Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies http://jlo.sagepub.com/

Reconceptualizing Social Skills in Organizations: Exploring the Relationship between

Communication Competence, Job Performance, and Supervisory Roles
Holly J. Payne
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2005 11: 63
DOI: 10.1177/107179190501100207

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/11/2/63

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:

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

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

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

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

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

Reconceptualizing Social Skills in Organizations:
Exploring the Relationship between
Communication Competence, Job Performance,
and Supervisory Roles

Holly J. Payne - Western Kentucky University

This study applies a three component model of important for business school graduates in the
communication competence (motivation, 21’t century (Porterfield & Forde, 2001).
knowledge, and skill) within an organizational Empirical research links social skills and other
context and analyzes the relationship between job communication constructs with various
performance, position level, and communication organizational outcomes including job mobility
competence. Data analysis revealed high job (Kilduff & Day, 1994), upward mobility, job
performers had significantly higher levels of level, and pay (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher &
motivation to adapt communication and higher
Zom, 1986), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999)
levels of communication skill (empathizing,
and general mental ability and job performance
adapting communication, and managing
interactions). Also, supervisors were more
(Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001).
While a number of these studies articulate
motivated to communicate and empathize than
the importance of communication skill, few
subordinates. Finally, level of job performance
address the impact of communication
and job position (supervisor or non-supervisor)
did not influence level of communication competence, which moves beyond social skills
competence. These results along with limitations by including affective, cognitive, and behavioral
and avenues for future research are discussed. elements. Communication competence describes
the overall impression one has of a
As organizational structures flatten and communicator who meets interaction goals at
transformational leadership styles are fostered, both an appropriate and effective level
corporate demand for employees skilled in (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). This article
interpersonal communication is on the rise. provides an overview of a relational model of
communication competence within the
Organizations are working to recruit, promote,
organizational context and reports the findings
develop, and train transformational leaders who
connect with employees emotionally and have of how job performance for employees and
verbal and coaching skills (Bass, 1999; 1990). supervisors relates to communication
Numerous studies querying graduates, competence.
employers, and faculty members show
communication skill as one of the top areas Literature Review
needing improvement among employees and
new graduates (Maes, Weldy, & Icenogle, 1997; Defining Communication Competence
Morreale, Osborn, & Pearson, 2000). Recently, Recognizing that communication
HR managers from Fortune 500 corporations competence multifaceted researchers of
is
included listening, speaking, team participation, employee communication competence should
and communication of information as most develop comprehensive conceptual definitions.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

64

Many scholars have attempted to define behaviors, and one’s motivation to perform
interpersonal communication competence; competently.
however, the process is likened to &dquo;climbing a
greased pole&dquo; (Phillips, 1984, p. 25) and Competence in the Organizational
competence is still considered a &dquo;fuzzy&dquo; concept Context
(Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 819). The lack of a Few researchers have attempted to
widely-accepted definition is due to the systematically study competence within the
complexity of the communication process and organizational context. Monge, Bachman,
problems with measurement (Rubin & Martin, Dillard, and Eisenberg (1982) tested a model
1994; Wiemann, Takai, Ota, & Wiemann, 1997). representing a performance-based (behavioral)
However, definitions of communication approach. The Communication Competence
competence are becoming more specific as the Questionnaire (CCQ) measured two macro-level
issue of context is given more consideration. skills, encoding and decoding. Although this
Current conceptualizations of competence was a positive move toward measuring
continue to rely on Spitzberg and Cupach’s organizational communication competence the
(1984) original criteria: appropriateness and CCQ focused primarily on skills necessary to
effectiveness. Jablin and Sias (2001) define accomplish work tasks, and did not include
competence as &dquo;the set of abilities, henceforth, relational forms of communication. These
termed resources, which a communicator has researchers consider organizational
available for use in the communication process&dquo; communication relationships between coworkers
(p. 125). This definition is a strategic, goal- or with supervisors as &dquo;non-interpersonal&dquo; (p.
oriented approach to competence stressing 507), overlooking relational forms of
knowledge and ability. communication as essential to workplace
Obviously these definitions go beyond communication. Their research does not
communication that is simply successful by incorporate motivation or knowledge, the
emphasizing two main components: knowledge affective and cognitive elements of competence.
of communication and context and ability to Few studies in management use the
obtain goals (skill). According to Wright ( 1991 ), communication competence construct; however,
the diversity of definitions and treatments of Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, & Henwood ( 1991 )
competence exists because of the diversity of tested the impact of communication skills
what scholars considered the most salient issues (clarity, articulateness, and accuracy),
to the construct: knowledge (McCroskey, 1982), motivation (oral, nonverbal, and written
behaviors (Wiemann, 1977), or goal attainment communication apprehension), and cognitive
(Spitzberg, 1983). skills (cognitive complexity, perspective taking,
Based the research outlined above, a
on and self-monitoring) on managerial
more contextually sensitive definition of performance. Results showed higher performing
communication competence within managers had higher verbal communication
organizations would extend the original skills and lower communication apprehension;
Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) model and define however, they did not have greater social
organizational communication competence as cognitive ability.
the evaluative impression of the quality of More recently, Jablin and his colleagues
interaction moderated by organizational norms investigated threshold communication
and rules. In other words, organizational competencies in organizations (Jablin, Cude,
communication competence is the judgment of House, Lee, & Roth 1994; Jablin & Sias, 2001).
successful communication where interactants’ They define threshold communication
goals are met using messages that are perceived competencies as, &dquo;... generic capabilities which
as appropriate and effective within the are essential to performing jobs, but which are

