800 ISI

PDF .
.


...
.

o
o
o
o
 Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8 (1991) 15-35 15
Elsevier

An empirical study of communication patterns,

leadership styles, and subordinate satisfaction in
R&D project teams in Korea

Kyoungjo Oh, Youngbae Kim, and Jinjoo Lee

Department of Management Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
(KAIST), Seoul, Korea

Abstract

The relationships between leader-subordinate interpersonal communication and subordinate

satisfaction were empirically examined in conjunction with leadership for 199 researchers of small
R&D project teams of six government-sponsored research institutes in Korea. The official com-
munication was more positively related to showing consideration than initiating structure of leader
behavior. The non-official communication was positively related to showing consideration but
not significantly related to initiating structure. Subordinate satisfaction was differently related to
the official and non-official communication according to the leadership types. Finally, several
theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords. Communication Leadership style, Satisfaction, Research team, Korea.

1. Introduction

Interpersonal leader-subordinate communication has been one of the major

areas of organizational communication (Dansereau and Markham, 1987 1.
Many studies have been undertaken to identify the bivariate relationship be-
tween leader characteristics and leader-subordinate communication on the one
hand and to examine the impacts of communication on subordinate satisfac-
tion on the other. Most of these studies have been conducted in advanced coun-
tries with Western cultures.
However, research on communication should be extended by integrating
various organizational behaviors with communication (Roberts et al., 1974).
Prior studies also indicate that a difference in culture makes a difference in
leadership and communication (Oh, 1982). Culture determines how people
perceive the relationship of their job tasks to the value systems of their society.
Cultural differences exist not only between East and West, but also among all
Asian countries. Managers from different cultures differ in the way they per-

0923.4748/91/$03.50 0 1991-Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

- :
 16

ceive causation, that is, the connection between events and phenomena. Most
Korean, Hong Kong, and Japanese people, for example, embrace an environ-
mental model of causation. This is different from the more Western orienta-
tion, derived from the Greek intellectual heritage, which perceives events as
responses to one or more earlier events. Asian managers focus more on the
interrelationship of all elements in the puzzle, rather than on the causative
links of the more prominent elements.
Korean organizations typically exhibit both bureaucratic centralism and pa-
ternalism and have a top-down decision-making process within a disciplined
military-type organizational culture (Doktor, 1990). In Japan, a person from
the lower rank can draft and introduce a proposal to the top leader, and cir-
culate it through the chain of command for final approval, thus representing a
bottom-up system as opposed to the top-down system widely employed in the
West (Xu, 1987). The nature of all managers work necessitates tremendous
amounts of time spent with others-colleagues, and individuals outside the
group. This kind of work is more an activity of the mind than a technical
activity, and the influence of culture on this activity is strong. Clearly, more
systematic research considering simultaneously leadership, communication and
subordinate satisfaction is needed to explore the interrelationships among them
in cultural settings other than Western societies.
This study empirically investigates the relationships among leadership,
leader-subordinate interpersonal communication, and subordinate satisfac-
tion and project success in project teams, with special emphasis on official and
non-official communication patterns. To the best of our knowledge, no other
study had empirically examined these relationships in R&D settings. We be-
lieve that our study is the first in this field. Project teams in this study are basic
research units of six research institutes sponsored by the Korean Government
and they are small groups mostly containing four to six members. The scope
of the project teams is development-oriented and so each project team applies
known facts and theory to solve a particular problem through exploratory study,
design, and testing of new components or systems. The basic premise of this
study is that leadership will influence the two dimensions of leader-subordi-
nate interpersonal communication-official and non-official communica-
tion-and that leadership as well as both official and non-official communi-
cation will also influence subordinate satisfaction and project success, and that
non-official communication will influence official communication. These re-
lationships are presented in Fig. 1.
This paper first reviews extant literature on the relationships among lead-
ership, communication, and subordinate satisfaction and then delineates a se-
ries of testable hypotheses. ANOVA and regression analyses were used to test
these hypotheses.

- :
 17

Official
Leadership
Communication

.Initiating
structure

.Showing Non-official
Consideration ---q Project
Communication success

Fig. 1. Hypothesized basic relationship among leadership, communication and subordinate sat-
isfaction in a project team.

2. Review of the literature and conceptual framework

2.1. Communication and leadership

Communication is the degree to which information is transmitted among

the members of an organization. Four dimensions of communication are com-
monly distinguished (Price and Mueller, 1986): (1) formal and informal com-
munication, (2 ) vertical and horizontal communication, (3) personal and im-
personal communication, and (4 ) instrumental and expressive communication.
Formal communication is supported by the sanctions at the disposal of the
organization while informal communication receives no such support. Vertical
communication refers to the transmission of information in superior-subor-
dinate relationships, whether from subordinate to superior or from superior to
subordinate. Horizontal communication refers to transmission of information
among peers. Personal and impersonal communication is distinguished by
whether or not the information is transmitted in situations where mutual in-
fluence is possible. Personal conversations and telephone calls are examples of
personal communication, while a bulletin board is an example of impersonal
communication. Instrumental communication is the transmission of infor-
mation necessary to do a job, whereas expressive communication is the residual
category of non-job information (Price and Mueller, 1986).
A number of studies on leader-subordinate communication have been con-
ducted. However, most studies have focused on formal, vertically downward,
personal, instrumental communication only and have been conducted in ad-
vanced Western countries. Certainly, measures of the excluded dimensions are

