THE LINK BETWEEN COMMUNICATION AND FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE IN SIMULATED ORGANIZATIONAL TEAMS

Johnston Michelle Kirtley, Reed Kendra, Lawrence Kate, Onken Marina
Pub Data: 12/22/2007
Name: Journal of Managerial Issues
Publisher: Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics
Audience: Academic; Trade
Format: Magazine/Journal
Subject: Business; Human resources and labor relations
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics
ISSN: 1045-3695
Issue:
Date: Winter, 2007 Source Volume: 19 Source Issue: 4
Product Code: 9915100 Financial Management; 9915500 Financial Systems &
Controls
Numrul de aderare:
173229708
Full Text:
Munca n echip sincronizate, susinut de un mediu de comunicare sntos, este un
mijloc primar de care deciziile organizatorice sunt fcute, strategia este dezvoltat, iar
performana este msurat (Miller, 2003). Cu toate acestea, pur i simplu prezen a a
programelor de infrastructur de comunicare i angajailor pentru a promova abilitatile de
comunicare nu va garanta o comunicare de succes i succesul organizaional ulterioare
(Luthans i Sommers, 2005). Pettit i colab. (1997) au cerut n mod expres de cercetare care
se concentreaz pe relaiile dintre comunicare i rezultatele organizaionale cantitative. n mod
surprinztor, avnd n vedere cantitatea enorm de resurse i atenie acordat mbunt irii
aptitudinilor de comunicare, foarte puin comunicare link-uri de cercetare empirice de msuri
de performan financiar la nivel organizaional. cercetare n domeniul comunicrii a
investigat legtura dintre comunicare i rezultatele de performan de locuri de munc
(Pincus, . 1986), angajamentul organizaional (Putti et al, 1990; Varona, 1996), productivitatea
(Clampitt i Downs, 1993), i satisfacia de locuri de munc (Pettit i colab, 1997;. Pincus,
1986). Cu toate acestea, pic de cercetare link-uri modul n care comunicarea face organiza iile
mai mult succes n termeni de performan financiar. Acest studiu ncearc s umple golul

prin furnizarea de cercetri empirice cu privire la impactul de comunicare asupra succesului

financiar organizaional. La examinarea rezultatelor la nivel de organizare, nivelul de
satisfacie trebuie s fac distincia ntre interaciunile la nivel diadica fa de echipa - o
problem care confund nelegere curent ( Hecht, 1978a). Rezultate organizaionale nu deriv
din schimbul ntre o simpla doi angajati, ci mai degrab de comunicare interactiv de fiecare
angajat cu un grup de alte persoane. Astfel, un relativ nou construct de satisfactie
Communication Group surprinde reacia emoional a membrilor spre / interaciune sale n
cadrul unui grup de lucru n ceea ce privete gradul n care acesta i-a ndeplinit sau nu a
ndeplinit lui / ateptrile sale cu privire la comunicare (adaptat de la Hecht, 1978a ; Kirtley
Johnston et al, 2000).. Cercetatorii sustin ca membrii echipei "(dez) satisfac ia n legtur cu
natura i coninutul de comunicare poate potential deraieze / spori rezultatele organizatorice
(Downs, 1988; Gray i Laidlaw, 2004). Teoria categorizarea social sugereaz c percep iile
membru de performan caracteristici de grup grup de influen ( Abrams i Hogg, 1999;
Hogg si Terry, 2000; Tajfel i Turner, 1991). Caracteristicile percepute ale membrilor grupului
pot influena satisfacia cu comunicarea de grup. Studiile empirice arat c oamenii au
tendina de a evalua indicii de informare de la proprii lor membri de grup ca fiind corect
(Turner, 1991) i extrem de relevant (Mackie et al., 1992). Oamenii au tendina de a considera
membri ai propriei lor categorii sociale sunt mai atractive pe dimensiunile relevante pentru
grup; de exemplu, contabili tind s cred c cei mai muli contabili sunt inteligente (Abrams i
Hogg, 1999). . Vznd alii ca valoare atractiv sau adugarea ar putea facilita schimbul de idei
i opinii i de a crete gradul de satisfactie Comunicare Acest studiu analizeaz caracteristicile
grupului atractivitate, Eterogenitatea, i satisfacie Communication Group pe profit i
exploreaz urmtoarele ntrebri de cercetare:
Percepiile 1 Do membrilor echipei de satisfctoare Communication Group
performan grup de impact? 2. Ce rol procesele de grup joac n rela ia dintre satisfac ie de
comunicare i de profit? 3. Ce caracteristici grup influena satisfactie Communication Group?
Grupa de satisfactie Comunicare Communication Group Satisfacia se refer la satisfacia sau
nemulumirea rezult din interaciunea social n cadrul unui grup de lucru (Hecht, 1978a;.
Kirtley Johnston et al, 2000). Cnd ateptrile membrilor grupurilor de lucru "n ceea ce
privete stilul relaional, n care responsabilitile i recompense sisteme le sunt comunicate,
se simt mulumii cu mediul de comunicare. Studiile sugereaza ca factorii de organizare pot
influena gradul de satisfacie care comunicarea este experimentat: programele de lucru
flexibile, calitatea de schimb lider-membru, i structura organizatoric sunt factori

determinani aparente (Walther, 1988). Satisfacia de comunicare, de asemenea, variaz n

funcie de ceea ce a dispoziiilor individuale (de exemplu, prietenie, aten ie, i alte-afirmarea
de comunicare), team i singurtate (Anderson i Martin, 1995; Duran i Zakahi, 1987,
Rubin i Rubin, 1989; Ralston, 1993) , precum i motive (de exemplu, pentru a scpa, pentru
a controla) i stilul personal (Anderson i Martin, 1995; Rubin et al, 1988;. Ralston, 1993).
Rezultatele legate de satisfacie Comunicare n fora de munc includ "evaluare i
supraveghetori de angajai evaluare a sinelui i a productivitii celuilalt (Clampitt i Downs,
1993), satisfacia de locuri de munc (Pettit i colab, 1997;. Pincus, 1986), performan a de
locuri de munc (Pincus , 1986), i angajamentul organizaional (Putti et al, 1990;.. Varona,
1996) [Figura 1 omise] Mai exact cercetarea noastr propune ca satisfactia Communication
Group, prin procesele de grup, impactul rezultatelor organizaionale, cum opera ionalizat de
rezultatele financiare. n plus, ne propunem ca satisfactia de comunicare este influen at de
caracteristica grup de atractivitate (vezi Figura 1 pentru un model complet de cercetare).
procesele de grup i financiar performan procesele de grup cuprinde o varietate de
comportamente colective i interdependente n care membrii grupului angajeaz. Cercetare
contemporan considerabil ncearc s clarifice rolul acestor procese la nivel micro asupra
procesului i organizare rezultate de nivel superior. Planificarea (Sy et al., 2005), de luare a
deciziilor (Druckman, 2003), coordonarea i comunicarea (Lester et al., 2002), de consolidare
a ncrederii i schimbul de informaii (Burgoon et al., 2000) reprezint doar o parte din
procesele de a fi studiate. Cercetrile arat c procesele de planificare a clarifica direc ia de
echipa, coordona sarcinile membre, i de a crea echipa coeziune spre un scop comun.
Claritatea obiectivelor de proiect pot avea impact la nivel de lucru n echip (Hong et al,
2004.). Comunicarea eficient i schimbul de informaii poate facilita claritate scop. Iniiative
de calitate de succes necesit, de asemenea, un efort de grup pentru a identifica legtura dintre
atributele de consum i specificaii (Ozgener, 2003). Echipele de proiect care gestioneaz
procesele lor de grup pentru a dezvolta obiective de cooperare au reflexivitate mai mare i
inovare (Tjosvold et al., 2004). n plus, sarcina de coeziune provine de la reunirea scopurilor
grupului i cultivarea cooperrii ntre membrii (Carron i Spink, 1995; Bertunek et al, 1996.).
ntr-un studiu de utilizare a managementului prin obiective pentru echipele de
autoreglementare, obiectivele de grup pozitiv legate de productivitate grup i satisfacia de
locuri de munc, dar cu medierea efectele altor procese de grup cu privire la relaia dintre
obiective i satisfacie (Antoni, 2005). planificare echip eficient i coordonare duce la
decizii de grup, aciuni i rezultate. Lester, Meglino i Korsgaard (2002) a examina efectul de
procesele de grup de lucru cu privire la evoluia potenta grup i performan a de grupuri de

lucru. Ele definesc potenta grup ca credina colectiv a unui grup care poate fi eficient (Guzzo
i Shea, 1992; Shea i Guzzo, 1987). Procesele de grup de comunicare i cooperare cu privire
la potenta mai mare i performane ulterior auto-au raportat mai mare (Lester et al., 2002). De
asemenea, n acest studiu, cercetatorii au identificat conducere ca un proces de grup, care ar
spori performana de grup, oferind un model de rol i indicii de comportament. n mod
inevitabil, un conflict apare atunci cand diverse persoane trebuie s decid pe un singur sens
de grup. n timp ce grupul progreseaz spre un scop, de natura a deciziilor schimb de la
responsabiliti i termene de formatare i prezentri. Procesul de soluionare a conflictului de
grupuri de nalt performan evolueaz, de asemenea, n timp ncepe i se termin cu legate
de sarcin de conflict mai mare la nceputul i la sfritul sarcinii de grup (Jehn i Mannix,
2001). Astfel, procese eficiente de grup orientate spre aciune conduce la o performan mai
mare grup. n plus, Burgoon et al. (2000) au demonstrat c gradul n care utilizatorii percep
ridicat de interactivitate n strns legtur cu modul n care utilizatorii pozitiv judeca
credibilitatea i atractivitatea partenerilor lor. n plus, aceste evaluri se refer puternic la
influena partener, calitate decizie, i schimbul de informaii exacte. n multe interaciuni
interpersonale i de grup, membrii grupului sper s realizeze ceea ce privete reciproc unul
pentru altul contribuabili ca competente, de ncredere, de ncredere, atractive i utile (Bales,
1970). n msura n care o mai mare implicare i reciprocitate duc la hotrri favorabile de
credibilitate i atractivitate, ele pot promova rezultate, cum ar fi o mai mare productivitate, de
luare a deciziilor mai bine i mai bun nelegere a mesajelor care sunt schimbate. Pe scurt,
activitile colective care cuprind procesele de grup, fcut n mod efectiv i eficient, impact
rezultate organizaionale. Ca urmare, prima noastr ipotez este dup cum urmeaz: Ipoteza 1:
Procesele de grup sunt legate pozitiv de performan financiar. Satisfacia Communication
Group i Grupul proceselor de satisfactie de comunicare a fost legata de productivitate
(Clampitt i Downs, 1993) i angajamentul organizaional (Varona, 1996 ). Recent, Johlke i
Duhan (2001) a constatat c oamenii de vnzri care sunt fericii cu mediul de comunicare
ntre parteneri tind sa fie extrem de angajamentul de a organizaiei i au tendin a de a raporta
satisfactie de locuri de munc. Acest rezultat este cel mai probabil s apar atunci cnd
managerii se angajeaz s construiasc i meninerea unui mediu de comunicare bidirectionala de nalt calitate n cadrul fortei de vanzari. n plus, Burgoon et al. (2000) a
examinat modul interactiv de comunicare n timpul sarcini de colaborare se refer la judec i
cu privire la parteneri i la sarcin rezultate. Ei au descoperit c gradul n care participan ii
perceput mare interactivitate - reflectate n indicatorii de implicare interaciune i un construct
multidimensional numit reciprocitate - a fost puternic legate de modul pozitiv n care judeca i

credibilitatea i atractivitatea partenerilor lor. n plus, aceste evaluri n strns legtur cu

influena partener, calitate decizie, i schimbul de informaii exacte. Studiul lor ofera
perspective in ce mai multe interfee uneori facilita i uneori afecta comunicarea de grup i
realizrile. Acest studiu propune ca comunicare permite grupurilor s lucreze mai eficient
mpreun, care este n concordan cu cercetrile recente. Andres (2006) sugereaz c modul
de comunicare de grup (de exemplu, fa-n-fa vs videoconferine) impactul proceselor de
grup Echipa virtuale (de exemplu orientare n echip, schimbul de volumul de munc,
tendin de a cuta i de schimb de informaii). Mai degrab dect modul de comunicare,
studiul nostru examineaz o alt dimensiune a construciei de comunicare de grup. Mai exact,
vom examina satisfacie cu dinamica schimb grup. Cu alte cuvinte, membrii grupului care se
pot exprima, se simt ascultat i bucurai-v de schimb verbal va efectua mai eficient sarcinile
interdependente sau procesele necesare pentru a obine rezultate de grup. Avnd n vedere
aceste constatri, putem emite ipoteza c exist o relaie pozitiv ntre satisfac ia unui individ
cu comunicarea grupului i procese eficiente n grupuri mici. . Noastre state ipoteza secunde
acest Ipoteza 2:. Satisfacia Communication Group impact pozitiv asupra proceselor de grup
mediator Efectul Grupa Procese rezultatelor organizaionale rezult din aciuni, nu cuvinte.
Impactul satisfactie Communication Group privind performana financiar are loc prin
activiti de grup pentru comunicare permite aciune i de coordonare a eforturilor echipei.
Astfel, gradul de satisfacie Communication Group nu are un impact direct asupra
performanei financiare, ci mai degrab influena se transmite prin procesele de grup. Mai
exact, se propune urmtoarea ipotez. Ipoteza 3: procesele de grup media rela ia dintre
satisfacie Communication Group i performana financiar, astfel nct variaia n Financial
Performance explicat de satisfacie Group nu va exista dup ndeprtarea variana explicat de
procesele de grup. Group Eterogenitatea Noi define perceput Group Eterogenitatea ca gradul
n care un individ percepe alii din grup s fie diferit de ei nii (adaptat de la Polzer, Milton,
i Swann (2002)). Un grup eterogen, cum ar fi un grup de lucru, este frecvent compus din
indivizi cu diferite educaie, din diferite funcii de organizare (de exemplu, de marketing,
resurse umane), sau cu diferite perioade de posesiune organizatoric. Diversitate Group "d
natere la idei variate, perspective, cunotine i abiliti care pot mbunti grup de rezolvare
a problemelor i eficacitate" (Polzer et al, 2002:. 301). Acest efect este valabil mai ales atunci
cnd membrii grupului mprtesc obiective i valori comune. Culturile care ncurajeaz
diversitatea grup trimite un semnal la membrii care membrii sunt aprecia i i respecta i ca
membri ai unor grupuri de identitate individuale (Ely i Thomas, 2001). Acest rezultat se
produce prin norma de reciprocitate interpersonale:. Oameni care primesc informaii i resurse

ntr-un mod agreabil sunt susceptibile de a returna contravaloarea Studii anterioare au

examinat Grupa Eterogenitatea n termeni de ras i etnie, cu rezultate mixte. (Chatman si
Flynn, 2001;. Martins et al, 2003) Alte studii s-au concentrat pe o informare, categorie social,
i perspectiva de valoare (Jehn, Northcraft i Neale, 1999). Am s contribuie la literatura de
specialitate, prin examinarea Grupa Eterogenitatea nu pe baza de datele demografice, valori,
sau informaii, ci pe baza competenelor i medii, care foarte puine cercetri au examinat.
Concentrandu-se pe abilitile fa de caracteristicile mai puin tangibile, examinarea noastr
de legturi hetereogeneity mai atent la comportamentele withingroup care s promoveze
satisfacia de comunicare. Dei clasificare social este folosit pentru a apra afirmaia c
diversitatea prezice consecine negative, inclusiv nemulumire, un studiu recent de Polzer,
Milton, i Swann (2002) sugereaz c impactul asupra diversit ii proceselor de grup pot fi
atenuate atunci cnd exist congruen puternic interpersonale - adic, starea n care indivizii
caracteristici care sunt foarte apreciate n cadrul unui grup social. Prin urmare, putem emite
ipoteza c Group Eterogenitatea are o influen pozitiv asupra satisfaciei Communication
Group. A declarat n mod oficial, a patra ipoteza noastr este dup cum urmeaz: Ipoteza 4:
Grupul Eterogenitatea este legat pozitiv de satisfactie Communication Group. Grupa
Attraction Attraction Group este definit ca "orice orientare direct (din partea unei persoane
fata de alta), care pot fi descrise n termeni de semn (+ sau -) i intensitate "(adaptat de la
Newcomb, 1961: 6). Teoria categorizarea social sugereaz c oamenii au tendina de a
evalua propriul lor grup de atractiv (Abrams i Hogg, 1999). In studiul lor a explora legtura
dintre identitatea social i de performan de grup, Ellemers, De Gilder si Haslam (2004)
susin c, chiar i atunci cnd oamenii se identifice ca membrii grupului i sunt motivai s- i
exercite efort din partea grupului, modul n care comportamentul lor va fi de fapt Directed
depinde de caracteristicile sociale contextuale, i va determina dac este sau nu de
imbunatatire a performantelor colective pare realizabil sau chiar de dorit. Cercetatorii au
examinat relatia dintre variabilele de comunicare i atractivitatea grup. Persoanele care
prezint comportamente asociate cu un stil de deschidere moderat sau mare sunt percepute ca
fiind mai atractive dect sunt cei care manifest comportamente compatibile cu un stil de lowdeschidere de comunicare (Montgomery, 1986). Pe lng stilurile de comunicaii, alte stiluri
de comportament, cum ar fi expunerea mare interes i de nalt detaliere sunt asociate cu
atractivitatea interpersonale n cadrul unui grup mic (McCroskey i colab., 1974). Satisfac ia
de comunicare tinde s apar printre prieteni, mai mult dect n rndul cunoscu ilor i strini
(Gudykunst i Shapiro, 1996), i cantiti mai mari de personalness percepute, sincron, i
uurina de dificultate conduce satisfacie a comunicrii interculturale (Gudykunst et al, 1987;.

Chen i Isa , 2003). Doherty i Carron (2003) sublinia importanta a grupului ca ntreg atunci
cnd vine vorba de satisfactia membrilor comisiei ", cu implicarea lor, inten ia de a rmne cu
comitet lor, i percepia de eficacitate comitet. n cele din urm, n arena de cercetare
organizaional, GS Van der Vegt (2002) a sugerat c membrii grupului care sunt foarte
integrai social cu altul, indiferent de cantitatea de timp n care membrii petrece mpreun, au
tendina de a mprti satisfacia fa de locul lor de munc. colectiv, aceste studii sugereaza
ca atractivitatea grup este asociat in mod pozitiv cu comunicare satisfac ie. interac iune Grupa
Atractivitatea netezeste, deoarece oamenii sunt mai milostiv i nelegere cu alte persoane
crora le sunt atrase. Prin urmare, Grupul Atractivitatea ar trebui s fie pozitiv legat de
satisfactie de comunicare. Extinderea Kirtley Johnston, Edwards, i studiu Pecchioni lui
(2000), putem emite ipoteza c atracia Group este un factor determinant pozitiv de satisfactie
de comunicare. Ipoteza 5: Attraction Group este legat pozitiv de satisfactie Communication
Group. METODE Participani Voluntari pentru acest studiu au fost solicitate de la un senior
curs Capstone la nivel de la College of Business Administration la o universitate privat n
regiunea de sud a Statelor Unite. De licen Programul de gradul de afaceri solicitat
subiecilor s ia un curs de threecredit-semestru lung in politica de afaceri / strategie, n care
au participat la un exerciiu competitiv calculator-simulare care a fugit ntregului semestru.
Toi elevii au fost majors de afaceri de rang nalt care au terminat un stagiu profesionalsemestru lung i a participat la numeroase proiecte la nivel de grup. Am avut 104 din 111 de
participanti complet att studiul i simularea (94% rata de finalizare), cu urmtoarele
demografice: 55% de sex feminin, 45% de sex masculin, 71% Caucasion, 8% hispanici, 8%
African American, 4% din Asia, i 9% alte. Am avut un total de 32 de echipe (cu trei la patru
elevi pe echipe), care au fost repartizati aleatoriu de ctre instructor. Nici rotaie de sarcini i
nici conducere a fost formal sau controlate de ctre instructor. Datele au fost colectate de la
cele patru clase pe trei semestre diferite. Procedura Designul acestui studiu a urmat un studiu
transversal, cu msuri separate luate de variabilele independente i dependente. n timpul
fiecrui semestru, profesor de politica de afaceri de curs necesare elevilor pentru a participa la
o simulare de business strategie, Global Business Joc de Joseph Wolfe. n echipe de la trei la
patru de membri (32 de echipe, colectate n patru cursuri de peste trei semestre), elevii au
participat la simulare, timp de zece saptamani si a primit feedback-ul de performan scris n
fiecare sptmn, n ceea ce privete poziia lor relativ competitiv cu alte grupuri
participante. Simularea msurat rezultatul performan de profit. Participantii finalizat ancheta
de variabile independente dup ce au terminat exerciiul de simulare, dar nainte de sfritul
cursului, atunci cnd au primit rezultatele finale de performan. Momentul separat de

msurare variabile dependente i independente eliminate metoda varian comun.

Cercetatorii au folosit atat software-ul SPSS i SCM pentru a testa ipotezele. performan
financiar. Software-ul de simulare calculat masurile de performanta financiare utilizate ca
variabile dependente n acest studiu. Pentru scopurile acestui studiu, am folosit variabila profit
care a fost calculat ca venituri minus cheltuieli. Profit variat de la 20,378,812 dolari la
243,732,617 dolari, cu o deviaie standard de 52,511,584 dolari. Avnd n vedere caracterul
neregulamentar al acestei variabile cu un singur element, profitul a fost transformat ntr-o
variabil continu bazat pe trimestre. procesele de grup. Scala proces de grup a constat din
ase elemente care abordeaz activitile grupului. Elementele au fost modificate de la Taylor
i Bowers (1972) msur de procesele de grup, astfel nct participanii s poat rspunde pe o
scal Likert cu cinci puncte de la 1 (dezacord) la 5 (Intr-un fel). De exemplu, un articol a
ntrebat, "Grupul nostru planificat i coordonat eforturile sale." Original Taylor i Bowers
(1972) scar inclus apte elemente, dar din cauza naturii de control a simulrii, ntrebarea
abordarea grupului "capacitatea de a rspunde la cererile de munc neobinuite", a fost
eliminat. Consisten intern a fost ridicat cu alfa Cronbach la 0.88. Satisfacie
Communication Group. 19-element de comunicare Grupa scara de satisfactie a fost o versiune
a lui Hecht (1978b) msuri individuale de satisfacie comunicarea interpersonal modificate
pentru a aborda satisfacie individual cu comunicarea n cadrul unui grup. Cuvintele
"Membrii grupului" sau "exercitarea grup" au fost substituite, dac este cazul (Anderson i
Martin, 1995). Exemple de ntrebri se numr "Am fost foarte multumit de exerci ii de grup"
i "Ceilali membri ai grupului a vrut cu adevrat s aud punctul meu de vedere."
Participanii au rspuns la un punct de cinci Scala Likert variind de la dezacord la acord
puternic. Kirtley Johnston, Pecchioni, i Edwards (2000) a validat aceast versiune de scara
intr-un studiu anterior, cu un alfa Cronbach 0.89, in timp ce acest studiu a confirmat
fiabilitatea ridicat cu o 0.89. Grupa Heterogeniety. Dou ntrebri adresate eterogenitate grup
n termeni de aptitudini i de fond (Seashore et al, 1982.). O parte a construc iei higherorder
de functionare grup de lucru, aceast scal de dou element cerut acordul cu afirma iile: 1)
"Membrii grupului meu varia foarte mult n aptitudinile i abilitile lor" i 2) "Grupul meu
conine membri care provin din medii foarte diferite." Cu o fiabilitate de 0.67, ar cre te
dificultatea de a gsi relaii semnificative cu Grupul Heterogeniety (Bagozzi et al., 2003).
atractie Group. Msura Atragerea Grupul a constat din patru elemente, cu dou declaraii
adaptate la Byrne (1966) i dou elemente adugate de ctre cercettori. Fiabilitatea aceast
scar a relevat alfa o Cronbach de 0.95. Dup nou revizuire a scalei, cele mai recente dou
elemente pot fi reflect conceptul de eficacitate, n special eficacitatea grup. Elementele

declarat: 1) "Am ncredere n capacitatea grupului de a face treaba," i 2) "Am ceva realizat cu
acest grup." Aceast noiune va fi examinat n continuare i dezvoltate n seciunea de
discuie. REZULTATE Msurarea Modelul Toate analizele au fost efectuate pe matricea de
covarian utilizarea SCM 6.1. Prin analiza factor de confirmare, diferitele dimensiuni ale
Satisfacia Communication Group, Grupul atractivitate, procesele de grup, i eterogenitatea
scale au fost analizate pentru a evalua calitatea structurii factor care stau la baza asumat.
Iniial, ne-am propus s studiem Grupa satisfactie comunicare, utiliznd ntreaga gam a
dezvoltat prin Hecht (1978b) i adaptat de Johnston, Pecchioni, i Edwards (2000). Dar
analiz factorial confirmatorie (CFA) din toate elementele ntr-o singur variabil latent
indicat nct sarcinile de ase elemente nu au reuit s fie statistic semnificative, care se
ncadreaz scurt de msurare a conceptului de baz indicat de elementele rmase (Fornell i
Larcker, 1981). Eliminarea acestor elemente i efectuarea unei a doua CFA, urmnd Anderson
i Gerbing (1988), dou elemente suplimentare nu au reuit s ajung semnifica ie. Efectuarea
unei analize factoriale exploratorii pe toat scara relevat dou sub-scale: 1) ascultare eficienta
([alfa] = 0.80) i 2) eficacitate expresie ([alfa] = 0.83). ncrcri Factor peste normativ 0.50
pragul i T-scorurile de mai sus 2.0 (p = 0.05) pentru fiecare element n balan a rafinate
sugerat valabilitate convergente. Aceste rezultate compliment Gray i de Laidlow (2004)
rafinament recent de Downs i lui Hazen (1977) msur de patruzeci-element de satisfac ie
comunicare. n timp ce Gray i Laidlow (2004) a nceput cu Downs i (1977) msura Hazen,
am atras de la (1978b) msura Hecht lui. Dei Gray i Laidlow (2004), de asemenea, a
constatat un factor de ordin superior de satisfacie comunicare coninea mai multe dimensiuni,
analiza noastr expus o dimensiune unic n ceea ce privete ascultarea. n ceea ce prive te
procesele de grup ([alfa] = 0.89), Grupul Atractivitatea ([alfa] = 0.95), i Grupul eterogen
([alfa] = 0.67), analiza factor de confirmare a demonstrat solicitri satisfctoare i scoruri T,
i communalities . Rezultatele structurale model Pe baza analizelor noastre initiale, am testat
ipotezele folosind dou noi factori de "Grupul Eficacitate ascultare" i "Grupul de Exprimare
eficiena", mai degrab dect ntreaga Communication Group factorul de satisfac ie. O trecere
n revist a elementelor de scar individuale a relevat faptul ca am fost capturarea eficacitate,
spre deosebire de satisfacie. Buntatea de potrivire a modelului de ansamblu a fost testat cu
testul chisquare, indicele se potrivesc comparativ (TPI), indicele se potrivesc Bollen lui (BFI),
iar rdcina medie ptrat eroare de aproximare (RMSEA). Semnificaia relaiilor individuale
dintre constructe aa cum este indicat de ctre ipotezele fost determinat de calea co-efficients
i ncercrile lor de semnificaie. Rezultatele pentru modelul folosind Grupa Eficacitate
ascultare i Grupul Expression Eficacitate sunt prezentate n figura 2 i figura 3, respectiv. n

general, fiecare model se potrivete datele moderat bine. . Criteriile stabilite au fost
ndeplinite pentru toate statisticile, cu excepia RMSEA Grupa Ascultarea Eficacitate
Statisticile generale potrivesc Grupului de ascultare model de eficacitatea, inclusiv [ptratul
chi] (99), a fost de 208.306; pvalue = 0,000; FII i Tribunalul de Prim Instan fiecare egalat
0,91; i RMSEA fost. 10 cu un interval de ncredere de 90% de 0,08 i .12. Procesele de grup
a avut o relaie pozitiv cu variabila de performan financiar a profitului, de sprijin Ipoteza
1 ([beta] = 0,85, p <0,05). (NOT:. [Lambda] indic relaia dintre o variabil latent
independent i o variabil latent endogen, [beta] reprezint relaia dintre oricare dou
variabile endogene) Ascultarea Eficacitatea a avut o relaie mic, dar semnificativ cu
procesele de grup, de sprijin Ipoteza 2 ( [beta] = 0,15, p <0,05). Ipoteze 4, estimarea c
Grupul Eterogenitatea ar avea un impact pozitiv Ascultarea Eficacitatea, nu a fost sus inut
([lambda] = 000.19). Ipoteza 5, prezic o relaie pozitiv ntre Grupa Atractivitatea i ascultare
eficiena, a fost sustinuta ([lambda] = 0,47, p <0,05). n general, aproximativ 94% din varia ia
profitului a fost explicat de ascultare eficacitatea modelului. [Figura 2 omise] [FIGURA 3
omise] Expresia Grupa Eficacitate Modelul se potrivete, de asemenea, datele moderat bine
pentru Grupa Expression eficacitatea, aa cum prevede buntatea lui Msuri de cuviin. [Chi
ptrat] (113) a fost de 235.742, p = 0,000; CFI = 0,91; IFI = 0,91; i RMSEA a fost de 0,10,
cu un interval de ncredere de 90% de 0,08 i 0,12. Insuficient statistica RMSEA, care
favorizeaz modele de zgrcit, sugereaz c modelul se potrivesc ar mbunti prin
eliminarea variabilelor. Cu toate acestea, pentru c am fost interesai n relaiile dintre
constructele pe care le-am studiat, am continuat analiza pe baza statisticilor se potrivesc
rmase, care sunt adecvate. Procesele de grup a avut o relaie pozitiv cu performan a
financiar, astfel cum sunt definite de profit, sprijinind astfel Ipoteza 1 ([beta] = 2,05, p
<0,05). Exprimarea Grupa Eficacitate avut o relaie puternic, semnificativ cu procesele de
grup, sprijinind Ipoteza 2 ([beta] = 0,45, p <0,05). Ipoteza 4, estimarea c Grupul
Eterogenitatea ar avea un impact pozitiv Expression Eficacitatea, nu a fost susinut ([lambda]
= 0,12). i Ipoteza 5, prezic o relaie pozitiv ntre Grupa Atractivitatea i Grupul Exprimarea
eficiena, a fost sustinuta ([lambda] = 0,85, p <0,05). Antecedentele explicate n modelul a
explicat 83% din variaie n variabila de profit. Testele de mediere n analiza Ipoteza 3, un test
de mediere cu privire la rolul Grupului de ascultare i exprimare Eficacitatea pe procesele de
grup ca un mediator pentru a profita indicat faptul c procesele de grup nu ntr-adevr, media
de ascultare i exprimare eficiena i relaia performanei financiare. Angajarea testul Wald de
mediere n modelare a ecuaiilor structurale, am constatat c testul a diferenial [X2] nu a fost
nici semnificativ pentru a asculta ([chi ptrat] = 0.002, [alfa] = 0.964), nici expresie ( [chi

ptrat] = 0.001, [alfa] = 0.975). Cu alte cuvinte, calea direct ntre ascultare sau Exprimarea
Eficacitate i profit adugat nici o valoare semnificativ pentru a se potrivi modelului
propus. Dei o comparaie statistic a celor dou modele nu se poate presupune c modelele
nu sunt puse una peste cealalt deducii cu privire la impactul relativ al Eficacitatea de
ascultare fa de Expresie Eficacitatea se poate face de la aceste rezultate. n general, se pare
c n timp ce modelul de eficacitate ascultare explica mai pe larg profit, de ascultare, de
asemenea, pare s aib o influen mai mic asupra proceselor de grup dect expresia
modelului. DISCUII implicaiile de cercetare i viitoare de cercetare n testarea primei
ipoteze, acest studiu a nceput cu examinarea impactului Grupa de satisfacie Comunicarea
privind performana financiar. Kirtley Johnston et al. (2000) adaptat (1978b) scar satisfac ie
comunicarea Hecht a reflecta satisfactia unui individ cu schimbul de informaii care are loc n
cadrul unui grup. Acest studiu a extinde rezultatele lor s se uite la impactul de satisfactie
Communication Group pe Group a performanei financiare. Ea nu poate fi suficient pur i
simplu s se examineze ceea ce a fost comunicat (de exemplu, obiectivele i planurile) sau
percepiile individuale ale / stilul ei sau de comunicare (de exemplu, Downs i Hazen, 1977).
Rezultatele acestui studiu sugereaz c modul n care membrii grupului percep de informa ii
este dat i de primit, de asemenea, impactul rezultatelor organizaionale. Rezultatele
organizatorice sunt probabil influentate de comunicare la o varietate de niveluri (de exemplu,
ntre grupuri, ntre indivizi). Dar, cu o utilizare sporit a muncii n echip n organiza ii,
percepiile individuale de comunicare de grup, mai degrab dect o sau abilitatile sale
personale, ar putea deschide oportunitati pentru viitor cercetare cu privire la eficacitatea de
grup. metodologie riguroas folosite n acest studiu a crescut dificultatea de a gsi rezultate i,
prin urmare, susine importana rezultatelor. Folosind software-ul SCM-uri, s-au aplicat
modelare a ecuaiilor structurale (SEM), metode de a testa ambele modele de msurare i
modele de cercetare. Mai degrab dect limitarea modelul aditive relaie, cum ar fi n regresie,
analiza drumului n SEM permite specificarea relaiilor i a propus impact dirijat i indirect
a variabilelor. Msurile de form n SEM arat ct de bine se potrivete modelul emis ipoteza
datele (Kline, 2004, Schumacker i Lomax, 1996). De exemplu, folosind o analiz factor de
confirmare pentru a msura satisfacia de comunicare a dezvluit ncrcturi pe mai multe
dimensiuni unice, care nu ar fi fost descoperite de ctre pur i simplu uita la mare fiabilitate
de ansamblu a scalei n SPSS. Folosind modelare a ecuaiilor structurale am examinat msura
satisfacia Communication Group , iar rezultatele au indicat c reprezint un nivel superior de
complex construct. Cei doi factori cu cel mai integritatea s-au Grupa Eficien a Ascultare
(Listen) i Grupul Eficacitate Expression (Express). De cercetare viitoare trebuie ntreprinse

pentru a rafina construcia i msurile de satisfacie comunicare, eficacitatea comunicrii, i

satisfacia de organizare. Mai degrab dect un efect direct, Grupa Eficacitatea ascultare i
Grupul de Exprimare o eficien sporit a proceselor de grup care au avut impact performan.
In nici o organizaie este comunicarea un scop n-i-a se. Comunicarea faciliteaz realizarea
obiectivelor de sarcini i relaii prin schimbul de informaii cu privire la ceea ce trebuie fcut,
cum, cnd, unde i de ctre cine. Msura de procesele de grup (Taylor i Bowers, 1972) sa
concentrat pe competenele de baz ale grupului de lucru, inclusiv planificarea, coordonarea,
luarea de decizii, i de ncredere. Eficacitatea de comunicare Grupa pare, pentru a permite
membrilor grupului pentru a realiza mai eficient i pentru normele de grup s apar sarcini.
Am afirmat rezultatele pe care Grupul Atractivitatea se refer n mod pozitiv cu Grupul
Eficacitatea Ascultarea i Grupul Expression eficacitatea. Avnd n vedere creterea de
cercetare cu privire la eficacitatea de grup (de exemplu, Lee i Farh, 2004; Pescosolido, 2003;
Bandura, 1997), ne propunem o analiz mai riguroas a acestei scale i explorare a rela iei
dintre eficacitate grup i ascultare de grup i grup eficacitate expresie. Potrivit lui Bandura,
eficacitate grup se refer la "credina unui grup n capacitile lor conjugate de a organiza i
executa cursurile de aciune necesar pentru a produce un nivel dat de realizare" (1997: 477).
ncrederea n membrilor grupului de abiliti pot stimula vorbit i ascultare, sau invers,
vorbind i de ascultare poate construi ncrederea n capacitatea grupurilor. Implicaii
manageriale

n contextul de comunicare interpersonal, n special cu satisfac ia de comunicare

chestionar (Downs i Hazen, 1977), mai multe ncercri au fost fcute pentru a descompune
construcia de funcional factori i valida dimensiunile cu valabilitate discriminare (de
exemplu, Clampitt i Downs, 1993; Gray i Laidlaw, 2004). Mai degrab dect uita la
satisfacia unui individ cu propriile comportamente de comunicare, rezultatele acestui studiu
sugereaza ca perceptia unui individ de dorina grupurilor de a asculta i de a ncuraja
exprimarea duce la procesele de grup mai eficiente. Dimensiunile Grupa Eficacitate
Ascultarea i Grupul de Exprimare Eficacitatea poate ajuta practicanii s se concentreze pe
dimensiunile cele mai influente de comunicare. n plus, cu o utilizare sporit a muncii n
echip n organizaii, percepiile individuale de comunicare de grup (mai degrab dect ei sau
abilitatile sale personale) ar putea deschide oportunitati de conducere i de formare echipa de
pe eficacitate grup. Limitri n timp ce cercetarea noastr se aprinde functia de ascultare i
exprimare eficacitatea n ceea ce privete Grupa Atractivitatea, procesele de grup, i

performanei financiare a unui program de simulare de afaceri, evaluarea empiric trebuie s

fie interpretate n lumina de mai multe limitri care rezult din deciziile de comer -off de
design de cercetare. Utilizarea studeni de ntr-un design de cercetare n seciune transversal,
n timp ce ideal pentru explorarea teorie oportun, limiteaz generalizarea rezultatelor. n mod
firesc, repetiii ar trebui extins la firme reale i n mod ideal, ar trebui s exploreze
fenomenelor longitudinale. Cercetatorii ar putea examina modelul pe diferite tipuri de firme
(de exemplu, ntre producie i servicii) pentru a descoperi consistene i diferen e, i rafina i
mai mult modelul. n plus, n timp ce ne-am luat msuri de precau ie pentru a evita nclcarea
grav a ipotezei de independen, viitorii cercettori ar putea integra modele de cercetare care
permit o investigaie a EffectivenessGroup Comunicare proceselor de model n ceea ce
privete msurile variate de performan financiar (de exemplu, preurile de vnzare), pentru
a atenua nclcarea ipoteza independenei, i atenua comune metode de prtinire. Unul
intricate efect asupra Comnmnication Eficacitatea i Group Procesele ar putea fi feedback-ul
n curs elevii au primit de la profesor acestora asupra performan ei lor de simulare echipa. De
exemplu, echipe care au primit un feedback pozitiv ar fi fost motivai s fie mai mult efort n
interaciune de grup sau mai puin efort din cauza prea mult. De cercetare viitoare ar putea
angaja un design longitudinal pentru a capta frecven i valen de feedback. Apoi, mic
eantion de N = 104 abia se potrivea cu standardul general (N = 100) pentru studii de mici,
care au limitat puterea de a analiza ecuaiilor structurale i interzise ne de la dezvoltarea unui
model mai complex cu parametrii suplimentare estimate. Cu toate acestea, mrimea
eantionului a fost suficient pentru a permite o analiz cale, lund rezultatele cercetrilor
curent ANOVA bazate pe relaiile dintre eficacitatea comunicrii, procesele de grup, i de
performan financiar la un nivel superior. Rute analizate relev gradele de interdependenta
semnificative ntre efectele directe i de moderare; ANOVA ne spune exist rela ii
semnificative, fr a exprima magnitudine. timp Eterogenitatea este un construct valoros,
studiul nostru nu a gsit o relaie ntre Eterogenitatea i eficacitii Communication Group. De
cercetare viitoare ar putea continua s examineze i s se perfec ioneze diferite scri
eterogenitatea dincolo de datele demografice, inclusiv impactul diversitii asupra etapelor de
dezvoltare a echipei, i impactul lor difereniat asupra performanei. Pe scurt, acest studiu
avansuri de intelegere a modului de comunicare poate afecta performan a financiar. Cum
membrii grupului schimb de informaii cu alte fiecare permite lucrul mai eficient grup, i
procesele de grup eficiente duce la creterea performanelor financiare. n mod specific,
eficacitatea comunicrii deriv din credina c se poate exprima liber gndurile sale ntr-un
grup i sentimentul c alii au ascultat ceea ce ea / el a spus. ntr-un mediu global, care

depinde de reelele sociale, diversitate, i identiti sociale, de comunicare ajut la construirea

de respectul i ncrederea grupurilor nevoie pentru a atinge obiectivele colective.
BIBLIOGRAFIE
Abrams, D. and M. A. Hogg. 1999. Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Anderson, C. M. and M. M. Martin. 1995. "The Effects of Communication Motives,
Interaction Involvement, and Loneliness on Satisfaction: A Model of Small Groups." Small
Group Research 26: 118-137.
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach." Psychological Bulletin 10: 411-423.
Andres, H. P. 2006. "The Impact of Communication Medium on Virtual Team Group
Processes." Information Resources Management Journal 19:1-17.
Antoni, C. 2005. "Management By Objectives--An Effective Tool for Teamwork?"
International Journal of Human Resource Management 16: 174-184.
Bagozzi, P. R., U. M. Dholakia and S. Basuroy. 2003. "How Effortful Decisions Get
Enacted: The Motivating Role of Decision Processes, Desires, and Anticipated Emotions."
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16: 273-295.
Bales, R. F. 1970. Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Holt,
Rhinehart, and Winston.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bertunek, J. M., P. G. Foster-Fishman and C. B. Keys. 1996. "Using Collaborative
Advocacy to Foster Intergroup Cooperation: A Joint Insider-Outsider Investigation." Human
Relations 49: 701-733.

Burgoon, J. K., J. A. Bonito, B. Bengtsson, A. Ramirez Jr., N. E. Dunbar and N.

Miczo. 2000. "Testing the Interactivity Model: Processes, Partner Assessments, and the
Quality of Collaborative Work." Journal of Management Information Systems 16: 33-56.
Byrne, D. and W. Griffitt. 1966. "A Developmental Investigation of the Law of
Attraction." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 699-703.
Carron, A. V. and K. S. Spink. 1995. "The Group Size-Cohesion Relationship in
Minimal Groups." Small Group Research 26: 86-105.
Chatman, J. A. and F.J. Flynn. 2001. "The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on
the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperation Norms in Work Teams." Academy of
Management Journal 44: 956-974.
Chen, L. and M. Isa. 2003. "Intercultural Communication and Cultural Learning: The
Experience of Japanese Visiting Students in the U.S." The Howard Journal of Communication
14: 75-96.
Clampitt, P. G. and C. W. Downs. 1993. "Employee Perceptions of the Relationship
Between Communication and Productivity: A Field Study." Journal of Business
Communication 30: 5-28.
Doherty, A. J. and A. V. Carron. 2003. "Cohesion in Executive Sport Executive
Committees." Journal of Sport Management 17:116-141.
Downs, C. W. 1988. Communication Audits. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. and M. D.
Hazen. 1977. "A Factor Analytic Study of Communication Satisfaction." The Journal of
Business Communication 14: 63-73.
Druckman, D. 2003. "Linking Micro and Macro-level Processes: Interaction Analysis
in Context." International Journal of Conflict Management 14: 177-190.

Duran, R. L. and W. R. Zakahi. 1987. "Communication Performance and

Communication Satisfaction: What Do We Teach Our Students?" Communication Education
36: 13-22.
Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and S. A. Haslam. 2004. "Motivating Individuals and
Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance."
Academy of Management Review 29: 459-478.
Ely, R.J. and D. A. Thomas. 2001. "Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of
Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes." Administrative Science
Quarterly 46: 229-273.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker. 1981. "Evaluating Structural Equation Models With
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error." Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39-50.
Gray, J. and H. Laidlaw. 2004. "Improving the Measurement of Communication
Satisfaction." Management Communication Quarterly 17: 425-448.
Gudykunst, W. B., T. Nishida and E. Chua. 1987. "Perceptions of Social Penetration in
Japanese-North American Dyads." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 11: 171189.
--and R. Shapiro. 1996. "Communication in Everyday Interpersonal and Intergroup
Encounters." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20: 19-45.
Guzzo, R. A. and G. P. Shea. 1992. "Group Performance and Intergroup Relations in
Organizations." Chapter in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Eds. M.
D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. pp. 269-313.
Hecht, M. L. 1978a. "The Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal
Communication Satisfaction." Human Communication Research 4: 253-264. 1978b.
"Measures of Communication Satisfaction." Human Communication Research 4: 350-368.

Hogg, M. A. and D.J. Terry. 2000. "Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes
in Organizational Contexts." The Academy of Management Review 25: 121-140.
Hong, P., A. Y. Nahm and W.J. Doll. 2004. "The Role of Project Target Clarity in an
Uncertain Project Environment." International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 24:1269-1291.
Jehn, K. A. and E. A. Mannix. 2001. "The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal
Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance." Academy of Management Journal 44:
238-251.
--, G. B. Northcraft and M. A. Neale. 1999. "Why Differences Make a Difference: A
Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups." Administrative Science
Quarterly 44: 741-764.
Johlke, M. C. and D. F. Duhan. 2001. "Supervisor Communication Practices and
Boundary Spanner Role Ambiguity." Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (1): 87-102.
Kirtley Johnston, M., L. Pecchioni and R. Edwards. 2000. "The Influence of
Interpersonal Communication Variables on Group Communication Satisfaction." Academy of
Managerial Communications Journal 4: 36-61.
Kline, R. B. 2004. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lee, C. andJ. Farh. 2004. "Joint Effects of Group Efficacy and Gender Diversity on
Group Cohesion and Performance." Applied Psychology: An International Review 53: 136154.
Lester, S. W., B. M. Meglino and M. A. Korsgaard. 2002. "The Antecedents and
Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Study of Investigation of Newly Formed
Work Groups." Academy of Management Journal 45: 352-368.

Luthans, K. and S. Sommers. 2005. "The Impact of High Performance Work Processes
on Industry-Level Outcomes." Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (3): 327-346.
Mackie, D. M., M. C. Gastardo-Conaco andJ. J. Skelly. 1992. "Knowledge of the
Advocated Position and the Processing of In-Group and Out-Group Persuasive Messages."
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18: 145-151.
Martins, L. L., F. J. Milliken, B. M. Wiesenfeld and S. R. Salgado. 2003. "Racioethnic
Diversity and Group Members' Experiences: The Role of the Racioethnic Diversity of the
Organizational Context." Group and Organizational Management 28: 75-107.
McCroskey, J. C., P. R. Hamilton and A. N. Weiner. 1974. "The Effect of Interaction
Behavior on Source Credibility, Homophily and Interpersonal Attraction." Human
Communication Research 1: 42-52.
Miller, D. L. 2003. "The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of
Dynamic Team Processes." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 20: 121-134.
Montgomery, B. M. 1986. "Interpersonal Attraction as a Function of Open
Communication and Gender." Communication Research Reports 3: 140-145.
Newcomb, T. M. 1961. The Acquaintance Process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Ozgener, S. 2003. "Quality Function Deployment: A Teamwork Approach." Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence 14: 969-979.
Pescosolido, A. T. 2003. "Group Efficacy and Group Effectiveness: The Effects of
Group Efficacy Over Time on Group Performance and Development." Small Group Research
34: 20-43.
Pettit Jr.,J. D.,J. R. Goris and B. C. Baught. 1997. "An Examination of Organizational
Communication as a Moderator of the Relationships Between Job Performance and Job
Satisfaction." The Journal of Business Communication 34: 81-99.

Pincus, J. D. 1986. "Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, and Job

Performance." Human Communication Research 12: 395419.
Polzer, J. T., L. P. Milton and W. B. Swann Jr. 2002. "Capitalizing on Diversity:
Interpersonal Congruence in Small Work Groups." Administrative Science Quarterly 47: 296324.
Putti, J., S. Aryee and J. Phua. 1990. "Communication Relationship Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment." Group and Organization Studies 15: 44-53.
Ralston, S. M. 1993. "Applicant Communication Satisfaction, Intent to Accept Second
Interview Offers, and Recruiter Communication Style." Journal of Applied Communication
Research (February): 53-65.
Rubin, R. B., E. M. Perse and C. A. Barbato. 1988. "Conceptualization and
Measurement of Interpersonal Communication Motives." Human Communication Research
14 (4): 602-617.
--and A. M. Rubin. 1989. "Communication Apprehension and Satisfaction in
Interpersonal Relationships." Communication Research Reports 6: 13-20.
Schumacker, R. E. and R. G. Lomax. 1996. A Beginner's Guide to Structural-Equation
Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seashore, S. E., E. E. Lawler, P. Mirvis and C. Cammann. 1982. Observing and
Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice. New York, NY: Wiley.
Shea, G. P. and R. A. Guzzo. 1987. "Group Effectiveness: What Really Matters?"
Sloan Management Review 28: 25-52.
Sy, T., S. C6t6 and R. Saavedra. 2005. "The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader's
Mood on Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes." Journal of Applied
Psychology 90: 295-305.

Tajfel, H. and J. Turner. 2001. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." Chapter
in Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings, Key Readings in Social Psychology. Eds. M. A.
Hogg and D. Abrams. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. pp. 94-109.
Taylor, J. C. and D. G. Bowers. 1972. Survey of Organizations: A Machine-scored
Standardized Questionnaire Instrument. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Tjosvold, D., M. L. Tang and M. West. 2004. "Reflexivity for Team Innovation in
China: The Contribution of Goal Interdependence." Group and Organization Management 29:
540-559.
Turner, J. C. 1991. Social Influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Van der Vegt, G. S. 2002. "Effects of Attitude Dissimilarity and Time on Social
Integration: A Longitudinal Study." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
75: 439- 451.
Varona,

F. 1996.

"Relationship

Between

Communication

Satisfaction

and

Organizational Commitment in Three Guatemalan Organizations." The Journal of Business

Communication 33:111-141.
Walther, J. B. 1988. "Communication Satisfaction in the Bank: An Audit Evaluation."
The Journal of Business Communication 25: 79-86.

Synchronized teamwork, supported by a healthy communication environment, is a

primary means by which organizational decisions are made, strategy is developed, and
performance is measured (Miller, 2003). However, simply the presence of communication
infrastructure and employee programs to foster communication skills will not guarantee
successful communication and subsequent organizational success (Luthans and Sommers,
2005). Pettit et al. (1997) have expressly called for research that focuses on the relationships
between communication and quantitative organizational outcomes. Surprisingly, given the
enormous amount of resources and attention devoted to improving communication aptitude,
very little empirical research links communication to organizational-level financial
performance measures.
Research in the communication field has investigated the link between communication
and the outcomes of job performance (Pincus, 1986), organizational commitment (Putti et al.,
1990; Varona, 1996), productivity (Clampitt and Downs, 1993), and job satisfaction (Pettit et
al., 1997; Pincus, 1986). However, little research links how communication makes
organizations more successful in terms of financial performance. This study attempts to fill
the gap by providing empirical research on the impact of communication on organizational
financial success.
In examining organizational-level outcomes, levels of satisfaction must distinguish
between interactions at the dyadic versus team level--an issue that confounds current
understanding (Hecht, 1978a). Organizational results don't derive from the exchange between
a mere two employees, but rather interactive communication of each employee with a group
of others. Thus, a relatively new construct of Group Communication Satisfaction captures
members' emotional reaction toward his/ her interaction within a work group in terms of the
degree to which it has met or failed to meet his/her expectations about communication
(adapted from Hecht, 1978a; Kirtley Johnston et al., 2000). Researchers argue that team
members' (dis)satisfaction with the nature and content of communication can potentially
derail/enhance organizational outcomes (Downs, 1988; Gray and Laidlaw, 2004).
Social categorization theory suggests that member's perceptions of group
characteristics influence group performance (Abrams and Hogg, 1999; Hogg and Terry, 2000;
Tajfel and Turner, 1991). Perceived characteristics of group members may influence the
satisfaction with group communication. Empirical studies show that people tend to evaluate

information cues from their own group members as being correct (Turner, 1991) and highly
relevant (Mackie et al., 1992). People tend to regard members of their own social category as
more attractive on dimensions relevant to the group; for instance, accountants tend to think
that most accountants are intelligent (Abrams and Hogg, 1999). Seeing others as attractive or
adding value could ease the exchange of ideas and opinions and increase degree of
Communication Satisfaction.
This study examines the characteristics of Group Attractiveness, Heterogeneity, and
Group Communication Satisfaction on Profit and explores the following research questions:
1. Do team members' perceptions of satisfactory Group Communication impact group
performance?
2. What role do Group Processes play in the relationship between Communication
Satisfaction and Profit?
3. What group characteristics influence Group Communication Satisfaction?
Group Communication Satisfaction
Group Communication Satisfaction refers to satisfaction or dissatisfaction arising from
social interaction within a work group (Hecht, 1978a; Kirtley Johnston et al., 2000). When
workgroup members' expectations regarding the relational style in which responsibilities and
rewards systems are communicated to them, they feel satisfied with the communication
environment. Studies suggest that organizational factors can influence the degree to which
communication satisfaction is experienced: flexible work arrangements, quality of leadermember exchange, and organizational structure are apparent determinants (Walther, 1988).
Communication Satisfaction also varies with respect to individual dispositions (e.g.,
friendliness, attentiveness, and other-affirming communication), apprehension, and loneliness
(Anderson and Martin, 1995; Duran and Zakahi, 1987; Rubin and Rubin, 1989; Ralston,
1993), as well as motives (e.g., to escape, to control) and personal style (Anderson and
Martin, 1995; Rubin et al., 1988; Ralston, 1993). Related outcomes of Communication
Satisfaction in the workforce include employees' evaluation and supervisors' evaluation of
one's self and the other's productivity (Clampitt and Downs, 1993), job satisfaction (Pettit et

al., 1997; Pincus, 1986), job performance (Pincus, 1986), and organizational commitment
(Putti et al., 1990; Varona, 1996).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Specifically our research proposes that Group Communication Satisfaction, via Group
Processes, impacts organizational results, as operationalized by Financial Results. In addition,
we propose that Communication Satisfaction is influenced by the group characteristic of
Attractiveness (see Figure 1 for a complete research model).
Group Processes and Financial Performance
Group Processes encompass a variety of collective and interrelated behaviors in which
group members engage. Considerable contemporary research attempts to clarify the role of
these micro-level processes on higher-level process and organization results. Planning (Sy et
al., 2005), decision making (Druckman, 2003), coordinating and communicating (Lester et al.,
2002), confidence-building and information sharing (Burgoon et al., 2000) represent just
some of the processes being studied.
Research shows that planning processes clarify the direction of the team, coordinate
member tasks, and create team cohesion toward a common goal. Clarity of project targets can
impact level of teamwork (Hong et al., 2004). Effective communication and information
sharing can facilitate goal clarity. Successful quality initiatives also require a group effort to
identify the link between consumer attributes and design specification (Ozgener, 2003).
Project teams that manage their group processes to develop cooperative goals have higher
reflexivity and innovation (Tjosvold et al., 2004). In addition, task cohesion stems from
uniting members on group goals and nurturing cooperation among members (Carron and
Spink, 1995; Bertunek et al., 1996). In a study of using management by objectives for selfregulating teams, group goals positively related to group productivity and job satisfaction, but
with mediating effects of other group processes on the relationship between goals and
satisfaction (Antoni, 2005).
Effective team planning and coordination lead to group decisions, action and results.
Lester, Meglino and Korsgaard (2002) examine the effect of work group processes on the

evolution of group potency and performance of work groups. They define group potency as
the collective belief of a group that it can be effective (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Shea and
Guzzo, 1987). Group processes of communication and cooperation related to higher potency
and subsequent higher self-reported performance (Lester et al., 2002). Also in this study, the
researchers identified leadership as a group process that would enhance group performance by
providing a role model and cues for behavior. Inevitably, conflict occurs when diverse
individuals must decide on a single group direction. As the group progresses toward a goal,
the nature of decisions changes from responsibilities and timelines to format and
presentations. The conflict resolution process of high-performance groups also evolves over
time beginning and ending with higher task-related conflict at the beginning and end of the
group task (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Thus effective, action-oriented group processes lead to
higher group performance.
In addition, Burgoon et al. (2000) demonstrated that the degree to which users
perceive high interactivity strongly related to how positively users judge their partners'
credibility and attractiveness. In addition, these assessments strongly relate to partner
influence, decision quality, and accurate information exchange. In many interpersonal and
group interactions, group members hope to achieve mutual regard for one another as
competent, reliable, trustworthy, attractive and useful contributors (Bales, 1970). To the extent
that greater involvement and mutuality lead to favorable judgments of credibility and
attractiveness, they may promote such outcomes as greater productivity, better decision
making and more accurate understanding of the messages that are exchanged.
In summary, the collective activities comprising group processes, done effectively and
efficiently, impact organizational outcomes. As a result, our first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Group Processes are positively related to Financial Performance.
Group Communication Satisfaction and Group Processes
Communication Satisfaction has been linked to productivity (Clampitt and Downs,
1993) and organizational commitment (Varona, 1996). Recently, Johlke and Duhan (2001)
found that sales people who are happy with the communication environment among peers
tend to be highly committed to the organization and tend to report job satisfaction. This result

is most likely to occur when managers are committed to building and maintaining a high
quality, bi-directional communication environment within the sales force.
In addition, Burgoon et al. (2000) examined how interactive communication during
collaborative tasks relates to judgments about partners and to task outcomes. They found that
the degree to which participants perceived high interactivity--reflected in indicators of
interaction involvement and a multidimensional construct called mutuality--was strongly
related to how positively they judged their partners' credibility and attractiveness. In addition,
these assessments strongly related to partner influence, decision quality, and accurate
information exchange. Their study offers insights into why various interfaces sometimes
facilitate and sometimes impair group communication and accomplishments.
This study proposes that communication enables groups to work more effectively
together, which is consistent with recent research. Andres (2006) suggests that the mode of
group communication (i.e. face-to-face vs. videoconferencing) impacts virtual team group
processes (e.g. team orientation, workload sharing, proclivity to seek and exchange
information). Rather than communication mode, our study examines a different dimension of
the group communication construct. Specifically, we examine satisfaction with the dynamics
of group exchange. In other words, group members who can express themselves, feel listened
to and enjoy the verbal exchange will more effectively perform the interdependent tasks or
processes needed to achieve group outcomes.
Given these findings, we hypothesize that there is a positive relationship between an
individual's satisfaction with the group's communication and effective small group processes.
Our second hypothesis states this.
Hypothesis 2: Group Communication Satisfaction positively impacts Group Processes.
Mediating Effect of Group Processes
Organizational outcomes result from actions, not words. The impact of Group
Communication Satisfaction on Financial Performance occurs via group activities because
communication enables action and coordination of team efforts. Thus, Group Communication

Satisfaction does not directly impact Financial Performance, but rather the influence is
transmitted through Group Processes. Specifically, we propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis

3:

Group

Processes

mediate

the

relationship

between

Group

Communication Satisfaction and Financial Performance, such that the variance in Financial
Performance explained by Group Satisfaction will not exist after removing the
variance explained by Group Processes.
Group Heterogeneity
We define perceived Group Heterogeneity as the degree to which an individual
perceives others in the group to be different from themselves (adapted from Polzer, Milton,
and Swann (2002)). A heterogeneous group, such as a work group, is frequently composed of
individuals with different educations, from different organizational functions (e.g., marketing,
human resources), or with different periods of organizational tenure. Group diversity "gives
rise to varied ideas, perspectives, knowledge, and skills that can improve group problemsolving and effectiveness" (Polzer et al., 2002: 301). This effect is especially true when group
members share common goals and values. Cultures that encourage group diversity send a
signal to members that the members are valued and respected as members of their individual
identity groups (Ely and Thomas, 2001). This result occurs by means of the norm of
interpersonal reciprocity: people who receive information and resources in an agreeable
manner are likely to return the consideration.
Previous research has examined Group Heterogeneity in terms of race and ethnicity
with mixed results. (Chatman and Flynn, 2001; Martins et al., 2003) Other studies have
focused on an information, social category, and value perspective (Jehn, Northcraft and Neale,
1999). We contribute to the literature by examining Group Heterogeneity not on the basis of
demographics, values, or information, but on the basis of skills and backgrounds, which very
little research has examined. By focusing on skills versus less tangible characteristics, our
examination of hetereogeneity ties more closely to the withingroup behaviors that would
promote communication satisfaction.

Although social categorization is used to defend the proposition that diversity predicts
negative consequences, including dissatisfaction, a recent study by Polzer, Milton, and Swann
(2002) suggests that the impact of diversity on group processes can be attenuated when there
is strong interpersonal congruence--that is, the state in which individuals share characteristics
that are highly valued within a group. Therefore, we hypothesize that Group Heterogeneity
has a positive influence on Group Communication Satisfaction. Stated formally, our fourth
hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 4: Group Heterogeneity is positively related to Group Communication
Satisfaction.
Group Attraction
Group Attraction is defined as "any direct orientation (on the part of one person toward
another), which may be described in terms of sign (+ or -) and intensity" (adapted from
Newcomb, 1961: 6). Social categorization theory suggests that people tend to evaluate their
own group as attractive (Abrams and Hogg, 1999). In their study exploring the link between
social identity and group performance, Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam (2004) argue that
even when people identify as group members and are motivated to exert effort on behalf of
the group, the way their behavior will actually be directed depends on the social contextual
features, and will determine whether or not collective performance improvement seems
feasible or even desirable.
Researchers have examined the relationship between communication variables and
group attractiveness. Persons who exhibit behaviors associated with a moderate or high
openness style are perceived as more attractive than are those who exhibit behaviors
consistent with a low-openness style of communicating (Montgomery, 1986).
In addition to communications styles, other behavioral styles such as exhibiting high
interest and high verbosity are associated with interpersonal attractiveness within a small
group (McCroskey et al., 1974). Communication Satisfaction tends to occur among friends
more so than among acquaintances and strangers (Gudykunst and Shapiro, 1996), and greater
amounts of perceived personalness, synchrony, and ease of difficulty drive intercultural
communication satisfaction (Gudykunst et al., 1987; Chen and Isa, 2003). Doherty and Carron

(2003) highlight the importance of the group as a whole when it comes to committee
members' satisfaction with their involvement, intent to stay with their committee, and
perceptions of committee effectiveness. Finally, in the arena of organizational research, G. S.
Van der Vegt (2002) suggested that group members who are highly socially integrated with
each other, irrespective of the amount of time that members spend together, tend to share
satisfaction toward their job.
Collectively, these studies suggest that group attractiveness is positively associated
with communication satisfaction.
Group Attractiveness smoothes interaction because people are more gracious and
understanding with others to whom they are attracted. Therefore, Group Attractiveness should
be positively related to Communication Satisfaction. Expanding Kirtley Johnston, Edwards,
and Pecchioni's study (2000), we hypothesize that Group Attraction is a positive determinant
of Communication Satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5: Group Attraction is positively related to Group Communication
Satisfaction.
METHODS
Participants
Volunteers for this study were solicited from a senior-level capstone course in the
College of Business Administration at a private university in the southern region of the United
States. The undergraduate business degree program required the subjects to take a semesterlong threecredit course in business policy/strategy, in which they participated in a competitive
computer-simulation exercise that ran the entire semester.
All of the students were senior business majors who had completed a semester-long
professional internship and had participated in numerous group-level projects. We had 104 out
of 111 participants complete both the study and the simulation (94% completion rate) with the
following demographics: 55% female, 45% male, 71% Caucasion, 8% Hispanic, 8% African
American, 4% Asian, and 9% other. We had a total of 32 teams (with three to four students

per team), which were randomly assigned by the instructor. Neither rotation of tasks nor
leadership was formal or controlled by the instructor. Data were collected from four classes
across three different semesters.
Procedure
The design of this study followed a cross-sectional study, with separate measures taken
of the independent and dependent variables. During each semester, the professor of the
Business Policy course required students to participate in a strategy business simulation,
Global Business Game by Joseph Wolfe. In teams of three to four members (32 teams,
collected in four courses over three semesters), students participated in the simulation for ten
weeks and received written performance feedback each week regarding their relative
competitive position with other participating groups. The simulation measured the
performance outcome of Profit. Participants completed the survey of independent variables
after they completed the simulation exercise, but before the end of the course when they
received their final performance results. The separate timing of measuring dependent and
independent variables eliminated common method variance. Researchers used both SPSS and
EQS software to test the hypotheses.
Financial Performance. The simulation software calculated the financial performance
measures used as dependent variables in this study. For the purposes of this study, we utilized
the profit variable that was calculated as revenues minus expenses. Profit ranged from
$20,378,812 to $243,732,617, with a standard deviation of $52,511,584. Due to the irregular
nature of this single-item variable, profit was transformed into a continuous variable based on
quartiles.
Group Processes. The Group Process scale consisted of six items addressing the
activities of the group. The items were modified from Taylor and Bowers (1972) measure of
Group Processes so that participants could respond on a five-point Likert scale from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). For example, one item asked, "Our group planned
and coordinated its efforts." The original Taylor and Bowers (1972) scale included seven
items, but due to the control nature of the simulation, the question addressing the group's
"ability to respond to unusual work demands" was eliminated. Internal consistency was high
with Cronbach's alpha at .88.

Group Communication Satisfaction. The 19-item Group Communication Satisfaction

scale was a version of Hecht's (1978b) individual measure of interpersonal communication
satisfaction modified to address individual satisfaction with communication within a group.
The words "group members" or "group exercise" were substituted where appropriate
(Anderson and Martin, 1995). Examples of questions include "I was very satisfied with the
group exercises" and "The other group members genuinely wanted to hear my point of view."
The participants responded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree. Kirtley Johnston, Pecchioni, and Edwards (2000) validated this version of the
scale in a previous study, with a .89 Cronbach's alpha, while this study confirmed the high
reliability with a .89.
Group Heterogeniety. Two questions addressed group heterogeneity in terms of skills
and background (Seashore et al., 1982). Part of the higherorder construct of Work Group
Functioning, this two-item scale asked agreement with the statements: 1) "Members of my
group vary widely in their skills and abilities" and 2) "My group contains members with
widely varying backgrounds." With a reliability of .67, it would increase the difficulty of
finding significant relationships with Group Heterogeniety (Bagozzi et al., 2003).
Group Attraction. The Group Attraction measure consisted of four items, with two
statements adapted from Byrne (1966) and two items added by the researchers. Reliability of
this scale revealed a Cronbach's alpha of .95. Upon further review of the scale, the later two
items may be reflecting the concept of efficacy, particularly group efficacy. The items stated:
1) "I have confidence in the group's ability to get the job done," and 2) "I got something
accomplished with this group." This notion will be further explored and developed in the
discussion section.
RESULTS
The Measurement Model
All analyses were performed on the covariance matrix utilizing EQS 6.1. Through
confirmatory factor analysis, the different dimensions of the Group Communication

Satisfaction, Group Attractiveness, Group Processes, and Heterogeneity scales were analyzed
to assess the quality of the assumed underlying factor structure.
Initially, we intended to study Group Communication Satisfaction using the entire
scale developed by Hecht (1978b) and adapted by Johnston, Pecchioni, and Edwards (2000).
But confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of all items into a single latent variable indicated that
the loadings for six items failed to be statistically significant, falling short of measuring the
underlying concept indicated by the remaining items (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Eliminating
these items and performing a second CFA, following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), two
additional items failed to reach significance. Performing an exploratory factor analysis on the
entire scale revealed two sub-scales: 1) listening effectiveness ([alpha] = .80) and 2)
expression effectiveness ([alpha] = .83). Factor loadings above the normative 0.50 threshold
and t-scores above 2.0 (p = .05) for each item in the refined scales suggested convergent
validity. These results compliment Gray and Laidlow's (2004) recent refinement of Downs
and Hazen's (1977) forty-item measure of communication satisfaction. While Gray and
Laidlow (2004) began with Downs and Hazen's (1977) measure, we drew from Hecht's
(1978b) measure. Though Gray and Laidlow (2004) also found the higher-order factor of
communication satisfaction contained multiple dimensions, our analysis exposed a unique
dimension regarding listening. With respect to Group Processes ([alpha] = .89), Group
Attractiveness ([alpha] = .95), and Group Heterogeneity ([alpha] = .67), confirmatory factor
analysis demonstrated satisfactory loadings and t-scores, and communalities.
Structural Model Results
Based on our initial analyses, we tested the hypotheses using the two new factors of
"Group Listening Effectiveness" and "Group Expression Effectiveness" rather than the entire
Group Communication Satisfaction factor. A review of the individual scale items revealed that
we were capturing effectiveness as opposed to satisfaction. The goodness of fit of the overall
model was tested with the chisquare test, the comparative fit index (CFI), Bollen's fit index
(BFI), and the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The significance of
individual relationships between constructs as indicated by the hypotheses was determined
from the path co-efficients and their significance tests. The results for the model using Group
Listening Effectiveness and Group Expression Effectiveness are presented in Figure 2 and

Figure 3, respectively. Overall, each model fits the data moderately well. The criteria
established were met for all of the statistics except for the RMSEA.
Group Listening Effectiveness
The overall fit statistics of the Group Listening Effectiveness model, including the [chi
square] (99), was 208.306; pvalue = 0.000; the IFI and CFI each equaled 0.91; and the
RMSEA was. 10 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.08 and .12. Group Processes had a
positive relationship with the financial performance variable of Profit, supporting Hypothesis
1 ([beta] = 0.85, p < 0.05). (NOTE: [lambda] indicates the relationship between an
independent latent variable and an endogenous latent variable; the [beta] represents the
relationship between any two endogenous variables.) Listening Effectiveness had a small but
significant relationship with Group Processes, supporting Hypothesis 2 ([beta] = 0.15, p <
0.05). Hypotheses 4, predicting that Group Heterogeneity would positively impact Listening
Effectiveness, was not supported ([lambda] = 000.19). Hypothesis 5, predicting a positive
relationship between Group Attractiveness and Listening Effectiveness, was supported
([lamda] = 0.47, p < 0.05). Overall, approximately 94% of the variance of Profit was
explained by the Listening Effectiveness Model.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Group Expression Effectiveness
The model also fits the data moderately well for Group Expression Effectiveness, as
evinced by the goodness of fit measures. The [chi square] (113) was 235.742, p = 0.000; CFI
= 0.91; IFI = 0.91; and the RMSEA was 0.10 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.08 and 0.12.
The insufficient RMSEA statistic, which favors parsimonious models, suggests that the model
fit would improve by eliminating variables. However, because we were interested in the
relationships between the constructs that we studied, we continued the analysis based on the
remaining fit statistics, which are adequate. Group Processes had a positive relationship with
financial performance, as defined as profit, thus supporting Hypothesis 1 ([beta] = 2.05, p <
0.05). Group Expression Effectiveness had a strong, significant relationship with group

processes, supporting Hypothesis 2 ([beta] = 0.45, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 4, predicting that
Group Heterogeneity would positively impact Expression Effectiveness, was not supported
([lambda] = 0.12). And Hypothesis 5, predicting a positive relationship between Group
Attractiveness and Group Expression Effectiveness, was supported ([lambda] = 0.85, p <
0.05). The antecedents explicated in the model explained 83% of variance in the Profit
variable.
Tests of Mediation
In analyzing Hypothesis 3, a test of mediation on the role of Group Listening and
Expression Effectiveness on Group Processes as a mediator to profit indicated that Group
Processes does indeed mediate the Listening and Expression Effectiveness and Financial
Performance relationship. Employing the Wald test of mediation in structural equation
modeling, we found that the test of the differential [x.sup.2] was neither significant for
listening ([chi square] = .002, [alpha] = .964) nor expression ([chi square] = .001, [alpha] = .
975). In other words, the direct path between Listening or Expression Effectiveness and Profit
added no significant value to the fit of the proposed model.
Although a statistical comparison of the two models cannot be assumed because the
models are not nested, inferences regarding the relative impact of Listening Effectiveness
versus Expression Effectiveness can be made from these results. Generally, it appears that
while the Listening Effectiveness model more fully explains profit, listening also seems to
have less influence on Group Processes than the expression model.
DISCUSSION
Research Implications and Future Research
In testing the first hypothesis, this study began by examining the impact of Group
Communication Satisfaction on Financial Performance. Kirtley Johnston et al. (2000) adapted
Hecht's (1978b) communication satisfaction scale to reflect an individual's satisfaction with
the exchange of information that occurs within a group. This study extends their findings to
look at the impact of Group Communication Satisfaction on Group Financial Performance. It
may not be enough simply to examine what has been communicated (e.g., goals and plans) or

individual perceptions of her/his communication style (e.g., Downs and Hazen, 1977). The
results of this study suggest that how group members perceive information is given and
received also impacts organizational results. Organizational outcomes are likely influenced by
communication at a variety of levels (i.e., between groups, between individuals). But with an
increased use of teamwork in organizations, individual perceptions of group communication,
rather than her or his personal abilities, could open opportunities for future research on group
effectiveness.
Rigorous methodology employed in this study increased the difficulty of finding
results and, therefore, supports the importance of the findings. Using EQS software, structural
equation modeling (SEM) methods were applied to test both the measurement models and
research models. Rather than restricting the model to additive relationship, such as in
regression, path analysis in SEM allows for specification of relationships and proposed
directed and indirect impact of variables. Measures of fit in SEM indicate how well the
hypothesized model fits the data (Kline, 2004; Schumacker and Lomax, 1996). For example,
using a confirmatory factor analysis for the Communication Satisfaction measure revealed
loadings on multiple unique dimensions that would not have been uncovered by simply
looking at the high overall reliability of the scale in SPSS.
Using structural equation modeling we examined the Group Communication
Satisfaction measure, and the results indicated that it represents a complex higher-order
construct. The two factors with the most integrity were Group Listening Effectiveness
(Listen) and Group Expression Effectiveness (Express). Future research needs to be
undertaken to refine the construct and measures of communication satisfaction,
communication effectiveness, and organizational satisfaction.
Rather than a direct effect, Group Listening Effectiveness and Group Expression
Effectiveness enhanced the Group Processes that impacted performance. In no organization is
communication an end in-and-of itself. Communication facilitates the accomplishment of task
and relationship goals by sharing information about what needs to be done, how, when, where
and by whom. The measure of Group Processes (Taylor and Bowers, 1972) focused on the
basic skills of group work, including planning, coordination, decision making, and trusting.
Group Communication Effectiveness seems to enable group members to achieve tasks more
effectively and for group norms to emerge.

We affirmed the findings that Group Attractiveness positively relates with Group
Listening Effectiveness and Group Expression Effectiveness. In light of the growth of
research regarding group efficacy (e.g., Lee and Farh, 2004; Pescosolido, 2003; Bandura,
1997), we propose a more rigorous analysis of this scale and further exploration of the
relationship between group efficacy and group listening and group expression effectiveness.
According to Bandura, group efficacy refers to "a group's belief in their conjoint capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment"
(1997: 477). Confidence in group members' abilities may stimulate talking and listening, or
vise versa, talking and listening may build confidence in the groups' ability.
Managerial Implications
In the context of interpersonal communication, specifically with the Communication
Satisfaction Questionnaire (Downs and Hazen, 1977), several attempts have been made to
decompose the construct to workable factors and validate the dimensions with discriminate
validity (e.g., Clampitt and Downs, 1993; Gray and Laidlaw, 2004). Rather than looking at an
individual's satisfaction with their own communication behaviors, the results of this study
suggest that an individual's perception of the groups' desire to listen and encourage expression
leads to more effective group processes. The dimensions of Group Listening Effectiveness
and Group Expression Effectiveness can help practitioners focus on the most influential
dimensions of communication. In addition, with an increased use of teamwork in
organizations, individual perceptions of group communication (rather than her or his personal
abilities) could open managerial and team training opportunities on group effectiveness.
Limitations
While our research illuminates the function of Listening and Expression Effectiveness
in relation to Group Attractiveness, Group Processes, and Financial Performance of a business
simulation program, the empirical assessment should be interpreted in light of several
limitations resulting from trade-off decisions of the research design. The use of student
subjects in a cross-sectional research design, while ideal for expedient theory exploration,
limits the generalizability of the results. Naturally, replications should be extended to actual
firms and ideally should explore longitudinal phenomena. Researchers could scrutinize the

model across varied types of firms (e.g., between manufacturing and services) to uncover
consistencies and differences, and further refine the model.
In addition, while we took precautions to avoid gross violation of the independence
assumption, future researchers could incorporate research designs that permit an investigation
of the Communication EffectivenessGroup Processes model in relation to varied measures of
financial performance (e.g., stock prices) to mitigate the violation of the independence
assumption, and alleviate the common methods bias.
One confounding effect on Comnmnication Effectiveness and Group Processes could
be the on-going feedback the students received from their professor on their team simulation
performance. For example, teams receiving positive feedback may have been motivated to put
either more effort into group interaction or less effort due to overconfidence. Future research
could employ a longitudinal design to capture frequency and valence of feedback.
Next, the small sample size of N = 104 barely matched the general standard (N = 100)
for small studies, which limited the power of the structural equation analysis and prohibited us
from developing a more complex model with additional estimated parameters. Nevertheless,
the sample size was sufficient to allow for a path analysis, taking current ANOVA-based
research findings on the relationships between Communication Effectiveness, Group
Processes, and Financial Performance to a higher level. Path analysis reveals the degrees of
significant interrelationships among direct and moderating effects; ANOVA tells us there are
significant relationships without expressing magnitude.
While Heterogeneity is a valuable construct, our study did not find a relationship
between Heterogeneity and Group Communication Effectiveness. Future research could
continue to examine and refine different heterogeneity scales beyond demographics, including
the impact of diversity on team development stages, and their differential impact on
performance.
In summary, this study advances the understanding of how communication can impact
financial performance. How group members exchange information with each other enables
more effective group work, and effective group processes leads to increased financial
performance. Specifically, Communication Effectiveness derives from the belief that one can

freely express his or her thoughts in a group and the sense that others have listened to what
she/he said. In a global environment that depends on social networks, diversity, and social
identities, communication helps build the respect and confidence groups need to achieve
collective goals.