The relationship among work-related perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communications

The Relationships Among Work-Related Perceptions, Employee Attitudes, and Employee Performance • 277

THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG WORK-RELATED PERCEP-TIONS, EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES, AND EMPLOYEE PERFOR-MANCE: THE INTEGRAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION

Human Resource Management, Fall / Winter 1998, Vol. 37, No. 3 & 4, Pp. 277–293© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4848/98/030277-17

John J. Rodwell, René Kienzle, and Mark A. Shadur

This article explores the nature of organizational communication in the human resource man-agement context. An analysis of survey data collected from employees of an Australian informa-tion technology company found that employee perceptions of teamwork, communication, em-ployee job satisfaction, commitment, and stress significantly predicted self-rated performance.Unexpectedly, communication was found to be negatively related to performance. Analysis of thepattern of relationships indicates that while the direct relationship between communication andperformance is negative, the role of communication is one of enhancing teamwork, job satisfac-tion, and commitment. The article relates the findings to the “communication metamyth” whichassumes that more communication is necessarily good.

Introduction

Recent increases in competitive demands placedon industries around the world have forced com-panies to adopt practices aimed at creatinghigher involvement and higher performing or-ganizations. Approaches such as lean produc-tion (Krafcik, 1988), total quality management(Deming, 1986), just in time (JIT) (Abegglen &Stalk, 1985), and other “best practices” (Shadur,Rodwell, Simmons, & Bamber, 1994) are a fewamong many approaches that require organiza-tional managers to consider employee involve-ment and the impact it has on organizationalperformance. The end goal of progressive man-agement practices, such as those described inDertouzos, Lester, and Solow (1989); Womack,Jones, and Roos (1990) and others, is to obtainmarket success in an environment of world-classcompetition. A major component of these ap-proaches is to foster increased involvement so thatimproved quality, improved employee attitudes, andincreased productivity can be achieved (Cotton,

1996). The focus of this article is to explore fromthe perspective of the employees, the nature of com-munication as an element of human resource man-agement (HRM).

Within a given organization, the objectiveof these approaches to work organization is tobring about a superior level of performancefrom employees; however, a range of organi-zational and human resource factors impacton the successful adoption and implementa-tion of these practices (Wall, Jackson, &Davids, 1992). The human resource practicesused within organizations and the effects ofthese practices on the perceptions of indi-vidual employees are critical to the overallcompetitive drive of organizations. Human re-source practices that seek to increase employeeinvolvement should be carefully considered andthe components of involvement recognized.

The traditional rationale of HR managers,in attempting to increase employee involve-ment, has drawn the link between the numberof programs (whether they are participative

The focus of thisarticle is toexplore from theperspective of theemployees, thenature ofcommunicationas an element ofhuman resourcemanagement(HRM).

278 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall / Winter 1998

management or some other type of program)and the level of employee involvement. In ananalysis of employee involvement that focused onformal programs, Cotton (1996) found that self-directed work teams, gainsharing, direct participa-tion in decision making (not participation throughrepresentatives, which is limited to making recom-mendations), and an ongoing process of changemarked successful employee involvement pro-grams. For this article we consider that at the coreof these change processes there are a number offactors, namely, participation in decision making,teamwork, and communication.

Some attempts to increase employee in-volvement do not account for the perceptionsof individuals and affective reactions that mayarise. Employee involvement programs con-sist of a number of factors whose relationshipmay be mediated (e.g., by commitment), andtheir success is not based on a one-to-one re-lationship between the number of programsand the degree of success (Coye & Belohlav,1995). Further, an application of Kurt Lewin’sField Theory suggests that:

individuals’ behaviors are influenced mostimmediately by how they react to theenvironment as they perceive it [and] inturn, affective reactions are products ofboth how they perceive the environmentand individual characteristics (Kohler &Mathieu, 1993, p. 518).

Kohler and Mathieu go on to point out thatindividual characteristics and perceptions of theenvironment may influence individuals’ behav-ior directly, but the most likely outcome of theseinfluences is manifested in reactions to the situ-ation. Overall, while the elements of communi-cation and employee involvement may be worthyends in themselves, they impact on other cru-cial elements of human resources, especiallyfrom the perspective of the employees.

The extent of employee involvement isdetermined by the attitude of employees to-ward various organizational involvement pro-grams just as much as it is determined by thenumber and type of involvement programs putin place by HR managers. This simple notionis often lost from sight when HR managersare enlisted into the company to achieve “to-tal quality” or “best practice,” for example, andinvolvement programs are rolled out en masse.

Unfortunately, employee attitudes toward as-pects of employee involvement programs, suchas teamwork, communication, and participa-tion in decision making, are often not heededby organizational decision makers. Similarly,outcomes of employee involvement programs,such as job satisfaction, commitment, andemployee stress, can have important implica-tions for the success of these programs.

This article has the following structure:First, we introduce communication, partici-pation in decision making and teamwork asthe “building blocks” of employee involvementand as important contributors to organiza-tional performance. Second, we introduce or-ganizational commitment, job satisfaction, andstress as elements of employees’ affective atti-tudes. Affective attitudes are employees’ emo-tional and psychological reactions to the worksetting. We discuss how employees’ affectiveattitudes significantly contribute to self-ratedperformance beyond the employee involve-ment variables introduced earlier. Third, fol-lowing the presentation of results, therelationship among employees’ self-rated per-formance and employee involvement and af-fective attitudes are examined. Finally, weexplore communication in relation to em-ployee involvement and affective attitudes andintroduce the notion of a communicationmetamyth existing in organizations that mayhinder the acquirement of higher employeeand organizational performance.

Zimmerman, Sypher, and Haas (1996) iden-tified the communication metamyth, which as-sumes that more communication is better. Inthe past, practitioners and researchers havetended to take for granted that developing com-munication is inherently good. However,Zimmerman, Sypher and Haas (1996) encour-age us to reconsider that assumption. Thesewriters also posit that organizational processessuch as participation “map onto” the organiza-tional communication canvass. The section be-low provides an outline of communication inorganizations. The discussion then addresses thespecific relationships between communication andemployee involvement and employee attitudes.

Communication

Lawler (1989) identifies HR professionals asbeing in a position to encourage the flow of


information throughout the organization.Communication is important in organizationalfunctioning and has been proposed as a meansof bringing about greater organizational effec-tiveness (Bush & Frohman, 1991). The viewof communication as a panacea for all prob-lems, however, has tended to obscure and con-fuse the study of communication in the work-place (Zimmerman, Sypher, & Haas, 1996).

The pervasiveness of communicationmakes it difficult to separate it out as a phe-nomenon for investigation and a target formanagement by HR professionals. Sharinginformation is one of the easiest and most ef-fective ways that managers can foster em-ployee involvement within organizations(Lawler, 1989). Practitioners often proposethat employees must be given informationabout the company, its activities, goals, anddirections, as well as be allowed to have chan-nels through which to pass information up tomanagement. Regardless of how much infor-mation employees are given, however, theywant more (Zimmerman, Sypher, & Haas,1996). This belief, that more communicationis better, appears to be part of Western cul-ture. Despite this belief, there has been somedebate as to whether having more communi-cation is better for a number of outcomes(Zimmerman, Sypher, & Haas, 1996). Theresearch on the contribution of communica-tion to performance has not been clear (Pettit,Goris, & Vaught, 1997), with studies oftenfinding complex relationships. For example,Pincus (1986) found that communication waspositively related to performance, but not asstrongly as communication was related to sat-isfaction. This study will look at other factorsthat may be elements in the chain betweencommunication in the workplace and impor-tant outcomes (Zimmerman, Sypher, & Haas,1996) such as participation.

Participation in Decision Making

There has been a steady rise in the adoption ofparticipatory management techniques and strat-egies in organizations nationally and interna-tionally (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985). Partici-patory management practices attempt to dimin-ish the hierarchical structure of the organiza-tion in order to involve managers and subordi-nates in information processing, decision mak-

ing, or problem solving endeavors (Wagner,1994). Similarly, empowerment has been pro-posed to essentially involve “passing decision-making authority and responsibility from man-agers to employees” (Ford & Fottler, 1995, p.21). These activities and other seemingly posi-tive procedures that are associated with in-creased participation have had a mixed response,and analysis has moved past the position thatparticipation benefits performance.

Increased participation in decision mak-ing by lower-level members of the organiza-tion has been found to have a positive effecton the efficiency of the decision-making pro-cess (Heller, Drenth, Koopman, & Rus, 1988).Research has shown that employees who par-ticipate in decisions involving them havehigher levels of organizational commitment(Boshoff & Mels, 1995). In an extensive re-view of the effect of participation on perfor-mance, Wagner (1994) concluded thatparticipation can have a statistically signifi-cant effect on both performance and satisfac-tion, but the average size of these effects issmall enough to raise concerns about its prac-tical significance.

Programs that are intended to improveemployee performance or satisfaction throughincreasing employee participation, althoughyielding small effects, may, however, be worth-while to adopt if they cost little to implementand maintain (Wagner, 1994). The differencesbetween the studies that find a relationshipbetween participation and performance andthose that do not may be contingent—that is,due to differing conditions and contexts acrossthe studies.

Teamwork

Along with developed autonomy and control,a flat lean structure, and sophisticated per-sonnel management practices, one basis ofhigh performance organizations is a team orgroup approach (Morley & Heraty, 1995).Teams, in their many forms, have been foundto create a broad set of positive changes inorganizations. These benefits include in-creased communication, increased innovationthat can drive continuous improvement(Tjosvold, 1991), and increased work satisfac-tion (Morley & Heraty, 1995).

Teamwork has been emphasized as a key

The perva-siveness ofcommunicationmakes it difficultto separate it outas a phenomenonfor investigationand a target formanagement byHR professionals.


feature of the flexible organization of the1990s (Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke, 1995).This orientation involves group members’ per-ceptions that their interactions, communica-tion patterns, and levels of trust andparticipation all enhance working toward thegroup’s goals (Hare, 1976; Isabella &Waddock, 1994). Furthermore, managementis responsible for clarifying the rationale forthe team and must also leave enough flexibil-ity for the team to develop commitmentaround its own interpretation of that purpose(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Employees mustbe integrated into and committed to the orga-nization in order for teams to be effective(Tjosvold, 1991), a mechanism that requireseffective communication systems. Critics ofteamwork argue that, from the employees’perspective, teams can have disadvantages interms of peer group pressure and can becomea means of "management by stress" (Parker &Slaughter, 1988, p. 16ff). Stress and otheremployee attitudes are therefore importantelements of the HRM context and are subse-quently the focus of the next main section.

The above sections have outlined threemajor employee involvement “building blocks”:communication, teamwork, and participationin decision making. This study goes beyondmany studies of the above building blocks byincorporating a range of factors that reflectemployee perceptions. The importance of in-cluding employee perceptions is central here,given that for the potential benefits from em-ployee involvement programs to be realizedthey must be well received, accepted, and sup-ported by employees (Allen, Lucero, & VanNorman, 1997).

Involvement and Employee Attitudes

The impact of employee perceptions of in-volvement on employee and organizationalperformance has been extensively researchedand documented (e.g., Dertouzos, Lester, &Solow, 1989). Of the many changes that havebeen made to the organization of work overthe years, the most predominant have includedthe creation of teams, alterations to commu-nication, and the creation of a participatorymanagement practice. Employee attitudes area major factor contributing to productivity andthe introduction of high commitment man-

agement practices (Yankelovich, 1983). In thisstudy we include job satisfaction, organiza-tional commitment, and employee well beingin order to gain a better understanding of thecontribution of management practice andemployee contributions to performance.

Conceptualizations of employee involve-ment that seek to influence such factors as par-ticipation, teamwork, and other beneficialemployee behaviors imply a direct link betweenmanagement and human resource practices andthe performance of employees without fullyaccounting for the role of employee attitudes.Employee attitudes should be considered in or-der to understand more fully the relationshipbetween HR practices and organizational per-formance. Other authors have also called for acloser examination of the role of employee atti-tudes, for example, Boshoff and Mels (1995, p.38) called for future research to examine thelinks between attitudes such as commitment andperformance to include variables such as com-munication, teamwork, and group cohesiveness.

In summary, there is a need to understandwhat factors and/or practices, such as team-work, participation, etc., in the presence of amanagement strategy, can lead to higher per-formance. To achieve this understanding thereis a need to see what effects these practiceshave on performance and then to checkwhether the practices have direct effects orwhether they are "channeled" or moderatedby employee attitudes. This article includes anumber of work organization and employeeattitude variables, which are examined in moredetail below.

Job Satisfaction

Within the communication literature there hasbeen consistent support for a positive relation-ship between communication and job satis-faction (King, Lahiff, & Hatfield, 1988). Stud-ies confirming this positive relationship havebeen found in situations ranging from hospi-tals (e.g., Pincus, 1986) to public sectororganisations (Wheeless, Wheeless, &Howard, 1983). The relationship between jobsatisfaction and performance, however, hasundergone extensive examination and remainsalmost a "holy grail" for researchers (Landy,1989).

