MANAGERIAL PERCEPTIONS OF BARRIERS TO …journal.azbea.org/v24n1/v24n1sgolen.pdf · ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005-37- Managerial Perceptions of Barriers to Internal Corporate

ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005

-37-

Managerial Perceptions of Barriers to Internal Corporate Communication Within and

Across Hierarchical Levels

Lawrence P. Grasso

Central Connecticut State University

Steven P. Golen

Arizona State University

Alvin Burns

Louisiana State University

Abstract

A better understanding of managers' perceptions of barriers to communication would help accountants communicate more effectively

and improve their ability to promote more effective communication throughout the organization. This study examined barriers to

effective communication as perceived by managers, in three relational settings within the organization, (1) relationships with superiors,

(2) relationships with subordinates and (3) relationships with other managers. The major objective of this study was to determine the

seriousness of these barriers and to identify which of these barriers are related to each other across the three relational settings.

Interrelationships between the barriers were investigated using principal components analysis. Associations between personal or job

characteristics and the perceived seriousness of barriers to communication were also examined.

Four of the six underlying dimensions identified (attitudinal, perceptual, social, and physical) were common to all three relational

settings. A technical barrier dimension emerged for communication with superiors and subordinates, but not for communication with

other managers. A competitive barrier dimension emerged for communication with superiors and other managers but not for

communication with subordinates. Managers perceived attitudinal barriers to be the most serious and physical barriers to be the least

serious barriers to communication in each relational setting. Little evidence of an association between differences in perceived

seriousness of barrier dimensions and personal or job characteristics were found.

Differences in factor composition suggested that barriers to communication are perceived differently depending upon the relational

setting within the organization. Three contextual factors (locus of control, direction of communication, and the number of participants)

that may explain the perceptual differences are proposed. These factors may provide the basis for hypotheses to be tested in future

research.

Introduction

The world is in the midst of an information revolution that

is dramatically altering the nature of commerce. The

changing conduct of commerce is also affecting the role of

managers in organizations. In the quest for improvement in

quality, efficiency, and responsiveness, the responsibility of

operational control and supervision is shifting from middle

management to labor. Competitive, antagonistic, arms-length

relationships between customers and suppliers are being

replaced by more cooperative and coordinated arrangements.

Managers are increasingly viewed as enablers, facilitators, and

counselors rather than as organizers, directors, and monitors

(Stewart, 1991). More than ever, the ability to process, analyze,

and act quickly on information is critical to achieving a

competitive advantage in the current business environment. The

role of management will be to counsel and provide resources, to

build group consensus and cooperation across organizational

boundaries (Dumaine, 1991). Consequently, effective

communication, always critical to effective management, is

more important than ever in the current competitive

environment.

Communication must be considered in the context of the

organizational structure. Managerial communication takes place

vertically within the organizational structure, either upward

(communication with superiors) or downward (communication

with subordinates). Communication paths also exist across the

organizational structure, as managers may need to communicate

with peers having different product, regional, or functional

responsibilities. Managers may view communication and its

attendant barriers and problems differently depending on its

place in the organizational hierarchy. Roberts et al. (1974) stated

that within various levels of organizational analysis,


-38-

communication operates differently. Therefore, this study

examined barriers to effective communication as perceived by

managers. An increased awareness and understanding of how

barriers are perceived should help managers improve their own

communication skills as well as increase their ability to help

other managers communicate more effectively. Brown (1976)

noted that awareness of the communication barriers must be

completed first before any serious efforts to improve

communication can occur.

Communication within the Organizational Structure

Managers view communication with superiors and people

external to the organization as both more challenging and more

important than communication with subordinates (Whitley,

1985). However, increasing communications between a superior

and subordinate will decrease informational discrepancies

(Jaworski and Young, 1992). Clement (1974) and Lawler et al.

(1968) found that managers were less satisfied with their

interactions with subordinates than they were with interactions

with their superiors. Others have found that there are

hierarchical distinctions in the accuracy and amount of

information passed in an upward direction (Athanassiades,

1973, 1974; Glauser, 1984; Level and Johnson, 1978; O'Reilly,

1978; O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974).

Bednar (1982) examined the relationship between

perceived communication style and managerial performance.

Managers were evaluated by all of their subordinates,

superiors, and peers on the basis of whether their

communication style was represented by various personal

characteristics. He concluded that effective managerial

performance was significantly associated with certain

characteristics of the managers' communication style.

Specifically, for the evaluation by superiors, there was a

direct relationship between performance and open-minded,

animation, and overall communication image and an

inverse relationship with contentious or argumentative

characteristics. For evaluations by subordinates, preciseness

was significant, and for the peer evaluation, attentive was

significantly associated with performance.

Klauss and Bass (1982) analyzed the verbal communication

behavior of managers and the impact of this behavior on

subordinates, peers, and superiors. In one part of the study, the

communication patterns of managers were examined as they

relate to their leadership or managerial styles. Based on the

analysis of subordinates describing their superiors' leadership

and communication behavior, consultative, participative or

delegative leadership was strongly linked to the managers'

communication style, credibility, and outcomes of role clarity,

satisfaction with the manager, and job satisfaction.

In the second part of the study, supervisory personnel from

social services, industry, and the military were rated by

their subordinates, peers, and subordinates regarding the

supervisors' communication style, credibility, and outcomes.

Based on the analysis of the three samples, no simple pattern

or direction emerged and that the relations appear to be

situation and rater specific. Therefore, as Klauss and Bass

(1982) noted, linkages among various dimensions of

structure need to be completed in order to appreciate their

impact on communication.

Barriers to Communication

An implicit assumption in the communication process is that a

free flow of information exists between the sender and receiver.

This process portrays communication as a continuous and

dynamic flow, but communication involves a constant

interpretation of messages by the sender or receiver. As a result,

problems or barriers arise that can inhibit or impede the free

flow of information during a communication exchange. As

Pearce et al. (1988) stated, "to communicate effectively in

business, you need to understand how barriers operate, why they

interfere with communication, and how you can decrease their

negative effect . . . You need to recognize the cues that signal

miscommunication" (p. 33).

Fisher (1981) stated that because individuals in organizations

tend to be specialists, communication difficulties can arise.

These specialists have different concerns and consequently

speak "different" languages. As a result, when two or more

specialists need to coordinate their work closely, barriers can

become difficult and significant. He went on to say that "barriers

tend to occur not singly, but in interrelated clusters. Most

communication problems are not understood well until several

barriers have been identified" (Fisher, 1981, p. 9). In addition,

Tafoya (1976) noted that causal relationships exist among

barriers, indicating that some barriers may be caused by other

barriers. Thus, there is evidence that suggests that there are

certain barriers that are indeed related to each other, and these

barriers must be identified first before any attempt to resolve a

communication problem can be made.

Only a couple of studies have dealt with the determination of

multiple barriers to effective communication (Golen et al., 1988;

Golen, 1987). However, several studies have dealt with

individual communication barriers or problems, such as trust

(O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Zand, 1972), credibility (Giffin,

1967; O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974); size (Bacharach and Aiken,

1977); physical distance (Allen and Gerstberger, s19730;

defensiveness (Gibb, 1961); listening (Hunt and Cusella, 1983;

Lewis and Reinsch, 1988; Watson and Smeltzer, 1984); and

resistance to change (Golen et al., 1985).


-39-

In Golen et al. (1988), 244 CPAs indicated their perceptions of

communication barriers in an auditor-client relationship. Based

on a factor analysis, they found that the most serious barriers

appeared in four dimensions or factors. The dimensions

identified in this study were attitudinal, personal and physical,

lack of an accounting background, and defensiveness. The

respondents' gender, firm size, and job position were tested

across the dimensions. Female CPAs perceived the

communication barriers as more serious than males, and staff

accountants perceived these barriers as more serious than

managers and partners. The firm size had no effect.

Based on a study of 193 managerial banking personnel,

Golen (1987) found that a number of barriers to effective

communication exist between bank managers and their

customers. Six factors or dimensions were identified, and they

were close-mindedness and distractions, competitiveness,

superiority complex and credibility, personality concerns, lack

of banking knowledge, and perceptual differences. Various

demographics were tested across the six factors. Female

managers perceived the barriers to be more serious than males.

