(3‘1“! '1 1‘1I ‘11'11 ($11. .3 V 11;. -'.;1,1.1 1-1. ** W 55.111 ((1.1 ‘1‘, “VIC {11113135 1,. -1 ,4 , . I ‘13. (‘2‘1‘ {\fifin ‘13‘. ”it. ‘ ‘ '1‘ “13‘“ I1 K551. ’ “a -. 1: 1(1'1'11 ‘LW I,1111.‘1E1,1.-I‘,‘,,I C‘SEW (1.1} ,I 1. “.31 ‘15}‘11111'3g1..,‘3‘,‘,§§f‘.11,1,1. ,.E1111.1 1,. IEIIjEIH, 1351‘ 1.1.:1 5'“ | (I ““‘L‘ 1" 5" (1‘ £159”: 1 .11 . ((1 ,III‘,( lI1 1.,I..I(._ 1‘15“ “1‘11 EKH‘Ik“ 1,1,1 kgséézgv 1, 5‘1" 1111'" (‘1 (Lu W ‘5: U“ .l 2313 ”(131.1: "11 11.113III111, III1,1,‘1.1 (‘51‘13i11‘1i . 3. 1,1 .1 I,,:1,:,1I1I ‘1‘,“111‘ “1:1,: '1‘- 1,3‘: (1,1, I . ‘11! 1IIII, ,1 11":1I11I .. (“13:93 ',‘, .1. :II III I . (5“:(‘11' . .1 ,:(11(E(1(; .": ‘13 :1, 1,1‘q;(I1I,I(,I1,D,((III1‘,1_I‘1 !,I-1I,1‘1,},1.1 .C'fii‘fi IIII,II1,‘1,.,£, (‘1‘,11“Q:1,“(‘1\IIEII1IE1;,I ,é‘fxx‘r‘g‘ "(‘5‘ 1“ W 53E::”‘(“’ 5‘ (”5 I" 3‘51 1,1‘ '1,5'11,1111.\‘(1‘, "((15 (WWW 13‘. 1‘11. ‘1' $11,111:,“ 1.1““ " ' "1“1“1‘1§1T*,3‘§‘c11 1115‘” 11111111111311. ‘ ~ 1,3,11": ..’.o‘ 11 1. -““1 111133. (1‘ 111,11 “15:1:1‘111‘111. 11113111 .11., 1"“ (1555‘ i (I "‘1‘” ‘3‘1‘1 5"‘(1‘ 13(5‘ “(‘5‘ L‘(((“("13(‘&5’1"'5 1,311.1, 3515...“, 13:31,; 211‘; ‘1.- (‘1‘11 C»:(,'9((‘.~. 51"“ “' “ V“ " 3‘13" (1'5 (1135 :‘11‘1‘1‘111' 1“(‘111 ("“1 .1111 1,5. 11K. 1.1 (($111. (51‘3“? 1.1g‘111‘1“(1‘(‘5:§' 61'1‘((3:1‘1Z.“”(‘1 ”(1,113,111, 11.31;,7.,1I.1,},1& Hi, “ 3,3,1“, 51,3“: "57“" "’ ‘ ‘13; 15:11“ ‘11‘1‘11.-.~12111’111“1.‘ (M111 ‘1‘. . . 11.1% 5%“ 11111111111151.1111 3‘11 11 , 11.111111,11,(‘“1‘(:, ‘1 W “(21:11“ (31,131“. .1 ,Ix."*I.(1"(,,"‘1(1 3}}, ‘1, “1,3155; 191.3131. $31,111. 1,1‘41; “’11- 21.32311 J11“, ,(,1,'1,1..1 1‘11 11111'1'1‘1‘1 1(1‘,1,(,"3‘. 1“,I‘,1,,1,I3‘II1::,‘1,;1II3I’: ‘ 33‘ ‘1,qu;? . 41%.. 111 1 1111‘” 1 z 1‘? :1: 11111111111111.1111111 11111;“‘1 1111;111:2111 11.11.1111,: 11.3111 ‘1‘ “((5 “"111- 33131111111111‘111‘ 11“,? 1,3.1‘1‘1‘1 1111‘ .1‘111‘,» 11.13.111.111. 1.5113611. 11311115 1111‘”. 1 5 "(11111 ' ‘3 11 1111:1111 J“ (3‘ (1‘1“; (1 ’5" W ((11.lL (1.511%. 111‘} {15131355‘ (“(31% ‘t§(‘t¥‘1§(‘({(s§1¥§§2€1‘1§€¢”it“ 1, 1 “1‘1? ‘ ‘1. 111 "1.~ 1 . 1. 1- ‘ ("1‘ (155} 1 h“ 111,1":51 ‘1 (“L “('5 1(‘1 ‘ 15¢ka 1‘? (“($51 (“‘55 (( “‘K‘E‘ifi' (‘md‘h‘fi‘ ‘1 "‘1‘(‘((:“"QC‘U ‘ {(73% 11.111 ‘1‘1'11 ‘3'"? 1. - “1113111715121“ "‘5“- 1311111311111 39.55.5111“ 1.1.1:,1‘11‘11‘1'51‘111131‘1“ 513;.“ 1‘5"“ ,1. 3““ ,51 (‘5‘.‘1‘ 1.13.- 1.“ 711.333 1‘11: 1111-1111111 ' ‘11‘((‘((‘L‘(('(“1 1 "(1‘ 1“ 3;}; .1 3‘5"“ 1131(‘(111’5‘111‘q‘v‘qz‘c (NM “(1‘1"(113T113IR‘ W31,“ (Re (1155‘ "(($33 ((1,, :1: Wu?“ W51 'V 3 -.-"-1‘1 (‘1:"5'(“"“5’3 7 14(51' 1111111‘1‘1,( 1'1‘4111".1‘(‘1‘ ‘5‘1'(1(’"(‘,1:11.(“51‘(‘ ' ‘:-.I1'1 (311W, . .1 . @"3,1, "11% ((15.31 5 < 1(II IE“, II‘1fi1II 1.1. 3111,111JE1. ,I111' :,:,1,‘ "1': 1,1: .1 “"“(((‘1'C1'f "((1 ("(11122’" "1111 .1 ((1,. 1,11, “‘1‘1‘1‘1, IIIII $1.531” 111101.12}*:223‘é1~ “ "1'1. H1 C?‘ ‘1'}(.-,"‘ 1.1%, 1g(.1§,”(11I:1:1,-“““.‘1.1,I ‘11 “(131(11'1', “11%“ ,,II:,I, (NEW, 3,31,31,24,, 3 (‘:III\I _,1~'1 .11 . (”“1” ,I1 , III . ,1 III‘ I, . II :C‘l‘1111:‘-(( 11 i” "‘(55! (31(1‘3 ’ .(II.,(‘ ‘3‘, ‘9 1,11 a ' 1‘11‘v1,’1'~1‘ ‘QIVLuM 131,21. ‘fl‘h‘, 1:51,, 111,:111-(3114 1I;,I1‘3(1‘, Q3” I1'I,1;;((1(, I,II m: 1:: ((181 “(1‘1 ((51 ,(‘-(,V,1(,I.( 1,21%.” (1,1,: (1,. “((5% '1‘1. 1:1. (‘13,, (“1: 1,II,I1 ” 1 ‘3‘ ”’1'” 115‘1513I1-‘1q1‘1 1 11311.11. 1 11 11.. .1111 1111“ 22:11, 61‘ 1311:1- 1m. "“C‘YEII’ 1" ‘21,, ‘((1_(,( ,,:“,,,(“1 (1111 1.,1,1 1,“ . $31,211. 14111113,, ‘131“( ,Qqfififi'figfifigfifi‘qfii(Eiirfifik (3313’ ((33.1, (3‘1: :1 ‘11-‘12},‘1 fiqg F11‘1'1‘1f-1,‘ £41, “L1 , f, .1331; (155% “‘1‘1‘1 VII-3&1 1,1214%,13,‘ , II III , “(31‘1"‘11 (5‘34 (LI (‘5; Mg“ ,."1 “((41% ‘1‘“(4 L ‘1( {(1111, (1"!qu ‘1‘“! fl 531,. 3&(‘1‘1’ ((‘11 (3;,1 1 1 1‘ kw €1IIII,I,II,I 15,1121,» ,ng II 1"((( ((5353? (11(‘(1 93:3, ,31111§r((111f1,1,1:,§(.\, fixfifi. (“1,1132% %,%&§1§,q,1(‘1‘1§§1 ($35,215, ”$53,913., 1,, EI,II,,I,3,III($I,III Aha} 1 (,(1-L1,,(,l(.1 ‘3 (“11"(1,:1(l(‘,: 3,2,}: 11 ‘1§,'(, . (ht, “1‘1‘3‘3‘ (21,10 ”$411-$513, (15(3‘1g131511.11:111111.11‘1‘1‘111W11 14111114111 ‘8‘“ '1511'111- , ”(11M ,1. III113“,- 11.111151131111111. . "1‘1 1111111311“ ’ ‘11.“111“"1‘, 111111 1111111 111.151 1111 (111111 211,: 1.1.111 1.1 11.11.: . . B'.“((31'1”“1 {M (‘1‘ 1‘(( h , (1‘1‘11“,‘(((((((“ ‘ “‘ ‘1‘11‘9‘1': ‘1,_(1“,('1(', ,3‘1.!"11.("~1.‘ ('15 _-. . 1. - 1-, ‘15,“, ,‘CI 11.1. 11:11:“(1 1111“571“-1'11‘ 111‘ (155‘ ‘ ‘1"“1‘1‘555 .1 1.131511%1'11 11111113111111 3‘,§‘.~,J‘ . “1‘ 1211' 11.11.13: 1 ,1 Q1 1'. (,I':33( “(1 (1'1” 1 (flak (2:53,? (‘19 93111, 1,9(1 ,:g,(((3(, 11 1,1,” 331‘ y: (“,3qu (13‘1“ III I 11‘; I, (‘7, . . 15K; , 1:“ng " W 155911“ ‘1‘1‘(11$1(1((S'11"11,‘1 11.1, 11 1‘3““ (WW ,‘1'111‘ _ '1‘111 (11‘11“ 1‘ 11111131. 11111 ‘1111‘11 “10512112111111 ‘ ‘ I find“, ((11144‘ ((((((l‘(((.“("‘((h%(("‘ (((‘1‘(‘((1‘§(IH(,(N1:(( (53M $1K%1(S‘?L ( \€1k(‘1((‘:1\(§,1‘(1“t@:(W\EAIV‘:$II H“ 1 1,1,II1 . 515%(1‘5‘5‘ 1.1.33.1 “‘5" ‘("‘ ”((11 1, (("k‘131‘111'1((($ ((1,11‘1‘1,‘ (5,: “((51 ((31%, 1' ‘1. ((1.1((’~1¢1(‘QM‘W‘WCH ($311551 ("1,1,1’11 ,3; “('15‘. 1' -' ' I .,(..1’((((1(:,‘1‘1(((f(1(:(,"1j111,1 1M g1: 3(111((‘1,,,1( 1," (“313%, 1,1,, ,(,I.,I:1,:,,IIII, L‘ I1,I,I 1511111,, ,,1I,I1 ’.,'- IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII . , (11,1111. ,1,1 1.,I ‘I:(((‘ 1;,“ (113,1, 1,,31311 II3‘1I,(1(,I',11(‘,.,1,,:,.1(1:,:,1,II, (SEQ 1(1'1(:‘1.'(‘ 1. ,II ‘,,1I.,II..,I .. (‘Ié‘fi II III 1,111,,,1,31 1,1 11,1 3,1 1M (3:1 .11, 3111,1113, ,1,1,, 1&1,1,11,1,11,}.1,I1,,((,11,I . 1‘3. 1%,,” 1,. {(5 1, ‘.‘1 . “151,1 (1“. ‘fi 1II‘1‘(1 "1( 1 1 (,' 11 ‘1 , 11,1”; .. [(1:11‘,‘ 1, (((fi‘ 111, .'1 (gt-(‘1? .I,'_3I,LII‘»,- '19." (”Ma ‘( W1 11415I (1?? ' 11((‘t1ih“((((( (((‘111 ‘(“L‘%((((1‘1(1(1‘ "1 ”‘1“ ((1513 (“(‘(((1(((("(( ((1 ‘ , (1. ‘5 1. 1‘? “.151 11111-31. 1111‘1'11143 .1.11,I1,I1(1:1(('1( (11‘ $1,, 131%,.) ,I‘(,(&1‘,(1.‘(,‘:,é,1I,I,,111g ,I,j.I:,IHII,I,,1" . HIE?“ ,I. “(4" (1(wa (' EV" \‘(q’fz‘ 2%} , ‘ ‘11‘21 :‘1CI'151 (‘1"~f‘(:1" (‘(‘1‘11a,t,,,,i,,I,e J"(“1 1313323,.1‘? 'Q‘J'Q‘ "‘ :‘k:.1l(';(‘,,11;;_1§:;1§ WI! (1’,&IE‘((‘1(5H 11,: . 11111,.1, (“ 1'(‘(‘1 1“ ((1.‘ ‘15((((‘(((5( (511‘! (:1qu (‘11 ”(.111 (((h (a 1 (1' (fl((((1(1l(i, N15('u(t(((((( i(1,:,1,1,1((,( ((35 (((fiéa ((8% 11I111',,11'(1,,1‘11 1‘1, "“1} 11113 111(11‘(‘1(1‘1' (“W 1 ‘1(((1 (1‘1'11‘ ((552? I": (“M ((55 '(" '1"11.1,'1'('(‘&1,'1!1(1‘L1, (((W‘m‘y (‘11;11331'1'5'1‘1‘1‘1 11:11.1. “(1’95“ ((((((((1‘((111" (W1 W“ 1% (|,(( (5551” 11‘ 151" .(111,},1,"1H11,}1 (fl? ((1.! fl (q,fi‘7)1‘4(1(11(‘1111;1‘1\((1,,3’€'13,.“ W 3115:,1' I :,1".-' 52:“ $3. 2:? J..( 1 “3,1321%“ (,I.‘1(1$1I ,1: ,rl‘l‘ ((1:1‘ “ .“51‘1':((1‘1, "111‘.” (153111“ :3)“: h: ‘1l(“((((‘111(‘,1;II,,I‘,1I 3,313, (113,111,111 1,: ("1 (($12: 11.1,, ($1. 5 111 1.1, ((1H,, .' e3; (5):}, 1 ~((7.11 1h : (((‘1 ‘PQ‘ ((1% Cir—r" .r‘x“ e1:- .1 .- 1;. ' 9.1.4? I... -62. “1111 1 1"‘21‘5. 111111. ‘15 11111-11... 1.“. (.1 1 . . (1(((( 11‘1‘ (1“.‘1'1‘11‘ (5%, ((1511 (6"! (1,1 ‘1 :5 I (Mg: ,IIII‘I gagI'L’I/Iifi}: SI1I121I1 \43n‘31r ,(zQ; (‘1:‘(fi((,éI, 51;?” 1‘ .1(, 1511: (1,3113%, (11, .. . , IIII,1,I,:'111I,1I3 3:11,? 4,, ((11,531; . h IaWIII‘Ihi‘I ‘I‘.IIII“I:‘E1(-,:‘I,‘ 23...:- “.1: 1- ,I( I(1( III 1 ((H ((5% 1:,(,1(( (1% 1(,1(( .1115? a; .3’... .1111“ II (((‘1 II-(,((1. 1(((((((' ‘1,(,11' ‘1‘1‘ 1‘1 1 ((31% 1 153‘ 11117111: "(V 11 ((111111 ('((1‘1"i(5“1‘1‘1 "11:11", 1111‘ (4.}3!“‘(l3(‘( (11' 1 ((13,’{(‘( ,,,.~1,(‘(( (3:: f‘ . ( 1-. (V ' (11‘ 4(1 1I (5“ ‘11(((("‘ 111‘ "1 (d 1 ' 1‘5.“ ..1“(((((‘(( - 11% 115113113111 (“(111 ( (' ((15 ("(((1((( N 1‘ (( IIfi: . . ‘5‘1‘1 4&4 11 ((9 (3 1: 1.1121111 (‘12 ( 1,11 [(3 I 1%13 ((2.5% 11 “ 9' ,. (1.1(1 Ed .fMEfi-{é‘ LI BRA R Y ‘ Michigan Sta” University ll lllllllllllllllllllllllll|llllllll 3 1293 347 0369 This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANI ZATIONAL “CLIMATE : AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS presented by Terrance Lynn Albrecht has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Communication War Major professor Date Au ust 15 1978 Ov7639 300 A315 6/- 5...... JgN new i J- Copyright by TE RRANCE LYNN ALB RE CHT Q9 1977 COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS BY Terrance Lynn Albrecht A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1978 6 mg 755) ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS BY Terrance Lynn Albrecht This dissertation reports a study of communication and members' perceptions of the environmental "climate" of the organization. Specifically, the study investigated differences in perceptions based on aspects of involvement in the informal communication system of the organization. The research questions pursued in the study were developed after an extensive review of previous climate research in the fields of communication and organizational behavior. Prior studies in both fields had not fully ex— amined climate perceptions from a communication perspective. That is, neither body of work had conceptualized the nature of perceptions based on communication theory with con— structs concerning aspects of the information flow in the organization. The present study sought to overcome these inadequa- cies by developing an approach to the study of climate, based on a theory which specifies how attitudes are shaped by the nature of information flow. Since Durkheim (1938), organizational theorists have recommended the utility of studying cognitive processes in conjunction with social Terrance Lynn Albrecht structure. This conceptual approach followed the recom— mendation by combining force aggregation theory with the constructs of communication structure, information needs, and communication rules. The results of the study con- ducted in a unionized manufacturing plant show that such a framework of attitudes and information flow is particu— larly useful for explaining the nature of environmental perceptions. Specifically, the study found several significant differences in perceptions between "key" communicators and "non-key" communicators (those often isolated from inform- al message flow). Support was found for hypotheses assert- ing that key communicators tend to perceive themselves psychologically "closer" to managers, as well as more central to their cognitive environments. In addition, over- all properties (e.g., size and shape) of the cognitive spaces for the two groups tended to differ, with the space for the key communicators showing somewhat less variability. The report of the study concludes with directions for future research. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, William H. and Lorraine Bowers Albrecht, in gratitude for their love and support the past twenty-five years. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Successful completion of graduate school reflects the concern and investment of a number of people. I wish to express gratitude to several peOple for their invaluable contributions to my own experience. First, I want to thank Dr. Richard V. Farace, Chair- man of my committee, advisor, and friend, for guidance, wisdom, and unfailing wry humor the past five years. I feel most fortunate, both professionally and personally, to have had the opportunity to work with him. Appreciation is also extended to the other members of my committee: Dr. Gerald R. Miller, for his critical intel— lectual insight and perceptive wit; Dr. Michael Moore, for support and the opportunities he has provided me in his department; and Dr. Katrina Simmons, to whom I owe a great debt, for her knowledge, help, and continual reinforcement. I also want to express gratitude to Professor Edward Fink, and Professor John Tukey for invaluable methodological consultation. In addition, I wish to thank Tim Mabee, for assistance with Program NEGOPY and Jim DinKelacker for assistance with Program GALILEO. iii Several friends provided me with much help and deeply valued friendship. I want to thank Dr. Cassandra Book, for friendship she offered in many ways; Bob Abelman, my office— mate, for his affection and infectious smile; and Glenna Loutzenheiser, for her warmth and inspiration. I want to give special thanks to Dr. Mac Parks, for both professional and personal concern and affection. Special love and gratitude is extended to my family: my aunt, Marguerite Bowers, for modelling commitment to excellence in a profession designed to benefit others; my brother Bill and sister Ann, for their unflappable humor and patience; and my parents, for their encouragment and for raising me in a Christian home. Finally, I want to thank Doug Lindell and Tom Werner, for providing a reality base to test the ideas formulated for this study. And, I want to give sincere appreciation to Mrs. Margaret Beaver and Mrs. Ruth Langenbacher, for with- out their unparalleled patience and typing skills, this dissertation would never have been completed. iv Chapter I II III IV TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF "ORGANIZA- TIONAL CLIMATE" . . . . Overview. . . Development of the Construct: Previous Research . . Conceptual Development . Operational Development Organizational and Individual Variables Used as Correlates Additional Issues . Summary . Statement of the Problem THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Hypotheses . PROCEDURES . . . . . . . RESULTS Network Analysis . Multidimensional Scaling. Research Site . . . . Study Procedures. Operationalization of Variables Data Analysis . . . . Respondents . . . Description of the Sample . Hypotheses . . . . . Page mood) 14 26 3O 3O 33 41 51 52 58 61 61 69 71 78 78 78 79 Chapter Page V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED RESEARCH . . . 101 Limitations of the Study . . . 101 Conclusions . . . . . . 102 Future Research. . . . . . 107 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics for All Variables . . . . . . 112 B: Pair-Wise MDS Sample Sizes . . . 117 C: Dissimilarity (Means) Matrices . . 126 D: Factor Coordinate Matrices . . . 135 E: Telephone Interview Instrument for Generation of MDS Concepts . . 144 F: Instructions and MDS Questionnaires . . . . . . 149 G: Instructions and Network Analysis Questionnaire . . . . 157 H: Communication Rules and Information Needs Questionnaire . . 169 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . 171 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of Empirical Results Between Climate Dimensions and Selected Correlates . . . . . . . . . 16 2. Rationale for Concept Selection . . . . 67 3. Response Rate. . . . . . . . . 79 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of t-Tests for Differences Between Paired Comparisons (One-Tailed Test) (Hypotheses 1-2) . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5. Projection Values, Sum of Squared Pro- jections, and Square Roots of Sums of Squares for Centrality Analysis of My £29 Concept (Hypothesis 3) . . . . . 86 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of E-Test Calculation for Centroid Anal- ysis of "My Job" (One-Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 3) . . . . . . . . 87 7. Trace Values for Key and Non-Key Groups (Hypothesis 4) . . . . . . . . 89 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of t-Test Calculation for Differences Between Traces for Key and Non-Key Groups (One-Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 4) . . . . 9O 9. Ratio of Eigenvalues for Dimensions 1—3 (Hypothesis 5) . . . . . . . . 92 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of E-Tests for Eigenvalue Ratios (One- Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 5) . . . . . 93 vii Table 11. 12. 13. Page Differences Between Concept Spaces of Keys and Non-Keys after Rotation (Hypothesis 6). . 96 Rank Ordered Pseudo Average Differences Between Concepts (Hypothesis 6) . . . . 97 Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of t-Tests for Communication Rules and Satisfaction of Information Needs Vari— ables (One-Tailed Tests) (Hypotheses 7—8) . . 99 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Illustration of the origin in a two- dimensional space. . . . . . . . 47 2. Types of communication network roles . . . 56 3. Formal organizational chart of drop forge manufacturing plant. . . . . . 62 4. Concepts on one dimension. . . . . . 84 5. Concepts on three dimensions . . . . . 84 6. Matrix of communicator reciprocity and integrativeness . . . . . . . 110 ix CHAPTER I CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF "ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE" Overview A frequent concern of individuals in modern society is the quality of their social as well as their physical environment. The concept of the "quality of the work en- vironment" is a common theme in arguments advanced by in— dustrial unionists and managers. The federal government has spent millions of dollars for research on the "quality of work life." Observers of the private sector have written extensively on the importance of a "healthy" work setting (Davis and Cherns, 1975). "Quality of work life" is generally referred to as the overall decency of the working conditions, with maximum protection against health and safety hazards, the equal op- portunity for creative and rewarding work, fair and equit— able treatment, and the chance to participate in decision— making processes affecting the work place (Danz, 1976). The thinking of several well-known researchers (Mayo, 1949; Simon, 1957; McGregor, 1960; and Likert, 1967) of the post-machine model era has fostered this view. Researchers have begun to consider the factor of human relations in the 1 2 organizational setting, and its effect on morale and motiva— tion to work (Greiner, Leitch, and Barnes, 1968). This View contrasts with earlier work by Weber (1947) and others who conceived of workers in the organization as replaceable parts in an efficient machine. Consideration of the quality of the work environment has been discussed most recently by several researchers in the fields of organizational behavior. As Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) note: We are in a period of special concern with our environment. More than ever before man feels he cannot affect the ecology—-human and physica1--without giving serious thought to the consequences. With such concern goes the effort to understand what environmental variables are important to man, and how they interact. Where the environment is human-- attitudes, responses, values, rewards--the problem is subtle and ephemeral. Yet there is little question that these aspects of the setting in which a man carries out a particu- lar task strongly affect his conduct (p. 1). Communication researchers have also been interested in the concept of climate, arguing that perceptions of the workplace are affected by aspects of the organization's com- munication system. Some of these aspects include managerial style, informal communication patterns, type of decision- making process, morale of members, etc. (Farace, Monge and Russell, 1977). This chapter provides a selective review of repre- sentative studies from the fields of organizational behavior and communication. Literature cited spans two decades, and 3 was accumulated by means of a computer—based search of journ- als. The journals contained studies from the fields of com- munication, organizational behavior, sociology, psychology and education. Development of the Construct: Previous Research This section reviews key conceptual and empirical work on organizational climate. The large body of research liter- ature has been summarized by several authors (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick, 1970; Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974; James and Jones, 1974; Payne and Pugh, 1975). The present review identifies key studies and provides a critique of the methodological and conceptual limitations associated with them. The presentation is organized as follows: (1) a re- view of the conceptual development of the construct is pre- sented, including definitions and dimensions traditionally used as referents for climate; (2) major operationalizations of the construct are provided; and (3) specific empirical findings are reported. Conceptual Development Researchers have made numerous attempts to define the concept of climate. Definitions posited by organizational behaviorists have principally involved a description of the "environment" as perceived by members of the organization. Many investigators have adopted Tagiuri's (1968) definition 4 of climate which posits that climate is: the relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experienced by its members; (b) influences their behavior; and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization (p. 27). Expanding on Tagiuri's definition, Pritchard and Karasick (1973) refer to climate as: a relatively enduring quality of an organ- ization's internal environment distinguish- ing it from other organizations: (a) which results from the behavior and policies of members of organizations, especially top management; (b) which is perceived by members of the organization; (c) which serves as a basis for interpreting the situation; and (d) acts as a source of pressure for direct— ing activity (p. 126). Others, such as Evan (1968) postulate that climate is the "multidimensional perception" of the essential attributes or character of an organizational system. Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) define climate as a set of attributes which can be perceived about a particular organization and/or its sub- systems and that may be induced from the way that organization and/or its subsystems deal with their members and environment. Schneider (1975) defines climate as perceptions that are meaningful "molar" descriptions peOple can agree char- acterize a system's practices and procedures. Schneider posits that a system may exhibit many climates, according to the type of practices and procedures its member adopt. He argues that people who agree on the organization's practices and procedures have similar perceptions of the climate, and 5 generally behave similarly. However, if the climate is one which rewards and supports the display of individual dif— ferences, peOple in the same system will not behave similarly. Communication researchers have conceptualized climate in terms of communication variables. Johnson (1977) referred tion, i.e., "the quality of integration among group members, ’7 their intentions and their actions." Schneider, Donaghy and Newman (1976) consider "communication climate" to be the degree to which individuals perceive (1) empathy; (2) en- couragement for participation; and (3) a communication struc- ture which adequately fulfills their information needs. Dennis (1975) defined climate as "a subjectively ex— perienced quality of the internal environment of an organiza- tion; the concept embraces a general cluster of inferred predispositions, identifiable through reports of members' perceptions of messages and message—related events occurring in the organization." He posited that perceptions may be a product of singular or multiple organizational events, which could include experiences with superordinates, peers and subordinates, experiences with work groups, experiences with top management and/or experiences with organizational media. In summary, most researchers refer to climate as a set of perceptions, attitudes, and assumptions which members of an organization hold about their overall job environment, and/or their relationships with members of that environment. h— 6 In addition to the formal conceptual definitions, researchers have operationalized the construct by developing sets of per- ceptual dimensions to further clarify the generalized notion of "environmental quality." Operational Development Investigators have identified components of dimensions of climate which they have used as referents for the construct. Generally they have constructed taxonomies of climate dimen- sions by first measuring individual perceptions of a series of organizational prOperties, and subsequently using factor analysis to discover which items load on different factors. The dimensions reported in the literature generally refer to two categories of perceptions: (1) behaviors in the organ- ization (e.g., amount of upward communication); and (2) "feelings" of members in the organization (e.g., amount of warmth, intimacy, openness, etc.). The following describes a representative set of operational definitions from studies conducted by several researchers in the climate area. One of the earliest studies was conducted by Halpin and Croft (1963) of various climates in elementary schools. They develOped the "Organizational Climate Description Ques- tionnaire" (OCDQ), comprised of 64 items. Using factor analysis, they found the items clustered on eight dimensions, four of which referred to characteristics of groups in the organization, and four of which referred to behaviors of leaders: 7 1. Characteristics of the Group 1. 3. Disepgagement: describes a group which is "going through the motions"; a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. Hindrance: those feelings by members that they they are burdened by routine duties and other requirements deemed trivial, busy work; their work is not facilitated. Esprit: refers to general feelings of morale. Intimacy: members' opportunities for and enjoyment of social relationships. 2. Behaviors of Leaders l. Aloofness: management behavior is character— ized as formal and impersonal; describes an "emotional" distance between the manager and subordinates. Production Emphasis: refers to management be- havior characterized by close supervision; management is highly directive and insensi- tive to communication feedback. Thrust: refers to management behavior to "get the organization moving," and behavior is viewed as highly task-oriented. Consideration: the inclination to be concerned with employees as human beings. Revising an earlier work, Litwin and Stringer (1968) developed a questionnaire to measure organizational members' perceptions of aspects of their jobs and the organization. Using factor analysis, the authors found eight dimensions which they labeled as: 1. Structure: perceptions of the extent of or- ganizational constraints, rules, regula- tions, etc. Individual Responsibility: extent to which one perceives he is autonomous in the organization. Rewards: perceptions related to feeling con- fident of adequate and apprOpriate rewards --pay, praise, special dispensations. Risk and Risk Taking: perceptions of the de- gree of challenge and risk in the work environment. 8 5. Warmth: the feeling of general good fellowship that prevails in the work group atomos- phere. 6. Support: the perceived helpfulness of the man- agers and other employees in the group; emphasis on mutual support from above and below. 7. Standards: the perceived importance of implicit and explicit goals and performance standards. 