314.”? ;
:fl 1.
.flmflxfiwfi:

y
.if»?,..

r
. 9
,1

. .._‘..

. 3%.:

1v

we; _

u. .13. t nigh}. VJ.
. .117 z

. ,3 V . ,, a .
. 31m“ w»bfl.u.y_.z
., .55 ‘_ Nu.) ,1! . T1 fie
%M%u§§5 “3%. an
a

5&5)?
)7?
5 risk.

.11)........ i
. {3‘ 11x.
£33433
Hf. , . .
a

 

WIS

Date

0-7 639

WIlllfllfllljfllfllfllllfl!WI(IllIIHHHIINIHUHII

0415 3238

   
   

   
    

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

3

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

COMMUNI'CATIVE COMPETENCE AND
THE PREDIUSPOSITIION T0 COMMUNICATE
AS DETERMINATNS OF
COORIENTATIONAL ACCURACY AND AGREEMENT

IN SUPERVI‘SOR/SUBORDI’NATE DYADS
presented by

SUSAN GERMA | NE BACHMAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M .A. degree in COMMUNICATION

Major professor

2-17-82

 

I
OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

199 A13?

 

 

 

 

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
AND
THE PREDISPOSITION T0 COMMUNICATE
AS DETERMINANTS OF
COORIENTATIONAL ACCURACY AND AGREEMENT
IN SUPERVISOR/SUBORDINATE DYADS

By

Susan Germaine Bachman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1981

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
AND
THE PREDISPOSITION T0 COMMUNICATE
AS DETERMINANTS OF

COORIENTATIONAL ACCURACY AND AGREEMENT
IN SUPERVISOR/SUBORDINATE DYADS

By

Susan Germaine Bachman

This research examined the communication behaviors of supervisors
and subordinates in a manufacturing firm. Outcomes of their com-
munication exchanges were evaluated in terms of the degree of coorien-
tational accuracy and agreement about the communication rules that
govern their behaviors.

It was predicted that accuracy and agreement would be a function
of the communicative competence and the predisposition to communicate
of both supervisor and subordinate.

Data were obtained from a large mid—western manufacturing firm.

One hundred and seven supervisor/subordinate dyads were surveyed. These
data related to the employees' background, their perceptions of their
dyadic communication, and predictions of their partner's perceptions

of their communication.

Using regression analysis and re-estimation procedures, the super—
visor's communicative competence was found to be the strongest predictor
of accuracy and agreement. When a supervisor is communicatively compe-
tent it can significantly impact how accurate the supervisor's predictions
are about the subordinate's attitudes, how accurate the subordinate's

predictions are about the supervisor's attitudes, and how much the two

 

 

Susan Germaine Bachman

of them agree on communication rules. Subordinates' communicative
competence was also a significant predictor of the subordinates'
accuracy in predicting the attitudes of the supervisor.

Other predicted relationships were not supported. Potential
factors which could have impacted the results are discussed. Sugges-
tions are made for future research in the area of supervisor/subordinate

relationships.

 

 

 

 

To

Connie and Barbra

to whom I owe so much.

ii

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the members of my committee, Peter R. Monge,
Gerald R. Miller, and R. Vincent Farace, for their suggestions
during this project. My chair, Peter R. Monge, deserves special
recognition for his assistance. Through countless drafts and data
analyses he was sometimes the only one with optimism.

I also wish to thank James Dillard, Eric Eisenberg and Michael

Atcovitz for their assistance.

m

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................ vii
CHAPTER I - Theoretical Context and Hypotheses ........ 1
Introduction ....................... l
The Effects of Role Behavior on Supervisor/

Subordinate Communication ............... 3

The Coorientation Model ................. 6
Accuracy ...................... 10

Agreement ...................... 11

The Object of Coorientation: Communication Rules . . 12
Determinants of Communication Accuracy and Agreement . . . 13
Predisposition to Communicate ............ 13
Communicative Competence .............. 15
Hypotheses ........................ 19
CHAPTER II — Research Methodology ............... 20
Sample .......................... 20

Data Collection ..................... 20
Variables ........................ 21
Operationalization of Variables ............. 21
Coorientation .................... 21
Description and prediction ........... 22

Focus of orientation .............. 23

Predisposition to Communicate ............ 23
Communicative Competence .............. 25
Computation of Accuracy and Agreement .......... 25
Computation of Accuracy ............... 26
Computation of Agreement .............. 28
Statistical Analysis ................... 29
CHAPTER III - Results ..................... 31
Characteristics of the Sample .............. 31
Preliminary Analyses ................... 31
Reliabilities .................... 31
Regression Analyses ................... 32
Supervisors' Accuracy ................ 33
Re-estimation of supervisors' accuracy ..... 35

iv

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
CHAPTER III — (Continued)
Subordinates' Accuracy ................ 36
Re-estimation of subordinates' accuracy ..... 38
Agreement ...................... 39
Re-estimation of agreement ........... 41
Confidence Intervals ................... 42
CHAPTER IV — Discussion .................... 45
Summary of Findings .................... 45
Interpretation ...................... 46
Problems in the Study ............... . . . . 48
Future Research ...................... 50
Summary . . ........................ 51
REFERENCES . .......................... 52
APPENDICES ........................... 59
Appendix A ........................ 59
Appendix B ........................ 62
Appendix C ........................ 63

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table Page
1 Confidence Interval for Each Significant Regression
Coefficient ...................... 43
2 Correlation Matrix of Predictor and Criterion
Variables ....................... 44
vi

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

EESEES Eggg
l Newcomb's AtoBreX system ............... 8
2 The coorientation model ............... 9
vii

  

 

 

CHAPTER I
THEORETICAL CONTEXT AND HYPOTHESES

Introduction

Communication processes in organizations have received
considerable attention by social scientists for the latter part of the
20th century (Jablin, 1979). Much of this attention has been directed
at supervisor/subordinate relationships because they are a structural
characteristic of all formal organizations. Farace, Monge, and Russell
(1977) call supervisor/subordinate dyads the ”fundamental units” of the
organization because they allow the organization to coordinate both its
people and its resources. They serve as the linking structure of the
hierarchy through which information is transferred.

The linking and coordinating functions of supervisor/subordinate
dyads are not only of scientific interest but of practical importance
to organizations as well. Both functions are accomplished through
communication and are dependent upon two factors. The first is the
accuracy with which information is transmitted and received, as
evidenced by the degree of understanding between people. The second is
agreement which is the degree of similarity of attitudes between two
people. Accuracy is obviously an essential aspect in the exchange of

organizational information. Likewise there must be agreement among

 

 

 

 

2

organizational members to establish organizational policies,
procedures, and operations.

Accuracy and agreement have also been found to be important
elements in understanding several aspects of organizational behavior.
These concepts have been studied in terms of their impact on role
ambiguity and stress (Hunt and Lichtman, 1970; Greene, 1972),
organizational climate (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoch, and Rosenthal, 1964;
Organ, 1974; Schneider, Parkington, and Buxton, 1980), and job
performance (Schuler, 1979; Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, and Couch,
1980). However, little formal research has been conducted to identify
the antecedent conditions necessary for accuracy and agreement to
occur.

The purpose of this study is, therefore, to identify possible
determinants of accuracy and agreement in supervisor/subordinate dyads.
Two communication variables were examined as determinants. One was the
general propensity of an individual to communicate. The other was the
general skill or competence of an individual at communicating.

The balance of this chapter is divided into three major sections.
The first looks at how role prescriptions of supervisors and
subordinates influence the way in which they communicate, and the
potential impact that role behavior can have on accuracy and agreement.
Next, a framework and a model for the study of accuracy and agreement
are presented. The last section is devoted to investigating the
relationship of the two predicted determinants to accuracy and

agreement in supervisor/subordinate dyads.

 

 

The Effects of Role Behavior on
Supervisor/Subordinate Communication

Role behavior is defined by Katz and Kahn (1978) as ”the recurring
actions of an individual, appropriately interrelated with the
repetitive activities of others, so as to yield a predictable outcome"
(p. 189). In other words, roles are expected patterns of behavior that
are associated with particular organizational positions.

Role behavior affects the way in which supervisors and sub—
ordinates communicate with each other. Katz and Kahn (1978) describe
five categories of supervisor communication (from the supervisor to the
subordinate): (a) job instruction, specific task directives, (b) job
rationale, information designed to produce understanding of the task
and its relationship to other organizational tasks, (c) information
about organizational procedures and practices, (d) feedback on perfor-
mance, and (e) indoctrination to the organization’s goals. Different
types of information are communicated by subordinates to their super—
visors. Katz and Kahn describe upward communication as one of four
types: (a) information about themselves, their performance, and their
problems, (b) information about their coworkers and their problems, (c)
information about organizational practices and policies, and (d)
information about organizational problems and how to solve them.

Because role behavior impacts communication processes, it
necessarily will also impact the extent to which accuracy and agreement
exist between dyadic partners. McLeod and Chaffee (1973) point out
that prior experience, differing purposes, and differing roles affect

how people perceive their situations. Therefore, it should not be

 

 

 

 

4

expected that perfect accuracy or agreement would ever exist between
supervisors and their subordinates (Chaffee and McLeod, 1973).

Even though perfect accuracy and agreement may not be possible,
distortion, inaccuracy, and disagreement have been identified as areas
of potential organizational problems. According to Roberts and
O'Reilly (1974) accuracy of communication is critical to organizational
effectiveness:

The extent to which accurate information is passed during

supervisor/subordinate interactions has implications not

only for the attitude and satisfaction of the sender and

receiver, but also for organizational decision—making,

performance, etc. (p. 205).

Boyd and Jensen (1972) link effective communication with managerial
success:

The degree of effective communication within a corporate

organization often has been tied to the degree of

managerial success of the organization. There appears to

be a direct relationship between these two phenomena, i.e.,

the better the communication between levels of management,

the greater the success of the organization in managing its

resources — both human and physical (p. 331).