Bank managers who work in smaller banks perceive the

barriers to be more serious than those managers in larger

banks, while middle and upper bank managers perceived

the barriers to be more serious than first-line managers. The

respondents' age, number of years in present managerial

position, and number of employees supervised had no effect.

In comparing the two studies, only one dimension or factor

was similar and that dealt with the lack of technical

knowledge. Females perceived barriers as more serious in

both studies. However, in the accounting study, there was

no firm size effect; but in the banking study, bank

managers from smaller banks perceived the barriers as

more serious than those from larger banks. Interestingly,

lower level personnel in the accounting study and middle

and upper managers in the banking study perceived

barriers to be more serious. It appears, therefore, that the

context of the communication activity changes the type of

problem that exists. Thus, as Klauss and Bass (1982)

stated, the "communication activity will vary considerably

across situations and will have a differing impact as well,

depending on the immediate context" (pp. 15-16).

Research Questions

This study examined the seriousness of barriers to effective

communication, as perceived by managers, in three relational

settings within the organization: (1) relationships with

superiors, (2) relationships with subordinates, and (3)

relationships with other managers. The major objective of

this study was to determine the seriousness of these

barriers and to identify which of these barriers are related

to each other across the three relational settings. The

following four research questions were formulated:

1. What barriers are perceived as most serious in each of

the three relational settings?

2. Is the perceived seriousness of the barriers stable across

settings?

3. What are the interrelationships between barriers in each

setting?

4. Are these interrelationships consistent for each of the

three settings?

A number of communications researchers believe that

existing evidence suggests that effective superior-subordinate

communication is contingent on a number of factors,

including organizational climate, task type, gender, and

work unit size (Dansereau and Markham, 1987). Tafoya

(1976) noted that barriers to communication may be

perceived differently by different races, age groups, or between

sexes, and that these barriers may vary in different settings as

well. Klauss and Bass (1982) noted that the process of

communication needs to be analyzed in the specific context

within which it occurs, and what works in one communication

context man not have similar results in another context.

For example, Pinder and Pinto (1974) found that young

managers (age 20-29) tend to be more autocratic and low in

human relations skills. Consequently, communication style

could change with age, leading to a change in perceived

importance of communication barriers. Jablin (1979)

suggested that upper level managers tend to involve their

subordinates more in decision making than do lower level

managers. Thus, the importance of communication barriers

may change with the difference in focus. Golen et al.

(1988) found that women accountants perceive com-

munication barriers to be more serious than do men. They

also found that the perceived seriousness by CPAs of attitudinal

and personal and physical barriers to client communication

varied depending on job position. Therefore, a comparison of

the managers' perceptions with those of managers in other

functional areas leads to the final research question:

5. Is a manager's perception of the seriousness of barriers

to communication associated with personal or job

characteristics?

Method

Questionnaire Construction

The questionnaire was constructed initially through a review of

the literature, which identified the most common barriers to

communication across disciplines (Allen, 1977; Argyris, 1966;


-40-

Aveleyra, 1980; Brown, 1976; Golen et al., 1988; Pearce et al.,

1988; Rice and Colby, 1976; Rogers and Roethlisberger, 1952;

Sigband, 1977; Tafoya, 1976). These barriers were edited after

feedback from managers and university accounting and business

communication professors. Comments were received and

changes were made based on the questionnaire's content, clarity

of directions, vocabulary difficulty, ambiguities, and length. The

final questionnaire contained a list of 32 possible barriers to

communication for each setting.1 A five point scale, anchored

on "(1) not serious" and "(5) very serious," was used to elicit

managers' perceptions as to the seriousness of the barriers in

affecting the quality of communication in each of the three

relational settings. To give the respondents an opportunity to

identify any other barriers that were not included on the

questionnaire, an "other" category was provided for open-ended

responses. However, no substantive comments were received

from the respondents.

Sample Selection

One hundred and twelve members, mostly middle

managers, attending an executive development program at

a large university in the southeastern United States participated

in the study. The participants completed the questionnaire

during a session, ranking the barriers to communication in each

of three managerial relationships: (1) their relationships with

superiors, (2) their relationships with subordinates, and (3)

their relationships with other managers. The participants also

provided demographic data which are summarized in Table 1

(Appendix A).

Most (96 out of 112) of the participants provided a

complete set of 96 barrier rankings (32 barriers ranked in

each of three settings). The sixteen participants that left

one or more rankings blank may have felt that a particular

barrier did not apply to their situation. There was,

however, no systematic pattern of omissions. Sixty-six of

the 96 barriers had a complete set of responses. Of the

remaining 30 barriers, one had three omissions and the

other 29 had only one or two omissions. The responses

covered the entire range of seriousness ranks from 1 to 5

for 92 of the barriers. The responses ranged from 1 to 4 for

the other four barriers.2 In general, the variability, range,

and completeness of the responses seems to indicate that

the participants had a reasonably high level of interest in

the questionnaire.

Data Analysis and Results

Seriousness of Individual Barriers to Communication

The mean seriousness ratings for each barrier to

communication with superiors, subordinates, and other

managers are reported in Table 2. The barriers' ranks (as

determined by mean rating) are presented in the table.

Tukey T-tests were run to assess the significance of

differences between means within each relational setting. If

the Tukey T-tests showed that the mean for a barrier was

significantly (p < .05) different from every barrier with a

mean below the overall mean for that relational setting, the

barrier was classified as high in seriousness and is shown

in bold print on Table 2. Similarly, a barrier significantly

(p < .05) different from every barrier with a mean above

the overall mean for that relational setting, was classified

as low in seriousness and is also shown in bold print on

Table 2. Barriers with mean seriousness ratings between

the two extremes were classified as moderate in seriousness.3

Lack of credibility, lack of trust, tendency not to listen, and

resistance to change were in the high seriousness classification

in all three settings. Know-it-all attitude was also high for

communication with superiors and other managers and

hostile attitude was high for communication with superiors.

Both barriers just missed the high threshold in other

settings. The too many intermediate receivers barrier was

classified as high in seriousness only for communication

with superiors.

Four barriers (speaking too loudly, poor spatial arrangements,

inappropriate physical appearance, and physical distance

between sender and receiver) were classified as low in

seriousness across all three settings. Status or position was

a moderately serious barrier for communication with other

managers but was low in other settings. Overly competitive

attitude and use of profanity were low for communication

with subordinates and inability to understand non-verbal

communication was low for communication with superiors.

While the other three barriers were moderate in other settings,

inability to understand non-verbal communication and use of

profanity were just above the threshold in other settings.

Stability of Perceived Seriousness across Relational Settings

The results reported in Table 2 suggest that the perceived

seriousness of the barriers was generally stable across the

different relational settings. The overall mean seriousness

rating was approximately 2.9 in each setting. As discussed

above, there was a substantial amount of agreement across

settings regarding barriers classified as high or low in

seriousness. In addition, the correlation of the barriers’

mean seriousness rankings between relational settings each

exceeded .9 and was highly significant.4

There were, however, a few differences. Seven Tukey T-

tests of differences in means for each barrier across

relational settings were significant at p < .05. The mean


-41-

level of seriousness for lack of understanding of technical

language was significantly lower for communication with

superiors than it was in the other two settings. The mean for

status or position was significantly higher in the manager setting

than it was for communication with superiors or subordinates.

The mean for overly competitive attitude was lower for

communication for subordinates than for communication with

other managers. The other two significant differences were for

lack of knowledge of work operations (higher for subordinates

than for superiors) and defensiveness (higher for other

managers than for superiors).

Interrelationships between Barriers: Factor Analysis

The barrier ratings in each of the three communications settings

were factor analyzed in order to better understand the

relationships between the individual barriers and to determine

whether these interrelationships appeared to be stable across the

three settings. The principal components method was used to

extract the factors. Factors with an eigen value greater than one

were retained. The minimum eigen value criterion resulted in

the retention of six factors for communication with superiors,

five factors for communication with subordinates, and five

factors for communication with other managers. These factors

can be seen as representing dimensions of barriers to

communication. The retained factors explained over 65 per cent

of the overall variance in the barrier ratings for each of the three

relational settings.5 The factor loadings were subjected to an

orthogonal rotation using the varimax procedure. The results are

presented in Tables 3 through 5 (Appendix A). In each setting

the barriers are listed under the factor for which they had their

primary (highest) loading. Factor loadings exceeding .40 are

listed in bold print.

