This research report compares three differing explanations of the
dynamic interrelationships between internal and external
innovation-related communication in a new organizational form. In the
functional specialization explanation, individuals are said to focus on
the mix of internal and/or external communication dictated by their
formal positions. The communication stars explanation suggests that
individuals maintain similar levels of communication in both networks.
The cyclical model posits a more dynamic pattern that shifts back and
forth between internal and external communication, depending on the
consequences of their prior communication behavior. The new
organizational form examined for three years was the Cancer Information
Service, a geographically dispersed federal government health
information program. Our results indicated that there was a lagged
effect for the communication stars explanation.
Keywords: Boundary Spanning, Communication Stars, Health
information, Innovation, Networks
External communication links, which are often associated with
boundary spanning, are critical to enhancing innovations since they
provide opportunities for learning and for securing needed resources
(Goes & Park, 1997) and for the diffusion of ideas between and
within organizations (Cziepel, 1975; Daft, 1978; Ghosal & Bartlett,
1987: Kimberly, 1978; Robertson & Wind, 1983). Such links are the
mechanism that operationalizes environmental cues to the internal
organizational structure (Corwin, 1972; Lozada & Calantone, 1996;
Spekman, 1979). The present study examines external communication
longitudinally in the more voluntary communication environment of a new
organizational form. Most of the prior literature on innovaton-related
communication has emphasized the constraints posed by a person's
formal position; however, more recently it has been suggested that new,
emerging designs provide opportunities for individuals to shape their
own innovation related communication patterns.
We will directly contrast explanations derived from formally
prescribed (functional specialization) and emergent (communication
stars) theoretical positions (Monge & Eisenberg, 1987; Johnson,
1993). In the functional specialization model, individuals are predicted
to focus on either internal or external communication depending on their
formal functional positions. The communication stars explanation argues
that individuals are disposed to the same levels of communication in
both internal and external networks. Yet a third model offers a cyclical
explanation, positing that individuals rotate their internal and
external communication in a dynamic pattern depending on organizational
requirements.
Most of the current organizational literature tends to favor
virtual designs. Virtual designs are based on market assumptions
(Galbraith, 1995) and place an increasing burden on individuals to find
their way amidst chaos (Miles, Snow, Matthews, Miles, & Coleman,
1997). However, other studies have suggested that the increasing
complexity of these forms needs to be balanced by a concomitant interest
in formalization (Johnson, LaFrance, Meyer, Speyer, & Cox, 1998;
Johnson, Meyer, Berkowitz, Ethington, & Miller, 1997), which reduces
uncertainties arising in these new forms. A host of environmental
factors contribute to the development of new organizational forms:
concerns about personnel costs (e.g., pensions, health costs); external
pressures to keep the number of members on their permanent staff low;
uncertainty reduction; needs to pool knowledge and information or to
create it in the case of research and development (R&D) firms
(Gibson & Rogers, 1994); increasing access to information by
reducing institutiona l barriers (DeBresson & Amesse, 1991);
affiliation (e.g., with a more credible national organization); and
building mutually supportive power bases to lobby various stakeholders.
Fundamentally, consortiums are formed so that their members can
accomplish more than they could do on their own. Increasingly,
organizations find that they are either strapped for resources or are
pursuing such large projects that they must pool their resources to
pursue innovations (Browning, Beyer, & Shelter, 1995; DeBresson
& Amesse, 1991; Hakansson & Sharma, 1996).
Creating new organizational forms is difficult, particularly in
health care (Arnold & Hink, 1968; Farace, Monge, Bettinghaus,
Eisenberg, White, Kurchner-Hawkins, & Williams, 1982; Kaluzny,
Lacey, Warnecke, Hynes, Morrissey, Ford, & Sondik, 1993; Kaluzny
& Warnecke, 1996; Luke, Begun, & Pointer, 1989). At least five
barriers have been identified: (a) Cooperating agencies often have
different missions (e.g., providing social support vs. treatment for
cancer patients); (b) outcome and effectiveness measures differ among
agencies; (c) the coordination costs are too heavy (DeBresson &
Amesse, 1991) to truly integrate the efforts of diverse organizations
(Arnold & Hink, 1968); (d) members of coalitions may have multiple
goals (Stevenson, Pearce, & Porter, 1985), and may resent the loss
of decision-making latitude; and (e) the cost of managing their linkages
increases (Oliver, 1990). In the face of these obstacles, there is an
increasing need to develop new theories and fresh perspectives based on
empirical data ab out the operation of these new organizational forms
(Luke et al., 1989). Indeed, the ability of a society to create new
organizational forms may directly affect its ability to adapt to new
environmental circumstances (Romanelli, 1991), such as an increasingly
competitive global environment.
