Running head: AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 1

Autoethnography

Emily Huttner

Minnesota State University Mankato

Autoethnography 2

I. Introduction

Research question: How does an existing interpersonal relationship with someone become

affected when communicating in a superior-subordinate context?

Throughout the course of a lifetime individuals will experience many interpersonal

relationships. These interpersonal relationships include family relationships, friendships,

romantic and professional. Sometimes our professional relationships can become intertwined in

our personal relationships as well. Typically in a friendship, the individuals in the relationship

are viewed and valued as equals, this autoethnography hopes to understand how our friendships

can become affected once in a superior-subordinate context; specifically a relationship I had with

a coach that started as a friendship. This autoethnography hopes to help understand how our

interpersonal relationships are affected based on the context they exist in.

II. Literature Review

Gates (2005) research consisted of interviews with 61 co-researchers that included

different ethnic and employment backgrounds to find out if the intersection of race and gender

influence superior-subordinate interactions from the perspective of the subordinates. Gates

identified four key themes in the interviews; socialized with them (their boss/superior) outside of

work or considered them friends, had previous connection as family members with their

supervisors which made interaction easier, felt like their bosses treated them with respect or

recalled special favors their bosses had done for them that enhanced the quality of their lives at

work. For those who view their relationship with their superior as friends they felt that the

friendship enabled them to achieve their personal and professional goals.

Kelly and Kingsley Westermans (2014) article explores the impact of perceived

superior immediacy on work motivation and satisfaction as well as empowerment and burnout.
Autoethnography 3

Kelly and Kingsley Westerman had 364 participants respond to an online survey to measure

perceived immediate behaviors, perceived immediacy, empowerment, motivation, burnout and

satisfaction as rated on a scale of 1 (disagree or terrible) to 7 (agree or delightful). Results

indicated that perceived immediacy does mediate the relationship and the more immediacy felt

by the subordinate resulted less burnout felt at work.

In Jowett and Nezleks (2011) article examines coach-athlete relationships through

Interdependence Theory and aims to find the moderators of the relationships between coach-

athlete interdependence and satisfaction. Their research consisted of three hypotheses;

competition level will moderate the association between interdependence and satisfaction as

these variables will be more strongly related for dyads at higher levels than lower levels of

competition, relationship length will moderate the association between interdependence and

satisfaction. A stronger correlation will exist for dyads with longer, compared to shorter,

relationship length, and gender composition will moderate associations between interdependence

and satisfaction such that associations between the two measures will be stronger for the same

gender dyads than for mixed-gender dyads. Findings in their research supported their hypotheses,

though their third hypothesis was only partially supported.

III. Methods

The relationships we hold with individuals vary and placed in different contexts. The

relationship I hold with my sister and the relationship I hold with supervisor will be different.

The role we have in each relationship differs and they hold different value. But how are

relationships affected when they begin to overlap into different contexts and the way we

communicate.
Autoethnography 4

An auto ethnography describes and analyzes personal experiences and interactions to

better understand a cultural event and is usually written as journals or stories. By reflecting

on my personal experiences as a friend and athlete to a coach I will review our relationship

before, during and after our relationship in a coach- athlete context to better understand how

our relationship was affected. Through my interpretive analysis of our superior-subordinate

relationship I hope to find points in our communication and relationship where the dynamics

of our relationship changed.

My relationship with my coach started as superior-subordinate which I had failed to

remember before our relationship as coach-athlete because there was a point where after they

were my instructor, we became friends. Being friends, to me, was interacting outside of the

university setting. In Gates (2005) study, satisfaction of a relationship can be influenced by

time spent together outside of the superior-subordinate context. We had gone to social

gatherings together but the social gatherings were initiated by one of their follow colleagues

and not as a result of myself or them making the plans but we did bond through having

drinks, socializing and playing games. We then decided to connect through social media,

over the summer and supported each others fitness goals and would check in with each

other. Our relationship existed outside of the university.

Once classes were back in session we began navigating our friendship and superior-

subordinate relationship as they were again my instructor for a semester. During one of the

first class sessions, we had gotten to discussion and they used our relationship as a way to

begin a conversation with the entire class. Since no one had begun participating and they had

not yet learned everyones name I was selected to begin discussion because they knew me

and even said that to the class. This was perceived immediacy by me, by taking the
Autoethnography 5

opportunity to point out that we knew each other and discuss our relationship showed me that

they cared and valued our relationship. After each class period we would have small chats

about our social lives and then the possibility of joining the speech forensics team was

encouraged. They are one of the coaches for the speech forensics team at the university.

From the encouragement to join the team, because I would be a good fit and would benefit

from it socially, I decided to join. Before joining, I had sat in on coaching sessions the

previous semester to see what the events looked like and I was interested. I was not excited

about the idea of speaking in front of others but the opportunity would allow us to spend

more time together I felt it would be worth becoming involved in.

Once joining the team, the event I decided to begin working on required me to work with

that events head coach which was my friend. At first there was a lot of encouragement,

support and excitement in joining the team. Again this was me entering their domain. My

friend is established in the speech forensics community as well as in the communication

department. Not only had I joined the team, they just recruited a new member. I wasnt being

pushed to sign up for coaching sessions when starting and there was an understanding that I

just wanted to try out performing before becoming competitive. The students striving for

nationals filled more coaching sessions. At this stage in the relationship I was open about

trying to manage classes, memorizing my speech and working on my performance and I felt

as though our relationship was strong. Because I was more of a low risk competitor the

amount of time invested in our relationship was less than those competing more frequently or

with more events.

We continued to share personal details of our lives with one another between classes and

coaching and there were never any hard feelings. Once I began competing I was able to
Autoethnography 6

travel with my coach, in other settings with my friend I felt that we were close but it was

never around other speech forensic students or competitors. While traveling, I had entered

their domain. Now it was not just me and my friend, but my teammates, other competitors

and in this context my coach. Our time spent together while traveling was not important.

There were other students on the team that were higher-risk, they were not only competing

in multiple events but also breaking into final rounds and placing at tournaments where I was

just performing.

Once traveling with my coach I started to see where the overlap of our pre-existing

friendship was getting used to their advantage as a coach. Like all relationships ours was

mediated. While one of my teammates completely ignore myself and a fellow teammate

while at a tournament I opened up to my coach as a friend about how I felt and how I was

fitting in on the team. My coach/friend said they would have a conversation with that

teammate about inclusion and remembering to create a positive, supportive team atmosphere

while competing. Later I found out that they publically called this individual out about their

behavior. Not only did this embarrass that student, it embarrassed me as well. I wasnt

expecting that situation to be handled that way. I still dont know if that event was handled

that way because they had the authority as a coach and were upset as my friend or if that is

how they would have handled the situation regardless.

After returning from my first traveling tournament I was scheduled for a coaching session

but instead in turned into a discussion of other teammates behaviors and how the

competition went, my coach used our interpersonal relationship as a way to find out more

about the team. I opened up to them because I felt it would help the team out and felt as

though they cared about my well-being. It was more so used as leverage and evidence to hold
Autoethnography 7

against fellow teammates. Not only had my coaching session has been used for venting it was

still controlled by my coach. The overlap of friendship and superior-subordinate relationship

was starting to unfold.

By the time the State competition had come I had nationally qualified both of my events

and my coaching sessions became more frequent and more time was investing in amping up

my events. I was even asked to take on an additional event to help the team earn points. That

event ended up taking 4th at State and the response from my coach after breaking was now

think about what we can do now to get it ready to do well at nationals. The more successful I

was the more invested my coach became. Not only did I place and do well but this benefitted

how my coach looked. When returning from state I took a week off from speech to get

caught up in my classes. The following week I decided that it might be time to take a step

back from speech but I was apprehensive about talking with my coach because I didnt want

to disappoint them especially after qualifying for nationals, which I hadnt even considered

upon joining the team. My coach found out from a fellow colleague that I was considering

leaving the team. In less than 6 hours I had gotten a message from my coach stating

I really don't care if you quit. I have no interest in convincing you this activity is worth your

time. I would just really like if you could stop signing up and then canceling because it takes

away time and effort I could be spending with people who do want to be here. I get that

speech is overwhelming, I get that it's a lot, I feel like we've been really accommodating, but

if it's not for you it's not for you. These comments to me did not feel supportive or

understanding it felt like an attack on my character and as a teammate. Within the context of

being a coach or a friend they seemed unexpected and harsh. This was the fall out of our

relationship. Having decided that I was no longer invested in speech forensics, they were no
Autoethnography 8

longer invested in our relationship. The dialogue exchanged ended up not only questioning

my dedication to the team but a question of our friendship. Since I had not come to them first

upon considering quitting they were insulted. Though my position on the team, in my eyes

should not have affected our friendship. Our friendship existed within their domain, their

space, and surrounded by community of speech forensic competitors they were very

passionate about.

IV. Results

All relationships take place within a context, and are motivated. They are influenced by

many factors, in my friendship that existed within a superior-subordinate context our

relationship was reliant on more interactions that took place within the superior-subordinate

context then outside of it. The immediacy of the relationship was affected by interactions on

campus, during coaching or during speech forensic related events. The length of our

relationship to me did not seem short until I realized our relationship was much shorter than

the relationships they held with other speech forensics colleagues. Our friendship was more

dependent on our involvement with the university and activities than on its own and as a

result our friendship fell apart when our coach-athlete relationship did. The themes found in

Gates (2005), Kelly & Kingsley Westerman (2014) and Jowett & Nezleks (2011) studies I

was able to find in my own relationship. If my coach had still been one of my instructors I

am sure our relationship would look different as well. They would have been still required to

have some investment as me as a student but since I have left the team and they are no longer

one of my coach or instructors, our paths will hardly cross especially now that our social

media connections no longer exist. Sometimes friendships are more so a result of proximity

than of interest.
Autoethnography 9

V. Discussion

I have had multiple coach-athlete and superior-subordinate relationships but this one was

unique. I had not gone from having an instructor become a friend, to them then becoming a

coach before. A factor that I have not analyzed was age. My coach and I only had a 3 year

age difference so although I may have seen our friendship as being equal my perception

compared to theirs could be completely different, I could have always been seen as

subordinate because I was younger. If my coach was older maybe our interactions and

immediacy would have been perceived differently if there was a larger age gap or if we were

different genders.

Though the research I had looked focused on existing relationships of coaches and

athletes I could have benefitted from looking at the communication between coach-athlete

relationships when the athletes decided to leave their sport or team. I think that having an

existing relationship caused there to be bigger fall out because my choice to the leave the

team could have been seen as personal rather than just an individual choice. Regardless it is

important to be aware of our relationships and what motivates them. Relationships require

investments and learning with whom to invest and to what degree can be beneficial in many

contexts.
Autoethnography 10

References

Gates,D. (2005). Superior-subordinate dialogue among African America, Caucasian American,

and Latino/a American. Subordinates: benefits of being buddies with the boss.

Conference Papers International Communication Association,1-45.

Kelly,S., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., (2014). Immediacy as an influence on supervisor-

subordinate communication. Communication Research Reports, 33(3), 252-261.

Jowett,S., Nezlek,J. (2011). Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important

outcomes in coach-athlete dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(3),

287-301.