COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND JOB POSITION

AS VARIABLES AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION

by

MARTHA PRONGER MATHEWS, B.G.S.

A THESIS

IN

SPEECH COMMUNICATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Chair Ibfi

U (p, l^J AjULAjU.i.....»^_J

Accented

August, 1983

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For guidance, instruction, concern, and patience, I

am sincerely grateful. To Dr. Bill Jordan for directing

this thesis, to Dr. Bud Wheeless for helping interpret the

statistics, and to Dr. Virginia l^eeless for the concern

and insight, I thank you. To my husband, Kenneth, and

boys Seth and James, your patience has been deeply appre­

ciated.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES iv

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Overview of Job Satisfaction 1

Origins of Job Satisfaction 3

Communication Apprehension 5

Overview of Communication Apprehension 6

Descriptors of Communication Apprehension 7

Effects of High Communication Apprehension 8

Relationship Between Job Satisfaction

and Communication Apprehension . . . . 9

II. METHODS 15

Sample and Procedure 15

Questionnaires and Measurement . . . . 16

Data Analysis 20

Results 21

III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 37

Discussion 37

Conclusions 41

LIST OF REFERENCES 44 APPENDICES 49

111

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5:

TABLE 6

TABLE 7:

TABLE 8:

TABLE 9

TABLE 10

TABLE 11

TABLE 12

Orthogonal Transformation Matrix for Job Satisfaction 18

Means and Standard Deviations for all Subjects 22

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 23

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication . . . 24

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication . . . 25

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 26

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 27

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 31

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 32

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 33

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 34

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 35

IV

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Although causes of job satisfaction remain a mystery,

the search for answers continues. The purpose of this the­

sis is to examine one more variable related to job satis­

faction, communication apprehension. Initially, job satis­

faction will be overviewed, followed by origins of job sat­

isfaction. Next, communication apprehension will be over-

viewed, descriptors of communication apprehension cited,

and effects of high communication apprehension in the work

environment discussed. Finally, the relationship between

job satisfaction and communication apprehension will be delib

erated, followed by a hypothesis statement regarding job sat­

isfaction, communication apprehension, and the frequency of

communication required in a person's position.

Overview of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined by Locke (1976, p. 1300)

as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from

the appraisal of one's job or job experience." In 1976

Locke determined that there were over 3000 articles and

dissertations studying the topic of job satisfaction. Using

the same method of prorating, in 1983 this number could rise

to over 4000. VJhy? Why are researchers so concerned with

job satisfaction?

1

2

There are a nimiber of reasons which could ansvzer this

question. Research has shown job satisfaction to be related

to lower absenteeism (Baum & Youngblod, 1975; Day & Hamblin,

1964; Hackman & Lawler, 1971), quantity of production

(Katzell, Barrett & Parker, 1961), increase in productivity

(Alexander & Camden, 1981; Dunnette, Campbell & Jaastad,

1967; King, 1970; White & Mitchell, 1979), mental health,

and satisfaction with life in general (Kornhauser, 1965;

Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). Tne relationship of job sat­

isfaction to turnover is supported by many (Baum & Youngblod,

1975; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Lawler & Porter, 1967), while

refuted by others (Katzell et al., 1961). The same contra­

dicting stances hold true for performance: Lawler and Porter

(1967) report a positive relationship between job satisfac­

tion and performance, but hypothesized that good performance

is merely correlated with job satisfaction. Other studies

have found no significant association between job satisfac­

tion and quality of production (Katzell et al., 1961) or a

relationship between skill of employee, job satisfaction,

and quality of production (Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Ronan

(1970, p. 28) summarizes that the relationship between job

satisfaction and job performance is "still rather vague or

in actual dispute." Regardless of these "disputes," the

study of job satisfaction continues.

The study of organizational behavior is interested in

determining what makes individuals satisfied. Even if no

solid tie can be made between job satisfaction and perfor­

mance, productivity, and/or profit, Kornhauser's (1965)

findings that job -contentment is related to contentment with

life in general appear to warrant further research in this

area.

Origins of Job Satisfaction^

Most researchers agree that there are two conceptual

groundings regarding job satisfaction: intrinsic (personal)

rewards, and extrinsic (environmental) rewards (Eran, 1966;

Lawler & Porter, 1967; Locke, 1976; O'Reilly & Roberts,

1976; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Some of the intrinsic

rewards that affect how individuals perceive their environ­

ments include morale, job involvement, expectancies, needs,

values, and the conflicts between these needs and values;

extrinsic rewards include the work itself, pay, promotion,

verbal recognition, working conditions, and such structural

characteristics as rank, organization tenure, and job ten­

ure. Although no one factor can explain the variation in

job satisfaction (Eran, 1966), there appear to be six major

variables contributing to job satisfaction: superior-

subordinate relationships, organizational characteristics,

demographics, task-related characteristics, structural char­

acteristics, and personal characteristics.

Superior-subordinate relationships are believed to be

one of the most important variables regarding job satisfaction

4

(Eran, 1966; Falcione, Daly & McCroskey, 1977; Goldhaber,

Yates, Porter, & Lesniak, 1978; Richmond et al., 1982;

Ronan, 1970; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970; Wheeless, Wheeless, &

Howard, 1983). Different aspects of supervisor satisfaction

considered in these studies include Management Communication

Style (Richmond et al., 1982), feedback from supervisors

(Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982), and satisfaction with communi­

cating with supervisors (Wheeless et al., 1983). Although «

Goldhaber et al. (1978) contend that an effective relation­

ship with the immediate supervisor is the most important

correlate to job satisfaction, they further state that it

is not, alone, sufficient. Therefore, other variables must

be considered.

Organizational characteristics are some of those vari­

ables to be considered. These characteristics include repu­

tation of the company (Slocum 6e Misshauk, 1970), organiza­

tional climate (Maher & Piersol, 1970; LaFollette & Sims,

1975; Payne, Fineman &Wall, 1976; Schneider & Snyder, 1975),

and working conditions (Barnowe, Mangione & Quinn, 1973).