The success of new organizational forms depends on managing
interorganizational relationships through external communication.
Consequently, more empirical study is necessary to determine the ideal
balance between formalized structure and emergent communication networks
in these new organizational forms. Specifically, research must give more
attention to individual patterns of internal and external communication.
Research is particularly important now given the increased attention
paid to new organizational forms and an increased recognition that
within these new forms there are not clear boundaries, but rather
gradations of affiliation between entities (Sheppard & Tuchinsky,
1996).
Three Explanations of the Interrelationships Between Internal and
External Communication
Figure 1 contains a classic panel representation of the
interrelationships between internal and external communication over
three points in time (see Finkel, 1995; Williams & Podsakoff, 1989).
In this research report we will examine possible configurations of
relationships, or paths in a classic path analytic sense, for three
contrasting models: functional specialization, communication stars, and
cyclical. Each explanation predicts different key paths in Figure 1,
where a and b paths represent the stability of internal or external
communication at consecutive or lagged periods respectively, a paths
represent the cross-sectional interrelationships between internal and
external communication at any one time, d paths specify relationships
between internal and external communication across consecutive points in
time, and e paths represent the lagged interrelationships between
internal and external innovation communication from Time 1 to 3.
Functional Specialization
Since organizations must adapt to their environments, a number of
formal structures and associated functional roles are created explicitly
to deal with them (Galbraith, 1974). For example, boundary spanners
(e.g., department heads, customer service representatives) maintain
external communication contacts because of their formally assigned roles
At-Twaijri & Montanari, 1987; Burk, 1994; Friedman & Podolny,
1992; Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, & Lee, 1993; Keller, Szilagyi, &
Holland, 1976; Lysonski & Johnson, 1983; Schwab, Ungson, &
Brown, 1985; Singh, Goolsby, & Rhoads, 1994; Stevenson, 1990).
Boundary spanners are responsible for making communication contacts with
external information sources and supplying their colleagues with
information concerning the outside environment, all while maintaining an
organization's autonomy (Adams, 1976; Aldrich & Herker, 1977).
Boundary spanners play an important role in the diffusion of ideas
between and within organizations (Albrecht & Ropp, 1984; Cziepel,
1975; Daft, 1978; Ghosal & Bartlett, 1987; Schwab, Ungson, &
Brown, 1985). Nowhere is this more true than in the health care
environment (Robertson & Wind, 1983). Boundary spanners are the
mechanism that operationalizes environmental cues to the internal
organizational structure (Jemison, 1984; Lozada & Calantine, 1996;
Spekman, 1979). A substantial proportion of the boundary spanning
literature has implicitly adopted a two-step communication process
(e.g., Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), with an emphasis on information
flowing through boundary spanners who act as opinion leaders in their
organizations. However, in new organizational forms most individuals
engage in some boundary spanning behavior, rendering more traditional
organizational boundaries increasingly arbitrary (Starbuck, 1976). While
the literature suggests various types of boundary spanning communication
activities, few studies simultaneously have examined internal (between
organizational units) and external (with other organizations)
communication patterns over time, especially in relation to innovation
processes (Goes & Park, 1997). Inherent in functional specialization
is that individuals will concentrate on either internal or external
communication, depending on their formal position. A more structured way
to represent the functional specialization approach is as follows:
H1: A functional specialization model posits
A: Positive relationships between internal communication at all
three times (the a and b paths in Figure 1).
B. Positive relationships between external communication at all
three times (the a and b paths in Figure 1).
C. Negative relationships between internal and external
communication at each time (c paths) and in their cross-lagged
relationships (d and e paths).
