Organizational Communication: Relationships to Organizational Climate and Job

Satisfaction
Author(s): Paul M. Muchinsky
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 592-607
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/255359
Accessed: 12-11-2018 13:30 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/255359?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management Journal
1977, Vol. 20, No. 4, 592-607.

Organizational Communication:
Relationships to Organizational
Climate and Job Satisfaction1
PAUL M. MUCHINSKY
Iowa State University

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine

relationships among measures of organizational com-
munication, 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 to both organizational climate and
job 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 (1974a) developed an instrument
purportedly designed to measure organizational communication. They re-
ported that the instrument had desirable psychometric properties and in
general proved to be a useful measure of organizational communication.
A subsequent analysis of the Roberts and O'Reilly communication ques-
tionnaire (Muchinsky, 1977) also yielded guarded support for the in-
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-
biewski, 1970; Hand, Richards, & Slocum, 1973). The results of these

Paul M. Muchinsky is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Industrial

Relations Center, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
1 This study was made possible by a grant from the Graduate College of Iowa State
University.

592

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 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
direct variables 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 be 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 com-
munality and thus should logically 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
not warrant such a conclusion.
A key component in the climate-satisfaction 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
to 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

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
594 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 is, climate provides descriptive information, often
contaminated by satisfaction, while satisfaction provides evaluative as-
sessments.
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 as 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 Communication-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 scale (Kunin, 1955).
Three of the dimensions (trust in superior, perceived influence of the
superior, and mobility aspirations of the respondent) are considered to be
noncommunication variables by Roberts and O'Reilly, but were included

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 595

in the questionnaire because they have been 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 &
O'Reilly, 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
a 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 those 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 Satisfaction-The measure of job satisfaction was the Job Descrip-
tive Index (JDI) 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 co-
workers. Extensive research has shown the JDI to be 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 man-
agement, telephone operators, telephone service repairmen, PBX installers,
technical, craft, and clerical 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 Iowa 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-

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
596 Academy of Management Journal 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 multi-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
less 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 X SD Reliability a

Job Satisfaction
Satisfaction with work 33.54 10.53 .80
Satisfaction with supervision 37.43 12.10 .87
Satisfaction with pay 14.26 5.61 .77
Satisfaction with promotions 12.06 8.35 .88
Satisfaction with co-workers 39.38 11.36 .86
Organizational Climate
Interpersonal milieu 14.24 2.87 .75
Standards 9.66 1.84 .54
Affective tone toward management/organization 40.46 8.45 .91
Organizational structure and procedures 24.90 5.52 .82
Responsibility 16.80 3.03 .56
Organizational identification 14.06 3.04 .82
Organizational Communication
Trust 14.12 4.54 .83
Influence 13.98 4.24 .69
Mobility 9.71 4.07 .93
Desire for interaction 15.52 3.49 .63
Accuracy 15.24 2.46 .54
Summarization 15.34 3.49 .80
Gatekeeping 12.61 3.64 .46
Overload 5.59 2.73 .67
Directionality-upward 32.13 19.21 .58
Directionality-downward 19.02 28.76 .84
Directionality-lateral 48.85 18.74 .76
Written modality 14.19 11.89
Face-to-face modality 40.03 18.16
Telephone modality 43.35 38.31
Other modality 2.43 3.40
Satisfaction with communication 4.83 1.30

a Internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) for mu

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 597

load (.67); desire 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 two measures
involve the standards organizational climate dimension. These results are
highly similar to the findings reported by LaFollette and Sims (1975) re-
garding the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational cli-
mate measures.

TABLE 2

Correlations Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate Variablesa

Organizational Climate
A ffective Organi-
Tone zational Organii-
Inter- Toward Structure zational
Job personal Manage- and Pro- Responsi- Identi-
Satisfaction Milieu Standards ment cedutres bilitv fication
Work .43 -.24 .47 .35 .24 .46
Supervision .46 -.18 .63 .42 .14 .48
Pay .23 -.06 (<.05) .37 .30 .04 (ns) .28
Promotions .33 -.06 (<.05) .54 .37 .10 (<.01) .40
Co-workers .35 -.06 (<.05) .36 .34 .08 (<.05) .42

it All correlations significant (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) are statistically significant (p < .01
or 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, desire 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.