Another variable of job satisfaction may be demographics,

such as education, age, income, and occupation (Goldhaber

et al., 1978; Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Katz, 1978a; Katz,

1978b; Weaver, 1980). Task-related characteristics also

appear to be related to job satisfaction (Goldhaber et al.,

1978; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; O'Brien, 1980; O'Brien &

Stevens, 1981; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Some of these

variables include information concerning job-related matters

(Goldhaber et al., 1978), such job characteristics as vari­

ety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback (Hackman & Lawler,

1971), and employee's perceptions of the task and the extent

to which the task uses their skills (Caldwell & O'Reilly,

1982; O'Brien, 1980; O'Brien & Stevens, 1981). A fifth vari­

able of job satisfaction may be structural characteristics,

such as rank or tenure (Centers & Bugental, 1967; Porter &

Mitchell, 1967; Weaver, 1980). A final variable of job sat­

isfaction concerns the worker's own orientations and self-

concepts (Falcione et al., 1977), and it is this area which

will be the major focus of this paper. Specifically, what

is the employee's perception of him or herself, and how does

that self-concept affect job satisfaction within the organi­

zation? Furthermore, is a person's self-concept determined

by individual characteristics? The next section of this

paper will examine communication apprehension--one of those

individual characteristics believed to affect self-concept.

Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension is a relatively new concept

concerning an age-old phenomenon. People who exhibit either

extremely high or low communication apprehension (CA) are

subject to being labeled respectively as a "high CA" or a

"low CA," and many negative and positive connotations are

associated with these respective labels. The purpose of

this section is to provide a general overview of CA: what

it is, what descriptors best fit people with high or low

CA, and what the effects of high CA are to individuals in

the work environment.

Overview of Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension is defined as "an Individ-

ual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real

or anticipated communication with another person or persons"

(McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Until so named, the general fear

of communicating had been studied under various names,

including shyness (Zimbardo, 1977), reticence (Phillips,

1968), audience sensitivity (Paivo, 1964), and stage fright

(Clevenger, 1959). Communication apprehension differs from

stage fright or speech anxiety in that it is more general­

ized to include apprehension experienced in small groups and

interpersonal contexts as well as in public communication

contexts (Scott & Wheeless, 1977). McCroskey (1982) dif­

ferentiates between CA and reticence stating that CA is a

subset of the much broader concept of reticence: Whereas

reticence represents a broad range of communicative incom­

petence, CA concerns only that incompetence stemming from

anxiety or fear.

In addition to differentiating CA from other forms of

fear associated with communicating, much attention has been

7

directed to the type of fear CA involves. Spielberger (1966)

maintains that state anxiety is a transitory emotional con­

dition that changes over time and varies in intensity, while

trait anxiety is relatively stable to an individual when in

perceived threatening situations. While state CA is common

among all individuals and is considered "normal," trait CA

is not considered a characteristic of well-adjusted individ­

uals and threatens 20 percent of students in major univer­

sities (McCroskey, 1970). Communication apprehension is

not considered a positive characteristic, and to understand

the relationship concerning CA and job satisfaction, it

would be helpful to know how persons with high or low levels

of CA are perceived.

Descriptors of Communication Apprehension

People with low levels of CA generally present positive

images. McCroskey (1977, p. 84) defines people with low CA

as being "adventurous, extroverted, confident, emotionally

mature individuals with high self-esteem, tolerant of ambi-

buity, and willing or even eager to j:iccept change in their

environment." Conversely, McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and

Cox (1975) found that people with high CA are perceived to

be less sociable, less composed, less competent, less extro­

verted, less powerful, and less likely to be seen as opinion

leaders than are people with low CA. Additionally, McCroskey

8

(1977, p. 84) describes a person with high CA as an "intro­

verted individual who lacks self-esteem and is resistant to

change, has a low tolerance for ambiguity, and is lacking

in self-control and emotional maturity." In studies con­

ducted by McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and Falcione (1977),

descriptions of persons with low self-esteem were often

similar to those with high CA. One does not, however, neces­

sarily cause the other: the presence of one simply pre­

dicted the presence of the other. Although the description

of a person with high CA may appear dim, it is important to

remember that most of these people have adjusted to their

lifestyles and that their CA levels have probably influ­

enced their choices of housing, friends, mates, and occupa­

tions (McCroskey, 1977). Keeping this idea in mind, let us

now focus on the results that high CA has on a person's

economic life in business.

Effects of High Communication Apprehension

McCroskey (1977) states that high CA results negatively

on a person's academic, political, social, and economic life.

Much of this appears to be obvious: those who fear oral

communication are likely to avoid it whenever possible (Scott,

McCroskey, & Sheahan, 1978); "people who experience a high

level of communication apprehension will withdraw from and

seek to avoid communication whenever possible" (McCroskey,

1977, p. 87); people with high CA have little contact with

or influence upon others (McCroskey et al., 1975). If all

these statements are true, then let us consider how CA

affects individuals on their jobs.

Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Communication Apprehension

Now that both job satisfaction and communication appre­

hension have been overviewed, it is necessary to examine

possible relationships between the two constructs. Specif­

ically, is CA a contributing factor to job satisfaction?

Several studies conducted suggest that there is, indeed,

a relationship between the constructs. Porter and Kaufman

(1959), using the Decision Making Approach (DMA) scale which

differentiates between the self perception of top and middle

management, report that managers who score high on the DMA

show a significantly higher amount of verbal interaction

than those whose scores are lower. In an extension of their

study, Eran (1966) concludes that managers who score higher

on the DMA are, additionally, more satisfied with their

jobs. Conversely, those who have low scores are less satis­

fied and feel they fulfill the requirements of the job, but

some of the job requirements are incongruent with their self

perceptions. Some of the personality-trait variables Eran

(1966) found to account for the variation in attitudes of

managers include forcefulness, imagination, independence,

decisiveness, and self-confidence. Because managers who

scored higher on the DMA are more satisfied with their jobs

10

and show a significantly higher amount of verbal interaction,

it is reasonable to assume that these same managers would

have lower levels of CA.

Hackman and Lawler (1971) stress the importance of com­

bining demands and opportunities of jobs with the personal

needs and goals of employees. They feel this can best be

accomplished through job redesign, or by fitting people to

jobs and continually checking that fit as both the organi­

zation and the people change over time. Some of these needs

and goals employees have concern their skills (O'Brien,

1980; O'Brien 6e Stevens, 1981; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970).

Employees who are allowed to use their skills are more sat­

isfied, and highly skilled employees feel their jobs are

more important and desire more freedom to perform their

tasks than do unskilled employees. When allowed to make

more decisions, highly skilled workers have increased job

satisfaction while this opportunity has little impact on the

satisfaction of unskilled workers (Slocum & Misshauk, 1970).

People who have low levels of CA could conceivably consider

one of their skills to be a communication skill. If they

were placed in a position where this skill could not be

used sufficiently, there is reason to believe that their

level of job satisfaction would be reduced.

Research has shown that levels of CA affect many dif­

ferent aspects of a person's life and work environment,

including effectiveness, task attraction, attitudes, job

11

placement, satisfaction, and receiver apprehension. Frei-

muth (1976, p. 296) concluded that levels of CA in the

source affects the receiver's comprehension of the message

as well as ratings of authoritativeness and speech effec­

tiveness stating that "the more silence included in a one-

minute message, the lower its rating of speech effectiveness

and authoritativeness." Furthermore, people with high CA

experience more silence in their speech and receive lower

ratings on language facility, vocal characteristics, and

general effectiveness (Freimuth, 1976). Possibly because

people with high CA are perceived as being less authoritative,

McCroskey et al. (1975) reported that they are sometimes

thought to be less task attractive than are persons with low

CA. Additionally, people with high CA are more sensitive

to attitude differences with others and are much less attract­

ed to those who have different attitudes. This lack of

attraction to co-workers could add to the dissatisfaction of

the job for a person with high CA.

All jobs require some amount of communication--whether

with subordinates, superior, peers, or customers. People

with high CA who are forced to interact with others are less

satisfied than are others (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979).

Falcione et al. (1977) state that supervisor satisfaction is

closely associated with perceived communication behavior

(such as listening and understanding), credibility, attrac­

tiveness, and attitude homophily, and to a lesser extent

12

with oral CA and self-esteem. Additionally, employees with

high CA and/or low self-esteem are less likely to be satis­

fied regardless of their supervisors' behaviors (Falcione

et al., 1977).

The level of CA will also affect a person's job place­

ment and position. The person with high CA faces reduced

prospects for employment, retention, and advancement, and is

less likely to develop good interpersonal relationships with

employee peers (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979). Daly and

McCroskey (1975) discovered that people with high CA tend to

prefer occupations with perceived low communication require­

ments and that those with low CA prefer jobs with perceived

high communication requirements. McCroskey and Richmond

(1979) contend that there are fewer individuals with high CA

in organizations than would be expected considering the num­

ber found in the general population. One explanation for

this could be that people with high CA are discriminated

against in the hiring process, or even earlier in the inter­

viewing process. Individuals with high CA may even be dis­

criminated against for jobs which require little communica­

tion and would be good positions for people with high CA.

Furthermore, McCroskey and Richmond (1979, pp. 59-60) state

that these individuals have few top positions within organi­

zations, probably because the higher a position, the more

communication skills that are required. Most of them are

found in lower organizational levels "through a tacit but

13

usually unspoken agreement between them and their super­

visors that that is where they belong." Scott et al. (1978)

state that people with high CA have less desire for advance­

ment, are less likely to expect advancement, see themselves

as being in positions which require less communication, and

prefer jobs which have lower communication requirements.

Apparently people are able to accurately describe communi­

cation requirements for various occupations regardless of

their apprehension levels, and their own level of CA is

strongly related to their choice of occupation (Daly &

McCroskey, 1975). A person's term of employment is also

affected by CA: Employees with low CA are shown to stay

with companies over 50 percent longer than those with high

CA (Scott et al., 1978). Perhaps as people with high CA are

expected to interact more with others on the job, they choose

to quit rather than face the fear of communicating.

All jobs require some amount of communication, and

McCroskey and Richmond (1979) speculate that people with high

CA who are forced to interact with people will be less sat­

isfied than will others. Since all employees do not have

complete control over what jobs they take, and since job sat­

isfaction may be determined in part by levels of communica­

tion apprehension, and because levels of CA affect the job

position desired, then the following hypothesis may logically

be inferred:

14

H : Means of job satisfaction will vary for employees based on an interaction between levels of communica­tion apprehension and perceived frequency of communi­cation involved in their position such that high com­munication apprehensives with high frequency of commun­ication will have lower job satisfaction than will high communication apprehensives with low frequency of com­munication, and low communication apprehensives with low frequency of communication will be less satisfied than will high communication apprehensives with low frequency of communication.

CHAPTER II

METHODS

The purpose of this chapter is fourfold. The first

section reports the sample size and composition, and the

procedure used to collect the data. Second, the question­

naires and measurement used are presented. Third, the data

analysis is discussed, and finally, the results of the study

are reported.

Sample and Procedure

This study surveyed 480 non-faculty employees at Texas

Tech University. Questionnaires were mailed to employees

at their campus address on June 1, 1983, and returned ques­

tionnaires were collected through July 1, 1983. All respon­

ses were anon3niious. The original 488 returned questionnaires

represented 345 females, 135 males, and 8 which were unus­

able because of unanswered questions. There were 1373

questionnaires mailed; therefore, the 480 questionnaires

yielded a 35% return rate. The sample represented 85 dif­

ferent university departments, the age of subjects ranged

from 18 to 79 with a mean age of 36, and the number of years

of employment at the University ranged from 1 to 45 with a

mean longevity of 6 years. The types of occupations repre­

sented in the sample varied V7idely, as to position in the

organization. Thus, lower level, middle supervisors, and

administration were all represented.

15

• 16

Questionnaires and Measurement

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured by a modified version of

the Job Description Index (JDI) (Smith et al., 1969), con­

taining three items for each of five dimensions: satisfac­

tion with work, pay, promotion, supervisor, and co-workers.

A seven-point Likert-type scale instead of the yes, ?, no

response was used to record responses to questions since a

Likert-type scale would yield a more accurate response.

(See Appendix A.) The items were chosen because of high

factor loadings in previous research (Falcione et al., 1977;

Richmond & McCroskey, 1979; Smith et al., 1969; Wheeless

et al., 1983), and were factor analyzed using oblique rota­

tion in this investigation to verify their dimensional

structure. An eigenvalue of 1.0 or greater and the criter­

ion that at least 3 items must load at .60 or higher on a

factor were used to determine the number of factors extract­

ed. In order for an item to be considered a part of a fac­

tor, it had to load at .40 or higher. Reliabilities were

computed to determine internal consistency of each factor

(Nunally, 1967).

Factor analysis of the JDI produced five factors, repre

senting each of the Smith et al. (1979) five dimensions.

Total variance accounted for was 82.921% with satisfaction

with work accounting for 54.603%, satisfaction with pay for

17

18.339%, satisfaction with promotion for 5.968%, satisfac­

tion with supervisor for 2.688%, and satisfaction with co­

workers for 1.323%. (See Table 1.) Reliabilities for each

dimension were .86, .80, .80, .71, atid .64, respectively.

For any given factor a score of 3 indicated the lowest

possible level of satisfaction, and a score of 21 indicated

the highest possible level of satisfaction. The absolute

mean for each factor would be a score of 12.

Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension was measured with the 20

item Personal Report of Communication Apprehension--Organi­

zation Form. Developed by Scott et al. (1978), the mean

score for this form in their studies was 50.05 with standard

deviation of 11.50. The reliability for this measure in

research conducted by Scott et al. was .91. Because the

anchor statements were reversed in the current survey, the

mean score was 100.11 with standard deviation of 18.09.

Inverting the scores, however, would yield a comparable

mean. Factor analysis of this instrument using the same

criterion stated for the JDI resulted in one factor, which

accounted for 53.60% variance. Reliability of the measure

for the current study was .92 which was similar to the

reliability for previous studies. A seven-point Likert-

type scale was used for this measure. (See Appendix B.)

n-ll

w PQ <

• H V^ i J cd

S c o O -H

cC cd 6 M-i U CO O 'H

CO Cd

u ^ H O

•-) . - I cd M C Q O M-i

o si u o

u o o Cd

H O 4-» O Cd

o o Cd

u o u o cd

PM

o •u o Cd

P4

LTl 0(T»r- i<fcocr>oNcn<t i—icjNCNcM •<l•c^^c^4vo•<l•vovoo^^o^vOI—^r^^>» i - I C N l O O O O i — l i — I O i - l f - l < f s £ ) v O

I I I I

o o m i o o N a > m r - i i H C N i c M > d - < l - o r ^ i ^ l o o m v o m i — i r - i o o o i — i i n < t r ^ c T N O O O O O O O O i — I v O r ^ v O r H r - I O

I I I I I I

o<J^oo<^cx5vomo^^ocx5r^oomoo^^ i - H r - l . — l i - l t - l t - I O O < t r ^ O O i — l O O O

t I I I I

^ ^ c o < t o ^ v o ^ x > < N o o r ^ o o m c J ^ I — i c o m r ^ v o v o c s i v l - O r H c j o c v j c o c M i n i r x J - c o i - l t - I O C 3 0 r ^ v O C S I i - < C N O O O O O O

I I i I I I I I I

« ^ v o r ^ r o r ^ c T N r ^ v O i — i o o r > - o v o < N Q C S j r - N i — I O r - « . O O C » v O C O < J - v D i - H v O v £ > * ^ C X j r ^ r ^ i — l O r - l r H C O i - ^ O i - H O r H i — l O

I I I I I I

c • H

Cd !=!

a CO cd

•p

<u

I CO

I - l

c o

o

o o cd

u o

CO CO O • f - l ' I - l

(U , i < i ^ CO u u • o o :s IS en

o O 'T3 t iO-rH

cd CO

•iH 0)

Cd C p.. p

4J

(1) • H o

M-l M-l

e (U

o cd >

Cd

u o

o

O CO •H cd

O I - l

g a. <u o O 4 - ) ^ }-l O -iH ^

O -P >^ CL CO CO cd CO CO

o M-l

CO

e x CO }-l - H

cd

>^'0 4J cd

4-) CO

o a. o

(U

o o }- l } - l o o

cd CO CO CO ^ ' H ' H - H

- > >

0) (U cu (X (X (X :3 ;3 ;3

o

o o

>

4J

Q) bO

• H . - I

CO i-\ (U <U 15

•H J-) O g C r - I Q) ' H CO

CD (U 0)

<u cd cd

cd CO CO

S ^ 5-1

o ^ ; i » i

o > ^ ^ CO I

cd o

o 15 I

o

C50 <N

CO

<N C50

CNJ

p L i O ^ - D O c n c n c n W C J U

r- l cd > c bO

• H

CO , - 1 CN ( N CO (y\

• • I - l Csl

CX)

LO 0 0 CO

0 0 0 0 0 0 ON

vx) m CM

0 0

0 0 O vO 1-4 cjN cr»

• • m 00

cr> cvi CO < f CO C3

CO CM

CO CO o o

m in

o C

18

19

For any given factor a score of 20 indicated the highest

possible level of communication apprehension, and a score of

140 indicated the lowest possible level of communication

apprehension. The absolute mean would be a score of 60.

Frequency of Communication

Frequency of communication for each position was deter­

mined by a self-report measure completed by each subject

using the following questions:

1. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend talking on the phone with other employees or students?

2. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend talking face-to-face with other employees or students?

3. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend communicating with others using forms of personal ^communication (such as writing letters, memos, electronic devices such as computers and electronic mail)?

4. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend at tasks not requiring talking or communi­cating with others?

Answers from questions 1 through 4 were totaled, and the 53

totals which did not equal 100 were adjusted by dividing the

percent on each question by the total, then multiplying that

figure by 100 so that all percentages totaled 100. Frequency

of communication was then determined by summing answers from

questions 1 and 2. Thus, frequency of communication was

operationalized as interaction with other individuals.

20

Data Analysis

The design for this study was a 2x2 factorial design

with communication apprehension and frequency of communi­

cation as the independent variables, and the five factors

of job satisfaction as dependent variables.

The two levels of CA were determined as high or low

based at one standard deviation from the mean and beyond.