Communication Stars
Disputing the functional specialization explanation, some boundary
spanning literature suggests that the two distinctive external and
internal communication roles can be played by the same person (Aldrich
& Herker, 1978; Allen, 1989; Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Katz
& Tushman, 1981; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a, 1981b). Consequently,
research has also focused on boundary spanners who communicate
externally as well as internally. For example, Nagpaul and Pruthi (1979)
reported that technical R&D gatekeepers used external contacts for
idea-generation and internal networks for problem solving. Similar
findings are reported in Tushman and Scanlan's (1981b)
investigation in a high-tech R&D facility. These researchers found
that boundary spanners were likely to be identified as a valuable
internal source of new information. Thus, when a person's
communication spans both internal and external networks, it would appear
that the two networks are mutually reinforcing. Some management research
also recognizes boundary spanni ng activities both inside and outside
the organization (Mintzberg, 1973). For instance, middle management
sometimes requires individuals to be both internal and external stars.
Recent research has suggested that balancing internal and external ties
establishes individual influence (Manev & Stevenson, 1996).
While it would seem obvious that there are finite limits to the
amount of communication in which one can engage (Baker, 1992), several
studies suggest that individuals who are high communicators in one
setting are also high in others. That is, heavy users of one information
medium related to work are likely to be users of other media that also
carry this same information (Blau & Alba, 1982; Caroll & Teo,
1996; Paisley, 1980; Weedman, 1992), which is also a finding of more
general media use studies (Berelson & Steiner, 1964).
Based on the preceding discussion, it seems reasonable to suggest
that boundary spanners focus on both internal and external activities
simultaneously. Moreover, boundary spanners acquire relevant information
from their extensive external contacts and filter and feed the
information into the organization. Boundary spanners also often seek out
information from each other, and peers tend to rate them as influential
(Paisley, 1980; Reynolds & Johnson, 1982). A more structured way to
represent the communication stars approach is our second hypothesis:
H2: A communication star model posits
A: Positive relationships between internal communication at all
three points in time (the a and b paths in Figure 1).
B. Positive relationships between external communication at all
three times (a and b).
C. Positive relationships between internal and external
communication at each point in time (c paths) and in their cross-lagged
relationships (d and e paths).
Cyclical Model
A melding of both of the functional specialization and
communication stars literatures suggests a third model which accounts
for the interrelationships between internal and external communication
patterns. This alternative model suggests that communication
relationships may shift due to the systemic consequences resulting from
the boundary spanning activities and dynamic organizational
requirements. For instance, to avoid role conflict, boundary spanners
might focus their efforts in one network (internal or external). As the
R&D literature suggests, importing external ideas might result in
considerable internal communication generating internal innovations,
which, in turn, are then exported to other organizations though external
communication. A more structured way to represent the cyclical approach
is our third hypothesis:
H3: A cyclical model posits
A. Negative relationships between internal communication at
consecutive time points (the a paths in Figure 1).
B. Positive relationships between internal communication at Time 1
and Time 3 (the b paths).
C. Negative relationships between external communication at
consecutive time points (the a paths).
D. Positive relationships between external communication at Time 1
and Time 3 (the b paths).
E. Negative relationships between internal and external
communication at each point in time (c paths) and in their lagged
relationships (e paths).
F. Positive relationships between internal and external
communication at consecutive points in time (d paths)
Methods
The present study evaluated the three competing boundary spanning
explanations in a unique setting, focusing on innovation-related
communication in a new organizational form. In this section we describe
the unique features of the organization we studied (Cancer Information
Service). We then focus on the approach adopted to define the boundaries
of the organization, the participants in the research studies, and the
specific questions asked of the study participants.
The Cancer Information Service as a New Organizational Form
This study examines a confederation of contractors who provided
services to the Cancer Information Service (CIS). The CIS was
established in 1975 by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to
disseminate accurate, up-to-date information about cancer to cancer
patients, their relatives and friends, health care professionals, and
the general public (Morra, Bettinghaus, & Marcus, 1993; Morra, Van
Nevel, Nealon, Mazan, & Thomsen, 1993). In response to this mandate,
the CIS currently maintains a network of 19 Regional Offices (ROs) that
are typically linked to NCI-funded regional cancer centers. The
activities of the CIS network are coordinated and supervised by the
Office of Cancer Communications (OCC) at the NCI. These activities fall
into two broad categories: (a) responding to requests for information
over the telephone (the CIS operates a toll-free telephone number in
which callers are automatically triaged to their regional office for
response from a trained and certified Cancer Information Specialist),
and (b) conducting community outreach activities. The outreach program
of the CIS serves as a catalyst and focal point for cancer education at
the state and regional level and is the focus of much of the external
communication examined here.
