That typology included categories ranging from "good friends"to "best friends." Modifications included adding an "acquaintance" levelto represent the point before a coworker becomes a friend. In addition,because extant work suggests that, with respect to peer coworkerrelationships, a category may exist between "acquaintance" and "closefriend" (e.g., Fritz & Dillard, 1994), the category "friend" was added tothe typology. Thus, the final y-axis reflected the following grid markersin order: acquaintance, friend, close friend, best friend. Respondentswere told they were not required to strictly follow the typology; theycould mark areas between those categories if appropriate.3

The interviewers were trained in the RIT procedure during two60-minute sessions. The training covered general interviewing tech-niques (e.g., asking probing and follow-up questions, listening, etc.), areview of the interview protocol, and role-play exercises.

The RIT began by having respondents mark, at the end of the x-axis,the length of the relationship in question. They then placed grid marksalong the x-axis line in years (or months for relationships shorter than2 years in length) proportionally. Respondents placed a dot on thegraph corresponding to their current relationship level (y-axis) and thepresent time (x-axis). They then placed a mark at Time 0 on the x-axis(e.g., time of first meeting their relationship partner) and the "acquain-tance" level on the y-axis (see Appendix A). With these two marksplaced on the RIT graph, respondents were then asked to plot points atwhich their relationship changed in terms of the friendship level. Aseach point was plotted, interviewers asked questions regarding: whatthe interviewees thought had caused their relationship to change atthat point, any particular event or events associated with this change,how their communication with their coworker changed at that point, ifat all, what they talked about during at that transition, includingwhether they had talked explicitly about their relationship with theirfriend, and any other information that might provide insight into whatwas going on at that point in the relationship. After all points wereplotted and discussed, respondents were asked to connect the dotsplaced on the graph and to explain or describe the nature of the lineplotting the overall course of their relationship. Respondents were then

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 283

instructed to avoid discussing their interviews with their relationshippartners to prevent data contamination.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed and then coded according to factors andcommunication changes associated with relational development thatemerged from the data. Specifically, coding was carried out in threesteps outlined by Lofland and Lofland (1995). In the first step, initialcoding, the senior author placed the responses of all participants to theinterview questions on lists (i.e., reasons provided by respondents forrelational development and communication changes were written onlists). In the next step, focused coding, the items on the lists wereexamined for congruence and collapsed into categories. For example,reasons for a friendship becoming closer such as "I was having troublewith my boyfriend," "She was getting married and I helped with thepreparations," and "I had major surgery" were placed in a singlecategory called "life events." Both primary researchers then separatelycoded all 38 transcripts using this category system in the third stage ofanalysis, flow charting. As Lofland and Lofland (1995) note, flowcharting enables researchers to "visualize an order of elements throughtime or in a process rather than as a static structure" (p. 199, emphasisin original). Specifically, each participant's relationship was chartedfrom beginning to end. At each stage identified by the respondent inhis/her interview, factors and communication changes mentioned bythe respondent were coded using the category system developed in theinitial and focused coding stages. As a result, each participant'sreported history of his/her peer friendship was represented and codedon a flow chart. Coding reliability, determined by Scott's pi, was .83 forthe developmental factor categories and .85 for the communicationchanges categories, indicating the coding was reliable (Kassarjian,1977).

Results

Descriptive Information

The average duration of the friendships at the time of the interviewswas 4.7 years (range = 5 months-20 years, s.d. = 58.14 months).Twelve relationships were female/female, four were male/male, andthree were male/female. The majority of the 19 pairs (n = 14, 74%)agreed about the transitions their relationship experienced. Transition1 refers to the point at which a coworker changed from being perceivedas an acquaintance to being a friend. Transition 2 refers to the point atwhich a coworker changed from being perceived as a friend to beingperceived as a "close friend." Transition 3 refers to the point at which apeer changed from being perceived as a close friend to being perceivedas an "almost best" friend.4 In general, respondents felt uncomfortable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

284 Peer Friendship

describing their coworkers as "best" friends. Most preferred the label"best friend at work" or "very close" or "almost best" friend. At the timeof the interview, four (11%) of the respondents identified their cowork-ers as "friends," 17 (45%) respondents identified their peer relation-ships as lying at the "close friend"level, and 17 (45%) of the respondentsidentified their coworkers as "almost best" friends.

Respondents reported an average of 12 months passed before theirrelationships reached transition one (acquaintance to friend) (range = 1day-8 years; s.d. = 19 months); they reached transition two (friend toclose friend) an average of 31 months after their first meeting (range = 1month-20 years, s.d. = 45 months), and they experienced transitionthree (close friend to "almost best friend") approximately four yearsafter their initial meeting (range = 3months-9years; s.d. = 27 months).