Furthermore, Schuler (1979) argues that when communication is
ambiguous, organizational members cannot fulfill their role

requirements and the communication in which they engage becomes

dysfunctional.
Obviously, the need for effective communication in organizations

is widely accepted. However, recent research would indicate that both
inaccuracy and disagreement are quite prevalent in organizational
settings (Jablin, 1979). For example, in a study of 1000 manufacturing
firms, Boyd and Jensen (1972) found significant disagreement between
first-line supervisors and their subordinates about the limits of the

subordinates' authority. They conclude that either the supervisors do

 

 

 

5
not communicate the boundaries of authority effectively, or the

subordinates do not seek clarification from the supervisors when
directives are vague. Smircich and Chesser (1981) reported significant
differences between the supervisor's and the subordinate's perception
of the subordinate's job performance. ”Such differences signal
ineffective or incomplete communication" (p. 198), the authors
conclude.

In a study concerned with accuracy of perceptions about
communication behaviors, Webber (1979) found that supervisors and
subordinates differed significantly in their perceptions about the
amount of communication between them. He found that those who
initiated conversations, whether supervisors or subordinates, perceived
more interactions than their receivers. Those who received less
communication tended to exaggerate the time spent communicating, and
those who received more communications underestimated their
communication time. He concludes that supervisors and their
subordinates suffer from ”gross misperceptions and misunderstandings”
about their communication. Finally, in a study which focused on the
specific issues of communication accuracy and agreement between
supervisors and subordinates, Russell (1972) found 30% of the
supervisors and subordinates in an extension agency to be inaccurate in
their perceptions about the communication rules governing their
interactions.

In each of the above studies the researchers concluded that a lack
of effective communication contributed to the misperceptions that were
found. Such conclusions emphasize the need to understand the

communicationprocessesthat lead to accuracy and agreement among

 

 

 

6
organizational members. This study will, therefore, attempt to fill
this lacuna: to identify the determinants of accuracy and agreement in
supervisor/subordinate dyads.
In order to accomplish this objective a theoretical framework and
working model were needed. The next section describes the model which

was selected for this project.

The Coorientation Model

In this section the historical context of coorientation theory is
reviewed followed by an explication of the coorientation model which
was used in this study. Discussion of the model includes further
descriptions of accuracy, agreement, and the object of orientation.

In the 19505 and 19605 a group of theories emerged which have been
collectively labelled cognitive consistency theories. The most
influential of these were Heider's (1946) balance theory, Newcomb's
(1953) coorientation theory, Osgood and Tannenbaum's (1954) congruity
theory, and Festinger's (1957) dissonance theory. These theories have
in common two assumptions: first, that people strive to be in a state
of cognitive balance, or consistency, with regard to their attitudes,
feelings, and beliefs. The second assumption is that an imbalance in
these cognitions creates sufficient stress that persons will strive to
restore balance, often by changing their attitudes.

One of the cognitive consistency theories, coorientation theory,
focused in particular on the role of communication in achieving
cognitive balance. Newcomb (1953) introduced the concept of

coorientation which he defined as the simultaneous orientation of

 

 

 

Person A towards Person B and towards Object X. This AtoBreX system is
presented graphically in Figure 1.

The theory predicts that people will strive to be in a ”preferred
state of equilibrium”. This force is called the strain toward symmetry
and is a function of both the strength of A's attraction to B, and A's
attitude towards X. The major postulate of his theory is:

The stronger the forces toward A‘s coorientation in

respect to B and X, (a) the greater A's strain toward

symmetry with B in respect to X; and (b) the greater the

likelihood of increased symmetry as a consequence of one

or more communication acts“ (p. 396).

Newcomb's symmetry is similar to what has been defined as agreement in
this study.

A model of coorientation was later introduced by Chaffee and Mc-
Leod (1968) and Chaffee, McLeod, and Guerrero (1969, as cited in McLeod
and Chaffee, 1973). This model, although not a theory of coorienta—
tion, does provide additional perceptual comparisons. Newcomb's Ato-
BreX system addressed only one person's ”attraction“ toward another
person. The coorientation model, however, adds the prediction of the
other person's point of view. As Figure 2 illustrates, this expansion
provides for three comparisons to be made in the perceptions of Person
A and of Person B: accuracy, agreement, and congruence. Agreement is
the degree of similarity between the attitudes of the two people toward
Object X. For example, if Mary supports the passage of the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA) and so does her friend John, then they are in
agreement about the passage of the ERA. Accuracy is the degree of sim-
ilarity between one person's prediction about another's attitude or

behavior and the other person's actual attitude or behavior. For

example, if Mary predicts that John supports the passage of the ERA and

 

 

 

 

'Ih

Eopmzm xmcmop< m_nEouzwz .H wczmwd

m < oo coeuomepoa m_m w <
Aiilii

m 03 cowuoaeope m_<

 

 

   

 

vaos cowucwcwwcooo och .N wczmwd

i

m x op coepapcamzo m_< to apmewpma m_m <

zommma AmpuIIII1iiuIIIIIiI4Iiununluunllllluluulluullll. zommma

x o» cowpmwxmveo m_m to wmmswpmw m_<

 

x Homnmo

 

   

 

 

rt.

10

John does indeed favor its passage, then Mary demonstrates an accurate
perception of John's attitude. Congruence is perceived agreement, or
the similarity between A's orientation toward X and A's perception of
B's orientation toward X. The same situation holds for Person B only
with regard to B's orientation toward X and B's perception of A's
orientation toward X. Since the focus of this study is on dyadic
interactions, congruence was not adopted as one of the outcomes of

supervisor/subordinate relationships.

Accuracy

The importance of accuracy in organizations in commonly accepted.
For example, Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) state:
The extent to which accurate information is passed
during supervisor/subordinate interactions has impli—
cations not only for the attitude and satisfaction of
sender and receiver, but also for organizational decision-
making, performance, etc.
Schein (1965) also addresses the issue:
...every manager makes assumptions about people. Whether
he is aware of these assumptions or not, they operate as
a theory in terms of how he decides to deal with his

superiors, peers, and subordinates. His effectiveness
as a manager will depend upon the degree to which his

assum tions fit em irical realit . (emphasis by the

auTTEigY__—________J1‘_____T-’T"TTX

Wexley et al. (1980) cited several studies which demonstrate that
subordinates who were more accurate in their perceptions (more
"perceptually aware”) of their supervisor's work-related attitudes
received higher job performance evaluations, and were more satisfied
with their jobs and their supervisors. From their own research, Wexley
et al. (1980) conclude that accuracy is related to feelings of

interpersonal satisfaction.

 

   

 

 

11
Agreement

The extent to which agreement between supervisors and subordinates
affects their relationship has been of interest to several researchers
in recent years. Using the vertical linkage model (based on the
strength of the link between the supervisor and the subordinate) Graen
and Schiemann (1978) found that agreement between supervisors and
subordinates about job problems varies as a positive function of the
quality of their dyadic exchanges. They define quality as a continuum
of relationships ranging from a partnership, characterized by trust,
liking, and reciprocal influence, to overseer, characterized by
downward influence, and role—confined behaviors. They conclude that
only higher quality relationships (those that are more characteristic
of the partnership type) are positively related to both agreement and
to the amount of accurate information that is exchanged.

In the area of role ambiguity, Baird and Diebolt (1976) found that
when supervisors and subordinates were in agreement on the
subordinate's job requirements there was greater job satisfaction for
the subordinate. Their findings are consistent with Kahn et al. (1964)
who found that role ambiguity was correlated with low job satisfaction
and low confidence in the organization.

In the area of job performance Wexley et al.(1980) found that
agreement (their ”perceptual congruence") between supervisors and
subordinates leads to higher performance evaluations of the subordinate
and greater job satisfaction for the subordinate.

In order to apply the coorientation model to the study of
supervisor/subordinate communication it was necessary to define an

object of orientation. Although there were several options from which

 

 

 

 

12
to choose, it was decided to focus on the communication process

itself. The next section looks at this in more detail.

The Object of Coorientation: Communication Rules

”All organizations inevitably will develop a set of norms and
rules about who will have responsibility for various activities, who
will report to whom, who will coordinate and control other's perfor-
mance, and so on” (Russell, 1972b, p. 10). Organizational members
enact these rules by communicating, a process which is also governed by
rules. Communication rules deal specifically with how people interact
and what they talk about. Cushman and Whiting (1972) distinguish
between these two functions by identifying procedural rule , those
which govern the ways people interact, and content rules, the
subject matter of the communication. Procedural rules influence such
activities as how frequently supervisors and subordinates communicate,
and who initiates or ends meetings. Content rules on the other hand,
regulate such things as the appropriateness of discussing personal
matters with one's supervisor or subordinate. Because communication
rules regulate most interactions among people (Cushman and Whiting,
1972), they should be particularly evident to supervisors and sub-
ordinates who typically communicate on a regular and frequent basis.

Some communication rules are formally sanctioned by the
organization as written policies and procedures, but there are many
others which develop out of the interactions of the individuals as they
perform their jobs. These less formal rules are often thought of as
”learning the ropes“ about what are acceptable communication behaviors

within particular role expectations. Both types of rules should be

 

   

 

 

13
salient to organizational members. Communication rules have been used

as the object of orientation (Russell, 1972a) which lends support to
the plausibility of their use in this study.

Furthermore, accuracy and agreement about communication rules has
practical importance to organizations because they can be the source of
serious problems. For example, if a supervisor expects the subordinate
to report potential problems and the subordinate is waiting for the
supervisor to ask, the relationship is likely to be quite
dysfunctional. Given this context, it is proposed that procedural and
content aspects of communication are relevant and appropriate foci for

supervisor/subordinate orientation.

Determinants of Communication Accuracy and Agreement

In this section two communication variables will be examined as
predictors of accuracy and agreement in supervisor/subordinate dyads.
These variables are the predisposition to communicate and communicative

competence. Definitions are offered and the relevant literature

reviewed.

Predisposition to Communicate

People who like to engage in conversations frequently and actively
participate in maintaining those conversations can be described as
predisposed to communicate. They like to talk and do so frequently.

Much of the earlier research on the predisposition to communicate
or talkativeness looked at its effect on small group behavior.

