““44“, ~r u . 2“. ‘i WW!W!lllllitlfl'flllxlllllflfllllfll "*9 9300 582 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled COMMUNICATION GROUP MEMBERSHIP: DETERMINANT OF CLIMATE PERCEPTIONS AND WORK SATISFACTION IN ORGANIZATIONS presented by MELINDA FELICIANO LUMANTA has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D.. degreein COMMUNICATION W1 aw Major professor Date 3/15/88 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU ’ v RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. )1) c «yew * H O. 3v ‘5 31“.": 1 1 3 COMMUNICATION GROUP MEMBERSHIP: DETERMINANT OF CLIMATE PERCEPTIONS AND WORK SATISFACTION IN ORGANIZATIONS BY Melinda Feliciano Lumanta A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1988 *97'3dét3 ,— ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION GROUP MEMBERSHIP: DETERMINANT OF CLIMATE PERCEPTIONS AND WORK SATISFACTION IN ORGANIZATIONS BY Melinda Feliciano Lumanta The study was conducted to determine the effect of membership in communication groups on perceptions of the organization's climate and employees' attitudes toward work. Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) Social Information Processing (SIP) model was used to test hypothesized relationships. Data for the study was obtained from the Michigan Department of Education which at the time of data collec- tion employed a total of 1060 individuals and was in the process of moving its separate offices to a central loca- tion. Respondents included employees belonging to service areas that were sampled as intact groups. A two-part survey instrument was administered to approximately 500 employees. A communication network instrument containing a roster of employees from the sampled service areas was used to determine patterns of communication. Perceptions of the work environment and attitudes toward work were measured using Likert-type scales. NEGOPY, a computer-based network analysis program was used to identify communication groups in which the Melinda Feliciano Lumanta basis of clustering was the frequency of interaction. A link was specified whenever communication occurred between individuals at least a few times a week. Multiple regres- sion analysis was used to test hypothesized relationships among social information influence, work environment, work attitude and behavior variables as specified in the SIP model. The social influence variable, represented by membership in communication groups, was included as an indicator variable; work environment characteristics were represented by scales measuring perceptions of the physical environment, social environment, autonomy and trust: work attitude was measured using a work satisfaction scale derived from the Michigan Organization Assessment Question- naire and the behavior variable was operationalized as the number of years one has been in the organization. Results indicated general support for the SIP model. Moreover, the data provided some support for the influence of membership in communication groups on work environment perceptions and work attitudes. However, the low effect sizes and differential effects of certain com- munication groups suggest that much of the variation in climate perceptions and work satisfaction remains unac- counted for by the predictor variables. Further, the study established that gender, job tenure, group size and group density could not be shown to account for the remaining variance. To Isaias who insisted that I persist and To Roi the reason for my persistence iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I feel most fortunate to have benefited from the intellectual stimulation and personal friendship of the members of my doctoral committee. I wish to thank Dr. Richard V. Farace, counselor, advisor and committee chair, whose guidance and steadfastness steered me towards attain- ment of my career and personal goals; Dr. Peter R. Monge, whose depth and breadth of insights into the complex nature of communication, never ceased to challenge me; Dr. Michael L. Moore, who made sure my theoretical orientation was firmly anchored in reality: and Dr. Joseph Straubhaar, whose views from a broader perspective afforded me a holis- tic and complete academic experience. I also wish to thank the faculty of the Department of Communication, Michigan State University, who, in their philosophical diversity, provided me with a rich array of analytical skills necessary in developing a unified pers- pective of my own. I am deeply grateful to the members of my family, a constant source of love and support: Dr. Isaias Lumanta, Jr. and Roi Lumanta for sharing the high and low moments with me and who made everything worthwhile; Dr. Teresita C. Feliciano, my mother, who had always been a source of admiration and inspiration to us all; and Dr. & Mrs. Silverio M. Cendana, my grandparents, who inculcated in us the value of education and self-respect. Finally, my sincere appreciation to the many friends and colleagues, too many here to mention, who have, in countless ways, become an integral part of my graduate work experience at Michigan State University. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Importance of the Study Organization of the Manuscript ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Overview Organizational-Individual Attributes Perspectives Structuration Approach The Multiple Climate Perspective Communication Climate Research Issues Summary of Perspective and Issues Statement of Research Purpose THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Overview Social Information Processing Approach Tests of the SIP Model Research Hypotheses Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions Predictors of Attitude towards Work METHODOLOGY Overview Communication Networks Network Analysis Methods NEGOPY Research Variables Research Site Data-gathering Procedures Research Instrumentation Research Methods Analytical Methods vii ix xi 13 15 17 21 27 31 32 32 38 4O 42 45 47 47 48 52 55 59 63 65 65 69 RESULTS Overview Network Analysis Results Adequacy of Clustering Procedure Test of a Partial SIP Model Determinants of Climate Perceptions Determinants of Work Satisfaction Summary of Results DISCUSSION Overview Low Effect Sizes Communication Group Membership CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview Study Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Summary APPENDICES A Work Environment Instrument B Communication Network Instrument C Interview Questionnaire D NEGOPY Program and Parameters E Description of General Communication Groups F Description of Quasi-control Group LIST OF REFERENCES viii 70 70 72 77 81 91 101 104 104 105 110 110 111 115 117 125 142 145 146 158 159 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES ' Scale Items and Reliabilities Respondent Characteristics General Communication Network Group Properties Comparative Variances for Communication Groups vs Non-communication Group Comparative Variances for Communication Groups vs Bureaus Regression Statistics for Entire Equation (Dependent Variable=Perceptions of Work Environment) Regression Coefficients (Dependent Variable=Perceptions of Work Environment) Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions (Dependent Variable=Perception of Physical Environment) Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions (Dependent Variable=Perception of Social Environment) Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions (Dependent Variable=Perception of Autonomy) Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions (Dependent Variable=Perception of Trust) Proportion of Variation in Climate Perceptions Accounted for by Categories of Independent Variables Regression Statistics for Entire Equation (Dependent Variable=Satisfaction) ix Page 56 66 71 74 78 82 83 84 85 86 87 89 92 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Regression Coefficients (Dependent Variable=Satisfaction) Predictors of Satisfaction (Climate Dimension=Physical Environment) Predictors of Satisfaction (Climate Dimension=Social Environment) Predictors of Satisfaction (Climate Dimension=Autonomy) Predictors of Satisfaction (Climate Dimension=Trust) Proportion of Variation in Work Satisfaction Accounted for by Categories of Independent Variables Comparison of Adjusted R2 for Regression Equations Excluding and Including Gender and Job Tenure Comparison of Adjusted R2 for Regression Equations Excluding and Including Group Size and Density 93 94 95 96 97 99 106 107 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Salancik & Pfeffer's (1978) Social Information Processing Model Hypothesized Relationships among the Communication, Climate, Satisfaction and Organizational Variables Based on a Partial SIP Model Michigan Department of Education Organizational Chart xi Page 37 43 60 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Importance of the Study Previous reviews of the organizational climate literature (Poole, 1985; Jones & James, 1979; Joyce & Slocum, 1979; Powell & Butterfield, 1978; Woodman & King, 1978; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975: Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James 8 Jones, 1974; Campbell, Dunntette, Lawler & Weick, 1970) point to the need for better concep- tual clarity and more appropriate operationalization of the climate construct. While significant theoretical and methodological advances have been made in the recent past (Poole, 1985; Schneider & Reichers, 1983), the issues relating to the aggregation problem (Joyce & Slocum, 1984: Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Payne, Fineman & Wall, 1976) have been less than adequately investigated. The aggregation issue concerns the assessment of a valid basis for pooling individual psychological percep- tions to produce a composite or aggregated perception. It assumes that a distinction between individual psychological and organizational climates exists. Joyce and Slocum (1979) presented the aggregation problem by posing the 1 2 question, "How can we meaningfully aggregate individuals' descriptions of their work environment so as to represent larger social units?" (p.32). Jones and James (1979) suggested aggregating indi- vidual climate scores if the following criteria can be satisfied: (1) significant differences in aggregated or mean perceptions across different organizations or sub- units; (2) interperceiver reliability or agreement: (3) homogenous situational characteristics (e.g., similarity of context, structure, job type, etc.); and (4) meaningful relationships between the aggregated score and various organizational, subunit or individual criteria. Joyce and Slocum (1984) reviewed the different bases of aggregation and concluded that most studies use one or a combination of these criteria. However, they suggested that validity necessitates satisfying all the conditions of discrimina— tion or demonstrable difference between mean perceptions, an!" predictable relationships to organizational or individual criteria and internal consistency or agreement in percep— tions within aggregate climates. Joyce and Slocum (1984) propose agreement of psychological perceptions as a valid basis for aggregating individual climate scores. These climates are identified through clustering techniques based on profile similarity on climate dimensions. In the past, other bases for aggregation have included formal organizational units, 3 divisions, work groups, or geographical location. The use of such aggregate units, however, necessitates the demons- tration of homogeneity in perceptions among individuals composing the units. Unless such agreement is established, the validity of the aggregated scores becomes less than satisfactory. As Joyce and Slocum (1984) observe, inconclusive results in aggregate climate research may be attributable to the hypothesis-testing approach often used in research. These approaches assume homogeneity of psychological perceptions for social aggregates and then proceed to test differences in mean climate perception among these groups. As an alternative to the hypothesis-testing approach, Joyce and Slocum (1984) propose the use of numerical taxonomic methods. These approaches first search for similarities in climate perceptions and then use the discrimination and significant relationship criteria. By using agreement as a ‘ basis for aggregation, Joyce and Slocum (1984) argue that W climates obtained automatically meet the consistency and discrimination criteria. The climate in an organization could be researched by using communication network groups as units of analysis. Communication networks provide a way of identifying groups whose members are in communicative interaction with each other. The interaction patterns produce a map of indivi- duals and their communication linkages. As such, the 4 resulting communication groups may be hypothesized as possible units of aggregation, its main advantage being that individuals who are in interaction with each other tend to develop similar perceptions responding to, defining and integrating elements of the situation in particular ways (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). The need to establish, a priori, the validity of aggregating individual perceptions has received attention from various scholars (Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Jones, & James, 1979; James & Jones, 1974). Even before correlating climate variables with organizational or individual outcome variables such as work satisfaction, commitment or perfor- mance, there is a need to determine the validity of aggre- gating climate scores. Jones and James (1979) clearly articulate the rationale for aggregation the argument for aggregating perceptually based climate scores (i.e., psychological climate scores) appears to rest heavily on three basic assumptions: W” first, that psychological climate scores describe perceived situations; second, that individuals exposed to the same set of situational conditions will describe these conditions in similar ways; and third, that aggregation will emphasize perceptual similarities and minimize individual differences (Jones & James, 1979, p.206). Joyce and Slocum (1984) suggest that psychological agreement be used as a basis for pooling individual scores. The authors specifically propose a numerical taxonomic approach in which similarities are first searched for and then only would dissimilarities and relationship criteria 5 be utilized. Hence, clustering methods can be used to establish similarity. In the field of organizational communication, the use of communication networks for the study of communica- tion climates has been proposed by several authors (Glick, 1985: Jablin, 1980). Moreover, Schneider and Reichers (1983) suggest that "if researchers could show, through a clustering procedure perhaps, that the major differences in subsystem climates correspond to the different interaction groups of which individuals are members, empirical support for the construct validity of the approach to climate could have been demonstrated" (pp. 35-36). Jablin (1980), after reviewing the research issues in the climate and network research fields, concludes that there are advantages to integrating these separate research areas. He points out that in addition to the conceptual reasons for studying communication climates and networks together, there are methodological advantages to an integrated approach. A theoretical framework that integrates communica- tion, work environment perceptions, work attitudes and behavioral variables is Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) Social Information Processing (SIP) Model. Essentially, the SIP perspective posits that the social context has important influences on employees' perceptions and attitudes. Communication groups are then seen as important social units that may impact on perceptions of the 6 organization's climate as well as on their expressed satis- faction with work. It is the purpose of this research, therefore, to determine the effect of membership in com- munication groups on perceptions of the work environment and attitudes toward work. It is proposed that communica- tion network groups be used as a basis for aggregating individuals' perceptions of organizational climate and work satisfaction. Organization of the Manuscript The dissertation consists of the following major sections: Organizational Climate: This chapter traces the conceptual and operational development of the climate construct. Various theoretical and research issues are discussed. Finally, it synthesizes the major theoretical issues and presents the statement of the problem. Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses: This chapter discusses Social Information Proces- sing Theory as the organizing framework for the development of the research proposition and specific research hypotheses. It specifically focuses on the role of communication in the creation of similar perceptions about work attitudes. Methodology: This chapter discusses network analysis as a method of clustering individuals on the basis of com- munication interaction patterns. NEGOPY, a com- puter network analysis program, is presented as a method of producing communication groups. The research site, sampling procedures and instrumen- tation are presented. Results: This chapter presents the results of data analysis. Network analysis results are first presented. Adequacy of the resulting clusters is established. Finally, predictors of perceptions of the work environment and predictors of work satisfaction are presented. Discussion: This chapter discusses regression results in light of the issues of low effect size and of the dif- ferential effects of membership in communication groups. Conclusions and Recommendations: This chapter discusses the conclusions and presents suggestions for the improvement of future research utilizing the Social Information Processing (SIP) approach in the analysis of organizational climate and work satisfaction. CHAPTER II ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Overview This chapter reviews the conceptual development of the organizational climate construct. Various conceptual- izations are presented, and theoretical and measurement issues are discussed. The issue of the appropriate unit of aggregation of individual perceptions is focused on and the research purpose is presented. Organizational-Individual Attributes Perspectives The organizational climate construct is one of the more thoroughly studied constructs in organizational theory and research. It has been conceptualized and opera- tionalized in various ways. In an extensive review of the ”W1 climate literature, James and Jones (1974) differentiate three approaches to the study of organizational climate: (1) the multiple measurement-organizational attributes approach: (2) the perceptual measurement-organizational approach; and (3) the perceptual measurement-individual attributes approach. 