RQ1 and RQ2 sought information regarding the factors and commu-nication changes associated with peer friendship development. A totalof 169 developmental factors and 158 communication changes wereidentified by respondents across the three transitions. These factorsand communication changes were collapsed into the categories de-scribed in Table 1.

The impact of these factors and communication changes variedacross friendship transitions. Table 2 provides information regardingthe distribution of developmental factors and communication changesacross the three primary peer friendship transitions described above.The first column under each transition reports the number of timeseach factor was mentioned as influencing that transition, the secondcolumn under each transition reports the percentage of the totalnumber of times each factor/communication change was mentioned bythe respondents across transitions; that is, the number in the secondcolumn represents the relative impact of a particular factor/communi-cation change at each transition point. The third column under eachtransition represents the percentage of total number of times anyfactor/communication change was mentioned at a particular transition;thus, the third column provides information regarding which factors/communication changes tended to "drive" each transition.

Transition 1: Acquaintance to FriendContextual factors. The numbers in the third column under Transi-

tion 1 reveal that moving from acquaintance to friend was perceived bythe participants to be caused primarily by contextual factors such asproximity, shared tasks, and extra-organizational socializing. Manyrespondents, for example, reported this transition was caused simplyby working with the other person for extended periods of time in closeproximity and/or on shared projects. Often in these situations, onecoworker spent a great deal of time training or orienting his/hernewly-hired partner or the individuals worked overtime together.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 285

TABLE 1Description of Coding Categories, Sample Responses, and Number

of Respondents Mentioning the Category

Category

Proximity

Shared Tasks

Perceived Similarity

Life Events

Extra organizationalsocializing

Description Sample Responses

Developmental Factors

Physical proximity; workingalongside or near the otherperson, working in the samedepartment or the same shift

Working together on sharedprojects, includes one persontraining the others

Sharing similar interests (e.g.,sports, hobbies, music), lif-estyles (e.g., both married, par-ents), or values

Major events in one's personal lifesuch as divorce, illness, preg-nancy, etc.

Spending time together outsidethe workplace, going out to

"Our desks were right next toeach other," "We worked a lot ofovertime together"

"She trained me when I started,""We worked together on a fund-raiser"

"She's like me, and like-minded,have the same kind of values,""We both like to do crafts"

"I went through a lot of personalissues," "She became pregnantand was very sick during thepregnancy"

"We went out drinking and party-ing," "Going to lunch together,"

Numberof Re-

spondents

22 (58%)

16 (42%)

22 (58%)

17 (45%)

19 (50%)

Work-related problems

Time

Benign work-relatedfactors

Personality

lunch together, having drinksafter work

Experiencing problems and frus-trations with the job such asdealing with a difficult super-visor or coworker

Natural development of relation-ship due to the passage of time

Work-related factors not per-ceived to be problematic suchas increased slack time, exit ofanother employee

Being attracted to a coworkerbecause of a particular person-ality trait

"We started going out afterwork"

"I had a supervisor that was a 13 (34%)complete drag," "Problems withme and the office manager,""She was having problems with[coworker] and I have a verydifficult boss"

"Time made it change," "Knowing 9(24%)him for a while"

"One employee pretty close to her 7 (18%)left, [that] opened a door,""Things were slow"

"She was really open," "He has a 8(21%)good sense of humor," "She wasreally friendly"

Communication Changes

Decreased caution Communication became easier,more flexible, less cautious

Increased discussion ofnon-work, personalissues

Increased discussionof work-relatedproblems

Increased intimacy

Increased frequency

Increased discussion of non-worktopics such as hobbies, currentevents, family

Increased discussion about prob-lems at work, sharing opinionsabout things that happen atwork

Sharing more intimate detailsand information regarding per-sonal and work-related issues

Communicating more often

"We started getting rude with 35(92%)each other, dropping formali-ties," "It was easier to talk toher"

"We talked about more things 32 (84%)than work, other stuff, news orwhatever, music"

"We talked more about problems 18 (47%)at work," "Talked about how wehated it [work] and who weliked and who we hated"

"We shared more detail,""More 16 (42%)insight into personal feelings"

"We communicated a lot more," 7 (18%)"We talked more"

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

286 Peer Friendship

TABLE 2Factors and Communication Changes Associated with Peer

Friendship Development

Transition 1 Transition 2Acquaintance to Friend Friend to Close Friend

Transition 3Close Friend to "Almost

Best" Friend

% Over % Over % OverAll %at All %at All %at

Fre- Transi- Transi- Fre- Transi- Transi- Fre- Transi- Transi-quency tions tion quency tions tion quency tions tion

Socializing(n = 30)

Perceived Simi-larity (n= 28)

Proximity(n = 25)

Life Events(n = 23)

Shared Tasks(n = 20)

Work Problems(n = 17)

Time (n = 9)Benign Work Fac-

tors (n = 7)Personality

(n = 10)

Increased discus-sion of non-work topics(n = 53)

Decreased Cau-tion (n = 46)