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 598 Academy of Management Journal December

TABLE 3

Correlations Between Organizational Communication and

Organizational Climate Variables

Organizational Climate
Affective Organi-
Tone zational Organi-
Inter- Toward Structure zational
Organizational personal Manage- and Pro- Respon- Identifi-
Communication Milieu Standards ment cedures sibility cation
Trust .50** -.16** .62** .40** .11* .47**
Influence .34** -.01 .48** .34** .08 .37**
Mobility .06 .08 .14** .09 -.04 .15**
Desire for
interaction .22** -.04 .25** .09 .05 .19**
Accuracy .34** -.04 .40** .40** .06 .34**
Summarization .10 .08 .14* -.01 .18** .12*
Gatekeeping -.06 .05 -.03 .06 -.04 -.09
Overload -.03 .03 -.01 -.06 .06 -.03
Directionality-
upward .09 .00 .12 .11 * -.04 .07
Directionality-
downward .14* .03 .26** .14* .15* .24**
Directionality-
lateral -.20** -.03 -.29** -.16** -.02 -.21**
Written modality .03 -.01 .00 .00 -.07 -.02
Face-to-face
modality .01 I 0* .13** .07 .09 .11*
Telephone
modality -.10* .16** -.16** -.04 -.11* --.12**
Other modality -.04 .16 -.16 -.17 -.16 -.04
Satisfaction with
communication .40** -.06 .53** .42** .10* .51**
p < .01
** p < .001

TABLE 4
Correlations Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Communication Variables

Organizational Job Satisfaction

Communication Work Supervision Pay Promotions Co-workers
Trust .38** .72** .25** .38** .27**
Influence .30** .48** .20** .41** .18**
Mobility -.02 .12** -.01 .14** -.02
Desire for interaction .23** .28** .03 .12* .19**
Accuracy .31** .39** .19** .17** .38**
Summarization .21** .16** .06 .06 .13*
Gatekeeping -.13 * -.14* -.04 -.11* -.02
Overload -.02 .01 .01 .00 .00
Directionality-upward .05 .12** .05 .09 .00
Directionality-downward .27** .20** .10 .19** .10
Directionality-lateral -. 15** -.24** -. 16** -.20* .03
Written modality .01 -.04 -.04 -.08 -.05
Face-to-face modality .14** .08 .06 .05 .01
Telephone modality -.188* -.07 -.08 -.05 .01
Other modality -.21 -.14 -.02 -.26* -.06
Satisfaction with
communication .39** .45** .24** .36** .25**
* p < .01
** p < .001

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 599

Table 5 summarizes the major organizational communication dimensions

that correlated significantly with both organizational climate and job satis-
faction dimensions. Only correlations that were significant at the .001 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 Communication Organizational Climate and Correlation

Dimensions Job Satisfaction Dimensions Coefficient a

Trust Interpersonal milieu .50

Affective tone management/organization .62
Organizational structure and procedures .40
Responsibility .40
Organizational identification .47
Satisfaction with work .38
Satisfaction with supervision .72
Satisfaction with pay .25
Satisfaction with promotions .38
Satisfaction with co-workers .27
Influence Interpersonal milieu .34
Affective tone management/organization .48
Organizational structure and procedures .34
Responsibility .34
Organizational identification .37
Satisfaction with work .30
Satisfaction with supervision .48
Satisfaction with pay .20
Satisfaction with promotions .41
Satisfaction with co-workers .18
Desire for interaction Interpersonal milieu .22
Affective tone management/organization .25
Satisfaction with work .23
Satisfaction with supervision .28
Satisfaction with co-workers .19
Accuracy Interpersonal milieu .34
Affective tone management/organization .40
Organizational structure and procedures .40
Responsibility .40
Organizational identification .34
Satisfaction with work .31
Satisfaction with supervision .39
Satisfaction with pay .19
Satisfaction with promotions .17
Satisfaction with co-workers .38
Directionality-downward Affective tone management/organization .26
Organizational identification .24
Satisfaction with work .27
Satisfaction with supervision .20
Satisfaction with promotions .19
Directionality-lateral Interpersonal milieu -.20
Affective tone management/organization -.29
Organizational structure and procedures -.16
Responsibility -.16
Organizational identification -.21
Satisfaction with work -.15
Satisfaction with supervision -.24
Satisfaction with pay -.16
Satisfaction with promotions -.20

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
600 Academy of Management Journal December

TABLE 5 (Continued)

Organizational Communication Organizational Climate and Correlation

Dimensions Job Satisfactioni Dimensions Coefficietit a

Satisfaction with communication Interpersonal milieu .40

Affective tone management/organization .53
Organizational structure and procedures .42
Responsibility .42
Organizational identification .51
Satisfaction with work .39
Satisfaction with supervision .45
Satisfaction with pay .24
Satisfaction with promotions .36
Satisfaction with co-workers .25

a All correlations significant, p < .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-

tion 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 ( 1 974a) because they
were found to consistently influence individual communication in organiza-
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
feelings and suggest that personal satisfaction with communication is re-
lated to perceptions of other organizational properties or practices. Strictly

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 601

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 become 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 feeling. 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 directionalities
also were significantly related to climate dimensions. Downward direction-
ality was positively and significantly correlated with the climate dimensions
of interpersonal milieu (.14), affective tone toward management (.26),
and organizational identification (.24). Conversely, the lateral directionality
was negatively and significantly correlated (-.20, -.29, and -.21) with
these same three climate dimensions, 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 modali-
ties (written, face-to-face, telephone, other) were unrelated 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 perceived 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,
speak well to the fact that there is no one singular relationship between or-
ganizational communication and perceived climate.

