“I. .. _ .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . x. . . . . ‘. . .._. 1.»..412}....._._;F:_wan»? .. . . .2 _. . .. . m . i . ._ , , .. . . , ., . .. H ,_,.U.__m,....fl..H.H.H+ m _ .... m .... . .H .. : _. . H... . . . . g .32...“.N......H.,_,.U.H....~.wu G H. . . f. V E . . . TK .. .0,|....N. . D N R . , . . , . . e.N N. . 3 N .I 0 . . . . . . t . . e. U . . . .. W E. N. . .. . . .. . . .. D Arm. 9. ...:... .2 _...._._. U. TAIWO , f .mSmUn. ...., w I... n . . . . .r. N A, r . .0 . H . . ._ N F. m 1.. G C N .. . _ . .. a : . _ . , . . IfllillIl/l/IIIIIIIHIHI L. W! 2 3 129mm, 08 1480 IIIIIIIIIIHIHIIH/ 7 ~“- @655 . M {41976 2:33 ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION AND GROUP COHESIVENESS IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL WORK GROUP By Richard A. Connelly Recent studies of organization emphasize more and more the import- ance of understanding behavioral phenomena in the context of formal, organization structure. The present study sought to explain how com— munication processes relate to work group cohesiveness. In March, 1971, 960 employees from a single division of a large commercial bank completed a questionnaire about their communication behavior, their group membership, and other social psychological as— pects of organizational membership. Responses were analyzed to as- certain trends within organizational work groups. It was hypothesized that groups with more accurate hierarchical communication between group members and their supervisor would be more cohesive. Six research hy- potheses were tested: Three hypotheses covered the relative accuracy of the supervisors' and group members' prediction on their (a) structure for communication (i.e., the initiation, frequency, and duration of contact); (b) their content of communication (i.e., topic); and (c) their process of communication (i.e., the style, cues and consideration given to others). Three other hypotheses covered the relative satis— faction of supervisors and group members on the same communication dimensions, structure, content and process. Richard A. Connelly Communication indices for all six hypotheses were developed through factor analytic procedures. A measure of cohesiveness was established empirically using the Seashore cohesiveness index (195a). An additional cohesiveness measure was derived from an expert judge's rating of the organization's work groups to establish the validity of the group co— hesiveness measure. The internal validation results yielded a negative correlation between the survey measure of group cohesiveness and the judge's rating (r = —.1u). When the research hypotheses were tested, none of the pre— dicted relationships were obtained although there was an inverse relation- ship between the supervisors'/subordinates' mutual satisfaction with their communication process and group cohesiveness (r = —.22, p f'.05). The disparity in establishing a clear measure of cohesiveness led to a secondary analysis of the data. The judge's rating showed a posi- tive relationship with the accuracy of communication structure (r = .16), as compared with a negative relationship between the survey cohesiveness index and the accuracy of communication structure (r = —.18). However, the more positive prediction of structure through the judge's rating belied stronger indicators of inaccuracy in the prediction of communi— cation process rules (r = -.28, p f .05). Further interpretation of the results suggested that more reliable structure rules for communication between the supervisor and group members had a profbund impact on behavior within the work group. A multiple regression analysis indicated that highly cohesive groups, which had less accurate communication links with their supervisor, Richard A. Connelly were significantly higher on their job satisfaction (b = +.uu, p --.01) and in their self—esteem (b = +.u3, p -.Ol). The accuracy of their com- munication process rules was significantly lower (b = —.2u, p -.02) suggesting that the supervisor was distinctly isolated from more cohesive groups. Groups which the expert judge had evaluated as being high on cohesive— ness showed markedly different behavior patterns. These groups, which had more accurate communication structure values, were lower in their job satisfaction (b = -.22), in their self—esteem (b = -.ll), and in their identification with the organization (b = -.lO). These groups showed an even more distinct tendency to isolate the supervisor in terms of the accuracy of their communication process rules (bl: -.u2, p -.Ol). The results from the study were consistent with Seashore's (1954) general findings on group cohesiveness in an industrial work setting. More regard to communication, however, it was shown that the inaccurate perception of process rules, between group members and a formally designated leader (the supervisor), can be a strong predictor of group cohesiveness. Further research appears warranted to probe several implications from the findings. When organizations develop more participative manage- ment techniques, supervisors may be involved more directly in work group activities and more accurate communication may be an indicator of work group's strong interdependence. Additional steps should also be taken to improve the measurement of group cohesiveness through such techniques as communication network mapping in order to explicate the characteristics of group integration into the overall organization structure. COMMUNICATION AND GROUP COHESIVENESS IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL WORK GROUP Richard A. Connelly A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1972 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. flew M 6.4%., Director of Thesis GfidmmeCmmfitme: /éLdeb&€ & //%Mflfififiimmn QM?“ y (EA/fl Hal/'[ovo ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Engaging in social research is a particularly challenging way to pursue graduate education. One learns to address complex questions through a systematic, probing process. And, one also learns that im— portant research requires the collective effort of many talented people. Dr. Vincent Farace has shown me the level of commitment which is required fer achieving important, quality research. As a teacher, an academic advisor, a research director, a guidance committee chairman, and a friend, he has been instrumental in guiding my efforts. Dr. Erwin Bettinghaus, Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh, and Dr. Michael Moore have been members of an excellent guidance committee, providing instructive criticism when it has been needed and being supportive at every stage of my education. Dr. Peter Monge and Dr. Hamish Russell are two outstanding col- leagues whose advice has helped me to make my research inquiry far more meaningful than it would have been otherwise. Many other people, including Dr. William V. D'Antonio, Dr. Ronald weber, John Ball, Dr. Everett Rogers, Dr. David Berlo, Francis H. Dunne, Roger L. Du Bois, and Barry F. Sullivan have provided me, personally, with unestimable support. No one has had more direct influence on my efforts than my wife and family. Marcia Connelly, my parents, and our children—“Karen, Lisa, and Douglas have all put up with tremendous burdens in order to make my work poss ible . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Development of Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Maintenance of Group Membership . . . . . . . . . . 7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Group Cohesiveness in Organizational Settings . . . . . 10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1” Theoretical Aspects of Human Communication . . . . . . . 15 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 II RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Measures of Group Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2a The Survey Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2” The Judge's Rating Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Measures of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Procedural Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Content Manipulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Process Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER Page III FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ui Procedural Regulation Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . Ml Content Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”3 Process Control Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #3 Secondary Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . HS IV SUMMARY 8 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SH Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5M Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 6A ommcmmmummmNsmmY.. .... .... .... ... . W DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON GROUP COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Work Pressure and Time Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . l2 2 Accuracy of Communication Structure . . . . . . . . . . . H2 3 Accuracy of Satisfaction with Communication Structure . . A2 A Accuracy of Communication Content . . . . . . . . . . . . ”H 5 Accuracy of Satisfaction with Communication Content . . . an 6 Accuracy of Communication Process . . . . . . . . . . . . #6 7 Accuracy of Satisfaction with Communication Process . . . #6 8 Judge's Rating of Group Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . 47 9 Group Values on Communication Indices . . . . . . . . . . ug 10 Dependent Variable — Group Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . 52 ll Dependent Variable — Judge's Rating of Group Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In the course of history man has shown an ability to cope with the difficulties that are posed by his environment. Darwin (1965) searched fer biological evidence to describe man's adaptive process, and he for— mulated a theory of natural selection, which physical scientists have used extensively to interpret organic changes in the individual. More recently, social scientists have shown an interest in explaining man's adaptation to the complexities of the 20th century. In this research, we address the question of adaptation to the ways man uses communication to form structures and patterns for coping with the environment. Communication in its most basic form is a two-way human process in which symbolic meaning is exchanged from one individual to another (Berlo, 1969). In a communication transaction, meaning is derived from a person's translation of symbolic content, and research has shown that no two in- dividuals can interpret a symbol in exactly the same manner. From a societal perspective, the sum of differences in the interpretation of symbols leads to uncommon perceptions about the state of events, and the resultant misunderstanding often sows the seeds of dissension which results in intercultural hostility and conflict. This study examines the ways in which individuals communicate with one another to overcome the differences which separate their goals and needs. The site of the study is the Operations Division of a large commer- cial bank in the eastern United States which requires a substantial amount of task interdependence to complete its production goals. The assumption being tested is that individuals in social organizations communicate in systematic styles. These styles ultimately foster the formation of group structures which serve as the residual base of the organization. In the context of this study, organizations are conceptualized as being a group of groups acting in coordination to achieve a pre—determined set of goals (Cyert 8 March, 1963). The importance of these structures is cited by Weick: To understand an organization is to locate crucial alliances that control large numbers of people ... the important point is not that one man rules; rather it it is the fact that control is made pos— sible by the pattern of alliances that exists in the group. It is the pattern or relationships, not the traits of the individual per se, that makes it possible for influence to be concentrated. (Weick, 1969, p. 5) Studies by Likert (1967) and others have emphasized the importance of group stuctures and good communication to organizational effectiveness. This study is an attempt to show the existence of an important linkage between communication and group process, and to develop a better under— standing of the implications which research in communication holds for the study of organizational effectiveness. The Development of Groups Communication is the process which men use to control their environ— ment. This proposition has been demonstrated often by the ability of men to form groups for their common benefit. As Rappaport states, it is "... rules of communication (which) define the structure of the group. The structure of anything is the totality of the relations among its parts. (In a group), relations are the existence or non-existence of a communica— tion channel, and the structure is defined by the existing channels." (1953, p. 163). Many reasons have been cited to explain the causes of group formation. Sullivan (1947) and Newcomb (1950) have described the psychological secu- rity which group memberships provide to individuals. Thibault and Kelley (195”) and Bass (1963) have discussed the reward structure which under— lies membership in the group. These studies are concerned, in the main, with the examination of individual behavior in a group setting rather than with the interactive process which men use to maintain the structure of the group. Lewin emphasizes very nicely the essential definition of the group process. He writes: The essence of a group is not the similarity or dissimilarity of its members, but their inter- dependence. A group can be characterized as a "dynamic whole"; this means that a change in the state of any other sub-part changes the state of any other sub—part. The degree of interdependence of the sub-parts of the group varies all the way from a loose mass to a compact unit. (1968, p. 5A) Major studies by Golombiewski (1962), Cattell (l9u8), McGrath and Altman (1966), and Collins and Guetzkow (1964) are among the most am— bitious attempts to describe the specific variables and enduring proposi- tions which are important in describing a group. HOwever, these fairly exhaustive reviews point to the limited amount of research which has been done in the area of defining group process, as opposed to individual behavior in the group setting. The development of studies in group process is generally attributed to the work of Lewin and his students. Their work is best remembered for two important traditions which were imparts to social science. One, "field theory," stressed the importance of addressing research to the explanation of contemporary social problems. The other approach, encouraging studies of "group dynamics," attempted to demonstrate that the group was a viable unit of analysis which social scientists could study intact. Lewin's tradition of action research into group phenomena stimulated a vast amount of concepts and studies. However, at the time of his death, Lewin had not formulated a comprehensive theory of group behavior. And at present, as McGrath and Altman (1966, p. 9) point out, "... the rate at which empirical results have been adequately digested and integrated into theoretical formulations has not kept pace. If we continue to generate at even the present rate without a major leap forward in terms of inte— grate theory, we shall drown in our own data.” One comprehensive attempt to conceptualize the structure and process of group formation is the work of Zalesnik and Moment (196u). Their approach is based on the emergence of critical sets of behavior in the context of a general systems theory perspective (Miller, 1965). This "\ involves four propositions: 1. Members must establish a mutual identity for the group as a basis for consensus in deciSion-making. 2. Members must develop a group structure that is relevant o n .'_—l"_ . o to encouraging member participation and to achieVing group goals. 3. Members must establish and maintain §_system 2f_norms for the social control of the members. 