1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

It is an important thing to practice or nurture a person’s interpersonal

communication skills. Anywhere we go; we interact and deal with different kinds of

people. It is a must to communicate with people effectively. Strong relationships

therefore are built through interpersonal communication. However, there are some

instances that the interpersonal skills of a person are getting affected.

Interpersonal skills of a person vary particularly in an organizational community.

A number of communicative activities also involve non-verbal behavior and an ability to

detect and portray messages through this medium is also seen as a central

interpersonal skills (Harrigan, Rosenrhal and Scherer 2005). In an organization, there

are different races of people, beliefs, culture, position, organizational affiliation,

perception and ideas. As a result, there are tendencies that misunderstanding among

the members of an organization that doesn’t aim for progress. Organizational change

has an important personal dimension (Moran and Brightman 200); and it is actually an

emotional experience, which notes the crucial role of employees’ perceptual and

attitudinal characteristics (Nicolaidis and Katsaros 2010). Therefore in an organization,

misunderstanding and conflicts could be unavoidable.

Research proposes that employee’s perception of organization readiness to

change may either facilities or inhibit an organizational change initiative (Eby 2000). In

other words, members of an organization don’t always go with the organization’s

 2

decision. That is, they reflect the degree to which the organization has the flexibility to

achieve change, and the extent to which an employee can actively and genuinely

participate in the change process (Smith, 2005). Employees do not necessarily have

fixed or enduring beliefs that change only slowly over time as an effect of a radically

new circumstances as proposed by Gioia (2000) and Pratt (2000). They take temporary

positions on their organizational affiliations, such as being part of such and being

subordinated to an organizational structure. One example is that employees consider

that their supervisors are responsible for providing information and support because

they are perceived to be the principal agents of the organization (Cole 2006). In general,

perception of a person affects his interpersonal communication skills. Members of an

organization who are in the lower positions are not much vocal to assert their ideas to

the workgroup compared to those who are in the higher positions, Moscovici (1991) also

suggests that, in general, we should pay less attention in public opinion formation to

silent majorities and more to ‘loud minorities’, which often play a larger part in opinion

change.
 3

Theoretical Framework

The researchers have affixed the said study to the Spiral of Silence Theory or the

formation of public opinion. According to the proponent of this theory, Elisabeth

Nuemann, the phrase “spiral of silence” actually refers to remain silent when some

people feel that their views are in the minority. Hence, the rule of public opinion is

transparent. The relevant theory concerns the interplay between four elements; mass

media; interpersonal communication and social relations; individual expressions of

opinion; and the perceptions which individuals have of the surrounding ‘climate of the

opinion’ in their social environment. The theory proposes that, in order to avoid isolation

on important public issues (like political party support), may people are guided by what

we think to be the dominant or declining opinions in their environment. People tend to

conceal their views if they feel think they are dominant. The result is that those views

which are perceived to be dominant gain even more and alternatives retreat still further.

The theory was the first formulated and tested to explain puzzling findings in German

politics where opinion poll findings were inconsistent with other data concerning

expectations of who would win an election and signally failed to predict the result. The

explanation offered was that the media were offering a misleading view of the opinion

consensus. They were said to be leaning in leftist direction, against the underlying

opinion of the (silent) majority. The spiral of silence theory is a close neighbor to mass

society theory and involves a similar, somewhat pessimistic, view of the quality of social

relations (Taylor, 1982). According to Katz (1983), its validity will depend on the extent

to which alternative reference groups are still alive and well in social life. The more that

is the case, the less scope there is for the process described to operate, since there will
 4

be support for minority or deviant views. People who perceived as a part of minority are

vulnerable to different premises like isolation, discrimination, chaos and deprivation. As

a result of being silent or passive, the interpersonal communication skills towards their

workgroup will be greatly affected. Members of an organization choose to withhold

his/her opinion because of the fear of isolation. They sunk into an idea that if they’ll

spoke up, their opinion will just be ignored and rejected because of the perception that

their opinion is against to the majority. As a result, some brilliant and definite opinions

are not recognized because of hiding of such. Aside from the silence that takes place,

the interpersonal communication skills are also greatly affected. Interpersonal skills of a

person such as verbal/non-verbal communication, negotiation, decision making and

listening will vary depending on a person’s behavioral disposition. Unfortunately, the

negative part is they refuse to honest towards their workgroup. It is basically a human

nature to have a want to be accepted, supported, and appreciated.

Spiral of Silence within groups could control the certain, open and thoughtful

discussions that are much needed for an organization’s development. An organization’s

foundation is the cooperation among all of its members. Hence, an instance such as,

threat of isolation that is felt by the minority for example, gay and lesbian members are

getting triggered in organizations. Other factors such as year level and position are

getting its way in the occurrence of spiral of silence. In an organization, most of the

decisions are agreed depending on the voice of the majority; in that case, the minority’s

voice is not much esteemed. The premises involved here are: Unspoken ideas,

isolation, chaos, and weak interpersonal communication skills.

