Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Muchinsky

    Uploaded by

    Ionita Mihail
    20 views17 pages
    Sociologie organizationala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Sociologie organizationala

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    20 views17 pages

    Muchinsky

    Uploaded by

    Ionita Mihail
    Sociologie organizationala

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 17
    Organizational Communication: Relationships to Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction Paul M, Muchinsky The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec. 1977), 592-607. Stable URL: bhtp:flinks,jstor-org/sici?sici~0001-4273% 281977 12% 29203 A4%3IC592%3AOCRTOC%IE2 0.CO*IBI-H ‘The Academy of Management Jounal is currently published by Academy of Management, ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htp:sseww jstor org/aboutiterms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you hhave obtained prior permission, you may aot download an entie issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and ‘you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use Please contact the publisher eegarding aay futher use ofthis work, Publisher contact information ray he abained at fap jstoronpournalsfaom.hi Each copy of any part ofa JSTOR transenission must contain the same copyright tice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ot scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppom@jstor org. hup:thvwwjstor.orgy Mon Nov 76:30:16 2005 Academy of Managemen Jounal tnt, Vat 2, No.4 92407. Organizational Communication: Relationships to Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction’ PAUL M. MUCHINSKY Towa State University The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine relationships among measures of organizational com- mutication, organizational climate, and job satisfaction. Six hundred ninety-five employees of a large public util- ity constituted the sample. The results indicated that certain dimensions of organizational communication were highly related t0 both organizational climate and fob satisfaction. ‘One of the most elusive organizational variables is that of communica- tion, Because organizational communication is such a dynamic phenome- non, it continues to be a difficult concept to measure (Porter & Roberts, 1976). Recently Roberts and O'Reilly (19742) developed an instrument purportedly designed to measure organizational communication, They re- ported that the instrument had desirable psychometric propetties and in general proved to be a useful measute of organizational communication. A subsequent analysis of the Roberis and O'Reilly communication ques- tiounaire (Muchinsky, 1977} also yielded guarded support for the ine strument. Roberts and O'Reilly concluded at the end of their study that their questionnaire should be useful in relating communication to other rel- evant organizational variables. Recently many studies have examined variables related to organizational climate. Examples of such studies include the influence of task activities (Schneider & Hall, 1972), organizational structure (Schneider & Bartlett, 1970; Payne & Pheysey, 1971), and human relations training (Golem- biowski, 1970; Hand, Richards, & Slocum, 1973). The results of these Paul M. Muchinsky is Associate Professor of Psychology and Direcor of the Industria! Relations Center, Towa State University, Ame, los erlilsoiy a" posible by'& prant om the Graduate College of Towa State miversity 2 1977 Muchinsky 593 studies and many others have been summarized and integrated in articles that offered a theoretical treatise of organizational climate (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James & Jones, 1974; Schneider, 1975). On the basis of the research reported in those articles, the authors have suggested that future research on organizational climate should focus more upon variables which directly influence the organizational life of the employee (as opposed to less dicect vatiables as organizational structure). In the same vein, Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974) have made the following suggestion: “The communica- tion pattern(s) used by the organization has an immediate impact upon the individual's life within that same organization and may be a vital, yet currently unexplored, aspect of organizational climate” (Lawler et al., 1974, p. 153) While there are no previous empirical studies in the literature relating climate to communication upon which to draw specific hypotheses, the wealth of previous studies on organizational climate would suggest that cer- tain dimensions of organizational communication would be related to cer- tain dimensions of climate. For example, Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) report that many previous studies have