Talkativeness was generally thought of as a personality variable which

 

 

 

14
was found to have a strong influence on the perceptions of other

individual characteristics. For example, Norfleet (1948) reported that
the more a person participated in group discussions, the more
productive he/she was perceived to be by others. French (1950) found
that the amount of talkativeness was positively related to perceptions
of leadership. Talkative people are also seen as more likeable (Bales,
1956; Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross and Kite, 1965), and more socially adept
(Phillips, 1965; 1968). Riecken (1958) reported talkative people were
more successful at having their ideas adopted in group situations.

More recently, Daly, McCroskey, and Falcione (1976) found that
subordinates did not like supervisors who were apprehensive about
communicating. These studies indicate the potential impact that being
predisposed to communicate can have on the perceptions of others.

A basic premise in the prediction of accuracy and agreement is
that the more often people talk, the more opportunity they will have to
reach perceptual accuracy and agreement about various communication
rules. Chaffee and McLeod (1968) state:

The more two people coorient by communicating their

values to one another, the more accurate their perceptions

of one another's values should become (p. 663).

In Newcomb's (1961) oft-cited dormitory studies, it was observed
that higher frequencies of communication resulted in greater accuracy
(Newcomb used the term understanding). Other investigators (Pavitt and
Cappella, 1979; Powell and O’Neil, 1976; Wackman, 1973) reported
similar findings. Stamm and Pearce (1974) found that when people
realized they were inaccurate in their perceptions, they increased

their communication in order to reduce the inaccuracy. These findings

suggest that the more the supervisor and the subordinate realize their

 

 

 

 

15
differences, the more they will communicate in hope of increasing their
level of accuracy.

Focusing on the frequency of communication, Baird and Diebolt
(1976) found that frequency of communication was positively correlated
to job satisfaction, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction
with the organization. These findings are consistent with others who
have found that satisfaction is positively related to frequency of
communication in small groups (Cohen, 1961; Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross and
Kite, 1965).

In summary, people who are predisposed to communicate will likely
be perceived as leaders, productive, and well-liked. As supervisors,
these people will probably have a positive effect on their
subordinates' job satisfaction and satisfaction with their supervisor.
Furthermore, the more the supervisor and subordinate communicate the
more opportunity they will have to reach agreement and predictive

accuracy.

Communicative Competence

The other predictor variable was communicative competence.
Communicative competence is the ability of an individual to speak
effectively and to listen attentively.

Although small group research laid the groundwork for looking at
predisposition to communicate as an organizational communication
variable, much less is available about communicative competence in the
workplace. At best, there have been studies which have asked if a
particular person was an ”effective” or a "good” communicator. Even

using such limited approaches, several researchers have found that

 

   

 

 

 

16
communicative competence is an important factor in formal organizations
(Level and Johnson, 1978; Ponder, 1959; Webber, 1970; White, 1972).

Far more research on competence has been done in the area of
social psychology where the emphasis was on identifying those behaviors
which would be important in developing interpersonal and social
relationships. In the 1960s and 19705 several definitions were
developed. Most of them stressed a common theme: competent people are
those who are successful at achieving their goals by controlling the
situation or affecting the behavior of others (Parks, 1977). For
example, Weinstein (1969) stated that competent behavior was the
ability to manipulate the responses of others, and White (1959) called
it the ability to produce the intended effect. Bochner and Kelly
(1974), on the other hand, took an interaction approach to competent
behavior by defining it as not only the ability to formulate and
achieve objectives, but the ability to be behaviorally flexible in
terms of collaborating effectively with others and adapting
appropriately to the situation. In contrast to the control approaches,
Argyris (1965) presented an empathetic definition by identifying the
following characteristics of an interpersonally competent individual:
being open, concerned for others, trusting, owning up to one's
behavior, and willing to take risks.

Attempts at defining communicative competence bear close
resemblance to the social and interpersonal definitions of competence.
For example, Feingold's (1976) model is a set of five behaviors which
are characteristic of an effective communicator: saying the right
thing at the right time, being easy to talk to, adapting one's

communication to others, being aware of the effects of one's

 

 

17
communication on others, and revealing something about one's feelings.
Wiemann's (1977) model of communicative competence identified similar
behaviors: behavioral flexibility, empathy, affiliation/support,
social relaxation, and interaction management.

An exception to the interpersonal and social approach to
competence is the work of Cushman and Craig (1976). They
conceptualized competence in terms of specific communication behaviors.
They are: (a) listening, the ability to recognize different types of
statements and the respective self-object relationships which they
designate; (b) ggejgg, the ability to translate our own relationship
to objects into the vocabularies of others; and (c) negotiating, the
ability to recognize positions of others, cue others to our position
and develop appropriate strategies for reconciling differences in our
expectations toward situations.

For the work environment, Farace, Taylor, and Stewart (1978)
defined communicative competence as:

...a collection of specific skills dealing with an

individual's ability to encode and decode, seek infor-

mation and otherwise engage in communication activities

within an organization.... At an operational level

competence involves writing skills, speaking skills,

listening skills, information acquisition skills, the

ability to organize information, etc. (p. 13).

In line with this reasoning, Monge, Bachman, Dillard, and
Eisenberg (1981) developed a measure of communicative competence for
the work environment which focuses on the encoding (writing and

speaking) and the decoding (listening) skills of the communicator. It

is this scale that was used in the project.

It is predicted that communicative competence will be causally

related to the levels of accuracy and agreement in

 

 

18
supervisor/subordinate relationships. Although there have been no

direct empirical tests of this relationship, there are several related
studies which lend support. Wexley et al. (1980) for example,
conclude that accuracy of perceptions "is a function of the
sensitivity of the receiver and the consistency and openness of the
sender, all of which contribute to interpersonal satisfaction.” This
sending and receiving of messages is similar to the concepts of
encoding and decoding of Cushman and Craig (1976), and Farace et al.
(1978). In addition, Wexley et al. (1980) argue that agreement (their
"mutual congruence“) can be considered a form (or outcome) of accurate
communication which is dependent upon the skills of the sender and
receiver as described above.

Level and Johnson (1978) suggest that one factor in reducing
distortion of upward communication (from the subordinate to the
supervisor) is to increase the accuracy with which supervisors transmit
information downward to their subordinates. This implies that the
supervisor needs to be a competent communicator in order to be an
effective manager. Likewise, Ponder (1959), Heizer (1972), Sank
(1974), and White (1972) have found that supervisors are more effective
if they are good communicators.

Based on a review of the research on leadership behavior
(specifically the Ohio State University studies, [Fleishman, 1957;
Fleishman, Harris and Burtt, 1957; Halpin, 1957] on ”initiating
structure” and ”consideration“), Jablin (1979) proposes that good
communicators can be more autocratic and demanding than poor

communicators and still be effective leaders.

 

 

 

19

The above research suggests that the more competent a person is at

communicating, the greater the likelihood of achieving both their own

and the organization's goals because of increased accuracy and

agreement.

Hypotheses

The previous discussion forms the basis for the following
hypotheses. It is predicted that both the predisposition to
communicate and communicative competence are causally related to
accuracy and agreement in supervisor/subordinate relationships.
Specifically the following hypothesis is made:

H .

1. For both supervisors and subordinates, accuracy and

agreement about communication rules will be positively
related to the communicative commpetence and predis—

position to communicate of one another.

If both communication variables are expected to increase the levels of

accuracy and agreement in supervisor/subordinate dyads, then it would

be expected that an even stronger relationship would be found with

accuracy and agreement if an individual possessed both characteristics.

This reasoning provides the basis for the second hypothesis in this

study.

H : For both supervisors and subordinates, accuracy and

2
agreement about communication rules will be greater
when either of the actors are both communicatively

competent and predisposed to communicate.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Sample

The data described were collected in conjunction with a larger
study (Monge, Bachman, Dillard, Eisenberg, in preparation). The sample
consisted of 220 personnel from the production department of a large
midwestern manufacturing plant. This sample was the entire salaried
staff of the department from all three shifts of the 24—hour work
cycle. From the 220 persons surveyed, 198 supervisor-subordinate dyads

1

were formed, 107 were used for this study. All the supervisors in

the study had at least two and some as many as seven subordinates.

Data Collection

The data were collected over a three day period during March 1980.
In order to pair the responses of supervisors and subordinates while
maintaining their anonymity, the participants selected a random number

from a box of numbers as they entered the data collection room. Each

1The coorientation section of the questionnaire contained four mis-

worded items. In the section of the questionnaire where supervisors
predicted subordinates' behavior, questions 11, 12, and 17 contained
the word supervisor instead of the word subordinate. In the section
where subordinates predicted supervisors' behavior, question 17
contained the word subordinate instead of the word supervisor. This
created a loss of 91 cases from the sample.

20

 

   

 

21

person recorded both their number and their dyadic partner's number on
their own questionnaire and then moved to different areas of the room
to complete the questionnaire. The completed questionnaire could then
be matched by matching the numbers. Since entire units could not be
removed from the work areas for surveying at one time, supervisors with
more than one subordinate were usually required to return a second or

third time to the data collection room.

Variables

The dependent variables for this study are measures of similarity
of orientation towards procedural communication rules. These measures
are the level of agreement between supervisors and their subordinates,
the supervisor's accuracy in predicting his or her subordinate's
attitude or views, and the subordinate's accuracy in predicting his or
her supervisor's attitude or views.

The independent variables are the individual's self-report of his
or her own predisposition to communicate, the supervisor's perception
of the subordinate's communicative competence, and the subordinate‘s

perception of the supervisor's communicative competence.

Operationalization of Variables

Coorientation
The coorientation items were adapted from the set of procedural
communication rules presented in Farace, Monge, and Russell (1977).

The authors describe a set of procedural rules which were likely to

 

   

 

 

22

govern the interaction behaviors of supervisors and their subordinates.
The nine communication rules selected were:

1. Who initiates meetings.

2. Who ends discussions.

Who changes the topic of conversation.

#00

When meetings are interrupted, for whom are they looking.
5. Who decides what topics will be discussed.

