Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesCommunication Direction
Communication direction refers to the vertical and horizontal movement of information within the organization (Farace et al., 1977). Typically, supervisor-employee communication research has considered only the effects of unidirectional communication (Dansereau and Markham, 1987), namely horizontal communication downward from the more powerful supervisor to the less powerful employee. Bidirectional communication occurs when information and influence flows both upward and downward within the organization--from the supervisor to the employee as well as from the employee to the supervisor. Jablin (1979) concluded that two-way communication is essential for effective supervisor-employee relations. Supervisors who utilize bidirectional communication not only provide information and influence to their employees but also actively solicit and consider employee input and are more likely to acknowledge and consider employee comments, feedback, and information.
Unfortunately, no studies describing the relations between communication direction and ambiguity were found. However, employees who receive greater amounts of feedback (Teas et al., 1979; Teas, 1983; Walker et al, 1975) and who are able to provide significant work-related input (Tanner et al., 1993; Oliver and Anderson, 1994) experience decreased ambiguity. Singh (1993) reports that supervisor feedback is negatively related to all facets of boundary spanner ambiguity. While bidirectional communication is not the same as feedback, as it requires supervisors to provide information and influence while also soliciting and responding to the employee's input, its association with role ambiguity should be similar. Therefore, the final hypothesis proposes that:
H4: Increased manager/boundary spanner bidirectional communication flows are negatively related to boundary spanner ambiguity regarding (a) customers, (b) the supervisor, (c) other managers, (d) promotion, and (e) ethical situations.
MEASURES, SAMPLES, AND ANALYSIS
Starting from the operational definition of each communication characteristic, an initial pool of scale items was developed. These items were reviewed by a group of academicians familiar with the research project and subsequently revised. Next, the revised items were pre-tested upon a group of five supervisors and 30 employees who reviewed the items, suggested changes in their wording, and completed the questionnaire form. From these results, the final questionnaire form was developed and distributed. Employees were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 10 items regarding their supervisor's communication practices using seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The ambiguity facets were measured using 16 items adapted from the MULTIRAM scale (Singh and Rhoads, 1991) and employed the same seven-point scale used for communication facets. Table 1 reports the measurement characteristics for each construct in the study and Appendix 1 contains the specific items used.
Data used to test these exploratory hypotheses were collected from two groups of boundary spanning employees. The first sample consisted of professional salespeople employed by one of six different firms. Sales managers for each firm were contacted and the purpose of the study explained to them. In return for a summary of the findings, several managers agreed to distribute questionnaire packets (consisting of a letter from the researchers explaining the study and requesting the salesperson's participation, a survey booklet, and a stamped return envelope) to their salespeople. 438 packets were distributed and 318 usable responses were received (73% response rate).
Because there is considerable variability in the work environment and tasks of boundary spanning employees, as well as to broaden the generalizability of the research findings and identify any different effects of supervisor communication practices, a second group of internally situated boundary spanning employees was also utilized. The second group consisted of customer-contact service personnel employed by a national home services firm. Following the same procedure as described above, 150 questionnaire packets were distributed and 135 usable questionnaire forms were received (90% response rate). Table 2 provides the demographic characteristics of both sets of respondents.
Once all the completed questionnaire forms were returned, the unidimensionality of each construct was established via confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.10. Coefficient alpha for each construct was computed and found to exceed 0.70, indicating acceptable scale reliability. Next, one-at-a-time chi-square tests for discrimination between all constructs were conducted, which indicated sufficient discrimination between all the constructs used in this study. This result suggests that employees perceive each communication and ambiguity construct uniquely and thus supports the use of multiple dimensions of both communication and ambiguity. Finally, the mean value of each of the communication and ambiguity characteristics from each group was compared. These mean tests were conducted in order to determine if the two groups experience significantly different levels of communication and ambiguity and thus could be examined separately. The two groups differ on eight of the nine variables (the sole exception bei ng communication frequency) and thus examining them separately is appropriate.
Based upon these findings, the four communication characteristics were regressed upon each of the five facets of ambiguity for both employee groups. To control for the employee's tenure with the organization, which could account for much of the employee's ambiguity, years of experience was included in each regression equation. The degree of multicollinearity between all constructs is well within acceptable limits (VIF ranged from 1.00 to 3.11), thereby allowing distinct interpretations of the association between each communication characteristic and ambiguity facet. The results of the data analysis are illustrated in Table 3 and are described in the next section.
RESULTS
The general hypothesis motivating this exploratory research is that supervisor communication practices are associated with reduced employee role ambiguity. However, this research utilizes multiple dimensions of both communication and ambiguity to provide a more complete description of the relations between these variables. In the salesperson sample, 12 of the 20 specific hypotheses (60%) cannot be rejected. In the customer-contact service employee sample, six of the 20 specific hypotheses (30%) cannot be rejected. Consequently, managers and researchers have been provided with a more detailed description of the relations between supervisor communication practices and facets of boundary spanner ambiguity than would have been available if single dimensions of each construct had been used.
Communication Frequency
Frequency of supervisor/salesperson communication is negatively related to the amount of salesperson ambiguity regarding customers, other managers, promotion, and ethical situations. Therefore, for the salesperson sample, Hypotheses 1a, 1c-e [1] cannot be rejected. Frequency of communication is not associated with salesperson ambiguity regarding the supervisor and for this sample Hypothesis 1b is rejected. Frequency of supervisor/customer service employee communication is not related to any facet of ambiguity. Thus, Hypotheses 1a-e are rejected for customer service employees.
Greater amounts and duration of communication between the supervisor and salespeople is a powerful means to combat salesperson ambiguity simply because it affords greater opportunities to obtain information relevant to his/her work experiences. For example, supervisors who interact with their salespeople more frequently are better able to share information and knowledge about customers, other managers, etc. As customers represent the focus of the salesperson's efforts, reducing this source of ambiguity may ultimately lead to greater salesperson job performance and satisfaction. Likewise, reducing the amount of salesperson ambiguity regarding other managers, promotion, and ethical situations may be associated with increased salesperson job satisfaction (Rhoads et al., 1994). While customer service employees do not communicate with their supervisor significantly less than do salespeople, communication frequency is not associated with any form of customer service employee uncertainty. Therefore, frequency of su pervisor communication appears to be an effective managerial communication practice with externally situated salespeople but not with internally situated employees.
Communication Mode
Informal supervisor/salesperson communication mode is negatively related to salesperson ambiguity regarding the supervisor and Hypo thesis 2b cannot be rejected. However, Hypotheses 2a, and 2c-e are rejected as informal communication mode is not associated with salesperson ambiguity regarding customers, other managers, promotion, or ethical situations. Informal supervisor/customer service communication mode is not related to any facet of customer service employee ambiguity and Hypotheses 2a-e are rejected for this sample. As a result, there does not appear to be a significant benefit to supervisors in emphasizing informal modes of communication over less demanding and time-consuming formal modes. Supervisors should therefore feel comfortable utilizing group meetings and memos for the majority of their day-to-day interactions with employees while saving verbal, face-to-face interactions for special circumstances such as performance reviews, coaching sessions and other times that the manager feels individual i nteractions with an employee are warranted. This finding is somewhat surprising as managers are usually encouraged to emphasize informal communication modes. However, communication mode may instead be directly associated with improved employee job satisfaction, performance, and/or organizational commitment (Marrett et al., 1975; Muchinsky, 1977).
FEED