8. Identity: the feeling that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member of a working team. Sells (1968) emphasized the potential value of a social systems model of organizations. He identified eight components of systems which he argued were determinants of the system's overall climate. They include the following: (1) objectives and goals of the organization (which provide direction and constraints on behavior); (2) the governing philosophy and value system of the organization; (3) the composition of personnel; (4) structural aspects (e.g., size, differentiation, autonomy, modes of control, role structure); (5) the influence of technology on the system's operation; (6) the physical environment; (7) the socio-cultural environ— ment (language, communication, living standards, social strat- ification, etc.) and (8) temporal characteristics (i.e., the overall duration of the system, the duration of individual performance, and the remoteness of goals which sustain par— ticipation of organizational members). Pritchard and Karasick (1973) generated their factors by reviewing the literature and interviewing managers. The results of their search produced the following climate scales: 10. 11. 9 Autonomy: degree of freedom managers have in day-to-day operations. Conflict vs. Cooperation: degree to which managers either compete with each other or work together in accomplish- ing tasks. Social Relations: degree to which the organ- ization has a friendly, warm atmosphere. Structure: degree to which the organization specifies the methods of procedures used to accomplish tasks. Level of Rewards: degree to which managers are well rewarded. Performance-Reward Dependency: extent to which the reward system is fair and appropriate. Motivation to Achieve: degree to which the organization attempts to excel. Status Polarization: degree to which there are definite physical and psychological distinctions between managerial levels. Flexibility and Innovation: willingness to try new procedures and experiment with change. Decision Centralization: extent to which the organization delegates the responsi— bility for making decisions either as widely as possible or centralizes it as much as possible. Supportiveness: degree to which the organiza- tion is interested in and willing to support its managers in both job-related and non-job—related matters. Waters, Roach and Batlis (1974) adapted five scales constructed by House and Rizzo (1971) on organizational practices. 1. These include: Conflict and Inconsistency: the degree to which policies, procedures, standards of per- formance and directions are inconsistent or inconsistently applied. Formalization: the degree to which standard practices are formalized explicitly. Adequacy of Planning: the degree to which plans are viewed as adequate to accomplish job objectives. Selection Based on Ability and Performance: the degree to which selection is based on ability and performance, rather than 10 politics, personality, or educational credentials. 5. Tolerance of Error: the degree to which errors are dealt with in a supportive, learning manner rather than in a threatening, punitive, blame-oriented manner. These authors combined the House and Rizzo scales with an adaptation of the Halpin and Croft dimensions and the dimensions of Litwin and Stringer (1968). They used factor analysis to identify five underlying factors of the combined scales. The factors they found include the following: 1. Factor I: formalization, structure, disengage- ment, adequacy of planning, conflict and inconsistency, reward, selection on ability and performance, identity, and esprit. This dimension was labeled "Effective Organization Structure." 2. Factor II: responsibility, and hindrance. This factor was labeled "Work Autonomy Vs. Encumbered by Nonproductive Activities." 3. Factor III: production emphasis and aloofness. This factor was named "Close Impersonal Supervision." 4. Factor IV: standards, conflict, and risk. This factor was named "Open Challenging Environment." 5. Factor V: intimacy, support, warmth, considera- tion, thrust, esprit, identity, tolerance of error, and reward. They identified this factor as "Management and Peer Support." Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974) asked a sample of respondents to rate their organization's climate on a number of bipolar adjective scales. The five factors they found are: 1. Factor I: Competent/Potent Inhibited-Uninhibited Shallow-Deep Unscientific-Scientific ll Impersonal-Personal Uncreative-Creative 2. Factor 2: Responsible Irresponsible-Responsible Moral-Amoral 3. Factor 3: Practical Realistic-Idealistic Unconventional-Conventional 4. Factor 4: Risk—Oriented Daring—Cautious Aggressive—Unaggressive Cold—Warm Weak—Strong 5. Factor 5: Impulsive Active—Passive Objective-Subjective As this review demonstrates, there are many dimen— sions which have been generated by previous research. Similar results have been found by Schneider and Snyder (1975); LaFollette and Sims (1975); Proctor, Lassiter, and Soyars (1976); and Churchill, Ford and Walker (1976).1 However, it is important to note that several research— ers have included communication in their study of organiza- tional climate. Among the best known is Likert (1967) who developed several dimensions of clima' which involved commun— ication. The include the following: (1) understanding be- tween superior and subordinate on job responsibilities, goals, etc.; (2) the motivation to communicate fully and accurately, combined with the avoidance of irrelevant issues in order to 1For longer review of previous work in this area, the reader is referred to Albrecht, 1978. 12 combat overload; (3) responsiveness to downward-directed com— munication; (4) the willingness and ability to maintain accur- ate upward-directed communication; and (5) the adequacy and accuracy of "lateral" communication. Dennis (1975), following Redding (1972) postulated that "communication" climate contained the following seven components: 1. Supportiveness: the subordinate's sense of personal worth and importance is in- creased with his communication relation— ship with his supervisor. 2. Participative Decision—Making: the perception that upward communication is such that influence processes are potentially reciprocal. 3. Trust, Confidence, Credibilipy: the extent to which message sources and/or communica— tion events are judged believable. 4. Openness and Candor: the underlying nature of the candid type of message can be viewed as "task-oriented" or "non-task-oriented," "personal" or "impersonal," and "about ideas" or "about feelings." 5. High Performance Goals: the emphasis and clarity on high performance goals which includes the assumption that communication is the principal means by which most organiza- tions secure commitments from their members to the achievement of organiza- tional objectives. 6. Information Adequacy/Communication Satisfaction: the perceptions about the quantity andfor quality of information received and the satisfaction one experiences when exposed to communication (or communication-related) stimuli in the organization. 7. Semantic-Information Distance: the extent to which two parties experience a "perceptual" disparity in their orientation toward the same issue. Using factor analysis, Dennis found the following five factors: 13 1. Factor I: related to the supportiveness from a superior perceived by a subordinate. 2. Factor II: perceived quality and accuracy of downward communication. 3. Factor III: superior's perceptions of commun- ication relationships with subordinates such as openness and empathy. 4. Factor IV: perceptions of upward communication opportunities and the degree of influence. 5. Factor V: perceptions of reliability of infor- mation received from subordinates and colleagues. In summary, this discussion has provided a review of major sets of operationalizations of the climate construct. Researchers have typically constructed scales to measure in- dividual perceptions of various organizational practices and procedures. Using factor analytic techniques, they have generated many dimensions with different samples to refer to the overall construct. There are, however, several similarities among these dimensions. Most of the dimensions which refer to behaviors in the organization refer to one of four major areas of per- ceptions. These include aspects of the job, management, relations with coworkers, and the organization as a whole. These dimensions, culled from prior literature, can be grouped in the following manner: The Job Employee Independence Individual Responsibility Influence in Standards Innovativeness of Employee Role Ambiguity Role Conflict Time in Position Job Standards Work Autonomy 14 Management Managerial Aloofness Close Impersonal Supervision Frequency of Communication Managerial Structure Status Polarization Relations with Coworkers Conflict vs. Cooperation Social Relations/Morale The Organization Hindrance New Employee Concern Number of Departments (affecting employee) Organizational Innovation Participative Decision-Making Policy and Promotion Clarity Rewards Organizational Structure These dimensions of climate have been found to be related to several organizational variables. The following section identifies those correlates and provides a brief explanation of each. Organizational and Individual Variables Used as Correlates The importance of the previous research on climate is demonstrated in the general pattern of significant relation- ships found between climate dimensions and several organiza— tional variables. The preceding categories of dimensions have been related to a number of other variables present in the work setting. The accumulated body of knowledge about climate shows that it is related principally to several sat— isfaction and performance variables. A review of the major 15 correlates follows; the overall set of relationships is summarized in Table 1. Job Satisfaction: Typically, researchers have exam— ined relationships involving job satisfaction components. They have typically used such scales as the Job Description Index (JDI);(Smith, Kendall and Hulin, l969),which assesses five dimensions of job satisfaction: satisfaction with work, pay, promotiOn opportunities, supervision, and co-workers. Churchill,Ford and Walker (1976) adapted the JDI to measure satisfaction with: (l) the job itself (e.g., satis— faction with the general nature of the job, opportunities for accomplishment and growth, etc.); (2) fellow workers; (3) supervision; (4) company policies and support (e.g., company benefits, sales training, promotional support, com— petence of management, etc.); (5) pay; (6) promotion and ad- vancement; and (7) customers. Pritchard and Karasick (1973) measured satisfaction from a global index of job satisfaction items. The items included measures of aspects of the job such as security, working conditions, and advancement opportunities. Job Facets: In contrast to measuring overall satis- faction, Lyon and Ivancevich (1974) preferred to focus on specific aspects (termed "facets") of the job in assessing the level of employee job satisfaction. Their job facets included: (1) self-actualization; (2) autonomy; and (3) esteem. 16 mecca ccflpoooosm c0 pwpco pmuwDEsc who mcoemcmsflp wumEMLo "ouoz fi Vudni co c> DOE : 14a 0 3T0. cmEo> o>c 1.9 . c a: > who m.m :meocm no :3 L %.P :0 on may on o>c I mm s :0 m on mcomu mu: Eom mo NW. 3 q no a :0 on coupon mm m mumEOumzo c mum uo3oo P :0 m >u m m CQEGUCM Imm SD M Hmuwcmov coHuomNmaumm non mwumdmuuoo Hmcofiuwuacmmuo a Hmspfi>AUCH d d W 3 G I G. D S o S a D D S o O o o T a emu: a Gaul. w:u_4u1eu 041 o n S I J O O Jnub u M11 u E S w.e O O O I. e e a U 1440 e o n e o u b s s 3 e .4 Tie a s A u.1 a «36 .Ap.n A n n 1 3.13 T. u I. 8 35.1.3? 3 J 1.9 996 U8 1 AUA 0 n2 T. 0 32m U DJIQJUS TU PDTQT. u 2.42 ensuAcT.9.u J Paot.n A 3 3 3.45 Scam e 9.4 J .p_o.+u a P A s.ao.e P.A T I.s.sd m. T. W uo: we I. 30 WAwowa pmummu 3 s . s 1 o u m W.A u w u U m . s no pomOQOua Do: ddnmcoflucawu u xcm~m w w mic p x 1 u m ucmpCOQmmu co I . e wd>u co acupcodop .mbfismou pwxfiE u pouncedsm no: QLLmCOMDmHon .pouwwu ucmoaunccam mfizmcoflumHmu .poum0u II umEE3m 1 .633 17 I I I L 9 S ((( mCOflmCQEHQ 7LT .VCL (( mumEfiHO ) TL ( CO uUfl W Umm CO UMH OOU 08W CO UMC 000 CO Uw> #05 50 M5 m>0 C CCU ssauaAtqoagja mmocw> m u can @UCMEHO > CDOUUM U MEHO mu H mm” Sm CO GM 00 OUDQ mmw OH 3 W30 >0H OOCMEHO Q30 >0H OUCMEUO H Ieuotqez -ru9510 EON m 0>0 M m ®>w 0N m {euotqez -1u9610 OH O mUCMEuo won vacuum no eqag qoc mwumawuuoo Hm:o«umNMcmmuo a Hospfl>wch Ap.ucouv a OHQMB Table 1 (cont'd.) U) C O H U) C Q E ..—a Q 0 JJ N E .—c U Individual 5 Organizational Correlates ‘qDal Japeaq 18 aoua -“IJUI Ieuornezi 19 Job-Related Attitudes: Waters, Roach and Batlis (1974) compiled a set of questions designed to assess "job- related attitudes." These combined measures of satisfaction ratings, general individual attitudes, and job behavior variables. Absenteeism: This construct referred to the average absenteeism rate for a plant for a four week period (Dennis, 1975). Organizational Structure: Lawler, Hall and Oldham (1974) related climate dimensions to a set of specific struc- tural properties of the organization. These were: (1) span of control (the ratio of operating level employees to first line supervisors); (2) size (number of persons in the organ- ization); (3) levels (the total number of levels in the organ- ization as measured by the longest chain in the hierarchy); (4) tall/flat (the ratio of organization size to number of levels); and (5) levels from top (the number of levels the member is removed from the parent organization's tOp level, i.e., president, board of directors). Organizational Process Variables: Lawler, Hall and Oldham (1974) correlated climate with measures of the degree to which certain policies were in existence. These included: 1. Performance reviews: the frequency with which performance reviews are conducted. 2. Performance reviews-relation to compensation program: the perception of employees of the degree to which performance reviews are linked closely with administration of compensation programs. 20 3. Professional autonomy: the perceptions of direc— tors of the employee's freedom and auton- omy to engage in work projects. 4. Assignment generality: the directors' perceptions of the frequency of general vs. specific assignments for a given employee. 5. Collaboration support: the directors' perceptions of the degree to which employee collabora- tion is encouraged in the work place. 6. Informal budget account: the perceptions of the existence (or nonexistence) of an informal research budget for use by employees. Managerial Performance Evaluations: This construct was operationalized by Dennis (1975) as the rating of managers by subordinates on human relations effectiveness, administra- tive effectiveness, technical competence, and assessment of promotability. Individual Performance: Lawler, Hall and Oldham (1974) measured directors' perceptions of the performance of differ— ent types of employees in the organization. The measures of performance were (1) technical performance ratings and (2) administrative performance ratings. Individual performance has also been measured by man— agers' ratings of employees (LaFollette and Sims, 1975; Pritchard and Karasick, 1973). Organizational Performance: Several researchers measured overall organizational performance by the use of objective measures. These were obtained from several sources; e.g., a composite of the net change in the budget during the year, the number of new outside contracts, the percentage of projects meeting time schedules, the number of new 21 internally funded projects, the number of contracts renewed, and the percentage of projects meeting initial budgets (Pritchard and Karasick, 1973; LaFollette and Sims, 1975). Work-Unit Effectiveness: Hitt (1975) measured effec- tiveness using a 7-point scale asking participants to rate their perceptions of the overall effectiveness of their organization. Effectiveness of Management—By-Objectives (MBO) Program: Hollmann (1976) measured managers' assessments of MBO (management-by-objectives) effectiveness in terms of several benefits of the program. These included (1) plan- ning and organizing work, (2) evaluating work performance by objective methods, (3) motivating of the best job perform— ance, (4) coordinating individual and work group objectives, (5) improving in superior-subordinate communication, (6) improving in superior-subordinate c00peration, and (7) over- all satisfaction with MBO as it relates to job. In addition, Hollmann examined the climate-MBO effec- tiveness relationship when moderated by three variables: (1) type of work (as line or staff); (2) organization level (middle and lower management); and (3) need for independence (frequency with which individual engages in independent be— havior and the satisfaction accrued from such behavior). Type of Technology: Hitt (1975) distinguished between three types of technologies used in organizations. The 22 distinction is based on the amount of discretion permitted by the workers involved in performing the task. The "long- linked" technology is characterized by a single, prescribed, and serially interdependent set of tasks, activities, or processes with discretion allowed only in the timing or speed of the process. The "mediating" technology involves several standardized operating procedures forming the reper- toire of the unit. Discretion exists in the selection of the most appropriate strategy for a task from the given set of standardized alternatives. Finally, the "intensive" technology lacks standardized procedures with discretionary behavior predominant. The discretionary behavior involves sequential decision-making based on the analysis of previous decisions. Leader Behavior Dimensions: Kavanagh (1975) measured expected supervisory behavior by asking respondents what they "felt an ideal leader ought to do" in supervising a group. The scales used were: (1) consideration (concern for member welfare and comfort, listens to member suggestions); (2) initiation of structure (asserts rules and regulations for appropriate behavior, low tolerance for flexibility, task-oriented); (3) tolerance of freedom (tolerates member freedom for decision and action; encourages initiative); (4) production emphasis (pushes for high level of output; at- tempts to motivate productivity). 23 Project Performance Correlates: Thamhain and Gemmill (1974) identified a set of four project performance variables which included: 1. Degree of suppprt: the frequency which personnel report they meet requests of managers with maximum effort. 2. Willipgness to disagree: how freely personnel feel they can disagree with their managers, how frequently they do disagree about policies or work procedures, and how fre- quently they have expressed disagreement on a face-to—face basis. 3. Degree of project involvement: how often personnel feel time drags on the job, the extent to which they perceive they are involved in the job, versus other interests, how often they do extra work not required, and how hard they perceive they work in compar- ison with peers performing the same type of work. 4. Effectiveness ratings of project managers: ratings by managers' superiors of their overall effectiveness in carrying out assigned projects. Career Decisions: Proctor, Lassiter, and Soyars (1976) Operationalized the making of a career decision as the decision of the individual whether to stay or leave a unit of organization. Length of Time in the Organization: This construct was operationalized by Johnston (1976). He divided members of the organization into two groups: (1) those who had been with the organization for over three years; and (2) those who had been employed six months to two years. Influence Processes Down the Hierarchy: Franklin (1975) noted three factors of influence processes from a 24 supervisor level in the hierarchy to the next subordinate level. These were: 1. Group process: the characteristics of inter- actions among group members. 2. Managerial leadership: the extent to which the supervisor is perceived by his subordi- nates as supportive, goal-oriented, facilitative, and encourages team build— ing. 3. Peer leadership: the extent to which individ- uals perceive their peers in the same work group are supportive, emphasize goals, facilitate others' work and facil- itate interaction. Organizational Practices: LaFollette and Sims (1975) identified fourteen practices. These were: 1. Timeliness of decision-making: consistent guide- lines for work are communicated, decisions are made quickly, clearly, accurately. 2. Upward information regpirements: the amount of detailed technical and administrative information required by superiors in the organization. 3. TOp management receptiveness: the interest in and evaluation top management gives to ideas from subordinates. 4. Induction and/or promotion of those outside the organization: the propensity with which management fills positions with people outside the organization rather than pro- moting to those positions people from inside. 5. Formalization: the extent to which job descrip— tions, standards of performance, and per- formance appraisals are established in writing and made readily available. 6. Selection criteria based on ability: promotions based on performance rather than "playing politics" or having attended certain schools. 7. Job pressure: the amount of work assigned and time required to complete it. 8. Subordinate development: the expectations of top management regarding subordinate instruc- tion and career develOpment by supervisors and the rewards supervisors are given for carrying out these expectations. 25 9. Teamwork: the manner in which an individual's group works together and accepts changes in directions. 10. Intergroup cooperation: provision for and co- operation among work groups in performance of work. 11. Chain of command: the degree to which direct orders come from only one's immediate supervisor. 12. Information distortion and suppression: the de- gree to which information regarding the necessity of proposed work or regarding work in progress is distorted or withheld. 13. General communication: the general state of com— munication the the organization (e.g., availability, accuracy, timeliness, channels of information). 14. Definition of work: the degree to which work is defined, interrelated jobs are coordinated, and progress and performance of work is fed back to individuals or work groups. Personality Variables: Downey, Hellriegel and Slocum (1975) measured two personality variables: (1) self-confi- dence (the degree to which one is well—adjusted to his envi- ronment), and (2) sociability (the degree to which one is sociable and gregarious). Need Satisfaction: Schneider and Snyder (1975) iden— tified the following three needs and measured individuals' satisfaction of them: (1) existence (feeling of not having to worry about the basics of life); (2) relatedness (feeling that relationships with others are characterized by mutual trust and respect); and (3) growth (feeling that one is a creative and productive person who is using his skills and abilities). In summary, the findings show that relationships be- tween climate dimensions and numerous types of organizational 26 variables have been tested by a variety of authors. In par- ticular, almost all the dimensions have been related to vari- ables involving job satisfaction or other job-centered variables. Other noteworthy relationships have been found with several different types of organizational processes and practices. In addition, relationships have been found between perceptions of climate and several communication-related variables in the organization. Such variables include inter- personal relationships in the organization, the extent of co- operation among work-group members, various leadership behaviors, the general accuracy level of available information and the nature of the information flow in the organization. Additional Issues The area of organizational climate has been subject to much controversy regarding conceptual clarity and direc- tions for research. This section identifies three of those key issues in the literature. It is important to mention these because the theoretical perspective presented in Chapter II addresses some of the problems cited. The issues in this discussion include (1) the possible redundancy of climate with the job satisfaction construct (also referred to as the "Redundancy Hypothesis"); (2) level of analysis; and (3) the role of consensus in examining the concept of climate. 