essay questions based on articles

DIFFERENT MEDIA FOR ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION: PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY AND SATISFACTION

Zinta S. Byrne Colorado State University

Elaine LeMay Agilent Technologies, Inc.

ABSTRACT: We examined the satisfaction in and perceived quality of informa- tion about one’s job, business unit, and company, as well as perceived quality of urgent news (i.e., news about changes in business and generally considered leg- ally sensitive material), communicated via different media. Results from 598 fulltime employees revealed that rich media (e.g., face-to-face) was most related to satisfaction in information about one’s job and business unit and in perceived quality of information from the supervisor; lean media (e.g., company newsletter) was most related to satisfaction in and quality of information from top manage- ment, while moderate media (e.g., e-mail) was only significantly related to per- ceived quality of urgent news. Trust in top management was positively related to satisfaction in and quality of information shared by management. Lean media most strongly related to quality of urgent news, over and above rich communi- cation.

KEY WORDS: satisfaction; new media; urgent news; communication.

INTRODUCTION

Communication, in particular internal communication, is critical to an organization’s success and effectiveness (Hargie, Tourish, & Wilson, 2002; Redding, 1977; Ruch & Goodman, 1983; Snyder & Morris, 1984;

Address correspondence to Zinta S. Byrne, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. E-mail: Zinta.Byrne@colostate.edu

The authors would like to thank Monica Moloney for her support on this project.

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2, Winter 2006 (�2006) DOI: 10.1007/s10869-006-9023-8

149

0889-3268/06/1200-0149/0 � 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Weick, 1987). For example, research has revealed direct links between high quality communications (e.g., timely, accurate, useful, complete), productivity (e.g., quantity and quality of work, time to get job done), and reduced absenteeism (Clampitt & Downs, 1993). Furthermore, satisfac- tion in organizational communication is positively related to actual job performance and productivity (e.g., number clients served and cost of operation per employee; Snyder & Morris, 1984), organizational com- mitment (Putti, Aryee, & Phua, 1990), and job satisfaction (Muchinsky, 1977; Pincus, 1986). Downs and Hain (1982) along with others (Downs, Clampitt, & Pfeiffer, 1988), using a case study method and the Inter- national Communications Association survey, demonstrated that com- munication has an impact on productivity.

In an effort to understand and prescribe how effective organizational communication might be achieved, researchers have drawn upon the theory of media richness (Daft & Lengel 1984; Lengel & Daft, 1988). Media richness theory states that different communication media (e.g., phone, email, memos) used within organizations possess different levels of richness (e.g., amount of data shared) of information, and the level of richness affects how communication is perceived. Although the media richness theory has been applied to suggest which media managers should select for different types of communication tasks or situations (Lengel & Daft, 1988), little empirical research has examined whether employees are satisfied with the communication they receive via differ- ent media, or whether they perceive the information received on one medium to be of greater quality than information received via another medium. The purpose of our study is to explore these questions.

With businesses increasing their reliance on video- and audio- conferencing, and on computer-mediated communication (e.g., email, websites) for faster and more efficient communication, it is critical that we understand the impact that these media have on perceptions of quality of communication and perceived satisfaction in the informa- tion. To address this question, we conducted a field study to explore whether a variety of company information communicated via different media would result in different perceptions of quality in the infor- mation and perceived satisfaction in the information received. In addition, we examined the effects of media on trust in management, and trust in management on satisfaction and quality of information, as well as potential differences between top management and immediate supervisors as sources of the communications. Lastly, we focused on the effect of media on the perceived quality of urgent news (i.e., news about changes in business and generally considered legally sensitive material), a new form of communication of increasing importance to organizations today.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY150

Communication in Organizations

Research has shown that the perceived quality of information com- municated within organizations is significantly linked to organizational performance and employee or organizational outcomes. Quality of information refers to whether the communication is relevant, accurate, reliable and timely (Zmud, 1978). In support, Snyder and Morris (1984) found that the perceived quality of communication (i.e., effectiveness and adequacy of communication) from the supervisor was strongly, positively related to objective measures (i.e., cost of operation per employee, num- ber of clients served) of overall organizational performance. Thus, the higher the perceived quality of the message, the greater the overall performance of the organization. Similarly, Clampitt and Downs (1993) concluded that high quality internal company communications improved productivity (i.e., quantity and quality of products, time efficiency), lowered absenteeism, reduced number of employee strikes, and increased the overall quality of services; although they did not conduct a causal study to demonstrate the direction of influence. Individuals perceiving high quality information tend to act on it (O’Reilly, 1982), suggesting that this may be a reason why performance is higher with high quality information. Other benefits of high quality communications include high job satisfaction, satisfaction in employee relationships and increased work motivation for managers (Downs & Hazen, 1977; Goldhaber, Yates, Porter, & Lesniak, 1978; Jablin, 1979; Muchinsky, 1977; Orpen, 1997). Similarly, there is considerable research showing that the quality of communication skills (e.g., oral and written; accuracy, sensitivity to media choice) for managers, which lead to quality communication, are related to their performance (e.g., Bednar, 1982; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, & Henwood, 1991). Together, the research shows that perceptions of quality communication are linked to employee performance and reactions.

Although perceived information quality has been described as a multidimensional construct (Glazier, 1991; Moenaert & Souder, 1996), little agreement exists on the actual dimensions. However, several researchers have consistently examined the following dimensions: timeliness of information, usability or relevance of information to indi- viduals, and accuracy of information (Maltz, 2000; O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). Therefore, in this study, we defined perceived quality of information as the combination of timeliness, usability, and accuracy of information received.

In addition to quality of information communicated within organi- zations, communication satisfaction has also been the focus of much research and for good reason. Downs and Hazen (1977) have suggested that communication satisfaction is best understood as a multidimen-

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 151

sional construct comprised of nine facets, which have been shown to be significantly related to job satisfaction. Of most interest to the current study are the following three facets: (1) communication climate, which refers to communication on both the organizational and personal levels such as information about the organization and job expectations, (2) organizational integration, which refers to satisfaction of information individuals receive about the organization and their immediate job environment, and (3) organizational perspective, which reflects satis- faction in the ‘‘information relating to the overall functioning of the organization’’ (p. 67), such as company financials, goals and policies.

We chose these facets from Downs and Hazen (1977) because we, along with the participating organization, were primarily concerned with the satisfaction of information about jobs and the organization that individuals receive from top management and their supervisors. Although not relevant to our study purpose, other facets of Downs and Hazen’s communication satisfaction construct include the effectiveness of the media (i.e., organization of meetings, well written documents), coworker communications, extent to which superiors listen or offer problem solving help, and extent to which subordinates are responsive to communication. Researchers tend to agree with a multidimensional view of communication satisfaction, yet also suggest that not all facets are necessary to assess in every environment. Therefore, we felt comfortable examining only those of most interest to our study purpose.

Research supports a link between communication satisfaction and important organizational outcomes. For example, Varona (1996), using Downs and Hazen’s (1977) factor structure, found that organizational commitment was moderately correlated with organizational climate (r = .41, p < .001), organizational integration (r = .41, p < .001), and organizational perspective (r = .33, p < .001). Subordinates in high- quality exchange relationships with their supervisors tended to report higher levels of satisfaction in organizational integration (r = .62, p < .01) and communication climate (r = .61, p < .01; Mueller & Lee, 2002). Fur- thermore, Gregson (1990) found a significant negative relationship between communication satisfaction regarding information from and about the organization and turnover intentions (r = ).50, p < .01), and satisfaction in the communication of job related information (e.g., expectations, performance) and turnover intentions (r = ).53, p < .01).

Sources of Communication Two key sources of information in organizations include top man-

agement and the immediate supervisor (Young & Post, 1993). For example, satisfaction with communication from top management and from one’s immediate supervisor positively relates to perceptions of job satisfaction (Pincus, Knipp, & Rayfield, 1990). In their research,

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY152

Goldhaber et al. (1978) concluded that communications received from important relationship partners (i.e., supervisor, top management) and the amount of information (i.e., as much as employees feel they need on relevant topics) received within the communication were the best pre- dictors of job satisfaction. In addition, employee’s perceptions of top-level management’s openness of communication and willingness to include employees in the participation of decision making have been positively correlated with employee’s overall job satisfaction (Heng, 1988). Putti et al. (1990) found differences between communication from the top management and the supervisor, in that the strongest correlate of organizational commitment was satisfaction in communication from top management versus communication from the supervisor. In the aggre- gate, this research shows that two important sources of information are top management and the immediate supervisor, and that satisfaction in communication may differ depending on the source.

In considering sources of information, one must also consider trust. In particular, Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) found that when employees perceived they could trust their immediate supervisor, they believed that the information their supervisor shared was accurate, which is a com- ponent of quality information (Zmud, 1978). Further, trust in manage- ment has been shown to be significantly related to satisfaction in communication (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). Therefore, trust in manage- ment is necessary to include when examining the satisfaction of infor- mation and perceived quality of information from top management and the immediate supervisor.

Urgent News An important component of organizational communication in today’s

fast paced environment is what we have termed urgent news. Organi- zations have a need to share with employees critical information, both positive and negative, about major changes in business that affect the organization and/or the employees directly. For example, acquisitions, layoffs, substantial changes in the executive staff, changes in stock price or earnings, loss of a large customer, a big sale to a new customer, rumors that are both founded and unfounded, legal actions against the organi- zation, and take-over attempts are all critical information that must be shared in a timely, yet sensitive manner. Such information concerning publicly traded companies is considered legally sensitive material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder or investor would consider it important information in making an investment or voting decision regarding the company’s securities, and would view it as significantly altering the total mix of available information concerning the company (TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 1976). The follow- ing types of information are ordinarily considered sensitive material:

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 153

financial performance (especially quarterly and year-end earnings and significant changes in financial performance), company strategic plans, potential mergers or acquisitions, new major contracts, orders, or cus- tomers, major discoveries, significant changes in senior management, and actual or threatened litigation (Insider Trading and Tipping, 2003).

Because of the sensitivity of these kinds of communication to the organization, communicating the information in a timely and sensitive manner is necessary. These kinds of communications are important enough that shareholders and the media must be notified before internal employees; however, organizations do not want their employees reading about layoffs or significant changes in the company in the morning newspaper. Company insiders are considered directors, officers, and employees of a publicly traded company who cannot trade in the com- pany’s securities because they possess material, nonpublic information about the company. Such trading is considered to be a deceptive practice that violates section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Chiarella v United States, 1980). Thus, urgent news is that which immediately affects employees and the organization, yet requires careful handling. Urgent news communication is different from crisis communication, which is defined as any event or condition that threatens the survival of an organization (Starbuck, Greve, & Hedberg, 1978). Ideally, organiza- tions want employees to hear the urgent news before or simultaneously with the public release of the information. The communication timing dilemma increases when the organization operates in multiple time zones around the world.

Effectively managing urgent news communication becomes complex due to the availability of instant communication via the web and email, organizations operating across multiple time zones, and increasingly stringent Securities and Exchange (SEC) regulations. It was important to the participating organization that we research satisfaction in urgent news given the increased frequency that the company was sending urgent news communications, and the difficulty of balancing the em- ployee’s need to know with the SEC regulations on insider trading and communicating information that could impact stock prices. In addition, we saw the communication of urgent news as an area to contribute to the literature on communication in organizations, as urgent news does not appear to have been previously researched and seems to be important for many organizations today.

Communication Media Research

Although much research shows that communication is critical to organizations, it also shows that information may be interpreted differ- ently depending on the medium with which it is delivered. The most well

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY154

known theory of media communication is Daft and Lengel’s (1984) media richness theory. In brief, the theory of media richness proposes that communication media can be categorized based on their capacity to convey non-verbal cues, both visual (e.g., body language, hand gestures, facial expressions) and auditory (pitch, tone, volume, speed). Thus, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, or written memos supply differing amounts of information or data; the richer the media, the more data is shared in the communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Lengel & Daft, 1988). Specifi- cally, Daft and Lengel (1984) suggest that because face-to-face commu- nication includes body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice, which can all be observed at the same time, face-to-face conveys the most information. In contrast, written memos lack all of the above, resulting in less information processed by the receiver; hence written memos are considered less rich than face-to-face communication. With email being a fast communication mechanism (faster than paper-based), most analysts rate email as falling between telephone and written, non-electronic communication (Huber & Daft, 1987; Trevino, Daft, & Lengel, 1990). The more interactive the email exchange, the more rich it can become (e.g., Markus, 1994), though never as rich as face-to-face due to the lack of important cues.

In addition to providing a categorization of richness, the theory of media richness also suggests which media should be chosen for a par- ticular type of communication. For example, media richness theory suggests that routine communications are simple and straightforward, and therefore can be effectively transmitted via a lean medium (Daft, 1999; Lengel & Daft, 1988). Routine messages convey data, statistics, or broad company information and tend to document agreements which have already been verbally made. Written communications are also effective when the audience of the message is widely dispersed or when the communication is official and a permanent record is required (Rice, 1994). For example, company information about employee benefits may be considered routine messages.

Communication researchers have found, however, that managers make different media choices than those prescribed by media richness (e.g., Markus, 1994). Furthermore, researchers are now suggesting that the determination of medium richness also requires the consideration of the social (e.g., relationships, experience with the medium) and organi- zational factors (e.g., context for the message) of communication, and not just the nature of the media itself as suggested by media richness theory (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1997; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997). Therefore, in our study we considered the media (e.g., rich versus lean), the relationship of the sender to receiver (i.e., top management versus supervisor), and the organizational

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 155

context of the communications (i.e., job related messages, company related messages).

Present Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of dif- ferent levels of media (from lean to rich) on the satisfaction in and per- ceived quality of organizational communications, as well as perceived quality of urgent news. Within this examination, we included pertinent constructs such as sources of communication (in particular, top man- agement and immediate supervisor) and trust in management.

According to the theory of media richness, rich media convey great amounts of information while lean media convey very little in compari- son. We, therefore, expected that communications requiring more infor- mation (including non-verbal cues) would be rated of higher satisfaction when shared via rich media. In this study, we examined satisfaction in information about the job, business unit and company, as these reflected communication climate, integration, and perspective from Downs and Hazen’s (1977) multidimensional construct of communication satisfac- tion. Given that information about the job or business unit might be of greater personal relevance to individuals and more complex (since it may be more detailed) than information about the company, we expected that messages about the job or business unit shared via a medium high on the richness continuum would result in higher levels of satisfaction than this information shared via a lean medium. In contrast, information about the company is a level removed from the individual and generally rou- tine, straightforward, and official; therefore we expected that satisfaction in information about the company would be highest when delivered via a lean medium. With this type of information, individuals do not need the additional cues supplied via a rich medium.

H1a: A rich medium will most strongly relate to ratings of satisfaction in information about the job and business unit, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a lean medium.

H1b: A lean medium will most strongly relate to ratings of satisfaction in information about the company, followed by a mod- erate medium, followed by a rich medium.

We anticipated that information shared via a rich medium would result in higher perceptions of the quality of information than when shared via a lean medium because the additional communication cues (e.g., facial expressions, tone of voice, interaction) provided by the rich medium may be necessary for evaluating the characteristics (e.g., useful,

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY156

accurate, timely) of quality communication. In support, when individuals perceive they can verify the message, such as in a two-way conversation, they rate the accuracy (a characteristic of quality) of the information higher (Maltz, 2000). In addition, the timeliness of information delivered via a rich medium will contribute to the perceived quality level, since timeliness is a component of perceived information quality. Because information from the supervisor is typically more personally relevant than information from top management, we anticipated that information from the supervisor would require a richer medium to be perceived as high in quality. In contrast, information from top management is most likely routine and related to broad company statistics or data, and therefore would be perceived as high in quality when transmitted via a lean medium. Thus, we hypothesized that:

H2a: A rich medium will most strongly relate to perceived quality of information from the supervisor, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a lean medium.

H2b: A lean medium will most strongly relate to perceived quality of information from top management, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a rich medium.

Research has revealed that messages from top management are important in perceptions of organizational communication (e.g., Young & Post, 1993). For example, the level of trust individuals’ have in man- agement influences their perceptions of communication within organi- zations (Cohen, 1958; Read, 1962; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). In particular, trust is considered a necessary element for open and accurate communication (e.g., Read, 1962). Likewise, trust is significantly related to the employee’s estimate of the accuracy of information received from superiors (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). For example, low ratings of trust were correlated with low ratings of message and information accuracy. These research findings suggest that trust in management should be positively related to satisfaction in information and the perceived quality of information.

H3: Trust in management will be positively related to (a) satisfac- tion in information about the company, job and business unit; and (b) positively related to perceived quality of information from top man- agement and the supervisor.

Prior research has shown that the quality of communication can lead to satisfaction in the communication (Downs, 1990). Similarly, research suggests that information from the supervisor and top

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 157

management are important in predicting job satisfaction (Goldhaber et al., 1978; Pincus et al., 1990) and employees willingness to par- ticipate in decision making processes (Heng, 1988). This research supports the notion that top management and supervisors play an important role in employee reactions to organizational communica- tion. However, information from top management and supervisors do not always have equal effects on employee reactions. Specifically, Putti et al. (1990) found that the strongest correlate of organiza- tional commitment was satisfaction in communication from top management as compared to communication from the supervisor. Together, the research suggests that quality information from both the supervisor and top management should relate to satisfaction in communication, and that the quality of information from top man- agement should be associated with greater satisfaction in commu- nication than quality of information from the supervisor. We hypothesized that:

H4: Quality of information from top management and the supervisor will predict satisfaction in communication about the job, company and business unit.

H5: Quality information from top management will be a stronger predictor of satisfaction in communication with the job, business unit and company, than will quality information from the supervisor.

According to media richness theory, rich media communicate more information and more cues which can be positively interpreted as con- veying openness. Rich media has the capacity to convey emotions and strength of feelings through facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, body language and eye contact (Trevino et al., 1990). Rich media offers the capability through facial expressions, voice, and two-way conversa- tion to convey positive expectations and intentions which build a sense of trust in the communicator. Trust has been described as the ‘‘psycholog- ical state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another’’ (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, p. 395). Individuals can use the visual and auditory cues conveyed via rich media to assess the consistency between the sender and message, which is important to establishing trust (McClelland, 1987). Given the ability of a rich medium to convey additional information such as sincerity, honesty, or trust, we explored the possibility that:

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY158

H6: Communication high on the rich continuum will be most strongly related to trust in management as compared to communi- cation low on the richness continuum.

Finally, at the present, there is a lack of research on urgent news. We, therefore, explored the relationship between urgent news and media richness to determine if the richness of the media made a difference in perceptions of the quality of urgent news. Given the sensitivity and personal relevance of urgent news, we anticipated that individuals would perceive urgent news of higher quality if it were received with cues that convey trust, accuracy, and sincerity, and was loaded with a lot of information to ensure clear interpretation of the message. We, thus hypothesized, based on media richness theory that:

H7: Rich media will be more strongly related to perceptions of the quality of urgent news than lean media.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 598 employees from the US based offices of a thriving high- technology oriented organization, whose corporate offices are in the western part of the United States, completed our communication survey. Of the 598 participants, 65% were male, 30% female, while 5% chose not to indicate their gender; 52.8% indicated they had been with the orga- nization between one and 5 years, 24% between 6 and 10 years; 24% reported being between 21 and 30 years of age, 31% reported between 31 and 40 years of age, and 26% reported being between 41 and 50 years of age. A total of 162 of the 598 participants managed at least one other individual, the rest were individual contributors with no management responsibility. No other demographic data were collected and the exact nature of the company was kept confidential to preserve the anonymity of the organization. The sample was chosen based on convenience and timing of an overall company survey, of which this communication sur- vey was part.

Overall company demographics were available and revealed that the survey participants represented similar percentages to that of the overall company. For example, for the study 65% of participants were male, while males make up 72% of the company as a whole; 53% of survey participants indicated tenure between one and 5 years and 56% of the company as a whole have tenure between one and 5 years.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 159

Measures

This study was embedded within a larger company survey. The overall instrument used in the company survey was an adaptation of the International Communication Association (ICA) Communication Audit Survey (Clampitt, 2000). Participants in this study completed a single survey measuring satisfaction with information received about their job, the company as a whole, and their business unit; satisfaction with multiple communication media (e.g., memos, company newsletter, face-to-face, email); perceived quality of information from the direct supervisor and top management; and trust in top management. In this organization, multiple methods of communication were used for the dif- ferent types of information, such that no one medium was used for any single message. Some, however, were used more extensively than others. For example, company information was most often shared via memos, the company newsletter, and email. In addition, we used perceptions of the timeliness and clarity of communication about urgent company news in order to assess perceptions of the quality of urgent news. All items were developed for the overall company survey.

Media were categorized into lean, moderate, and rich based on Daft and Lengel’s (1984) classification. Thus, written, non-electronic, non- interactive, routine messages were considered lean (i.e., employee newsletter, quarterly company-wide meetings, written memos and let- ters, site-wide meetings), somewhat interactive messages that lack the ability to exchange non-verbal cues were considered moderate (i.e., email, company intranet), while interactive messages which allow for the exchange of non-verbal cues and considered complex or fitting a partic- ular organizational context (i.e., typically more personally relevant) were considered rich (e.g., one-on-one meetings with the supervisor, tele- phone, department meetings). Although email is generally considered a lean medium, email was frequently used within the organization as a fast and interactive means for exchanging information, both complex and routine. Therefore, we determined that based on Markus (1994) and other research (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997) email in this study should be considered at least at a moderate level of medium richness.

Satisfaction with Information Satisfaction with information measures were all rated on a scale

from (1) very dissatisfied to (5) very satisfied. Instructions included ‘‘indicate your level of satisfaction with the information you receive about the following.’’ Satisfaction with the information received about the job (e.g., job duties, how performance is evaluated) was measured using a four item scale with an alpha coefficient of .74. Satisfaction with

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY160

information received about the company (e.g., financial status, products and programs, goals) as a whole was measured using 10 items obtaining an alpha coefficient of .84. Satisfaction with information about the business unit (e.g., this business unit) was measured using two items obtaining an alpha reliability coefficient of .72.

Satisfaction with Medium Four items, rated on a scale from (1) very dissatisfied to (5) very

satisfied, measured satisfaction with the lean communication medium achieving an alpha coefficient of .72. Satisfaction with the moderate communication medium was measured using a two-item scale with an alpha coefficient of .67. Satisfaction with the rich communication med- ium was measured using a three-item scale with an alpha coefficient of .66. Questions were preceded with ‘‘indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following communication channels.’’

Quality of Information To measure perceived quality of information we used a three item

scale asking about the timeliness of information, the accuracy of infor- mation (is it trustworthy and believable), and the usefulness of the information. These dimensions of quality of information have been used in prior research (Maltz, 2000; O’Reilly, 1982). Using the scale of three items each we specifically asked about quality of information from a particular source: supervisor (a = .90) and top management (a = .89), thus creating two scales of three items each. Participants provided rat- ings along a 5 point scale ranging from 1 to 5, where a higher score indicated a greater perceived quality in information received from supervisor and top management.

Trust in Top Management We measured trust in top management using a two item scale.

Participants provided ratings on a (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree response scale. Items included ‘‘I trust top management’’ and ‘‘Members of top management are sincere in their communications with employees.’’ We achieved an alpha coefficient of .90 on this scale.

Urgent News Urgent news was defined on the survey as ‘‘news that has an

immediate impact on you and/or the organization.’’ On a response scale of (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, we measured participants’ perceptions of the timeliness, accuracy, and clarity of communication of urgent news. We obtained an alpha coefficient of .82 on this three item scale.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 161

Because all measures were self-reported on a single survey, we assessed the independence of the measures by running confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using EQS version 5.7b (Bentler, 1995). The fol- lowing widely accepted fit indices were used to determine the fit of the data to the specified factor structure: (1) the v2 to degrees of freedom ratio (closer to 1 is better), (2) the normed fit index (NFI: above .90 is good), (3) the comparative fit index (CFI: above .90 is good), and (4) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: .05 or less is good). Hu and Bentler (1999) and Byrne (1994) offer full descriptions of the fit indices. Results revealed that a 10-factor solution (all study variables) fit the data (v2 = 1658.72 (582), NFI = .88, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .06) sig- nificantly better (Dv2 = 1843.26, Ddf = 42, p < .001) than a three-factor solution based on quality, satisfaction, and trust (v2 = 3501.93 (624), NFI = .75, CFI = .78, RMSEA = .09). These results indicated that we had independent measures, therefore we continued with the tests of our hypotheses.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliability estimates for all the variables. For all hypotheses, tests of the difference between partial betas for the same sample (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) were conducted to confirm that the differences were statistically significant. Statistically significant differences indicate whether one predictor plays a greater role over another in relating to the dependent variable (e.g., b1 > b2).

Hypothesis 1a and b. H1a stated that a rich medium would play the strongest role in satisfaction in information about the job and business unit, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a lean medium. Regression analyses using satisfaction in information about the job regressed on the three media revealed that the rich communication medium (b = .48, p < .01) played the greatest role (t(586) = 5.47, p < .01) in explaining satisfaction in information about the job (R2 = .31, F (3,586) = 100.64, p < .01), followed by the lean communication medium (b = .21, p < .01; DR2 = .03, p < .01), followed by the moderate medium (b = ).03, ns), which was not significant in explaining satisfaction in information about the job. Regression analyses using satisfaction in information about the business unit regressed on the three media showed that the rich communication medium (b = .31, p < .01) contributed the most (t(586) = 2.43, p < .05) towards explaining satisfaction in informa- tion about the business unit (R2 = .18, F (3,586) = 52.09, p < .01) as compared to the lean communication medium (b = .20, p < .01; DR2 = .03, p < .01), followed by the moderate medium (b = .01, ns). H1b stated that a

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY162

lean medium would play the strongest role in ratings of satisfaction in information about the company, followed by a moderate medium, fol- lowed by a lean medium. In support of our hypothesis, regression anal- yses using satisfaction in information about the company regressed on the three media showed that the lean communication medium (b = .47, p < .01) played the greatest role (t(586) = 6.03, p < .01) in explaining satisfaction in information about the company (R2 = .34, F(3,586) = 120.82, p < .01) followed by the rich communication medium (b = .19, p < .01; DR2 = .04, p < .01). The moderate medium did not sig- nificantly relate to satisfaction in information about the company (b = .06, ns). Thus, our results support hypothesis 1a and 1b.

Hypothesis 2a and b. H2a stated that a rich medium would play the strongest role in perceived quality of information from the supervisor, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a lean medium. Support for H2 was shown in the regression analyses using perceived quality of information from the supervisor regressed on the three media revealing that satisfaction in the rich communication medium (b = .57, p < .01) had the strongest relationship (t(584) = 9.04, p < .01) with perceived quality

Table 1 Study Variables Mean, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Alpha

Coefficients, N = 598

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Satisfaction in company-wide information

3.20 .57 (.84)

2 Satisfaction in business unit information

3.05 .79 .55 (.72)

3 Satisfaction in job related information

3.37 .68 .56 .44 (.74)

4 Lean communication medium

3.43 .76 .59 .35 .40 (.72)

5 Moderate communication medium

3.87 .77 .38 .27 .31 .48 (.67)

6 Rich communication medium

3.76 .72 .42 .42 .55 .43 .50 (.66)

7 Quality from supervisor 3.63 .93 .43 .35 .55 .38 .31 .62 (.90) 8 Quality from top

management 3.20 .85 .57 .42 .44 .49 .30 .32 .44 (.89)

9 Trust in management 3.16 .98 .56 .35 .47 .48 .32 .36 .44 .73 (.90) 10 Urgent News 3.38 .75 .55 .37 .43 .49 .37 .40 .52 .56 .58 (.86)

Note: All correlations are significant to p < .01. Alpha reliability coefficients appear in parentheses on the diagonal.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 163

in information from the supervisor (R2 = .38, F(3,584) = 129.89, p < .01), while satisfaction in the lean communication medium (b = .16, p < .01; DR2 = .02, p < .01) only accounted for an additional 2% of the variance in perceived quality in information received from the supervisor. The moderate communication medium (i.e., email, company intranet) did not relate to quality of information from the supervisor (b = ).04, ns). H2b stated that a lean medium would play the strongest role in perceived quality of information from top management, followed by a moderate medium, followed by a rich medium. In support of our hypothesis, regression analyses using perceived quality of information from top management regressed on the three media showed that the lean com- munication medium (b = .42, p < .01) contributed the most to explaining perceived quality in information from top management (R2 = .24; F (3,583) = 66.81, p < .01; t(583) = 5.89, p < .01) followed by the rich com- munication medium (b = .12, p < .01; DR2 = .01, p < .01). The moderate medium was not significant (b = .04, ns). The addition of the rich com- munication medium only added an additional 1% to the variance accounted for in perceived quality in information from top management.

Hypothesis 3. H3, which stated that trust in management would be positively related to (a) satisfaction in information about the job, com- pany and business unit; and (b) perceived quality of information from top management and the supervisor, was supported. In three separate regression equations, results showed that trust in management was positively related to satisfaction in information about the company (b = .56, p < .01; F(1,586) = 268.05, p < .01; R2 = .31), the business unit (b = .35, p < .01; F(1,586) = 83.23, p < .01; R2 = .12), and the job (b = .47, p < .01; F(1,586) = 169.61, p < .01; R2 = .22). Regression results showed that trust in management was related to perceptions of quality of information from top management (b = .73, p < .01; F(1,585) = 675.45, p < .01; R2 = .54) accounting for 54% of the variance accounted for in perceptions of quality from top management. Finally, trust in manage- ment was related to perceptions of quality of information from the supervisor, as well (b = .44, p < .01; F(1,585) = 141.77, p < .01; R2 = .20).

Hypothesis 4 and 5. H4 stated that quality of information from top management and the supervisor would predict satisfaction in commu- nication about the company, job and business unit. We found from regression analyses using satisfaction in information about the company regressed on quality of information from top management and the supervisor showed that quality of information from top management (b = .48) and the supervisor (b = .22) predicted satisfaction in informa- tion about the company (F(2, 584) = 166.35, p < .01, R2 = .36). Similarly, regression analyses using satisfaction in information about the job re- gressed on quality of information from top management and from the supervisor showed that quality of information from top management

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY164

(b = .25) and the supervisor (b = .44) was related to satisfaction in information about the job (F(2, 584) = 159.99, p < .01, R2 = .35). And lastly, quality of information from top management (b = .32) and the supervisor (b = .21) were positively related to satisfaction in information about the business unit (F(2, 584) = 77.02, p < .01, R2 = .21). These results showed support for H4. H5 stated that quality information from top management would be a stronger predictor of satisfaction in com- munication than quality of information from the supervisor. For each of three forms of satisfaction in information (company, business unit, job), quality of information from top management and from the supervisor were both entered into the regression equation. Our results supported our hypothesis for satisfaction in information about the company (b = .48 for top management and b = .22 for supervisor, t(585) = 6.65, p < .01) and business unit (b = .32 for top management and b = .21 for supervisor, t(585) = 2.66, p < .01), but not for information about the job (b = .25 for top management and b = .44 for supervisor, t(585) = 5.03, p < .01); thus, H5 was only partially supported.

Hypothesis 6. H6, which stated that communication high on the rich continuum would be most strongly related to trust in management as compared to communication low on the richness continuum, was not supported. Our results of regression analyses with trust in top man- agement regressed on satisfaction in rich, moderate, and lean media showed that satisfaction in the lean media was more strongly related to trust in top management (b = .38, p < .01; F(3,584) = 68.29, p < .01; R2 = .23) than satisfaction in the rich media (b = .17, p < .01; t(584) = 4.12, p < .01), followed by moderate (b = .06, ns).

Hypothesis 7. Exploratory regression analyses using perceived quality of urgent news regressed on satisfaction in the rich, moderate, and lean media showed that satisfaction in the lean communication medium explained the most variance in the perceived quality of urgent news (b = .36, p < .01; R2 = .24, p < .01, F(3,585) = 79.14, p < .01). The rich communication medium added an additional 4% to the variance ac- counted for in perceived quality of urgent news (b = .20, p < .01; DR2 = .04, p < .01), followed by moderate (b = .10, p < .01; DR2 = .01, p < .05). The difference in betas between the rich and lean medium was significant (t(582) = 3.15, p < .01), as was the difference between moder- ate and lean (r(582) = 5.14, p < .01). However, the difference in betas between rich and moderate was not significant (t(582) = 1.87, ns).

DISCUSSION

The results of our study showed that employees derived most of their satisfaction with the information they received about their job from rich

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 165

communication channels such as face-to-face meetings with their bosses, phone conversations, and departmental meetings. Lean communication mechanisms such as the quarterly meetings, the employee newsletter, or written memos and notices contributed a small addition to their satis- faction level in information about their jobs. Email and the intranet (moderate communication mechanism) contributed nothing in addition to the rich and lean media. Similar results were shown for satisfaction with information about the business unit. When employees are consid- ering their satisfaction with information that is directly relevant to them, it seems that the data supplied by the cues of rich communication are important.

We found the opposite results for information about the company. Employees were more satisfied with information about the company when it was delivered via lean communication media as compared to rich media. These findings seem to contradict the notion of management-by- walking-around, where face-to-face communication is encouraged. As suggested by media richness theory, however, our results may be because company information does not immediately affect individual employees and thus they feel more removed from this information. Hence, they prefer that it be delivered via lean media so that they can attend to it when convenient and have the data in writing to refer to more than once. This kind of communication (e.g., memos, newsletters, company-wide meetings) requires little interaction and exchange on the part of the employee; it usually involves learning about the company rather than discussing a critical decision that has an effect on the company. Thus, when receiving information that is not directly relevant to them, employees do not need the additional data supplied by visual cues, such as facial expressions, to be satisfied. In order to clarify our results, future research should examine the factors inherent in the functioning of an organization that set up the context within which communication using lean and rich media takes place.

When considering the quality of information received from their supervisor, employees’ indicated that rich media was best. That is, employees rated their perceived quality of information higher when it was received via a rich medium as compared to a lean medium. Based on recent research in the computer-mediated communication literature (El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1997; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997), we anticipated that moderate media (i.e., email) would relate to perceived quality of information. On the contrary, perceived quality of information from either the supervisor or top management was not related to the moderate medium (e.g., email, intranet). Perceptions of quality of information from the supervisor were more strongly related to satisfaction in rich media than lean media. For the quality of information received from top management, we found that the lean communication

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY166

medium accounted for employees’ ratings more than the rich communi- cation medium.

There may be a few possible explanations for our findings. We believe our results might be explained by employees’ expectations for communications about the company as a whole. Employees may expect messages delivered by top management to be via formal written memos and at quarterly meetings, even though the organization we studied used both lean and rich media for communication from top management. It seems that many global or geographically dispersed organizations use the lean medium to communicate company-wide information, while the rich medium is used for more locally pertinent information. Although we did not test this proposition regarding expectations, it seems logical that this might explain the results. Future research could examine the expectations hypothesis more directly to determine if met expectations for communication medium contribute to perceptions of quality of information from top management versus supervisors. Another expla- nation may be that because top management are often not in a position to communicate globally via rich media and tend to rely more on lean media to reach all employees, their messages are more carefully crafted when shared via lean media than rich because they know the message is going to the entire company and one can edit the message. Carefully crafted messages require more time to create than rich media typically allow.

Our results support the research that trust in top management is important in communication. Specifically, we found that trust in top management was related to quality of information received from top management and the supervisor, and this related to satisfaction in information about the company, business unit and job. We further showed that satisfaction in lean media was more strongly related to trust in top management than rich media. Again, we suspect that expectations or norms for how information should be communicated by different sources may explain these findings, since media richness theory would suggest that rich media should be more strongly related to trust in top management.

Urgent company news delivered via the lean medium accounted for a reasonable portion of employees’ satisfaction with the quality of urgent news received, and more than either the lean or moderate media. This is contrary to what we anticipated. It might be that because urgent news is typically more complex, requiring detailed supporting information, employees see lean media as more clear and accurate in delivering urgent news. Putting figures or critical information into writing means that it must be accurate or individuals will misinterpret the urgent news. In addition, perceptions of quality may be higher with the lean medium because the information that is shared is done so via a medium that allows for repeated review. Future research might extend these findings

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 167

by considering whether the specific kind of urgent news that is delivered makes a difference. For example, in today’s climate of risky business and unethical accounting practices, perhaps urgent news about stock prices or quarterly results would be perceived differently than urgent news regarding a change in management structure. In our study, we did not specify the type of urgent news that participants should rate.

One could suggest that our media categorization was inappropri- ate based on mixed research results suggesting that email can some- times be rich or sometimes lean. For the most part, in this study we found that moderately rich media (i.e., email and intranet) had no significant effects on satisfaction with communication or perceived quality of communication. Therefore, we tested our hypotheses using email as a rich medium given the pervasive use of email in this organization and the norm for using email. The results of our regression analyses were the same for each hypothesis, though the beta weights varied slightly (which is to be expected with a change in number of predictors). Thus, there were no changes to the study findings as a result of rerunning the regressions using two media categories, rich and lean.

Limitation and Strengths

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Because all our measures were collected on a single self-report survey, common method variance (CMV) may have inflated or reduced (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) the relationships found between variables examined in this study. Although we did attempt to determine the independence of all measures a priori, this does not rule out the possibility of CMV effects. In an effort to assess CMV, we used the pro- cedures mapped out by Lindell and Whitney (2001). Our analyses re- vealed that CMV does not reasonably account for the correlations between all the independent variables and satisfaction in the information about the company or quality of information from top management. However, we did not find the same for our other dependent variables. For satisfaction in the information about the business unit, three of six cor- relations could not be reasonably accounted for by CMV. For satisfaction in the information about the job and quality of information from the supervisor, all but one correlation out of ten could not be accounted for by CMV. For urgent news as the dependent variable, all but one of three correlations could not be accounted for by CMV (details on these analyses can be obtained from the first author). When considering that self-report bias seems to depend on the nature of the construct, employee charac- teristics (i.e., dispositional tendencies), and situational pressures

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY168

(Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002), our survey should not have elicited much self-report bias. Specifically, our questions did not ask about per- sonally sensitive topics, socially undesirable behaviors, and there was no situational pressure to respond with socially desirable answers (Don- aldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). From this we conclude that although we cannot statistically rule out common method bias or self-report bias (may still creep in due to dispositional characteristics), we believe that the influence is most likely minimal.

Our study was one of convenience and therefore we lack the mea- sures required for testing alternative explanations. Furthermore, two of the reliability estimates were below .70, which is the recommended minimum for research purposes (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The cross-sectional nature of the sample is also a weakness in that perhaps older workers may perceive communications via the rich and lean med- ium differently than younger workers. However, we ran post-hoc anal- yses of variance and found no differences between age groups on their perceptions of the lean and rich communication channels. There may, perhaps, be other relationships we are unable to test due the cross- sectional nature of the sample.

Although the study does have the limitations mentioned above, we believe that it still makes a valuable contribution. Given that technol- ogy is such a powerful source of communication in today’s companies, research such as our study is necessary and surprisingly scarce in the literature. We found very few studies examining the satisfaction in information within organizations using various media, or the relation- ship of various media with satisfaction in information, and therefore this study takes a first step towards addressing a gap in the business communication literature. Furthermore, our study contributes to our understanding of the quality of information perceived by employees who are on the receiving end of these organizational communications delivered via different media. With the rapid growth of company in- tranets and electronic forms of communication, especially in today’s geographically dispersed company landscape, the examination of the relationships between the use of alternative media and employees attitudes (in this case satisfaction and perceived quality) becomes critical; thus, our study is timely. We also examined a hot topic in businesses today, that of urgent news, which heretofore does not appear to have been studied. Our study involved a large field sample in an organization that heavily uses a variety of communication media, lending to the generalizability of the findings to other similar busi- nesses. Finally, we studied an organization which used a variety of media for communication of a variety of information enabling us to adequately test our hypothesis in a field setting.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 169

Practical Implications and Conclusion

The practical implications of our findings suggest that organizations may use the lean medium for sharing information about the company to the satisfaction of employees. Supervisors should share job relevant information with employees in one-on-one meetings or via the phone, since communication of job related information via a rich medium was more highly related to satisfaction in the information than when it was shared via a lean medium. Information from top management is per- ceived as accurate, timely, and useful (i.e., quality) when delivered via a lean communication medium, thus top management need not worry about having to meet everyone in person to ensure their messages are perceived with high quality. In contrast, information from supervisors is perceived as higher quality when delivered via a rich medium, and therefore, supervisors may want to consider using rich media more than lean. This might be particularly important given that many organiza- tions use a 360-degree rating system for managers’ performance appraisals, where quality of communication is assessed.

Urgent company news is perceived as quality information when sent via the lean medium, which for many organizations is a plus given that the sharing of urgent news via lean media may be one of the only ways to reach employees, especially those who are geographically dispersed, at the same time and in a timely manner. Finally, trust in top management affects perceived quality of information from both top management and the immediate supervisor, implying that managers at all levels should concern themselves with how top management is perceived. The per- ceptions of trust in top management are not just an issue for top man- agement; immediate supervisors should also be concerned since trust in top management is related to the perceived quality of information from supervisors. Our suggestions should, of course, be considered in light of our study limitations.

In terms of theory, it has not been previously theorized or shown that using different media for organizational communication will relate to individuals’ perceptions of satisfaction with the communication or perceptions of quality of information shared. Our results suggest that how we form perceptions of satisfaction in information may be related to the technology used to transmit the information, and not on the content of the message alone or on the qualities of the sender. Communication is a complex area and using alternative media for communication adds to the complexity. Furthermore, urgent news has not been introduced in theory and should be as the communication of urgent news presents much stress on an organization and the employees.

In summary, our study is important because while much is known about the categorization of media and media choice, little research has

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY170

been done to investigate the relationship between various media on employees’ satisfaction in the information, or on their perceptions of quality of the information shared. In addition, our study appears to be a first to examine perceptions of quality of urgent news (i.e., news about changes in business and generally considered legally sensitive material). As organizations rely on a variety of ways of getting information to their employees, and managers depend on faster and more efficient means for communication, the need to investigate the effects of alternative com- munication media on the intended receivers is critical. Satisfaction in communication and the perceived quality of information communicated have been shown to have substantial effects on productivity, performance and employee attitudes; therefore, our findings of the relationship be- tween various media and these variables should be considered a valuable contribution. More research in this area is clearly needed, especially in the area of urgent news. We hope that our introduction of urgent news will invite other researchers to study this important topic, such that more information becomes available to organizations on how to dissem- inate urgent news so that it meets the needs of both the organization and employees.

REFERENCES

Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communicator style and managerial performance in complex organizations: A field study. Journal of Business Communi- cation, 19, 51–76.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS for Windows 5.7b. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic

concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. III (1982). Boundary spanning and individual perfor-

mance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124–127. Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of

media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170. Chiarella V. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980). Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between

communication and productivity: A field study. The Journal of Business Communica- tion, 30, 5–28.

Clampitt, P. G. (2000). The questionnaire approach. In O. Hargie, & D. Tourish (Eds.), Handbook of communication audits for organisations. London, England: Routledge.

Cohen, A. R. (1958). Upward communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 11, 41–53.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Daft, R. L., (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. New York, NY: The Dryden Press. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial

information processing and organization design. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organi- zational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245–260.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 171

Downs, T. M. (1990). Predictors of communication satisfaction during performance appraisal interviews. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 334–354.

Downs, C. W., & Hain, T. (1982). Communication and productivity. In M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication yearbook (pp. 435–471). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63–73.

Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P., & Pfeiffer, A. (1988). Communication and organizational out- comes. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communi- cation (pp. 171–121). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

El-Shinnawy, M. M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 443–467.

Glazier, R. (1991). Marketing in information-intensive environments: Strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1–19.

Goldhaber, G. M., Porter, D. T., Yates, M. P., & Lesniak, R. (1978). Organizational com- munication: 1978 (state of the art). Human Communications Research, 5, 76–96.

Gregson, T. (1990). Communication satisfaction: A path analytic study of accountants affiliated with CPA firms. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2, 32–49.

Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of increased information: A follow-up study. The Journal of Business Communication, 39, 414–436.

Heng, T. H. (1988). Management communication and employee job satisfaction: A study of a semi-government agency in Singapore. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Model- ing, 6, 1–55.

Huber, G. P., & Daft, R. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Insider Trading and Tipping. (n.d.) Retrieved September 29, 2003, from http:// www.genesismanagers.com/GUM_CI.nsf/DOC/ChapterIT.html.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 86, 1201–1222.

Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill. Academy of Management Review, 2, 225–232.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross- sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.

Maltz, E. (2000). Is all communication created equal? An investigation into the effects of communication mode on perceived information quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 110–127.

Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527.

McClelland, V. (1987). Mixed signals breed mistrust. Personnel Journal, 66, 24–27. Moenaert, R. K. & Souder, W. E. (1996). Context and antecedents of information utility at

the R&D/marketing interface. Management Science, 42, 1592–1611. Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational

climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 592–807. Mueller, B. H., & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational communi-

cation satisfaction in multiple contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 220– 244.

Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21, 145–167.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Reilly, C. A. III, (1982). Variations in decision maker’s use of information sources: The

impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 756–771.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY172

O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Roberts, K. (1977). Group structure, communication and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 674–681.

Orpen, C. (1997). The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. The Journal of Psychology, 131, 519– 522.

Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991). Communication abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management, 17, 57–76.

Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communication Research, 12, 395–419.

Pincus, J. D., Knipp, J. E., & Rayfield, R. E. (1990). Internal communication and job sat- isfaction revisited: The impact of organizational trust and influence of commercial bank supervisors. In J. Grunig & L. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (pp. 173–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., & Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 44–52.

Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 3–15.

Redding, W. C. (1977). Organization communication theory and ideology: An overview. In D. Nimmo (Eds.), Communication yearbook III (pp. 309–341). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Rice, R. E. (1994). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organizational Science, 3, 502–527.

Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

Ruch, R. S., & Goodman, T. (1983). Image at the top. New York: The Free Press. Snyder, R. A., & Morris, J. H. (1984). Organizational communication and performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 461–465. Starbuck, W. H., Greve, A., & Hedberg, B. L. (1978). Responding to crisis. Journal of

Business Communications, 9, 112–137. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 US 438 (1976). Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding manager’s media choices:

A symbolic interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 71–94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Verona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 111–140.

Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organization communication (pp. 97–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Young, M., & Post, J. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 31–33.

Zmud, R. (1978). An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the concept of infor- mation. Decision Sciences, 9, 187–195.

Z. S. BYRNE AND E. LEMAY 173