 5

In this study, interpersonal skills of the SBO officers will be identified. This study

investigated into the respondents’ year level, and position. These variables were studied

separately to gauge and determine how the respondents’ interpersonal communication

skills vary to the different factors such as gender, year level, and position. The

interpersonal communication skills included here are: Verbal and Non-verbal

communication, listening, and giving/getting feedback.

Moreover, this will help in the assessment of the relationship between the

independent and dependent variables that is shown in Figure 1.

The diagram shows the relationship between the independent variables which

are the gender, year level, and position; and the dependent variables which include the

verbal communication/non-verbal communication, listening, and giving/getting feedback.

 6

Schematic Diagram

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT

Respondent’s Profile Interpersonal Communication
Skills

 Verbal
 Gender Communication/Non –
 Year Level Verbal Communication
 Position  Listening
 Giving/Getting feedback

Figure 1.A Diagram Showing the Relationship of the

Dependent and Independent Variables of the Study.
 7

The Statement of the Problem

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Gender

1.2 Year Level

1.3 Position

2. What is the level of Interpersonal skills in terms of:

1.1 Verbal Communication and Non – Verbal Communication

1.2 Listening

1.3 Giving/Getting feedback

3. 1Is there a significant difference in the respondents’ interpersonal communication

skills when grouped according to:

1.1 Gender

1.2 Year Level

1.3 Position

Hypothesis of the Study

Problems one (1) and (2) are hypothesis free. Problem three (3) whose hypothesis was

stated in the null form below was tested at 0.05 levels of significance.

Ho. There is no significant influence on level of interpersonal skill toward their

interpersonal skills on organizational context among the respondents when grouped

according to gender, year level and position.

 8

Significance of the study

The findings/results of this study may be helpful to the following:

Admin.The findings of this study will motivate them to always keep track the flow

of the different school’s organizations. This will also motivate them to establish

programs that would enhance the SBO officers’ interpersonal skills.

Leaders.This study would help them to build awareness in the negotiation,

problem solving, assertiveness, and decision making in their organization. They will

understand more of the diversity matters in their workgroup.

SBO Members. The findings of this study would bring them to go out from their

shell. This will help them to have a good perception in being expensive, brave, and

vocal in provoking their ideas. With these, they would give more importance of

teamwork and cohesion in their organization.

Future researchers.They would have their basis in conducting their studies. The

researchers will able to gain knowledge and insights in constructing their research. This

study will serve as a guide in their own studies.

 9

Definition of terms

The following terms are defined according to their usage on the study to give

clear emphasis and meaning on sentences and phrases.

Giving/getting feedback.This variable refers on the way in working with others to find a

mutually agreeable outcome/result.

Interpersonal Skills. This variable refers to the social skills people use to interact

effectively with other people.

Listening. This variable refers to the active process of receiving and responding to

spoken (and sometimes unspoken) messages.

Non–Verbal Communication. This variable refers to what we communicate without

words, Body language, gestures, proxemics, and paralanguage are examples.

Verbal Communication.This variable refers to what we say and how we say.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

In this light, the main objective of this study is to determine the level of

interpersonal communication skills of the Student Body Organization Officers of

PHINMA Cagayan de Oro College. This study will involve the SBO Officers of the

different colleges of the said institution of the school year 2016 – 2017.

The chosen colleges are the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of

Information and Technology Education (CITE), College of Nursing (CON), School of

 10

Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ), and College of Engineering and Architecture

(CEA), College of Education (COEd), and College of Management and Accountancy

(CMA).
 11

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter reviews the related literature and studies which have a significant

bearing on the topic on the interpersonal skills of the Central Student Government

Officers of PHINMA-Cagayan de Oro College. This contains number researchers which

provided the study with appropriate background, insight and direction needed in the

study.

Related Literature and Studies in Foreign Setting

In an organization, cohesion is very significant in achieving the organization’s

effectiveness. Every organization has its own goals that would lead to its own success.

Because diversity is inevitable, different communication skills should be acquired so that

communicating with another person or a group of people will not be a great problem.

Though conflicts are also unavoidable, the goals that have been made to meet the

organization’s effectiveness are enough to derive in good relationships among

members.

Interpersonal skills are very relevant in the many aspects of our daily lives.

Building personal relationships, social affairs, and professional lives are relied on strong

interpersonal skills. According from a lesson transcript, interpersonal skills are the tools

use to interact and communicate with individuals in an organizational environment. The

 12

different core areas of communication, however is essential for effective interpersonal

interactions. As noted by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993), the concept of

readiness to change is similar to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing: the process of

adjustment of employees’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding a possible change

that makes the change perceived as needed and therefore more likely to be successful.