- :
 18

also needed. In order to address excluded dimensions, this study distinguishes

between official and non-official communication: official communication is
defined as formal, vertical, personal and instrumental communication, and
non-official communication as informal, vertical, personal and expressive
communication. Not only downward communication but also upward com-
munication was included in vertical communication because it is anticipated
that both downward and upward communication will be influenced by lead-
ership and will influence subordinate satisfaction and project success. Bifur-
cation of communication into official and non-official categories is made be-
cause job-related information tends to be transmitted mainly by formal
communication, while expressive communication tends to be made on an in-
formal basis. This study, focused on leader-subordinate interpersonal com-
munication, is not concerned about horizontal and impersonal communication.
Research studies on organizational management indicate that nearly 80%
of a typical managers day is spent in interpersonal communication (Webber,
1972; Mintzberg, 1973 ). Other studies also report that supervisors spend from
one-third to two-thirds of their time communicating with subordinates, and
face-to-face discussion is the dominant mode of interaction (Penfield, 1974).
Given the importance of the role of communication in leadership behavior, it
is not surprising that there has been much attention to a common communi-
cation style across effective leaders (Jablin, 1979). For example, the commu-
nication correlates of good supervisors, summarized by Redding (1972 ) , are
considered to be: (1) more communication-oriented, (2) more receptive and
responsive to subordinate inquiries, (3 ) oriented toward asking or persuading
rather than demanding or telling, (4) sensitive to the needs and feelings of
subordinates, and (5) open in communication with subordinates. Superiors
who lack self-confidence in their leadership abilities, on the other hand, are
less willing to hold face-to-face discussion with their subordinates than are
superiors who are confident in their leadership abilities (Kipnis and Lane,
1962).
However, there are many contemporary researchers who suggest that effec-
tive leader communication behaviors are not universal, but are contingent on
numerous situational factors including organizational climate, task, type, and
leadership style (Dansereau and Markham, 1987). Much of the recent lead-
ership research (Schriesheim, 1980; Jago, 1982; Penley and Hawkins, 1985;
Keller, 1989; etc.) used showing consideration and initiating structure as di-
mensions of leadership which were identified in the Ohio State University
Studies (Stogdill, 1963). Leader initiating structure (S) involves the degree
to which the leader defines and organizes relationships among group members
and establishes well-defined channels of communication and methods of ac-
complishing of the groups task (Jago, 1982). This dimension seems to em-
phasize overt attempts to achieve organizational goals. Leader consideration

- :
 19

(C) involves the degree of two-way communication and consultation, mutual

trust, respect, and warmth a leader exhibits toward his followers.
Four types of leadership style can be classified by a two-by-two categoriza-
tion of leader behavior. A Type I leader, who has low consideration and initi-
ating structure, has minimum concern for people and work; this style is called
impoverished style. A Type II leader, who has low consideration and high
initiating structure, has extreme concern for work and is called task man-
ager. A Type III leader, who has high consideration and low initiating struc-
ture, has extreme concern for people and is called country club manager. A
Type IV leader, who has high consideration and initiating structure, has max-
imum concern for people and work; a leader of this style is called team builder
or super man (Blake and Mouton, 1964).
Miraglia (1963) found that communication ability of leaders was more cor-
related with showing consideration than with initiating structure. Other stud-
ies also confirmed that there was a close correspondence between showing con-
sideration of leader behavior and leader-subordinate communication, since
leaders with high consideration are more likely to be concerned about inter-
personal relations and emphasize communication with subordinates (Jablin,
1979; Redding, 1972).
Penley and Hawkins (1985), however, criticized that the high degree of as-
sociation between communication behavior and showing consideration may be
somewhat misleading in the sense that it may reflect only the relational aspect
of communication. According to Watzlawick et al. ( 1967), there are two levels
of communication: the content level, which loosely corresponds to the instru-
mental-expressive dimension of communication (i.e., what is being said), and
the relational level, corresponding to formal-informal communication (i.e, how
it is said). Giving task- or performance-related information is an example of
content-level communication behavior, while persuading subordinates and re-
sponding to their requests are all relational messages. Thus, showing consid-
eration is more heavily laden with the relational level than is initiating struc-
ture, but dependence on content level of communication would be more typical
in initiating structure than in showing consideration.
Penley and Hawkins (1985)) in their study of the logistics and support di-
vision of a military base, found that the two levels of communication were
closely interrelated (that is, what is communicated between supervisor and
subordinate is intimately tied to how it is communicated). Also, consideration
of leader behavior was associated with both the relational and content level of
communication, while the initiating structure was related only with the con-
tent level of communication. Specifically, supervisors with a high showing con-
sideration communicate more task and career messages and are more respon-
sive to communication from subordinates than other supervisors. On the other
hand, supervisors with high initiating structure communicate more task and

- :
 20

performance messages such as clarifying policies and giving information about

work quality.
Interestingly, task-related messages which would be expected to be more
typical in initiating structure were characteristic of leaders with a high showing
consideration as well. Penley and Hawkins (1985) argued that perhaps su-
pervisors show consideration for their subordinates not only by being ap-
proachable (listening and getting responses), but also by clarifying ambiguous
situations through task communication. Suggestions by Barth (1971) and
Baskin and Aronoff (1980)) however, make possible a different interpretation.
They suggested that the interpersonal relation climate of an organization is
heavily influenced by leader behaviors and the amount of task-related infor-
mation exchanged in organization was significantly determined by the quality
of the interpersonal relations climate. In other words, consideration of leader
behavior could facilitate interpersonal relations between leader and subordi-
nate through relational messages, and good interpersonal relations, in turn,
could lead to the improvement of task communication.
Interpretation in this manner implies another relationship between non-
official communication and official communication. Non-official communi-
cation between leader and subordinate, which is the transmission of informa-
tion related to something other than jobs in an informal manner, is believed to
contribute more effectively to the improvement of human relations between
them than official communication, which is formal transmission of job-related
information. Therefore non-official communication could improve official
communication by moderating a communication barrier which could come from
the difference of power and responsibility between them within the group.
Collectively, the extant literature reviewed so far seems to warrant the fol-
lowing hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1. Official communication, which is transmission of job-related

information in a formal manner, is positively related with
both dimensions of leadership-showing consideration and
initiating structure.