organizational context. Communication not sufficient to cause superior levels of

competence in organizations involves effectiveness in communication&dquo; (p. 120).
knowledge of the organization and of Jablin et al. (1994) provide a continuum of
communication, ability to carry out skilled employee communication progressing from
precompetent to overcompetent.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014


The pre-competence stage is when
newcomer to an organization &dquo;has not yet
developed the capacities necessary to
communicate competently in a particular
environment&dquo; (Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 828), and
threshold competence is achieved when an
employee eventually meets basic
communication qualifications for his/her
specific job description. This approach assumes
that through the screening process, socialization,
and training in the company, most employees
achieve the threshold level. Next, workers move
toward a proficient level of competence, in
which the employee uses competent scripts to
select and perform messages. Finally, Jablin and
Sias (2001) describe the overcompetent level as
a once- competent communicator who now
relies on old scripts instead of developing new
scripts for new or changing situations.
Jablin et al. (1994) use a developmental
(assimilation) framework for analyzing
competence, assuming that the further along in
the socialization process employees are, the
more likely they are competent. This suggests an
inability on the part of organizational
newcomers to be highly competent
communicators. Nevertheless, this line of
research brings to the forefront important issues
to competence research in organizations,
including the idea that knowing the
communication rules of an organization, which
are learned primarily through the socialization
process, is essential to competent
communication.
Although researchers have investigated
communication competence or social skills in
organizations, obvious gaps exist in the research.
One substantial issue is the lack of adequate
measurement instruments operationalizing the
construct in organizations. While Monge et al.
(1982) developed an instrument specifically for
the organizational context, it relied too heavily
on skills. A second, more substantial gap in the
literature is the lack of clear conceptualization of
competence incorporating affective, cognitive,
and behavioral elements. Spitzberg and
Cupach’s (1989) relational approach presents a
useful model for measuring interpersonal
communication competence, but it has not been
applied within the organizational context.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
65
a Spitzberg and Cupach’s Relational Model
Spitzberg and Cupach’s relational model
(1984; 1989) incorporates personal
components-knowledge, motivation, skill, and
contextual components-patterns of interaction,
norms and rules, relationships types, setting, and
activities. Both personal and contextual
components are essential to understanding the
attribution of competence in organizations and
the outcomes of such judgments.
The competent communicator possesses
certain motivations, knowledge, and skills.
Motivation is often associated with one’s
willingness to approach or avoid interaction with
others. Motives are usually connected to goals
such as self-presentation, relational, and
instrumental goals (Berger, 1997; Cody, Greene,
Marston, Baaske, O’Hair, & Schneider, 1986).
Most communication motivation research falls
within a trait, anxiety framework such as
communication apprehension or shyness
(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). Richmond
and Roach (1992) found that employees with
high levels of communication anxiety are
perceived as less productive and less likely to
achieve, and have lower levels of job
satisfaction than those with low communication
apprehension. Penley et al. (1991) found that
higher performing managers had lower levels of
public apprehension, interpersonal apprehension,
and nonverbal apprehension.
Second, in order to achieve communication
goals, individuals must have knowledge to
construct action plans, often referred to as
communication scripts (Berger, 1997).
Competent communicators have the procedural
knowledge to construct and act out these scripts
within different social situations, and must have
the perceptive ability to &dquo;read&dquo; social situations.
According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1989),
procedural knowledge is &dquo;knowing how rather
than the content of knowing that or knowing
what&dquo; (p. 14). This knowledge is gained through
education, experience and by observing what
Pavitt and Haight (1986) called a prototype of
interpersonal competence-a role model. In the