27 The Redundancy Hypothesis: A number of researchers in the organizational behavior area have attempted to dis- tinguish between organizational climate and job satisfaction. Investigators have typically asked whether the two are Opera- tionally the same, and whether measures of climate and satis- faction are descriptive or affective (Payne, Fineman and Wall, 1976; Johannesson, 1973; Guion, 1973; James and Jones, 1974; Payne and Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975). Johannesson (1973) was one of the first to criticize the climate construct for its overlap with satisfaction. He asserted that many of the climate measures were culled from satisfaction scales and that an individual could not refrain from allowing his personal feelings to affect his perceptions of the environment. In effect, measures of climate were really unintended measures of job satisfaction. Payne, Fineman, and Wall (1976), however, argued that Johannesson's claim was not warranted. In their view, the median correlations were not large enough to conclude the two were the same. In addition, Hellriegel and Slocum (1974), Downey, Hellriegel, Phelps and Slocum (1975), LaFollette and Sims (1975) and Schneider and Snyder (1975) have all shown that climate and satisfaction relate differ- ently to other indices of organizational effectiveness. In addition, researchers have argued whether measures of climate and job satisfaction are descriptive or affective. Climate is conceptually a descriptive measure (Payne, 28 Fineman and Wall, 1976) and most often used as one. For example, Schneider and Snyder (1975) argued that a logical and empirical distinction between the two concepts is pos- sible if: (1) organizational climate is conceptualized as a characteristic of organizations reflected in the descrip- tions employees make of the policies, practices, and con— ditions which exist in the work environment; and (2) job satisfaction is conceptualized as an affective response of individuals reflected in the evaluations they make of the salient aspects of their jobs and the organization. In conclusion, many studies have demonstrated that the indivudual's perception of organizational climate is related to his job satisfaction but that the two are concep- tually distinct. The problem with the climate-satisfaction relationship is that it is difficult to know the direction of causality. They probably affect each other, though ex- perimental studies on organizational climate tend to show that manipulations of climate variables lead to changes in job satisfaction (Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Dieterly and Schneider, 1974). Unit of Analysis: The second major issue is whether organizational climate is a concept relevant to explaining the behavior of organizations, or of individuals. Payne, Fineman and Wall (1976) argue the unit of analysis is the organization. However, from reviews of several studies (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974; James and Jones, 1974; 29 Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick, 1970), the majority of studies have used the individual as the unit of analysis, not the organization; i.e., they have collected individual descriptions of organizational practices and procedures and subsequently inferred to overall "climate," from an aggregate result. The issue has been to determine the appropriate level to begin research. James and Jones (1974) argue that inves— tigations of climate ought to first isolate natural groups of peOple, and then assess the perceptions of individuals within those groups. Just as it is possible to look at differences between organizations, one can also examine differences between group "cultures" within the organization. Level of Consensus: Recent literature has noted that a key question is the extent to which peOple agree on their perceptions. Schneider (1975) suggests that the perceptions of organizational members may be a useful representation of an organization's climate, but the level of inter-rater agreement is important in interpretation of results. Most researchers argue that a high level of consensus is evidence for validating climate measures. That is, the reasoning is that if there is high consensus, then they must be identifying the key dimensions of the organization's "environment." However, these researchers do not address the issue that findings at a low level of consensus also provide a 30 description of the nature of the environment. That is, the extent to which individuals perceive aspects of their work environment differently implies they have different types and/or amount of information about it. Low agreement on the part of management vs. employees or groups within each level may mean the existence of schisms, or inefficient communica- tion systems, detachment from the job or the work group, etc. In short, knowledge of the level of consensus can provide the investigator with information regarding the level of systemic information which individuals commonly share. Summary The preceding discussion has presented a review of key areas of research on the climate construct. The findings suggest that the area is robust; however, previous research has not fully developed the role of communication in shaping the nature of perceptions of climate. The concluding section of this chapter identifies major conceptual inad— equices which provided the basis for the research problem addressed in this dissertation study. Statement of the Problem Research on the climate construct provides evidence for relationships between numerous dimensions of climate and several important variables and processes in systems. In addition, the accumulated body of findings provides persons in different levels of an organization a way of evaluating 31 the effects of their behaviors on the perceptions of others. However, the studies reviewed share two general inad- equacies which lend themselves to communication study. First, previous research efforts lack an explicit theoretical framework for explaining and assessing how communication affects people's perceptions toward their environment. Pre- vious work has included measurement of only a few variables related to managerial communication and general communication. In general, therefore, research is needed which has a strong theoretical framework, based on aspects of the information, which explains perceptions of climate from a communication perspective. Such a framework should provide a way of con- ceptualizing attitudes towards the environment, and suggest how those attitudes are shaped by informal structural rela- tions among members of the system. Second, the previous work has not accounted for in- formal structure among members of the system. Studies have been limited to examining formal relationships between super- visors and subordinates; they have not considered the presence and strength of informal relationships among all members across levels of the organization. Informal relationships are important in that they represent patterned, repetitive linkages among members based on the type and rate of information they exchange. That is, people in a system are regularly linked together in a series of communication relationships called networks. Advantages 32 of identifying such networks include the ability (1) to determine the extent to which members of the system are integrated and (2) the location of individuals who function as key communicators in the system. In short, findings in the literature show that re— ferents for climate are based on various perceptions of the job, management, coworkers, and the organization. The prob- lem posed for this dissertation study was to investigate the role of communication in determining the nature of those perceptions. The study examined climate from a communication perspective. It primarily assessed the relationship between communication structure (informal networks of information flow), and the aggregate cognitive structure of perceptions held by various members of the organization. Chapter II describes the theoretical framework and the research hy- potheses used to guide the research. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES The purpose of the present studyrmmsto evaluate the role of communication in perceptions of organizational climate. Implicit in the review presented in Chapter I is the notion that climate dimensions are based on perceptions of several "objects" in the psychological environment of the organization--relating to the job, managers, coworkers, and the overall organization. The type of information provided by previous research is important because it provides a basis for using force aggregation theory in the present study (Woelfel, 1972; Gillham and Woelfel, 1977; Taylor, 1977). Force aggregation theory posits that attitudes are based on the amountlof weighted information organization members receive about ob- jects they perceive to be salient in the organization. In- formation is weighted by (a) the number of messages received; (b) whether the message asserts a positive or negative dipeg— tion; and (c) the significance of the source. Force aggregation theory developed almost a decade ago from concepts relating to symbolic interactionism and atti- tude formation theory (Woelfel and Haller, 1971). Work on 33 34 the development of force aggregation theory primarily incor- porated the writings of Kuhn and Mead, two noted symbolic interactionists. In describing force aggregation theory, Woelfel and Haller (1971) note: The theory . . . assumes that attitudes are relationships between a person and an object or set of objects . . . but following from the interactionist postulate that man's per- ceptions of objects is always mediated by some symbolic structure (Kuhn, 1964), that relationship is assumed to be a conceptual one, that is, it is the relationship a person sees between his conception of himself and his conception of the objects in question. The process of forming a conception on a most general level, can be seen as a process of categorization . . . then, an attitude may be defined as a person's conception of the relationship between the . . . categories he sees himself to be a member and the . . . categories which he sees the object to be a member . . . classification is thus a cog— nitive act based on the 'information' one has about objects and self (pp. 75-76). Hence, when applied to members of an organization, this theory means that individuals are able to acquire infor- mation about objects through their interactions with others (Taylor, Farace,and Monge, 19761. By accumulating knowledge members define attributes of objects; through this process, objects develop meaning which is then shared among members. In considering climate within this context, organization members are likely to come to share similar sets of percep- tions toward objects they perceive salient, such as aspects of the job, management, coworkers, or the organization as a whole (its policies and practices). 35 The central assumption in the application of force aggregation theory to climate is that individuals' perceptions of the organization's environment will beppositive to the ex- tent salient objects are perceived to possess attributes con- gruent with major attributes involved in their perceptions of themselves.1 That is, to the extent an individual char- acterizes most salient objects (e.g., working relations with managers, or aspects of the work environment) in terms con- sistent with their perceptions of themselves, they will be more "positive" in their perception of the climate; they will have a more favorable set of attitudes towards the job, the boss, and the overall work place. leserts above, force aggregation theory assets that an attitude is based on perceptions; it is the sum of weight- ed effects of a set of messages. The resultant attitude e, at a given point in time, is the linear sum of the messages X1, X2, X3, . . , Xn’ weighted for their magnitude, direction— ality, context, source, and divided by the total number p of the messages. Each incoming message has a "force" of its own, and can move an individual's attitude in a specified 1This has been the central assumption of most force aggregation studies. When an individual perceives that salient objects (e.g., a political candidate, a product, or an innovation) possess attributes similar to those he uses to define himself, the prediction has been that his perceptions will be positive. Hence, "positive" here means the individ- ual will "vote" for the candidate, "buy" the particular pro- duct, or "adOpt" the innovation (Barnett, Serota, and Taylor, 1976; Taylor, Farace and Monge, 1976; Taylor, 1977). 36 direction (Woelfel, 1972; 1974). An attitude, then, is determined by four main inde- pendent factors. These are: (l) the number of messages; (2) the number of messages comprising the individual's initial balance point; (3) the salience of the message con- text; and (4) the significance of the source (Taylor, Farace, and Monge, 1976). An attitude is thus defined as the result of prior message inputs received about a tOpic, dependent on the ex- tent to which incoming messages are numerous, salient, and from significant sources. Hence, an attitude with a weak initial balance point is more likely to be affected by mes- sages with large amounts of these characteristics than one with a considerably stronger prior history. For individuals in a work environment, attitudes to- wards the concept of "self" and the "job" are concepts that have been strengthened by numerous messages over a lengthy period of time. One comes to conceive of oneself based on years of incoming messages from significant others. Similar- ly, one may come to conceive of his or her job as the aggre- gate of many message inputs, making it a characteristically "massive" concept. In short, its existing balance point of message inputs is strong, such that succeeding ones have limited effects (Woelfel, 1972). 37 Therefore, an initial task in operationalizing this framework is to determine the attributes people use in con- ceiving of themselves and their jobs. The information is then summarized across members in the system. When the con- cepts and attributes are identified, a methodological tech- nique can be used to represent their interrelationships in a multidimensional configuration. Its form is a spatial "map" which represents the self and the job relative to one another as well as to other key elements identified in the environ- ment. The distance between these objects on the map provides predictions about the amount and nature of information dif— ferent people in the system have about objects they consider salient in the environment (Barnett, Serota and Taylor, 1976). The map-building process involves integrating the set of key environmental objects, attributes used to character- ize the objects, and individuals, into a multivariate data framework. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) offers a method for analyzing sets of such complex data. (A broader dis- cussion of this methodological technique is provided in Chapter III.) An important aspect of force aggregation theory is that members of the study population, not the researcher, determine the objects salient in perceptions of the organ- ization's climate. Previous methods for conceptualizing climate have imposed sets of concepts and attributes on the 38 respondents. However, these concepts may or may not be per- ceived by members as important or salient. Subjects identify these concepts through their own descriptions of aspects of the environment. In summary, force aggregation theory provides a framework suitable for explaining the nature of attitudes; in particular, the attitudes of organization members towards their work place. The theory is appropriate because it is based on information exchange, and thus fits well for guid— ing this study of the role of communication in climate perceptions. However, force aggregation theory alone is insuffi— cient in explaining the role of communication in perceptions of climate; the concept of communication structure is also important. "Structure" refers to the pattern of linkages that exist among members and thus provide "pathways" for information flow in the organization. The concept is incorporated in the force aggregation framework by (l) assessing the extent 0f structural rela- tions among members; and (2) identifying content areas of messages which form the basis for communication relation- ships. Once such relations are found, those who function in certain capacities (roles) in the communication system may be identified. In organizations, certain people often occupy roles as "key" communicators for some topics. That is, they serve as links between larger groups of people 39 (Taylor, Farace and Monge, 1976; Taylor, 1977). These individuals are those through whom all or most of the system's members can be reached through interpersonal channels. Key communicators have the greatest potential for affecting the speed of information flow and the level of mes- sage distortion, since they reduce the number of links other— wise involved. In addition, they may be considered opinion leaders in the organization, and thus significant others for members on some topics (Kaye, 1976; Taylor, 1977). Several researchers (Farace, Monge and Russell, 1977; and Taylor, 1977) have suggested two roles for key communica- tors: liaisons and bridges. Liaisons are individuals who link groups but are not themselves group members. Bridges are group members who have linkages to one or more other groups. Hence, the concept of social structure--the linkage patterns among people--is useful for further developing this framework for studying communication and climate perceptions. The force aggregation theory assumes that perceptions of climate are based on the amount of information possessed by different peOple in the organization. An important issue, then, is the nature of the information flow among members, i.e., their pattern of communication. While these linkages may be formal or informal, they determine the means by which people in the organization receive information that shapes their attitudes. 40 For the past forty years, authors have noted the importance of this relationship between social structure and cognitive processes (Durkheim, 1938; Gillham and Woelfel, 1977). Taylor (1977) used the relationship between commun- ication linkages and perceptions to develOp message strate- gies for creating successful attitude change among members of a system. The concept of linkage patterns, while important, is also incomplete without consideration of the "rules" in the system. These rules govern he! those linkages take place. Hence, the rules for interaction in an organization, par- ticularly between a manager and an employee, can determine the number and nature of the messages which are exchanged. The concept of rules refers to formal and informal norms in the organization that guide and limit the communica- tion relationship between a manager and his subordinates. Communication rules specify conditions under which it is appropriate to initiate contact with the manager, in suit— able topics of discussion, the control of the conversation, and the setting and length of interaction (Farace, Monge, and Russell, 1977). In short, the nature of the rule structure can deter- mine the number, and rate of messages which an individual receives about certain objects. The number and nature of messages received can, in turn, affect his perceptions of objects relative to how he sees himself and his job. 41 In addition to the structure of interactions, percep- tions of objects may be affected by the extent to which in- formation needs are met. Perceptions, particularly of the job, are largely contingent on the availability of useful information about the task. MacDonald (1970), in assessing satisfaction with the organization's communication system, noted that climate satisfaction was related to perceptions of incoming information from managers as adequate, accurate, believable, useful, and timely. Hence, given the assumption that individuals' per— ceptions of climate will be more favorable given that they perceive objects in terms of attributes similar to themselves, their perceptions of the information contained in the messages also becomes important. Hypotheses Force aggregation theory specifies that perceptions towards climate are based on attitudes towards objects rela- tive to one's perception of self (Farace, Taylor and Monge, 1976; Gillham and Woelfel, 1977). Taylor (1977) found evi- dence supporting the hypothesis that successful change cam- paigns in organizations are those that decrease the dissimiliarity between an innovation, objects in the work environment, and those attributes of the objects, which are also close to self. Similarly, Barnett, Serota and Taylor (1976) predicted voting behavior, based on distances peOple perceived between their conceptions of themselves and political 42 candidates. Concepts and attributes similar in meaning have minimum distance between them in a configuration. Conversely, concepts and attributes perceived different in meaning have relatively large distances between them. Hence, following the assumption stated earlier, to the extent that one perceives most salient objects in the work environment to be similar to one's definition of one- self, the more favorable one's perception of the overall climate is likely to be. That is, the objects are perceived as congruent, not conflicting, with the attributes one per- ceives of oneself. Following this reasoning and the climate literature, we would expect that perceptions of the job and other objects in the organization, unlike perceptions of the self, might be studied more directly in terms of the nature of one's access to the information flow in the system and hence the number and types of messages one receives about those objects. The amount of information people in the system have varies with the frequency of their communication behaviors; some people are active communicators, others are more isolat- ed from the flow of information. People who share common characteristics in their communication behaviors occupy similar communication "roles." They are designated those roles based on the nature of their linkages (their commun— ication relationships) to others in the system, on certain FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllll-!--E;e ...1 43 communication tOpics. A series of linkages based on com— munication content is a "network" (Farace, Monge and Russell, 1977). The network represents a type of social structure present in the system. Such structures are more or less integrated depending on the extent of linkages among members. Communication roles in the organization are differen- tiated according to their range of communication linkages. Certain roles are particularly "key" since they serve to link large groups of peOple. As Likert(196l) notes, they have the potential to exert influence over the nature and rate of mes- sage flow in the system. He concluded (in his "linking pin" notion) that individuals who connect large groups have authority independent of their formal roles in the organiza— tion. McDonald (1970) studied the role of liaisons in a large governmental bureaucracy. He found that they had more access to production-related information and were perceived as influential in the organization. He concluded that: The liaison concept appears to be important to the study of communication systems in that the nature, location, and frequency of "linking" roles has many implications for uncertainty absorption in the systems, organ- izational design, and communication climate (p. 46). Schwartz and Jacobson (1977) analyzed responses from members of academic organizations with relatively horizontal formal structures. Evidence from their research supports the view that desire for personal autonomy is higher in such 44 organizations than in other settings, and may affect the types of communication roles members can hold. Taylor (1977) studied the role of key communicators in a network of state special education administrators. He found some support for the hypothesis that such individuals have initial access to new information about innovations, and may influence the attitudes of non-key communicators. Given previous findings about such individuals, it is likely that they have more information about most elements of the system. Further, we would expect that they perceive a more direct involvement with their jobs, given that they have access to a wider variety of message inputs. Hence, we would hypothesize: H1: The mean interpoint distance between the concepts of "the self" and "the job" Will be less for key communicators than for non- key communicators. A major aspect of previous climate study has concerned the perceptions of relationships with managers. As cited in Chapter I, the nature of "managerial climate" has been ex- amined at length. The dimensions found in that body of work include (1) closeness of supervision; (2) managerial aloof- ness; (3) close impersonal supervision; and (4) managerial structure. Implicit in these dimensions is the perception that communication with management is or is not frequent, with sufficient direction and guidance provided. For example, Churchill, Ford and Walker (1976) found that in hierarchical 45 organizations, employee satisfaction with climate was based on the extent of supervision provided by managers. Therefore, we would expect that key linkers would behave in such a way that their perceptions of the distance between themselves and their supervisors in management would be minimized. It is likely that non-key linkers, in contrast, would not have as many informal contacts with managers, thus maintaining the distance. Given this, the hypothesis becomes: H The mean interpoint distance between the concepts of "the job" and "management" will be less for key communicators than for non-key communicators. 