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
602 Academy of Maniagement Journal December

Communication-Job Satisfaction 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 that 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 to 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 wheni 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 correlated 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-
marizing 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-

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 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 job 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 satis-
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's relatively low reliability. While 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 correlations 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 LaFollette 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) has stated, the JDI 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 JDI. 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 re-
search (e.g., psychological climate versus organizational climate), it ap-
pears that some instruments which purport to measure "organizational"

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
604 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
micro-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. Perhaps a
more precise name for the Roberts and O'Reilly questionnaire is "individual
communication in organizations" rather than "organizational communica-
tion". Although their 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-
lem in organizational climate research. He offers the following statement:
When the decision has been made to use climate as an index of each person's
"psychology of the organization" then it is appropriate to develop measures
in which individuals are the unit of analysis. For example, a common strategy
is to write a set of somewhat molar descriptors, administer them to people
in an organization and factor analyze the resultant item-item correlation
matrix. It is clear that the resultant factors will reflect the individual differences
in the way people report the system's practices and procedures. These factors,
because they represent individual differences should not be used in research
when the chosen unit of analysis is other than the individual (p. 470).

The present investigation followed the same procedure as Schneider out-

lines in arriving at a measure of organizational climate where the individual
is the unit of analysis. Thus the individual was the unit of analysis in all
three instruments used in this study, although the names or titles given to
these measures by previous researchers may suggest otherwise.
While this study serves to explore relationships between communication,
job satisfaction, and climate, the study also brings into focus some of the
problems associated with broad, multidimensional concepts. Of particular
concern is the construct validity of concepts like organizational communi-
cation and climate. James and Jones (1974) and Schneider (1975) have
commented that the particular unit of analysis examined in assessing cli-
mate affects the psychological meaning of the concept, e.g., whether we
are referring to attributes of an individual or an organization. That is, the
unit of analysis becomes an important determiner of whether we are talk-
ing about psychological versus organizational climate (James & Jones,
1974). It appears that our methods of inquiry play a forceful role in deter-
mining the theoretical substance of the concepts under investigation. While
psychological versus organizational climate are convenient terms for dis-

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 605

tinguishing concepts that utilize individual versus organizational units of

analysis respectively, we must be cautious not to create artifactual (method-
bound) concepts. The construct validity of organizational (or psycholog-
ical) climate should be determined (in part) by convergent and discriminant
validity techniques. Use of the multitrait-multimethod approach to climate
research would help to determine whether climate is a "rediscovery of the
wheel" (Guion, 1973) or whether concepts such as job satisfaction, psycho-
logical climate, and organizational climate are meaningfully different
entities.
While far more research has been devoted to climate, a similar problem
of meaning seems to be forthcoming in the area of organizational com-
munication. Is "individual communication in organizations" (where the
individual is the unit of analysis) a subset or type of "organizational com-
munication"? Or, as in climate research, does the individual unit of analysis
engender one concept (psychological climate) while the organizational
unit of analysis engender a different concept (organizational climate)?
Farace and MacDonald (1974) state that organizational communication
subsumes four different units of analysis (individual, dyad, work group, and
organization). Such a schema is at odds with the way James and Jones have
differentiated climate on the basis of the unit of analysis. Research is needed
to determine what variables constitute the concept we call organizational
communication. Failure to engage in this type of research will eventually
bring on the same type of confusion currently found in the climate literature,
as "organizational communication" will mean different things to different
people.
The results of the present study speak well to some of the issues and prob-
lems inherent in this type of research. Schneider (1975) has cautioned
against crossing units of analysis, e.g., relating an individual unit of analysis
in one concept to an organizational unit of analysis in another concept.
Pritchard and Karasick (1973) empirically illustrated this issue when they
found that organizational climate was unrelated to individual performance
but was related to organizational performance. In this study, the unit of
analysis for all three concepts was the same (the individual), and it was
shown that job satisfaction, climate, and communication measures share
common variance. As Schneider has stated, the unit of analysis (whatever
it may be) should be the same across concepts if any meaningful relation-
ships are to be discovered. However, as in this study, the practice of em-
ploying the same method to assess each of the concepts introduces the pos-
sibility that some statistically significant findings are due in part to correlated
method error (e.g., response bias). In addition to the unit of analysis being
held constant across concepts, ideally different methods of assessing the con-
cepts should be employed. This raises some problems in the measurement
of concepts like climate and communication, as more objective, behavioral
indices of these concepts have not been frequently employed or have met
with limited success.

