This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 15 October 2012, At: 03:19 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research Reports

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

The relationship between perceived supervisory communication behaviors and subordinate organizational identification
Scott A. Myers & Jeffrey W. Kassing
a a b

Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech and Theatre Arts, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA, 706090420
b

Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN, 56301 Version of record first published: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Scott A. Myers & Jeffrey W. Kassing (1998): The relationship between perceived supervisory communication behaviors and subordinate organizational identification, Communication Research Reports, 15:1, 71-81 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099809362099

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Relationship Between Perceived Supervisory Communication Behaviors and Subordinate Organizational Identification
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Scott A. Myers McNeese State University

Jeffrey W. Kassing St. Cloud State University

This study examined the relationship between subordinate perceptions of supervisor communication skills (i.e., communicator competence, communicative adaptability, interaction involvement) and subordinate level of organizational identification. Participants were 135 undergraduate college students who reported on their summer work experience. Results indicated that (a) supervisor communication competence is the only significant predictor of subordinate organizational identification and (b) subordinates with high levels of identification view their supervisors as being more competent communicators and more involved in interactions than subordinates with moderate or low levels of identification.

According to the theory of unobtrusive control (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985), modern organizations control organizational environments through subtle and systematic manipulation of the rhetorical environment That is, organizations bias employees towards making organizationally favorable decisions by inculcating decision premises in the decision maker(s). This type of control emerges primarily through intense face-to-face interactions that occur within the microphenomena of the superior-subordinate relationship (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Organizational identification (Cheney, 1983a) is the primary construct researchers use to assess unobtrusive control in organizations. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) suggested that identification "leads the decision maker to select a particular alternative, to choose one

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech and Theatre Arts, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA 70609-0420. Jeffrey W. Kassing (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1997) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN 56301. A version of this paper was presented at the 1996 Western States Communication Association convention in Monterey, CA. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 15, Number 1, pages 71-81

Page 72 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 1998

course of action over another" (p. 191). Identification, then, serves to reduce alternatives available to decision makers. When members identify with their organizations, identification steers them towards making decisions based on what they believe to be best for their organization. Organizational communication scholars have examined the construct of organizational identification in relation to the organizational hierarchy (Tompkins, Fisher, Infante, & Tompkins, 1975), organizational house organs (Cheney, 1983a; Myers, 1989), organizational commitment (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987), decision-making premises (Bulb's & Tompkins, 1989), network involvement (Bullis & Bach, 1991), and self-managing teams (Barker & Tompkins, 1994). Collectively, these studies indicate organizational identification is a construct that significantly contributes to an understanding of how individuals identify with their organization, and how identification influences and is influenced by organizational behaviors and perceptions. Examination of the superior-subordinate relationship is a long-standing line of research in organizational communication (Jablin, 1979; Wert-Gray, Center, Brashers, & Meyers, 1991). However, one area that has been overlooked is the relationship between subordinates' organizational identification and perceptions of their immediate supervisors' communication. This is a significant oversight since unobtrusive control germinates in intense face-to-face interactions that primarily occur within the superior-subordinate dyad. The fact that organizational identification is influenced by the presence of social interaction (Bullis & Bach, 1991), created curiosity about how a superior's use of communication contributes to a subordinate's level of organizational identification. In particular, the relationship between subordinates' organizational identification levels and their perceptions of superiors' communication competence (Monge, Backman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982), communicative adaptability (Duran & Kelly, 1988), and interaction involvement (Cegala, 1981) was considered. If organizational identification is indeed produced and reproduced through the conversation of organizationally shared interests (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987), then there should be some influence. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) "claimed tentatively" (p. 203) that identification is directly related to members' evaluations of competence. Monge et al. (1982) developed a competence measure for use in the organizational context that emphasized the encoding and decoding skills used in interactions between occupants of specific organizational roles (i.e., superior, subordinate). Successful supervisors have often matriculated to management roles through competent organizational interactions, whereby they supported organizational values. Thus, subordinates observing the communication of supervisors may associate competence with upholding and promoting organizational values. Bullis and Tompkins (1989) found evidence of this possibility. They found that employees reporting high levels of identification utilize decision-making premises which reflect organizational values and consider the impact of their decisions upon the organization more than individuals reporting low levels of identification. Bullis and Bach (1991) found multiplex network relationships were positively related to identification. Multiplex relationships entail conversation (i.e., encoding, decoding) about a variety of topics. Thus, it is plausible to suspect that subordinate levels of organizational identification and perceptions of supervisors' communication competence will be related. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) also claimed that decisional premises can be verbalized and adapted. Thus, another means by which successful supervisors inculcate decision