Increased discus-sion of workproblems(n = 24)

Increased Inti-macy (n = 21)

Increased Fre-quency (n = 10)

11

16

18

4

16

32

4

9

29

17

3

4

8

37%

57%

72%

17%

80%

18%22%

57%

90%

54%

37%

13%

19%

80%

Developmental Factors

13%

19%

22%

5%

19%

5%2%

5%

11%

13

10

5

13

4

84

3

1

43%

36%

20%

57%

20%

47%44%

43%

10%

Communication Changes

47%

28%

5%

7%

13%

19

19

13

11

1

37%

41%

54%

52%

10%

21%

16%

8%

2 1 %

7%

13%7%

5%

2%

30%

30%

2 1 %

17%

2%

6

2

2

6

0

63

0

0

5

10

8

6

1

20%

7%

8%

26%

0

35%33%

0

0

10%

22%

33%

29%

10%

24%

8%

8%

24%

0

24%12%

0

0

17%

33%

27%

20%

3%

Moving from acquaintance to friend was also influenced by extra-organizational socializing such as going to lunch together or out fordrinks after work. Others identified fairly benign work-related factorsas spurring relational development. One respondent, for instance,noted his friendship with a coworker changed from acquaintance tofriend when they experienced "slack" time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 287

Individual Factors. Perceived similarity was an important indi-vidual factor at this stage of development. As one woman pointed out, "Itend to lean toward having friends who are like me and like-minded,have the same kind of values that I have, have the same sharedinterests." Examination of column two at this transition also indicatesthat, although personality was not often identified by respondents ascausing relational development (i.e., it was only mentioned 11 times), itwas likely to have its greatest impact in the transition from coworker tofriend.

Communication Changes. Communication changes accompanyingthis transition were increased discussion of non-work and personaltopics, and decreased caution. Communication at this point still was notparticularly intimate. As one respondent explained, at the first transi-tion point, "we talked about more things than work, other stuff, thenews or whatever, music." Another explained that at the friend level,"Because we were starting to get to know each other, you watch whatyou say, it's not as open." As indicated by column 2, although increasedfrequency was mentioned only a total often times, this change was mostlikely to occur during transition 1.

Transition 2: Friend to Close FriendContextual Factors. The transition from friend to close friend was

driven primarily by problems/events in both one's personal {life events)and professional experiences (work-related problems). One womanidentified two life events, her own illness and upcoming wedding, as thecatalysts for the transition from friends to close friends. Others notedtheir friendship became closer when one of the partners experiencedproblems with his/her marriage or other intimate relationship. Manyrespondents noted the development of a peer friendship to the closefriend level was related to problems they were experiencing with asupervisor or other coworker. One woman remarked she became closefriends with her coworker because her coworker's boss (nicknamed"Damien") was giving her coworker a particularly hard time.

Extra-organizational socializing was also mentioned as a relevantcontextual factor at this point. The nature of the socializing tended todiffer from that reported at the transition from acquaintance to friend,however. At the transition to "close friend," socializing became moreintimate. In addition to going to lunch or out for drinks after work,coworkers at this point would take vacations together, meet oneanother's families, spend holidays together and the like.

Individual Factors. Perceived similarity continued to have an impacton coworker friendships at this stage. One respondent, for instance,remarked that her friendship with her coworker developed into a closerfriendship in part because they both enjoyed crafts and began doingcraft activities together. Another noted that she and her coworker both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

288 Peer Friendship

had children and that this provided them with a common bond that,according to her, strengthened the friendship.

Communication Changes. Coworkers continued to increase theirdiscussion of non-work related topics during Transition 2. This transi-tion was also marked by decreased caution and increased intimacy incommunication. As the woman experiencing illness and weddingpreparations noted, "We became more open. I told her how I felt . . .she'd share other personal things . . . she would comfort me." Anotherexplained, "[We shared] more detail." Respondents who reported theirrelationships developed because of work-related problems reported anaccompanying increased discussion of work-related problems. As oneparticipant reported, as his coworker became his close friend, theytalked more about work and "how we hated it and who we liked andwho we hated."

Transition 3: Close Friend to "Almost Best" FriendContextual Factors. The change from close friend to "almost best"

friend was associated primarily with extra-organizational socializing,life events, and work-related problems. In the words of a respondent,"Where we're at right now is because of work issues, things going onwith our administrative person, that was a hard thing my companywent through." In addition, many identified the passage of time asleading to this transition.

Individual Factors. Perceived similarity was the only individualfactor reported to have an impact at this transition. According to onerespondent, common interests "gradually increased our friendship."Another indicated that one of the reasons her friendship with hercoworker became very close was because they both had children andthat provided a common interest.