The Dimensions of Barriers to Communication: Analysis of

Factor Composition

Attitudinal Barriers

Attitudinal barriers were by far the most significant barriers to

communication across all three settings. All of the barriers to

communication classified as high had their primary loadings on

this factor across all three settings. The barriers strongly

associated with this factor across all three settings were lack of

trust, lack of credibility, tendency not to listen, hostile attitude,

lack of interest in the subject matter, know-it-all attitude, and

emotional reactions.6 Another five barriers had their primary

loadings on this factor across all three settings. Like the barriers

with strong associations, the direct connection with individual

behavior is readily apparent for three of these barriers (either-or

thinking, resistance to change, prematurely jumping to

conclusions). For the other two barriers (too many intermediate

receivers and lack of feedback) the connection with individual

behavior is not as clear. It may be that these barriers are viewed

as manifestations of a lack of interest or caring.

Another eight barriers had at least moderate loadings

across all three settings. Two of these (defensiveness,

personality conflicts) are directly connected with individual

behavior. The other six are better characterized as

manifestations or outcomes of attitudinal problems. The

barriers representing manifestations or outcomes of

attitudinal problems tended to have higher loadings for

communication with superiors than for the other settings.

Prejudice or bias, informal social groups and cliques, and

status or position were associated with attitude for

communication with superiors while they were considered

primarily social or perceptual barriers for the other settings.

Managers may attribute control of their communication

with superiors as residing with their superiors. If so, the

presence or absence of some physical, social, and

perceptual barriers may be seen as evidence of deliberate

or strategic behavior by the superior rather than as a "fact

of life" beyond the superior's immediate control.

One exception to this general trend was the fear of

information distortion barrier, which was perceived as an

attitudinal barrier for communication with managers and

subordinates and as a technical barrier for communication

with superiors. Peer managers and subordinates may be

seen as distorting information primarily by engaging in

strategic behavior and withholding, biasing, or selectively

reporting information. Superiors may be viewed as

distorting information primarily by misreading information

they receive due to a lack of technical knowledge. This

view would be consistent with a flow of information

primarily up and across the organizational hierarchy.

Technical Barriers

The primary technical barriers to communication were lack of

understanding of technical language and lack of knowledge of

work operations. These barriers were viewed as perceptual

barriers in communication with other managers, as the technical

dimension did not emerge for that relational setting. It could be

that technical knowledge is not required for many

communications across the corporate hierarchy, so that the

problem is more one of mind-set than of understanding details

of particular messages.

Competitive Barriers

Overly competitive attitude loaded strongly on this dimension

for communication with superiors and with other managers.

Defensiveness had its primary loading on this factor for


-42-

communication with managers but only a weak secondary

loading for communication with superiors. Defensiveness was

significantly higher in seriousness as a barrier to communication

with managers than with subordinates (Table 2). The mean

seriousness was moderate for communication with superiors

(Table 2), but was much closer to the mean for subordinates

than it was to the mean for the other manager setting. The

competitive dimension did not emerge for communication with

subordinates. Overly competitive attitude was perceived as a

social barrier for communication with subordinates, perhaps

being associated more with status seeking than with a threat to

the manager in relational setting.

Social Barriers

The composition of the factor that appeared to represent a

social dimension of barriers to communication was

somewhat different for communication with superiors than

for communication with subordinates or with other managers.

Two barriers were strongly associated (informal social groups

or cliques and status or position) with this factor in the

latter two settings. The same barriers had only moderate

secondary loadings for communication with superiors,

where they were primarily associated with attitudinal

barriers. Use of profanity and physical distance between

sender and receiver were strongly associated with this

factor under communication with superiors. Perhaps distance

and the use of profanity were seen as a means of enforcing

status or position in this setting. On the other hand, it may

be that status and position is viewed as giving the superior

power to "get away" with using profanity and distance, as

inappropriate physical appearance also had a primary

loading on this factor in the superiors setting. These

barriers were associated more with the physical barriers

factor in the subordinates and other managers settings.

An interesting pattern of secondary loadings also emerged on

the social factor. Attitudinal barriers (personality conflicts,

prematurely jumping to conclusions, defensiveness) had

secondary loadings on this factor for communication with

subordinates. Of these barriers, however, only personality

conflicts had high loadings in either of the other two settings.

Thus the "cause" of barriers seems to be attributed to the

individual in communication with superiors and to broader

social or class differences in communication with subordinates.

Two "attitudinal manifestation" barriers (information overload

and too many intermediate receivers) had moderate secondary

loadings on the social factor for communication with other

managers, but not in either the superiors or the subordinates

setting. The intermediate receivers barrier did not have a high

secondary loading in either the superiors or the subordinates

settings. Information overload had a primary (secondary)

loading on the physical barriers factor in the subordinates

(superiors) setting.

Physical Barriers

Barriers representing distractions, static, or interference had high

loadings on the factor characterized as representing a physical

barriers dimension. The barriers had to do with the surroundings

(e.g., poor spatial arrangements, physical noise and distractions,

inappropriate physical appearance) as well as the delivery (e.g.,

speaking too loudly, poor organization of ideas, use of profanity,

poor timing of message) of the communication. The barriers

forming the core of this factor were among those rated the least

serious by the managers.

In general, the barriers had stronger loadings on the physical

factor in the subordinates and other managers settings than in

the superiors setting. Many of these variables were also

associated with attitudinal and social dimensions in the superiors

setting. An interesting exception to this trend is the poor

organization of ideas barrier. This barrier is associated with both

the physical and attitudinal dimensions in both the superiors and

other managers settings, but its association with the physical

barriers dimension is stronger in the superiors setting. This may

indicate that the direction of the communication as well as the

perceived locus of control affects the degree to which barriers

are attributed to individual attitudes rather than group or external

factors. Poor organization of ideas was strongly associated with

the perceptual barrier dimension for communication with

subordinates.

Perceptual Barriers

The differences in perception barrier was (not surprisingly)

strongly associated with the factor characterized as representing

a perceptual barrier dimension across all three settings. With

that exception, the perceptual barriers factor had more

variation across settings than the three other factors

representing dimensions found in all three relational settings.

In the superiors setting, poor message timing and inability to

understand non-verbal communication had high loadings on

this factor. Poor message timing also had a high loading on

this factor for communication with subordinates, as did

prejudice or bias, resistance to change and (as mentioned

earlier) poor organization of ideas.

However, inability to understand non-verbal communication did

not have a high loading on this factor in either the subordinates

or the other managers settings. Poor message timing did not

have a high loading on this factor in the other managers setting,

where it was associated with the physical barriers dimension.

Technical barriers, which emerged as a separate factor in the

other settings, were associated with the perceptual barriers

dimension in the other managers setting.


-43-

Stability of Barrier Interrelationships across Relational Settings

As was the case with the mean seriousness ratings for individual

barriers, a comparison of the rotated factor loadings across the

three hierarchical settings revealed a degree of consistency as

well as some interesting differences. Of the 32 barriers to

communication investigated, eight had strong loadings on the

same factor across all three hierarchical settings. Another eight

barriers had primary loadings on the same factor across all three

hierarchical settings, but they also had at least one other high

loading in one or more settings.

Four factors with similar composition emerged in each of the

three relational settings. The four common dimensions of

communication barriers were labeled attitudinal, physical,

perceptual, and social. Another factor interpreted as re-

presenting technical barriers to communication emerged for

communication with superiors and subordinates, but not for

communication with other managers. A factor interpreted as

representing competitive barriers emerged for communication

with superiors and other managers but not for communication

with subordinates. Thus the factor analysis identified six

dimensions of barriers to communication. At least five of the

dimensions were found in each setting, and four were common

to the three relational settings investigated. A comparison of the

higher loadings on each factor across the three settings is

presented in Table 6. To facilitate evaluation of the factors and

comparisons across relational settings, factor loadings for

barriers having "strong" associations with a single factor are

shown in bold print. A barrier was considered to be strongly

associated with a single factor for a relational setting if the

following three criteria were met: (1) the barrier's loading on the

factor was .50 or higher, (2) the barrier's loading on the factor

exceeded its loading on any other factor by at least .20, and (3)

the barrier did not have a loading of .40 or higher on any other

factor for the relational setting.