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Supervisor Communication and Subordinate Identification - Page 73

premises in decision makers may be through adaptive communication. That is, supervisors who exercise more adaptation in communication may inherently use more various and multiple means by which they unobtrusively control the decision premises of employees. Subordinates, in turn, may be more highly identified when they observe their supervisors communicating organizational values and norms through a variety of adaptive means. Communicative adaptability is defined as "the ability to perceive socio-interpersonal relationships and adapt one's interaction goals and behaviors accordingly" (Duran, 1992, p. 255). Duran posited that an individual's level of communicative adaptability provides a repertoire of social behaviors that enables a successful communication performance. These social behaviors include the use of social composure, social confirmation, social experience, appropriate disclosure, articulation, and wit (Duran, 1983, 1992). A sender's use of disclosure, social confirmation, and social experience in a message are the best predictors of a receiver's amount of communication satisfaction with that particular communication episode (Duran & Zakahi, 1987). Although research has not examined the role that communicative adaptability plays in the organization, the way in which a supervisor delivers a message may have a significant impact on the subordinate's perception of the message, and how the message affects subordinate levels of organizational identification. There is evidence to suggest that employees' levels of identification are strongly affected by informal communication occurring within workgroups (Bullis & Bach, 1991; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). It is also possible that the degree to which subordinates perceive that their supervisors are particularly involved during superior-subordinate interactions would affect subordinates' perceptions of identification. Interaction involvement is conceptualized as "the extent to which an individual partakes in a social environment" (Cegala, 1981, p. 112). Cegala, Wall, and Rippey (1987) found highly involved individuals report exerting more control and influence, seeking more input from others, and remaining non-threatened by conflict These behaviors are characteristic of effective upward influence, a supervisory behavior positively related to subordinate satisfaction and perceived openness with supervisors 0ablin, 1980). Researchers have also found highly involved interactants use more relational pronouns and immediacy in conversation (Cegala, 1989), report higher levels of positive affect (Cegala, 1984), and utilize meaning-based conversational styles to aid topic development (Villaume & Cegala, 1988). Thus, highly involved supervisors would appear to engage in more considerate communication. Because considerate communication consistently relates to subordinate satisfaction (Redding, 1979), satisfied subordinates may find and create more opportunities for engaging in informal communication with their supervisors, and consequently may be more prone to inculcate organizational values or decision premises. When supervisors are perceived as exercising upward influence (Infante & Gorden, 1985; Jablin, 1980) and communicating openly (Jablin, 1980, 1981), subordinates report higher levels of satisfaction. Subordinates also report higher levels of satisfaction when they perceived attitude homophily with their supervisors (Falcione, McCroskey, & Daly, 1977), and when they perceived similarities in communicator style with their supervisors (Infante & Gorden, 1982). Furthermore, subordinates report higher levels of commitment when supervisors utilized an affirming communicator style (Infante & Gorden, 1991). Yet, there has been no direct attempt to assess the relationship between subordinate perceptions of supervisor communication behavior and subordinate levels of organizational identification. Thus, we posit the following research questions:

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Page 74 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 1998

RQ1

RQ2

How do supervisor communication behaviors (i.e., communicator competence, communicative adaptability, interaction involvement) contribute to subordinate perceptions of organizational identification? How do subordinates with varying levels of organizational identification (i.e., high, moderate, low) differ in their perceptions of supervisor communication behaviors (i.e., communicator competence, communicative adaptability, interaction involvement)? METHOD