Communication Changes. The primary communication changesidentified at this transition were decreased caution, increased discus-sion of work-related problems, and increased intimacy. In general,because of the increasing amount of trust developed between thecoworkers, they felt freer to share opinions and feelings, particularlytheir feelings about work frustrations. Their discussion about bothwork and personal issues became increasingly more detailed andintimate. One respondent noted that as she and her coworker made thistransition, they talked more about "what we believe and deeper thingsyou don't talk to anyone about." Another commented, "we confide ineach other, we can talk about things that go on at work. . . communicat-ing with her is 500 times easier."

Summary of TransitionsIn sum, coworker friendships tended to develop early due to the

coworkers simply being around one another, working together on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 289

shared projects and tasks, and perceiving common ground. At thispoint, the variety of communication topics discussed increased; how-ever, the coworkers were somewhat cautious about sharing informationand opinions with one another. Relationships developed into closefriendships usually because of important personal or work-relatedproblems, although perceived similarity and extra-organizational social-izing continued to impact relational development. At this point, thecoworker became a trusted source of support with communicationbecoming increasingly more intimate and less cautious. Over time, thistrend continued into the third transition where the coworkers becamean important part of each other's personal and work life.

Perceptual Congruence Results

RQ3 sought information regarding the extent to which relationshippartners' perceptions of the development of their friendship werecongruent. "Adjusted" agreement proportions were computed by divid-ing the total number of factors (or communication changes) mentionedby the partners at each developmental point by the number of factors(or communication changes) at each point on which the partnersagreed. The mean adjusted agreement proportion for developmentalfactors was .53 (range = .25-1.0, s.d. = .22). The mean adjusted agree-ment proportion for communication changes was .42 (range = 0-1.0,s.d. = .22). A portion of the disagreement between partners had to dowith the points at which the various factors and communicationchanges were present. "Global" agreement proportions, computed bydividing the total number of factors (or communication changes)mentioned by the partners by the number of factors (communicationchanges) agreed upon by the partners regardless of transition points,were considerably higher. Specifically, the mean global factor agree-ment proportion was .64 (range = .20-1.0, s.d. = .25) and the meanglobal communication change agreement proportion was .50 (range = 0-1.0, s.d. = .27). These results indicate relationship partners showedmoderate levels of agreement in their perceptions of the factors andcommunication changes associated with relational development.

Hx predicted that respondents who reported talking with theirpartner about their friendship as it developed would show greaterperceptual congruence than those who reported they never talkedabout their friendship with their partner. To examine this hypothesis,pairs were split into two groups—"talk" pairs (those who reporteddiscussing their friendship with one another) and "no talk" pairs (thosewho stated they had never discussed their friendship with each other).Mean agreement proportions for the two groups were then compared."Talk" pairs showed consistently higher agreement proportions than"no talk" pairs. Moreover, even with a very small sample (N = 14)5,one-tailed t tests for mean differences approached significance in thepredicted direction for the developmental factor agreement propor-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

290 Peer Friendship

tions. Specifically, the mean global development factor agreementproportions were .78 for "talk" pairs and .57 for "no talk" pairs(t = —1.85, df = 12, p < .10). The mean adjusted developmental factoragreement proportions were .71 for "talk" pairs and .48 for "no talk"pairs (t =-1.79, df= 12, p < .10). Although "talk" pairs showedgreater perceptual agreement regarding communication changes thandid "no talk" pairs (mean global agreement proportion = .49 and .56 for"no talk" and "talk" pairs, respectively; mean adjusted agreementproportion = .41 and .46 for "no talk" and "talk" pairs, respectively),these differences were not statistically significant.

H2 predicted that perceptual congruence would be greater for pairsrecalling closer friendships. Because only one pair agreed their relation-ship was currently at the "friend" level, this hypothesis was examinedusing data from "close friend" and "almost best friend" pairs only. Asexpected, "almost best" friends showed greater perceptual congruencethan did "close" friends in every category. Moreover, one-tailed t testsfor mean differences were significant with respect to the developmentalfactor agreement proportions. Specifically, mean global developmentalfactor agreement proportions for "close" and "almost best" friends were.51 and .73, respectively (t = -1.96, df= 12, p < .05). Mean adjusteddevelopmental factor agreement proportions for "close" and "almostbest"friends were .38 and .59, respectively (£ = -2.47, df= 12,p < .05)."Almost best" friends also showed greater perceptual congruence withrespect to global communication changes (mean global communicationchange agreement proportion for "close" and "almost best" friends = .32and .62, respectively; t = -2.47, df= 12, p < .05). The pairs did notdiffer with respect to mean adjusted communication change propor-tions (.32 and .42 for "close" and "almost best" friends, respectively).

Discussion

Although peer friendships in the workplace were associated withboth individual and contextual factors, contextual factors were per-ceived to be particularly influential. These results indicate that theworkplace context does not function merely as a "container" forfriendships, but rather that it plays a significant role in the friendshipdevelopment process. Individual factors such as perceived similarityand personality did impact friendship development primarily duringthe early stages of friendship formation. However, their perceivedinfluence decreased as the friendship became closer and more intimate.