9. Members must establish and enact a problem solving procedure that facilitates the achievement of group goals. A different approach, based on a role theory analysis, is suggested by Jacobson (1956) when he posited six stages for the growth of group process. The first stage involves an identification of the individual with the group in terms of a congruency of his own needs with the require- ments of the group. The second stage is characterized by an opportunity for the members to take part in group activities. Emerging at the third stage is the differentiation of a role structure. In the fourth stage, the quality of communication improves between members. At this point, leadership roles begin to have stronger effects. And in the final stage, a relatively enduring set of group procedures is adopted. Bass (1965) formulated a theory of group development that is based on a learning theory approach. In the first stage, group members learn to accept each other and to develop mutual trust and confidence. In the second stage, members improve the communication and decision—making process. Then, the group begins to serve the motivational needs of its members and to harness these motivational states to achieve a collective productivity. In the final stage, effective control and organization of the group's activities is achieved. The data for Bass' theory of group development were collected in his analysis of management committees and conference groups from various formal organizations. His specification of a developmental sequence implies a growth in interdependence for group members that is similar to the systems theory approach of Zalesnik and Moment, to the role theory approach of Jacobson, and to the approach of Weick. Weick (1965; 1969) has attempted to extend the generalizability of group formation by analyzing the elements of collective behavior. He sees groups being formed from sets of persons who, after having had the opportunity to interact for a period of time, become (1) well informed about one another's behavior, (2) capable of allocating responsibilities for task accomplishment, and (3) about to develop norms for conduct. The ultimate structure of the group is largely determined by the ways in which members establish their association with one another. Weick writes about the process of formation: When two people encounter one another, there is some possibility that each can benefit the other. For each, the contact with another person affords the possibility of increased need—satisfaction and self— expression. But these opportunities can be preserved only if each can count on the continued presence of the other person. Note that a preliminary convergence of interest occurs because each anticipates that the other can benefit him and each has a similar notion of how this can be accomplished. Having first con— verged on shared ideas of how a structure can form, the persons then achieve a repetitive cycle of inter— locked behaviors—~that is, they form a collective structure. The range of their behaviors narrows before a group forms, not after; the group is made possible by this narrowing and convergence. The acts which are most likely to lead to group formation occur when party A behaves in a manner that is valuable to party B, and party B responds by producing acts which are subsequently favorable to party A. This phenomenon has been discussed and investigated empirically by Allport (1962), by Homans (1958), by Thibault and Kelley (1959), and by Blau and Scott (1964). An important contribution of Weick to both the study of group process and to communication is his emphasis on the double interact as the basis of group formation. "A collective structure exists," he writes, "when behaviors of two or more persons become the interact or double interact and not the act (itself). To identify in- stances of collective structure, we look fer instances in which, with regularity, A emits an act which is fOllowed predictably by an act from B and B's act then determines A's subsequent act." (Ibid., 46). Summary A review of the research literature indicates that a_priori defini— tions are insufficient descriptors for extensive scientific analysis of groups. Rather, the theoretical foundations of group-oriented research must build on understanding the developmental sequence of interdependence between members. Several scholars, among them Weick, Jacobson, and Bass, have attempted to explicate the contribution of structure.and process variables to group behavior. The present study focuses upon communication, in order to explain the nature of group membership in an organizational setting. The Maintenance of Group Membership, One of the concepts which Lewin and his students emphasized in their studies of group dynamics was group cohesiveness. The term cohesiveness is a derivative of the noun coherence, a physical science term. In physics, coherence refers to "... the attraction between molecules which allows substances such as liquid to form...in gases the molecules are too far apart fer cOhesion to be appreciable." In mathematics, botany, and chemistry, the concept also has specific meanings that are conceptually similar. Coherence refers to a sticking together, to a union of parts. The popular conceptual definition of group cohesiveness in the psy— chological literature refers to "... the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group (Festinger, Schachter, and Back, 1950).” However, Cartwright and Zander (1960) point out more clearly the multi- dimensional nature of group cohesiveness in their description of the concept: A group will be more attractive the more it provides / status and recognition for its members, the more ' cooperative the relations, the more the interaction. / Attack from outside the group may make it more cohesive too, but so can favorable evaluation of the group by ! outsiders. When the group is attacked, an increase g in cohesiveness is seen to be the source of security. When the group is favorably evaluated by outsiders, an i increase in cohesiveness apparently results from the { realization that membership in the group enhances per— i } sonal prestige. Relative degrees of group cohesiveness have been measured at different times by (l) counting the proportion of "we” statements made by members of the group (Lippitt and White, 1993), (2) by estimating the amount of cooperation demonstrated in the group (Deutsch, 19u9), (3) monitoring withdrawal from membership in the group (Libo, 1953), (u) surveying of the attractiveness of membership in the group (Schachter, 1959), and by numerous other methods. Back (1951 has shown that with certain aspects of group performance there is no apparent difference in whether group cohesiveness is methodologically based on (1) task attractiveness, (2) prestige of membership in the group, or (3) need—satisfaction through membership in the group. In its varied operational forms, which makes itdiffiCU1t to compare and generalize experimental results, cohesiveness has consistently been a strong predictor of consequent behavior patterns. Extensive reviews of group dynamics (Collins and Guetzkow, 1964; Golombiewski, 1962; Hare, 1962; McGrath and Altman, 1966) have pointed out relationships between group cohesiveness and consensus among group members on attitudes and beliefs that are related to group activity, the propensity of group members to be influenced by the group, a sense of responsibility toward other group members, a feeling of personal ease and security within the group on the part of group members, and communi— cation within the group. However, it is important to note that uni— directional causality has not been widely claimed in these findings. And, in general, the conclusion drawn by researchers is that group cohesiveness is a measure of the reinforcement which exists to stabilize group norms and the collective structure. Summa The need to summarize the effects of group membership on individual behavior leads to the definition of cohesiveness as a construct for social research. Group cohesiveness has been conceptualized largely in terms of members ability to maintain their group membership. However, the measurement procedures used to define cohesiveness have varied consid— erably; at times the variable has been based on behavioral criteria, at times on attitudinal criteria, and at times on a combination of both measurement procedures. The following section will review the results of research on group cohesiveness in formal organizations, where the maintenance of multiple group structure is an essential requisite for the social system's survival. 10 Group Cohesiveness in Organizational Settings The observation of assembly—line activity in the Hawthorne studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his associates led to the conclusion that group norms were a primary determinant of increased productivity and higher morale within the organization. These studies at the Hawthorne, Illinois, facilities of Western Electric were an important stimulant to the study of group behavior in a field setting (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). The important variables, they felt, to consider when explaining organizational behavior were the informal standards governing the be— havior of members of the group, the attitudes and motives of workers within the context of the group structure, and the social relations between the supervisor and his subordinates. Despite the methodological flaws which underlie the generalizations made in the Hawthorne studies, there has been a substantial amount of research to show that the maintenance of group structure has demonstrable consequences in the organizational environment. Seashore (1954) examined group cohesiveness in a midwestern industrial setting and his findings support the contention that group processes affect both attitudes and behavior: 1. Group cohesiveness is positively related to the opportunity for interaction, particularly in smaller size groups and groups with a longer duration of shared membership on the iob (tenure). 2. Group cohesiveness is positively related to the degree of prestige attributed by group members to their own job. 3. High cohesive groups differ more frequently and in greater amount than low cohesive groups from the plant norm of productivity. These deviations are towards both higher and lower productivity. ll 4. High cohesive groups have less variation in producti— vity among members than do low cohesive groups. This is regarded as confirmation of the existence of a more effective group standard in the high cohesive condition. 5. Members of high cohesive groups exhibit less anxiety than members of low cohesive groups. 6. The direction of group productivity (i.e., towards higher or lower productivity) is a function of the degree to which the larger organization (the company) is perceived by group members to provide a supportive setting for the group. (Seashore, 1954, pp. 98—99) The Seashore study is especially important because it demonstrates that the group process can contribute to the regulation behavior. How— ever, there are other studies by Roy (1952), Mintz (1951), and Hamblin (1958) which are important because they show the conditions under which group cohesiveness can be stated in reciprocal propositions: high work pressure, over a short period of time, is associated with low cohesive— ness. Conversely, low work pressure, over a short period of time, is associated with high cohesiveness, high social activity, and high inter— action. Low work pressure, over a long period of time, is associated with low cohesiveness, low social activity, and low interaction. While high work pressure, over a long period of time is associated with high cohesiveness. (See Table l for a representation of these findings). Klein (1963) found four factors which are significantly related to, group cohesiveness, when he studied a cross—section of industrial set—y tings in New York State. He found that group cohesiveness was positively related to the following: 1. The adequacy of employee grievance channels as perceived by the groups. 12 Work Pressure Low Work Pressure High Work Pressure Time Duration Long period of time Low Cohesiveness High Cohesiveness Short period of time High Cohesiveness Low Cohesiveness Table 1. Conditions affecting group cohesiveness in an organizational setting: work pressure and time duration. (Klein, 1963) 13 3. Work pressure, which was measured by a ratio of the per— ceived demand made by the organization to the production norm considered to be "fair" by the group members. 4. The duration of perceived work pressure. Industrial relations issues which affect work group cohesiveness have been studied by Stagner (1956) and Taylor (1964). When Stanger obtained rank-order changes of issues which group members cited as being important dimensions of their relation to the organization, he fOund a positive relationship between salary increase demands and group cohesive— ness as well as between successful grievance actions and group cohesive— ness. Taylor found that decreased group cohesiveness was related to (1) group disagreement over the way to solve a problem, (2) the group's perceived failure to move toward achievement of its goals, and (3) re- collection of unpleasant experiences associated with group membership. In two studies which examined the individual's relation to his work group, Patchen (1962; 1970) fOund a series of correlates associated with group identification. Members who favorably identified both their membership in their work group and the parent organization were highly satisfied with their interpersonal relationships and the organization's production norms. Low identification with one or both collective struc- tures led to greater dissatisfaction and poorer performance. When he examined superior-subordinate interaction, Pachten found that supervisors who encouraged (l) efficiency and (2) ”going to bat" fer employees were most often associated with groups that had high production norms and high identity with their collective structures. Supervisors who did not encourage efficiency, but did "go to bat" for their employees, showed a slightly negative association for identification 14 with the organization's production norms. Supervisors who neither encour— aged efficiency nor "went to bat" for their employees, showed a strong negative relationship for identification with the organization's production norms. Likert (1961) has made an attempt to summarize the importance of the many studies which have been conducted by social scientists in organiza— tions; his analysis shows the importance which he attributes to group structure and the communication behaviors which develop identification and interdependence in the group. The conceptualization he has proposed for the managerial process emphasizes that the manager in charge of a production unit should (1) establish a cohesive group, rather than a man—to—man system of operation, in which he meets his subordinates col- lectively and uses the group as a problem—solving and decision—making instrument, (2) behave in a supportive manner in all interaction with subordinates so that subordinates will view their relationships as contributing to their sense of personal worth and importance, and (3) shorten "feedback" cycles to group members by providing them with in- formation about their own performance and the degree of success they are achieving to reach their organization's goals. Summagy Research in organizational settings has shown that group structures tend to be influenced by a broad spectrum of environmental and systematic variables, such as supervision, organizational policies, time demand, and the task itself. However, once established, the cohesiveness of organizational work groups and their integration within the organization 15 have profound affects on both behavior and organizational effectiveness. The investigation of the variables which are associated with the cohesive— ness and hierarchical integration of work groups should provide valuable insight into the characteristics of a formal organization. Theoretical Aspects of Human Communication The research literature on small groups and organizational behavior continually emphasizes the importance of communication to group develop- ment and maintenance processes. However, despite the credit given to the importance of communication variables, research and theoretical develop— ment in the area have been slow. Scholars (for a long time) have treated communication concepts as sub-sets of broader areas of interest, such as psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology. It has been only in recent years that the study of communication has emerged in its own right as a theoretic discipline. An important parallel to the development of research in communica- tion is the work done in general systems theory (by Bertalanffy, 1962, and by Miller, 1965) and in cybernetics (by Weiner, 1955). Weiner's scientific treatise on human behavior and society specifies an important role for communication in the cycle of human behavior: Man is immersed in a world which he perceives through his sense organs. Infbrmation that he receives is coordinated through his brain and the nervous system until, after the process of storage, collation, and selection, it emerges through effector organs, gener— ally his muscles. These in turn act on the external world, and also react to the central nervous system through receptor organs...and the infOrmation re- ceived...is combined with his already accumulated store of infOrmation to influence further action. (Ibid., p. 26) 16 To communicate infbrmation, that is, to transfer patterns of matter— energy withsymbolic referent (Berlo, 1969, p. 1-3) is the most basic process inherent in human organizing. Communication enables individuals in organizations to establish a degree of connectedness among themselves, and to express some dimension of the nature of their uncertainty so that they can establish a degree of predictability in their lives. Organiza— tions, themselves, are social systems with specific purposes which have been established by men who group together in order to achieve their collective goals (Parsons, 1960, p. l7).* Berlo has attempted to describe the uses which humans make of com- munication by explaining symbolic behavior in the production, innovation, and maintenance categories outlined by Miller (1965) in his work on general social systems. He describes these functions as fOllows: "... getting a job done (productivity), exploring new behavioral alternatives (innovation), and keeping the system...and its components...functioning (maintenance)." (Berlo, 1969, pp. IV-8, 9). The production function of communication should not be confused with the manufacture of physical objects only. Production refers to how com- munication is used to provide procedures which insure compliance with a predetermined position. This fUnction is closely aligned to the prescribed rules and regulations of a formal organization. It involves the procedures by which new organizational members are socialized to function efficiently *The term--system—-is used in reference to general system theory. Buckley (1968, p. 493) defines a system as "... a complex of elements or components directly or indirectly related in a causal network to some other in a more or less stable way at one time." 17 in various organizational roles. Also, production communication is con- cerned with the ongoing evaluation of performance to insure satisfactory output. The maintenance function of organizational communication involves regulating procedures in a manner that contributes to permanence and regularity in the functioning of the system. maintenance of self-concept, maintenance of inter-personal relationships, and maintenance of production and innovation functions within the system. The innovation function of communication is concerned with the "... search fbr new ways of doing things, for new things to do (Berlo, 1969, p0 Iv-g)o" Its objective is to allow fbr procedures which insure adapta— tion to new demands imposed by the environment. The integration of these functions has been well-stated by Katz and Kahn (1966, pp. 223, 224): Communication-~the exchange of infbrmation and the transmission of meaning-~is the very 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. Similarly, the trans- mission of energy (the accomplishment of work) de— pends upon communication between people in each organizational sub-system and upon communication between sub-systems. The product exported carries meaning as it meets needs and wants, and its use is further influenced by advertising or public relations material about it. The amount of support which an organization receives from its social environment is also affected by the information which elite groups and wider publics have acquired about its goals, activities, and accomplishments. Explaining the relationship between communication and the need fOr infOrmation has become one of the most important theoretic areas in the It has three sub-categories: 18 study of organizations (see Cyert and March, 1963). Uncertainty may be defined as a lack of information about future events, so that alternatives and their outcomes are unpredictable. Organizations deal with uncertainty by fbrmulating policies, operating rules, and various decision—making pro— cedures in order to maximize the predictability needed to accomplish their goals. Studies or organizational structure have emphasized the importance of identifying groups, coalitions, and individual communication roles for explaining behavior (see Schwartz, 1968), since information transfer is a vital process in goal achievement. Other works, notably Rubenstein and Haberstroh (1960), Downs (1967), and Jackson (1959), have attempted to extend the generalizations from structural studies into behavioral propositions that show the relationship of intent to communication patterns: 1. 