The ROs are brought together by a classic fee-for-services
contract. In effect, the contract hires temporary organizations for five
years to conduct a specified scope of work for the NOI. The unique
characteristics of the CIS become apparent when contrasted with more
conventional organizational forms. For instance, although the ROs are
formally members of other organizations, the agency itself has many of
the characteristics of unitary organizations, such as centrally
determined goals, a formal bureaucratic structure of authority, a
division of labor, formal plans for coordination (e.g., sharing calls),
a high normative commitment to providing service to callers, and
targeted outreach activities to priority audiences. Performance
standards are set nationally and are monitored by an extensive formal
evaluation effort (Kessler, Fintro, Muha, Wun, Annett, & Mazen,
1993). However, important personnel issues such as salaries and fringe
benefits are determined at the RO level. Thus, regions internally
boundary spa n with each other and OCC, while maintaining external
communication contacts with other organizations in their communities.
External communication primarily developed community-based initiatives
(e.g., breast cancer awareness month), while internal communication
focused on implementing new techniques (e.g., making outcalls to
encourage mammography screening) for reaching the public.
Boundaries of the CIS
For the purpose of this research project, the composition of the
CIS internal network was based on nominalist views of network boundaries
(Lauman, Marsden, & Prensky, 1983). From a nominalist perspective,
five major functional roles, representing key decision-makers within the
CIS, were examined: (a) Office of Cancer Communications (OCCs) staff at
NCI and (b) Project Directors (PDs), (c) Outreach Managers (OMs), (d)
Telephone Service Managers (TSMs), and (e) Principal Investigators (PIs)
at ROs. OCCs are in charge of coordinating and supervising the
activities of the regional CIS network. PDs engage in a mixture of
internal and external communication coordinating work with OCCs, other
ROs, or their local cancer centers. TSMs primarily focus on the internal
telephone communication and referral services. OMs are active in the
external network since they are responsible for developing relationships
with community organizations. PIs are the principal investigators of the
CIS contract. Thus, we examined formal ro les with a mix of internal and
external communication responsibilities.
Sampling Interval
This study was part of a larger project designed to evaluate the
impact of three planned innovations over four years (see Johnson,
Berkowitz, Ethington, & Meyer, 1994a; Johnson, Bettinghaus,
Woodworth, Fleisher, Ward, & Meyer, 1997; Meyer, Johnson, &
Ethington, 1997). Consequently, selection of the sampling interval was
particularly critical given the complexity of the overall investigation.
As a result of extensive pretesting and discussions with members of the
network about internal communication reports, we decided to focus on a
three-day period every three months. In addition, data were collected by
rotating days of the week and weeks of the month throughout the duration
of the project. Internal communication network data were regularly
collected at each of 14 scheduled sampling periods (see Johnson et al.,
1994a). Unlike the internal communication data gathered at relatively
frequent intervals, external communication data (i.e., radial
communication network data representing individual reports of their
linkages to other organizations) were collected once a year for three
years. The sampling was frequent enough to detect major cycles of
activities within the CIS system, while recognizing limitations of
respondent memory and the vast volumes of data that might be generated.
Data Collection
Communication data on external contacts were collected at three
points of time: T1, T2, and T3 (c.f., Johnson, Chang, Ethington, Meyer,
& LaFrance, 1994; Johnson, Chang, La France, et al., 1996a, b). [1]
At each data collection period, a package was sent to respondents
containing a communication log and a battery of questions relating to
their external communication contacts. To help ensure completion, the
self-report questionnaires were mailed to the respondents approximately
10 days before the sample time period. A personalized letter explained
the issues that would be examined and urged participation in the
project. In addition, participants also received an e-mail to notify
them that they would soon receive the questionnaires. A second e-mail
was sent the day before the sample time period, reminding participants
that they should begin recording their communication contacts for the
next three days. A third e-mail was sent the day after the sample time
period concluded, reminding participants to return the ir questionnaires
in the provided stamped, self-addressed envelope. In fact, many
follow-up steps (e.g., letters, faxes, emails) recommended by the
literature (e.g., Dillman, 1978, 1991) were used in these recurring data
collections. Perhaps because of the extensive follow-up efforts, we
achieved a satisfactory response rate of 93 percent, 93 percent, and 95
percent at T1, T2, and T3, respectively.
