MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE, TOLERANCE FOR DISAGREEMENT ... · PDF fileMANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE, TOLERANCE FOR DISAGREEMENT, ... dimension represents a separate ... Management

(JqO

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE, TOLERANCE FORDISAGREEMENT, AND INNOVATIVENESS AS PREDICTORS

OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION:

A COMPARISON OF SINGLE-FACTOR, TWO-FACTOR, ANDMULTIPLE-FACTOR APPROACHES

VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND

West VirginiaUniversity

JAMES C. McCROSKEY

West VirginiaUniversity

The construct of Management Communication Style (MCS), presumed tobe a product of the organization's leadership style and the supervisor'scommunication style, was advanced as a theoretical predictor of employeesatisfaction. It was found that MCS could be consistently and reliablymeasured and that MCS was linked in a linear fashion to employee satis-faction. As MCS becomes more subordinate-centered and interactive,employee satisfaction is increased. Because of the causal pattern implied,it is argued that future research involving intervention to alter MCS andstudy effects on employee satisfaction is justifled.

Supplementary findings indicated that employee satisfaction is alsolinked to the employee's perception of her/his supervisor's tolerance fordisagreement and the innovativeness of both the organization and theemployee.

Locke (1976) has estimated that over 3,300studies on the subject of employee satisfac-tion have appeared in the literature. Thisvolume of research certainly suggests thatemployee satisfaction is of considerable in-terest to a wide variety of scholars and im-plies such satisfaction is linked to "bottomline" concerns of organizations, such as pro-ductivity. While a clear one-to-one relation-ship between employee satiSfaction and em-ployee productivity does not appear to exist,it is generally acknowledged by both schol-ars and practitioners that some relationshipdoes exist, particularly in service-related or-ganizations where real productivity is verydifficult to define, much less measure. Sim-ilarly, employee satisfaction has been linkedto employee turnover rates, a costly concernof most organizations whether their primaryoutput is constituted of products or services.

Of course, humanistic concerns have also in-fluenced many to seek to understand the dy-namics of employee satisfaction. Few wouldargue with the implied value premise that itis better for people to be happy than un-happy.

With this large volume of research in thearea of employee satisfaction it might beassumed that a consensus would have formed

concerning the nature of such satisfaction.Quite the reverse is the case. There havebeen nearly as many operationalizations ofemployee satisfaction as there have beenstudies of the phenomenon. Conceptual de-finitions have also varied sharply, althoughnot to the extent that operationalizations have.Before we present the foundations of thepresent study, therefore, it is important thatwe examine the nature of employee satisfac-tion as viewed in previous research.

,360 Communication Yearbook 3

EARLIER STUDIES

The Nature of Employee Satisfaction

One of the more common conceptualiza-tions of employee satisfaction, particularly inearlier research, has been a global, or one-factor, approach (e.g. Ewen, Smith, Hulin,& Locke, 1966; Graen, 1968; Hinrichs &Mischkind, 1967) . This conceptualizationenvisions a global or gestalt reaction of theemployee that falls on a continumn from verysatisfied to very dissatisfied. While this con-ceptualization does not deny that an employeemay like some things in the work environ-ment while disliking others, it views theinterface of these competing reactions to rep-resent a general, single dimensional satisfac-tion response.

A second conceptualization of employeesatisfaction was developed in direct responseto the above one-factor approach. This con-ceptualization has been referred to as the"Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction"( Herzerg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959) .This approach envisions two continua, onefor satisfaction and one for dissatisfaction,

rather than a single satisfaction-dissatisfactioncontinuum. It stresses that an employee po-tentially can be very satisfied and very dis-satisfied at the same time in response to dif-ferent elements in the employment environ-ment. The "Motivator-Hygiene Theory"that evolved from this conceptualization sug-gests that some elements, called "motivator"conditions, impact the satisfaction continumnwhile other elements, called "hygiene" con-ditions, impact the dissatisfaction continumn.While it is recognized that there is someoverlap in impact of the two types of condi-tions, motivators are seen as such things asachievement, recognition, and the work it-self; while hygiene conditions are seen to besuch things as interpersonal relations, com-pany policies, and working conditions. Foran extensive review and evaluation of this ap-proach to employee satisfaction, see King( 1970 ).

The final conceptualization of employeesatisfaction has been the most commonly em-ployed in recent years (e.g. Friedlander, 1965;Wolf, 1967; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969)and the approach chosen by recent communi-cation researchers (Falcione, McCroskey, &Daly, 1977; Hurt & Teigen, 1977). This ap-proach envisions employee satisfaction beingcomposed of multiple dimensions, where eachdimension represents a separate ( althoughpossibly intercorrelated) satisfaction-dissatis-faction continumn. The dimensions isolated

by Smith et a!. (1969) have received the mostattention: supervision, work, pay, promo-tions, and co-workers.

In the present investigation we have optednot to choose among these varying concep-tualizations. Rather we have attempted tooperationalize employee satisfaction in vari-ous ways in keeping with each conceptuali-zation. These operationalizations will be out-lined later.