Hypothesis 2. Non-official communication, which is expressive and infor-

mal communication, is positively related to only showing
consideration of leader behavior.

Hypothesis 3. Non-official communication between a leader and his or her

subordinates is positively related to official communication
between them.

- :
 21

2.2. Communication and subordinate satisfaction

To provide direction and stimulate motivation, leaders must attend not only
to the needs of the organization but also to individuals needs as well. Human
needs are not universal; different people have different needs and the same
person has different needs at different times (Badawy, 1978). To discover
someones needs, a leader must improve his abilities to perceive those needs
and to facilitate the means by which the individual can fulfill simultaneously
both his own and the organizational needs (Badawy, 1975,1988; Baskin and
Aronoff, 1980). This can only be accomplished through effective interpersonal
communication relationships. When subordinates fulfilled both their own and
organizational needs, they would be satisfied with their jobs.
For this reason, many studies have explored the relationships between leader-
subordinate interpersonal communication and subordinates job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction can be referred to as the feelings a worker has about his job
and can be distinguished as the five dimensions of work, supervision, pay, pro-
motions, and co-workers (Price and Mueller, 1986; Smith et al., 1969). Sub-
ordinates satisfaction with supervision and with work are considered in this
study as two dimensions of job satisfaction, which are expected to be much
influenced by leader behavior and communication between a leader and his or
her subordinates. Subordinate satisfaction with supervision includes supervi-
sory style and influence, technical adequacy, human relations and administra-
tive skills. Subordinate satisfaction with work includes intrinsic interest, va-
riety, opportunity for learning, creativity, difficulty, amount of work,
responsibility, chances for success and control over work flow (Locke, 1976).
Baird and Diebolt (1976) found that a subordinates job satisfaction is pos-
itively correlated with estimates of communication contacts with superiors.
Subordinates are more satisfied with their jobs, in particular with their super-
vision, when openness of communication exists between subordinates and su-
perior (Jablin, 1979). In a similar vein, Pincus (1986) suggested that com-
munication receptivity of supervisors is a powerful predictor of workers job
satisfaction, and Johnson et al. (1984) also reported that supervisor persu-
asiveness is positively related to subordinate satisfaction with supervision. In-
deed, contents and relations aspects of communication between leader and
subordinates are highly associated with the job satisfaction of subordinates.
However, these studies have not considered the leadership effect on the re-
lationship between leader-subordinate communication and subordinate sat-
isfaction. For decades, hundreds of studies have examined the effects of leader
behavior on subordinate satisfaction and have reported consistently that sub-
ordinate satisfaction is significantly influenced by initiating structure and con-
sideration of leader behavior, though the relationship may be contingent on
many situational factors such as subordinate characteristics, task structure,

- :
22

and time pressures of work (House and Dessler, 1974; Kerr et al., 1974; House
et al., 1971; Bass, 1981).
Path goal theory of leadership (House, 1971; House and Dessler, 1974) pro-
posed that leader initiating structure could contribute to satisfaction of sub-
ordinate engaged in ambiguous tasks only, while leader consideration would
have its greatest effect on satisfaction of subordinates engaged in clear tasks
(Jago, 1982). Recent research by Keller (1989) also found that the individuals
need for clarity influenced the degree to which the leader should exert his ini-
tiating structure behavior. Based on this finding, leaders should tend to limit
their initiating structure behavior with subordinates with low need for clarity,
allowing these individuals to structure their own work. Conversely, for mem-
bers with high need for clarity leaders should provide more structure (Mc-
Donough III, 1990). This is because structuring behavior of a leader comple-
ments the task by providing and clarifying the job requirements when tasks
are unstructured, while leaders supportive behavior provides a source of ex-
trinsic rewards for subordinates when task demands are self-evident (House
and Dessler, 1974).
In a similar vein, it would be postulated that leadership style can have mod-
erator effects on the relationship between leader-subordinate communication
and subordinate satisfaction. For instance, official communication will have
more positive impacts on subordinate satisfaction when leaders exhibit low
initiating structure than otherwise, because official communication could com-
plement initiating structure of leader behavior by providing job-related infor-
mation to subordinates through a formal channel. On the other hand, non-
official communication will have its most positive effect on subordinate satis-
faction when leaders exhibit low consideration, since non-official communi-
cation could reinforce the interpersonal relations between a leader and his
subordinates.
Given the paucity of research in this area, it is premature to specify, on an a
priori basis, the interaction effects of communication and leadership style on
subordinate satisfaction in detail. Thus, the following hypotheses would be an
initial step toward exploring the relationship between communication and
subordinate satisfaction in conjunction with leadership style.

Hypothesis 4. The relationship between official communication and sub-

ordinate satisfaction is different according to the two dimen-
sions of leadership-initiating structure and showing
consideration.