As expected, physical proximity was perceived by the majority ofrespondents as leading to friendship development, particularly in theearly stages of relational development. At minimum, the data suggestthat becoming friends with a coworker requires being around thatcoworker. This finding is consistent with Pogrebin (1987) who suggeststhat physical proximity is a necessary precondition for friendship. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 291

primacy of proximity to friendship development is noteworthy givenrecent suggestions that the trend of many organizations towardtelecommuting and "virtual offices" may incur significant costs tohuman relationships. Stohl (1995), for example, suggests that "whenworkers are no longer simultaneously at the work site, there is lessoverlap and interaction among specializations, people are less identi-fied with the organization, and coworkers are not available for task andsocial support" (p. 9). Along these lines, many scholars argue thatcomputer-mediated communication (CMC) lacks important social con-text cues, leading to impersonal and primarily task-oriented communi-cation (e.g., Sproull & Keisler, 1986) which impedes relational develop-ment. Considering the present findings from this perspective suggeststhat an increase in telecommuting is likely to lead to a decrease inworkplace friendships.

Walther (1992, 1996), however, argues that human beings aremotivated to form relationships with others for a variety of reasons(e.g., affinity, impression management, and dominance needs) and thismotivation can, and often does, overcome technological limitations.This might explain, in part, the recent phenomena of "on-line friend-ships" and virtual communities (Jones, 1995). It may be that the modelof workplace friendship development put forth here is limited toemployees in "traditional" work environments characterized by physi-cal co-presence of employees. Along these lines, Fehr (1996) argues thatnew computer-mediated communication technologies (e.g., e-mail, com-puter networks) may make physical proximity less important tofriendship development as the new technologies "[open] up whole newworlds of friendship possibilities" (p. 45). Because such technologiesincrease the "field of available" coworkers with whom one may becomefriends, Fehr (1996) suggests "the historical emphasis on proximity as aprerequisite for the development of friendship ultimately may berevised in light of new technology" (p. 46). Thus, other factors such assharing tasks, work-related problems, or life events may exert astronger influence on friendship formation among "virtual" coworkersthan does physical proximity. Clearly future research should examinethe ways friendships evolve among "virtual" coworkers.

The later transitions were perceived to be associated with importantwork-related problems. Consistent with Sias and Jablin (1995) andOdden and Sias (1997), the data indicate that employees turned to theirpeers for support and assistance when confronted with frustrationswith their supervisors. In addition, the data suggest peer friendshipsbecame closer as a result of other types of work-related problems suchas a problematic coworker or unwelcome changes in organizationalprocedures.

Relatedly, we note that the communication changes reported hereare largely consistent with previous research. As they became friendswith their coworkers, respondents reported communication became

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

292 Peer Friendship

more frequent, more intimate, and more personal. These changes wereparticularly apparent during the first transition. The data, however,provide richer information than simply the greater depth and breadthof communication predicted by extant models. In particular, the latertransitions were reportedly accompanied by increased discussion ofwork-related problems, usually for the purpose of obtaining advice andsupport from a coworker. This finding is of consequence when viewedfrom a social construction perspective. Through talk that focuses on the"negatives" of the work environment, friends may exert a negativeinfluence on one another's attitudes toward the job, the supervisor,and/or the organization itself.

The data also support the notion that the line between an individu-al's work life and his/her personal life is indistinct. Life events wereidentified as an important factor in peer friendship development,particularly in moving through the later transitions. Many respon-dents found it impossible to leave important personal problems "at thedoor" when they came to work; rather they turned to their coworkersfor support and guidance in dealing with these events. Thus, theworkplace "context" appears to have a rather blurry and permeableboundary. The blurred line between the workplace and one's personallife was also indicated by the identification of a new factor, extra-organizational socializing. Half of the respondents perceived the devel-opment of their peer friendships was enhanced by spending time withtheir coworkers outside the workplace. Thus, for many, a coworkerwent from being "a friend at work" to "a friend that happens to be acoworker."

The transition from close friend to "almost best" friend was character-ized by most respondents as continuing the trend identified in thepreceding transition (friend to close friend). That is, life events,work-related problems, and extra-organizational socializing continuedto draw peers together. Likewise, communication continued to becomemore intimate, less cautious, and more focused on work-related prob-lems. Thus, the data indicate that the transition from close friend to"almost best" friend is largely consistent with interpersonal research onfriendships outside the organization: In reviewing interpersonal re-search examining the differences between close and best friends, Fehr(1996) concluded, "it would appear that differences between thesefriendship types are largely a matter of degree" (p. 105).