Frequency of communication was determined by summing per­

centages from questions 1 and 2 (see above) and using a med­

ian split to determine high and low frequency of communica­

tion. A median split for frequency of communication was

used rather than a standard deviation split as was used for

CA in order to retain power. Because of the self-report used

to measure frequency of communication, there was no feasible

way to compute reliability estimates on that instrument.

Verification that all totals equaled 100%, however, helped

assure reliability.

The dimensional structure of the factorial structure

of job satisfaction resulted in five variables. Therefore,

the data were analyzed by a 2x2 Multivariate Analysis of

Variance (MANOVA), and alpha level was set at .05. Since

the hypothesis stated that job satisfaction will vary based

on an interaction between frequency of communication and

levels of CA such that high communication apprehensives who

have jobs which demand high frequency of communication will

21

be less satisfied than low communicative apprehensives who

have the same demand of frequency of communication, an inter­

action effect was necessary to support the hypothesis. Fur­

ther, cell means should clearly show that high communica­

tion apprehensives in low frequency jobs are significantly

more satisfied than low communication apprehensives in the

same low frequency jobs.

Results

Results from this study were first obtained using MANOVA

which produced no significant interaction effects. Post hoc

studies were then completed which produced slightly modified

results. The following results were obtained.

Initial Analysis

When the five variables of job satisfaction were used

as the dependent variables, the MANOVA results indicated no

significant interaction between communication apprehension

and frequency of communication. (See Tables 2-7.)

A significant main effect for communication apprehension

was observed on the linear composite (V=.1179, F(5,153)=4.09,

p<:.01). Frequency of communication accounted for 127o vari­

ance in job satisfaction. There was no significant main

effect for frequency of communication from the linear com­

posite (V=.5423, F(5,153)=1.75, p>.05). Additionally, no

significant interaction effect was found for CA and frequency

of communication (V=.0203, F(5,153)=.63, p>.05). Therefore,

TABLE 2

Means and Standard Deviations for all Subjects

22

Variable Mean S.D n

Satisfaction with workl

Satisfaction with pay"-

Satisfaction with promotionl

Satisfaction with supervisor^

Satisfaction with co-workersl

Frequency of communication^

Communication apprehension^

15.

10.

10,

15,

16,

49

100

5063

,5042

,2021

.6500

.1208

.6651

.1125

4.2774

4.8333

4.8436

4.0128

3.3273

24.0216

18.0949

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

Ihigh satisfaction=21; low satisfaction=3

^high frequency=100; low frequency=0

^high communication apprehension=20; low communication apprehens ion=140

TABLE 3

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Half Split on Frequency

of Communication

23

Low CA High CA

Low Frequency

High Frequency

X = 12.04

n = 28

iE = 10.57

n = 54

X = 8.46

n = 46

X = 9.06

n = 33

X = 9.81

n = 74

X = 10.00

n = 87

X = 11.07

n = 82

X = 8.71,

n = 79

Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).

24

TABLE 4

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Half Split on Frequency

of Communication

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 17.14

n = 28

X = 16.19

n = 54

X = 16.51,

n = 82

High CA

X = 14.50

n = 46

X = 13.30

n = 33

X = 14.00a

n = 79

X = 15.50

n = 74

X = 15.09

n = 87

Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).

TABLE 5

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Half Split on Frequency

of Communication

25

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 12.00

n = 28

5E = 10.85

n = 54

X = 11.24

n = 82

High CA

X = 10.63

n = 46

X = 8.76

n = 33

X = 9.85

n = 79

X = 11.15

n = 74

X = 10.06

n = 87

26

TABLE 6

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Half Split on Frequency

of Communication

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 17.00

n = 28

X = 15.17

n = 54

High CA

X = 15.72

n = 46

5E = 14.64

n = 33

X = 15.79

n = 74

X = 15.27

n = 87

X = 16.20

n = 82

X = 14.97

n = 79

TABLE 7

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Half Split on Frequency

of Communication

27

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA High CA

X = 16.43

n = 28

X = 15.96

n = 54

X = 16.28

n = 46

X = 15.55

n = 33

X = 16.34

n = 74

X = 15.80

n = 87

X = 16.12

n = 82

X = 15.97

n = 79

28

the hypothesis statement that there would be an interaction

effect between levels of communication apprehension and per­

ceived frequency of communication failed to be supported.

Univariate F ratios were examined for each of the five

dependent variables. Communication apprehension produced

a significant main effect for both work (F^,a=13.85, p=.0003)^

(Ff^=2.40, p=.1236)2 (Fint=-03, p=.9640)3 and promotion (F^^=

8.82, p=.0035) (Ffr=.25, p=.6213) (Fint=l-57, p=.2115) indi­

cating that communication apprehension is a factor which

affects satisfaction with both work and promotion. Frequency

of communication produced a significant main effect for sat­

isfaction with supervisor (Fca=-61, p=.4355) (Ffr=4.33, p=

.0391) (Fint"-^^' P=-5900) indicating that frequency of com­

munication is a significant factor determining satisfaction

with supervisor. There was no significant difference, how­

ever, for the dependent variables of satisfaction with pay

(Fca=3.24, p=.0737) (Ffr=3.59, p=.0601) (Fint=-20, p=.6519)

or co-workers (F^^=.08, %=.7817) (Ff^=1.21, p=.2723) (Fint=

.06, p=.8048). Examination of the means for each variable

indicated that high communication apprehensives had lower

job satisfaction than did low communication apprehensives

on each of the five dimensions, although the differences

•'-ca=communication apprehension

2fr=frequency of communication

3int=interaction

29

were only significant for satisfaction with work and promo­

tion. Furthermore, subjects in the lower communication

frequency group were more satisfied than those in the high

communication frequency group on every dimension except

satisfaction with promotion. Again, however, the differ­

ences were significant only for satisfaction with super­

visor .

Post Hoc Analysis

Although no significant interaction effects were found

in the original study, further experimentation was performed

to determine if there were, in fact, significant results,

including a single factor analysis and a third split on

frequency of communication rather than a median split. For

the single factor solution, nine items were extracted. Pri­

mary loadings on the unrotated factor matrix which were .40

or above were used. This yielded all nine items constitu­

ting the dimensions of satisfaction with work, pay and pro­

motion, and excluded all items from the dimensions of super­

visor and co-workers. Using the one-factor solution, an

analysis of variance was conducted with CA and frequency of

communication as the independent variables. As before, CA

yielded a significant main effect (Fca=l^-78, p=.0002) (Ff;c=

3.18, p=.0767) (Fint=-ll' p=.7444). Examination of the

means indicated that high communication apprehensives were

less satisfied than low communication apprehensives.

30

A second post hoc analysis was conducted eliminating

the middle one-third of the subjects on the communication

frequency variable. The rationale for this procedure was

that the middle group could be viewed as "normal" and this

analysis sought to examine the more extreme cases. The

results of the ANOVA yielded isomorphic results for commun­

ication apprehension (F^^=13.13, p=.0004) (Ff^=2.91, p=

.0906) ( ^ -=.67, p=.4151). When the same third split was

used in the MANOVA, however, a significant interaction

effect was found for the dependent variable satisfaction

with promotion (Fca=6.73, p=.0107) (Ff-t.= .38, p=.5394) (Fint=

4.19, P-.0430). This indicates that the combination between

CA and frequency of communication could affect employees'

satisfaction with promotion.

An examination of the cell means indicates that there

is a significant interaction (p=.0012) stating that low

communication apprehensives with low frequency of communi­

cation are more satisfied with promotion than are high com­

munication apprehensives with low frequency of communication

Additionally approaching significance are means indicating

that low communication apprehensives with low frequency of

communication are more satisfied than are both high communi­

cation apprehensives and low communication apprehensives

with high frequency of communication (p=.0635 and .0671,

respectively). (See Tables 8-12.)

31

TABLE 8

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Third Split on Frequency

of Communication

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 13.00

n = 21

X = 10.38

n = 21

High CA

X = 8.30

n = 37

1

X = 8.46

n = 24

1

X = 11.69a

n = 42

X = 8.38,

n = 61

X = 10.00

n = 58

X = 9.36

n = 45

Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).

32

TABLE 9

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Third Split on Frequency

of Communication

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 17.43

n = 21 1

X = 15.90

n = 21

High CA -

X = 14.27

n = 37

X = 13.92

n = 24

X = 15.41

n = 58

X = 14.84

n = 45

X = 16.67. X = 14.10,

n = 42 n = 61

Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).

TABLE 10

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Third Split on Frequency

of Communication

33

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 12.43

n = 21

X

n

10.38

21

X

n

11.41

42

High CA

X = 10.62

n = 37

X

n

10.00

24

X

n

10.31

61

X = 11.28

n = 58

X = 10.17

n = 45

34

TABLE 11

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Third Split on Frequency

of Communication

Low Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 16.90

n = 21

X = 15.19

n = 21

High CA

X = 15.57

n = 37

X = 15.08

n = 24

X = 16.05

n = 58

X = 15.13

n = 45

X = 32.09

n = 42

X = 30.63

n = 61

35

TABLE 12

Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Third Split on Frequency

of Communication

L.OW

Frequency

High Frequency

Low CA

X = 16.43

n = 21

X = 16.05

n = 21

High CA

X = 16.38

n = 37

X = 15.54

n = 24

J

X = 16.40

n = 58

X = 15.78

n = 45

X = 16.24

n = 42

X = 15.96

n = 61

36

Although results of the post hoc study differed only

slightly from the original findings, it is possible that

more consideration should be taken when establishing cri­

terion before analyzing the data.

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The final chapter of this thesis contains a discussion

of the results, problems which might have affected tha lack

of support for the hypothesis, and also incorporates ideas

for future research. The chapter ends with the conclusions

which may be drawn from this study.

Discussion

The results of this study both compare and contrast with

the key studies upon which it was built. Means and standard

deviations for CA scores'differed somewhat; Daly and McCroskey

(1975) surveyed 196 undergraduate students and found a mean

of 61.92 with standard deviation of 13.97. The study con­

ducted by Scott et al. (1978) was more comparable with their

study showing a mean of 50.05 with standard deviation of

11.50 in a study consisting of 243 employees of the federal

government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Because

the anchoring statements for the current study were reversed

from the previous studies, the means of 100.11 with standard

deviation of 13.09 would make the results of this study com­

parable with previous studies. The larger standard devia­

tion, however, xvould indicate that the current study surveyed

more "normals" than did previous research.

Although Scott et al. (1978) surveyed employees rather

than students, they had approximately half female and half

37

38

male as compared to slightly more than one-fourth males and

three-fourth females represented in the current study. Scott

et al. (1978) found that high communication apprehensives

have less desire for advancement, are less likely to expect

promotion, and prefer jobs with lower communication require­

ments. The current study supports the findings on promo­

tion: Low communication apprehensives are more satisfied

with promotion than are high communication apprehensives.

The findings differ, however, concerning communication

requirements, suggesting that all employees were more satis­

fied when the amount of communication for their jobs was con­

sidered low.

Although the results of this study supported McCroskey

and Richmond's (1979) statement that people with high commun­

ication apprehension with be less satisfied V7hen forced to

interact than will people with low communication apprehen­

sion, the hypothesis that there would be an interaction

effect with both CA and frequency of communication failed

to be supported. High communication apprehensives were less

satisfied than were low communication apprehensives on all

dimensions: satisfaction with work, pay, promotion, super­

visor, and co-workers. The lack of significance, however,

indicates that the effect may not be as strong as formerly

believed.

Some of the problems of this study concern the statis­

tical methods used. The use of MANOVA requires many more

39

subjects, and using this method with insufficient numbers

can misrepresent the findings (Lawlis & Chatfield, 1974).

Perhaps with a larger sample size there would have been

enough extreme cases to produce significance. However, if

there are fewer high communication apprehensives in the work

force than would be expected (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979) ,

then the possibility of surveying a large enough sample to

fill those cells may be difficult. Perhaps it would be bene­

ficial to survey larger groups, and purposefully include

those groups believed to be composed mainly of high communi­

cation apprehensives, such as accountants.

The self-report measure of frequency of communication

also posed problems. With no feasible way to validate this

report or measure its reliability, the results reported

could have been less than accurate. It is possible that

high communication apprehensives over-estimate the amount

of time they must spend communicating, and, conversely, those

who are low communication apprehensives may underestimate

the amount of time they are able to communicate with others.