2: In analyzing climate perceptions by communication role, it is important to note that key linkers are likely to perceive themselves more central in the environment than non- key communicators. That is, in possessing more information about objects, they should perceive that their jobs have an integral part in the Operations of the organization. As MacDonald (1970) found, key communicators perceive themselves and are perceived by others in the organization to have greater influence, have a broader range of communication con- tacts, and to have more production, and social-related infor— mation than others in the organization. Within the context of force aggregation theory, this means that key linkers are likely to perceive more similarity between their jobs and other objects than non-key communicators 46 because of the number of messages they have. In contrast, non-key communicators probably encounter fewer messages to form their perceptions, and hence perceive fewer concepts in the environment in terms they would View themselves and their jobs. Hence, the hypothesis that liaisons have more infor- mation about concepts in the environment and are likely to see their jobs as more integrated in the work environment becomes: H3: The concept of "the job" for key commun- icators Will be closer to the center of the space than for non-key communicators. The center of the space refers to the zero point at which all dimensions in the space originate. For example, in a two-dimensional space, it is the point at which the axes cross (see Figure 1). It is the expectation in this study that not only do specific conceptual configurations differ, but that the over- all pipe of the spaces also differs for key and non-key com- municators. "Size" in this context refers to the amount of variability in their spaces. Key communicators are likely to have less variability, since the concepts will be closer together. Conversely, people who have less information about a salient set of objects are likely to report larger dis- tances resulting in more variability. This hypothesis follows previous findings in the climate literature. Many of the dimensions imply a "dis- similarity" perception between different variables in the 47 2 ‘l' r - 1 l l I V I T I V -4 -3 -2 —1 i 2 3 4 _l; origin ’21 13‘L -4 Figure 1. Illustration of the origin in a two-dimensional space. organization. These include "employee independence,‘ "work autonomy," "managerial aloofness," "close impersonal super- vision," "status polarization," and "participative decision- making." Therefore, one would expect that H4: The overall size of the cognitive space perceived by key communicators will be smaller than the size of the space for non—key communicators. In addition to size of the space, the shape of the spaces should also differ. This is particularly true in the case of an organization which encompasses more than one formal structure. For example, a private sector industrial organization is usually comprised of a company structure and 48 a union structure. The two are natural adversaries and hence often perceived as highly dissimilar in their goals, objectives, and policies (Chamberlain and Kuhn, 1965). We would expect that when two concepts are incorporated in the space that represents policies which are clearly antithetical, the shape of the space would be somewhat elongated with these concepts appearing at the most opposite ends. Thus, the hypothesis is: H : The key communicators will have a spherical space, while the non-key communicators will have an elliposoidal Space. Overall, we can generally expect that the two spaces will differ. That is, differences between the overall spaces will be most clearly shown in differences between perceptions for the major climate areas of the job, the management, and concepts relating to organizational policy (in this case, the concept was "overtime"). We can also include in this the presence of the formal structure of the union. That is, it presents a highly dissimilar force to management and while its presence has not been acknowledged in other studies, it will be included here. Therefore: H6: When the spaces for the key communicators and non-key communicators are examined together, the largest differences will be found between perceptions of the job, management, organizational policies, and the union. The force aggregation framework is expanded here to include aspects of the communication system that affect the 49 type of messages received by members. The framework basi- cally considers two factors which can affect perceptions of the rate and quality of messages. These factors are the nature of the informal rule structure and satisfaction of information needs. The rules construct is particularly important because it concerns the nature of information interactions with the key "other" to a person in a working environment--the "boss." That is, informal rules guide the structure of the interaction --and hence the type of messages communicated. For example, rule governed interactions with the manager which are highly structured would mean that such matters as the selection of topics, the length of discussion, and the number of disturb- ances would all be decided by the boss. Consequences of this are that matters of key importance to the subordinate may never be discussed, and the guidance provided may be inadequate and inapprOpriate. The rules construct is closely related to the man- agerial climate dimension of managerial structure. This dimension refers to the extent to which managers are formal, highly directive, and insensitive to feedback (i.e., operate in an authoritative manner). The expectation in this study is that key communica— tors exert a greater influence on the rule structure. In effect, the determination of the rules is more equitably distributed between the boss and the subordinate. We would 50 expect this of key communicators, given their behavior characteristics and their perceived influence in the system. Therefore, the hypothesis becomes: H : Key communicators will perceive that they exert more influence in the determination of rules than non-key communicators. Similarly, the degree to which messages are perceived to meet information needs affects overall perceptions. Par— ticularly critical is the extent to which members of the system perceive the information to be accurate. That is, given that the theory specifies that attitudes are determined by numerous, salient messages from significant sources, we would expect key communicators to evaluate the information as more accurate, timely, believable,adequate and useful. In short, they would judge the information from management to meet their information needs better than would non-key communicators. The hypothesis is: H8: Key communicators will perceive downward— directed messages as more accurate than will non—key communicators. In the next chapter, procedures are presented which were used to test these eight hypotheses. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Tests for the hypotheses presented in Chapter II primarily require methods for assessing (1) individual position in the information flow; (2) cognitive structure based on dissimilarities between attributes of self, job, and salient objects in the environment; and (3) relationships between roles, communication rules, and satisfaction of in- formation needs. The first task involved the use of network analysis (NA) to determine communication role. Second, multidimen- sional scaling (MDS) was used to measure object/attribute dissimilarities. Third, a variation of Mosteller and Tukey's (1977) "jackknife" method was used to obtain sample means in order to test for differences among MDS spaces. Finally, p-tests were used to assess hypotheses concerning relation- ships among network role, communication rules, and informa- tion needs. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss these methods used in operationalizing the conceptual framework. First, a general discussion is provided of network analysis and multidimensional scaling. Second, the chapter provides 51 52 a description of the research site where the study was con— ducted. Finally, specific procedures used in the study are reviewed. Network Analysis The concept of an organization as comprised of inform- al communication systems has been noted in the literature for over three decades. The early machine—theory perspectives argued that efficiency would be maximized by prescribing the amount of access to information for each position or formal role. Hence, extraneous data that hindered the functioning of persons in their roles would be eliminated (Farace, Monge, Russell, 1977; Taylor, 1977). Sometime later, however, in the wake of the "human relations" perspective, theorists began to observe the ten— dency for communication within bureaucracies to follow path- ways not formally prescribed by the organization's formal hierarchical chart. Downs (1969) developed several proposi- tions about the informal nature of information flow in bureaus (bureaucracies). Researchers have noted that such informal flow of information occurs for a number of purposes (Farace, Monge and Russell, 1977). For example, information which travels regarding about work-related topics functions for task accomplishment-production purposes. Information about non-job related matters such as gossip and social events functions to main the "health" or satisfaction of the system's members. 53 An organization's communication network is defined as a system of overlapping dyadic linkages, both formal and informal, which together comprise all possible communication pathways between members within a system's boundary (Richards, 1974a). Dyadic linkages represent a communica- tion relationship between two persons. Two individuals have a relationship when: a) they communicate directly, or b) a set of communications exist between person A and person B such that information may still flow between A and B. Network analysis techniques have been used for the past 20 years. The original work by Jacobson and Seashore (1951) used sociometric techniques for studying small group behavior. Only recently have computer-based techniques been developed to analyze linkages among persons in large-scale organizations (Richards, 1975). The present study utilized Richards' methodology. Richards' technique measures the position of individ- uals in the overall information flow by using a data base of reported frequencies of dyadic interaction. The technique identifies the types of roles people occupy — as well as the volume of overall informal interaction. It requires sub- jects to report the number of times they communicated with other system members during a specified time period. The data are then arrayed into an N x N matrix of the number of their reported contacts (Richards, 1975). 54 Cluster analytic techniques are used to decompose the data and assign a communication role based on one's pattern of one's linkages. Thus, one's position in the information flow--one's network role--is based on the ex- tensiveness and frequency of his communication behavior (MacDonald, 1970; Taylor, 1977). Richards (1975) categorizes each member of the organ— ization (managers and employees) into one of five communica- tion roles. These are: 1. Group member: a node with more than some mini- mal percentage of his total number of likages with members of one group (in this study the percentage [an "alpha"- percentage] is equal to 50.1%). Of note, to be a group, a set of nodes must satisfy each of five criteria: a. there must be at least three members; b. each member must meet the same minimum alpha- percentage criterion with members of the group; c. each member must have a link to every other member of the group (this is known as the connectiveness criterion); d. no single node or nodes may exist which, when removed from the group, causes the rest of the group to fail to meet any of the above criteria (this is the critical node criterion); e. no single link (or subset of links) may exist which, if terminated, causes the group to fail to meet any of the above criteria (this is the critical link criterion). 2. Bridges: nodes which are members of groups, but which have one or more links to another group. They link two or more groups. 55 3) Liaisons: nodes which link two or more groups but are not themselves members of any group. 4) Type one isolate: nodes which have no links. 5) Type two isolates: nodes connected to only one other node. 6) Other: nodes which fail to meet criteria for any of the above roles types. An example of a communication network and the communication roles which may exist within that network is illustrated in Figure 2. The bridge and liaison roles are of particular im- portance in this study. Bridges and liaisons are important in a communication system because they enable information exchange between clusters of people. A bridge can serve as the source and receiver of information for a group because he or she has connections to the outside network. A liaison connects groups without being a group member. As a result, a liaison may control the rate and nature of information flow in the large network. By virtue of their control over the message inputs to others, both have potentially sig- nificant influence over the nature of information flow in the entire network. Hence, the identification of such roles is crucial, given that the theory defines perceptions in relation to the amount of information peOple have about the environment. Communication networks were constructed in this study according to the content of interaction. Research has 56 ‘il” Group 2 5 Ate 9 V 00» ° VI Group 1 Groups: Gnoup Linkers: Isolates: Group 1 - 4,5,6,7,8 Bridges - 5,9 True isolate — 1 Group 2 - 9,10,11,12 Liaison - 13 Isolated dyad - 2,3 Group 3 - l4,15,l6,17,18 Other — 19 Figure 2. Types of communication network roles (from Farace, MOnge, and Russell, p. 192). 57 shown that key communicators may vary across content net- works; hence, the extent of influence exerted on percep— tions of climate may vary as well. It is also important to specify the content of communication because the salience of the message context is an important part of the individ- ual's attitude toward an object. A sample of 20 managers and employees was inter- viewed prior to the main study. They were asked to identify (1) the tOpics they most frequently communicated about; and (2) of those topics,tflmaones they felt were particularly important to discuss. They agreed that the most important topics involved aspects of the job (the business of the company); personal or social matters; and the union. Most indicated that these were important because business had to be conducted to maintain operations, personal matters were needed to ease boredom and conflict in the plant, and that union matters were critical since company-union relations were tense. Based on this information, three networks were studied: 1) a network based on discussions among members of the day-to-day work involved in the plant; 2) a network based on discussion of personal topics such as problems, family activities; and 3) a network based on discussions about aspects of union-related activities, such as contract negotiations, meetings, grievances, etc. Analysis of these networks identified individuals occupying key communication roles. Key communicators were 58 operationalized in this study as those occupying either bridge or liaison positions in two or more of the networks. Multidimensional Scaling Multidimensional scaling provides a methodological framework for assessing the nature of perceived images. It makes no a priori assumptions regarding salient perceptual dimensions and is particularly useful in situations where the attributes used by respondents to judge objects are not fully known (Leister and MacLachlan, 1975). Multidimensional scaling generates a picture or map which represents relationships among a set of objects 01, 0 0n (Taylor, 1977). The technique uses judgments 21-~-r of the extent of similarity or dissimilarity between pairs of objects. Such judgments allow the spatial representa— tion of objects in a space of two, three, or more dimensions. The method uses a symmetrical data matrix where rows and columns correspond to objects 01, 02, . . . On. The ijth cell contains the dissimilarity (the observed differ— ence) between object 0i and object Oj. Hence, the less the dissimilarity, or difference, between objects 0i and 0j the greater the perceived association (or similarity) between the two objects. Data in this method are aggregated across respondents and averaged into a distance matrix which is transformed into a scalar products matrix. This matrix is factored using a direct iterative unstandardized procedure. 59 Factoring yields a coordinate matrix consisting of ortho- gonal axes, with rows as the projections of concept loca- tions on the dimension (Taylor, 1977). Essentially, procedures for an MDS analysis include the following. Subjects are given a complete set of paired comparisons. That is, each object to be included in the space is paired with every other object in the space; the result is an [(N) x (N-1)]/ 2 set of paired comparisons. A criterion pair, not included in the space, is utilized as an example for the respondents. The example objects are those appropriate to the system of the respondents. Sub- jects are then asked to make judgemnts of the general form: If the difference between concept 5 and concept 3 is 2 units, how different are [concept A]and [concept B]? These judgments may then be measured on a scale of the form: completely : : : . . . : : . : :diffinent O 10 20 3O 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100 same: The number of different types of studies utilizing the multidimensional scaling technique has increased in recent years. Leister and MacLachlan (1975) used a non— metric version to measure differences in organizational "environmental images" perceived by members of academic institutions. They measured perceived similarity and dis- similarity of several colleges in a region on several at- tributes. The metric method has been used in studies of 60 organizational change (Taylor, 1977); political attitude formation (Barnett, Serota and Taylor, 1976); and cognitive complexity in language development (Barnett, 1975). Specifically in the area of organizational research, Taylor (1977) showed that the distances between concepts in the resulting factor space can be used to predict the extent of adoption of an innovation among educational admin- istrators. His technique involved summing the distances for a concept representing the average position for the perception of "my job" and the concepts representing the attributes of the job and the innovation. He then used the technique to develop message strategies to increase the perception of educational change as congruent with the administrators' perceptions of the scope of their job. The researcher is thus able to use the spatial map generated by the method to evaluate the position of the points representing the self, the job, and the other con— cepts, relative to one another. By examining the relation— ships between the points, it is possible to determine which concepts and attributes are important to the individual‘s perception of self and which are not. That is, those con- cepts and attributes which are minimally discrepant with the individual's perception of self and the work. Those which are maximally discrepant (judged most dissimilar) are less congruent with the perception of self and work. Objects perceived close to positively—oriented attributes F—_———_——WW " 7 ' '.~.‘-: 1 Fa' 61 are perceived positive in nature, while concepts close to negative attributes are perceived more negative. Research Site The organization used for the researchvuusa union— ized, drop forge manufacturing plant. Members of the study population included salaried, hourly, and piece—rate incen- tive wage workers on the first shift. All respondents were located in one large building encompassing offices, com— puter rooms, first—aid station, and the machine shop. The number of managers and first shift personnel located in this building totaled 128 at the time of the study. The firm has been a family-owned business for more than 40 years. Members of the extended family occupy many executive level positions. The formal organizational chart is presented in Figure 3. The plant employs workers on three shifts, totalling about 250 workers. The production schedule is 24 hours per day, five and one-half days per week. Turnover of personnel is low (3—4% each year). Daily absenteeism runs about eight percent. Study Procedures The procedures used in the study were directed to- wards the measurement of the differences in climate percep- tions based on differing communication roles. Procedures necessary for the analysis included the following: first, .AEMHQ mcflwdwomwsqmn omuow momma mo unmsu accofluhngmwo anamom .m 850E _ lie; 62 gamma _ . moflmo 8&8 lmmum 9: mfimmnoudm 800m HBDQEOO- 99H. coHubspoum 8'30 "ouch . . lugsoooa. _ . _ a . , , Hmong: Hommdmz Hmong Hmmmcmz ooflwo modmm mewmmoooum puma cOUUDUOHm “838880 _ . a H , H . . _ 4 mmwdzgg gmzmw EmHmmfl _ mmUHth UZHEHQO baa mug BEDHmmmm 881.381 mmoHEo rat/HESS mmdo Ufim Omdom mm? m0 Zmzmg 63 mcgflmomm Uganda #858...me pagmmo can D338 mmwum monm HQEBm monm 58:83 09.25de .8QO Amy Symphom Amy cmnmfiom Amy cmbwuom Epsom Amy 5598 £08.05me «5305me Hflmmmm H009 pgog “gamma norm Beam mmmHm ANV £298 5 $8885 3380 .l L .88ng cmeHom meg 800m mam _ mmHDZ _ Hmmmcmz . woodman: . a- ; HDHAEOO HQHEOO Honucoo Hmmfimcm ummfimfim pampcmucfluwgm Houmfimflg Eflumumz coflbspoum Dianna mmmoonm mommcmucflz Eoom wen Hmccomumm ., al mas/ZS BZflHQ 64 the author obtained permission to conduct the study from both the vice—president for manufacturing and the union bargaining unit chairman. The author met separately with both individuals and assured them that all data obtained from respondents would be kept confidential. In addition, both men indicated that they wanted to approve the specific questionnaires used in the study. The second stage of the planning process involved construction of the final study instrument. Two pieces of information were necessary: (1) for the network instrument: names of all individuals (managers and employees) on the first shift and a set of topics for the communication net- works; and (2) for the MDS instrument: a set of concepts for analysis. The company vice-president provided the list of names, telephone numbers, and a chart of the formal hier— archy. The topics for the network instrument and the con— cepts for the MDS instrument were obtained in a separate interviewing procedure. The instrument (see Appendix E) consisted of a series of open—ended questions and probes asking respondents about aspects of their jobs, the plant, their bosses, and plant policies which they liked and did not like. In addition, respondents were asked to identify important topics of communication in the plant. The trained interviewers included two male college seniors and one female college junior. They conducted the 65 interviews by telephone with a random sample of 20 percent of the members of the system. Management personnel and employees were included in the sample. A total of twenty interviews were completed, each averaging 40 minutes in length. Respondents were assured at the beginning of the interview that permission had been granted for the study by the company and the union. The interviews occurred in the evenings over a span of five days in May, 1978. The interview data were analyzed to generate net- work tOpics and MDS concepts. Unanimous responses were provided for three tOpics of importance for the network instrument. The concepts and attributes were tallied to determine the number of times they appeared across respon— ses. Those with the highest frequencies were chosen for the final instrument. Concepts selected from the interview data were: 1) management 2) the union 3) the foremen 4) hard work 5) easy 6) good 7) overtime 8) pushy 9) better machinery 10) the heat 11) helpful Two additional concepts were included as part of the research effort. These were: 12) me 13) my job 66 A rationale for the selection of each concept appears in Table 2. Analyses performed were based only on this set of concepts. The third stage of procedures involved distribution of the final questionnaire which included: (1) the network instrument (see Appendix G); (2) the MDS instrument (Appen- dix F); and (3) the rules and information needs instrument (Appendix H). Data collection was held on the plant premises. Verbal instructions were given to separate groups of man— agers and employees. Management personnel received the questionnaire on their morning breaks in the coffee lounge. Employees were scheduled in a conference room during their lunch breaks and production down time. The vice-president for manufacturing and the union unit chairman assisted with scheduling and retrieval of questionnaires from employ- ees who took the instrument home overnight. Four days during June, 1978, were used for adminis- tration of the study instruments to all respondents present for work. Identical instruments were administered to man— agement personnel and employees. Because of expressed hostility and suspicion between the management and union, all those who participated in the study were informed that the questionnaire was approved by both the Vice-president and the bargaining unit chairman. Respondents were told that all information provided would be kept confidential 67 Table 2 Rationale for Concept Selection* CONCEPT RATIONALE 1. 2. 3. My job Managenent The union The foremen Hard work Easy Good Overtime The concept is need to identify respondents' self-perceptions. The self concept percep- tion was used to compare the interrelation- ships of all other concepts. Tb provide a baseline for determining conndtnent to job, congruency between self and type of work performed. To provide an understanding of how managers perceived their positions relative to the rest of the system of concepts. In addition this followed the literature which noted the psychological distance perceived by employees between themselves and top manage— ment. Generally, the further the distance, the nore dissatisfaction and lack of con— structive direction perceived. As a separate entity, this concept repre- sented the important organization for HDSt employees. It was also compatible with the network topic of union business. This concept represents the "boss" for many employees. Sore enployees had more than one forenen; hence, they felt confusion regard— ing whom to follow. Represented the nature of the work per— fonned, some felt their tasks at the drop forge shop were "easy"; others, difficult. Referred to not only the nature of the work but the interpersonal nature of coworkers, denands of foremen, nenagenent. A positive attribute (descriptor) for other concepts. An inportant policy issue affecting percep— tions of job. would provide data as to how related overtime is to a manager's and employee's job. An inportant area of negotiations. Table 2 (cont'd.) 68 (INCEPT RATIONALE 10. Pushy ll . Better machinery 12 . The heat 13. Helpful A negative attribute for other concepts . Represents inprovenents in plant working conditions over time. A negative attribute of the plant's phys- ical environment. Inhibits job perform— ance, task ccnpletion. A positive attribute for other concepts. * Also appears in Kaye (1976) , p. 219, and Taylor (1977), pp. 81-82. 69 and that the author would furnish the company and the union with c0pies of the same final report of results. In general, the hourly employees were most resistant and suspicious of the study. Most, however, complied after the author informed them of previous work she had done with their union. Difficulties occurred with collecting data from pro- duction workers who did not have scheduled down time because of increased production that week. These workers were on an incentive wage program; they were paid only on a piece- rate basis. Hence, workers whose payment depended on their completion rate (and who did not have down time breaks during the eight hour shifts) did not receive the instrument. Operationalization of Variables The rules and information needs constructs were operationalized by scales taken from previous research. The scales were measured this way in order to rely on prior experience with the measures reported in the literature. The rules construct was operationalized using a scale of five items used in previous organizational commun- ication research (Farace, Monge, and Russell, 1977). These items consisted of the following: When just you and your boss talk . . . Who decides ppep the two of you will talk? Who starts the conversation? Who decides what topics, or problems, you talk about? ._r_.r1 70 Who epdg or stops the conversation? Which one of you usually interrupts to move to a new topic? Seven choice points were provided for each item: boss almost always, boss usually, boss more often than me, both of us about the same, me more often than my boss, me usually, and me almost always. Responses to these items were summed across the scale to obtain a composite score for each individ— ual on the variable. Information needs was operationalized by a series of five statements, each concerning a different aspect of the communication system. The scale was adapted from a study of satisfaction with the work-related communication system by MacDonald (1970). The information we get from management about work is usually accurate. When management puts out information to employees, you can believe it, completely. The information we get from management about doing the job is usually on time--it gets to us when we need it. The information we get from management about doing the job is usually complete——we are told all we need to know. The information we get from management is usually in very useful form——easy to use. Five choice-points were provided for each item: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. 