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Participants

Participants were 135 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory communication course at a large midwestern university. All participants received a research point necessary for the successful completion of the course. A total of 35 male and 100 female students participated in the study. The age of the respondents ranged from 17 to 39 years (M = 20.28, SD = 4.97). Approximately one-half of the respondents (n = 68) reported their class standing at the freshman level. To be eligible for participation in the study, the respondents were required to have worked at a summer job. Sixty-six (n = 66) students were part-time (e.g., 20 hours or less) employees and 69 students were full-time employees. Seventy-five (n =75) respondents planned on returning to their jobs the following summer whereas 27 respondents did not Thirty-three (n =33) participants were unsure about their future summer employment plans.
Procedures and Instrumentation

Participants were asked to complete a series of instruments in reference to their summer jobs. Data were collected during the third week of the Fall 1995 semester. We collected data at this point because we wanted to make sure that the summer job experience was still relatively fresh in the minds of the participants. Participants completed three instruments in reference to their immediate supervisor's communication behaviors. Each scale was slightly modified to reflect the organizational setting, and participants were required to identify (by initials) their immediate supervisors. The three instruments were (a) the Communicator Competence Questionnaire (Monge et al., 1982), (b) the Communicative Adaptability scale (Duran & Kelly, 1988), and (c) the Interaction Involvement scale (Cegala, 1981). Participants also completed the Organizational Identification Questionnaire (Cheney, 1983b) in reference to their general feelings toward the organization. The Communicator Competence Questionnaire is a 12-item measure that asks respondents to assess the communication competence (e.g., encoding skills, decoding skills) of an organizational member. Responses were solicited using a five-point Likerttype scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .81 to .93 have been reported for the scale (Monge et al., 1982; Papa, 1989; Smith & DeWine, 1989). In this study, a coefficient alpha of .89 was obtained for the summed scale (M = 45.25, SD = 9.53). The Communicative Adaptability scale is a 30-item measure that asks respondents to

Supervisor Communication and Subordinate Identification - Page 75

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

rate their general levels of communicative adaptability across six dimensions: social composure, social confirmation, social experience, disclosure, articulation, and wit Responses were solicited using a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from always true (5) to never true (1). Previous reliability coefficients of .79 and .89 have been reported for the scale (Duran, 1992; Zakahi & Duran, 1984). In this study, a coefficient alpha of .77 was obtained for the summed scale (M = 83.44, SD - 6.59). The Interaction Involvement scale is an 18-item measure that asks respondents to rate the degree to which an individual is involved in a conversation with others across three dimensions: perceptiveness, attentiveness, and responsiveness. Responses were solicited using a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .83 to .93 have been reported for the scale (Chen, 1989; Cegala, 1981; Cegala, Savage, Brunner, & Conrad, 1982). In this study, a coefficient alpha of .92 was obtained for the summed scale (M = 67.58, SD - 12.36). The Organizational Identification Questionnaire is a 25-item measure that examines the employee's role in the organization across three dimensions: membership, loyalty, and similarity. In this study, respondents rated their level of their organizational identification without any reference to interaction with their supervisor. Responses were solicited using a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from agree very strongly (7) to disagree very strongly (1). Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .90 to .94 have been reported for the scale (Bullis & Bach, 1991; Bullis & Tompkins, 1989; Cheney, 1983a; Myers, 1989). In this study, a coefficient alpha of .93 was obtained for the summed scale (M = 111.63, SD = 26.61).
Data Analysts

The first research question was answered using stepwise multiple regression. The second research question was answered using a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). The summed organizational identification score served as the independent variable and the three supervisor communication behaviors served simultaneously as the dependent variables. The criterion of 1 SD above the mean and 1 SD below the mean on the Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ) was used to classify respondents into three groups: high level of organizational identification ( = 22, OIQ score of 139 or higher), moderate level of organizational identification (n = 94, OIQ score between 81 and 138), and low level of organizational identification (n = 18, OIQ score of 80 or lower). Separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were then conducted on each of the three supervisor communication behaviors. Significant ANOVAs were further explored using follow-up (Scheffe) tests. RESULTS The first research question inquired how supervisor communication behaviors (i.e., communicator competence, communicative adaptability, interaction involvement) contribute to subordinate perceptions of organizational identification. Stepwise multiple regression revealed that supervisor communicator competence contributed to subordinate perceptions of organizational identification, [1,134] = 66.39, p <001, and accounted for 58% of the variance. The second research question inquired how subordinates with varying levels of organizational identification (i.e., high, moderate, low) differ in their perceptions of supervisor communication behaviors (i.e., communicator competence, communicative