3. In pursuit of work goals, people will have forces acting upon them to communicate with those who will help them achieve their aims, and forces against communicating with those who will not assist them, or may retard their accomplishments. People have powerful forces acting upon them to direct their communication toward those who can make them feel more secure and gratify their needs, and away from those who threaten them, make them feel anxious, and generally provide unrewarding experiences. Persons in an organization are always communicating as if they were trying to improve their positions. Jackson's propositions emphasize the relation of communication to other organizational properties, such as expectations, value systems, motivation, rewards and satisfaction. However, in the specific realm of communication, his prOpositions emphasize the processual, two—way nature 19 of communication relationships. This research approach, which is based on the analysis of the relative coorientations of acting parties to a communication event, has been developed from the work of Newcomb (1953) and Heider (1958). Its strength is in the analytic ability it provides to explain how communication behavior can lead to a reduction in uncertainty within a given social system. Weick has posited a theoretic scheme to explain the relationship of communication and the emergence of organizational processes. His approach is based on the mutual recognition of assembly rules by interacting parties. "Assembly rules," according to Weick, "are rules for assembling the (organi- zational) process out of the total pool of interlocked (behavioral) cycles that are available within the organization. These rules consist of criteria by which some subset of all the possible interlocked behavioral cycles relevant to the process is actually selected for application to the in- formational input." (Weick, 1969, p. 72).* Those research attempts addressed to specifying rules for interpersonal communication have been concerned mainly with explaining the reduction of uncertainty which can be achieved within the social system. This research direction is in the mainstream of the developmental work being done in general systems theory, and it has the advantage of drawing from an ex— tensive literature on rules and relationships from sociology and anthropology. The model underlying this study is based on Weick's proposition that the effectiveness of a group is based on its members' ability to enact *See Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the Weick framework. 2O Figure l AMOUNT OF EQUIVOCALITY IN INFORMATIONAL INPUT l’;\ ‘ J AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINITY NUMBER OF RULES REMOVED FROM INFORMATIONAL USED TO ASSEMBLE INPUT THE PROCESS rx J V, NUMBER OF INTERLOCKED CYCLES SELECTED FOR APPLICATION TO INPUT 21 assembly rules; i.e., "... rules for assembling the (organizational) process out of the total pool of interlocked (behavioral) cycles..." (Weick, 1969, p. 72). A graphic representation of the procedure which a group uses to process communication is presented in Weick's model. The notation on the lines indicates the direction of the relationship which Weick would predict for effective group functioning. If informational equivocality is understood as a characteristic of the work that is input to an organizational production process, and un— certainty reduction is seen as the decision-making function of the group, then the enactment and interpretation of rules must be drawn from the communication experience of group members. The assumption of the model is that the greater the number and capacity of rules which Eap_be enacted, the fewer (but more precise) criteria can be selected to facilitate the choice of appropriate behavioral action. Summagy From the foregoing discussion it appears that the explication of communication relationships between group members and their supervisor will describe an important dimension of a group's overall cohesiveness. As stated in the earlier review of the literature, the development of a group structure emerges from the members' perception of their interdepen~ deuce,the willingness to take part in group activities, and the development of roles and norms for behavior. The convergence of these conditions should, theoretically, increase the predictability of communication be— havior and reinforce the group's level of cohesiveness for its members. 22 In Chapter Two, research hypotheses are formulated to test the predic— tion that greater correspondence in communication accuracy between group members and their supervisor is positively associated with group cohesive— ness. While superior—subordinate communication is only a single dimension of group communication behavior, it should be a useful measure of group members homogeneity in their reaction to a common reference point. Whether affective relations with their supervisor are positive or negative, more cohesive groups should exhibit more uniform response tendencies. Chapter Three shows the findings of a correlational analysis of the data. Six research hypotheses are tested using the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient and a multiple regression analysis shows the re- lationship of communication and group cohesiveness to a broader set of organizational behavior measures. In Chapter Four, the findings are summarized and discussed. CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND HYPOTHESES This study was conducted in a survey of employees who work in the Operations Division of a large commercial bank. Through the research effort, answers were sought to the general question of how interpersonal communication behavior contributes to the maintenance of group cohesive— ness. The particular relationships analyzed in the study were between workers and their formally designated supervisor. Research Procedures Data for the study were collected from three structured questionnaires administered to the population of a single operations department. Items used in the survey were based on open—end interviews and survey experience (in a task related, but physically separate area) in the same organization. The three questionnaires were designed to measure (1) the dyadic nature of communication across a wide variety of content and relationship dimen- sions, (2) the structural map of production, maintenance, and innovation communication contacts, and (3) various psychological states of the employees.* Before the sessions were begun, all respondents were promised that their data would be transferred for analysis to Michigan State University *Copies of these questionnaires are attached in Appendix A. 23 24 in East Lansing, and their responses would remain confidential. Super- visors from the department were interviewed separately from rank—and- file employees, although both groups completed their questionnaires in off-the-job sites. This researcher particpated in the design of the research instruments used in the study, coordinated the efforts of his colleagues from Michigan State University during the data-gathering sessions, and supervised the coding and computer preparation of the data. The research design used in the study treated the concept of group, in its operational form, as Seashore did in his study of work group co- hesiveness (1954). Data from the 960 employees were categorized accord- ing to their sub—section (work unit) designation: each sub-section was functionally interdependent,each had common supervision, and each was geographically proximate. Measures of Group Cohesiveness The property of group cohesiveness was measured in 79 formally designated units, all of which had five or more members assigned to the work section. Operationally, the construct was constituted through two separate procedures--(1) a scale built from survey items, and (2) a judge's rating made by staff members from the organization-~to provide an estimate of validity for the measure. The Survey Method The survey measurement procedure closely paralleled the procedures used by Seashore (1954). Although the response foils were modified to 25 match the language characteristics of the research setting, questions in the study were identical to the Seashore items. Groups were said to have a high degree of cohesiveness if the members (1) perceive themselves to be part of a group, (2) prefer to remain in the group, rather than leave, and (3) perceive their group to be better than other groups with respect to the way the employees get along together, and the way they help each other out. The following questions were included in the survey instrument: 1. How well would you say that the people in your section get along together, compared with people in other sections you know about? 1. We get along better than most. 2. We get along about as much as others do. 3. We get along worse than most. 4. We really don't have anything much to do with each other. 2. How well would you say that the people in your section help each other out in their work, compared with other sections you know about? We help each other out more than they do. We help each other out about as much as they do. We help each other out less than they do. We really don't have anything much to do with each other. -I'-‘I:.~)|\)I-J 3. Some people like to feel a part of their whole section. Some only want to feel a part of a smaller group. Still others would just as soon be left alone. Which is your feeling? 1. I like to feel a part of my whole section. 2. I like to feel a part of only a small group. 3. I don't want to be part of any group on the job. I‘d just as soon stay to myself. 26 4. In the last couple of months, have you thought about... Quitting; Transferring; Not quitting or transferring; no consideration given to leaving the group? Quitting my job to go to work some place else. Transferring to another section, but not quitting. Neither one—~I don't want to quit or transfer. I've just not thought about it. KOONH 5. How often do you feel sure that most people like you? Very often. Fairly often. Not very often. Not often at all. IQNH Responses to these questions were factor analyzed to provide an estimate of scalability for the cohesiveness items. As a result of the analysis, items #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were summated and averaged within each group to form an index of group cohesiveness. The intercorrelation of these items is shown in the index below. All relationships are signi— ficant at p = .01 n = 960. l 2 3 4 5 l X .81 .71 O8 63 2 X 63 .12 61 3 X .21 .47 n X .12 5 X One of the difficulties inherent in measuring cohesiveness is the measurement limitations which arise when alternatives to in-group relation— ships are possible. When such alternatives exist, the cohesiveness of the group may be reduced. Muldoon (1955) provides some evidence on this topic, to show the variability possible within the cohesiveness concept, 27 through a study of 42 high school "home room" groups. Independent ratings of group cohesiveness were made by sociometric methods and by teacher and student evaluations of the classes' cohesiveness. The results indicated that increases in the concentration of in—group sociometric choices were related to a decline in judges' rating of group cohesiveness. The inter- pretation drawn from the findings was that as choices were restricted to smaller and smaller sub-groups within the total class, the sub-group (or clique) supplanted the home room class as the focus of interdependence. Martin, Darley, and Gross (1952) found that indices of reciprocal choice were not correlated with indices of group cohesiveness based on the proportion of choices directed within the group rather than outside. These authors believed that "...mutuality, when it reaches a certain level, might reflect divisive rather than cohesive tendencies within a group...Intercommunication breaks down; cliques appear. Instead of a group, there is an agglomeration of discrete sub-groups, the members of each of which may have intimate alliances with persons outside the main group (p. 551)." In an effort to correct the effects of sub-group formation on measures of group cohesiveness, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) suggested a sociometric formula which reduced the weight of reciprocal choices on the overall score. Their revised index became a ration of the frequency of non—mutual choices within the group minus one half the frequency of mutual choices within the group to the total frequency of choices. An attempt to include a sociometric measure was designed, but due to programming limitations, the analysis could not be completed.* The judge's *It should be noted that work is proceeding on sociometric analysis routines. (Richards, 1971). The routines will be used to measure the cohesiveness of work groups in the same organization. 28 rating of group cohesiveness was included to check on subtle variations which might occur in group measurement. The Judge's Ratinngethod Independent ratings of group cohesiveness in the bank were made by the Department Personnel Director and his colleagues on the Training and Employee Relations Staffs. The qualifications of the Personnel Director for estimating social dimensions of group performance are excellent. In addition to his ten years of experience in the bank, working in a variety of clerical positions before he moved into a staff role, he maintains many close contacts with people who work in line areas. His ability to understand the dynamics of change in his department is widely recognized throughout the operating division. The choice of which cohesiveness measure should be used in conducting the study was based on a validation procedure suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959). They propose that two kinds of evidence about a measure are needed before one is justified in examining relationships to other variables: (1) evidence that different measures of the construct yield similar results, and (2) evidence that the construct, as thus measured, can be differentiated from other constructs. The construct validation procedure followed in the study examined a mono-trait (cohesiveness) in terms of the hetero-methods of measurement cited above. The intercorrelation between the two measures was —.l4*. *The implications of this correlation are discussed in Chapters Three and Four. 29 Measures of Communication Every employee who participated in the study completed a question— naire in which he described his communication with his co-workers and his supervisor. In addition, every supervisor completed a questionnaire in which he described his communication with the people who worked for him. The comparison of common items from these two questionnaires pro— vides a measure of communication that is based on the dyad, rather than responses of a single individual. The multi-faceted aspects of this analytic perspective are shown in Newcomb's ABX Co-orientation model where he focused on a communication system of two people communicating about something. In graphic form, Newcomb's Co—orientation model can be shown as a triangle. Studies of the concepts which are reflected in the ABX paradigm have been made by Gompertz (1960) and Crow and Hammond (1957). They list con— cepts such as empathy, social perception, ability to judge others, insight and reality, identification, social sensitivity, interpersonal perceptive- ness, and accuracy, as examples of dyadic measures. Monge (1971) has reviewed the relation of many of these concepts to the study of communication accuracy, pointing out the development which was taken place in the explication of dyadic concepts and their measure— ment. The common definition of accuracy which he cites was adopted as the basic measure of interpersonal communication in the study: As usually defined, accuracy is the comparison of one person's prediction of another person's rating of some characteristic of object with the second person's actual rating of that object. For con— venience, the first person is called A and the second, 30 Figure 2 OBJECT x A's ATTITUDE B's ATTITUDE TONARD OBJECT TOWARD OBJECT PERSON PERSON A B DIMENSION 0F lNTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION 31 B. The concept requires two independently obtained measures: (1) person A's prediction of B's rating of the object, and (2) a separate measure of B's actual rating of the object. Accuracy, then, is defined as the amount of correspondence between these two measures. The Research Design To study the maintenance of group processes in a formal