6. Who dominates the conversation in terms of amount of talk.
7. Are personal matters discussed and how often.

8. Are new ideas discussed and how often.

9. Are work related matters discussed and how often.

The nine rules were the basis for the coorientation items used in this

study.
Description and prediction. The first nine items were

descriptive questions asking the respondent to provide his/her view of
the situation. There was one question about each of the nine rules
listed above. The second set of coorientation items were prediction
questions, requiring the respondent to predict how his/her supervisor
or subordinate would respond to the question posed. Again, there was
one question about each of the nine rules listed above. The two sets
of questions differed in only one respect. In the second group of
questions the phrase "would he or she say” was included to solicit the
prediction of the partner's response. An example of the differences
between the first nine items and the last nine items follows. One of
the questions from the first set read ”What percentage of the meetings
that you have had with your supervisor (subordinate) have ypg

initiated?” In the second set the same question read ”What percentage

 

 

 

 

23

of the meetings that you have had with your supervisor (subordinate)
would he or she say that ypg have initiated?”

Focus of orientation. The next concern in constructing the
questionnaire was to avoid a response set bias toward one object of
orientation. A balance was created between an orientation of self,
other, and object by wording three of the nine items in each set to
correspond with each of the three foci. The first three items were
focused on the respondent's own behavior (see the example in the
previous paragraph). The next three items focused on the partner's
behavior. For example, ”What percentage of the time did ypgp
supervisor (subordinate) decide what topics would be discussed?” The
last three questions were oriented toward the object. They asked for
views on the interaction between the supervisor and subordinate rather
than on either of their individual behaviors.

The questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.2 The actual

calculation of accuracy and agreement is presented later.

Predisposition to Communicate

The predisposition to communicate was measured by adopting three
items from the Predisposition toward Verbal Behavior (PVB) instrument
(Mortensen and Arntson, 1974; Mortensen, Arntson, and Lustig, 1977).
This instrument was selected because it has been shown to have a high

correspondence between self-reports of verbal behavior and reports of

2The questionnaire that appears in Appendix A is for a person who is
responding as a supervisor. The subordinate questionnaire had
exactly the same format except that the word supervisor was used
instead of subordinate in each of the items.

 

 

 

 

24
actual behavior. They found a significant main effect for each of the
variables measured: duration, number of words perceived, under-
standing, and perceived participation. It also has the advantage of
being a self-report measure, thereby avoiding the effects of liking or
disliking the person being evaluated. As Hayes and Meltzer (1972)
point out, people tend to underestimate the amount of vocalization from
people they like and exaggerate the amount for those they dislike.

Mortensen and Arntson (1974) reported a Hoyt Reliability
Coefficient of .90 for the PVB instrument and a test-retest Pearson
correlation coefficient of .91. In the study by Mortensen et al.
(1977), the Hoyt Reliability Coefficient was .89 and the test-retest
Pearson correlation coefficient was .91. Five factors emerged when a
principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was done.
The factors and the amount of explained variance (in parentheses) are
as follows: dominating communication situation (15.3%), initiating and
maintaining communication (13.5%), amount of communication (9.6%),
general disinclination to communicate (9.4%), and perceived fluency or
speech anxiety (8.5%). The five factors accounted for 56.2% of the
total variance.

The PVB instrument consists of 25 Likert-type questions. Since
the predisposition to communicate focuses on the frequency of engaging
in conversations with others and actively maintaining those
conversations, only three items were selected from the scale. These
items all came from the second strongest factor, initiating and
maintaining communication. Each of the three items selected had the

highest factor loadings on this factor, ranging from .59 to .75, with

 

 

 

25

less than .25 loadings on all other factors. The questionnaire that

was used in the study appears in Appendix B.

Communicative Competence

Most measures of communicative competence are intended for social
and interpersonal situations. One scale, developed by Monge, Bachman,
Dillard, and Eisenberg (1981), was designed specifically for the work
environment. It is this scale that was used in the study.

Monge et al. (1981) tested the scale by using a confirmatory
factor analysis procedure with the statistical program LISREL IV
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1977). The hypothesized highly correlated two
factor structure of encoding and decoding was confirmed according to
the criteria for determining best-fitting models (Wheaton, Muthen,
Alwin and Summers, 1977). Internal consistency measures produced
Cronbach alphas of .87 for encoding and .85 for decoding for one group
in the study, and .85 and .81 for the other group. Considering that
encoding factor consisted of five items and the decoding factor was
seven items, these reliabilities are good.

Since the present study was interested in the overall
communicative ability of the participants, the scale was used as one
factor. This is an acceptable procedure because of the high

intercorrelations between the factors (r = .77 and r = .51).

Computation of Accuracy and Agreement

In this section the procedures for computing accuracy and

agreement are described. The procedure used for calculating these

 

 

 

26
scores was the difference score method developed by Cronbach and
Glesser (1953). The difference score, D, is the square root of the sum
of squared difference scores. This method has been used by others who
have been interested in perceptual comparisons in organizational

settings (Parkington and Schneider, 1979; Wexley, et al., 1980).

Computation of Accuracy

The scores for subordinate accuracy were calculated by comparing
subordinate's prediction of the supervisor's response to the
supervisor's actual response. For example, subordinates were asked
”What percentage of the meetings that you have had with your supervisor
would he or she say that you have initiated?“ This response was then
compared to the supervisor's question: ”What percentage of the
meetings that you have had with your subordinate have you initiated?”
Perfect accuracy exists when the supervisor's description and the
subordinate's prediction sum to 100. For example, if the supervisor
response is 40, the prediction by the subordinate for perfect accuracy
would be 60.

The formula for computing accuracy scores for the subordinate was:

2 2

D = ((lOO-Y) - X)

where: X supervisor's response
Y = subordinate's response

In the above example the accuracy for the subordinate would be:

 

 

 

27
o = ((100-Y) - x)2

D2 = ((100—60) - 40)2
D2 = (40 - 40)2

p2 = 0

D = 0

The above formula was used to calculate the first six coorientation
items where Person A (or B) is asked to predict how Person B (or A)
will describe either his or her own behavior, or the behavior of the
other. The last three coorientation items weredescriptions about the
amount of time spent discussing various topics. This required a
different computational formula because for perfect accuracy to exist
the responses should be the same. The formula for these items is:

2 )2

D = (Y-X

supervisor's response

where: X
Y = subordinate's response
Perfect accuracy exists when both persons respond the same. An example

of a perfect accuracy response exists when each responds “40“.

DZ = (Y—x)2

02 = (40 — 40)2
D2 = 0

D = 0

The scores for each item were then summed (sum of square
differences) and then for ease of handling, the square root was taken.
The resultant D-score is the subordinate's accuracy score.

Supervisor's accuracy was calculated in the same way using the

same questions except that the supervisor's prediction of subordinate's

 

   

 

28
response was compared to subordinate's actual response. The formula

for the first six items was:
02 = (x - (100 — Y))2
where: X = supervisor's prediction
Y = subordinate's response
The last three items in the scale were calculated as follows:
02 = (x — Y)2
where: X = supervisor's response

Y = subordinate's response

Computation of Agreement

To calculate agreement, the supervisor's response to each item was
compared to his or her subordinate's response to the corresponding
item. For example, supervisors were asked "What percentage of the time
will your subordinate say that he or she decided what topics would be
discussed?" Their subordinates were asked the same question in the
following way: “What percentage of the time did your supervisor decide
what topics would be discussed?” Perfect agreement would exist if the
responses were complimentary. In other words, if the supervisor said
20%, then the subordinate would have to say 80% for perfect agreement
to exist.

Agreement scores for each of the first six coorientation items
were calculated according to the following formula:

02 = ((100 - x) — Y)2

where: X = supervisor's response

..<
ll

subordinate's response

 

   

 

29
In perfect agreement 0 is equal to zero. Calculating the above

example:

02 ((100 - x) - Y)2

2

C)
II

((100 - 20) — 80)

D2 (80 - 80)2

D = O
D = 0
The last three items in the scale were calculated as follows:
02 = (x - Y)2
where: X = supervisor's response

Y = subordinate's response

In order for perfect agreement to exist both persons would have to give
the same response.

Using these formulae, agreement and accuracy scores were
determined for each of the following:

1. agreement on communication rules,

2. supervisor accuracy in predicting subordinate's response to

communication rules,
3. subordinate's accuracy in predicting supervisor's response to

communication rules.

Statistical Analysis

Multiple regression was used to analyze the data using step-wise
(forward) inclusion of the predictor variables so that they entered
according to their respective contributions to the amount of explained

variance. The direction and magnitude of the relationships between the

 

 

 

30
variables can be determined from the regression coefficients. The

interaction effects were tested by entering each of the interaction
terms into the equation as another variable. The interaction terms
were constrained to enter last according to the procedures outlined by
Cohen and Cohen (1975).

Preliminary regression analyses were performed so that
scatterplots of the residuals for each equation could be analyzed. The
importance of studying residual scatterplots is explained by Anscombe
(1973):

If an observation with an outlying x-value were affected

by some special circumstances not common to other obser-

vations, our fitted regressions might be misleading. Often

the y—value responding to an outlying x-value could be

altered considerably without much effect on the goodness

of the fit of the regression relation but with marked effect

on the estimation itself. We are usually happier about

asserting a regression relation if the relationship is still

apparent after a few observations have been deleted--that is,

we are happier if the regression relation seems to permeate

all the observations and does not derive largely from one or

two (p. 18).

Positive relationships were predicted between the predictor and
criterion variables. Such relationships will be supported if the
regression coefficients are negative. This situation exists because
higher levels of accuracy and agreement are characterized by
decreasing scores, where perfect accuracy and agreement have scores
of zero. An alpha level of .05 was established as the decision rule

for statistical significance.

 

 

CHAPTER III
RESULTS

Characteristics of the Sample

All the respondents except one were male. The average age from
the 198 dyads was 42, and the average years of education was 13.5.
These employees had been with the plant on the average of 19 years, and
in their present job eight years. Supervisors and subordinates
reported knowing each other an average of 11 years. They had been in a

supervisor/subordinate relationship with each other about three years.

Preliminary Analyses

Reliabilities

Before the regression analyses were performed, reliabilities were
calculated for each of the variables. Since supervisors' and
subordinates' data were analyzed separately for the predictor
variables, coefficient alphas (Cronbach, 1951) were calculated for both
groups. The reliability of predisposition to conmunicate for
supervisors was a = .69, and for subordinates q = .71. Since the
scale contained only three items these reliabilities are acceptable

although not as high as would be desired for a strong predictor. The

31

 

 

32

communicative competence scale was reliable at a = .92 for supervisors
and a = .89 for subordinates.

