AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE
OF THREE POLICE ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATION TO
PERCEPTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT
AS HELD BY ITS MEMBERS

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHRISTTNE M. DUNNING
1976

.1
r

”I
.I\
v. a.
A
.49...‘
I.‘ J
b
I
IL

IIII IIIIII III III III IIIII III IIII II IIII IIIII III IIII III IIIII

3 12 3 10176 9002

a
a
qu
OJ
.1.
3
.2.
lhu
.W
M

W:
.m
.m
U

 

o,-

1 \

.uk
‘\‘

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE OF THREE POLICE
ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATION TO PERCEPTIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT AS HELD BY ITS MEMBERS

By

Christine M. Dunning

The research study presented is a comparative analysis of
the structure of the internal communication system of three police
departments.

The goal of the thesis was to define the impact of various
perceptions about the department held by its members upon the
direction and frequency of communication contacts between members.
The research design used in the study was a mailed questionnaire
and a "Communications Map" checklist requesting perceptions of
the department along specific variables and evaluations of frequency
of contact with other departmental members. Police departments were
selected to represent "average" size police departments of 25 to
50 members.

0f the sixteen hypotheses tested, nine were supported,
three partially supported, and six were not supported. Two
hypotheses proved not testable with available data.

0f the variables analyzed dealing with communication struc-

ture (flow), lack of propinquity and lack of perceived ability to

 

:1
“dd

‘rl-.A
‘ "\—
'vnd.

In.
1.1-
C.)
"

.‘q Q
“i z:
In
1‘? ,
"h \I
V:
29,.
o ‘ :-
h.
.P i
3. gr
.‘,

I'I'

Christine M. Dunning

participate in the decision and control processes of the police
department negatively affected departmental communication integra-
tion and caused communication flow to occur along the formal
hierarchical structure of the organization. Lack of propinquity
and uncertainty about organizational goals and expectations de-
creased communication contacts, a finding in the opposite direction
than had been posited in the study.

Perceived participation in departmental decision and control
also resulted in greater horizontal and upward conmunications con-
tacts, supporting hypotheses suggested in the study. Job satis-
faction was found to correlate positively with horizontal and down-
ward communication satisfaction, but was negative fbr upward com-
munication. This finding might have resulted because of the degree
of uncertainty found in the department reporting the most job
satisfaction, effecting the interpretation of the comparison.
Participation in the department produced greater job satisfaction
and level of perceived innovativeness among departmental members,
yet seemed to produce more uncertainty about organizational goals
and expectations. One explanation for this inconsistent finding
is that the responsibilities and ambiguities inherent in partici-
pation would produce uncertainty in organizations that have a hand
in deciding departmental policies and procedures than the more
autocratic department where members have no input into depart-
mental decision-making.

While all three police departments were to some degree

autocratic, the department reporting the greatest perceived

'.'.' 7'1. n’.‘-.“‘-\'3.‘-‘ " ' e '-

K

c

'41 rt:

, .

A

 

 

p
I. g

J
Q"-

 

'04:'
u

 

Christine M. Dunning

ability to participate chose monomorphic opinion and influence
leaders which were more likely to be outside the boundaries of
the work group or of status considerations.

Other findings were: lack of propinquity increased level
of uncertainty about departmental goals and expectations, perceived
innovativeness increased the likelihood of suggestions by depart-
mental members to improve the department, and lack of propinquity
reduced the perceived level of participation in the decision and
control processes of departmental members.

The research presented indicates the need for increased
study of the information and decision centers to overcome problems
related to propinquity, uncertainty, and ambiguity in police
organizations for successful implementation of innovation and

change.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE OF THREE POLICE
ORGANIZATIONS IN RELATION TO PERCEPTIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT AS HELD BY ITS MEMBERS

By
05$“
Christine M. Dunning

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Social Science

I976

Copyright by

CHRISTINE M. DUNNING
1976

To my Son Matthew

Who gave this effort meaning.

ii

The material in this project was prepared under a research
grant under Grant No. 75-NI—99-0044 and l4-NI-99-l002 from the
Office of Education and Manpower Assistance, Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Researchers
engaging in such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged
to express freely their professional judgment. Therefore, points
of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily
represent the official position or policy of the U.S. Department
of Justice.

 

IAI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

Communications: Review of the Literature .
Communications: Theoretical Considerations
Communications: Methodological Considerations
Critique of Previous Research .

Summary

II. RATIONALE FOR PRESENT STUDY

The Police Bureaucracy

The Police Department as the Subject of Communications.

Net Study.
Summary

III. DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES .

Operationalization of Variables
Rationale and Hypotheses

IV. RESEARCH ANALYSIS
Demographic Characteristics
Analysis of Variables

Analysis of Hypotheses
Summary of Hypotheses

iv

Page

vi

. viii

ix

129

Chapter Page
V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . l32
Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l36
Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . l43
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Table

‘0 (D N O5 01 h u N
o o o o o o o o

d d
d o
O .

T2.
T3.
T4.
T5.
16.

T7.
TB.
T9.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Full-Time Law Enforcement Officers, October 3l,
1973; All Cities Reporting to F.B.I. . . . . .

Questionnaire Response .

Sex of Respondents

Rank of Respondents .

Seniority of Respondents

Shift Assignments of Respondents

Duty Assignments of Respondents .

Level of Uncertainty Perceived by Departmental Members

Overall Job Satisfaction Expressed by Departmental Members .

Perception of Participation in Department

Autocratic vs. Participatory Decision-Making Control
Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . .

Perceived Satisfaction with Horizontal Communication .
Perceived Satisfaction with Downward Communication
Perceived Satisfaction with Upward Conmunication
Perception of Departmental Innovativeness

Physical Contact and Duty Assignment of Departmental
Members _. ’ . . . . . . . . . . .

Communication Contacts .
Departmental Integration

Comparison of Propinquity vs. Uncertainty

vi

Page

36
80
87
' 89
9T
92
94
96

98

99
T00
TOO
TOT
TOT

T03
T05
T08
T10

Table
20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.
ST.
32.
33.
34.

Page
Frequency of Communication Contact . . . . . . . . . lll
Comparison of Propinquity and Communication Satisfaction . . 113

Comparison of Propinquity and Perceived Level of
Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Comparison of Level of Participation and Uncertainty . . . 116
Comparison of Uncertainty and Conmunication Flow . . . . 118

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Uncertainty and
Communication Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Job Satisfaction and
Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Comparison of Job Satisfaction and Communication
Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Job Satisfaction and
Communication Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient Innovativeness
and Levels of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Idea Flow in Police Departments . . . . . . . . . . 125
Selection of Opinion Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Rank of Opinion Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Selection of Influence Leadership . . . . . . . . . 129

Nominations for Opinion/Influence Leadership . . . . . . 130

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1. Organizational Characteristics Stressed by Theorists and
Relevant Communication Variables
2. Age of Respondents
3. Summary of Hypotheses Tested

viii

Page

42
84
131

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
1. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

2. Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Variables Under
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

3. Communimatrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

4. Communication Frequency and Density Histograms . . . . . 186

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The general consensus of the literature on formal organi-
zations suggests that the communication structure of an organization
largely determines how organizational functions are discharged.
Communication is described by Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 233) as:

the exchange of information and the transmission of meaning

. . the essence of a social system or an organization. The
input of physical energy is dependent upon information about
it, and the input of human energy is made possible through
communicative acts.

As early as 1938 Chester Barnard (1938, pp. 175-181) empha-
sized the "primacy of the 'systems of communication'" as the deter-
minant for bureaucratic 'lines of authority.‘ Barnard (1938, p. 9)
was among the first to suggest that "structure, extensiveness, and
scope of organization are almost entirely determined by communi-
cation techniques."

Communication is by definition relational--one party is
the sender and the other the receiver at a particular point in
time. This relational aspect may affect the exchange process.

The lack of awareness of the potential for disruption in the

organization caused by communication distortion has led to the

failure of many organizational attempts to improve operations.

Communications: Review of the Literature

Communications as a determinant of the authority structure
of the organization has its roots in the classical school of
organizational theory. This view, as exemplified by Max Weber,
(1947, pp. 58-60) conceptualized bureaucracies as power bases,
having impact on the political structure of society. Bureaucratic
authority is vested in a role or position as opposed to individual
designation with legitimacy based on the norms and regulations of
the organization, and it becomes the basis for coordination between
the organizational subunits. The goals of the organization are
operationalized as directives (communications) for action that are
transmitted through the hierarchy of authority. Thus, bureaucratic
authority provides the authorization or legitimization for a particu-
lar person to issue commands that are binding upon other persons in
a particular situation (Max Weber, 1947, pp. 324-341).

In later views or organization theory, bureaucratic systems
are seen as dynamic processes of communication (Barnard, 1938,
p. 163). The bureaucracy functions to apprise decision makers of
relevant data and to inform those who execute the decisions of
their responsibilities. In this connection, it is useful to
contrast this later view, exemplified by Chester Barnard, with
the Neberian construct.

The basic elements of the Weberian theory comprise power,
hierarchy, and legitimacy. On the other hand Barnard views decision-
making, communication and rational self-interest as the theoretical

conceptions of bureaucratic authority. Hopkins (1966, p. 83)

suggested that while these elements comprise the major concepts
currently used in the study of bureaucratic authority, they are
seldom combined in research. He stated that many studies of com-
munication systems assume that the exercise of authority is depend-
ent upon the good will and rationality of the participants. Indeed
he felt that many studies dealing with power de-emphasize the
processes through which authority is exercised.

Barnard (1938) analyzed the relationship of roles in the
organization as exemplified by the channel of communication dealing
with authoritative messages. The effectiveness of the organization
function is defined in terms of the attributes of the communication
as well as the attributes of the relationship between the two
communicators. The relationship between roles in the organization
is determined by status or rank in the organizational hierarchy.

Weber's concept of authority stems from the organization
which institutionalizes a rational-legal ideology whose responsibility
for implementation is vested in the administrative staff. Barnard
views authority as "flowing to those subject to it in the organi-
zation through the communications system rather than a legal control
exercised by those classified as administrative personnel." For
him, the rational-legal basis for these orders differs from the
conception held by Weber in that the 'authority' is not vested in
the rule makers but is based upon the perception of the subordinate.
Barnard (1938, pp. 165-66) posits that acceptable communications
must be understood by the receiver, consistent in terms of the

purpose of the organization; compatible with the receiver's personal

interests, and must in the final analysis be capable of being

executed. In addition, (Barnard, 1938, pp. 180-81) the communi-
cation must be capable of being authenticated; the receiver must
believe that it comes from a particular role in the organization
and the role position has the right to send such a communication.
In that regard, the theories of Weber and Barnard are compatible.

In terms of "lines of authority," Barnard again parallels
Weber in his assertion that "individuals are able to exercise
authority only when they are acting officially." Barnard (1938,
p. 1974) goes beyond Weber when he suggested that Pobjective
authority is only maintained if the positions or leaders continue
to be adequately informed." Barnard asserted that effective
channels formally connect every participant to the organization.
The two theorists concur on the premise that the channels of
communication must be known to be effective and that persons serving
in the role capacity as "communications center" must be perceived
by the organization to be competent.

Hopkins (1966, p. 94) argued that Weber and Barnard are
basically complementary in terms of their conceptions of authority
systems. Their apparent contradictions result from systems differ-
ences in emphasis; Weber is concerned with the system structure
through which communications flow while Barnard focuses primarily
upon the processor, including communications, of an organizational
system.

In the classical approach, structure was seen as vertical

with communication functioning to "get the job done most efficiently."

The bureaucratic structure developed to meet needs of the organi-
zation without consideration of the personal needs of the members.
The classical or traditional school reduced all problems of inter-
personal relations to questions of authority (Haberstroh, 1965,

p. 1201). "Bureaucracy" rested upon formality, which presents the
organization as having a definite purpose, clearly defined jobs,
written rules, and an established chain of command.

The Classical theory of organization led to the contemporary
conception of the post—Weberian school that acted to document the
Weberian model through analysis at the organizational level. This
approach is seen in the case studies presented by Gouldner, Selznick,
Blau and Lipset, who were characterized as Mouzelis (1968, p. 60)
as observing the organization not as a static and rigid structure,
"but as a going concern, as a system of continual tension and change
between the formal and informal." A

March and Simon (1968) attempted to integrate the views of
bureaucracy as presented by classical theorists and that research
which emphasized the influence of bureaucracy on the individual as
an isolated unit of analysis. Mouzelis (1969, p. 137) criticizes
this approach as stopping "on the level of the individual decision-
naker, "as it does not provide an explanation of the ramifications
of the communication and its network on the functioning of the
organization."

While the classical school of organizational theory con-
centrated on the structure of the organization; the Human Relations

school focused on the impact of the formal structure on the f

individual. This approach emphasized horizontal communication
patterns and decentralized authority and management. It was mainly
concerned with the shared beliefs and informal codes of behavior
of the members of the organization. In this view, communications
were considered (Carzo and Yanouzas, 1967, p. 107) as more compli-
cated than in the classical school as a result of the decentrali-
zation of authority and management. Since differences between
superiors and subordinate are de-emphasized, communications expand
to fulfill the need for the department of relationships between
subordinates. The dimension of lateral communication was added

to the conception of "up" and "down" networks as presented by
classical theorists.

While the Human Relations school "revolutionized the classi-
cal theory of management by breaking through its formalistic approach
and opening up the whole problem area of human behavior in the firm,"
(Mouzelis, 1968, p. 119), it was criticized for its de-emphasis of
the formal aspects of the organization and its over-emphasis of its
informal aspects.

The Open Systems approach to organizational analysis focused
upon the interdependence of the roles or subsystems of the organi-
zation. The organization is viewed as a dynamic, everchanging
system composed of recurring processes or patterned sequences of
events (Jacob, 1971, p. 18). According to proponents of this
aPproach, the static, or "closed" system approach fails to take
into consideration the influences of the external environment on

the organization.

Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 452) suggested that the "open-system
theory is not a theory at all" but rather:

An approach and a conceptual language for understanding and

describing many kinds and levels of phenomena. It is used

to describe and explain behavior of living organisms and

combinations of organisms, but it is applicable to any

dynamic, recurring process, any patterned sequence of events.
The open-systems approach considered the organization as a "learning
system which has the capacity to rearrange its internal structure
and elicit new self-controlled behavior in its attempts to adapt
to a changing environment" (Mouzelis, 1968, p. 131). The classical
school viewed the organization in terms of rigid structural com-
ponents which determined legitimacy and authority. Similarly,
while differing in perspective, the human relations school did not
allow for much change in the organizational system.

In the open-systems approach, communication is viewed as
information processing and in decision-making centers. The communi-
cations network was seen as a complex association of subsystems
where "the members of smaller subunits communicate with and influ-
ence each other to a greater extent than the units communicate with
and influence their superiors," (Berrien, 1968, p. 20). Communi-
cation is downward, upward, or lateral dependent upon the need of
the parts or subunits of the organization. In this conceptualization,
the power-structure of the organization is not specifically addressed,
indeed, the status system was overlooked in terms of determining

the network of decision-centers or information processing system

as a dynamic, fluctuating process in the organization.

Communications: Theoretical Considerations

Weber's (1947) classical theory of organization provided
the 'machine theory' of communication which attempted to clarify
relationships among jobs. Sayles (1958) typified this approach in
attempting to improve task performance by modifying work structure
to change people. The same basic approach was called 'communication
network' by Leavitt (1965) who relied on laboratory studies of
communication, structure, and task performance. In this research,
the communication structure, varying according to task or hypothesis,
was imposed on the participants. This approach was adapted to the
increasing interest in human relations which emphasized the effects
of cross pressures upon employees and the importance of 'affect'
within formal social systems. The Human Relations model suggests
that appropriate channels be encouraged for upward, downward, and
lateral communication. Research then is centered upon superior-
subordinate relationships, primarily in an attempt to achieve
'communication openness.‘ Similarly, Likert (1961) concentrated
on the location and level of decision-making within the organization.
This 'power-equalization,' or open systems, approach attempted to
develop a balance between concern for people and product (Blake
and Mouton, 1964).

'Machine theory' communication research attempted to trace
nessages across hierarchical levels or test employee awareness or
understanding of specific messages. Dahle (1954, pp. 21-28) found
that certain communication channels are generally more effective

than others and that certain material is more effective in one

channel than in another. Other analyses include the use of aggre-
gate indices (Freshley, 1955) and an analysis of variance (Blau,
1960) to study the function of communication in formal organizations.
Another effort has been to examine the flow of upward and downward
communications in large organizations as well as that between
superior-subordinate pairs. Major limitations of these approaches
are that they are not well adapted to the structural and process
aspects of systems theory.

The machine approach to communication leads the researcher
to analyze separate or separable organization components. MacDonald
(1970) posited that the limitations inherent in machine theory can
be attributed to a lack of familiarity with concepts of relationality
in communications. He stated that data gathered from previous studies
is not relevant when one moves from the 'molecular member' to dyads,
triads, groups, or whole organizations as units of analysis.
Exceptions to this criticism involve research among individuals
having no role designation rather than communications between
formally prescribed roles as is the case in an organization.

The sociometric approach applied to organizational communi-
cation by Jacobson and Seashore (1951, pp. 28-40) allows roles to
emerge from process, in terms of a set of operating functions.

This organizational model assumes that an adequate description of
communication relationships, and thus of the organizational
structure, will not emerge when only formal relationships or
positions are considered. In this way, communication content

becomes operationally defined in terms of the perception of the

10

sender or receiver. This variable, plus the examination of emerging
networks and patterns of organization communication, differentiates
the systems approach from machine theory.

A methodological consideration posed by systems theory is
to separate structure from process in a 'living system' (Schwartz,
1968, p. 21). Schwartz advocated analyzing communications networks
without regard to the formal constraints of authority, prescribed
function, or spatial relations (1968, pp. 8-16). He observed
behavior or obtained reports of behavior from organization members,
using the data to construct a 'map' of the organization. Structure
is then derived from the definition of position at which a message
transaction takes place. This differs from the machine theory
approach where organizational structure is mapped according to

task and authority.

Informal Organizational Communications

2 Thayer (1968, pp. 29-30) observed that internal communi-
cation is to an organization what the psychological/conceptual
system is to the organism. It is what permits the organization
to learn to be aware of itself, to be intelligently adaptive and
creatively aggressive vis-a-vis its environment. Any organization's
effectiveness is a function of its past and present communication
patterns--both internal and external. Its external communication
patterns act to determine its internal structure and functions.

Information, not data, is the raw material for thinking,

decision-making, attitude development, and learning. In some

areas of systems engineering, and computer sciences, the terms

11

'data' and 'information' are used interchangeably. Human communi-
cation distinguishes between what is potentially available (data)
and that which is immediately consumable (information). Viewed in
this manner, four levels of analysis evolve in which to view
communication.

The first level of communication is at an intra-personal
level. The focus is upon individual behavior such as observing,
problem-solving, thinking, listening, reading, or speaking (Thayer,
1968, p. 30). The next level, interpersonal or intercommunication,
involves two-person (or n-person) systems of communication. Of
interest, from an organizational viewpoint, is not how an individual
is affected by communication, but with how given individuals affect
each other through intercommunication to regulate and control each
other. The third level of analysis, termed organizational, links
organization members together in networks of data systems and
provides the means by which the organization relates itself to its
environment. At this level, analysis involves the effect of the
data or communication systems on task-related decision-making as
well as organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

The fourth level of analysis is technological, involving
the equipment, apparatus, and/or the formalized 'programs' necessary
for generating, storing, processing, translating, distributing, or
displaying data. The hardware of communication handles data.
Information, which is the ultimate element of human communication,

is a functional product or output.

12

A formal organization is characterized by a rational attempt
to structure the transportation of data among the operating and
decision-making parts of the organization. The organization's
actual structure is formed by the patterns or networks which
describe its communication within its environment. Special infor-
mation systems can be established for certain of the organization's
departments, especially in terms of management. These usually are
special cases of an interface between organizational communication
and data technology. Even though such systems and their associated
equipment are usually referred to as 'information' systems, they
are actually data transmission and processing systems.

Two distinctions can be made between data systems and
communication systems. Data systems map the flow of data to or
from humans or machines from the point at which the data is
generated or disseminated to the point of their intended destination.
Data systems are rational systems, humanly designed. Communication
systems, on the other hand, are natural, emergent systems, resulting
from data transportation by the actual communicative behavior of
the person who is the locus of consumption (Walton, 1962). They
are, in fact, control systems. Control and regulation of behavior
in communication systems is a consequence of the people involved
and the communication which occurs. The controls of data systems
are rationally built into the process before any communication
occurs, in anticipation of communication which should occur. People
do not, and cannot, control each other communicatively in any abso-
lute sense, even though all communicative encounters are regulatory

to some degree.

13

Despite an emerging realization that organizations consist
largely of patterned networks and flows of communicative relation-
ships (Dorsey, 1957, pp. 307-324), the bulk of research concerning
organizational communication is not amenable to a systems approach.
Wilensky (1967) discussed the limitations of a totally rationalistic
approach to organizations when he stated that the fact that communi-
cations in organizations should provide accurate information with
the appropriate emotional overtones to all members who need the
communication content precluded the development of a truly rational
communication system. Previous research into communications with
findings based on empirical data of message content, message flow,
perceptual differences between individuals or groups in organi-
zations, and role correlates are severely limited, since they view
organizations as open systems and the function of communication as
explicating and facilitating relationships within or between systems
(MacDonald, 1970).

While not officially recognized, dynamic relationships in
organizations can be found through informal contacts. Pfiffner
and Sherwood (1960, p. 20) presented a method of "social overlay,"
which augmented the design of the organizational structure with
lines depicting relationships that exist without official recognition.
There is a pattern of relationships which usually are social in
nature and exist because of a "net feeling of attraction or rejection."

In many organizations there are certain individuals that are
recognized by the members of that system as those who are always

able to get information or can cause some action to be taken, although

14

their position in the hierarchial structure may not appear to be
that significant. Pfiffner and Sherwood (1960, pp. 23-24) referred
to this phenomena as the "power overlay" or "network of influence,"
depicted as an informal channel of communications which may or may
not be superimposed over the formal hierarchy of the organization.
They suggested that perhaps "nowhere is the interrelationship of
the various overlays more clearly seen than in communications"
(p. 26). Previous research had shown that an important measure
of organizational power is access to the information base of the
organization.
Sayles and Strauss (1966, p. 353) suggested that:

Today, organizations hire many managerial, professional, and

technical personnel. Since they are often better informed

on technical subjects than their superiors, the latter must

abdicate certain key decisions to them.
Formal vs. Informal Organization

Barnard (1938, p. 73) suggested that in describing a formal

organization "the most useful concept for the analysis of experience
of cooperative systems is embodied in the definition of a formal
organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities or
focus of two or more persons." Coordination of activity for task
accomplishment required communication between the parties involved
in the effort. He identified the informal organization as con-
sisting of the "aggregate of the personal contacts and interactions
and the associated groups of people." The informal organization
was seen as being "indefinite and rather structureless." Mitchell

(1970, p. 99) observed that while "up" and "down" messages occur,

15

much of the more important messages flow across organizational lines
by means of routes of influence and cooperation. He found that
informal messages usually did not reach decision-makers and that
cliques existed as result of the informal cross-flow of messages.

The existence of a formal and informal communications system
within an organization does not indicate a conflict situation.

Davis (1953, p. 43) posited that "communication to a worker and

from the worker is dependent on effective management communications;
and clearly this in turn requires informal as well as formal channels.“
He suggested that the active informal communication system is a

result of effective formal communication. Thus, organizational

study suggests that the organizational chart alone may not exemplify
the functional communications dynamics of the organization.

Walton (1963, p. 46) contended that ". . . the most signifi-
cant factor accounting for the total behavior of the organization
can best be understood by understanding its system of communication."
Deutsch (1952) suggested that if we can map the patternways by
which information is communicated between different parts of an
organization and by which it is applied to the outside world, "we
will have gone far in understanding the organization."

Literature that presents the elements of organizational
communication across multi-disciplines assumed that human organi-
zation is centered around role designations, hierarchical statuses,
and patterned interactions among persons within the organization
(Merton, 1949, p. 151). Thayer (1968, p. 18) observed that what

essentially gets organized when people organize themselves into

T6

collective enterprises is the flow of enterprise related information
into and out of decision points which act to develop strategic
relationships between and among the subunits or the organization.
Deutsch (1955) stated that it is the communication that occurs

and the patterns of interaction which result that define and deter-
mine the structure and the functioning of any organization. Thayer
agreed by asserting that informational inputs, operations, and out-
puts determine the condition and future of the organization. He
stated that a formal organization is characterized by rational
attempts to structure the transmission of data among the operating
and decision-making parts of the organization. The organization's
actual structure was seen to be characterized by the pattern or

network of information--decision flows within the organization.

Communications: Methodological Considerations

 

Methods of studying communication problems outside the
laboratory have encountered the same difficulties as other field
research in social science. One area of particular difficulty
has been the inability to record and 'map' actual communication
patterns in an organization.

Five methods of performing field studies of communication
patterns and networks are found in the literature. The first of
these, characterized by Mayo (1945) and Roethlisberger (1939)
involved a "living in" type of observation in which members of a
small group were interviewed and observed over a period of years.
The clinical observers thus got the "feel" of the group and made

subjective judgments about communication patterns. Obviously this

17

methodology has limitations in terms of reliability of data col-
lection and interpretation. Subjective evaluations could result

in errors over time as well as in differences in internal consistency
based on operational definitions. This method has limited adapta-
bility to larger organizations.

A second method, used by Eugene Jacobsen (1951, pp. 327-335)
called "indirect analysis," seems to be the most extensively
developed organizational communication research. A derivative
of the sociometric technique, this method assumed that communication
occurs among members of units with whom they spend the most time.
Also determined are the particular classes of information and types
of media to characterize communication channels and their effective-
ness.

"Duty study," a third method, involves observing communi-
cations as they pass a particular spot. It provides information
about flows of information but only shows overall patterns of
communication. Moore (1950) best exemplified its most profitable
and effective use in his study of an Air Force sergeant who spent
14% of his work day communicating by telephone. Obviously this
method is restricted in terms of subject locus with a corresponding
one-sided evaluation of perception.

A fourth method in which communications at any point in
time are recorded and analyzed is termed "cross-section analysis."
Generalizations are drawn from the random sample of communications
within the organization at a given time. This method is not widely

used.