71 Responses to these items were summed across the scale to obtain a composite score for each individual on the vari- able. Data Analysis The network analysis was first performed to identify key communicators among the respondents. The network role code was subsequently inserted in each respondent's identifi— cation code in the MDS data file, and in the rules, informa— tion needs, and demographic variables file. All the data were subsequently sorted by network role for analysis. Computer programs used to perform the analyses were the following: (1) Program NEGOPY (Richards, 1975) for the network analysis; (2) Program GALILEO (Woelfel, ep_el., 1976) for the multidimensional scaling analysis; and (3) the Sta— tistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, ep_§l., 1976). In order to perform the appropriate tests for the dif— ferences in MDS spaces (Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6) a varia- tion of the jackknife procedure was used (Mosteller and Tukey, 1968, 1977). Essentially, the procedure is useful when ap- propriate statistical tests have not been developed to test for differences between groups. The procedure allows the researcher to sample random subsets of the data in order to obtain "pseudo" means and standard deviations. These values are subsequently amenable to further parametric statistical tests. 72 As Mosteller and Tukey (1977) note: The name 'jackknife' is intended to sug- gest the broad usefulness of a technique as a substitutute for specialized tools that may not be available, just as the Boy Scout's trusty tool serves so variedly. The jackknife offers ways to set sensible confidence limits in complex situations. The basic idea is to assess the effect of each of the groups into which the data have been divided, not by the result for that group alone, but rather through the effect upon the body of data that results from omitting that group (p. 133). The modified jackknife procedure was incorporated into the present study in the following manner (Fink, 1978):1 (1) First, the entire sample was divided into the key and non-key communicator groups. Three random sub-samples were drawn from each group, using a random number generator from a calculator. Each subsample consisted of two—thirds of the total num— ber of cases in each group. The number of cases for each was the following: Key Communicators (n = 53) Non—Key'Cbnnmnicators (n = 43) Kl=36 NK1=29 K2=36 NK2=29 K3=36 NK3=29 (2) Second, each sub—sample was analyzed through the 1Dr. Edward L. Fink, personal communication, July 31, August 2, 1978 (Assistant Professor, Department of Communica— tion, Michigan State University). 73 Galileo program such that six separate sets of factor coordinates were obtained, six sets of dis— similarity matrices were computed, and six "traces" (the total variance explained by all dimensions) were obtained for subsequent analysis. (3) From the results of analyses for each sub- sample, further statistical analyses were performed. Differences between groups were tested by p—tests. According to the jackknife procedure, this was ac— complished by finding the "pseudo means," "pseudo variances" and "pseudo standard deviations" for each group based on its p of "3." (4) Tukey2 specifies that the pseudo values are obtained by the following method: (a) using the average values for the entire group and the average value for each sub-sample of that group, the values are obtained by the formula: awnegexfiflue _ awmxgexflflue = 3 (fOr entire group) 2 (for sub~samplel) pseudo-valuel ameraxavahxa __ .awnage\mdue = 3 (fOr entire group) 2 (for sub-sanplez) pseudo-value2 aweragexnflue _ eweragaxmflue = 3 (for entire group) 2 (for sub-sample ) pseudo—value3 3 2This procedure was verified as correct for the present study during personal communication with Professor John w. Tukey, August 2, 1978. Professor Tukey (of Princeton Univers- ity and Bell Telephone Laboratories) developed the jackknife procedure. 74 (b) subsequently, the mean and standard deviation for each group are then calculated using the pseudo values. Thus, these figures are referred to as "pseudo means" and "pseudo standard deviations." (5) For the present study, pseudo obtained for each group and set of using the formula: awenxe‘wflue) awenxe'wflne) K 3 ( - 2 ( Kall 1 ammxagexmdue aneraxavahra _ 3 ( K ) - 2 ( K ) - all 2 amnegeinuue emerafiavahra _ 3( K >-2< K )— all 3 awnegexmdue awnageimflue __ all 1 average value average value _ 3( NR )-2( NK )— all 2 aweramaxmflue averamexmdue all 3 values were sub-samples Ki pseudo—valuel for kaycnmmxficadns K5 pseudo-valuel for key communicators Kg pseudo-value3 for keycxmmmficaflns NKigmeudofimfluelirm lqarcanmmucauHs NKE pseudo—value2 for key communicators = NK* pseudo-value for 3 3 key communicators (6) The means and standard deviations for the pseudo-values were calculated by these formulae:3 Standard deviation: //l/3 l 3 3 — 2 K* _ K* E ( i) 1 After consulting with Professor Tukey (personal com- munication, August 8, 1978) all pseudo variances were multi- plied by 5/2. Tukey recommended this to correct for the sampling procedure used in this study (which was a variation of Tukey's original jackknife method). 75 (7) The p—test (for separate variance estimates) was performed using the pseudo values. The formula (Hays, 1973, pp. 405-406) used was of the form: (Ml - M est.o 2) diff E: Of note, use of the p—test assumes normality and homogeneity of population variances (Hays, 1973). The assumptions are particularly important to take into account for a procedure such as the jackknife. The judgment that most of the critical variables were normally distributed was made for the present study after examination of the descriptive statistics for the major vari- ables (see Appendix A). Variables which were not normally distributed were the paired comparison variables which assoc- iated two concepts from different cognitive "domains" (a set of terms with similar perceived meanings). In addition, as Hays (1973) recommends, the sample sizes were probably suf- ficiently large. However, homogeneity of variances is a more difficult assumption to address. In earlier work, an F test for homo- geneity of variances was used to determine whether the 3- test for pooled estimates or the p-test for separate esti- mates should be used. Hays (1973) notes that modern author- ities suggest this is not "worth the trouble involved" (p. 76 410). He states that in circumstances where the information is needed most, (small samples) the tests for homogeneity are poorest. However, he recommends that for studies where one cannot assume equal population variances, and samples are of different sizes (as in the present study), separate standard errors are computed from each sample (using the Efformula above) and a correction for the degrees of freedom is used, where: (est.o2 + est.o2 )2 M1 M2 v: 22 22 ‘2 (est.o ) /(N +1) + (est.o ) /(N +1) M1 1 M2 2 Hence, the above correction for calculation of degrees of freedom was used because (a) the author could not assume equal population variances and (b) the samples were of un— equal size. This correction was used for each of the hypoth- eses in which the jackknife procedure was employed. While many statistical experts agree that the jack- knife procedure is a standard, respectable procedure, the results from its use in this dissertation will be interpreted 4Dorian Feldman, Associate Professor, personal com- munication, July 24, 1978 (Department of Statistics and Prob- ability, Michigan State University). 77 cautiously.5 Discussion of the conclusion from the results will take a broader stance by describing general trends in the data, rather than focusing on specific outcomes from individual tests. The evaluation of Hypotheses 1, 2, 7 and 8 used 3- tests to assess differences between the overall groups. The calculations were performed by the SPSS computer program. 5Experts note that an appropriate check on the dis- tribution for pseudo values is an examination of the results of random sampling the entire data set (in this study, 96 cases) for every possible combination of 53 cases and 43 cases. Such a random distribution would provide a compari— son for the two groups of key communicators (n = 53) and non-key communicators (n = 43) chosen on theoretical cri- teria (Dennis Gilliland, Professor, personal communication, August 2, 1978 Department of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State University). The examination was not made for the present study given its laborious and expensive nature. CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter presents a summary of the results of the analyses. The first portion of the chapter describes demo- graphic characteristics of the respondents. The second por- tion reports the tests and evaluations for the hypotheses. Respondents There were 96 respondents who participated in the study, out of a possible 128 persons (75%). The network instrument listed 183 names. However, the employee names furnished by the vice-president for manufacturing was not current; it contained names of persons who were retired, on other shifts, on extended sick leave, and were employed in the plant's second shop (referred to as the "new" shop). Table 3 presents the breakdown of those who did not partici- pate in the study. Consequently, there were 128 people who were actually eligible for the study. Description of the Sample The majority of the respondents (83%) were hourly workers; 17% were salaried personnel. Ninety-four percent were male. In terms of educational level, 24% had less than 78 79 Table 3 Response Rate Categories Number Sick leave 11 Vacation leave 11 Retired 4 On other shifts 9 New shop 25 No down time 10 Refused l7 Participants in study 96 TOTAL 183 Less 55 ACTUAL TOTAL 128 Final Respondents 96 12 years of school, 44% had completed high school, and 33% had 1-4 years of college. Half of the respondents (47%) had been employed at the firm for at least 15 years; 29% had worked there for 5-15 years and 19% had worked less than five years. Hypotheses H : The magnitude of the mean interpoint distance between the concepts of "self" and "the job" will be less for key com- municators than for non-key communicators. This hypothesis asserts that the sample mean for the key communicators (as an estimate of the population mean) will 80 be less than the sample mean for the non-key communicators. The statistical hypothesis for this expectation takes the following symbolic form: H1 ‘ uK < “NK The entire groups of key communicators and non-key communicators were used in the analysis of this hypothesis. The means and variances for each set of data were obtained and analyzed by the SPSS computer program. The results of the p—tests used to evaluate differ— ences between the key and non-key communicators are reported in Table 4. The difference between the groups was found to be significant at p < .05. The results were in the hypothe- sized direction; the mean for the key communicator group was 37.74 and the non-key group, 59.3. On that basis, we can rejectthe null hypothesis. The test indicates that key communicators were likely to perceive their concept of their jobs more similar to that which they held of themselves. In short, it would appear that they may possibly have more commitment and ego-involvement in their work. This is in contrast to the perceptions of non— key communicators in the same organization who possibly do not have the same degree of identification with the job. 81 Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of EfTests for Differences Between Paired Comparisons (One-Tailed Test) (Hypotheses 1-2) Degrees Computed Sig— Standard E of nificance Pair Mean (n) Deviation value Freedom Level* MY JOB and ME Keys 37.74 (53) 29.33 _3.33 94 .000 Non-Keys 59.30 (43) 34.11 MY JOB and MANAGEMENT Keys 52.12 (53) 36.53 _ ** Non-Keys 76.28 (43) 24.98 3°81 90-03 ~000 * The significance level displayed was computed by SPSS; my chosen alpha level was p < .05. ** Separate variance estimates were used because the population variance estimates differed significantly. H : The magnitude of the mean interpoint distance between the perception of the concepts of "the job" and "management" will be less for key communicators than for non-key communicators. This hypothesis asserts that the sample mean (as an estimate of the population mean) for the key communicators will be less than the sample mean (the estimate of the popula- tion mean) for the non-keycmmmmnicators. The statistical hypothesis is: : > H0 uK—-“NK : < H1 uK “NK 82 This hypothesis was also analyzed by the SPSS com- puter program for p—tests, using the entire data sets for the two groups. Table 4 reports the results of the test. The difference between the groups was significant at the .05 level. The results were also in the hypothesized direction, with the mean for the key group (52.12) being less than that for the non-key group (76.28). The results tend to indicate that key communicators perceive their jobs closer to management than the non-key com— municators. Of note, however, 30% of the key communicators were managers. A E—test was also computed for the difference between perceptions of the pair "my job and the foremen" for the keys and non-keys. There were six foremen in the key group. Differences between the two groups were still signi- ficant, however, in the hypothesized direction (the mean for the key group was 56.79 and for the non-key group, 71.86). Hence, these results tend to show that key communica- tors have more information about managers in the organization and, according to force aggregation theory, do not perceive as large a difference between their jobs and management. H3: The concept of "the job" for key com- municators will be closer to the center of the space1 than for non-key com— municators. 1Unless otherwise indicated, the term "space" will refer to "real" space (as opposed to "imaginary" space). 83 This hypothesis asserts that the mean for the key com- municators will be less than the mean for the non-key commun- icators. Hence, the sample means will be an estimate for the population means. The statistical hypothesis is, therefore: : > H0 uK — “NK : < H1 “K uNK Hypothesis 3 was the first of four hypotheses evaluated with the Mosteller and Tukey's (1977) jackknife method. The problem posed in testing the hypothesis was to measure whether "the job" was closer to the origin of the space for key rather than non—key communicators. That is, the discrepancy between the concept of "the job" and the other twelve concepts would be less for the key than the non-key group. Operationally, this means that the projection of the concept "my job" on each dimension in the space for the keys should be less than the projection on each dimension in the space for the non-keys. Projections on dimensions begin from the origin, or zero point, in the space. To the extent the value of the projection for a concept is less than the values for projec- tions of the concepts on the same dimension, the concept is closer to the zero point. This example is illustrated in Figure 4 below: 84 l Dimension 1 Concept X 3 Concept Y 5 Concept Z 7 Figure 4. Concepts on one dimension As the figure shows, dimension 1 begins from the center of the space, or the zero point. Concept "X" is closer to the centroid than the other two concepts given the value of its projection (also called "loading") on the dimension. If we add more dimensions, picture the following: 2 A Z. Figure 5. Concepts on three dimensions Hence, loadings would be given for each of the concepts on each of the dimensions. In order to do a centroid analysis (to test a hypothesis similar to H3 above) the formula is: 85 / distance from centroid / 2 (projections)? 1 dimensions The formula requires one to square the value for each loading on each dimension, sum them, and then find the square root of that total. In this study, the random sub-sampling method was used to obtain coordinates (dimensions) and the loadings for each concept on each dimension. Table 5 reports the loading of the "my job" concept on each of the thirteen dimensions when analysis by the GALILEOTM program was performed on (a) both keys and non-keys combined; (b) all key communicators; (0) each of the sub-samples from the key group; (d) all non-key communicators; and (e) each of the sub—samples from the non- key group. In order to perform the hand-calculated p—test, the following operations were carried out on the three sub-samples for each group: 1) each projection value was squared; 2) the sum of the squared projections, across twelve dimensions, was found for each group or sub-sample (it should be noted that dimension thirteen is an "imaginary dimension" --it shows the extent to which the space is non—Euclidean or "warped"--and hence the squared value is always negative); 3) the square root was found for each sum; 4) the pseudo mean and standard deviation were calculated for each group using the square roots found for the three sub-samples; 5) p-test calculations were performed using the pseudo values. Table 5 Projection Values, and Square Roots Sum of Squared Projections, of Sums of Squares for Centrality Analysis of M Job Concept (Hypothesis 3) a N m g II 5 a N N é ll 5 a N r .. 5 ”>28 V .4 £2 :3 2: “ g s e m m M II a :5 m N M II 5 c m H M ll 5. 8 Ln II 5 Both .All Keys GROUPS DhmmSkXI 1.5 -32.0 -2.1 .5 9.5 -5.2 28.8 32.4 -9.1 -5.2 -13.1 ~19.7 -11.1 —2.0 -3.0 -5.1 -13.0 -20.2 -2.2 -9.2 20.8 -10.6 —l3.6 .15 -18.5 -l8.1 8.5 32.3 -6.0 -10.5 19.8 III 86 -2.4 7.9 27.6 -8.2 25.1 -2.8 24.7 4.8 -l.7 —11.5 -7.0 15.9 -9.2 -18.5 -8.4 4.3 19.2 16.9 -5.5 6.4 7.7 -6.9 5>l§ 2.5 1.0 13.6 -7.7 10.7 -6.1 -5.9 10.7 -4.5 -ll.4 -2.5 5.3 VII 1.6 2.9 2.3 3.2 -7.9 3.5 6.7 VIII 3.0 -2.8 2.3 3.2 8.5 IX 0 6 -6.3i -8.9i 13.51 -1.7 -8.51 -7.81 i -3.2 6.7 . 7 1.8 0 -6.51 -7.71 3.6 .4 .0 -7.li XIII* 867.0 987.4 1267.8 1125.5 1157.0 1933.7 1696.4 1606.6 2163.2 amnued projections sumcni 40.1 46.5 41.2 44.0 34.0 35.6 33.5 29.4 31.4 Smnuesnxx: *_ Imaginary dimension-squared projection negative. 87 Table 6 presents the results of the fittest calcula- tions. The table shows that the p value obtained from calcu- lations exceeded the critical (tabled)E—value. Hence the differences between the pseudo group means is significant at the .05 value with three degrees of freedom. Table 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of E-Test Calculation for Centroid Analysis of "My Job" (One-Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 3) a Table Means Standard Degrees of Obtained t value Group (n) Deviations Freedom 3 value 5 = .05 Key 25.47 Communi— (36) 2.83 cators 3 4.01 2.353 Non-Key 45.80 Communi- (29) 8.31 cators ajackknifed pseudo values. The values for the pseudo means were in the hypothesized direction, with the mean for the key group (25.47) less than the mean for the non-key group (45.80). The results of this analysis indicate that the key com- municators in the organization tend to perceive their jobs as more central in their cognitive environment; the dissimilarity between their jobs and other salient concepts is lessened be- cause they tend to view their jobs and the other concepts in similar terms. 88 H The overall size of the c0gnitive space perceived by key communicators will be smaller than the size of the space for non-key communicators. Hypothesis 4 means that the sample mean for the key communicators will be less than the sample mean for the non- key communicators. Hence, they are estimates of the differ- ences for the population means. The statistical hypothesis is: H0 1: V 1: H1 ‘ “K < “NK This was the second hypothesis analyzed using the jackknife method. The procedures for the analysis and p-test were similar to those used for Hypothesis 3. The trace value was used to test for differences in the relative sizes of the spaces for the two groups. The trace is the sum of the total real2 variance in the space (the imaginary dimension variance is subtracted out). That is, the trace is a measure of the "variability" of the space. The hypothesis, therefore, implies that the space for the key communicators will be less in size because of less vari- ability in the dissimilarity judgments. The traces for each sub-sample are provided in Table 7. The results of p-tests performed on the pseudo means and 2 O O 0 Vs. imaginary variance 89 Table 7 Trace Values for Key and Non-Key Groups (Hypothesis 4) All Key K1 K2 K3 (g = 53) (p = 36) (p = 36) (p - 36) Trace 25.932 26.312 26.744 26.116 All Non-Key NKl NK2 NK3 (p = 43) (p = 29) (p = 29) (p = 29) Trace 28.325 27.778 28.068 28.524 standard deviations are reported in Table 8. The p—test values were obtained by computing the pseudo values for the trace values of the sub-samples. The results indicate that there are likely significant differences between the sizes of the spaces for the two groups. The pseudo means are also in the hypothesized direc- tion since the pseudo mean trace value for the key group is 26.39 compared to 28.12 for the non—key group (1.73 units less). While the interpretation of these results should be made with a certain amount of caution, the general trends appear to indicate that key communicators see objects in the space as more similar than non-key communicators. In light of force aggregation theory, this suggests that key communica- tors probably tend to have more information about salient Means, 90 Table 8 Standard Deviations, and Results of t-Test Calculation for Differences Between Traces for Key and—Non-Key Groups (One-Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 4) a Table Means Standard Degrees of Obtained t value Group (n) Deviations Freedom 3 value a = .05 Key 26.39 Communi- (36) .83 cators 3 2.84 2.353 Non-Key 28.12 Communi- (29) 1.01 cators ajackknifed pseudo values objects in the environment and hence do not perceive differ- ences as large in magnitude. That is, while a non-key commun- icator may have less information about some concepts (and hence report large differences, key communicators are prob- ably more sensitive to interrelationships among concepts in the environment. The key communicators will have a spherical space, while the non-key communicators will have an ellipsoidal space. This hypothesis was also evaluated using the jackknife. Specifically, ratios were found of the eigenvalues for the dimensions of each sub-sample. p—Tests were subsequently performed for differences between the overall groups. The 91 eigenvalues were obtained by the GALILEO program for all coordinates in each sub-sample An eigenvalue is the total variance explained for each of the thirteen concepts on a dimension. The largest amount of real variance is accounted for by the first dimen- sion. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the first eigen- value represents the "1ength" of the space. The second eigenvalue, which accounts for the second most amount of var- iance, we will label "width." Finally, the third dimension will be labeled the "height" of the space. In the present study, the first three dimensions accounted for approximately two—thirds of the variance in the space. Hence, succeeding dimensions did not represent a sufficient amount of var- iance to affect the nature of the shape. In order to calculate p—tests for the shape, particu— larly for sphericity vs. ellipsoidality, the ratio of the eigenvalue of the first dimension to the second dimension was computed. This represented: _l = "length" 12 "width" The expectation in this study was for the length value of the non-key communicator samples to be larger than that of the width. Hence, the ratio would provide a measure for the extent to which the shape was oblong. In contrast, the expec- tation of the eigenvalues for the key communicator samples was that they would show more equivalence in the ratio, making the shape more circular. 92 The statistical hypotheses for each test are of the form: Table 9 provides values for the two sets and standard deviations H0 ‘ “K 3 “NK H1: “K < “NK the ratios for each set of eigen- of sub-samples. The pseudo means for each set of ratios were subsequent— ly computed and used for the E-tests. Results of the tests for each of the three ratios are reported in Table 10. Table 9 Ratio of Eigenvalues for Dimensions 1-3 (Hypothesis 5) All Key K1 K2 K3 Ratio* (2 = 53) p = 36) (p = 36) (p = 36 11/12 1 64 1.57 1.57 1.67 12/13 1.22 1.34 1.21 1.12 *3/14 1 38 1.47 1.20 1.48 All Non-Key NKl NK2 NK3 Ratio* (p = 43) n = 29) (p = 29) (p = 29) 11/12 1.77 l 84 1.54 l 48 12/13 1.60 1 76 1.79 l 57 13/14 1.31 l 24 1.23 1 26 *11 = Eigenvalue for first dimension 12 = Eigenvalue for second dimension 13 = Eigenvalue for third dimension >2 .5 II Eigenvalue for fourth dimension 93 Table 10 Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of p—Testsa for Eigenvalue Ratios (One-Tailed Test) (Hypothesis 5) b Table Means Standard Degrees of Obtained E value Group (n) Deviations Freedom 3 value a = .05 A1/12 Key 1.713 Communi— (36) .15 cators Non-Key 2.07 3 (nlsl? 2~353 Communi- (29) .50 ° ' cators 12/13 Key 1.213 Communi- (36) .29 cators Non-Key 1.387 3 (n é9:1 2.353 Communi- (29) .31 ° ' cators 13/14 Key 1.373 Communi- (36) .41 cators Non-Key 1.443 3 (n é1)7 2.353 (29) .04 ° ° aThe reader should note that the numerator in one test appears The amount of statistical independence of these tests may be in question. as the denominator in the subsequent test. However, as Fuguitt and Lieberson (1973-1974) note, if a set of ratios are "theoretically meaningful as ratios, and hy- the results of a ratio cor- potheses are stated as ratios, relation need not be considered as spurious" (p. bjackknifed pseudo values. 140). 