It would be difficult to develop a standardized instrument

to measure percentage of time spent communicating, but reli­

ability could be tested by using the test-retest method, or

perhaps by observing a random sample of the subjects at the

work site and comparing observations with self-reports. This,

however, would mean that those subjects would lose their

anonymity, which could also bias the results of the remainder

nf ^hp auestionnaire.

40

Results concerning the main effect of CA on job satis­

faction were not surprising, since Falcione et al. (1977) have

shown that job satisfaction is related to CA, and McCroskey

and Richmond (1979) have found high communication apprehen­

sives to be less satisfied in general than low communication

apprehensives. It is surprising, however, that employees

who were considered to have low communication frequency

proved to be more satisfied than those with high communica­

tion frequency on all job satisfaction dimensions except

promotion. Perhaps this finding indicates that there is

some other variable related to frequency of communication

and job satisfaction, such as stress. Likewise, the inter­

action effect found between CA and frequency of communica­

tion on satisfaction with promotion in the post hoc studies

would be reasonable. High communication apprehensives, par­

ticularly, v/ould be concerned with the amount of communica­

tion required of them if they were promoted to a job which

automatically demanded higher communication skills (McCroskey

oc Richmond, 1979) . Just why this interaction effect should

occur only with satisfaction of promotion, however, and not

with any of the other four variables, is questionable. Per­

haps employees feel "safer" attributing lack of job satis­

faction on a neutral topic such as promotion rather than on

more controversial things such as supervisor or co-workers.

Additionally, if the employees had any reservations about

their supervisors having access to the answers the employees

41

supplied, this could have made the employees hesitant to be

entirely honest in their answers.

Conclusions

Although the hypothesis statement that job satisfaction

would vary for employees based on an interaction between

levels of communication apprehension and perceived frequency

of communication failed to be supported by this study, sev­

eral significant findings were evident.

The relationship between CA and job satisfaction was

definitely supported. Although there was no significant

interaction effect between CA and frequency of communica­

tion, there was evidence to indicate that CA does affect

satisfaction x> ith work and promotion and that frequency of

communication affects satisfaction with supervisor. The

fact that post hoc studies using different operational defi­

nitions of high and low frequency of communication did, in

fact, produce an interaction effect between CA and frequency

of communication on satisfaction with promotion warrants fur­

ther study in that area.

Examination of the post hoc analysis concerning the

interaction effect of CA, frequency of communication and

promotion indicates that the most important variable is fre­

quency of communication. In the significant interaction,

low communication apprehensives with low frequency of com­

munication were more satisfied with promotion than were high

42

communication apprehensives with low frequency of communi­

cation. Likewise, in the instances approaching significance,

low communication apprehensives with low frequency of com­

munication were more satisfied than were both high communi­

cation apprehensives and low communication apprehensives

with high frequency of communication. Apparently frequency

of communication may be a more important variable than is

CA.

Additionally, low communication apprehensives are more

satisfied with all dimensions of job satisfaction: work,

pay, promotion, supervisor, and co-workers, while those who

are low communication apprehensives and have low frequency

of communication are more satisfied than any other combina­

tion on dimensions of job satisfaction. The results, how­

ever, were insignificant.

Although only limited interaction effects were found

in this study, there still remains a clear relationship

between CA and job satisfaction. Perhaps future research

should concentrate on variables that do have an interaction

effect with CA and job satisfaction if, indeed, frequency of

communication does not. Specifically, what variables inter­

act with CA to effect job satisfaction? Why are even low

communication apprehensives more satisfied with jobs that

require lower frequency of communication? Do low communi­

cation apprehensives as well as high communication appre­

hensives suffer from "communication overload?"

43

Alas, the mystery remains unsolved. Just what con­

stitutes job satisfaction remains to allude us, but further

research in this realm should eventially find the answers.

44

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexander, A. & Camden, C. Praise and organizational behavior. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Minne­apolis, 1981.

Barnowe, J.T., Mangione, T.W. oc Quinn, R.P. The relative importance of job facets as indicated by an empiri­cally derived model of job satisfaction. In Survey Research Center, The 1969-1970 survey of working; con­ditions: Chronicles of an unfinished enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973.

Baum, J.F. & Youngblod, S.A. Impact of an organizational, control policy on absenteeism, performance, and satis­faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 688-694.

Caldwell, D.F. & O'Reilly, CA. Task perceptions and job satisfaction: A question of causality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, , 361-369.

Centers, R. & Bugental, D.E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 50, 193-197.

Clevenger, T.A., Jr. A synthesis of experimental research in stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1959, 45, 134-145.

Daly, J.A. & McCroskey, J.C. Occupational desirability and choice as a function of communication apprehension^ Journal of Counseling; Psychology, 1975, 2^, 309-313.

Day, R.C. & Hamblin, R.L. Some effects of close and puni­tive styles on supervision. American Journal ot boci-ology, 1964, 6^, 499-510.

Dunnette, M. , Campbell, J. & Jaastad, K Factors contri­buting to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 143-1/4.

Eran, M. Relationship between self-perceived P^^^^^^^j-^^ traits and job attitudes in middle management. Jour nal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 424-430.

45

Falcione, R.F., Daly, J.A. £c McCroskey, J.C. Job satis­faction as a function of employees' communication appre­hension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their immedi­ate supervisor. In B.D. Ruben (Ed.) Communication Year-Dook_J . New Brims wick, N.J.: Transaction, 1977.

Freimuth, V.S. The effects of communication apprehension on communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 289-298.

Goldhaber, G.M., Yates, M.P., Porter, D.T. & Lesniak, R. Organizational communication: 1978. Human Communi-cation Research, 1978, 4, 76-95./

Gould, S.B. 6c Hawkins, B.L. Organizational career stage as a moderator of the satisfaction-performance relation­ship. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 434-450. • ^ —

Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286. '

Katz, R. The influence of job longevity on employee reac­tions to task characteristics. Human Relations, 1978, n , 703-725.

Katz, R. Job longevity as a situational factor in job sat­isfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 204-223. ""

Katzell, R.A., Barrett, R.S. & Parker, T.C. Job satisfac­tion, job performance, and situational characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 65-72.

King, N. Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, M , 18-31.

Kornhauser, A. Mental health of the industrial worker: A Detroit study. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.

LaFollette, W.R. & Sims, H.P., Jr. Is satisfaction redun­dant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 257-278.

Lawler, E.E., III & Porter, L.W. The effect of Performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 1967, ]_, 20-28.

46

Lawlis, G.F. & Chatfield, D. Multivariate approaches for the behavioral sciences: A brief text. Lubbock Texas: Texas Tech Press, 1974.

Locke, E.A. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1976.

Maher, R.R. & Piersol, D.T. Perceived clarity of individual job objectives and of group mission as correlates of organizational morale. Journal of Communication. 1970, 20, 125-133.

McCroskey, J.C. Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 269-277.

McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A sum­mary of recent theory and research. Human Communica­tion Research, 1977, 4, 78-96.

McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A recon-ceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.) Communication yearbook 6. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication, 1982.

McCroskey, J.C, Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P. & Cox, B.C. The effects of communication apprehension on interper­sonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1975, 2, 51-65.

McCroskey, J.C, Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P. & Falcione, R.L. Studies of the relationship between communica­tion apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communica­tion Research, 1977, 3, 269-277.

McCroskey, J.C £c Richmond, V.P. The impact of communica­tion apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 1979, 27, 55-61.

Nunally, J.C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

O'Brien, G.E. The centrality of skill-utilization for job design. In K. Duncan, M. Gruneberg, D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life. Winchester: John Wiley,

O'Brien, G.E. & Stevens, L. The relationship between per­ceived influence and job satisfaction among assembly line employees. Journal of Industrial Relations, 1981, 21, 33-48.

47

O'Reilly, C.A., III & Roberts, K.H. Individual differences m personality, position in the organization, and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Per­formance, 1975, 14, 144-150.

Paivo, A. Childrearing antecedents of audience sensitivity Child Development, 1964, 35 , 397-416.

Payne, R.L., Fineman, S. 6c Wall, T.D. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976. 16? 45-62. — —

Phillips, CM. Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 1968, 35 , 39-49.

Porter, L.W. 6c Kaufman, R.A. Relationships between a top-middle management self-description scale and behavior in a group situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1959, 43, 345-348.

Porter, L.W. 6c Mitchess, V.F. Comparative study of need satisfactions in military and business hierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 5]^, 139-144.

Richmond, V.P. 6c McCroskey, J.C Management communication style, tolerance for disagreement and innovativeness as predictors of employee satisfaction: A comparison of single-factor, two-factor, and multiple-factor approaches. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3. New Brimswick, N.J.: Transaction, ly/y.

Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C 6: Davis, L.M. Individual differences among employees, management communication style, and employee satisfaction: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 1982, 8, 170-188.

Ronan, W.W. Individual and situational variables relating to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1970, 5^, 1-31. ~

Schneider, B. 6c Snyder, R. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal ot Applied Psychology, 1975, , 318-328.

Scott, M.D., McCroskey, J.C 6c Sheahan, M.E_ _ ^ f ; ^ f communication apprehension. Journal of Communication, 1978, 28, 104-111.

48

Slocum, J.W., Jr. 6c Misshauk, M.J. Job satisfaction and productivity. Personnel Administration. 1970, 33, 52-58.

Smith, P.O., Kendall, L.M. 6c Hulin, CL. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago- Rand McNally 6c Co . , 1969. '

Spielberger, CD. (Ed.) Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.

Weaver, CN. Job satisfaction in the United States in the 1970s. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 364-367. —

Wheeless, V.E., Wheeless, L.R. 6c Howard, R.D. An analysis of the contribution of participative decision making and communication with supervisor as predictors of job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 1983, 18, 145-160.

Wnile, S.E. 6c Mitchell, T.R. Job enrichment versus social cues: A comparison and competitive test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 1-9.

Zimbardo, P.G. Shyness. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

APPENDICES

A. JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX

B. PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION--ORGANIZATION FORM

49

50

APPENDIX A: JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX

The following items ask you to indicate how satisfied you are with each aspect of your job listed below Write the appropriate number in the blank using the following scale:

l=Strongly disagree 5=Somewhat agree 2=Disagree 6=Agree 3=Somewhat disagree 7=Strongly agree 4=Neutral or uncertain

My supervisor is easy to please. My work is fascinating. It is easy to make enemies with my co-workers. There is good opportunity for advancement in my work My work is boring. My pay is good. My supervisor is polite. My co-workers are intelligent. My job is a dead end job. I am underpaid in my job. There is a good chance for promotion in my job. My supervisor is stubborn. My pay is barely enough to live on. My work gives me. a sense of accomplishment. My co-workers are slow.

51

APPENDIX B: PERSONAL REPORT OF COJ-IMUNICATION APPREHENSION--ORGANIZATION FORM

The following items ask you to indicate your feelings about communicating with other people. Using the scale of 1 through 7 below, indicate your agreement or disagree­ment with each statement by writing the appropriate number in the blank:

l=Strongly disagree 5=Somewhat agree 2=Disagree 6=Agree 3=Somewhat disagree 7=Strongly agree 4=Neutral or uncertain

People can usually count on me to keep a conversation going. Conversing with people who hold positions of author-ity is something I really enjoy. I feel self-conscious when I am called upon to answer a question or give an opinion. I am basically an outgoing person. When I have to represent the university to another group I feel very tense and nervous. I am afraid to express myself in a group.

~~~~ When I'm with other people, I often have difficulty thinking of the right things to talk about. I enjoy fielding questions at a meeting. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. I look forward to an opportunity to speak m public. In most situations, I generally know what to say to people. I enjoy talking to my subordinates. I talk less because I'm shy. I am fearful and tense all the while I am speaking before a group of people. Talking to my supervisor makes me nervous. T like to get involved in group discussions Conversing^with people who\old positions of authority r-anc;pc me to be fearful and tense. I en!oy rej?eslnting my organization to °ther groups. I took forward to interviewing people applying for a job as my subordinate. • •, ^ ,.„„-I consider myself to be the silent type.