T8

Studying communications sequentially is termed 'ecco
analysis.‘ This approach focused on a unit of information and
fbllows it through time, space, and other dimensions. 'Ecco
analysis' has a dynamic quality because it portrays a sequence of
communications about an event. For example, it portrays the spread
of a unit of information from its origin to all persons in the
organization who knew the information at the cutoff point. This
communication network can be superimposed on the organizational
chart or related to such variables as seniority, age, or proximity
of work station. The dynamics of flow could indicate such rela-
tionships as the proportion of communications between line and
staff and within each, the proportion of communication between
each organizational level, the direction of communication in rela-
tion to organizational level, the proportion of communication
crossing functional lines, the types of communication which hold
irrterest for each occupationally defined group, etc. Since 'ecco'
data came from individuals, it required that the researchers attain
Ir'alZ)|.'Jort with the respondent. This type of analysis has been judged
11> have adequate validity and reliability for business use (Davis,
1953. pp. 307). Accuracy resulted in developing a questionnaire
e”Citing fact, not opinion. Since the full population
was surveyed, problems of population sample did not arise, but
there were problems of selecting representative types of infor-

mation to be surveyed. Large organizations could only be studied

19

if the organization was broken into small segments and the study
developed to mainly show patterns of communication.

Five general data-collection methods appear in the liter-
ature: (l) sociometric techniques (Jacobson and Seashore, 1951),
(2) tracing a given message after it was diffused through the
organization (Davis, 1953), (3) the communication log or audit where
a census of messages is recorded by members over a given time
period (Burns, 1954), (4) timed random sampling of messages
(Hinricks, 1964) and (5) use of trained observers to record all
or a sampling of message transactions (Bales, 1951). Obvious
problems exist for the Operationalization of data collection due
to the content heterogeneity and noncontinuity of transactions.
Data collection and analysis is further hampered by independent
random sampling necessary for statistical models. In the machine
theory approach, individuals or dyads can be randomly selected
within each unit to be studied. Research involving the total
communication system within the organization would require
saturation sampling. This is further complicated methodologically
in that it is difficult to generalize findings to similar or even

dissimilar organizations.

Data Collection

The approach to organizational research in this study
describes the communication structure through a survey of members
in small or medium size organizations. This method imposes limi-

tations on data handling and on the size of organizations studied,

20

usually as a result of cost. Another viable method would be to
use a snowball sampling (a form of cluster sample) when the popu-
lation is large enough, but this technique has had little or no
use in comnunication research. It involved selecting a random
sample of respondents, determining their communication contacts,
and then "mapping" the communication structure for each resultant
cluster of respondents (MacDonald, 1970, p. 15).

Another approach to data collection is the use of communi-
cations 1095 where the subjects maintain running records of all
their communication contacts over a period of time (Burns, 1954,
Walton, 1962, and Farace and Morris, 1969). The contacts can
then be mapped to indicate the total network of relationships.

One example of the limitations of this type of data gathering

was the proposal in 1969 by the U.S. Attorney General that
government attorneys keep logs of their communication activities.
Opposition based on invasion of privacy killed this project. In
addition, the problem of tiring of maintaining logs over extended
periods of time and the record-keeping's possible effect upon
communication itself could effect data collection. Sample adequacy
is questionable when messages are considered as units since there
are several available means to randomize at the message, indi-
vidual, or time period levels.

A technique applicable to groups of significant size has been
borrowed from the field of sociometry. Using these techniques,
Jacobson and Seashore (1951) have investigated the use of communica-
tion relationships to define organization structure and assess communi-

cation's effect on the attitudes and behaviors of members. This

 

21

approach has been further developed by Schwartz (1968) in describing
three communication roles defined by communication contact: liaison,
nonliaison, and isolate.

The majority of sociometrically oriented studies count
communication contacts which result from inquiries as to communi-
cation encounters. By analyzing reciprocated contacts, one can
determine direction of initiation and influence and confirm the
respondent's perceptions of dyadic interaction. "Groupness" and
linkage points can be specified when people are grouped according
to the nature of their communication contacts.

Concepts such as upward communication, downward communication,
and lateral communication are unimportant in the systems approach
to organizational communication since considerations of hierarchy
are not stressed. Rather, dimensions of interest to the researcher
include the dyadic relationship expanded to the nth degree, as well
as member attributes and time. Schwartz attempted to show the
presence or absence of communication contacts between system
members in dyads, in groups, the total system to show communication
flow, frequency and content.

Limitations of this approach are the inability to specify
the significance of change in a network or of the differences
between networks. It can be specified that two groups are indeed
different or that change has occurred, but the statistical signifi-
cance of these changes cannot be measured. The probability that
each person will communicate with each other in the social system

cannot be ascertained and therefore no known tests of difference

22

can be applied if no theoretical distributions can be derived

(Davis, 1953).

Critiqge of Previous Research

The study of communication within 'real' organizations has
not seemed to have gone significantly beyond the problem identifi-
cation stage for several reasons:

1. The bulk of research has maintained a 'machine theory'
orientation which encourages a clinical, therapeutic

result as exemplified in business-management literature

2. Little attention has been paid to the development of
methodology for analyzing the informal communication
structure of an organization without the formal, imposed
hierarchical structure

3. Too often the research which has been attempted was not
conceptualized within the framework of a larger theory

of either communication or organization.

Thus the usual approach to organizational communication
research has been to attempt to determine how communication operates
within the formal 'design' of the organization. Communication has
typically been studied in terms of 'vertical' or 'horizontal' rela-
tionships between or among hierarchical levels or formally structured
task units. This is evident throughout the literature where communi-
cation has been viewed as a therapeutic approach for improving
organizational members. In this same vein, organizational communi-
cation research has also been used to study superior-subordinate
relations in the human relations tradition. Both approaches focus
upon the formal structure of the organization with little attention
to the informal communication structure. Conceptually, communi-

cations research in the machine theory tradition encompasses only

a few levels or units of the organization and disregards a major

23

proportion of interaction in the organization's communication system.
In the name of practicality, communication has been operationally
defined as a control or tool with motivational implications between
superior or subordinate while communication as a functional infor-
mation transmission process is secondary.

The open system approach to the study of organizations and
their communication structure in particular would seem to be best
suited to an adaptation of communications research as exemplified
by researchers whose basis of analysis has its roots in the con-
ceptions of Jacobson and Seashore (1951). This approach is

presented further in this text.

Summar

The literature review presented is an overview of attempts
by theorists to explain aspects of pattern, structure, and processes
of communication to the decision-making and control functions of
organizations. The general consensus across thebretical approaches
is that communications seems to tie organizations together. Previous
research has indicated that a study of communication structure in
relation to organizational variables measuring perceived 'quality
of life' (for example, job satisfaction, uncertainty, and physical
environment) could act to effect the flow of information to the
organizational processes of coordination, control, and decision-
making. The need for research to integrate the various organi-
zational theoretical positions utilizing organizational and com-

munication variables was adopted in the present study.

CHAPTER II

RATIONALE FOR PRESENT STUDY

This study focuses on a comparative analysis of the struc-
ture and function of the internal communication of police agencies.
While recent texts on police administration mention the importance
of communications in police agencies, little research has been
conducted to measure and assess the style and quality of that
communication.

The general consensus is that the structure of a communi-
cations network in a police organization has a great deal to do
with the speed and accuracy of the information transmitted between
its personnel. Munro (1974, p. 71) posited that an integral part
of a behavioral analysis of any police department is the mapping
of the information flow within the organization. A police super-
visor decides issues based on information received in conjunction
with previously developed strategies, procedures, or rules. Conse-
quently, the communication process becomes vital as the flow of
proper information to the decision points of the organization is
a necessary requirement for task accomplishment. If supervision
were thought of primarily as decision making and if the decision
process were considered essentially a communication-process

including a network of communications systems, then supervision

24

25

could conceivably be viewed as a communication-process. Dorsey
(1957, p. 310) concurred in that he said:

Structurally, administration can be viewed as a configuration

of communication patterns relating individuals and collectivities
of varying sizes, shapes, and degrees of cohesion and stability.
Dynamically, administration appears as a patterned swirl and
flow of communications, many of them channeled through trans-
actional 'circuits' between persons and person, persons and
groups, and groups and other groups.

Thus the several concepts--communications, control, information,
and decision making--are interwoven. Information exchange would
seem to have basic significance for both control and decision-
making. Communications networks develop to carry requisite infor-
mation for decision-making to provide task-oriented control. One
essential feature of police work is that its rapidly changing
external environment requires a high volume of informational
messages that need to be transmitted through the organization.
The level of the volume of messages in a police organization is
determined by six basic factors (Whisenand, 1971, p. 142):

The total number of members in the organization.

The nature of its communication-networks (downward,
upward, or horizontal).

The transmission regulations controlling when and to

whom messages are sent.

The degree of interdependence among the organization's
various activities.

The speed with which relevant changes occur in its
external environment.

The search mechanisms and procedures used by the organi-
zation to investigate its environment.

mmpr—I

A police organization is compelled by its functions to main-
tain a high volume of messages. Messages, which vary in form and
content, include reports, statements, inquiries, questions, accounts,

comments, notes, records, recommendations, rejoinders, and instructions

26

(Eilon, 1968, pp. 266-88). These messages can be transmitted
formally or informally through written communication, oral communi-
cations through face-to-face contact, or oral communications in
telephone conversations. The particular method used by the police
organization to collect, select, and transmit information is a
critical determinant of the organization's ability to function.

Persons making administrative decisions in any formal
organization must examine the consequences of such decision for
authority and communications relationships within the organization.
In a police organization most information is fed into the system
by persons at the bottom of the formal hierarchy. This creates
immense problems for authority, for by the very nature of the
patrolman's task supervisory control can often come only after a
decision has been made. The subordinate's discretion in terms of
information-input into the system increases the importance of
influences which are not part of a formal authority structure
(Simon, 1952, pp. 188-9).

Ericson (1972, p. 89) suggested that the type of authority
system which police administrators must develop is that of manipula-
tion rather than domination, using positive incentives and group
persuasion as opposed to direct threats and explicit instructions.
Such an approach assumes that the administrator knows or has
access to the points of the organization where influence can be
utilized to maximize decision-making and management.

Pfiffner and Sherwood (1960, p. 137) proposed that the

"exception principle"--leaving the routine decision-making to the

27

lower echelon except for unusual circumstances and the modern con-
cept of communications as a circuit rather than a pyramid preclude
the necessity for "a commander on each echelon to have seen and
read every message, but only those which require his attention
for the purpose of information or decision."

The proposition that in a police organization the staff
has as influence on major operational policy even though formally
it has no operating authority is supported by Kenney (1972, p. 47)
who stated that:

The myth that administrative policy for the police department
is made by the chief of police needs to be scotched. . . . It
is inherent . . . that the policy is made at all levels of
organization and in essence _a_l_l personnel are ultimately
involved in the policy-making process.
1" Police organizations, although decisions as to the administration
01: the organization might be made more frequently by those in
higher positions, actual working-policies regarding "discretionary"

decz‘ision-making are often formulated at the operational, or working

1eVel.

The Police Bureaucracy
The police bureaucracy differs from most other bureaucracies
1'1 the way in which activities are (originated. In an industrial
0‘I‘Slanization, the pattern of line work activity is in most cases
inTtiated by the higher administrative level of the organizational
hTer‘archy. A police bureaucracy is also different in that most
Information crucial to the organization's operation is fed into

the system by those at the lowest levels of the formal hierarchy.

28

This creates problems of authority, for by the very nature of the

patrolman's task supervisory control can often come only after a

decision has been made.

Ericson (1972) posits that the police bureaucracy must be
"representative" in nature, where operating norms are initiated

col ‘laboratively (Gouldner, 1959, pp. 403-4). Traditionally, police

organizations have been viewed as "punishment-centered" where the
imposition of rules and subsequent obedience are viewed for their

own sake (Gouldner, 1954, p. 24). He suggests that an informal

authority structure largely controls activities relative to police

exercise of discretionary decision-making. Tolerance of this

Thformal system is seen as an exchange for compliance with organi-

Zati onal policy. Organizationally useful communication is not

cOnfined to formal channels based upon the authority structure of

or‘Qanizational hierarchy. Informal and personal communication is

a SUpportive and frequently necessary process for effective
functioning. The unofficial communication channels has been
s“Sgested as a prime means for studying informal organization.

Messages transmitted along informal communication channels

can be characterized as being of three categories (Whisenand,
1976, pp. 314-15). The first type are subformal channels that

Carry messages arising from the informal power structure existent

1Within the organization. Every member of the organization is

exDected to know and observe informal rules and procedures about

What to communicate and to whom. Such rules are rarely written

and must be learned by experience.

29

Whisenand (1976, p. 314) suggests that the majority of
cxantnunications in police organizations are subformal. Downs (1967,
[3. “113) presents two types of subformal communications: those that
f:1(DVV along formal channels, but not as formal communications, and
those that flow along purely informal channels. Since neither are
off‘i cial, they have the advantage (and sometimes disadvantage) of
bei ng withdrawn or changed without an official record. As a result,
[havvris posits that new ideas are first proposed and tested as sub-
fk)r~n1al communications. While subformal communications act to meet
tliee communications requirements not met by formal channels, they
tend to become increasingly important under certain organizational
Si'ttjations. Whisenand suggests that these conditions include:

1. The greater the degree of interdependence among activities
within the department, the greater the number and use of

subformal channels.

2. The more uncertainty about the objectives of the depart-
ment, the greater the number and use of subformal channels.

3. When a police organization is operating under the pressure
of time, it tends to use subformal channels extensively,
since there is often no time to use the formal channels.

4. If the divisions of a police department are in strong
competition, they tend to avoid subformal channels and
communicate only formally.

5. Subformal communications channels are used more frequently
if departmental members have stable, rather than constantly
changing relationships with each other.

Nhisenand does not document these contentions. Rather, he seems
t0 infer these relationships from tested hypotheses gleaned from
various sources in organizational communications. Research that
has been specifically conducted in a law enforcement agency is

that reported by Blau (1954) where the frequency of informal

30

cxanununications contacts were dependent upon the competency of the
ir1ciividual acting as the receiver. Blau was concerned with a
systematic analysis of the processes of interaction in a "natural"
group, especially in relation to the status differences that
emerge in the interaction process. The study focused upon a work
group of sixteen agents, who, together with a supervisor and a
cfl£3r~k, composed a department in a 'law enforcement' agency. (The
f11r1<2tion of this quasi-criminal justice agency was to investigate
business establishments to determine whether any violation of the
laws the agency administered had occurred.)
Blau found that unofficial status and quality of performance
Were mutually related in this department. An integrated status in
the group was attained by superior competence, with departmental
members being attracted to those colleagues whose ability they
reSpected. Blau also suggests that a substitute for attaining
Status for those less proficient in the organization was the
establishment of extensive informal relations with colleagues who
91‘s: highly respected in the organization. Blau found that agents
who received the largest percentage of informal contacts tended to
aSsume dominant roles in group situations.
Blau postulates that the attention paid to the agent
"eceiving many contacts provides a sense of security that allows
the individual to make recommendations and provide input above
the average level of the members of that peer group. By directing
a disproportionate number of contacts to one member of the work

group, the members were seen to have expressed their collective

”o .. _;...

 

('3'
y!

31

regard for and deference to the receiving member, and thus have

bestowed superior status, power, and prestige on that member.

Berelson and Steiner (1964, p. 370) agree with Whisenand
when they state:

The efficiency of a large formal organization is sizably
enhanced when its own chain of command or decision or communi-
cation is tied into the informal network of groups within the

organization, so that the network can be used to support the
organizations goals.

Like Blau (1964, p. 356) they also note that recognized

leaders occur at the position of highest centrality in the communi-

cati on net.

The purpose of this study is to determine the structure of

communication flow in police organizations. An organization may

be analyzed on at least three different levels: (1) The systems

Tevel, that is the organization as a whole, (2) The sybsystem level,
Concentrating on the various groups which make up an organization.
and (3) The intrapersonal level which involves data collection

reTevant to the attitudes, roles, abilities, etc. of the individual

me"‘lbers of the organization. The research undertaken views the

DOT ice agency as a total organization at the (systems level of
ama'lysis. Subsystems or small groups existent either informally
0" as a result of formal work assignment will be considered in the
context of the larger organization. Mouzelis (1968, p. 131)
Characterized this open-system approach as considering the organi-
zation as a "learning system" which has the capacity to rearrange

its internal structure and elicit new self-controlled behavior in

its attempt to adapt to a changing environment." The advantage of

32

viewing the organization as an open system is in its emphasis on
information processing and decision centers.

An approach taken by F. Kenneth Berrien (1968, p. 20),
treated conmunications first in terms of the entire organization
and then specifically in relation to the subsystems of the organi-
za ti on. He posits that "in a social system, the members of smaller
sub-units communicate with and influence each other to a greater
extent than the units communicate with and influence their superiors."
In this approach, the conmunication network is seen as a complex
association of subsystems. Berrien states that the need for a degree
01" stability by the formal organization required management to
Provide or make possible functional connectedness of the parts of
SUbsystems.

Communication integration is defined as the degree to which
a] 1 members of an organization relate to each other through the
Exchange of information with symbolic content. One simple socio-
metric index of this variable at the social systems level is the
pr‘Oportion of mutually chosen pairs of the total number of pairs
0f individuals in an organization (Proctor and Loomis, 1951:
Kerlinger, 1966). Reindl (1970, p. 107) stated the proposition:

The degree of internal integration of the (organization)
communication network is positively related to the rate of
change implementation in the organization.

Guimaraes (1970, p. 68) in studies of the integration of

the communication network of four rural social systems of Brazil
Stated that the degree of the organization's communication inte-

gration may explain how members of a social system (of which that

33

communication system is a part) accept, reject, or modify inno-
vati ons which are diffused from other systems. Richard K. Allen
(1970, p. 108) found that innovative schools have a higher degree
of comnunication integration than non-innovative schools.

The concept, integration of the network, gives the degree
of ' connectiveness' within the organization. Another dimension of
the comnunication network structure is "how" this connectiveness
is patterned. This view of communication structure was a major
dimension in the Jacobson and Seashore study (1951, p. 29):

The communication structure is seen as existing in the patterns
(3f actual contact among subgroups that are established by the
inter-individual contacts.

While recent texts on Police Administration mention the
TmDortance of conmunications in the police organization, little
"e'search has been conducted to measure and assess the style and
quélity of that communication in relation to how the organization
fuhctions. Indeed, Whisenand (1971, p. 131) proposes that:

Communication is the vehicle for supervisory control. In
other words, the police supervisor is a key person in building
and maintaining effective organizational communications as

he interacts with subordinates, peers, supervisors, and the
citizenry. . . . A communications, or in terms of organi-
zational setting a communication system, provides the means
by which information, statements, views, and instructions

are transmitted through an organization. . . . A police
supervisor decides issues based on information received in
conjunction with previously developed strategies, procedures,
or rules. . . . In fact, if supervision were thought of
primarily as decision making and if the decision were con-
sidered essentially a communication process including a net-
work of communication systems, then supervision could be
viewed as a communication process.

Increasingly, police administrators are faced with the

problem of police officers who insist upon their right to be

34

involved in decision-making processes of the police organization.
Moore (1976, p. 76) asserts that this is inconsistent with the
classical model of bureaucracy in which authority flows from a
posi tion at the top of the hierarchical structure to a position
at the bottom--with no authority flowing from the bottom upwards.
An important element of this study will be to test the pattern of
formal and informal conmunications flow in police departments in
terms of decision-making processes in relation to the-existent
bureaucratic structure.
As police organizations become larger, so do the systems

Whi ch operate from within. In the case of communications, the task
becomes a hundred--or a thousandfold. Clement (1976, p. 53) observes
that police administration must "avail ourselves of all conlnunications
Sys tems and develop them to the degree that they are useful in
assisting us to run our organizations efficiently and effectively.
we must, of necessity, employ both formal and informal systems of
connunication." This sentiment is echoed by those in the field
sUCh as Chief Richard R. Anderson (1976, p. 54) who said, "I think
internal communications are vital because not only should you as
ch‘Tef know what is going on within your own department in all
9"Gas, but you have an obligation to your officers and civilian

employees to make sure they know what is going on within the

oY‘ganization."

35
The Police Department as the Sugject of
Communications Net Study
The present study focused on the variations in the internal
communication network structure and functions present in police
organizations. It provides an understanding of the communication
structure and flow among personnel of local government police
department as formal organizations. Formal and informal channels
Of information transmission are identified. The conlnunication
behaviors of the individual respondents were then mapped in socio-
metric form to provide a picture of the extant communication
structure of the police departments under study. The 'map,’ based
uDon a refinement of the Jacobson and Seashore technique (1951)
was computerized by Mitchell (1970) and Farace (1972) to provide
TFJY‘ data manipulation to perform a communications network analysis.
The organizations selected for the present study were five
local police departments operating under city chartered governmental
bodies which provide law enforcement and crime prevention functions
1'1 their respective communities. The departments were selected
T'Tiifially for the willingness of the top administrators to allow
Research to be conducted in their respective departments. The
dT‘Fficulty of admittance for a research effort have lessened
cionsiderably in recent years as police agencies became more ac-
customed to the scrutiny to their operations and records, a situation
that historically was not tolerated.
Several variables were considered important in selecting

the particular police departments to undergo study. The investigator

36

Ni 5 bed to limit consideration to 'typical' police agencies rather

than upon departments of unique function or unusual size. Based

upon an analysis of the police agencies reporting to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, it was determined
that the greatest percentage of police departments in the three
l’li dwestern States represented in the study under the jurisdiction
of ‘l ocal government units were under 25 sowrn personnel in size
(78 to 86%) (1974).

Tab1 e l.--Number of Full-Time Law Enforcement Officers, October 31,
1973; All Cities Reporting to F.B.I.

_‘_

 

 

 

Tab1 e 1 State 1a State 29 State 3c
Under 25 86 84.3% 322 85.4% 122 77.7%
26- 50 9 8.8 31 8.2 15 9.6
51— 75 1 0.98 10 2.6 8 5.1
76-100 2 1.96 4 1.1 6 3.8
101-125 - 1 0.3 - 1.9
12‘6—150 3 2.94 3 0.8 3 1.9
151 —zoo - l 0.3 l 0.6
201 -250 - 1 0.3 0
251-275 - 1 0.3 -
276-300 - - 1 0.6
Over 300 1 0.98 3 0.8 1 0.6
1 2 377 157

aDepartment Exter.

bDepartment Bentley.
CDepartment Deerfield.

Source: Data derived from Crime in the United States, 1973, Uniform
Reports. Tables 70 and 71.

37

Si nce the research effort is generally concerned with a study of
communication networks in average police organizations, it was

deci ded to limit the analysis to agencies of representative size.

The number of personnel of police agencies of this size was

des i rable in terms of being small enough for one investigator to

study in a reasonable amount of time yet be significant in terms of

bei ng representative to police organizations. Expediency also

limi ted the geographic scope of the study to the Midwestern region

01“ the United States. It was felt that political influences acting

on the department would be more significant than the geographic

variable for the purposes of this analysis.

While governmental units at federal, state, county, and
mun-i cipal levels vest various organizations with law enforcement

res Donsibilities, the majority of such organizations are at the

municipal level. The present study, therefore, is restricted to

those agencies that derive their jurisdictional power and authority
from municipal governments.

Thirdly, the police agencies selected for study were
sinrilar in formal hierarchical structure in relation to the quasi-

mil itaristic pattern of traditional police organizations. Few
local police agencies in the United States have developed and

maintained non-traditional organizational structures. Since the
cOmUnication patterns of traditional police departments have not

been documented by research, a comparative analysis of the differing
structural arrangements of police organizations was deemed premature.

InStead, police departments were chosen for their similarity of

38

function and authority and the delegation of responsibility to

corresponding organizational subunits, e.g. a detective bureau

for the investigation of crime.

Fox and Lundman (1974) stated that the problems encountered

‘i n researching police organizations are different from those involved

‘5 n researching other formal organizations. They suggested that

these difficulties result from the lack of systematic techniques

For entry into the departments. The problem of entry was faced by

thi 5 study in that traditionally police organizations have been leery

of academic research efforts. As found by Fox and Lundman, the

most viable mode of access into the department was dependent upon

lhf‘ormal social organizational contacts and contingent acceptance

at the administrative level of the organization.

The participant agencies for this study were self-selected

in that entry was dependent upon information held by the organi-

zat-i on about the researcher. Social and professional contacts led

13° Positive response to overtures for research participation. This

tYDe of selection lends itself to possible considerations of bias

1'1 the research, with participation acceptance being indicative of

organizational openness to a certain extent. While a random

SETection of police departments would have been the ideal, the

researcher was careful to neutralize the possible incidence of

blas in the final selection procedure. The attempts to ameliorate

these conditions involved selecting police departments with varying

access determinants. In addition, selection of participants was

based upon absence of possible inter-departmental contact between

39

p01 ice departments undergoing study. The departments were chosen

For their representation in terms of demographic characteristics

of typical United States police departments (FBI Uniform Crime
Reports, 1973).

Data analysis excludes two of the original five police

departments studied. The Chief of Police in Department A (70 men)

resigned unexpectedly under great controversy at the point of 48%

return of research questionnaires. The City Council and the

subsequent Acting Chief prohibited the completion of data collection

The data to date was deemed inadequate in terms of significant

ana'lysis. For that reason, the analysis of Department A is not

Presented.

In addition, the Chief of Police in Department C resigned

his position to accept another. At his request, data analysis.

aTthough virtually completed, is not presented in deference to

PPO‘Fessional relationships. The remaining participating police

departments, although presenting a variation in size, are presented
as it was felt that while organizational size could have impact
Upon the analysis of informal communication network development,

it was not as important in relation to the hypotheses being
Presented.

Summar

The lack of research in the area of administration in police

organizations based upon an analysis of the efficacy of conmuni-

cation flow in relation to control and decision-making suggested

40

the need for research that would 'map' the communication structure
( f1 ow) found in an average police department along with the identi-
fi cation of organizational variables that act to impede or enhance
that structure. The present study attempts to consider the police
department as an organizational bureaucracy whose communication
patterns are affected by departmental conditions perceived to be
exi stent by its members. The perceived openness and use of the
comnunication structure of personnel employed in police departments
was measured and analyzed across four major areas: (1) Propinquity,
(2) Uncertainty, (3) Innovativeness, and (4) Level of Participation
in Decision-Making and Control. An attempt was made to identify
Tiai son and opinion/influence leaders in the organization in order
to suggest a method for the facilitation of information, dissemination,
and introduction of change into a police department.