Respondents and Level of Analysis
The sample sizes were 110, 103, 121 at T1, T2, and T3,
respectively, with the core cohort remaining essentially stable. Study
participants were highly educated: 92 percent of the respondents had
earned college degrees, 51 percent of which were graduate degrees.
Interestingly, fewer than one-third of respondents had worked for the
CIS for five years or more.
Many prior studies have used organizations as the unit of analysis,
distinguishing between internal and external communication on the level
of intra-organization and inter-organization respectively (Allen, 1989;
Zoch, 1993). Yet, others have used alternative levels of analysis. For
example, Tushman and Scanlan (1981a) chose the department as the unit of
analysis in an R&D setting. These researchers defined internal
communication as the communication occurring within the department,
while external communication reflected activities taking place on an
intra-organizational and extra-organizational level. As a result,
external activities in one study may be treated as internal
communication in others, and internal communication stars on an
intra-organizational level may be defined as external communication
stars on a group level.
CIS is the unit of analysis in the present study. Thus, internal
communication refers to the communication occurring among and between
the 19 ROs and OCC, while external communication denotes the
communication contacts that occurred with the organizations outside the
CIS network (e.g., American Cancer Society, Health Department, and so
on). This study focused on the boundary spanning communication of all
individuals, given the assumption that communication is widely
distributed in new organizational forms.
Internal Communication
Respondents were asked to record the interpersonal communication
contacts they initiated or received within CIS network for a three-day
period. [2] They were instructed to record the inter-regional
communication on the national level. [3] For the respondents'
convenience, a directory of individuals within the CIS network and
pre-dated pages of the log were provided. Respondents were asked to
record their innovation-related communication concerning intervention
strategies within the network. These contacts included initiatives that
related to the development or implementation of programs which focused
on reaching various target populations, such as counseling protocols for
special target populations, targeted outreach activities using the
telephone, and responses to calls associated with communication
campaigns (see Meyer et al., 1997 for more detail). [4]
External Communication
Respondents were asked to record or estimate the number of times
they initiated or received contacts with a member representing outside
organizations about intervention strategies. Respondents were also
instructed to count each individual only once. For respondents'
convenience and for reliability purposes, participants were also
provided with an operational definition of intervention strategies. The
list of the outside organizations was developed after considerable
collaboration with the CIS staff, and the list was finalized after
several pretests within the CIS network (see Johnson et al., 1994a).
Separate questionnaires were developed for OCCs and other functional
groups because of their job requirements.
Results
In this section of the report we first provide descriptive data,
followed by a description of the analysis plan. We then compare each of
the three models used to study the CIS.
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, ranges, and censored correlations
for the variables are presented in Table 1. For external communication,
approximately one-sixth of respondents reported zero contacts across the
three time points (n = 22, 21, & 27, respectively). Over one half of
the respondents reported having 0 contacts for internal communication at
T1 and T2 (n = 71 and 64 respectively) and even more reported no contact
at T3 (n=98). These data led us to adopt a censored variable approach,
normalizing the variables at the lower ranges of
observed values. The data were subjected to LISREL analysis by means
of the PRELIS computer software (see SPSS, 1993).
In general, respondents had considerably more external than
internal contacts. Comparable numbers of communication contacts were
observed for internal communication at T1 and T2 (mean = .65 and .68,
respectively), and for external communication at T2 and T3 (mean = 10.97
and 10.82, respectively). Standard deviations for both internal and
external communication across all three time points were relatively high
(ranging from .60 to 1.17 and from 13.45 to 14.68, respectively).
Extreme outliers (those with scores above 80 for external communication)
were removed before censored correlation coefficients were calculated
for the model. The highest correlation was observed between external
contacts at T2 and T3 r = .45), while the lowest correlation was
observed between internal communication and external communication at T3
r = .02). There were no obvious problems with multicollinearity present
in the censored correlation matrix.
Analysis Plan
Analysis of panel data has been a source of controversy because of
the intractable difficulties that a researcher often confronts, such as
an inability to account for random measurement error, correlated
disturbances attributable to unspecified third variables, and
identification problems (see Williams & Podsakoff, 1989, for an
exhaustive discussion). In this research we used an iterative approach
for estimating an optimal model from a nested series of models for
evaluating structural parameter estimates by means of LISREL. Sometimes
referred to as path analysis, LISREL is a general analytic technique for
estimating a linear structural equation system. One of the unique
advantages of LISREL is that it provides estimates of fit for the entire
model to the data. Consequently, LISREL ameliorates the problems
inherent in a classic approach to analysis of panel models (Finkel,
1995; Williams & Podsakoff, 1989). The approach also permits the
analysis of residuals, reciprocal relationships, and the equality of
caus al parameters over-time (Finkel, 1995; Williams & Podsakoff,
1989).
