Group & Organization

Management
http://gom.sagepub.com/

Organizational Structure and Communication Processes: A Study

of Change
Howard H. Greenbaum, Ellsworth J. Holden, JR and Lucian Spataro
Group & Organization Management 1983 8: 61
DOI: 10.1177/105960118300800108

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/8/1/61

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be
found at:

Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://gom.sagepub.com/content/8/1/61.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 1983

What is This?

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 Organizational Structure and
Communication Processes: A Study of Change

Howard H. Greenbaum
Ellsworth J. Holden, Jr.
Lucian Spataro

The objective of this research was to examine the influence of a change in

organizational structure on the functional communication processes and goals
of an organization. The change in structure involved a modification of commun-
ication activities in an industrial organization by the institution of a work-
group meeting program pursuant to six specific objectives of management. The
functional communication processes were identified asfour major communica-
tion subsystems: (1) the regulative-task network, (2) the adaptive-innovative
network, (3) the integrative-maintenance network, and (4) the informative-
instructive network. As a study of workgroups in natural settings, this article
represents a report on a change process, with data secured via attitudinal and
behavioral instruments.

Organizational communication can be viewed as a system with pur-

poses, operational procedures, and structure. The purpose of communi-
cation within an organization is to facilitate goal attainment-perfor-
mance, adaptiveness, morale (satisfaction), and institutionalization
(acceptance). Operational procedures involve the utilization of commun-
ication networks or subsystems to facilitate goal attainment. Structure
includes the particular nature of the organizational unit, and the objec-
tives, policies, and activities representing the fabric of four functional
communication networks: (1) regulative communication emphasizing
conformity to task-related plans and orders (e.g., policy statements,
procedures, rules); (2) innovative communication enabling the organiza-
tion to adapt to its changing environment (e.g., problem-solving, and
strategy formulation); (3) integrative communication involved with feel-
Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, March 1983 61-82
@ 1983 Sage Publications, Inc.
0364-1082/83/010061-22$2 45

61

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

62

ings for self, associates, and work (e.g., informal social activities, grape-
vine, and praise by superior and peers); and (4) informative-instructive
communication concerned with getting and giving information not asso-
ciated with the other communication networks, yet necessary for the
proper completion of job requirements (e.g., training activities and
information bulletins).
This model of organizational communication postulates that each
type of communication network can be related to one or more organiza-
tional goals, so that individual goals may be dependent on more than one
communication subsystem. Schuler and Blank (1976) empirically exam-
ined measures of communication networks suggested by this model and
tested their relationship with the organizational goals of employee satis-
faction and performance, concluding that there are different types of
communications in organizations and that these types can be measured
and related to the outcome variables of employee satisfaction and
employee performance, finding organizational level to be a significant
moderating variable. Schuler (1979) examined the four dimensions
(networks) of organizational communication, role perceptions, and
employee satisfaction and performance, finding support for the hypothesis
that these variables were reciprocally related and that role perceptions
intervened in the communication-outcome relationships. In addition,
Schuler concluded that the four communication networks were consis-
tent with communication dimensions used by other communication
researchers, such as Roberts and O’Reilly (1974), although terminology
differed.
The above-noted operationalizations of the model proposed by Green-
baum (1974) were concerned more with purposes and operational proce-
dures of organizational communication than with the structure of organ-
izational communication; more with the process whereby communica-
tion networks influence goal attainment than with the components that
provide the strength of that influence-that is, objectives, policies, activ-
ities ; more with the combination of communication activities identified
as a subsystem than with the quality or particular influence of any
specific activity. The objective of this research was to evaluate the influ-
ence of an individual communication activity and thereby to obtain some
insight as to how an individual activity may relate to the several com-
munication subsystems, and to measure the influence of a change in
communication structure on the communication processes of an organi-
zation, identified as the four communication subsystems. The change in
structure involved a modification of communication policies and activi-
ties on the part of the host organization by the institution of a workgroup
meeting program pursuant to specific objectives of management.
The major research hypothesis tested in this article is that the change
in organizational structure, represented by the introduction of a work-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 63

group meeting program, significantly increased the effectiveness of the

communication processes-that is, the four communication networks. In
many respects, this study may be considered an analysis of an organiza-
tional development intervention, because of the emphasis on change and
interest in the effects of change. Whereas most organizational group
studies concerned with structure and communication generally have the
objective of determining the influence of existing and ongoing structural
variables (e.g., complexity, formalization) on communication (e.g., fre-
quency, directionality, modality, openness), this study involves a specific
change in organizational structure and the influence of that change on
the complex variable of communication processes defined in terms of the
four networks previously noted.
The presentation that follows includes (1) a description of the work-
group meeting program, (2) an explanation of the research design, (3)
analysis of the data and statement of findings, and (4) discussion and
conclusions.

THE WORKGROUP MEETING PROGRAM

The nature of the workgroup meeting program that was instituted in

the host organization can be understood best by considering why it was
installed, how it operated, and who were the participants.