Five police agencies were selected for inclusion in the
research effort. Two departments were subsequently excluded from
the analysis presented. Three police departments were approached
through the use of a mailed questionnaire to collect data concerning
Comunication behavior and perceptions concerning organization

variables selected as affecting communication activity.

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

The literature review presented in Chapter I is an overview
of attempts by theorists to explain aspects of pattern, structure,
and processes of communication activity in organizations. The general
consensus across theoretical approaches is that communication seems
to tie organizations together. According to Roberts, et a1. (1974),
the relationship of various facets of communication to organizational
processes such as coordination and decision-making would provide an
understanding of organizational behavior. Additionally, they stated
that the relationships among communication, organizational efficiency,
and 'quality of human life' (for example, job satisfaction, moti-
vation, and morale) variables are equally important.

Roberts et a1. (1974) further presented an analysis of
communication variables which they purport emerged as important
because the variables are mentioned or implied by a number of
organizational writers. These variables, presented in Figure l,
have not been fully integrated into a general theory of organi-
zational communication. Rather, existing definitions of organi-
zation communication facets have, in many cases, yet to be developed
and linked across levels of analysis in research efforts. Indeed,

organizational researchers generally have not taken communication as

41

42

.mm_ne_cm>

 

 

comueuwczeeou u=e>umm ace mpmwcomsh sn ummmmcpm muwpmwcmwuecego Fecowum~wcmmco .p mesmwe
suwpwnew>
chowum~wcemco
sucwmpcmucn
suwvoEEou mmcmsuxm cm mm cowuoscoecH Peu=m5=ocw>cm mmmuoca
scucm cowmeLomcw mo mmmuoga muzapao one muzacH co mamumsm
Pocucou :owueesoecH mcwxes
mmoacsa cowueuw::EEou icowmwumu Fecowumc
suwpmcowuumcwo goneu eo cowmw>wo eo mauop use mgapmz
sceszuum\me:Po> mammmmz cowuerFmELou co_um~wngmucmpm «pom
cowuacomnm sucweusmucz eo mmmuoca suwcocp=< cowpmNFFmPumam xcoz cowmwumo
mpmccmgu Faggot mcwcwemo eo cowpm~vpmcucmu mucmucmamvcmch awe: rpmcow>mcmm
mavens-cowmwumo manage
mueeiouimuee »F_e:m= :owuueemch w>w¢eawuwucma xcoz umxuopcmch
30pm cowueELoecH mueczuu< mo muFEecsa cowue>euoz manage
mpmccesu Fessowcm mo cowuawcummo Feauw>wucH ego: FeeeomcH umwceE=z
:muuwgz »F_m:m: cowuoecmch co_u
pampcou we meson: PecomcmaEH cowumcwugooo imNPFewumam xcoz
mchcmnu Pesto» mo cowueuwmwucmuH aucmwuwmmm ego: meauuzgum Pesto; Feummmepu
muwumwcmuueseco cowpeu_::esoo pce>mpmm uwmmmgum muwumwcmuuecmzu pmcoppe~w=emco mpmwgomgh

 

IfiiEr

PM

43

their primary focus. This oversight has underscored the lack of
integration between communication and other organizational variables.
The need for research to integrate the various organizational
theoretical positions utilizing organizational and communication
variables was adopted in the present study.

The analysis of organizational theory from a communication
perspective presented a common definition for 'communicatioh' and
communication theory involving information exchange and the transfer
of meaning. For organizational research purposes, appropriate
definitions of aspects of communication must also consider the
multiple level of analyses inherent in all organizational research
(Pugh, 1970). Communication must be explicated within and across
the "domains of interpersonal interactions, within and between
organizational sub-units, and across organizational-environmental
interactions" (Roberts, et a1., 1974, p. 502). Previous research
in organizational communications has concerned itself with inter-
personal communication (Barnlund, 1968 and Weiner, 1968) and with
information exchanges within and between organizational sub-units
(Likert, 1967 and Schein, 1965). Since organizational writers
have not primarily focused on communication, implications between
communication and characteristics of organizational behavior can
only be inferred. The research presented attempts to integrate
the two theoretical approaches to provide an understanding of the
relationship of communication and organizational variables within

and across analytic levels.

44

The research focused upon several categories of communi-
cation and organizational behavior characteristics to integrate
extant findings from relevent interpersonal and sub-unit communi-
cation behavior. Basic organizational dimensions such as structure
(hierarchy), decision-making patterns, and locus of authority were
examined in light of organizational communication characteristics:
(1) communication structure (flow), (2) modality of communication,
(3) perceived communication satisfaction, and (4) integration.
Organizational variables selected for comparison include: (1) un-
certainty, (2) propinquity, (3) status, (4) perceived innovativeness,
(5) job satisfaction, (6) organizational decision-making style, and

(7) opinion/influence leadership.
Operationalization of Variables

Structure

Blau (1960, p. 178) has stated that the two basic types of
"social facts" that relate to complex organization's (social col-
lectives) include common values and norms and "networks of social
relation in which the social position of individuals and subgroups
become differentiated." Jacobson and Seashore (1951, p. 29) called
these "networks" the communication structure of the organization.

The concept, structure, implies relatively unchanging elements
which influence or constrain important aspects of the organization's
total behavior (Haberstroh, 1965, p. 1171). Katz and Kahn also
develop organizational Structure in relation to patterns of communi-

cation in stating:

I —d

45

All social systems, including organizations, consist of the

patterned activities of a number of individuals . . . these

patterned activities are complementary or interdependent with

respect to some common output. . . . If the activity pattern

occurs only once or at unpredictable intervals, we could not

speak of an organization.
Integration

Reindl (1970, p. 106) discussed the general relationship

between integration of the internal communication network and
change in one organization over time.

The degree of communication integration in an organization

. . is closely associated with the uninterrupted flow of

information. For that reason, communication integration is

also related to various concepts . . . such as change,

effectiveness, and creativity.
As communication integration is defined as the degree to which all
members of an organization relate to each other through the exchange
of communication, measurement might consist of the proportion of
mutually chosen pairs to the total number of possible pairs in the
organization (Proctor and Loomis, 1951; Kerlinger, 1966). Reindl
(1970, p. 107) goes further to propose that "the degree of internal
integration of the communication network is positively related to
the rate of change implementation in the organization." Yet Jacob
(1971, p. 192) found that the hypothesis positively relating inno-
vation in organizations to an integrated communication network was
not supported in her research. A better source is L. Guimaraes
(1970, p. 68) who studied the integration of the communication
network of four rural social system in Brazil. He stated that:

The notion that the diverse parts of a communication system

normally cohere in some determinate fashion . . . may help
to explain . . . how members of a social system (of which

46
that communication system is part) accept, reject, or modify
innovations which are diffused from other systems.
Richard Allen (1970, p. 108) also found that innovative schools had
a higher degree of sociometric communication integration than non-
innovative schools.

The concept, integration of the network, quantifies the
"connectiveness" within an organization. An important dimension
of the connectiveness of the communication network structure can
be found in the pattern of organizational connectiveness. This
view of communication structure was presented in Jacobson and
Seashore (1951, p. 29) where “the communication structure is seen
as existing in the patterns of actual contact among subgroups that
are established by the inter-individual contacts."

It is generally assumed that groupings in organizations
provide fast and accurate communication links and assist the formal
organization in task accomplishment (Davis, 1968 and Wickesberg,
1968). Duncan (1972) stated that this type of utilization requires
the identification of the influence centers of the informal organi-
zation. In his research, Duncan found that the best-liked indi-
viduals were frequently not the desired leaders of informal behavior.
He further asserted that research in various high-performing military
groups have indicated that those holding formal organizational
authority frequently emerge as informal leaders (Hutchins, 1960).
Thus, the identification of informal leaders in an organization
would be based solely upon the popularity of individual group
members. Rather, Duncan (1972) suggested that informal leaders of

groups tend to "personify the attitudes of values of the group."

47

He further contended that in the instance where the formal and
informal leader proved to be the same, the dissemination and feed-
back of information to and from groupings should be greatly
facilitated.

Based upon a further analysis of the data generated in 1951
by Jacobson and Seashore, Weiss and Jacobson (1955) developed a
method for the analysis of the structure of complex organizations.
They assumed that a complex organization consisted of the roles
which, when structured, defined the organization. Organizational
structure was also assumed to be relatively stable, regardless of
personnel changes.

Reducing their sociometric data to graphic form, Weiss and
Jacobson (1955) divided their original matrix based upon a sociometric
analysis to its structural components. Having identified specific
work groups, they then isolated the separate work groups by removing
liaison persons from the matrix to remove contacts between the work
groups. Further analysis by Weiss and Jacobson (1955) identified
the variable of:

A. Groupness: the clustering of individuals into sets,
each set having some specified high degree of internal communication
and some specified low degree of external communication (Jacobson
and Seashore, 1951, p. 36).

Amend (1971, p. 42) reported that in his discussion of the
study by Schwartz (1968) it called for additional comparative studies
to validate the ability of his findings to be generalized, especially

across different types and sizes of organizations.

48

B. Integrativeness: integrativeness is the extent to which

 

interpersonal contacts permeate a social system. For the present
study, the operational definition of integrativeness is based on

a semantic differentiation form of a concept termed "cohesiveness"

by Kerlinger (1966, p. 559). The level of cohesiveness or integration
was measured by applying an integration score based upon "the pro-
portion of mutual choices to the total number of possible pairs."

C. Liaisonness: liaisonness was measured by its structural
components or subsystems rather than the whole system approach to
integrativeness. Each person in the subsystem is assigned a score
fbr liaisonness dependent upon the number of reciprocated contacts
received during data collection. Briefly, the possible roles
assigned to group members would include, under the typology modified
by Amend (1971):

1. Isolate:‘ member of the organization with no communication
contact with other members of his work group or
organization. Score value - O

2. Group Member: contact with immediate group, no more than
one contact outside group, except with liaison
persons. Score value - l

3. Bridge: single contact outside the immediate work group,
with contact being other than liaison person.
Contact with own primary group may or may not
exist. Score value - 2

4. Liaison: Majority of contact not in any one group, but has
contacts with members of two or more groups.
Score value - 3

5. Liaisonness: member of a communication group with a majority
of his contacts, not including contacts with other
liaison persons, within the group. Score value - 4

6. Liaison set: respondents who have half or more of their
contacts with other liaison persons. Score value- 5.

49

Each respondent was classified into one of the six categories defined
above through the use of the communication network analysis program
developed by Farace and Richards (1969). Based on the reciprocated
contacts, each individual was assigned a numerical index value of
Liaisonness. The sum of the respondents in each organizational sub-

unit provides an index of the liaisonness of that group.

Structure Measures

The dimensions of structure, groupness, and liaisonness were
measured by the reciprocation of contacts by individuals who mutually
list each other on the Communications Map Checklist regardless of
the frequency of contact or the discrepancy between the reported
extent of frequency between the members of the dyad. Given the
understanding of the reluctance of police officers to respond to
questionnaires, a decision was made to count as a reciprocated -
contact those non-respondents mentioned as a contact of at least
daily frequency by a respondent. Schwartz (1968) stated that this
approach was reasonable as Jacobson and Weiss (1955) found a close

relationship between reciprocation and high-frequency contact.

Propinquity

In their study of the influence of propinquity on networks
of interpersonal communication, Barnlund and Harland (1963, p. 467)
indicated that prestige acted to polarize communication along status
lines even in situations presenting adverse physical conditions.
Previous studies of propinquity, or physical distance, differed

from that focusing upon human communication patterns in that friendship

pat!
Scha

teat

Eéne

Stru

scci

Dre:

Stud

50

patterns were emphasized (Caplow and Forman, 1950; Festinger,
Schachter, and Back, 1950). These same situational results were
documented in quasi-work groups by Gullahorn (1952) who found an
inverse relationship between physical distance separating persons
and the likelihood of communication between them, with interaction
generally increasing as distance decreases.

Barnlund and Harland found that propinquity does not seem
to exercise control over interpersonal communication once a 'social
structure' evolves and is recognized. They suggest that once a
social system evolves from communication, physical forces tend to
polarize these communication channels around high status figures.
The patterns of interaction dictated by physical proximity were
found to alter or even reverse by the effects of status or emerging
status.

Price (1972) defined propinquity in his study of part-time
preceptors in a medical college as nearness in time and place. He
studied propinquity factors with respect to setting associated with
self-reported communication behavior. Price found that an association
existed between propinquity factors and the frequency and duration
of informal oral communication. Further, Price found that frequency
and duration of informal communication were positively associated
with more favorable perceptions of information about the organi-
zation and perceived clarity of organizational expectations. The
flow of communication was greatly enhanced by prolonged and fre-

quent contact between members of the organization.

51

Police departments provide the same services to essentially
the same clients using teams of employees who are on duty varying
times during the day. In addition to division of work by differing
time span, police work is also performed with a great degree of
physical separation. Officers are separated by geographic assignment
and by working conditions that necessitate working individually or
at most in pairs. The organization also divides the tasks and
services comprising the police function to separate and distinct
departmental units. Officially, officers only communicate with
one another on duty to transfer information related to present
case situations or in providing assistance in resolving the 'trip,‘
(call for police service). Previous research indicates that police
organizations might have difficulties in organizational function in
terms of communication flow based upon needs for propinquity not
provided by the formal organization.

An indication of cross-shift member relationships despite
time and physical separation in police organizations was found by
Duncan (1972, p. 37) in his study of the selection of socio-central
group members where a socio-gram based upon friendship indicated
ties between the eighteen members of the third shift and five police

officers on other shifts.

Prgginqgity Measures
The extent of propinquity in police departments was measured

by responses to the following questions dealing with:

52

Duty Assignment

5. Which of the following describes your present regular
duty assignment?

6. Which of the following duties have you had in the
past?

Time

7. What shift or watch do you currently work?

8. Does your assignment entail a shift rotation?

Physical Proximity

9. If you rotate, how often?

10. Does your whole unit rotate together?

11. How long have you been on your present assignment?
12. In an average week, how many hours do you usually
work on the following types of assignments?

a. On foot patrol
b. In a one-man car
c. In a two-man car
d. On a motorcycle
e. In a police station or office
13. In an average week, how many hours do you usually
work:
a. Alone
b. With an assigned partner
c. With more than one person
16. Do the members of your department belong to a

union or professional association?

.0. v
r\.

in‘

1‘55!

115'

'sv'

N

«flu

fl .
‘vF'

tr)"

‘0

fr
,.

53

Satisfaction

Research conducted in a set of health and social welfare
agencies by Marrett, Hage, and Aiken, (1975) attempted to develop
measures for examining organizational communication in relation to
worker satisfaction. Of concern were primarily the formality of
the communication network and the direction of communication flow
in the organization. The authors contend that while previous
research has documented the importance of an effective communication
network on the organization, it does not resolve the dilemma of
which is preferable--a planned, formal network or an unplanned,
informal one.

Marrett, Hage, and Aiken suggested that there is a positive
association between unstructured interaction and satisfaction (1975,
p. 612). They stated that Blau (1955) and Blau and Scott (1962),
among others, found that informal communication patterns help elevate
employee morale. Communication among peers in an organization, which
generally occur outside of organizational channels, are more likely
to prove satisfying to the individual (Cohen, 1958; Berkowitz and
Dennis, 1961). Studies on horizontal communication in organizations
tended to be unplanned by the organization, yet had a positive
relationship with satisfaction. Marrett, Hage, and Aiken have
.posited that levels of satisfaction would be highest in those
organizations where the staff established its own informal communi-
cation system.

Yet, it has also been hypothesized that scheduled or formal

communications and satisfaction also tend to be positively associated

E"
D!”

F I
31!

Ol‘

54

(Katz and Kahn, 1966; Miller, 1972). The essential argument that
supports this hypothesis is based upon the relatively error free
formal communications importance in decision-making. The reduction
of distrust based upon ignorance and an increased sense of involve-
ment in organizational determination lend themselves to satisfaction
with work.

This apparent conflict in research findings is explained by
Miller (1972, p. 97) who suggested that informal channels tend to
emerge when formal ones become inoperative.. Indeed, Guetzkow (1965)
proposed that "formal and informal systems tend to be jointly active
or jointly inactive."

The definition of formal and informal communications itself
are not consistent throughout the literature. Marrett, Hage, and
Aiken defined formal communications as scheduled communications;
either written records, formal conferences, interviews, or meetings,
or other official dictates. Informal communications, or 'unscheduled
communications' were defined as task-oriented interchanges, generally
verbal. March and Simon (1958, pp. 167-168) suggested that since
the communicator, the choice would usually be based upon friendly

relationships and relates positively to satisfaction with colleagues.

Satisfaction Measures

For work satisfaction, two dimensions of the concept were
studied: satisfaction with job and satisfaction with work associates.
The index of job satisfaction was constructed from responses to the

following questions:

18.

20.

21.
22.

25.

26.

52.

53.

55

How satisfied are you with the sort of work you are
doing?

How satisfied are you with your possibilities of
being promoted to a better position in your depart-
ment?

How satisfied are you with your present salary?

In general, how satisfied are you with efforts made
by your department to modernize and keep up with
the field of law enforcement?

Do you receive a feeling of accomplishment from the
work you are doing?

My work is interesting to do. (Strongly agree to
disagree)

The role of a police officer has changed for the
better over the last few years. (Strongly agree

to disagree)

The duties of a police officer have expanded for
the better over the last few years. (Strongly

agree to disagree).

The responses to the following items provided the measure of work

associate satisfaction.

T9.

20.

27.

How satisfied are you with the type of leadership
you receive from your supervisor?

What value does your supervisor show for a job
well done?

How much pressure do you feel in meeting the work

demands of your job?

* E

 

Fa!"
1's]

if

56

28. How much does your supervisor observe your work?

Uncertainty

 

Downs (1967) hypothesized that organizations operating in
rapidly changing and highly uncertain environments tended to rely
heavily on informal structures and procedures. While police work
has always been considered as being changeable and uncertain as to
demands for service, the police officer is trained and the police
organization is structured to deal with these conditions. Uncertainty
for police officers, given the high incidence of required decision-
making caused by job demands, is hypothesized to occur not by the
impact of the environment on the individual per se but by the
individual's uncertainty as to expectations and goals of the

organization.

Uncertainty Measures

Previous research (Downs, 1967) has shown that individuals
deliberately seek out information to reinforce shaken convictions
or to consolidate convictions recently acquired. At the intra-
personal level, organizational change can produce various types
of anxiety in its members, either in terms of role uncertainty or
ambiguity, differing expectations, and perception of the extent of
sharing of available information.

The level of uncertainty about organization goals, objectives,
policies, and information sharing were determined by the responses

of department members to the following questions:

 

.¢ .
P\»\

57

38. I feel I usually know what is expected of me by my
fellow departmental members in doing my job.
(Strongly agree to disagree)

39. I feel I usually know what is expected of me by my
superiors in doing my job. (Strongly agree to
disagree)

42. My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed.
(Strongly agree to disagree)

50. Officers in this department are quickly informed
about policy changes. (Strongly agree to disagree)

51. Department policies are communicated clearly to all
members of the department. (Strongly agree to

disagree).

Status

Research with restricted communication networks have generally
shown that decentralized networks (where decision-making is shared by
the members of the unit) are more satisfying to members than are
centralized networks (where decision-making is vested in one person)
when dealing with complex tasks. Moore, Johnson, and Arnold (1972)
argued that it was not centralization or decentralization gg5_§g_
which resulted in differing levels of member satisfaction with their
jobs and the organization, but rather the congruence or incongruence
of the network structure with previously existing status distinctions
among members that had import. The researchers indicated that network
position alone had no significant impact on communication role satis-

faction measures. They posited that in studies of communication

58

networks the critical concern should be with the interaction between

 

communication network structure and the relative status ranks of the

participants.

Status Measures

Status and prestige of individuals in police organizations
based upon predetermined sources of status in police departments
were measured for each respondent through the responses to the

following questions:

1. Age

2. Sex

3. How long have you worked for your present department?
4. What is your present rank?

5. Which of the following describes your present regular

duty assignment?

14. In your job, do you usually have direct supervisory
responsibility over other officers or civilian
employees?

15. If yes, how many people do you usually supervise?

17. Are you a shift representative for your department?

Innovativeness

Innovativeness is defined as the degree to which one organi-
zation is open to adopting new ideas, practices and/or inventions
which are new to the department (Jacob, 1971, p. 102). While the
original definition of the concept of innovativeness was used to

predesignate innovativeness in the organizations studied by Jacob,

59

the present study expanded the concept to include members' perception
of organizational pr0pensity to innovation. Of importance in defin-
ing innovation in police organizations in terms of decision-making

to implement innovation (change), perception of group members to

the probability of innovation adoption becomes relevant.

Perception of Innovativeness

Innovative acts were those perceived primarily as exploring
new ways of doing things, new ideas, or as attempts to solicit new
ideas from the organization members. The operational definition of
the perceived ability of the department to innovate was measured
through responses to the following questions:

22. In general, how satisfied are you with efforts made
by your department to modernize and keep up with
the field of law enforcement? (Greatly dissatisfied
to satisfied)

41. The department encourages discussion among its
members to come up with new ways of doing things.
(Strongly disagree to agree)

43. My fellow officers talk about new and different ways
for the department to do things frequently (Strongly
disagree to agree)

60. Within the last year, how often have you volunteered
ideas to change the departments's practices, either
to others in the department or to your superior.

(Based upon the variance of response, the question

60

was ranked according to relative number of contacts
primarily of the type described.)

61. Within the last year, how often has the department
requested ideas from the members of the department
through formal channels. Give examples, if possible.

(To be ranked as above).

Communications Satisfaction

Mazza (1975) in his study of formal organizational communi-
cations climates found that the satisfaction of an employee for the
conmunication patterns existent within the organization were primarily
dependent upon supervisory feedback receptiveness and responsiveness.
He further discovered that employees distinguished between their
relative satisfaction with organizational communications activities
and supervisory communication interactions. As a whole, employees
at the supervisory and line levels desired increased interaction
both at the peer level and in increased upward-downward communi-
cation flow.

Mazza limited his study to formal communications patterns,
finding a small, limited communication circuit that was not, both
actually and perceptually, sufficient in terms of providing infor-

mational input at the decision-making level of the organization.

Communication Satisfaction Measures

 

Member perception of their satisfaction with communication
activities provided the attitudinal dimension of communication

climate. Mazza (1975) defined employee communication satisfaction

61

as: the satisfaction with information seeking and reception activi-

ties, supervisory feedback receptiveness and responsiveness, and

supervisory evaluative communication behavior.

The measure of these dimensions are determined by the

following questions:

A. Horizontal Communications

32.

33.

34.

46.

49.

There's pretty good sharing of information among
the various units on my shift. (Strongly disagree
to agree)

There's pretty good sharing of information among
the officers on all the shifts. (Strongly disagree
to agree)

The officers who work the same shift with me are
the ones I talk to socially the most. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

The officers I work with don't get much chance to
talk to each other. (Strongly disagree to agree)
I don't feel there is enough communication among
the officers on different shifts or watches.

(Strongly disagree to agree)

8. Downward Communications

29.

37.

How much confidence do you feel that your super-
visor keeps you fully informed about things that
might concern you? (None to a lot)

My supervisor is usually quick to respond to my

requests to talk to him. (Strongly disagree to

agree)

50.

51.

62

Officers in this department are quickly informed
about policy changes. (Strongly disagree to agree)
Department policies are communicated clearly to

all members of the department. (Strongly disagree

to agree)

C. Upward Communications

36.

40.

44.

45.

47.

48.

My supervisor(s) doesn't care who I go to with
information as long as the work gets done. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

My supervisor does not like me to go over his head
to talk to anyone in a higher rank. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

My supervisor is easy to talk to. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

It is relatively easy to get an opportunity to talk
to my supervisor alone. (Strongly disagree to
agree)

My immediate supervisor is willing to listen to
suggestions. (Strongly disagree to agree)

If I have an idea about a way to improve the
department, I take that idea to my immediate

supervisor. (Strongly disagree to agree)

Agtocratic vs. Participatory_Decision-Makigg

Angell (1971) postulated that the structural model utilized

in organizing American police departments was the classical,

63

normative organization theory first presented by Weber (1947).
Critics of this approach to organization study purported that it
mandated attitudes toward employees and clients that are incon-
sistent with the humanistic democratic values that are inherent in
U.S. culture. Additionally, they suggested that an organization
that could not cope with environmental changes would eventually
become dysfunctional and obsolete. Angell concurred in that he
felt the existing conditions of low police morale, poor police-
community relations, and the inadequacy of communication flow con-
cerning policies for decision-making in police departments were
indicative of organizational dysfunction. Angell posited that one
approach to resolving these problems entailed the existence of a
flexible, participatory organizational structure for police
organizations. In the conceptualization of a participatory organi-
zation, Angell envisioned policy flexibility that allowed input
from all segments of the organization.

Police organizations have traditionally been viewed as
being quasi-military in that their hierarchical structure and
bases for authority were formally constructed along classical lines
but with, as a result of societal influence, humanistic tendencies.
Although numerous studies have investigated the sociometry of
industrial and military groups, little attention has been directed
toward those organizations possessing both 'classical' and
'humanistic' characteristics. Duncan (1972, p. 36) suggested that

police organizations, being a type of 'commonweal' organization

64

(Blau and Scott, 1962, pp. 54-55), have been overlooked in literature

and research with respect to group study.

Autocratic vs. Participatory Authority‘Measures

Measures of the level of participation of departmental

members in the decision-making process of the department are to

be generated through the compilation of an aggregate indices based

upon response with the questions listed below.

24.

26.

28.

31.

35.

36.

40.

To what extent do you get to participate in the
supervisory decisions that effect your job? (None
to a lot)

In your daily work how much freedom do you have to
make decisions and act on them? (None to a lot)
How much does your supervisor observe your work?
(None to a lot)

I often have to 'bend' department policies and
procedures in order to get my job done. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

My department doesn't like us to talk to anyone
outside of channels. (Strongly disagree to agree)
My supervisor(s) doesn't care who I go to with
information as long as the work gets done. (Strongly
disagree to agree)

My supervisor does not like me to go over his head
to talk to anyone in a higher rank. (Strongly

disagree to agree)

41.