identified the exis tence of a climate dimension dealing with organizational structure. It seems plausible that such a climate dimension should he related to an organiza- tional communication dimension such as accuracy of communication, as both dimensions assess characteristics of work procedures. Conversely, other climate and communication dimensions share little conceptual co: munality and thus should Jogically be unrelated. Schneider (1975) has commented on the multidimensional nature of organizational climate and has cautioned against the logic and practice of seeking a relatively sim- plistic relationship between climate and other multidimensional variables. Several studies (Johannesson, 1973; Downey, Hellriegel, Phelps, & Slo- cum, 1974; LaFollette & Sims, 1975) have examined the relationships be- ‘tween dimensions of organizational climate and dimensions of job satisfac- tion. On the basis of his results, Johannesson (1973) concluded that job satisfaction and organizational climate were redundant concepts, while La- Follette and Sims (1975) felt that the prevailing evidence on this topic did rot warrant such conclusion, A key component in the climate-satistaction controversy is the unit of analysis, James and Jones (1974) offered a distinction between “psycho- logical climate” and “organizational climate,” concepts which differ as a function both of the level of explanation employed and of the focus of measurement. According to James and Jones, organizational climate refers (o attributes of an organization, a situational description, measured via perceptual means. Psychological climate, on the other hand, refers to at- tributes of an individual, a personalistic evaluation of events based upon the interaction between actual events and the perception of those events, ‘The unit of analysis in “organizational climate” is the organization, while the unit of analysis in “psychological climate” is the individual. However 598 Academy of Management Journal December ‘Schneider (1975) has commented that in many instruments purportedly designed to measure “organizational climate,” the unit of analysis is actually the individual and not the organization. Johannesson (1973) and Guion (1973) have criticized the concept of psychological climate, claiming that conceptualization of organizational climate as an individual attribute amounted to a “rediscovery of the wheel.” However James and Jones (1974) go on to say that job satisfaction and perceived climate may be dynamically related and still provide somewhat different sources of re~ lated information. That js, climate provides descriptive information, often contaminated by satisfaction, while satisfaction provides evaluative as- sesstnents, This study was designed to be an exploratory investigation, examining the relationships of organizational communication to job satisfaction on the one hand and to organizational climate on the other. Most of the research on organizational communication has been exploratory in nature a8 op- posed to involving hypothesis testing (Porter & Roberts, 1976). The pre- ponderance of exploratory research reflects our relatively limited con- ceptual understanding of organizational communication. The relating of communication measures to more theoretically established organizational concepts is needed as a step in the process of theory development in com- munication. METHOD Instruments Organizational Commuorication—The measure of organizational com- munication was the questionnaire developed by Roberts and O'Reilly (1974a). The questionnaire consists of 36 items measuring 16 dimensions of organizational communication, Eight of the dimensions consist of multi- item scales scored on a seven-point Likert format: trust (three items); influence (three items); mobility (two items); desire for interaction (three. items) ; accuracy (three items); summarization (three items); gatekeeping (three items); and overload (two items). Three of the dimensions consist of multi-item scales requiring the respondent to indicate percentage of time: directionality-upward (three items); directionality-downward (three items); and directionality-lateral (three items). Four of the dimensions are single-item scales requiring the respondent to indicate the frequency (per- centage of time) various modes of communication are used: written; face- to-face: telephone; and other. The last dimension consists of a single-item scale scored on a seven-point Likert format indicating the degree of satis- faction with communication in the organization, This dimension is a varia tion of the GM faces seale (Kunin, 1955). Three of the dimensions (trust in superior, perceived influence of the superior, and mobility aspirations of the respondent) are considered to be noncommuttication variables by Roberts and O'Reilly, but were included 197 Muchinsky 595 in the questionnaire