Despite the low correlations found be-

Within thecommunicationliterature therehas beenconsistent supportfor a positiverelationshipbetweencommunicationand jobsatisfaction.


tween job satisfaction and performance, therelationships between satisfaction and a rangeof other factors that are important in the ex-amination of employee behavior (e.g., com-mitment and participation), and in turn theirimpact on performance, lead us to includesatisfaction in our study. For example, Pettit,Goris, and Vaught (1997) found that organi-zational communication significantly pre-dicted job satisfaction but was a weakmoderator of the job performance/job satis-faction relationship.

An extra incentive to unraveling the jobsatisfaction/performance relationship has beento disprove the counter-intuitive findings thatonly a small correlation exists between jobsatisfaction and performance (Iaffaldano &Muchinsky, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender,1984). Research on job satisfaction has soughtto overcome this conundrum by focusing onpotential moderators of the performance-sat-isfaction relationship (Griffin & Bateman,1986). For example, there has been consider-able discussion about the relationship betweenparticipation and satisfaction, with reviews ofa range of these studies concluding that therewas a positive association between participa-tion and satisfaction (Cotton, Volrath,Droggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988).Similarly, many elements of work organizationhave a direct or indirect relationship with com-munication, a relationship that also links com-munication with commitment and satisfaction(Smith, 1991).

Organizational Commitment

The conceptualization of organizational com-mitment has come about in two distinct ways(Legge, 1994). First, commitment has beenconceptualized as an individual’s psychologi-cal bond to an organization (Coopey & Hartley,1991); others have conceptualized commit-ment as the binding of the individual to theorganization by past behavior (Salanick, 1977).A three-component measurement model ofcommitment proposed by Meyer and Allen(1991) includes three facets of commitment:affective, continuance, and normative. Thismodel links each component of commitmentto specific work outcomes, namely: employeeretention (turnover) and on-the-job behaviors(performance, absenteeism, and citizenship).

The affective component of the commit-ment model has emerged as the consistentpredictor of withdrawal intentions, turnover,and absenteeism (Somers, 1995) and is theaspect of commitment most central to thepractices examined here. Furthermore, recentresearch examining the relationship betweencommitment and performance has shown asignificant relationship between individuals’commitment and performance (Hackett,Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1991; Meyer, Paunonen,Gellalty, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). Again,some studies have found a relationship be-tween communication and commitment (e.g.,Putti, Ayree, & Phua, 1990; Varona, 1996),yet these studies often have not incorporatedother important elements such as those justdiscussed.

Stress and Well-Being

Stress has a wide range of effects on workerbehavior, including adaptive and maladaptiveresponses resulting in short- and long-termhealth implications (including substanceabuse, depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, andeating habits) (Smith, 1990). Stress has beenrelated to lower productivity and to highermedical costs and absenteeism (Miller, 1988),to performance (Beehr & Newman, 1978), andto turnover (Parasuraman & Alluto, 1984).Organizations have a major stake in promot-ing a healthier life style for employees becauseof the potential benefits in reduced insurancecosts, decreased absenteeism, improved pro-ductivity, and better morale (McKenna, 1987).With stress seen to be a possible outcome ofcertain modern HRM practices (Froiland,1993), the ability of communication to ame-liorate this damaging outcome, as implied byHilton (1992) and Lefkoe (1992), could bean important relationship.

Other Variables of Interest

Demographics, particularly age and tenure,have been demonstrated to play a role in or-ganizational communication (Zenger &Lawrence, 1989). At the group level, Katz(1982) found a positive relationship betweenthe tenure of the group and the level of groupcommunication. Steers and Rhodes (1978)developed a model of employee absenteeism

Organizationshave a majorstake inpromoting ahealthier lifestyle foremployeesbecause of thepotential benefitsin reducedinsurance costs,decreasedabsenteeism,improvedproductivity, andbetter morale.


that suggests that job satisfaction and pres-sures to attend work interact to determine at-tendance motivation. The demographic vari-ables are included in this study in order toexplore and overcome the limitations of ear-lier research that has overly focused on man-agement practices without considering theimpact of employee variables and attitudes onperformance, an important inclusion given therelationship between attitudes and perfor-mance described above.

The aim of many management practicesor workforce management strategies is oftenunclear as evidenced by analyses that haveconcentrated on “involvement,” “commit-ment,” or “quality.” As argued earlier, the ob-jective of the practices and techniques is toenhance worker and organizational perfor-mance. The value of the management prac-tices, per se, in determining performance istested by first removing the effects of theemployee’s characteristics and other covariatessuch as age, tenure, and absenteeism. By in-cluding measures of both management prac-tices (e.g., teamwork, participation) andemployee attitudes (e.g., commitment) ouranalyses can begin to clarify the role of com-munication in modern organizations. Commu-nication is inherent to the nature of all of themanagement practices; therefore, the directimpact of communication on performance isassessed by examining its influence on per-formance, above and beyond its indirect rela-tionships through other practices. Thesemultivariate analyses will go beyond the typi-cal two or three variables of interest in thisfield (e.g., Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997) andwill thereby help us to understand and ana-lyze the complex relationships between theseHRM factors and the role of communication.

Method

Sample and Procedures

The company that forms the basis of this studyis a medium- to large-sized domestically basedfirm in the Australian information technologyindustry. The absenteeism rate in the company,for the year prior to this study, was less than1%, with approximately 1% labor turnover. Thecompany has a variety of long-term contractswith other companies in the industry and has

contracts with suppliers and its customers,although it does not export its products.

The company has a wide range of team-oriented procedures in place. Although not aformal part of the managers’ work, teams arevery frequently used in operating, marketing,and R&D decisions, and in planning the long-term strategies of the firm. Employee involve-ment is very important in the company, withemployees’ opinions frequently being soughtand accepted. Furthermore, the company isin the process of implementing total qualitymanagement programs and has a few qualitycircles and team-based work groups success-fully in operation.

Data were collected using self-report sur-veys of all employees within the company.Each participant was given a one-page out-line of the purpose of the survey, with assur-ances that their responses would be keptconfidential, and a pre-paid envelope in whichto place the completed survey for return tothe researchers. Follow-up processes (e.g.,reminder letters) aimed at increasing the re-sponse rate were also employed. A responserate of almost 82% was achieved out of a totalof 329 employees who were given the surveyto complete. The survey was constructed us-ing the scales and questionnaires detailed be-low. All noncategorical data was measuredusing a five-point Likert scale ranging from(1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.”Questions relating to demographic data in-cluded age, gender, absenteeism, and lengthof job tenure, were also included in the ques-tionnaire.