94 As the table shows, the difference between the first ratios for the two groups was nonsignificant. Hence, the hypothesis that the spaces for the two groups differed in terms of shape is rejected. However, it should be noted that the values for the means are in the hypothesized direc— tion. That is, the mean ratio for the non-key communicator group is greater than the one for the key communicator group. In addition, subsequent ratios for the two groups did not differ significantly. However, the ratio of the second to the third dimension (which represents a measure for "length" to "height") was in the hypothesized direction. The results show that the pseudo mean for the pseudo mean ratio for the key communicators (1.213) is less than for the non-key com- municators (1.387). This implies that the key group has a "flatter" shape than the non-keys, which is possible because there is less variability in their space. Finally, the table shows that the third set of ratios (height to a fourth dimension) also did not differ signifi- cantly. H : When the spaces for the key commun— icators and non—key communicators are examined together, the largest differences will be found between perceptions of the job, management, organizational policies, and the union. This hypothesis asserts that there are absolute differ- ences between the locations of the concepts in the two spaces. That is, if the space of the keys is placed above the space 95 of the non—keys, the concepts of the key group will not be located directly below those of the non-keys. Hence, each set of two spaces were rotated together using a subroutine of the GALILEO program. The sets ro- tated were: (a) sub—sample K with sub-sample NK (b) sub- 1; 2; and (c) sub-sample K3 with The program rotates the dimensions of the 1 sample K with sub-sample NK 2 sub-sample NK3. spaces to a least squares best fit, following the recommenda- tion of Torgerson (1958, Chapter 11). Hence, the differences provided for each concept (Sc) equal the sum of the squared differences across dimensions, with the final value being the square root of the sum. The formula for this is: Sc=/Z (K -NK)2 c c where S = difference c = individual concept K = key communicators NK = non-key communicators The results of the differences taken across sub-samples are reported in Table 11. Hence, the pseudo average differ- ences for each concept are provided in the last column of the table. The pseudo averages for all concepts were obtained by following a computation of the form: 3 (Ci ) - 2 (C. ) = C. * Pseudo-valuel for concept i all keys to lKl to NKl 11 all non-keys 3 (Ci ) - 2 (C. ) = C. * Pseudo-value2 for concept i all keys to lK2 to NK2 12 all non-keys 3 (Ci ) - 2 (Ci ) = C. * Pseudo-value3 for concept i all keys to K3 to NK3 13 all non-keys wheneCi==o Hm.mm ma.mm om.mm mm.om o.sm swam ae.me oa.e~ mm.am oa.mm m.vm cmsmuom was ca.aa Hm.mm sm.ma ms.sm m.o~ x803 puma mm.ma as.mv ek.sm No.mm v.sm now as mosmumwmaa mmz on mm mmz on mm Hzz on as mSmMIcoz a n . flea u mocoo momum>¢ on whom Ham 6 HH canoe ls mammgpoasmv coHucuom Hmpmm mwoxlcoz can whom mo moommm umoocou coozumm mmocmanMHQ 97 Table 12 provides a rank ordered list of the concepts with the greatest to the least average differences. The rank ordering shows that of the hypothesized concepts, "man- agement" and the "union" are among those with the largest differences. However, "overtime" and "my job" are not among the largest; hence, we reject the hypothesis. Table 12 Rank Ordered Pseudo Average Differences Between Conceptsa (Hypothesis 6) Concept Pseudo Average Difference Foremen 45.67 Management 41.74 Union 39.41 Easy 36.21 The Heat 23.21 Me 16.04 My Job 15.85 Hard Work 11.90 Overtime 8.24 Good -2.85 Pushy -3.07 Better Machinery —l6.36 Helpful -l7.37 aAll concepts equal weight. However, the data show several general trends. With— in the context of force aggregation theory, the differ- ence in perceptions held by key communicators versus non-key communicators. On the average, the least amount of difference 98 between the two groups occurs in perceptions of "helpful," "better machinery," "pushy" and "good." The largest differ- ence occurs with the concept of the "foremen." Overall, it appears that the two groups likely share similar perceptions of some positive and negative attributes. However, their perceptions become more disparate over concepts relating to the union, management, plant conditions, self, and the job. H7: Key communicators will perceive that they exert more influence in the determination of rules than non—key communicators. The expectation of this hypothesis is that the sample mean of the key communicators will be greater than that for the non-key communicators (based on the scale values). The statistical hypothesis for reference to the pOpulation becomes: H 0 “K 3 “NK H1: “K < “NK The entire data sets for the key communicators and non-key communicators were used to test Hypothesis 7. The analysis was performed by SPSS. The results of the p-test for this hypothesis are reported in Table 13. The results show a significant differ- ence at the .05 level between the means for the key and non— key communicator groups. However, the direction of the results is not in the hypothesized direction. The means show that the value for 99 Table 13 Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of p—Tests for Communication Rules and Satisfaction of Information Needs Variables (One-Tailed Tests) (Hypotheses 7-8) Signifi- Standard E Degrees of cance* Variable Mean (N) Deviation value Freedom Level RULES Keys 19.78(53) 4.27 _2.32 87 .01 Non- Keys 21.95(43) 4.47 INFO NEEDS Keys l3.90(53) 4.12 _2.21 90 .012 Non- Keys 15.7l(43) 3.58 * o = .05 the non-key group (21.95) is larger than the value for the key group (19.78). Thus, the general trend for the non-key communicators is that they perceive they exert more influ- ence over the rules for interaction than the key communicator group. Reliability of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The result was a reliability of .56 for the measure. H : Key communicators will perceive down- ward-directed messages as more accurate than will non-key communicators. This hypothesis was also tested using the entire data sets for the key communicators and non-key communicators. The p-test was performed by SPSS. The results of the 100 evaluation for this hypothesis are reported in Table 13. The two groups differ significantly at the .05 level. The difference is also in the expected direction. The mean for the key communicators (13.90) is less than for the non-key communicators (15.71). This suggests that the key communicators more often perceived downward-directed information as timely, accurate, believable, useful and adequate than did non-key communicators. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability of the scale. The result was .85. This chapter has presented results of analyses of the study population and the hypotheses. Chapter V pro— vides a discussion of the results and implications of the study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED RESEARCH The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of communication in forming members' perceptions of their organizational climate. The research questions developed after a selective review of the literature showed the rela— tionship between communication and climate perceptions had not been fully investigated. This chapter provides: (1) major limitations of the study; (2) conclusions; and (3) implication of the study for future research. Limitations of the Study The major weakness of the work reported here was the lack of overtime data. The one-shot nature of the design meant it was impossible to assess the stability of the re- spondents' perceptions and their interaction patterns. A reliability estimate was not obtained given that the data were not collected during at least three points in time. A second limitation of the study concerned the scal- ing procedure used for the MDS instrument. The scale used was bounded from 0-100. However, the descriptive statistics (Appendix A) for the paired comparisons show many responses were 85-100. Hence, it is likely that respondents' 101 102 perceptions of dissimilarity between objects were constrain- ed by the nature of the scale. Direct magnitude estimation would therefore have been a more precise type of measure. Conclusions Several conclusions may be drawn from the results of the study. First, at the theoretical level, basing the con- ceptual framework on a theory of cognitive process and com- munication structure was useful for guiding research. Evidence obtained for the hypotheses derived from this framework was helpful in explaining differences in percep- tions based on communication patterns. This framework was also important because it provided a way of studying climate perceptions based on an explicit communication perspective. Previous research has measured the nature of perceptions; few studies have explained the relationship between those perceptions and one's access to information in the system. Second, the framework was useful for extending much of the previous work on organizational climate. That is, this schema accounted for and developed the measurement of many of the previous dimensions of climate (outlined in Chapter I). The dimensions included the following: (1) The dimensions of "managerial aloofness," "close impersonal supervision," and "close— ness of supervision," implied a sense of perceived distance from management. The present study incorporated these by the MDS 103 technique of assessing perceived dissimi- larity between the "job" and "management" concepts. (2) Previous studies have included a dimension of "frequency of communication." By measur- ing patterns of information flow (which included frequency measures) this study pro- vided a more comprehensive assessment of communication frequency among all members of the organization. (3) Several previous studies found that two referents for climate include "role ambiguity" and "role conflict." This research provided an alternative way of conceiving of these variables by measuring the difference between the "self" and the "the job," (i.e., "role"). The research showed that dissimilarities be- tween the two could be considered in terms of amount of information about the job, reflect- ed (a) in one's favorability toward the job; and (b) in one's knowledge level of the work. That is, results obtained from the present work showed that key communicators tended to perceive less "difference" between themselves and their roles. Within the context of the force aggregation assumption, this means that 104 key communicators probably liked their jobs more and experienced less conflict than non- key communicators. In addition, they likely experienced less ambiguity toward their jobs, because they had access to more direct informa- tjruiaboutthe work than non-key communicators. (4) Finally, previous climate research has included the dimension of "status polarization." This also implies the notion of psychological dis- tance between those occupying different formal positions. The present study included this perception of differentiation by measuring the perceived dissimilarity between the "job" and "management." In addition, however, status polarization may result between pairs of other types of concepts, as well, such as the "union" and "management," "management" and "foremen," and "my job" and "foremen." This research was able to account for all of these specific types of polarization, thus increasing the precision of the research. In general, this research found that key communicators tended to see less polarization overall than non-key communicators. A third major conclusion concerns the utility of the methodology used for the study. The variation of the Tukey jackknife procedure provided a method for statistically 105 testing group differences when few values were known (as in the case of only two "traces" for the groups' overall variabilities). This method of sampling one's own data in order to obtain a sufficient number of values amenable to further parametric tests was helpful not only for this particular study, but for organizational communication re- search in general. A common problem in organizational re- search has been the lack of known tests for such types of differences when only one organization was under study. Hence, this technique enables the researcher to test for differences in behavior within one organization, rather than obtaining grouped data from a number of organizations (re— search which is often prohibitive due to physical and fi— nancial constraints). Fourth, the results of the study have several prag- matic implications. First, the findings are useful for designing organizational intervention strategies. That is, the results show that different strategies may be needed by interventionists in the introduction and an implementation of change or development programs. Strategies for such programs may be better designed by being more specifically targeted for the special perceptions of each group. Such programs may ultimately be more successful in their adop- tion if professionals know e priori ef the nature of differ— ing perceptions based on the access to messages in the organization. 106 In addition, the methods used in this study may be particularly useful for identifying the nature of members' information needs in an organization. For example, in a unionized organization, the results provide both managers and union officials with an indication of people's commun— ication behavior, and the effects of their lack of informa- tion about certain "objects" perceived salient in the organ- ization. Managers may then identify employees who need more attention, clarify ambiguous concepts (e.g., the "foremen" in the present study) or provide more information about such issues as plant policies, etc. In addition, they may also use the information in designing task groups. For example, they may want to include specific key communicators in the group who can possibly increase the knowledge level of those less active communicators. Union leaders, may also find this information help- ful in meeting the information needs of their constituents. They may find they need to communicate more frequently with certain workers who are less informed about such issues as grievance handling or pension plans. In addition, a common concern of union leaders has been that they are not "in touch" with the rank and file. This method may enable them to identify workers who possibly feel alienated from the leadership. Finally, a general conclusion from this research concerns the utility overall concept of "climate." The 107 concept has been difficult for researchers to conceptually and operationally define with precision. However, the pre- vious work has demonstrated by numerous robust findings that members of an organization do have perceptions of the non-physical, social environment, and that such perceptions do affect the areas of morale, job satisfaction, and job performance. In addition, the set of results suggest that rigorous work in the area remains useful and worthy of interest by researchers and practitioners alike. In conclusion, the term "climate" is probably a confusing label for the body of research. Future research should consider the work as the investigation of "environ- mental perceptions," a term probably more accurate and specific for this type of research. Future Research The results of the work have implications for two major directions of future research. The first direction involves developing the study conceptually; the second, improving the methodology. The study could be developed conceptually by examin— ing more differences among respondents and perceptions. First, differences in perceptions of respondents could be investigated with the use of the demographic data. For example, differences could be tested among members based on their age groups, educational levels, job status (management, foremen, hourly workers, or piece-rate incentive workers). 108 In addition, differences among respondents could be tested based on their length of time in the organization. This particular relationship has been evaluated in previous climate research by Johnston (1976). He found that the longer workers had been employed in an organization, the more their perceptions tended to be favorable toward the organization. Differences among perceptions based on demographic data could provide communication managers with information regarding the patterns of perceptions of "typical" organ— ization members. For example, if differences among respond- ents appear to occur regularly, by age, education, and job status, this may provide information about what type of employee is likely to be an "active" communicator, it is also useful in designing task groups, etc. In addition to the demographic variables, future research should focus on the analysis of differences in per- ceptions based on several other structural variables. These variables include reciprocity (of communication links), connectedness (in the network), and network volume, magni— tude, and disparity. Reciprocity refers to the agreement individuals have about their link. That is, a reciprocated link is one where two individuals perceive and report that they have a communication link between them (i.e., they "agree" about their link). An unreciprocated link is one where only one individual perceives and reports a link 109 (Farace, Monge, Russell, 1977). The reciprocity construct is important because it is a measure of the level of perceived agreement among communi- cators in the system regarding their communication. The extent to which members of an organization agree about their links may be indicative of the quality of information that is perceived to be shared among those individuals. If members report a number of links but only a few of those individuals perceive communication with him or her, it may indicate (1) his impact on others as a communicator; and (2) the nature to which his information is shared with others in the system. In addition, the level of connectedness of members in the system is an interesting construct for perception re— search. Connectedness refers to the extent to which indi- vidual communicators are located at the "crossroads" of the communication flow (Farace, Monge, Russell, 1977). This measure enables the researcher to determine the relative embeddedness of respondents in the message network. It is a more precise assessment of the amount of information individuals have potential access to in the system. By including both variables in the research, a 3 x 2 matrix for key communicators and non-key communicators could be developed of the form shown in Figure 6. Such a matrix would enable a better way of measuring relative differences between key and non-key communicators. 110 Iww'Oommmiomrms Ebn4mw'0mmmnhxnrms Reciprocation Connectedness Reciprocation connectedness Ifigh W Mafium Icw Figure 6. Matrix of Communicator reciprocity and integrativeness. It would be expected that those with high reciprocation levels and high connectedness would have the most favorable climate perceptions; in contrast, communicators with low reciprocation and low connectedness would likely have the least favorable perceptions. Other network variables would be useful to include in an investigation are magnitude and disparity (Edwards and Monge, 1977). Network magnitude refers to the pipe of the network (the number of group members), and volume (the number of linkages). Network disparity refers to the distribution of the linkages, either in terms of their concentration (the degree to which most linkages involve one or a few individ- uals rather than more equitable distribution), or diameter (the length of the shortest chain linking the two most distant members of the network). These variables would provide information about the nature of the overall network. A large network, for example, 111 with relatively few linkages may indicate only minimal communication behavior among members. Further, to the ex- tent linkages exist among a few individuals with a relative- ly lengthy diameter, it may indicate a limited degree of message exchange. This in turn may contribute to increased psychological "size" and more unfavorable perceptions. Future research should also develOp the methodology of the present study. First, the scaling procedures for the MDS instrument should be changed to direct magnitude esti- mation methods. Second, the study design should be extended to a time-series model, where stability of perceptions could be tested. Third, with the addition of the constructs mentioned above, a structural equation model could be de- veloped for predicting the nature of perceptions among members in the system. APPENDIX A Descriptive Statistics for All Variables 112 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Standard Variables Mean Deviation Median Mode Skewness Kurtosis fingofiogfld 42.92 28.02 43.57 50.00 .29 -.92 ¥LEJESREQEN 63.54 33.53 75.56 100.00 ~.55 -I.05 E15308 and 60.52 29.54 62.14 80.00 -.35 -.99 g§Eg$?ME"d 53.75 30.31 53.13 50.00 -.08 -I.20 $05838 and 59.68 32.50 60.63 100.00 -.35 -1.12 ¥EEJ32A$nd 60.42 33.56 61.67 100.00 -.37 -1.11 flgEJgfilgfid 62.08 33.02 71.25 100.00 -.60 -.88 SXNlEEMES? 63.05 33.90 73.33 100.00 -.48 -I.I4 géTflgg gggHINERY 57.19 32.89 58.33 100.00 -.21 -I.25 E30303 and 45.42 29.56 46.18 50 00 .22 -I.06 nEngfiLand 42.53 31.25 35.83 20.00 .39 -1.10 m; JOB and 47.40 33.19 46.82 20.00 .21 -I.37 fifigDFggEfiEfind 58.44 34.16 55.00 100.00 -2.2 -T.38 22g? WORK and 68.96 29.65 78.13 100.00 -.65 -.68 SCEET¥32K and 51.88 32.55 50.26 50.00 .08 -1.33 gfigflY”0RK and 57.26 32.17 54.00 80.00 -.24 -1.17 #fiEDHggfiK a"d 47.55 35.06 39.29 20.00 .25 -l.43 HARD WORK and THE UNION 62.47 30.28 65.63 100.00 -.47 -.82 113 Standard Variables Mean Deviation Median Mode Skewness Kurtosis ::::G:3E:Ta"d 59.79 33.38 63.33 100.00 -.38 -1 17 ::$$5:0::CS?SERY 66.60 28.23 72.27 100 00 -.59 -.66 :33: WORK a”d 56.74 28.17 52.00 50.00 .08 -1.13 :éngfifRK and 51.51 26.25 49.20 50 00 .39 -.59 :éRD ”ORK and 43.63 28.38 38.57 50.00 .60 ..50 1:5 E2§$MEN 57.34 32.67 55.00 100.00 -.16 -1.34 1:: 53:::§:E 56.67 32.72 53.33 100 00 -.01 -1.37 1:: EggfivEN 54.30 32.65 53.64 100 00 -.15 -1.25 1:: 132EHERT 54.24 32.93 76.67 100.00 -.59 -.99 1:5 53:5:::0N 69.57 31.07 80.00 100.00 -.90 -.29 ::§AEE:E:$N and 39.57 35.23 29.38 0 .48 -1.26 EEETEgRfi:E:IfiE:Y 58.48 30.88 60.71 100 00 -.25 -1.11 1:: EgggMEN 45.38 28.76 44.44 50 00 .31 -.81 1:5 EEEEEE: 41.96 29.10 35.00 30.00 .41 -.86 1:5 :gREMEN 51.70 32.88 51.15 10.00 .06 -1.34 5330113? 63.30 32.18 75.00 100 00 --.51 ‘ -1.07 Efigfivand 74.78 27.03 82.50 100.00 -1.15 .35 $fi§YH22$ 73.87 28.17 82.81 100 00 -1.16 .33 Eflgvufi?8N 54.26 28.38 53.18 50.00 -.19 -.63 EASY and MANAGEMENT 66.13 30.00 75.31 100.00 -.58 -.84 VariabTes EASY and BETTER MACHINERY EASY and 6000 EASY and HELPFUL EASY and ME OVERTIME and PUSHY OVERTIME and THE HEAT OVERTIME and THE UNION OVERTIME and MANAGEMENT OVERTIME and BETTER MACHINERY OVERTIME and GOOD OVERTIME and HELPFUL OVERTIME and ME PUSHY and THE HEAT PUSHY and THE UNION PUSHY and MANAGEMENT PUSHY and BETTER MACHINERY PUSHY and GOOD PUSHY and HELPFUL PUSHY and ME THE HEAT and THE UNION 41 44. 54 61 61. 44. 68. 6O 51 55. 70. 72. 68. 73. 65. .81 68 .62 .38 04 82 .00 .28 38 .94 .09 00 77 83 31 28. 26 26. 33. 31 29. 33. 27. 29. 33 30 32. 29. 33 26 26 27 27 31. .07 60 .23 71 38 .81 76 06 10 23 .00 .95 87 99 .24 .96 .04 .39 .37 114 Standard Deviation 48. 35. 42 47 54. 67. 66 36 75. 59. 47. 52. 66 71 40 78. 80. 74. 81 71 m 33 00 .27 .22 50 73 .33 .43 33 17 63 50 .43 .39 .00 00 63 OO .11 .88 Mode 30. 50 50 50 100. 100 100 10 100 50. 50. 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .OO .00 was .12 .61 .41 .30 .10 .38 .37 .34 .49 .25 .30 .06 .22 .48 .28 .75 .82 .56 .04 .47 -1 Kurtosis .16 .39 .38 .51 .34 .06 .91 .25 .87 .00 .28 .25 .36 .96 .26 .26 .26 .73 .25 .09 115 Standard Variables Mean Deviation Median Mode Skewness Kurtosis L:§A:E:EN$”d 56.60 35.00 60.00 100.00 -.15 -l.48 EETTERAMAENINERY 69.89 26.82 77.78 100.00 -.69 -.52 ESSDHEAT and 76.17 26.52 84.44 100.00 -1.17 .41 JEEP:EQT and 73.62 28.05 84.09 100.00 -.94 -.26 :EE HEAT and 68.09 28.45 72.00 100 00 -.70 -.44 :::Ag::g:Ta"d 73.55 26.07 80.91 100.00 -.76 -.32 EEETE:I::C3?:ERY 56.04 30.21 53.57 50.00 -.15 -1.02 ESSDUNION and 48.21 27.64 48.70 50.00 .05 —.79 JEEP::EON and 46.47 28.29 47.94 50 00 .26 -.82 :EE UNION and 55.10 31.95 53.24 50.00 -.13 -1 13 3::4EEM::EH§:3RY 59.06 31.12 59.29 100.00 -.17 -1,20 2::A8535NT 55.52 29.84 42.78 50.00 -.03 -1 23 :::ASE:§:EL 56.15 30.31 51.92 100.00 .06 -1.39 2::A3EMENT 54.17 31.41 51.67 50.00 .01 —1.27 2:5ngogACHINERY 40.94 30.06 33.57 30.00 .41 -.98 EESTEELE:3:INERY 36.25 28.29 29.71 30 00 .67 -.46 :EETEE MACHINERY 45.00 31.34 38.33 30.00 .40 -1.02 fifiEBFgfd 33.13 28.00 26.54 10.00 .96 -.12 3:00 and 33.65 24.84 29.00 20.00 .89 .35 HELPFUL and ME 35.52 25.42 30.88 10.00 .70 -.25 ' 116 Standard Variables Mean Deviation Median Mode Skewness Kurtosis RULES 20.71 4.47 20.40 20.00 .15 1.26 INFORMATION NEEDS 14.71 3.97 15.00 17.00 .22 -.64 APPENDIX B Pair-Wise MDS Sample Sizes 117 mm mm mm a mm mm 8 8 8 o 8 o 3 ml m4a2m¥ 44< Fm Fm Fm Pm Fm _m M1 ”mmem mmcoammm mo: mmw211wma Fm Pm Fm Fm om Pm Fm Fm Fm Fm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm _m Fm mm «1 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm Fm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m— NP FF 119 mm mm mm 8 mm 8 mm 8. 8 o 8 o 1% WI momzm¥nzoz 44< we m¢ me m¢ me me me we we mq Ne °°| me me mv mv mw we mv mv mv mw mv mv mq Nq mq Nv Fe mw Nv NV Fw ml we we we we Fe we we Fe we «1 Ne ow ow mm o¢ ow mm ow ow pv “mmem mmcoammm mo: mmwzugwma ow Fa mm —¢ —¢ _¢ Fe ma me mv mw me Nv me me me ma me we mv mu mw mv m_ m_ PP MQ‘LD 123 mm mm RN mm nw mm m4mz0 0 00.0 00.00 00 00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0000000 0 00.0 00 00 0003 000: 0 00.0 000 0: _ 00 00 _P 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P .mmwmmmm m4¢z0Hm<4HzHMMHo 127 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0_.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 02 0— 00.0 _0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .0.00 00.00 00.00 _00000: 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 _0.00 00.00 00.00 0_.