How do you get to know other people? If the answer springs immediately to mind, we’re getting somewhere: communication. Communication allows us to share experiences, come to know ourselves and others, and form relationships, but it requires time and effort. You don’t get to know someone in a day, a month, or a year. At the same time, you are coming to know them; they are changing, adapting, and growing—and so are you. Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor describe this progression from superficial to intimate levels of communication in social penetration theory, which is often called the Onion Theory because the model looks like an onion and involves layers that are peeled away (Altman, I. and Taylor, D., 1973). According to social penetration theory, we fear what we do not know. That includes people. Strangers go from being unknown to being known through a series of steps we can observe through conversational interactions.

What would we say if we didn’t have the weather to talk about? People across cultures use a variety of signals to indicate neutral or submissive stances with each other. A wave, a nod, or a spoken reference about a beautiful day can indicate an open, approachable stance rather than a guarded, defensive posture. In this model, we can observe only the outermost layer of the onion. We can observe each other’s characteristics and make judgments, but they are educated guesses at best. Our nonverbal displays of affiliation, like a team jacket, a uniform, or a badge, may communicate something about us, but we only peel away a layer when we engage in conversation, oral or written.

Moving from public to private information, we transition from small talk to substantial and eventually intimate conversations. Communication requires trust, and that often takes time. Beginnings are fragile, and misunderstandings can occur when expectations, roles, and communication methods are unclear. Some relationships may never proceed past observations on the weather, while others may explore controversial topics like politics or religion. A married couple that has spent countless years together may be able to finish each other’s sentences, and as memory fades, the retelling of stories may serve to bond and reinforce the relationship. Increasingly, intimate knowledge and levels of trust are achieved over time, involving frequency of interaction as well as length and quality. Positive interactions may lead to more positive interactions, while negative ones may lead to less overall interaction.

This may appear to be common sense initially, but let’s examine an example. You are new to a position, and your supervisor has been in his or her role for several years. Some people at your same level within the organization enjoy a level of knowledge and ease of interaction with your supervisor that you lack. They may have had more time and interactions with the supervisor, but you can still use this theory to gain trust and build a healthy relationship. Recognize that you are unknown to your supervisor and vice versa. Start with superficial conversations that are neutral and nonthreatening but demonstrate a willingness to engage in communication. Silence early in a relationship can be a sign of respect, but it can also convey that you are fearful, shy, or lack confidence. It can be interpreted as an unwillingness to communicate and may actually discourage interaction. Keep your responses short and light if the supervisor picks up the conversation. If not, keep an upbeat attitude and mention the weather.

Over time, the conversations may gradually grow to cross topics beyond the scope of the office, and a relationship may form that involves trust. To a degree, you and your coworkers learn to predict one another’s responses and relax in the knowledge of mutual respect. If, however, you skip from superficial to intimate topics too quickly, you run the risk of violating normative expectations. Trust takes time, and with that comes empathy and understanding. However, sharing your personal struggles with your supervisor on day one may erode your credibility. According to the social penetration theory, people go from superficial to intimate conversations as trust develops through repeated, positive interactions. Self-disclosure is “information, thoughts, or feelings we tell others about ourselves that they would not otherwise know” (McLean, S., 2005). Taking it step by step and not rushing to self-disclose or asking personal questions too soon can help develop positive business relationships.

Principles of Self-Disclosure

Write down five terms describing your personal self and five describing your professional self. Once you have completed your two lists, compare the results. They may have points that overlap or words that describe you in your distinct roles that are quite different. This difference can be easy to address, but it can sometimes be challenging to maintain. How much of “you” do you share in the workplace? Our personal and professional lives don’t exist independently and, in many ways, are interdependent.

How do people know more about us? We communicate information about ourselves, whether or not we are aware of it. You cannot not communicate (Watzlawick, P., 1993). Communication constantly occurs, from internal monologue and intrapersonal to verbal and nonverbal communication. What do you communicate about yourself by the clothes (or brands) you wear, the tattoos you display, or the piercing you remove before you enter the workplace? Self-disclosure is a process by which you intentionally communicate information to others, but it can involve unintentional but revealing slips. Steven Beebe, Susan Beebe, and Mark Redmond offer us five principles of self-disclosure that remind us that communication is an integral part of any business or organizational setting. Let’s discuss them individually (Beebe, S., Beebe S., and Redmond, M., 2002).

