Reconceptualizing Exploring the between Competence ... · 08/10/2013 · Reconceptualizing Social...
Transcript of Reconceptualizing Exploring the between Competence ... · 08/10/2013 · Reconceptualizing Social...
Reconceptualizing Social Skills in Organizations:Exploring the Relationship between
Communication Competence, Job Performance,and Supervisory Roles
Holly J. Payne - Western Kentucky University
This study applies a three component model ofcommunication competence (motivation,knowledge, and skill) within an organizationalcontext and analyzes the relationship between jobperformance, position level, and communicationcompetence. Data analysis revealed high jobperformers had significantly higher levels ofmotivation to adapt communication and higherlevels of communication skill (empathizing,adapting communication, and managinginteractions). Also, supervisors were more
motivated to communicate and empathize thansubordinates. Finally, level of job performanceand job position (supervisor or non-supervisor)did not influence level of communication
competence. These results along with limitationsand avenues for future research are discussed.
As organizational structures flatten andtransformational leadership styles are fostered,corporate demand for employees skilled in
interpersonal communication is on the rise.
Organizations are working to recruit, promote,develop, and train transformational leaders whoconnect with employees emotionally and haveverbal and coaching skills (Bass, 1999; 1990).Numerous studies querying graduates,employers, and faculty members showcommunication skill as one of the top areas
needing improvement among employees andnew graduates (Maes, Weldy, & Icenogle, 1997;Morreale, Osborn, & Pearson, 2000). Recently,HR managers from Fortune 500 corporationsincluded listening, speaking, team participation,and communication of information as most
important for business school graduates in the21’t century (Porterfield & Forde, 2001).Empirical research links social skills and othercommunication constructs with various
organizational outcomes including job mobility(Kilduff & Day, 1994), upward mobility, joblevel, and pay (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher &
Zom, 1986), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999)and general mental ability and job performance(Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001).
While a number of these studies articulatethe importance of communication skill, fewaddress the impact of communication
competence, which moves beyond social skillsby including affective, cognitive, and behavioralelements. Communication competence describesthe overall impression one has of a
communicator who meets interaction goals at
both an appropriate and effective level
(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). This article
provides an overview of a relational model ofcommunication competence within the
organizational context and reports the findingsof how job performance for employees and
supervisors relates to communication
competence.
Literature Review
Defining Communication CompetenceRecognizing that communication
competence is multifaceted researchers of
employee communication competence should
develop comprehensive conceptual definitions.
64
Many scholars have attempted to define
interpersonal communication competence;however, the process is likened to &dquo;climbing agreased pole&dquo; (Phillips, 1984, p. 25) and
competence is still considered a &dquo;fuzzy&dquo; concept(Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 819). The lack of awidely-accepted definition is due to the
complexity of the communication process andproblems with measurement (Rubin & Martin,1994; Wiemann, Takai, Ota, & Wiemann, 1997).However, definitions of communication
competence are becoming more specific as theissue of context is given more consideration.
Current conceptualizations of competencecontinue to rely on Spitzberg and Cupach’s(1984) original criteria: appropriateness andeffectiveness. Jablin and Sias (2001) define
competence as &dquo;the set of abilities, henceforth,termed resources, which a communicator hasavailable for use in the communication process&dquo;(p. 125). This definition is a strategic, goal-oriented approach to competence stressingknowledge and ability.
Obviously these definitions go beyondcommunication that is simply successful byemphasizing two main components: knowledgeof communication and context and ability to
obtain goals (skill). According to Wright ( 1991 ),the diversity of definitions and treatments ofcompetence exists because of the diversity ofwhat scholars considered the most salient issuesto the construct: knowledge (McCroskey, 1982),behaviors (Wiemann, 1977), or goal attainment(Spitzberg, 1983).
Based on the research outlined above, a
more contextually sensitive definition ofcommunication competence within
organizations would extend the originalSpitzberg and Cupach (1984) model and defineorganizational communication competence as
the evaluative impression of the quality ofinteraction moderated by organizational normsand rules. In other words, organizationalcommunication competence is the judgment ofsuccessful communication where interactants’
goals are met using messages that are perceivedas appropriate and effective within the
organizational context. Communication
competence in organizations involves
knowledge of the organization and of
communication, ability to carry out skilled
behaviors, and one’s motivation to performcompetently.
Competence in the OrganizationalContext
Few researchers have attempted to
systematically study competence within the
organizational context. Monge, Bachman,Dillard, and Eisenberg (1982) tested a modelrepresenting a performance-based (behavioral)approach. The Communication CompetenceQuestionnaire (CCQ) measured two macro-levelskills, encoding and decoding. Although thiswas a positive move toward measuringorganizational communication competence theCCQ focused primarily on skills necessary toaccomplish work tasks, and did not includerelational forms of communication. Theseresearchers consider organizationalcommunication relationships between coworkersor with supervisors as &dquo;non-interpersonal&dquo; (p.507), overlooking relational forms ofcommunication as essential to workplacecommunication. Their research does not
incorporate motivation or knowledge, the
affective and cognitive elements of competence.Few studies in management use the
communication competence construct; however,Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, & Henwood ( 1991 )tested the impact of communication skills
(clarity, articulateness, and accuracy),motivation (oral, nonverbal, and writtencommunication apprehension), and cognitiveskills (cognitive complexity, perspective taking,and self-monitoring) on managerialperformance. Results showed higher performingmanagers had higher verbal communicationskills and lower communication apprehension;however, they did not have greater social
cognitive ability.More recently, Jablin and his colleagues
investigated threshold communication
competencies in organizations (Jablin, Cude,House, Lee, & Roth 1994; Jablin & Sias, 2001).They define threshold communication
competencies as, &dquo;... generic capabilities whichare essential to performing jobs, but which arenot sufficient to cause superior levels of
effectiveness in communication&dquo; (p. 120).Jablin et al. (1994) provide a continuum of
employee communication progressing from
precompetent to overcompetent.