47.

48.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

65

The department encourages discussions among its
members to come up with new ways of doing things.
(Strongly disagree to agree)

My immediate supervisor is willing to listen to
suggestions. (Strongly disagree to agree)

If I have an idea about a way to improve the depart-
ment, I take that idea to my immediate supervisor.
(Strongly disagree to agree)

How much responsibility do you have for the functions
of your unit? (Very little to very much)

How much do you participate with others in deter-
mining the ways things are done on your job? (Very
little to very much)

How much freedom do you have in arranging your work
hours and days off? (Very little to very much)

How much do you decide with others what part of a
task you will do? (Very little to very much)

How much do you participate with others in making .
decisions that affect you? (Very little to

very much)

Opinion Leadershjg_

Opinion leaders are those members of the organization who

have the ability informally to influence other individual's attitudes

or behavior in a desired way with relative frequency (Rogers, 1962,

Jacob, 1971).

Opinion leadership is a continuous variable, that is,

 

AU

66

there are degrees of opinion leadership for everyone in an estab-
lished group, varying by individuals.

Merton (1957, p. 414) distinguished between two types of
opinion leaders-monomorphic and polymorphic. A monomorphic leader
is sought for advice on one or at least a select few topics.
Polymorphic leaders are sought for information about a variety
of tapics. Monomorphic opinion leaders were by definition con-
sidered to be 'experts' in specific areas as a result of the
diversity of job assignments in the organization. Polymorphic
leaders, on the other hand, were seen to evolve as a result of
the status hierarchy of the organization (seniority, authority,
etc.).

Duncan and Roberts (1972) presented research in their study
of chosen informal leaders in police organizations that suggested
that 'sociocentrality' alone did not appear to be synonymous with
leadership. Rather, informal leaders seemed to attain their position
in the organization through a combination of such factors as seniority,
perceived competence, and conformity to the departmental regulations.
This finding parallels Merton's conception of polymorphic leaders.

Jacob (1971) presented evidence to partially support the
hypothesis that innovative organizations tend to generate monomorphic
opinion leaders. Organizations that traditionally have been viewed
as conservative in terms of change, as the police have been charac-
terized, would seem to tend to generate polymorphic leaders, even
though such researchers as Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) do not support

the concept of this type of leadership. Rather, the generation of

67

monomorphic leaders could be viewed as a result of innovation.
Polymorphic leaders with clearly defined status linkages could be
consistent with organizations that are relatively 'static' in

terms of change.

Opinion Leadership Measures

Rodgers and Shoemaker (1971) purported that the sociometric
technique of determining the opinion leaders in an organization as
developed by Jacobson and Seashore (1951) is the most valid measure
when all members of the system to be studied are interviewed. This
method consisted of questioning respondents as to whom they sought
(or might seek) advice, information, or an opinion about an idea
they might have or information they wish to clarify. Opinion
leaders were those members of a unit who received the greatest U
number of choices by members of the group. The arbitrary delineation
established by Rogers and Van Es (1964) is that members receiving
the highest number of nominations (in the top 10%) were opinion
leaders.
. This approach was utilized in the present study where
respondents were asked:

62. If you want an opinion about a new idea you have
for the department (investigatory technique, theory
on a crime, equipment change, etc.) which members
of the department would you ask? (Write names in

blanks)

68

Influence Leadershflg

The designation of the influence leader by a member(s) of
the organization is based upon the Normative-Sponsorship Theory of
Dr. Christopher Sower (1957) which states that an idea will be
sponsored if it is within the limits of standards established by
the organization. Central to the theory is the belief that members
of a group independently select an individual who is viewed as
being competent and knowledgeable about the system as well as seen
as being able to influence that system. The influence leader need
not necessarily hold high formal rank in the department, but may

exert influence through the informal structure.

Influence Leadership Measure
Identification of influence leaders was accomplished through
sampling department members response to the following question.
Individuals listed most often are construed to be the influence
leaders.
63. If you want someone to go to bat for you (sponsor)
or to go to bat for one of your ideas who would

you contact in your department?

Rationale and Hypotheses
As police organizations become larger and more Specialized,
so do the systems which operate the organization from within. In
the case of communications, the task becomes much more complex.
Clement (1976, p. 53) observed that police administrators must

"avail ourselves of all communications systems and develop them to

69

the degree that they are useful in assisting us to run our organi-
zations efficiently and effectively. We must, of necessity, employ
both formal and informal systems of communication."

The purpose of the present study is to increase knowledge
about the flow of communication among members of police departments.
The study is designed to yield information about patterns of inter-
personal communication contacts among the various individuals and
work units that comprise the police department. The knowledge of
the communication structure and the degree to which individuals
and work groups are integrated into the larger organization are
the basis for the objectives of investigating the effect of problems
of propinquity and communication blockage upon the organization.

The focus of this study was upon the comparison of organi-
zational variables existent within 'average' police departments in
relation to organizational communication behavior. In addition,
an attempt was made to distinguish opinion and influence leaders
in police organizations to suggest methods of implementing depart-
mental change and innovation. General classification of the
variables selected for study include (1) propinquity; (2) job
satisfaction; (3) status; (4) uncertainty; (4) structure (inte-
gration); (5) communication satisfaction; (6) perceived innovative-
ness; (7) extent of participation in organizational decision-making;
(8) opinion leadership: and (9) influence leadership. While an
in-depth study of the range of these variables within each of the
organizations would be possible and perhaps desirable, this study

will only focus on an assessment of the importance of the variable

70

to the concern for the efficacy of the communication structure of the
department.
The Effects of Propinquity on
Organizational Communication

Many design features of an organization can be employed to
facilitate or control the communication level and pattern in an
organization. These features include location of personnel, physical
proximity over a duration of time, mechanical connections between
individuals and groups (e.g., telephones, transceivers, two-way
radios) and regulation of personnel movement. By virtue of the
method in which police departments organize and schedule personnel
to provide their law enforcement and service function, problems of
propinquity of departmental members arise. Police work requires a
great degree of coordination and information sharing activity, yet
the physical demands of the job reduce the opportunity for various
work units to have contact on a regular basis. Besides such
physical constraints as differing geographic assignment, differing
work hours, the designation of function to various specialized
units in the department, and the high percentage of time spent alone
on the job, the organization also seeks to control conditions that
enhance or impede the flow of communication to various segments of
the organization.

Communication provides the means for directing and inte-
grating system and subsystem activities. Longnecker (1969) stated
that the process of communication may be visualized as the functioning

of organizational subsystems. The formal communications system or

71

network is the decision-making system in that it brings problems and
relation information to personnel in the organization that act as
decision-makers.

The design of the formal structure provides a set of offi-
cially established and approved communication channels, yet, the
formal organizational structure does not circumscribe the total
communications network structure in an organization. Members of
the department may develop an informal organization, less susceptible
to control by the formal structure, to overcome either formal com-
munication insufficiency or ambiguity.

I Informal communication networks refer to the pattern of
informal relationships which are used in transmitting information
through unofficial channels. Although formal channels of communi-
cation presumably carry official information, much of what an organi-
zational member knows is gleaned from other sources. Informal
communications supplement and amplify that information emanating
from official sources. The informal communication channel transmits
useful information and clarifications that cannot easily be trans-
mitted through formal channels. If organization members are not
afforded the opportunity to regulate their communication contacts,
the flow of communication both formally and informally in the
organization will be affected.

H 1.0: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will result in less integration of the depart-
ment.

H 1.1: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental

members will increase the level of uncertainty of the
department.

72

H 1.2: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will increase vertical (upward/downward) com-
munication patterns in the department.

H 1.3: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the level of horizontal (peer)
communication contacts in the department.

H 1.4: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the perceived level of partici-

pation of members in the organizational decision-making
process.

Communication Structure and Level of Participation
in Decision-Making

The communication network, including the formal organizational
structure and supplementary informal channels, act as an informational
system which is used to direct and coordinate the activities of the
various subsystems of the organization. The degree of access to the
various communications channels is dependent to a certain extent
upon accessability based upon propinquity and also upon the degree
of freedom afforded by the authority structure of the organization
to utilize channels outside of formally designated information flow
routes. The perceived degree of control and use of sanctions will
determine the manner in which communication contacts take place in
the department.

H 2.0: The structure of communication flow consistent with
the formal hierarchical structure will occur in depart-
ments having less perception of participation in
organizational decision-making.

H 2.1: The more autocratic departments will have greater formal
communication channel contacts based upon the formal
hierarchical (upward/downward) and in-group communi-
cation channel contacts.

H 2.2: The more participatory departments will have greater

informal (horizontal) and inter-group communication
channel contacts.

73

Organizational Uncertainty

The communication system takes overall organizational plans
and objectives, as formulated by top administrators, and carries
them downward through the organization to the operative level. The
organization also carries information upward to facilitate decision-
making as well as provides for a horizontal exchange of information
necessary to the operation of the organization. The organization
structure can be construed to be developed for the optimum gathering,
evaluation, and dissemination of information to the various working
parts of the organization.

In police work, much of the information entering the organi-
zation is introduced at the line level. Based upon the amount and
type of information directed upward in the system, the command level
develops policy for uniform decision-making control. Members are
expected to conform to policies that regulate organizational behavior.
Downward communication is often incomplete. Although instructions
and directions are given, there is often a failure to communicate
the rationale behind the decision, especially if there is little
participation by subordinates in the developmental process. The
greater role members of the department have in the decision-making
processes of the organization will act to reduce uncertainty.

H 3.0: The more participatory the department is perceived to
be by its members, the less uncertainty will exist.

Horizontal communication is particulary important among
positions or work groups involving extensive coordination or
teamwork. In some administrative situations, the volume of necessary

horizontal conmunication is as great as the volume of vertical

 

[min

3)

III

R

CI

74

communication. One barrier to horizontal communication is the
threat it can pose to the power of an autocratic organization.
Activity that reduces uncertainty occurs at a level that is most
acceptable to the formal organization. This thesis is presented f
in the following hypotheses.

H 4.0: The more uncertainty that exists by departmental
members about organizational goals and objectives,
the greater the number of communication contacts
will occur.

H 4.1: The more uncertainty of departmental members in
autocratic departments, the greater the number of
formal (upward) communication contacts will occur.

H 4.2: The more uncertainty of departmental members in

participatory departments, the greater the number
of informal (horizontal) contacts will occur.

Communication Satisfaction and Job
Satisfaction

The direct correlation between downward communication and
job satisfaction is consistent throughout organizational literature
with most studies finding that superiors regard communications with
subordinates as essentially satisfying (Blau, 1955;, Blau and Scott,
1962). Similarly, research has corroborated a negative correlation
fbr upward communication and job satisfaction (Blau and Scott, 1962;
Read, 1962). Marrett, Hage, and Aiken (1974, p. 622) discovered a
negative association between horizontal communication and job
satisfaction that contradicts prior research which found peer
contact satisfying. These authors suggested that this unexpected
result could be explained in that peers might perceive horizontal

communications to be intrusive. They discovered that where

75

horizontal communication was typical, scheduled communication was not;
thus suggesting communication contacts were aimed at uncertainty
reduction. Job dissatisfaction might not be the result of increased
horizontal communication, but rather of the organizational climate
producing the degree of uncertainty.

The implications of these findings were addressed in the
present study where the additional variable of level of participation
in decision-making was introduced.

H 5.0: The more participatory the department, the greater the
level of job satisfaction will exist in the department.

H 5.1: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
horizontal communications, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.2: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
downward communications, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.3: The more satisfaction of departmental members with

upward communication, the more job satisfaction will
exist.

Perception of Innovation and Level
of Decision-Making

In his research of organizational climates in police organi-
zations, Duncan (1972) found that a turbulent external environment
involving both client and governmental demands had an effect upon
the (1) level of participation in decision-making by various depart-
mental members; upon (2) increased criticism between superiors and
subordinates; and upon (3) the decreased level of support for inter-
personal relationships in the department. Openness to change, or
perception of innovativeness, was found to differ between command-

level staff and other departmental personnel.

 

25
28
cc
re
of

28.

(11'
Fe:

Org

76

Duncan did not control for the level of input both in terms
of information and decision-making by those at the line and staff
position in the organizational hierarchy. Organizations which
provide little opportunity for upward communication or control would
be perceived to be closed in terms of change by departmental members.
The ability to have an effect upon the department would increase
perceptions of openness and innovativeness on the part of organi-
zational members. The degree to which line staff members partici-
pate in the decision-making process defines their perception of
their ability to control the organization. By virtue of organi-
zational position, the perception of ability to control the organi-
zational environment would be more pronounced by those at the
command level. Perception of innovativeness would then vary in
relation to position in the hierarchical structure and with degree
of participation in decision-making which has an impact on organi-
zational functioning.

In the theoretical approach of open systems study, the
difference in level of participation in decision-making would
result in varying perceptions as the degree of innovation of the
organization.

.H 6.0: The more participatory departments will be perceived
as more innovative by departmental members at both
command and staff levels.

H 7.0: The more innovative the department is perceived to be

by its members, the more likely ideas will be suggested
by departmental members to improve the department.

77

Participatory Decision-Making‘and Selection of
Opinion and Influence Leaders

Likert (1964, p. 16), in discussing and comparing systems
of management at the systems level of analysis, postulated that as
an organization moved from an autocratic to a participatory
Operation, job satisfaction, satisfaction with downward communi-
cation, and leadership satisfaction increased. As an organization
became more participatory in terms Of diffusion Of decision-making
capabilities throughout the organization, restrictions on communi-
cation were perceived to be reduced. Reindl (1970) stated that
this perception of reduction resulted in the activation of informal
channels of communication and thus new ideas spread more rapidly
through the organization. Because in the organizations under study
in the present thesis the more autocratic departments were expected
to rely more on status characteristics Of formal hierarchy (length
Of time in organization, authority, assignment prestige) for
direction and uncertainty reduction, Opinion leadership was
expected to be more polymorphic. Influence leaders were expected
to be selected for considerations also connected to status charac-
teristics.

H 8.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate monomorphic Opinion leaders.

H 9.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate influence leaders outside Of the boundaries
Of work groups or along status (rank) lines.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH ANALYSIS

The raw data generated by each question contained in the
questionnaire was initially analyzed as being a separate variable
for each of the three police departments. Negatively worded
questions were recoded prior to transfer of the data to punched
computer cards to provide consistency Of direction in scale
construction. Initial analysis involved the generation of
descriptive statistics for each question. These statistics included
a frequency count, range, mean, plus standard deviation for each
question as a category.

Questions designated as measuring a specific concept were
compared through the generation of a Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient to determine whether any item contributing
to the stated index scale correlated poorly or negatively with
other contributing items. The Pearson product-moment correlation
was made first on the three police departments combined with
separate runs then made for each department separately. These
correlations, when compared to a given index (Guilford, 1954), proved
to be significant and were retained as a cumulative index for the
variable.

Tests of statistical significance were not used to assess

the meaning of differences as many Of the assumptions Of statistical

78

79

significance were violated by the present study. The most basic Of
these assumptions is that of the randomness of selection both of

the organizations studied and in the random selection of members

for inclusion in the research effort. While the statistics generated
by the study are not amenable to further statistical manipulation
(MacDonald, 1970, p. 58), the derived statistics are acceptable for
comparison across organizations.

Data generated by the mailed questionnaire to participatory
agency members were transferred, with the appropriate variables
utilized in the analysis, onto computer cards for all respondents.
Basic descriptive statistics as well as frequency counts were
measured utilizing the SPSS package for the CDC 6500 computer at
Michigan State University. To maintain consistency in terms Of
variable direction, negatively worded items were recoded.

The Communications Questionnaire (Appendix 1) was mailed
to the respective chiefs-of-police for selected police departments
for distribution to the members of the department. Each member was
afforded a stamped, self-addressed envelope for the return of the
completed questionnaire to the researcher. It was necessary to
elicit the support Of the chiefs, as well as to allow them to distri-
bute the instrument, in order to gain formal organizational support
for the research effort. Unlike many other formal organizations,
the control of the administrator over organizational members in police
departments is more stringent, with a number of options available
to the administrator to apply sanctions against members whose actions

cause displeasure. A research effort in law enforcement agencies

8O

usually requires the cooperation of both administration and appro-
priate professional associations or unions. The implied sponsorship
of the chief of this or any research effort can produce bias in
terms of degree of participation. While not validated, it is con-
ceivable that rank and file members might elect not to participate
in fear Of providing information to administration concerning true
individual opinions of the department and its supervision. Addi-
tionally, members might refuse or elect not to participate in
defiance of top administration. Conversely, the middle management
and supervision members might elect to participate based upon con-
siderations of compliance of administration wishes, thus producing
a heavier response in that level of the organization.

An analysis of questionnaire response for the three police

agencies included in the final analysis are as follows:

TABLE 2.--Questionnaire Response.

 

All Depts. Dept. Exter Dept. Bentley Dept. Deerfield

 

 

 

No. % No. % No. % NO. %
Total *
Membership 80 100% .23 100% 32 100% 23 100%
Respondents 41 51.3% 16 70% 17 61%* 8 35%
Refusals 6 7.5% 0 0 6** 24%
NO Response 29 36.2% 7 30% 11 39% 11 44%
Other* 4 5.0% - -- 4* - - _

 

*Officers laid-Off, on extended sick leave, and on edu-
cational leave were not contacted by the study.

**
Questionnaires returned with notation or letter Of refusal.

81

The questionnaire contained sixty-three items asking for
information on the designated variables as well as demographic
data such as age, sex, rank, seniority, and job assignment. The
majority of the questions were multiple choice except for questiOns
dealing with opinion and sponsorship, a set of questions pertaining
to the communication mode of the organization, and pattern of
solicitation of opinions and ideas.

While the percentage Of participation by police department
members is low in terms of the response elicited by previous
researchers (Jacob, 1971) it was felt that given the problems of
data collection in general in police organizations, the data
generated would provide a significant analysis. An attempt was
made to increase the level Of response through a second request
for participation coming five weeks after the initial request.

This request directed that if the member wished to participate
anonymously, the questionnaire could be completed deleting any
identifying variables.

Besides the general reluctance of police officers to respond
to questionnaires due to the high demand from outside sources for
their participation, the historical police value of secrecy, especially
in those matters where it may affect their colleagues and organi-
zation (Niederhoffer and Blumberg, 1976, p. 137) reduced the level
of participation. This value was illustrated by the clarifications
presented by those officers who indicated their refusal to partici-

pate.

82

Further complicating the secrecy ethic of the police organi-
zation were special circumstances that existed during data collection.
The Exter Police Department had just joined a national union pursuant
to a change in state law that allowed such membership. The deline-
ation between the line level and management was exaggerated due to
feelings that existed within the department about unionization and
police professionalism. In addition, the final selection of the
representative union created some conflict within the department.
Final membership had occurred just prior to the research effort.

The chief of police, while disagreeing with the unionization move-
ment, is essentially progressive and Open, interested in generating
any data that might improve the operation of the department.

The Bentley Police Department was in the throes of reaction
to municipal financial troubles that necessitated laying-Off some
of the police Officers on the department. The Operation and struc-
ture of the organization was somewhat disrupted due to efforts to
cover for the reduced manpower situation. The police chief in
this department is relatively new, coming from out-Of-state rather
than in-house through the ranks, and possesses a very high level
educational, unusual for a chief of police.

The Deerfield Police Department was just beginning to
experience the financial situation found in Department Bentley at
the start of data collection. There was uncertainty as to the
impact the financial situation might have upon the department.

The chief Of police in this department was seen by the researcher

to be progressive, not unlike the chief of Department Exter. The

83

organizational structure Of Department Deerfield differed slightly
from that of the other organizations in that members of the police
department were expected to supplement the fire protection-service
in the municipality, thus constituting a department of public
safety. In actuality, the Operation of the department differed
little from the other departments under study.

Two of the departments selected for study had prohibitions
concerning participation in research study. One prohibition was

stated in the General Orders (policy statements) of the department

 

and required the agreement of the chief to participate, on a
voluntary basis, to over-ride the restriction. The other depart-
ment had a union contract statement that prohibited participation
except upon a voluntary, paid (time-and-one-half) baSis. This
researcher procured an exception from this agreement to allow for
voluntary, unpaid participation. The resulting response for this
department was low. All departments stipulated that the data
collection effort must be structured to allow for a minimum time
for participation which would not hamper the operation of the
department. As a consequence, the mailed questionnaire approach
was used in spite of its inherent problems relating to the previously
observed low percentage of response.

A summary of the demographic characteristics of the indi-
viduals in each of the three police departments is presented in the

following tables.

84

 

Demggraphic Characteristics

Age

An analysis of the age Of the respondents, divided into
five year increments starting at the earliest age allowable for
employment as a sworn police officer by law (age 21) to mandatory

retirement (age 65) produced the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:’ TI IIII

Dept. E*’B*o* E80 E80 E80 E80 E80 E80 EBD

Age 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60

 

*Department E - Exter, Department B - Bentley, Department 0 -
Deerfield.

Figure 2.--Age of Respondents.

85

Each Of the three police departments was characterized by
youthfulness on the force, at least to those responding to the
questionnaire. Since the majority of non-responses occurred at
the lower ranks where seniority is traditionally less, the three
police agencies could be assumed as having relatively youthful
members. Most police organizations restrict new recruits
(entrants on the force) to a qualifying age range Of 31 to 32
years of age which places a greater number of members at the lower
end of the age scale. Further reducing the median age of each
of the departments is the existence of an early retirement option
after 20 years of service. An analysis of seniority rolls Of
each of the departments concludes that the age range Of
respondents to the questionnaire is consistent with that in
each agency.

The Bentley police department is characterized by a rela-
tively flat distribution of age throughout the organization with a
low response from officers in the 21-25 years of age bracket.
This trend reflects the stable growth of the department which in
the last few years has not seen expansion due to economic con-
straints. Agencies Exter and Deerfield, on the other hand, are
located in jurisdictions whose municipal populations are rapidly
increasing, thus reflecting a growth in departmental numbers con-
sistent with recruitment of young applicants at the lowest rank

level of the department.

86

The majority of police department Officers surveyed were
male, with the exception of one female of high rank. All the
other women responding to the questionnaire were in clerical or
dispatch positions. The low percentage of women found in the
sworn ranks is consistent with most police departments. The
pattern of allowing women at the sworn level for specialized
assignment in the detective bureau accounted for the high rank
of the one female officer employed in Department Exter (FBI Uniform

Crime Reports, 1973).

Rapk

Respondents to the questionnaire reflected the various
levels of rank usually delineated in police departments structured
on the militaristic model of organizational level designation.
The majority of those who refused to participate and those not
responding to the questionnaire request were at the patrol officer
rank. This is significant in that it is consistent with prior
problems experienced by researchers in entry into police organi-
zations (Fox and Lundman, 1974). A "code of silence" concerning
departmental matters with the public has been shown by previous
researchers to be exceptionally strong in most police organizations
(Niederhoffer and Blumberg, 1976). Those refusing to cooperate or
to respond to the questionnaire but who returned their blank
instrument commented that fear of departmental retaliation, though

not specifically defined, as well as fear of outside interference

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N am 4<h0h
i- ii m._~ N o.m~ e 1. ii i- ii ii 1. ccozm
icoz
ii ii ii i- m.o _ m m_ FF cgozm
ii 1. m._F N m.Fm m o.oo— w ~.mm mp m.mo PP Feuo»
fl .oz & .02 fl .02 e .oz fl .02 e .02
39:2me damn $3.55 .33 L33 .8.me 3362me .38 $35M. .38 .386 .33
mpmemu mpmz xmm

 

.mucmucoammm mo xmmii.m mum<h

88

or knowledge Of the department led to their decision tends to
support this explanation. One Officer who elected not to partici-
pate sent the following explanation:
It appears that you have put a lot of time and effort into
this questionnaire and I feel that I must give you an
explanation as to why I have not filled out the question-
naire.

Many Of the questions are in fact dangerous to many
officers. They feel that they would be harming themselves
if they answered truthfully or at least they are afraid of
the interpretation that you or others might give the
answers. It is a difficult area which you have chosen to

study and the questionnaire you have designed is a good
one. . . .

The distribution of respondents reflected the range of
rank usually found in a police organization. For the most part,
except in Department Deerfield, all ranks are represented. The
Bentley police department accounted for the lowest percentage of

returns at the rank-and-file (patrol) level of the organization.

Seniority

The majority Of officers participating in the study have
been on the department for over two years. This pattern is con-
sistent with the trend of lack of employee turnover as well as
static manpower levels existent in most police departments today.
The positive correlation between seniority and rank is also con-
sistent with the practice of recruiting and promotion within

police departments.

The greater median seniority for police departments Bentley

and Deerfield reflects the economic constraints placed on these

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Foocum pmzcumc cw go New» mco cog» mmmF mum>cmm
.1
mN m NP mN m_
a Ao.mNc N Am._Pv N m Ao.mNc a eoeeam_o
\Feo_cmpo
:sozmicoz
_ Am.NFV F P Am.m v _ F Am.e e F cameo
_ -- _ Am.m c F -- -- emeeaeo
F i- a Am.FFv N N Am.o v F osteopamwu
e Am.N_c _ e AN.PPV N m Am.N~v N eeeomeom
F -- m Am.va m m Am.N_v N osweooeoo
_F 20.0mv e m, Am.va a e Ao.va a eoo_eeo
Focuma
.. i- i- i- i- i- m Am.NFV N acmo_eeo
. _ syncowumnoca
:sozm
.02 & .oz .02 R .02 .02. N .oz
aucmm< .qmmm scamm< .ammm sucmm< nammm
upmwmgmmo .uamo ampucmm .pamc smuxu .aqmo

 

 

 

 

.mucmvcoqmma mo xcamii.e m4m<h

9O

agencies by their corresponding municipal governments. This has
curtailed the growth of the organizations and increased the level
of seniority in these departments. Department Exter;on the other
hand, has experienced some change through attrition of older
members reaching retirement age which accounts for the lack of
seniority for a significant percentage of its membership. Depart-
ment Deerfield also lacks members with tenure at the higher end of
the scale due to the relative newness of the municipality and the

department.