Objectives
Management wished to employ participative group methods to obtain
higher levels of effectiveness for the organization. The workgroup pro-
gram was viewed as a structured communication activity, involving
each operational section of the company at all levels of the organization,
that could promote the flow of ideas both vertically and horizontally,
remove obstacles impairing performance, and improve attitudes of
employees toward supervisor, group, and organization (Likert, 1967;
Wohlking, 1970).
Management formulated specific goals prior to the start of the pro-
gram and approved the initiation of the program with the understand-
ing that these goals could and would be achieved. Employees were
informed that the objectives of the program were to encourage frank
discussion of work-related problems, increase coordination and produc-
tivity, improve work procedures and equipment, increase individuals’
knowledge of operations of work area and general organization, and
create a better working climate relative to the job, group, supervisor,
and company by the provision for a formal channel of communication

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

64

within and between operating groups. Responsibility for the implemen-

tation and maintenance of the program was given to the administrative
vice-president reporting to the chief executive officer of the organization.

Description of the Communication Activity

Aworkgroup consisted of a formal organizational subunit of 4 to 111
persons that might be located in the functional area of purchasing,
research and development, warehousing, manufacturing, sales, accounting,
or personnel. The leader of the workgroup was either a supervisor with
nonsupervisory subordinates as member participants or a middle man-
ager with subordinate supervisors as member participants. The group
was scheduled to meet once a month in a private conference room during
normal business hours for a period of 45 to 60 minutes. Topics for
discussion at the meeting came from all group members and the chair-
person. Various devices were employed to render it easy to place subjects
on the agenda. The chairperson, the highest-status member of the group,
was supplied with a simple meeting manual outlining the optimum
procedures for conduct of the meeting and stressing the need to obtain
maximum employee participation.
The standard form for notation of minutes was a major tool for
providing continuity between monthly meetings and for informing the
balance of the organization as to events within the meeting. This form
provided for notation of the subject title, explanation of the problem,
group recommendations, and follow-up action decided on by the group.
During the meeting, one of the members recorded the minutes, and after
the meeting the chairperson reviewed and signed off the minutes as
being correct. The general clerical staff then prepared typed copy that
was made available to the chairperson and the chairperson’s manager,
and the same copy was used at the following workgroup session for the
purpose of reminding participants about previous decisions and follow-
up responsibilities.
The 17 workgroups involved in this communication program held a
total of 710 meetings during the five-year period reviewed. They aver-
aged 42 meetings per group, with a high of 63 and a low of 30 meetings
for the five-year period. A total of 2041 topics were brought up during
this period, an average of three topics per meeting. Average resolution
time was 11.6 weeks, or slightly less than two monthly meetings follow-
ing the meeting in which the problem was first recognized.

Composition of Groups

Of the 17 groups, 5 worked in a warehouse activity and 12 of the

groups worked in an office activity. Of the 5 warehouse groups, 4

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 65

involved nonsupervisory personnel with a supervisor as chairperson,

while one meeting group consisted of the warehouse department man-
ager as chairperson and four supervisors as meeting members. In the
office groups, 10 involved nonsupervisory personnel with a supervisor as
chairperson, while 2 meeting groups were chaired by a department
manager and the other participants were supervisors. Two of the
department managers were members of the executive committee, meet-
ing once a week and chaired by the chief executive officer.
Membership in all workgroup meetings totaled 114 persons, with an
average of 6 per workgroup and a range of 3 to 11 members. Chairper-
sons included 5 females and 13 males. The participants averaged 7.3

years of work with the company, the supervisors averaging 10.2 years
and the hourly workers averaging 5.5 years. The nonsupervisory
members averaged 12 years of formal education, with supervisory per-
sonnel slightly higher at 12.8 years. One-third of the participants were
male, two-thirds female; 71% were married. Ages ranged from 18 to 65,
hourly workers averaging 40 years and supervisors and managers aver-
aging 46 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The practical objectives attached to this project by management and

the theoretical interests of the research team suggested the following
three research questions: (1) Were the overall objectives of the work-
group meeting program achieved? (2) What level of achievement was
obtained for each of the objectives? (3) What organization variables were
important to the achievement of objectives? It was believed that answers
to these questions would allow an objective answer to the influence of the
structured workgroup meeting program on the effectiveness levels of
the major communication networks, and provide guides for improving
and maintaining the effectiveness of the new communication program.

Development and Testing of

Data Collection Instruments
Data collection instruments included organization records and ques-
tionnaires. The organization records consisted of 710 sets of meeting
minutes, representing formal notations of proceedings taken at each
workgroup session by a meeting member and later approved by the
chairperson. Data supplied by such meeting minutes included number
of meetings, number and nature of topics discussed, length of time to
resolve problems, length of meetings, chairperson’s and members’
names, and hierarchical level of members. Information drawn from
these minutes helped to formulate survey questions and validate find-
ings from questionnaires.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