Although the accuracy and agreement measures represented nine
situations to which the participants would orient, these measures were
also tested for internal consistency. Coefficient alphas were:
agreement a = .42, supervisor accuracy a = .46, and subordinate
accuracy a = .36. These reliabilities are low and are evidence that

the nine situations do not form a unidimensional scale.

Regression Analyses

The following is the general regression equation used for all
three analyses. The standard errors of the estimates are presented in
the parentheses below each of the regression coefficients.

Y1 = 0' + 8le + 82X2 + B3X3 + 84X4 + 85X5 + B6X6

)(s8)( )(s8> (s

(5.) (s s
B 2 B3 4 B5

0.

l

where: a specific criterion variable

-<)
—1-
ll

Y1 = supervisors' accuracy

-<>
ll

2 subordinates' accuracy

-<>
ll

3 agreement

X — X = the predictor variables

6
1 supervisor's communicative competence

X X
H II

2 subordinates' communicative competence

supervisors' predisposition to communicate

X
(A)
II

X4 = subordinates' predisposition to communicate

 

 

 

32

communicative competence scale was reliable at a = .92 for supervisors
and a = .89 for subordinates.

Although the accuracy and agreement measures represented nine
situations to which the participants would orient, these measures were
also tested for internal consistency. Coefficient alphas were:
agreement a = .42, supervisor accuracy q = .46, and subordinate
accuracy a = .36. These reliabilities are low and are evidence that

the nine situations do not form a unidimensional scale.

Regression Analyses

The following is the general regression equation used for all
three analyses. The standard errors of the estimates are presented in
the parentheses below each of the regression coefficients.

Y1 = 0' + 31"] + Bzxz + B3X3 + B4X4 + B5X5 + B6X6

)(58) (s ) (s

)
4 B5 86

where: a specific criterion variable

_<
—I-
ll

Y = supervisors' accuracy

-<>
ll

2 subordinates' accuracy

-<>
ll

3 agreement

X - X = the predictor variables

6
X1 = supervisor's communicative competence

X2 = subordinates' communicative competence

><
ll

3 supervisors' predisposition to communicate

X4 = subordinates' predisposition to communicate

 

 

33

X5 = interaction term: supervisors' competence
with predisposition
X6 = interaction term: subordinates' competence

with predisposition

Supervisors' Accuracy

The six predictors of supervisors' accuracy produced a significant
overall F statistic for the equation, £'(6,100) = 2.95, p < .011.

The interaction effect (X5) for supervisors' communicative
competence with supervisors' predisposition to communicate was
significant, f'(5,101) = 4.68, p < .033. The regression coefficient was
in the predicted direction (inverse which indicates a positive
relationship as explained earlier) which supports Hypothesis 2. The
amount of unique variance accounted for by the interaction tenm was 4%.
Tie standard error was approximately half the size of the regression
coefficient.

Supervisors' communicative competence (X1) was also significant
F (1,105) = 10.06, p < .002. The amount of variance accounted for by
this variable was 9%. The standard error was higher, about
three-fourths the size of the coefficient. However, supervisors'
communicative competence is one of the variables in the significant
interaction term which prohibits any independent interpretation of
supervisors' communicative competence as a predictor.

No other predictors were significant.

The residual scatterplots for supervisors' accuracy appeared to be

randomly distributed about the mean of zero. Of the 107

 

 

34

cases plotted, 46 had positive values and 61 had negative values, a
moderately even distribution of the errors. The Durbin-Watson test was
1.91, indicating no autocorrelation in the data. The results of this
regression analysis were, therefore, accepted as the best possible
for the data.

The regression equation for supervisors' accuracy was:

A

Y = —31.54 + 1.41X - .0002X + 10.59X3 + 2.37X4 - .15X5 - .03X6

1 1 2
(98.18) (.98) (1.31) (4.97) (5.54) (.07) (.09)
R2 = .15%
where: Y1 = supervisors' accuracy
X1 = supervisors' communicative competence

X2 = subordinates' communicative competence

X3 = supervisors' predisposition to communicate
X4 = subordinates' predisposition to communicate
X5 = interaction: supervisors' competence with

predisposition

— interaction: subordinates' competence with

X
0‘
l

predisposition
Because only two of the predictors were significant and their
standard errors were quite large, the equation was re-estimated
excluding all non-significant variables. When non-significant
variables are deleted from the regression equation, the variance of the
non-significant variables is pooled with the error variance. This
affects the size of the regression coefficients. Although it is best

to do re-estimation on another data set, reanalyzing the same data when

 

 

35

several deletions are made can produce better estimates of the

significant predictors (Monge, 1980).

Re-estimation of Supervisors' Accuracy. The results for

supervisors' accuracy was re-estimated using the two significant pre-
dictors: supervisors' communicative competence, and supervisors'
interaction term. Only supervisors' communicative competence (X1) re-
mained significant in the reanalysis, accounting for 9% of the variance
Supervisor's interaction term failed to reach significance F(2,102)

= 4.99, p < .906, which vitiates prior support for Hypothesis 2.

The regression coefficient of the communicative competence vari-
able and its standard error changed dramatically. The coefficient was
+1.41 with a standard error of .98 in the original analysis. The re-
estimated values were -.68 for the coefficient with a standard error of
.25. The reduction in the error of the estimate from 70% to 35% the
size of the coefficient indicates a more stable and hence better esti-
mate of the coefficient. In addition, since the sign of the coeffi-
cient changed to the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1, this
hypothesis is now supported.

The regression equation for the re-estimation of supervisors'

accuracy was:

Y1= 122.38 - .68X1 + .OOlX5 R

(14.08) (.25) (.Ol)

2:97.

where: 1 = supervisors' accuracy

i

X1 = supervisors' communicative competence

X5 = interaction: supervisors' competence with
predisposition

 

 

 

36

Subordinates' Accuracy

The equation for subordinates' accuracy was not significant.
Examination of the scatterplot of the residuals displayed five outliers
with extreme values. The remaining values appeared to be randomly
distributed about the mean of zero and lie within two standard
deviations of the mean (raw score values ranged from -45 to +80). The
outliers, however, had raw score values of no less than 900, placing
them well beyond two standard deviations of the mean. Such differences
are specific errors and as such warrant deletion (Anscombe, 1973;
Barnett and Lewis, 1978). Barnett and Lewis (1978) argue that when
outliers arise from specific errors, that their detection and
rejection aid in the study of the basic model. ”We can better assess
its (the model's) fit; we may be better able to estimate relevant
parameters.”

To identify the cases, a second scatterplot was run by case order.
One of the outliers was automatically removed by the listwise deletion
for missing cases option in the regression analysis that produced the
second scatterplot. The remaining four outliers were identified and
specifically deleted from the regression analysis reported below.

The equation for subordinates' accuracy, excluding the five
outliers, was significant, F (6,100) = 2.69, p < .019, with 14% of the
variance explained by the six predictors.

Supervisors' competence (X1) was significant, F (1,105) = 6.15,

p < .015, accounting for 6% of the variance. The standard error of the
estimate was very large, however, approximately three times larger than

the coefficient. In addition, the sign of the coefficient was in the

 

 

 

 

37
opposite direction from that which was predicted. This result does not
support Hypothesis 1.

Subordinates' communicative competence (X2) was also significant,
F (3,103) = 4.06, p < .05, adding an additional 4% to the variance
explained. In this case, however, the direction of the relationship
was as predicted, supporting Hypothesis 1. This finding is tempered by
the fact that the standard error of the estimate was large,
approximately equal in size to the coefficient.

The scatterplot of the residuals was scanned for possible patterns
in the data. The plotted values appeared to be randomly distributed
about the mean of zero with three values falling outside two standard
deviations of the mean. Distribution of positive to negative values
was fairly even, 48 to 55. The Durbin-Watson test was 1.78, indicating
no significant autocorrelation in the data.

The estimated regression equation for subordinates' accuracy was:

A

Y2 = 92.75 + .32X1 + 4.87X3 — 1.09X2 - 1.99X4 — .05X5 + .O5X6
(81.29) (.83) (4.2l) (1.10) (4.64) (.06) (.07)
R2 = 14%
where: Y2 = estimated value of subordinates' accuracy
X1 = supervisors' communicative competence
X3 = supervisors' predisposition to communicate
X2 = subordinates' communicative competence
X4 = subordinates' predisposition to communicate
X5 = interaction: supervisors' competence with

predisposition

X
I

6 — interaction: subordinates' competence with

predisposition

 

 

 

38
Because of the large standard errors of the estimated

coefficients, and the non-significant variables, the equation was
re-estimated using only those variables which were significant or
approached significance. Therefore, supervisors' communicative
competence, subordinates' communicative competence, and supervisors'
predisposition to communicate were used as predictors in the
re-estimation of subordinates' accuracy. The results are reported
below.

Re-estimation of subordinates' accuracy. The results of the
re—estimation were substantially different from the initial analysis.
The significance levels of the three predictors remained the same, but
the regression coefficients changed dramatically. The sign of the
coefficient for supervisors' communicative competence changed to the
direction predicted with the standard error dropping from almost three
times larger than the coefficient to only one third the size of the
coefficient. This drop in the size of the standard error produces a
much more stable estimate of the relationship. Furthermore, Hypothesis
1 is now supported.

The sign of the regression coefficient for subordinates'
communicative competence remained in the hypothesized direction while
the standard error dropped substantially (from approximately equal in
size with the coefficient to approximately one half). This change
strengthens subordinates' communicative competence as a predictor of
subordinates' accuracy which also supports Hypothesis 1.

The total amount of variance accounted for dropped to 12% due to

the exclusion of the three other variables.

 

 

 

39

The equation for subordinates' accuracy was:
. 2

Y2 = 106.47 - .36X1 + 1.34X3 — .43X2 R = 12%
(16.31) (.18) (.59) (.21)
where: Y2 = estimated value of subordinates' accuracy

><
ll

1 supervisors' communicative competence

><
ll

3 supervisors' predisposition to communicate

- subordinates' communicative competence

X
N
I

Agreement

The scatterplot for agreement identified one outlier. Again the
majority of the residuals fell within the range of two standard
deviations from the mean (raw score values ranging from about +75 to
-45). There was one case that had a residual value greater than two
standard deviations (raw score of about 100). To identify this case, a
second scatterplot was made using a case order listing. This produced
an interesting result. Three additional cases were identified as
falling outside two standard deviations of the mean. A look at the
original scatterplot revealed that these three additional cases formed
a small cluster at -45. The next closest value was about 30. This
difference was apparently sufficient to make them outliers.

Since the additional three cases were not very different from the
majority of the values, the raw data for the four outliers were
examined for extreme patterns. The scanning revealed that only one of
the cases was consistently extreme in its scores. Specifically, on all
but two of the 18 coorientation items, the respondent had answered 10,

indicating a response set bias. As a result, only this one case was

 

 

40

considered a true outlier and it was deleted from the regression
analysis that is reported below.

Agreement was tested for significance excluding the one outlier.

The equation was significant, F (6,100) = 3.10, p < .019, accounting for 11%
of the variance. There were two significant predictors in the
equation. Supervisors' interaction (X5) was significant, F (4,102) =

4.06, p < .05, adding 4% unique variance to the equation. The sign of the
coefficient was in the direction predicted which supports Hypothesis 2.

The standard error was acceptable at approximately half the size of

the coefficient.

Supervisors' communicative competence (X1) was significant, F
(1,105) = 6.55, p < .012, accounting for 6% of the variance. The sign of
the coefficient was, however, in the opposite direction from that
predicted. The standard error of the estimate was approximately half
the size of the coefficient. Again, since supervisors' communicative
competence was one of the variables in the significant interaction
term, no interpretation of its independent effects on the criterion can
be made.

No other predictors were significant. In fact, two of the
predictors, subordinates' communicative competence and subordinates'
interaction term, failed to meet the minimum inclusion requirement of
explaining .1% of the variance.

The residual scatterplot produced no discernable pattern, with the
positive to negative values fairly evenly distributed, 49 to 54. The
Durbin-Watson test was 2.17, showing no significant autocorrelation in

the data.

 

 

 

41

The estimated regression equation for agreement was:

. _ 2 _ 0
(63.75) (.92) (4.65) (.71) (.07)
where: Y3 = estimated value of agreement
X1 = supervisors' communicative competence

><
ll

3 supervisors' predisposition to communicate

><
ll

4 subordinates' predisposition to communicate

><
ll

5 interaction: supervisors' competence with
predisposition
Re-estimation of agreement. Agreement was re-estimated using the
two significant predictors. Only supervisors' communicative competence
was significant, F (1,101) = 6.55, p < .012, accounting for 6% of the
variance. The sign of the coefficient changed to be in the direction

predicted by Hypothesis 1. The standard error dropped drastically from

1.29, o = .92) to one

three—fourths the size of the coefficient (8 E

third the size of the new coefficient, (8 =-.64, 08 = .24). The results
not only support Hypothesis 1 but the size of the standard error makes
the prediction relatively stable.

The interaction term failed to be significant, which allows for

the interpretation of supervisors' communicative competence as a

predictor of agreement. The equation for agreement is:

Y3 = 110.89 - .64Xl + .OO9X5 R = 7%
(13.45) (.24) (.01)
where: Y3 = estimated value of agreement
X1 = supervisors' communicative competence

interaction: supervisors' competence with

><
0‘!
||

predisposition

 

   

 

 

42

Confidence Intervals

As a check on the stability of the estimated coefficients, 95%
confidence intervals were calculated for each of the significant
predictors using the procedure described in Cohen and Cohen (1975). In
all cases the estimated values do not cross zero, which provides
additional support for Hypothesis 1. The confidence intervals are
presented in Table 1.

Table 2 contains the intercorrelation of the predictor and criterion

variables for the 107 dyads used in the analyses.

 

 

 

43

iiiiiiiii

mucmpngou

m—.n op N_.—- n Avw.vwm.FH¢o.uym w>pmowczeeoo .mLOmw>Loa:m pewEwmem<
wocopquou

Po.» on mm.. H AFN.Vwm._Hm¢.-Va o>wumowczesou .mwpmcweconzm zomczoo< .mmpmcweeonsm
mocmumaaou

o ow Nn.- u Aw—.vwo._nmm.lwm w>wpmovczeaou .mLOmw>Lma:m zonesoo< .mwpmcwugonzm
mocmpmanu

NF.- op Fo._- u Arm.vwm._nmm.-wa m>wpmow23EEou .meomw>ema:m zomcsoo< .meomv>cma:m

iiiiiiii

“cowowewwou cowmmmcmwm pceowwwcmvm Loam cow m—m>emch mocwuwecou

— wFQmH

 

 

 

44

Fm000.-

 

NHN00.-
00NMN.

mwmwo.-
mnvpm.

¢m¢wm.

m0m¢m.n mmwmm. 0—0mm. mwpmo.
00000. 000m0. 0000—.5 mommo.

mmmmF. NmF00.I 0N0m0.u mmmow.

movwm. mw¢¢—.u 0mwm_.u 00000.:

in- Nmme.- 00mmm.u 00N_0.u

I- mmnmo. mooop.

u- ¢0000.

NNNNO. ucmsmmem<
Nmmmm. Eeoh_mmwwwmuwwnw
5:. efimmmmwfi
at. -..emwfiwmfihfim
awe. -..smmmwtmwmwaumm
mmowr. .mwpmnwwuwwwm
mmmmo. .mLoMWmuwmwm

. mpmuwczeeou 0p :ovamoa
mmavo -mwumea .mmpmceucoazm

mpmowczssou Op
cowuvmoamwvwcm .meomw>ewn:m

 

mmpnevem> cowgmpweu vcm Lepowuwcm eo xweumz cowpm—wecoo

N wpnmk

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results of the
project, evaluate the procedures used, and suggest directions for

future research.

Summary of Findings

This research examined two communication variables as determinants
of coorientational accuracy and agreement. The predictor variables
were the predisposition to communicate and communicative competence.
The criterion variables were agreement, supervisor accuracy, and
subordinate accuracy.

In general, the results of this research support only Hypothesis 1
which was:

H :

1 For both supervisors and subordinates, accuracy

and agreement about communication rules will be
positively related to the communicative compe-
tence and predisposition to communicate to one
another.
Supervisors' communicative competence was a significant predictor

in each equation with moderately small standard errors. In addition,

45

 

 

 

46

for subordinates' accuracy, subordinates' communicative competence was
also a significant predictor, also with a moderately small standard
error.

The predisposition to communicate was not a significant predictor
in any of the equations. Neither were the interaction terms. Although
the supervisors' interaction term was initially significant in two
analyses, pooling the variance accounted for by the non-significant
variables with the error term made the interaction terms

non-significant in both cases.

Interpretation

In general, the results of this study indicate that supervisors'
communicative competence is the predominant determinant of accuracy and
agreement in supervisor/subordinate relationships. In each equation
supervisors'communicative competence contributed no less than 6% of the
explained variance in each of the criterion variables. This is con-
sistent with the findings of Level and Johnson (1978) and is a logical
extension of the role expectations model of Katz and Kahn (1978). Katz
and Kahn (1978) describe typical supervisor communication as predomi—
nately production or task oriented. Supervisors are expected to com—
municate task information and are typically responsible for the perfor-
mance of their subordinates. It is to the supervisor's advantage,
therefore, to communicate so that the subordinate has both a high
degree of accuracy and so that they reach agreement on certain organi-
zational issues. It is to a supervisor's advantage to be a competent

communicator for it can influence his or her own success as a manager.

 

 

47

In addition, the supervisor's position power may in fact allow him
or her to simply impose preferences upon the subordinate. The better
the supervisor is at communicating those preferences, the more certain
the supervisor can be about the subordinate's response. This
conclusion is supported by the strength of supervisors' communicative
competence as a predictor of supervisor's accuracy, even with a
moderate size sample.

A similar situation may exist with agreement: the more
communicatively competent the supervisor, the more likely he/she is to
be successful at conveying or imposing preference on the subordinate.

A slightly different condition was found for subordinates'
accuracy. In addition to supervisor's communicative competence being a
significant predictor, so was subordinate's communicative competence.
The results indicate that for the subordinate to be able to predict the
supervisor's response accurately, the subordinate must also have
listening and speaking skills. This finding is similar to what Wexley
et al. (1980) described as ”the sensitivity of the receiver and the
consistency and openness of the sender” in achieving accurate
perceptions.

It would appear that if organizations wish to reduce the amount of
inaccuracy and disagreement, supervisors should be trained to be good
communicators. Organizations are dependent upon how well its members
coordinate resources and people, and the role of communication in this

process cannot be overemphasized, as the results of this research would

suggest.

 

 

 

48

Problems in the Study

Although the re—estimations improved the study's results, many of
the predicted relationships were not significant. In this section
possible causes for the lack of significance will be discussed.

The adequacy of the coorientation model in the determination of
accuracy and agreement is dependent upon the relevance of the object of
orientation. One possible explanation of the lack of significant
results could be the lack of salience of communication rules as an
object of orientation. Although communication rules are pervasive,
they may not be objects about which the participants are generally
aware. Patterns of interaction may become less salient as the time the
supervisors and subordinates have known each other increases. It would
seem plausible that after several years, many interaction behaviors are
”taken for granted." For the supervisors and subordinates in this
study, the average length of time they had known each other was 11
years, which may have created a situation where the supervisors and
subordinates were unsure about specific rules that govern their
behaviors. Preliminary testings of the objects of orientation might
have provided insight as to the possibility of this occurring.

Another possible explanation could be the length and complexity of
the coorientation questions. As described earlier, participants were
asked to focus on both descriptive and predictive questions and three
different orientations: self, other, and object. Participants were
asked to switch their train of thought repeatedly thorughout the 18
item questionnaire. The complexity of the questionnaire could have

created confusion. In addition, many of the supervisors had multiple

 

 

49

subordinates, which meant completing the questionnaire several times,
one for each subordinate. This may have created fatigue or even worse,
apathy, for some participants, especially those with as many as seven
subordinates.

The lack of significance for the predisposition to communicate
variable may have been due to an inadequate sampling of the domain of
questions. First, using three questions limits the extent to which
high reliabilities can be obtained. Second, three questions may have
been an inadequate representation of the behaviors that would
distinguish a very talkative person from someone who speaks when the
need arises. Another possible explanation could be that the
supervisors were not in physical proximity to each other often enough
to allow for frequent communication. The sample for this study came
from a manufacturing plant where many of the supervisors were expected
to be on the floor where there was a considerable amount of machine
noise. Frequent communication may have been difficult if not
impossible under such conditions.

The project was a cross-sectional study, which means that the data
were collected at one point in time. Such data do not allow for the
study of change over time, which limits the conclusions about causality
that can be made. In addition, since only one plant was used in the
study, there are limits to the study's generalizability to other
organizational settings.

Misworded items in the questionnaires increased the amount of
sampling error. The number of dyads that could be used in this study
was 107, although 198 dyads were formed. This created a substantial

loss of statistical power, making it harder to detect relationships

 

 

50

when in fact they exist. More support may have been found for the
predicted relationships if the 198 dyads could have been used in the
analyses. However, for those predictors that were significant, the
Small sample implies that rather strong relationships between variables

do exist.

Future Research

The coorientation model provides a useful framework for the study
of communication processes between supervisors and subordinates in
organizational settings. However, the adequacy of the ocorientation
model in the determination of accuracy and agreement is dependent upon
the adequacy of the object of orientation. it is suggested, therefore,
that other objects of orientation be tested, in order to identify those
that are the most salient to the sample population.

In addition, it would be interesting to try to identify the pro-
cess by which accuracy and agreement develop between supervisors and
subordinates. A time-series design, for example, might make it pos—
sible to compare rates at which accuracy and agreement are established
among newly formed supervisor/subordinate dyads. In addition, it would
be beneficial to add selected personality variables which are likely to
impact communicative behavior.

Other occupational settings, like service organizations that rely
on oral communication for much of its task completion, may be more
favorable sites for a study concerned with the communication behaviors

that would lead to accuracy and agreement. The type of organization

 

   

 

 

51
used in this study may have restricted the role of oral communication

in daily operations.

Summary

This study was undertaken to determine the impact of two
communication variables on the accuracy and agreement on communication
rules that exists between supervisors and subordinates. The two
variables were the predisposition to communicate and communicative
competence. Only communicative competence was a significant predictor.
Supervisors' communicative competence was the most consistent
predictor, reaching significance in each equation tested.

Subordinates' communicative competence was significant in predicting
subordinates' accuracy. It is concluded that strengthening the
communication skills of organizational members, especially supervisors,
can increase the level of agreement and accuracy among

supervisor/subordinate dyads.

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Anscombe, F. J. Graphs in statistical analysis. The American
Statistician, 1973, 22(1), 17-21.

Argyris, C. Explorations in interpersonal competence—I. 155
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1965, 1, 58-83.

Baird, J.E., and Diebolt, J.D. Role congruence, communication,
superior-subordinate relations and employee satisfaction in

organizational hierarchies. Western Speech Communication,
1976, 49, 260-267.

Bales, R.F. Task status and likeability as a function of talking and
listening in decision making groups. In L.D. White (Ed.) The
state of the social sciences, Chicago: Chicago Press, 1956,
148-161.

 

Barnett, V., and Lewis, T. Outliers in statistical data. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1978.

Bavelas, A., Hastorf, A.H., Gross, A.E., and Kite, W.E. Experiments
on the alteration of group structure. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 55-70.

Berkowitz, N.H., and Bennis, W.G. Interaction patterns in formal

service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1961, 5, 25—50.

Bochner, A.P., and Kelly, C.W. Interpersonal competence: Rationale,
philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. _ng

Speech Teacher, 1974, 35(4), 279-301.

Boyd, B., and Jensen, J.M. Perceptions of first line supervisor's
authority: A study in supervisor—subordinate communication.

Academy of Management Journal, 1972, 15(2), 331-342.

Campbell, D.T., and Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait—multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
1959, 55, 81-105.

Chaffee, S.H., and McLeod, J.M. Sensitization in panel design: A
coorientational experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 1968,
35, 661-669.

52

 

 

53

Cohen, A.R. Changing small group communication networks. Journal
of Communication, 1961, 11, 116-124.

Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1975.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 15, 297—334.

Cronbach, L.J., and Glesser, G.C. Assessing similarity between pro-
files. Psychological Bulleti , 1953, 59(6), 456-473.

Cummings, L.L., and Dunham, R.B. Introduction to organizational
behavior, Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1980.

Cushman, D.P., and Craig, R.T. Communication systems: Interpersonal

implications. In G.R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in inter—
personal communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1976.

Cushman, D., and Whiting, G. An approach to communication theory:
Toward consensus on rules. Journal of Communication, 1972,
22, 217-238.

Daly, J.A., McCroskey, J.C., and Falcione, R.L. Communication appre-
hension, supervisor communication receptivity and satisfaction
with supervisors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern
Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA., April 1976.

Dubin, R., and Spray, S.L. Executive behavior and interaction.
Industrial Relations, 1964, 5, 99-108.

Farace, R.V., Monge, P.R., and Russell, H.M. Communicating and
organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

Farace, R.V., Taylor, J.A., and Stewart, J.P. Criteria for the
evaluation of organizational communication effectiveness.
Review and synthesis. In 8.0. Ruben (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 2. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1978.

Feingold, P.C. Toward a paradigm of effective communication: An

empirical study of perceived communicative effectiveness.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1976.

Finn, J.D. A general model for multivariate analysis. New York:
Holt—Reinhart, 1974.

Fleishman, E.A. A leader behavior description for industry. In
A.M. Stogdill and A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:

Its description and measurement, Ohio State University Bureau
of Business Research, Columbus, 0H., 1957.

 

 

 

 

54

Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.F., and Burtt, H.E. Leadership and
supervisor in industry, Columbus, OH.: Ohio State Univer-
sity Press, 1955.

French, R.L. Verbal output and leadership status in initially leader-

less discussion groups. American Psychologist, 1950, 5,
310-312.

Gemmie, G. Managing upward communication, Personnel Journal,
1970, (February) 107—109.

Graen, G., and Schiemann, W. Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad

linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978,
55(2), 206-212.

Graham, W.K., and Oleno, T. Perceptions of leader behavior and moti-

vations of leaders. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1970,
5, 63-70.

Greene, C.N. Relationship among role accuracy, compliance, performance
evaluation, and satisfaction within managerial dyads. Academy

of Management Journal, 1972, 15, 205-215.

Halpin, A.W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft com—
manders. In R.M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader

behavior: Its description and measurement. Ohio State Uni-

versity Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH, 1957.

Hayes, D.P., and Meltzer, L. Interpersonal judgments based on talka—
tiveness I: Fact or artifact? Sociometry, 1972, 55, 538-561.

Heizer, J.H. Manager action. Personnel Pscyhology, 1972, 25,
511-521.

Hunt, R.G., and Lichtman, C. Role clarity, communication and conflict.
Management of Personnel Quarterly, 1970, (Fall) 28—36.

Jablin, F.M. Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the
art. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 55(6), 1201-1222.

Joreskog, K., and Sorbom, D. LISREL Users Guide, Chicago: Inter-
national Education Services, 1978.

Kahn, R.L. Human relations on the shop floor. In E.J. Hugh-Jones

(Ed.), Human relations and modern management. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing, 1958.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoch, J.D., and Rosenthal, R.A.

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambi-
guity. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Katz, 0., and Kahn, R. The social psychology of organizations
(2 ed.). New York: Wiley, 1978.

 

 

 

 

55

Korman, A. A cause of communication failure. Personnel Adminis-
tration, 1960, 25, 17-21.

Lawler, E.E., Porter, L.W., and Tannenbaum, A. Managers' attitude

toward interaction episodes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1968, 52, 432-439.

Level, D.A., and Johnson, L. Accuracy of information flows within the
supervisor/subordinate relationship. Journal of Business
Communication, 1978, 15, 13-22.

Levinger, G., and Breedlove, J. Interpersonal attraction and agree-
ment: A study of marriage partners. Journal of Personnel and

Social Psychology, 1966.

MacDonald, 0. Communication roles and communication networks in a
formal organization. Human Communication Research, 1976,
2, 365—375.

Maier, N., Hoffman, L.R., and Read, W.A. Supervisor-subordinate
communication: The relative effectiveness of managers who held
their subordinates' positions. Personnel Psychology, 1963,

16, 1-11.

McLeod, J.M., and Chaffee, S.H. Interpersonal approaches to communi-
cation research. American Behavioral Scientist, 1973, 15,
537-550.

Monge, P.R. Multivariate multiple regression. In P.R. Monge and

J.N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariate technigues in human com-
munication research, New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Monge, P.R., Bachman, S.G., Dillard, J., and Eisenberg, E. Communi—
cator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale

development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.) Communication yearbook 5.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981.

Mortensen, C.D., and Arntson, P.H. The effect of predisposition toward
verbal behavior on interaction patterns in dyads. 155

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1974, 59, 421-430.

Mortensen, C.D., Arntson, P.H., and Lustig, M. The measurement of
verbal predispositions: Scale development and application.
Human Communication Research, 1977,.5(2), 146-158.

Newcomb, T.M. An approach to the study of communicative acts.
Psychological Review, 1953, 59, 393-404.

Newcomb, T.M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American
Psychologist, 1956, 11, 575-586.

 

 

 

 

56

Newcomb, T.M. The cognition of persons as cognizers. In R. Tagiuri

and L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perceptibn and personal
behavior, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958.

Newcomb, T.M. The acguaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1961.

Norfleet, B. Interpersonal relations and group productivity.
Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 2, 66—69.

Norton, R.W. Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human
Communication Resarch, 1978, 1(2), 99-112.

 

Organ, D.W. Social exchange and psychological reaction in a simulated

supervisor subordinate relationship. Organizatigonal Behavior
and Human Performance, 1974, 12, 132—142.

O'Reilly, C.A., and Roberts, K.H. Information filtration in organi-

zations: Three experiments. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1974, 11, 253-265.

Parker, J.W., Taylor, E.K., Barrett, R.S., and Martins, L. Rating
scale content 111: Relationship between supervisory and self

ratings. Personnel Psychology, 1959, 12, 49-63.

Parkington, J.P., and Schneider, B. Some correlates of experienced job

stress: A boundary role study. Academy of Management
Journal, 1979, 22, 270-281.

Parks, M.R. Issues in the explication of communicative competence.

Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association
Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1977.

Pavitt, C., and Capella, J.N. Coorientational accuracy in inter—
personal and small group discussions: A literature review, model,

and simulation. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979.

Pearce, W.B., and Stamm, K.R. Coorientational states and interper—
sonal communication. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for com-
munication research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973.

Penfield, R.V. Time allocation patterns and effectiveness of managers.
Personnel Psychology, 1974,.21, 245-255.

Phillips, G.M. The problem of reticence. The Pennsylvania Speech
Annual, 1965, 22, 23-38.

 

Phillips, G.M. Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. Speech
Monographs, 1968, 55, 39-49.

 

 

F"-

 

57

Ponder, Q.D. Supervisory practices of effective and ineffective
foremen. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1958.
Dissertation Abstracts, 1959, 20, 3983 (University Micro-

films No. 59-01, 497).

Powell, R.S., and O'Neal, E.C. Communication feedback and duration as
determinants of accuracy, confidence, and differentiation in

interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1976, 54(4), 746-756.

Porter, L.W., and Lawler, E.E. Managerial attitudes and per—
formance, Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1968.

Redding, W.C. Communication within organizations: An interpretive

reveiw of theory and research. New York: Industrial communi-
cation Council, 1972.

Riecken, H.W. The effects of talkativeness on ability to influence
group solutions to problesm. Sociometry, 1958,_21, 309-321.

Roberts, K.H., and O'Reilly, C.A. Failures in upward communication:

Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 1974,
11, 205-215.

Russell, H.M. Coorientational similarity toward procedural aspects
of communication: A study of communication between extension

agents and their supervisors. Unpublished doctoral disser—
tation, Michigan State University, 1972a.

Russell, H.M. The importance of coorientation toward the pro-

cedural aspects of communication: A study of supervisor/sub-
ordinate communication. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan

State University, 1972b.

Sank, L.I. Effective and ineffective managerial traits obtained as
naturalistic descriptions from executive members of a super

corporation. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 21, 423-434.

Schein, E.H. Organizational theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice—Hall, 1965.

Schneider, 8., Parkington, J.J., and Buxton, U.M. Employee and
customer perceptions of service in banks. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 252—267.

Schuler, R.S. A role perception transactional process model for
organizational communication—outcome relationships. Or ani-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 1979, 25, 268-29l.

Smircich, L., and Chesser, R.J. Supervisor's and subordinates' per-
ceptions of performance: Beyond disagreement. Academy of

Management Journal, 1981, 24(1), 198-205.

 

 

   

 

58

Stamm, D.R., and Pearce, B.W. Message locus and message content: two
studies in communication behavior and coorientational relations.
Communication Research, 1974, 1(2), 184-203.

Sussman, L. Communication in organizational hierarchies: The fallacy

of perceptual congruence. Western Speech Communication,
1975, 5, 191-199.

Thorton, C.C. The relationship between supervisory and self-appraisals
of executive performance. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21,
441-445.

Triandis, H.C. Cognitive similarity and communication in a dyad.
Human Relations, 1960, 15, 175-183.

Wackman, D.B. Interpersonal communication and coorientation.
American Behavioral Science, 1973, 15, 537-550.

Webber, R.A. Perceptions of interactions between supervisors and
subordinates. Human Relations, 1970,_25, 235—248.

Weber, R.W., and Terry, G.E. Behavior insights for supervisors.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975.

Weinstein, E.A. The development of interpersonal competence. In D.A.

Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research,
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969, 753-775.

Wexley, K.W., Alexander, R.A , Greenawalt, J.P., and Couch, M.A.
Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal

evaluations in manager—subordinate dyads. Academy of Manage—
ment Journal, 1980, 25(2), 320—330.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.R., and Summers, G.F. Assessing
reliability and stability in panel models. In D.R. Heise (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1977, San Francisco: Jossey—Bass,
l977, 84—136.

White, H.C. Perceptions of leadership by managers in a federal agency.
Personnel Administration/Public Personnel Review, 1972, 1,
51-56.

White, R.W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 1959, 55, 297—333.

Wiemann, J.M. Explication and test of a model of communicative
competence. Human Communication Resarch, 1977, 5(3), 195-
213.

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

   

 

 

APPENDIX A

The statements in this section describe some typical aspects of super—
visor/subordinate relationships. In Part A you are asked to think about
how you and your subordinate communicate in various situations. In

Part B you will be asked to predict how your subordinate will respond to
the same set of questions. In both parts circle the percentage that
most accurately reflects the communication that has taken place between

you and your Subordinate during the last month.

Write your subordinates number in the box below.

D

l. What percentage of the meetings that you have had with your subordinate
have you initiated?

Part A

 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2. Considering all of the conversations or meetings you have had with your
subordinate, what percentage of these discussions did you end?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3. Thinking back over all of your conversations or meetings with your sub-
ordinate what percentage of the time were you the one who changed the
topic of conversation?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4. It is not unuSual for conversations or meetings to be interrupted by
phone calls, someone entering the room, etc. When interruptions have
occurred while talking with your subordinate, what percentage of the
time was it because someone was looking for him or her?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5. Thinking back over all of your discussions with your subordinate, what
percentage of the time did your subordinate decide what topics would be
discussed?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

59

 

 

6.

9.

60

Considering all the conversations you have had with your subordinate,
what percentage of the total time did your subordinate talk?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

. What percentage of the time that you have spent with your subordinate

has been spent discussing personal matters?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

. What percentage of the time that you have spent with your subordinate

has been spent discussing new ideas?
0% l0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

What percentage of the time that you have spent in conversations with
your subordinate has been spent discussion work-related matters?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Part B

 

In

this section we are asking you to predict how your subordinate will res-

pond to the questions in Part A. Again, limit yourself to communication
that has occurred during the last month. Circle the percentage that you

thi
10.

11.

12.

13.

nk most accurately reflects what your subordinate will say.

What percentage of the meetings that you have had with your subordinate
would he or she say that ypg have initiated?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Considering all of the conversations or meetings you have had with your
subordinate, what percentage of these discussions would your subordinate
55y_that ygg have ended?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Thinking back over all of your conversations or meetings with your sub-
ordinate what percentage of the time would your subordinate say that ygg
were the one who changed the topic of conversation?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

It is not unusual for conversations or meetings to be interrupted by
phone calls, someone entering the room, etc. When those kinds of inter-
ruptions have occurred while talking with your subordinate, what percent—

age of the time will your subordinate say it was because someone was
looking for him or her?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

61

Thinking back over all of your discussions with your subordinate,
what percentage of the time will your subordinate say that he or she
decided what topics would be discussed?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

In conversations with your subordinate, what percentage of the total
time will your subordinate say that he or she is the one who does
the talking?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

What percentage of time that you have spent in conversation with your
subordinate will he or she say has been spent discussing personal
matters?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

What percentage of the time that you have spent in conversation with
your subordinate will he or she say has been spent discussing new ideas?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

During the last month, what percentage of the time that you have spent

in conversation with your subordinate will he or she say has been
spent discussing work-related matters?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

 

APPENDIX B i

 

   

 

 

APPENDIX B

In the following items, we are asking you to describe the way you tend to
express yourself to others. Concentrate on the larger picture you have of
the way you communicate as you go abOut doing your work rather than what
you might happen to say in a particular situation.

In responding to the statements below, please use the following scale:

1551 = very strong agreement 55! = very strong disagreement
YES = strong agreement N0 = strong disagreement
yes = mild agreement no = mild disagreement

? = neutral feelings or don't know
1. I generally rely on others to keep conversations going.
155! YES yes ? no NO NO!
2. I am inclined to let other people start conversations.

[55! YES yes ? no NO NO!

3. When I am with others it generally takes me quite a while to warm up enough

to say very much.
1551 YES yes ? no N0 55!

62

 

m “1mm 3:.

 

 

‘IIL

 

 

APPENDIX c

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

In this series of questions we would like you to describe how your
subordinate communicates. Think about his/her behavior in general,
rather than about specific situations.

In responding to the statements below, please use the following scale:

155! = very strong agreement gg1_= very strong disagreement
YES = strong agreement N0 = strong disagreement
yes = mild agreement no = mild disagreement

? = neutral feelings or don't know

1. My subordinate has a good command of the language.

155! YES yes ? no NO NO!
2. My subordinate is sensitive to other's needs of the moment.

155! YES yes ? no NO NO!
3. My subordinate typically gets right to the point.

155! YES yes ? no N0 19:
4. My subordinate pays attention to what other people say to him or her.

155! YES yes ? no NO 55!
5. My subordinate can deal with others effectively.

155! YES yes ? no NO NO!
6. My subordinate is a good listener.

155} YES yes ? no N0 N0!
7. My subordinate's writing is difficult to understand.

1551 YES yes ? no NO NO!
8. My subordinate expresses his or her ideas clearly.

155! YES yes ? no NO NO!
9. In general, my subordinate is a very effective comnunicator.

YES! YES yes ? no N0 N0!

63

 

 

 

 

64

10. My subordinate is difficult to understand when he or she speaks.
155! YES yes ? no NO 55!
11. My subordinate generally says the right thing at the right time.
155} YES yes ? ho N0 55!

12. My subordinate is easy to talk to.
155! YES yes ? no NO NO!

13. My subordinate usually responds to messages (memos, phone calls,
reports, etc.) quickly.

155} YES yes ? no NO N01

14. Overall, my subordinate is a competent communicator.

YES! YES yes ? no NO NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES

31293104153238