Hypothesis 5. The relationship between non-official communication and

subordinate satisfaction is different according to the initi-
ating structure and showing consideration of leader behavior.

- :
 23

3. Research design and measures

3.1. Sample

The data for this study were collected from 199 individuals of small project
teams of six research institutes funded by the Korean Government. The num-
ber of cases for each institute was determined considering the number of its
researchers and project teams. The subjects of each institute were randomly
selected from as many project teams as possible and all respondents were as-
sured of anonymity. Very good response rate of 67.5 percent was achieved
(Babbic, 1983 ) . Most of the respondents were highly educated and 79 percent
of them completed graduate school. Eighty three percent of respondents were
males and the average age of the subjects was 31. The average size of the project
teams was four and the size of the teams ranged from two to nine. About 79
percent of the respondents reported that their project leaders were Ph.D.s and
65 percent of the Ph.D.s were educated in the United States.
Table 1 shows the sample profile. Table 2 shows the profile of project leaders,
reported by their subordinates (respondents), that is, in case of sex, 194 of
respondents reported that their project leaders were male and five of them
female.

3.2. Instrument

To measure the communication variables, a scale modified from the instru-

ment developed by Penley and Hawkins (1985) was prepared. The task, per-

TABLE 1

Sample profile (n = 199)

Education Tenure (2) Age (A) Sex

BS MS PhD T-c5 5<T<lO T> 10 A<30 30&A<40 A>40 M F

42 157 2 118 76 5 72 118 6 168 31

BS includes BA and MS includes MA.

TABLE 2

Profile of project leaders (n = 199)

Education Tenure (T) Age (A) Sex

BS MS PhD Tt5 5<T<lO Ta 10 At40 A>40 M F

8 33 158 71 102 26 81 118 194 5

BS includes BA and MS includes MA.

- :
 24

formance, and career communication variables in the Penley and Hawkins

scale were integrated into the official communication, and the personal com-
munication variable into the non-official communication, and communication
responsiveness was divided into two: official and non-official communication
according to the contents of the communication. Each scale of both commu-
nication variables was composed of downward and upward communication
classified by who initiated the communication. The scale for the official com-
munication consisted of seven items, three for downward and four for upward.
The scale for the non-official communication consisted of six items, three each
for downward and upward. All questionnaires were translated to Korean from
English.
Sixteen items from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)
Form 12 (Stogdill, 1963) were used to measure consideration and initiating
structure of leader behavior. Four items of LBDQ, two for each variable, were
removed because of poor reliability through a pilot test for the scales. By the
value of inter-item correlations and Cronbach alphas resulted from the relia-
bility analysis for the scales, it was judged for the items not to be relevant for
the leadership scales in this study. This result of the reliability analysis was
also confirmed in the basic data. It is supposed that this difference in leader-
ship scales is attributed to differences in culture and language between Korea
and the United States in which the LBDQ was developed. Table 3 shows the
results of the pilot test of reliability for the scales. The removed items are as
follows:
- He tries out his ideas in the group (LBDQ-Form 12 No. 24; Structure).
- He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done (No. 44; Structure ) .
- He is willing to make changes (No. 77; Consideration).
- He refuses to explain his actions (No. 87; Consideration).
Subordinate satisfaction with supervision and with work were measured on
the scales of seven items, four for supervision satisfaction and three for work

TABLE 3

The results of reliability analysis for leadership scales

Reliability Leader structure Leader consideration

Before items After items Before items After items

deletion deletion deletion deletion

Inter-item correlations
Mean 0.29 0.43 0.37 0.54
Minimum -0.10 0.23 -0.17 0.24
Maximum 0.59 0.65 0.76 0.76

Cronbach alpha 0.78 0.86 0.80 0.90

- :
 25

satisfaction, modified from the instrument developed by Smith, Kendal and

Hulin (Price and Mueller, 1986). Project success was measured by a scale con-
sisting of seven items indicating the extent to which subordinates themselves
perceived the efficacy of the project which their team conducted recently, based
on the argument that the bottom-line indicator of project success is whether
key personnel associated with the project are satisfied with the overall results,
and that such factors as controlling costs and meeting the schedule ultimately
take a back seat to this global appraisal (Larson and Gobeli, 1989 ).
All scales to measure leadership, leader-subordinate communication, sub-
ordinate satisfaction and project success consist of the seven-point Likert scale
items. Each variable was computed by averaging measured items belonging to
each scale for individual respondents.
Factor analyses for items of each combination of leader-subordinate com-
munication, leadership, and subordinate satisfaction were done to investigate
the discriminant validity of the variables used in the study. The items for each
factor were grouped similarly with the items of the questionnaire used for
measuring each variable.

3.3. Analysis

Individual subordinates were used as unit of analysis in this study. The per-
ception of subordinates about the leader-subordinate communication and their

TABLE 4

Means, correlations and reliabilities for all variables

Variable Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Initiating structure 4.17 (0.86)

(1.08)

2. Consideration 4.07 0.62 (0.90)

(1.27)

3. Official communication 4.55 0.64 0.77 (0.91)

(1.22)

4. Non-official communication 3.95 0.39 0.66 0.62 (0.87)

(1.29)

5. Supervision satisfaction 4.21 0.63 0.83 0.74 0.55 (0.81)

(1.23)

6. Work satisfaction 4.21 0.27 0.30 0.31 0.27 0.26 (0.81)

(1.28)

7. Project success 4.85 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.35 0.35 0.54 (0.91)
(0.95)

Values on the diagonal are the Cronbach alphas. All correlations are significant (p < 0.01). Values
in parentheses below means are standard deviations.