organization, communication behavior was analyzed, within each work section, between employees and their supervisor. This research situation was chosen be— cause of the common reference point which hierarchical relations offer groups at every bureaucratic level in the organization, and, because relationships between group members and their designated supervisor carry across a definitive linkage in the bonndary between organizational groups. This linkage, at the bank, is sometimes based on infOrmal status dimensions, but it always includes dimensions of greater financial com— pensation and the recognition of greater managerial accountability. The critical aspects of communication exchange between a supervisor and his work group are recognized formally as being an important mode in the organization's communication network. This relationship takes on added importance for management since the avoidance of any attempt by labor unions to organize the rank—and-file staff is a perennial organi— zational objective. The supervisor's job description includes a clearly specified obligation to communicate bank policy and programs to his em- ployees, and he is responsible for forwarding his employees' inquiries and suggestions upward to bank management. Communication is operationally defined in the study by comparing the responses of an employee and his supervisor to questionnaire items about 32 their in—common communication behavior. Within the work section, the aggregate amount of correspondence between these two independent measures becomes the group's communication score. This is described statistically by using a standardized mode, for a single item communication dimension, and by the intra-class correlation coefficient, for a multiple item com- munication dimension. The general hypothesis being tested is that greater work section correspondence in communication accuracy between employees and their supervisor i§_positive1y related to group cohesiveness. The research hypotheses examine the relationships between several dimensions of the communication process, as predictor variables, and group cohesiveness, as the criterion variable. Significance tests are based on the Piersonian Product-Moment Correlation (r) which has the advantage of specifying the amount of variance (r2) in group cohesive— ness which can be attributed to the communication process. Acceptance of the findings is set at the p 15 .05 level of significance. Among the disadvantages associated with the use of a statistical correlation model is the assumption that a linear relationship exists between the variables. To examine possible non-curvilinearity, a scattergram is displayed as part of each hypothesis testing procedure. In cases where curvilinearity is evident, the chi-square statistic is applied to describe the strength of the relationship. A secondary approach to the analysis of the data is undertaken to explain the multivariate conditions that are associated with group co- hesiveness. Such analysis is essential to place the research findings 33 into the context of recent studies in organizational behavior and com— munication systems. Although no tests of significance are specified in this portion of the analysis, the results of a multiple correlation least squares delete test are included and interpreted. Hypotheses Consistent with Weick's model on group activity, six hypotheses are specified as a test of the systematic relationship between communication behavior and group cohesiveness. The general hypothesis, that greater work section correspondence in communication accuracy between employees and their supervisor is positively related to group cohesiveness, is examined in three general conceptual areas. The choice of these areas incorporates a theoretical assumption that there are mgjgz_assembly rules which link communication and effective collective action. They are the recognition of (l) procedural regulations in interaction; the ability to understand the importance of (2) content manipulation in interaction; and the maintenance of (3) process control during inter— action. Also important to the concept of assembly rule is the notion that the degree of mutual satisfaction with relationships is an important summary statement about the group. Hypotheses in each conceptual area test a prediction about (a) communication behavior, and (b) satisfaction with communication. Procedural Regulation - Hypotheses in this area are based on the assumption that both parties to the communication transaction must be able to establish some semblance of structure for their interaction. The reliance on structure may include the very specific rules for 34 hierarchical communication which a person observes in a formal bureauc— racy, or the reliance may extend into the definition of a personality structure as discussed by Freud (Klemm, 1971) and Piaget (1970). Research support for these hypotheses includes the work done by Lott and Lott (1961) when they found a direct relationship between the frequency of communication contact and a group's rating of its own co— hesiveness. Also, Gullahorn (1952) observed that office workers in a clerical setting tended to develop sentiments toward their friendships based on the frequency of their interaction. Kipnis (1957) extended this line of research deeper into the psycho—physical domain when he reported that social distance among group members was inversely related to group cohesiveness. Thus, in the present investigation, two research hypotheses were stated concerning procedural regulations for communication. H1. Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, about procedural regulations for communication, will be more cohesive. H2. Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, about their satisfaction with procedural regulations for communication, will be more cohesive. The construct, procedural regulations for communication, is defined operationally by obtaining a group's average accuracy score for two survey questions: 1. When the subordinate and the supervisor communicate, who usually asks for the meeting to occur? 2. Who usually decides on the topics to be discussed? The product moment correlation between these two items for all pairs in the study is .33. The relationship is signi- ficant at p 5 .01, n = 960. 35 The second construct, satisfaction with procedural regulations for communication, is defined operationally by obtaining a group's average accuracy score for two survey questions: 1. How satisfied are the subordinate and the supervisor with the frequency of supervisor-subordinate communication? 2. How satisfied are the subordinate and the supervisor with who usually decides the topic for discussion? The product moment correlation between these two items for all pairs in the study is .20. The relationship 13 Significant at p - .01, n = 960. Content Manipulation - Hypotheses in this area are based on the assump- tion that some degree of common interest and common understanding in mes— sage transmission is necessary for effective communication. Research by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, using the semantic differential, has led to a large number of investigations which show the importance of shared meaning to effective communication and functional behavior. And, ex— tending into the area of organizational performance, MacDonald (1970) has demonstrated that the content of communication between subordinates and supervisors (differentiated by production, maintenance, and innova— tion functions) explains a substantial amount of the "grouping" which occurs among the employees of a federal bureaucracy. Previous research on communication content and groups in organiza- tional settings has shown the existence of "semantic barriers" which distinguish groups from one another. Weaver (1958) used the semantic differential to show that labor leaders and industrial managers have vastly different frames of reference for such terms as seniority, arbitra— tion, grievance, and closed shop. In a similar study, Korman (1960) investigated language differences among members of the same, non—union 36 organization. Korman found significant differences among top management, middle management, and supervisory personnel in their definitions for the concepts incentive, communication, conferences, quota, cooperation, and budget. H3. Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, on the content of their communica— tion, will be more cohesive. H4. Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, when describing their satisfaction with the content of their communication, will be more cohesive. The construct, communication content, is defined operationally by obtaining a group's average accuracy score for two survey questions: 1. When the subordinate and supervisor talk about people problems, who brings them up? 2. When the subordinate and supervisor talk about new ideas, who brings them up? The product moment correlation between these two items for all pairs in the study is .09. The relationship is significant at p f .05, n = 960. The second construct, satisfaction with communication content is defined operationally by obtaining a group's average accuracy score for three survey questions: 1. How satisfied are the subordinate and the supervisor with the amount of talk they have about work problems? 2. How satisfied are the subordinate and the supervisor with the amount of talk they have about people? 3. How satisfied are the subordinate and the supervisor with the amount of talk they have about new ideas? The product moment correlations between these three items for all parts in the study is shown in the matrix on the next page. All relation— ships are significant at p f .01, n = 960. 37 l 2 3 l X 2 .25 X 3 .28 .15 X Process Control — Hypotheses in this area are based on the assumption that accurate perception of communication styles and communication roles which both parties enact will lead to more effective interaction. The need for control in the process area can be related to the work done in learning theory by Skinner, where he refers to the concepts of adaptive coping and purposive control as being styles which are used to establish personality equilibrium. Examples of adaptive coping would include fatalism and ritual, whereas purposive control would imply a more rational attempt to predict future events in an individual's life. From the perspective of control, communication andinteraction can be analyzed in terms of both information theory and general systems theory research. The research on process interaction covers a wide range of studies. Several major paradigms have been used to relate process to behavioral consequences; Bales' Interaction Analysis, Newcomb's ABX model, and Rappaport's matrices on conflict resolution have all generated several theoretical approaches for explaining communication. Work done by Wackman (1968) and Mark (1970) with family communication and, more re— cently, by Chaffee and MacLeod with school communication has begun to describe the patterns of relational communication which result in specific outcomes. Thus, in the present investigation, hypotheses were stated concern— ing process control in communication. H5. H6. The construct, communication process, is defined operationally by 38 Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, when establishing processes for communication, will be more cohesive. Work groups with greater supervisor/subordinate correspondence, when describing their satisfaction with establishing processes for communication, will be more cohesive. obtaining a group's average accuracy score for six survey questions: 1. The product moment correlations between these six items for all pairs in the study is shown in the matrix below. Does the other person plan ahead (of our meeting) to save my time? Does the other person give me his complete attention? Does the other person welcome my honest criticism about his actions and ideas? Does the other person give me honest criticism about my actions and ideas? Does the other person communicate well; is he clear and articulate? Does the other person understand that he and I are different people, with different goals, purposes, values, and skills? ficant at p ‘1' .01, n = 960. 1 2 3 4 5 X .26 X .21 .39 X .24 .25 .35 X .28 .35 .31 .33 X .27 .32 .26 .27 .36 All relationships are signi— 39 The second construct, satisfaction with the communication process, is defined operationally by obtaining a group's average accuracy score for two survey questions: 1. When the supervisor and the subordinate talk, who does the most talking? 2. How satisfied are the supervisor and the subordinate with who does more of the talking? The product moment correlation between these two items for all pairs in the study is .16. The relationship is significant at p f .01, n = 960. The Research Setting Data were collected in a commercial bank's operations division in a major urban area of the eastern United States. The Bank is generally con— sidered progressive in its personnel policies, and since 1962 it has made an intensive effort to employ a work force that is representative of the city's cultural population.* As a result, the bank's operations division has sometimes been described as a "miniature United Nations." A single department, responsible for processing the bonds and securities registered with the bank, was selected as the site of the study. The securities department is comparable in structure and composition to the division's three other operations' departments; it was selected randomly to be the study area. The Securities Department is organized primarily as a job shop pro— viding services to internal bank users and correspondent banks. The de— partment executive supervises functional units who are responsible for *The population includes large numbers of Irish—Americans, Italian— Americans, Black—Americans, West Indians, Latin Americans, Haitians, and Orientals. 40 such activities as correspondent bank safekeeping, trust remittance, trust collection, security services, security transfers, pension trust account— ing, and vault operations. Each unit is organized into work sections that perform customized processing operations or supporting technical services. These sections are the backbone of the securities operation. Fifty—eight work sections were the subjects of the study. Together, the groups represent 90% of the department's clerical employee population. Excluded from the study for statistical reasons were employees who work in groups which have less than five staff members. Also excluded were officers and managers who do not have production—line supervisory respon— sibility. Thus, the size of the sample was reduced to n = 796. CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS The study sought to determine whether greater communication accuracy between a supervisor and his subordinates would be positively related to group cohesiveness in an organizational setting. Procedural Regulation Hypotheses Predictions were made to support the assertion that more accurate perceptions of structural rules for interaction between the supervisor and his subordinates would be related to group cohesiveness. Specifically, it was hypothesized that more accurate predictions about the ways in which communication is initiated and topics are selected for discussion would be related systematically to a group's rating of its own cohesiveness. And, it was hypothesized that more accurate perceptions of the satisfac- tion with initiation and agenda—setting procedures would predict greater group cohesiveness. Hypothesis One: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub- ordinate correspondence, when establishing procedural regulations for communication, will be more cohesive. The relationship was not significant; r = —.11, d: = 57. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 2. Greater accuracy concerning the initiation and structure for communication tends to be inversely related to group cohesiveness, although the relationship is not statistically significant. 41 42 Accuracy High . .. o o. . o o of :1 ..- Communication . Structure :1}: '.'.°, . °. ° ° ' Low _~ Group Cohesiveness Table 2 Accuracy High , Of 0 O o 0 Satisfaction . With .’ ...... Communication " Structure Low Low fifgfi" Group Cohesiveness Table 3 43 Hypothesis Two: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub- ordinate correspondence, when describing their satisfaction with procedural regulations for communication, will be more cohesive. The relationship was not significant; r = .00, df_= S7. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 3. Content Hypotheses Predictions were made that more accurate estimates about the type of communication content discussed by a supervisor and his subordinates would be related positively to group cohesiveness. The predictions were based on a composite index, comprising production, maintenance, and in— novation topics, which was derived from independent ratings made by the supervisor and his subordinates. Similarly, it was hypothesized that more accurate perceptions of satisfaction with the content topics would be related positively to group cohesiveness. Hypothesis Three: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub~ ordinate correspondence, when establishing the content of their communication, will be more cohesive. The relationships was not significant; r = —.08, df_= 57. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 4. Hypothesis Four: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub- ordinate correspondence, when describing their satisfaction with the content of their communication, will be more cohesive. The relationship was not significant; 4 = .02, d: = 57. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 5. Process Control Hypotheses Predictions were made that more accurate estimates by a supervisor and his subordinates about the procedures they follow during communication Accuracy ngh of Communication Content Accuracy ngh of Satisfaction with Communication Content 44 L Low High Group Cohesiveness Table 4 Low High Group Cohesiveness Table 5 us would be related positively to group cohesiveness. Specifically, it was hypothesized that more accurate predictions about the efficiency of the communication transaction, the attention shown during communication, the honest criticism given and received during the transaction, the verbal skill of the other party, and the respect shown by the other party would be related positively to group cohesiveness. And it was hypothesized that more accurate perceptions of satisfaction with process control pro— cedure would be related positively to group cohesiveness. Hypothesis Five: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub— ordinate correspondence, when establishing processes for communication, will be more cohesive. The relationship was not significant, r = .16, df_ = 57. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table6. Greater accuracy concerning the procedures which are used to communicate tends to be inversely related to group cohesiveness, although the relationship is not statistically significant. Hypothesis Six: Work groups with greater supervisor/sub— ordinate correspondence; when describing their satisfaction with their processes for communication, will be more cohesive. The predicted relationship was not obtained; r = —.22, df_= 56. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 7. Greater correspondence in satisfaction with the procedures used in communication is inversely re— lated to group cohesiveness. The relationship was statistically signi- ficant, p f'.05. Secondary Analysis of the Data The inverse correlation (-.l4) between the survey rating of group cohesiveness and the judge's rating method led to an additional review of the data. The pattern of the findings is shown in Table 8. Accuracy of commUnicatiOn PI‘Ocess ACCur'acy High of SatiSfaC'tion with Communi cat ion PI‘Ocess 46 High High Group CohesiVeness Table 6 Low Higfi“‘ Group CohesiVeness Table 7 u7 Judge's Rating of Group . . . ., . . Cohesiveness 2: ...o. ‘ '. Group Cohesiveness Table 8 #8 Analysis of the data showed two trends occurring within the cohesive— ness data. First, the judge‘s rating has a tendency to rate groups in the same production function (departments) with a similar score; this, in effect, forces smaller units within the same department into a re— gression toward the department's modal score. Second, the judge's esti— mate of extreme cohesiveness, whether high or low, often tends to be diametrically opposed to the group members' self-ratings. The fact that both the judge and group members perceived differences from the norm in their group interaction is useful information. However, the fact that two ratings of the same group fell at opposite ends of a scale is a conceptual problem which will be discussed in Chapter Four. Analysis of the communication accuracy data showed a marked tendency for limited variation within the items. The restricted range of the communication variables reduced the potential significance of the cor— relation coefficient, and limited the potential interpretation of the findings. Data in Table 9 lists the values obtained for the mean, standard deviation, and rank—order of the six accuracy variables. (The rank—order is #1.) The six research hypotheses, when tested against the judge's rating of group cohesiveness, showed the following relationships: 1. Accuracy in the description of procedures and structures for communication is positively related to the iudge's rating, r = .16, d:_ = 57. 2. Accuracy in the perception of satisfaction with procedural regulations for communication is positively related to the judge's rating, r = .07, d: = 57. 3. Accuracy in the description of communication content is positively related to the judge's rating, r = .05, d£_= S7. VARIABLE Structure Satisfaction with Structure Content Satisfaction with Content Process Satisfaction with Process H9 MEAN “.21 3.00 3.52 3.21 Table 9 STANDARD DBVIATION .59 .19 .66 .56 .71 .Mg ACCURACY CATEGORY RANK NH NH NH NH MP l\) moderate high low moderate low high moderate low high moderate high low moderate high low moderate high low 50 u. Accuracy in the perception of satisfaction with the content discussed in communication is positively related to the judge's rating, r = -.28, df = 57. The relationship is significant; p 5 .05.—_ 5. Accuracy in the description of procedures followed during communication is positively related to the iudge's rating, r = —.32, df = 57. The relation- ship is statistically significant; p f .01. 6. Accuracy in the perception of satisfaction with the procedures followed during communication is positively related to the judge's rating, r = -.16. 51:: 57. The overall significance of the findings between communication and group cohesiveness was examined in relation to other concepts and variables which were likely to affect a group's cohesiveness. Relevant demographic measures and constructs from organizational behavior theory were tested against group cohesiveness in a multiple regression analysis. For the purpose of more complete explanation of the findings, the same set of variables was tested against the judge's rating of group cohesiveness. The additional variables included in the analysis have been dis— cussed extensively in the literature on group cohesiveness.' They were: group size, interpersonal anxiety (perceived opportunity to communicate), trust, self—esteem, job satisfaction, and identification with the organi— zation. The methods followed to construct each index involved using standard items from the industrial psychology literature, factor analyzing the data, and summating scales to form the constructs. Items and inter— correlation matrices are shown in the Appendix. The total variance in group cohesiveness explained by the combina- tion of communication and organizational theory variables was 49% based on a multiple correlation coefficient of .70. Further analysis was 51 completed through a least squares delete routine, including a variance explained cut—off criterion of 5%. The most significant predictor variables were accuracy of the communication process, self—esteem, iob satisfaction, and trust. Data describing these relationships is shown in Table 10. DEPENDENT VARIABLE - GROUP COHESIVENESS Beginning Estimates (Before Deletions) Independent Variable Beta Weight Independent Variable Beta Weight Process -.18 Identification with +.18 Organization Satisfaction with +.00 Self-Esteem +.38 Process Content -.08 Job Satisfaction +.u5 Satisfaction with —.09 Interpersonal Anxiety +.02 Content Structure -.18 Trust —.08 Satisfaction with -.16 Group Size +.ou Structure Beginning Estimates (After Deletions) Independent Variables Beta Weight E_ Sig. Accuracy of Communication -.2u 5. 36 5' .02 Process Self-Esteem +.u3 10.27 f .01 Job Satisfaction +.HH 10.76 £§.Ol Multiple R2 = Regression Coefficients .H9 R = .70 Table 10 53 DEPENDENT VARIABLE — JUDGE'S RATING OF GROUP COHESIVENESS Beginning Estimates (Before Deletions) Independent Variable Beta Weight Independent Variable Process —.32 Identification with Organization Satisfaction with -.16 Self—Esteem Process Content. +.05 Job Satisfaction Satisfaction with Interpersonal Anxiety Content -.28 Structure +.l6 Trust Satisfaction with +.O7 Group Size Structure Beginning Estimates (After Deletions) Beta Weight Independent Variable Beta Weight §_ Sig. Accuracy of Communication -.u2 12.35 = . Process Multiple Regression Coefficients R2 = .18 R = .M? Table ll CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main purposes of the present research study were to investigate the ways in which communication influenced the cohesiveness of organiza- tional work groups and, through the findings of the study, to discuss the relation of group cohesiveness to organizational theory. Summary The study was based on an examination of communication rules. These rules were conceptually similar to the assembly rules described by Weick (1969), as "...criteria by which some subset of all the possible inter— locked behavioral cycles relevant to the process is actually selected for application to the informational input." Operationally, the rules were based on a two-way measure of accuracy in the communication between a supervisor and the individual members of his work group. The general hypothesis, that greater accuracy in communication would be related posi— tively to group cohesiveness, was drawn from the broader theoretical question posed by Weick: Do groups which can enact stronger assembly rules form more interdependent structure? The assumptions tested in this study, therefore, were that greater predictability within a group's communication channels would be an indicator of the group's ability to apply assembly rules to relevant processes, and that these groups would have developed, through their ongoing interaction, more cohesive structures. 5” 55 The research setting for the investigation was the Operations De- partment of a large commercial bank in the eastern United States. Fifty- eight work groups from a single division were included in the study. These groups were operationally defined as organizational units in which all members were: (1) physically proximate, (2) performing interdependent tasks, (3) receiving their performance evaluations from a common super- visor. For statistical reasons, only units with five or more members were included in the sample. This was due to the fact that group co— hesiveness values in the study were based on the mean responses of group members to a series of survey items, and it was felt that small sample observations would unduly reduce the reliability of the cohesiveness measure. The 58 work groups included every employee in the division, with the exception of a légrman evening/night force and 299_employees who work in units with fewer than five members. While random sampling tech- -niques were not used within the division, given the exhaustive nature of the study, the argument can be made that the findings were generalizable to other departments within the bank's Operations Division and, in a tentative sense, to the population of clerical employees who work in large, non—unionized, bureaucracies. Data were tested with correlational statistics to determine the degree of relationship between communication and group cohesiveness. Six specific hypotheses were tested, representing three general factors in communica- tion: the way people establish procedural regulations for their inter- action, the content used in communication, and the process controls that 56 are enacted during a transaction. Two hypotheses were specified for each factor, one examining the accuracy of relative satisfaction levels with the other's communication behavior, and an estimate of actual behavior during communication. The non-experimental nature of the study disallowed investigation of the causal questions associated with the relationship between communi- cation and group cohesiveness. Directional selection in the research design of communication, as a predictor variable, and of group cohesive— ness, as a criterion variable, was drawn from the theoretical positions advanced by Bass (1965), by Jacobson (1956), and by Zalesnik and Moment (196M). Their theories of group process were based on a developmental sequence of critical sets of behavior over time. And, in this investiga— tion, it would seem reasonable to maintain the position that communication behavior is a more manipulable concept that more directly influences the direction of norm formation within the group. The findings failed to support the research hypotheses that were specified in the study. In fact, a majority of the hypotheses showed an inverse relationship between communication accuracy and group cohesive— ness. Group members and their supervisor, who were more accurate when describing their communication, were less likely to estimate high values for their group's cohesiveness. This inverse relationship was statisti— cally significant (p = .05) when accuracy in satisfaction with process control was related to group cohesiveness. Discussion Analysis of the data uncovered a pattern of imperfect supervisory communication behavior in more cohesive work groups. The secondary 57 analysis continued the trend; the judge's rating of group cohesiveness showed significant negative relationships fOr satisfaction with the communication process. And a multivariate analysis indicated that in- accuracy in predicting communication process rules was a major indicator of group cohesiveness under both measurement conditions. The results clearly Opposed the hypotheses that were postulated in the study. There had been evidence from Deutsch's research (1953) to substantiate the assumption that better communication was related to cohesiveness. In his research, communication correspondence in agree- ment on task procedures was controlled experimentally, high agreement pairs rated their own group cohesiveness higher and perfbrmed signifi- cantly better in conflict situations than did pairs with low communica— tion agreement. Also, Weick's theoretic position on the function of assembly rules in building group interdependence would seem to support the basic hypotheses. One interpretation of the results centered on understanding the role of the supervisor, the person formally authorized by management to provide the work group with leadership. While the supervisor is part of management, he is also a member of the work group in terms of his physical location and his production responsibilities. The research findings indicated more cohesive work groups treated the supervisor in this dual role as an outsider, by maintaining behavioral patterns that reinforced the social distance between a supervisor and his work group. An in-group vs. out-group interpretation of the supervisor's com- munication role would help to explain the pattern of inaccuracy in cohesive groups, and it would be a consistent finding with previous 58 inquiries. It is similar to the rejection phenomenon which Schachter (1952) described, when his experimentally derived high cohesive groups expelled deviant members who would not conform with group norms. Also, the inter- group conflict studies made by Sherif (1953) would help to explain how greater cohesiveness is fostered when group members respond to a common external symbol. There are additional factors to be considered that add to interpreta— tion of the results. In the year preceding the study, new management took control of the bank and began a program of reorganization. The previous management regime had maintained a highly centralized organizational struc— ture, one which relied heavily on cohesion and employees' submission to authority for its power base. Similarly, the production policies fo110wed by the former management group allowed the marketing of special customer services without planning and coordinating functional production schedules within the organization's production areas. Thus, the situation at the time of the survey, prior to the reorgani- zation, pictured an overabundance of small work groups and an unwieldy management communication system. As a result, the supervisory job was considered to be extremely difficult: Planning and decision—making were essentially removed from its responsibilities; customers continually im— posed difficult demands; and, supervisors were forced to meet conflicting objectives by their own managers. The research setting was analogous to what Likert (1967) has described as a "system one” condition, where the organizational environment is char- acterized by low levels of openness, trust, communication, and work satis— faction. This perspective would, in part, assist in understanding the 59 findings that more cohesive groups fermed in areas of poorer communication. The differences between the two measures of group cohesiveness used in the study also gave more support to an interpretation that more cohesive work groups formed in order to foster self—protection in a chaotic environment. Interestingly, the judge's rating of group cohesiveness, and the sur- vey index measure showed a reversed description of the communication struc— ture variable. While groups rated by the judge showed a tendency fOr posi- tive prediction (r = —.l8). This discrepancy suggested that the judge's rating might include a "pro—management bias toward groups that are more integrated into the organization's formal infOrmation networks. However, both measurement conditions showed a pattern of poor process communication between the supervisor and group members. The judge's rating, including the suspected "pro—management" and "extra communication" biases, con- tained an even stronger inaccuracy pattern (r = —.32, p ‘5 .01) than did the groups which were ranked by the survey index (r = -.18). The findings on communication behavior indicated that the groups which the judge rated high on cohesiveness did have more predictable content and structure relations with their supervisors. However, scores on satisfaction with content (r = —.28) and satisfaction with process indicated that the quality of supervisory/subordinate relations was not improved because of an increase in the reliability of structural initiae tion behaviors or of content topics by themselves. The primary influence of communication behavior on group cohesiveness was explained by the inaccurate quality of process communication between the supervisor and the members of the work group. 