Differences Associated with Personal or Job Characteristics

Standardized factor scores (mean=0, variance=1) were

generated for each of the sixteen factors identified. Using the

demographic data supplied by the participants (Table 1,

Appendix A), it was possible to test for group differences on

three personal (age, educational level, and level of experience)

and three job (functional area, hierarchical level, and number of

subordinates) characteristics.7 A total of 96 (16 communications

barrier factors * 6 characteristics) tests were run.8

Age

Using the age classifications reported in Table 1, separate

one way ANOVAs were run for each of the sixteen factors.

The age classification achieved at least a 10 percent level

of significance explaining the variation of three factors,

attitudinal barriers to communication with other managers

and with subordinates, and competitive barriers to

communication with other managers. The results of these

three ANOVAs are summarized in Table 7 (Appendix A).

An analysis of group means (Table 8, Appendix A)

revealed that young managers (age 21-30) appeared to

perceive attitudinal barriers as more serious than did older

managers in the subordinates and other managers settings.

The young managers and the oldest managers (over 50)

perceived competitive barriers to communication with

other managers to be less serious than did managers in the

middle age classes.9 This latter result was the strongest

evidence of group differences found in this study. Given

the non-monotonic nature of the observed relationship, the

result may be related to the types of managerial positions

and/or the career aspirations held by managers aged 31 to

50. The management level and functional area variables,

however, did not capture this effect.

Educational Level

The educational level classifications from Table 1 were

modified by collapsing the advanced degrees (masters and

doctorates) into a single classification. Separate one way

ANOVAs were then run for each of the sixteen factors.

Educational level achieved a significance level of at least

ten percent in explaining variance in attitudinal barriers to

communication with other managers (Table 7).

The data in Table 8 (Appendix A) show that the mean perceived

seriousness of attitudinal barriers to communicating with other

managers was higher for managers holding either bachelors or

associates degrees than for managers holding only high school

diplomas or holding advanced degrees. The mean perceived

seriousness of competitive barriers to communicating with other

managers was higher for managers with bachelors and advanced

degrees than for managers with lower levels of formal

education. None of the differences between means related to

educational classifications, however, were significant.

Experience

The classifications reported under experience in Table 1 were

collapsed into two groups. Mean factor scores for managers

reporting five or less years of experience were compared to the

mean scores for managers reporting six or more years of

experience. Managers with less experience perceived technical

barriers to communication with superiors to be more serious

(.170 vs. -.204, p=.0538). None of the other factors had

significant differences between group means at a 10 percent

level of confidence. One reason for the failure to find more

significant results may have been the weakness of the


-44-

experience measure. The responding managers were asked to

report the number of years they had worked in their current

position or for their current employer or in the general area.

These can be viewed as three separate constructs with three

different effects, and perhaps three different answers for each

manager.

Functional Area

The responses from managers providing information about

functional area were divided into two groups: accountants and

all others. Only one of the sixteen T-tests comparing group

means on the factor scores revealed a difference between group

means at better than a 10 percent level of significance. The

accountants (mean -.281) perceived the social barriers to

communication with other managers to be less serious than did

the other managers (mean .094, p=.0790).

Hierarchical Level

Using the upper, middle, and lower management classifications

reported in Table 1, separate one way ANOVAs were run for

each of the sixteen factors. Hierarchical level achieved at least a

10 percent level of significance explaining the variation of two

factors, physical barriers to communication with other managers

and social barriers to communication with subordinates. The

results of these two ANOVAs are summarized in Table 7.

An analysis of group means (Table 8) revealed that middle

managers perceived physical barriers to communication with

other managers and social barriers to communication with

subordinates as a less serious problem than did upper level

managers. The mean scores for the lower level managers were

between the upper and middle management group values for

both factors and were not significantly different from either

group.

Number of Subordinates

T-tests were run comparing mean factor scores for managers

with ten or less subordinates to the scores for managers with

eleven or more subordinates. Managers with ten or less

subordinates had significantly higher mean scores than

managers with eleven or more subordinates for competitive

barriers to communication with other managers (.141 vs. -.270,

p=.0317). Differences between group means on the other fifteen

factors were not significant at test-wise 10 percent level of

confidence.

Summary: Differences Associated with Personal or Job

Characteristics

The "significance" of the differences must interpreted with

caution. As 96 separate tests of overall significance were

conducted, the result (nine tests significant at a 10 percent

threshold) was no different than what would be expected due to

chance. Only the effect of age on perceived seriousness of

competitive barriers to communication with other managers and

the effect of hierarchical level on social barriers to

communication with subordinates were highly significant. The

nature of the associations in these relationships was not

monotonic. Middle age groups and middle management levels

appeared to differ from the extremes. The significant results may

well be due to omitted variables, perhaps related to stage of

career. The evidence of differences in perception of barriers to

communication based on the demographic characteristics in this

study is minimal at best.

This does not mean that group differences in perception do not

exist. To examine whether interactions between demographic

variables were obscuring significant group differences, fully

crossed multivariate ANOVAs were run for each factor with

age, hierarchical level, and educational level as the independent

variables.10 Overall F tests were significant at p<.10 for physical

and competitive barriers to communication with other managers.

Partial F tests for the three-way interaction between the

independent variables were significant for the competitive

barriers, and the interaction between age and hierarchical level

was significant for the physical barriers. Partial F tests were also

significant at p<.10 for the three way interactions associated

with attitudinal and social barriers to communication with

subordinates and attitudinal barriers to communication with

other managers, although the overall F tests were not significant

for these models.

The above results suggest that the relationship between

demographic factors and the perceived seriousness of barriers to

communication may be subtle and complex. The classifications

in this study were ad hoc. The need to obtain adequate cell

populations for statistical testing often determined the

classifications. In addition, the expectation of group differences

was not derived from a well developed theory. A stronger theory

coupled with a finer measurement of demographic factors in the

context of the theory may be necessary to before the true

significance of group differences in perception of barriers to

communication is revealed.

Summary and Conclusions

The results of this study are subject to a number of

limitations. As the responding managers were participants

in an executive development program at a single university, they

may not represent an unbiased sample of managers in general.

The questionnaire prompted the managers to attribute the source

of the communication barriers to the other member(s) of the

communication dyad or to the surroundings. Results might have


-45-

been different if the respondents had been asked to focus on

their own behavior as a source of barriers to communication in

each of the settings.

The other managers setting could refer to communication with

other managers in the same or in different functional areas. The

managers also could be on the same or different levels in the

corporate hierarchy. No information was available regarding the

primary form of communication (e.g., telephone, face-to-face

meeting, letters or written reports) used, which may have varied

both within and across the relational settings examined. In short,

there are a number of unobserved variable that may have

affected the results.

The respondents were also not asked to calibrate their rankings

of perceived seriousness, limiting the ability to make inferences

regarding the relative importance of individual barriers to

communication. However, the order in which the barriers

appeared on the questionnaire was identical for the three

settings. After completing the assessment of barriers in the first

setting, the respondents knew that they would be evaluating the

importance of the same barriers in the latter two settings. Thus,

the consistency of the seriousness ratings across settings for

some barriers provides some indication that lack of calibration

may not have been a serious problem.

Despite the limitations, a number of interesting results

emerged that provide directions for future research. Four

dimensions of communications barriers, attitudinal, perceptual,

social, and physical, emerged in all three settings. The

attitudinal barriers were perceived as the most serious

barriers to communication, and the physical barriers were

perceived as the least serious. Attitudinal barriers were also

perceived by CPA's to be the most serious barriers to

communications with their audit clients in a study by Golen

et al. (1988). Of the communication barriers receiving "high"

mean seriousness ratings in any of the three settings in this

study, only know-it-all attitude (considered a moderate

barrier by the CPAs) did not also receive a "high" mean

rating from the CPAs. The results reported by Golen et al.