66

Questionnaires were completed by 108 persons, representing 95% of

the population surveyed. Respondents were asked to complete a survey
set that included a 13-item questionnaire directly concerned with feel-
ings about the workgroup meetings and four other instruments that
attempted to identify the level of job satisfaction, perceptions and satis-
faction with supervisor, and autocratic-democratic tendencies of super-
visory respondents.
Two types of questionnaire survey sets were prepared and adminis-
tered : one for meeting leaders (supervisors or middle managers) and the
other for participants not leading a meeting (nonsupervisory personnel
or supervisors). The meetings involved two levels of the organization,
with first-line supervisors chairing a meeting with nonsupervisory per-
sonnel and middle managers chairing a meeting with supervisors as
participants. Other programmed meetings in the organization brought
the middle managers into group discussion with department managers
and executive committee members.
The six workgroup meeting objectives shown in Table 1 formed the
basis for the development of the 13-item questionnaire. Prior to finaliz-
ing this instrument, each of the management objectives was related to
one or more organizational goals, utilizing the concepts of Price (1968),
viewed as performance, morale, adaptiveness, and institutionalization.
This was done to determine if the management objectives encompassed
the full range of organizational goals, here considered to be achieved
through the utilization of relevant communication networks. Table 1
shows the six workgroup meeting objectives, the specific questions
related to each of the objectives, and the communication networks
related to the same objectives. The basic purpose of the 13-question
instrument was to obtain respondents’ perceptions of the contribution of
the meeting program to management’s objectives, and hence to organi-
zational goals. Responses were requested on a five-part scale consisting
of very effective, fairly effective, neutral, fairly ineffective, and very
ineffective. Before this questionnaire was administered, steps were
taken to test the instrument with representatives of the population being
studied; as a result, some of the questions were revised to obtain greater
clarity and the nature of the scale being employed was examined closely
so as to minimize the dangers of misinterpretation on the part of
respondents.

Reliability and Validity Assessment

The obtained split-half reliability estimate of the 13-question instru-
ment was .965; and the obtained item-analysis reliability relative to each
of the questions ranged from .67 to .85, with an average of .79.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 67

TABLE1
Workgroup Meeting Objectives, Related Questions.
and Communication Networks

Codes for Communication Network Objectives:

R-T = Regulative-Task Network
I-M - = Integrative-Maintenance Network
A-I - Adaptive-Innovative Network
I-I =
Informative-Instructive Network

Validity of the measurement instrument, prior to administration,

was protected by the employment of a logical design involved in the
development and testing procedures noted above. Validity of the
instrument, based on findings, was assessed by comparison of the atti-
tudinal responses gained from the questionnaire with the behavioral
evidence contained in the minutes of workgroup meetings. The behav-
ioral evidence selected for study was the frequency of topics discussed
for each of the six objectives. The workgroup meeting minutes evidenced
the discussion of 2041 topics in the five-year period of the meetings of the
17 workgroups, and each of these topics was assigned to one of the six

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

68

objective areas, as appeared proper. The results of this analysis pro-

duced a high of 876 topics related to objective 1, to improve productivity,
to a low of 142 topics related to objectives 2 and 6, to provide channels for
supervisor-subordinate communication and to facilitate coordination.
Of the topics discussed by group members, 43% were categorized as
productivity problems (objective 1); 27% related to the work area, work-
ing conditions, and equipment problems (objective 3); 12% involved
instruction by the supervisor (objective 4); 11% were concerned with
employee attitudes and dissatisfaction (objective 5); and 7% involved
general interaction within and between departments so as to improve
coordination and administration (objectives 2 and 6). Overall, there was
corroboration by the minutes of the workgroup meetings that the meet-
ings were involved with many problem topics relative to each of the six
objectives, and this served to support the attitudinal questionnaire find-
ings, in that evidence showed work was being done on topics relative to
each of the objectives. However, it is recognized that frequency of discus-
sion of problems is not a clear indicator of the effectiveness of such
discussions and action resulting therefrom in the perceptions of group
members.

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS

The first research objective, concerning the achievement of the over-

all objectives of the workgroup meeting program, was investigated by
using a t-test and a chi-square, goodness-of-fit test. The second research
objective, measuring the level of achievement for each of the six objec-
tives of the workgroups, was investigated by using both a t-test for each
objective and the Friedman two-way analysis of variance test; and
multiple linear regression analysis was used to relate the respondent’s
overall assessment of effectiveness to various demographic and attitud-
inal variables, so as to investigate the third research question-the
importance of organization variables for the achievement of workgroup
objectives.

Achievement of Overall Objectives

A test of overall effectiveness can be based on the t-distribution for a

sample size of 108. For each respondent, the answers for the 13 work-
group effectiveness questions was summed to yield an overall measure.
The returned questionnaires yielded a total of 1355 answers out of a
possible 1404, with the following distribution: very effective, 464; fairly
effective, 575; neutral, 201; fairly ineffective, 82; and very ineffective, 33

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 69

(see Table 2). A mean value of 4.0 and a standard deviation of 0.80 were
obtained by applying the following valuative scheme: very effective, 5;
fairly effective, 4; neutral, 3; fairly ineffective, 2; and very ineffective, 1.
To determine whether the mean value of the responses 4.0 was statis-
tically significant, the following hypotheses were tested:
Null Hypothesis: The true but unknown population mean responses is 3-that
is, &dquo;neutral,&dquo; neither effective nor ineffective.
Alternate Hypothesis: The true but unknown population mean response is
greater than 3-that is, &dquo;effective.&dquo;
For a one-tailed test with a significance level of 1%, the critical value
of the t-distribution is 2.4. The value of t-calculated from the data is 46.0.
This value of 46.0 is so large compared with the critical value that the
null hypothesis is overwhelmingly rejected in favor of the alternate
hypothesis that the workgroups are effective.
In addition to the parametric test involving the t-distribution, a
chi-square test of goodness of fit was applied for the reason that several
questions were raised as to the meaning of the response categories. For
example, (1) is 3 or neutral really the neutral point or midpoint on the
scale? (2) What kind of distinction did the respondents make between
ineffective and neutral in effectiveness? (3) How does the distance
between neutral and fairly effective compare with the distance between
fairly effective and very effective? The chi-square test was based on the
reasoning that if the workgroups are neutral in impact (neither effective
nor ineffective in achieving the organization’s goals), one would expect
to find as many respondents rating the workgroups fairly effective as
rating them fairly ineffective. Similarly, the expected number of very
effective responses should equal the number of very ineffective responses.
Employing an alpha of .01 and recognizing four degrees of freedom in a
one-tailed test, the chi-square value of 13.3 is required for significance,
and the calculated chi-square is 743.7, much in excess of the critical
value. Therefore, we may reject the null hypothesis that respondents are
approximately evenly divided as to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness
of the meetings; and assert that the workgroup meeting program is
effective, as perceived by participants.