Predictors of Satisfaction

While many variables in the working en-vironment have been found to impact em-ployee satisfaction, most of these have notbeen specifically related to communication.Such non-communication-related elements as

job enlargement (Argyris, 1964), job enrich-ment (Herzberg, 1966), and working condi-tions (Roethlisberger & Dick, 1939), employeeself-esteem (Falcione et a!., 1977),. employeeperceptions of supervisor credibility, homo-phily, and attractiveness (Falcione et aI.,1977), and employee and organizational in-novativeness (Hurt & Teigen, 1977) areclearly important. Thus, it should be stressedthat although communication within an or-ganization should be expected to be an im-portant element impacting employee satisfac-tion, many other variables should also be ex-pected to account for variability, and no sin-gle element should be expected to be "thecause" of employee satisfaotion or dissatis-faction across situations.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Research that has examined elements in the

working environment that specifically involvecommunication has indicated the importanceof communication in determining employeesatisfaction. For example, permitting em-ployees to communicate in the decision-mak-ing process (Falcione, 1974) and providingfeedback to an employee on her or his per-formance (Herzberg, 1966; Hackman & Law-ler, 1971) have been found to increase satis-faction, .while employees who are communi-cation apprehensive (people who fear andavoid communication) have been found tobe less satisfied (Falcione et aI., 1977). Ofparticular significance to this study is thefinding that employees who have positiveperceptions of the communication of theirsupervisors are significantly more satisfied.Falcione et al. (1977) report substantial cor-relations between employee satisfaction andemployees' perceptions of their supervisor's lis-tening ability, the level of understandingnessthe supervisor shows, and the general qualityof the supervisor's communication.

The research brie£lysummarized above sug-gests that basic communication patterns ofboth ~upervisors and employees impact em-ployee satisfaction. The present investiga-tion sought to expand our understanding ofthis relationship by examining the indepen-dent and interrelated impacts of managementcommunication style and both employee andsupervisor tolerance for disagreement on em-ployee satisfaction. The specific elementsstudied are outlined below.

Management Communication Style

The primary potential predictor of em-ployee satisfaction with which this investiga-tion was concerned was Management Com-munication Style (M CS ). Considerable in-terest in the notion of communicator stylehas been generated among researchers con-cerned with interpersonal communication andinstructional communication as a result of

the work of Norton and his colleagues (e.g.,

361

Norton, 1978). This body of research andtheory suggests that individuals develop ha-bitual patterns, or styles, of communicatingwith other. people and varying styles have amajor impact on the way people are per-ceived by others in their communication en-vironment. Corollary research to that ofNorton (1978) conducted within an organi-zational environment (e.g., Knutson & Lash-brook, 1976) has also been able to identifyclear-cut communication styles of organiza-tion members (although referred to in theseinvestigations as «social style") and attendantdifferential perceptions. Although theorydoes not explicitly suggest that such com-munication or social style patterns may varyacross contexts, the research reported to datehas focused on the individual within a givencontext (i.e. as a member of a dyad, as anemployee in an organization, as a teacher ina classroom), rather than tracing the indi-vidual's communication style across contexts.Research and theory concerning role behavior(e.g., Goffman, 1959), of course, explicitlysuggests that communication behavior pat-terns of individuals will vary across contexts.

The communication style of a supervisorwithin an organization, we believe, is a func-tion of both the management style imposedon the supervisor by the organization (orchosen by the supervisor within the parame-ters permitted by the organization) and thecommunication style of the individual super-visor which that individual brings to the or-ganizational context-hence our term MCS.We envision the supervisor's MCS to be rela-tively constant across time within a givenorganization, but it may change sharply ifthe individual moves into the context of an-

other organization or her or his own super-visor is changed.

The basic premise upon which this inves-tigation was based is that a supervisor's MCSdirectly impacts employees' perceptions ofboth the supervisor and the organization andas a consequence is one determinant of em-ployee satisfaction. Presuming the correct-

362 Communication Yearbook 3

ness of this premise, employee satisfactioncould be directly varied by altering the man-agement s,tyleof the organization or the selec-tion of a supervisor with a differing commu-nication style. This investigation was di-rected toward the crucial linkage in thistheory, that between MCS and employee sat-isfaction. Should this link be established,subsequent research involving intervention toalter MCS in an attempt to alter employeesatisfaction would be justified. The comple-tion of both research phases would permit afull test of our theoretical model. This studycentered on the first phase and the selectionfdevelopment of measures which can be em-ployed in both phases.

Central to the development of our MCS,construct and its operationalization (to bediscussed later) was the work of Tannen-baum and Schmidt (1958), the film Stylesof Leadership (1962) based upon this earlierwork, and the research of Sadler ( 1970) .Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) postulatea continuum of leadership orientations withinan organization from the extreme "boss cen-tered" to the extreme "subordinate centered:'As one moves from the first extreme to the

latter, the use of authority by the managerdecreases and the freedom for subordinates

increases. Although the original conceptuali-zation envisioned seven steps along the con-tinuum, both the Styles of Leadership film(1962) and Sadler (1970) removed appar-ently very close or overlapping steps to forma four-step continuum with the labels: Tell,Sell, Consult, and Join. An examination ofthese approaches will make the assumed re-lationship between management style andcommunication style explicit.

Tells. The manager who employs this stylehabitually makes decisions (or receives themfrom above) and announces them to subor-

dinates, with the expectation they will becarried out without challenge.

Communication: Primarily downward, uni-directional, and noninteractive. Questions

generally are accepted if they are concernedwith clarification or how the job is to be done.Inquiries questioning the desirability of thedecision are discouraged or even forbidden.Expressed concern for employees' satisfactior.is rare.

Sells. The manager employing this style alsomakes the decisions (or receives them fromabove), but rather than simply announcingthem to subordinates, the manager tries topersuade the subordinates of the desirabilityof the decisions.

Communication: Primarily, but not exclu-sively, downward; sometimes bi-directionaLand generally interactive. Questions areusually actively encouraged and challengesoften met openly with persuasive ~unter-arguments. Concern for employee satisfac-tion with decisions often is explicit.

COTl8Ults.The manager employing this stylealso makes the ultimate decisions, but not un-til the problem has been presented to thesubordinates and their advice, information,and suggestions have been obtained. Whilethe problem may emanate from above themanager, the decision does not.