because they have becn repeatedly shown to influence individual communication in organizations (e.g., Cohen, 1965; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1974; Read, 1962; Roberts & O'Reilly, 1974b). These three non- communication variables have been shown to be more independent of the communication variables and more independent of each other (Roberts & OReilly, 1974a) Organizational Climate—The measure of perceived climate was Form B of the questionnaire developed by Litwin and Stringer (1968). This ques- tionnaire consists of 50 items scored on a four-point Likert format measur- ing nine a priori dimensions of organizational climate. Because Sims and LaFollette (1975) reported doubtful reliability and validity for the original nine a priori dimensions, the 50-item questionnaire was factor analyzed via 4 principal factor analysis. The factor analysis yielded six derived climate dimensions: interpersonal milieu; standards; affective tone toward man- agement/organization; organizational structure and procedures; respon- sibility; and organizational identification. The reliability and validity of the derived climate factors were much greater than thase computed for the orig- inal nine a priori climate scales. A complete description of the six derived climate factors is reported in Muchinsky (1976) Job Satisjaction—The measure of job satisfaction was the Tob Descrip- tive Index (IDL) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). It con. sists of 72 items scored on a three-point scale measuring five dimensions of job satisfaction: satisfaction with work; satisfaction with supervision; satis- faction with pay; satisfaction with promotions; and satisfaction with workers, Extensive research has shown the JDI to he a reliable and valid measure of job satisfaction, Subjects The sample consisted of employees of a large public utility. Respondents covered a broad spectrum of occupations, including various levels of ran- agement, telephone operators, telephone service repaitmen, PBX installers, technical, craft, and cletical personnel, The total size of the organization (state-wide) was approximately 8,000 employees. A random sample of 1,160 employees was drawn by selecting every seventh employee from a computerized listing of all employees. The three questionnaires were mailed to the home of each employee. Subjects were instructed that the study was sponsored by Towa State University, was not a company study, and their responses were completely confidential, After one follow-up letter 695 (60 percent) usable questionnaires were returned, Forty-eight percent of the respondents were male, 52 percent were female; their average age was 33 years, and their average tenure in the organization was 13 years. Statistical Analyses ‘The means and standard deviations of the 16 communication dimensions, six climate dimensions, and five job satisfaction dimensions were com- 396 Academy of Management Fournat December puted, The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) was com- puted for all multi-item scales. Correlations were computed between the various dimensions of the three instruments. [The intercorrelations of the climate dimensions are reported in Muchinsky (1976). The intercorrela- tions of the communication and job satisfaction dimensions are available from the author.] The pairwise deletion convention was utilized to exclude cases containing missing values from the computations (Nie, Bent, & Hull, 1970), RESULTS Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the 27 dimensions involved in the three measures, plus the internal consistency reliability for the molti-item scales, It can be seen in Table 1 that eight scales fail to meet a..70 criterion for adequate scale reliability. All of the JDI scales manifest adequate reliability. Two organizational climate scales have reliabilities fess than ,70: responsibility (.56) and standards (.54). Six organizational communication scales have reliabilities less than .70: influence (69) over- TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of Three Variables Variables £ ‘SD Reltabittey® Feb Sutsfction ‘Setsfection with work 3354 a0, Stlsfaction wilh mipervision 38 8 ‘Suisfaetion with pay 1436 7 ‘Satisfaction with Promotions 1206 ie ‘Seustaction with co-workers 38 56 Organizational Climate inerpersonl sien uae 18 leds 3.65 4 Affective tone toward management/arganitation 4048 3 Organizational suclure and procedures 3450 a Responaisty 680 56 Organizational identification 1206 a Organtzational Communicadion Trust 1442 a nlaes 1398 63 ‘7 93 Basire for interaction 52 @ Accuracy, laa 4 Sumiearization 34 0 ‘Gatebecping ot ae Overload S59 Pe Directionaitvaupward 338 & Directionalitydosnward i902 ct Directonality-ateral, 4a 36 Wileen modality tas9 Facesto-face modality 4003 ‘Telephone modality B35 Other enodalcy a Satlsfaction wih