Self-Disclosure Usually Moves in Small Steps

Would you come to work wearing a large purple hat on your first day? If you knew that office attire was primarily brown and gray suits? Most people would say, “Of course not!” as there is a normative expectation for dress, sometimes called a dress code. After you have worked within the organization, earned trust and established credibility, and earned your place in the community, the purple hat might be positively received with a sense of humor. But your fashion statement may be poorly received if you haven’t yet earned your place. In the same way, personal information is normally reserved for those of confidence and earned over time. Take small steps as you come to know your colleagues, taking care to make sure who you are does not speak louder than what you say.

Self-Disclosure Moves from Impersonal to Intimate Information

So you decided against wearing the purple hat to work on your first day, but after a successful first week, you went out with friends from your college days. You shut down the bar late in the evening and paid for it on Sunday. At work on Monday, is it a wise strategy to share the finer tips of the drinking games you played on Saturday night? Again, most people would say, “Of course not!” It has nothing to do with work and only makes you look immature. Some people have serious substance abuse issues, and your stories could sound insensitive, producing a negative impact. How would you know, as you don’t really know your coworkers yet? In the same way, it is not a wise strategy to post photos from the weekend’s escapades on your MySpace, Facebook, or similar social networking Web page. Employers are increasingly aware of their employees’ Web pages, and the picture of you looking stupid may come to mind when your supervisor is considering you for a promotion. You represent yourself, but you also represent your company and its reputation. If you don’t represent it well, you run the risk of not representing it at all.

Self-Disclosure Is Reciprocal

Monday morning brings the opportunity to tell all sorts of stories about the weekend, and since you’ve wisely decided to leave any references to the bar in the past, you may instead choose the wise conversational strategy of asking questions. You may ask your coworkers what they did, what it was like, who they met, and where they went, but eventually, all conversations form a circle that comes back to you. The dance between source and receiver isn’t linear, it’s transactional. After a couple of stories, sooner or later, you’ll hear the question, “What did you do this weekend?” It’s now your turn. This aspect of the conversation is universal. We expect that when we reveal something about ourselves, others will reciprocate. The dyadic effect is the formal term for this process and is often thought to meet the need to reduce uncertainty about conversational partners. What will happen if you stay quiet or decline to answer after everyone else has taken a turn? They may be put off at first, they may invent stories and let their imaginations run wild, or they may reject you. It may be subtle at first, but reciprocity is expected.

You have the choice of what to reveal and when. You may choose to describe your weekend by describing the friends and conversations while omitting any reference to the bar. You may choose to focus on your Sunday afternoon gardening activities. You may just say you read a good book and mention the title of the one you read. Regardless of what option you choose, you have the freedom and responsibility within the dyadic effect to reciprocate, but you have a degree of control. You can learn to anticipate when your turn will come and to give some thought to what you will say before the moment arrives.

Self-Disclosure Involves Risk

If you decide to go with the “good book” option or perhaps mention that you watched a movie, you just run the risk that whatever you are reading or watching may be criticized. If the book you enjoy is controversial, you might anticipate a bit of a debate, but if you mentioned a romance novel or one with a science fiction theme, you may have thought it wouldn’t generate criticism. Sometimes, the most innocent reference or comment can produce conflict when the conversational partners have little prior history.

At the same time, nothing ventured, nothing gained. How will you discover that the person you work with appreciates the same author or genre if you don’t share that information? Self-disclosure involves risk but can produce positive results.

Self-Disclosure Involves Trust

Before you mention the title of the book or movie you saw this weekend, you may consider your audience and what you know about them. If you’ve only known them for a week, your awareness of their habits, quirks, likes, and dislikes may be limited. At the same time, if you feel safe and relatively secure, you may test the waters with a reference to the genre but not the author. You may also decide that it is just a book; they can take it or leave it.

“Trust is the ability to place confidence in or rely on the character or truth of someone” (McLean, S., 2005). Trust is a process, not a badge to be earned. It takes time to develop and can be lost in a moment. Even if you don’t agree with your coworker, understand that self-revelation communicates a measure of trust and confidence. Respect that confidence, and respect yourself.

Also, consider the nature of the information. Some information communicated in confidence must see the light of day. Sexual harassment, fraud, theft, and abuse are all issues in the workplace, and if you become aware of these behaviors, you will have a responsibility to report them according to your organization’s procedures. A professional understands that trust is built over time and understands how valuable this intangible commodity can be to success.