Page 76 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 1998

adaptability, interaction involvement). A significant relationship was found between subordinate level of organizational identification and perceptions of supervisor communication behaviors, Wilk's lambda = .76, F(6,238) = 5.77, p <.001. Subsequent ANOVAs revealed significant differences for communicator competence (F[2,121] = 17.83, p <.001) and interaction involvement (F[2,121] = 9.93, p <.001). Generally, subordinates with high levels of organizational identification view their supervisors as being more competent communicators and having a higher rate of interaction involvement than subordinates with moderate or low levels of organizational identification (see Table 1). Subordinate level of identification did not differ significantly in regard to supervisor communicative adaptability, F(2,121) = 1.5, p >.2O.
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012
TABLE 1 Supervisors' Communication Behaviors and Subordinates' Levels of Organizational Identification Organizational Identification Moderate11 Low"

High* Communicator Competence Communicative Adaptability Interaction Involvement Note.

P<
17.3 .001

51.82.,

45.65.

36.06^

83.60

82.85

85.78

1.5

.22

74.00.,

68.03.

57.67,.

9.93

.001

"n = 22 respondents, to = 94 respondents. n= 18 respondents.

DISCUSSION Organizational identification serves as a means by which organizations exercise control over their members (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). This type of control capitalizes on guiding which problems and alternatives employees see, and biasing choices tied to the most salient organizational values. Our results indicate that supervisors may serve as a conduit connecting organizational members to organizational decision premises. When supervisors communicate in a considerate and competent fashion (e.g., competently responding to the nuances of subordinate concerns and being highly involved with subordinates), they may be enhancing organizational members' levels of identification. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) reasoned that the process of unobtrusive control (i.e., supplying members with decision premises promoting organizational interests) is "inherently communicative" (p. 195). Our results support this contention by demonstrating that actual communication behaviors (i.e., communication competence, interaction involvement) are related to organizational identification. Furthermore, the results indicate that communication competence within the organizational setting is associated with organizational identification, whereas general communicative adaptability is not, indicating that employees may identify with organizationally-deemed competent

Supervisor Communication and Subordinate Identification - Page 77

behaviors more so than generalized interpersonal skills. The general skill of interaction involvement is also related to organizational identification, suggesting that social interaction is an important aspect of organizational life (Bullis & Bach, 1989). It is not surprising that a relationship exists between subordinate organizational identification and perceptions of supervisors' communication competence. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) claimed that such a relationship exists and our results support their contention. They suggested that employees accept organizational decision premises for three reasons. First, employees inherently sacrifice autonomy when entering organizations. Second, they accept rewards in the forms of salaries and benefits in exchange for accepting organizational decision premises. Third, they accept organizationally biased decision premises due to perceived legitimate power within organizations. Our findings indicate a fourth reason exists for why employees accept organizational decision premises. When employees engage in conversations with supervisors that are perceived as supportive and organizationally competent, they think and act more favorably towards their organizations. Allen (1995) found that conversations with superiors are strongly correlated with perceived organizational support If individuals experience organizational identification because of feelings of belongingness (Cheney, 1983a), then subordinates who feel that they have superiors who listen and support them may, in turn, develop strong, positive feelings toward the organization. Interestingly, subordinate levels of organizational identification were not related to perceptions of supervisors' communicative adaptability. The idea that supervisors exercising more communicative adaptability would be using more varied and multiple means of inculcating organizational decision premises underpinned our speculation about whether identification and adaptability would be related. However, as these results appear to suggest, variation in communication may not insure the exchange of more knowledge and infonnation about organizational values and decision premises. These findings, coupled with the findings concerning communication competence, suggest that variation is not as critical to the unobtrusive control process as perceptions of competent communication. Moreover, these findings indicate that a particular, perhaps narrow range of supervisor communication behaviors influences how employees become biased towards organizationally preferred decision premises, rather than more frequent or various opportunities for decoding such messages. Findings concerning the relationship between organizational identification and interaction involvement further contribute to this idea. Apparently, subordinates have higher levels of identification when they perceive that their supervisors maintain higher levels of interaction involvement Research indicates that employee satisfaction relates to receiving infonnation about the organization in general rather than exclusively about organizational tasks (Goldhaber, Yates, Porter, & Lesniak, 1978). Perhaps supervisors high in interaction involvement bring more information subordinates find valuable, or at least interesting, to bear in their superior-subordinate interactions, and do so in somewhat informal ways. Bullis and Bach (1989) discovered that among new graduate teaching assistants, interaction that emphasizes social topics and phatic communication had a more significant impact on organizational identification than topics such as academic or departmental issues. Individuals who are highly-involved in an interaction have a more meaning-based conversational style (Villaume & Cegala, 1988) and have a greater recall about conversations (Cegala, 1984). Perhaps supervisors maintaining high levels of