9 The first perspective treats climate as an attri- bute or set of attributes belonging to an organization which are independent of the perceptions or attributions of the members of the organization. Organizational climate is viewed as a set of characteristics that describe an organiza- tion and that (a) distinguishes the organization from other organizations, (b) are relatively endu— ring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in the organization (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964, p. 362). Organizational climate, therefore, is seen to include organizational components such as size, structure, systems complexity, leadership style, and goal directions (James & Jones, 1974). The global inclusion of organiza- tional characteristics in the definition of organizational climate using this approach has led to criticisms for this perspective. James and Jones (1974) argue that such conceptualization "is so encompassing that it is difficult *W‘ to see how their description of organizational climate is other than a rather broad-spectrum approach to those orga- nizational attributes" (p. 1097) refered to as structure or organizational context. Falcione and Kaplan (1984) summarize the assump- tions underlying this perspective. These include: (1) organizations exist and persist despite fluctuations in membership: (2) organizations develop a set of characteris- tics that may be specified; (3) these specified 10 characteristics are relatively enduring: (4) the specifica- tion of these organizational characteristics may be ac- complished objectively: that is, once the set of charac- teristics is specified, the levels or values of these characteristics may be found independent of individual members' idiosyncratic perceptions of the organization; (5) consensus across observers as to the levels of the charac- teristics, and thus the climate, would be expected to obtain (p.287). The second perspective treats climate as an inter- action of an organization's traits and the individual's perceptions of these traits (Falcione & Kaplan, 1984). The definition offered by Campbell et al. (1970) represents the concept of organizational climate from this perspective. It is viewed as a set of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the way the organization deals with its members and its envi- Wm ronment. For the individual member within an organization, climate takes the form of a set of attitudes and expectancies which describe the organization in terms of both static characteris- tics (such as degree of autonomy) and behavior- outcome and outcome-outcome contingencies (Campbell et al., 1970, p.390). Falcione and Kaplan (1984) suggest that, from this perpsective, climate is a consensual perception of an organization's attributes. This perspective's distinctive features are as follows: (1) climate is considered as a perceptual variable, dependent on the reports of individual 11 members: (2) the perceptions of climate are descriptive, rather than evaluative; (3) reports of the individual members are expected to exhibit considerable congruence (p.287). In this perspective, consensual agreement about organizational attributes is crucial to understanding the organization's climate. Joyce and Slocum (1984) suggest that similarity in psychological perceptions be used as a basis for such agreement. They refer to these climates as collective climates. In summarizing this approach, James and Jones (1974) point out that "if perceived organizational climate is to be used to measure an organizational attribute, the accuracy of the perception should be considered" (p.1104). In a review of research on aggregate climates, Joyce and Slocum (1984) observe that researchers have used a number of criteria in addressing the validity of various types of aggregate climates. These include: demonstrable differen- ces in mean perceptions between climates; predictable relationships to organizational or individual criteria; and internal consistency, or agreement in perceptions within aggregate climates. The third approach treats climate as an indivi- dual's summary perceptions of his or her encounters with the organization. Most climate research employing this perspective is based on the assumptions of either Gestalt 12 Psychology or that of Functionalism. Schneider (1975) distinguishes between these schools of thought in that the main assumption of Gestalt Psychology is that humans apprehend order in their environment and attempt to create order through thought while Functionalism assumes that humans apprehend and/or attempt to create order in their environment so they can effectively adapt their behavior to the work environment (Schneider, 1975). Gestaltists define climate perception as a meaningful apprehension of order in the perceiver's world based on cues in that world and inferences (or attributions) regarding the presence of psychologically equivalent cues (Schneider, 1975, p. 448). Gestalt theory stresses the desire of individuals to behave on the basis of the apprehended order. Hence, the Gestalt perspective proposes that people not only apprehend and create order but also respond to the per- ceived order in behaviors that are seen as congruent with "a the perceived or created order. On the other hand, Functionalism suggests that order is apprehended in the perceiver's environment so that people can function adaptively in their world. Research providing support for the perspective that adaptation is an explanatory concept for the impact of climate perceptions on behavior have been summarized by Schneider (1975). This body of research views peoples' need to obtain information from its environment as a means of determining appropriate 13 behaviors to allow them to function in a homeostatic way in the organization. Hence, organizational climate is viewed as a set of summary or global perceptions held by individuals about their organizational environment. These summary perceptions are reflected in interac- tion between personal and organizational charac- teristics, in which the individual by forming climate perceptions, acts as an information processor (James 8 Jones, 1974, p. 1105). To summarize, the multiple measurement-organiza- tional attribute perspective predicts that organizational outcome variables can be influenced by organizational attributes such as structure, type, and leadership indepen- dent of members' perceptions. The perceptual measurement- organizational attribute approach emphasizes the importance of a consensual view of organizational traits as a deter- minant of individual or organizational outcome variables. The perceptual measurement-individual attribute view focus— ses on individual, as opposed to a consensual, perception of the organization's overall "personality". Structuration Approach While the above classification of approaches to the study of organizational climate has traditionally been the most widely-accepted classification system, other scholars (Ashforth, 1985; Poole, 1985; Schneider & Reichers, 1983) choose to make a distinction between objectivist N1 14 (structuralist) and subjectivist (Selection-Attraction-At- trition) perspectives. Schneider and Reichers (1983) summarize the basic differences between these approaches as follows: The structuralist approach places the meaning that individuals attach to events, practices and pro- cedures primarily within the events themselves. According to this view, climates differ across organizations as a function of the differences in organizational structures.... In contrast to the structuralists, the selection-attraction-attrition perspective places the meaning that individuals attach to events primarily within the individual. This view suggests that climates differ across organizations as a function of the different types of people that become members of those organiza- tions (p.32). A third view is forwarded by Schneider and Reichers (1983). Based on symbolic interactionism, the interac- tionist perspective places the locus of meanings that arise within the interaction between people. This view places primary importance on the interactions that occur during the newcomer's socialization period, and stresses the importance of group membership as a determinant of climates that vary from group to group (Schneider & Reichers, p.32). It is seen as a reconciliation between the objec- tivism of the structuralist approach and the subjectivism of the Selection-Attraction-Attrition approach. The inter- actionist perspective argues that climate perceptions are a result of individuals' efforts to understand the 15 organization and their roles within it. As such, it draws on symbolic interactionism in general and new-comer socialization in particular (Ashforth, 1985). It "main- tains that people in communicative interaction with each other, respond to, define, and interpret elements of the situation in particular ways. These characteristic modes of interpretation and definition form distinct subgroup climates within organizations" (Schneider & Reichers, 1983, p.33). The Multiple Climate Perspective Early research on the climate construct conceptual- ized organizational climate as a global, all-encompassing perception of individuals' general "feel" of the work place. Consequently, omnibus measures were developed to operationalize this construct. Other scholars (Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Powell & Butterfield, 1978; Johnston, 1976), however, have suggested that organizations may have more than one climate. Powell and Butterfield (1978) argue that an organization is considered to have subsystem climates whenever at least one group of employees has different perceptions of the organization's climate than those of another subsystem. Hence, climate is a property of the separate subsystems than of the organization as a whole. Powell and Butterfield (1978) present evidence from past studies supporting the existence of subgroup climates. 16 Such support consist of studies demonstrating differences in perceived climate and differences in relationship between perceived climate and other variables within the organization. Schneider (1975) likewise suggests that each work organization creates a number of different types of climates which may lead to different outcome behaviors or may result from differences in units of analysis. Johnston (1976) points out that variations in situational or environmental factors can result in more than one climate within an organization, hence, challenging the concept of organizational climate as a molar or macro concept. Johnston (1976) argues that climate, perceived by the individual as being relevant to his job performance, is a product of the interacting effects of situational variables and the personality-based actions. "As such, climate is molar or macro from the point of view of the individual, not of the overall organization" (Johnston, 1976, p.102). "1 When the objective is to find significant links between the climate that an employee perceives and job performance, it is important to make a distinction between individual and organizational climate perceptions. Johnston (1976) takes issue with Hellriegel and Slocum's (1974) definition of overall climate as a perceptual summa- tion of all the individuals in the organization. "If an important objective is to find significant links between 17 the climate that an employee perceives and job performance then research should first be aimed at isolation of both the structural and personality variables that give rise to the perceptions of different climates" (Johnston, 1976, p.102). Communication Climate The organization's climate for communication can best be viewed from a multiple-climate perspective. This approach suggests that organizations can seldom be des- cribed as having a single, pervasive climate. Rather, organizations are more likely to have different climates arising from situational, geographical and environmental factors. Aside from talking of subsystem climates based on hierarchical levels such as managerial and non-managerial climates, one can talk of an organization's climate des- cribing its environment such as its climate for safety, climate for innovation and indeed, climate for communica- tion. The organization's communication climate has been defined in several ways. It is seen as a molar description of communication practices and procedures in an organization or sub-unit. It consists of collective beliefs, expectations, and values regarding communication and is generated in interaction around organizational practices via a continuous process of structuration (Poole, 1985, p.107). 18 Poole (1985) suggests that descriptions of com- munication climates fall into two categories--the dimensional strategy and the typological strategy. In the first strategy, climates are described in terms of a set of distinct dimensions (e.g. degree of structure, warmth, etc.): the second strategy identifies types of climates (e.g., democratic, authoritarian, etc.). In the dimen- sional strategy, situational variation in climates is re- flected in different values on the various dimensions while the typological strategy characterizes climates as "integ- rated configurations of properties." (Poole, 1985, p.86). While these types can be rated on dimensions, they are not reducible to dimensions because they are "wholes" (Poole, 1985). Poole (1985) identifies three distinct approaches to dimensional descriptions of climate. The first approach specifies dimensions that hold across organizations and describe climate in general. Communication, in particular, is encompassed in several of these dimensions. For instance, warmth, conflict, and identity in the Litwin & Stringer (1968) measure, and factors 2 and 4 in Campbell et al.'s (1970) scheme tap the communication dimension. The second approach identifies climates for speci- fic organizational practices. Inasmuch as communication is also an organizational practice, a communication climate exists for the organization. "This approach assumes that 19 organizations have a number of different climates, the con- tents of which are specific to particular practices" (Poole, 1985, p.88). The third approach relies on interviews and/or observations to identify the dimensions of climate unique to the organization. While more complex and time-consum- ing, this approach allows the researcher to identify aspects of climate that are salient and meaningful to organizational members. In the typological strategy, attributes are used to describe climates. Poole (1985) cites Lewin et al.'s (1939) characterization of climates as democratic, autocra- tic and laissez faire: Gibb's (1961) as supportive, defen- sive: and Johnston's (1976) as organic-adaptive, stulti- fying. Jablin (1980) differentiates between objective and subjective communication climates as follows: M ' Objective communication climates are comprised of physically verifiable and/or independently derived (relative to the participants) quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the types, frequency, content, mode, media, context, etc. of messages sent and received in the organizational setting... Subjective communication climates represent a general cluster of inferred predispositions, iden- tifiable through reports of members' perceptions of messages and message-related events occurring in the organization (Jablin, 1980, p.342). Falcione and Kaplan (1984) summarized research efforts to operationalize communication climates in the 20 past. According to Falcione and Kaplan (1984) among the first to postulate an ideal communication climate was Redding (1972) who talked of dimenisons of (1) suppor- tiveness; (2) participative decision-making; (3) trust, confidence and credibility; (4) openness and candor: (5) high performance goals. Dennis (1975) similarly postulated communication climate to include Redding's (1972) five components plus two other dimensions, namely, information adequacy/satisfaction and semantic information distance. When factor analyzed, five factors were produced, namely, (1) superior-subordinate communication; (2) perceived quality and accuracy of downward communication; (3) per- ceived openness of superior-subordinate relationship; (4) opportunities and degree of influence of upward communica- tion; and (5) perceived reliability of information from subordinates and co-workers. Roberts and O'Reilly's (1974) instrument consisted of 36 items that measure 16 dimensions of organizational communication. Sixteen dimensions were produced: (1) trust, (2) influence, (3) mobility, (4) desire for interaction, (5) accuracy, (6) summarization, (7) gate-keeping, (8) overload, (9) directionality-upward, (10) directionality-downward, (11) directionality-lateral, (12) percentage of time used for written communication, (13) face-to-face communication, (14) telephone, (15) other communication modes, (16) communication satisfaction. 21 Falcione (1978) developed a 26-item communication climate instrument producing 5 dimensions: (1) communication receptivity, (2) decision-making, (3) organizational commitment, (4) coordination, (5) communication satisfac- tion/expectations. Finally, the ICA Communication Audit is a multi-method procedure that employs (1) questionnaire, (2) interviews, (3) network analysis, (4) communication experiences instrument and (5) communication diary. It purports to measure the communication climate from micro and macro perspectives. The communication dimensions assessed are: (1) amount of communication sent and received by an individual to others in the organization (in terms of discrepancy scores between what respondents perceived as needed and what was reported as sent and received), (2) the discrepancy in the amount of follow-up perceived necessary and completed by organization sources, (3) the timeliness of responses, (4) the degree of discrepancy between the information sent and perceived as needed by different levels of personnel. Research Issues Various major reviews of the literature on organi- zational climate have been conducted (Poole, 1985; Jablin, 1980: Payne & Pugh, 1976; James & Jones, 1974; Campbell, et al., 1970) in recent years. In these reviews, several theoretical and measurement issues have been identified. 22 At the conceptual level, James and Jones (1974) provide a critique of the climate construct with respect to each of the approaches. They conclude that there has been far more concern with measurement issues than with conceptual defi- nitions in the research they reviewed. While concerns with measurement issues are of major importance in organiza- tional research, operationalization of the climate con- struct should be guided by the conceptual definition of the construct. Hence, they propose that the first step in reconceptualization should be to distinguish between orga- nizational climate and psychological climate: When regarded as an organizational attribute, the term organizational climate appears appropriate. When regarded as an individual attribute, it is recommended that a new designation such as 'psycho- logical climate' be employed (James & Jones, 1974, p.1108). A related problem has to do with distinguishing between the physical climate of the organization and the ” perceived climate. Jablin (1980) refers to these as actual or objective and conceptual or perceptual climates, respec- tively, and offers the following distinction in terms of an organization's communication climate it is suggested that an organization's 'objective' communication climate should include physically verifiable as well as independently derived measures of relevant communication variables. In turn, 'subjective' measures of climate tap the perceptions of the participants (i.e., organiza- tional members) about communication phenomena (Jablin, 1980, p. 330). 23 At the conceptual level, Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) summarized the important conceptual problems as: (1) dis- tinguishing between the objective and subjective environment: (2) distinguishing between the person and the situation; (3) determining what aspects of the environment need to be specified; and (4) identifying the structures and dynamics of the environment. James and Jones (1974) point out that the litera- ture on organizational climate research reveals that researchers have generally been more concerned with measurement issues than with conceptual issues. These methodological concerns are seen to generally revolve around the issues of measurement and analysis. The measurement of organizational climate issue involves the problems relating to identification of climate dimensions and overlap and redundancy of measurement scales while the analysis issue deals with problems of level of measurement vis-a-vis aggregation of individual perceptual measures to produce organizational climate perceptions. A review of climate research reveals that varied organizational climate dimensions have been used. Campbell et al. (1970), in examining the different climate instru- ments, suggested that the four most commonly used dimen- sions of climate are: (1) individual autonomy; (2) degree of structure: (3) reward orientation: and (4) considera- tion, warmth, and support. 24 Perhaps the issue of redundancy is one that has generated the greatest controversy in the organizational climate literature. It concerns the debate over whether a large portion of organizational climate measuring instru- ments are redundant with satisfaction dimensions. Johan- nesson (1973), after cluster analyzing climate factors and work attitude factors, found substantial overlap and con- cluded that "job satisfaction and perceptually measured organizational climate are, to a large degree, redundant" (p. 122). Redundancy and overlap, it is argued, results from the use of climate items which have been adopted from job attitude and job satisfaction scales and from the unavoidable psychological problem of divorcing description from feelings. Guion (1973) noted the ambiguousness in the idea of a "perceived organizational climate" claiming that one can not be sure whether it implies an attribute of the organization or of the perceiving indivi- dual. If it refers to the organization, then measures of perceived organizational climate should be evaluated in terms of the accuracy of the per- ceptions. If it refers to the individual, then perceived organizational climate may simply be a different name for job satisfaction or employee attitudes (p. 120). Other researchers, however, have arrived at a different conclusion. Schneider and Snyder (1975) con- cluded that there is evidence that organizational climate and satisfaction data are not equivalent. They argued that 25 a logical and empirical distinction between these two concepts is possible if organizational climate is conceptualized as a characteristic of organizations which is reflected in the descriptions employees make of the policies, practices and conditions which exist in the work environment [and if] job satisfaction is concep- tualized as an affective response of individuals which is reflected in evaluations employees make of all the individually salient aspects of their job and the organization for which they work (p. 326). LaFollette and Sims (1975) also investigated the redundancy hypothesis forwarded by Johannesson (1973). Conducting a research in a medical organization, they came to the conclusion that while there is evidence that climate and satisfaction are correlated, these related differently to performance, hence, casting serious doubts on the redun- dancy issue. Further, it was argued that while a strong correlation exists, it does not by itself, prove redundancy or causality. Downey et a1. (1974, 1975) similarly con- cluded that their data provided some basis for the argument that organizational climate and job satisfaction are not one and the same. In more recent years, researchers have maintained the descriptive-affective distinction in organi- zational climate measures. The level of analysis issue deals with the distinc- tion being made in terms of climate as an organizational or individual attribute as reflected in James and Jones' (1974) typology of climate perspectives. Central to this issue is the problem of aggregating individual perceptions 26 of organizational attributes. As pointed out by Joyce and Slocum (1984), the usefulness of an aggregate climate concept is that it allows the description of organizational settings in psychological terms" (p. 722). Specifically, these authors (James, Joyce & Slocum, 1988: Joyce & Slocum, 1984) define organizational climate as aggregated psycho- logical climate whenever perceptual agreement has been demonstrated. Glick (1988), however, takes issue with this con- ceptualization arguing that organizational climate is a "broad class of organizational, rather than psychological, variables that describe the organizational context for individuals' actions" (Glick, 1985, p.613). Further, Glick (1988) suggests the use of the term organizational climate when a macro, realist perspective is used. When one takes an individualist approach (James et al., 1988), Click suggests the term aggregated psychological climate. Jablin (1980) summarized Jones and James' (1979) suggested criteria before data aggregation. Prior to data aggregation, the following considerations should be taken into account: (1) significant differences in aggregate or mean perceptions across different organizations or sub- units; (2) interperceiver reliability or agreement; (3) homogenous situational characteristics (e.g., similarity of context, structure, job type); and (4) meaningful relationships between the aggregate scores and various 27 organizational, subunit, or individual criteria. With respect to the validity of aggregate climates, Joyce and Slocum (1984) noted that a number of methodologi- cal criteria have been employed. These include discrimina- tion, predictable relationships to organizational or indi- vidual criteria, and internal consistency. The findings of their study provided support for the validity of collective climates. They suggested that "to the extent that these climates provide a common frame of reference for partici- pants, they would be expected to exert potent influences on individual performance and satisfaction" (Joyce & Slocum, 1984, p. 736). Summary of Perspectives and Issues In attempts to explicate the climate construct, various climate definitions have been offered by resear- chers. Poole (1985) summarized the points of agreement and disagreement among the various conceptualizations of the climate construct. First, there is agreement among organi- zational scholars that climate is a molar concept meaning that it characterizes the properties of the organization as a whole. While there has been confusion in early climate research concerning individual (psychological) and organi- zational climates, much of this has been clarified as researchers heeded James and Jones' (1974) distinction between the two. When regarded as an organizational 28 attribute, the term organizational climate appears appro- priate: when referring to individual attributes, the use of the term psychological climate is suggested. A second point of agreement is that climate is descriptive and not evaluative. The consensus regarding this aspect of climate research came about as a result of the debate on the redundancy hypothesis forwarded by Johanesson (1973). In brief, after cluster analyzing climate factors and work attitude factors, Johanesson (1973) concluded that there was substantial overlap in these two measures. Other researcher, however, came to a different conclusion. LaFollette and Sims (1975) showed the transitivity principle did not apply when correlations were examined between climate and performance and satisfac- tion and performance. Consensus on this issue came about when researchers agreed that whenever the characteristics of the organization are reflected in descriptions made by the employees regarding conditions of the work environment, it would refer to climate; whenever these characteristics are reflected in evaluations it would refer to satisfac- tion. Thirdly, there is general acceptance that the environment affects behaviors of organizational members. In general, it is widely assumed that individuals perceive cues from the environment and make attributions regarding apprehended order in their environment. Moreover, they 29 behave in ways to be consistent with the apprehended order. In climate research, what this means is that individual and/or organizational outcome variables are affected by the perceived organizational climate. There are also points of disagreement. First, there is disagreement concerning the generality of the climate construct. Early research conceptualized organiza- tional climate as a generalized description of the environ- ment. It was assumed that the climate of the organization could be measured by omnibus climate measures. Some researchers agree, however, that an organization could con- ceivably have sub-climates and for that matter multiple climates. Empirically, multiple climates were shown to exist (Powell & Butterfield, 1978). It is argued that if climates are seen to arise from organizational practices, there will be a climate associated with these practices. Second, there is disagreement on whether climate is objective or subjective. The point of debate concerns the use of objective and subjective measures. By objective measures Jablin (1980) refers to physically verifiable artifacts obtained independently of the organizational members (e.g. quantitative and qualitative descriptions of types, frequency, content, etc., of messages received and sent). By subjective measures he refers to members' per- ceptions of communication-related events occurring in the organization (e.g. perceived openness of communication with 3O superiors). The disagreement arises when it is argued that objectivity is lost once the researcher's own interpreta- tion of organizational meanings is imposed. Third, a methodological problem associated with the distinction between psychological and organizational climate is the units of measurement vis-a-vis units of analysis issue. In brief, the problem concerns the con- founding effect of measuring individual perceptions and then analyzing at a level other than that of the indivi- dual. -It has been argued that if measurement is done at ,the individual level, analysis should be done at that level, too. If concern is with measuring organizational climate, there is a need to determine an appropriate unit of aggregation. In the past, bases of aggregation included formal organizational units, departmental divisions or work groups. Joyce and Slocum (1984) observed inconclusive results in this research area and argued that such could be attributed to the hypothesis-testing approach often used in climate research. These approaches assume homogeneity of perceptions and then proceed to test differences among groups. As an alternative, Joyce and Slocum (1984) pro- pose the use of numerical taxonomic approaches which first search for similarities before applying such criteria as discrimination or significant relationships. 31 Statement of Research Purpose The purpose of this research is to determine the influence of membership in communication network groups on individuals' perceptions of the organization's climate and on attitudes toward work. The rationale for using com- munication groups, as opposed to other bases of aggregation is that individuals in communicative interaction tend to develop similar perceptions and ways of responding to the work environment. The communication group, therefore, may be considered a more homogenous social unit and can be hypothesized to exert important influences on climate perceptions and work satisfaction. CHAPTER III THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Overview This chapter discusses Social Information Proces- sing (SIP) as an organizing framework for the study of organizational climate and work satisfaction. Based on the premises of SIP, specific research hypotheses are formu- lated. Specifically, it is posited that membership in communication groups is significantly related to indivi- duals' degree of agreement on climate perceptions. More- over, the degree of agreement or unanimity in perceptions significantly influences individual's attitudes toward work and the individual's subsequent behavior. Social Information Processing Approach Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) Social Information Processing (SIP) approach to job attitudes is a theoretical perspective that emphasizes informational processes in a social context. While not widely used in organizational communication research, it is a "theoretical framework that makes an important link between communication and 32 33 individual and organizational outcomes" (Miller & Monge, 1985, p. 365). Specifically, Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) argue that the social context binds peOple to behavior through a process of commitment, affects the saliency of information about their past activities, and pro— vides norms and expectations that constrain their realization or justification of those activities. The social context, through informational social influence processes, can affect beliefs about the nature of jobs and work, about what attitudes are appropriate, and, indeed, about what needs people ought to possess (p. 233). The social information processing approach to job attitudes was developed by Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) in response to the inadequacies of the need-satisfaction perspective. In an examination of need-satisfaction models, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) concluded that there are problems with the basic theoretical structure and methodological aspects of these models. Miller and Monge (1985) summarized Salancik and Pfeffer's (1977) criticisms First, needs are conceptualized as stable charac- teristics of persons. However, theories attempting to delineate the structure of human needs (e.g. Maslow, 1943), have received little empirical support. Second, the definition of job charac- teristics in need theories has been largely incum- bent on the researcher, and characteristics identi- fied in early research have become the only ones used in more recent research. Third, the survey methods typically used in studies of job attitudes may be plagued by problems of consistency effects and priming effects. Finally, despite the possible artifactual results of consistency and priming, relatively small effect sizes have been obtained for the relationship between job characteristics 34 and absenteeism, productivity, and attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (p. 366). Essentially, the need-satisfaction models posit that individuals have basic, stable and identifiable attri- butes, including needs: that jobs have a stable, identi- fiable set of characteristics that are relevant to the needs of individuals. Work attitudes are developed from the correspondence between individual needs and job charac- teristics (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). From this perspec- tive then, work satisfaction results from job characteris- tics that satisfy the individual's needs. Conversely, work characteristics that are not compatible with an indivi- dual's needs are seen as resulting in work dissatisfaction. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) take issue with this position stating that this approach appear to deny indivi- duals' capacities to provide their own satisfaction by cognitively reconstructing situations. They offer social information processing as an alternative perspective which focuses on the social context of work. Specifically, their proposed model "emphasizes the effects of context and the consequences of past choices, rather than individual predispositions and rational decision-making processes" (p. 224). The social information processing approach is premised on the fundamental belief that individuals adapt their attitudes, behaviors and beliefs to their social 35 context and to the reality of their own past and present behavior and situation. Thomas and Griffin (1983) specifi- cally summarize Pfeffer's four basic premises: First, the individual's social environment may provide cues as to which dimensions might be used to characterize the work environment....Second, the social environment may provide information con- cerning how the individual should weight the various dimensions-whether autonomy is more or less important than variety of skill, whether pay is more or less important than social usefulness or worth. Third, the social context provides cues concerning how others come to evaluate the work environment on each of the selected dimensions.... And fourth, it is possible that the social context provides direct evaluation of the work setting along positive or negative dimensions, leaving it to the individual to construct a rationale to make sense of the generally shared affective reactions (p. 672). As such, the informational and social environment in which such behaviors occur becomes an important con- sideration in the study of work attitudes and behaviors. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) argue that "individuals develop attitude and need statements as a function of the informa- tion available to them at the time they express the atti- tude or need" (p.226). Such information is available in the individual's social environment. The social context also provides important cues the individual uses in the construction and interpretation of events, what attitudes and needs are appropriate and norms and expectations used in rationalizing previous actions. The social environment, then, has two general effects on 36 attitudes and need statements: (1) it provides a direct construction of meaning through guides to socially accep- table beliefs, attitudes and needs, and acceptable reasons for action; and (2) it focuses an individual's attention on certain information, making that information more salient, and provides expectations concerning individual behavior and the logical consequences of such behavior (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). According to the social information processing approach attitudes and need statements result from (1) the individual's cognitive evaluation of the work environment: (2) the individual's relevant past actions: and (3) the information available in the social context (Figure 1). Modelled in this way, work attitudes are seen to be largely determined by all relevant information in the social envi- ronment available to the individual rather than compati- bility in individual needs and job characteristics alone. As Thomas and Griffin (1983) articulate, "a funda- mental difference between the task attributes approach and the SIP vieWpoints, then, appears to be a disagreement regarding the influence of objective task characteristics and social cues provided to the individuals" (p. 679). Specifically, social information is seen to affect attitude and need statements through: (1) overt statements about worker attitudes; (2) the process of making aspects of the al'"""--" :08 38 environment salient; (3) interpretation of environmental cues: and (4) influential interpretation of one's needs. Tests of the SIP Model Several research studies have been done to test the social information processing approach to job attitudes. Thomas and Griffin (1983) reviewed and meta-analyzed ten studies dealing with the effects of social cues in the work place on employee task perceptions, evaluations and reactions. Their review suggests that social information appears to play an important role in shaping employee perceptions. Specifically, in studies which manipulated social information cues, perceived job satisfaction was significantly influenced. Moreover, Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) reported that the effect of social information has been demonstrated to hold across different research set- tings (1ab, survey, field experiment), different sources (coworkers, leaders), and different channels (oral, written, role models). Blau and Katerberg (1982) similarly concluded that research results to date have generally been shown to be supportive of Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) social information processing theory. Pfeffer (1980) tested the SIP model specifically focusing on the effects of social influence, as represented by work-group membership, on perceptions of job dimensions, needs and attitudes. He found evidence for the effect of 39 group membership on needs and job dimensions. Also, he found support for the effect of job dimensions, group membership and job behaviors on the development of work attitudes. The study focused particularly on the relative effects of the social context on attitude development. Recently, Miller and Monge (1985) extended the social information model to employee anxiety in organiza- tional change. They posited that anxiety is a function of individual needs, job characteristics and social informa- tion. Results indicated that the proposed model showed a good fit to the data and was significantly different from the null model. Furthermore, it was shown that informa- tion, needs and job level influence anxiety (attitude), hence, providing partial support for the theory. Results of this study also point out that previous information rather than information recency and saliency had a greater impact as a determinant of the need for privacy. Miller and Monge (1985) suggest that the theory be further tested with other outcome variables such as job satisfaction, commitment and involvement and that accumulation of infor— mation rather than saliency and recency be further examined in the context of its effect on strongly-held needs. Zalesny and Farace (1986) utilized Social Informa- tion Processing in the study of employee attitudes before and after they moved from a traditional office design to an open office set-up. They proposed that social information 40 through its attention-focusing effects should result in unequal response variance among groups. They found support for the prediction of smaller within-group variance for employees given relevant information. Research Hypotheses The role of communication in influencing indivi- duals' perceptions of the work place has received much attention and is well documented in the literature. Eisenberg (1984) observes that while past conceptions of .organizations have generally paid little attention to the role of cognition in organizations and treated communica- tion as an epiphenomenon, recent work have focused on the communication process itself and have emphasized the view that organizational members are thinking individuals with identifiable goals. This perspective assumes that communi- cators often have multiple goals and engage in strategic use of symbols to satisfy rather than maximize attainment of any one goal. As Eisenberg (1984) argues it is the am- biguity in the statement of core values that allows indivi- duals to "maintain individual interpretations while at the same time believing that they are in agreement" (p.231). Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) suggested that the concept of social information may be useful in climate research as a means of conceptually advancing the climate construct. Particularly, they offer a definition of 41 organizational climate "in terms of the shared perceptions of what attitudes and needs are appropriate, the shared definitions of jobs and work environments, and the defini- tions of how people should relate to that environment" (p. 240). Moreover, the social information processing approach suggests that the crucial issue is not the correspondence between shared social perceptions and other nonbehavioral indicators of situational characteristics but rather the consistency or unanimity with which persons define the situation, and the forcefulness with which they maintain such shared meanings (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Hence, it can be posited that H1: Individuals belonging to groups formed on the basis of communicative interaction will tend to have more similar climate perceptions than would individuals not belonging to communica- tion groups. Similarly, by the SIP model, it can be posited that attitudes toward work is influenced by the social context. Therefore, H2: Individuals belonging to groups formed on the basis of communicative interaction tend to have greater similarity in their degree of satisfaction than would individuals not belonging to communication groups. The main purpose of this investigation is to study the effect of social influence, as represented by member- ship in communication groups, on the development of 42 perceptions of the work environment and work attitudes. Communication network groups are used as aggregation units in testing hypothesized relationships. Social information processing theory provides a framework that allows the specification of relationships among work environment characteristics, attitudes, social context and behaviors (Figure 2). Specifically, these relationships can be stated in terms of: (1) predictors of work environment characteristics and (2) predictors of attitude. Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions Perceived work environment characteristics are individuals' descriptions of the conditions, policies and practices in the work place. By the SIP model, such per- ceptions are influenced by social information and by behavior. The first link specified in the SIP model posits that the social context has important influences on percep- tions of group members concerning the work environment. The role of communication in influencing individual's perceptions of the work place has received much attention and is well documented in the literature. As Schneider and Reichers (1983) point out, individuals who are in inter- action with each other tend to develop similar perceptions responding to, defining and integrating elements of the environment in particular ways. 43 Hoooe mHm Hosanna o co comma mudguano> ounce» Homewunnwcmmuo can coHuommmHuom xuoz .mumfiwao .cowum0ficssfioo on» msoem mmwanOMHMHwH cowammnuomhm .N madman Azoaaoemmaaamc in “amazes qa=mm 1? .aHmmmmmsmz maomoc Amonemmommm maaquov .nn moose mouemammaoamamo azmzzoma>zm smos onsaonazzoo mo mozmonmza A.o mm no.5 mm.HH mm.ma om.hv mm.mm v mwomw mmvm.o mnmm.o mmmm.o «mmam.o «ahmcm.o em mo.vH mm.va mh.ma mh.ov mm.hm m macaw Nhhm.a vmoa.a Show.o Hmmm.a «aavmom.o ma vm.a~ vw.mH mv.HH mm.hm mh.ma N macaw hwmh.o ommw.o mamv.a mmmm.o mmom.o ma mm.~H SN.HH mo.¢~ 5H.mm Hh.vv H macaw mon<>im mDA¢>Im moa<>um MDA<>Im mon¢>lm mwz mwz mochm¢> mwz¢Hm¢> mwzmHm<> z BzmzzomH>zm BZMZZOMH>zm onBw o>HuoHMQEOU v mamflfi msouw cofluo0flcsEEOOIcoz m> macaw cofiuoowsseaow 75 do. an ucoOfimwcmwm «is mo. um nanomemmmme .. on. no nanomeaanne . Hm5m.m ~405.H eama.m 5oH5.o .5eme.o 4e em.eg 55.5H no.5H no.5e em.ne OH gnome ..ee5v.o emmH.H e5nm.m mam5.o .4mmmm.n Hm no.5 em.5m mm.mm oe.~m e5.oe a gnome .geme.o emoo.a ~H55.H mmam.o ..m5em.o mo mm.oa em.em mm.o~ no.5m ee.ae m gnome ...mmeo.o mmmm.o «GM5.o .o55e.o .meme.o ma mo.a «H.5 o5.mm mm.am em.mm 5 gnome .«e5m~.o ..emo~.o ..me5~.o 855H.H .m5me.c m 85.8 em.m «v.8 me.55 HH.~m e gnome mnqmnug mnqmnum mnnmnug mnqmnum enqmnng mUZCHm¢> mwz¢Hm¢> mwz¢Hm¢> m02€Hm¢> moz¢Hm¢> z azmzzomgnzm azmzzomgnzm zomaomgegame aenma 52ozognm qmgooe nmogenng gnome .u.mooc ¢ mqmfle an. no unmomemnome ... 76 mo. um nanomemmnme .. on. an unmomegmegm . me.em om.ea mm.em -.ee em.m5 oe Ammmmzmz gnomeuzozc macaw zomgmmgzoo ..q55¢.o nSO5.o mm5o.m m5me.o ...e~am.o cm 45.5 me.HH 5m.5m o~.~e mm.mm 5H gnome ~mmm.o 54¢5.H memo.a mnem.o_ mme5.o Hg 55.4H mm.o~ mm.em NH.ve mm.mm Hm gnome man¢>lm mDA¢>Im HDA¢>Im MDA<>Im mon¢>lh mozmgmmn mozmgmmn mozmgmmn mozmmmmn mozmHmmn z ezmzzommnzn azmzzomm>zm zogaomgemame eenma 52ozoanm quoom nmommnmg gnome In.:ooc v WAmng mnmmnug enqmnug mozmgmmn mozmmmm> mozmgmmn mozmmmmn mozmmmmn z azmzzommnze azmzzomm>zm onnomgeHemm aenme 52ozoenm quooe amoHenng gnome somunm m> maonw coHuoOHGDEEow neocowum> o>aumummeow m mamfle no. no nemoemmmoae ... 79 me. no nanomemnnmm .. o5. um nanomeamome . eemm.a mmo~.H H5mH.H ammo.o mmeo.a we em.e~ 5m.5m mo.ma no.5e eH.me on gnome «Homm.o 5enm.m omea.a e~m5.o e5mn.o Hm no.5 em.gm mH.gH oe.~m e5.oe a gnome mam5.o omoo.m mm~5.H mgeo.m ~5om.o mm nm.oa em.em mm.n~ eo.mm ve.ae m gnome ...mmmo.o emmm.o «mo5.o H~5m.o ne~5.o mm no.5 em.a og.mm 5m.mm em.mm 5 gnome .m5mm.o ..mmo~.o «.eee~.o mmoe.m meme.o m m5.e em.m 44.4 He.55 HH.~m e gnome mnq<>ug mnqm>ug mnmm>ug mnomnug mnmmnug mozmgmm> nozmHmmn mozmgmm> mozmgmmn mozmgmmn z azmzzommnzm ezezzomann zogaommemame emnme nzozoanm quooe amoHenng gnome In.mooc m mafia. 80 Ho. um “GMOflMHGmHm «8* mo. um vamowmwcmwm s: OH. um unmowmwcmwm « MSMOHHHQ H50“ mmOHOM QOOMHOKVM mm3 OOQMHHMKV 5m.ma Hm.eH m5.eH ~5.mm og.me me axnmmmnmv gnome zoeHmmgzoo mmmm.o eeO5.o mmmo.a mee5.o .m.emmm.o om vm.5 me.HH 5m.5a o~.~e mm.ma NH gnome 5eoH.H mmem.m ne5a.o NHeH.H emam.a Hm 55.4H mm.o~ mm.ea «H.4e mm.mm Ha gnome mnqmnug mnqm>ng enqmnug mnom>ug mnq<>ug mezmHmm> mezmHmmn eezmHmm> mozmmmmn mozmmmmn z ezmzzomm>zm azmzzommnze onaommmHsme. aenme 52ozoanm mmHeoe qmoHenng gnome Au.moev m wage 81 analyses. Group membership was included as an indicator variable, where a value of "l" was assigned if the respon- dent belonged to the group and "0" otherwise; scale scores were used for climate dimensions and work satisfaction; and number of years was used to measure organizational tenure. For a variable to be included in a regression equation it must pass the tolerance and minimum tolerance tests. SPSSx defines tolerance as "the proportion of a variable's variance not accounted for by other independent variables in the equation. The minimum tolerance asso- ciated with a given variable not in the equation is the smallest tolerance any variable already in the equation would have if the given variable were included" (p.669). In SPSSx, the default tolerance value is 0.01. In all regression equations in this study, the indicator variable associated with Group 8 did not pass the tolerance tests and therefore was dropped from all subsequent analyses. Determinants of Climate Perceptions The predictor variables of climate included or- ganizational tenure and group membership. Tables 6 to 11 present results of regression analysis in which each climate dimension was used as the dependent variable and organizational tenure and group membership as independent variables. 82 TABLE 6 Regression Statistics for Entire Equation (Dependent Variable = Perceptions of Work Environment) DEPENDENT OVERALL ADJUSTED MULTIPLE VARIABLE F-VALUE R-SQUARED CORRELATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 6.3824*** .1562 .4303 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 4.9461*** .1195 .3370 AUTONOMY 2.8796*** .0607 .3050 TRUST 3.1298*** .0682 .3167 ** *** Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 83 TABLE 7 Regression Coefficients (Dependent Variable = Perceptions of Work Environment) PHYSICAL SOCIAL AUTONOMY TRUST ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT CONSTANT 34.4080 26.3729 12.6016 10.3728 TENURE 00.0541 00.0929* 00.2383*** 00.1227** GROUP 1 -00.0268 00.0901* 00.0840 00.0754 GROUP 2 00.1678*** 00.0683 00.1151** -00.0038 GROUP 3 -00.0049 -00.0029 00.1527*** 00.0773 GROUP 4 -00.1087** 00.1483*** 00.0793 00.0830 GROUP 5 -00.0909 -00.1012* 00.0054 -00.0295 GROUP 6 00.0119 00.0012 00.0717 00.0011 GROUP 7 -00.1047** 00.0802 00.0907* 00.1667*** GROUP 8a - - - - GROUP 9 00.0198 -00.1509*** -00.0925 00.0566 GROUP 10 -00.3670*** -00.1649*** 00.0776 -00.1285** GROUP 11 -00.0133 00.1254** 00.1135** 00.0880 GROUP 12 00.0094 00.0587 -00.0036 -00.0750 :* Significant at .10 *** Significant at .05 a Sign1ficant at .01 This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 84 TABLE 8 Predictors of Work Environment Perceptions (Dependent Variable = Perception Physical Environment) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 1.059 .0031 .0560 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 0.251 .0007 -.0273 GROUP 2 10.324*** .0297 .1724 GROUP 3 0.651 .0019 -.0439 GROUP 4 3.974** -0117 .1080 GROUP 5 2.485 .0073 -.0856 GROUP 6 0.053 .0002 .0126 GROUP 7 4.107** .0120 -.1097 GROUP 8a - - - GROUP 9 0.129 .0004 .0196 GROUP 10 38.284*** .1020 .3194 GROUP 11 0.061 .0002 -.0135 GROUP 12 0.031 .0001 .0095 ** *** Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 85 TABLE 9 Predictors of Work Environmment Perceptions (Dependent Variable = Perception of Social Environment) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 2.989* .0088 .0938 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 2.822* .0083 .0911 GROUP 2 1.638 .0048 .0696 GROUP 3 0.003 .0000 .0028 GROUP 4 7.092*** .0206 .1436 GROUP 5 2.952* .0087 -.0932 GROUP 6 0.001 .0000 .0012 GROUP 7 2.310 .0068 .0825 GROUP ea - - - GROUP 9 7.150*** .0208 -.1442 GROUP 10 7.409*** .0215 -.1467 GROUP 11 5.208** .0152 .1233 GROUP 12 1.147 .0034 .0583 :* Significant at .10 Significant at .05 *** Significant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 86 TABLE 10 Predictors of Work Environment Percepctions (Dependent Variable = Perception of Autonomy) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 18.421*** .0518 .2277 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 2.304 .0068 .0824 GROUP 2 4.364** .0128 .1131 GROUP 3 6.760*** .0197 .1402 GROUP 4 1.902 .0056 .0749 GROUP 5 0.008 .0000 .0048 GROUP 6 1.734 .0051 .0716 GROUP 7 2.769* .0082 .0903 GROUP 8a - - - GROUP 9 2.515 .0074 .0861 GROUP 10 1.538 .0045 .0674 GROUP 11 3.996** .0117 .1082 GROUP 12 0.004 .0000 -.0034 :* Significant at .10 ***, Sign1ficant at .05 S1gnificant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 87 TABLE 11 Predictors of Work Environment Percepctions (Dependent Variable = Perception of Trust) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 4.9242** .0144 .1200 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 1.869 .0055 .0743 GROUP 2 0.005 .0000 .0038 GROUP 3 1.748 .0052 .0718 GROUP 4 2.097 .0062 .0786 GROUP 5 0.236 .0007 -.0265 GROUP 6 0.001 .0000 .0011 GROUP 7 9.4312*** .0272 .1650 GROUP 8a - - - GROUP 9 0.949 .0028 -.0530 GROUP 10 4.248** .0125 -.1116 GROUP 11 2.421 .0071 .0845 GROUP 12 1.769 .0052 -.0722 Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis ** *** 88 All regression equations proved to be significant at the .01 or better level of significance (Table 6). However, the magnitudes of the effect size (adjusted R2) were not substantial. The proportion of the variance in the dependent variable explained by the joint effects of the independent variables range from a low of 6% to a high of 16%. Hence, much of the variation in the dependent variables remains largely unexplained by the model. Effects of Group Membership The independent effects of membership in com- munication groups are presented in Tables 7 to 11. For all regression equations at least two groups showed significant Beta coefficients (Table 7). In all, these involved 9 (Groups 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10,11) of the 12 groups. Relative to the length of time one has been in the organization, group membership is a better explanatory variable. Group membership accounted for almost all of the explained variation in climate perceptions except for the autonomy dimension (Table 12). Hence, one's perceptions of the work environment relating to aspects of the physical environment, social environment and trust are affected by the social influence exerted by the group on its members. 89 TABLE 12 Proportion of Variation in Climate Perceptions Accounted for by Categories of Independent Variables DEPENDENT GROUP ORGANIZATIONAL GROUP VARIABLE MEMBERSHIP TENURE AND TENURE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .1560 .0063 .1562 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT .1143 .0167 .1195 AUTONOMY .0123 .0455 .0607 TRUST .0574 .0107 .0682 90 Effects of Organizational Tenure Organizational tenure proved to be a significant predictor of members' perceptions of the social environ- ment, autonomy and trust but not for perceptions of the physical environment. This implies that the length of time one has spent in the organization significantly influences one's perceptions of certain aspects of the work environ— ment. Specifically, perceptions of ease of communication, feelings of belonging, freedom in the job and trust in management appear to be affected by the number of years one has been in the organization. The physical aspects of the work place, such as proper lighting, comfortable tempera- ture, etc., do not seem to be particularly influenced by organizational tenure. Organizational tenure accounted for about 5% of the variation in perceptions of autonomy. However, for perceptions of trust, and perceptions of the social environment the effect of organizational tenure is negligible (Tables 7 to 11). In summary, it seems that both organizational tenure and group membership variables play important roles in determining perceptions of the work environment. The relative importance of these variables, however, differs for different climate dimensions. For instance, group membership was more influential than organizational tenure in predicting perceptions of the physical environment, 91 social environment and trust. On the other hand, length of time spent in the organization proved to be more important than group membership in predicting autonomy perceptions. Determinants of Work Satisfaction Predictor variables of work satisfaction included organizational tenure, climate perception and group membership. Tables 13 to 18 present results of regression analysis in which work satisfaction was the dependent variable and organizational tenure, perceptions of the physical environment, social environment, autonomy and trust and group membership were the independent variables. All regression equations proved significant at the .01 or better level of significance. This suggests that the combined effects of the independent variables significantly explain the variation in work satisfaction. Moreover, effect sizes, as expressed in terms of correlation between work satisfaction and the combined effects of group membership, organizational tenure and climate perceptions were moderately high from .44 to .64 (Table 13). The independent variables explain between 16% to 38% of the variation in work satisfaction. Effects of Group Membership The independent effects of group membership are presented in Tables 14 to 18. Three (Groups 4,5, and 10) 92 TABLE 13 Regression Statistics for Entire Equation (Dependent Variable = Satisfaction) CLIMATE OVERALL ADJUSTED MULTIPLE DIMENSION F-VALUE R-SQUARED CORRELATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 6.2801*** .1643 .4421 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 17.8136*** .3851 .6388 AUTONOMY 7.0012*** .1827 .4617 TRUST 13.1637*** .3124 .5875 Significant at .10 * Significant at .05 Significant at .01 93 TABLE 14 Regression Coefficients (Dependent Variable = Satisfaction) PHYSICAL SOCIAL AUTONOMY TRUST ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT CONSTANT 12.2707 08.8457 13.2085 11.3214 CLIMATE DIMENSION 00.1994*** 00.5367*** 00.2349*** 00.4498*** TENURE 00.1462*** 00.1251*** 00.1190** 00.1198*** GROUP 1 00.0104 -00.0432 -00.0146 -00.0287 GROUP 2 -00.0514 —00.0546 00.0450 -00.0162 GROUP 3 00.0341 00.0267 -00.0107 -00.0097 GROUP 4 00.1183** 00.0170 00.0780 00.0593 GROUP 5 00.0684 00.1046** 00.0491 00.0636 GROUP 6 00.0033 00.0051 —00.0112 00.0052 GROUP 7 00.0524 -00.0115 00.0102 -00.0434 GROUP 8a - - - - GROUP 9 -00.0115 00.0735 —00.0292 00.0179 GROUP 10 -00.2378*** -00.2224*** -00.3292*** -00.2532*** GROUP 11 00.0482 -00.0218 00.0189 00.0060 GROUP 12 -00.0515 -00.0811 -00.0487 -00.0158 :* Significant at .10 *** Significant at .05 a Sign1f1cant at .01 This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 94 TABLE 15 Predictors of Work Satisfaction (Climate Dimension = Physical Environment) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION PHYSICAL * * ENVIRONMENT 13.528 * .0387 .1967 TENURE 9.797*** .0283 .1683 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 0.040 .0001 .0109 GROUP 2 0.949 .0028 -.0530 GROUP 3 0.378 .0011 .0335 GROUP 4 4.700** .0138 .1174 GROUP 5 1.411 .0042 .0647 GROUP 6 0.004 .0000 .0004 GROUP 7 1.026 .0030 .0552 GROUP 8a - - - GROUP 9 0.044 .0001 -.0114 GROUP 10 14.577*** .0416 -.2039 GROUP 11 0.810 .0024 .0490 GROUP 12 0.927 .0028 -.0525 Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis ** *** 95 TABLE 16 Predictors of Work Satisfaction (Climate Dimension = Social Environment) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION SOCIAL ** ENVIRONMENT 139.004* .2927 .5410 TENURE 7.684*** .0224 .1495 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 0.922 .0027 -.0523 GROUP 2 1.491 .0044 -.0664 GROUP 3 0.316 .0009 .0306 GROUP 4 0.131 .0004 .0197 GROUP 5 4.477*** .0132 .1147 GROUP 6 0.013 .0000 .0063 GROUP 7 0.068 .0002 -.0142 GROUP 83 - - - GROUP 9 2.378 .0070 .0838 GROUP 10 18.888*** .0532 -.2307 GROUP 11 0.222 .0007 .0257 GROUP 12 3.122 .0092 -.0960 :* Significant at .10 * * Significant at .05 * Significant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 96 TABLE 17 Predictors of Work Satisfaction (Climate Dimension = Autonomy) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION AUTONOMY 21.372*** .0552 .2349 TENURE 5.004** .0141 .1190 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 0.079 .0004 -.0146 GROUP 2 0.755 .0020 -.0449 GROUP 3 0.038 .0001 .0107 GROUP 4 2.100 .0061 .0780 GROUP 5 0.746 .0024 .0491 GROUP 6 0.048 .0001 .0112 GROUP 7 0.040 .0001 .0102 GROUP 8a - - - GROUP 9 0.287 .0009 .0292 GROUP 10 5.6275*** .1084 -.3292 GROUP 11 0.125 .0004 .0189 GROUP 12 0.852 .0024 .0487 ** *** Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis 97 TABLE 18 Predictors of Work Satisfaction (Climate Dimension = Trust) INDEPENDENT F-VALUE R SQUARED PARTIAL VARIABLE CORRELATION TRUST 93.393*** .2175 .4664 TENURE 6.330** .0185 .1360 MEMBERSHIP IN GROUP 1 0.370 .0011 -.0332 GROUP 2 0.119 .0004 -.Ol88 GROUP 3 0.037 .0001 -.0105 GROUP 4 1.459 .0043 .0658 GROUP 5 1.508 .0045 .0668 GROUP 6 0.013 .0000 .0062 GROUP 7 0.854 .0025 -.0503 GROUP 8a — - - GROUP 9 0.130 .0004 .0197 GROUP 10 22.326*** .0623 -.2496 GROUP 11 0.015 .0000 .0067 GROUP 12 0.108 .0003 -.0179 Significant at .10 Significant at .05 Significant at .01 a This variable did not pass the default tolerance value and therefore was not included in the analysis ** *** 98 of the 12 groups proved to significantly influence work satisfaction. Consistently, membership in Group 10 accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in the dependent variable. The proportion of variation explained by membership in Group 10 alone ranged from 4% to 10%. Moreover, it is clear from Table 19 that in predicting work satisfaction, group membership is a better predictor than organizational tenure. The inclusion of group membership in the regression equations results in an increase in the magnitude of the explained variance. Specifically, the combination of climate perception and group membership leads to a substantial increase in the amount of explained variation. Hence, the data provide evidence for the effect of membership in communication groups on work satisfaction. Effects of Climate Perceptions When independently assessed for their contributions significant Beta coefficients were obtained for climate dimension at .01 or better level of significance (Table 14). In all regression equations the climate perception proved to be a more important predictor variable than organizational tenure and group membership, except for the autonomy dimension. Perceptions of the social environment accounted for 29% of the total variation in work satisfaction; perceptions of trust accounted for 22%; 99 TABLE 19 Proportion of Variation in Work Satisfaction Accounted for by Categories of Independent Variables PHYSICAL SOCIAL AUTONOMY TRUST ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE DIMENSION .0713 .3081 .0669 .2465 GROUP MEMBERSHIP .0549 .0664 .1084 .0623 ORGANIZAf TIONAL TENURE .0283 .0224 .0141 .0185 CLIMATE AND GROUP .1425 .3729 .1730 .3090 CLIMATE AND TENURE .1689 .3830 .1884 .3294 GROUP AND TENURE .0837 .0888 .1225 .0808 CLIMATE, GROUP AND TENURE .1712 .3824 .1906 .3279 100 perceptions of autonomy accounted for 6%; and perceptions of the physical environment accounted for 4% of the variation in work satisfaction. Apparently, the way one perceives the climate of the work place determines, to a large extent, one's attitudes toward the job. Effects of Organizational Tenure While organizational tenure proved to be a sig- nificant explanatory variable, its effect size, as repre- sented by the proportion in work satisfaction explained by organizational tenure, was not substantial. In fact, R2 values ranged only from 1% to 3%. In relation to climate perceptions and group membership, organizational tenure had the least effect on work satisfaction (Table 19). In summary, work satisfaction, as specified in the SIP approach to work attitudes, appears to be significantly influenced by perceptions of the work environment, member- ship in communication groups and organizational tenure. Moreover, effect sizes, as represented by the square of the multiple partial correlation, appear to be substantial. It seems, therefore, that in general there is support for the links among Communication, behavior and work environment perceptions as specified in the SIP model. 101 Summary of Results Hypotheses 1 and 2 assert that individuals who belong to groups formed on the basis of communicative interaction will exhibit greater homogeneity in their perceptions of the work environment and their degree of reported satisfaction than would individuals not belonging to these groups. Results of test for homogeneity of variance show that there is evidence that a certain degree of homogeneity is achieved when individuals are grouped on the basis of frequency of communication. The SIP model specifies that perceptions of the work environment are determined by the social influence attributable to group membership and by length of time one has been in the organization. Using regression analyses, the effects of membership in communication groups and organizational tenure were assessed. Results indicate that jointly group membership and organizational tenure sig- nificantly influence climate perceptions. However, effect sizes, as represented by the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable explained by the model, do not appear to be substantial. Hypothesis 3 specifically posits that perceptions of the work environment are influenced by membership in communication groups. Results show that nine of the 12 groups proved to be significant determinants of perceptions 102 of the work environment. Hence, it appears that social influence, as represented by group membership, affects work environment perceptions providing support for Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 posits that length of time in the organization influences perceptions of the work environ- ment. Results show that organizational tenure is an important explanatory variable for perceptions of some aspects of the environment but not for others. Length of time in the organization is seen to influence perceptions of the social environment, autonomy and trust. Perceptions of the physical environmment are not particularly in- fluenced by length of time in the organization. The SIP model also specifies that work attitudes are affected by social influence, perceptions of the work environment and length of time in the organization. Results show that the joint effects of the explanatory variables significantly influence work satisfaction. In general, therefore, support for the links specified in the SIP model was obtained. Hypothesis 5 specifically posits that membership in communication groups influence work satisfaction. While only three of the 12 groups proved to be significant ex- planatory variables, the effect size associated with these groups were substantial relative to the other independent variables. It appears that such results provide support for Hypothesis 5. 103 Hypothesis 6 posits that perceptions of the work environment influence an individual's degree of satisfac- tion. Results showed that perceptions of the climate are indeed important explanatory variables in its influence on work satisfaction. Hypothesis 7 posits that the length of time one has been in the organization significantly influences work satisfaction. In all regression equations, organizational tenure proved to be a significant explanatory variable. However, the magnitude of its effect size is not substantial. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Overview While general support for the predictions of the SIP model was found in the present study, several issues need to be addressed in light of the findings. First, the issue of low effect sizes is discussed. Second, although group membership as a whole significantly influences climate perceptions and work satisfaction, certain groups appear to consistently affect these variables while others do not. Low Effect Sizes The explained variance in perceptions of the work environment range from 6% to 16% indicating that as much as 84% to 94% of the variation remain unaccounted for by group membership and organizational tenure. Similarly, as much as 62% to 84% of the variance in work satisfaction cannot be accounted for by group membership, organizational tenure and climate perceptions. InclUsion of variables that may be contributing to individual differences, such as gender 104 105 and job tenure, did not improve the predictive power of the models (Table 20). The analysis has shown that membership in com- munication groups rather than organizational tenure or individual differences better explains variation in climate perceptions. Pfeffer (1980) found similar results when the addition of education, age and time on the job failed to enhance the proportion of explained variation in the prediction of task dimensions. Since individual charac- teristics do not appear to significantly impact on percep- tions of the environment, it could be argued that unique group characteristics may be a possible source of variation. Communication Group Membership In fact, the second and related issue that has become apparent in this study is that membership in certain communication groups has consistently been shown to influence climate perceptions and work satisfaction. However, when group properties such as size and density were included in the regression equation no significant improvement in the predictive power of the model was achieved (Table 21). Other studies (Pfeffer, 1980; Contractor, 1987) have demonstrated that the amount of social interaction does not influence work environment perceptions. 106 TABLE 20 Comparison of Adjusted R2 for Regression Equations Excluding and Including Gender and Job Tenure EQUATION EXCLUDING INCLUDING NUMBER GENDER AND GENDER AND JOB TENURE JOB TENURE Equation 1 .16 .16 Equation 2 .12 .12 Equation 3 .06 .07 Equation 4 .05 .05 Equation 5 .17 .17 Equation 6 .38 .38 Equation 7 .19 .19 Equation 8 .33 .33 107 TABLE 21 Comparison of Adjusted R2 for Regression Equations Excluding and Including Group Size and Group Density EQUATION EXCLUDING INCLUDING NUMBER GROUP SIZE GROUP SIZE AND DENSITY AND DENSITY Equation 1 .16 .16 Equation 2 .12 .12 Equation 3 .06 .06 Equation 4 .05 .06 Equation 5 .17 .17 Equation 6 .38 .38 Equation 7 .19 .19 Equation 8 .33 .33 108 Pfeffer (1980) suggested that if individual variables and amount of social interaction do not account for the remaining unexplained variance, it could be that it is not so much the intra-group interaction as it is the between group differences that leads to a significant group effect. Specifically, he suggests that isolation from non- group members rather than interaction with group members is accounting for variation in perceptions. He argues that "for there to be a group effect, it must be the case that the person is influenced by his co-workers to hold at- titudes toward the job and the organization which are different from those held in other groups..." (p. 473). If this is indeed true, examination of group characteristics that discriminate among groups may be a step towards better understanding the influence of the social context on perceptions of the work environment. It has long been recognized by behavioral scientists that social norms exert potent influences on individuals' interpretation of cues in their environment, their at- titudes and consequent behavioral patterns. Norms are the "unwritten rules that are felt to govern what people should or should not do (in behavior) or be (in attitude) in order to be acceptable members in good standing of a particular social system" (Steele 8 Jenks, 1977, p. 41.). Group norms are those specific expectations that arise from the confluence of individual beliefs and 109 value systems that members bring to the group. As such, group norms are distinct to the group and may possibly be contributing to the differential effect of group membership on climate perceptions and work attitudes. Hence, it can be argued that it is not the amount or frequency of interaction alone that affects one's perceptions of the work environment. Rather, it may be the unique interplay of expectations, values and belief systems of individual group members that influence perceptions of the work environment and their behavioral patterns. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview The present study has demonstrated general support for the Social Information Processing Model to Job At- titudes. Moreover, the data provides some evidence for social information influence, as represented by membership in communication groups, on perceptions of the work environment and on work attitudes. These conclusions, however, need to be tempered by certain limitations of the study. Recommendations to improve future research on work environment perceptions and work attitudes are presented. Study Limitations The study is limited in several respects. These limitations relate to (1) the clustering approach used to identify the groups used in the analysis and (2) the limited test of the Social Information Processing Model. First, a saturated sample or complete census was not obtained for this study. Time and cost constraints did not allow for the inclusion of all employees in the organization. The interaction patterns, therefore, do not 110 111 reflect the complete picture of the communication linkages in the organization. Moreover, the communication network analyzed could have been influenced by the existing conditions at the time of data gathering. It should be recalled that the dif- ferent offices were housed in different buildings that were geographically separated. As the results showed, the com- munication network groups that emerged highly coincided with service areas. A different communication network may have emerged if the respondents were centrally located. The second major limitation of the study concerns the test of a partial, rather than a full, SIP model. The model here tested focused on the effects of social informa- tion on perceptions of the work environment and attitudes, the effects of perceptions on attitudes, and the effects of behavior on perceptions and attitudes. The study did not allow for a test for needs, behavioral commitment and past behaviors. Moreover, since social information influence was represented by communication group membership, informa- tion saliency and recency were also not tested for. Recommendations for Future Research Results of the present study suggest several areas for improving future studies dealing with the influence of communication on climate perceptions and work satisfaction. First, the impact of group norms as well as the overall 112 organizational culture need to be taken into consideration in future research. The finding that certain groups significantly affected perceptions of the work environment and reported work satisfaction while other groups did not suggest the need to seriously examine intra-group charac- teristics and processes that set them apart from other groups. The SIP model shows that social norms and expecta- tions have important influences on the rationalization and legalization of the individual's past behaviors. Past behaviors in turn affect perceptions and one's attitudes toward work. While social norms and expectations have been specified as important components in Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) SIP model, most studies utilizing this theoretical framework have not focused on norms as explanatory vari- ables in determining perceptions of task environment characteristics. One of the reasons for the failure to include this component in the test of the SIP model is that social norms are difficult to measure with standard survey instruments. Determining existing group or organizational norms entails considerable amount of research time involving detailed observations, interviews and note-taking. To gain better understanding of intra-group processes that are important in determining climate perceptions, future research should include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. 113 Moreover, future studies should be designed to obtain overtime data since organizations, and particularly groups, change all the time. At the pragmatic level, results of the study should also provide directions for better understanding the way employees perceive the work environment as well as how perceived climate affects work attitudes. The present study has shown that social units, such as communication or work groups, influence members' perceptions of the work environment, which in turn influence work attitudes. This suggests that employees' work attitudes may be improved through knowledge of existing group norms and expectations. It is not sufficient to create a favorable climate. The climate must be perceived to be such. Second, the SIP model posits that commitment binds an individual to a behavior. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) argue that "commitment affects the creation of attitudes from behavior by constraining how individuals make sense of their reactions to their environment" (p. 230). However, it is "not choice or commitment per se, but choice or commitment associated with a specific behavior that affects attitudes" (Pfeffer, 1980, p. 464). Hence, it is the interaction of choice or commitment with behavior that is seen to influence attitudes. In the present study, behavior was measured as the number of years one has been in the organization. To test 114 the interactive effects of this behavior on work attitudes it is necessary to include the behavioral commitment component of the SIP model. Future research investigating the effects of behavior, represented by length of time in the organization, on attitudes, therefore, need to look into the interaction of behavioral commitment and organiza- tional tenure on work attitudes. Third, in this study, social information influence was measured in terms of membership in communication groups and therefore measured at the nominal level. As such, this variable was included as an indicator variable where membership was indicated as "1" and non-membership as a "0". In future research, it is suggested that social information influence be operationalized in other ways as well. Fourth, general support found for the SIP model should prompt further tests of the model. Specifically, in addition to work environment variables, task charac- teristics should also be examined. Likewise, other behavioral variables such as commitment and involvement in the organization should be included in the test of the model. Fifth, as ealier pointed out, the resulting communication networks may have been influenced by the fact that offices were housed in geographically separate locations. The present study could be extended by 115 examining communication networks for organizations that have all their offices in a central location. This should allow for a better way to determine the effect of com- munication groups vis-a-vis functional divisions or departments of the organization. Summary The primary purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of membership in communication network groups on perceptions of work environment characteristics and on reported satisfaction. In the study of organiza- tional climate, it has been proposed that prior to cor- relating individual and organizational outcome variables, such as job satisfaction, with climate perceptions, there is a need to establish the validity of the aggregated score. In this study, individuals were clustered on the basis of the frequency of communication. Resulting communication network groups were used as aggregation units. Tests of homogeneity of variance showed that a certain degree of homogeneity in climate perceptions was achieved when individuals were grouped on the basis of communicative interaction. Hypothesized relationships among communication, climate, work satisfaction and behavior variables were formulated using Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) social information processing (SIP) model. In this perspective, 116 social information was seen to influence perceptions of the work environment and attitudes toward work. In the current study, social information influence was represented by membership in communication groups. Results provided general support for the SIP model. However, the proportion of variance explained by the set of independent variables was not substantial suggesting that much of the variation remains unexplained by the predictor variables. Inclusion of individual variables such as gender and job tenure did not improve the predictive power of the regression model. Results also revealed that certain groups consistently influenced climate perceptions and work satisfaction while other groups did not. Group properties such as size and density did not enhance the predictive power of the model. These findings suggest that there is a need to further examine factors operating at the intra-group level which may be uniquely contributing to the way group members perceive the organization's climate and to their attitude towards work. APPENDIX A WORK ENVIRONMENT INSTRUMENT 117 APPENDIX A WORK ENVIRONMENT INSTRUMENT SECTION I - WORK ENVIRONMENT The first part oi the questionnaire seeks Information about your work environment. WORK ENVIRONMENT Includes the physical, social and Iniormatlon characteristics oi your work. PNYSICAI. CHARACTERISTICS reier to heating. lighting. oiiice layout. etc. in your work environment. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS refer to privacy. ease oi «munication. relationships with others. etc. In your work environment. INFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS refer to whom you give Iniormatlon, receive iniormation from, the kinds oi Information you exchange, and its importance in your work. The questions in Parts A. B. and C address the physical and social characteristics oi your work environ- ment. The questions in D and E tap the Iniormation characteristics oi your work environment. A. THINK ABOUT YOUR CURRENT WORKING CONDITIONS -, YOUR OFFICE ENVIRONMENT AND WORK SPACE Immediately surrounding you. “I Indicate the degree to which you AGREE or DISAGREE g ,2! with the ioIlowIng statements by circling the appropriate 4' .g a: number. & G g V 4) lo 4'" 6 " e ’0 P " G’ e a? 9 g 5% '0 a I. nvwonrnsus: 35’ 3§€g§ 4‘ o J? o" 3.“ 4’ «'3 a. adequately lighted ' u I 2 3 4 S 6 1 b. large enough Ior my needs as I 2 3 4 S 6 1 c. adequately equipped for my work so I 2 3 4 S 6 1 d. at a comiortable temperature throughout the year u l 2 J 4 S 6 1 e. located close to people I need to talk with in my lob so I 2 3 4 S 6 1 i. located near personal Iacilities (ior example, bathrooms. u I 1 3 4 s 5 1 eating areas. etc.) 2. NY WORK AREA PROVIDES: a. the quiet I need to do my work . a! I 2 3 4 S 6 7 b. the visual privacy I need to do my work so I 2 3 4 S 6 7 c. enough storage (or my work needs 90 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 3. iii NY NORK AREA: a. I feel Iree to discuss private matters without being overheard 4° I 2 J 4 S 6 1 b. I have no worries about my property being stolen at I 2 3 4 S 6 7 c. the noise level makes me irritable and uneasy a I 2 3 q s g 1 d. It Is hard to concentrate on what I am doing as I 2 3 4 S 6 1 e. I am aware of others passing nearby . u I 2 3 4 S 6 1 i. I am aware of others working nearby as I 2 3 4 S 6 1 118 This set oi questions addresses social characteristics oi your work environment. These questions iocus on the group oi people that you work with. Two kinds oi groups are iound In the NOE: Service areas. e.g.. Department Services. REAS; and Oiiices. e.g.. Oiilco oi the Superintendent. Oiilco oi Proiesslonal Development. I. THINK ABOUT THE SERVICE AREA-OFFICE THAT YOU WORK IN AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU WORK WITH. ' Indicate the degree to which you AGREE or DISAGREE with the iollowing statements by circling the appropriate number. 4. IN MY SERVICE AREA/OFFICE: a. It is easy to talk openly to all people b. it is easy to ask advice irom any person 5. I FEEL THAT: 'I . I am really a part oi my service area/oiiice . there are ieelings among people that tend to pull the service area/oiiice apart c. I look iorward to being with others in my service area/oiiice each day d. there Is too much blckeringpin my service area/oiiice 4T 4. 4. C. THINK ABOUT YOUR SERVICE AREA/OFFICE AND ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING: (Indicate the number that Is appropriate) ‘ 6. HON MANY PEOPLE In your service area/oiiice: (e.g.. DOS. OISI O regularly ask ou ior information do you regularly ask ior lniormation 7. IN AN AVERAGE WEEK. NON MANY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION: do you receive irom people in your service area/oiiicei do you make oi other people In your service area/oiiicei 119 The nest set oi questions measures the iniormationcharacteristics oi your work environment. People's behavior may be iniluenced by Iniormation and one's perception oi It. D. THINK ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE OTTAWA STREET BUILDING AND YOUR REACTIONS TO THAT INFORMATION. Indicate the degiee to which you AGREE or DISAGREE with the ioliowlng statements by circling the appropriate 40 number. 4” a, 4’ 4’ Q g e O Y " to 4'" 6'. ’* 6’ '0 “ " G’ S c? a“ t S 73’ ’- 6. THE INFORMATION I HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT THE MOVE TO THE 8, ‘0‘. 3 § .5 t? 8 ‘\ OTTAWA STREET BUILDING: 1"; 6 s g ; V a a. has been timely as I 2 3 4 S 6 7 b. has been useiul so I 2 3 4 S 6 7 c. has adequately answered my qu'estions eo l 2 3 4 S 6 7 d. indicates that it will be a positive experience or I 2 3 4 S 6 7 e. makes me think that Department employees will have problems as l 2 3 4 S 6 7 working there i. Indicates that my work space there will be adequate on I 2 3 4 S 6 1 9. OVERALLWABOUT THE MOVE TO THE ‘ OTTAWA STREET BUILDING ARE THAT: a. the move is oi no concern to me 7° I 1 3 4 5 5 7 b. I look iorward to the move 1' l 2 3 4 5 4 7 c. I feel anxious about the move 18 l 2 3 4 S 6 7 l0. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR NE: a. to be the iirst one to give someone new iniormation vs I 2 3 4 S 6 7 b. to have lots oi iniornmtion about the Ottawa Street Building :4 l 2 3 4 S 6 7 c. to get more iniormation about the Ottawa Street Building n l 2 3 4 S 6 7 II. IT IS IMPORTANT TO OTHER MDE STAFF: a. to be the £9 one to give new iniormation so I 2 3 4 s g 7 b. to have lots oi Iniormation aboutzthe Ottawa Street Building 77 I 1 3 4 S 6 7 c. to get more Iniormation about the Ottawa Street Building u I 2 3 4 S 6 7 For example: Ii you view the association with this person as the maximum closeness possible................... use l00 I l V l O ii you view the closeness oi association as - two thirds as close as it could be - use 066 oL‘J 6 li you view the closeness oi association as minimal or nonexistent........ _ use 000 O l O l O ‘ HOW CLOSELY "0:15:50, you assocwre LAST NAME.- FIRST INITIAL rm: reason $.ffi'éfig’a" For Coding COVE You (Indicate INFORMATION 00° .00, Purposes " Leave Blanh "I III (I) I: I =-— - — — l I l 1 T’ - - - I I l I 9‘! '7‘ "" —" — . I I l I 'n— "" —' — l l I J T ‘_ —' — l I l I "— — "— _ I l I I T '— "‘ — L I l l .. - — — l l I l 120 E. We are interested in how iniormation about the Ottawa Street Building was and is distributed among people In the Department. The answers to these questions can be used to ensure that staii receive more and better iniormation. There are two components to this part. We ask you to illl out two charts that indicate: l. irom whom you received iniormation about the Ottawa Street Building 2. to whom you would JOVIOO new Iniormation about the Ottawa Street Building. BY INFORMATION we mean any new bits oi knowledge about the new building. e.g.. what It will be like, where you will be located. how people are reacting to the move. We are interested in commu- nication whether written or oral except ior oiiiciai MDE memorandum, newsletters. reports. I2. THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT YOU RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM ABOUT THE OTTAWA STREET BUILDING IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS. TO FILL IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: Column l - List the NAMES OF PEOPLE In the Department who gave you Iniormation relating to the Ottawa Street Building Column 2 - Estimate HOW MANY TIMES in the last 3 months each oi these people gave you iniormation . e.g.. 004 times. 007 times. Column 3 - Estimate HOW CLOSELY YOU SEE YOURSELF ASSOCIATED WITH each' person. Indicate a number irom 000-l00. . We vary on horn closely we see ourselves associated with other people. There are some people that are Monti/y with and thr'nh o/ oar relationship as close. There are others that in spite o/ the [act that are Ireqaerrtly have contact with them roe do not view the relationship as close. Worh as reell as nonwh-relatel [actors may influence horn close one view our association with others. (See Survey Administrator ii you need more room) 121 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION CONCERNS THE OTTAWA STREET OFFICE BUILDING. PLEASE READ IT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE NEXT CHART. The Ottawa Street Office Building is located west oi the State Capitol and is bordered by Ottawa. Allegan. and Pine Streets. The MDE will occupy approximately 50% oi the 360.000 square feet oi rentable space in the two- tower building. This is most oi the South Tower. There will be about I.I00 MDE employees moving into the building. The State Library will be the only service area £5 housed in the new arm building. ' The actual move to go building will begin December. I”! and be completed by the end of Februag, I963. There will be a cafeteria and conference center available for use by the MDE in the upper parking level. The cafeteria will seat between 360-400 people and is similar to the cafeteria in the Mason Building. The 1200 square foot conference center consists of two large lecture rooms and two smaller conference rooms. Office furniture in the Ottawa Street Building will be provided and is part of the Westinghouse openscape design. You will however bring your current desk chair with you. Service areas that have refrigerators and/or microwave ovens will also be able to bring thorn to the new building. Within the next several weeks. your service area will be contacted to plan the physical layout of Individual office spaces for specific programs and subunits on each of the following floors: 4th Floor . . . . . . . . . . Superintendent‘s Office. State Board of Education. Bureau of Finance. Legislation I Personnel. Bureau of Rehabilitation. and Adult Extended Learning Services 3rd Floor . . . . . . . . . . .Disabiiity Determination Services 1nd Floor . . . . . . . . . . Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education and Bureau of Post- secondary Education with the exception of Student Financial Services Is: Floor . . . . . . . . . . .Bureau of Postsecondary Education--Student Financial Services. Department of Natural Resources offices Upper Parking Level . . . Data Processing Center. Cafeteria. and Conference Center (Ground Floor) (This Is the current update of Bureau locations as of March 1.1. "02.) ~ 122 Think about the information on the preceding page. You may have heard some of the information already or not heard any of it at all. I). IHAGINE THAT TWO NEEKS AGO YOU HEARD THE INFORMATION ON THE PRECEEDING PAGE. There are some people you would have gone out of your way to tell. others you might have told because you generally tall: with them. and still other people whom you would have told because of a chance meeting. CONSIDER ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES AND FILL OUT THE CHART BY THINKING ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE YOU MIGHT HAVE TOLD THE INFORMATION. Column I - List ALL the PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT that you would have told any of the information. Column 2- Estimate what the LIKELIHOOD (probability) is that you would have told each of the people listed. Remember that some people you would have definitely told and others there was a slight chance. (Use 000— l00 to indicate the likelihood of telling the person) For example: If you would definitely tell the person............. use I00 If you were as likely to tell them as not tell them (equal chance) - use 050 If there was a 227. chance of telling them......... use 022 Column 3 - Estimate HON CLOSELY YOU SEE YOURSELF ASSOCIATED WITH this person (Use 000-l00. Remember l00 indicates the maximum closeness - see previous chart for explanation.) ‘2‘: $383: new CLOSE LY LAST rune. FIRST mrrrnt. $33." 'Siizé‘i‘i-‘laii For Coling Wears...) ‘nrrs reason Purposes rug. 099.490, (Use coo-roe) Leave Dion (1, (2) l3) — — - l I I l — — — I I I I — — — J I I I — — I I I I — — I I l l — -—'- — ‘ L l I 'I "" — — I l I ' I — — I I I l — -— — I I I I —' — — I I I I — — —' I I I I "' — — I I I I (See Survey Administrator if you need mmo tooth) 123 SECTION II. JOB ATTITUOES. JOB BEHAVIOR AND JOB DESCRIPTION As was mentioned earlier. the move to the Ottawa Street Building may affect the way in which work is accomplished in the Department. Attitudes and behaviors may change as a result of the move. These questions have been validated and tested in numerous organisations to understand work behaviors. The following groups of questions are concerned gm. . general overview of how you view working In the Department and doing your job. F. THE NEXT SET OF OUEST‘IOIG IS ABOUT YOUR JOB. WHEN ANSWERING KEEP III HIND THE KIND OF WORK YOU no AND HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING YOUR JOB. Indicate how much you AGREE or DISAGREE with each statenmnt as I DESCRIPTION OF YOUR JOB DY circling the appropriate number. I4. IS. IS. I7. IB. I9. 20. 2|. 22. 23. 24. 25. I often have to deal with new problems on my job. A lot of people can be affected by how well I do my work. I can see the results of my own work. Just doing the work required by my job gives me many chances to figure out how well I am doing. On my iob. I produce a whole product or provide a complete service. I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job. Hy job requires that I do the same things over and over. It It basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done. I get to do a number of different things on my iob. On my job. I often have to handle surprising or unpredictable situations. I often have to meet or check with other people in the Depart- cent in order to do my job. I often have to cooperate directly with other people in the Department in order to do my job. Indicate the degree each of the following is typical of YOUR JOB by circling the appropriate number. 26. 27. 29. 30. Bi. How much freedom do you have on your iob.’ That is. how much do you decide on your own what you do on your job? How much variety Is there on you job? That is. to what degree do you do different things or use different procedures In the course of yore iob.’ . As you do you job. can you tell how well you are performing? How much does your iob involve producing a complete product or providing a service Lourself.’ That is. to what degree do you work alone on the service or product from start to finish? In general. how important is your job? That is. are the results of your work likely to significantly affect the lives and well being of others? How much does the work you do on your job make a visible impact on the services or products of your area? ‘0, ‘5‘. Ab...‘ 124 G. THE NEXT SET OF ITEHS AL LOWS YOU TO HARE SOHE OVERALL APPRAISALS OR ASSESSMENTS OF YOUR JOB. IN TERHS OF JOB SATISFACTION AND INVOLVEMENT. LIKE HANY OF THE OTHER OUESTIONS IN THIS DUE STIONNAIRE. THEY ARE TAKEN FROI‘I SCALES THAT HAVE BEEN EXTEN- SIVELY VALIDATED AND TESTED IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. 32. 33. 34. 35. 34. 37. 3B. 39. 40 4|. 42. N. This 43. 44. 4S. Indicate the degree to which you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statements by circling the appropriate number. The most important things which happen to me involve my job. What happens to this organisation ls really important to me. Employees here feel you can trust top management. All in all. I am satisfied with my lab. I live. eat and breathe my lab. When top management here says something. you can really believe that it is true. In general. I don't like my lab. I don't care what happens to the NOE as long as I get my paycheck. In general. I like working here. I am very much personally involved in my work. People in this organisation will do things behind your back. set of questions asks you about you and your time with HOE. How many YEARS have you worked in your present lob? (Use 00 if less than one year: e.g.. 09 would indicate 9 years) Now many YEARS have you worked in the NOE? (Use 00 if less than one year; a.g. 05 indicates S years) Are you: (indicate I or 2) I - Female 2 - Hale APPENDIX B COMMUNICATION NETWORK INSTRUMENT 125 APPENDIX B COMMUNICATION NETWORK INSTRUMENT COMMUNICATION DIRECTORY The purpose of this booklet Is to obtain information about the communication among Depart- ment of Education employees. The booklet contains a list of approximately 500 names of Department employees. The list is a sample of Department employees and does not contain all the names of people in the Department. We are interested in your communication with people in tour own service area or office and . In other service areas or offices. The names are in the following order: I. The Office of the Superintendent is listed first. 2. The Directory is then alphabetized by: A. Bureau B. Service Areas/Offices C. People's names 126 INSTRUCTIONS In this booklet you are asked to report your communication with other Department of Education ornployees. There are approximately 500 names of other employees listed in this booklet. You are asked to review the names and report your communication with them. It Is unlikely that you will know or have communicated with all the people listed. Disregard all names of people 7°" ‘0 ”I “I" I” have not communicated with in the last six months. R”Pond for ALL the people listed with whom you have communicated In thew Some of the people will be those you have communicated with frequently and some of them you will have communicated with only a few times. By COMMUNICATION. we mean any communication whether written or oral except official department communications such as memorandum. newsletters. reports. There are two types of communication you are asked to report: WORK-RELATED and 'NONWORK-RELATED WORK-RELATED COMMUNICATION is communication that Is necessary for the accomplishment of your job and the business of the organisation. For example. communication related to task assignments. management Information. or discussion at meetings. NONWORK-RELATED COMMUNICATION is communication that is unrelated to work and the accomplishment of one's job. For example. social information. personal matters. and rumors. Note that the list is alphabetisod by Bureau. service area/office and last name. This is to aid you In finding the names of people within your service area/office as well as In other service areas or offices with whom you have communicated. Use the following steps in completing the directory: I. Find YOUR NAME and CIRCLE IT. 2. Read through the list. When you come to the name of someone you have communicated with in the last six months. first indicate how often you communicated with him/her on WORK- RELATED MATTERS and then how often you communicated with him/her on NONWORK- RELATED MATTERS. Circle the appropriate number corresponding to the following scale: I - once a year 5 - once a week 2 - a few times a year 6 - a few times a week 3 -, once a month ' 1 - once a day or more 4 - a few times a month 3. If you have communicated with someone only on either WORK-RELATED MATTERS or NONWORK-RELATED MATTERS. leave the other column blank. 4. REMEMBER to leave all lines blank for people with whom you have not communicated. 127 This Is an example of part of a filled-out Directory. EXAMPLE I «- once a year 2 w a few times a year 3 I once a month 4 - a few times a month 5 u once a week 6 w a few times a week 1 .on‘ceadayormere 5mm mam: "artist-gags" IIOOAbIe.JiIl rzamssr r 2:54er lOlBaker.RonaId rastssr rzsessr ECOUPTRQY,NBL rzatss'r it 34 $61 RESEARCH. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT [SERVICES | 104 Leftland. Joyce 234567 rerssr l. Note that Nancy Courtney first circled her own name on the Directory. She nest reviewed the list and responded about her communication with Jill Able. She indi- cated that she communicated with Jill Able a few times a month (4) on work-related matters and about once a day (1) on nonwork-related matters. numbers. . Note that Nancy has no contact with Ronald Baker and indicated this by not circling any . Nancy continues through the list. She notes that she has no work-related communication with Joyce Leftland by leaving the column blank. But since she does occasionally socialise with Joyce. she circles a (2) indicating that they talk a few times a year. 128 i - once a year 5 I once a week 2 r- a few times a year s u a few times a week 3 a once a mouth 7 u once a day or more I 4 er a few times. a month RK- LATEO NONWORK-RELATED COMMUNI A lON COM NI OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 0030 Can a. Alex 0031 . Dennis 0034 Rekis Mai a Rose Jane: '4 N N N N N N N N N N N U U U U U U U U U Cal In! has 9! V! VI IR 9' I” III em 00 “I V. VI Ob .0 0' A O O O . . A O .0 ‘4 N H M Q N N M Q d .0 .0 N N N H N N N N N N N N U U U U N U U U H U he U A A A A A A A A A A A A V! In V! VI vs III Us “I V! VI 0! 00' O O O .0 Or 0‘ O A O O .- 9‘ N ml ~11 N ‘0 N ml ml -~l ml ‘1 ml Tre Coordinar '4‘ Case Ca *0 Clemmons Deborah Hunter Maril Kribs Barbara ine Rachael Osborne John Schneider. Marilyn N N N N N N N N N N N N N U Bad Bad U U U U U U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A A A A ”I m “I tn 9‘ Bl V! U! V! V! tn 0‘ VI 0. O A A O A A O O 0 O A A ‘l N \d \d N *1 M N d N d N N h. N N N N N N N N N N N U U U U 9‘ Bed U U H In! H U U A A A A A A A A A A A A A V! 0‘ VI 0'! U! V! VI 0| 0| III are V! VI 6 O- 0 O O O 0- 9- O N N N ‘0 Q Q N \J N N N O 5 .- 0. Public Affairs . 0001 Carter. Cr 0002 Farrell. Tom 0003 Hume Rosarica ' Jeannine At a linen Joan Dobbs John 129 l - once a year 2 w a few times a year 3 I once a month 4 m a few times a month S . once a week 6 I a few times a weelt 1 .onceaday ormore WORK-RELATED NONWORK-RELATED COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION 0010 Doty. Peggy l 2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0011 Flores. Antonio I 2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0012 Gallop, Peggy l 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0013 Garrett. Vicky l 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0016 Cemill. Lester l 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 . 0015 Gordon. Gloria l 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0015 aux-V1“, A1.“ i 2 3 4 s 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 000;, Jacobg, Jo I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0017 Libey. Susan I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0018 Molenda. Patricia I 7 3 4 5 ‘ 7 I 7» 3 4 5 4 7 0019 Reyes. Yolanda l 2 3 4 S 6 1 'l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0020 Ruis.Dia’n; r-zzrssr Izsrssr 0021‘ Travis, Cindy Is 3 4 s s 1 l2 3 4 5.6 7 0022 Hing. Nancy I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0026 Worthington, Barbara I .2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 State Board of Education oars Dombrowslti. Lad N u A are 9| ‘6 u— N U A tn 04 N 0026 Gikas. Stella 0027 Hamilton. Eileen BUREAU or ELEMENTARY 6 SECONDARY soucxnori ooas Addonisio. Michael I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0047 Hathaway. .Douglaa l 2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0048 Parrish,8etty '134567 '234567 001.9 “,1”. James I 2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0050 VanOatran. Rose Mary I 2 3 4 5. P 7 I 2 3 4 5 I 7 ifesearch.Tva1uation and Assessment Services 006:. Bebermégr, James I 2‘ 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0065 Calabrese, Patsy I 2. 3 "I 5 4 7 I 7 3 4 5 4 7 0066 cgrr. Robert I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0068 Cantrell, Martha I 7 3 I 5 4 7 I 1 3 4 5 6 7 0069 Chung, Ki-suck ' 1 3 2 5 ‘ 7 I 7 3 4 5 .6 7 0070 Clough. Charlotte I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0686 Coleman. Geraldine I 2 3 4 5 4 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0681 Crawford. Cathy I 1 3 4 5 5 7 I 1 3 4 5 6 7 0011 Deacon. Terri I 7 3 4 5 4 7 I 2 3 4 5 6‘ 7 0012 Donovan. David I 2 3 -l S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0073 Ellis. Sherry l 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 130 I - once a year 2 I- a low times a year 3 u once a month 4 o a low tirnes a month 'S u once a week .6-aIethrnesawoelr 1-oncoadayormore WORK-RELATED NONNORK-RELATEO COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION 0014 Post. Pamela I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0015 Hanson..1.oia I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0016 Key. Norma I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0011 Kiefer. Charles I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0073 ugh c.3911“. I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6'1 0079 Lelanddrene I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 3 3 4 5 6 7 0080 Marshall. Lucille I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4_S 6 1 0081 Murphy. Morley I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0082 Novak. pad I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0084 Roeber. Edward I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0035 Rio, Raul I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0086 Schooley. Daniel I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4. 5 6 7 0087 Shakrani. Shari! I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0088 Silver.Jacob I 134567 IIJ‘ISII 0090 Vanlooy. Dorothy I 2 3 _4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0091 Voelkner. Alvin I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 School Program Services 0615 Ruiz, Miguel I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0139 Staten. ‘l'eressa I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0146 VanPatten. Muriel I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0151 wills. Clarence I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 School Support Services 0154 Anderson. Thomas I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0155 Daumgartner. Valerie . I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0156 Boguhn, c.1-o1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0158 Chastine. Deborah I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0159 Claflin. Richard I 2 3 4 s 6 1 I 2 J 4 s r- 1 0160 Javfiis. Sandra I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0161 33303., Paul I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0162 Ferris. Susan I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 1 3 4 S 6 1 0153 Godmer. ”mad I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0164 Hampton. Thomas I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0165 Hatch. Jo.“ I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0166 Hovell.Susan IIJISI'I I234567 0161 Iribarren. Miguel' I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0168 Janecek. Sally I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0169 Jordan. Janet I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 ' 131 Io- once a year S a- once a week 2 o a Iew tirnes a year 6 o a Iew times a week 3 a once a month 1 a once a day or roore 4 c a Iew times a month WORK-RELATED NONWORK-RELATED ’ COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION 0171 Knopp. Jean I 2 '3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0112 Lamp. Marie I 2 3 4 S .6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0173 Loring. Edgar I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6¥7 0114 Louder-hack; Lawrence I 2 3 I 5 6 ‘I I 1 3 I 5 6 7 0175 Lynas. Roger I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0177 Mullen. Leone I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0118 Murton. James I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0119 Nelson. Claudette I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0180 NovaIt,1.inda ‘ IIIIsI‘I I134567 0181 O'Leary. Philip I 7 3 I 5 6 7 I 1 3 ‘I 5 6 7 0182 0850.000!!! I234S61 I234S61 0183 Pawelek. Peggy I‘ 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0184 Peabody,Bonn1¢ I234S61 I234S61 0185 Peres. Argelio I 1 3 4 5 6 7 I 2. 3 4 S 6 1 0186 Perkowski. Susan I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 _ 0181 Povtak. Dorothy I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0188 Schafer. Joanne I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0139 Sflg. Diane I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0190 Single. Zoe I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0191 Smith. Duane I 7 3.4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 S 6 7 0192 StragsI Carrie I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0193 Thelen. Darlene I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0194 Turnbull. Ralph I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 1 3 4 5 6 1 0195 VanOrden. Colleen I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 Special Education Services 0197 Anderson. Carl I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0198 3.113,. Diane I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0199 3.113,; Susan I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0200 Baldwin. Richard I 1 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 1 0202 r an I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0203 Beck. Theodore I 3 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0204 Beltran. Lydia I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0205 Dergin. Katherine I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0206 Dirch.£dtrard I134S673 I134$67 0201 Draccio. John I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6' 7 0209 Doveroaux. Kristy I 7 '3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0210 Dutkovski. Sheryl I I 3 I 5 6 7 I 2 J 4 s 6 1 132 l :- once a year ”S an once a week 2 I a Iew times a year 6 o a Iew times a week 3 a once a month 1 u once a day or more 4 o a Iew times a month TED NONWORKwRELATEO Hazel Pink. Sharon Fisher Haril Gomez, Joe Berbert. Denson . Delores Kitchell Kowatch Sandra Li ton-White. Deborah MacPherson, Sandra Kevin s: a IN «a I“ a IN a «u «a -4 ~i sr us st ~4 na Gerald Carol Richardson. Richard Rovell 'James . James th Denise Smith Ellen es. Shir A S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5 S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U u u U N w w 4.4 hr tat no u u u u u U u u u u u u w u u u U 4.1 w u tar u u u u w A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N ~13 Q N on .4 .6 .6 Q N A] ~16 N d N N N N N N N N d N N N N d N N d N N ‘4 ~16 ‘6 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U U 1.1 u N u U U u tar u U U u u w u w u :u or 3.1 u u u so u u U u 1.1 1» hr u u U U A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A V! VI 01 U6 U! or 0! vs U! U! u! V! vs V! v4 V! VI V! at 0! ur as v. wt 94 0! VI vs 01 us 0' v! 05 as us 05 U! A. A- A» A- A- o- O- A- Au 0- A- o- o~ o~ A1 A. A- o- o-Io~ o. o~ A. o- A1 o- o» o- o- o- o- o- A- o- o- A-«A NMQHMMQNNQHNNNNNHNNN Thelen. Sharon .1133 S u once a week 6 o a Iew times a week 1-aonce11dmyewnuwe I a once a year 2 w a Iew times a year 3 u once a month 4 a- a Iew times a month LA 50 III Thousch this 4 Withrow. Ks -Tec Bailey. Phillip Barbara Jackson Lola NNNNNNNNN wuuuuuwuu AAAAAAAAA mmmummmmm AAAAAAAAA NNNNHNN‘IN .BUREAU or FINANCE LEGISLATION 6 PERSONNEL 0319 Baker. Donna 0320 McKerr Robert es Adams Helen Allen, Timothy ker Steven Carol Jack David Richard Bols Robert Pauline Boomershine Bess Sandra 'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Burleson Evel ”NH UUUUUUUUUUHUUUUUUUU AAAAA‘AAAAAAAAAAAAA “unnumummummmummmmm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NNHQQNNQNQMNNQQNNNN NONI'IORK-RELATEO NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 3 UUUUUUUUU wuuuuuuwwuuuuuuwuwu 4 AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 09960606996669.0393 mmumummummmummmummm 901...“... OOOOOOQOQOOOOGOOOOO ~6~l~6~6~6~6~6~6~6 qqggquNNNNNNNNNNNN 134 I a once a year 2 - a Iew times a year 3 I once a month 4 - a Iew times a month 5 . once a week 6 - a Iew times a week 1 a. once a day or more WORK-RELATED NONWORK-RELATEO 0314 Kornberggr. Robert 0315 H2921}: william 0316 Huber. Linda 0311 Jabara. Payze AW!— 0379 W 0380 Johnson. Patricia 0381 Kelley. Richard COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION 0345 Constandt. James I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0346 Cook. Harriet I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0367 Cool. William (Ken) I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0348 Corlett. Robert I 2 3 4' S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6.7 03‘9'c“n_swy I234S61 1234561 0350 Dieterle. Deborah I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 J5 6 7 0351 Dodge. Sharon I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0352 Doepker. Karen I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0353 Numb}... 1234561 I234S61 035:. py.r,Jo,¢. I234S61 I234S61 0355 Dyke. Glenda I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0356 Ellison. Janice I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0351 Epp1c.5uaan I234S61 1234561 0358 mango, 1234561 1234561 0359 Pajardo. Kathryn I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 0360 ringing, Ruth. I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0361 P1oria,Rick I 234567 I 234567 0362 mat-“,5.“ I234S61 I234S61 0363 Ford. .7. L. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 .3 4 S 6 7 0364 French. Brenda I2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0355 Wanna I234S61I234S61 0366 Graves. Edward I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0357 Gun—re", I234S61I234S61 0368 Gustafson. Mary I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0369 Hannah. Margaret I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0310 Iianrahan. Daniel I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0311 Morris. Uilhemina I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0312 Iiekhuis.Jean I 234667 I 234567 0373 Holmes. Christina I 7 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 I4 5 I6 7 2 3 ‘4 S 16 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 <4 S «6 7 2 3 I4 S «6 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6' 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 135 I - once a year '5 u once a week 2 I a Iew times a year 6 o a Iew times a week 3 u once a month 1 u once a day o: more 4 . a Iew times a month WORK-RELATED NONWORK-RELATED A Carol Lane Priscilla Janet Matson Janos Milan Thomas Moore Harold Nalett Nelson, Robert 44MWMMMWMU‘U‘U‘V‘UIUIV‘V‘U‘ Parker Max Patrick. Robert Peatee Geraldine Peter S Ma Calvin NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNHNNNNNNNNNNNNN uuuuwuuuuuuuuuuuwuuuwuuuuuuuuuwuuwu Toebe, Carl Welter Haite Cl 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 w u u u U u U U to U u u to u U u u U u u to u U u u u ta ta u u u w u U U U 9 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ‘A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A _A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ~a ~a ~a ~6 ~6 ta ‘4 -4 ~a ~4 ~J ~o ~3 ~a ~6 ~4 ~o ~4 ~4 -4 -o -4 -a -a ~J ~6 ~6 ~a ~4 ~4 ~o ~6 ~6 -4 -6 ~4 «4 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N ‘4 ~4 N st A: ‘4 ‘4 ~13 Al N a q q q q q q q q q q q q q q .3 A] d A! q s] Al ~4 ‘4 ~6 ‘6 mmmumummmmumuummmmmm 136 I conceayear S-onceatreelt 2 I a Iew times a year 6 n a Iew times a veelt J-Muamma 1-omeahyumue 4 n a Iew times a month LA ED NONWORK-RELATEO Shir Witte. Robert I I I I inaki hard Max Zimmerman Elaine and School Lav McAuliffe Kathleen Schaar Mar orie Al NH” NADA-IN U UUUUUUU A A A A A A A A tn tn tn_tn tn on tn tn .1 e- A» on o. A» A- .- fil “Add ‘6 .4 ‘6‘. A! to to no or to or to U HUUUU U H A A A A A A A A S 5 S S S 5 S S QAAAAAAA dddfldfldd . Sandra Patricia Mana t Abbott Teresa Brazil Gerald Halter Connie McCaul Yvonne Lee Pearson Pamela Ann e Patricia 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 to u U U U U to U u u U u U A A A A A A A A A A A A A tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn A A A A A A A A A A A A A ~t u a ~a ~t ~r ~4 ~r ~r 9 AA ~6 ~41 N N N N N u N N H H H N N u 1.6 4.0.1.! to to u U u t» u U u A A A' A A A A A A A A A A tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn A A A A A A A A A A A A A a ~r ~r ~r ~r ~a q st q q ~r ~r s: 0468 Orr-Smith, Barbara Services 137 I u- once a year ‘5 u once a week 2 - a Iew times a year 6 u a Iew timesa week 3 u- once a month 1 u once a day-er more 4 t- a Iew times a month LATEO NONWORK-RELATEO COMMUNI N Ra 2 3 4 Columbus, Frederick Rebekah Gibbs 8111 Ronald Jackson J Richa Johnson Fred Jones Edvard Joan er Paul Sidal Kim v4 ~r ~r q ~r ~r 4 q ~t ~r a ~r st st 4 ~r q ~r ~r q ~a ~r ~r ~s ~4 ~14 q ~a N N N u N N u u N N N u N N N n u H u N N N N H N u N n N N ta I» u u ta ta 4.! U U u ta to U u U U u U U u u u U u U u u. U u A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn on tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn tn 9! In 9' 9‘ I" I" I” I” A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A u q ~r s1 u ~r ~r ~4 ~4 ~r u st .1 q q ~r q q ~r ~r ~r ~4 ~t q 44 ~4 ~4 ~4 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 NHNHNNNNHNNHNNNNAJNNHNNNNNNNN Uuwuwuuuuuwuuuuuuuuwwuuwt-ruuw AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ultntntntntntntntntntntntntntntntntntntnvltntntntntntntnvl Sharon BUREAU OP POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 049 Po James 138 I 6 - a Iew ttmes a week 1 u once a day or more 5 .- once a week h ' u m 7 m 8“. "State. tutu ’I-”0. .O“ O O “1:: cans I... 23‘ F Alvarez Daniel NONVIORK-RELATEO 0503 2 3 II S I6 1 Bachman Lisa 0505 Bellah Susan 0508 Bonner Dolores 2 3 II 5 6 7 I 2 3 I4 5 6 7 0510 Bristol Beverl 0511 2 3 I4 5 6 1 2 3 I4 5 I6 7 2 13 4 5 6 7 2 3 I4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 I4 5 6 7 234561 234567 2 ‘3 4 5 6 7 2 13 4 5 6 1 2 I3 4 S 6» 1 234561 234567 2 3 I4 5 6 1 C O t m .h t r 0 w G u u C 20 23 45 61 234561 234567 Dalman Vicki David Jean 2 3 I4 5 6 7 2 3 II 5 6 1 2 3 I4 5 I6 7 2 3 II S 6 7 26 2 3 4 5 6 ‘7 2 .3 4 S 6» 1 2 13 4 S 61 7 2 3 I4 5 16 7 l 2 .3 4 S 6 '1 I 2 13 A S 6 ‘7 2 3 II S 6 7 2 3 II S 6 7 2 2 3 I4 5 16 7 3 I4 5 16 7 2 3 II 5 6 ‘1 2 .3 4 S 6 7 2 3 I4 5 6 7 2 3 I4 5 6 7 139 l 6 o a Iew times a week 1 - once a day or more 5 . once a week 2 o a Iew times a year 3 u once a month 4 . a Iew times a month I u once a year Harris Thora NONWORK-RELATEO I234567 234567 234561 0542 234561 234567 234567 23456'1 234567 234567 . m a J M. a. c a... e 1 k s a J 0550 0551 tn AL 8 b I 2 4A 1 E B I r O J 234567 234567 I Keast Ma 0552 234567 I234‘561 234561 234567 234567 234561 Mather Donna 0561 Peterson D. Lee Marlene 140 I conceayear S-onceavreok 2 I aIeI timesayoar 6 Ia Iew times aIeek 3-onceamonth 7nonceadayormere 4 n a Iew times a month LATEO NONWORK-RELATED Suardini lor Sarah Towel . Nancy Vaillancourt Tamara VanDomelen. Susan Vanv Mathew Vedder Julia Linda ia Laurie 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I» or 4‘ or 4a or to on 4a or 4d or or to 4d hr 40 1A 1A 1A .A .A A».A A» A» A. A»«A .A .A 1A .A 1A at It It 0! 9| 0! It V! VI on 0! 0| 9! vi 0| on V! A. o- A» A» A» A» A» A» o- It A» o- I» o- o- o- o- ~r ~4 It It ~r -4 It ~4 -a -a -r -6 I4 ~h ~r -a It to or to or to on 3d an a; re Al or no to no no I“ on or up as up or hr or or on on or up or no on on A A .A .A .A A 1A .A .A .A A» A 1A .A 1A 1A 1A 0! 0| 0! 0! It It It It 9' It at VI wt 0! U! vi 9' o» A» A» A» A» A» A» A» o- o- o» A» A» I- A» o- o- a a Iu q In In In In In In -u -o 34 It 94 ~a ~a Disabili Determination Services 0640 Edmondson William Charles 0661 Miller Mari Field Service 0621 Larry 0626 Slalock. Jesse (Ray) 0630 Bufkin. Judith 0632 Burke. Jaye 0633 . Crystal 0638 Eaton Curtis 141 I I once a year 5 I once a week 2Iaievr timesayear 6Iafew timesaweek 3-onceamonth 7Io11ceaday or more 4Iaievrtimesan1onth WORK-RELATED NONWORK-RELATEO COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION 0641 Espie, Jean I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0641 Harmon. Lee Anne 1 z 3 4 s 5 1 | 2 3 4 5 5 1 0649 Miltner, Debra I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 0651 Morvath, Robert I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0656 Losin. Robert I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0657 Mareck. Mary I 2 3 4 S 6 1 l 2 3 4 S 6 1 0658 Matelsky, Dianne I 7 3 4 :6 7 I I 7 3 4 5 "6 7 0660 McFarlan_e, Robert I 7 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0664 Retzloff, Rae I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 0665 Rolfe, Eleanor I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I ‘2 3' 4 S 6 1 0682 Williams, Robert I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 S 6 1 Interagency Service 0622 Antenucci.v8asil I 2 3 4 S 6 1 I 2 3 4 6 1 0659 McConnell, 1... Robert I 2 3 4 s 6 1 1 2 3 4 s 6 1 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 10. 11. 12. 13. 142 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What is your official job title? Describe your job. What is it that you do? How autonomous is your job? How much discretion do you have in determining what you do? To what degree do you have control over the initiation and follow through on tasks? How important is your job? How much do you affect the work of others in the Department? How would you describe the physical surroundings you work in (e.g., amount of space, noise, privacy, temperature, ease of interaction)? What would an ideal office be like for you? What are the things that are good and bad about your current office facilities? Tell me about your own work area and the other areas in your administra- tive unit. Why are things good or bad. What types of information do you need to do your job? How do you get this information? What are the factors that you think influence your getting the information you need to do your job? To what degree do you get the information needed to do your job? How do you usually hear about things happening in the Department of Education? Why do you think people tell you about things happening in the Department? What do you do if you want to get information about new events or things happening in the Department? 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 143 What have you heard about the move to the new office building? How did you find these things out? What do you think are factors that cause peOple to give others information? Describe how you feel about your job; how you feel working in the Department. How important is your job to you? Do you enjoy work? Do you like the people you work with? Is there something you would rather be doing? somewhere you would rather be? Describe the type of relationship youa'have with the person you work for. Do you share information? Are you open with each other? Do you like each other? Does this person keep you informed? How do they provide you with feedback? Describe the type of relationship you have with the people that work for you. Do you share informa- tion? Are you open with each other? Do you like each other? Do you keep these people informed? How do you give them feedback? To what extent does your working in the Department provide opportunities for developing close friend- ships? What are the factors that influence your relation- ship with your superiors and subordinates? Are you satisfied with your job? What do you think influences this assessment? What can be done to increase your satisfaction? The Department is currently transferring and laying off people as you are probably aware. How is your area affected by this? How are you affected by this? What do you see people doing to cope with this situation? Describe an incident that illustrates how people are handling this situation. What effect do you think this is having on morale? 27. 28. 29. 144 Do you discuss this situation with others? What types of things are discussed? What effect do you think the reductions and trans- fers will have on staff's reaction to the move to the new office building? Are there any other things that you believe are affecting Department personnel? What are they and how do you think they are affecting them? APPENDIX D NEGOPY PROGRAM AND PARAMETERS 145 APPENDIX D NEGOPY PROGRAM AND PARAMETERS GENERAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK lOO=*JOBCARD*,RGl,CM200000,T8000,JC6000,LlOOO. 110=ATTACH,DATA,NETDATACONVERTED. 120=HAL,L*UNSUP,NEGOPY. 130=*EOS l40=GENERAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK ANALYSIS 150=CONVERTED x Y ADDED, FORCED RECIPROCATION 160= P01=00690 p02=3oooo pos=oooos 17o= PlO=00160 Pll=00255 P18=00001 180=*EOS 190=(4x,I4,x,5(I4,6x,F3.O)) 200=*EOS APPENDIX E DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNICATION GROUPS 146 APPENDIX E DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNICATION GROUPS GROUP 1 (N=15) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 67% Male 33% SERVICE AREA Office of School and Community Affairs 27% Office of Program Coordination 73% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary 40% Education Consultant 53% Education Guidance Consultant 7% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 8.33 years MEAN JOB TENURE 3.27 years 147 GROUP 2 (N=15) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Research Evaluation and Assessment Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary Education Research Consultant MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 40% 60% 100% 27% 67% 8.73 years 7.53 years 148 GROUP 3 (N=34) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 62% Male 38% SERVICE AREA School Support Services 100% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary 35% Bookkeeping Clerk 6% Calculations Clerk 3% Education Consultant 6% School District Consultant 35% Accounting Technicians 3% Education Specialist 3% Resources Program Analyst 6% Program Executive 3% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 7.26 years MEAN JOB TENURE 4.56 years 149 GROUP 4 (N=29) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 79% Male 21% SERVICE AREA Office of the Superintendent 34% Office of Public Affairs 7% Office of Legislation and School Law 10% Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education 14% Bureau of Libraries and Adult Extended Learning 7% Office of Professional Development 14% State Board of Education 7% Bureau of Finance, Legislation and Personnel 7% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary 31% Executive Secretary 17% Education Consultant 14% Vocational Education Consultant 3% Department Analyst 7% Departmental Manager 3% Education Administrator 3% State School Finance Administrator 3% Departmental Administrator 3% Communications Representative 3% Assistant Superintendent 3% Superintendent 3% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 10.86 Years MEAN JOB TENURE 7.00 Years 150 GROUP 5 (N=44) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female , 63% Male 37% SERVICE AREA Special Education Services 100% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary 39% Education Consultant 9% Special Education Consultant 39% Education Specialist 7% Department Analyst 2% Departmental Administrator 2% Accountant 2% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 5.88 Years MEAN JOB TENURE 3.60 Years 151 GROUP 6 (N=9) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Vocational-Technical Education Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Education Consultant Education Guidance Consultant Vocational Education Consultant Departmental Administrator Vocational Educationo Administrator MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 22% 78% 100% 11% 11% 56% 11% 11% 14.22 Years 7.78 Years 152 GROUP 7 (N=l3) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 85% Male 15% SERVICE AREA Office of Personnel 100% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary 15% Personnel Aide 54% Personnel Manager 15% Personnel Aide Supervisor 8% Departmental Administrator 8% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 8.31 Years MEAN JOB TENURE , 5.62 Years 153 GROUP 8 (N=85) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Department Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Typist/Clerk Secretary Bookkeeping Clerk General Clerk Calculations Clerk Data Coding Operator Data Processing Clerk Data Systems Analyst Program Budget Analyst Technical Programs Analyst Data Processing Supervisor Accounting Supervisor Bookkeeping Supervisor Data Coding Supervisor Computer Operations Supervisor Office Supervisor Data Systems Manager Departmental Supervisor Education Administrator Departmental Administrator Administrative Officer Departmental Executive Accountant Computer Programmer Computer Operator Auditor School Finance Supplier MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 54% 46% 100% 4% 6% 9% 4% 4% 9% 2% 7% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 7% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 7% 6% 4% 1% 9.56 Years 7.14 Years 154 GROUP 9 (N=31) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Adult Extended Learning Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary Education Consultant Higher Education Consultant Vocational Education Consultant Program Executive Accountant MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 55% 45% 100% 45% 32% 3% 13% 3% 3% 7.55 Years 5.00 Years 155 GROUP 10 (N=64) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Student Financial Assistance Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary Education Consultant Higher Education Consultant Vocational Education Consultant Program Executive Accountant MEAN ORGANNIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 75% 25% 100% 45% 32% 3% 13% 3% 3% 7.06 Years 5.05 Years 156 GROUP 11 (N=21) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 71% Male 29% SERVICE AREA Student Financial Assistance Services 100% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Typist/Clerk 29% Secretary 14% Stenographer Clerk 5% General Clerk 5% Data Coding Operator 5% Departmental Manager 5% Office Supervisor 5% College Trainee 5% Account Examiner 24% Promotional Agent 5% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 4.43 Years MEAN JOB TENURE 2.19 Years 157 GROUP 12 (N=20) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female Male SERVICE AREA Office of Superintendent Bureau of Rehabilitation Field Services Interagency Services CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Secretary Rehabilitation Consultant Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor Departmental Administrator Vocational Rehabilitation Administrator Fiscal Officer Vocational Rehabilitation Representative MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE MEAN JOB TENURE 40% 60% 5% 15% 70% 10% 25% 30% 5% 10% 5% 5% 20% 13.35 Years 4.80 Years APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF QUASI-CONTROL GROUP MEAN JOB TENURE 158 APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF QUASI-CONTROL GROUP CONTROL GROUP (N=40) VARIABLE/CODE GENDER Female 59% Male 41% SERVICE AREA Office of the Superintendent 5.0% Office of School and Community Affairs 25.0% Office of Public Affairs 2.5% Department Services 5.0% Student Financial Assistance Services 2.5% Teacher Preparation and Certification Services 5.0% Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education 2.5% Research Evaluation and Assessment Services 27.5% School Program Services 7.5% Special Education Services 7.5% Office of Program Coordination 2.5% Bureau of Libraries and Adult Extended Learning 5.0% Adult Extended Learning Services 2.5% CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION Typist/Clerk 2.5% Secretary 30.0% Education Consultant 17.5% Higher Education Consultant 2.5% Education Research Consultant 22.5% Special Education Consultant 5.0% Department Analyst 2.5% Departmental Administrator 7.5% Storekeeper 2.5% Auditor 5.0% MEAN ORGANIZATIONAL TENURE 7.18 Years 4.40 Years LIST OF REFERENCES 159 LIST OF REFERENCES Albrecht, T.L. (1978). u ' ' n t'ons o organizational olimage: Am omoiziooi omolysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Albrecht, T. L. (1979). The role of communication in perceptions of organizational climate. In D. J. Nimmo (Ed. ), Qommu umioomio om yearoook 3 (pp. 343— 357), New Brunswick: N. J. Transaction Books. Ashforth, B.E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Reviow, 12(4). 837-847. Batlis, N.C. (1980). The effect of organizational climate on job satisfaction and propensity to leave. The Journal of Psycmology, 121: 233-240. Blau, G.J. & Katerberg, R. (1982). Toward enhancing research with the social information processing approach to job design. adem a eme t goviow, 1(4) , 543-550. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E..,III, & Weick, K.E., Jr. (1970). a 'a hav' r rfo - MW- New York: McGraw Hill. Contractor, N.S. (1987). a d e s: e 'ct s of r e t o at' c ' Unpublished manuscript. University of Southern California, Annaheim. Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps, M. & Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1974). Organizational climate and job satis- faction: A comparative analysis. rna s'- moss Boseorom, z (3), 233-248. Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1975). Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Aoadomy of Manogemeng gomzmol, 18(1), 149-155. 160 Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organi- zational communication. Qommunieation_monograph§. 51, 227-242. Falcione, R.L. & Kaplan, E.A. (1984). Organizational climate, communication climate and culture. In R.N. Bostrom (Ed.), 0 ' 'o oo 8 (pp. 285-309), New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc. Farace, R.V. & Mabee, T. (1980). Communication network methods. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds. ), - ‘ u 01 111-.1 9111111! 1.019 zo_ooroh (pp. 365- 391), New York: Academic Press. Farace, R.V., Monge, P.R., & Russell, H. (1979). Qommomi; oomimg_omo_ozgomizimg. Reading, Massachussettes: Addison-Wesley. Fisher, B.A., Drecksel, G.L., & Werbel, W.S. (1979). Social information processing analysis (SIPA): Coding ongoing human communication. Smoli_§gomo Behaxior. 12(1). 3-21- Fombrun, C.J. (1982). Strategies for network research in organizations. A2ademx_of_uanagemenz_aexisx. 1(2). 280-291. Forehand, G. A. & Gilmer, B. H. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. 2.xshologioal_nulletin 62. 361- 382. Click, W.H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organi- zational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research. Aoadsm1_of_uanagemsnt_ Bexiex. 19(5): 501-515- Glick, W.H. (1988). Response: Organizations are not central tendencies: Shadowboxing in the dark, round 2- A2agemx_of_uanagemsnt_asxieg. 11(1). 133-137- Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In R. Collins (Ed.). Sooiologigal_theorx (pp- 201-233). San Francisoo= Jossey-Bass Publishers. Griffin, R.N. (1983). Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field experiment. Administratixs_§oienoe_0uarterlx. 28. 184-200- 161 Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Qrganizational_Beha_ior_and_numan_£erform_nee 2. 120- 125. Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, B.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. 1ournal_of_ADDlieQ_2§xgho: 1291: ii. 259-286- Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, W.J. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and contingencies. A2aQemx_of_uanagement_lournal. 11. 255-280- Hildebrand. D-K. (1986)- a1atistioal_thinking_for_beha: xioral_§eientists- Boston: Duxbury Prese- Jablin, F.M. (1980). Organizational communication theory and research: An overview of communication climate and network research. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Com; munioati_n_xearbook_1 (pp- 327- 347) New Jersey: International Communication Association. James, L.R. & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Egyomoiogiooi Bulletin. 81(12). 1096-1112. James, L. R., Joyce, W. F. & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Aoooomy_o;_uomogo; ment_BexieN 12: 129-132- Johannesson, R. E. (1973). Some problems in the measure- ment of organizational climate. Beha_ior_and_numan_£erformanee 12. 113- -144. Johnston, H. R. (1976). A new conceptualization of source of organizational climate. Administratixe_§gienge QBQILSIL! 21: 95 103- Jones, A.P. & James, L.R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. omgomioo; , 2;, 201-250. Joyce, W.F. 8 Slocum, J.W. (1979). Climates in organiza- tions. In S- Kerr (Ed-). Organizational_benaxior. Columbus: Grid. Joyce, W.F. & Slocum, J.W. (1984). Collective climate: agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organizations. AQQQBE!.Q£.M§D§Q§E§D£ Journal. 21: 721-742- LaFc Mil Mor Mo: Mt 162 LaFollette, W.R. 8 Sims, H.P. (1975). Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? Organiza- tioDal_Behaxi2r_and_fluman_zerformance. 12. 257-278. Miller, K. I. 8 Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organizational change. numan.22mmun1_ation_8_§earch 11(3). 365- 386. Monge, P.R. 8 Eisenberg, E. (1987). Emergent communica- tion networks. In F. Jablin (Ed.). mongoook_of organizational_communication (pp-304-342). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc. Monge, P.R. 8 Contractor, N. (1987). Communication net- works: Measurement techniques. In C.H. Tardy (Ed.). oo or o - momioomion, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Cor- poration. Muchinsky, P.M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational climate and job satisfaction. Academx_of_uanagement_lournal. zo(4), 592-607. O'Reilly, C. 8 Caldwell, D.F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach. lournal.of_gccupational 2522.21291 .8. 193-206. Payne, R.L., Fineman, S. 8 Wall, T.D. (1976). Organiza- tional climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Qrganizational_flehaxior_and_numan Performanse. 15. 45-62- Payne, R.L. 8 Pugh, 0.8. (1976). Organizational climate and structure. In M. Dunnette (Ed.). HQDQDQQBLQI inQustrial_and_9zganizationa1_p§xchologx. Chicago= Rand McNally. Pfeffer, J. (1980). A partial test of the social infor- mation processing model of job attitudes. nomom Relations. 11(7). 457-476- Pritchard, R. D. 8 Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job perfor- mance and job satisfaction. Q;gomioo§iomoi_§ooo; 210; ang ammam EQIIO Lmonog, 2, 126-146. 163 Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organizational climates: Review, critique and a new perspective. In R. D. McPhee 8 P. K. Tompkins (Eds. ). oggomizo: ona 0 es ew giz_o;iono (pp. 79-108), Beverly Hills: Sage Publi- cations, Inc. Powell, G.N. 8 Butterfield, D.A. (1978). The case for subsystems climates in organizations. Aoademy of Management_Beyiey. 3. 151-157. Rice, R. E. 8 Richards, W. D. (1985). An overview of net- work analysis methods and programs. In B. Dervin 8 M. Voigt (Eds. ) Erogress_in_communication_§ciences 21, (pp. 105- 165), Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporatio. Richards. w.D. (1975). A_maDual_for_netyork_analxsis. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University, Palo Alto. Richards, W.D. (1976). ere s ethodl goo omolyoio o: noman communicagion systems (Report No. 25). Palo Alto: Stanford University, Program in Information Technology and Telecommunication. Richards, W.D. (1981). The NEGOPY network analysis pro- gram. Social_NetNorks. 1. 215-223. Richards, W.D. (1985). Data, models, and assumptions in network analysis. In R. D. McPhee 8 P. K. Tompkins (Eds.). Organizational communication: IIQQiEiQDQl theme§_and_nex_directions (pp. 109- -128). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc. Rogers, E. 8 Kincaid, D.L. (1981). memun1cation_net: ° . New York: The Mac- millan Publishing Co., Inc. Salancik, G. R. 8 Pfeffer, J. (1977L An examination of need satisfaction models of job attitudes. Aomimio; tra_iye_§cience_0uarterly. .22. 427-456. Salancik, G.R. 8 Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Agm1nis1ratiye_§cience_euarterly..21. 224-253. Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel_£§ychology. 28. 447-479. 164 Schneider, B. 8 Reichers, A.E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel_£§ycholegy. 36. 19-39. Schneider, B. 8 Snyder, R.A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. 12urDal_of_Applieg_Esychology. 69(3). 318-328. Sims, H.P. 8 LaFollette, W. (1975). An assessment of Litwin 8 Stringer climate questionnaire. Eozoommoi Psychology. 28. 19-38. Steele, F. 8 Jenks, S. (1977). e f : Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley PubliShing CO. Stohl, C. 8 Kakarigi, D. (1985). The_NE§QBI_netyork a s s : ' ' 's . Unpub- lished manuscript. Purdue University, Indiana. Tagiuri, R. 8 Litwin, G.H. (1968). ngomioooiomol cl1ma1e1_Ereloration§_of_a_concept. Boston: Har- vard University Press. Thomas, J. 8 Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processing model of task design: A review of the literature. A2agemy_of;uanagement_seyiex. 8(4). 672-682. Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic prin- ciples. In R. Collins (Ed.). Sooiologiooiomnoozy (pp. 155-200), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub- lishers. Woodman, R. 8 King, D.C. (1978). Organizational climate: Science or folklore? Academy_of_nanagement_zeyieu. ;(4), 816-826. Zalesny, M.D., Farace, R.V. 8 Kurchner-Hawkins, R. (1985). Determinants of employee work perceptions and attitudes: Perceived work environment and organiza- tional level. Buyironment_and_fiehayior. 11(5). 567-592.