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 _P 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 _0.00 00.00 00.00 000mwwwmm 0_ 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 _0.00 0_.00 000000000: 0 00.0 00 00 00.00 0_._0 _0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000: 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 P0.F0 _0.00 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00.00 0_.00 00.00 00.00 000000>0 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0003 0000 0 00.0 000 0: _ 00 0F __ 0F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .Immmmmmma mach/«322228 >mv_ .:< 0x303; >Cm0 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00._0 0000 0 00.0 00 00 00 00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0000 0000 0 00.0 000 00 _ 0_ 00 _0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .Immmmmmm1 F M4020Hm<4HzHMMHo 129 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000: 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 000uwuwwm 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 000000000: 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0_.00 00.00 00000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0003 0000 0 00.0 000 0: 0 0_ 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .Immmmmmmn 000000 00 000000: 0000000000000 130 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000_00 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000uwuwwfl 0. 00.0 00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000000: 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00._0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.00 0000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000>0 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0003 0000 0 00.0 000 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .Mmmmmmmw. 0 m._0_zCmmxuzoz ._._< 0:252 Chm/0.32529 132 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 000000: 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 __ 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000uwuwwfl 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000000: 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 .0.00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0000 0000 0 00.0 000 0: 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .Immmmmmm. F m0020H2<0H2HMMHQ 133 oo.o M_.~« M_.P« ow.«M Nm.MM M«.w« M_.~m wo.Mn Nm.~M o«.w« OM.MM ON.m« MP.MM oo.o PM.0M FM.N« mm.om OM.P« FM.N0 «M._m oo.OM ON.0« MO.NM ON.FM 0N.0« oo.o nu.m« MM.MM oo.w« MM.MM 00.M0 OM._M ON.M« MM.«M M0.MM mo.MM 00.0 M«.Mm ~M.NM MF.—0 MM.om Nm.nn o«.MM NM.M0 ON.MM NM.«M oo.o om.«m MO.MM mo.M« oo.m« 0M.Fm NM.MM ON.—0 w«.~n oo.o ~M.0M MN.«M oo.MM oo.OM MN.MM OM.0M ««.«M oo.o PM.0M ON.—M o«.M0 MN.MM ow.o« m_.MM oo.o MM.MM o«.ow MN.MM MF.~M MM.MM oo.o oo.«M NF.MM 00.0M NM.om oo.o ow.MM NM.«0 0M.MM 00.0 oo.MM Mm.Nm 00.0 no.«« 00.0 M— N— F— o— m M n M M « M N F m0020Hm<0H2HMMHo 0: 0000000 «cow 000000002 000000 0000000002 000:: 000 000: 000 00030 000000>o 0000 0000000 0003 000: 000 02 MP NF pp 00¢ ummucou 134 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000: 00 00.0 00.00 00 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 0000 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00 00.00 000uwuwwm 00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000000000: 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 000. 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000 0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0000000 0 00.0 00.00 0000 0000 0 00.0 000 0: 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .Immmmmmmu 0 M002HH2<0H2HMMHQ APPENDIX D Factor Coordinate Matrices 135 no.M1 00. MN. 0M. MH.M 0M.M MM.M MN.M MN.M oa.o0 MM.NH «>.M« 0M.HM mOQMHHm> mo unwoumm 0M.oNM1No. Ho.MM oo.NMH MH.««M Hm.MM> MO.HMHH HM.MMNH ««.«>MH MM.M«ON MM.MOMN H«.«0«M MN.MMMM mmSHM> law Hm om.« mo.1 H«.N1 M«.M «N.M1 MN.MHI >M.01 0M.1 «0.01 «H.M1 MM.Maz on.N1 «N.MH1 m2 MH 00.00 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.001 000 10000 00 hb.m mo.1 No.1 ON.M1 Hm.MH MN.M1 Mo.1 M«.M MN.M m«.H on.«1 MM.M 0M.MN1 @000 00 00.01 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.00 00.001 00.00 00.0 00.001 000 Inflnomz 00 .80qu «0.M1 «o. Mm.M no.0 «H.M ««.> MH.M1 NN.OHI MM.N1 «M.M1 mm.01 MN.MN MM.HN “cm: Imamqmz m 00.01 00.1 00. 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.00 00.001 00.001 0000: ms? M 00.0 M0. M0.1 No.0 HN.M M«.M M0.N MM.MI M0.HH1 HN.MN1 NM.> MM.MH1 MH.«M ummm mnfi n MM.M no. NM.1 «0. MM.MI Mm.01 >«.M NM.M no.00 OM.oa MN.>H HM.> Hm.MM mnmsm M MM. mo. MM.N1 MM.N1 Mo.1 oa.M MM.M1 0M.«01 «M.M01 N0.MN MM.MI hm.N MM.MH mafia 10000 0 «M.N1 mo.1 Mm. M>.HI MH.>1 MM.MI 0«.NN MM.HI 00.001 «M.1 MH.HH MM.M 00.0N1 mmwm « 00.01 00. MM.N1 mo.H 00.0 Mm.m 00.0 o«.ma NM.N1 M«.M1 m«.M1 Mo.mm «M.« cmE Imuom M MM.MI MO. 00.0 0M.M1 Mm.nt MM.MI MM.MI mo.NH n«.1 M«.N1 00.0N1 nm.om1 MM.MH 2093 00mm N mo.n1 oo. N«.1 MM.M Nm.M m«.M MM.MH Hm.M1 MM.hH N«.M >0.MHI NM.M01 MH. non_kz.0 M0 NH 00 00 m M 0 M M « M N H umvocoo Ac00usaom Hmeuozv oommm HmcoflmcMEHwfluasz w :0 moanm00m> M0 mo mmuMC0UHooo ooHHHmw umeaflz.MBMZHQmOOU.mOEQ¢m mam2¢w memumzco 136 mH.vI mm.l 00. mm. vN.N ma.m m©.m vv.m ON.» mH.HH mv.mH vm.ma mm.om mm.hmhl om.owl No. vw.mha mm.mov vm.Hhm vv.mnm mn.vhHH mv.vama wm.mvom Hw.wmmm Ho.ovvm mh.mmom mm.m mh.¢ mo.l mo.MI No.ol hH.mI om.m oo.mn mh.HI 5v.NH N¢.NH no.HHI mm.oHI mm.oa mm. vo.l Hm.n mv.bl vm.m hm.ml mm.v mm.HI mo.ml aw. wN.mI mH.HNI mw.HH mw.ml vo.l mm.l MH.HH 5v.ml hw.v mH.m mv.ml ©N.I mo. mm.l ov.mml HN.HI mm.NI mo.l mm.ml mn.ml mm.v hh.ml vo.oal mv.mHI mw.m mh.mal vm.oa Hm.mal om.hi mH.HI No. mv.w vb. Hm.ml oo.¢ mo.mal HO.VI mm.m mm.mal mm.mHI hm.oa mm.wl mo.H Ho.l mm.H vN.I vo.ml ww.vu mm.N HH.I mm.mal mm.v mm.mm mH.mI No.5 vm. mo. on.H hw.m mm.m vm.ml mm.ml mm.l mm.mm mv.h ww.mH mv.mm mm.h om.H mo. oo.NI vm.ml mm.m mw.HH om.v vm.ml mm.wal an.mal vo.¢ om.mm mm.v Ho.HI No. om.ml vm.H HV.NI mm.m| mm.vHI no.ha no.mal oa.m vo.mHI wo.HH vm.ml mm.l vo.l mm. mm. hb.m vm.m om.NI vh.NN Ha.w mh.©l hN.NH mm.vml mm.ml mm.a oo. Hw.ml om.m mm.a Hm.oal mw.na wo.m ma.w mo.HNI H@.©HI mH.N mm.wl hm.ml mo. mm.| mm.hl NH.HI mw.v O©.MH mm. mo.m Ho.mm vw.ml ma.ha hm.hl oh.a 00.! am. mm.m vh.oa mm.m vm.ml mm.mau mm.oal Hm.om vm.ml mH.NI ma NH Ha OH m m h m m w m N H mfiOBdUHZDZZOO wmm and 20338 €on Baum Ecoflgfldfi m E mmfimflg 2 mo mmumcEHBQ 03:8 33.22 mEEomooo macaw mocwflnm> mo unmoumm mmsam> Icwmflm m2 ma a 13% NH @000 HH mum 1:35. 3 umfimm yam: Immmgflz m moans ummm 0:8 h Ema m L90 m ammm v lmemm x83 3mm N now as H ummocco 137 00.01 00.1 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0, 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0001 00.1 00.00 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0 00.1 00.01 00.0 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.001 00.0 00.001 00.001 00.01 00.001 00.00 00.1 00.1 00.1 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.001 00.0 00.1 00.0 00.01 00. 00.001 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.0 00.001 00.01 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.001 00.01 00. 00.1 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.01 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.0 00.00 00.001 00.01 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.1 00.0 00.1 00.0 00.00 00.001 00.0 00.001 00.00 00.0 00. 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.001 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.1 00. 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.0 00.001 00.0 00.00 00.001 00.00 00.00 00.01 00.1 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.00 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.01 00.01 00.001 00.01 00. 00.0 00.0 00.1 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.001 00.001 00.0 00.00 00.0 00-01 00. 00.01 00.01 00. 00.0 00.001 00.01 00.001 00.001 00.001 00.001 00.00 00.01 00.1 00.1 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.001 00.001 00.01 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0050020 00000 0000000020000002_0 00 00000000> 00 00 00000000000 0000000 000200 00 ”x00002.00020000001009000 0000000000, mo unmoumm 00.000005 Icmmflm m2 000 10000 @000 .000 100000: 000000 ”Ema 1.0900002 0000: mg umwm mam. mag 0000 1000.50 mmmm 0000 180m x1003 @0000 now 0000 0500000 ma NH .3” 0H 138 00.01 00.1 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000000> 00 0000000000 00.0001 00.01 00. 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 000WM> IC Hm 00.01 00. 00. 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.01 00.01 00.00 00.0 00.001 00.001 02 00 00.001 00. 00. 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.001 000 10000 00 00.001 00.1 00. 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.01 00. 00.01 00.001 0000 00 00.0 00.1 00.1 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.001 00.0 00.001 000 100000z.00 000000 00.00 00.1 00.1 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.001 00.01 00.001 00.001 00.00 0000 1000002 0 00.0 00. 00. 00.0 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.00 00.01 00000 000 0 00.01 00. 00.1 00.0 00.01 00. 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.0 00.00 000m 000 0 00.01 00.1 00.1 00.01 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.01 00.01 00.001 00.001 00.00 00.00 00000 0 00.01 00.1 00. 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.001 00.00 00.01 00.00 0000 100>0 0 00.0 00.1 00.1 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.001 000m 0 00.0 00. 00.1 00.01 00.01 00. 00.0 00.01 00.00 00.1 00.001 00.001 00. :02 lmhom m, 00.0 00.1 00. 00. 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.001 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.01 00.00 0003 0000 0 00.0 00. 00. 00.01 00.01 00.0 00.00 00.01 00.001 00.01 00.00 00.01 00.01 000 02 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 3001.503 0050020 000% 0000ng00052 0 :0 m00000000> ma mo 00000000000000 000.00.00.00 000200 00 "000002 0002000000.009000 0m.m1 oo. m0.m mm.m 00.0 mm.m mm.0 00.0 00.00 00.m0 00.00 00.0w 00000Hw> 00 0000000 mm.mm01mm.0m01mo. 00.000 0N.m00 mm.0m0 00.0mm om.mom0 mm.o>m0 mm.hmm0 00.000N 00.0m0m mm.0mmm wmmwm> 1 0m 0m.m mm.m 00.1 0m.o1 00.01 mm.01 mm.00 0m.m1 00.0 m0.m oo.m1 mm.m01 00.001 mz_m0 mm.o0 00.0 no.1 0m.m0 mm.m 00.0 0o.m1 00.1 0m.m1 00.m1 00. 00.01 m0.001 0:0 10000 00 00.0 mm.01 00. 00.01 mm.o01 m0.o01 00.01 mm.m1 m0.01 mm.0 00.0 mm.m 00.0m1 0000 00 00.1 mn.m1 00. 00.01 m0.m mm.0 m0.00 00.00 nm.m1 0m.m 00.0 00.00 0m.0m1 >00 1000002 00 kupmm mm.01 00.m1 mo.1 No.00 om.m| 00.m1 mo.o0 mm.m 00.00 00.N 00.0m mm.w| 0m.00 0:05 1000052 0 mm.m1 m0.0 00. mm.m m0.01 00.0 mm.0 00.01 mo.m1 00.01 00.001 00.mm No.01 00005 00 0:9 m ”u mm.0 mm. mo. 00. mm.01 00.0 00.01 mm.o0 mm.m m0.0m mm.m01 mm.o0 oo.0m 000m 0&0 0 mm.0 m0.0 mo. 0o.m1 00.m 00.001 mm.m 00.01 mm.m1 mm.m01 m0.m0 00.00. m0.mm 030:0 0 00.0 mm.01 00.1 mm.m| mm.m1 00.00 0o.m1 m0.m 0m.00 00.001 00.01 0m.m01 00.00 0500 10050 m mm.m1 mm. 00. 0m. m0.00 om.m1 00.01 00.001 0o.0m 00.0 00.1 00.00 om.0ml mmmm 0 mm.01 0m.m No.1 mm.m1 mm. 00.0 mm.m01 00.01 mm.m01 00.0 mm.0m mm.01 m0.m :05 10005 m 00.01 00.m1 00.1 mm. 00.0 00.0 00.0 m0.001 00.01 mo.m mm.m01 mm.oN1 00.00 0003 onmm N 00.01 00.0 00.1 mm.m mm.m mm.001 00.01 00.m0 00.01 00.001 m0.001 m0.m01 00.m1 now a: 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0:000:00m 0080020 mommm 0000000080000002 0 :0 00000000> m0 00 00000000000 0000006 mumzflm mm “x0000: ma¢ZHQmOOU.mOEU¢m 140 om.m1 wo.1 oo. 05. mm.m mm.m wo.m mm.m 0v.m m5.w wv.00 wm.m0 5m.mm 0000000> 00 0000000 5m.mm015m.om01mo. wm.5m0 0m.0mm mo.vmm mm.wmm0 mw.omm0 mw.owm0 o0.mwom mv.0O5m v5.mmmv $0.5mm5 m0mMM> 1 0m mv.m mm.1 00. mv.51 m0.v1 m0.50 mo. v5.m1 mm.v01 mm.m1 05.1 om.0 mm.0m1 02 m0 vm.00 50.0 0o.1 mm.1 mo.m01 mm.m01 m5.m1 5N.51 mm.0 0m.m1 mm. mm.v| mm.mm1 0:0 10000 N0 m5.m mm.N1 No.1 om.m om.m0 m5. mm.m1 om.51 0m.1 «0.0 mm.m1 wm.m1 0o.om1 @000 00 No.51 5o.m1 00. 00.0 om.m1 M5. 50. ow.o 5m.vm mo.om1 mm.0m1 m0. m0.mm1 >00 1002002 00 000.000 om.m1 mv.m mo.1 vm. om.m mm.m 00.01 mm.m mm. m5.m1 mm.51 om.5m1 mm.mm 0008 1000002 m v0.01 ¢¢.m No. No.1 mm.m M5.wl 0m.m0 w5.m1 m0.m mo.01 mm.mm mo.5 mw.m01 000:3 02H m mv.m 0m.01 mo. mm.m1 oo.m mo.51 mm.v w0.mm mm.m1 mm.o01 mm.vl vm.0m mm.mm 000m 0:9 5 m0.m vm.m- 00.1 0o. mm.m1 mo.0 0N.00 00.00- 0m.0m m0.00 m0. 00.N1 00.0m 0:020 0 mm.m1 50.01 No.1 «0. mm.v1 mw.01 om.m01 m5. mm.m mm.51 om.mm 0m.m1 5m.mm 0600 1005 m ww.0 om. No.1 mv.v mm.51 mm.5 w5.m 50.mm 0m.w| 0m.m0 mo.5 mm.m1 mv.5ml wm0m v mm.m1 mm.m1 wo.1 mo.01 mm.01 av.001 Nw.m mm.¢1 00.501 wm.m wo.m01 mo.mm1 5m.5 008 100cm m mm.m1 we. mo. 0m.5 «v.01 m5.m mm.0 mm.m01 m0.m01 mv.m1 mo.m1 0m.mm vm.00 0003 @003 m wmdl 0N.N 5o. m5.m1 «m0 mm.m1 mm.001 N501 @540 005.3 m0.m1 diam mmf 8b >2 0 m0 N0 00 00 m m 5 m m w m m 0 umvocoo 00000000m 00E0ozv 000mm 00:000:0&0©00002.0 :0 m0000000> m0 00 00000000000 0000000 mmoamuHZDZZCO MMMIZOZ.HHQ umeamE.mB¢ZHQmOOO.mQQU¢H 141 N5.ml 50.01 00.1 m0. 0o.m 05.N m0.0 mm.m mm.5 N0.m 5m.00 m5.m0 m0.om om.mmm01m¢.mmml0o.l 0m.om mm.mom 0m.mmw 0m.0mo0 m5.05m0 5o.m050 mm.mo0m om.5omm mm.m5m0 mm.m00m mm.m om.l 00.1 ON.NI 0m.m0 5m.ml m0.w 5m.m1 0N.m01 mm. wo.m1 mo.m mm.m0l 5m.m0 m5.N 00. m0.1 m0.m1 0o.m0 m0.0 5N.0 om.m1 mm.m m5.m mm.0l mm.mml ©0.m mm.ml 00.1 w5.0 5m.51 m5.51 55.50 5m.NI 55.0 mm.1 0o.NI 00.001 mm.wml mm.ml 0m.0l mo.l m0.1 om.m1 m5.01 0m.m1 mm.m1 m0.m mm.mm m0.m1 0m.0 0N.mNI w0.1 wo.m0 mo.1 N0.1 m0.ml mw.m1 5m.5 05.m1 mm.m1 $0.5 No.m1 N0.0N1 m0.mm mm. 05.0 mo. @N.01 00.m1 om.o01 mm.m1 mm.m0 00.m1 05.001 mm.©0 0N.0 mm.w01 O5.m0 NN.m1 mo.1 NN.1 0m.m1 50.01 mm.o0l N0.m0l 5m.m1 m0.m1 0m.w1 oo.mN 55.0m 55.N0 mm.ml mo. 0m. mm.m mm.NI 5m.ml 00.50 0m.w0 om.00 mm.m wo.01 @5.mm 55.N0I 00.w1 mo.1 00.1 mm.m m0.0 N5. mw.w1 mN.1 0m.w1 mm.mm 05.m01 om.m0 m0.1 mN.0 No.1 00.N 0o.m m0.1 0m.m01 om.o1 $0.00 5m.m01 5m.m1 00.m01 mm.5m1 mm.m01 mm.m1 mo. m0.01 O5.N1 om.0 00.NI 0m.00 0w.51 mo.51 m0.wm1 0m.mm1 No.00 m0.o01 mw.0 mo. 00.m mm.m mm.m mm.m M5.m mo.001 00.m 00.1 mw.0m mm.m 0m.m1 om.m 00.1 mm.01 0m.1 0m.m 05.00 0w.m1 N0.mm 0m.o01 mo.ml 0m.mm mm.m1 m0 N0 00 00 a m 5 w m 0 m N 0 m002¢m M2 0 000000000 0000a 00000 00000009000000: 0 00 m0000000> m0 00 00000000000 0000000 "000.002 0002000000 02000 0000 000> 00 0000000 00000> 1000000 mz 000 10000 0000 .0000 10000000 000000 00000 1000002 00005 00.0. 000m 0&8 hamsm 0000 J00>O >m0m 0.02 lmHOnH x093 @003 000 0.2 m0 N0 00 00 N 0 0000000 142 . .- . . . 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 . 00.00 00.00 00.00 0000000> 00 0- 00 oo 00 00 m N 00 0 00 0000000 00.000 00.000 00. 00.00 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 0000M> l8 flm 00.0- «0.0- No.- 00.0 00.00- 00.00- 00.0 00.0- 00.0- 00.00 00.0- 00.0- 00.00- 02.00 00.00- No. No.- 00.0 00. 00.00 00.00- 00.00- 00.0- 00.- 00.0- om.- 00.00- 000 -0000 00 00.0- «0.0- 00. 00.0- 00.00 00.00- 00.0- 00.0- 00. 00.0 00.0 00.00- 00.00- 0000 00 00.00 00.- 00. mm.- 00.0- 00.0 00.0- 00.0 00.00- 00.00- 00.00 00.0 00.00- 000 -00000z.o0 000000 00.0- 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0- 00.0- 00.0 00.0- 00. 00.00 00.00- 00.00 0000 I0000002 m 00.0 00.0 0o.- 00.0 00.0 mm.- 00.00 00.- 00.- 00.00- 00.00- 00.0 00.00- 00000 000 0 00.0 00.0- oo.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.00 00.0- 00.0 00.- 00.00 00.00 0000 000 0 00.00 00.0- 00. 00.0- 00.0- 00.0 00.00 00.00- 00.0 00.00- 00.00 00.0 00.00 00000 0 00.0 00.0- no.- 00.0- «0.0- «0.0- 00.00- 00. 00.- 00.00- 00.00- 00.00- 00.00 0000 -0000 0 00.0- 00.0 00. 00.0- 00.0- 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0- 00. 00.00- 00.00- 0000 0 00.00 00.0- 00. 00.0- 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0- «0.0- 00.00 00.0 00.00- 00.00 000 I0nom m 00.0- 00.0 mo.- 00.0- 00. 00.0 00.- 00.0- 00.00- 00.00 00.00- 00.00 00.0 0003 0000 m 00.00 00.- 00. 00.0 00. 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0- 000 0: 0 00 N0 00 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0000000 000000000 0000020 00000 0000000000000002.0 00 00000000> m0 00 00000000000 0000000 000200 ~00 "x00002.00020000 0 000000 143 om.a1 mo.1 oo.1 Hm.0 mo.m 00.m mm.0 oo.n m0.m mn.m mm.ma mm.ma mw.mm mocmflum> mo unwoumm mm.mov1nm.m1 mo.1 Hm.nmm mo.oon mn.mmm mm.oo00 mm.mao0 oH.oon mo.m0mm mm.momm 00.nmm0 No.0mno mmsww> 1C Hm om.m1 ma.1 no.1 mm.o| av.mH mo.mal oo.m mo.m mm.oal HH.n1 mm.n1 mm. on.0m1 0: ma mm.o nm.1 oo.1 no.01 nm.o m0.oa mm.o| om.n01 mm.w mm.m1 mm.m om. vo.om1 Ham 0000 N0 oo.m om.1 no.1 mm. mn.m01 No.m01 nm.m1 m0.ol 00.0 0n.mH 00.N1 om.n om.mm1 @000 HH ma.01 oo. mo.1 mo.m mo.01 mo.H av.m1 mm.ma mm.nm mm.001 No.nal 00.0 mm.nm >00 Inflnumz o0 Hmuumm om.oa no.0 o0. mm.m1 nm. wm.m1 No.m1 mm.0 00.1 mm.o NN.01 mo.om mm.mm puma Immmaflz m 00.01 ow. mo.1 00.01 mo.mal n0.m mm.o nm.m mo.n1 om.n01 ma.nm on.o1 mn.m1 200:5 0:8 o om.HI oo.1 no. Ho.m1 o0.m1 mv.m 0n.001 00.0H mm.m01 mo.o01 mm.na| mm.nal mo.mm 000m QSE n mm. mm.1 mo. nm.H oa.m on.a mm.m0 oH.oH mm.0m oa.o mo.n 00.01 oo.am mnmsm o mm.ol oo. oo. oH.o mm.m oo.o1 mn.o01 nH.nHI mo.m 0n.oa1 on.oH mm.m oo.nm 0800 Inm>o m o0.m No.1 no.1 om.m on.m ov.0 00.m1 mm.ma on.0a1 n0.n om.oa mo.oa oo.vm1 mmmm 0 om.m1 mo. Ho. mo. No.01 0n.oH mm.o nm.oHI oo.001 mm.n m0.m01 mm.mm 0m.0 :08 10003 m mm.n 0m. Ho. mm.m o0.m1 mo.1 m0.00 0n.oHI mn.m1 Hm.ol oo.nH1 on.0m1 mm.m x003 UHmm m om.o1 mo. oo. 0m.m1 mm.m 00.0 no.m1 00.m1 mm. mm.mm n0.o No.mm1 mm.0 son a: H ma NH H0 o0 o m n o m 0 m m H ummocoo Acoflusaom Hmeuozo momam HmQOchmEHCHuHQZ 0 c0 mmHQMHHm> ma mo 00002060000 ooaflamo mumz¢m mmz umeHmz mB¢ZHQmOOU.moEO¢m APPENDIX E Telephone Interview Instrument for Generation of MDS Concepts 144 TELEPHONE INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT Terrance Lynn Albrecht Department of Communication Michigan State University Hello, my name is from Michigan State University. We're doing a communication study of manufacturing plants, and it is for a dissertation for a graduate student, Teri Albrecht. Your name was picked at random for this first part of the study, and we just have a few questions to ask you--about the kind of communication that goes on in your plant. Your answers will be kept confidential, but we really need your help. Could I have a few minutes of your time? 145 First, we'd like you to tell us about your 30b: what you do, things like that... a. What are some things about your job you like? Why? b. What are some things about your job you don't like? c. What are some of the easiest things about your job? d. What are some of the hardest things about your job? Why? Why? Why? What are some of the things that go on in the plant that affect your job most? Why? 146 3. What are some of the things you talk about with others in the plant? You know, with the people you work with? (boss, coworkers) 4. Of those things you talk about, which ones do you think are most important? Why? 5. What are some of the plant policies that affect you? a. What is it about those policies that you like? b. What is it about those policies that you don't like? 147 NEXT, WE'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH, HOW EASY IS IT TO TALK WITH PEOPLE, WHETHER YOU GET ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO YOUR JOB, THINGS LIKE THAT... 6. What are the people you work with like? You know, what is it like everyday working with them? (How?) a. What is it about them that you like? b. What is it about them that you don't like? 7. What's it like to work for your boss? a. What is it about him that you like? Why? b. What is it about him you don't like as much? Why? 148 8. Overall, what kinds of things is it important for you to get information about in the plant? Why? 9. What things do you just not get enough infonmation about that you really need? 10. When you do get information you need, where do you get it from? ll. Finally, in general, what's it like to work in the plant? You know, do things change much around there, what are the general procedures like? Why do you feel that way? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. APPENDIX F Instructions and MDS Questionnaires 149 Terrance Lynn Albrecht Department of Communication June, l978 Michigan State University COMMUNICATION STUDY Recently, a study of communication was announced by Tom Werner, the Unit Chairman, and Doug Lindell, Executive Vice President for Manufacturing. This is the questionnaire for that study. I am interested in learning more about the quality and quantity of communi- cation in plants. Instructions appear before each set of questions. Please read them before you fill in your answers. I will come around to pick up the questionnaire after you have finished it. All your answers will be kept confidential; no one will see your answers except me. Thank you very much for your help. 150 What is your age? ,_4years Are you Male Female Please circle the last grade you completed in school: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l 2 3 4 Grade School High School College Are you Hourly Salaried How long have you been employed (at any job) at Drop Forge Company? (Please check one of the following) Less than l year A year, but less than 2 years 2 years, but less than 5 years 5 years, but less than l0 years 0 years, but less than 15 years 15 years, but less than 20 years 20 years or more Please do not write in these spaces: W 4-5 Blank 151 PART A People in a plant talk about different topics. When they talk about something, they often use the same words again and again. I wanted to find out what some of those words were that people in the ‘ plant use to discuss different topics. So, I interviewed several employees. Those words are used in the lists that are given below. Each word is paired with the other words. What I need to know is how similar or different each pair of words are to you. For example, some of you told me that there is a big difference between a hammer and a cold trim press. On a scale of 0 to l00, where zero means "the same“ and lOO means ”completely different,” most of you said the two machines are about 80 units apart. On the scale below each pair of words please mark how similar or different you think the two words are. If you think the two words are very similar, you should mark either a ”l0” or a “20”. Or, if you think they are very different, you should place your mark closer to a ”90“ or a ”lOO". Here is an example for how to mark the scale: A HAMMER AND A COLD TRIM PRESS Completely Same : : : : : : : : X: . : . ommmmm‘atnmg—ommfimnt Now, please go through the following list of pairs and simply mark how similar or different you think they are. All your answers will be kept strictly confidential. 152 IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HAMMER AND A COLD TRIM PRESS IS 80 UNITS, HOW SIMILAR OR Please Do Not Write in These DISSIMILAR ARE: MY JOE AND HARD WORK completely UTU’ZUBUIUB’UBUTUBUDUTD‘O’d'ffereM M7 JOE AND THE FOREMEN same same . completely Ummwmwwmwwmd'fferent D EASY same completely 616116116116161167616116166"‘fferent MY JOB AND OVERTIME sam . completely Ummwmgfiwmmwmdifierent MY JOB AND PUSHY sam . completely Dmmwmg—g‘gmmgfir—difierent MY JOE AND THE HEAT same: : : : : - completely Ummwmwmwmwgfimdifferent *ifiVTJOB AND"THE UNION same: - completely 61626161656 66 76 116 16 166 d‘ffe'ent MY JOB AND MANAGEMENT7 same completely 6161261616156161666161116mm"ent same. . . . . . . .completely 616261616W3666761616166d‘ffm" MY JOE AND GOOD same: , completely WWZ'GETEDGOOTO-Q— 9'0' T'OO' different MY same: . : . . . . . . . completely DWEfimgfigfimzfog—O-Hmdifferent MY JOB AND ME sam . completely 6:! 2 2 2 ' 616766666161567616161"6"""“=‘rent HARD WORK AND THE FOREMEN completely 61621666116156667611616166‘1‘1’ierent HARD WORK AND EASY same . completely 61626661636667611616166d‘ffe’e“ same completely 6162616166616761616166 different HARD WORK AND PUSHY same completely 61626116116156667616161116different same Spaces: 1553 'W pame° , ,completely 6 16161616161676 16 16'116'd‘ff5'9“ HARD WORK AND THE UNION Fame: : : : : ; ; CQWPIEteIY fifimmwmgfigfimgb-Wm-fidfiferent HARD WORK AND MANAGEMENT ame: : : : : - COMPIEteIY f5 61‘6161616"""'16167616161116d1fferent HARD WORK AND BETTER MACHINERY same: : : , completely 61616161616167—16 T66d‘ffe’ent HARD WORK W60 same completely 616111 16 16' 16 16 76 16'116'1116'd‘ffl‘3"ent HARD WORK AND HELPFUL : : : : : , completely 1616:16161616""'76w161116different same: 2 HARD WORK AND ME tame: : : : : : : ' completely 61‘616116161616'76"'1616166different 4THE FOREMEN AND EASY Lame , completely Emmfifimwwmwwmd‘fferent ATHE FOREMEN AND OVERTIME , 5ompletely fil‘O’zoE‘O’E’E‘WEfiET‘O’d‘fferent Same THE FOREMEN AND PUSHY , completely UTUQU—O'I'O'E’B’W‘Uwfifid‘ffe'ent same 4THE FOREMEN AND THE HEAT completely 616161616161‘76w16166“life"ent N AND THE UNION same ame , completely I 61616161616167616161116d‘ffiemnt WWENT Lame: : , completely 6161616161616761616166d‘ffe’em THE FOREMEN AND BETTER MACHINERY , completely UTU'GfiUZUE‘O’TT’EfiWl‘OUd‘ffemm Lsame° THE FOREMEN’AND GOOD , UWZUSUEUSUBUWTWWUd‘ffemnt ——111161111~ AND HELPFUL . completely Ufiéfiw‘owwfiwwmd‘fferent Sam . completely . (OI-08) same 1i54 r——“"“'"_—THE_EORENEN—AND"HE completely mezfizfizffi:§fizi6:-SD:3D:. 76 DD 131-6.0- different wmmmr——_—‘— EASY completely UWEEMWWWEWWmth Fame' EASY AND PUSHY’ , completely UWEUBDIOSDD—Wwwm-dlffemnt EASY AND THE HEAT 5: same . completely 6mmwmwwmeWWWMt *EAsv AND THE UNION lsame : : completely 61616 30'1'6161-ozh'7616116100 ““9"" EASY—AND MANAGEMENT Ysme ame , completely UTUEMIDSDEDWBO—wm different EASY . completely 6WEMMEMNMWWWWMt EASY AND GOOD completely .UWTO'ZDDDADSDBD “MU-8556.166: different EASY AND HELPFUL |————— -—-—-— (27-35)0406 r___._...._ (36-44)0407 F_--_ (45-53)0408 _—_-— (63-7l)04lO r____ (72-3o)o411 1m ame lsame Isame Isame ram lsame , completely UWEEMEEWWTWmWMt EASY AND ME km completely 6mmwmwwmmmWWWMt ‘W PUSHY . 