Shift Representation

Respondents to the questionnaire reflect assignment to
various shift or watch time periods for the police departments.
For departments Exter and Bentley, the greatest proportion of
responses occurred from members of the day shift, weighted by the
number of administrative and clerical staff who are generally '
assigned to the normal day business hours. This trend is not
reflected in Department Deerfield where the only day person respond-
ing was the Chief. In that department, the greatest response was
received from the members of the afternoon and evening shifts. An
analysis of the rank of respondents in each shift category shows
that patrol officers are evenly distributed throughout the time
periods (except for the Deerfield department, which has only two
officers assigned to the day shift), thus removing the suggestion

of an organized boycott of research participation.

91

TABLE 5.--Seniority of Respondents.

 

Dept. Exter Dept. Bentley Dept. Deerfield

 

 

 

 

Seniority No. % No. % NO. %
Under 1 yr.* 3 (18.8) -- --
1-2 yrs. 4 (25.0) -- --
**
2-3 yrs. 1 ( 6.3) 2 (11.8) 2 (25.0)
3-5 yrs. 2 (12.5) 4 (23.5) T (12.5)
5-7 yrs. 1 ( 6.3) 1 ( 5.9) 4 (50.0)
7-10 yrs. 4 (25.0) 4 (23.5) 1 (12.5)
lO-15 yrs. 1 ( 6.3) -- --
15-20 yrs. -- 3 (17.7) --
***
Over 20 yrs. -- 3 (17,7) --

 

*
Probationary Period.

**
Three years exper1ence necessary to take Sergeants exam1n-

ation for promotion.

***
20 yrs. M1n1mum necessary for ear11est retirement.

 

LII-‘2‘

92

TABLE 6.--Shift Assignments of Respondents.

 

Dept. Exter Dept. Bentley Dept. Deerfield

 

 

 

 

Shift No. % No. % No. %

Day 7 (43.8) 11 (64.7) 1 (12.5)
Afternoon 3 (18.8) 4 (23.5) 3 (37.5)
Swing

(7p.m.-4a.m.) l ( 6.3) -- 2 (25.0)
Evening 4 (25.0) 2 (11.8) 2 (25.0)
No Regular

Shift 1 ( 6.3) -- --

 

*No department presently has a scheduled rotation schedule with
the exception of necessary shift changes for manpower considerations.
One dispatcher responding floats on a need basis.

93

The lack of response from the day shift of department
Deerfield is further significant in that those line officers with
the greatest seniority are on day shift. Responses from that
department do not reflect the middle and upper ends of the seniority

scale for that reason.

DutygAssignment

The greatest percentage of respondents were officers
assigned to the patrol function of the organization, the largest
single unit in any police department. Civilians (non-sworn
personnel) were found to be assigned to the Communications, Records,
and Administrative functions of the departments. The duty assign-
ments of the respondents were proportionately evenly distributed
through the various organizational units of each of the three

police departments.

Analysis of Variables

The first step in the analysis of the raw data was to
combine the responses of members of each department of the groups
of questions previously defined as forming an index of the concept
to be studied through the use of the SPSS program developing
cumulative indices for groups Of data. Each of the variables
defined through the Operationalization of the combined means for
each group were compared as were Pearson product moment correlations
to determine which questions hypothesized as contributing to an

index scale correlated positively. The adjusted cumulative index

94

TABLE 7.--Duty Assignments of Respondents.

 

Dept. Exter Dept. Bentley

Dept. Deerfield

 

 

 

 

Duty No. % No. % NO. %
PatroT 8 (50.0) 7 (41.2) 5 (62.5)
Detective

Bureau -- 2 (11.8) --
Narcotics -- l ( 5.9) --
Juvenile l ( 6.3) 1 ( 5.9) --
Internal

Affairs 1 ( 6.3) -- --
Communications 3 (18.8) -- 2 (25.0)
Records -- 2 (11.8) --
Administration 3 (18.8) 3 (17.7) 1 ( 2.5)
Personnel -- _ l ( 5.9) --

Total 16 (100) T7 (100) 8 (100)

 

95

for each variable (concept) was then calculated to allow for cross-
departmental comparison. A Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient was calculated for each department for all concept
indices generated (see Appendix 2).

The study reported focused upon the variations in internal
communication structure and in communication function efficacy for
each of the three police departments. The assessment of the
meaning to differences between the three organizations on each of
the specific variables under study were determined by the comparison

of the generated range-free means of the aggregate indices.

Uncertainty

Of the departments under consideration, the responses to
the questions used to develop the aggregate index of level of
uncertainty about the department and its organizational goals and
expectations, Department Exter was found to have the least degree
of uncertainty (mean = 4.13). Members of Department Bentley
expressed the highest degree Of uncertainty (mean = 3.63) with
a score of 1 being the highest level of uncertainty possible under

the present construction.

TABLE 8.--Level of Uncertainty Perceived by Departmental Members.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD
Exter 16 17 4.13 1.04
Bentley 13 17 3.49 1.20

Deerfield 8 14 3.63 1.01

 

96

Job Satisfaction

 

The perceived job satisfaction of members in each of the
departments were measured along two scales; the first producing
an aggregate index of perceived satisfaction pertaining to the
police job itself and the second involving an aggregate index of
satisfaction with work associates.

The combined aggregate indices reflects a higher degree of
job satisfaction total in members of Department Exter (mean = 3.67)
while the lowest overall level of job satisfaction was found in
Department Bentley (mean = 3.22). The highest mean necessary to

reflect total satisfaction would be 5.00. (See Table 9.)

Autocratic vs. Participatory Decision-Makigg

All three departments surveyed reflected a negative per-
ception of amount of control over, and participation in, the
decision-making activities of their departments. Of the three
departments, members of Department Bentley perceived the most
amount of personal input into the decision processes of their
department (mean = 2.99). Department Deerfield was perceived by

its members as being the least responsive in terms of member

participation (mean - 2.51). This analysis is compared with a

possible total participation score of 5.00. (See Table 10-)

Horizontal Communication
The level of horizontal communication based upon the

perceived freedom and satisfaction with the occurrence of horizontal

97

TABLE 9.--Overall Job Satisfaction Expressed by Departmental Members.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD
Exter 16 14 3.67 0.57
Bentley l3 19 3.22 1.19
Deerfield 8 10 3.35 0.94

 

Job Satisfaction

 

Exter 16 16 4.04 0.09
Bentley . 13 21 3.56 1.12
Deerfield 8 8 3.75 0.58

 

Work Associate Satisfaction

 

Exter 16 13 3.30 1.04
Bentley 13 15 2.87 1.25
Deerfield 8 13 2.94 1.30

 

EM“ ‘“

n LII in

98

TABLE 10.--Perception of Participation in Department.

 

 

Department N Mean SD
Exter 16 2.87 1.17
Bentley 13 2.99 1.21
Deerfiel d * 8 2. 51 1.09

 

communication was highest in Department Deerfield (mean = 3.45).
Department Bentley also showed a slight positive degree of satis-
faction (mean = 3.00 being neutral) with a generated mean of 3.39.
The level of horizontal comnunication was decidedly negative for
Department Bentley which produced a mean of 2.54. (A mean of 5.00

denotes complete satisfaction.)

Downward Communication

Satisfaction of departmental members for downward communi-
cation in their respective departments was positive for all three
police departments. Department Exter showed strong positive feelings
for the communication process transferring messages and information
from the top of the organization to the bottom with a mean Of 4.09.
Departments Bentley and Deerfield showed similar positive reactions
to their downward communications patterns with means of 3.50 and
3.53 respectively. (A score denoting complete satisfaction would_

be a mean of 5.00.)

99

TABLE ll.--Autocratic vs. Participatory Decision-Making Control
Concepts.

 

Department N Range Mean

SD

 

Participation in Department Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exter 16 23 3.23 .26

Bentley 13 20 3.44 .07

Deerfield 8 19 2.79 .17
Direct Communication Patterns

Exter 16 15 2.52 .19

Bentley 13 16 2.51 .43

Deerfield 8 10 1.91 .97
Faith in Supervisory Channels

Exter 16 5 2.97 .75

Bentley 13 7 3.12 .99

Deerfield 8 6 3.06 .13

Individual Control

Exter 16 12 2.74 .46

Bentley 13 12 2.90 .34

Deerfield 8 12 2.29 .10

 

100

TABLE 12.--Perceived Satisfaction with Horizontal Communication.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD
Exter 16 2-20 3.39 1.28
Bentley 13 7-18 2.54 1.32
Deerfield 8 3-15 3.45 1.26

 

TABLE l3.--Perceived Satisfaction with Downward Communication.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD

Exter 16 13 4.09 1.04
Bentley . 13 14 3.50 1.20
Deerfield 8 12 3.53 1.18

 

Upward Communication

Reactions to the perceived satisfaction with upward communi-
cations in the police departments based upon satisfaction with the
opportunity to and acceptance of transmission of messages and infor-
mation up the hierarchical structure of the organization produced
neutral to slightly negative reactions for police department members.
Responses from all three departments centered around the neutral
mean of 3.00 with Department Bentley indicating a slight positive

inclination (mean - 3.18). Departments Exter and Deerfield reported

similar means of 3.01 and 2.96 in relation to the variable.

101

TABLE l4.--Perceived Satisfaction with Upward Communication.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD
Exter 16 20 3.01 1.06
Bentley 13 20 3.18 1.03
Deerfield 8 17 2.96 1.08

 

Perceived Innovativeness

Since police departments differ as to the definition of,
and movement to, adoption of innovative procedures, policies, and
equipment in organizations, a decision was made to measure the level
of innovativeness of each of the three departments through the
perceptions of innovativeness of the members.

As perceived by its members, Department Exter was seen to
be the most innovative (mean = 3.93) with Department Deerfield
being the least innovative (mean = 3.15). Maximum perception of

innovation required a mean of 5.00.

TABLE 15.--Perception of Departmental Innovativeness.

 

 

Department N Range Mean SD
Exter l6 17 3.93 ' 0.98
Bentley 13 20 3.25 1.37

Deerfield 8 10 3.15 0.78

 

102

Propinquity

Propinquity, as measured by closeness in time and/or place,
was calculated for each of the departments based upon the distri-
bution of shift assignments, duty assignments, and working environ-
ment of the members. Respondents were asked to designate the
percentage of time spent in situations allowing contact with other
members of the organization. As is characteristic of police work,
much of the reported time spend 'on duty' involved assignment in
situations that did not institutionalize sustained contact with
fellow members. The means for the measure for propinquity indicate
time intervals spent in the performance of duties place a mean of
9.0 for a duration of over 40 hours. A score of 8.0 would indicate
time spent in that category at 36 to 40 hours.per week. A mean
of 7.00 represents a time interval of 31-35 hours, 5.00 for 21-25
hours, and 1.00 for 1-5 hours.

Members of Department Deerfield expressed the greatest
degree of physical separation while "on the jobP with 100% of its
membership reporting working alone during the forty hour a week
work period. Members defined work environment as occurring mainly
in a one-man car (75%). Called a beat car, the one-man car patrols
a specific non-overlapping geographic boundary staffed by only one
officer. Physical contact with another officer would only occur
if back-up assistance was needed or upon return to the station.

Department Bentley ranked second in membership reporting
working alone for forty or more hours by 92.3% of the reSpondents.

Assignment to a one-man car was indicated by 61.5% of the respondents.

103

TABLE 16.--Physical Contact and Duty Assignment of Departmental

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members.
N Range Mean SD Variance %
Dept. Bentley, 13 *
Foot Patrol 2 2-3 2.5 2 l 4.5
One man car 8 3-7 6 9 2.5 6.4 61.5
Two man car - - - - -
Cycle - - - - -
In station 8 1-8 5.8 2.9 8 2 61.5
Alone 12 2-7 8.1 0.5 0.3 92.3
With partner 2 1-8 5.0 5.7 8.0
With others - - - - -
Dept. Exter 16
Foot patrol 2 1-7 4 5 5.0- 7
One man car 7 2-7 8.3 0.8 0.6 43.8
Two man car - - - - -
Cycle - - - - -
In station 8 l 7.3 2.5 6.5 61.5
Alone 10 l 8.5 0.5 0.3 . 76.9
With partner - - - - -
With others 5 - 8.0 - - 38.5
Dept. Deerfield 8
Foot patrol 3 l l 3 0.6 0.3 37.5
One man car 6 1-7 5.3 3.4 11.9 75.0
Two man car - - - - -
Cycle - - - -
In station 4 1-2 7 3 0 0 50.0
Alone 8 10 8.0 O O 100
With partner - - - - -
With others - - - - -
*1.00 = 1-5 hours 6.00 = 26=30 hours
2.00 = 6-10 hours 7.00 = 31-35 hours
3.00 = 11-15 hours 8.00 = 36-40 hours
4.00 = 16-20 hours 9.00 = over 40 hours
5.00 = 21-25 hours

104

Department Exter listed time spend alone for forty or more
hours per week by 76.9% of its membership. The number of responses
by administrative/clerical workers increased the percentage of
members working in the station, but the majority of these members
also reported working alone. Fewer respondents described a working
environment of a one-man car, thus accounting for the increase in

propinquity.

Integration

Integration of departments based upon departmental communi-
cations systems was viewed as the degree to which the department
subunits and members are interconnected. The formula reported by

Jacob (1971, p. 151) used to test for integrativeness was;

2 of choices
I = # ofypossible choiges x # of respondents
Department Exter had an integration index of .8366 or approxi-
mately 84% integration. The 16 participants reported a total of
380 contacts.

The members of Department Bentley, the most participatory
police department, reported a total of 566 contacts. The integration
index for this department was .8395 or approximately 84% inte-
gration.

Department Deerfield, ranked as the most autocratic

department, had an integration score of .8463 or 85% integration

with 308 contacts named.

105

TABLE 17.--Communication Contacts.

 

 

Integration
Department N Number Range Mean Index
Exter 16 380 15-24 23.75 .8366
Bentley 13 566 4-45 43.54 .8395
Deerfield 8 308 l- 8 38.50 .8463

 

O

Organizational Communications Patterns

The analysis of the Communications Map Checklist allowed
the use of the Communications Network Analysis (NEGOPY) program
developed by William D. Richards, Jr. for the CDC 6500 computer
at Michigan State University. The analysis consisted of three
parts: (1) ordering the communications matrix so that people who
talk to each other are close in the matrix; (2) identifying the
liaisons; and (3) separating the small groups within the organi-
zation. Each member of the department was assigned a number that
was used by the respondent to indicate the frequency of communi-
cation contact with that member. The means Of the weighted frequency
of respondents to communication contacts were obtained and compared.
When rank ordered, members with similar distributions were placed
near each other. When put in the form of a binary matrix, non-
zero entries will cluster around the major diagonal.

Each respondent in the separate departments received a
code number punched onto a computer card along with the number of

the stated departmental communication contact followed by a code

106

for frequency of contact. (See the Communications Map in Appendix 1
for the categories of communication frequency.)

The program gave a listing of all contacts by the respond-
ent, then a list indicating how many persons to whom each respond-
ent indicating they talked. Next the program determined all
reciprocated contacts for each person responding in the depart-
ment. "Reciprocated" means that one person naming a departmental
member as a contact must be named by that contact in return. Due
to the low response level of departmental members to the Conlnuni-
cations Map, a decision was made to allow the program to designate
as a pair all named contacts in order to include for consideration
non-respondents. This was deemed acceptable as departmental
members indicated at least some level of contact with all members
when given a list of organizational population.

The perceived frequency of communication contact was
obtained by weighting the scores for the reciprocated pairs to
allow the more frequent designation to have more influence on the
position of the contact in the matrix than the lower frequency
stipulated by the pair. Unreciprocated pairs received the fre-
quency score designated by the respondent member.

The program then squared each of the matrices showing
different frequencies. Each respondent was ranked according to
the mean of those reported as contacts. The computer then printed
the total number of changed ranks and the sum differences Of these
ranks each time it re-ranked all respondents (Richards, 1971).

The results were printed as a binary matrix with the code numbers

107

for the respondents placed at the top and left margins of the matrix
(see Appendix 3).

The program further allowed a reduction of the matrix to
identify distinct groups in each of the departments based upon
actual reported communication behavior. As a result of research
by Weiss (1956, p. 91) who posited that "the person having the
highest total obviously is a liaison person," the respondent so
scoring was deleted from the matrix along with that member's
contacts. This process was continued until the only persons
remaining in the "reduction matrix' were those with one or no
contacts outside their segment. The process continued in the
program until respondents and their contacts were grouped in iso-
lation segments.

The smallness of the departments under study and the high
percentage of communication contact reported among members resulted
in the inability of the NEGOPY program to identify more than one
distinct group. The analysis of the communication structure of
the departments was based upon the Density Histogram which did
allow identification of groups and group members, along with an
indication of group scores for integrativeness and connectiveness

(see Appendix 4).
Analysis Of Hypotheses
Propinquity and Integration

H 1.0: The degree Of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will result in less integration of the department.

T08

The police department reporting the least degree of pro-

pinquity, Department Deerfield, had an integration index of .8463

or 84% integration. This compares with a .8366 integration index

for Department Exter, defined as having the mOst propinquity.

The slight difference in the two indices does not support H 1.0.

A further analysis utilizing the "connectiveness" score generated

by the NEGOPY program (see Appendix 3) reported a difference in

"connection" between members of each organization based upon re-

ciprocated communication contact nominations at .4738 for Depart-

ment Deerfield and .7510 for Department Exter.

'Connectiveness'

provided the more reliable measure as the integration scale evolved

by the NEGOPY program was negatively influenced by the low partici-

pation level of the research. The direction of this finding is

consistent with that proposed by H 1.0 and thus provides support

for the hypothesis.

TABLE 18.--Departmental Integration.

 

Department Integrativeness Index Connectiveness Index
Deerfield .8463 .4738
Bentley .8395 .4756
Exter .8366 .7510

 

109

Propinquity and Uncertainty

To determine propinquity based upon probability for contact
that would allow communication, respondents were asked to designate
the number of hours normally spent in one week in various assign-
ments allowing for physical contact as well as to evaluate the
percentage Of time spent in performing their duties alone. To a
degree, the nature of police work requires a high level of indi-
vidual activity. All departmental members reported spending over
75% of their time alone. Department Deerfield reported the highest
percentage (100%) of time spent alone, estimating that in each case
that tine accounted for all 40 or more hours spent on the job
during the week. Department Bentley reported the next highest 3
degree of lack of propinquity with 92.3% of its members spending
40 or more hours weekly alone. Department Exter reported 76.9%
of its membership spending 40 or more hours alone.

H 1.1: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will increase the level of uncertainty of the
department.

The department exhibiting more contact based upon a 40
hour week reported the highest level of certainty concerning
organizational goals and expectations (mean = 4.13) thus supporting
H 1.1. (Table 19).
Propinquityyand Organizational
Communications Patterns
H 1.2: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental

members will increase vertical (upward/downward) com-
munication patterns in the department.

110

TABLE 19.--Comparison Of Propinquity vs. Uncertainty.

 

 

Time Spent Alone Uncertainty
Department % Mean '
Exter 76.9 4.13
Bentley 92.3 3.49
Deerfield 100.0 3.63

 

The frequency of contact expressed by members of each
department did not differ across rank, shift, or duty assignment.
Each department member reported some degree of communication contact
with each member of their respective organizations. Attempts by
the NEGOPY program to split each department into sub-units failed
(see CommunicatiOn matrices presented in Appendix 4).

Further analysis generated from the Distribution Histogram
(Appendix 5) for each of the police departments partially supports
H 1.2 in that members of Department Deerfield describe the greatest
percentage of their communication contacts as occurring three of
four times a week. The expected direction of Department Exter,
where communication contact frequencies are less frequent at the
higher end of the scale than Department Bentley, is inconsistent
with the hypothesis. When frequency categories are cumulated to
develop a frequency designated as 'many times per week' (frequencies
'1-2 times a week' to 'several times a day') it appears that the
uncertainty ranking would correlate positively with increased

communication. The high incidence of frequent communications

 

TTl

o.om NMN o.mN om N.N~ mm m.mm cop m.mp me m.¢ mp m.P m 5.0 . N mom upowmgmwo

 

 

 

 

m.nm pwm m.m_ oo— m.wN :2 p.0N «FF N.mp mm m.m pm o.o_ om e.~ m mom ampucmm
m.oo NmN w.~N mm «.mp —m P._m mpp o.¢N —m m.o 0N F.N m m.o m owm Lmuxu
& z m z x z a z a z a z a z a ,z z acmEysmamo
xoeeu Neg < sea < see: < goo: < gees: < coco: < ooeeeou weave
xpxmmz mos?» muco mmewh mmewh was?» muco .2500 .02 pouch
m>wumFssao Pecm>mm vim Nip Nip cosh mmmu

 

.uumucoo cowpmuw:=EEou mo sucmaamsaii.oN mum<h

112

contacts in Department Deerfield tends to refute H 1.2. The Density
Histogram prepared by the NEGOPY program grouping respondents of
all ranks into distinct groups also does not support the hypothesis

presented in H 1.2.

Propinguity and Peer Contacts
H 1.3: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the level of horizontal (peer)
communication contacts in the departments.

Hypothesis 1.3 proved to be untestable from the data given
the failure of attempts to identify communication groups in each of
the three departments. The Density Histogram developed in the
NEGOPY program does not suggest the exclusion or isolation of other
ranks in any of the department's communication patterns (based upon
an analysis of rank of members reported by 1.0. number). In addition,
the mean level of perceived horizontal communication satisfaction
provided data that indicated a lack of support for H 1.3 in that
the department with the lowest degree of satisfaction for horizontal
(peer) communication was not the department reporting the greatest
degree of lack of propinquity.

The development of a cumulative index for satisfaction with
departmental vertical communication patterns suggests that as lack
of propinquity increases, satisfaction with vertical communication
decreases. The relationship between downward and upward communi-
cation satisfaction is consistent with the following reported

Pearson product moment correlations, with the exception of Depart-

ment Bentley.

113

TABLE 21.--Comparison of Propinquity and Communication Satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative
% Time Horizontal Downward Upward Vertical
'Alone' Comm. Sat. Comm. Sat. Comm. Sat. Comm. Sat.
Department % Mean Mean Mean Mean
Exter 76.9 3.39 4.09 3.01 3.55
Bentley 92.3 2.54 3.50 3.18 3.34
Deerfield 100.0 3.45 3.53 2.96 3.25

 

*
Upward and Downward Communication Satisfaction.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Downward with Upward Communication Satisfaction

 

 

Department Pearsons y
Exter .7891
Bentley .1393
Deerfield .8128

H 1.4: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the perceived level of partici-
pation of members in the organizational decision-making
process.

Hypothesis 1.4 suggested that as lack of propinquity in-
creased in a department, the perceived level of participation in
the decision-making and control functions of the organization by
its members would also decrease. This hypothesis is weakly sup-
ported by the curvilinear relationship indicated by a comparison

of the mean level of perceived participation for the department

reporting the most propinquity, Department Exter, whose participation

114

mean is placed at 2.87, and the department expressing the greatest
lack Of propinquity, Department Deerfield, whose participation

mean is 2.51. The data provides support for H 1.4.

TABLE 22.--Comparison of Propinquity and Perceived Level of

 

 

 

 

Participation.
% Time Level of
Alone Participation
Department 2% 'Mean
Exter 76.9 2.87
Bentley 92.3 2.99
Deerfield 100.0 2.51

 

Communication Patterns and Level of
Participation in Organizations

The present thesis of this research suggested that propinquity
of members would have an effect upon the type and frequency of the
communication contacts that occur within the department. Lack of
participation would require the adherence to formal organizational
structures in order to facilitate effective communication.

H 2.0: The structure of communication flow consistent with
the formal hierarchical structure will occur in
departments having less perception of participation
in organizational decision-making.

The group communimatrix for each department does not allow

analysis for group structure as each reflects only one group, the

department as a whole. An alternate method of analysis is provided

115

through the density of communication histogram prepared by NEGOPY
(see Appendix 4). The concentration of communication in terms of
frequency of occurrence suggests that Department Bentley can be
characterized as having more frequent communication between all
ranks of the department. The density groupings projected indicate
membership from.the various supervision and management personnel

in the department as well as line staff. This finding is consistent
with hypothesis H 2.0 in that Department Bentley proved to be the
most participatory of the police agencies represented.

Department Deerfield, the most autocratic department,
reflected communication density configurations that include various
rank levels of the organization in the groupings but which also
reflected formal work units in the department. Department Exter,
to a lesser extent, has similar characterizations in grouping.

The cross-structured and multi-rank configuration exhibited
in the Density Histogram for Department Bentley as well as the
corresponding displays for the other two police departments provide

support for H 2.0.

H 2.1: The more autocratic departments will have greater
formal communication channel contacts based upon the
formal hierarchical (upward/downward) and in-group
communication channel contacts.

H 2.2: The more participatory departments will have greater
informal (horizontal) and inter-group communication
channel contacts.

The analysis afforded by the communimatrices generated by
NEGOPY as well as the Density Histogram do not provide the level
of refinement necessary to test Hypothesses 2.1 and 2.2. Therefore,

H 2.1 and 2.2 proved to be untestable with available data.

116

Participatory Organization and Uncertainty

H 3.0: The more participatory the department in perceived to
be by its members, the less uncertainty will exist.

The more perceived uncertainty occurred in Department
Bentley (mean = 3.49) which proved to be the most participatory
agency. The department reporting the greatest level of certainty
was the second most participatory department according to the
perceptions of its members. Indeed, the relationship which the
three organizations under investigation present between perceived
participation and uncertainty was curvilinear; higher uncertainty
was found in the most participatory department than was found in

the more autocratic department. Thus H 3.0 was not supported.

TABLE 23.--Comparison of Level of Participation and Uncertainty.

 

 

 

 

Level of
Participation Uncertainty
Department Mean Mean
Exter 2.87 4.13
Bentley 2.99 3.49
Deerfield 2.51 3.63

 

An analysis of the various facets used to develop the index that
measures level of participation in the police departments based
upon a comparison of aggregate scores also showed support of

hypothesis 3.0.

117

Uncertaintyyand Communication Flow

The analysis of communication contacts listed on the Personal
Communications Checklist Map for each of the respondents indicated
a high degree Of contact reported by departmental members with other
members of all ranks and shifts with the exception of the Chief
(see Communigram, Appendix 4). Hypothesis 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 dealing
with the level of uncertainty held by members about organizational
expectations and goals proposed that the existence of uncertainty
would cause an increase in the amount of messages transmitted
between members of the organization.

H 4.0: The more uncertainty that exists by departmental members
about organizational goals and Objectives, the greater
the number of communication contacts will occur.

Based upon an analysis of uncertainty with the number Of
communication contacts reported of weekly frequency, the police
department recording the most uncertainty, Department Bentley, had
a mean number of weekly member contacts of 10.89 per person. The
most certain department, Exter, exhibited a mean weekly number of
contacts Of 10.96 per individual member, presenting no difference
between the departments.

While Department Deerfield presented the highest percentage
of communication contacts occurring weekly, 80%, this finding could
(be explained by the small size of the department, thus affording
the greater need and ability to communicate. Hypothesis 4.0 was

not supported by the data generated.

118

TABLE 24.--Comparison of Uncertainty and Communication FlOw.

 

 

% Contact Mean Mean
N of N of Occurring Uncer- Fre-
Department Contacts Group Weekly Mean tainty quency
Exter 252 23 66.3 10.96 4.13 5.1
Bentley 281 35 67.3 10.89 3.49 5.02
Deerfield 237 26 80.0 9.12 3.63 5.36

 

H 4.1: The more uncertainty of departmental members in
autocratic departments, the greater the number of
formal (upward) communication contacts will occur.

H 4.2: The more uncertainty of departmental members in
participatory departments, the greater the number
of informal (horizontal) contacts will occur.

Another interpretation of Hypotheses 4.1 and 4.2 would be that
decreased levels of uncertainty would produce greater satisfaction
will all three communication patterns in the organization. An
analysis of least uncertainty with most satisfaction with communi-
cations horizontally and vertically (upward and downward) provided
another mode of analysis.
Department Bentley expressed more uncertainty (mean = 3.49),

yet reported the highest satisfaction level for upward communi-

cation (mean = 3.18). Department Bentley also indicated the least
2.54).

degree of satisfaction with horizontal communication (mean
Department Exter, showing the least organizational uncertainty,
reported the highest positive level of satisfaction with downward

comnunication (mean = 4.09). Department Bentley and Deerfield

119

produced similar levels of uncertainty with means of 3.49 and 3.63
respectively with correspondingly similar satisfaction levels for

downward communication (mean - 3.50 and 3.53). The highest mean

of satisfaction for horizontal communication was generated by
Departments Exter and Deerfield (3.39 and 3.45 respectively).

Since all horizontal communications are not as likely to concentrate
solely on messages pertaining to organizationally sanctioned infor-
mation, as is normally the case for downward communication, other
factors could influence horizontal communication satisfaction.
Downward communication coming from the supervision and management
ranks would more likely contain Official organizational messages.

Thus, Hypotheses H 4.1 and 4.2 are supported by this analysis.

TABLE 25.--Pears0n Product Moment Correlation Uncertainty and
Communication Satisfaction.

 

Department Horizontal Downward Upward
Deerfield .67 .94 .65
Exter .40 .92 .66
Bentley .12 .90 .11

 

Participatory Organization and
Job Satisfaction

H 5.0: The more participatory the department, the greater the
level of job satisfaction will exist in the department.

120

The police department whose members indicated the highest
level of participation in the decision processes of their depart-
ment was that Of Department Exter which reported a mean of 2.99
with a corresponding least Job Satisfaction mean of 3.22. An
analysis of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
which produced a coefficient of .28 for Department Deerfield and
.09 for Department Bentley also provides partial support for H 5.0.

H 5.1: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
horizontal communications, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.2: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
downward communications, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.3: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
upward communication, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

The produced means for level of job satisfaction for members
by degree of satisfaction with horizontal communication where
Department Deerfield reported the highest satisfaction of hori-
zontal communication mean (3.45) and the second highest level of
job satisfaction (mean = 3.35) tends to partially support Hypothesis
5.1. A corresponding analysis of the Pearson product moment
coefficient correlations also provides partial support for
Hypothesis 5.1 with Department Bentley generating the least
coefficient at .51 when compared to their reported level of job
satisfaction.

A comparison of the means relating to satisfaction with

downward communication for each of the departments revealed a

121

TABLE 26.--Pearson Product Moment Correlation Job Satisfaction and

 

 

Participation.
Participation Direct Faith in Individual
in Agency Communication Supervisory Level of
Department Activities Patterns Channels Control
Exter .29 .51 .19 .60
Bentley .09 .37 .17 .35
Deerfield .28 .30 .46 .63

 

TABLE 27.--Comparison of Job Satisfaction and Communication

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction.
Horizontal Downward Upward
Job Communication Communication Communication
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction

Depart-

ment: Mean -Mean Mean Mean
Exter 3.67 3.39 4.09 3.01
Bentley 3.22 2.54 3.50 3.18

Deerfield 3.35 3.45 3.53 2.96

 

122

corresponding rating for level Of job satisfaction for all three
agencies. Hypothesis 5.2 is supported by comparison of means as
well as the Pearson correlations reported below.

The department reporting the highest level Of satisfaction
for upward communication as indicated by the generated mean,
Department Bentley, had the lowest level of job satisfaction for
all departments. Department Exter, with less satisfaction for
upward communication, reported the highest level of job satis-
faction with a mean Of 3.67. Hypothesis 5.3 was not supported

by the data.

TABLE 28.--Pearson Product Moment Correlation Job Satisfaction and
Communication Satisfaction.

 

 

Horizontal Downward Upward
Department Communication Communication Communication
Exter .45 .72 .61
Bentley .06 .31 .33
Deerfield .36 .57 .37

 

Participatory Organization and Innovativeness
H 6.0: The more participatory departments will be perceived as
more innovative by departmental members at both command
and staff levels.
The sixth hypothesis established the expectation that the
more participatory the department was in allowing decision and control

by its members, the more likely that department members would perceive

123

the organization to be innovative. The more autocratic organi-
zation would thus have departmental members with less perception of
innovativeness. The comparisons generated by perception of inno-
vativeness with the various facets of participatory measurement
where Department Exter (mean = 3.93) was perceived by its members
to be the most innovative, ranks second in reported level of
participation in the control functions of the organization with

a mean of 2.87. The most participatory department, Bentley,
reported the second highest level of perception of innovation
with a mean of 3.25. The correlations presented through the
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient are presented

below:

TABLE 29.--Pears0n Product Moment Correlation Coefficient Innovative-
ness and Levels of Participation.

 

 

Partici- Direct Faith in Indi-
pation in Communi- Super- vidual
Agency cation visory Level of
Department Activities Patterns Channels Control
Exter .37 .47 .ll .59
Bentley .38 .31 -.21 .46
Deerfield .46 .62 .62 .76

 

Hypothesis 6.0 was supported in an analysis of the participation
facet of the participatory measure with a coefficient of .38 for

the most participatory department. Bentley, and .46 for.the most

124

autocratic, Department Deerfield. This pattern was also consistent

for the Level of Control comparisons generated, but was not for the

 

other two facets of participatory measurement used in generating
the participatory index. Thus, Hypothesis 6.0 is partially sup-
ported along two dimensions of measurement Of level of partici-
pation. Faith in Supervisory Channels showed a strong negative

correlation for Innovativeness.

Innovativeness
H 7.0: The more innovative the department is perceived to be
by its members, the more likely ideas will be sug-
gested by departmental members to improve the depart-
ment.

Hypothesis 7.0 states that as participation in the decision-
making processes is perceived to be open to departmental members,
those members will suggest more ideas about improving or changing
the department than members of an agency where participation is
perceived as being limited to members. Besides suggesting more
ideas voluntarily to peers, the participatory department members
would also utilize the upward communication system to suggest new
ways of doing things or new ideas to the supervisory ranks of the
department. An administration that encourages participation of
all members of the organization would maximize the upward-downward
communication flow through requests for new ideas.

Hypothesis 7.0 was tested by surveying departmental members
concerning the number of new ideas or procedures tendered to peers,

to supervisors, and as a result of official departmental requests

during the previous year. The hypothesis was not supported in that

125

the mean number of ideas transmitted outside Official departmental

channels (not to the immediate supervisor) occurred in the least

innovative agency, Department Deerfield, with a mean of 15.83 ideas

being reported as transmitted to persons other than the immediate

supervisor. Ideas presented to supervisors were not significantly

different across departments.

Significant requests for ideas from the departmental

administration itself were not found.

of each department reported such a request.

TABLE 30.--Idea Flow in Police Departments.

Indeed, only one member

 

 

 

 

 

Ideas to Ideas to Departmental

Immediate Others Requests for

Supervisor (Informal) Ideas
Department Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Exter 6.73 (6.0) 7.63 (7.7) 1.0 (0)
Bentley 9.0 (5.8) 9.25 (7.9) 1.0 (O)
Deerfield 8.0 (10.) 15.83 (17.) 1.0 (0)

 

Identification Of Organizational

Leadership

 

H 8.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate monomorphic opinion leaders.

H 9.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate influence leaders outside of the boundaries
of work groups or along status (rank) lines.

126

Hypothesis 8.0 dealt with opinion leadership within the
three police departments. The respondents were asked to name three
members of the police department to whom the departmental member
would ask an Opinion about a new idea that member had developed.
All persons so designated were listed with each nominee receiving
a score based upon number of times mentioned. Rank of respondents
vs. rank of nominee were analyzed to indicate the relationship of
rank (status) to designation. Each nomination was given equal
weight. The Operationalization of Opinion leadership was nomination
to the status of perceived opinion leader. An analysis of
monomorphic vs. polymorphic designation was based upon in-rank
nomination for opinion leadership. Those departments indicating
opinion leaders with higher rank than the reporting group were
seen to be concerned with status considerations in selecting
Opinion leaders. Selection by status relationship denoted poly-
morphic leaders which was hypothesized as being likely in autocratic
organizations. In addition, it was posited that the more auto-
cratic departments would tend to select opinion leaders for their
perceived ability to influence the organization. Nomination to
the level of leader required at least a sum of votes totalling 10%
of the N of the department (Jacob, 1971).

Those who qualified as opinion leaders were listed in the
categories-opinion leader and influence leader. For Department
Exter, the required votes necessary for designation as a leader
was 8; for Department Bentley, 6; and Department Deerfield, 4.

The number of persons qualifying were added and this number

127

divided by the total number of respondents in the specific depart-

ment.

The findings following the procedure described above were:

TABLE 31.--Selection of Opinion Leaders.

 

Opinion Leadership

 

 

Department N Per Cent
Exter 3 .19
Bentley 6 .46
Deerfield 4 .50

 

There is a larger percentage Of polymorphic leaders in Department
Deerfield than in the other two police departments. This finding
is further supported in that the rank (status) of leaders designated
by Department Deerfield included the greater number of nominees in
the upper ranks Of the department. Only in Department Exter did
the Chief qualify as an opinion/leader (receiving the most votes
in the department). In this department, the Chief was perceived
as being readily accessible by departmental members.

There is a larger percentage of polymorphic opinion leaders
in Department Bentley than in Department Exter which is consistent
with the direction predicted in H 8.0. Department Deerfield also

follows the pattern predicted as a higher percentage of its membership

128

TABLE 32.--Rank of Opinion Leaders.

 

 

Department N Sergeant "Brass"* Chief
Exter 3 -- 2 1
Bentley 4 -- 3 --
Deerfield 3 2 l --

 

*

The designation of "Brass" includes the highest strata of
rank directly below that of Chief. For Department Deerfield only
one officer above Sergeant is found in the organizational structure.
All other designations include the ranks of Captain and Lieutenant.

were considered polymorphic Opinion leaders than was found in Depart-
ment Exter and Bentley.

An analysis of those members designated as influence leaders
in the departments surveyed supplied a pattern consistent with that
shown by Influence Leadership. Hypothesis 8.0 is supported by the
data.

The anticipated designation of opinion and influence leaders
was that autocratic departments were expected to rely more on status
characteristics of formal hierarchy (seniority, rank, etc.) for
selection of leaders. To a degree, all departments scored at the
autocratic range of the scale to measure participation. The depart-
ment scoring as most participatory, Department Bentley with a mean
of 2.99, still placed to the negative side (autocratic) of the
participation continuum (a mean of 5.0 indicating the highest
perceived level of participation). If hypothesis 8.0 and 9.0 were
to hold true, all departments would select leaders based upon some

status consideration.

129

TABLE 33.--Selection of Influence Leadership.

 

Influence Leadership

 

 

Department N Per Cent
Exter 3 .19
Bentley 4 .31
Deerfield 3 .38

 

A compilation of responses to the opinion/influence questions on

the survey indicated that 25% of patrol officers in Department
Bentley responding selection peers as leaders. This response
compares with 14% of members of Department Exter and 17% for
Department Deerfield. This finding is consistent with the direction
predicted in Hypothesis 9.0. The patrol level was the only rank
studied as it provided the best analysis of the weight of status

upon selection of opinion/influence leaders.

Summary of Hypotheses
A summary Of the support of the hypotheses presented in the

research are listed in Figure 3.

130

TABLE 34.--Nominations for Opinion/Influence Leadership.

 

 

Department Exter Bentley Deerfield
Designee -
Nomination 7 Opinion Influ.? Opinion Influ. Opinion Influ.

 

Police Officers
Line peers
Sergeant
Detective
"Brass"*
Chief

h34>-¥4>l
IU'l—‘dw
10110000
innmw
I-H-‘OtN
1—4101—4

Sergeants
Line Officers

Peers
Detective
"Brass"
Chief

d-‘I NI
—-‘—-'I I I
INI—‘I
I I I-ll
INI I I
II I I I

Detectives
Line officers
Sergeants
Peers
"Brass"

Chief

N—4—4II
N—‘c-JII
-‘¥>¥501I
HNINI
IIIII
IIIII

*
"Brass"
Line officers
Sergeants
Detectives
Peers
Chief‘

Chief
Line Officers
Sergeant
Detective
HBrass"

Office
Peers
Patrol
Sergeant
Detective
"Brass”
Chief

 

N-fi-HI I
Nbl II
-'\II —‘I
1001 —‘I

—J I (.0 I
I I I I
N I (.0 I
N I w I

N-‘II
NIII

I I I —I' I I

-'NI I I-—4

 

*The category "Brass" includes the highest ranks directly
below Chief in each of the departments including Captain and
Lieutenant.

Hypothesis

 

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

memmmmmhbwaNN—d—I—l—I—I
oooowm—oom—noom-aoewm—a

C

Figure 3.

13T

Result

Supported

Supported

Not Supported

Not Supported
Supported

Supported

Not Testable

Not Testable

Not Supported

Not Supported
Supported
Supported

Partially Supported
Partially Supported
Supported

Not Supported
Partially Supported
Not Supported
Supported

Supported

Summary of Hypotheses Tested.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The research effort undertaken was a comparative analysis
of the structure of the internal communication system of three
police departments. The goal of the thesis was to define the
impact of various perceptions about the department held by its
members upon the direction and frequency of communication contacts.

A police organization exhibits characteristics in its
normal operation which past researchers have found to impede the
quality, quantity, and direction of communication flow in other
types of organizations. These variables which were selected for
study include: Integration, Propinquity, Job Satisfaction,
Uncertainty, Innovativeness, Communication Satisfaction, and Level
of Participation in Decision-Making. Further variables under
consideration included Status, Opinion Leadership, and Influence
Leadership.

The research design used in the study was a mailed question-
naire given to three police departments of an average representative
size with populations not to exceed 50. All three police depart-
ments were in the Midwest with each department being located in a
different state. Departments were selected based upon acceptance
to an entry inquiry made to the chief of each department at the
outset of the research. The request for participation was only

T32

T33

refused in one agency contacted and two participating agencies
withdrew during the course of the research at their request.

The problem of entry into any organization has proven to
be a common problem in social research. Manning (1972) presents
the problems associated with entry into police organizations as
involving monitoring elements for the control, sanctioning, and
Observation of intrusion into the organization, with frequent
demands for reciprocity. While the research reported did not
experience monitoring difficulties, other than the insistence
upon the part of the researcher that the police chief review the
questionnaire before consenting to participate, each chief did
broach the topic of ”what's in it for me." In each case, a
bargain was struck on the extent of feedback to be provided to
the organization which would not jeopardize the privacy and
integrity of those members participating in the research. Access
to each of the departments necessitated the development of a mailed
questionnaire format so as to conform to and appease union and
departmental needs for minimizing intrusion. An observational
and/or interview approach was rejected by each of the departments
as being potentially disruptive for organizational activities.

The method of initial access used in the research in
consistent with that described by Manning (1972) as being the
most common mode adopted successfully by researchers attempting
to study the police organization. Secondary access, allowing
entry by police administrators to those perceived to be police

professionals, also had bearing upon the acceptance to entry based

T34

upon the knowledge held by the participating police chiefs about
the researcher's intentions and capabilities. The more auto-
cratic administrator would tend to perpetuate the closed, secret
atmosphere of the police agency and would not be as likely to agree
to participate. The acceptance itself thus characterizes the
administration of the participating department as being more open
and professional.
Sponsorship by the police chief was selected as the mode
of introduction best likely to produce the highest questionnaire
return (Manning, 1972). Contract, policy, and union arrangements
required participation be voluntary on the part of the departmental
members. Questions presented on the instrument would be perceived
to be sensitive in any organization where an assessment of super-
vision is requested. This sensitivity seems to be compounded in a
police organization where the value of secrecy is already part of
the cultural system (Niederhoffer and Blumberg, 1976). Manning
(1972, p. 114) suggests that:
All these aspects of police organizations-secrecy, threat,
paramilitary organization, morale and self-esteem problems
and internal schisms, and extended relations have created a
research milieu in which the researcher often avoids contact
and interaction with certain persons, and constantly
renegotiates roles.

Indeed, problems of access, research style, sponsorship, location,

and perspective on action as reported by Manning (1972) were met

by this researcher.

135

Data Analygis

Data for the study were gathered by a 63-item questionnaire
and a Personal Contact "Communication Map" Checklist. A list of
members of the department was given each respondent asking for an
indication of the average frequency of communication with that
member. Departmental lists were prepared by each police chief
from seniority lists. The population of the departments selected
fOr study were consistent with the configuration of the majority
of police departments in the Midwest area with the highest per-
centage of departments having less than 25 members.

The items on the questionnaire were developed from many
sources depending upon the variable under consideration and were
modified for relevancy for a police force. The items were pre-
tested on a group of police officers from a large metropolitan
police force and two suburban departments. (The "Communication
Map" was developed with the assistance of Rolf Wigand, Michigan
State University, based upon format requirements of the NEGOPY
program.

Data was evaluated utilizing the range-free statistics
for cumulative indices generated by question groupings for each
of the Variables. Index reliability was tested through a comparison
of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients for each
question to the index. The cumulative indices were then compared
utilizing the Pearson Product Moment Correlation to determine if

a relationship existed.

136

The data generated by the "Communications Map" Checklist I
was analyzed using the NEGOPY program to determine the frequency
of communication, density of communication, integrativeness, and
connectiveness for each department. An attempt was made to
visualize distinct communications groupings based upon communi-
cation behavior of individual members but only one group emerged
for each department. The statement, "hypothesis is supported" was
used if the differences of the analyses were in the direction

predicted.

Main Findings

 

Sixteen hypotheses were tested dealing with the variables
of communication structure (flow) and communications satisfaction
in relation to seven other variables: job satisfaction, uncertainty,
propinquity, innovativeness, opinion leadership, influence leader-
ship, and level of participation in decision-making and control in

the organization.

Communication Structure Flow
Six hypotheses dealt with the communication structure (flow)
of the police department:

H 1.0: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will result in less integration of the depart-
ment.

H 1.2: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will increase vertical (upward/downward) com-
munication patterns in the department.

H 2.0: The structure of communication flow consistent with
the formal hierarchical structure will occur in

137
departments having less perception of participation in
organizational decision-making.

H 2.1: The more autocratic department will have greater formal
communication channel contacts based upon the formal
hierarchical (upward/downward) and in-group communi-
cation channel contacts.

H 2.2: The more participatory department will have greater
informal (horizontal) and inter-group communication
channel contacts.

H 4.0: The more uncertainty that exists by departmental members
about organizational goals and objectives, the greater
the number of communication contacts will occur.

The communication structure of each department was generated
from communication contacts reported by members weighted by frequency
as analyzed by the NEGOPY program. Responses indicated that less
than 2% of the membership of each department had no contact with a
colleague. Due to the less than complete return on the checklist,
it was necessary to analyze unreciprocated links of communication
contact in order to "map" non-respondents in the departmental com-
munication structure. The high level of contacts named resulted
in the failure of the program to discern distinct communication
groups with identified liaisons, bridges, and isolates. The small-
ness of the departments themselves could account for the high
degree of integrativeness in each of the departments where it is
possible to know and have contact much more easily with all members
of the organization. Each department was presented as one distinct
communication grouping. Density data was available, as were fre-
quency distributions that allowed an analysis of the flow of com-

munication between ranks and work units. The data generated allowed

an analysis of certain characteristics of communication structure

138

with the variables presented for comparison. Hypotheses that were
supported were 1.0 and 2.0. Hypotheses not supported were 1.2 and
4.0. The inability to program communication groups and roles

caused Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2 to be untestable.

Communication Satisfaction

 

Communication satisfaction of members was analyzed in three
directions: horizontal, downward, and upward. Five hypotheses
were tested through a comparison of cumulative indices developed
from perceptual data reported by departmental members as to their
satisfaction with communication in three directions. Hypotheses
that concerned communication satisfaction were:

H 5.1: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
horizontal communications, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.2: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
downward communication, the more job satisfaction
will exist.

H 5.3: The more satisfaction of departmental members with
upward communication, the more job satisfaction will
exist.

Additional hypotheses tested under communication satisfaction
measures due to partial program failure included:

H 4.1: The more uncertainty of departmental members in
autocratic departments, the greater the number of
formal (upward) communication contacts will occur.

H 4.2: The more uncertainty of departmental members in
participatory departments, the greater the number
of informal (horizontal) contacts will occur.

A Pearson product moment correlation of the cumulative

indices for the three directions of communication flow satisfaction

139

with indices of the compared variables produced support for Hypothe-
ses 5.2, 4.1, and 4.2. Certainty correlated most positively with
Downward Communication Satisfaction when compared with its Pearson's
y. (Producing a Pearson correlation of .9244 for Department Exter
.9038 for Department Bentley and .9434 for Department Deerfield.)
Partial support was given for Hypothesis 5.1 and Hypothesis 5.3
proved not to be supported.

The data defining communication structure (flow) and com-
munication satisfaction proved to be significantly effected by
various perceptions of departmental members about the department.
The lack of support for Hypothesis 4.0 suggested that uncertainty
exists due to the failure of members in communicating among those
of the same rank and work assignment. In Department Bentley, which
exhibited high uncertainty, the lack of communication could be
construed to be the cause. The members reported being satisfied
with downward communication, an inconsistent situation. Further
analysis suggests that the greater extent of participatory behavior
perceived by Department Bentley could conceivably result in uncer-
tainty due to the situation where the member's capacity to partici-
pate in decision-making caused decisions to take longer and be more
open-ended. Uncertainty also seemed to effect job satisfaction as is
indicated in the data analysis for Hypothesis 5.3. If participatory
behavior produces uncertainty, then its responsibilities and ambigu-
ities could produce job dissatisfaction. Further affecting H 5.3
could be the reluctance of those having job dissatisfaction to using

upward communication channels to relay criticisms to higher status

140

positions due to fear Of reprisal (Read, 1962, p. 383). The partici-
pation level of Department Bentley also seemed to cause the partial

failure of support for Hypothesis 5.1.

Autocratic vs. Participatory Decision-Making

 

The decision to measure the level of participation of depart-
mental members in the decision-making and control processes of the
organization through the perceptions of the members afforded a
better indication of the relationship with communication structure
and satisfaction than if the departments were independently evaluated
along observational and/or incidence criteria. The definition of
participatory over autocratic management produced four indices of
perceived level of control. All three departments scored toward
the autocratic end of the continuum with the members of Department
Bentley reporting the greater perception of participation. This
finding is consistent with previous research into the autocratism
found in the administration of police organizations. It could be
assumed that the openness of the participating departments would
place them to the middle Of the continuum while police adminis-
trators who might refuse participation due to the Secrecy and
protectiveness norm previously reported would be more autocratic.

Hypotheses dealing with the effects of control over the
department by its members in relation to their perceptions of the
department produced the following hypotheses:

H 3.0: The more participatory the department is perceived to
be by its members, the less uncertainty will exist.

H 5.0: The more participatory the department, the greater the
level of job satisfaction will exist in the department.

141

H 6.0: The more participatory departments will be perceived as
more innovative by departmental members at both command
and staff levels.

An analysis of the relationship between the level of perceived
participation of the responding agencies with the variables under
analysis through the use of comparisons of range-free means and
Pearson Product Moment Correlations provided partial support for
Hypotheses 5.0 and 6.0. The confounding factor seems to be the
unrest expressed by members of Department Bentley for the operation
of the department, although they perceive themselves to have
greater latitude to providing input. It seems that members of the
department do not avail themselves of this opportunity. Hypothesis
3.0 was not supported. Possible explanations include the ambiguity
that surrounds opportunity to participate as well as the present
economic situation of the department that has disrupted the normal
activities of that police agency. Further, Department Bentley is
headed by a relatively new chief who is highly educated, thus
introducing a possible discrepancy in interpretation of goals and
expectations between the chief and departmental members possessing
high seniority and low educational attainment.

The respondents were also asked to designate up to three
members of the department to whom that member would seek an opinion
or support (influence) for an idea or procedure the member might
wish to see implemented in the department. The Operationalization
of both opinion and influence leadership was nomination by at least

10% of the respondents as suggested by Jacob (1971). Hypotheses

presented are:

142
H 8.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate monomorphic opinion leaders.
H 9.0: The more participatory department will be more likely
to designate influence leaders outside of the boundaries
of work groups or along status (rank) lines.
Both Hypotheses 8.0 and 9.0 were supported by the choices of the
members. Even though the more participatory department selected
the larger percentage of in-rank leaders, the majority of those
chosen still were of a high rank. This became more apparent as
the analysis focused upon those members having rank above that of
line officer. Leaders of higher rank were more likely to be selected

than peers with no department having members of rank selecting a

leader of lesser rank.