Relationship partners showed moderate levels of perceptual congru-ence regarding their relational history. Duck (1985) cautions againsttreating perceptual disagreement regarding relationships as "noise" orerror. Rather, he argues, such differences represent psychologicalphenomena in their own right. In this regard, the present results haveseveral important implications. First, the fact that friends demon-strated moderate levels of disagreement about the history of theirrelationship suggests that although a friendship is a dyadic-level

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 293

entity, studying the development of these relationships at the indi-vidual level of analysis can be appropriate. That is, individuals canbecome friends with one another for very different reasons. Forexample, Sue may become friends with Mary because of perceivedsimilarity; Mary, however, may become friends with Sue because ofproximity—both perceptions are equally valid. Second, our resultssupport the notion that talk (both about the relationship and in thecontext of the relationship) contributes to partners' shared meaning andperceptions of the relationships, particularly with respect to why theirfriendship developed over time. Thus, through talking together as theirrelationship develops, friends come to a greater joint understanding oftheir relationship (another type of similarity, according to Duck andPittman [1995]). Moreover, these results indicate that a characteristicthat distinguishes close friends from best friends is the degree of jointunderstanding between partners.

Although the present data tend to highlight the positive aspects ofpeer friendships, they also suggest that such friendships can havenegative or unhealthy consequences. In particular, some respondentsnoted that their close friend was the reason they remained in anotherwise unhealthy work environment. As one participant explained,

There's a lot of stuff going on here that makes you want to quit, that makes you not wantto be here anymore, but the friends that I met he re . . . if I ever were to quit, it would be sohard to leave some of those. . . . It's [the organization] been through things that arehorrendous . . . there's stress, backstabbing, gossip . . . but there are people that havesome darn good friendships and that's what keeps us afloat through all the crap that'sgone on. That's why I don't want to quit.

This woman's comment indicates her reluctance to leave an appar-ently miserable work environment because she would also be leavingone of her closest friends. One must question whether, in this situation,the close friendship is entirely functional for the individual. UsingRay's (1993) terminology, at this point the links (friendships) maybecome chains. Her comment also suggests a possible drawback ofworkplace friendships for organizations—a friendship may preventunhappy (and possibly unproductive) employees from seeking employ-ment elsewhere when such turnover may actually benefit both theindividual and the organization. Clearly, future research is needed thatfocuses on the advantages and disadvantages of workplace friendshipsfor both employees and organizations.

The present study contributes to our understanding of peer relation-ships. Extant literature on peer relationships has focused on identify-ing the functions and nature of relationships (e.g., Kram & Isabella,1985), but provides no information regarding how these relationshipsdevelop. Collegial and special peer relationships are characterized, inpart, by friendship. Thus, the present results provide insights into howinformation peers become collegial peers, and how collegial peersbecome special peers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

294 Peer Friendship

Limitations

While a primary goal of this study was to examine friendshipsamong peers, such a focus is also a limitation of the research. Althoughworkplace friendships are most likely to develop among peer coworkers(Rawlins, 1992), unequal status friendships do exist (Bridge & Baxter,1992) and present unique challenges to the relationship partners.Examination of the development of friendships among coworkers ofunequal status is an important area for future research.

Other limitations of this study also must be noted. First, the samplewas small and consisted primarily of women and female/female friend-ships. This sample bias likely results from the use of a conveniencesample, and future work should attempt to investigate such issues witha larger randomly-chosen group of participants.

The present study investigated relational development using retro-spective rather than longitudinal data. Thus, we emphasize this is astudy of perceptions, not behaviors. Relatedly, it is likely that theinterview method influenced respondents' relational histories. Al-though respondents were instructed that they were not required toadhere to the categories provided them (i.e., acquaintance, friend, closefriend, and best friend), and that they could discuss points at whichtheir relationship regressed toward lower levels of closeness, fewactually deviated from the predetermined hierarchy. Duck and Pittman(1995) note the propensity of people to provide smooth and sensibleaccounts of a relationship's history, even when the relationship did notactually develop in this "smooth and sensible" manner. Accordingly, thefindings here should be generalized with caution in terms of suggestinga model of "perceived" relational development. Certainly, future workshould examine these issues using longitudinal methods. Moreover,work is needed that focuses on the deterioration of peer friendships.Such work would provide a more complete picture of workplacefriendship and its role in the organizing process.

Another limitation of the study is that data were collected bymultiple interviewers, which could harm comparability of the inter-views. This problem was likely mitigated, however, by the fact that theinterviewers used a clearly structured interview protocol and weretrained in using that protocol. Examination of the transcripts indicatedall of the interviewers followed the protocol closely. Thus, this limita-tion does not appear to be a serious threat to the study's validity.