5ompl etel y UWEWWWEWWWWmWMt "“““"‘lDVffiTTfiE AND THE HEAT , completely 6mmmmwmfimmmmmmt completely 6mmmmwwmwmmmmm‘ D completely 6mwwWWEWMMWWWMt CHINERY completely 6mwwwmwmwmmmmmt OVERTIME—AND GOOD , completely 6WMWEWEWEWWWWMt |————— (l8-26)0413 h____ (27-35)0501 L_____ (36-44)0507 ————— (45-53)0508 r____ (54-62)0509 _———— (63-7l)05l0 _———— (72-80)OSll ame lfi55 ‘ DVENIINE AND HELPFUL , completely 6wwwwwwmwmmmmmt , completely 6mmmmwwmwwmmmmt Isame PUSHY AND THE’HEAT , completely UWEWMWWNMTWmth Lme PUSHY AND THE UNION , completely UWEWWWEWWEWmmmt same PUSHY AND MANAGEMENT , , completely 6wmwwmwmmwmmmmt PUSHY AND BETTER MACHINERY Fam Eame , completely UWEWWWEWWMWmWMt PUSHY AND GOOD completely UWNWMWMWWWWmWMt PUSHY AND HELPFUL Lam , completely 6wrwmwmmmmmmmmt PUSHY AND ME ame completely 6wmwmmwmmfimmmmt 109-17)os12 b———- (18-26)0513 A“. THE HEATPAND’THE UNION , completely UWNWMEMWWWWmmmt E HEA completely 6mmr6wwm666mmmt ame THE HEAT AND BETTER MACHINERY , completely 6mrwmwwm1wmmmmt mm THE HEAT AND GDDD , completely 616161—1—1‘167'1696WWWent Fame THE HEAT AND HELPFUL , , completely 6mmwmwwmwwmmmmt same same THE HEAT AND ME , completely 6mmwmwwmwmmmmm‘ AGEMENT . , completely 6wmwmmwmwwmmmmt (09- l7)0613 b———— (18-26)0708 —_——— (45—53)O7ll l—"--- (54-62)0712 h_——— (63-7l)0713 _—-—— (72-80)0809 ——----—— 1J56 mm ’UNTUN AND GO Lame: : ; ; : . completely 6mmwwwwmwwmmmmt THE UNION AND HEEPFUL same: ; : : :completely Dfiwwmgfigfifigfigfimdfifflent TTHE UNION AND ME Fsame; ; ; = : : : . . completely Dwmwmsfiwwmmgo-mdifferent MANAGEMENT AND BETTER MACHINERY sa completely :U:W:EU:§O.1DOED:WO7D.BUH§6:W different W ame: : : . , 5ompletely 6mmwmwwmwwmmmmt N T D HELPFUL sam , completely 6mmwwwwmmwmmmmt MANAGEMENT’AND’ME Lame , 5ompletely 6wmwwmwmwwmmmmt BETTER MACHINERY AND GOOD came , completely DWETMWETTFTmWMt H E HELPFUL pom , completely OWEEMWMNMWWmWMt BETTER MACHINERY AND ME’ . completely Umwwwmwmmwwmmmt hm NGOOD AND HELPFUL completely OWEWWEMWMWW“WMt GOOD ANDNNE , completely 6mw6mwwmwwmmmmt Isame HELPFUL AND ME . completely 6mmmmwwmwwmmmmt A HAMMER AND A COLD TRIM PRESS , completely OWEEMMMWWWWmWMt (36-44)1112 r———— (45-53)lll3 _———_—_— APPENDIX G Instructions and Network Analysis Questionnaire 157 PART B What is communication? You communicate whenever you talk with someone face—to-face...when you use the telephone...or if you write or read something. Other examples of communication are asking or getting somebody's advice, Opinions, or ideas. On the following pages I'd like you to describe your communication contacts with other people (management and employees) in the plant. The names of management and first shift people in all departments are included. The numbers next to each name are to help me keep things straight--a new number will be assigned to keep your answers confiden- tial. I need to be sure that just the people listed on the form are the ones that fill it out. So, please sign your name on the first page. Again, no one but me will know your individual reply. Three columns are next to each person's name. Each column has a different topic you might talk about with others in the plant. These topics were suggested to me in talking with many people in the plant. The topics you said were important are: (1) talk about my 192, day-to-day work (2) talk about personal things, hobbies, what you do on the weekends, personal problems (3) talk about thg_union, contracts, negotiations, etc. Please read the list of names and decide whether you communicated with each person at least once last week-~on one or more of the topics. If you gig, write down your estimate of how many times it was last week. Estimate the number of times for each topic. Put that number in the apprOpriate column. 158 EXAMPLE: Here is an example of how to fill out this form. The name of eacfi employee is listed on the left. As you look across the top of the page, there are three topics listed. These are "Talked about my_ 'ob, day-to-day work," "Talked about personal things, hobbies, problems, J0 ing around," and "Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations." As you look down the page, there are spaces next to each name, and under each topic. These spaces show how often the person filling out the form communicated with each person listed about the topic. For example, if you were filling out the form, you would first look at the name listed. Then you would mark in the space next to the name how often you communicated with, say, "D. Bouchard" on each communication topic. In this example, you filled out the form in the following way: (a) first, you looked at D. Bouchard's name. Then you filled in number ”4" in the first column because you communicated with him 4 times last week about your job. You left the other columns blank because you didn't talk to him about those topics. (b) second, you looked at J. Miller's name. You left all three rows next to his name blank because you didn't talk to him at all about those topics. (c) third, you saw N. Richard's name. You put a number in every column--because you talked with him 40 times last week about your job, 5 times about personal things, and 2 times about the union. Communication TDpic Talked about Talked about Talked about the my_jgb, day- personal union, contracts. to-day work t in s, negotiations fioBBies, problems, joking around L A S T W E E K Name # times # times # times 128 4 037 465 40 5 2 159 Your Name No. Communication T0pic Talked about Talked about Talked about my_jpp, day- personal the ppipp, “'d‘” W" 'fi-E‘sfiiés’ fi‘éSEifi-‘Siians problems, joking around A S T w E E K Name # times # times # times 269 030 213 043 600 60l 761 033 292 050 254 256 l5l 075 068 lll l20 602 160 Communication Tapic Talked about my job, day- to-day work Talked about ersonal tfiin s, hoBBies problems, joking around A S T W E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations Name # times # times # times 603 058 137 034 604 605 170 003 500 155 288 l7l T49 077 025 295 037 l95 309 501 161 Communication Topic Talked about my job, day- to-day work Talked about ersonal thin s, fioBbies, problems, joking around A S T W E E K Talked about the 22191, contracts, negotiations Name # times # times # times ll3 012 135 184 502 028 005 062 053 136 503 607 T63 504 052 027 290 087 059 048 162 Communication Topic Talked about m job, day- to-aay work Talked about ersonal tfiings, fioEEies, problems, joking around A S T W E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiat1ons Name # times # times # times 310 l73 253 243 008 055 608 505 035 294 281 065 ll8 064 609 lOl 209 610 306 131 163 Communication T0pic Talked about my job, day- to-aay work Talked about ersonal tfiin s, fioEBies, problems, joking around A S T w E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations Name # times # times # times 167 078 291 067 097 061 212 188 105 231 208 115 019 211 176 070 200 260 248 611 164 Communication Topic Talked about my job, day- to-aay work Talked about ersonal o 1es problems, joking around A S T w E E K Talked about union, contracts, negotiat1ons Name # times # times # times 153 506 013 216 612 613 614 615 616 074 081 022 182 121 160 238 298 122 203 249 165 Communication TDpic Talked about my job, day- to- ay work Ta1k8d about ersonal tfiin s, fioEEies, problems, joking around A S T W E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations Name # times # times # times 044 240 218 617 083 190 126 146 166 093 080 112 179 618 072 089 619 507 236 272 166' Communication Topic. Talked about my job, day- to-aay work Talked about personal t in s, fioBBies, problems, joking around A S T w E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations Name # times # times # times 206 268 297 508 285 154 620 196 621 228 622 169 247 091 509 024 262 623 265 009 167 Communication Topic Talked about my job, day- toéday work Talked about ersonal tfiin s, fioBEies problems, joking round A S T W E E K Talked about the union, contracts, negotiations Name #thms # times # times 054 047 006 141 189 193 624 204 084 123 289 102 085 150 092 094 007 165 172 264 168 Communication Topic Talked about Talked about Talked about Aid-113331 #64 #:2119222: 0 1es, negotiations problems, joking around A S T w E E K Name # times # times # times 158 259 l83 279 225 041 104 202 168 625 278 287 ll4 144 235 242 APPENDIX H Communication Rules and Information Needs Questionnaire 169 PAKI‘ C When just you and your boss talk” . COL 1-8 932 a. who decides when the two of you will talk? l___Boss almost always 9 2__Boss usually 3___Boss more often than me 4_Both of us about the same 5__Me nore often than my boss EL_ybeusually '[_ykzalmost always b. who starts the conversation? l__Boss almost always 10 2__Boss usualhy 3___Boss more often than me 4_Both of us about the same 5__Me more often than my boss 6___Me usually 7__1Vle almost always c. who decides what topics, or problems, you talk about? l__Boss almost always —— 2___Boss usually 11 3__Boss more often than me 4____Both of us about the same 5___Me more often than my boss 6___lVle usually 7__Me almost always d. who ends or stops the conversation? l____Boss almost always 12 2___Boss usually 3____Boss more often than me 4_Both of us about the same 5___Me more often than my boss 6___Me usually 7_yMe1ahmxm:always e. which one of you usually interrupts to move to armmrtcpic? “7:7- l;_possiahmxn:always 2__Boss usually 3__Boss more often than me 4_Both of us about the same 5 Me more often than my boss 6:Me usually 7__Me almost always 8__Neither one of us interrupts to change the subject 17.0 1. The information we get from management about work is usually accurate. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 2. When management puts out information to employees , you can believe it, completely. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree ___Strongly disagree 3 . The information we get from management about doing the job is usually on tine--it gets to us when we need it. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree ___Strongly disagree 4 . The information we get from management about doing the job is usually wleteuwe are told all we need to know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree ___Strongly disagree 5. The information we get from management is usually in very useful form—easy to use. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree THANK YOU VERY Mm FOR YOUR HELP--AS MENTIONED BEFORE , ALL YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. 14 15 16 17 18 REFE RENCES REFERENCES Albrecht, T. Communication climate as a subset of organ- izational climate: A review and synthesis. Unpub- lished manuscript, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1978. Barnett, G.A. Bilingual information processing: The effects of communication on semantic structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1976. Barnett, G., Serota K. & Taylor, J. Campaign communication and attitude change: A multidimensional analysis. Human Communication Research, 1976, g, 3. Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E. & Weick, K. Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1970. Chamberlain, N.W. & Kuhn, J.W. Collective bargaining (2d. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Churchill, G.A. Jr., Ford, N.M. & Walker, O.C. Jr. Organizational climate and job satisfaction in the salesforce. Journal of Marketing Research, 1976, 13, 323-332. Danz, J. UAW collective bargaining resolution. Detroit, MI.: Education Department, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, 1976. Davis, L.E. & Cherns, A.B. (eds.). The quality of working life. Vol. 1. New York: The Free Press, 1975. Dennis, H.S. III. The construction of a managerial "com- munication climate" inventory for use in complex organizations. International Communication Associa— tion, Annual Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1975, 27. Dieterly, D.L. & Schneider, B. The effect of organizational environment on perceived power and climate: A labora- tory study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 11, 316—337. —171 172 Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps, M. & Slocum, J.W. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, Vol 2, No. 3, 1974, 233-248. Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. Jr. Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, l§(l), 149-155. Downs, A. Inside bureaucracy. Santa Monica, CA.: The Rand Corporation, 1964. Durkheim, E. The rules of sociological method. New York: Free Press, 1938. Edwards, J. & Monge, P. The validation of mathematical indices of communication structure. In Brent Ruben (ed.), Communication Yearbook I. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1977, 183-192. Evans, W. A systems model of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Farace, R., Monge, P. & Russell, H. Communicating and organ- izing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977. Franklin, J.L. Down the organization: Influence processes across levels of hierarchy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 22, 153-164. Gillam, J. & Woelfel, J. The Galileo system of measurement: Preliminary evidence for precision, stability, and equivalence to traditional measures. Human Communica- tion Research, 1977, 3(3), 222-234. Hays, W.L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Greiner, L.E., Leitch, D.P. & Barnes, L.B. The simple com- plexity of organizational climate in a governmental agency. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organiza- tional climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Guion, R.M. A note on organizational climate. Organization- al Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 120—125. Halpin, A.W. & Croft, D.B. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administrative Center, 1973. 173 Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J.W. Jr. Organizational climate: measures, research and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17(2), 255-280. Hitt, M.A. Technology: An intervening variable in the relationship between organizational climate and work- unit effectiveness. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, 209-211. Hollmann, R.W. Supportive organizational climate and mana- gerial assessment of MBO effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 12(4), 560-576. House, R.J. & Rizzo, J.R. Toward the measurement of organ- izational practices: A scale development and vali— dation. Experimental Publication System, June, 1971, 12, Ms. No. 480-1. Jacobson, E. & Seashore, S. Communication practices in com- plex organization. Journal of Social Issues, 1951, 7, 28-70. James, L.R. & Jones, A.P. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, §l(12), 1096-1112. Johannesson, R.E. Some problems in the measurement of organ- izational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 1973, 118—144. Johnson, B.M. Communication: The process of organizing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. ,Johnston, H.R. A new conceptualization of source of organ- izational climate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 95-103. Kavanagh, M.J. Expected supervisory behavior, interpersonal trust and environmental preferences: Some relation- ships based on a dyadic model of leadership. Organ— izational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 17-30. Kaye, N.L. Assessing communicationypatterns and attitudes of special educational management personnel in a technical assistance network. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976. LaFollette, W.R. & Sims, H.P. Jr. Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, I}, 257-278. 174 Lawler, E.E., III, Hall, D.T. & Oldham, G.R. Organizational climate: Relationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 11,139-155. Leister, D.V & MacLachlan, D.L. Organizational self-percep- tion and environmental image measurement. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 1§(2), 205-223. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Litwin, G. & Stringer, R.A. Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1968. Lyon, H.L. & Ivancevich, J.M. An exploratory investigation of organizational climate and job satisfaction in a hospital. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 11(4), 635—648. MacDonald, D. Communication roles and communication content in a bureaucratic setting. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1970. Mayo, E. The social problems of an industrial civilization. London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul, 1949. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1960. Mosteller, F. & Tukey, J.W. Data ana1ysis and regression. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977. Mosteller, F. & Tukey, J.W. Data analysis, including statistics. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. II. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 80- 204. Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K. & Bent, D. Statistical package for the social sciences (2d. ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Payne, R.L., Fineman, S. & Wall, T.D. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Organ- izational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 45-62. 175 “Payne, R.L. & Pugh, D.S. Organizational structure and climate. In M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of indus- trial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Pritchard, R.D. & Karasick, B.W. The effects of organiza- tional climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 126-146. Proctor, J.H., Lassiter, W.E. & Soyars, W.B., III. Predic- tion of young U.S. naval officer retention. Person- nel Psychology, 1976, 12, 567-581. Redding, W.C. Communication within the organization. New York: Industrial Communication Council, 1972. Richards, W.D. A manual for network analysis: Using the NEGOPY network analysis program. Institute for Com- munication Research, Stanford University, June 1975. Richards, W. Network analysis in large complex systems: Techniques and methods--tools. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1974a. Schneider, A.B., Donaghy, W.C. & Newman, P.J. Communication climate within an organization. Management Controls, Oct.-Nov., 1976, 33, 159—162. Schneider, B. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Pscyhology, 1975, 1g, 447-479. VSchneider, B. & Snyder, R.A. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 62(3), 318-328. Schwartz, D. & Jacobson, E. Organizational communication network analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 1g, 1. Sells, S. An approach to the nature of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organiza— tional climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Simon, H. Administrative behavior, (2d. ed.). New York: MacMillan, 1957. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. & Hulin, C.L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand—McNally, 1969. 176 Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G. Organizational climate. Boston: Harbard University, 1968. Taylor, J. Communication and organizational change: A case study and empirical analysis. Unpublished manu- script, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1977. Taylor, J., Farace, R. & Monge, P. Communication and the development of change among educational practitioners. Paper presented to the World Education Conference, Honoluly, Hawaii, 1976. Thamhain, H.J & Gemmill, G.R. Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 11(2), 216-224. Waters, L.K., Roach, D. & Batlis, N. Organizational climate dimensions and job-related attitudes. Personal Psy- chology, 1974, 11, 465—476. Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford Press, 1947. Woelfel, J. Metric measurement of cultural processes. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Associa- tion, Chicago, Illinois, December, 1974. Woelfel, J. Multivariate analysis as spatial representations of distances. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1972. Woelfel, J., Fink, E., Barnett, G., Marlier, J., Serota, K., Saltiel, J., Cody, M., Gillham, J. & Holmes, R. Program GALILEO (Version 3.9), 1976. Woelfel, J & Haller, A.O. Significant others, the self- reflexive act, and the attitude formation processes. American Sociological Review, 1971, 16, 74-87. 177 GENERAL REFERENCES Atkinson, J.W. (ed.). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958. Bartlett, A.C. & Hunsberger, K. Organizational climate as a diagnostic device. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, 110—112. Becker, C.E. Deciding when it's time for a change in organ- izational climate. Personnel, May—June 1975, 61(3), 25-31. Beehr, T.A. Perceived situational moderators of the rela— tionship between subjective role, ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61(1), 35—40. Blalack, R.O. & Davis, H.J. Organizational climate, job satisfaction and selected behavioral facets within a medical environment: A parallel study. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, 393—395. Bowers, D. & Seashore, S. Predicting organizational effec- tiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11, 238-263. Chesser, R.J. & Bartol, K.M. Organizational climate: A study of perceptual consensus in two organizations. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, 206—208. V Cummings, L.L. & DeCotiis, T.A. Organizational correlates , of perceived stress in a professional organization. Public Personnel Management, July-August, 1973, 1(4), 275-282. Dunbar, R.L.M. Manager's influence on subordinates' thinking about safety. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 16(2), 364-369. Fiedler, R. Leader attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 66, 308—318. Forehand, G. On the interaction of persons and organizations. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. 178 Fox, R., Schmuck, R., Van Egmond, E., Ritvo, M. & Jung, C. Diagnosing professional climates of schools. Fair- fax, Va.: NTL Learning Resources Corporation, 1973. Fuguitt, G.V. & Lieberson, S. Correlation of ratios or difference scores having common terms. In H. Costner, (ed.), Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, Inc., 1973-74, pp. 128-144. Gavin, J.F. & Howe, G.J. Psychological climate: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. Behavioral Science, 1975, 16, 228-240. Gibb, J. Defensive communication. Journal of Communication II, 1961, 141-148. Gilmer, B. Industrial psychology (2d. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Grunig, J.E. & Stamm, K.R. Communication and coorientation of collectivities. American Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 16, 567-591. Hage, J., Aiken, M. & Marrett, C. Organizational structure and communications. American Sociological Review, 1971, 16, 860-871. Hall, D. & Schneider, B. Organizational climates and careers. New York: Seminar Press, 1973. Hitt, M.A. Technology, organizational climate and effective- ness. Journal of Business Research, 1976, 6(4), 383-399. James, L.R., Hater, J.J., Gent, M.J. & Bruni, J.R. Psycho- logical climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. IBR Report No. 77-13, Office of Naval Research and National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1977. Johnson, B. Communication for organizing: A typology of coordination formats. Paper presented to Speech Communication Association Conference and Post- Doctoral Program on Organizational Communication, February, 1976. Kaczka, E. & Kirk, R. Managerial climate, work groups, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 11, 253-272. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966. 179 LaFollette, W.R. How is the climate in your organization? Personnel Journal, July, 1975, 6117). Lawler, E.E. & Porter, L. Antecedent attitudes and effec- tive managerial performance. Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance, 1967, 1, 122-142. Litwin, G. Climate and behavior theory. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Litwin, G. Climate and motivation: An experimental study. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Lowin, A., Krapchak, W. & Kavanagh, M. Consideration and initiating structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 16, 238-253. Lyden, F.J. Developments in public administration. Public Administration Review, March-April, 1976, 16(2), 201-202. MacDonald, D. Communication roles and communication net- works in a formal organization. Human Communication Research, 1976, 1(4), 365-375. Manley, T.R. & McNichols, C.W. OD at a major government research laboratory. Public Personnel Management, Jan.-Feb., 1977, 6(1), 51-60. McClelland, D.C. The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961. McCroskey, J.D., Larson, C.E. & Knapp, M.L. An introduction to interpersonal communication. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. McPhee, R. A rule-theoretic approach to organizational com- munication. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1976. Meglino, B.M. A theoretical synthesis of job performance and the evaluative dimension of organizational climate: A social psychological perspective. Academy of Manage- ment Review, July, 1976, 1(3), 58-65. Mehra, N. Standardized versus unstandardized factor analysis in a study of "organizational climate." The Journal of Experimental Education, 1973, 11(2), 60-67. 180 Meyer, H. Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In R. Tagiuri & G. Litwin (eds.), Organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Monge, P. & Lindsey, G. The study of communication networks and communication structure in large organizations. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Annual Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1974. Muchinsky, P.M. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organization climate questionnaire: An empirical and theoretical extension of the Sims and LaFollette study. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 11, 371—392. Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967. Payne, R.L. & Mansfield, R. Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 16, 515-526. Porter, L. A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 36, 1-10. Richards, W. Network analysis in large complex systems: Theoretical bases. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Associa- tion, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1974b. Saltiel, J. & Woelfel, J. Accumulated information and attitude change. Human Communication Research, 1975, 1(4), 333-344. Schneider, B. & Bartlett, C. Individual differences and organizational climate: I. The research plan and questionnaire development. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 11, 323-333. Schwartz. T.M., Moscato, D.R. & Shapiro, H.J. Characteris- tics of organizational climate and managerial job satisfaction: An empirical study. Psychological Reports, 1975, 11, 299—305. Shepard, R.N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimension- al scaling with an unknown distance function. Psycho- metrika, 1962, 11, Part I: 125-139, Part II: 219-246. Simon, H. The sciences of the artificial. The M.I.T. Press, 1969. 181 Skinner, B. BeyOnd freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam-Vintage Books, 1971. Smith, R.E., Reif, W.B., Monczka, R.M. & Newstrom, J.W. Approach to organizational climate analysis. Cost and Management, 1975, 11(3), 34-39. Snadowsky, A. Member satisfaction in stable communication networks. Sociometry, 1974, 61(1), 38-53. Torgerson, W. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958. Wallace, M.J., Jr., Ivancevich, J.M. & Lyon, H.L. Measure- ment modifications for assessing organizational climate in hospitals. Academy of Management Journ61, 1975, 16(1), 82-97. Weick, K. The socia1_psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Weitzel, W. & Whitely, W. The relationship between climate and effectiveness in an organization undergoing a joint merger—facilitation process. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, 369-371. Woelfel, J., Holmes, R., Fink, E.L., Cody, M. & Taylor, J. A mathematical procedure for optimizing political campaign strategy. Paper presented at the Inter; national Communication Association, Portland, Oregon, April, 1976. A. .. . 11.3 STRTE UNIV. LIBRA 5 Hi 1 MI W 931fl34 @369 MICHIGAN \lHlWllIHH 3'12