Communication: Primarily upward, bi-di-rectional, and interactive. No adversary rela-tionship established, subordinates communi-cate with manager to help make best decisionand explore advantages aild disadvantages ofvarious options based on both the. needs ofthe employees and the organization. Em-ployee well-being is a specific criterion fordiscussion.

Joins. The manager employing this style doesdoes not make the decision, rather the author-

ity to make the decisions is delegated to thesubordinates, either in cooperation with themanager or in her or his absence. The man-ager defines the problem and indicates thelimits within which the decision must be

made. Typically, majority opinion will de-termine the decision after open discussion.

Communication: Primarily horizontal, somebi-directional, highly interactive. Manager

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 363

and subordinates communicate as equals ornear equals. Employee desires become aprimary criterion for decision making anddiscussion.

While the above approaches may appearcategorical, it should be stressed that theyreflect points on a continuum and few man-agers would be likely to operate at all timesat only one point. More likely would be ageneral tendency to operate at one point, butto have some yariability around that point.

An important implication of the above man-agement styles is the communication stylesthat are imposed by the management stylechosen. Clearly, if all decisions are madeabove a manager, he or she can only choosea Tell or Sell style, which would restrict thecommunication styles available for use. How-ever, if the manager is given a great deal ofautonomy, suggesting a Consult or Join styleabove, he or she has great flexibility in select-ing a MCS for interface with employees.Thus, as we noted previously, MCS is a func-tion both of a communication style preferenceof a manager and the management style im-posed on the manager from above.

Previous research by Sadler (1970) indi-cated that the subordinates he studied ex-

pressed a. clear preference for the Consultsand Sells styles and that employee satisfac-tion was greater under Consults, Joins, andSells than under the Tells style. Notably, inthe Sadler (1970) study, since he treated thefour styles as categories rather than pointson a continuum, a large number of subordi-nates were unable to classify the style underwhich they worked, and these were the leastsatisfied employees. This implies that con-sistency of MCS may be as important or evenmore important than where the MCS is onthe continuum in determining employee satis-faction. The above results suggest two hy-potheses that were tested in the present inves-tigation:

HI For employees who can consistentlyidentify the MCS under which theywork, employee satisfaction will in-

crease as a linear function of a moresubordinate-centered MCS.

Hz Employees who can consistently iden-tify the MCS under which they workwill be more satisfied than employeeswho cannot consistently identify theMCS under which they work.

Also, the following research question wasposed for this study:

QI Does either consistency of MCS orlevel of MCS account for more vari-ance in employee satisfaction than theother?

Tolerance for Disagreement

The construct of Tolerance for Disagree-ment was recently formulated by Knutson,McCroskey, Knutson, and Hurt (1978).Based upon earlier work in the area of con-flict resolution and management, this con-struct was advanced to explain why someindividuals are prone to become involved inconflict situations while others are not. Usingthe definition of Disagreement as "a differ-ence of opinion on substantive or proceduralmatters," and the definition of Conflict as"disagreement plus negative interpersonal af-fect," Knutson et al. (1978) s.peculated thatthe likelihood of conflict in a dyad or organi-zation increases as a function of either lowtolerance for disagreement among one or allparticipants, or a low degree of positive af-fect among two or more of the participants.From this perspective, conflict is viewed ina negative light (leading to dissatisfactionwith .the conflict-generating environment) butdisagreement is viewed as positive unless ei-ther tolerance for disagreement is low orpositive affect is low.

While the Knutson et al. (1978) formula-tion is at present more definitional and de-scriptive than theoretical, and little empiricalwork with the formulation has been reported,it provides a potentially important interfacewith our MCS conceptualization. Some Man-agement Communication Styles obviously en-


courage more interaction and disagreementover substantive and procedural questionsthan do other styles. Thus, it is not unrea-sonable to suspect that a Tells MCS might bemore functional for an individual with a low

tolerance for disagreement while a Joins MCSmight be more functional for an individualwith a high tolerance for disagreement,whether the individual be a manager or asubordinate. Hence, the following researchquestions were posed for this investigation:

Q2 Is employee tolerance for disagreement(ETD) correlated with employee sat-isfaction?

Q3 Is the employees' perception of themanager's tolerance for disagreement(MTD) correlated with employee sat-isfaction?

Q4 Do either ETD or MTD increase thepredictability of employee satisfactionwhen MCS is controlled?

The final question, of course, is concernedwith whether ETD or MTD contribute uniqueexplained variance in employee satisfactionas opposed to being redundant measurement.Employees may distort MTD on the basis ofthe MCS under which thev work or distort

their perception of MCS 'because of theirETD level. Question 4 seeks to partial outthese possible biases.

Innovativeness

Two additional variables were introduced

into this investigation because of the strongassociation with employee satisfaction thathas been reported for both in a previousstudy (Hurt & Teigen, 1977). These werethe self-reported innovativeness of the em-ployees and the employee's perceptions ofthe innovativeness of the organizations inwhich they were working. Hurt and ,Teigen( 1977) report significant correlations of thefollowing magnitude between perceived in-novativeness of the organization and em-ployee satisfaction dimensions: supervision,.77; promotions, .62; co-workers, .58, and pay,

.16. They also report a significant correla-tion of .78 between employee satisfaction withtheir own work and their own innovativeness.

Since these correlations represent unusuallyhigh variance accounted for in employee sat-isfaction (much higher than in other studieswe have surveyed, except those with clearlyredundant measurement, e.g. perceptions ofsupervisor and supervisor satisfaction in Fal-clone et aI., 1977), it was felt desirable todetermine whether innovativeness was re-dundant with any of the primary variablesunder study or if unique variance could beaccounted for by both innovativeness and ourselected predictors.