Relative Achievement of Company Goals

Analogous to the overall assessment of effectiveness presented above,

the t-test and chi-square tests were applied to examine the extent to
which each of the six company goals had been achieved. Each of the 13
effectiveness questions was related to a specific goal, as presented in
Table 1, and the responses for all questions bearing on the same goal

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

70

TABLE 2
Frequency Distributions of Responses to the Thirteen Questions
and Relation of Questions to the Six Objectives

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 71

TABLE 3
Results of t-Tests and Chi-Square Tests Relative to Achievement of Each
of Six Objectives of Workgroup Meetings

a. Significance level of .01 (one-tailed test). Chi-square critical values are at four
degrees of freedom.

were summed into one composite response, as given in Table 2. Thus,

questions 1 and 2 form a composite for objective 1 consisting of 44 very
effective, 87 fairly effective, 57 neutral, 13 fairly ineffective, and 6 very
ineffective responses, for a total of 207 responses. The results of the t-test
and chi-square tests for each of the six objectives are given in Table 3. In
each case, the null hypothesis is rejected-that is, the workgroup meet-
ings, as perceived by participants, are not neutral in their effectiveness
in achieving each of the six individual objectives.
In order to gain information as to the relative achievement of com-
pany goals, the Friedman two-way analysis of variance test (Siegel,
1956) was applied to the responses to the 13 effectiveness questions. For
each respondent, the responses to each of the six goals were ranked from
1 through 6, with the rank of 1 going to the goal considered to be
achieved most completely and 6 going to the goal considered to be
achieved least completely, and the average rank for each goal obtained
as shown in Table 4, ranging from 2.60 to 4.51. The null hypothesis was
that there is no difference in the measures of workgroup effectiveness in
achieving each of the six goals. The alternate hypothesis was that there
is a difference. The results of the Friedman test are given in Table 4.
The Friedman test determines whether the rank totals differ signifi-
cantly. The computed value of Xr2, 71.4, is significant at the one percent
level with five degrees of freedom because the critical value of chi-
square is 15.1. Thus, as perceived by respondents, the workgroup meet-
ings are more effective in meeting some goals than others. According to
the Friedman test, objective 4 was rated highest in achievement, learn-
ing about and helping to improve the operations in the workplace;

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

72

TABLE 4
Results of the Friedman Test Applied to the Effectiveness of Workgroups
in Achieving Six Goals Related to Four Communication Networks1

1. The Friedman test employed the six goal objectives as the conditions (k) and the
individual perceptions as to the achievement of those goal objectives as the samples
(n).
2. The goal indicated by each respondent to be achieved most completely was given
the rank of 1, and the goal indicated by each respondent as being achieved least
completely was given rank of 6, with other goals ranked accordingly. For each goal,
the rankings derived from each respondent were summed and averaged to obtain the
average ranks shown.

objective 3 was rated second highest, frank discussion of work-related

problems. Objectives 5 and 6, relating to the development of positive
employee attitudes and the facilitation of administration, were almost
identically ranked in third and fourth positions; and objective 5,
improvement of productivity, and objective 6, providing channels for
supervisor-subordinate communication, were ranked lowest. However,
it is important to remember that respondents perceived each of the six
objectives to be effectively achieved, as shown in Table 3. Relating the
findings from the Friedman test to our hypothesis as to the influence of
structured workgroup meetings on communication processes, it is pos-
sible to state that while each of the communication networks increased
effectiveness, respondents perceived that the greatest improvement was
gained by the informative-instructive network, followed closely by
improvements in the adaptive-innovative network and the integrative-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 73

maintenance network, with the lowest level of improvement credited to

the regulative-task network.