Other

 

The lack of propinquity necessitated by police work was
hypothesized to be a factor in producing uncertainty in a depart-
ment. This was tested in the following hypothesis:

H 1.1: The degree of lack Of propinquity between departmental
members will increase the level of uncertainty of the
department.

The analysis of reported propinquity by departmental members based
on self-report of physical contact with other departmental col-
leagues to the range-free mean generated for the uncertainty index
supported Hypothesis 1.1.

H 7.0: The more innovative the department is perceived to be
by its members, the more likely ideas will be suggested
by departmental members to improve the department.

Respondents were also asked to list the number of times

they tendered suggestions for procedures or policy to their immediate

143

supervisor or to others in the department. The mean number of sug-
gestions was compared to the index of perceived innovativeness of
the department. Hypothesis 7.0 was supported.

It proved impossible to test the following hypothises from
the available data:

H 1.3: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the level of horizontal (peer)
communication contacts in the department.

The failure of the analysis based upon NEGOPY to generate
the necessary data for comparison led to the use of the Density
Histogram and the perceived horizontal communication satisfaction
scale for study. The analysis from both sets of data did not provide
inferred support for Hypothesis H 1.3.

H 1.4: The degree of lack of propinquity between departmental
members will decrease the perceived level of partici-
pation of members in the organizational decision-
making process.

A comparison of the perceived level of participation held

by department members in relation to their reported degree of

propinquity showed support for Hypothesis 1.4.

Suggestions for Future Research
Police departments as organizations for research are a
relatively new phenomena in social research (Manning, 1972) and
are non-existent in research directed at communication structure
and function. Indeed, Etzioni (1961, p. 137) suggested that "There
are very few functional-structural studies of communication, in
particular communication in organizations." The failure of the

research to map the extant communication structure of the departments

T44

studied needs additional research. The information generated could
have an important impact upon the information processing and decision
centers in the police organization. For the professional, the
identification of vital information linkages and opinion/influence
leadership could conceivably aid in the introduction of innovation
into the department.

Additional attention also needs to be given to police
departments in order to discover and isolate factors and rela-
tionships that influence the variables examined and to test the
validity and reliability of the methodology Of the present study.
Further analysis is also needed to identify the types of communi-
cation systems Operant in the department, defined by the type and
direction of messages and information carried.

The problems of lack of propinquity need to be explored
for larger police departments than those studied who seemed to
find some way to overcome the handicap Of physical distance. As
departments consolidate and municipalities grow, the need to maximize
member input increases for the police organization which depends on
the line officer to provide the necessary information that ulti-
mately directs and evaluates the performance of the police depart-

ment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Athanassiades, John C. "The Distortion of Upward Communication
in Hierarchical Organizations.“ Academy Of Management
Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1973), 207-26.

Allen, Richard K. "A Comparison of Communication Behaviors in
Innovative and Non-Innovative Secondary Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University,
1970.

Amend, Edwin H. "Liaison Communication Roles of Professionals in
a Research Dissemination Organization." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Anderson, Richard R. "Internal Communications." Police Yearbook
1976, pp. 54-57 as presented to the Annual Meeting of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, September

1975.

Angell, John E. ”Toward an Alternative to the Classic Police
Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic Model." Crimi-
nology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Aug.-Nov., 1971), 185-206.

 

Barnard, Chester 1. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1938.

Barnlund, D.C., ed. Interpersonal Communication: Survey and
Studies. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1968.

Barnlund, D.C., and Harland, C. "Propinquity and Prestige as
Determinants Of Communication Networks." Sociometry,
Vol. 26, No. 4 (December, 1963), 467-79.

Bauer, Raymond A. "The Obstinate Audience: The Influence Process
from the Point of View of Social Communication." American
Psychologist, V01. 19, NO. 5 (May, 1964).

Bennis, W. G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior."
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4 (1959), 259-301.

Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory

of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, Inc., 1964.

T46

147

Berkowitz, Norman, and Bennis, Warren. "Interaction Patterns in
Formal Service-Oriented Organizations.“ Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1961. pp. 25-50.

 

 

Berrien, F. Kenneth. General and Social Systems. New Brunswick,
N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1968.

 

Berrien, F. Kenneth. "A General Systems Approach to Taxonomy."
Peopleg_Groups and Organizations. Edited by Bernard P.
Indik and F. Kenneth Berrien. New York: Teachers College
Press, 1968.

 

Blake, R. R., and Mouton, Jane S. The Managerial Grid. Houston:
Gulf Pub. Co., 1964.

Blau, Peter. The Dynamics of Bureaucragy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955.

 

Blau, Peter M. "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations."
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 4 (January,
1968 .

 

Blau, Peter. "Structural Effects." American Sociological Review,
Vol. 25, No. 2 (1960). Pp. 178-193.

Blau, Peter M.; Heydebrand, Wolf V.; and Stauffer, Robert E. "The
Structure of Small Bureaucracies." American Sociological
Review, Vol. 31, No. (April, 1966).

Blau, Peter M., and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations. San
Francisco: Chandler Pub. Co., 1962.

 

Burns, Tom. "The Directions of Activities and Communication in a
Departmental Executive Group: A Quantitative Study in a
British Engineering Factory with a Self-Recording Activity."
Human Relations, Vol. 7 (1954). 73-97.

 

Caplow, T., and Forman, R. "Neighborhood Interaction in a Homo-
geneous Community." American Sociological Review, Vol. 15
(1950), 357-66.

Carzo, Rocco, Jr., and Yanouzas, John N. "Effects of Flat and Tall
Organizational Structures." Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 14, No. 2 (June, 1969).

Clement, Richard C. "Internal Communications." Police Yearbook
1976, pp. 53-54 as presented to the Annual Meeting of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, September,
1975.

148

Cohen, Arthur. "Upward Communication in Experimentally Created
Hierarchies." Human Relations, Vol. 11 (1958), 41-53.

 

Dahle, L. L. "An Objective and Comparative Study of Five Methods
of Transmitting Information to Business and Industrial
Employees." Speech Monographs, Vol. 21 (1954), 21-28.

 

Davis, Keith. "Chain-of-Command Communication within a Manufacturing
Group.” Academy of Management Journal, December, 1968,
pp. 379-387.

 

Davis, Keith. "Management Communication and the Grapevine."
Harvard Business Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 5 (September-
October, 1953), 43-49.

 

Deutsch, K. W. "Communication Theory and Social Science." American
Journal of Orthgpsychiatry, 1952, pp. 469-83.

 

Dorsey, John T. "A Communication Model for Administration."
Administrative Science QuarterLy, 2 (1957), 307-24.

Downs, Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and
Co., 1967.

 

Duncan, Robert 8. "Organizational Climate and Climate for Change
in Three Police Departments, Some Preliminary Findings."
Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1972), 205-45.

Duncan, W. Jack, and Roberts, Carter 0. "An Analysis of Choice
Consistency and Perceptual Uniformity in a Paramilitary
Organization." Academy_of Management Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 1 (March, 1972), 33-50.

Eilon, Samuel. "Taxonomy of Communications." Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 13 (September, 1968), 266-88.

 

 

Ericson, Richard V. "Police Bureaucracy and Decision-Making: The
Function of Discretion in Maintaining the Police System."
Police, Vol. 16 (June, 1972).

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1961.

Farace, R. V., and Morris, Clyde. "Communication Systems and Higher
Education: A Pilot Study in a Residential College."
Unpublished, 1969.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States 1973:
Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Office, 1974.

 

149

Festinger, Leon; Schacter, Stanley; and Back, Kurt. Social Pressures
in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1950.

 

Fox, James C., and Lundman, Richard J. "Problems and Strategies
in Gaining Research Access in Police Organizations."
Criminology, Vol. 12, No. 1 (May, 1974), 52-69.

 

Freshley, Dwight L. "A Study of Attitudes of Industrial Management
Personnel Toward Communication." Unpublished Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Ohio State University, 1955.

Gouldner, A. Patterns in Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free
Press, 1954.

 

Guetzkow, Harold. "Communications in Organizations.". Handbook of
Organizations. Edited by J. G. March. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1965.

 

Guilford, J. P. ‘Esychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1954.

 

Guimaraes, Lytton L. "Network Analysis: An Approach to the Study
of Communication Systems." Technical Report No. 12, East
Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1970. (Mimeo-
graphed.)

Gullahorn, J. T. "Distance and Friendship Factors in the Gross
Interaction Mix." Sociometry, Vol. 15 (1952), 123-34.

 

Haberstroh, Chadwick J. "Organization Design and Systems Analysis."
Handbook of Organization. Edited by James F. March.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965, pp. 1171-1211.

 

Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. "Relationships of Centralization
to Other Structural Properties." Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12, NO. 1 (June, 1967), pp. 74-75.

Hall, Richard H. Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Hinrichs, J. R. "Communication Activity of Industrial Research."
Personnel Psychology, 17 (1964), 193-204.

Hopkins, Terence K. "Bureaucratic Authority--The Convergence of
Weber and Barnard." Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Reader. Edited by Amitai Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1966.

Hutchins, E. R., and Fidler, Fred E. "Task-Oriented and Quasi-
Therapeutic Role Functions of the Leader in Small Military
Groups." Sociometry, 1960, pp. 393-406.

 

150

Jacob, Martha A. "The Structure and Functions of Internal Communi-
cation in Three Religious Communities." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W.; and Lieberman, S. "The Use of
the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations."
The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. VII, No. 3 (1951),
18-27.

 

Jacobson, Eugene, and Seashore, Stanley. "Communication Practices
in Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7,
No. 3 (1951), 28-40.

 

Kadushin, Charles. "An Analysis of Clique Formation and Structure
in Organizations." Administrative Science anrterly. 1971
National Science Foundation Grant proposal as reported by
Noel Tichy.

 

Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of
Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

 

Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul. Personal Influence. New York:
The Free Press, 1955.

 

Kenney, John P. Police Administration. Springfield, 111.: Charles
C. Thomas, 1972.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.

Leavitt, Harold J. "Applied Organizational Change in Industry:
Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches."
Handbook of Organization. Edited by James G. March.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.

 

Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1964.

 

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1961.

 

Likert, Rensis. Human Organization: Its Management and Value.
New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Longenecker, Justin G. Principles of Management and Organizational
Behavior. 2nd Edition. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill, Pub., 1969.

MacDonald, Donald. "Communication Roles and Communication Content
in a Bureaucratic Setting." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

151

Manning, Peter. "The Researcher: An Alien in the Police World.‘I
Originally entitled "Observing the Police: Deviants,
Respectables, and the Law.“ Research on Deviance. Edited
by Jack 0. Douglas. N.Y.: Random House, 1972, pp. 213-268
and in The Ambivalent Force. Edited by Niederhoffer and
Blumberg, T9762

 

 

March, James 6., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Marrett, Cora 8.; Hage, Jerald; and Aiken, Michael. "Communication
and Satisfaction in Organizations." Human Relations, Vol.
28, No. 7 (1975), 611-626.»

 

Mayo, Elton. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization.
Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business
Administration, 1945.

 

Mazza, Joseph. "A General Systems Analysis of an Organizational
Communication Climate." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Missouri--Columbia, 1975.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

Miller, James. "Living Systems: The Organization." Behavioral
Science, Vol. 17 (1972), Entire Issue.

Moore, James 0., Jr.; Johnson, Eugene 8.; and Arnold, Martha S.C.
"Status Congruence and Equity in Restricted Communication
Networks." Sociometry, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1972), 519-37.

Moore, William. "Time and Duty Study as a Method of Measuring
Administrative Proficiency." Unpublished thesis, Uni-
versity of Texas, 1950 as reported in "A Method of Studying
Communication Patterns in Organizations." Personnel Psy-
chology. Edited by Keith Davis. Vol. 6 (1953), 301-12.

Mouton, Jane S.; Blake, Robert R.; and Fruchter, Benjamin. "The
Validity of Sociometric Responses." The Sociometry Reader.
Edited by J. L. Moreno. New York: The Free Press, 1960,
pp. 362-87.

 

Mouzelis, Nicos P. Organization and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of
Modern Theories. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1968.

 

Munro, Jim L. Administrative Behavior and Police Organization.
Cincinnati, Ohio: W. H. Anderson Co., 1974.

 

152

Nierderhoffer, Arthur, and Blumberg, Abraham S. The Ambivalent
Force: Perspectives on the Police. 2nd Edition. The
Dryden Press, 1976.

 

 

Pugh, 0. "Organizational Behavior: An Approach From Psychology."
Human Relations, Vol. 22 (1970), 345-354.

 

Read, William. "Upward Communication in Industrial Hierarchies."
Human Relations, Vol. 15 (1962), 3-15.

 

Reindl, Max H. "Propositions on Information Management of Innovation
Processes in Organizations." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Richards, William 0., Jr. "Computer Techniques for Analysis of
Communication Networks of Complex Organizations." East
Lansing, Mich.: Dept. of Communication, Michigan State
University, December 2, 1970. (Mimeographed.)

Richards, William 0., Jr. "An Improved Conceptually-Based Method
for Analysis of Communication Network Structures of Large
Complex Organizations, East Lansing, Mich.: Dept. of
Communication, Michigan State University, April, 1971.
(Mimeographed.)

Roberts, Karlene H.; O'Reilly, Charles A, III; Bretton, Gene E.;
and Porter, Lyman A. "Organizational Theory and Organi-
zational Communication: A Communication Failure." Human
Relations, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 501-24.

Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J. Management and the
Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Rogers, E. M., and Cartano, D. G. "Methods of Measuring Opinion
Leadership." Public Qpinion Quarterly, 26 (1962), 435-51.

Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communications of
Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The
Free Press, 1971, pp. 215-21.

Rogers, Everett M., and Van Es, Johannes C. "Opinion Leadership
in Traditional and Modern Colombian Peasant Communities."
Report NO. 2, Dept. of Communications, Michigan State
University, 1964. (Mimeographed.)

Rubenstein, Albert H., and Harberstroh, Chadwick J. Some Theories
on Organization. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1966.

 

Rubenstein, A. H. "Problems in the Measuring of Interpersonal
Communication in an On-going Situation." Sociometry,
Vol. XVI, No. 1 (February, 1953), 78-100.

153

Rubenstein, Albert H. "Studies of Idea Flow in Research and
Development." Some Theories of Organization. Edited by
Arthur Rubenstein and Chadwick Haberstroh. Howewood,
Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1966.

 

Sayles, L. R. Behavior of Industrial Work Groups: Prediction and
Control. New York: John Wiley, 1958.

Sayles, Leonard R., and Strauss, George. Human Behavior in
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1966.

 

 

Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

 

Schwartz, Donald F. Liaison-Comnunication Roles in a Formal Organi-
zation. Fargo, N.Dakota: Communimetrics Report No.1,
Dept. of Communication. North Dakota State University,
1968.

 

Simon, H. A. "Decision-Making and Administrative Organization."
Reader in Bureaucragy. Edited by R. K. Merton. New York:
The Free Press, 1952.

 

Simpson, Richard L. "Vertical and Horizontal Communications in
Formal Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 4, NO. 2 (September, 1969), 188-196.

Snadowsky, Alvin. "Member Satisfaction in Stable Communications
Networks." Sociometry, Vol. 37, No. l (1974), 38-53.

SoWer, Christopher, et a1. Community Involvement. Glencoe, Ill.:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

Thayer, Lee. Communication and Communication Systems. Homewood,
111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.

 

Walton, E. "Magnetic Theory of Organizational Communication.“
China Lake, Calif.: U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station,
1962.

Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.
Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New
York: Oxford Press, 1947.

 

Weiss, R. S. Processes of Organization. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Institute
of Social Research, 1956.

 

Weiss, R. S., and Jacobson, Eugene. "A Method for the Analysis of
the Structure of Complex Organizations." American Sociology_
Review, Vol. XX (December, 1955), 661-68.

 

 

154

Whisenand, Paul M. Police Supervision: Theory and Practice. 2nd
Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976
(1st ed. 1971).

Wickesberg, A. K. "Communication Network in the Business Organi-
zation Structure." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. XI,
No. 3 (September, 1968), pp. 253-62.

Wiener, M., and Mehrabean, A. Language Within Language: Immediagy,
A Channel in Verbal Communication. New York, N.Y.:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

Wilensky, Harold L. Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and
Policy in Government and Industry, New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1967.

Wince, Michael, and Stover, Stewart 5. "The Emergence of a Com-
munication Perspective in Organizations: Simon, Thompson,
Weick." A Paper presented to the Midwest Sociological
Society, Annual Meeting, 1974, Omaha, Nebraska.

 

APPENDICES

155

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONNAIRE

156

Dear Respondent:

I am conducting research in the area of communications in police
organizations for my doctoral dissertation in Criminal Justice-
Police Administration at Michigan State University. Of special
concern is the communication of policy and directives in your
department but I am also interested in information flow patterns.
The aim of this study is to obtain an idea of how to improve the
flow of information to the police officer so as to provide the
officer with a more knowledgeable and satisfying work environment.

 

While answers to all questions on the attached questionnaire are
voluntary, I would appreciate your complete cooperation. I am
asking that you identify yourself through use of a code number so
that I might be able to match communication contacts. These
questionnaires will be seen by no one but myself. You have my
assurance that the answers will not be shared with your department.

Thank you for your cooperation. I am grateful for your assistance.
The questionnaire can be returned by using the enclosed envelope.
I would appreciate receiving your responses as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Chris Dunning

157

T58

Dear Police Officer:

A few weeks ago your chief distributed a copy of a questionnaire
on communications in police departments to members of your force.
In agreeing to allow his officer to fill out these forms, your
chief agreed to total anonymity for members of the department.
Your chief agreed not to seek to know your answers to these
questions nor would I agree to reveal them. Many of the questions
could be seen as being sensitive. Realizing that, I allowed fer
a neutral or "no response" option for use at the discretion of
the Officer. These questions deal with variables such as job ;
satisfaction, communication satisfaction, and perceived openness
that frequently cause communication distortion or blockages in
organizations.

If you have already responded to the questionnaire, I want to
thank you for your assistance. If you have elected not to
respond, I respect your decision. If, however, you would

respond if complete anonymity were insured, I am asking that

you would consider filling out the questions, omitting your name,
respondent number, or any other data that you might feel would
identify you. The communications map need not be completed, or
it could be sent in a separate envelope so as not to identify you
with the questionnaire. I am asking that you identify your
department as several are participating in the study.

If you need an additional copy of the questionnaire, I have asked
the chief to make such copies available. Again, I would appreciate
your assistance in completing the questionnaire before July 1,
1975.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Dunning

COIOIIINICAT‘IONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Respondent (# 7

 

Agency

Please place 8 Check (J ) next. to the appmpriate category that best describes
your status.

1.

2.

1..

 

 

Age
be 26.30 80 51-55
e. 141-45 3. over 65
Sex
8. Male
b. Female

 

How long have you worked for your present department?
Years Months

What. is your present rank?

(01) New Recruit ___(06) Sergeant.

(02) Probationary Officer :(07) Lieutenant

___(03) Patrol/Police Officer “(08) Investigator

—(Oz.) Corporal __(09) Captain

___(05) Detective __(10) Inspector
(11) Chief

(12) Other (Specify)

 

 

Which of the following describes your present regular duty assimenb?
Check one.

(01) Patrol ___(12) Records

(02) Tactical Unit. :(13) Personnel

(03) Crimes Against Persons :(14) Narcotics

(04) Crimes Against Property :(15) Jail

(05) Traffic :(16) Planning

(06) Vice :(17) Accident Investigation
:07) Internal Affairs

08) Juvenile (18) Other (Specify)

 

__(09) Property
___(10) Comrmmir‘ations
(11) Training or Education

159

COMMICATIONS WTIONNAIRE (Cantu)

6.

7.

9.
10.
1.1.

13 .

15.
16.

17.

Which of the following duties have you“ had in the past? (Check more
than one if applicable)

(01) Patrol (12) Records

(02) Tactical Unit , (13) Personnel

(03) Crimes Against Persons _‘(110 Narcotics
(01.) Crimes Against Property '(15) Jail

(05) Traffic (16) P

(06) Vice (1?) Accident Investigation
(07) Internal Affairs

(08) Juvenile (18) 0ther(Specify)_

 

(09) Property
(10) Comnmnications
(11) Training or Education

 

What shift or watch do you currently work?

 

Does your assignment entail a shift rotation? ___Yes ___No
If you rotate, how often?
Does your whole unit rotate together? ___Ies ___No

How long have you been on your present assignment? ___Years __lobnths

In an average week, how many hours do you usually work on the following
types of assignments?

 

 

 

 

a. On foot patrol Hours
b. In a one-man car Hours
c. In a two-man car Hours
d. On a motorcycle Hours
e. In a police station

or office Hours

 

In an average week, how mamr hours do you usually work:

 

 

 

3.. Alone Hours
b. With an ”Med partner Hours
c. With more than one person Hours

In your Job, do you usually have direct supervisory responsiblity
over other officers or civilian employees? Yes No

If yes, How many people do you usually supervise? (Fill in the number
of people) People

Do the members of your department belong to a union or professional
association? Yes No

Are you a shift representative for your department? Yes No

160

COMMJICATIONS WEST IONNA IRE (Cont . )

Answer the following items by checking the category) which most nearly
matches your feeling or opinion on that item.

Use this code on Items 18 to 22.

 

Use this

23 .

25.

26.

27.
28 .

29.

1. Very dissatisfied

2. Dissatisfied

3. Neutral

h. Satisfied

5. Very Satisfied
How satisfied are you with the sort of work you are doim?

How satisfied are you with the type of leadership you receive
from your supervisor?

How satisfied are you with your possibilities of being promoted to
a better position in your department?

How satisfied are you with your present salary?
In general, how satisfied are you with efforts made by your

department to modernize and keep up with the field of law
enforcement?

code on Items 23 to 29.

1. None

2. Little

3. No Opinion
h. Some

5. .A Lot

What value, does your supervisor show for a Job well done?

To what extent do you get to participate in the supervisory
decisions that affect your job?

Do you receive a feeling of accomplishment from the work you
are doing?

In your daily work how much freedom do you have to make decisions
and act on them?

How much pressure do you feel in meeting the work demands of your job?
How much does your supervisor observe your work?

How much confidence do you feel that your supervisor keeps you
fully informed about things that might concern you?

161

COMMUNICATIONS QUESTION-EARS (Cont. )

Use this code on Items 30 to 145.

___33 .
31+.

35.
36.

__37-

39.

1. Strongly disagree

2. Moderately disagree
3. Neutral or No Opinion
1+. Moderately agree

5. Strongly agree

My work is interesting to do.

I often have to 'bend' department policies and procedures in order
to get my job done.

There's pretty good sharing of information among the various units
on W shift.

There's pretty good sharing of information among the officers on all
the Shifts.

The officers who work the same shift with me are the ones I talk
to socially the most.

W department doesn't like us to talk to anyone outside of channels.

W supervisor(s) doesn't care who I go to with information as long
as the work gets done.

1% supervisor is usually quick to respond to my requests to talk to him.

I feel I usually know what is expected of me by my fellow departmental
members in doing my job. -

I feel I usually know what is expected of me by my superiors in doing
Irv job.

3w supervisor does not like me to go over his head to talk to anyone
in a higher rank.

The department encourages discussion among its members to come up
with new ways of doing things.

My immediate supervisor keeps me well informed.

"Eb? fellow officers talk about new and different ways for the

department to do things frequently.
My supervisor is easy to talk to.
It is relatively easy to get an opportunity to talk to "V supervisor

alone.

162

COM‘flINICATIONS QUEST 102mm (Cont .)

Use this code on Items A6 to 53.

 

 

l. Stromly disagree

2. Moderately disagree
3. Neutral or No Opinion
A. Biodera’rley agree

5. Strongly agree

The officers I work with don't get much chance to talk to each other.

:y immediate supervisor is willing to listen to suggestions.

If I have an idea about a way to improve the department, I take
that idea to ny branciiate supervisor.

I don't feel there is enough communication among the officers on
different shif s or watches.

Officers in this department are qsf ckly informed about policy
c was.

Department policies are cormmioated clearly to all members of the
department.

The role of a police officer has changed for the better over the
last few years.

The duties of a police officer have expanded for the better over
the last few years.

On the next items, Use this code.

1. Very litt 1e

2. Little
3. A moderate amount
4. anh

5. Very much

In your job as a police officer, how much:

514-0

Responsibility do you have for the fimctioning of your unit?

Do you participate with others in detomiuing the way things are
done on your job?

Freedom do you have in arranging your work hours and days off?
Do you decide with others what part of a task you will do?

Do you participate with others in making: decisions that affect you?
163

 

commmcu IONS QUEs'rromum (Cont .)

59.

61.

62.

63.

Check the 9313 phrase which most clearly describes the way you receive
messages from the department.

a. All or nearly all written

b. More written than oral

c. About one-half written and one-half oral
(1. More oral than written

e. All or nearly all oral

Within the last year, how often have you volunteered ideas to change
the department's practices: (Number of times appmidnately)

_a. To others in the department
b. To your superior

Within the last year, how often has the department requested ideas from
the members of the department through formal channels?

Give examples if possible.

 

 

 

 

If you want an Opinion about a new idea you have for the department
(investigatory technique, theory on a crime, equipment change, etc.)
which members of the department would you ask? (Write names in blanks)

a.

 

b.

 

C.

 

If you want someone to go to bat for you. (sponsor) or to go to bat for
one of your ideas who would you contact in your department?

30

 

b.

 

Co

 

164

PEIBOIIAL CONTACT CHECKLIST

 

(Write your name here)

The attached checklist asks for certain information about your communication
with other members of your department. This information is needed to complete
the mapping; of the communication structure of the department necessary for nw

dissertation.

Please place a check in the category beside each officers' name which
most closely indicates the frequency of communication between you two.
"Corrnmnications" include face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations,

radio conversations, formal or informal meetings, memos, etc.

Neither the following pages nor the code sheet contaixfing the names and
the final assigned numbers will be seen by anyone but nyself. NO ONE in
your department will see this information.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Chris Dunning

165

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l and
58: a £52 a on»: < to: a a3 a £39 an ates:
a? an poz $565 Sacaefiptfio 88 g 83 8&9 m 3 H 85 m 3 H seed. a on m a 88 335m gangsta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«a ammunoamom

xx smegmaoa canon”

.22 mZOHB<oHȤan.oo

.urofiuhomou Hook
5 cocoon some 5.“: 83335380 .39» no hemogouw 23 oopsoag homo? pmos no.3.» Non one. 5" £005 a van 33.3

166

APPENDIX 2

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR
VARIABLES UNDER STUDY

167

U“..-

i»-

p.