65
The pre-competence stage is when a
newcomer to an organization &dquo;has not yetdeveloped the capacities necessary to
communicate competently in a particularenvironment&dquo; (Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 828), andthreshold competence is achieved when an
employee eventually meets basiccommunication qualifications for his/her
specific job description. This approach assumesthat through the screening process, socialization,and training in the company, most employeesachieve the threshold level. Next, workers movetoward a proficient level of competence, inwhich the employee uses competent scripts toselect and perform messages. Finally, Jablin andSias (2001) describe the overcompetent level asa once- competent communicator who nowrelies on old scripts instead of developing newscripts for new or changing situations.
Jablin et al. (1994) use a developmental(assimilation) framework for analyzingcompetence, assuming that the further along inthe socialization process employees are, themore likely they are competent. This suggests aninability on the part of organizationalnewcomers to be highly competentcommunicators. Nevertheless, this line ofresearch brings to the forefront important issuesto competence research in organizations,including the idea that knowing thecommunication rules of an organization, whichare learned primarily through the socializationprocess, is essential to competentcommunication.
Although researchers have investigatedcommunication competence or social skills in
organizations, obvious gaps exist in the research.One substantial issue is the lack of adequatemeasurement instruments operationalizing theconstruct in organizations. While Monge et al.
(1982) developed an instrument specifically forthe organizational context, it relied too heavilyon skills. A second, more substantial gap in theliterature is the lack of clear conceptualization ofcompetence incorporating affective, cognitive,and behavioral elements. Spitzberg and
Cupach’s (1989) relational approach presents auseful model for measuring interpersonalcommunication competence, but it has not beenapplied within the organizational context.
Spitzberg and Cupach’s Relational ModelSpitzberg and Cupach’s relational model
(1984; 1989) incorporates personalcomponents-knowledge, motivation, skill, andcontextual components-patterns of interaction,norms and rules, relationships types, setting, andactivities. Both personal and contextual
components are essential to understanding theattribution of competence in organizations andthe outcomes of such judgments.
The competent communicator possessescertain motivations, knowledge, and skills.Motivation is often associated with one’s
willingness to approach or avoid interaction withothers. Motives are usually connected to goalssuch as self-presentation, relational, andinstrumental goals (Berger, 1997; Cody, Greene,Marston, Baaske, O’Hair, & Schneider, 1986).Most communication motivation research fallswithin a trait, anxiety framework such as
communication apprehension or shyness(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). Richmondand Roach (1992) found that employees withhigh levels of communication anxiety are
perceived as less productive and less likely toachieve, and have lower levels of jobsatisfaction than those with low communication
apprehension. Penley et al. (1991) found thathigher performing managers had lower levels ofpublic apprehension, interpersonal apprehension,and nonverbal apprehension.
Second, in order to achieve communicationgoals, individuals must have knowledge to
construct action plans, often referred to as
communication scripts (Berger, 1997).Competent communicators have the proceduralknowledge to construct and act out these scriptswithin different social situations, and must havethe perceptive ability to &dquo;read&dquo; social situations.
According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1989),procedural knowledge is &dquo;knowing how ratherthan the content of knowing that or knowingwhat&dquo; (p. 14). This knowledge is gained througheducation, experience and by observing whatPavitt and Haight (1986) called a prototype ofinterpersonal competence-a role model. In the
organizational setting, competence involves
knowing how to communicate and knowingwhat is appropriate and effective within thecontext. This involves knowing the correct
channels of communication and chains of
66
command, as well as knowing organizationalstandards for communication.
The third component, skill, encompassesthe actual performance of behaviors. This isoften the difficult part for communicators--
turning the motivation and plan into action.Individuals are often motivated to communicateand possess knowledge, yet lack skill in actuallycommunicating. Many skill measures tap relatedvariables such as other-orientation, social
anxiety, expressiveness, and interaction
management. Other skill approaches focus onpsychomotor ability-one’s s ability to speak,hear, see, and nonverbally express messages in agiven situation (Parks, 1994). The skills neededby organizations include relationship building,listening and following instructions, givingfeedback, information exchange, solicitingfeedback, and problem-solving (Maes et al.,1997). Similar skills are cited in empiricalresearch, such as interaction management andother-orientation or altercentrism, which
Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) found to be
powerful predictors of communicationsatisfaction. Assessing communication
competence within organizations involves
determining the specific communication skillsmost vital to organizational success. Existingresearch offers adequate starting points for
identifying skills salient to competencyjudgments and is important for determiningspecific competence criterion to use when
applying the relational model within the
organizational context.
Essential Skills Impacting CompetencyJudgments in Organizations
Many existing measures of competence areglobal in nature making the identification of themost essential skills for managers unclear
(Penley et al., 1991). Eight overlapping skill setsemerge in the literature as important to the
competence construct, which can be extended tothe organizational setting: listening (Haas &
Arnold, 1995; Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert,1989), empathy, attentiveness (Cegela, 1981),usage or articulation (Duran & Kelly, 1988),altercentrism (Spitzberg & Hurt, 1987),interaction management (Wiemann, 1977), andadaptability (Duran, 1992). Because these skillsets consistently emerged in competence
research over the past three decades they meritspecial review.
First, listening and listening-related skillshave often been examined in the competenceliterature and to a lesser extent within
organizational contexts. Listening involves
cognitive as well as behavioral processes in
acquiring information (Bostrom, 1996). In one
study, Haas and Arnold (1995) asked employeesto describe competent communicators, andfound that one third of employees’ descriptorswere listening-related. Sypher et al. (1989)found connections between listening ability andjob level, and listening ability and upwardmobility. Often, researchers study listeningpaired with similar constructs such as empathyand attentiveness (Monge et al., 1982; Wiemann,1977). Wiemann (1977) described empathy asthe ability to reciprocate affect displays, sendverbal responses showing understanding and
feelings for others, and actively listen. Another,more parsimonious conceptualization was
provided by Martin and Rubin ( 1994) when theydefine empathy as a person’s ability to feel withothers. Listening and empathizing are ways ofbeing an attentive communicator (Cegela, 1981)or other-oriented.
Other-orientation is often referred to as
altercentrism, demonstrated by showing interestin and attention to others in conversations and
adapting messages accordingly (Martin &
Rubin, 1994). Wheeless and Berryman-Fink(1985) found competence impressions of womenmanagers include altercentrism and interaction
management. Altercentrism also involves
empathy, listening, and supportiveness. Thislevel of involvement requires skill in interactionmanagement--the degree to which theconversational setting, turn-taking, and episodepunctuation patterns are controlled (Spitzberg,1983).
Interaction management includes fluency,verbal ability, and social adaptability (Wiemann,1977). Individuals with the ability to manageinteractions are able to speak fluently, take thecorrect number of turns, begin and end
conversations, and manage topics. It seems clearthat managing interactions is inseparable fromadaptability. Adaptability is the ability to
perceive relationships and adapt messagesaccordingly (Duran, 1992). Communicatorsmust be flexible enough to adapt to
67
conversational partners and contexts (Spitzbergand Cupach, 1989). These specific skills assistemployees in managing impressions and
influencing members of the organization (Ferris,Russ, & Fandt, 1989).
Finally, the skills mentioned above requirecertain levels of articulation or expressiveness(Duran, 1983; 1992). These terms describe one’s sability to use language in grammatically correctways, and to clearly express ideas. Monge et al.(1982) included articulation as part of
encoding-the ability to clearly express ideasexemplifying high command of the language.
While we have a clear understanding of thenecessary communication skill sets vital to
organizational success, we are less informedabout the interaction between motivation,knowledge, and skills as they apply to the
organizational context. The components of therelational model of communication competencecan be systematically applied to the
organizational context, which is the goal of thisresearch. If an employee has motivation,knowledge, and skill appropriate to the
organization, then the attribution of competencecould lead to positive organizational outcomes,such as higher levels of productivity or overalljob performance.
Organizational OutcomesSeveral organizational outcomes have
been connected to communication abilityincluding upward mobility, job level, pay (Haas& Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986),managerial performance (Bednar, 1982; Penleyet al., 1991), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999),and productivity with new technology (Papa &
Tracy, 1988).Zom and Violante (1996) found significant
relationships between cognitive communicationabilities on upward mobility and job level.Individuals with more differentiated construct
systems and higher levels of person-centeredpersuasive communication attained higher joblevels, salary, and monetary career achievement(salary divided by age). High communicationskill levels are not only connected with
organizational success for managers and
supervisors, but also for employees. Scudder andGuinan (1989) found significant relationshipsbetween employees (systems developers’)ability to encode, decode, maintain
communication, and maintain user relations withsupervisor’s rating of job performance.
Other connections have been made between
performance and the quality of
supervisor/subordinate relationships (Bauer &
Green, 1996; Duarte & Goodson, 1994;Heneman, Greenberger, & Anonyuo, 1989).Supervisors who foster positive affect throughcommunication increase employee commitment,which is positively related to job performance(Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996).Also, subordinates’ acceptance into the
supervisors’ in-group is impacted byinterpersonal communication factors (Henemanet al., 1989). Obvious benefits exist for in-groupmembers’ performance appraisals in that in-
group members’ ratings are higher regardless oftheir scores on objective job performancemeasures (Duarte & Goodson, 1994).
Since communication is inseparable fromrelationship formation (Spitzberg, 1993) andfrom organizations themselves (Putnam,Phillips, & Chapman, 1996), it seems logicalthat communication heavily impacts jobperformance and performance evaluation,specifically supervisors’ perception of employeecommunication and employees’ perception ofmanager communication. Clearly,communication impacts organizationaloutcomes; however, little research applies a
communication competence model within thiscontext to managers and supervisors. In additionto testing the applicability of a relational
competence model in organizations, studies
must be designed to investigate the relationshipsbetween levels of managerial communicationcompetence and job performance. Therefore,the following hypothesis is proposed:
HI: Employees with high levels of jobperformance will have higher levels ofcommunication motivation to communicate,
knowledge of communication, andcommunication skill than employees withmoderate and low levels of job performance.
The literature examining communication inorganizations draws a clear connection betweencommunication ability and upward mobility(Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986);job level (Zom & Violante, 1996); leadershipability (Flauto, 1999); and, managerialperformance (Bednar, 1982; Penley et. al, 1991).It seems that employees in supervisory positions
68
will demonstrate higher levels of competencethan nonsupervisors because their levels ofcommunication motivation, knowledge, and skillsecured their high level positions. Therefore,
H2: Supervisors will have higher levels ofcommunication motivation, knowledge ofcommunication, and communication skill than
nonsupervisorsH3: Employees in supervisory positions
with high levels of job performance will havehigher levels of communication motivation,knowledge of communication andcommunication skill than supervisors withmoderate and low levels of job performance.
Method
SampleAssessing and measuring competence
within context is an important assumption of therelational approach; therefore, finding a sampleorganization and measuring employeecompetence as judged by the supervisor adds tothe ecological validity of this study. The sampleorganization for this project was selected basedon criteria related to the importance of internalcommunication in terms of project work,centrality of external communication to the
organization’s fundamental mission, and
accessibility to a large, diverse group
representing varying levels of education andhierarchical status.
The population consisted of approximately1,329 technical and clerical employees of theInformation Technology Division of a largehealth care management corporation. This
organization values communication skill and hasincorporated communication as a basic
competency which is evaluated regularly in
performance appraisals. Associates typicallycommunicate with numerous corporate entities,and coordinate activities as opposed to manualproduction. At the request of the CIO, allmembers of the IT division were selected to
participate in the research.
Procedures
Employees were asked to complete the on-line survey, and the organization’s scommunication director provided informationabout how to access links to the survey throughcompany newsletters and direct e-mail. All
respondents were required to enter their
employee identification number which wouldallow the researcher to match employeeresponses with supervisors during phase two ofthe project. Three hundred and ninety-threesurveys were collected in phase one.
Company representatives manuallymatched supervisors and employees using thecompany’s database and current organizationalchart. Supervisors were contacted by e-maillisting his/her employees’ identification numberand name. The associate identification number
(AIN) was necessary for entry into the surveydatabase and allowed the program to match the
supervisor’s responses with employees’ previousrecords. Each supervisor was asked to completea skill and job performance measure for eachemployee. Follow-up e-mail reminders were
sent along with the link to the survey.The second phase of data collection
resulted in 199 matched employee and
supervisor responses. The mean age of the
participants was 40, with an average length ofservice of 7 years. Education levels were high,with 12% having associates/technical degrees,44% with bachelor’s degrees, and 22.5% witheither graduate coursework or master’s degrees.In terms of gender, 58% were male and 42%female. Ethnically, 93% of the sample wasCaucasian with the remaining 6% spanning sixother ethnicities.
MeasuresCommunication skill. The current research
builds on existing approaches by utilizing thecommunication skill dimensions provenessential for competency judgments in the
organizational setting. Perotti and DeWine
(1987) encourage this, stating, &dquo;measures ofcommunication competence are appropriatelyapplied within organizational contexts in orderthat the unique dimensions of such competencemay be identified and defined for organizationalrelationships&dquo; (p. 281 ). Empirically grounded, apriori skills can serve as the building blocks forassessing employee competence.
The skill scale has three dimensions:
empathy, adaptability, and interaction
management. The scale measures an employee’s sactual communication skill level as judged by asupervisor because supervisors exert the mostinfluence on evaluations of job performance.
69
Also, given the difficulty of evaluating one’sown skill level and the importance of obtaining amore objective view supervisor report format is
important (i.e. &dquo;My employee involves others inconversations in an effort to make them feel
valued,&dquo; &dquo;My employee always seems to say theright thing at the right time&dquo;). Research oftendoes not show consistently high correlationsbetween self and other’s ratings (Perotti &
DeWine, 1987; Sypher, 1984); therefore,supervisor evaluations are the most appropriategiven the supervisor’s power to impactorganizational outcomes.
Principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation extracted five factors. Items
failing to load using a 60/40 split criteria
(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminatedresulting in a stable three factor solution for
empathy, adaptability, and interaction
management. The scale consisted of 13 itemswith a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
Communication motivation. Themotivation component is conceptualized as
one’s willingness to approach or avoidcommunicative interactions. The most salientskills to competence were narrowed to empathy,adaptability, and interaction management, so amotivation scale was designed to measure
employees’ willingness to extend empathy,manage interactions, and adapt communicationwithin the organization. Items were developedfor each of these dimensions, and ten items wereadapted from Mortensen, Amston, and Lustig’s(1977) Predispositions Toward Verbal Behavior(PVB) scale (a = .89) to measure employee’soverall willingness to approach communication.
The resulting instrument was composed of27 items and designed using a self-report formatfor employees to indicate their levels of
, motivation to communicate in the workplace(i.e. &dquo;I want to understand other people’sviewpoints and emotion;&dquo; &dquo;I want to be seen as a
good listener by my coworkers&dquo;).The 27-item scale was subjected to
principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation. Six dimensions with
eigenvalues exceeding 1.00 were extracted as
opposed to the intended four (predispositiontoward verbal behavior, empathy, adaptability,and interaction management) as designed. Itemsfailing to load using a 60/40 split criteria
(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminated
and a stable three factor solution was obtainedon predisposition toward verbal behavior in
organizations, motivation to communicate
empathy, and motivation to adaptcommunication; however, no items loaded forthe interaction management dimension. The
resulting three factor scale was composed of 11 Iitems with a Cronbach’s a of .71 (N= 383).
Communication knowledge. The next
major component of the competence model is
knowledge. Different strategies for
operationalizing this dimension were analyzed.To simply ask subjects to self-report on theirknowledge of specific communication skillscreates undue social desirability bias. In
addition, subjects with lower levels of
competence may not have the cognitive abilityneeded to accurately assess knowledge level orcommunication performance (Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1989). Considering these factors, a
communication knowledge test was developedwhich avoided the use of complexcommunication vocabulary or jargon. Accordingto Backlund (1983), &dquo;Assessment should involvesituations that allow for a range of responses.The assessment procedure should recognize thata variety of responses could be considered
appropriate in everyday communicativesituations&dquo; (p. 65). This is consistent with adimension of cognitive assessment called
problem representation differences wherelearners are asked to make judgments aboutproblems or situations (Royer, Cisero, & Carlo,1993).
A knowledge assessment instrument wascreated based on communication scenarios in the
workplace. For each scenario subjects were
asked to choose the most appropriate andeffective response. The options have varyingdegrees of correctness, which is incorporatedinto the scoring. For example, the most
appropriate response is worth four points and theleast appropriate is worth one point. The rangeon the knowledge test is 15 to 60.
Questions were generated addressing thethree major dimensions of competencepinpointed in this research: empathy,adaptability, and interaction management. A
panel of communication scholars checked thequestions for face validity and narrowed them to15 items, five items for each factor. Theinstrument was reviewed and refined by the
70
panel on two occasions. Scenarios were selectedin the first meeting, and in the second meetingthe wording of the scenarios and responseoptions were clarified. The mean score on the
communication knowledge test was 39.08 (outof 60 possible).
Job performance. When studying jobperformance in connection with communicationand organizational variables researchers often
develop scales measuring global impressionssupervisors have of employees (Pettit, Goris, &
Vaught, 1997; Goris, Vaught, & Pettit, 2000;Scudder & Guinan, 1989). For this study, globalimpressions of job performance were measuredusing a combination of items referencingperformance in terms of quantity, quality, andeffectiveness of fulfilling job roles.
Using several examples from the
organizational behavior literature (Pettit et al.,1997; Goris et al., 2000; Scudder & Guinan,1989), a five-item scale was developed. Goris,Vaught, and Pettit (2000) found significantcorrelations between ratings of performancequality, quantity, and overall effectiveness (r =.61 between quality and quantity; r = .89between quality and overall performance; r = .90between quantity and overall performance).Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) used similaritems regarding fulfilling job roles and overallperformance, which demonstrated highcorrelations with other performance items (.83and .92 respectively). Similar items were usedto develop five performance items addressingeffectiveness at fulfilling roles and
responsibilities, quality of performance, quantityof performance, level of performance, andoverall ratings of performance. Supervisors wereto report on employees using a four-point Likertscale ranging from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree. A narrowed set of options isacceptable when working with multiple itemsaddressing the same dimension because
variability can still be obtained and participantsexperience less fatigue (DeVellis, 1991).Further, an even number of response optionsforces participants to make a decision about aspecific behavior (Sudman & Bradbum, 1982).Because supervisor evaluations significantlyimpact organizational outcomes, the scale wasformatted as a supervisor report form; howevergiven the subjective nature of evaluating job
performance, the researcher also included thesame scale in an employee-report version.
Principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation of the supervisor’s report of jobperformance showed a unidimensional solutionand a Cronbach’s alpha_of .93. The employeereport version of the job performance scale had aCronbach’s alpha of .84, a slightly lower
reliability than the supervisor report scale.Using a procedure similar to that used by
Penley et al. (1991), the supervisor and self-
report of job performance scores was split at themedian to create categories for high and lowperformance. Next, based on theseclassifications three categories of performancewere created. Subjects with scores above themedian on both supervisor and self-report wereclassified as high performing (26.1%); subjectswith one score above the median and one belowwere classified as moderate performers (44.7%);and, subjects with scores below the median onboth factors were considered low performers29.1 %).
Data AnalysisThis research investigates the relationships
between levels of job performance for
employees and supervisors and communicationcompetence employing multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) to test the hypotheses.The two independent variables are jobperformance (high, moderate, and low),supervisory position (supervisor or
nonsupervisor), and the dependent variables arethe three components of communication
competence (motivation, knowledge, and skill).
Results
There was mixed support for the
hypotheses concerning the main effects of jobperformance level and supervisory roles on thecomponents of communication competence andno support for the hypothesis predicting an
interaction between job level and jobperformance on motivation, knowledge, andskill (See Table 1).
Hypothesis 1 addressing level of jobperformance and communication competencewas partially supported. Multivariate analysisrevealed a significant main effect of job
71
Table 1 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance
*p <. 05**p< .001aWilks Lambda = .81, p < 05
bWilks Lambda = .90, p <05
performance on motivation to adaptcommunication (F 2, 189 = 3.34; p < .05) withhigh performers (M = 3.22) more motivated toadapt communication than moderate (M = 3.06)and low (M= 2.94) performers.
In terms of communication knowledge,there was a significant main effect of jobperformance on knowledge of empathizing (F 2,189 = 3.69; p < .05) with low performers (M =
12.51) more knowledgeable than high (M =
11.56) and moderate (M= 11.76) performers.Regarding communication skill, there was a
significant main effect for adaptingcommunication (F 2, 189 = 6.76; p - .001),empathizing (F 2, 189 = 4.12; p < .05), andinteraction management (F 2, 189
= 9.96; p <
.001). High performers were more skilled at
adapting communication (M - 3.08),empathizing (M = 3.25), and managinginteractions (M = 3.32). Table 2 shows groupmeans for the three job performance levels oneach dependent variable. There was no
significant effect of job performance on
motivation to verbally communicate (PVB) orempathize, or knowledge of interaction
management and adaptability.Partial support was also found for Hypothesis 2predicting a main effect of holding a supervisoryposition on motivation, knowledge, and skill.
Analysis revealed significant main effects formotivation to verbally communicate (F 1, 189
=
8.51; p < .05) and motivation to empathize (F 1,
189 = 7.73; p < .05). Supervisors were more
motivated to communicate (M = 2.98) and
empathize (M = 3 .50) than nonsupervisors (M =2.77, M = 3.30). There was no significant effectfor motivation to adapt communication,knowledge of empathy, interaction management,and adaptability, or skill at adapting,empathizing, and managing interactions. Table 2shows group means for supervisors and
nonsupervisors for each dependent variable.
72
Table 2
Group Means
Hypothesis 3, predicting an interactioneffect for job performance and job level on
motivation, knowledge, and skill was rejected.
Discussion
Little research has addressedcommunication competence in the workplaceand most studies have only addressed
competence from a skills perspective (Monge etal., 1982). This research expands traditional
approaches to the study of communication inorganizations beyond a social skills approach
using Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) relationalmodel of communication competence, which
incorporates motivation, knowledge, andskill.The primary findings of this researchindicate that high performing employees weremore motivated to adapt their communicationand were more skilled at communicatingempathy, adapting their communication, and
managing interactions than lower performingemployees. Interestingly, low performingemployees were more knowledgeable about howto communicate empathy than higher performingemployees. When supervisor communication
73
competence was compared with nonsupervisorsthe only significant relationship was that
supervisors had higher levels of motivation toverbally communicate and motivation to
empathize. Finally, there was no interactionbetween job performance and supervisoryposition on the communication competencecomponents.
Several findings warrant further discussion.First, contrary to hypothesis 1, there were nosignificant relationships between highperformance and communication knowledge;however, low performers had significantlyhigher levels of knowledge of empathy than highand moderate performers. In terms of therelational model this finding reinforces the
multidimensional nature of communication
competence in that one can be knowledgeableyet lack the ability to enact the knowledge(skill). &dquo;Knowledge alone is important but
unlikely to be sufficient. To give a qualityperformance, an actor should be motivated,knowledgeable, and skilled in performing&dquo;(Spitzberg, 1987, p. 28).
From a performance perspective, it is
plausible that this finding is connected with
using empathy in maladaptive ways. Employeeswho use emotional contagion as an empatheticresponse strategy are more prone to burnoutwhich leads to decreased performance. Omdahland O’Donnell (1999) studied empathy variablesin relation to burnout among nurses and foundthat nurses who practiced empathic concern
(showing concern without sharing emotion) andcommunicative responsiveness (effectivelycommunicating emotional topics) were less
likely to experience depersonalization andreduced personal accomplishment while nurseswho experienced emotional contagion (sharingthe feelings of others) experienceddepersonalization, reduced personalaccomplishment, emotional exhaustion, andreduced occupational commitment. It is
important to note that patients (or other
employees) receive benefits from all three
empathic responses, but it is the employee whomay experience negative affects by usingemotional contagion.
Next, despite the research showing directrelationships between various forms ofcommunication competence and upwardmobility (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom,
1986; Zom & Violante, 1996) this study did notfind supervisors as more skilled or
knowledgeable of communication, although theywere more motivated to verbally communicateand empathize. This motivation more than likelystems from job role requirements. Althoughsupervisors may communicate more as a resultof their position, this study does not support thatthey are more skilled or knowledgeable of theprocess, but that higher performing employees ingeneral are more skilled and motivated.
The management literature generallysupports this finding in that promotion decisionsare based on numerous organizational,environmental, and individual characteristics
(Allen, 1997). London and Stumpf (1983) foundthat potential to perform in managerial roles,assessment center information, and a candidate’scurrent position plays a significant role whendeciding between numerous viable candidates(with acceptable levels of education and jobperformance), but that other communication
qualities such as leadership, behavioral
flexibility, and written communication skillswere generally used to support the decision,once made. Also, organizational factors maycontribute to the finding in that this study wasconducted within the information systemsdivision of a large company where technologicalknowledge may be valued over other factors inpromotion decisions.
Finally, this research has implications formanagement and researchers. First, ifcommunication motivation and skill are
contributors to high job performance, companiesshould look to develop communication
competence through the employees’ life span.This developmental approach would assist
employees in designing messages that are
appropriate and effective within their workenvironment. Specifically, this study supportedempathy, adaptability, and interaction
management as important skill sets within
organizations which can be targeted areas ofimprovement through structured trainingprograms. The development of these skills canclearly improve communication within the
organization and certainly enhance jobperformance.
74
Limitations and Suggestions forFuture Research
This research provides interestingimplications for future study of communicationcompetence in organizations, but some
limitations warrant examination. First, using asingle sample organization to test the model issufficient; however, different companies havedifferent rules of communicating, or differentcriteria for evaluating the appropriateness or
effectiveness of communication. For this reason,future research should apply this model in othertypes of organizations to ensure the
generalizability of the measures.Second, although exploratory in nature,
external validity was not investigated in thisresearch. This is partially explained by the lackof research applying competence in the
workplace. Although the scenario-based
approach to knowledge had high face validitythe scale needs further investigation. Theresearcher attempted to measure employee’sability to interpret scenarios and choose
appropriate responses; however, there may nothave been enough contextual clues within thescenarios for employees to determine the mostappropriate response. If the organizationalscenarios did not include contextual rulesrelevant to the sample organization it would bedifficult for an employee to respond. What mayprovide the richest information for the
knowledge component is a clearer focus on
cognition of situations and message design as alearning process. Also, the finding that low
performing employees were more
knowledgeable of empathy should be
investigated further. Researchers might considermeasuring multiple empathy strategies such asemotional contagion, empathic concern, andcommunicative responsiveness in order to
clearly investigate the relationship with jobperformance.
Finally, researchers should consider
applying competence models to groups and
organizations, which Jablin and Sias (2001)suggest is an often neglected area of research.This approach emphasizes the impact of theorganizational system on individual level
competence and how the two are interdependent.Specifically viewing individual-level
competence as a developmental process, in that
employees are hired into the organization with acertain level of basic competencies, most likelyjob competencies and linguistic or conceptualcompetencies, which can be built upon as theemployee assimilates into the organization.
In summary, future directions for studyingcommunication competence in organizationsmight involve (a) applying the relational modelto different types of organizations, (b) refining ameasure of knowledge using a cognitiveapproach, (c) exploring the role of empathystrategies and job performance, and (d)designing and testing training curricula based onempathy, adaptability, and interaction
management.
Conclusion
This work clearly supportscommunication as a potential contributor ofjob performance, but this study is just onesmall step. High levels of communicationcompetence are important to organizations.The communication skill dimensions
supported by this study are all critical
thinking skills involving motivation and
knowledge. High levels of affective,cognitive, and behavioral competencecomponents are essential for establishingand developing strong relationships withinorganizational systems.
References
Allen, G. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of
promotion systems. Human Resource
Management, 36, 251-259.Backlund, P. (1983). Methods of assessing
speaking and listening skills. In R.B. Rugin(Ed.), Improving speaking and listeningskills: New directions for college learningassistance. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to
transformational leadership: Learning to sharethe vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research anddevelopment in transformational leadership.European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
75
Bauer, T.N. & Green, S.G. (1996). Developmentof leader-member exchange: A longitudinaltest. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1538-1567.
Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. &
Gilbert, N.L. (1996). Foci and bases of
employee commitment: Implications for jobperformance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 464-482.
Bednar, D.A. (1982). Relationships betweencommunicator style and managerialperformance in complex organizations: Afield study. Journal of Business
Communication, 19, 51-76.
Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategicinteraction: Attaining goals throughcommunicative action. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bostrom, R. N. (1984). Competence incommunication: A multidisciplinaryapproach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bostrom, R.N. (1996). Disentangling listening andverbal recall: Related but separate constructs?Human Communication Research, 23, 298-305.
Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: Acognitive dimension of communicative
competence. Communication Education, 30,109-121.
Cody, M.J., Greene, J.O., Marston, P.J., Baaske,E., O’Hair, H.D., & Schneider, M.J. (1986).Situation perception and the selection of
message strategies. In M.L. McLaughlin(Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 8, (pp. 390-420). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cupach, W. R. & Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). Thedark side of interpersonal communication.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theoryand aplications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Duarte, N.T. & Goodson, J.R. (1994). Effects ofdyadic quality and duration on performanceappraisal. Academy of Management Journal,37, 499-522.
Duran, R.L. (1983). Communicative adaptability:A measure of social communicative
competence. Communication Quarterly, 31,320-326.
Duran, R. L. (1992). Communication adaptability:A review of conceptualization andmeasurement. Communication Quarterly, 40,253-268.
Duran, R. L. & Kelly, L. (1988). An investigationinto the cognitive domain of competence II:The relationship between communication
competence and interaction involvement.Communication Research Reports, 5, 91-96.
Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989).Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone& P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impressionmanagement in the organization (pp. 143-
170). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Ferris, G.R., Witt, L.A., & Hochwarter, W.A.(2001). The interaction of social skill and
general mental ability on work outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075-1082.
Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The
relationship between leadership andcommunication competence. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 6, 89-97.
Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2000).Effects of communication direction on jobperformance and satisfaction: A moderated
regression analysis. The Journal of BusinessCommunication, 37,348-364.
Greene, J. O. (Ed.) (1997). Message production:Advances in communication theory. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Greene, J.O. (1984). A cognitive approach to
human communication: An action assemblytheory. Communication Monographs, 51,289-306.
Haas, J. W. & Arnold, C. L. (1995).Anexamination of the role of listening in
judgments of communication competence inco-workers. The Journal of Business
Communication, 32, 123-139.Haas, J. W., & Sypher, B. D. (1991). The impact of
communication abilities on individual successin organizational settings. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.Henemen, R.L., Greenberger, D.B., & Anonyuo,C.
(1989). Attributions and exchanges: Theeffects of interpersonal factors on the
diagnosis of employee performance. Academyof Management Journal, 32, 466-476.
Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & N.
R. Roth (1994). Communication competencein organizations: Conceptualization and
comparison across multiple levels of analysis.In .Thayer & G. M. Barnett (Eds.),Organization communication: EmergingPerspectives IV 114-140). Norwood, NJ.:Ablex Publishing.
76
Jablin, F. M., & Sias, P. M. (2000).Communication competence. In F. M. Jablin& L. L. Putnam (Eds.). The new handbook oforganizational communication. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Kilduff, M. & Day, D.V. (1994). Do chameleonsget ahead? The effects of self-monitoring onmanagerial careers. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37, 1047-1060.
London, M. & Stumpf, S.A. (1983). Effects ofcandidate characteristics on managementpromotion decisions: An experimental study.Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-259.
Maes, J.D., Weldy, T.G. & Icenogle, M.L. (1997).A managerial perspective: Oralcommunication competency is most
important for business students in the
workplace. Journal of Business
Communication, 34, 67-80.Martin, M.M. & Rubin, R.B. (1994). Development
of a communication flexibility measure. TheSouthern_Communication Journal, 59, 171-
179.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication
competence: The elusive construct. In R. N.Bostrom (Ed.) Competence in
communication: A multidisciplinaryapproach (pp. 259-268). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication
competence and performance: A research andpedagogical perspective. Communication
Education, 31, 3-7.McCroskey, J.C. & Young, T.J. (1979). The use
and abuse of factor analysis incommunication research. Human
Communication Research, 5, 375-382.Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., &
Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator
competence in the workplace: Model testingand scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.),Communication Yearbook, 5 (pp. 505-527).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Morreale, S.P., Osborn, M.M., & J.C. Pearson
(2000). Why communication is important: Arationale for the centrality of the study ofcommunication. Journal of the Associationfor Communication Administration, 29, 1-25.
Mortensen, C. D., Arntson, P. H., & Lustig, M.(1977). The measurement of verbal
predispositions: Scale development and
application. Human Communication
Research, 3, 146-158.
Omdahl, B.L. & O’Donnell, C. (1999). Emotionalcontagion, empathic concern, andcommunicative responsiveness as variables
affecting nurses’ stress and occupationalcommitment. Journal of Advanced Nursing,29, 1351-1359.
Papa, M. J. & Tracy, K. (1988). Communicativeindices of employee performance with newtechnology. Communication Research, 15,524-544.
Parks, M. R. (1994). Communication competenceand interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp andG. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofinterpersonal communication. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.Pavitt, C. & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of
communication competence: Situational and
competence level differences in judgments ofprototype and target. Communication
Monographs, 53, 221-233.Penley, L.E., Alexander, E.R., Jernigan, I.E., &
Henwood, C.I. Communication abilities of
managers: The relationship to performance.Journal of Management, 17, 57-76.
Perotti, V.S. & DeWine, S. (1987). Competence incommunication: An examination of threeinstruments. Management Communication
Quarterly, 1, 272-287.Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997).
An examination of organizationalcommunication as a moderator of the
relationship between job performance and jobsatisfaction. The Journal of Business
Communication, 34, 81-98.Phillips, G.M. (1984). A competent view of
"competence." Communication Education,33, 25-36.
Porterfield, S.C. & Forde, C.M. (2001).Competencies required in the 21st century ofentry-level Fortune 500 employees with four-year business degrees. NABTE Review, 28,25-32.
Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N, & Chapman, P. (1996).Metaphors of communication and
organization. In S.R. Clegg, C.Hardy, & W.R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizationstudies (pp. 375-408). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. (1992).Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,and effectiveness (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbirck.
77
Richmond, V.P. & Roach, K.D. (1992).Willingness to communicate and employeesuccess in U.S. organizations. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 20, 95-
116.
Royer, J.M., Cisero, C.A., Carlo, M.S. (1993).Techniques and procedures for assessingcognitive skills. Review of Educational
Research, 63, 201-243.Rubin, R.B. & Martin, M.M. (1994).
Development of a measure of interpersonalcommunication competence. CommunicationResearch Reports, 11, 33-44.
Scudder, J. N. & Guinan, P. J. (1989).Communication competencies as
discriminators of superior’s s tings of
employee performance. The Journal ofBusiness Communication, 26, 217-229.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication
competence as knowledge, skill, and
impression. Communication Education, 32,323-329.
Spitzberg, B.H. (1987). Issues in the study ofcommunication competence. Progress in
Communication Sciences, 8, 1-46.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of
(in)competence. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158.Spitzberg, B.H., Canary, D.J., & Cupach, W.R.
(1994). A competence-based approach to thestudy of interpersonal conflict. In D.D. Cahn(Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp.183-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1984).Interpersonal communication competence.Beverly Hills: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1989).Handbook of interpersonal competenceresearch. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Hecht, M. L. (1984). Acomponent model of relational competence.Human Communication Research, 10, 575-599.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Hurt, H. T. (1987). Themeasurement of interpersonal skills in
instructional contexts. Communication
Education, 36, 28-45.
Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982). Askingquestions: A practical guide to questionnairedesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sypher, B.D., Bostrom, R.N. & Seibert, J.H.
(1989). Listening, communication abilities,and success at work. The Journal of BusinessCommunication, 26,293-303.
Sypher, B. D. (1984). The importance of socialcognitive abilities in organizations. In R. N.Bostrom (Ed.), Communication and
Competence. Beverly Hills: Sage.Sypher, B. D. & Zorn, T. E. (1986).
Communication-related abilities and upwardmobility: A longitudinal investigation.Human Communication Research, 12, 420-431.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. & Liden, R.C. (1997).Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchangeperspective. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40, (1): 82-111.
Wheeless, V.E. & Berryman-Fink, C. (1985).Perceptions of women managers and theircommunication competencies.Communication Quarterly, 33, 137-148.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of amodel of communicative competence. HumanCommunication Research, 3, 195-
213.Wiemann, J.M., Takai, J., Ota, H. &
Wiemann, M.O. (1997). A relational modelof communication competence. In B.Kovacic (Ed.), Emerging Theories of HumanCommunication, pp. 25-44. New Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.
Wright, A. W. (1991). Developing a model ofcommunication competence fororganizations. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, AnnArbor.
Zorn, T. E. (1996). Motivation to communicate: Acritical review with suggested alternatives inD. Mumby (Ed.), Communication Yearbook,16, pp. 515-549.
Zorn, T. E. & Violanti, M. T. (1996).Communication abilities and individualachievement in organizations. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 10, 139-146.