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
606 Academy of Management Jourtnal December

The findings of this study illustrate that certain dimensions of com-

munication are related to both perceived climate and job satisfaction. As
such they offer points of departure for future research, especially of an
experimental nature. However, the study also illustrates the need for re-
search identifying the parameters of the separate concepts under investiga-
tion. The need to establish the construct validity of such concepts as psycho-
logical climate, organizational climate, individual communication, and
organizational communication, appears particularly acute.

REFERENCES

1. Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick, Jr. Managerial Be-

havior, Performance, and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
2. Cohen, A. "Upward Communication in Experimentally Created Hierarchies," Sociolog-
ical Review, Vol. 15 (1965), 342-351.
3. Downey, H. K., D. Hellriegel, M. Phelps, and J. W. Slocum, Jr. "Organizational Climate
and Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 2
(1974), 233-248.
4. Farace, R. V., and D. MacDonald, "New Directions in the Study of Organizational
Communication," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 27 (1974), 1-19.
5. Golembiewski, R. "Organizational Properties and Managerial Training: Testing Alter-
native Models of Attitude Change," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13 (1970),
13-34.
6. Guion, R. M. "A Note on Organizational Climate," Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 9 (1973), 120-125.
7. Hand, H., M. Richards, and J. W. Slocum, Jr. "Organizational Climate and the Effective-
ness of a Human Relations Training Program," Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 16 (1973), 185-195.
8. Hellriegel, D., and J. W. Slocum, Jr. "Organizational Climate: Measures, Research and
Contingencies," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 (1974), 255-280.
9. James, L. R., and A. P. Jones. "Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and
Research," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81 (1974), 1096-1112.
10. Johannesson, R. "Some Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Climate,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 10 (1973), 118-145.
11. Kunin, T. "The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure," Personnel Psycliol-
ogy, Vol. 8 (1955), 65-78.
12. LaFollette, W. R., and H. P. Sims, Jr. "Is Satisfaction Redundant with Organizational
Climate?", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 (1975), 257-278.
13. Lawler, E. E., D. T. Hall, and G. R. Oldham. "Organizational Climate: Relationship to
Organizational Structure, Process, and Performance," Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 11 (1974), 139-155.
14. Litwin, G., and R. Stringer. Motivation and Organizational Climate (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1968).
15. Muchinsky, P. M. "An Assessment of the Litwin and Stringer Organization Climate
Questionnaire: An Empirical and Theoretical Extension of the Sims and LaFollette
Study," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 29 (1976), 371-392.
16. Muchinsky, P. M. "An Intra-Organizational Analysis of the Roberts and O'Reilly
Organizational Communication Questionnaire," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62
(1977), 184-188.
17. Nie, N., D. Bent, and C. Hull. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970).
18. O'Reilly, C. A., and K. H. Roberts. "Information Filtration in Organizations: Three
Experiments," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 11 (1974),
253-265.
19. Payne, R. L. "Prospects for Research on Organizational Climates" (Unpublished paper,
University of Sheffield, 1973).

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977 Muchinsky 607

20. Payne, R. L., S. Fineman, and T. D. Wall. "Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction:
A Conceptual Synthesis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16
(1976), 45-62.
21. Payne, R., and D. Pheysey. "G. G. Stern's Organizational Climate Index: A Recon-
ceptualization and Application to Business Organizations," Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 6 (1971), 77-98.
22. Porter, L. W., and K. H. Roberts. "Communication in Organizations," in M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally,
1976), pp. 1553-1590.
23. Read, W. "Upward Communication in Industrial Hierarchies," Human Relations, Vol.
15 (1962), 3-16.
24. Roberts, K. H., and C. A. O'Reilly. "Measuring Organizational Communication,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974a), 321-326.
25. Roberts, K. H., and C. A. O'Reilly. "Failures in Upward Communication in Organi-
zations: Three Possible Culprits," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 (1974b),
205-215.
26. Schneider, B. "Organizational Climates: An Essay," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28
(1975), 447-479.
27. Schneider, B., and C. Bartlett. "Individual Differences and Organizational Climate, II:
Measurement of Organizational Climate by Multitrait-Multirater Matrix," Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 23 (1970), 493-512.
28. Schneider, B., and D. T. Hall. "Toward Specifying the Concept of Work Climate: A
Study of Roman Catholic Diocesan Priests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56
(1972), 447-455.
29. Sims, H. P., and W. R. LaFollette. "An Assessment of the Litwin and Stringer Organiza-
tion Climate Questionnaire," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 (1975), 19-38.
30. Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969).
31. Smith, P. C., 0. W. Smith, and J. Rollo. "Factor Structure for Blacks and Whites of
the Job Descriptive Index and its Discrimination of Job Satisfaction," Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 99-100.
32. Stogdill, R., and A. Coons. Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Colum-
bus, O.: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957).

This content downloaded from 37.120.250.134 on Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:30:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms