|
Description
Synchronized teamwork, supported by a healthy communication environment, is a primary means by which organizational decisions are made, strategy is developed, and performance is measured (Miller, 2003). However, simply the presence of communication infrastructure and employee programs to foster communication skills will not guarantee successful communication and subsequent organizational success (Luthans and Sommers, 2005). Pettit et al. (1997) have expressly called for research that focuses on the relationships between communication and quantitative organizational outcomes. Surprisingly, given the enormous amount of resources and attention devoted to improving communication aptitude, very little empirical research links communication to organizational-level financial performance measures.
Research in the communication field has investigated the link between communication and the outcomes of job performance (Pincus, 1986), organizational commitment (Putti et al., 1990; Varona, 1996), productivity (Clampitt and Downs, 1993), and job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997; Pincus, 1986). However, little research links how communication makes organizations more successful in terms of financial performance. This study attempts to fill the gap by providing empirical research on the impact of communication on organizational financial success.
In examining organizational-level outcomes, levels of satisfaction must distinguish between interactions at the dyadic versus team level--an issue that confounds current understanding (Hecht, 1978a). Organizational results don't derive from the exchange between a mere two employees, but rather interactive communication of each employee with a group of others. Thus, a relatively new construct of Group Communication Satisfaction captures members' emotional reaction toward his/ her interaction within a work group in terms of the degree to which it has met or failed to meet his/her expectations about communication (adapted from Hecht, 1978a; Kirtley Johnston et al., 2000). Researchers argue that team members' (dis)satisfaction with the nature and content of communication can potentially derail/enhance organizational outcomes (Downs, 1988; Gray and Laidlaw, 2004).
Social categorization theory suggests that member's perceptions of group characteristics influence group performance (Abrams and Hogg, 1999; Hogg and Terry, 2000; Tajfel and Turner, 1991). Perceived characteristics of group members may influence the satisfaction with group communication. Empirical studies show that people tend to evaluate information cues from their own group members as being correct (Turner, 1991) and highly relevant (Mackie et al., 1992). People tend to regard members of their own social category as more attractive on dimensions relevant to the group; for instance, accountants tend to think that most accountants are intelligent (Abrams and Hogg, 1999). Seeing others as attractive or adding value could ease the exchange of ideas and opinions and increase degree of Communication Satisfaction.
This study examines the characteristics of Group Attractiveness, Heterogeneity, and Group Communication Satisfaction on Profit and explores the following research questions:
1. Do team members' perceptions of satisfactory Group Communication impact group performance?
2. What role do Group Processes play in the relationship between Communication Satisfaction and Profit?
3. What group characteristics influence Group Communication Satisfaction?
Group Communication Satisfaction
Group Communication Satisfaction refers to satisfaction or dissatisfaction arising from social interaction within a work group (Hecht, 1978a; Kirtley Johnston et al., 2000). When workgroup members' expectations regarding the relational style in which responsibilities and rewards systems are communicated to them, they feel satisfied with the communication environment. Studies suggest that organizational factors can influence the degree to which communication satisfaction is experienced: flexible work arrangements, quality of leader-member exchange, and organizational structure are apparent determinants (Walther, 1988). Communication Satisfaction also varies with respect to individual dispositions (e.g., friendliness, attentiveness, and other-affirming communication), apprehension, and loneliness (Anderson and Martin, 1995; Duran and Zakahi, 1987; Rubin and Rubin, 1989; Ralston, 1993), as well as motives (e.g., to escape, to control) and personal style (Anderson and Martin, 1995; Rubin et al., 1988; Ralston, 1993). Related outcomes of Communication Satisfaction in the workforce include employees' evaluation and supervisors' evaluation of one's self and the other's productivity (Clampitt and Downs, 1993), job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997; Pincus, 1986), job performance (Pincus, 1986), and organizational commitment (Putti et al., 1990; Varona, 1996).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Specifically our research proposes that Group Communication Satisfaction, via Group Processes, impacts organizational results, as operationalized by Financial Results. In addition, we propose that Communication Satisfaction is influenced by the group characteristic of Attractiveness (see Figure 1 for a complete research model).
Group Processes and Financial Performance
Group Processes encompass a variety of collective and interrelated behaviors in which group members engage. Considerable contemporary research attempts to clarify the role of these micro-level processes on higher-level process and organization results. Planning (Sy et al., 2005), decision making (Druckman, 2003), coordinating and communicating (Lester et al., 2002), confidence-building and information sharing (Burgoon et al., 2000) represent just some of the processes being studied.
Research shows that planning processes clarify the direction of the team, coordinate member tasks, and create team cohesion toward a common goal. Clarity of project targets can impact level of teamwork (Hong et al., 2004). Effective communication and information sharing can facilitate goal clarity. Successful quality initiatives also require a group effort to identify the link between consumer attributes and design specification (Ozgener, 2003). Project teams that manage their group processes to develop cooperative goals have higher reflexivity and innovation (Tjosvold et al., 2004). In addition, task cohesion stems from uniting members on group goals and nurturing cooperation among members (Carron and Spink, 1995; Bertunek et al., 1996). In a study of using management by objectives for self-regulating teams, group goals positively related to group productivity and job satisfaction, but with mediating effects of other group processes on the relationship between goals and satisfaction (Antoni, 2005).
Effective team planning and coordination lead to group decisions, action and results. Lester, Meglino and Korsgaard (2002) examine the effect of work group processes on the evolution of group potency and performance of work groups. They define group potency as the collective belief of a group that it can be effective (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Shea and Guzzo, 1987). Group processes of communication and cooperation related to higher potency and subsequent higher self-reported performance (Lester et al., 2002). Also in this study, the researchers identified leadership as a group process that would enhance group performance by providing a role model and cues for behavior. Inevitably, conflict occurs when diverse individuals must decide on a single group direction. As the group progresses toward a goal, the nature... |
More articles from Journal of Managerial Issues
Reciprocating perceived organizational support through citizenship beh..., December 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