The following research questions wereposed:

Q5 Do employees' perceptions of an orga-nization's innovativeness increase the

predictability of employee satisfactionwhen MCS, ETD, and MTD are con-trolled?

Qa Do employees' self-reports of innova-tiveness increase the predictability ofemployee satisfaction when MCS, ETD,and MID are controlled?

Since it was thought likely that organizationsthat spawn more subordinate-centered MCSin their managers would be more likely tobe perceived by employees as innovative, itwas suspected the Hurt and Teigen (1977)results may simply be an indirect indicant ofthe relationship between MCS and employeesatisfaction. In addition, it was consideredpossible that more innovative employees maygravitate to organizations that spawn moresubordinate-centered MCS in their managers,and thus again the innovativeness findingsmay simply be an indirect indicant of therelationship between MCS and employeesatisfaction.

METHOD

Measurement

The following instruments were employedto measure the variables included in this in-

vestigation:


Employee Satisfaction-Single-Factor Model.Two instruments were constructed to meas-

ure employee satisfaction assuming a one-dimensional satisfaction response. The firstwas an indirect measure composed of threeitems. These items inquired as to how will-ing the employee would be to move to a sim-ilar position in another organization for whichthe salary was (1) the same, (2) somewhathigher, and (3) somewhat lower. Since thesubjects were public school teachers, theywere asked "How willing would you be to

. move to a new position in another schooldistrict ".. . " under each of the salary condi-tions. A seven-point response option rangingfrom very unwilling to very willing was pro-vided for each item. Face validity is sug-gested for this measure in that it was assumedthat people who are most satisfied would beleast likely to move and people least satisfiedwould be most likely to move. The obtainedinternal reliability of this instrument, basedon the Nunnally method (1967), was .70.

The second instrument designed to meas-ure employee satisfaction within a one-dimen-sional context was composed of two seven-point, bi-polar scales. Subjects were askedto indicate "How do you feel about your cur-rent position?" on the two scales. One scaleranged from satisfied to not satisfied, theother ranged from dissatisfied to not dissat-isfied.. The subjects completed the instrumenttwice, which permitted computation of test-retest reliability. The estimated reliabilitywas .87. Since the score used for analyseswas the sum of the two total scores obtainedin the two administrations of the instrument,the estimated internal reliability for the scoreemployed was .92.

Employee Satisfacticn-Two-Factor Model.The instrument developed to measure em-ployee satisfaction within a two-dimensionalcontext was an adaptation of the instrumentdescribed above to directly measure satisfac-tion. The "satisfaction" dimension was mea-

sured by the seven-point, bi-polar scale rang-ing From satisfied to not satisfied. The «dis-

365

satisfaction" dimension was measured by theseven-point, bi-polar scale ranging from dis-satisfied to not dissatisfied. Since the instru-

ment was administered twice, it was possibleto compute test-retest reliabilities. Those ob-tained were .86 for satisfaction and .79 fordissatisfaction. Since the scores employed inthe data analyses were the sums from the twoadministrations, the internal reliabilities forthe two dimension scores were estimated tobe .92 for satisfaction and .88 for dissatis-faction.

Employee Satisfaction - Multiple-FactorModel. In order to measure employee satis-faction according to this model, the Job De-scriptive Index (JDI) developed by Smithet a!., (1969) was administered. The JDI in-cludes five dimensions pertaining to work,pay, promotions, co-workers, and supervision.This instrument has been found to be reliableand to have factoral stability in previous stud-ies (Smith et a!., 1969; Falcione et a!., 1977;Hurt & Teigen, 1977). In the present studyfactoral stability was maintained and, afterdropping items with lower than a .50 item-total correlation with the appropriate dimen-sion score, the following split-half (odd-even) reliabilities were obtained: supervi-sion, .92; work, .80; pay, .86; promotions, .80;and co-workers, .85. A total of fourteen ofthe seventy-two items were deleted. Mostof these had clear face-validity problems inthe organizational context in which this studywas conducted and had been found to have

poor factor loadings in a previous study witha similar population (Falcione et aI., 1977).

Management Communication Style. TheMCS scale was developed for this study. Itis a 19-point continuum, ranging from Tell(which is scored 10), through Sell (scored16), through Consult (scored 22), to Join(scored 28). Five steps are present betweeneach identified point on the continuum: Tell11 12 13 14 15 Sell; Sell 17 18 19 20 21Consult; and Consult 23 24 25 26 27 Jain.

. Subjects are simply asked to circle the MCS


under which they are working. This instru-ment is believed to be an improvement overthat employed by Sadler (1970). He forcedhis subjects to select one of the four identifiedpoints on the continuum or to be recordedas unable to determine the style. The pre-sent scale allows subjects to record positionson the continuum that represent a mixture ofMCS and thus more realistically representsthe underlying theoretical continuum.

In order for the scale to be usable, thesubjects had to be instructed concerning itsmeaning. Since the subjects, although full-time employees of a wide variety of schooldistricts in several states, were students in agraduate-level course on communication ineducational organizations, this instruction wasan integral part of the course. The Tannen-baum and Schmidt (1958) conceptualizationwith the Sadler ( 1970) modifications wasthoroughly explained, exemplified, and dis-cussed. Then the subjects were asked to com-plete the scale. They were asked to completethe scale again the following class periodwith no further discussion. The obtained

test-retest reliability f9r the scale was .85.Since the sum of the scores from the two ad-

ministrations of the measure was employedfor most analyses, the internal reliability of thesummed score was estimated to be .92.