Finally, another limitation of this study was the lack of explicitattention to the possibility that gender or race may be a developmentalfactor in workplace friendships. In terms of gender, only three of the 19friendships examined involved mixed-gender dyads. Respondents intwo of those mixed-gender friendships felt the gender difference was abarrier to further friendship development. One woman, for example,explained that her relationship with a male coworker would remain at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 295

the friend level because "the gender difference makes things different"with respect to viewpoints and communication styles. Another respon-dent expressed concern that her coworker "likes me more than goodfriends." These comments indicate some difficulties in negotiatingmale-female workplace friendships. Examining mixed-gender work-place friendships in greater depth would be a profitable area for futureresearch, particularly given the increasingly gender-diverse characterof American organizations. The limited sample also prevents us fromexamining possible differences in the ways men and women developworkplace friendships (Yager, 1997). Moreover, because of the homoge-neous nature of the sample, the study also provides no informationregarding the role of race or ethnicity in workplace friendship develop-ment. Given the increasingly diverse nature of American organiza-tions, such issues should be examined in future research.

Conclusion

The present study obtained information regarding the ways employ-ees perceive workplace friendships form and develop. Results canprovide insights into a number of organizational phenomena. Forinstance, informal communication networks can prevent women fromobtaining positions of power at work (e.g., Kanter, 1977). Theseinformal networks, which function as powerful information and re-source distribution systems, are essentially friendship networks. Under-standing how friendships develop may enable more equitable distribu-tions of power. For example, it is likely that "old boys networks" developin part because of perceived demographic similarity of the members(e.g., Lincoln & Miller, 1979). Our data indicate perceived similarity isnot a necessary prerequisite to friendship. Providing organizationalmembers who are demographically dissimilar (i.e., different gender,ethnicity, age, etc.) the opportunity to work together on tasks andprojects may increase the diversity of these powerful informal net-works. Clearly, future research should examine this and other implica-tions of the present findings.

This study also has theoretical implications for the friendshipdevelopment literature. In these friendships, contextual factors ap-peared to be the primary developmental influence, outpacing evensimilarity in perceived impact. Extant literature on workplace friend-ship has tended to conceptualize such friendships as a category or typeof relationship defined by the context in which they develop, but notnecessarily developmentally influenced by that context. Relying onPepper's (1942) root metaphor theory, Owen (1997) would label such aconceptualization "formism," referring to use of context to categorizeevents or phenomena based on similar forms. Results of the presentstudy indicate that the workplace context serves as much more than acategory; it plays a key part in the developmental process. Rather than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

296 Peer Friendship

being where friendships evolve, the context is part of the friendshipprocess itself.

NOTES

1. Random assignment of participants to interviewers to control for interviewerfamiliarity with respondents was not feasible due to logistical considerations. Specifi-cally, the campus is located in a relatively isolated area and is a predominantly"residential" campus with an average student age of 21 years. Accordingly, to findrespondents that fulfilled the "over 21" and "full-time employee" criteria, many studentsrecruited people from their hometowns (most of which were in different areas anywherefrom 150-400 miles from campus). Consequently, eight of the 23 students knew both oftheir interviewees prior to the interviews; nine students knew one of their intervieweesprior to the interview, but did not previously know the second interviewee; and theremaining six student interviewers had no previous relationship with either of their twointerviewees. Examination of transcripts from interviews with people previously knownto the interviewer and those previously unknown to the interviewer revealed nodifferences with respect to the length of the interview or the nature of the informationobtained.

2. The interviews were conducted by students for a term project examining thedevelopment of peer friendships in the workplace. Students were required to write apaper relating their findings to the various course concepts covered during the semester.Along with their term paper, they turned in audiotapes of the interviews, interview notes,and other materials described later in this section. The tapes and other materials weresupplied to the interviewers by the senior author who was the course instructor. Studentsand interview participants were informed that the data obtained during the interviewswould later be subjected to a systematic qualitative analysis by the authors and possiblypublished in an academic journal.

3. Many indices were considered for the y-axis on the RIT chart for this study. Asmentioned, traditional RIT indices were rejected because they may represent a distinctly"feminine" perspective/definition of friendship. Self-disclosure, trust, and support wererejected because each represents only one component of a friendship (e.g., Davis & Todd,1985). Despite its linear nature, we ultimately chose the friendship hierarchy for threereasons: (1) it allowed respondents to define friendship in their own way, (2) it subsumesthe multiple and various components of friendship (rather than limiting it to just onesuch as intimacy, closeness, trust, etc.), and (3) it is similar to methods used in extantresearch (e.g., Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Davis & Todd, 1985; Wright, 1985).

4. The remaining five pairs disagreed on some of the transitions in their relationship.With three of these pairs, both agreed their relationship reached transitions 1 and 2;however, one respondent in each pair also perceived their relationship reached transition3. That is, they perceived their coworker to be an "almost best" friend, while their partnerperceived the relationship as being at the "close friend" level. In another pair, onerespondent reported the relationship had experienced transitions 1 and 2; her coworker,however, identified an additional transition where her coworker was more than anacquaintance, but less than a friend. With the final pair, both agreed the relationshipreached transition 1, 2 and 3 and was currently at the "almost best" friend level. However,one of the partners identified an additional transition where the relationship deterio-rated for a short time from "close friend" to "friend."