Three scales were used to assess employ-ees’ perceptions of involvement. Communica-tion was measured using the eight-itemOrganizational Communication Scale designedby House and Rizzo (1972). The overall qualityof communications in the organization was as-sessed by asking “Compared to other compa-nies in Australia, this company has bettercommunications with employees.” Participationin decision making was defined as the extent towhich the participant perceives himself or her-self as being involved in making operationaldecisions. The five-item Participation in Deci-sion-Making Scale designed by White and Ruh(1973) was used. The teamwork scale was aseven-item measure that assessed employees’perceptions of teamwork. The authors developed

Although not aformal part of themanagers’ work,teams are veryfrequently usedin operating,marketing, andR&D decisions,and in planningthe long-termstrategies of thefirm.


a teamwork questionnaire based on current re-search in the field. The scale is presented inAppendix A.

Employee affective reactions were as-sessed using three scales. Job satisfaction wasdefined as an affective evaluative response ofindividuals to their jobs and was measuredusing five items from the Job Diagnostic Sur-vey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Organiza-tional commitment was defined as the strengthof an individual’s identification with and in-volvement in a particular organization. Orga-nizational commitment was measured usingthe 15-item Organizational CommitmentQuestionnaire as validated by Mowday, Steers,and Porter (1979). Stress was measured us-ing a seven-item scale (see Appendix A). Thestress scale was scored so that a high scoreindicated low stress.

Employee performance was measured us-ing a five-item self-rating scale (see AppendixA). Self-report measures of performance havebeen contentious in the literature with argu-ments that such measures are inflated, an ar-gument refuted by meta-analytic research(Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985).Furthermore, self-ratings may be consideredmore appropriate in the context of this studybecause the individual is uniquely aware ofthe elements of high performance, and thefocus here is on the perspective of the em-ployee (Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 1995). To complement these as-surances, the performance scale was exam-ined in relation to its correlations with othervariables.

Results

A three-step hierarchical regression was usedto determine the importance of employee per-ceptions of involvement and employee atti-tudes in predicting self-rated performance. Inthe first step of the hierarchical regression,the demographics variables (age, education,and tenure) were entered. In the second stepof the hierarchical regression, the three in-volvement scales (teamwork, communication,and participation) were entered. In the thirdstep of the hierarchical regression the em-ployee attitude variables (job satisfaction, com-mitment, and stress) were entered into theequation. Analyses were performed using

SPSS REGRESSION and regressionsubprocedures.

SPSS FREQUENCIES were used toevaluate assumptions.1 Table I presents thecorrelations among the ten variables in theregression. Performance was found to be sig-nificantly correlated with teamwork (r = 0.31),participation (r = 0.21), job satisfaction (r =0.31), and commitment (r = 0.30). Commit-ment and job satisfaction had the highest cor-relation in the matrix (r = 0.69). Moderatepositive correlations were found among team-work, communication, participation, job sat-isfaction, and commitment. Stress hadsignificant negative correlations with team-work, participation, job satisfaction, and com-mitment, although these correlations werelow. Table I also shows the means and stan-dard deviations of the variables before trans-formation.

A list-wise deletion of cases was carriedout, which reduced the sample size to 191cases. Table II presents the three-step hierar-chical regression showing the unstandardizedcoefficients (b), the standardized regressioncoefficients (ß), R squared, change in Rsquared, and the partial correlations of thevariables in the equation. After the first stepof the hierarchical regression, none of the vari-ables significantly predicted individual perfor-mance.2

After step two, teamwork significantly pre-dicted performance at p < 0.001 while commu-nication and participation showed anonsignificant trend. Overall for step 2, bothR2 and R2 change were significant (see TableII), indicating that perceptions of involvementsignificantly predicted individual performance.3

After the final step (i.e., step 3) of the re-gression (R = 0.47, and R2 = 0.23),4 there wasa significant change in R2 of 0.10 from steptwo to step three (p < .001). Teamwork, com-munication, job satisfaction, commitment, andstress significantly predicted individual per-formance while tenure showed a nonsignifi-cant trend. Communication was the strongestpredictor of individual performance, accountingfor over 6% of the variance in performance; how-ever, it was loaded negatively on individual perfor-mance, indicating that as perceptions oforganizational communication quality increased,self-rated individual performance decreased.

The pattern of simple correlations and

Stress hadsignificantnegativecorrelations withteamwork,participation, jobsatisfaction, andcommitment,although thesecorrelations werelow.


regression weights for communication withperformance indicates the operation of sup-pressor variables in the analysis. Using themethodology described by Tabachnick andFidell (1989), variables that exhibited congru-ent regression coefficients and simple corre-lations were systematically removed to observechanges in the communication variable. Theonly solution that was found was when team-work, participation, job satisfaction, and com-mitment were removed from the equation,indicating the presence of a group suppressoreffect on communication. The correlationmatrix supports this finding with moderatecorrelations found among the involvement andattitude variables (excluding stress) while allthe involvement and attitude variables had lowcorrelations with performance except for com-munication. Tabachnick and Fidell (1989)recommend that suppressor variables, in thiscase teamwork, participation, job satisfaction,and commitment, be interpreted as variablesthat enhance the importance of communica-tion through the suppression of the irrelevant

variance in communication.

Discussion

The results presented in this article supportthe overall importance of employee percep-tions of teamwork and communication as partof the organizational involvement construct inpredicting employees’ self-rated performance.A perception of teamwork was the most con-sistent and significant predictor of self-ratedperformance, being significant before and af-ter employee attitudes and stress were ac-counted for. Additionally, employee attitudessuch as job satisfaction and commitment, andstress are crucial to achieving involvement andemployee performance both through their di-rect links to performance as well as their linksto communication. Interestingly, on closerexamination of the regression analysis, whileperceptions of communication were found tobe significantly related to self-rated perfor-mance, these were a result of its relationshipwith teamwork, participation, job satisfaction,

TABLE I Scale Reliabilities Means Standard Deviations and Correlation Matrix.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Performance 0.77