organizational setting, competence involves
knowing how to communicate and knowing
what is appropriate and effective within the
context. This involves knowing the correct
channels of communication and chains of
66
command, as well as knowing organizational
standards for communication.
The third component, skill, encompasses
the actual performance of behaviors. This is
often the difficult part for communicators--
turning the motivation and plan into action.
Individuals are often motivated to communicate
and possess knowledge, yet lack skill in actually
communicating. Many skill measures tap related
variables such as other-orientation, social
anxiety, expressiveness, and interaction
management. Other skill approaches focus on
psychomotor ability-one’ss ability to speak,
hear, see, and nonverbally express messages in a
given situation (Parks, 1994). The skills needed
by organizations include relationship building,
listening and following instructions, giving
feedback, information exchange, soliciting
feedback, and problem-solving (Maes et al.,
1997). Similar skills are cited in empirical
research, such as interaction management and
other-orientation or altercentrism, which
Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) found to be
powerful predictors of communication
satisfaction. Assessing communication
competence within organizations involves
determining the specific communication skills
most vital to organizational success. Existing
research offers adequate starting points for
identifying skills salient to competency
judgments and is important for determining
specific competence criterion to use when
applying the relational model within the
organizational context.
Essential Skills Impacting Competency
Judgments in Organizations
Many existing measures of competence are
global in nature making the identification of the
most essential skills for managers unclear
(Penley al., 1991). Eight overlapping skill sets
et
emerge in the literature as important to the
competence construct, which can be extended to
the organizational setting: listening (Haas &
Arnold, 1995; Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert,
1989), empathy, attentiveness (Cegela, 1981),
usage or articulation (Duran & Kelly, 1988),
altercentrism (Spitzberg & Hurt, 1987),
interaction management (Wiemann, 1977), and
adaptability (Duran, 1992). Because these skill
sets consistently emerged in competence
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
research over the past three decades they merit
special review.
First, listening and listening-related skills
have often been examined in the competence
literature and to a lesser extent within
organizational contexts. Listening involves
cognitive as well as behavioral processes in
acquiring information (Bostrom, 1996). In one
study, Haas and Arnold (1995) asked employees
to describe competent communicators, and
found that one third of employees’ descriptors
were listening-related. Sypher et al. (1989)
found connections between listening ability and
job level, and listening ability and upward
mobility. Often, researchers study listening
paired with similar constructs such as empathy
and attentiveness (Monge et al., 1982; Wiemann,
1977). Wiemann (1977) described empathy as
the ability to reciprocate affect displays, send
verbal responses showing understanding and
feelings for others, and actively listen. Another,
more parsimonious conceptualization was
provided by Martin and Rubin ( 1994) when they
define empathy as a person’s ability to feel with
others. Listening and empathizing are ways of
being an attentive communicator (Cegela, 1981)
or other-oriented.
Other-orientation is often referred to as
altercentrism, demonstrated by showing interest
in and attention to others in conversations and
adapting messages accordingly (Martin &
Rubin, 1994). Wheeless and Berryman-Fink
(1985) found competence impressions of women
managers include altercentrism and interaction
management. Altercentrism also involves
empathy, listening, and supportiveness. This
level of involvement requires skill in interaction
management--the degree to which the
conversational setting, turn-taking, and episode
punctuation patterns are controlled (Spitzberg,
1983).
Interaction management includes fluency,
verbal ability, and social adaptability (Wiemann,
1977). Individuals with the ability to manage
interactions are able to speak fluently, take the
correct number of turns, begin and end
conversations, and manage topics. It seems clear
that managing interactions is inseparable from
adaptability. Adaptability is the ability to
perceive relationships and adapt messages
accordingly (Duran, 1992). Communicators
must be flexible enough to adapt to

conversational partners and contexts (Spitzberg
and Cupach, 1989). These specific skills assist
employees in managing impressions and
influencing members of the organization (Ferris,
Russ, & Fandt, 1989).
Finally, the skills mentioned above require
certain levels of articulation or expressiveness
(Duran, 1983; 1992). These terms describe one’ss
ability to use language in grammatically correct
ways, and to clearly express ideas. Monge et al.
(1982) included articulation as part of
encoding-the ability to clearly express ideas
exemplifying high command of the language.
While we have a clear understanding of the
necessary communication skill sets vital to
organizational success, we are less informed
about the interaction between motivation,
knowledge, and skills as they apply to the
organizational context. The components of the
relational model of communication competence
can be systematically applied to the
organizational context, which is the goal of this
research. If an employee has motivation,
knowledge, and skill appropriate to the
organization, then the attribution of competence
could lead to positive organizational outcomes,
such as higher levels of productivity or overall
job performance.
Organizational Outcomes
Several organizational outcomes have
been connected to communication ability
including upward mobility, job level, pay (Haas
& Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986),
managerial performance (Bednar, 1982; Penley
et al., 1991), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999),
and productivity with new technology (Papa &
Tracy, 1988).
Zom and Violante (1996) found significant
relationships between cognitive communication
abilities on upward mobility and job level.
Individuals with more differentiated construct
systems and higher levels of person-centered
persuasive communication attained higher job
levels, salary, and monetary career achievement
(salary divided by age). High communication
skill levels are not only connected with
organizational success for managers and
supervisors, but also for employees. Scudder and
Guinan (1989) found significant relationships
between employees (systems developers’)
ability to encode, decode,
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
67
communication, and maintain user relations with
supervisor’s rating of job performance.
Other connections have been made between
performance and the quality of
supervisor/subordinate relationships (Bauer &
Green, 1996; Duarte & Goodson, 1994;
Heneman, Greenberger, & Anonyuo, 1989).
Supervisors who foster positive affect through
communication increase employee commitment,
which is positively related to job performance
(Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996).
Also, subordinates’ acceptance into the
supervisors’ in-group is impacted by
interpersonal communication factors (Heneman
et al., 1989). Obvious benefits exist for in-group
members’ performance appraisals in that in-
group members’ ratings are higher regardless of
their scores on objective job performance
measures (Duarte & Goodson, 1994).
Since communication is inseparable from
relationship formation (Spitzberg, 1993) and
from organizations themselves (Putnam,
Phillips, & Chapman, 1996), it seems logical
that communication heavily impacts job
performance and performance evaluation,
specifically supervisors’ perception of employee
communication and employees’ perception of
manager communication. Clearly,
communication impacts organizational
outcomes; however, little research applies a
communication competence model within this
context to managers and supervisors. In addition
to testing the applicability of a relational
competence model in organizations, studies
must be designed to investigate the relationships
between levels of managerial communication
competence and job performance. Therefore,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
HI: Employees with high levels of job
performance will have higher levels of
communication motivation to communicate,
knowledge of communication, and
communication skill than employees with
moderate and low levels of job performance.
The literature examining communication in
organizations draws a clear connection between
communication ability and upward mobility
(Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986);
job level (Zom & Violante, 1996); leadership
ability (Flauto, 1999); and, managerial
performance (Bednar, 1982; Penley et. al, 1991).
maintain It seems that employees in supervisory positions
68
will demonstrate higher levels of competence
than nonsupervisors because their levels of
communication motivation, knowledge, and skill
secured their high level positions. Therefore,
H2: Supervisors will have higher levels of
communication motivation, knowledge of
communication, and communication skill than
nonsupervisors
H3: Employees in supervisory positions
with high levels of job performance will have
higher levels of communication motivation,
knowledge of communication and
communication skill than supervisors with
moderate and low levels of job performance.
Method
Sample
Assessing and measuring competence
within context is an important assumption of the
relational approach; therefore, finding a sample
organization and measuring employee
competence as judged by the supervisor adds to
the ecological validity of this study. The sample
organization for this project was selected based
on criteria related to the importance of internal
communication in terms of project work,
centrality of external communication to the
organization’s fundamental mission, and
accessibility to a large, diverse group
representing varying levels of education and
hierarchical status.
The population consisted of approximately
1,329 technical and clerical employees of the
Information Technology Division of a large
health care management corporation. This
organization values communication skill and has
incorporated communication as a basic
competency which is evaluated regularly in
performance appraisals. Associates typically
communicate with numerous corporate entities,
and coordinate activities as opposed to manual
production. At the request of the CIO, all
members of the IT division were selected to
participate in the research.
Procedures
Employees were asked to complete the on-
line survey, and the organization’ss
communication director provided information
about how to access links to the survey through
company newsletters and direct e-mail. All
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
respondents were required to enter their
employee identification number which would
allow the researcher to match employee
responses with supervisors during phase two of
the project. Three hundred and ninety-three
surveys were collected in phase one.
Company representatives manually
matched supervisors and employees using the
company’s database and current organizational
chart. Supervisors were contacted by e-mail
listing his/her employees’ identification number
and name.The associate identification number
(AIN) necessary for entry into the survey
was
database and allowed the program to match the
supervisor’s responses with employees’ previous
records. Each supervisor was asked to complete
a skill and job performance measure for each
employee. Follow-up e-mail reminders were
sent along with the link to the survey.
The second phase of data collection
resulted in 199 matched employee and
supervisor responses. The mean age of the
participants was 40, with an average length of
service of 7 years. Education levels were high,
with 12% having associates/technical degrees,
44% with bachelor’s degrees, and 22.5% with
either graduate coursework or master’s degrees.
In terms of gender, 58% were male and 42%
female. Ethnically, 93% of the sample was
Caucasian with the remaining 6% spanning six
other ethnicities.
Measures
Communication skill. The current research
builds on existing approaches by utilizing the
communication skill dimensions proven
essential for competency judgments in the
organizational setting. Perotti and DeWine
(1987) encourage this, stating, &dquo;measures of
communication competence are appropriately
applied within organizational contexts in order
that the unique dimensions of such competence
may be identified and defined for organizational
relationships&dquo; (p. 281 ). Empirically grounded, a
priori skills can serve as the building blocks for
assessing employee competence.
The skill scale has three dimensions:
empathy, adaptability, and interaction
management. The scale measures an employee’ss
actual communication skill level as judged by a
supervisor because supervisors exert the most
influence on evaluations of job performance.
 69