To determine superior parameter estimates a series of nested models
using the Normed Fit Index (NFI), which is (Fn - Fm)/Fn, where Fn =
[[chi].sup.2]/n for the null model and Fm = [[chi].sup.2]/n for the
model under examination, were evaluated. NFI can range from 0 to 1.00,
is independent of sample size, and reflects the goodness of fit of
competing models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Williams & Podsakoff,
1989). Model comparisons can be used to assess the adequacy of causal
lags and the relative importance of different variable groups (Williams
& Podsakoff, 1989). The question of fit is becoming increasingly
complicated (see Bollen & Long, 1993). We therefore also report the
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) because it differs from the NFI in
several important ways: It does not range from 01, it does not apply
just to nested models, and it favors simple models (Tanaka, 1993). The
AIC was the test statistic, (chi-square), + 2 times the number of free
or estimated parameters.
Following the iterative procedure outlined by Finkel (1995), we
tested a number of models. In the null model (see Table 2) none of the
parameters were estimated, except that the on diagonal elements of psi
were constrained to equal the same value of one (consult Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). This model became the baseline to which subsequent
models were nested. The model yielded a chi-square value of 65.01 with
20 df. In model B through H, differing combinations of substantive
(beta) paths, lagged paths over two points in time, psi, or covariances
of endogenous variables, and theta epsilon, or measurement error, paths
were estimated and/or constrained to equal each other. Given roughly
equal time lags, similar paths during different time intervals should be
equal. Hence, the rough equivalence of these paths would be one
indication of the appropriateness of these causal intervals (Finkel,
1995). In model G, for example, paths between T1 and T3 were estimated,
the mirror gamma paths and psi correlations at T2 and T3 were
constrained to equal each other (e.g., between internal communication at
T1 and external communication at T2 and between internal communication
at T2 and external communication at T3), and the diagonal elements of
psi were constrained to equal each other. Model G had a chi-square of
5.99 with 4 df, a NFI of .91, and an AIC of 39.99.
Models A through H exhibited a narrow range of scores on both the
AIC and NFI. Model H, with a score of .91, had the superior NFI, whereas
Model E yielded the best AIC score (28.20). Accordingly, we looked at
other criteria to determine which model provided the optimal baseline on
which to make comparisons of the three explanations. We chose Model D
because it was the only one of the models that did not generate a
warning that the measurement error matrix theta epsilon was positive
definite. Nor did Model D have problems with q plots or the correlation
of estimates. Model D was also in the middle of the range of competing
models for both the NFI and AIC. Moreover, Model D's similar
substantive parameters were constrained to equal each other in value,
diagonal elements of psi were constrained, and theta epsilon was free.
Model D had an excellent fit to the data with a chi-square value of
10.26, with 8 df, a probability level of .25, goodness of fit index of
.96, an adjusted goodness of fit index of .90, a roo t mean square
residual of .08, and a coefficient of determination of .998 for the y
variables. The estimates of errors of measurement were all
nonsignificant for the single item indicants, ranging from .22 for T1
internal to .48 for T3 internal communication. The diagonal elements of
psi were all constrained to .51, a significant value, indicating a
moderately high level of explained variance. The normalized residuals
fell within acceptable ranges. The standard errors for the parameters
were generally low to moderate. No obvious problems with identification
and/or estimation were present in the results, and there was also no
indication of colinearity in the estimates.
Comparing the Three Models
Figure 2 contains the parameter estimates for the substantive
(beta) paths used to compare the models. The a paths were significant
and high in value for both internal and external communication,
suggesting a fair amount of stability in these variables over
consecutive time points. The b paths were low and nonsignificant when
estimated in Model E, indicating a mediating impact for intervening time
points, which also provided some support for our measurement procedures.
The c paths indicated little contemporaneous association between
internal and external communication. The d paths were low to moderate in
value, with the ones from internal communication to external
communication significant. The e paths between internal and external
indicated little lagged effect over two distant time periods.
In sum, the results for internal and external communication at
consecutive time periods provided partial support for both H1A and B and
H2A and B; that i