communication 483 ‘tnternal consistency rellaiity(coefcient pha) for mult-iter sees. 7 Muchinsky 31 load (.67); desive for interaction (.63); directionality-upward (58); ac~ curacy (.54); and gatekeeping (.46) Table 2 shows the correlations between the five dimensions of job satis faction and the six dimensions of organizational climate. Of the 30 cor- relation coefficients reported, only one was not statistically significant (p < .05 or less). The only negative correlations between the wo measures involve the standards organizational climate dimension. These results are highly similar to the findings reported by LaFolletie. and Sims (1975) re- garding the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational cli- mate measures. TABLE 2 Correlations Between Soh Satisfaction and Organizational Climate Varlablest (Organizational Clima ‘Agective Organi Tone. atonal Orgent. es Inter Teed Stati el Satirfacion "Mie Standards "ment “Cedires ‘lity fenton Work 2 24 a 3§ ae 46 Supervision a @ a Pay Bo losccoy HB 3 Ghee 38 Promotions 3 wise kp ie Comores 38 Osten 36 BeOS “All correlations signifieant (p <.001) unless otherwise noted, Table 3 shows the correlations between the six dimensions of climate and the 16 dimensions of organizational communication. Of the 96 correlation coefficients reported, 45 (47 percent) arc statistically significant (p < .OL oF p < .001). Some dimensions of organizational communication (e.g. trust, influence, accuracy, directionality-downward, directionality-lateral, satisfaction with communication) were significantly related to all or most of the climate dimensions, while other dimensions of communication (e.g... gatekeeping, overload, written modality, other modality) were unrelated to any climate dimensions Table 4 shows the correlations between the five dimensions of job satis- Faction and the 16 dimensions of organizational communication, Of the 90 correlation coefficients reported, 43 (47 percent) are statistically signif- icant (p < 01 or p < 001). The pattern of significant communication job satisfaction correlations is similar to the pattern of significant com- munication-climate correlations. The communication dimensions of trust, influence, desite for interaction, accuracy, directionality-lateral, and satis- faction with communication correlated significantly with all or most of the job satisfaction dimensions, while the communication dimensions of overload and written modality were not significantly related to any job satis- faction dimensions. 08 Academy of Management Journal December TABLE 3 Correlations Between Organizational Communication and Organizational Climate Variables See ot oat Sen org oratecinet hi a an Crest REE suntan Met” Sone Mat Fa a a inn = gg is fe SE Sain age eget cape oe Ege wae 2 OR eg a ee ee wikis. eee wate otter, gitiniay 8" =$ OY Be anes ae “8 ee, TABLE 4 Corlins etn fa Sanction and Orgninaons simian Varies Fag Tas aa Cron an mens Cor ie : ge ie a ue og Pas 8 Bee imeastn eH ence ae Ee 8 seis 8 a 2 4 8 8 Bienen # “ck 8 MES RE ay the a eect” a 2 4 Se os =8 au eee Ses ae ae sie sega spe 001 137? Muchinsky 599 Table 5 summarizes the major organizational communication dimensions that correlated significantly with hoth organizational climate and job satis- faction dimensions. Only correlations that were significant at the O01 level were included for presentation in Table 5. The majority of the significant TABLE 5 Highly Related Organizational Communication, Organizational Climate, ‘and Job Satisfaction Dimensions ‘Organizational Commanication ‘Organizational Climate and Correlation Dimensions Feb Satisfaction Dimensions Coefficient ® Trust Touespersonal miieu ‘Alfedtve tone management /organization Sieancauha Matec amt proceare Oreunreational sdentiation Satisfaction wits work ‘Siteeaeuon wth sperviion Shlsfation with pay Snlafetion with promotions ‘Satinfacuon with co-workers Tmstuence Interpersonal milieu ‘Atenive fone rranagement organization Sremnanaumetire an proces Respond Orgervsllonalideatieation wore persion Satstiedon wth paw Satstacton with promotions Sataction wit comorkers Desire fo interaction Tnverpersoal milieu ‘Affective tone manageenent/erganiztion Setaction wah nore aistaction with supervision Sticfation with coworkers Accuracy Inverpersonal mifew ‘Attica tone management ‘organization Greacisasionsl eeuctre and procedures Responsitiiy Sretmnstione dentisesion Satstaction we work Stltaction iy ageeion alstacton vit Satitaction wite promotions Station with Go-workers Direstionality- downward ‘Afective tore management organization Organiza tana Went cation Satisfaction wey wore Sausacton with supervision Satsfaetion with promotions Pivestionabity lateral Interpersonal mien ‘Aective (ane management/orgaizaton ‘Orpamseeional srcee and procedures Rey ne Snlations!identieation Selhsios wih tore sifaction with sipervsion Salsfaetion