Tolerance for Disagreement. The Toler-ance for Disagreement scale developed byKnutson, et aI., ( 1978 ) was employed tomeasure the employees' tolerance for disa-greement (ETD). The items were rewordedto represent perceived responses of anotherperson in order to create a measure of per-ceived tolerance for disagreement of the man-ager (MTD). For example, the item "I en-joy arguing with other people" was changedto "He/ she enjoys arguing with other people,"and "I do not like to disagree with. otherpeople" was changed to "He/she does notlike to disagree with other people." Theobtained split-half (odd-even) reliability forthe ETD scale was .90 and that for the MTDscale was also .90.

Innovativeness. The measure of the em-

ployee's innovativeness used in this study wasthe 20-item Innovativeness Scale (IS) devel-oped by Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977).Previous reports have indicated high reliabil-ity and a strong case for the validity of thisscale (Hurt et al., 1977). In the presentstudy the internal reliability estimate (split-half, odd-even) was .93.

The measure of perceived innovativenessof the organization in which the subject wasworking used in this study was the PerceivedOrganizational Innovativeness Scale' (PORGI)developed by Hurt and Teigen (1977). This25-item instrument has been found to haveexcellent reliability and both construct andpredictive validity (Hurt & Teigen, 1977).In the present study the internal reliabilityestimate (split-half, odd-even) was .97.

Data Coll£ction

Subjects were 183 public school, elemen-tary and secondary, teachers (130 female, 44male, 9 did not record their sex) representing39 school districts in Maryland, Ohio, Penn-sylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Partici-pation was a result of being enrolled in agraduate class (five different course~ offeredin five different areas, enrollment voluntary)entitled, "Communication in the EducationalOrganization." Subjects were asked to C9m-plete the JDI, Willingness to Move, ETD,MTD, IS, and PORGI scales during the firstclass period before any content had been dis-cussed. The two-factor employee satisfactionscales were administered twice during themiddle of the course. Instruction relating toMCS occurred at the end of the second thirdof the course, thus the MCS scale was ad-ministered on two successive class days atthat time.

All subject responses were anonymous. Toinsure anonymity, subjects were assigned ran-dom code numbers known only to themselves.They recorded their code numbers on eachscale which permitted merging the data foranalyses.


Data Analyses

The first step in the data analyses was theexamination of the measuring instruments forreliability and factoral stability. The ob-tained reliabilities were reported above. Thedimensionality of the JDI was consistent withprevious research. The tolerance for dis-agreement (ETD, MID) measures and theinnovativeness measures (IS, PORGI) weresingle-factored.

The next step in the analysis of the dataW:,lsdirected toward testing the two researchhypotheses. Each satisfaction variable wasanalyzed separately. Subjects were dividedinto two groups on the basis of the way theyresponded to the MCS scale on the two oc-casions. Those subjects who recorded thesame MCS score on both administrations of

the measure, or scored within two pointshigher or lower on the second administration,were classified as "consistent." Those who

scored more than two points higher or loweron the second administration were classified

as "inconsistent." Only twenty-three subjectsfell into the latter category. Separate single-classification analyses of variance were per-formed on each satisfaction measure with

level of consistency serving as the independ-ent variable. This provided a series of testsof the second hypothesis. To test the firsthypothesis, a series. of univariate correlationswere computed, with MCS scores (based ona total'score from the two administrations of

the measure) serving in each case as thepredictor variable and the various measuresof satisfaction serving successively as criterionvariables. Separate correlations were com-puted using only the data from subjects classi-fied as "consistent" above, and using all of thesubjects regardless of consistency classifica-tion. Determining an answer to the first re-search question was possible by comparingthe results of these three sets of analyses.

In an effort to provide answers to the sec-ond and third research questions, a series ofunivariate correlations were computed withtolerance for disagreement (ETD, MTD )

serving as the predictor variable and the vari-ous measures of satisfaction serving succes-sivelv as criterion variables. To answer the

fourth resea!ch question, a series of multipleregression analyses were conducted with thevarious measures of satisfaction serving suc-cessively as criterion variables. In each casethe sequential analysis results were examined,with MCS entered as the first predictor, MTDthe second, and ETD the third.

The final research questions, questions 5and 6, were examined by a series of multipleregression analyses similar to those notedabove, except that the relevant innovativenessscore (IS, PORGI) was entered as the finalpredictor following MCS, MTD, and ETD.

The alpha level set for significance of alltests, including tests of sequentially orderedpredictors in the multiple regression analyses,was .05. Several additional tests designed toinvestigate possible nonlinear relationshipsfailed to indicate the presence of nonlinearityin any case. Consequently, these analyses willnot be reported here.

RESULTS

The analyses of variance based upon theconsistency classification with the varioussatisfaction dependent variables (the 5 JDIdimension scores, willingness to move, generalone-dimensional satisfaction, and the two-dimensional dissatisfaction and satisfaction

scores) all produced nonsignificant results.The F-ratio in every case was less than 1.0.In short, no relationship between consistencyof MCS perception and any measure of satis-faction was found.

The results of the two series of correlations

(consistent subjects, all subjects) betweenMCS and satisfaction were virtually identical.Thus,- only the results involving all subjectswill be considered here. These results are

reported in Table 1. As noted in Table 1, MCSwas significantly correlated \vith the supervi-sion, work, and promotion dimensions of themultiple-factor satisfaction model, with boththe satisfaction and dissatisfaction dimensions


*MCS=Management Communication Style; MTD=Tolerance for Disagreement of

Supervisor; ETD=Tolerance for Disagreement of Employee; IS=Innovative-ness Scale; PORGI=Perceived Organizational Innovativeness.

**Statistically significant, alpha= .05.

of the two-factor mode~ and the willingnessto move and general satisfaction scores of thesingle-factor model. No significant relation-ships were found between MCS and the payor co-worker dimensions of the multiple-factormodel.

The results of the correlational analyses in-volving tolerance for disagreement (MTD,ETD) and employee satisfaction are also dis-played in Table 1. Tolerance for Disagree-ment of the subjects' immediate supervisor wassignificantly related to all measures of em-ployee satisfaction except the promotions di-mension in the multiple-factor model. Theresults on the Tolerance For Disagreement ofthe employees (subjects) were almost the exact

reverse. The only significant relationship wasbetween ETD and the co-worker dimension of

the multiple-factor model.The results of the multiple regression analy-

ses, based upon the sequential sums of squares,are displayed in Table 2. The over all modelswere significant in every case (p. <.05). Thevariance in satisfaction predicted by the totalmodel and each individual predictor sequen-tially entered into the model are noted in Table2. Examination of the results indicate gener-ally that adding the scores representing theperceived tolerance for disagreement of thesupervisor (MTD) into the predictive equa-tion increased predictable variance in satisfac-tion, while entering employee tolerance for

TABLE 1

Univariate CorrelationsBetween Predictor Variables and Employee Satisfaction--Predictor Variable*

SatisfactionCriterion MCS MTD ETD IS PORGI

Single-Factor

Willingness to Move -.15** -.17** -.05 -.02 -.11General Satisfaction .32** .29** .01 .12 .15**

Two-Factor

Satisfaction .27** .28** .03 .16**. .13

Dissatisfaction -.25** -.16** .03 -.04 -.12

Multiple-Factor

Supervision .46** .35** .01 .22** .45**Work .28** .25** -.07 .31** .09

Pay .10 .15** .05 -.14** .31**Promotions .17** -.02 -.02 -.11 .23**Co-Workers .10 .22** -.16** .05 .05


TABLE 2Variance Attributable to Individual Predictors and Total Models for

Multiple-Regression on Employee Satisfaction

*Including variance of all predictors. Total may not equal sum of

individual predictors due to rounding error.

**Only variance attributable to statistically significant predictorsis reported. .

disagreement (ETD) generally did not. Enter-ing innovativeness scores (IS, PORGI) intothe equations relating to the single-factor andtwo-factor operationalizations of satisfactionfailed to explain additional variance. How-ever, entering innovativeness scores did in-crease explained variance in four of the fivedimensions of the multiple-factor operational-ization of satisfaction.

Tables 3 and 4 report subsidiary correla-tional analyses among predictor and criterionvariables, respectively. A comparison ofTables 1 and 2, magnitude of correlation vs.variance accounted for, suggests some colinear-ity amonr! predictors. This is further indicated

in Table 3 and will be considered in the follow-

ing section. The correlations among criterionvariables indicated in Table 4 suggest mean-ingful, but not always high, associations amongthe single-, two-, and multiple-factor ap-proaches to employee satisfaction. This willalso be considered in the following section.

DISCUSSION

The first hypothesis posed for this investiga-tion predicted that for employees who canconsistently identify the MCS under whichthey work, employee satisfaction will increaseas a linear function of a more subordinate-

centered MCS. This hypothesis received sup- .

Predictor Variable

Satisfaction TotalCriterion MCS MTD ETD IS PORGI Models*

Single-Factor

Willingness to Move .02 .04 ** -- -- .07

General Satisfaction .11 .06 -- -- -- .19

Two-Factor

Satisfaction .08 .06 -- -- -- .15

Dissatisfaction .06 -- -- -- -- .09

Multiple-Factor

Supervision .21 .08 -- .04 .08 .40Work .08 .06 .02 .09 -- .25

Pay -- .02 -- .02 .11 .16Promotions .03 -- -- -- .04 .08

Co-Workers -- .05 .03 -- -- .09

'370 Communication Yearbook 3

* Statistically significant, alpha = .05.

port within both operationalizations of thesingle-factor approach to satisfaction, both,operationalizations of the two-factor approach,and three of the five operationalizations of themultiple-factor approach. Thus the primarytest of our underlying theoretical model issupported, regardless of which particular ap-proach to employee satisfaction one chooses tooperationalize. As might be expected, Man-agement Communication Style has its largestimpact (in terms of variance accounted for,see Table 2) on employee satisfaction withsupervision. The importance of this findingis reinforced by the fact that (as noted inTable 4) satisfaction with supervision was theonly satisfaction operationalization that wasfound to be significantly correlated with everyother operationaHzation. Supervision, then,appears to be central to employee satisfaction,and Management Communication Style ap-pears to be a very significant predictor ofsatisfaction with supervision. A subordinate-centered MCS appears to lead to increasedemployee satisfaction.

Our second hypothesis received no support,

subjects who consistently identified the MCSunder which they worked did not differ insatisfaction from subjects who could not con-sistently identify the MCS under which theyworked. This finding challenges the conclu-sions from the previous research reported bySadler (1970). Itwill be recalled that Sadler

( 1970) did not permit his subjects to identifythe leadership style (analogous to our MCS)of their superiors on a continuum. Rather,they were forced to choose among five cate-gories-telL sell, consult, join or none of these.Thus, subjects working under a combined tell.sell MCS (as was reported by many of oursubjects) would be forced to mark «none ofthese" on the Sadler (1970) instrume~t Itwould appear, therefore, that the Sadler find-ing was an artifact of the instrument he em-ployed.

Because of the findings related to our secondhypothesis, the answer to our first researchquestion is clear, level of MCS accounts for

. significantly more variance in employee satis-faction than consistency of MCS, since thelatter accounted for no signifiCant variance.This finding suggests that a supervisor canvary her or his MCS according to situationalrequirements without running a high risk ofreducing employee satisfaction. Employeesappear to be able to construct a gestalt percep-tion of MCS under such variation, and this

gestalt perception is meaningfully associ,atedwith their satisfaction. Of course, the more

that gestalt approaches a highly interactive,employee-centered MCS, the more satisfactionwe should expect.

The results of the correlational analyses jn-volving tolerance for disagreement and em-ployee satisfaction provide clear answers toour second and third research questions. Em-ployee tolerance for disagreement was notmeaningfully associated with most of the cri-terion variables. ETD was significantly relatedonly to satisfaction with co-workers. Thesupervisor's perceived tolerance for disagree-ment, on the other hand, was significantlyrelated to all but one of the satisfaction opera-tionalizations. MTD was not significantlyassociated with satisfaction with promotions.

The results of the multiple regression analy-ses involving tolerance for disagreement alsoprovide a clear answer to our fourth researchquestion. When MCS was controlled, MTDincreased the predictability of employee satis-

TABLE 3

Correlations Among Predictor Variables

MCS MTD ETD IS PORGI

MCS LOa .20* .03 .23* .34*

MTD .20* LOa .20* .02 .16*

ETD .03 .20* 1.00 .11 .07

IS .23* .02 .11 1.00 -.06

PORGI .34* .16* .07 -.06 1.00


TABLE 4

Correlations Among Criterion Variables

SP W PY PR DC WM GS S

* Statistically significant, alpha = .05.

faction on all criterion variables except dis-satisfaction (in the two-factor model) andsatisfaction with promotions. . ETD increasedpredictability only for the work and co-work-ers dimensions of the multiple-factor model.Tolerance for disagreement, then, improvedthe predictability of employee satisfaction inevery case, but in most instances MTD was themeaningful contributor rather than ETD. Itis clear that the new construct of tolerance

for disagreement deserves attention from fu-ture researchers concerned with communica-

tion in the organizational environment.The results of the multiple regression analy-

ses which added innovativeness scores into the

predictive equations present a conflicting pat-tern of results pertaining to our fifth and sixthresearch questions. Neither IS nor PORGIincreased the predictable variance for em-ployee. satisfaction under either the one-factoror two-factor models of satisfaction. However,under the multiple-factor model, employee in-novativeness (IS) signiflcantly increased thepredictable variance on the supervision, work,and pay dimensions, with IS being the singlebest predictor on the work dimension. Theinnovativeness of the organization (PORGI)increased the predictable variance on thesupervision, pay and promotions dimensions,with PORGI being the best single predictoron both the pay and promotions dimensions.No definitive answer to our research questions

seems possible at this point. Rather it seemsnecessary to conclude that innovativeness isassociated with employee satisfaction, but thatrelationship must receive additional researchfocus before we can determine its exact nature.

An additional point must be made in thisregard. Even though our measures of innova-tiveness were exactly the same as those em-ployed in the Hurt and Teigen (1977) re-search, our JDI scales virtually identical, andthe subjects were drawn .from the same em-ployee population, the correlations we ob-tained were, in some cases, drastically differ-

.ent. Table 5 displays both sets of correlations.Clearly, our replication provides results whichdiffer meaningfully from the original study.Because of these sharp differences, it wouldseem unwise to draw any firm conclusions atthis point concerning the relationship betweeninnovativeness and employee satisfaction.

The supplementary analyses of our data (re-ported in Tables 3 and 4) provide informationthat deserves comment. MCS was found to bemeaningfully associated with all of our otherpredictor variables except employee tolerancefor disagreement. In particular, as MCS be-comes more employee-centered, the organiza-tion is perceived to be more innovative andthe supervisor is perceived to be more tolerantof disagreement. Both of these correlationsseem intuitively appropriate and suggestive ofa causal pattern. It is reasonable to argue

Supervision (SP) 1.00 .35* .20* .24* .16* -.19* .42* .40* -.31*Work (W) .35* 1.00 .04 -.05 .24* -.24* .39't .40* -.34*

Pay (PY) .20* .04 1.00 .18* -.04 -.10 .04 .04 .00Promotions (PR) .24* -.05 .18* 1.00 -.08 -.04 .18* .20* -.11Co-Workers (C) .16* .24* -.04 -.08 1.00 -.04 .05 .00 -.10Willingness to Move (WM) -.19* -.24* -.10 -.04 -.04 1.00 -.47* -.43* .40*

General Satisfaction (GS) .42* .39* .04 .18* .05 -.47* 1.00 .91* -.89*Satisfaction (S) .40* .40* .04 .20* .00 -.43* .91* 1.00 -.62*

Dissatisfaction (D) -.31* -.34* .00 -.11 -.10 .40* -.89* -.62* 1.00


TABLE 5

Correlations Between Innovations and Employee Satisfaction-Two Studies

* p <.05** Variance accounted for.

that MCS could cause such modifications in

perceptions of both the organization and thesupervisor. On the other hand, the significantrelationship between MCS and employee in-novativeness is more difficult to explain.Neither can logically be expected to cause theother. However, it is quite possible that in-novative employees seek employment in organ-izations where employee-centered MCS isprevalent andf or that employee-centered em-ployers seek to employ innovative individuals.In any event, it is clear that MCS, MTD, IS,and PORGI are not completely independentpredictors of employee satisfaction. Morelikely, they all function in an interrelatedsystem.