Armenakis et al.’s (1993) concept is defined as the attempt of influencing organization

members’ “beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and ultimately the behavior” (p. 682) to reduce

the possible resistance to the change. Based on organizational climate research, the

concept of readiness for change can also be understood as how employees perceive

their organization to be ready to let a change happen on a large-scale (Schneider 1975;

Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey 2011). A skill that would help in achieving effective within

organizations’ interpersonal interactions is the non-verbal communication. According to

Harrigan, Rosenthal and Scherer (2005), a number of communicative activities also

involve non-verbal behavior and an ability to detect and portray messages through this

medium is also seen as a central interpersonal skill. Messages can be delivered through

different non-verbal channels. Verbal communication on the other hand is also a great

factor in sending messages.

On the other hand, we have assumed that listening ability depends largely on

intelligence that “bright” people listen well, and “dull” ones poorly. There is no denying

that low intelligence has something to do with inability to listen, but we have greatly

exaggerated its importance. A poor listener is not necessarily an unintelligent person.

To be good listeners we must apply certain skills that are acquired through either

experience or training. If a person has not acquired these listening skills, his ability to
 13

understand and retain what he hears will be low. This can happen to people with both

high and low levels of intelligence. Factors like gender for example is also present in a

persons’ listening ability. A combined research project between the University of

California, Irvine and the University of New Mexico identified a gender difference

between the amount of gray matter and white matter found in our brains. The amount of

gray matter was six times greater in the brains of the male research participants, while

the women participating in the study had 10 times the amount of white matter the men

did. Despite activating different activity centers within the brain, genders perform equally

on measures of cognitive function. This means that although we listen and assimilate

information differently, the difference does not appear to affect cognition or our ability to

listen. Differences in the way we listen do not seem to impact listening performance.

For decades, women have been one of several target groups of discrimination

within the work force, as in other aspects of society. Women often encounter more

difficulties accessing leading positions than men (Eagly et al. 2000; Ashcraft 2006).

More and more women enter the work force, yet for many it means being over qualified

and having few opportunities. There are very few women who climb the hierarchical

ladder, and for most, hitting the glass-ceiling is a usual scenario (Katila & Eriksson

2013; Gornick & Meyers 2008). Furthermore, women are highly underrepresented in

senior level management positions. Even though the latter is recognized as female-

friendly and as an example of gender equality (Saari 2013), statistics/reports show this

belief is incorrect. On the other hand, through the initiatives taken by the French

government it is implied that women are discriminated against (Bennhold 2010; Fisher

2012), especially in managerial positions. Many studies have looked at gender

 14

discrimination in the workplace from a quantitative perspective, but less have focused

on employees’ perceptions of organizational readiness to accept women in leadership

positions from a cultural perspective.

Despite this need for a positive workplace culture, there is no doubt that giving

critical feedback is essential. The question is how to deliver it. Most advice in this area

focuses on what to say — for example, give more praise than criticism, and listen more

than you talk. Those are important, but our nonverbal communication is just as

important as the words we use. By using positive, open, and supportive feedback style,

a person ends up establishing trust. Employees are especially sensitive to signs of trust

in their managers. Our brains respond more positively to empathic bosses, as neuro-

imaging research confirms. In turn, employees who feel greater trust show

improved performance. Positive relationships at work can even lower health care costs

by improving employee health:

 15

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the methods that were used in gathering the data to support the

study are presented. These include the research setting, research respondents,

research instrument, data gathering procedure and statistical treatment.

Research Design

This study used a descriptive-survey method of research. It included analysis,

description and interpretation of conditions that exist. The research dealt on the factors

such as gender, year level, and position in determining the interpersonal communication

skills of the Student Body Organization officers. The study underwent gathering,

tabulating, and computing of data which involved analysis and interpretation of results.

Research Setting

This study was conducted to the Student Body Organization Officers of PHINMA

Cagayan de Oro College.

COC has been given national awards by the Philippine Association of Colleges

and Universities-Commission on Accreditation in 2003 and 2004 for having the third and

second most accredited programs, respectively. It was acquired in 2005 by PHINMA

Education Network (PEN), a member of the PHINMA Group of Companies. It is one of

 16

the leading educational institutions in the country in the field of criminology, having

produced a number of topnotch graduates since its inception in 1947. The college also

offers preschool, elementary and secondary education, which primarily serve as

laboratory schools for its teacher education programs.

Research Respondents

This study involved the Student Body Organization (SBO) officers in PHINMA

COC. Based on the official list, there are 18 SBOs with a total of 126 officers. 7 SBOs

from the chosen 7 colleges with a total number of 48 officers was taken as the

respondents of the study employing sampling procedure. Purposive sampling will be

applied in the study due to the small number of respondents. The 48 respondents can

give us tight findings thus, we only surveyed 30% of its total population.

There are varied numbers of SBOs under its college/department. 7 departments

are having only one SBO. These are; College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of

Education (COEd), School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ), College of

Nursing, College of Information and Technology Education (CITE), Basic Education,

and Puerto campus. The rest of the departments are having more than one SBO

accordingly to its respective programs. These departments are; College of Management

and Accountancy (CMA) and the College of Engineering and Architecture (CEA).
 17

Research Instruments

A questionnaire was used in gathering the data needed in the study. After

the approval to conduct a survey, the researchers distributed the questionnaire to the

respondents. After data gathering, the data was analyzed and interpreted by the

researchers.

The questionnaire in the study was adaptive. There were two parts of

questionnaire that was utilized. The first part was the filing up the respondent’s profile.

The profile includes their gender, year level and position. For the second part, the

respondents indicated the degree/scale that reflects their position and opinion.

Sampling Procedure

This study used non-probability sampling procedure. Out of 126 officers, our 48

respondents gave us tight findings thus, we only surveyed 30% of its total population.

Purposive sampling was applied in the study due to the small number of respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure

A questionnaire was used in gathering the needed data on the study. An

approval was done before conducting the study, and upon approval, the researchers
 18

personally proceeded in distributing the questionnaires to the respondents. Analyzing

and interpreting of data was followed after data gathering.

Categorization of Variables

In order to interpret the gathered data, the following categorization will utilized:

Gender: Male

Female

Year Level: First Year

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

Fifth Year

Position: Governor

Vice-Governor

Secretary

Auditor

Treasurer

Social Manager
 19

PIO

Sgt.@arms

Representatives

Interpersonal Communication Skills

Verbal and Non-verbal Communication

Scale Verbal Description

3 High

2 Average

1 Low

Listening Skills

Scale Verbal Description

3 High

2 Average

1 Low

Giving and Getting Feedback

Scale Verbal Description

3 High

2 Average

1 Low
 20

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discusses the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data

gathered from the survey questionnaires given to the student-respondents to determine

the level of interpersonal communication skills of the Student Body Organization

Officers of PHINMA – Cagayan de Oro College. This study involved the SBO Officers of

the different colleges of the said institution during the school year 2016 – 2017. The

presentation of the analysis was organized based on the order of presentation in the

statement of the problem of this study.

Problem 1: What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

3.1 Gender;
3.2 Year Level; and
3.3 Position?
Table 1
Distribution Table Showing the Student- Respondents’ Profile
in terms of Gender (n = 48)
Profile Categorization Frequency Percentage
Male 23 47.92
Gender Female 25 52.08
TOTAL 48 100%

Table 1 above shows the distribution of the student-respondents demographic

profile in terms of gender. Result showed that 23 or 47.92% were male while 25 or

52.08% were female. This implies that majority of the respondents of this study were

female. As cited in the study of Sapiro (2009), gender plays important roles in shaping
 21

public opinion. She further noted that this does not mean that men and women are

neatly divided into campus when it comes to public opinion. Hence, two sexes play

different kind of roles in society and family life and thus have different kinds of

experiences. In general, gender does not have a great impact on the variation of one’s

level of interpersonal communication skills. Therefore, the results on the level of

interpersonal skills of the officers have nothing to do with their gender.

Table 2
Distribution Table Showing the Student- Respondents’ Profile
in terms of Year Level (n = 48)
Profile Categorization Frequency Percentage
First Year 0 0.00
Second Year 20 41.67
Year Level Third Year 18 37.50
Fourth Year 8 16.67
Fifth Year 2 4.16
TOTAL 48 100%

Table 2 above presents the distribution of the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of the year level. Result showed that 20 or 41.67% were

sophomore students, 18 or 37.5% were third year, eight (8) or 16.67% were fourth year

and only two (2) or 4.16% were already in their final year. This implies that in this study,

there were more second year students followed by third year students.

None of the freshmen students were part of this survey since there were no

elected freshmen officers. Based on the table, majority of the respondents were

sophomores it is because there were more second year enrollees than the other year

levels, thus more elected sophomores

 22

Table 3
Distribution Table Showing the Student- Respondents’ Profile
in terms of Position in the Student Body Organization (n = 48)
Profile Categorization Frequency Percentage
Governor 4 8.33
Vice-Governor 6 12.5
Secretary 4 8.33
Position Auditor 2 4.16
In the Student Body Treasurer 7 14.58
Organization Social Manager 8 16.67
PIO 6 12.5
Sgt. At Arms 4 8.33
Representative 7 14.58
TOTAL 48 100%

Table 3 above shows the distribution of the student-respondents according to

their position in the student body organization of the school. Result showed that there

were eight (8) or 16.67% were social managers, seven (7) or 14.58% were treasurers

and representatives, six (6) or 12.5% were vice-governor and personal information

officers, four (4) or 8.33% were governors, secretary, and sergeant at arms and two (2)

or 4.16% were auditors. This implies that many of the respondents were social

managers, treasurers and representatives.

Positions such as social manager, PIO, Sergeant at arms, and representative

have more than one officer elected. This explains that these positions have higher

percentage in terms of population.

Employees do not necessarily have fixed or enduring beliefs that change only

slowly over time as an effect of a radically new circumstances as proposed by Gioia

(2000) and Pratt (2000). They take temporary positions on their organizational

affiliations, such as being part of such and being subordinated to an organizational

structure. One example is that employees consider that their supervisors are
 23

responsible for providing information and support because they are perceived to be the

principal agents of the organization (Cole 2006). This implies that organizational

position can be a factor in the variation of the a person’s interpersonal skills.

Problem 2: What is the level of Interpersonal skills in terms of:

3.1 Verbal Communication and Non – Verbal Communication
3.2 Listening
3.3 Giving/Getting feedback

Table 4
Distribution of Student-Respondents Level of Interpersonal Skills
in terms of Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication(n =48)
Mean Standard Verbal
Indicators Deviation Description
1. Is it difficult for you to talk to other people? 1.92 0.454 Average
2. When you are trying to explain something, do Average
others tend to put words in your mouth, or 1.90 0.472
finish your sentences for you?
3. In conversation, do your words usually come 2.27 0.494 Average
out the way you would like?
4. Do you find it difficult to express your ideas Average
when they differ from the ideas of people 1.86 0.570
around you?
5. Do you assume that the other person knows Average
what you are trying to say, and leave it to 2.06 0.633
him/her to ask you questions?
6. Do others seem interested and attentive when 2.25 0.634 Average
you are talking to them?
7. When speaking, is it easy for you to recognize Average
how others are reacting to what you are 2.46 0.617
saying?
8. Do you ask the other person to tell you how Average
she/he feels about the point you are trying to 2.27 0.644
make?
9. Are you aware of how your tone of voice may 2.42 0.647 Average
affect others?
 24

10. In conversation, do you look to talk about Average

things of interest to both you and the other 2.35 0.525
person?
Overall 2.18 0.569 AVERAGE
Legend:
Mean Intervals Description
2.50 – 3.00 High
1.50 – 2.49 Average
1.00 – 1.49 Low

Table 4 above shows the level of performance of the student-respondents’

interpersonal communications skills in terms of verbal and non-verbal communication.

Result showed an overall performance of 2.18 and standard deviation of 0.569. This

implies that the student-respondents only practiced the following indicators of verbal

and non-verbal communication in the average level only. In particular, they were

sometimes aware that the tone of their voice affects others but they sometimes finds

difficult to express their ideas when they differ from the ideas of people around them.

According to Harrigan, Rosenthal and Scherer (2005), a number of

communicative activities also involve non-verbal behavior and an ability to detect and

portray messages through this medium is also seen as a central interpersonal skill.

Messages can be delivered through different non-verbal channels. Verbal

communication on the other hand is also a great factor in sending messages.

Table 5
Distribution of Student-Respondents Level of Interpersonal Skills
in terms of Listening(n =48)
Mean Standard Verbal
Indicators Deviation Description
1. In conversation, do you tend to domore talking 2.08 0.577 Average
than the other persondoes?
2. In conversation, do you ask the otherperson
 25

questions when you don’tunderstand what 2.56 0.616 High

they’ve said?
3. In conversation, do you often try tofigure out Average
what the other person isgoing to say before 2.25 0.526
they’ve finishedtalking?
4. Do you find yourself not payingattention while 1.69 0.589 Average
in conversation withothers?
5. In conversation, can you easily tellthe Average
difference between what theperson is saying 2.33 0.559
and how he/she maybe feeling?
6. After the other person is donespeaking, do you Average
clarify what youheard them say before you 2.29 0.651
offer aresponse?
7. In conversation, do you tend to Average
finishsentences or supply words for theother 1.88 0.570
person?
8. In conversation, do you find yourselfpaying Average
most attention to facts anddetails, and 2.08 0.613
frequently missing theemotional tone of the
speakers’voice?
9. In conversation, do you let the otherperson Average
finish talking before reactingto what she/he 2.42 0.613
says?
10. Is it difficult for you to see thingsfrom the other
person’s point ofview? 1.75 0.526 Average
Overall 2.13 0.584 AVERAGE
Legend:
Mean Intervals Description
2.50 – 3.00 High
1.50 – 2.49 Average
1.00 – 1.49 Low

Table 5 above shows the level of practice of the indicators of listening skills of the

student-respondents. Result showed an overall mean rating of 2.13 and standard

deviation of 0.584 which means that they sometimes practiced the indicators of listening

abilities as indicator of their level of interpersonal skills. Specifically, they sometimes

asked the person talking if they do not understand what they are talking about but

sometimes they were not paying attention to the conversation with another person.
 26

According to a research in science, listening ability depends largely on

intelligence that “bright” people listen well, and “dull” ones poorly. Added, low

intelligence has something to do with inability to listen. In an organizational community,

those who are in the higher position are perceived to have the best minds compared to

those who are in the lower positions. However, based on the findings above, position

has not something to do with their level of listening skills.

Table 6
Distribution of Student-Respondents Level of Interpersonal Skills
in terms of Giving/Getting Feedback(n =48)
Mean Standard Verbal
Indicators Deviation Description
1. Is it difficult to hear or acceptconstructive 2.00 0.546 Average
criticism from theother person?
2. Do you refrain from saying somethingthat you Average
think will upsetsomeone or make matters 2.08 0.577
worse?
3. When someone hurts your feelings,do you 1.81 0.704 Average
discuss this with him/her?
4. In conversation, do you try to put yourself in 2.23 0.660 Average
the other person’sshoes?
5. Do you become uneasy whensomeone pays 2.00 0.684 Average
you a compliment?
6. Do you find it difficult to disagreewith others 1.96 0.713 Average
because you are afraidthey will get angry?
7. Do you find it difficult tocompliment or praise 1.77 0.722 Average
others?
8. Do others remark that you alwaysseem to 1.85 0.505 Average
think you are right?
9. Do you find that others seem to getdefensive 2.13 0.570 Average
when you disagree withtheir point of view?
10. Do you help others to understandyou by Average
saying how you feel? 2.29 0.683
Overall 2.01 0.636 AVERAGE
Legend:
Mean Intervals Description
2.50 – 3.00 High
1.50 – 2.49 Average
1.00 – 1.49 Low
 27

Table 6 above shows the level of the student-respondents practice of giving and

getting feedback from the other person during conversation. Result showed an overall

mean rating of 2.01 and standard deviation of 0.636. This implies that they only practice

giving and getting feedback on other people in the average level. Specifically, they were

on the average level when they want others understand themselves by saying what they

feel but they find it difficult to compliment of praise other people.

Despite this need for a positive workplace culture, there is no doubt that giving

critical feedback is essential. The question is how to deliver it. Most advice in this area

focuses on what to say — for example, give more praise than criticism, and listen more

than you talk. Those are important, but our nonverbal communication is just as

important as the words we use.

Problem 3: Is there a significant difference in the respondents’ interpersonal

communication skills when grouped according to:

4.1 Gender

4.2 Year Level

4.3 Position

Table 7
Comparison of the Student-Respondents Level of Verbal/Non-Verbal
Communication When Grouped According to Profile Variables (n =48)
Variables Categorization Mean and F-value p-value Conclusion
Standard
Deviation
𝑥̅ sd
 28

Gender Male 2.20 0.247 0.35 0.559 Not

Female 2.16 0.269 Significant

𝑥̅ sd
2nd Year 2.14 0.276
Year Level 3rd Year 2.26 0.257 1.08 0.366 Not
4th Year 2.14 0.213 Significant
5th Year 2.00 0.000

𝑥̅ sd
Governor 2.35 0.236
Vice-Governor 2.30 0.268
Secretary 1.95 0.058
Position in Auditor 2.20 0.141 1.80 0.099 Not
Treasurer 2.29 0.291 Significant
the SBO
Social Managers 2.25 0.220
PIO 2.05 0.164
Sgt. At Arms 1.90 0.294
Representatives 2.18 0.256

* significant at p<0.05 alpha level

Table 7 above shows the comparison of the student-respondents level of verbal

and non-verbal communication when grouped according to gender, year level and

position in the student body organization. Result showed that in terms of gender

(p-value = 0.559), year level (p-value = 0.366) and position in the student body

organization (p-value = 0.099), the level of verbal and non-verbal communication as

indicators of their interpersonal skills do not differ significantly, which means that the null

hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 8
Comparison of the Student-Respondents Level of Listening
When Grouped According to Profile Variables (n =48)
Variables Categorization Mean and F-value p-value Conclusion
Standard
Deviation
𝑥̅ sd
Gender Male 2.12 0.252 0.14 0.712 Not
Female 2.15 0.312 Significant

𝑥̅ sd
 29

2nd Year 2.14 0.270

Year Level 3rd Year 2.16 0.307 0.28 0.838 Not
4th Year 2.06 0.283 Significant
5th Year 2.05 0.354

𝑥̅ sd
Governor 2.35 0.173
Vice-Governor 2.18 0.293
Secretary 1.93 0.287
Position in Auditor 1.75 0.071 1.76 0.110 Not
Treasurer 2.23 0.355 Significant
the SBO
Social Managers 2.08 0.214
PIO 2.10 0.183
Sgt. At Arms 1.87 0.208
Representatives 2.13 0.320

* significant at p<0.05 alpha level

Table 8 above shows the comparison of the student-respondents’ level of

listening skills as indicator of their interpersonal skills when grouped according to the

profile variables such as gender, year level and position in the SBO. Result showed no

significant difference in all profile variables, which means that regardless of gender

(p-value = 0.712), year level (p-value = 0.838) and position in the SBO (0.110), they had

the same level of listening skills. This implies that they had the same listening

performance in all indicators of their practice of listening to others.

Table 9
Comparison of the Student-Respondents Level of Giving/Getting Feedback
When Grouped According to Profile Variables (n =48)
Variables Categorization Mean and F-value p-value Conclusion
Standard
Deviation
𝑥̅ sd
Gender Male 2.02 0.276 0.05 0.818 Not
Female 2.00 0.256 Significant

𝑥̅ sd
2nd Year 2.04 0.302
Year Level 3rd Year 1.96 0.220 0.47 0.702 Not
4th Year 2.03 0.292 Significant
 30

5th Year 2.15 0.070

𝑥̅ sd
Governor 2.13 0.222
Vice-Governor 2.15 0.274
Secretary 2.03 0.126
Position in Auditor 1.85 0.071 1.09 0.390 Not
Treasurer 1.96 0.288 Significant
the SBO
Social Managers 1.99 0.248
PIO 2.00 0.392
Sgt. At Arms 1.67 0.153
Representatives 2.03 0.320

* significant at p<0.05 alpha level

Table 9 above shows the comparison of the student-respondents’ level of giving

and getting feedback as an indicator of their interpersonal skills. Result showed no

significant difference as indicated by the probability values greater than 0.05 alpha level.

In particular, there was no significant difference of their giving and getting feedback

when grouped according to gender (p-value = 0.818), year level (p-value = 0.702) and

position in the SBO (p-value = 0.390). This results to the acceptance of the null

hypothesis of the study that interpersonal skills in terms of giving and getting feedback

was statistically significant different.

 31

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the findings of this study. Unlike the analysis

and interpretation of data discussed on length previously, this chapter is an extraction of

the findings from the statistical and qualitative analysis and interpretation of data. It is

presented in a summarized from through which the conclusions and recommendations

are drawn. Hence, this chapter is a recapitulation of the sum and substance of the

study.

Summary

This descriptive study was about the Interpersonal Communication Skills Level of

the SBO Officers of PHINMA – Cagayan de Oro College. It involved a total of 48 officers

as respondents of the study who were from the different departments. The data on

characteristics of the respondents, effect on interpersonal skills. And the relationship of

the respondents, characteristics to their interpersonal skills were gathered, interpreted

and analyzed.
 32

Findings:

The data analysis disclosed the following results::

A. Profile of the Respondents

1. Gender. Majority of the respondents were female. Out of 48 there were 25 female

and only 23 were male respondents. The numbers of gap between the two were not

really far from each other.

2. Year Level. The data revealed that there were 20 respondents, who were

sophomores, 10 respondents who were juniors, 8 respondents who were seniors and 2

respondents who were on their fifth year.

3. Position. The data showed that out of 48 respondents, 8 were social managers, 7

were vice governors and P.I.Os, 4 were governors, secretaries and sergeant at arms,

and 2 were auditors.

 33

B. Level of the Interpersonal Skills of SBO Officers

1. The verbal/non-verbal communication level of performance of the SBO Officers is in

the average level with the overall mean rating of 2.18.

2. Based on the result, it showed an overall mean rating of 2.13 which means that the

SBO Officers sometimes practiced the indicators of listening skills.

3. The respondents only practice giving and gathering feedback on the people in the

average level with overall mean rating of 2.01.

C. The Relationship between the respondents’ profile and their level of interpersonal

skills

1. Data revealed that gender, year level, and position of the SBO Officers did not affect

their interpersonal communication skills level of performance. Such as verbal/non-verbal

communication skills, listening skills, and giving and getting feedback skills.

2. The level of their Interpersonal Skills did not differ significantly when they are grouped

according to problem variables such as gender, year level and position.

 34

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the factors associated to the Interpersonal skills of the

SBO Officers of PHINMA – Cagayan de Oro College did not significantly affect their

performance skills level. Majority of the respondents, regardless of the factors such as

age, year level and position have an average level of interpersonal skills. Therefore, the

factors related to the respondents’ interpersonal skills did affect the level of

performance.

As noted by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993), the concept of readiness

to change is similar to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing: the process of adjustment

of employees’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding a possible change that makes

the change perceived as needed and therefore more likely to be successful. Armenakis

et al.’s (1993) concept is defined as the attempt of influencing organization members’

“beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and ultimately the behavior” (p. 682) to reduce the

possible resistance to the change. Based on organizational climate research, the

concept of readiness for change can also be understood as how employees perceive

their organization to be ready to let a change happen on a large-scale (Schneider 1975;

Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey 2011). In this regard, three variables are looked at:

personal, interpersonal, and contextual (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby 2000).

As a whole, diversions among organizations members somehow affect their

perception. But when it comes to the level of interpersonal communication skills of the

SBO officers, all of them have the average level regardless of factors such as gender,
 35

year level and position. Thus, it means that external and internal factors can greatly

affect ones level of interpersonal communication skills.

Recommendations

1. Based on the findings, there is no significant difference on the respondents’

interpersonal communication skills when grouped according to gender, year level.

Therefore for the future researchers, they should supplement variable pertaining to their

academic performance that could affect the respondents’ interpersonal communication

skills.

2. To get firmer findings, the researchers can conduct interviews and observation.

3. There should be workshops and trainings that would boost the interpersonal

communication skills level of the officers.

4. The future researchers can also include the duration of the officers’ service in their

organizations as one of the variables.

5. The future researchers should include the years of service of the officers in their

variables.
 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.Books

Gamble, T. (2000). Communication Works seventh edition for University of Oklahoma:

Mcquail, D. (2003). Mass Communication Theory third edition:

B. Internet

http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ps/assertiveness.html

http://www.skillsyounedd.com/ls/index.php/343479

https://wicworks.fns.usda.gov/wicworks/Sharing_Center/CT/Inventory.pdf

http://www.jobbankusa.com/interview_questions_answers/free_samples_examples/orga

nizational_skills.html

http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/decision-making.html

http://www.lifeskillshandbooks.com/2013/04/activity-20-communication-how-assertive-

are-you/
 37

Questionnaire

Dear respondents:

The undersigned are fourth year Communication students of PHINMA-COC who are
currently conducting a research study on the “Interpersonal Communication Skills of the
Central Student Government officers of PHINMA-COC”.

Your answers to this questionnaire are substantial to this research. This will be held
confidential. Thank you very much.

Respectfully yours,

JESSA T. ELLEVERA
MARIA ANGELA V. SALAS

Researchers

PART 1-BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This part of the questionnaire refers to background or biographical information. Please

fill up the following information.

Name: _______________________________
Gender: ______________________________
Year Level: ___________________________
Position: _____________________________
 38

Survey Questionnaire

Verbal and Non-verbal Skills

HIGH AVERAGE LOW

1. Is it difficult for you to talk to other?
2. When you are trying to explain something, do
others tend to put words in your mouth, or
finish your sentences for you?
3. In conversation, do your words usually come
out the way you would like?
4. Do you find it difficult to express your ideas
when they differ from the ideas of people
around you?
5. Do you assume that the other person knows
what you are trying to say, and leave it to
him/her to ask you questions?
6. Do others seem interested and attentive when
you are talking to them?
7. When speaking, is it easy for you to recognize
how others are reacting to what you are
saying?
8. Do you ask the other person to tell you how
he/she feels about the point you are trying to
make?
9. Are you aware of how your tone of voice may
affect others?
10. In conversation, do you look to talk about
things of interest to both you and the other
person?

Listening

HIGH AVERAGE LOW

11. In conversation, do you tend to do more
talking than the other person does?
12. In conversation, do you ask the other person
questions when you don’t understand what
they’ve said?
13. In conversation, do you often try to figure out
what the other person is going to say before
they’ve finished talking?
14. Do you find yourself not paying attention while
in conversation to others?
15. In conversation, can you easily tell the
difference between what the person is saying
and how he/she may be feeling?
16. After the other person is done speaking, do
you clarify what you heard them say before
 39

you offer a response?

17. In conversation, do you tend to finish
sentences or supply words for the other
person?
18. In conversation, do you find yourself paying
most attention to facts and details, and
frequently missing the emotional tone of the
speaker’s voice?
19. In conversation, do you let the other person
finish talking before reacting to what he/she
says?
20. Is it difficult for you to see things from the other
person’s point of view?

Giving and Getting Feedback

HIGH AVERAGE LOW

21. Is it difficult to hear or accept constructive
criticism from the other person?
22. Do you refrain from saying something that you
think will upset someone or make matters
most?
23. When someone hurts your feelings, do you
discuss this with him/her?
24. In conversation, do you try to put yourself in
other person’s shoes?
25. Do you become uneasy when someone pays
you a compliment?
26. Do you find it difficult to disagree with others
because you are afraid they will get angry?
27. Do you find it difficult to compliment or praise
others?
28. Do others remark that you always seem to
think that you are right?
29. Do you find that others seem to get defensive
when you disagree with their point of view?
30. Do you help others to understand you by
saying how you feel?
 40

Dec. 5, 2016

Mr. John Baliquig

Center for Student Development Leadership
PHINMA – Cagayan de Oro College

Dear Ma’am,

We are the 4th year BA Communication students of this institution and we are
currently conducting a research entitled “Interpersonal Skills Level of the Student Body
Organization Officers of PHINMA Cagayan de Oro College.” This communication
research is our final requirement for our course and our target respondents are Student
Body Organization Officers of all the colleges in this institution.

In this regard, we are asking from your good office a permit to allow us to gather
data from the SBO officers.

We look forward for your approval.

Sincerely yours,

Jessa T. Ellevera

Maria Angela V. Salas

Noted by:

Ninfa C. Osias
Research Professor

Endorsed by:

Manuelito Dabalos, PhD.

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences