Communication, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction have been popular topics in hospitality and business research.
The most widely used business communication satisfaction questionnaire, the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ), has not been used in the hospitality industry. This article presents a factor-analytic study of the CSQ in a lodging
setting. After the factor analysis, the article will then discuss the findings of communication satisfaction as they compare to
findings in other business-related studies.
Communication is probably the most central process in organizations (Frone & Major, 1988). Employees spend
tremendous amounts of time collecting and disseminating information concerning such critical matters as
company policy, placement, promotion, performance feedback, and so forth. The importance of effective
communication has been recognized through numerous studies in various fields of industry (Clampitt & Downs,
1993; Downs & Hazen, 1977; Pincus, 1986; Sparks, 1994). Generally, most researchers believe intuitively that
there is a positive relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational effectiveness (Pincus,
1986). In fact, that relationship has been shown to be fairly strong when it comes to the relationship between
communication satisfaction and job satisfaction (Downs, 1988). The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ) was developed by Downs and Hazen (1977) in an attempt to discover the relationship between
communication and job satisfaction. Clampitt and Downs (1993) noted that the CSQ has been used in more than
50 organizations. Crino and White (1981) and Hecht (1978) investigated the reliability and validity of the CSQ
and found the instrument to be basically sound. In his review of all instruments used to measure communication
satisfaction, Hecht stated, “The thoroughness of the construction of this satisfaction measure is apparent. The
strategies employed in this study” (cited in Downs & Hazen, 1977, p. 363) are exemplary. Even with the
continued review of the CSQ and its popularity, Downs and Hazen (1977) recommend that researchers factoranalyze the scale to confirm the dimension structure. Communication is critical in the hospitality industry.
Understanding communication satisfaction, with its link to job satisfaction, should provide an ability to better
target resources to improve communication satisfaction issues. The CSQ is the most widely used
communication satisfaction questionnaire in business, and yet no research has been noted that used the CSQ in
hospitality. The CSQ should provide a framework in which to study, measure, and address communication
satisfaction issues in the hospitality industry. The primary objective of this article is to validate the CSQ as
proposed by Downs and Hazen to determine whether the CSQ can be used in research concerning hotels. A
review of the relationship of communication and job satisfaction willbe provided first, followed by a discussion
of the theoretical structure of the CSQ. A factor analysis will be completed with a discussion of the results. Once
the CSQ has been validated or modified as necessary, the results of this study can be compared to results of
studies in other fields. This research may then provide a guide for further examination of the relationship
between communication satisfaction and job satisfaction in hospitality industries.
BACKGROUND
Communication
Organizational communication has been defined in research in a number of different ways (Pincus, 1986).
Goldhaber (1983) identified two major research perspectives, process and perception. Information flow is the
main concern for the process perspective, whereas attitude or perception is the main concern for the perception
perspective. Both areas offered valuable contributions for understanding structural properties of organizational
communication systems (Pincus, 1986). From a process perspective, Andrews and Herschel (1996) stated that
information could flow in three directions within organizational communication systems, namely: downward,
upward, and horizontally:
1. Downward communication: Information flowing from upper to lower organizational levels. Five general categories of
downward communication are job instructions, rationale, information, feedback, and attempts to motivate.
2. Upward communication: Information flowing from subordinates to superiors. Employees have the opportunities to share
their ideas and concerns with management.
3. Horizontal communication: Information flowing between and among individuals on the same organizational level.
Horizontal communication exists in two forms: formal and informal. A formal structure identifies individuals who are the
official sources of information to coordinate a task. An informal communication recognizes that a variety of needs, including
social ones, underlie communication in organizations.
The direction of communication flow depends on the structure or type of the organization (Pincus, 1986). The
effective use of each flow or combination of flows should be analyzed within the organization. In addition, it is
clear that the
communicating organization must communicate with all of its employees at every
level whether the flow is downward or upward. Furthermore, Burns and Stalker (1966) argued that organizations
should have a flexible, or organic structure that allows communication across various organizational
departments and hierarchical levels such as open structures or upward systems. The second perspective in the
organizational communication research is the perception perspective. Downs (1988) developed and defined the
concept of communication satisfaction as one emerging construct emphasizing the perception perspective.
Communication satisfaction is simply defined as satisfaction with communication that is linked with the
employee’s position in the organization. Downs and Hazen (1977) stated that “communication satisfaction is
multidimensional rather than unidimensional” and set out to determine how the individual dimensions relate to
global job satisfaction. Therefore, this multidimensional construct has been defined as “a summary of an
individual’s satisfaction with information flow and relationship variables” (Pincus, 1986).
Job Satisfaction and Quality
Job satisfaction has been one of the most intensely recognized and studied topics in organizational behavior
research (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1994; Schneider & Bowen, 1993). Job satisfaction
has been defined in varying ways, but it is generally considered to be an individual’s perceptual/ emotional
reaction to important facets of work (Vroom, 1964). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or
positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences. Bettencourt and Brown
(1997) have recently defined job satisfaction as an employee’s overall perceived evaluation of
the job situation. Several studies in management reveal a relationship between job satisfaction and service
quality (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Heskett, Sasser, & Hart, 1990). Hallowell, Schlesinger, and Zornitsky
(1994) stated that internal service quality is very important because it relates to both customer satisfaction and
job satisfaction. It is necessary for organizations to deliver service quality to their internal customers if they
expect to deliver service quality to their external customers. Lovelock (1989) reported that internal marketing is
viewing employees as internal customers, viewing jobs as internal products, and then endeavoring to offer
internal products that satisfy the needs and wants of these internal customers while addressing the objectives of
the organization. Berry and Parasuraman (1992) stated that employees must clearly understand their part in the
organization and its importance in meeting the company’s objectives. Therefore, mutual understanding of both
parties, employees and organizations, will enhance the relationship and satisfy their needs and wants.
In relating internal marketing to service quality, Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) stressed the important
relationship between service quality and communication. Ineffective communication within the organization
leads to service delivery gaps in many of their constructs, most noticeably, the constructs of role ambiguity and
role conflict. In both cases, employees are unsure or confused about the requirements of their job, which leads to
job dissatisfaction. For employees, needs satisfaction refers to the satisfaction of both economic (i.e., wages)
and noneconomic needs (i.e., internal service quality). Hallowell et al. (1994) suggested that satisfaction with
internal service quality is more powerful than satisfaction with wages and benefits in predicting job satisfaction.
They regressed several dimensions of internal service quality on job satisfaction and found significant
relationships with goal alignment, management, teamwork, and communication. By focusing on these and other
components of internal service quality, managers may develop their employees’ satisfaction toward their jobs,
which in turn may result in lower unintentional turnover and improved internal and external service quality.
The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)
The communication construct has been used in three distinct contexts; interpersonal, group, and organizational
(Hecht, 1978). Greenbaum, Clampitt, and Willihnganz (1988) state that the CSQ is one of the most widely used
instruments in the organizational context and that the instrument is “arguably the best measure of
communication satisfaction in the organizational arena” (p. 6). Downs and Hazen (1977) developed the CSQ.
Initial studies revealed eight stable factors. A revised questionnaire containing 5 items per factor was
administered to 510 employees in various industries in four different states. The 40 items were used with a
Likert-type scale ranging from 10 = very satisfied to 1 = very dissatisfied. The 5 items were averaged for a
factor score. Factor analysis revealed the items clustered along the proposed eight factors. These factors are:
1.Communication Climate: reflects communication on both the organizational and personal level. On one hand, it includes
items such as the extent to which communication in the organization motivates and stimulates workers to meet
organizational goals and the extent to which it makes them identify with the organization. On the other, it includes estimates
of whether people’s attitudes toward communicating are healthy.
2. Supervisory Communication: includes both upward and downward dimensions of communication with supervisors. Three
of the principal items include the extent to which a supervisor is open to ideas, the extent to which the supervisor listens and
pays attention, and the extent to which guidance is offered in solving job-related problems.
3. Organizational Integration: revolves around the degree to which employees receive information about the immediate
work environment. Items include the degree of satisfaction with information about departmental plans, the requirements of
their jobs, and some personnel news.
4. Media Quality: focuses on the extent to which meetings are well organized and written directives are short and clear, as
well as the degree to which the communication in the organization is about right.
5. Coworker Communication: relates to satisfaction with horizontal and informal communication relationship in the
organization. This factor also concerns the extent to which horizontal and informal communication is accurate and freeflowing; addresses the activeness of the grapevine.
6. Corporate Information: deals with the broadest kind of information about the organization as a whole. It includes items on
notification about changes, information about the organization’s financial standing, and information about the overall
policies and goals of the organization.
7. Personal Feedback: concerns what employees need to know about how they are judged and how their performance is
appraised. This deals with feedback in some formalized setting or information that should be expected to be passed from
supervisor to subordinate.
8. Subordinate Communication: focuses both on upward and downward communication with subordinates. Only workers in
a supervisory capacity respond to these items, which include subordinate responsiveness to downward communication and
the extent to which subordinates initiate upward communication.
The coefficient alpha for the 510-employee test was .94. Coefficient alphas for the eight dimensions have been
consistently high, ranging from .72 to .96 for studies in the United States (Potvin, 1991/1992). The eight-factor
structure has been confirmed in numerous studies (Clampitt & Girard, 1987; Crino & White, 1981; Pincus,
1986). Evidence of concurrent validity exists in that CSQ factors have been found to be highly correlated with
job satisfaction (Downs & Hazen, 1977), to predict organizational commitment, and to be related to turnover
(Clampitt & Downs, 1993). Clampitt and Downs (1993) feel that the most theoretical contribution of the CSQ is
the suggestion that communication satisfaction is a multidimensional construct as opposed to a unidimensional
one. It appears that, in the studies cited above, the factors of Supervisory Communication and Subordinate
Communication are the areas of the greatest employee satisfaction, whereas Personal Feedback provides the
least satisfaction. In general, the research has suggested a relationship between job satisfaction and
communication satisfaction (Clampitt & Girard, 1993; Lee, 1989; Varona, 1996). Both Downs and Hazen
(1977) and Downs, Clampitt, and Pfeiffer (1988) found that three of the factors—Personal Feedback,
Communication Climate, and Supervisory Communication—have been most strongly correlated with job
satisfaction measures. Greenbaum et al. (1988) suggested several advantages to using the CSQ. First, the CSQ
provides a relatively short and understandable instrument that can be completed within 15 minutes. Second,
scoring can be done easily using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Third, the instrument can be
easily modified for various types of organizations. Last, the CSQ can measure more than one outcome variable,
such as job satisfaction and productivity. Although there are several positive attributes associated with the CSQ,
there is also one limitation: Items dealing with interdepartmental communication and top management
communication are not within the dimensional structure (Greenbaum et al., 1988).
METHOD
The process of determining whether a model and the constructs that compose it are valid is accomplished by
investigating construct validity. To the extent that a variable is abstract rather than concrete, it is spoken of as
being a construct. Such a variable is literally a construct in that it is something that experimenters put together
from their own imaginations, something that does not exist as an isolated, observable dimension of behavior. If
the constructs are valid, the use of the model will be supported (Nunnally, 1978). Construct validity will be
determined through confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis is appropriate when there is a
desire to verify previous findings, either those of the investigator or those of others, using a new sample from
the same population or a sample from a different population (Comrey & Lee, 1992). The number of factors will
be forced into the data analysis to determine if the specified variables group themselves into the expected
constructs. An oblique rotation method, promax, will be used for this analysis. Oblique rotation is best used
when the variables have a high correlation (Nunnally, 1978). If the expected constructs do not confirm,
exploratory factor analysis will be used to determine which variables do group together and what those variables
represent. Comrey and Lee (1992) and Gorsuch (1983) suggest that a principal components extraction method is
appropriate to begin an exploratory analysis but that a common factor extraction method should be used to
define the model. This requires the researcher to determine the number of factors from the principal components
analysis and enter that number of factors in the common factor analysis. New factors identified will be analyzed
by the variables that compose them. New factor names may be created to help define the construct. Only
variables that reduce the alpha if deleted will be removed from the analysis at this point. Other variables may be
eliminated at a later stage if they do not contribute to the reliability of the factor.
If a new model is developed through exploratory analysis, comparisons will be made between the models to
determine whether model improvement has been achieved. Item-to-total correlations test convergent validity,
factor intercorrelations test discriminant validity, and alphas can be determined for each multiquestion factor.
Model comparisons can be made on each of the three issues.
Data Collection
The main components of the CSQ were used as presented by Downs and Hazen (1977). Wording was changed
on questions to make the questions more understandable to hotel employees. Some of the demographic
information was modified or changed to fit the research situation. Questions 4 to 39 (36 questions) on the
questionnaire composed seven of the eight proposed factors. Questions 42 to 46, answered only by management,
composed the eighth factor, subordinate communication. The questionnaires were administered at six hotels
managed by the same company, located in South Texas. There was a large Hispanic employee population so the
questionnaires were translated into Spanish. The translation was completed by a double-blind process. One
person translated the original English CSQ into Spanish. A second person took the Spanish-translated version
and translated that back to English. The translated English version was compared to the original to determine if
the original content of the question was retained. The questionnaire used in this study is presented in the
appendix.
The questionnaires were distributed by the general manager of the hotel at an all-employee meeting. Employees
were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaires, with assistance available if they had questions
regarding terminology used in the instrument. Employees were instructed to put the completed questionnaires in
a blank envelope, seal the envelope, and place the sealed envelope in an express-mail box. The express-mail box
was sealed after the completion of the questionnaires by all employees and sent to the researchers. Response
data information is presented in Table 1. Some questionnaires were returned but were considered unusable
because they were not filled out, were incomplete, or had the same responses throughout the questionnaire
indicating that the respondent had not completed the survey in good faith. Questionnaires that had one missing
datum per factor were included by using mean substitution for the missing information.
RESULTS
The first step in the data analysis was to perform a reliability analysis. The alpha for the 40-item instrument was
.96, similar to the .94 alpha reported by Downs and Hazen (1977). It was determined that the deletion of one
question, No. 28, would raise the alpha to .97. This question, “The grapevine is active in our organization,” was
found to be confusing even to the English respondents. There is a positive connotation in all questionnaire items
but, as phrased on this questionnaire, this question did not provide the positive connotation anchor. It was also
determined that the slang grapevine did not translate well into Spanish. This question was removed from the
analysis at this point. A variety of rules have been suggested for determining the sample size required to produce
a stable solution when performing factor analysis. Many researchers typically recommend that the necessary
sample size be determined as a function of the observed variables (Gorsuch, 1983; Nunnally, 1978). Guadagnoli
and Velicer (1988) studied the various rules in a Monte Carlo procedure. They concluded that component
saturation (the magnitude of factor loadings) and absolute sample size were of major importance. They stated
that the N-to-observed variable rules were clearly not substantiated. The proposed factor analysis in this study
had 40 variables and eight factors, an average factor loading of .64. Based on their suggestions, the minimum
sample size is 150. Thus, the actual sample size of 374 exceeds the suggested minimum. The next step was to
perform a confirmatory factor analysis based on the proposed eight-factor structure of the original CSQ. The
results of the confirmatory analysis are presented in Table 2. To aid in the visual analysis, questions were
grouped by proposed factors. The actual question number from the survey is preceded by a two-letter
designation of the proposed factor. The designations are as follows: OI (organizational integration), PF
(personal feedback), CI (corporate information), CC (communication climate), SC (supervisor communication),
MQ (media quality), CW (coworker communication), and SB (subordinate communication). Only the greatest
factor loading for each variable is shown. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggest that factor
loadings less than .30 are not considered practically significant, and that factor loadings of .30 are statistically
significant if the sample size exceeds 350. The sample size for this study was 374, so factor loadings of .30 or
greater are shown in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, the eight-factor structure did not confirm as proposed.
Although some factors, such as Communication Climate and Subordinate Communication, held together well, in
many, questions were separated over three factors. The next step was to perform an exploratory factor analysis.
As was discussed, a principal components extraction method analysis was completed first to identify the number
of factors in the factor solution. The number of factors was identified through the use of a scree plot. Then, the
number of factors was input back into a common factor extraction method analysis. The scree plot of the
principal components extraction is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, the number of factors falling above the
straight line was seven. The selection of the seven factors for use in the common factor analysis is supported by
other selection criteria. Only seven factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, and the cumulative percentage of
variance explained by the seventh factor exceeded 75%. The results of the common factor analysis are presented
in Table 3. Again, only loadings greater than .30 are presented.
Two of the proposed factors, Subordinate Communication and Coworker Communication (without question No.
28), remain as originally constructed. Factor 1 had three variables from the Supervisor Communication factor
and two variables from the Media Quality factor. The proposed Supervisor Communication factor seemed to
separate based on the direction of the communication. The three variables that remained in Factor 1 all seemed
to deal with a downward aspect of the communication. The two Supervisor Communication variables that did
not load into Factor 1 seemed to deal more the supervisor listening to the employee, representing an upward or
vertical flow of information. It is interesting to note that the original definition found on page 6 defined
Supervisory Communication in terms of both upward and downward communication. The respondents in this
study seemed to differentiate between the two directions of communication. The two Media Quality variables
that loaded on Factor 1 addressed downward communication aspects that are controlled by the supervisor,
clarity of written directives and organization of meetings. This factor was renamed Downward Communication.
Note: The actual question number from the survey is preceded by a two-letter designation of the proposed factor.The
designations are as follows:OI (organizational integration), PF (personal feedback), CI (corporate information), CC
(communication climate), SC (supervisor communication), MQ (media quality), CW (coworker communication), and SB
(subordinate communication). Only the greatest factor loading for each variable is shown.
Factor 2 had seven variables. Four of the variables, representing the three largest factor-loading scores, were
from the original Corporate Information factor. It is best to look at the three other variables in a Corporate
Information perspective.
Question No. 24, from the original Media Quality factor, dealt with the quality of the company’s publications.
Question No. 5, from the original Organizational Integration factor, dealt with the reception of information
about personnel. Question No. 14, from the original Personal Feedback factor, dealt with receiving information
about how problems on the job were being handled. It is possible to understand how these questions could be
interpreted in an Organizational Information perspective. The factor name, Corporate Information, was retained
for this factor.
Factor 4 had eight variables. Three of the variables were from the original Communication Climate factor, two
variables were from the Organizational Integration factor, and one variable each was from the Personal
Feedback, Supervisory Communication, and Media Quality factors. A review of the variables not from the
original Communication Climate factor indicates that the factor may still be interpreted from a Communication
Climate perspective. For example, question No. 24, from the original Media Quality factor, dealt with the
appropriate amount of communication in the company. The factor name, Communication Climate, was retained
for this factor. Factor 5 had six variables, three from the original Personal Feedback factor. Two of the other
variables, questions No. 6 and 10, dealt with receiving information about both departmental and corporate
policies and goals. Question No. 4, from the original Organizational Integration factor, dealt with receiving
information about progress in their job. It was surprising to see that this was not in the original Personal
Feedback factor as it seems to define the concept of Personal Feedback. The factor name, Personal Feedback,
was retained for this factor.
Factor 7 had four variables. Although the variables do seem to capture several concepts, there was one variable
that loaded very strongly on this factor. That variable was question No. 29, from the original Supervisory
Communication factor, which dealt with the supervisor being open to ideas. This factor was named Vertical
Communication. Table 4 presents a list of the original factors and the factors identified in this study along with
the summary model comparison information. It can be seen that the summary information generally supports the
use of the new factor structure. The factor intercorrelation average was slightly higher for the new factor
structure; this may be because of the reduced number of factors. The new factor structure was then used to
compare the results of communication satisfaction relationships to job satisfaction between this study and other
previously cited studies. In a study of the CSQ, Clampitt (1993) suggested that it appeared that the factors of
Supervisory Communication and Subordinate Communication were the areas of the greatest employee
satisfaction whereas Personal Feedback provided the least satisfaction. The means of the new factors, in
descending order, in this study were: Downward Communication (7.39), Subordinate Communication (7.39),
Coworker Communication (7.00), Vertical Communication (6.86), Communication Climate (6.56), Personal
Feedback (6.21), and Corporate Information (5.85). In that the largest number of variables of the new factor,
Downward Communication, were from the Supervisory Communication factor, the results support the
suggestions of Clampitt (1993). In this study, Personal Feedback was the second lowest in terms of satisfaction.
Downs and Hazen (1977) and Downs et al. (1988) found that three of the factors—Personal Feedback,
Communication Climate, and Supervisory Communication—have been most strongly correlated with job
satisfaction measures. The correlation coefficients of the new factors with overall job satisfaction, in descending
order, were: Downward Communication (.575), Communication Climate (.560), Vertical Communication
(.535), Personal Feedback (.502), Corporate Information (.468), Coworker Communication (.415), and
Subordinate Communication (.319). All of the correlation coefficients were significant at .01 with the exception
of Subordinate Communication, which was significant at .05.
Again, remembering that the new Downward Communication is very much associated with the old Supervisory
Communication, these results again support the findings of Downs and his colleagues.
CONCLUSION
As Downs and Hazen (1977) recommend, the use of the CSQ, or any other factor study, should be preceded by a
factor analysis. The factor analysis presented in this research indicates changes to the factor structure of the
proposed CSQ.Although the factor structure changed, the underlying theoretical structure of the CSQ was
supported. Factors that were the same as, or similar to, those factors found least satisfying in previous research
were identified in this research. Also, factors that were found to be most correlated to job satisfaction were also
similar to factors proposed in previous research. Future research should continue to explore the factor structure
of the CSQ in hospitality settings. Also, it would appear that more focused research can be conducted on
specific factors. From the factors identified as providing the least satisfaction, coupled with the factors that are
most correlated to job satisfaction, it would appear that the Personal Feedback factor provides the greatest
opportunity for operational improvement. Future research should explore this factor in detail to determine how
hospitality operations could improve the satisfaction levels of the Personal Feedback factor.
LIMITATIONS
The Downs and Hazen (1977) work in developing the CSQ occurred more than 20 years ago. Although
subsequent work in numerous studies, discussed earlier, generally supports the CSQ, some differences in factor
structures have been identified. This is to be expected when dealing with a variety of subjects in a variety of
industries. The CSQ has survived as a useful model because of the general stability of the original factor
structure.
This study, in addition to the time factor, also dealt with the issues of homogeneity of management and ethnic
background of the respondents. All six hotels are managed by the same company and, due to the location of the
hotels, all had a large percentage of Hispanic employees. The findings in this research are limited by these
factors. Future research that builds from this work must acknowledge that factor structures and results may be
different based on the characteristics of the sample. As Downs and Hazen (1977) suggest, and we agree, a
confirmatory factor analysis should be a prerequisite for any research using the proposed factors identified in
this study.
The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire
The questionnaire items are listed below. The page format was changed for this presentation.
1. How satisfied are you with your job? Place the number 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 in the blank space provided. Let 0
represent no satisfaction, 5 represent average satisfaction, and 10 maximum satisfaction.________
2. In the past 6 months, what has happened to your level of satisfaction? Check the most appropriate response; if you have
not worked for the organization for 6 months, leave this blank.
________ 1. Stayed the same
________ 2. Gone up
________ 3. Gone down
3. If the communication associated with your job could be changed in any way to make you more satisfied, please indicate
how. Use the back of this page if you need more room. Listed below are several kinds of information often associated with a
person’s job. Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements by placing the number 0-1-2-3-4-56-7-8-9-10 in the blank space provided. Let 0 represent strong disagreement, 5 represent neither agreement nor
disagreement, and 10 represent strong agreement.
________ 4. I receive information about my progress in my job.
________ 5. I receive information about personnel.
________ 6. I receive information about company policies and goals.
________ 7. I receive information about how my job compares with others.
________ 8. I receive information about how I am being judged.
________ 9. I receive recognition of my efforts.
________ 10. I receive information about departmental policies and goals.
________ 11. I receive information about the requirements of my job.
________ 12. I receive information about government action affecting my company.
________ 13. I receive information about changes in the organization.
________ 14. I receive information on how problems in my job are being handled.
________ 15. I receive information about employee benefits and pay.
________ 16. I receive information about company profits and financial standing.
________ 17. I receive information about accomplishments and/or failures of the company.
________ 18. Upper management knows and understands the problems faced by employees.
________ 19. Company communication motivates and stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting company goals.
________ 20. Upper management listens and pays attention to me.
________ 21. People in my organization have great ability as communicators.
________ 22. My supervisor offers guidance for solving job-related problems.
________ 23. Company’s communication makes me identify with it or feel a vital part of it.
________ 24. My company’s publications are interesting and helpful.
________ 25. My supervisor trusts me.
________ 26. I receive on-time information needed to do my job.
________ 27. Conflicts are handled appropriately through proper communication channels.
________ 28. The “grapevine” is active in our organization.
________ 29. My supervisor is open to ideas.
________ 30. Communication with employees in other departments is accurate and free-flowing.
________ 31. Communication practices are adaptable to emergencies.
________ 32. My work group is compatible.
________ 33. Our meetings are well-organized.
________ 34. The amount of supervision given me is about right.
________ 35. Written directives and reports are clear and concise.
________ 36. Attitudes toward communication in the company are basically healthy.
________ 37. Informal communication is active and accurate.
________ 38. The amount of communication in the company is about right.
39. How would you rate your productivity in your job? (Check one)
________ 1. Very low
________ 5. Slightly higher
________ 2. Low
than most
________ 3. Slightly lower
________ 6. High
than most
________ 7. Very high
________ 4. Average
40. In the past 6 months, what has happened to your productivity? Check the most appropriate response, if you have not
worked for the organization for 6 months, leave this blank.
________ 1. Stayed the same
________ 2. Gone up
________ 3. Gone down
41. If the productivity associated with your job could be changed in any way to make you more satisfied, please indicate
how. Use the back of this page if you need more room.
Answer the following section only if you are a MANAGER OR SUPERVISOR (Nonmanagers, skip to No. 47).
________ 42. My employees are responsive to downward directive communication.
________ 43. My employees anticipate my needs for communication.
________ 44. I do not have a communication overload.
________ 45. My employees are receptive to evaluation, suggestions, and criticism.
________ 46. My employees feel responsible for initiating accurate upward communication.
47. What is your age? ________ (years)
48. How long have you been in your current position? ________ (years/months)
49. How long have you worked for this organization? ________ (years/months)
50. What is your gender?
________ Male
________ Female
51. Please check the box which best indicates your formal education?
________ a) Did not finish ________ d) Specialized/
high school
professional/
________ b) High school
technical degree
________ c) Completed
________ e) College degree
some
________ f) Graduate
college
degree
52. What is your ethnic background?
________ African American
________ Asian
________ Hispanic
________ Caucasian
________ Other
53. What is your primary language?
________ English
________ Spanish
________ Other