wy Setiacton wath promotions 600 Academy of Management Journal ‘December TABLE § (Continued) “Orgenizational Commurdestion Organttaional Climate snd Corralaiion ‘Dimansions Lob Sausfection Dimensions Cooficient Salisiation with communication Tuuerpeonal milieu 40 Afectve tone managemenc/organization 33 Organizational stroctire and procedures “42 Resporsaily 3 Organizational identestion si Scdstaction with work ay Setistetion wth supervision 4s ‘Suusaction with pay. 4 Setisfaction with promotions ds Satisaction with Co-workers 28 * All correlations sigificaet, » < 001 correlations involved seven dimensions of organizational communication: trust; influence; desire for interaction; accuracy; directionality-downward; directionality-lateral; and satisfaction with communication. DISCUSSION Communication-Climate Relationships Table 3 shows the correlations between the organizational communica- on and perceived climate dimensions. Slightly less than half (47 percent) of the correlations are statistically significant (p < 01 or p < .001). Two of the more consistent correlates of perceived climate were the trust and influence scales of the organizational communication questionnaire. How- ever, these scales are really noncommunication variables which were in- cluded in the questionnaire by Roberts and O'Reilly (1974a) because they were found to consistently influence individual communication in arganiza- tions, Both scales correlate highest with the climate factor affective tone toward management/organization, a factor which identifies the way re spondents perceive management (Muchinsky, 1976). As such, it seems highly plausible that the respondent's perceived trust in the supervisor and perceived influence of the supervisor would be highly related to the way the respondent perceives management in general. These scales were also highly correlated with most of the other climate dimensions. However, the third noncommunication scale (mobility aspirations of the respondent) shared little common variance with the climate dimensions. ‘A strong correlate of all but one climate dimension (standards) was the communication dimension of satisfaction with communication. These signif icant relationships seem to indicate that the respondent who has a positive feeling about communication within the organization also has positive feelings regarding the organization's psychological environment (inter personal milieu), management in general (affective tone toward. manage- ment), and the way employees identify with the organization (organiza- tional identification). All of these variables seem to tap some affective feclings and suggest that personal satisfaction with communication is re- lated to perceptions of other organizational properties or practices. Strictly 1977 Muchinsky 01 speaking, measures of organizational climate should be descriptive, not af fective, in nature. However, as Payne, Fineman, and Wall (1976) have commented, many climate items contain implicit evaluations such that af fective and descriptive responses became blurred. ‘The accuracy of communicated information was also found to be highly related to several dimensions of organizational climate, This series of rela- tionships seems to be of particular conceptual importance, as accuracy is not a variable assessing some affective fecling. That is, accuracy assesses a dimension of organizational communication that appears to be more objective than a dimension like satisfaction with communication, These cor- ‘relations suggest that the accuracy of communicated information has a di- rect bearing on the way respondents perceive properties of an organiza- tion. The potential importance of accuracy as a determiner of climate is magnified by the fact that accuracy of communicated information is prob. ably amenable to change and control within an organization. Studies that focus on this variable in an experimental paradigm may yield some en- couraging results in the area of creating organizational climates a la the original Litwin and Stringer (1968) studies, The communication dimensions of downward and lateral ditectionalities also were significantly related to climate dimensions. Downward direction- ality was positively and significantly correlated with the climate dimensions of interpersonal milieu (.14), affective fone toward management (.26), and organizational identification (.24). Conversely, the lateral directionality was negatively and significantly correlated (—.20, —29, and —21) with these seme three climate dimfensions, respectively. ‘The correlations for the upward directionality were also positive as for the downward directionality, ‘but were not statistically significant (p < .01). While all of the correlations involving directionality are not great in magnitude, they are consistent in sign and suggest some systematic relationships between interacting, send- ing, and receiving information (the three items comprising each direction- ality scale) and climate perceptions, The results, which showed such communication dimensions as gate- keeping and overload being unrelated to organizational climate, may be due to their relatively unreliable scale properties. Perhaps if these scales were more internally consistent they would manifest some significant re- lationships with perceived climate. By and large, the communication modal ties (written, face-to-face, telephone, other) were unselated to perceived climate. The relatively few significant correlations that were obtained were small in magnitude and inconsistent in sign. Taken as a whole, the com- munication-climate correlations suggest that certain aspects of organiza tional communication are highly related to perccived climate, while other communication dimensions appear unrelated to climate. The broad array of correlations that differ in sign as well as magnitude, shown in Table 3, spcak well to the fact that there is no one singular relationship between or- ganizational communication and perceived climate, 02 Academy of Management Journat December Communication-Fob Satistaction Relationships Table 4 shows the correlations between the communication and job satis. faction dimensions. Slightly less than half (47 percent) of the correlations, are statistically significant (p < .01 or p < .001). The trust and influence scales from the communication questionnaire both correlated significantly (p < .001) with each of the five dimensions of job satisfaction, As would be expected, trust in superior correlated very highly (.72) with satisfac tion with supervision. Similarly, perceived influence of the supervisor cor- related with satisfaction with supervision (.48) and satisfaction with promo- tions (.41), reflecting in part chat one’s supervisor is probably instrumental in affecting promotions. The mobility aspirations of the respondent were correlated slightly but significantly (p < .001) with satisfaction with supervision (.12) and promotions (.14). In summary, the three noncom- munication scales of the organizational communication questionnaire were systematically related to the five facets of job satisfaction, Satisfaction with communication was significantly (p < .001) correlated with each of the five dimensions of job satisfaction, being most highly cor- related with satisfaction with supervision (.45). Smith et al. (1969) have defined job satisfaction as an “affective response,” and the data suggest that one’s affective response to organizational communication is substan- tially related ta the affective responses associated with other facets of an employee's job. The communication dimensions of summarization and gatekeeping had some revealing relationships with job satisfaction. Summarization was posi- tively correlated with job satisfaction, while gatekeeping was negatively cor- related with job satisfaction. Summarization (the process of maximizing important aspects and minimizing unimportant aspects in communication ) ‘was significantly correlated with satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with co-workers. It appears that summariza- tion is basically a desirable practice insofar as it is positively correlated with job satisfaction. However, gatekeeping (the process of selectively withhold- ing information) appears to be an undesirable practice insofar as it is nega~ tively correlated with job satisfaction, These relationships raise the con- ceptual question, namely when is summarization of information perceived to be gatekeeping of information? The basic process of summarization is positively correlated with job satisfaction, while the basic process of gate- keeping is negatively corréiated with job satisfaction. However, both sum- marization and gatekeeping are subjective (perceptual) measures, not objective indices of actual organizational practice. In the process of sum- macizing information (by the superior) for communication, obviously some, personal judgment has to be exercised by the communicator regarding what is important and what isn’t. What may be perceived as screening out un- important information (e.g., summarization) in one case may be perceived as the selective withholding of relevant information (e.g., gatekeeping) in another case. That is, there may not be consensus between the communica- re Muchinsky 603 tor and recipient of communication regarding what constitutes relevant versus irrelevant information, which in turn would result in differential perceptions of summarization versus gatekeeping of information, It appears that communication recipients do not want to be burdened with the task of sifting out important versus unimportant information, but at the same time do not want to have important information (as judged by the recip- ients) withheld from them, The communication dimensions of downward and lateral directionality ‘were both significantly correlated with job satisfaction, with the downward direction being positively correlated with job satisfaction and the lateral direction being negatively correlated with joh satisfaction. Employees who are dissatisfied with their job may restrict their communication primarily to their co-workers, The directionality-lateral dimension was significantly and negatively correlated with every dimension of job satisfaction except sati faction with co-workers. Employees who are more satisfied with their job may be more desirous of engaging in vertical communication, as the down- ward directionality variable was significantly and positively correlated with satisfaction with work (.27, p < .001) and satisfaction with supervision (.20, p <.001), Similarly, upward directionality was significantly and posi- tively correlated with satisfaction with supervision (.12, p < .001). The few significant correlations involving the. directionality-upward scale may be due in part to the scale’ relatively low reliability. White none of the cor- relations involving communication directionality were great in magnitude, consistent and ostensibly logical correlations did emerge between these vari- ables and the dimensions of job satisfaction. Table 2 shows the cérrelations between the dimension of job satisfaction and the dimensions of perceived climate. All of the correlations are posi- tive except those involving the climate factor standards. These findings directly support the results of LaPollette and Sims (1975) who also found the only negative correlations between climate and job satisfaction occur- ring with a climate factor they called “job pressure and standards”. The ‘overall pattern between the job satisfaction-climate correlations reported in this study and those reported by LaFollette and Sims (1975, p. 267) are highly similar. As Schneider (1975) tas stated, the JD measure of job satisfaction contains both descriptive and evaluative items. Payne (1973) and Smith, Smith, and Rollo (1974) have empirically demonstrated the presence of both descriptive and evaluative items in the SDL Part of the empirical overlap between climate and job satisfaction is most likely due to the fact that climate measures often contain evaluative items (in addition to descriptive items) (Payne et al., 1976) and satisfaction measures often contain descriptive items (in addition to evaluative items) (Schneider, 1975). In addition to the confusion surrounding the unit of analysis in climate te- search (e.g., psychological climate versus organizational climate), it ap- pears that some instruments which purport to measure “organizational” us Academy of Management Journal December communication may not employ the organization as the unit of analysis. Farace and MacDonald (1974) have stipulated four units of analysis for ‘organizational communication: individual; dyad; work-group; and organ- ization. The Roberts and O'Reilly (1974a) organizational communica. tion questionnaire is primarily a micro-oriented individual unit of analysis instrument. In an attempt at convergent and discriminant validity, Roberts and O'Reilly correlated their communication questionnaire with other imjcro-oriented measures (overall job satisfaction (Kunin, 1955); leader- ship consideration. (Stogdill & Coons, 1957); et cetera]. Missing from the Roberts and O'Reilly questionnaire are items dealing with communica- tion between departments or work groups, communication between branch offices and the home office of the same. organization, et cetera. Pechaps a more precise name for the Roberts and O'Reilly questionnaire is “individual communication in organizations” rather than “organizational. communica- tion”. Although theit instrument is reasonably sound psychometrically (Muchinsky, 1977), it is not a complete measure of organizational com: munication, (vis-a-vis Farace and MacDonald, 1974) insofar as the unit of analysis is decidedly micro in nature. Schneider (1975) has written extensively on the unit of analysis prob- tem in organizational climate research. He offers the following statement: When the decision has been made to ose climate a8 an index of each person's ‘psychology of tte orgameation” then it is appropriate 10 cevelon measures in which individnals ate the unit of analysis, Foe example, a common sieteay torwite a set of somewhat molar descriptors, edminster them to people jn an organization and factor anglyze the ressitant itenvitem correlation ‘ates. Tis clear thatthe resultant factors wi reflet the advil eecences in the way people report the system's practices and. procedures. These factors, because they represest iraividuel diferences should not be used i esearch hen the choren unit of ensiysis is other than the individual

    You might also like