Interpersonal Relationships

Interpersonal communication can be defined as communication between two people, but the definition fails to capture the essence of a relationship. This broad definition is useful when we compare it to intrapersonal communication, or communication with ourselves, as opposed to mass communication, or communication with a large audience, but it requires clarification. The developmental view of interpersonal communication emphasizes the relationship rather than the size of the audience and draws a distinction between impersonal and personal interactions.

For example, one day, your coworker and best friend, Iris, whom you’ve come to know on a personal and professional level, gets promoted to the position of manager. She didn’t tell you beforehand because it wasn’t certain, and she didn’t know how to bring up the possible change of roles. Your relationship with Iris will change as your roles transform. Her perspective will change, and so will yours. You may stay friends, or she may not have as much time as she once did. Over time, you and Iris gradually grow apart, spending less time together. You eventually lose touch. What is the status of your relationship?

If you have ever had a minor interpersonal transaction, such as buying a cup of coffee from a clerk, you know that some people can be personable, but does that mean you’ve developed a relationship within the transaction process? For many people, the transaction is an impersonal experience, however pleasant. What is the difference between the brief interaction of a transaction and the interactions you periodically have with your colleague, Iris, who is now your manager?

The developmental view places an emphasis on the prior history but also focuses on the level of familiarity and trust. Over time and with increased frequency, we form bonds or relationships with people; if time and frequency are diminished, we lose that familiarity. The relationship with the clerk may be impersonal, but so can the relationship with the manager after time has passed and the familiarity is lost. From a developmental view, interpersonal communication can exist across this range of experiences and interactions.

List what is important to you in priority order. Review the lists and evaluate your list of what is important to you. Will you find objects or relationships? You may value your home or vehicle, but for most people, relationships with friends and family are at the top of the list. Interpersonal relationships take time and effort to form and can be challenging. All relationships are dynamic, transforming and adapting to changes within the context and environment. They require effort and sacrifice and, at times, raise the question, why bother? A short answer may be that we, as humans, are compelled to form bonds. But it still fails to answer the question, why?

Uncertainty theory states that we learn more about others we interact with to reduce or resolve the anxiety associated with the unknown (Berger, C. and Calabrese, R., 1975; Berger, C., 1986; Gudykunst, W., 1995). The more we know about others and become accustomed to how they communicate, the better we can predict how they will interact with us in future contexts. If you learn that Monday mornings are never a good time for your supervisor, you quickly learn to schedule meetings later in the week. The predicted outcome value theory asserts that we want to reduce uncertainty and maximize our possible benefit from the association (Sunnafrank, M., 1986; Sunnafrank, M., 1990; Kellerman, K and Reynolds, R., 1990). This theory predicts that you would choose a meeting on Tuesday or later to maximize the potential for positive interaction and any possible rewards that may result. One theory involves avoiding fear, while the other focuses on the pursuit of reward. Together, they provide a reference point as we continue discussing interpersonal relationships.

Whether we focus on collaboration or competition, we can see that interpersonal communication is necessary in the business environment. We want to know our place and role within the organization, accurately predict those within our proximity, and create a sense of safety and belonging. Family, for many, is the first experience in interpersonal relationships, but as we develop professionally, our relationships at work may take on many of the attributes we associate with family communication. We look to each other with similar sibling rivalries competition for attention, resources, and support. The workplace and our peers can become as close, or closer, than our birth families, with similar challenges and rewards.

Key Takeaways

• Interpersonal relationships are an important part of the work environment.
• We come to know one another gradually.
• Self-disclosure involves risk and reward and is a normal part of communication.

 

---

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Beebe, S. [Steven], Beebe, S. [Susan], & Redmond, M. (2002). Interpersonal communication relating to others (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Berger, C. (1986). Uncertain outcome values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty reduction theory then and now. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 34–38.

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

Gudykunst, W.(1995) Anxiety/uncertainty management theory. In R. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kellerman, K., & Reynolds, R. (1990). When ignorance is bliss: The role of motivation to reduce uncertainty in uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 17, 5–75.

McLean, S. (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication (p. 112). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 3–33.

Watzlawick, P. (1993). The language of change: Elements of therapeutic communication. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

This page titled 16.4: Social Penetration Theory16.4: Social Penetration Theory is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous (LibreTexts Staff), from which source content was edited to the style and standards of the Pressbook platform licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License by Brandi Schur.