Organization Variables Important to

Achievement of Objectives

To what extent can demographic and attitudinal variables help to

&dquo;explain&dquo; respondents’ assessments of the effectiveness of the workgroup
meetings? To provide answers to this question, a regression analysis was
made, wherein the dependent variable to be explained was chosen to be
the sum of the 13 workgroup effectiveness questions. This was decided
after applying a factor analysis that yielded only one factor both for the
13 effectiveness questions and for the six goal-attainment measures.
Initially, the overall assessment of effectiveness was regressed
against the following demographic variables, which were included on
the questionnaire: (1) number of years with the company, (2) number of
years in the present workgroup, (3) number of previous full-time jobs, (4)
number of years of previous full-time work, (5) age, (6) sex, and (7)
education. The regression analysis, on this basis, yielded an R2 of 0.101,
which means that only 10% of the total variation in the dependent varia-
ble was explained by the regression. Quite obviously, it was necessary to
look further for an explanation of the variations in the effectiveness
ratings.
As noted in the section on research design, along with the 13-question
instrument, the following subquestionnaires had also been completed by
the respondents:

(1) 18 of the 35 scales included in Scott’s (1967) &dquo;My Supervisor&dquo;

semantic differential questionnaire.
(2) 19 job-satisfaction categories, designed for this study and rated on
a five-point Likert scale.
(3) 12 describe-your-supervisor phrases, designed for this study and
scored on a yes-no basis.
(4) Sargent and Miller’s (1971) autocratic and democratic leadership
scales.
Factor analyses were completed on the results of the first three sub-
questionnaires listed above, and composite independent variables were
formed to represent the factors by summing the responses to appro-
priate scales. The fourth subquestionnaire was utilized by assigning the
autocratic-democratic score for the leader of a group to each member of
the group. Excluding the leaders of the workgroups, a stepwise regres-
sion analysis was performed with the sum of the 13 effectiveness ques-
tions as the dependent variable. Table 5 gives the results of the regres-
sion analysis.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

74

TABLE 5
Results of Regression Analysis: Demographic and Attitudinal Factors
Related to Perceptions of Workgroup Meeting Effectiveness

Slightly more than half the total variation in the dependent variable
(.517) is explained by six variables. Interestingly, four of the six varia-
bles brought into the stepwise calculation came from the self-designed
job satisfaction subquestionnaire and accounted for the major part of the
explained variance, while subordinate feelings about supervisor and
demographics accounted for a small fraction of the explained variance.
Moreover, the supervisory leadership style, represented by the Sargent-
Miller subquestionnaire, contributed very little to explaining the varia-
tion in the dependent variable, ranking twelfth in the stepwise linear
regression calculation; it is not included in Table 5.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this research was to examine the influence of a

planned change in organizational structure on the functional communi-
cation processes and the goals of an organization. The change in struc-
ture involved the institution of a workgroup meeting program pursuant
to specific objectives of management. The functional communication
processes were identified as four major communication subsystems fol-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 75

lowing a typology of organizational communications developed by

Greenbaum (1974) and operationalized by Schuler and Blank (1976).
The four communication subsystems included (1) the regulative-task
network, (2) the adaptive-innovative network, (3) the integrative-mainte-
nance network, and (4) the informative-instructive network.
It is concluded that the introduction of the workgroup meeting pro-
gram achieved the objectives set down by management and significantly
improved each of the four communication subsystems constituting the
communication processes of the organization. This confirms the major
research hypothesis, which postulated that the change in structure
would significantly increase the effectiveness or the communication
processes.
In respect to specific research questions, it is concluded that (1) the
overall objectives of the workgroup meeting program were achieved; (2)
each of the six individual objectives was achieved with objectives highest
in attainment dealing with learning about and helping to improve
workplace operations, and frank discussion of work-related problems,
while objectives lowest in attainment were those concerned with the
influence of the workgroup sessions on productivity and the improve-
ment of supervisor-worker communication; and (3) job satisfaction was
the greatest single factor accounting for the variance between individu-
als in their responses as to the achievement of organization objectives
related to the workgroup meeting program.
Several comments are in order regarding the data handling and
conclusions of this study. First, as to the data collection instruments
employed, two comments are relevant. (1) The Neutral Point on the
Scale: The basic 13-question survey instrument employed a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from very effective to very ineffective, with a
neutral point in the middle of the scale. Admittedly, there can be hesi-
tancy about interpreting the neutral point as indicative of the respon-
dent’s actual neutral point, in the sense of perceiving the meetings
sometimes effective and sometimes ineffective, so that on the whole the
meetings had a neutral influence on the organization. Moreover, the
respondent may have selected &dquo;neutral&dquo; when not really knowing how to
answer the question. This was realized after the collection of data, but if
this study were to be replicated, it appears advisable to supply a &dquo;don’t
know&dquo; option for response, and to change the neutral point on the scale to
&dquo;neither effective nor ineffective.&dquo; The use of neutral as midpoint has
been used by other students of organization groups (e.g., Nelson, 1972),
and the problem of the midpoint in Likert scales has been one of continu-
ing difficulty (Ryan, 1980). (2) Multiple Methods of Data Collection:
Porter and Roberts (1976) have emphasized the advice of Campbell and
Fiske (1959) that multiple methods of data collection be incorporated
into research studies so as to be more likely to obtain valid generaliza-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