- :
 26

leaders behavior was of interest to us. Therefore, we analyzed responses only

from individual subordinates. The zero-order correlations among all the vari-
ables were computed to determine the degree to which the variables were re-
lated. These correlations are presented in Table 4, along with the means and
reliabilities measured by the Cronbach alphas for each variable. As shown in
Table 4, all scales show high levels of reliability in this sample, and all are
within normally acceptable limits (Nunally, 1978). The zero-order correla-
tions are generally consistent with expectations.
To test the relationships between official communication and leadership di-
mensions (Hypothesis l), and the relationships between non-official com-
munication and leadership dimensions (Hypothesis 2)) two-way analysis of
variance was used. In addition, to examine the relationships between leader-
ship style and the communications, one-way analysis of variance was applied.
Consideration and initiating structure were split at their medians in order for
them to be used as categorical variables in ANOVA. Simple regression analysis
was applied for the entire sample and for each category of leader behavior to
test the relationships between non-official and official communication (Hy-
pothesis 3 ), the relationships between official communication and subordinate
satisfaction (Hypothesis 4)) and the relationships between non-official com-
munication and subordinate satisfaction in a project team (Hypothesis 5).

4. Results

Table 5 reports the results from the analysis of the relationships between
leadership and the leader-subordinate communication, and between leader-
ship and outcome in a project team. The two main effects of consideration and
initiating structure accounted for significant differences in the official com-
munication among the four groups defined by the possible combinations of
high and low consideration and initiating structure (Hypothesis 1) . The non-
official communication was significantly associated with consideration but not
significantly related to initiating structure of leader behavior (Hypothesis 2 ) .
Subordinate satisfaction with supervision and project success were positively
related with consideration and initiating structure of leader behavior but work
satisfaction was only positively related with initiating structure.
Table 5 also reports the results of a Scheffe test of the relationships between
leadership style and the communications. A high consideration of leader be-
havior (Types III and IV) had higher official communication than a low con-
sideration of leader behavior (Types I and II), and a higher initiating structure
had higher official communication under the same consideration group, that
is, consideration was more positively related to official communication than
the initiating structure of leader behavior was. High consideration of leader
behavior (Types III and IV) had higher non-official communication than low
consideration of leader behavior (Types I and II ), and no significant difference

- :
 TABLE 5

Results from two-way and one-way ANOVA of the relationships between leadership and communication

Dependent Cell means Two-way ANOVA (F) One-way ANOVA

variable
Low c Low c High C High C C s cxs F-value Scheffe
Low s High S LOWS High S results
Type I Type II Type III Type IV
(n=71) (n=29) (n=27) (n=72)

Communication
Official 3.60 4.20 4.90 5.51 83.6 17.9 0.0 55.8 1<11<111<1v
communication (1.05) (0.90) (0.93) (0.72)
Non-official 3.26 3.34 4.30 4.75 49.0 2.4 1.1 25.5 I, II <III, IV
communication (1.09) (1.23) (1.15) (1.05)
Outcome
Supervision 3.19 3.74 4.75 5.20 127.4 13.9 0.2 73.4 I<II<III, IV
satisfaction (0.92) (0.73) (0.77) (0.85)
Work 3.89 4.36 3.77 4.67 0.2 12.5 1.2 6.2 I, IIItIV
satisfaction (1.31) (1.07) (1.38) (1.13)
Project success 4.39 4.86 4.77 5.34 9.7 14.6 0.1 14.4 I, III < IV
(1.03) (0.77) (0.96) (0.66)

- :
C: Consideration of leader behavior; S: Initiating Structure of leader behavior; CXS: Interaction of Consideration (C) and Initiating Structure
(S) of leader behavior.
Significant differences between pairs of group means at the 0.05 level.
P<O.Ol.
 28

between the groups under the same consideration group (Types I and II or
Types III and IV), that is, initiating structure of leader behavior did not make
any significant difference in non-official communication.
Table 6 reports the results of regression analysis of the relationship between
the official and non-official communication. The official communication is
positively related to the non-official communication for the entire sample (Hy-
pothesis 3 ) .
In order to identify the presumed moderating effect of leadership on the
relationship between official and non-official communication, regression anal-
yses were performed individually for each category of leadership types. These
subgroup analyses, however, produced mixed results according to leadership
types. Regression results for each type of leadership show that official com-
munication is not significantly correlated with non-official communication in
Leadership Type III (high C, low S), whereas a significant relationship was
borne out in other types of leadership.
Table 7 reports the results from regression analysis of the relationship be-
tween official communication and subordinate satisfaction in a project team.
Each dimension of the subordinate satisfaction is positively related to official
communication for the entire sample. Results of subgroup analysis show that
official communication is positively related to subordinate satisfaction with
supervision in any leadership type but positively related to subordinate satis-
faction with work only in Leadership Type III (High C, Low S) (Hypothesis
4).
Table 8 reports the results from regression analysis of the relationships be-
tween non-official communication and each dimension of subordinate satis-
faction in a project team. Each dimension of subordinate satisfaction is posi-
tively related to non-official communication for the entire sample. Results of
subgroup analysis show that non-official communication is positively related

TABLE 6

Results from regression analysis of the relationship between offficial and non-official
communication

Dependent Leadership type Non-official communication

variable
P RZ

Official Entire sample 0.62b 0.38

communication Type1 (lowC,lowS) 0.46b 0.21
Type II (low C, high S) 0.57s 0.32
Type III (high C, low S) 0.19 0.04
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.43s 0.19

C: Consideration of leader behavior; S: Initiating structure of leader behavior.

bp<O.Ol.

- :
 29

TABLE 7

Results from regression analysis of the relationships between official communication and
satisfaction

Dependent Leadership type Official communication

variable
B R2

Supervision Entire sample 0.74b 0.55

satisfaction Type I (low C, low S) 0.43b 0.19
Type II (low C, high S) 0.70s 0.43
Type III (high C, low S) 0.54s 0.30
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.52b 0.27
Work satisfaction Entire sample 0.31b 0.10
Type1 (lowC,lowS) 0.22 0.05
Type II (low C, high S) 0.32 0.10
Type III (high C, low S) 0.38 0.15
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.09 0.01

C: Consideration of leader behavior; S: Initiating structure of leader behavior.

bp<O.Ol.
p<O.O5.

TABLE 8

Results from regression analysis of the relationships between non-official communication and
satisfaction

Dependent Leadership type Non-official communication

variable
P R2

Supervision Entire sample 0.55b 0.30

satisfaction Type I (low C, low S) 0.30 0.09
Type II (low C, high S) 0.45 0.20
Type III (high C, low S ) 0.08 0.01
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.32b 0.10
Work satisfaction Entire sample 0.27b 0.07
Type1 (lowC,lowS) 0.21 0.05
Type II (low C, high S) 0.51s 0.26
Type III (high C, low S) -0.08 0.01
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.23 0.05

C: Consideration of leader behavior; S: Initiating structure of leader behavior.

bp<O.Ol.
pt0.05.

to supervision satisfaction within Leadership Types I, II and IV and positively

related to work satisfaction within Leadership Type II (Hypothesis 5).
The relationship between project success and leader-subordinate commu-

- :
 30

nication was also examined but the relationship was very weak. Project success
is positively related with official communication (p= 0.46, p < 0.05; R2 = 0.21)
and with non-official communication (/?= 0.35, p < 0.05; R2 = 0.12) for the en-
tire sample. When leadership variables are controlled, that is, under a given
leadership type, project success is positively related to official communication
(p=O.32, p< 0.05; R2=0.10) only for low consideration and initiating struc-
ture of leader behavior (Leadership Type I) but not significantly related with
non-official communication for any leadership type. This may imply that proj-
ect success is influenced by so many factors other than leader-subordinate
communication such as leadership and motivation of subordinates.
As mentioned before, non-official communication could influence each di-
mension of subordinate satisfaction not only directly but also indirectly through
official communication. As a post hoc analysis to examine direct and indirect
relationship between non-official communication and subordinate satisfac-
tion, partial correlations between them were computed controlling for official
communication. Table 9 shows the computed zero-order correlations and first-
order partial correlations between non-official communication and subordi-
nate satisfaction. When official communication is controlled, supervision sat-
isfaction has much less positive relationship with non-official communication
(r=0.55,p~O.Ol+r=0.18,p ~0.05) and work satisfaction is not significantly
related to non-official communication (r= 0.27, p < O.Ol+r= 0.11, p > 0.05),
for the entire sample. For given leadership type, supervision satisfaction is not
significantly related to non-official communication for any leadership type and

TABLE 9

Partial correlations between non-official communication and subordinate satisfaction when offi-
cial communication is controlled

Satisfaction Leadership type Non-official communication

Partial Zero-order
correlation correlation

Supervision Entire sample 0.18 0.55"

satisfaction Type I (low C, low S) 0.13 0.30
Type II (low C, high 5) 0.08 0.45
Type III (high C, low S) -0.03 0.08
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.12 0.32

Work satisfaction Entire sample 0.11 0.27

Type I (low C, low S) 0.13 0.21
Type II (low C, high S) 0.42 0.51s
Type III (high C, low S) -0.17 -0.08
Type IV (high C, high S) 0.21 0.23

hp<O.Ol.
p <0.05.

- :
 31

work satisfaction is positively related to non-official communications for

Leadership Type II (low C, high S), when official communication is controlled.

5. Discussion and research implications

This study has explored the relationships between leader-subordinate com-

munication and subordinate satisfaction in conjunction with leadership for
small project teams of research institutes sponsored by the Korean Govern-
ment. Major findings for this study can be summarized as follows:
(1) Consideration of leader behavior is positively related to official com-
munication and to non-official communication, while initiating structure is
positively related only to official communication.
Communication between a leader and his subordinates is significantly as-
sociated with leader behavior. As many studies pointed out, managers play an
important role in the formation of organizational climate for interpersonal
relations, and the quality of interpersonal relations climate determines to a
great extent the amount and quality of task-related information exchanged in
an organization (Barth, 1971; Baskin and Aronoff, 1980). It is not surprising
that a leader who is considerate, supportive and friendly to his subordinates is
more likely to be concerned about facilitating the interpersonal relationship
using non-official communication, which in turn enhances the transmission of
job-related information through a formal communication channel. A leader
who is more concerned about the task accomplishment, on the other hand,
tends to emphasize only official communication with subordinates.
(2) Official communication is positively associated with non-official com-
munication for all leadership types other than Leadership Type III (high C,
low S).
Two aspects of interpersonal communication between a leader and subor-
dinates-official and non-official communication-are closely related to each
other. Although it is premature to specify the causality between them, it would
be speculated that non-official communication is more likely to be viewed as a
cause of official communication rather than vice versa. Non-official commu-
nication could contribute more effectively to human relations between a leader
and his or her subordinates through facilitating mutual understanding than
official communication could, and good interpersonal relations tend to mod-
erate the possible barriers in the formal communication channel which often
come from differences in power and responsibility between their positions
within a group. However, non-official communication is not significantly cor-
related with official communication in Leadership Type III (high C, low S).
This may result from the fact that the Type III leader (high C, low S) already
has much concern about relationship with subordinates but little concern about
work, and thus non-official communication could no longer contribute towards
triggering the transmission of information necessary to do a job.

- :
 32

(3 ) Official communication is positively related to both supervision and work

satisfaction of subordinates. If the leadership effect on this relationship is con-
trolled by subgroup analysis, however, the relationship between official com-
munication and work satisfaction was significantly borne out only in the Lead-
ership Type III (high C, low S), whereas the relationship between official
communication and supervision satisfaction was significantly positive for all
types of leadership.
(4) Non-official communication is positively related to supervision satisfac-
tion of subordinates for all leadership types other than Leadership Type III
(high C, low S) , and positively related to work satisfaction for high initiating
structure and low initiating structure of leader behavior (Leadership Type II ) .
When official communication is controlled, supervision satisfaction is not sig-
nificantly related to non-official communication for any leadership type, and
the relationship between work satisfaction and non-official communication for
a given leadership type is not much influenced by controlling official
communication.
Communication between a leader and his subordinates has a significant re-
lationship with subordinate satisfaction. For supervision satisfaction, official
communication has positive relationship with it in all leadership types. This
is because subordinates tend to like a superior, regardless of their supervisory
style, who help them to facilitate to get the job done (Locke, 1976). Non-offi-
cial communication has also positive relationship with it in all leadership types
other than Type III (high C, low S). The reason for the absence of a significant
relationship between non-official communication and supervision satisfaction
in Leadership Type III (high C, low S) is closely associated with the fact that
non-official communication is not correlated with official communication in
this type of leadership. That is, for leaders who are already perceived to be very
considerate to their subordinates, communication of relational messages could
not satisfy any more subordinates needs. Subordinates under this type of lead-
ership may be in need for better technical adequacy or administrative skills
rather than relational communication.
For work satisfaction, official communication complements the initiating
structure of a Type III leader, who has high consideration and low initiating
structure, while non-official communication complements the consideration
of a Type II leader, who has low consideration and high initiating structure.
These results are in line with the propositions suggested by path goal theory
(House, 1971; House and Dessler, 1974): (1) Leader initiating structure will
contribute to satisfaction of subordinates engaged in ambiguous tasks only,
and (2) Leader consideration will have its greatest effect on the satisfaction
of subordinates engaged in clear tasks (Jago, 1982 ). Since structuring behavior
complements the task by providing and clarifying the job requirements when
tasks are unstructured, the official communication could contribute to the in-
strumental role of a leader by providing information necessary to do a job when

- :
 33

a leader has good mutual relationship with subordinates but is not much con-
cerned about directing and organizing the relationship between tasks and sub-
ordinates. On the other hand, when task demands are self-evident, a suppor-
tive behavior of a leader provides a source of extrinsic rewards for subordinates
(House and Dessler, 1974). In a similar vein, non-official communication could
encourage the motivation of subordinates instead of consideration behavior of
a leader, when he or she is much concerned only about task accomplishment.
Different types of project leaders are needed to lead different types of proj-
ects (McDonough III, 1990). Further, different types of leaders are needed to
use different patterns of communication. This study suggests that subordinate
satisfaction in a project team can be made better by improving communication
between a project leader and his subordinates even under given leadership style,
and not only the official communication but also the non-official communi-
cation is important for subordinate satisfaction. For a long time, there has been
little concern for non-official communication between a leader and his subor-
dinates. And many leaders who have a control orientation towards interaction
with their subordinates perceive aloof relationships as necessary to effective
leadership. Their perception for this need for distance in leader-subordinate
relations are usually based on some conventional and untested wisdom such
as familiarity breeds contempt.
But the results of this study suggest that it is necessary for project leaders
in R&D project team settings to have much concern for the non-official com-
munication as well as the official communication for better subordinate sat-
isfaction, especially for Leadership Type II (low C, high S). Doktor (1990)
found in his comparative study of Asian and American CEOs that while an
American CEO tends to deal with a specific issue during twenty separate, short
meetings, the Asian manager tends to discuss the issue at three or four longer
meetings. Their more deliberate pace and the fact that Asians give more time
to each activity do not imply that they are less efficient or accomplish less; it
may be just the opposite. Since Asian managers spend less total time in meet-
ings settling down and starting up, more time is spent on concentrated
communication and problem solving. Here, it is necessary to note the contents
of the communication of the manager in meetings. It may be true that Asian
managers have more communication not directly related to the job, that is,
non-official communication with their subordinates in the meetings than their
American counterparts.
This study extends the present scope of the organizational communication
literature in R&D settings by integrating leader-subordinate communication,
leadership, and subordinate satisfaction. However, this study, cross-sectional
and correlational in nature, was unable to capture in a systematic manner the
dynamic nature of the relationships among leader-subordinate communica-
tion, leadership, and subordinate satisfaction in a project team. That is, one
can not be sure whether change in leadership causes change in leader-subor-

- :
 34

dinate communication or vice versa, and whether change in the communica-

tion causes change in subordinate satisfaction or vice versa. More than likely,
it is a combination of both directions in each relationship although there is a
difference in degree of causality according to the direction. Furthermore, many
situational factors-such as characters of task and subordinates, and organi-
zational culture-which are believed to moderate the relationships between
leader-subordinate communication and subordinate satisfaction, were not in-
vestigated in this study.
It is important to note, therefore, that the relationships found in this study
should be considered as exploratory and should not be generalized in other
research settings before further systematic investigation is undertaken in dif-
ferent situations.

References

Babbic, E., 1983. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,
CA, 226 pp.
Badawy, M.K., 1975. Organizational design for scientists and engineers: Some research findings
and their implications for managers. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. (November): 134-138.
Badawy, M.K., 1978. One more time: How to motivate engineers. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
25(2) (May): 37-42.
Badawy, M.K., 1988. What weve learned about managing human resources. Res. Technol. Mun-
age., (September-October): 19-35.
Baird, J.E. and Diebolt, J.C., 1976. Role congruence, communication, superior-subordinate rela-
tions and employee satisfaction in organizational hierarchies. West. Speech Commun., 40:
260-267.
Barth, R.T., 1971. Intergroup climate characteristics, perceived communication problems, and
unity of effort achieved by task interdependent R&D groups. 3Zst Annu. Academy of Munuge-
ment PFOC., Atlanta, GA.
Baskin, O.W. and Aronoff, C.E., 1980. Interpersonal Communication in Organizations. Goodyear,
Santa Monica, CA.
Bass, B.M., 1981. Stogdills Handbook ojZ,eudership. Free Press, New York, 407 pp.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S., 1964. The MunugeriaZ Grid. Gulf, Houston, TX.
Dansereau, F. and Markham, S.E., 1987. Superior-subordinate communication: Multiple levels
of analysis. In: F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts and L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Communication. Sage Publ., Beverley Hills, CA, pp. 343-388.
Doktor, R.H., 1990. Asian and American CEOs: A comparative study. Organ. Dyn., (Winter): 46-
56.
House, R.J., 1971. A path-global theory of leader effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Q., 16: 321-338.
House, R.J. and Dessler, G., 1974. The path goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori
tests. In: J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 29-55.
House, R.J., Filley, A.C. and Kerr, S., 1971. Relation of leader consideration and initiating struc-
ture to R&D subordinates satisfaction. Admin. Sci. Q., 16: 19-30.
Jablin, F.M., 1979. Superior-subordinate communication. Psychol. Bull., 16: 1201-1222.
Jago, A.G., 1982. Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Manage. Sci., 28(3): 315-336.

- :
 35

Johnson, A.L., Luthans, F. and Hennessey, H.W., 1984. The role of locus of control in leader
influence behavior. Personnel Psychol., 37: 61-75.
Keller, R., 1989. A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as a moderator
in research and development organizations. J. Appl. Psychol., 74 (2): 208-212.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C.A., Murphy, C.J. and Stogdill, R.M., 1974. Toward a contingency theory
of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organ. Behau.
Hum. Perform., 12: 62-82.
Kipnis, D. and Lane, W.D., 1962. Self confidence and leadership. J. Appl. Psychol., 46: 291-295.
Larson, L.W. and Gobelli, D.H., 1989. Significance of project management structure on develop-
ment success. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., EM-36: 119-125.
Locke, E.A., 1976. The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In: M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.
McDonough III, E.F., 1990. An investigation of the relationships between project performance
and characteristics of project leaders. J. Eng. Technol. Manage., 6: 237-260.
Mintzberg, H., 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper and Row, New York.
Miraglia, J.F., 1963. An experimental study of the effects of communication training upon per-
ceived job performance of nursing supervisors in two urban hospitals. Doctoral Dissertation,
Purdue University. Diss. Abstr., 24: 5611 (University Microfilm No. 64-05,749).
Nunally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oh, S., 1982. Hunkoogineo Suhaesimri (Social Psychology of Korean People). Bakyoungsa, Seoul,
165 pp (in Korean).
Penfield, R.V., 1974. Time allocation and effectiveness of managers. Personnel Psychol., 27: 245-
255.
Penley, L.E. and Hawkins, B., 1985. Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A
leadership application. Acud. Manage. J., 28: 309-326.
Pincus, J.D., 1986. Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction andjob performance. Hum. Com-
mun. Res., 12: 395-419.
Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W., 1986. Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Pitman, Marsh-
field, MA, 83 pp.
Redding, W.C., 1972. Communication within Organizations. Industrial Communication, New York.
Roberts, K.H., OReilly III, C.A., Bretton, D.E. and Porter, L.W., 1974. Organization theory and
organizational communication: A communication failure? Hum. Relat., 27: 501-524.
Schriesheim, J.F., 1980. The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of
the effects of group cohesiveness. J. Appl. Psychol., 65(2): 183-194.
Smith, P.C., Kendal, L.M. and Hulin, C.L., 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Retirement. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Stogdill, R.M., 1963. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII. Bu-
reau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, H.H. and Jackson, D.C., 1967. Pragmutics of Human Communication.
W.W. Norton, New York.
Webber, R.A., 1972. Time and Management. Van Nostrand Reinholt, New York.
Xu, L.C., 1987. A cross-cultural study on the leadership behavior of Chinese and Japanese. Asia
Pac. J. Manage., 4(3): 203-209.

- :