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Page 78 - Communication Research Reports/ Winter 1998

interaction involvement with their subordinates are able to subtly and systematically influence communication to align closely with organizational values and decision premises through consistent interactions that remain meaningful, yet informal. In this fashion, supervisors increase identification and employees' associations with organizational values. Essentially, our findings provide some specific parameters that help define how identification in particular, and unobtrusive control in general, occur within the communication environment created and enacted by supervisors and subordinates. The results indicate that certain communication behaviors are associated with identification, whereas mere variety in communication apparently does not Our findings affirm the notion that quality of communication influences subordinates more so than quantity of communication (Jablin, 1982) by suggesting that the type of communication (i.e., competent, highly involved) influences subordinates' organizational identification more so than variation in communication (i.e., communicative adaptability). One primary limitation of this study includes the use of retrospective data collection that required respondents to recall their summer work experiences. Replication of these findings with respondents reporting about their current organizational circumstances would be beneficial. Furthermore, within the scope of this study, we considered only a narrow range of communication behaviors, although researchers have examined a variety of communication behaviors within the superior-subordinate relationship (Dansereau & Markham, 1987; Jablin, 1979). Future researchers should expand upon the conceptual foundation tested in this study, and examine other communication behaviors that may influence organizational identification. A second limitation concerns the sample. The identification level of summer employees may be suspect simply because they only spend relatively short amounts of time with organizations. However, more than half of the respondents in our sample planned to return to the same job the following summer suggesting that there is job continuity among summer employees. Furthermore, Tompkins and Cheney (1985) suggested that corporate recruits bring a host of premises to organizations that they derive from a variety of socializing forces (e.g., family, previous employers, peer groups, education). It is these premises imported by employees that organizations must manipulate in order to create identification and unobtrusive control. This occurs through organizational socialization processes. Employees joining organizations for longer than a fixed term (e.g., summer) will more than likely experience socialization gradually and will find other coworkers contributing regularly to their integration into the organization. However, summer employees may find the socialization process is expedited and occurs primarily through direct interaction with an immediate supervisor. Thus, our sample is clearly limiting, but also provides some unique advantages for exploring the issues we examined. In sum, these findings fortify the thorough line of research indicating that how supervisors communicate directly influences subordinate behaviors (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989; Krone, 1992; Waldron, 1991; Waldron & Hunt, 1992). Moreover, empirical understanding of the superior-subordinate relationship is advanced by demonstrating that how supervisors communicate also affects how organizational members relate to their organizations, and extends the theory of unobtrusive control. These findings imply that supervisor communication behavior may have pervasive organizational consequences, impacting the organization beyond the often immediate gains and clearly recognizable benefits of increased productivity and quality of work.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Supervisor Communication and Subordinate Identification - Page 79

REFERENCES Allen, M. W. (1995). How employees see the boss: Communication concepts related to perceived organizational support. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 326-346. Barker, J. R., & Tompkins, P. K. (1994). Identification in the self-managing organization. Human Communication Research, 21, 223-240. Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of change in organizational identification. Western Journal ofSpeech Communication, 53, 273-293. Bullis, C. A., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 180-197. Bullis, C. A., & Tompkins, P. K. (1989). The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56, 287-306. Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30, 109-121. Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communication Monographs, 51, 320-338. Cegala, D. J. (1989). A study of selected linguistic components of involvement in interaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 311-326. Cegala, D. J., Savage, G. T., Brunner, C. C., & Conrad, A. B. (1982). An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monographs, 49, 229-248. Cegala, D. J., Wall, V. D., & Rippey, G. (1987). An investigation of interaction involvement and the dimensions of SYMLOG: Perceived communication behaviors of persons in task-oriented groups. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 81-93. Chen, G. M. (1989). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 37, 118-133. Cheney, G. (1983a). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158. Cheney, G. (1983b). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342-362. Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-15. Dansereau, F., & Markham, S. E. (1987). Superior-subordinate communication: Multiple levels of analysis. In F. M. Jablin, L. L Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 343-388). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320-326. Duran, R. L. (1992). Communicative adaptability: A review of conceptualization and measurement. Communication Quarterly, 40, 253-268.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Page 80 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 1998

Duran, R. L., & Kelly, L. (1988). An investigation into the cognitive domain of competence II: The relationship between communicative competence and interaction involvement. Communication Research Reports, 5, 91-96. Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1987). Communication performance and communication satisfaction: What do we teach our students? Communication Education, 36, 13-22. Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56, 215-239. Falcione, R. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (1977). Job satisfaction as a function of employees' communication apprehension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their immediate supervisors. Communication Yearbook 1, 363-375. Goldhaber, G. M., Yates, M. P., Porter, D. T., & Lesniak, R. (1978). Organizational communication: 1978. Human Communication Research, 5, 76-96. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1982). Similarities and differences in communicator styles of superiors and subordinates: Relations to subordinate satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 30, 67-71. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117-125. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of an argumentative and affirming model of supervisors' communicative behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 294-304. Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222. Jablin, F. M. (1980). Superior's upward influence, satisfaction, and openness in superior-subordinate communication: A reexamination of the "Pelz effect." Human Communication Research, 6, 210-220. Jablin, F. M. (1981). An exploratory study of subordinates' perceptions of supervisory politics. Communication Quarterly, 29, 269-275. Jablin, F. M. (1982). Formal structural characteristics of organizations and superior-subordinate communication. Human Communication Research, 8, 338-347. Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship effects on subordinates' upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 115. Monge, P. R., Backman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. Communication Yearbook 5, 505-528. Myers, S. A. (1989). A study of the relationship between organizational identification and employee handbooks. Unpublished master's thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Papa, M. J. (1989). Communication competence and employee performance with new technology: A case study. Southern Communication Journal, 55, 87-101. Redding, W. C. (1979). Organizational communication theory and ideology: An overview. Communication Yearbook 3, 309-341. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Supervisor Communication and Subordinate Identification - Page 81

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 03:19 15 October 2012

Smith, G., & DeWine, S. (1989, May). Requesting help at work and perceived communicative competence of subordinates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee and P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179-210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Tompkins, P. K., Fisher, J. Y., Infante, D. A., & Tompkins, E. L. (1975). Kenneth Burke and the inherent characteristics of formal organizations: A field study. Speech Monographs, 42, 135-142. Villaume, W. A., & Cegala, D. J. (1988). Interaction involvement and discourse strategies: The patterned use of cohesive devices in conversation. Communication Monographs, 55, 22-40. Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306. Waldron, V. R., & Hunt, M. D. (1992). Hierarchical level, length, and quality of supervisory relationships as predictors of subordinates' use of maintenance tactics. Communication Reports, 5, 82-89. Wert-Gray, S., Center, C., Brashers, D. E., & Meyers, R. A. (1991). Research topics and methodological orientation in organizational communication: A decade in review. Communication Studies, 42, 141-154. Zakahi, W. R., & Duran, R. L. (1984). Attraction, communicative competence, and communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 1, 54-57.