76

tions. Browning and Spicer (1976) have demonstrated the acquisition of

different findings from two methods of data collection on the same
research topic. In our study, we attempted to furnish a multi-instrument
approach by the use of several questionnaires to obtain attitudinal data,
and by the use of workgroup meeting minutes to obtain behaviorally
based data. Our effort to use multiple methods of data collection encom-
passed not only different instruments but also the important distinction
between the attitudinal and the behavioral elements. Ideally, we would
have wanted to support the questionnaire response data with behavioral
evidences of changes in productivity, innovativeness, and other desira-
ble organizational outcomes. Our research design was such, however,
that it allowed us to capture only a few of these outcomes (e.g., number of
problems discussed, problem resolution time, type of problems) and
from there to deduce that such behavioral activity was supportive of the
attitudinal responses. A future research study would do well to provide
field experimental features (i.e., control and experimental workgroups)
with pre- and posttestings of the influence of the introduction of parti-
cipative workgroup meetings. The data afforded thereby would be much
richer than those we secured.
Second, as to the depth of the data analysis procedures, three com-
ments are relevant. (1) Leadership Style: Our third research question
was concerned with the factors accounting for differences in the percep-
tions of meeting group effectiveness, and our findings were that the
autocratic/democratic styles of individual workgroup leaders were not a
significant factor in accounting for such differences. In the determina-
tion of leadership style of workgroup leaders, the Sargent-Miller (1971)
data collection instrument was employed, assuming that such identifica-
tion might correlate with meeting conduct and outcomes, as perceived
by the respondents via the 13-item questionnaire. However, we failed to
find meaningful relationships. Utilizing hindsight, it may be that
instead of grouping all our objectives, it would have been more produc-
tive to test the relationship of leadership style to each of the six objec-
tives, and perhaps this approach would have disclosed that certain objec-
tives were better attained by autocratic or democratic leadership style.
At the same time, it is recognized that other variables influence the
process and outcomes of organizational group meetings, including time
limits, consequences of group decisions, characteristics of group mem-
bers, and expectations of members relative to leadership style (Rosen-
feld, 1973). (2) Intergroup Analyses: While this empirical study of a
change in structure and influence on communication utilized subjects in
organizational workgroups, the analysis generally treated the respon-
dents as one population of workgroup members. Intergroup analyses
were not provided. The data were available for such a study, but it was

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 77

decided that intergroup analyses should be left for a future paper, as

they encompass considerable detail and would unduly add to the length
of this article. Our immediate goals were to determine the extent to
which a change in structure influenced the major organizational com-
munication processes, and the reasons therefor. This was done, leaving
the intergroup analysis for a follow-up study; (3) Job Satisfaction as a
Predictor Variable: Our regression analysis found that job satisfaction
was the major factor explaining the variance in perceptions of work-
group effectiveness. Initially there is a question as to directionality-
whether the job satisfaction already existed or whether it was generated
during the course of the workgroup meeting program, both within the
meetings, and as a consequence of the meetings, so as to affect organiza-
tional climate. The presence of a pretest would have been most helpful in
this respect. The literature in the field points in two directions. On one
hand, Pauker (1980) reports interventions concentrating on the improve-
ment of job satisfaction by instituting group problem-solving processes
directed at changing organizational climate. On the other hand, Stinnett
and Perrill (1982) report that a field study of quality control circles
disclosed that the meeting program resulted in a diminution of job
satisfaction due to respondents’ perceptions that rewards for perfor-
mance were substantially lower than expectations. Probably both situa-
tions exist, in the sense that the change program would not be well
received or maintained unless a minimum condition of satisfaction
existed, and contingent on the operation of the program and the organi-
zational benefits perceived, higher or lower levels of satisfaction will
result depending on whether the participants believe the extrinsic and
intrinsic rewards have been equitably distributed. Additionally, it
would have been interesting if the analysis of data isolated the basic
determinants for the level of satisfaction, whether individual, workgroup-
centered, organizational, or environmental. Finally, it is important to
note that managers cannot hope that a structural change, such as the
introduction of workgroup meetings, will correct a low level of job
satisfaction resulting from long-lived negative workgroup and organi-
zational conditions, and thereby somewhat magically improve perfor-
mance. Structural changes intending to improve communication pro-
cesses, coordination, and the outcome variables of adaptiveness, morale,
and performance are subject to the heavy influence of present levels of
satisfaction; and a good level of satisfaction appears to be a major pre-
requisite for a successful change program of the type discussed here.
Third, as to the generalizability of the findings, we consider that the
results are applicable only to the organization studied. This was a field
experiment that employed a one-shot design, not allowing the re-
searchers to compare pretreatment performance scores with posttreat-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

78

ment performance scores. Were it possible to redo the entire project and
to secure a high level of cooperation from the host organization, the
research design would be much improved by either the use of a one-
group pretest-posttest design or a static group comparison design (with-
out randomization) involving control and experimental groups. These
research designs might have been feasible in this particular study.
Other, more powerful designs involving randomization, though highly
desirable, would have been more difficult to apply in this particular field
setting. The reason for the employment of the one-shot design employed
in this study was that the researchers came to the situation after the
change process was in operation, so that pretests, randomness, and
control groups were not options open to the writers. Only a posttest was
possible, bolstered by the behavioral evidence in the minutes of the
workgroup meetings.
Fourth, as to the relationship of this study of groups in natural set-
tings to other organization group studies, although several small-group
studies have been conducted by social scientists, most have been accom-
plished in laboratory settings or have been affected by laboratory-type
controls, with less than 5% being done in natural settings (McGrath &
Altman, 1966; Mears, 1974; Jablin & Sussman, in press) and very few
representing investigations into the relationship between communica-
tion and organizational workgroup structure (Penley, 1977, p. 114).
Notable recent studies in natural settings related structural variables
and communication include the Hage, Aiken, and Marrett (1971) study
of the structural variables of complexity, formalization, and centraliza-
tion ; the Brinkerhoff (1972) study of the influence of managers’ hierar-
chical position and organizational contingencies on time committed to
staff conference communication; the O’Reilly and Roberts (1977) study
that employed sociometric groups to examine the association among
group structure, communication, and effectiveness; and the Randolph
and Finch (1977) and James and Dewine (1982) studies of different
technologies, structure, and the internal communication of organiza-
tions. Several writers have examined the structural role of the group
leader in natural settings, including the Sargent and Miller (1971) inves-
tigation of 12 hypothesized differences between certain communication
behaviors of autocratic and democratic group leaders; the Nelson (1972)
study of factors contributing to the intragroup communication effec-
tiveness of small workgroup supervisors; and the Betty and Gossert
(1982) study of initiating structure and consideration components of
leader-subordinate interactions in workgroup meeting sessions. Penley
(1977) examined the relationship between communication and the struc-
ture of organizational work groups in natural settings by providing an
operationalization of the Haas and Drabek (1973) model emphasizing
three organizational substructures; (1) the normative structure (rules of
organizational life, and nature of tasks), (2) the interpersonal structure