60 Further interpretation also suggested that more reliable structure rules for communication between the supervisor and group members had a profound impact on behavior within the work group. A multiple regression analysis indicated that highly cohesive groups, which had less accurate communication links with their supervisor, were significantly higher on their job satisfaction (b = +.uu, p £3.01) and in their self—esteem (b = +.u3, p €1.01). The accuracy of communication process rules was significantly lower (b = -.2U, p €=.02) suggesting that the supervisor was distinctly isolated from more cohesive groups. Groups which the expert judge had evaluated as being high on co— hesiveness showed markedly different behavior patterns. These groups, which had more accurate communication structure values, were lower in their job satisfaction (b = -.22), in their self—esteem (b = -.ll), and in their identification with the organization (b = —.lO). These groups showed an even more distinct tendency to isolate the supervisor in terms of the accuracy of their communication process rules (b = -.u2, p 75.01). Many questions raised by these findings cannot be answered by the present data. There is no conclusive way of ascertaining the attitudinal or behavioral orientations of each supervisor, although the question would seem appropriate for analysis using the Fleishman and Harris lead— ership scales (1962). Also, there is no conclusive way to comment on the structural integration of the groups evaluated by the two measurement procedures, without the addition of a communication network mapping instrument. The results obtained on group cohesiveness as part of a description of organizational behavior theory were consistent with Seashore's (195A) 61 findings on cohesiveness in an industrial work setting. More cohesive groups did exhibit less anxious behavior and they did establish norms, which in this instance showed patterns of greater personal satisfaction. The study also showed that stronger cohesive behaviors were fostered within the group through the inaccurate perception of communication process rules between group members and their formally designated leader (in this instance, the work group supervisor). Future Research At present, plans are being followed in the bank's Operations Divi— sion which will have significant effects on both group structure and group process. The Division is being reorganized in a way that will emphasize the decentralization of planning and responsibility. Efforts are being made to introduce better communication practices into group staff meetings, into performance appraisal interviews, and into career development opportunities, in order that the quality of contact in supervisory—employee interfaces will be improved. While it is recognized that supervisory — subordinate contact is only one aspect of group communication, the organization views communi— cation development as being a vital link in a chain that provides em— ployees with a clear definition of their task objectives. It is also seen as providing supervisors with a clear mandate for their organiza— tional authority and their managerial responsibilities. Through the interaction of these elements, the organization is seeking to nurture attitudes and behaviors which support an open and productive organiza- tional climate. 62 A social science research effort is being included in the bank's reorganization plans, and a particular emphasis is being placed on study— ing the role of groups. Management clearly recognizes that group develop— ment is a basic element in its formula for organizational effectiveness, since the reorganization's goals are based on the assumption that better "teamwork" will lead to greater productivity and greater innovativeness. What needs to be done in the interests of both organization and schol— arly research is to conduct a clearer explication of the structural and task—related variables that explain group cohesiveness. Some of the methods which should be useful to achieve this end are a group socio— metric analysis of communication structure and more intensive measurement of behavioral variables. Just as this research investigation began the work of specifying multivariate organizational phenomena that are associ— ated with cohesiveness, more work needs to be begun on measuring behavioral phenomena that are associated with the concept. Future research into group processes would most likely benefit, on a conceptual level, from reviews of the cooperation/conflict research done by Deutsch (1959), from the coalition formation research done by Caplow (1959) and by Vinacke (1962), and from the interaction analysis work summarized by Amidon and Hough (1967). It is likely that this re~ view would strengthen the usefulness of group cohesiveness as a descriptive variable in the study of organizational behavior. And, it is quite pos— sible that this work will lead to a more advanced formulation of different types of cohesive conditions that can be used to predict outcomes within the organizational environment. APPENDIX Open Communication Study March, 1971 EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION QUESTIONNAIRE We want to know about your communication activities with your immediate supervisor, and with your supervisor's boss--the person we refer to as your "2-step" supervisor. We will ask for your name, your immediate supervisor's name, and your 2-step supervisor's name; however, as in all of your question— naires, your name is being used for study purposes, not in any way to grade you. Your answers are confidential; they will not be used to evaluate your performance. -—- -—- Before we turn to the main questions about communication, we need to know your name and to get your opinion of your supervisor's interest in you. 1. First, what is your name? 2. In your own personal view, how would you describe your immediate super— visor? (MARK THE ONE ANSWER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR VIEWS.) Would you say he is... very interested in both my work and my personal problems more interested in my work problems than in my personal problems more interested in my personal problems than in my work problems interested only in my work problems not interested in any of my problems 3. Now, how about the person who is the immediate supervisor of your super— visor--the person your boss reports to. How would you describe him? (MARK THE ONE ANSWER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR VIEWS.) Would you say he is... very interested in both my work and my personal problems more interested in my work problems than in my personal problems more interested in my personal problems than in my work problems interested only in my work problems not interested in any of my problems 61+ 65 Now, let's turn to the main questions. We need to learn about communi— cation between you and your immediate supervisor, and between you and your supervisor's supervisor (we call him a "2—step" supervisor). We want you to describe these communication situations, to tell us ways in which you are or aren't satisfied, and to evaluate each person's participation. Let's look first at communication between you and your immediate supervisor. First, what is your immediate supervisor's name? COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR When two people begin to communicate, one of them has to ask for it to happen. Over time, when you and your supervisor communicate, who usually asks fer the meeting to occur? Does he usually suggest it...do you usually suggest it...or do you suggest it about equally? I usually suggest the meeting He usually suggests it We suggest it about equally Of course, it takes two to communicate. Sometimes one person suggests a meeting, but the other one delays it, or puts it off, or says he can't get together, etc. Between you and your supervisor, who is more likely to put off getting together? He is more likely to put it off I'm more likely to put it off We do it about equally Neither one of us puts off or delays a meeting On the average, aside from brief greetings, how often do you and your immediate supervisor communicate (face-to-face or telephone)? Several times a day Once a day Once or twice a week Once or twice a month Less often 3a. How satisfied are you with the frequency with which you and your supervisor communicate? I'd like to get together more often I'd like to get together less often I'm satisfied 66 When two people get together, one of them has to decide what they'll talk about. Generally, when you and your immediate supervisor talk, who usually decides on the t0pics to be discussed? He usually decides I usually decide It's split about evenly between us ”a. How satisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like more to say about what we talk about I'm satisfied When you and your immediate supervisor talk, whose problems do you talk about for the most part...his problems or your problems? We talk more about his problems we talk more about my problems It's split about evenly between his and my problems 5a. How dissatisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like to talk more about problems I have I'd like to talk more about problems he has I'd like to talk more about both his problems and my problems I'm satisfied the way it is now When you and your immediate supervisor talk about work problems (get- ting the job done, scheduling, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about work problems 6a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about work problems? I'd like to talk more about work problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now When you and your immediate supervisor talk about people problems (inter~ personal relations, counseling people, solving personal problems, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about people problems 67 7a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about people problems? I'd like to talk more about people problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now 8. When you and your immediate supervisor talk about new ideas or new ways of doing things, who usually brings the subject up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about new ideas or new ways of doing things 8a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about new ideas? I'd like to talk more about I'd like to talk less I'm satisfied 9. When two people talk, one or the other sometimes interrupts to change the subject. When you and your immediate supervisor talk, who usually interrupts to change the subject? He does I do It's split about evenly between us Neither one of us interrupts to change the subject 9a. HOw dissatisfied are you with having your immediate super- visor interrupt you? I wish he'd let me finish things without having him interrupt me I'm satisfied 10. Sometimes communication is interrupted by outside interference; e.g., phone calls, someone breaking into the conversation, etc. When this happens while you and your immediate supervisor are talking, who are the outsiders looking for usually? They usually are looking for him They usually are looking for me It's split about evenly We aren't interrupted when we're talking with each other 10a. How satisfied are you with the amount of these outside interruptions? I wish there were fewer of them I'm satisfied ll. 12. 13. 68 When you and your immediate supervisor talk face-to-face, how long do your talks together usually last? 5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes More than 30 minutes lla. How satisfied are you with the length of these conver- sations between you and your immediate supervisor? I'd like to get together for longer periods of time I'd like to get together for shorter periods of time I'm satisfied When two people are talking, somebody has to decide to end the con— versation. Over time, when you and your immediate supervisor commu- nicate, who usually ends the conversation...who decides when it is time to stop? I usually end the conversation He usually ends it We do it about equally Overall, who would you say does most of the talking in your conversa— tions with your immediate supervisor? He talks a lot more than I do He talks a little more than I do We talk about the same amount of time I talk a little more than he does I talk a lot more than he does 13a. How satisfied are you with this? I'd like to do more of the talking I'd like to do less of the talking I'm satisfied communication relationship with you. rate your supervisor (i.e., is he satisfactory? 69 Let's turn to your evaluation of your immediate supervisor's overall provement? or, does he need lots of improvement?). My Evaluation of My Immediate upervisor When He's With Me He is sat- He needs some On each of the following criteria does he need some im- He needs lots Criteria isfactory improvement of improvement 1n. He plans ahead to save my time 15. He gives me his complete attention 16. He welcomes my honest crit- icism about his actions and ideas 17. He gives me honest criticism about my actions and ideas 18. He understands that he and I are different people, with different goals, purposes, values, skills 19. He communicates well; he's clear and articulate You've evaluated your immediate supervisor. Now, evaluate yourself in your relationship with him--on the same criteria. My Evaluation of Me When I'm With My Immediate Supervisor I am sat— I need some I need lots of Criteria isfactory improvement improvement 20. I plan ahead to save his time 21. I give him my complete attention 22. I welcome his honest criticism about my actions and ideas 23. I give him honest criticism about his actions and ideas 70 I am sat- I need some Criteria isfactory improvement 2n. I understand that he and I are different people, with differ— ent goals, purposes, values, skills 25. I communicate well; I'm clear and articulate I need lots of improvement 71 Now, think of the person who is your immediate supervisor's boss--your 2-step boss. What is his name? We want you to fill out the following questions about your relation- ship with him. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR 2-STEP SUPERVISOR 1. When two people begin to communicate, one of them has to ask for it to happen. Over time, when you and your 2—step supervisor communicate, who usually asks fOr the meeting to occur? Does he usually suggest it...do you usually suggest it...or do you suggest it about equally? I never communicate with my 2-step boss (Go to the next section on page 12) I usually suggest the meeting He usually suggests it We suggest it about equally 2. Of course, it takes two to communicate. Sometimes one person suggests a meeting, but the other one delays it, or puts if off, or says he can't get together, etc. Between you and your 2-step supervisor, who is more likely to put off getting together? He is more likely to put it off I'm more likely to put it off We do it about equally Neither one of us puts off or delays a meeting 3. On the average, aside from brief greetings, how often do you and your 2-step supervisor communicate (face—to—face or telephone)? Several times a day Once a day Once or twice a week Once or twice a month Less often 3a. How satisfied are you with the frequency with which you and your 2—step supervisor communicate? I'd like to get together more often I'd like to get together less often I'm satisfied 72 When two people get together, one of them has to decide what they'll talk about. Generally, when you and your 2—step supervisor talk, who usually decides on the tOpics to be discussed? He usually decides I usually decide It's split about evenly between us ua. How satisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like more to say about what we talk about I'm satisfied When you and your 2-step supervisor talk, whose problems do you talk about for the most part...his problems or your problems? We talk more about his problems We talk more about my problems It's split about evenly between his and my problems 5a. How dissatisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like to talk more about problems I have I'd like to talk more about problems he has I'd like to talk more about both his problems and my problems I'm satisfied the way it is now When you and your 2-step supervisor talk about work problems (getting the job done, scheduling, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about work problems 6a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about work problems? I'd like to talk more about work problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now When you and your 2-step supervisor talk about people problems (inter— personal relations, counseling people, solving personal problems, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us we don't talk about people problems 10. 73 7a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about people problems? I'd like to talk more about people problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now When you and your 2-step supervisor talk about new ideas g£_new ways g£_ doing things, who usually brings the subject up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about new ideas or new ways of doing things 8a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about new ideas? I'd like to talk more about I'd like to talk less I'm satisfied When two people talk, one or the other sometimes interrupts to change the subject. When you and your 2—step supervisor talk, who usually interrupts to change the subject? He does I do It's split about evenly between us Neither one of us interrupts to change the subject 9a. How dissatisfied are you with having your 2-step supervisor interrupt you? I wish he'd let me finish things without having him interrupt me I'm satisfied Sometimes communication is interrupted by outside interference; e.g., phone calls, someone breaking into the conversation, etc. When this happens while you and your 2-step supervisor are talking, who are the outsiders looking for usually? They usually are looking for him They usually are looking for me It's split about evenly we aren't interrupted when we're talking with each other 10a. How satisfied are you with the amount of these outside interruptions? I wish there were fewer of them I'm satisfied ll. 12. 13. 7a When you and your 2-step supervisor talk face-to—face, how long do your talks together usually last? 5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11—20 minutes 21-30 minutes More than 30 minutes lla. HOw satisfied are you with the length of these conversa- tions between you and your 2—step supervisor? I'd like to get together for longer periods of time I'd like to get together for shorter periods of time I'm satisfied When two people are talking, somebody has to decide to end the conversa- tion. Over time, when you and your 2-step supervisor communicate, who usually ends the conversation...who decides when it is time to stop? I usually end the conversation He usually ends it we do it about equally Overall, who would you say does most of the talking in your conversa- tion with your 2—step supervisor? He talks a lot more than I do He talks a little more than I do we talk about the same amount of time I talk a little more than he does I talk a lot more than he does 13a. How satisfied are you with this? I'd like to do more of the talking I'd like to do less of the talking I'm satisfied 75 Let's turn to your evaluation of your 2-step supervisor's overall communication relationship with you. On each of the following criteria, rate your 2-step supervisor (i.e., is he satisfactory? Does he need some improvement? Or, does he need lots of improvement?). My Evaluation of My 2—Step Supervisor When He's With Me He is He needs satis- He needs some lots of Criteria factory improvement improvement 1n. He plans ahead to save my time 15. He gives me his complete attention 16. He welcomes my honest criticism about his actions and ideas 17. He gives me honest criticism about my actions and ideas 18. He understands that he and I are different people, with differ- ent goals, purposes, values, skills 19. He communicates well; he's clear and articulate You've evaluated your 2—step supervisor. Now,evaluate yourself in your relationship with him——on the same criteria. My Evaluation of Me When I'm With My 2-Step Supervisor I'm I need satis— I need some lots of Criteria factory_ improvement improvement 20. I plan ahead to save his time 21. I give him my complete attention 22. I welcome his honest criticism about my actions and ideas 23. I give him honest criticism about his actions and ideas 2n. I understand that he and I are different people, with differ— ent goals, purposes, values, skills 25. I communicate well; I'm clear articulate 76 Now we'd like you to describe your communication with each of your immediate subordinates--people who report directly to you. How many persons report directly to you? . (If the answer is that no one reports to you, you have completed this portion of the questionnaire. Please turn to the pink section of the questionnaire). We want you to describe your communication with each of your immediate subordinates--one at a time. Fill out one set of questions for a particular subordinate you are describing. Then, turn to another set for another sub— ordinate, and so on until you have described your communication with each of them. When you have finished doing this for each of them, turn to the pink section of the questionnaire. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES What is the name of the subordinate you're describing first? 1. When two people begin to communicate, one of them has to ask for it to happen. Over time, when you and your subordinate communicate, who usually asks fer the meeting to occur? Does he usually suggest it... do you usually suggest it...or do you suggest it about equally? I usually suggest the meeting He usually suggests it We suggest it about equally 2. Of course, it takes two to communicate. Sometimes one person suggests a meeting, but the other one delays it, or puts it off, or says he can't get together, etc. Between you and your subordinate, who is more likely to put off getting together? He is more likely to put it off I'm more likely to put it off We do it about equally Neither one of us puts off or delays a meeting 3. On the average, aside from brief greetings, how often do you and your subordinate communicate (face-to-face or telephone)? Several times a day Once a day Once or twice a week Once or twice a month Less often 3a. How satisfied are you with the frequency with which you and your subordinate communicate? I'd like to get together more often I'd like to get together less often I'm satisfied 77 When two people get tOgether, one of them has to decide what they'll talk about. Generally, when you and your subordinate talk, who usually decides on the tepics to be discussed? He usually decides I usually decide It's split about evenly between us Ha. How satisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like more to say about what we talk about I'm satisfied When you and your subordinate talk, whose problems do you talk about for the most part...his problems or your problems? We talk more about his problems We talk more about my problems It's split about evenly between his and my problems 5a. How dissatisfied are you with this arrangement? I'd like to talk more about problems I have I'd like to talk more about problems he has I'd like to talk more about both his and my problems I'm satisfied with the way it is now When you and your subordinate talk about work problems (getting the job done, scheduling, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about work problems 6a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about work problems? I'd like to talk more about work problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now When you and your subordinate talk about people problems (interpersonal relations, counseling people, solving personal problems, etc.), who usually brings them up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about people problems 10. 78 7a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about people problems? I'd like to talk more about people problems I'd like to talk less about them I'm satisfied now When you and your subordinate talk about new ideas pp_new ways p£_doing things, who usually brings the subject up? He does I do It's split about evenly between us We don't talk about new ideas or new ways of doing things 8a. How satisfied are you with the amount of talk you and he have about new ideas? I'd like to talk more about it I'd like to talk less I'm satisfied When two people talk, one or the other sometimes interrupts to change the subject. When you and your subordinate talk, who usually interrupts to change the subject? He does I do It's split about evenly between us Neither one of us interrupts to change the subject 9a. How dissatisfied are you with having your subordinate interrupt you? I wish he'd let me finish things without having him interrupt me I'm satisfied Sometimes communication is interrupted by outside interference; e.g. phone calls, someone breaking into the conversation, etc. When this happens while you and your subordinate are talking, who are the out- siders looking for usually? They usually are looking for him They usually are looking for me It's split about evenly We aren't interrupted when we're talking with each other 10a. How satisfied are you with the amount of these outside interruptions? I wish there were fewer of them I'm satisfied ll. 12. 13. 79 When you and your subordinate talk face-to-face, how long do your talks together usually last? 5 minutes or less 6-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes More than 30 minutes 11a. How satisfied are you with the length of these con- versations between you and your subordinate? I'd like to get together fer longer periods of time I'd like to get together for shorter periods of time I'm satisfied When two people are talking, somebody has to decide to end the conver- sation. Over time, when you and your subordinate communicate, who usually ends the conversation...who decides when it is time to stOp? I usually end the conversation He usually ends it We do it about equally Overall, who would you say does most of the talking in your conversa— tion with your subordinate? He talks a lot more than I do He talks a little more than I do We talk about the same amount of time I talk a little more than he does I talk a lot more than he does 13a. How satisfied are you with this? I'd like to do more of the talking I'd like to do less of the talking I'm satisfied 80 Let's turn to your evaluation of your subordinate's overall communication relationship with you. On each of the fellowing criteria, rate your subor- dinate (i.e., is he satisfactory? does he need some improvement? or, does he need lots of improvement?). My Evaluation of My Subordinate When He's With Me He is He needs satis- He needs some lots of Criteria factory improvement improvement 1n. He plans ahead to save my time 15. He gives me his complete attention 16. He welcomes my honest criticism about his actions and ideas 17. He gives me honest criticism about my actions and ideas 18. He understands that he and I are different people, with different goals, purposes, values, skills 19. He communicates well; he's clear and articulate You've evaluated your subordinate. Now, evaluate yourself in your re- lationship with him—-on the same criteria. My Evaluation of Me When I'm With My Subordinate I am I need satis- I need some lots of Criteria factory improvement improvement 20. I plan ahead to save his time 21. I give him my complete attention 22. I welcome his honest criticism about my actions and ideas 23. I give him honest criticism about his actions and ideas 24. I understand that he and I are different people, with different goals, purposes, values, skills 25. I communicate well; I'm clear and articulate You need an additional set of questions fOr each subordinate you have---each person who reports directly to you. Raise your hand, and someone will bring you the number of sets you need. When you have completed them all, turn to the pink section 81 Chase Open Communication Study March, 1971 "PREDICT WHAT YOUR SUPERVISOR WILL SAY" You have described and evaluated your communication relationship with your immediate supervisor. We also will ask him the same questions we've asked you. You are pp_predict how your immediate supervisor will respond. For example, predict what your immediate supervisor will say when we ask him who usually suggests the meeting when you two get together. What is your prediction? Place an "X” by the answer that is your prediction of what he will say. 1. On who suggests a meeting, I predict that my immediate supervisor will say that: I usually suggest it be (my supervisor) usually suggests it he and I suggest it about equally 2. On how often he and I communicate face-to-face or by phone, I predict he'll say: several times a day once a day once or twice a week once or twice a month less often 3. 0n how satisfied he is with the frequency with which he and I communicate, I predict my immediate supervisor will say that: he'd like to get together more often he'd like to get together less often he's satisfied u. 0n who decides which topics will be discussed, I predict he'll say that: I usually decide he (my supervisor) usually decides it's split about evenly between us 5. 0n how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about work problems, I predict he'll say that: he'd like to talk more about work problems he'd like to talk less about them he's satisfied 10. 11. 82 On how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about people problems, I predict my immediate supervisor will say that: he'd like to talk more about people problems he'd like to talk less about them he's satisfied On how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about new ideas, I predict that he'll say that: he'd like to talk more about new ideas he'd like to talk less about them he's satisfied On how dissatisfied he is with the amount of outside interruptions that occur when he and I try to talk, I predict he'll say that: he wishes there were fewer outside interruptions he's satisfied On how satisfied he is with the length of conversations between us, he'll say that: he'd like to talk for longer periods of time he's like to talk for shorter periods of time he's satisfied On who does most of the talking when he and I get together, he'll say that: he talks a lot more than I do he talks a little more than I do he and I talk about the same amount of time I talk a little more than he does I talk a lot more than he does 0n how satisfied he is with how much he talks and how much I talk, he'll say that: he'd like to do more of the talking he'd like to do less of the talking he's satisfied l2. l3. 1“. 15. 16. 17. 83 Now try to predict how he'll evaluate your communication with him. On each of the criteria below, place an "X" to show whether you predict that your immediate supervisor will say that...you're satisfactory...need some improvement...or need lots of improvement. His evaluation of me when I'm with him. What will he say? I'm Criteria: What will he say satis- I need some on whether: factory improvement I plan ahead to save his time I give him my complete attention I welcome his honest criticism about my actions and ideas I give him honest criticism about his actions and ideas I understand that he and I are dif-~ ferent people, with different goals, purposes, values, skills I communicate well: I'm clear and articulate I need lots of improvement 8” Chase Open Communication Study March, 1971 "PREDICT WHAT YOUR SUBORDINATES WILL SAY" Your final task is to predict how each of the people who report directly to you will answer the same questions. (If you have no subordinates, you are finished and may leave with our thanks.) Complete a separate questionnaire fer each of your subordinates (you should have received as many sets as you need--if not, raise your hand and someone will bring you additional sets). Predict how each of your subordinates will answer. You are not giving your answers——you're predicting his pp_hers. This subordinate's name is . I'll now try to predict how he will answer the questionnaire. 1. On who suggests a meeting, I predict that this subordinate will say that: I usually suggest it he (my subordinate) usually suggests it he and I suggest it about equally 2. On how often he and I communicate face-to—face or by phone, I predict he'll say: several times a day once a day once or twice a week once or twice a month less often 3. On how satisfied he is with the frequency with which he and I communicate, I predict this subordinate will say that: he'd like to get together more often he'd like to get together less often he's satisfied a. On who decides which topics will be discussed, I predict he'll say that: I usually decide he (the subordinate) usually decides it's split about evenly between us 5. On how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about work problems, I predict he'll say that: he'd like to talk more about work problems he'd like to talk less about them he's satisfied 10. ll. 85 On how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about people problems, I predict this subordinate will say that: he'd like to talk more about people problems he'dlike to talk less about them he's satisfied On how satisfied he is with the amount of talk he and I have about new ideas, I predict that he'll say that: he'd like to talk more about new ideas he'd like to talk less about them he's satisfied On how dissatisfied he is with the amount of outside interruptions that occur when he and I try to talk, I predict he'll say that: he wishes there were fewer outside interruptions he's satisfied 0n how satisfied he is with the length of conversations between us, he'll say that: he'd like to talk for longer periods of time he'd like to talk for shorter periods of time he's satisfied On who does most of the talking when he and I get together, he'll say that: he talks a lot more than I do he talks a little more than I do he and I talk about the same amount of time I talk a little more than he does I talk a lot more than he does On how satisfied he is with how much he talks and how much I talk, he'll say that: he'd like to do more of the talking he'd like to do less of the talking he's satisfied 86 Now try to predict how he'll evaluate your communication with him. On each of the criteria below, place an "X" to show whether you predict that this subordinate will say that...you're satisfactory...need some improvement... or need lots of improvement. His evaluation of me when I'm with him. What will he say? I'm I need Criteria: What will he say satis- I need some lots of on whether: factory improvement improvement 12. I plan ahead to save his time 13. I give him my complete attention 1“. I welcome his honest criticism about my actions and ideas 15. I give him honest criticism about his actions and ideas 16. I understand that he and I are dif- ferent people, with different goals, purposes, values, skills 17. I communicate well; I'm clear and articulate Open Communication Study March, 1971 We would like your opinions on a variety of topics related to the Remember, your opinions are confidential; they will not be used in any way to evaluate your work performance. Your name is Your immediate supervisor's name is Do you work in a sub-section, or a section? I work in a sub—section (please specify): I work in a section (please specify): Other (please specify): PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN ANSWERING THE OPINION QUESTIONS 87 88 Some people like to know all about the things going on in their section (or sub-section)...and other people don't care much one way or the other. How important is it to you to know about what's going on in your section? I'm not interested in knowing things unless they affect me personally I like to keep up on some of the things that go on I like to know about most things~-it's good to be "in on everything" Some people want to be involved in making decisions that affect them and their work, while other people prefer not to get involved in those decisions. How about you? I want to be involved in any decision that affects me I'd like a little involvement, but only in really important things I don't want to get involved in these decisions—-that's my supervisor's job How well would you say that the people in your section (or sub— section) get along together, compared with people in other sub- sections you know about? We get along better than most We get along about as much as others do We get along worse than most do We really don't have anything much to do with each other How well would you say that the people in your section (or sub-section help each other out in their work, compared with other sections you know about? We help each other out more than they do We help each other out about as much as they do we help each other out less than they do We really don't have anything much to do with each other When there are changes in plans and policies that affect your section (or sub—section), how well-informed are you, compared with other sections (or sub-sections) you know about? we usually know more about it than they do We usually know about as much as they do We usually know less than they do 10. 89 Some people like to feel a part of their whole section (or sub-section). Some only want to feel a part of a smaller group. Still others would just as soon be left alone. Which is your feeling? I like to feel a part of my whole section I like to feel a part of only a small group I don't want to be part of any group on the job. I'd just as soon stay to myself. Compared with other you know about, would you say is... One of the best places to work and stay with A good place for a while——but not to stay with About like all the others One of the worst places to work I really don't know In the last couple of months, I've thought about... Quitting my job at to go to work some place else Transferring to another part of , but not quitting Neither one—-I don't want to quit or transfer I've just not thought about it Which of the following statements most accurately describes your job? The work varies a lot and takes lots of thought to do well Some of the job is routine, but most of it takes a lot of thought Most of the job is routine, but some of it takes a lot of thought It's a very routine job——very simple to do Would you like your job better if you had more things to think about—— or if you had more routine to do? I'd like more things to think about on my job I'd like my job to have more routine I'd like it to stay the same as it is We'd like you to rate your job on a number of aspects. How much does your job allow you to (Put an X in the column that best represents you feelings)... Quite a bit—— Not as much Not very I'm Satisfied as I'd like much at all Show the skills you have Do first—rate work Learn new things ll. 12. 13. 9O Quite a bit-- Not as much Not very I'm Satisfied as I'd like much at all Make your own decisions Become a better person Do something that's good for other people Peel worthwhile, signifi- cant as a person Get ahead, get promoted in the Enjoy getting to know other peOple We'd like you to compare your work at to other parts of your life-~your family, friends, how you spend your spare time, etc. Which of the following statements most accurately describes how important your job is when compared with other parts of your life? My job is the most important part of my life Next to my family, my job is the most important part of my life I wouldn't put it ahead of other things, but the job is important to me I don't think much about it--a job's a job Some people want their friends to know where they work—-some don't—— and some don't care one way or the other. Which statement best des— cribes your feelings? I like my friends to know I work at , because they think is a good place to work I don't care if they know or not, because it doesn't make any difference to my friends where I work I don't care if they know or not, because I don't care what my friends think about my work I don't like my friends to know I work here, because I get embarrassed when they say bad things about I don't like my friends to know I work here, because I get angry when they say bad things about When I'm off work (nights, weekends and so on), generally I... Look forward to the next work day Wish I could stay away from the office, but really I can't Don't think much about my work, one or the other 14. 15. 16. 91 How do you feel the top management of looks on you as a person-~how much do they care about you? (Pick the statement that best describes your feelings.) They don't give a damn about me as a person—-just in getting all the work out of me that they can They don't think of me as a person, one way or another They wouldn't hurt me or help me on purpose——I just don't exist for them other than as a worker They probably care about me as a person, but it doesn't make any difference. There's no way in which what they feel about me would have any influence on my work—~or how I'm treated They care about me, and they try to do things to make my life on the job better They really care, and they go out of their way to do anything they can to make me feel worthwhile I don't know whether they care about me—-and I don't want to know. I'm just here to do a job and go home How do you feel your immediate supervisor at looks on you as a person—-how much does he care about you? He doesn't give a damn about me as a person—-just in getting all the work out of me that he can He doesn't think of me as a person, one way or another He wouldn't hurt me or help me on purpose--I just don't exist for him other than as a worker He probably cares about me as a person, but it doesn't make any difference. There's no way in which what he feels about me would have any influence on my work-—or how I'm treated He cares about me, and he tries to do things to make my life on the job better He really cares, and he goes out of his way to do anything he can to make me feel worthwhile I don't know whether he cares about me—-and I don't want to know. I'm just here to do a job and go home How do you feel about your co-workers at How much do they care about you? They don't give a damn about me as a person—~just in getting me to do work that won't cause them trouble They don't think of me as a person, one way or another They wouldn't hurt me or help me on purpose——I just don't exist for them other than as a worker They probably care about me as a person, but it doesn't make any difference. There's no way in which what they feel about me would have any influence on my work——or how I'm treated They care about me, and they try to do things to make my life on the job better 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 92 They really care, and they go out of their way to do anything they can to make me feel worthwhile I don't know whether they care about me—-and I don't want to know. I'm just here to do a job and go home How often do you feel sure that most people like you? Very often Fairly often Not very often Not often at all When you are with a group of people, how often do you have trouble finding the right things to talk about? Very often Fairly often Not very often Net often at all How often do you worry about what other people think of you? Very often Fairly often Not very often Not often at all How often do you get the feeling that you are not doing anything well? Very often Fairly often Not very often Not often at all HOW often do you feel life is really going well for you——that things are really going your way? Very often Fairly often Not very often Not often at all How often do you feel you're really not worth very much-—that you aren't much good? Very often Fairly often Not very often Not often at all 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 93 Most peOple can be trusted. Do you agree-—or disagree? Agree Neutral Disagree If you don't watch yourself, most people will take advantage of you. Agree Neutral Disagree Most people are more inclined to help others rather than think of themselves first. Agree Neutral Disagree People hardly every tell the truth if their own interests might be hurt. Agree Neutral Disagree All of the sections in are scheduled to be moved soon, or have moved already. How much of a problem do you think your move will cause on the work you do? It won't cause me any problem at all There will be problems, but they won't last long There will be serious problems When my supervisor can't help me with a problem, I should first go to... Staff Communications My supervisor's supervisor Area Personnel Staff Development Nowhere else, if my supervisor doesn't help I don't know And if that person doesn't help, I should next go to... Staff Communications My supervisor's supervisor Area Personnel Staff Development Nowhere else, if that person doesn't help 30. 31. 32. 33. 94 If someone in my sub—section (or section) asked me about getting a transfer to another part of , I would tell him to go to... Staff Communications His supervisor Area Personnel Staff Development Nowhere to see about a transfer——he shouldn't be asking about one I wouldn't know what to tell him The Bank is introducing a new set of work procedures in called Have you seen or heard anything at all about No I think so, not sure Yes, it's to replace Yes, it's a new training program for supervisors Yes, it's something else (please describe in detail) When is introduced, will it affect the work done in your sub—section? No, it won't have any affect It might, I'm not sure Yes, it'll affect our work I don't know about it Will affect your own job? No, it won't affect my job It might, I'm not sure Yes, it'll affect my job I haven't heard about #10 #11 #12 #13 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON GROUP COMPOSITION 34.35 26.87 31.77 41.77 37.00 33.12 29.67 31.45 34.11 35.11 33.90 41.00 15.11 13.35 17.23 15.22 14.42 7.09 14.89 14.89 13.77 11.10 12.82 95 Tenure Mean 3.46 2.93 2.75 3.89 4.44 5.20 5.12 2.66 3.09 8.55 3.00 5.99 Mean 3.13 2.67 3.00 2.70 2.87 2.33 2.50 6.56 6.78 Grade .54 .50 .69 .56 .OO .95 .83 .50 .71 .51 .11 .91 .OO Group #11: #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #20 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #314 #35 #36 Mean 48.83 38.89 29.22 33.11 31.66 29.00 38.83 32.33 32.50 28.80 33.00 43.50 31.57 33.28 33.33 38.17 46.17 34.73 57.64 30.45 37.62 41.00 40.37 7.86 13.93 11.94 8.99 5.61 8.72 11.64 10.69 11.98 10.32 11.20 17.10 10.23 16.98 16.62 9.41 96 Tenure Mean 12.33 5.22 3.11 3.75 3.16 9.33 3.28 3.50 4.83 4.63 14.45 3.45 7.50 5.01 6.72 .40 2.66 4.96 1.70 1.54 1.38 3.38 4.02 n.3u 5.64 1.80 1.51 Mean 8.33 6.00 3.00 7.37 6.13 .58 .33 .39 .35 .79 .37 .64 .64 .43 .75 .41 .49 .08 .22 .17 .55 .01 .01 .92 .99 .83 Group #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #12 #113 #m: #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #51:. #55 #56 #57 #58 Mean 55.57 42.80 40.85 38.67 32.13 27.50 33.20 31.63 29.00 34.22 31.18 34.14 47.07 42.41 35.66 36.91 39.44 36.37 43.83 37.16 38.45 36.75 16.66 10.80 13.14 16.47 13.17 8.40 14.41 12.31 11.78 14.03 9.73 8.01 9.89 15.54 8.42 10.58 11.00 Tenure Mean 5.57 9.16 4.73 4.20 3.81 3.11 3.11 3.00 7.35 9.33 5.77 3.81 5.00 6.00 12.67 3.50 4.64 5.25 3.04 .75 1.69 3.48 1.56 1.82 6.93 12.43 4.89 2.23 1.58 7.79 1.97 2.06 4.23 Mean 8.29 7.71 8.20 2.64 7.16 7.10 5.86 5.54 7.57 7.75 7.90 7.56 7.87 8.33 7.00 8.00 8.12 1.09 .74 1.72 1.52 1.27 1.63 1.51 .83 1.10 1.59 1.36 1.67 1.34 1.55 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, F. H. "A Structuronomic Conception of Behavior: Individual and Collective." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 633 pp. 3-30. Amidon, B. J. and Hough, J. B. "Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application." (Education Series), 1967. Back, K. "Influence Through Social Communication." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 463 pp. 9—23. Bass, B. Organizational Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965. Berlo, D. K. The Uses Humans Make of Communication. Department of . Communication, Michigan State University, 1960. Bertalanffy, L. Von. "Organismic Psychology and Systems Theory." Heinze Werner Lecture Series, Vol. 1, Barre. Buckley, W. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, Donald W. "Convergent and Discriminant Vali- dation by the Multitrait—Multimethod Matrix, Psych. Bull., 1959, 56, pp. 81. Caplow, T. Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1969. Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. (Third Edition). New York: Harper 8 Row, 1968, pp. 14-28. Cattell, R. B. Description and Measurement of Personality. New York: World, 1946. Collins, B. E. and Guetzkow, H. A Social Psychology of Grouprrocesses for Decision~Making. New York: Wiley, 1964. Crow, W. J. 'The Effect of Training Upon Accuracy and Variability in Interpersonal Perception." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55) pp. 355-359. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1957. Darwin, C. "The Pre-Human in the Human." In Ellman, R. and Feidelson, C. (Eds.), In the Modern Tradition. Oxford University Press: New York, 1965. 98 u 99 Deutsch, M. "A Theory of Cooperation and Competition." Human Relations, 1949, 23 pp. 129-152. Deutsch, J. A. Structural Basis of Behavior. University of Chicago Press, 1960. Downs, A. Inside Bureaucracy, Boston: Little Brown, Inc., 1967. Festinger, L., Scachter, S., and Back, K. Social Pressures in Informal Gropps. New York: Harper, 1950. Fleishman, E. and Harris, E. "Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover." Personnel Psychology, 1962, 153 pp. 43-55. ' Freud, Klemme H. Structure and Change in Organizations. Topeka: The Menninger Foundation. Unpublished paper, 1971. Golombiewski, R. Small Group Research, Chicago: Rand—McNally, 1962. Gompertz, H. Philosophipal Studies by Henrich Gompertz. Robinson, Daniel S. (Ed.), Chris. Mass., 1960. Guetzkow, H. S. Groups Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations. Russell Sage Foundation, 1963. Gullahorn, J. "Distance and Friendship As Factors in the Gross Interaction Matrix." Sociometry, 1952, 15) pp. 123-134. Hamblin, R. "Group Integration During a Crisis." Human Relations, 1958, 113 pp. 67—76. Hare, A. P. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press, 1962. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Homans, G. C. "Social Behavior as Exchange." American Journal of Sociology, 1958, p33 pp. 597-606. Jackson, J. M. "Reference Group Processes in a Formal Organization." Sociometry, 1959, 223 pp. 307-327. Jacobson, E. "The Growth of Groups in a Voluntary Organization." Journal of Social Issues, 1956, 123 pp. 18-23. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Kipnis, Dorothy M. "Interaction Between Members of Bomber Crews as a Determinant of Sociometric Choice." Human Relations, 1957, £93 pp. 263-270. 100 Klein, G. 8. "Need and Regulation." In Jones, M. R. (Ed.). Nebraska Symppsium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1954, 23 pp. 224—274. Korman, A. "A Cause of Communication Failure." Personal Administration, 1960, 33, pp. 17-21. Lewin, K. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics: I. "Concept of Group Life: Social Planning and Action Research." Human RelatiOns, 1947, 13 pp. 5—41. Lippitt, R. and White, R. K. "An Experimental Study of Leadership and Group Life." In G. E. Swanson and others (Eds.). Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 1952, pp. 14-49. Libo, L. M. Measuring Group Cohesiveness. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1953. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Likert, R. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Lott, A. J. and Lott, Bernice B. "Group Cohesiveness, Communication Level, and ConfOrmity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyghology, 1961, p23 pp. 408-412. MacDonald, D. "Communication Roles and Communication Content in a Bureaucratic Setting." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Mark, R. A. "Parameters of Normal Family Communication in the Dyad." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Martin, W. E., Darley J. G., and Gross, N. "Studies of Group Behavior: II. Methodological Problems in the Study of Interrelations of Group Members." Educ. Psychol. Measurement, 1952, 13) pp. 533—553. Miller, J. G. "Living Systems: Basic Concepts." Behavioral Science, 1965, no, pp. 193—237. Mintz, A. "Non—Adaptive Group Behavior." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 463 pp. 150—159. Monge, Peter R. "The Study of Human Communication From Three Systems Paradigms." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Muldoon, J. F. "The Concentration of Liked and Disliked Members in Groups and the Relationship of the Concentrations to Group Co- hesiveness." Sociometry, 1955, 18: 101 Newcomb, T. M. "An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts." Psychological Review, 1953, p23 pp. 393-404. Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology: A Study of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Patchen, M. Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Parsons, T. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press, 1960. Piaget, J. Structuralism. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970. Richards, D. A. A Theory of Reasons for Action. Oxford University Press, 1971. Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, w. J. Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Rog, D. "Quota Restrictions and Gold Bricking in a Machine Shop," American Journal of Sociology, 1952, E1) pp. 427~452. Rubenstein, A. and Haberstroh, C. Some Theories of Organization. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1960. Schachter, S. "An Experimental Study of Cohesiveness and Productivity." Human Relations, 1951, 53 pp. 229—238. Schachter, S. Psycholegy of Affiliation: Experimental Studies of the Sources of Gregariousness. Stanford University Press, 1959. Schwartz, D. F. "Liaison-Communication Roles in a Formal Organization." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Seashore, S. E. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1954. Stagner, R. The Psychology of Industrial Conflict. New York: Wiley, 1956. Sullivan, H. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. Washington: w. A. White Psychiatric Foundation, 1947. Taylor, D. W. "Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking?" In Costello, T. W. and Zalkind, S. S. (Eds.). Psychology in Administration. New York: Wiley, 1964. Thibault, J. W. and Kelley, H. H. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. 102 Vinacke, W. and Arkoff, A. "An Experimental Study of Coalitions in the Triad." American Sociological Review., 1957, 32) pp. 406—414. Wackman, Daniel. "Family Communication Patterns and the Structure and Resolution of Adolescent Role Conflict." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968. Weaver, C. "The Quantification of the Frame of Reference in Labor— Management Communication." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, pp. 1—9. Weick, K. "Laboratory Experimentation with Organizations." In March, J. G. (Ed.). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Weick, K. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison— Wesley, 1969. Weiner, M. L. Personality: The Human Potential. General Psychology Series, Vol. 33, Pergamon, 1955. Zalesnik, A. and Moment, D. Casebook in Interpersonal Behavior in Organi— zations. Wiley, 1964. Zander, A. F. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. '(Second Edition). Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1960, pp. 14-28. lllllHWll/HlllUlWHl/HIWIWIJIWIUIH'IWIIHI -