5. Five friendship pairs were excluded from this analysis because their interviewerneglected to ask them if they had talked about their relationship with one another.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 297

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonalrelationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baxter, L., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships.Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:The Guilford Press.

Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw Hill.Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates.

Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1989). Are mentor relationships helping organizations? An

exploration of developing mentee-mentor-organizational identifications usingturning point analysis. Communication Quarterly, 3, 199-213.

Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Davis, K. E. & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendships: Prototypes, paradigm cases and

relationship description. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personalrelationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17-38). London: Sage.

Duck, S. (1985). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 655-686). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1995). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed, pp. 655-686).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1997). Organizational communication: Balancingcreativity and constraint (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fine, G. A. (1986). Friendships in the work place. In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.),

Friendship and social interaction (pp. 185-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.Fritz, J. H., & Dillard, J. P. (1994, November). The importance of peer relationships in

organizational socialization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SpeechCommunication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Glaman, J. M., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1996). The effects of coworker similarity onthe emergence of affect in work teams. Group and Organization Management, 21,192-203.

Griffin, E., & Sparks, G. G. (1990). Friends forever: A longitudinal exploration of intimacyin same-sex pairs and platonic pairs. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 7, 29-46.

Hays, R. B. (1989). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships:Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 391-408). New York: John Wiley.

Holahan, C. J., Wilcox, B. L., Burnam, M. A., & Culler, R. E. (1978). Social satisfactionand friendship formation as a function of floor level in high-rise student housing.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 527-529.

Jerome, D. (1984). Good company: The sociological implications of friendship. Sociologi-cal Review, 32, 696-715.

Johnson, M. (1982). Social and cognitive features of dissolving commitment to relation-ships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relation-ships (pp. 51-74). London: Academic Press.

Jones, S. G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S. G. Jones(Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer

Research, 4, 8-18.Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer

relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28,110-132.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

298 Peer Friendship

Kurth, S. B. (1970). Friendships and friendly relations. In G. J. McCall, M. M. McCall,N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles, & S. B. Kurth (Eds.), Social relationships (pp.136-170). Chicago: Aldine.

Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A.Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau,& D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 315-359). New York: W. H.Freeman and Company.

Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: Acomparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 181-199.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitativeobservation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Maines, D. R. (1981). The organizational and career contexts of friendship amongpostdoctoral students. In H. Z. Lopata & D. Maines (Eds.), Research in theinterweave of social roles: Friendship (Vol. 2, pp. 171-195). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Monge, P. R., & Kirste, K. K. (1980). Measuring proximity in human organizations. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 43, 110-115.

Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendshipformation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 205-213.

Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Odden, C. M., & Sias, P. M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological

climate. Communication Quarterly, 45, 153-166.Owen, J. L. (1997). World views as context for communication studies. In J. L. Owen

(Ed.), Context and communication behavior (pp. 17-40). Reno, Nevada: ContextPress.

Pepper, . (1942). World hypothesis: A study in evidence. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Planalp, S., & Benson, A. (1992). Friends' and acquaintances' conversations I: Perceiveddifferences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 483-506.

Pogrebin, L. C. (1987). Among friends: Who we like, why we like them, and what we dowith them. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ray, E. B. (1993). When links become chains: Considering dysfunctions of supportivecommunication in the workplace. Communication Monographs, 60, 106-111.

Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, percep-tions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research,22, 5-38.

Sillars, A. L., Burggraf, C. S., Yost, S., & Zietlow, P. H. (1992). Conversational themes andmarital relationship definitions: Quantitative and qualitative investigations.Human Communication Research, 19, 124-154.

Sillars, A. L., Weisberg, J., Burggraf, C. S., & Wilson, E. A. (1987). Content themes inmarital conversations. Human Communication Research, 13, 495-528.

Sproull, L., & Keisler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail inorganizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication: Arelational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Werner, C., Brown, B., Altman, I., & Stampes, J. (1992). Close relationships in theirphysical and social contexts: A transactional perspective. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 9, 411-431.

Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicat-ing closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279-295.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summer 1998 299

Wright, P. H. (1978). Toward a theory of friendship based on the conception of self.Human Communication Research, 4, 196-207.

Wright, P. H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 115-130.

Wright, P. H. (1985). The Acquaintance Description Form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman(Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp.39-62). London: Sage.

Yager, J. (1997). Friendshifts: The power of friendship and how it shapes our lives.Stamford, CT: Hannacroix Creek Books.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 9, (Monograph Supp. No. 2, Pt. 2).

APPENDIX ARIT Chart

Best Friend

Close Friend

Friend

AcquaintanceTime = 0 Now(Time at meeting)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:07

05

Oct

ober

201

4