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 79

(person-to-person orientations), and (3) the resource structure (physical

resources known to be available for use by organizational personnel). To
characterize our study in terms of Penley’s terminology, we have studied
the influence of a change in organization resource structure on the
communication processes of the organization.
Fifth, as to the relationship of the Workgroup Meeting Program and
Quality Control Circles, Nishiyama (1981) describes the Japanese qual-
ity control circles as
small groups, usually composed of 7 to 10 workers, that are organized at the
production levels... led by a foreman or senior worker, having the major tasks
to (1) identify job-related problems; (2) improve methods of production, (3)
develop production skills among its members, (4) improve worker morale and
motivation, and (5) stimulate teamwork within work groups.
In describing U.S. quality circles, Stinnett and Perrill (1982) define a
quality circle as &dquo;a group of employees, performing similar work, who
meet regularly to learn about basic quality control techniques ... apply-
ing these techniques to identify problems, investigate causes, and
recommend solutions.&dquo; In some of the publicity that has accompanied the
trend to quality control circles, popular business periodicals have
defined quality circles as &dquo;voluntary groups of workers who meet regu-
larly to suggest how operations might be improved&dquo; (Fowler, 1982), and
&dquo;groups of workers in a plant who meet regularly to discuss ways of
solving problems in their bailiwick&dquo; (Murray, 1981). Nishiyama
(1981) points out that in the Japanese experience, the quality control
circle has been solely production-area-oriented, and it was not until 1976
and 1977 that this procedure was extended to clerical activities and the
term &dquo;quality control circles&dquo; amended to the term &dquo;total quality control
circles&dquo; (TQC).
In general, the workgroup meeting program and the quality control
circle programs appear to be very similar. The workgroup meeting
program included almost all employees, and thus was closer to the total
quality control idea. Of interest to our present study of change in struc-
ture and influence on communication networks and organizational goals
is the study by Stinnett and Perrill (1982) of quality control circles in a
circuit board factory in the United States, and their appraisement of the
influence of that program on the outcome of productivity. They reported
that the correlation between satisfaction and employees’ perception of
the program’s influence on productivity (r = .71) was far greater than the
correlation of any of the other nine categories (quality, measurement,
rewards, leadership, structure, participation, communication, peer
relationships, group process), and productivity. In our own study, satis-
faction provided the major share of variance explanation, and the
Stinnett-Perrill findings are confirmatory, although each represents a
case study with limited generalizability. It is noteworthy that the
Stinnett-Perrill study includes pretest and posttest but no control

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

80

groups, and that the satisfaction mean decreased slightly from the pre- to
the posttest. This suggests that the origins for high levels of satisfaction,
apparently necessary to run a successful program, may well be based in
the general organization policies outside of the participative group
program.
In conclusion, the foregoing analysis of a workgroup meeting pro-
gram representing a change in structure influencing the communica-
tion processes utilizes methodologies capable of being integrated into the
formal control processes of an organization as part of the periodic eval-
uation of communication in the organization. The actual methods
employed in this study can be much improved, as noted in the discussion
above, but it is hoped that the general procedures and the data analysis
can contribute to the development of methodology for assessing the
effectiveness of individual communication activities, as distinct from
assessing the overall communication system (e.g., Goldhaber & Rogers,
1979). This is not to say that overall system assessments are not useful,
but rather to emphasize that a further and necessary area of investiga-
tion is that of the individual communication activity, such as organiza-
tional workgroups. Perhaps this study can be considered as a bench-
mark work, in the sense that it recognizes so much that remains to be
done to improve the procedures for evaluating individual communica-
tion activities in natural settings.

REFERENCES

Betty, S. A., & Gossert, V. Towards a grammar of leadership: Communication

correlates to leadership style. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference
of the International Communication Association, Boston, Massachussetts,
May 1982.
Brinkerhoff, M. B., Hierarchical status, contingencies, and the administrative
staff conference. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 395-407.
Browning, L. D., & Spicer, C. The development of a shopping mall image: An
analysis of an organization’s intended and received meaning. Paper presented
at 26th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association,
Portland, Oregon, April 14-17, 1976.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-104.
Fowler, E. M. Learning from the Japanese New York Times, January 20, 1982.
Goldhaber, G. M. & Rogers, D. P. Auditing Organizational Communication Sys-
tems : The ICA communication audit. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1979.
Greenbaum, H. H. The audit of organizational communication. Academy of
Management Journal, 1974, 17(4), 739-754.
Haas, J. E. & Drabek, T. E. Complex organizations: A sociological perspective
New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Hage, J. Aiken, M., & Marrett, C. B. Organization structure and communica-
tions. American Sociological Review, 1971, 36, 860-871.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

 81

Jablin, F. M., & Sussman, L. Organizational group communication: A review of

the literature and model of the process. In H. Greenbaum et al. Organizational
communication: Abstracts, analysis, and overview, Vol. 8. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage, in press.
James, A. C. & DeWine, S. A comparative analysis of organizations’communica-
tion structure: Organizational technology and outcomes as determinants of
internal communication. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of
the International Communication Association, Boston, MA, May 1982.
Likert, The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Mears, P. Structuring communication in a working group. Journal of Communi-
cation, 1974, 24, 71-79.
McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique of
the Field. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1966.
Murray, T. J. New union bargaining issue. Dun’s Business Month, September,
1981, p. 119.
Nelson, M. J. B. An analysis of factors contributing to the intragroup communica-
tion effectiveness of small work group supervisors in selected Oklahoma busi-
ness, manufacturing and government service situations. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oklahoma, 1972.
Nishiyama, K. Japanese quality control circles. Paper presented at the 31st
Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Min-
neapolis, Minnesota, May 1981.
O’Reilly, C.A. III, & Roberts, K.H. Task group structure, communication, and
effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977,
62(6), 674-681.
Paulker, J. L. A methodology for assessing job satisfaction and intervening to meet
staff needs at a community mental health center. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers
University, 1980.
Penley, L. E. Organizational communication: Its relations to the structure of
work groups. In R.C. Huseman et al. Readings in interpersonal and organiza-
tional communication. Boston: Holbrook Press, 1977.
Porter, L. W., & Roberts, K. H. Communication in organizations. In M.D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chi-
cago : Rand McNally,1976.
Price, J. L. Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood,
IL: Irwin, 1968.
Randolph, W. A. & Finch, F. E. The relationship between organization technol-
ogy and the direction and frequency dimensions of task communications.
Human Relations, 1977, 30 (12), 1131-1145.
Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. Measuring organizational communication. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 321-326.
Rosenfeld, L. B. Human interaction in the small group setting. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill, 1973.
Ryan, M. The Likert scale’s midpoint in communications research, Journalism
Quarterly Summer 1980, 57 (2), 305-313.
Sargent, J. F. & Miller, Some differences in certain communication behaviors of
autocratic and democratic group leaders. Journal of Communication. 1971,
21, 233-252.
Schuler, R. S. A role perception transactional process model for organizational
communication-outcome relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1979,23, 268-291.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014

82

Schuler, R. S. Blank, F.L. Relationships among types of communication, organi-

zational level, and employee satisfaction and performance. IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management, 1976, EM-23 (3), 124-129.
Scott, W. E., Jr. The development of semantic differential scales as measures of
morale. Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20, 179-198.
Scott, W. E., Jr., Rowland, K. M. "The generality and significance of semantic
differential scales as measures of "Morale." Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1970, 5, 576-591.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Stinnett, W. D., Perrill, N.K. Quality circles, attitudes and productivity. Paper
presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Communication
Association, Boston, Massachusetts, May 1982.
Wohlking, W. Attitude change, behavior change: The role of training depart-
ment. California Management Review, 1970, 13, 45-50.

Howard H. Greenbaum is Professor of Management, Hofstra University. He has

specialized in the area of management and organizational communication and is
the author of articles published in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal
of Business Communication, Journal of Applied Communications Research,
Planning Review. With Raymond L. Falcione (University of Maryland) he is the
coauthor of monographs published by the International Communication Associa-
tion, the American Business Communication Association, and Sage Publications.
Dr. Greenbaum has recently been Chairperson of the Organizational Communica-
tion Division of the Academy of Management and is currently Secretary of the
Organizational Communication Division of The International Communication
Association.

E llsworth J. Holden Jr. is presently an Assistant Professor of Quantitative Methods,

Department of Accounting and Quantitative Methods, College of Business Admin-
istration, Ohio University, Athens, OH. His education includes a B.S. in physics,
1955 with high honor, from Ohio University, Athens; an M.S. in physics, 1959,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Ph.D. course work completed in physics,
Harvard University. Holden is the author of several papers: The Computer and
Systems Management Concentration,&dquo; &dquo;Systems for the Layman&dquo; (a monograph),
and &dquo;Simulation&dquo; (an inventory management game).

Lucian Spataro received his Ph.D. in business administration from the University
of Illinois and the M.B.A. from Louisiana State University. His research interests
include work group behavior, organizational communication, and court adminis-
tration. He is a former president of the American Business Communication Asso-
ciation. At the present time he is director of the Center for Court Administration
and also director of training and development programs. In training and develop-
ment he has coordinated and/or taught in numerous programs for industry, educa-
tion, hospitals, and governmental groups.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at WRIGHT STATE UNIV on September 10, 2014