2. Age 0.04 na

3. Education -0.01 -0.02 na

4. Tenure 0.01 0.04 0.07 na

5. Teamwork 0.31*** 0.03 0.02 -0.18* (0.82)

6. Communication 0.03 0.10 -0.12 -0.14 0.40*** (0.77)

7. Participation 0.21** 0.09 -0.04 -0.29*** 0.40*** 0.35*** (0.80)

8. Job Satisfaction 0.31*** 0.02 -0.09 -0.30*** 0.47*** 0.47*** 0.49*** (0.78)

9. Commitment 0.30*** 0.09 -0.11 -0.28*** 0.46*** 0.56*** 0.53*** 0.69*** (0.91)

10.Stress 0.06 -0.11 0.08 -0.07 -0.13* -0.11 -0.18* -0.28*** -0.19** (0.91)

Mean 28.94 33.73 15.09 3.57 24.44 29.08 17.22 17.14 52.91 20.7

S.D. 3.35 7.84 3.53 2.90 7.85 5.67 4.10 4.02 10.22 3.52

Note. ***= p < .001, **= p < .01, *= p < .05


and commitment rather than any direct rela-tionship to performance. It appears that percep-tions of communication do not have a direct linkto organizational performance but could be actingon teamwork, participation, job satisfaction, andcommitment and thereby influencing performancethrough the relationship that these variables havewith self-rated performance.

Despite the importance placed on em-ployee participation in decision making in theliterature, it was not found that employee per-ceptions of greater participation in decisionmaking was a direct and significant predictorof employees’ self-rated performance afteremployee attitudes had been accounted for. Aperception of participation in decision mak-ing was found to have a trended significantrelationship with self-rated performance be-fore employee attitude was accounted for. Thisindicates that perceptions of employee partici-pation in decision making might be precur-sors of higher order determinants of employeeattitudes, although not to the same extent asperceptions of teamwork, as found in thisanalysis. However, the relationship betweenperceptions of communication and participa-tion in decision making was significant, tying

it into the involvement and employee attitudevariables in this analysis. In general, it can besaid that employee perceptions of involvementwarrant consideration when contemporary man-agement strategies that include teamwork, com-munication, and participation are being used.

The employee involvement variables andemployee attitudes included in the regressionequation, as a whole, predicted a significantamount (approximately 19% of the variance)of the key variable, performance. Performanceis improved when perceptions of teamworkincrease, stress increases, satisfaction in-creases, and commitment increases. Unex-pectedly, perceptions of communication (whilebeing a significant predictor of self-rated per-formance) had a negative relationship withself-rated performance. These will be exam-ined in more depth below and require closerexamination of the suppressor relationshipfound in the analysis.

Communication

Counter-intuitively, the analyses found thatthe regression coefficient for the communi-cation variable was negatively related to per-

PartialVariables b ß R2 R2 Change Correlation

Step 1 Age 0.019 0.041 0.04Education 0.055 0.009 -0.01Tenure -0.152 -0.012 .00 .00 -0.01

Step 2 Age 0.014 0.030 0.03Education 0.127 0.021 -0.02Tenure 0.927 0.071 0.07Teamwork 0.219 0.322 0.29***Communication -0.092 -0.144 -0.14†Participation -0.705 -0.418 .13*** .13*** -0.14†

Step 3 Age 0.020 0.043 0.05Education 0.082 0.014 -0.02Tenure 1.636 0.125 0.13†Teamwork 0.162 0.238 0.22**Communication -0.183 -0.285 -0.25***Participation -0.183 -0.038 0.04Satisfaction -1.105 -0.219 0.17*Commitment -0.784 -0.241 0.18*Stress 0.151 0.155 .23*** .10*** 0.17*

Note. ***= p < .001, **= p < .01, *= p < .05, †= p < 0.10.

TABLE II Hierarchical Regression of Employee Perceptions of Involvement and Employee AttitudeVariables on Self-Rated Performance.

A perception ofparticipation indecision makingwas found tohave a trendedsignificantrelationship withself-ratedperformancebefore employeeattitude wasaccounted for.


formance. Higher “quality” communicationincluded clearer, more accurate communica-tions, more informed employees, and moreavenues for employees to communicate withmanagement and other employees than didpoor quality communication. Achieving higherquality communication appears to decreaseemployees’ performance while also having asignificant positive relationship with job sat-isfaction, commitment, teamwork, and partici-pation in decision making.

The simple correlation between percep-tions of communication and performance mis-represents the role that communication couldbe playing in increasing performance. Analy-sis of the pattern of relationships among vari-ables indicates that while the directrelationship between perceptions of commu-nication and performance is negative (asshown in the regression), the role of commu-nication is one of enhancing perceptions ofteamwork, participation, employee job satis-faction, and commitment as shown by its posi-tive correlations with these factors. Similarly,after accounting for individual-based factorsin the first step of the regression, participa-tion does not predict performance directly,although the degree of perception of team-work (a factor that is strongly associated withcommunication and participation) does di-rectly predict performance. In the light ofthese findings, it appears that communicationis the basis for obtaining commitment andincreased job satisfaction.

The finding that perceptions of commu-nication are significant negative predictors ofperformance presents an intriguing situationgiven its positive relationship to a number ofvariables, all of which have a positive relation-ship to performance. For example, perceptionsof communication appear to be related to theview that the organization has greater team-based work organization and perceptions ofmore participative decision making; nonethe-less, perceptions of more and better commu-nication could result in lower performance.

Two sets of possibly compatible explana-tions may make clearer the negative relation-ship between communication andperformance. First, the relationship betweencommunication and performance may be clari-fied by examining the related issue of theoverall quality of the organization’s commu-

nications. The employees suggested that theorganization’s communications were substan-tially poorer than the communication systemsused in other companies. Perhaps the solu-tion to the interesting, negative finding be-tween communication and performance is acomparative factor—that communication isconsidered relative to what the employees per-ceive to be "comparison" companies. That is,the quality of the communication systems rela-tive to other organizations is critical to theimpact of communication and how it is per-ceived. Hence, attempts by human resourcemanagers to push a poor communication ap-proach upon the organization may have nega-tive impacts on employee perceptions,producing the opposite effect desired by man-agement. It would be expected that employ-ees perform better when they have less contactwith the company’s relatively poor communi-cation processes.

Alternatively, the results may provide evi-dence, in an organizational context, for theexistence of a communication metamyth.Communication may indeed be inherent tomany organizational processes and could pro-vide the framework that processes such asteamwork could “map onto,” as posited byZimmerman, Sypher, and Haas (1996). Simi-larly, it is possible to have a negative relation-ship with performance if, regardless of howmuch information employees are given, theywant more. For example, with higher levels ofcommunication, the employees would be moreaware of the contribution they make and thenmay be disillusioned with their work, to thepoint where it is detrimental to their commit-ment and satisfaction, and in turn, their per-formance.

The pattern of the findings may indicatethat some practices operate more effectivelywithin a system of directed autonomy, wheremanagement sets the direction and goals ofinvolvement activities such as teamwork andparticipation, but employees are able to de-velop communication processes within theorganizational guidelines. By structurally di-recting the activities of the employees throughthe mechanism of teams, managers can in-crease employee involvement and perfor-mance. In this case, while perceptions ofteamwork and participative decision makinghave positive impacts on self-rated perfor-

The finding thatperceptions ofcommunicationare significantnegativepredictors ofperformancepresents anintriguingsituation given itspositiverelationship to anumber ofvariables, all ofwhich have apositiverelationship toperformance.


mance, the aim of managers to also controlcommunication systems may militate againsta positive relationship between improved per-ceptions of communication and individualperformance. The structures in this organiza-tion may be incompatible with involvementand empowerment approaches that devolvedecision making and employ strong employee-generated communication systems.

Perceptions of teamwork were found tobe associated with a broad set of positivechanges in organizations. These benefits in-cluded perceptions of increased communica-tion and job satisfaction (confirming Morley& Heraty, 1995). Similarly, employees whowere integrated into the organization struc-turally, and committed to the organization,enhanced team effectiveness (Tjosvold, 1991),and this was associated with effective com-munication systems. These results based onemployee perceptions reflect the findings ofthe relationship between teamwork and com-mitment, and teamwork and communicationthat has been found in other studies.

In an extensive review of the effect of par-ticipation on performance, Wagner (1994)concluded that participation can have a sta-tistically significant effect on both perfor-mance and satisfaction, but the average sizeof these effects is small enough to raise con-cerns about its practical significance. Thisstudy found that there was not a predictive,independent relationship between perceptionsof participation and performance. Participa-tory management practices attempt to collapsethe hierarchical structure of the organizationin order to involve managers and subordinatesin information processing, decision making,or problem solving endeavors (Wagner, 1994).Perhaps in other contexts participation maybe important for performance; however, this“collapsing” mechanism or perceptions thatit exists, does not appear to be necessary toachieve higher levels of employee perfor-mance. The results, however, highlight thepositive relationship between perceptions ofparticipative decision making and commit-ment and job satisfaction.

By including potential moderators in theanalysis, the counter-intuitive small relation-ship between job satisfaction and performancefound in much of the literature has not beenfound. Although there is a moderate and posi-

tive association between perceptions of par-ticipation and job satisfaction, job satisfactionis significantly related to performance aboveand beyond the influence of participation. Ona perceptual level, the direct relationship be-tween job satisfaction and self-rated perfor-mance extends previous research by examiningthe association between participation and jobsatisfaction in terms of their respectivestrengths of prediction of performance.

Our findings confirm and extend the ear-lier commitment and stress research thatfound a significant relationship between indi-viduals’ commitment, well-being, and perfor-mance; and expands those findings byproposing that the relationships can exist af-ter accounting for employee perceptions ofinvolvement in the organization.

Limitations

The findings of this study are limited by thecompany-specific nature of the sample. Thelimitation that presents the best opportuni-ties for future research is that the currentproject does not include companies that varyin the quality of their communication systems.In particular, a company with relatively goodcommunication systems, as perceived by theemployees, would add further useful data tothe analysis. A comparative analysis of thisnature would allow clarification of the notionthat when employee involvement is concerned,more communication is better, without regardfor the relative quality of the systems beingput into place.

This study also used a self-report surveydesign that targeted employee perceptions andincorporated a performance scale that allowedemployees to assess their own level of perfor-mance. There has been some debate aboutself-rated measures of employee performanceas opposed to external measures of employeeperformance. It is important to note that inthis study, employee perceptions were held asimportant factors in understanding the roleof communication. In general, an alternativeapproach that allowed migration away from aself-report survey method may be beneficial;however, a number of authors have noted theimportance of employee perceptions, and itwould be remiss to equate a one-to-one rela-tionship between the level of implementation

The results,however,highlight thepositiverelationshipbetweenperceptions ofparticipativedecision makingand commitmentand jobsatisfaction.


of involvement programs with the perceptionsof employees of these programs. Furthermore,several variables not included in these analy-ses, for example, organizational culture or cli-mate, may also influence the impact ofcommunication systems and other involve-ment approaches in organizations and wouldrequire consideration for inclusion in abroader analysis of communication within or-ganizations.

Consideration of the data analysis techniqueused in the analysis is also warranted. Becauseof the nature of the data and the collection pro-cess employed, the authors, due to a number ofstatistical and practical concerns, chose mul-tiple regression analysis. Future research, giventhe benefit of other methodologies and largersamples, might employ more in-depth data ana-lytic techniques. In particular, it is importantthat the data analysis technique being used canmore clearly highlight the causal relationshipof the variables being studied.

HR Implications

• HR practitioners may want to focustheir attention on the quality of thecommunication systems they put inplace and maintain, rather than focus-ing on more communication forcommunication’s sake. More commu-nication initiatives do not equal bet-ter communication.

• Communication systems work as partof the infrastructure of the organiza-tion and should not be an end in them-selves. The communication systemssupport contemporary HR practicessuch as teamwork, but it is the appro-priate use of teamwork that will en-hance employees’ performance, notthe communication systems per se.

• The perennials of HR, employee atti-tudes, and the use of contemporaryHR practices are still critical to orga-nizational success. With the increas-ing emphasis on modes of com-munication within organizations, HRpractitioners must not take their eyesoff achieving the basics—motivatedand committed employees that bringtheir efforts to bear through workplacestructures are still important.

• Communication provides the contextfor core HRM approaches. A goodcommunication system is the oil of thecompany engine.

Conclusions

Perception of communication is an importantcorrelate of perception of teamwork, employeejob satisfaction, and commitment. All of thesefactors are important human resource manage-ment concerns and are integral to the perfor-mance of most organizations. We argue thatcommunication is not the crux of enhancingperformance, but it is the foundation of othermechanisms, such as teamwork and employeeattitudes, that are key direct factors that enhanceperformance. Additionally, human resourcemanagers must be aware of the perceptual fil-ter that is used by employees to interpret thesuccess or failure of involvement programs, andit is this filter that must be recognized whenconsidering implementation of organizationalchange and involvement programs.

The pervasiveness of communication, es-pecially as an inherent and vital characteris-tic of organizations, makes it difficult toseparate out as a phenomenon for investiga-tion. This article has directly engaged the or-ganizational milieu, as represented byemployee perceptions of participation, empow-erment, teamwork, and employee attitudes, inorder to clarify whether it is perceptions ofvarious involvement factors (e.g., teamwork,participation) or employee attitudes (e.g., com-mitment, job satisfaction) that are having themost direct influence on employees’ self-ratedperformance. The positive determinants ofperformance were found to be perceptions ofteamwork, commitment, and job satisfaction.When this triumvirate is present and operat-ing, a synergistic relationship is created, a re-lationship, however, that is intertwined withperceptions of the nature of communicationwithin the organization.

The importance and inherent nature ofcommunication reflects the need for contin-ued investigation of communication in orga-nizations (Pettit, et al., 1997). Communicationis important for many key organizational struc-tures and processes such as team-based workand change processes. It also provides a con-duit for many aspects of organizational life to

The positivedeterminants ofperformance werefound to beperceptions ofteamwork,commitment, andjob satisfaction.


be conducted. Accordingly, communication isa complex phenomenon that appears to belinked to almost all other aspects of organiza-tional functioning. Often, too, employee atti-tude surveys suggest that “communication” isan area that needs attention. Both employeesand managers suggest that if “communication”can be improved or somehow “fixed,” thenmany organizational problems can be over-come. It is important, therefore, to analyzecarefully the complex manner in which com-munication is associated with human resourcevariables such as involvement and employeeattitudes. The type and delivery of communi-cation systems and processes therefore be-

come of central concern to managers and re-searchers. Managers need to move beyond themetamyth that more communication is bet-ter, and focus more precisely on what formsof communication can actually be more ef-fective. The findings of this study can besummed up by applying the metaphor of Por-ter and Roberts (1976), whereby communi-cation appears to be the “water” of theorganizational context and moving throughthat water can cause drag and reduce theprogress of the fish. Communication, in otherwords, can have dual influences to facilitatethe ambient functioning of the organizationand yet impede individuals’ performance.


Appendix A

Teamwork1. I really feel that I belong to a team2. I look forward to being with the members of my work group each day3. There is a lot of support and encouragement within my work group4. It is very difficult to settle problems in my work group (R)5. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done6. Group members keep their thoughts to themselves, rather than risk speaking out (R)7. I often work in groups as part of my job

Well-Being/Stress Scale1. I have enough time to do my job properly2. There is too much stress in my job (R)3. Most people in this job feel overwhelmed by the work (R)4. Recently I have felt constantly under strain at work (R)5. My job demands too much of me (R)6. My job involves too much stress (R)7. I think my workload is excessive (R)

Performance1. I am currently working at my best performance level2. It is my right to use all my sick leave allowance (R)3. Employees should only do enough to get by (R)4. I try to be at work as often as I can5. I am one of the best at the work I do6. I am one of the slowest at the work I do (R)7. I set very high standards for my work8. My work is always of high quality9. I am proud of my work performance

JOHN RODWELL is a lecturer in the Bowater School of Management and Marketing atDeakin University, Australia. He is involved in several research projects including ex-amining the factors involved in strategy formation, the effects of work practices onemployees, and the structures that enhance the outcomes of Equal Employment Op-portunity programs. John obtained his degrees (BA (Psych), PGDipPsych) from TheUniversity of Queensland. His research interests are in strategic management, workpractices, and organizational psychology.

RENÉ KIENZLE is a research officer in the Australian Centre in Strategic Management,Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He is involved in a numberof major research projects including the measurement and management of intangibleassets and the changing employment relations in the telecommunications sector inAustralia. René obtained his degrees (BSc (Psych) PGDipPsych) from the University ofQueensland.

MARK A. SHADUR is principal research fellow in the Australian Centre in Strategic Man-agement, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He is leader ofseveral major research projects including the impact of strategy and structure in Aus-tralian industry, and changing employment relations in the information technology andtelecommunications sector in Australia and Asia. Mark obtained his Ph.D. from theAustralian National University and has previously lectured in the Graduate School ofManagement, The University of Queensland and the Department of Business Studies,University of Zimbabwe. He has researched and published articles and books on HRM,Japanese management, organizational design, quality, and strategic management.


Abegglen, J.C., & Stalk, G. (1985). Kaisha: The Japa-nese corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Allen, R.E., Lucero, M.A., & Van Norman, K. L.(1997). An examination of the individual’s deci-sion to participate in an employee involvementprogram. Group and Organization Management,22(1), 117-143.

Beehr, T.A., & Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, em-ployee health, and organizational effectiveness:A facet analysis, model, and literature review.Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 665-699.

Bommer, W.H., Johnson, J.L., Rich, G.A., Podsakoff,P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1995). On the inter-changeability of objective and subjective mea-sures of employee performance: A meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.

Boshoff, C. & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model toevaluate the relationship among supervision, rolestress, organizational commitment and internalservice quality. European Journal of Marketing,29, 23-42.

Bush, J.B., & Frohman, A.L. (1991). Communicationin a “network” organization. Organizational Dy-namics, 20, 23-35.

Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W., Walker,& O.C. (1985). The determinants of salespersonperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Market-ing Research, 22, 103-118

Coopey, J., & Hartley, J. (1991). Reconsidering theCase for Organizational Commitment. HumanResource Management Journal, 1(3), 18-32.

Cotton, J.L. (1996). Employee Involvement, In C.L.Cooper & I.T. Robertson. (Eds), Internationalreview of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy (vol. 11), New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cotton, J.L., Volrath, D.A., Droggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988). Employeeparticipation: Diverse forms and different out-comes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8-22.

Coye, R.W. & Belohlav, J.A. (1995). An exploratoryanalysis of employee participation. Group and Or-ganization Management, 20(1), 4-17.

Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge,MA: MIT Centre for Advanced EngineeringStudy.

Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K. & Solow, R.M. (1989).Made in America, regaining the productive edge.New York: Harper Perennial.

Erez, M., Earley, P.C., & Hulin, C.L. (1985). Theimpact of participation on goal acceptance andperformance: A two-step model. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 28, 50-66.

Ford, R.C., & Fottler, M.D. (1995). Empowerment:A matter of degree. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 9, 21-29.

Froiland, P. (1993). What cures job stress? Training,30, 32-36.

Griffin, R.W., & Bateman, T.S. (1986). Job satisfac-

tion and organizational commitment. Interna-tional Review of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 157-188.

Hackett, R., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. (1991). Fur-ther assessment of a three component model oforganizational commitment. Proceedings of theAcademy of Management, 212-216.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.P. (1980). Work design.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Hare, A.P. (1976). Handbook of small group research.(2nd ed.) New York: Free Press.

Heller, F., Drenth, P., Koopman, P., & Rus, V. (1988).Decisions in organisations: A three country com-parative study. London: Sage.

Hilton, P. (1992). Over-motivated workers a conse-quence of new management techniques. Person-nel Management, 24, 12.

House, R.J., & Rizzo, J.R. (1972). Toward the mea-surement of organizational practices: Scale de-velopment and validation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 56, 388-396.

Iaffaldano, M.T., & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job sat-isfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273.

Isabella, L.A., & Waddock, S.A. (1994). Top manage-ment team certainty: environmental assessments,teamwork, and performance implications. Jour-nal of Management, 20(4), 835-859.

Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity onproject communication and performance. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.

Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The disci-pline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120.

King, W., Lahiff, J., & Hatfield, J. (1988). A discrep-ancy theory of the relationship between commu-nication and job satisfaction. CommunicationResearch Reports, 5, 36-43.

Kohler, S.S., & Mathieu, J.E. (1993). Individual char-acteristics, work perceptions, and affective reac-tions influences on differentiated absencecriteria. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,515-530.

Krafcik, J.F. (1988). Triumph of the lean productionsystem. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 41-52.

Landy, F.J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pa-cific Grove CA: Brooks Cole.

Lawler, E.E. (1989). With HR help, all managers canpractice high-involvement management. Person-nel, April, 26-31.

Lefkoe, M. (1992). Unhealthy business. Across theBoard, 29, 26-31.

Legge, K. (1994). Managing culture: Fact or fiction.In K. Sisson (Ed.), Personnel management: A com-prehensive guide to theory and practice in Britain(2d ed.). Cornwall, England: Blackwell.

McKenna, E.F. (1987). Psychology in business: Theoryand applications. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

REFERENCES


Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellalty, I.R., Goffin,R.D., & Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organizationalcommitment and job performance: It’s the na-ture of commitment that counts. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three componentconceptualization of organizational commitment.Human Resource Management Review, 1, 64-98.

Miller, A. (1988). Stress on the job. Newsweek, April25, 40-45.

Morley, M., & Heraty, N. (1995). The high perfor-mance organization: Developing teamwork whereit counts. Management Decision, 33(2), 56-64.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979).The measurement of organizational commitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Parasuraman, S., & Alluto, J.A. (1984). Sources andoutcomes of stress in organizational settings.Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330-350.

Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988). Management bystress. Technology Review, 37-44.

Pettit, J.D., Goris, J.R., & Vaught, B.C. (1997). Anexamination of organizational communication asa moderator of the relationship between job per-formance and job satisfaction. Journal of Busi-ness Communication, 34.

Petty, M.M., McGee, G.W., & Cavender, J.W. (1984).A meta analysis of the relationship between in-dividual job satisfaction and individual perfor-mance. Academy of Management Review, 2,712-721.

Pincus, D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, jobsatisfaction, and job performance. Human Com-munication Research, 12, 395-419.

Porter, L.W., & Roberts, K.H. (1976). Communica-tion in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-chology (pp. 1553-1589). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Putti, J.M., Aryee, S., & Phua, J. (1990). Communi-cation relationship satisfaction and organizationalcommitment. Group and Organization Studies,15(1), 44-52.

Salanick, G.R. (1977). Commitment and control oforganizational behavior and belief. In B.M. Staw& G.R. Salanick (Eds). New directions in organi-zational behavior (pp. 1-54). Chicago: St. ClairPress.

Scully, J.A., Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke E.A. (1995).Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the ef-fects of participation on performance, affect andperceptions, Organizational Behavior & HumanDecision Processes, 61(3), 276-289.

Shadur, M.A., Rodwell, J.J., Simmons, D.E., &Bamber, G.J. (1994). International best practice,quality management and high performance: In-

ferences from the Australian automotive sector.International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 5, 613-636.

Smith, A.L. (1991). Innovative employee communica-tion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, M.J. (1990). Occupational stress. In G.Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp.844-860). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Somers, M.J. (1995). Organizational commitment,turnover and absenteeism: An examination of di-rect and interaction effects. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 16, 49-58.

Steers, R.M., & Rhodes, S.R. (1978). Major influ-ences on employee attendance: A process model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using mul-tivariate statistics (2d ed.) New York: HarperCollins.

Tjosvold, D. (1991). Team organization: An enduringcompetitive advantage. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communi-cation satisfaction and organizational commit-ment in three Guatemalan organizations. Journalof Business Communication, 33(2), 111-140.

Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., & Davids, K. (1992). Op-erator work design and robotics system perfor-mance: A serendipitous field study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 353-362.

Wagner, J.A. III, (1994). Participation’s effects onperformance and satisfaction: A reconsiderationof research evidence Academy of ManagementReview, 19(2), 312-330.

Wheeless, V., Wheeless, L., & Howard, R. (1983). Ananalysis of the contribution of participative deci-sion making and communication with supervi-sor as predictors of job satisfaction. Research inHigher Education, 18, 145-160.

White, J.K., & Ruh, R.A. (1973). Effects of personalvalues on the relationship between participationand job attitudes. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 18, 506-514.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). Themachine that changed the world. New York: Max-well MacMillan.

Yankelovich, D. (1983). Yankelovich on today’s work-ers. In B.M. Straw (Ed.), Psychological founda-tions of organizational behavior (pp. 23-20).Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Zenger, T.R., & Lawrence, B.S. (1989). Organizationaldemography: The differential effects of age andtenure distributions on technical communication.Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353-376.

Zimmerman, S., Sypher, B.D., & Haas, J.W. (1996).A communication metamyth in the workplace:The assumption that more is better. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 33, 185-204.


ENDNOTES

1. Results of the evaluation of assumptions led to a logarithmic transformation of tenure and square roottransformation of teamwork, participation, job satisfaction, and commitment. The transformations suc-cessfully resolved excessive skew in these variables. Two cases were deleted from the sample due to ex-treme values on the age variable. With the use of Cook's distance, no other significant outliers wereidentified.

2. R2 = 0.002, F(3,187) = 0.116, p > .05.3. R2 = 0.13, F(6,184) = 4.479, p < .001; R2

Change = 0.13, F(3,184) = 8.826, p < .001.4. R2

adj = 0.19, F(9,181) = 5.79, p < .001.

Documents

The relationship among work-related perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communications