An examination of the correlations displayedin Table 4, as well as a comparison of ourfindings reported in Tables 1 and 2, indicatethat our various operationalizations' .of em-ployee satisfaction are not highly redundant(with the exception of the inflated relationshipbetween one of our one-factor measures and

our two-factor measures produced by usingportions of subject responses to calculate two

scores). Which operationalization of satisfac-tion one would choose to employ could greatlyimpact the interpretation of our hypothesesand results. There is considerable need for aresolution of the conceptual confusion sur-rounding the employee satisfaction constructin the literature. Comparisons among studiesusing differing operationalizations is difficultenough, but when the studies differ on boththe conceptualization and the operationaliza-tion, such comparison is futile. For the pres-ent, we strongly encourage other researchersto employ the approach we have chosen in thisstudy-multiple conceptualization and opera-tionalization. In this way it will be increas-ingly possible to integrate the findings ofstudies in order to build theory concerningcommunication in organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the results of this study and theinterpretations discussed above, several con-clusions are warranted. First, it is clear that

Management Communication Style can be con-

Innovativeness Satisfaction Dimension.

Score Supervision Promotion Work Co-Workers Pay

PORGI

Hurt & Teigen .77* .62* .05 .58* .16*(.59)** ( .38) ( .34) ( .02)

Present Study .45* .23* .09 .05 .31*(.20) (.05) (.10)

IS

Hurt & Teigen .01 .02 .78* .02 .01( .61)

Present Study .22* -.11 .31* .05 -.14*( .05) ( .10) (.02)


sistently and reliably measured, and that sucha measure should be based on a continuum

(as our MCS measure in this study) ratherthan on categorical points on that continuum.Second, is is clear that, regardless of the satis-faction operationalization chosen, MCS isdirectly and meaningfully linked to satisfac-tion. As MCS becomes more employee-cen-tered and interactive, satisfaction increases.\Vhile this study merely demonstrates a corre-lation among these variables, a causal patternis implied and research involving interventionto alter MCS is clearly indicated. Finally, thefip.dings of this investigation suggest that thenew construct of tolerance for disagreementmay be very meaningful \vithin the organiza-tional context. Future research employingthis construct should prove fruitful, particu-larly as it relates to the prevention of manage-ment of conflict between supervisors and sub-ordinates.

REFERENCES

ARGYRIS, C. Integrating the individual and theorganization. New York: Wiley, 1964.

EWEN, RB., SMITH, p.e., HULIN, C.L., & LOCKE,E.A. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factortheory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50,544-550.

FALCIONE, RL. Communication climate and sat-isfaction with immediate supervision. Journal atApplied Communication, 1974, 2, 13-20.

FALCIONE, R.L., McCROSKEY, J.C., & DALY,J.A. Job satisfaction as a fWlCtion of employees'communication apprehension,. self-esteem, andperceptions of. their immediate supervisors. InB.D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook I.New Brunswick: Transaction-International Com-munication Association, 1977, 363-375.

FRIEDLANDER, F. Relationships between theimportance and the satisfaction of various environ-mental factors. Journal of Applied psychology,1965, 49, 160-164.

GOFFMAN, E. The presentation of self in everydaylife. New York: Anchor, 1959.

GRAEN, G.B. Testing traditional and two-factorhypotheses concerning job satisfaction. Journalof Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 366-371.

HACK1IAN, J.R, & LAWLER, E.E. Employeereactions to job characteristics. (~Ionograph)Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286.

373

HERZBERG, F., MAUSNER, B., & SNYDERMAN,B. The motivation to work, 2nd Ed. New York:Wiley, 1959.

HERZBERG, F. Work and the nature of man.Cleveland: World, 1966.

HI:\"RICHS, J:R, & :\nSCHKIND, L.A. Empiricaland theoretical limitations of the two-factor hypo-thesis of job satisfaction. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1967, 51, 191-200.

HURT, H.T., JOSEPH, K., & COOK, C.D. Scalesfor the measurement of innovativeness. HumanCommunication Research, 1977, 4, 58-65.

HURT, H.T., & TEIGEN, C.W. The developmentof a measure of perceived organizational innova.tiveness. In B.D. Ruben (Ed.). CommunicationYearbook I. New Brunswick: Transaction-Inter-national Communication Association, 1977, 377-385.

KL.'iG, N. Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. PsychologicalBulletin, 1970, 74, 18-31.

KNUTSON, P.K., & LASHBROOK, W.B. Commu-nication apprehension as an antecedent to socialstyle. Paper presented to the Speech Communica-tion Association Convention, San Francisco, 1976.

KNUTSON, P.K., McCROSKEY, J.C., KNUTSON,T., & HURT, H. Tolerance for disagreement:Interpersonal conflict reconceptualized. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Convention of the WesternSpeech Communication, Los Angeles, 1979.

LOCKE, E.A. Nature and causes of job satisfaction.In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrialand organizational psychology. Chicago: RandMcNally, 1976.

NORTON, R.W. Foundation of a communicator styleconstruct. Human Communication Research, 1978,4, 99-112.

NUNNALLY, J. Psychometric theory. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967.

ROETHLISBERGER, F.J. & DICKSON, W.J. Man-agement and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press, 1939.

SADLER, P.J. Leadership style, confidence in man-agement, and job satisfaction. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 1970, 6, 3-19.

SMITH, P.C., KENDALL, L.M., & HULIN, C.L.The measurement of satisfaction in work and re-tirement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Styks of kadership. 16mm film. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Roundtable Productions, 1962.

TA..,\;NENBAUM, R., & SCHMIDT, W.H. How tochoose a leadership pattern. Harvard BusinessRet;iew, 1958, 36, 95-101.

\VOLF, M.G. The relationship of content and con-text factors to attitudes toward company and job.Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20, 121-132.

Documents

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE, TOLERANCE FOR DISAGREEMENT ... · PDF fileMANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE, TOLERANCE FOR DISAGREEMENT, ... dimension represents a separate ... Management