(1988) and this study suggest that the relative importance

of the attitudinal dimension may hold in a wide variety of

business settings.

The competitive barrier dimension did not emerge for

communication with subordinates. An overly competitive

attitude on the part of a subordinate was associated with

social barriers. It may be that subordinates were viewed as

competing with one another, while competitive superiors

and other managers were viewed as posing a direct threat

to the respondent's position or agenda. The perceived focus

of competition may affect the perception of communication.

The technical barrier dimension did not emerge for

communication with other managers. Lack of specific know-

ledge may be perceived as evidence of incompetence or lack of

caring in a superior or subordinate while it is viewed as an

unfortunate but unavoidable condition when communicating

with a manager in a different functional area. In some cases,

communication may not require specific knowledge of the

respondent's operations on the part of the other managers.

Differences in specific knowledge may nevertheless impede

communication due to differences in perception or mind-set

arising from the differences in technical and experiential

backgrounds.

The most interesting results of this study relate to the

composition of the four dimensions common to all three

relational settings. These dimensions can be considered as

representing different attributions of the cause of impediments to

communication. In the attitudinal and perceptual dimensions,

communication is impeded by an individual. The attitudinal

dimension seems to represent overt actions and behavior

by the individual. The behavior may be strategic in nature,

representing deliberate attempts to obscure or impede

communication. The perceptual barriers, on the other hand,

appear to represent a more subconscious dimension of

individual behavior. Behavior does not appear to be as willful

or strategic. Communication is impeded as the result of

ingrained personal differences between individuals. These

barriers seem to be more interpersonal and intrapersonal.

The social dimension is similar to the perceptual

dimension, but social barriers are attributed to group or

class rather than individual differences. The physical dimensions

contains barriers assigned an external attribution. Physical

surroundings and the communication medium rather than

the individuals involved are seen as the source of the

impediments to communication. Because these barriers are

more related to the channel or medium, they appear to be more

organizational and external to the sender and receiver.

A comparison of the composition of barrier dimensions in

each of the relational settings revealed a number of

interesting differences. For example, prejudice or bias,

informal social groups and cliques, and status or position

were associated with attitude for communication with

superiors while they were considered primarily social or

perceptual barriers for the other settings. Fear of

information distortion was perceived as an attitudinal

barrier for communication with managers and subordinates

and as a technical barrier for communication with superiors. Use

of profanity and physical distance between sender and receiver

were strongly associated with social barriers for

communication with superiors and with physical barriers

for communication with other managers. Physical distance


-46-

was also strongly associated with the physical dimension

for communication with subordinates, but use of profanity

had moderately high loadings on both the physical and

social dimensions in this relational setting.

Three contextual factors are proposed to explain the

differences in perception across the relational settings: (1)

locus of control, (2) direction of information flow, and (3)

number of participants. Examination of the effects of these

factors on barriers to communication and more generally

on effective communication in organizations should provide a

fruitful avenue for future research.

Locus of Control

Many of the communication barriers in this study describe

behaviors or behavioral responses (e.g., emotional reactions,

hostile attitude, prematurely jumping to conclusions). Other

barriers, such as "too many intermediate receivers" or

"information overload," describe conditions or outcomes. If

managers perceive control over communication as residing

primarily with the other party, barriers that would otherwise be

assigned an external attribution may be perceived as a

manifestation of strategic behavior. Relatively high loadings on

the attitudinal dimension in communication with superiors for

barriers that were primarily considered physical, social, and

perceptual barriers in other settings may have been due to

managers' perception that their superiors control communication

in this setting.

Direction of Information Flow

An individual's perception of barriers to communication

and their importance may depend upon whether they are

primarily senders or receivers of information in a particular

setting. Fear of distortion or omission of information, for

example, could represent concern that senders may engage

in strategic behavior, withholding or biasing information. It

could also represent concern that a receiver will misread or

distort the communication.

Number of Participants

Managers typically communicate directly with only one or

perhaps two superiors. They are likely, however, to

communicate directly with several subordinates and other

managers. Communication barriers may be more likely to

be attributed to individual factors than to group factors in

the superiors setting. Communication with subordinates,

on the other hand, may well occur in a group setting or it

may involve repeated one-on-one communications of a

similar nature. Managers may be more likely to attribute

barriers to group differences as a result. Communication

with other managers is likely to fall somewhere in between.

While a manager is likely to have contact with several

other managers, the communication is more likely to take

place on a one-on-one basis and is more likely to vary in

substance and form than is communication with subordinates.

In this study, attitudinal barriers (personality conflicts,

prematurely jumping to conclusions, defensiveness) had

secondary loadings on the social dimension for communication

with subordinates. Only personality conflicts had high loadings

in superiors or other managers settings. Thus the "cause" of

barriers seems to be attributed to the individual in

communication with superiors or other managers and to

broader social or class differences in communication with

subordinates. Two "attitudinal manifestation" barriers (in-

formation overload and too many intermediate receivers) had

moderate secondary loadings on the social factor for

communication with other managers, but not in either the

superiors or the subordinates setting.

Attitudinal barriers, generally attributable to overt individual

behavior, were considered the most serious barriers to

communication in all three relational settings. Under certain

circumstances, barriers that might otherwise be associated with

physical, social, or perceptual dimensions may be perceived as

manifestations of strategic behavior. Behavioral consequences

associated with these barriers may be more severe when barriers

are attributed to strategic behavior than when they are not. It

may be particularly important to develop system designs and

analytical aids that minimize these barriers when the chance is

high that they will be associated with the attitudinal dimension.

Further research examining the relationship of perceived barriers

to communication with perceived locus of control, direction of

information flow, and the number of participants should

improve our understanding of communication within organi-

zations. The research may also provide a means of directing

designers of information systems to the organizational settings

where reduction of barriers will have the greatest benefit.

References

Allen, T. J., & Gerstberger, P. D. (1973). A field experiment to improve

communications in a product engineering department: the non-territorial

office. Human Factors, 15, 487-498.

Argyris, C. (1966). Interpersonal barriers to decision making. Harvard

Business Review, 44 (2), 84-97.

Athanassiades, J. C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in

hierarchical organizations. Academy of Management, 16, 207-226.

Athanassiades, J. C. (1974). An investigation of some com-munication

patterns of female subordinates in hierarchical organizations.

Human Relations, 27, 195-209.


-47-

Aveleyra, E. (1980). Hurdling the barriers of effective communication.

The Internal Auditor, xx, 81-83.

Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1977) Communication in administrative

bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 365-377.

Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communication style and

managerial performance in complex organizations: a field study. The

Journal of Business Communication 19, 51-76.

Brown, D. S. (1976). Barriers to successful communication. The Accountant,

175, 101-102.

Clement, S. D. (1974). An analytical field study of selected message

and feedback variables in the officer hierarchy of the U.S. Army.

Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University (Dissertation Abstracts

International, 35, 609A, University Microfilms No. 74-15).

Dansereau, F., & Markham, S. E. (1987), Superior-subordinate com-

munication: multiple levels of analysis. in F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K.

Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational

Communication: an Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 343-388).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Dumaine, B. (1991) The bureaucracy busters, Fortune, 123(13) (Volume 123,

No. 13, June 17, 1991) 36-50.

Fisher, D., Communication in Organizations (New York: West Publishing Co.,

1981).

Gibb, J. R. Defensive Communication, The Journal of Communication

(vol. 11, September 1961) 141-148.

Giffin, K. The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a Theory of

Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process, Psychological

Bulletin (vol. 68, 1967) 104-120.

Glauser, M. J. Upward Communication Flow in Organizations: Review

and Conceptual Analysis, Human Relations (vol.37, 1984) 613-

643.

Golen, S. An Insight into Communication Barriers between Bank

Managers and Their Customers Journal of Education for

Business (April 1987) 293-296.

Golen, S. P., S. W. Looney, and R. A. White An Empirical Examination of

CPA Perceptions of Communication Barriers Between Auditor

and Client, Advances in Accounting (Volume 6, 1988) 233-249.

Golen, S. , J. Waltman, and S. White, An Analysis of Factors that

Contribute to Resisting Technological Change in the Office

Office Systems Research Journal (vol.4, 1985) 1-7.

Hunt, G. T. and L. P. Cusella, A Field Study of Listening Needs in

Organizations Communication Education (vol. 32, 1983) 393-

401.

Jablin, F. M. Superior-Subordinate Communication: The State of the

Art, Psychological Bulletin (Volume 86, No. 6, 1979) 1201-

1222.

Jaworski, B. J. and S. M. Young, "Dysfunctional Behavior and Management

Control: An Empirical Study of Marketing Managers,"

Accounting, Organizations and Society (1992) 17-35.

Klauss, R. and B. Bass, Interpersonal Communication in

Organizations (New York: Academic Press, 1982).

Lawler, E. E., L. W. Porter, and A. Tenenbaum Managers' Attitudes

Toward Interaction Episodes, Journal of Applied Psychology

(Volume 52, 1968) 432-439.

Level, D. A. and L. Johnson, Accuracy of Information Flows within the

superior/subordinate Relationship Journal of Business Communication

(vol. 15, 1978) 12-22.

Lewis, M. H. and N. L. Reinsch, Jr. Listening in Organizational

Environments The Journal of Business Communication (vol.25,

1988) 49-67.

O'Reilly, C. A. The Intentional Distortion of Information in

Organizational communication: a Laboratory and field approach

Human Relations (vol.31, 1978) 173-193.

O’'Reilly, C. A. and K. H. Roberts, Information filtration in

organizations: three experiments Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance (vol.11, 1974) 253-265.

Pearce, C. G., R. Figgins, and S. P. Golen Business Communication:

Principles and Applications (2nd ed.) (New York: John Wiley,

1988).

Pinder, C. C., and P. R. Pinto Demographic Correlates of Managerial Style,

Personnel Psychology (Volume 27, 1974) 257-270.

Rice, J. A., and J. B. Colby Communication Barriers: Individual Quirks

and Corporate Personalities, Supervisory Management (April,

1976) 2-10.

Roberts, K. H., C. A. O'Reilly, G.E. Bretton, and L. W. Porter Organizational

Theory and Organizational Communication: A communication failure

Human Relations (vol.27 1974) 501-524.

Rogers, C. R., and F. J. Roethlisberger Barriers and Gateways to

Communication, Harvard Business Review (July/August, 1952) 46-52.

Sigband, N. B. Communication for Results, Governmental Finance

(February, 1977) 10-14.

Stewart, T. A. GE Keeps Those Ideas Coming, Fortune (Volume 124,

No. 4, August 12, 1991) 40-49.

Tafoya, D. W. Barriers to Interpersonal Communication: A Theory and

Typology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, (The University of

Michigan, 1976).

Watson, K. W. and L. R. Smeltzer, Barriers to Listening: Comparison

between students and practitioners Communication Research

Reports (vol. 1, 1984) 82-87.

Whitley, W. Managerial Work Behavior: an Integration of Results from

Two Major Approaches, Academy of Management Journal

(Volume 28, No. 2, 1985) 344-362.

Zand, D. Trust and Managerial problem solving Administrative Science

Quarterly (vol. 17, June 1972) 229-240.


-48-

Notes 1. A thirty-third line was included on the questionnaire to give

respondents the opportunity to add a barrier to communication not

included among the 32. Only a few respondents availed themselves

of this opportunity, so analysis was restricted to the 32 barriers.

2. "Speaking too loudly" and "Inability to understand non-

verbal communication" for communication with superiors,

"Speaking too loudly" for communication with subordinates,

and "Poor spatial arrangements" for communication with

other managers were the four barriers that had no responses

with a rank higher than 4.

3. Despite the use of T-tests, the classification criteria are

subjective and are primarily intended to provide a basis for

discussion rather than to clearly differentiate between barriers

closely ranked in relative seriousness. Significance tests of

differences between means within each relational setting are

suspect because the respondents were not asked to calibrate

their rankings of perceived seriousness. However, the order

in which the barriers appeared on the questionnaire was

identical for the three settings. After completing the assessment of

barriers in the first setting, the respondents knew that they

would be evaluating the importance of the same barriers in

the latter two settings. Thus, the consistency of the seriousness

ratings across settings for some barriers provides some

indication that lack of calibration may not have been a

serious problem.

4. Communication with Superiors vs. Communication with

Subordinates, r = .91; Communication with Superiors vs.

Communication with Other Managers, r = .93; Communication

with Subordinates vs. Communication with Other Managers,

r = .92. All three correlations significant at p < .001.

5. The percentage of variance in the barriers explained by the

retained factors was 69.14% for communication with superiors,

66.54% for communication with subordinates, and 65.68%

for communication with other managers. The percentage of

variance explained by each individual factor after the

orthogonal rotation is provided in Tables 3 through 5.

6. A barrier's association with a factor was considered strong if

the following three conditions were satisfied: (1) the factor

loading was .50 or greater, (2) the loading was at least .20

higher than the barrier's loading on any other factor, (3) the

barrier had no other factor loading greater than or equal to .40.

7. Group differences for "Gender" and "Number of Superiors"

were not examined due to the lack of variability in the

responses on these dimensions.

8. Multivariate MANOVAs could have been run instead of

using multiple tests to reduce the experiment-wise probability

of type 1 error. However, the examination of group differences (or

lack thereof) was not conducted to test a theoretical

proposition. The tests were conducted to uncover empirical

evidence that might suggest avenues for future research. In

the absence of any theory to predict significant interactions

between the independent variables, simple univariate tests

(evaluated with an allowance for the increased risk of type 1

errors) reduced the loss of data due to missing observations

and provided results that were easy to interpret.

9. Tukey T-tests were used to determine the significance of

differences between group means. The tests were conducted

using both 5 percent and 10 percent significance thresholds.

10. Data were insufficient to run fully crossed ANOVAs or

MANOVAs in model with all six demographic variables

included as independent variables.


-49-

Appendix A


-50-

TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Age

21-30

31-40

41-50

Over 50

Not Responding

Number

11

42

43

15

1

Percent

9.9

37.8

38.7

13.5

Functional Area

General Managers

Accounting

Production

Marketing

Data Processing

Finance

Personnel

Not Responding

Number

47

35

8

7

4

4

3

4

Percent

43.5

32.4

7.4

6.5

3.7

3.7

2.8

Total Responding

111

100.0

Total Responding

108

100.0

Gender

Male

Female

Not Responding

Number

99

6

7

Percent

94.3

5.7

Hierarchical Level

Upper Management

Middle Management

Lower Management

Not Responding

Number

24

76

10

2

Percent

21.8

69.1

9.1

Total Responding

105

100.0

Total Responding

110

100.0

Educational Level

Doctorate or JD

Master's Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Associate's Degree

High School Diploma

Not Responding

Number

6

10

64

10

17

5

Percent

5.7

9.3

59.8

9.3

15.9

Number of

Subordinates

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

Over 50

Not Responding

Number

72

14

7

3

3

11

2

Percent

65.5

12.7

6.4

2.7

2.7

10.0

Total Responding

107

100.0

Total Responding

110

100.0

Experience (years in

area, or at current

position or employer)

Less than 1

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

Not Responding

Number

7

50

25

14

9

2

1

2

2

Percent

6.4

45.5

22.7

12.7

8.2

1.8

.9

1.8

Number of Superiors

Respondent Reports to

Directly

None

1 or 2

3 or 4

5 or more

Not Responding

Number

2

101

7

1

1

Percent

1.8

91.0

6.3

.9

Total Responding

110

100.0

Total Responding

111

100.0


-51-

TABLE 2

PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION1

with

Superiors

with

Subordinates

with

Other Managers

Barrier to Communication

Rank,

Mean

Std.

Dev.

Rank,

Mean

Std.

Dev.

Rank,

Mean

Std.

Dev.

Lack of credibility

Lack of trust

Tendency not to listen

Hostile attitude

Know-it-all attitude

Resistance to change

Too many intermediate receivers

Lack of feedback

Prematurely jumping to conclusions

Differences in perception

Either-or thinking

Lack of interest in the subject matter

Emotional reactions

Personality conflicts

Defensiveness

Fear of distortion or omission of

information

Poor organization of ideas

Prejudice or bias

Poor timing of the message

Lack of knowledge of work operations

Informal social groups or cliques

Information overload

Overly competitive attitude

Physical noise and distractions

Use of profanity

Lack of understanding of technical

language

Inability to understand non-verbal

communication

Physical distance between sender

and receiver

Status or position

Inappropriate physical appearance

Poor spatial arrangements

Speaking too loudly

1, 3.61

2, 3.61

3, 3.50

4, 3.49

5, 3.47

6, 3.38

7, 3.35

8, 3.25

9, 3.23

10, 3.22

11, 3.15

12, 3.14

13, 3.09

14, 3.05

15, 3.04

16, 2.96

17, 2.96

18, 2.87

19, 2.68

20, 2.65

21, 2.61

22, 2.61

23, 2.52

24, 2.47

25, 2.34

26, 2.33

27, 2.26

28, 2.25

29, 2.23

30, 1.96

31, 1.95

32, 1.92

1.48

1.51

1.37

1.43

1.38

1.30

1.27

1.19

1.17

1.22

1.08

1.33

1.28

1.22

1.19

1.14

1.21

0.99

1.05

1.19

1.04

1.01

1.11

1.12

1.22

1.01

0.90

1.07

1.00

1.04

0.90

0.91

2, 3.56

3, 3.54

4, 3.46

5, 3.41

7, 3.34

1, 3.57

17, 2.97

6, 3.35

14, 3.05

18, 2.95

9, 3.17

8, 3.25

12, 3.10

15, 3.02

13, 3.08

11, 3.12

16, 2.99

19, 2.93

22, 2.50

10, 3.13

24, 2.42

21, 2.62

29, 2.26

23, 2.46

26, 2.33

20, 2.86

25, 2.35

27, 2.29

28, 2.29

31, 2.12

30, 2.13

32, 2.10

1.40

1.59

1.33

1.48

1.38

1.17

1.32

1.18

1.07

1.03

1.11

1.39

1.21

1.18

1.12

1.16

1.07

1.18

1.03

1.22

1.11

1.08

1.00

1.12

1.25

1.12

1.04

1.07

1.00

1.09

1.02

0.97

1, 3.71

2, 3.66

4, 3.49

6, 3.42

3, 3.62

5, 3.46

16, 3.05

13, 3.19

15, 3.10

11, 3.21

12, 3.20

8, 3.23

10, 3.22

9, 3.22

7, 3.39

14, 3.12

18, 2.97

17, 3.01

22, 2.66

19, 2.88

25, 2.60

23, 2.66

20, 2.84

28, 2.42

26, 2.52

21, 2.72

27, 2.46

29, 2.32

24, 2.60

32, 2.12

31, 2.12

30, 2.17

1.34

1.34

1.20

1.29

1.28

1.11

1.22

1.04

1.10

1.11

1.11

1.26

1.23

1.18

1.02

1.10

0.99

0.91

0.99

1.17

1.08

1.00

1.11

1.08

1.26

0.98

1.03

1.03

0.98

1.07

0.93

0.99

Overall

2.85

1.28

2.87

1.26

2.95

1.20

1 Bold listings indicate mean values significantly higher (lower) than every barrier mean below (above)

the overall mean within each relational setting based on Tukey T-tests (p < .05).


-52-

TABLE 3

FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH SUPERIORS

(Barriers are listed with the factor for which they had the highest loading)

Factor Name (percentage of overall

variance explained)

Factor Loadings

Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V VI

2

4

3

1

7

5

11

9

12

13

15

8

6

22

24

10

21

14

29

I Attitudinal (28.82%)

Lack of trust

Hostile attitude


Lack of credibility



Either-or thinking



Emotional reactions

Defensiveness

Lack of feedback




Prejudice or bias



Status or position

.849

.812

.788

.762

.701

.697

.690

.685

.675

.662

.661

.658

.628

.586

.538

.518

.492

.456

.408

.228

.178

.169

.353

.247

.224

.113

.162

.306

.278

.123

-.049

.341

.045

.030

.272

-.011

.154

-.187

.099

.118

.275

.009

.187

.225

.260

.162

.133

.003

.251

.434

.312

.268

.101

.343

.254

.370

.078

.215

.266

.186

.276

.104

.184

.068

.092

.284

.229

.152

.129

.009

.301

.537

.475

.191

.216

.265

.157

.204

.141

.112

.291

.092

.179

.126

.095

.159

.181

.217

.174

.273

.164

.098

.446

.347

.364

.041

.082

-.093

-.103

.139

.176

.174

.312

.152

.328

.358

-.125

.068

.168

.095

-.078

.075

.066

.260

26

20

16

II Technical (8.98%)

Lack of understanding of tech. language


Fear of dist. or omission of information

.206

.233

.394

.851

.709

.653

.116

.097

.262

.035

.103

.135

.129

.194

.043

.085

.072

.001

18

19

27

III Perceptual (8.82%)


Poor timing of message

Inability to understand non-verbal comm.

.156

.326

.397

.195

.124

.164

.814

.719

.542

.009

.326

.173

.004

.140

.287

.136

.101

.081

32

31

17

IV Physical (8.70%)

Speaking too loudly



.199

.241

.513

.236

-.103

.326

.055

.213

.157

.664

.642

.579

-.045

.434

.097

.463

.108

-.055

25

28

30

V Social (8.52%)

Use of profanity

Physical dist. betw. sender and receiver


.218

.138

.205

.139

.261

.218

-.028

.147

.300

.018

.091

.437

.798

.676

.538

.015

.247

-.015

23

VI Competitive (5.30%)


.177

.062

.148

.107

.191

.867


-53-

TABLE 4

FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH SUBORDINATES


Factor Name

(percentage of overall variance explained)

Factor Loadings

Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V

3

5

8

4

2

15

12

17

7

13

6

9

1

11

14


Lack of trust

Hostile attitude



Lack of credibility


Emotional reactions



Defensiveness

Lack of feedback

Either-or thinking


Fear of distortion or omission of information


.814

.802

.790

.789

.704

.698

.674

.669

.630

.609

.601

.579

.572

.566

.497

.238

.129

.287

.203

.188

.232

.153

.238

.249

-.026

.365

.236

.185

.129

.206

.031

.053

.229

.209

.263

.159

.139

.167

.323

.211

.261

.406

.558

.350

.336

.108

.306

.079

.070

.055

.301

.336

.274

.220

.459

.091

.172

.189

.144

.466

.304

.250

.232

.156

.342

.040

.125

.175

.257

.097

.120

-.128

-.071

.416

.142

31

23

30

27

32

21

25

II Physical (12.78%)




Physical distance between sender and receiver

Speaking too loudly


Inability to understand non-verbal communicat'n

.033

.340

.242

.311

.178

.441

.425

.826

.662

.639

.602

.588

.466

.450

.172

.246

.183

-.072

.221

.218

.207

.107

.152

.255

.248

.296

.168

.150

.032

.247

.089

-.045

.410

.356

.293

18

19

16

22


Prejudice or bias




.034

.384

.340

.313

.062

.154

.151

.454

.792

.652

.620

.605

.172

.277

.120

.100

.186

.137

.205

.103

29

24

28

26

IV Social (9.06%)



Status or position

Use of profanity

.220

.172

.272

.234

.358

.208

.287

.424

.118

.289

.314

-.045

.693

.688

.549

.466

.066

.091

.082

.315

20

10

V Technical (7.94%)

Lack of understanding of technical language


.195

.440

.137

.128

.168

.150

.171

.013

.820

.698


-54-

TABLE 5

FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER MANAGERS


Factor Name

(percentage of overall variance explained)

Factor Loadings

Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V

1

2

4

14

3

8

6

5

15

12

13

10

16

18

23


Lack of Credibility

Lack of Trust

Tendency Not to Listen


Know-it-all Attitude


Hostile Attitude



Either-or thinking

Lack of feedback

Emotional reactions




.869

.865

.823

.754

.746

.739

.727

.667

.626

.620

.614

.613

.613

.532

.441

.214

.160

.187

.145

.220

.229

.333

.136

.332

.302

.284

.305

.272

.446

.387

.090

-.022

.184

.314

.156

.246

.104

.208

.168

.226

.264

.166

.105

.408

-.080

.151

.164

.176

.022

.115

.223

.270

.261

.179

.222

.205

.236

.410

-.013

.402

.058

.059

.016

.150

.265

.029

.165

.208

.281

.118

-.042

.239

-.023

.168

.083

31

32

30

28

29

26

22

27

II Physical (16.14%)



Speaking too loudly


Physical distance between sender and receiver

Use of profanity


Inability to understand non-verbal communicat'n

.133

.163

.256

.351

.196

.153

.411

.386

.805

.747

.732

.667

.655

.593

.560

.511

.040

.423

.159

-.083

-.063

.320

.294

.287

.182

.056

.064

.301

.207

.146

.204

.070

.081

-.017

.231

.034

.058

.106

.082

.160

17

21

19

11





Prejudice or bias

.083

.479

.454

.318

.031

.200

.338

.213

.685

.627

.497

.493

.331

-.005

.145

.411

.269

.048

.034

.056

25

24

9

IV Social (7.75%)


Status or position


.282

.178

.456

.158

.259

.326

.259

.123

.122

.688

.622

.503

.032

.151

.186

20

7

V Competitive (5.36%)


Defensiveness

.145

.550

.254

.067

.087

.254

.146

.106

.858

.610


-55-

TABLE 6 (Part 1)

FACTOR LOADINGS1: A COMPARISON ACROSS HIERARCHICAL SETTINGS

(Factor loadings below .30 are omitted, strong associations2 are in bold)

Factor Name Superiors Subordinates Managers

Barriers to Communication Rank Load Rank Load Rank Load

Attitudinal

Lack of trust


Hostile attitude

Lack of credibility




Emotional reactions

Either-or thinking


Lack of feedback


Defensiveness






Inability to understand non-verbal commun.


Prejudice or bias


Status or position


Poor message timing

2

3

4

1

12

5

7

13

11

6

8

9

15

16

14

22

17

20

27

24

18

21

29

26

19

.849

.788

.812

.762

.675

.697

.701

.662

.690

.628

.658

.685

.661

s .394

.456

.586

s .513

s .397

.538

.518

.492

.408

t .326

3

4

5

2

8

7

17

12

9

1

6

14

13

11

15

21

16

10

25

23

18

24

28

20

22

.814

.789

.802

.704

.790

.630

.669

.674

.579

.572

.601

.497

.609

.566

.698

s .441

s .340

s .440

s .425

s .340

t .313

2

4

6

1

8

3

16

10

12

5

13

15

7

14

9

23

18

19

27

28

11

25

24

21

22

.865

.823

.727

.869

.739

.746

.613

.613

.620

.667

.614

.626

s .550

.754

s .456

.441

.532

s .454

s .386

s .351

t .318

s .479

s .411

Technical




Speaking too loudly

26

20

16

32

.851

.709

.653

20

10

11

32

.820

.698

s .416

s .410

Competitive


Defensiveness

Speaking too loudly

23

15

32

.867

s .358

s .463

20

7

30

.858

.610

1 "s" Designates the barrier's second highest factor loading for this type of communication.

"t" Designates the barrier's third highest factor loading for this type of communication.

Unless otherwise indicated, the factor loading is the barrier's highest (primary) loading. 2 Strong associations (1) are .50 or higher, (2) exceed the next highest factor loading for the barrier

by .20, and (3) are for a barrier that does not have a loading .40 or higher on another factor.


-56-

TABLE 6 (Part 2)

FACTOR LOADINGS1 A COMPARISON ACROSS HIERARCHICAL SETTINGS

(Factor loadings below .30 are omitted, strong associations2 are in bold)

Factor Name Superiors Subordinates Managers

Barriers to Communication Rank Load Rank Load Rank Load

Social


Use of profanity

Status or position


Physical distance between sender & receiver

Inappropriate appearance



Defensiveness




21

25

29

23

28

30

14

9

15

31

7

22

s .446

.798

s .364

.676

.538

t .347

s .434

24

26

28

29

27

31

15

14

13

30

17

21

.688

.466

.549

.693

s .301

s .466

s .459

25

26

24

20

29

32

9

15

7

31

16

23

.688

.622

.503

s .410

s .402

Physical


Speaking too loudly



Physical distance between sender & receiver



Use of profanity



Prejudice or bias

31

32

24

30

28

27

17

25

19

22

18

.642

.664

s .537

s .437

.579

s .326

s .301

s .475

30

32

23

31

27

25

16

26

22

21

18

.826

.588

.662

.639

.602

.450

s .424

s .454

.466

31

30

28

32

29

27

18

26

22

23

11

.805

.732

.667

.747

.655

.511

s .446

.593

.560

t .387

Perceptual



Prejudice or bias






Lack of feedback


Either-or thinking

10

19

18

17

27

26

20

6

8

30

11

.814

.719

t .343

.542

t .312

s .434

t .300

19

22

18

15

25

20

10

1

6

30

9

.652

.605

.792

.620

s .558

s .406

17

22

11

18

27

21

19

5

13

32

12

.685

.493

t .408

.627

.497

s .423

1 "s" Designates the barrier's second highest factor loading for this type of communication.

"t" Designates the barrier's third highest factor loading for this type of communication.

Unless otherwise indicated, the factor loading is the barrier's highest (primary) loading. 2 Strong associations (1) are .50 or higher, (2) exceed the next highest factor loading for the barrier

by .20, and (3) are for a barrier that does not have a loading .40 or higher on another factor.


-57-

TABLE 7

SUMMARY: UNIVARIATE ANOVAs1

COMMUNICATION WITH SUBORDINATES

Factor (Dependent Variable)

Source

SS

df

F

Prob.

ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS

AGE

error

8.66

93.37

3

100

3.09

.0305

SOCIAL BARRIERS

HIERARCHICAL

LEVEL

error

11.37

90.62

2

100

6.28

.0027

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER MANAGERS

Factor (Dependent Variable)

Source

SS

df

F

Prob.

ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS

AGE

error

9.17

92.55

3

99

3.27

.0244

EDUCATIONAL

LEVEL

error

7.22

92.93

3

95

2.46

.0673

COMPETITIVE BARRIERS

AGE

error

14.65

87.47

3

99

5.53

.0015

PHYSICAL BARRIERS

HIERARCHICAL

LEVEL

error

6.27

96.54

2

99

3.21

.0445

1 Forty-eight univariate ANOVAs were run, three on each of the sixteen barrier dimensions. Results

of ANOVAs where the F test did not achieve a test-wise level of significance of at least p < .10 are

not reported.


-58-

TABLE 8

MEAN FACTOR SCORES BY GROUP1

Communication Setting >

Barrier to Communication Factor >

Other Managers

Subordinates

ATTITUDINA

L

ATTITUDIN

AL

COMPETITIV

E

AGE

21-30

31-40

41-50

Over 50

A A .725

AB B -.119

AB AB .115

B B -.451

A A -.705

B B .299

AB B .133

A A -.631

A .766

B -.212

AB .075

AB -.112



Other Managers

Subordinates

SOCIAL

PHYSICAL

HIERARCHICAL LEVEL

Upper Management

Middle Management

Lower Management

A .474

B -.137

AB -.030

A .584

B -.196

AB .385



Other Managers

PHYSICAL

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Graduate Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Associate's Degree

High School Diploma

A -.270

A .126

A .357

A -.512

1 Group means with the same letter are not significantly different from one another based on Tukey

tests at a p<.10 (p<.05) confidence level.

Documents

MANAGERIAL PERCEPTIONS OF BARRIERS TO …journal.azbea.org/v24n1/v24n1sgolen.pdf · ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005-37- Managerial Perceptions of Barriers to Internal Corporate