168

 

 

oooo.~ .mwumm
cowpmo
-wczesou
census
Paws. oooo.F .mwumm
cowpmu
-wcaeeou
ugmzczoo
omme. mmwm. oooo.~ .mwpmm
cowumumc
-:EEou Pap
-coNFso:
mmmm. mamm. oemm. oooo._ mmmcm>wu
-m>o::~
Npmo. eemm. Pmmm. mmme. oooo.~ suave»
niece:
muom. mmme. swap. camp. came. oooo.p cowuuma
-mwumm
.uomm<
xcoz
mean. oops. moss. moms. _me. mmpm. 0000., :o_uomm
-mwumm
new
.mwuom .maumm .mwuam mmmcm>au aucwmu coapoew serpent
cowumo co_umo corpse -e>o::H names: -mwumm -maumm
-a:3520u -acsssou -a::EEou .uomm< now
chase: use: pouco~ xaoz
sczoo -pco:

 

mmhxm hzu2hm<amo

mhzmuuummmoo zomh<4mmmoo hzmzoz huaooma zomm<ma

169

 

 

 

 

oooo.~ .mwumm
cowumo
urcsssoo
cause:
mmmp. oooo.p .maumm
corpse
-Pczseou
usmzczoo
Nw—N. “moo. oooo.p .mwpmm
cowumow:
naeeou Fm»
-co~_ao:
omNN.u ease. mmme. oooo.— mmm=m>_u
um>occH
Naop. mmom. mmpp.- _moe. oooo.~ suave»
-Lmoca
ampm. mace. ommm. ommm. pope. coco._ corpus;
-mwumm
.UOmm<
xsoz
sown. oFFm. mama. emmm. ommm. mome.. oooo.p coauumm
-m_umm
now

.mwumm .mwumm .mwaam mmmcm>wu agave“ cowuomw cowuome

cowumu cowumo coaumo -m>o::H ucmocz -mwuwm umwpmm

uwcassou -mcsssou -_:sesou .oomm< now
cause: can: FaucoN sac:
uczoa -wcoz
>mmkzmm pzmzpm<auo
mezmHuHaamou zomp<nmmmou hzmzoz Puzooma zomm<ma

170

4h)

 

 

coco.p .mwumm
cowamu
nwcsssou
chasm:
mmpm. oooo.p .mwumm cowumo
upcsesou
uamzczoo
ammo. ammo. oooo.P .mwumm
copumowc
usesou Pm“
'coNPLo:
oo_o. mmoa. mmpm. oooo.~ mmocm>wu
-m>o:cH
Pmeo. «mam. mama. ——nm. oooo._ sagas»
-cmoca
mmoe. anew. momp. ommm. Nmeo. oooo.p :owuume
-mwumm
.oomm<
sac:
moan. “mom. mmom. memo. moPm. mmop. coco.” :owuoem
-mwumm
now
.mwpmm .mwumm .mwumm mmmcm>wu muses» :oapome cowuume
cowumo coapmu cowumu sm>occH names: -mwpmm -maumm
-wczseQu -wcsesou -ac:EEou .oomm< now
these: use; FmpcoN xcoz
-czoo -wco:

 

omuuummma hzm2hm<amo

mkzuHuHummou onh<4mmmou hzmzoz Hoaooma zomm<ma

171

 

 

omen. ewes. chow. mwmm. .maumm

comumo

uwcaesou

vcmzaz

“Fae. ommm. epoa. omam. .mwpmm cow»

-mu_csssou

ucmzczoa

mamm. mmmo. mmom. ao—o. .mwumm

cowumuwc

useeou Fm»

-coNVLo:

wam. —mo_. woke. mean. mmmcm>pu

um>o::H

ammm. coco. comm. mumm. suave»

unmoca

mmmp.- mopm. Pmom. nmpo.- cowuomm

-mwumm

.oomm<

xcoz

omoo. sow”. mmom. mmmm. coauumm

-mwbmm

now
pocpcou mpmccmcu mccmppma mmwuw>auo<

mo Pm>mn seem coapmu aucmm<

Fozuw>wvcn uw>cmasm -acsseou cw :owpma
c_ spawn “cacao -wuwucma

 

mmhxm hzm2hm<amo
mkzmuuaaumou onh<4ummou hzmzoz hoaooma zomm<ua

172

A"

1

 

 

NPNF.u wmmn. «was. mpao. .mwumm

cowumu

uwcassou

cause:

nmmm. momp. Fpmm. Nome. .mwumm

cowumo

nacsseou

ccmzczoo

_moo. Noam. memo.- woos. .m_umm

cowbmowc

usesou Pup

'coNPso:

meme. moom.- oepm. mmum. mmmcm>wp

-m>o:cH

OFQm. eemo. emom. Fame. sucwmu

niece:

pmom. meow. Nwmm. «com. cospome

-mwpmm

.oomm<

xcoz

omem. was”. “mom. came. corpus;

-mppmm

non
Fogucou mpmccmcu mccmuuma mmwpa>mpo<

mo Pm>mn snow cowpmo xocmm<

—m=u_>wccn -w>cma:m umcseeou cm cowuma
cw cu_ma pumcwa -wowugaa

 

>m4hzmm hzu2hm<amo

mhzmHuHmmmou onH<4mmmou hzmzoz buzooma zomx<ma

173

 

 

omop. mupo. hwmm. veoo.u .mwumm

cowuoo

-wcaesoo

ucmzaa

oops. —omo. comm. Nmoo. .mopmm

cowuoo

-wcassou

ucmzczoo

oeam. omom. ammo. «Nem.- .mwpmm

=o_umo_c

usesoo pea

-=o~_aoz

omoa. ompo. ammo. «Foe. mmmcm>wu

um>¢c=~

momm. ammo. oooo. momp.- aucwmp

.amoc:

Foom. oops. emmo. Popm. copycat

-mwuom

.uomm<

xcoz

Pmmo. omoe. omom. oFoN. cowuomw

-mwpom

new
_ocucou mchcmoo mcgmpuoa mm_u_>wuo<

mo pm>mo xgom cowumu socwm<

szuw>woco sp>amasm -wcsesou cw cowuma
cw spasm pomgwo -wowaama

 

oanmmmma hszhm<amo

mhzmHuHmmmou onh<4mmmou hzmzo: Hozooma zomm<ma

APPENDIX 3

COMMUNIMATRICES

174

175

so.u
ao.u
ua.u

vo.oe«

bzwouma

:«omoUms. mu .>pnm2mo. mwuzm>uhomzzou .wxzua ex: OmbowWHo .orn mmc mamxb
.oom mu mxzu4 thume: no 02 mamuwmoa tataxdt mm MM 2 aroma

m20~w<4304¢o >bu>uhumzzcv z— omm: uwc .>¢3003~ ozd .ozHoupao.qutou:~— msz4 444
.20uaa onkdnmm Adoumhutt>m mzh zmmozo wad: 30>

ooa.m mro.m mrc.m «nu.m Jake» oar.:« 0am.m« Fum.~a msoowd echo»
coo.o usa.a cco.s .aco.a mmrho wrv.m woo.w us..: -13.; wmzho
aon.c nco.o aua.a ano.e 2cm~<~4 usa.o 960.. «no.2 :n1.o zomudma
aoa.n aao.u cam.c aoa.a ozone 2mmzbua cow.) one.“ ~«,.. .qe.n aaoiu :mwxhwm
cu«.m mrc.m mnc.m «nu.m aroce ZHIhH: muc.:u mam.mu mum.~d Nnm.O« enema ZHIFH:
Jcboh oz~rouz~ oruocbzo ><xcxb JahCh othOUZH czmaohao ><xoxh
rhozumhm moauwyt webccu qubronr moawm>a
mc.nn mn.nm ur.~n hrmumaa mm.mn ao.nn ««.mn bzuoxwa
.omo« .mmo .omw .oNo aqua» .emn .m~« .owa .Hma Japan
.9 .. .c .u turbo mo.u .7 .n .u .2 . «mike
.9 .m .e .a zomH4H4 no.9 .1 .3 .u .w zonacma
.o .u .u .u cacao 2wuzbwc cu.4 .o .J .o .o anoeo Zimxbm:
.cnou .mmw .omo .omo ozone tut—u; au.uc« .amn .omn .mma .uwa manic z~zh~3
ache» OzarCUZN czHou—Do ><Xooz~ hzmoawa athp osznozH ozuoo_:c baxuox»
mxz~4 no mxho2mmhm nvzha no xmataz

xaacar mamsawza ezaa
xuaaaz mamsaazc yzas isos;

azomw nut» 2H mxmataznw and uauzp

Lmuxu .aaao

176

v0

6.!

(J

(U

M

'Q

0:

.4

v4

9‘

o.

b:

m:

(V

(U

V‘ 04

(U

0‘

04

s‘

m m w m N N
u M n a a 4
u u u a a u
m m m m m m
m m u u m m
a w w a a a
a u u n u a
H a m u a a
a a H u H a
a a a a a a
n m m m m a
m a u m m «
~ m u m m a
m m w J N a
m m a m u a
u a u a a u
u u u u u a
u a u u a a
m m m u m m
w m m o n m
a a u u a a
a a u a a a
u . a u w. a

M: m: a. as on o»
ZtDJPU O»
mwrua ocpomawao/oz

Lmuxo .uamo

« u m m a
a a a a u
a a a a a
a a m m u
u a m N a
a u a a a
a a a a a
a a a a u
a a a a a
u a a a a
a a m . m a
a a N m a
a a m m a
a a m m a
u a o m a
u a u m a
q a a a n
n J . u a
a a . m a
. a . a u
u w u u a
a a a u u
an on. mm .m mm
so. Luau ran“ .mm.worm
clans.“ cance non

oi

o‘

0‘

mm
or» mu
xuzhat

mm

o‘

u ~o
u «m
u no
4 o:
a o:
a a:
a o:

. m:

o.

a:
u n:
a we

a:

v4

.. 3
.. on
.. 2
a an
.. on
a .3
a .s.
a 3
4 3
. an
an

>mazm mt»
muzcamun

177

gmuxu .paoo

r.

(‘J

f‘J

“J

9.

PJ

'0

0‘

no

11

vi

‘4

’0

v!

v.

No.

00

v.

'0

0‘

9.

'4

u,
m

N
11‘

a:

s:

0..

.3
3
N:
7.
3
3.
mm

um

tm
mm
Mm

an

1713

cc.-
a...
99.:
-.aa«

hzwuauu

muonomseo mu abhumZma. mmwzu>~howzzou .mxzua u\x auhuuauo coca
.oouu mu matua owhomuuo no 02 Udoummos taznxdt an

u¢¢ newt»
Mn 2 usage

m2.....:o..u >..a....2z.u .. cum: .u. .».x-.2. .2. .uz....:..oz.:..2.. .x2.. ...
.2.... 2....... ....¢..:2>m ma. 2...:9 .>.: so.

 

nu... ..... ..... .u... ..... .m.... ...... ...... o..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..2.. ..... ..... ..... ..... . «.2».
..... ..... ..... ..... 2...... .m... ..... ..... ..... 2......
..... ..... ..... ..... .s... 2...... ..... ..... ..... ..... .5... 2......
.~... ..... ..... on... .3... 2.2... .m.... ...... ...... ...... .s... 2.2...
..... .x.x..2. .2....=. >.x... ..... .2.:..2. .2...... >.2...
xpuzu... ....... ...... .2..2...2 .u.....
..... ..... co... .2..... ...~. ...~. .a... .z.u..c
.q... ..... .o... .n.. ..... .oo. ..n~ ...~ ... .....
... .. .. .. ..x.. .... .. .. .. .. ..:..
.. .. .. .. 2...... ..... .. .. .. .. 2......
.. .. .. .. as... 2...... .... .. .. .. .. as... 2......
.n... .m... .m... .n.. as... 2.2... ...... .... ...~ ...~ ... .2... 2.2...
..... .2.2..2. .2....:. >.x..2. .2..... ..... .2.:.e2. .2...... p.:..a.

mxznd to nzpuzubm «‘3.- mo 88.2.!

‘map‘: mumbaczt Izud
undid! mum>dd21 ulna macaw
. 53°39 math an muwuzutmn um. uauxr

xmpucoo .uamo

Dept. Bent1ey

non-0125c TED L INKS

loUSD‘
5' PIN. FOO" ROI T0 COLUNN

0137““ Iltlll FOR GRNP

M IN?" 13 M SHORTE

i2 13 U. 15 16 U 10 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 26 29

It

I.
88
u
u

to
t!
I.

I?
u
19
I.
11

179

Nd
dd
0“
Nd
0‘.
on
'0'.
NC.
NC.
do.
«.0
~00
Nd
do.
No.
NI.
Ni.
C...
No!
C...

It
2’

U

89
II
31

u
I!
36

37

Dept. Bent1ey

39

6.

b1

62

403

fit

180

Dept. Bent1ey

37 36 39 68 b1 52 b3 bk

36

31 32 33 36

30

10

11

12

13

1b

15

16

17

10

19

20

21

22

23

181

25

25

Z6

Z7

26

29

30

31

32

33

36

35

36

('J

37

36

182

L1.

I)
d
N

N
NNNN
N

ampucoo .aaoo

9N

was.“
ans.“
cos.“
Gas-u
0.5.“
cocoa
oouod
Duo-a
oosou
0959.
van.“
ammo“
was.“
owned
use.“
0mg."
Oswou
oo~.u
Cocoa
.09."
09s..
stood
omq.u
oscou
cos.“
ascou
caged
ans-u
o~aou

u). no!

Adpo» 808

N
N
“NNNN

mm...
m»...
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.m...
.m...
.....
om...
.....
om...
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.4...
mm...
.....
o... .
.....
.....
an...
o....
as. ...

thoh 400

won!

mucus: woz<»m~c to m~w>4c8¢

dNNNNN

d «a In «I 'V N

o.
a.
N:
..
an
on

183

uo.o
no.9
on.o

no.uu«

hawoaua

mqurMNJ. mu .>»Hm2mc. wuuzu>Hhomzxcu .wyzHJ ex: au—umzmc .c.n med wumzp
.umw w» myzHJ awhcmeuo to 02 mqnmmnoz tbtmxct mm mm 2 anomo

mzauhdqaoacu >pH>~humzzoc 2H 5mm: lad .pcsoox— 324 .mznouhbooothoozH. msz4 444
.2oHQo zenwcnmm Jaumawnzt>m mrp zumozu w>qr 30>

com.m «dm.m «on.m senom ache» wm:.m .ru.~ aw..~ -sn.mm Jakob
..... o.... ..... a”... owr.o .u... -u... a...) .4... 1.x.c
un..u new.” nafi.u a:o.o zomudmd nwm.n onw.y a...) ..3.. zomnduq
a“... n ..o o n.n an».3 enema zmw3hm: ars.n Jou.. swo.u ..n.; aaoao 2mmtho
aer.m «im.m «om.m som.m aacac zHIth mm:.¢ you.~ .q..~ a4..h~ QDOLQ zhrhuz
athh azurouzn ozflocbao ><3oxb . Jakob oz~roorm QZHGQpDO >430:—
Ihozmmhm moquw>¢ espoum othronz moanw>d
o .m: o..»: Mo.n« hzmumua r..m: e«.n: :o.na _Zouima
.«mc« . «a .nun .mNN 44»Op .e m .nm. .mm« .m: Jakob
.. . .. .. out... 33 .. .. .. .3 .35.
.a . ._ .. zom.... t... .4 .. .s .. zom....
.4 . .o .n above Zwuxbuc on.. .o _ .u .o .a 130.0 zuazhma
.«mcu .mas .nas .mmu anoon szh—x no.4va .m n .nnw .mna .M: ensue zmrhmz
Jakob ozmzcoz~ OZHouhDo >43303h hrmouwa 44.0» ozHrnuz~ oruoohzc >dzloz»
mxz.. no m:.oz.a.m myz.. do xmmzaz

xawhqr m~m>a<2¢ xzua
xuxhqt unm>4¢z< YZHJ maoxa

aDOac MHZ. Zn mxmmratcm wxd mzwzb

.P....... .....

184

01

PJ

vfl "J r.

9‘

0‘)

“J

'0

cm

90

o.

LN

94

0*

nu

Pl

OJ

0.

Al

Al

6|

G)

“0

:N

0.

\V

(\l

1".

‘V

(‘l

\‘J

M M a m N N
m m u N N w
N n u N N N
a a u a a a
a a u a a a
N M u N ~ N
m M a m N ~
~ N a N N N
a a u a a a
a a 4 d n d
n a a a a u
N N u N N u
m m . ~ ~ ~
. w a N N N
o v a m N N
H w - u a
m M u . N N
N w a N a N
u M u n w a
M m n N N N
N M u m m M
n w u . I u
x m a n - u
a n u u u m
N m u M w w
. o « . . a
an «n :m .a £4 Nu

:rp..r a.
n.1,... .. litruyr...

upmwwamoo .uan

(‘1
N

"l
N

(‘3
1U

.0
v-Q

0|
f

u)
N

H
‘J

(\A
“J

"J

"J
l

34 «.4

rev :9.. 1.4; n

c_./:..

“I

(‘4

"J

(‘3

Or

“‘1

”1

'ul

E,

“I

"0

.ol‘

1:3)...

‘4
PJ

NI
N

01
P.)

N
'‘J

(\
"l

n. ««

Awhvvrw .1» Au

”Om vahdz

'4

an

04

QM

90

oN

9‘

m~

6
.5
"J

a

5.

~«

'0

'3

«a

4.
>a~2u ax»
uUZdbmHo

185

A.

._....... .....

'1

“I

93

c4 (‘0

I,“

h,

.4

(U

N

"J

(‘J

'3’

"J

'J

{'J

'4

:m

OJ

(‘1

N

'3

OJ

r)

(\l

“J

(‘J

"I

no

9.

00

v.

f.l

1‘4

“I

"J

(‘1

“1

(‘J J

G\‘

“J

‘U

'4

mn

:n

"J
5‘

on.
M

0N
oN
NN
0N
mN
1N
nN
NN
«N
aN
mu
on
N."
o.

m.

"J

N
'4

a.

APPENDIX 4

COMMUNICATION FREQUENCY AND DENSITY
HISTOGRAMS

186

187

U«__DJ...C 2H mJlCmn. :ZMYL...:....1>.—u~m
wmbéao 2H m4t¢qa ozuxu.:q.o.1>pmHu
.LIAJC...” 3H “Al“.mm C2..¥U..lx.oco..>—uHm
uxDQ.o 2H wamflng UZHxUmIJ...Q>buHL

‘3 d v‘ Q.

a mH 123w... x: h. are:
x. o J.
ox n. m...
i. . x...
.x w m.
x. . .m
.x _ .1»
x.x a «4
x.xxx u o.
>.xxxxxx . a.
xx.xxxxx a mo
xxx.xxxx u m.
xxx.xxx « "m
yxxx.xx . 4a
xxxxx.xxx u an
xxxxxx.xx a -4
xx.x . .1
xxx. « x:
.xx . Tu
y... a .5
xx. . c:
x. a on
x. o mm
x. . a.

.o. m. masox. ya. .._.x >a.....mz.m
:dvoccmiz >..nz..

Leuxu .uamo

188

waaoxo Zn udaowa uzuxuuruooaa>bb~u
maaoao Z~ Uaaoua u:~xuu:u...c>bk~b
manoma Zn wacowa oZ~XUNZoooou>bu~b
maaoua Zn uamowa uz—xuwxuoooabhunh
maaozu Zn Udaowa uz~xuuxuoooa>bunb
manu¢¢ Zn Udaoma uz~xumxu.c.s>bunu
waaoac Zu maucwa uzuxowxuoooa>puuu
maaoxu Zn waacwa oz~xuwzu...a>puuu
annexe ZN wacowa cz—xuuzoooosbhbuu

dfvaadtucnfildtv

N mu uaoaa tomb tau:
oxxxxxx a on
noxxxxxn a 5n
xx.xxxxuxxx a a:
xxxoxxxxx-x u N:
xxxx.xxxxxx a 0N
xxxxx.xxxxxx a an
xxxxxx.xxxxx « Nn
xxxxxx.xxxx a on
xxxuxxoxxx d on
xxxxxuxoxx « an
xuxxxxxxox u «N
xxxxuxox a a:
noxxxxn « on
x.xxxxx d an
xuoxxxxu u ON
nanoxxxx a 5N
xxxxoxxx a On
xxxxxoxxxx d on
xxxxxoxxxx a an
xxuxx.xxx a ”N
xxx.xxxxl a 0d
xxxx.xxxx a on
xxxxoxxxxx a mN
xxxoxxxxxx « IN
xxxx.xxxxx u 9N
xxxxxoxxxx a an
xxxxoxxxx a nu
xxxxxoxxx a o«
xxxxx.xxx « NN
xxxxxx.xx a Na
xxxxox a mu
xxx. « nu
x. o s.
u. _ a no
x. c 3:

and mu macaw «on cub; ub—xubumzu
tad00bmuZ hpumzua

a...=.m .u...

189

m manage :. u.:uaa o:.xc.zo...a>...a

. miacgo 7H m.a0ma ozayomxo...a>haHu

m miaeuo z. m.muoa oz.¥ow:u...a>.a.a

. wizuic z. ..aeca :.xu=:o...a».a.a

u mazcwo 7H m4c0oa oz.yo.:....a>.a.a

. maaeao z. o.aoma oz.xo.:o...a>.a.a

N maaoxo 2H u.q¢ma ozmyu.:o...c>»a.a

m maooio :. u.aema o:.xo.;u...a>.u.a

u macouo :. v.1cma oszowiu...a>.a.u

a m. azomo sofa amo:

.x o N»
x.xx . .n
x.xxx . 4.
xx.xx . ..
xx.x . m.
.xx.x . .m
rox . mm
x. g o.
.xx o mu
x.x . m.
xx. o no
.xx o um
x.xx . .N
xx.x . on
xx.xx . ..
x.xx . mu
xx.xx . mm
xx.xx . m.
xx.x . m.
xx.x H 4N
x. . m.
x. 4 om
x. o aw
x. o _.
.x . mm
x. u .

1?“ mm manomu You Caqu >hH>HhHm2um
quuchmmz rbmmzmo

.P._..... .u...

190

.N

.m.. u my:.. .0 vuez.. on... u :_c:...m :.oz

.xxxxxxxxxxxxuxxxxxxxwxxxxxsxxxxxxxx.xxx. n. .
xxxx..yxxx..xxx..wx.xxxxx .i o
xxxxyxxyxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxyxxxxxxxyxxxxxxxxxxxxyxyxyyx r.. m
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyxxxxxxxxxnxxxxxxxxx .. 4
xxxxxxxxxxxyx on m
xxxx n m
x w .
uc.::: x.¢zhu.m
no .o.o.u 4 >3 cu..um uqneaoHI :. m.uo:o:c..u. :qawo.w.r z:..:n.v.n.:
.m..:: a u. ”or.“
a u m:.4> .qcm. .mnro.x
. u o:.<> .qoo. .m.:o.
m.n>.<zq zo..:o.i.m.c r.ozmm.m
ua.mm ow.om u..mu .zgoloa
.ncn ..rm. u.wm. ..mm. aorta:
...o. oszonr. oz.oo.:o >qzcz_

m>m>qqzq zen—doomauumx

7~ p20
mfléh 13.27:"...

: urbotm~pw q no .2; Nos:
m uzpczoypm q no .02 non.
m u:~ozw.—w 4 NJ .3: was:
w nzwozumpm 4 Na .92 o:::
a nrhcnou.m 4 cm .0: mac:
N uI—cZLHFw 4 mm .62 u;::
. u:.m:.oy.m q .n .:7 .oo::
4 u:.o7on.m q no .92 has:

6. a..ul:zo. w.

m wo.o n: .n n? .3: nm s... a: .. u: .. um :.oua.maz:

.---------------3-----'-----------------‘3-’--3-'3-----'3----3---.'--'-33'-3-----------'-----'--"3-33333---3'333333333

gmuxo .uamo

191

.00m 1 «stud no «moral n~aom I abozwahm zcut

xxxxuxxxxxxnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxnxxxxxxxx:uxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00d
xxuxxnxxxxxxxxunxxxuxuxxxxxxxxxxxxxIXXuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx «an
uxnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxuxxxuuuuxxXIxxxxxxxxxnxxnxxxxxxxxxxxx Jud
xxxxxxxuxxxxxxxxxnxxxxxuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx o.
nxxxxxxxxxnxxxx an
xxxxxxxxxxxuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :0
Iain O

. antaz :puzmahm
.N no xobudu c )0 OU4<om t<¢uobm~2 8° amuuzunaudme IQ¢UObmHz tauhaanahmuo

«NNOBOE

omhuz: s an uu2<¢

s I U3J1) aduwd bwwxwuz

« I u34<> 419w; hmwxoa
mum>d¢4< zaubaauxpmuo :puzuabm

moo~: mooNJ ovomu bauomuu

cocoa coon~ coonN acow Cuozaz
ache» uzuzoqu aluoahac >¢xcxb

m>m>J¢2< ZOuhtuozmuuux

each I: on n: oaN In 09.. I: no I: o. In an.» I: on I: ouN In chuusuuaz:
«than 2n baa
wand» z—uzu¢»m

s Ixhozuuhm : no .0: mac:

Ampucmm,.pqmo

192

.N

.cqn u mxzua kc 1mmtjz gem.m u Ibuzm¢hm 24w:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Je
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :.«
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a:
xxxxxxx mu
xx m
x u
amoraz

um gowuqm q >m om4<om

rqooo~mur zo mmaozujfiumuv rqroohmHI onhacumpmH:

.mpaz: s mm mczqa

h u m24<> 44am; hmuxouz

« u mDan dqoua hmMIOJ
mansdqzq on_aoH;.ch z»czu;»n

ufimrmmeo .uama

me Ila-uh

:hozwmhm

”A

   

"IW4?@ifl'fl@lfll7wfl7flflfllfllfl.7@TIES