Also, given the difficulty of evaluating one’s and a stable three factor solution was obtained
own skill level and the importance of obtaining a on predisposition toward verbal behavior in
more objective view supervisor report format is organizations, motivation to communicate
important (i.e. &dquo;My employee involves others in empathy, and motivation to adapt
conversations in an effort to make them feel communication; however, no items loaded for
valued,&dquo; &dquo;My employee always seems to say the the interaction management dimension. The
right thing at the right time&dquo;). Research often resulting three factor scale was composed of 11I
does not show consistently high correlations items with a Cronbach’s a of .71 (N= 383).
between self and other’s ratings (Perotti & Communication knowledge. The next
DeWine, 1987; Sypher, 1984); therefore, major component of the competence model is
supervisor evaluations are the most appropriate knowledge. Different strategies for
given the supervisor’s power to impact operationalizing this dimension were analyzed.
organizational outcomes. To simply ask subjects to self-report on their
Principal components factor analysis with knowledge of specific communication skills
varimax rotation extracted five factors. Items creates undue social desirability bias. In
failing to load using a 60/40 split criteria addition, subjects with lower levels of
(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminated competence may not have the cognitive ability
resulting in a stable three factor solution for needed to accurately assess knowledge level or
empathy, adaptability, and interaction communication performance (Spitzberg &
management. The scale consisted of 13 items Cupach, 1989). Considering these factors, a
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. communication knowledge test was developed
Communication motivation. The which avoided the use of complex
motivation component is conceptualized as communication vocabulary or jargon. According
one’s willingness to approach or avoid to Backlund (1983), &dquo;Assessment should involve
communicative interactions. The most salient situations that allow for a range of responses.
skills to competence were narrowed to empathy, The assessment procedure should recognize that
adaptability, and interaction management, so a a variety of responses could be considered

motivation scale was designed to measure appropriate in everyday communicative

employees’ willingness to extend empathy,
manage interactions, and adapt communication
within the organization. Items were developed
for each of these dimensions, and ten items were
adapted from Mortensen, Amston, and Lustig’s
(1977) Predispositions Toward Verbal Behavior
(PVB) scale (a .89) to measure employee’s
=
overall willingness to approach communication.
The resulting instrument was composed of
27 items and designed using a self-report format
for employees to indicate their levels of
, motivation to communicate in the workplace
(i.e. &dquo;I want to understand other people’s
viewpoints and emotion;&dquo; &dquo;I want to be seen as a
good listener by my coworkers&dquo;).
The 27-item scale was subjected to
situations&dquo; (p. 65). This is consistent with a
dimension of cognitive assessment called
problem representation differences where
learners are asked to make judgments about
problems or situations (Royer, Cisero, & Carlo,
1993).
A knowledge assessment instrument was
created based on communication scenarios in the
workplace. For each scenario subjects were
asked to choose the most appropriate and
effective response. The options have varying
degrees of correctness, which is incorporated
into the scoring. For example, the most
appropriate response is worth four points and the
least appropriate is worth one point. The range
on the knowledge test is 15 to 60.

principal components factor analysis with Questions were generated addressing the
varimax rotation. Six dimensions with three major dimensions of competence
eigenvalues exceeding 1.00 were extracted as pinpointed in this research: empathy,
opposed to the intended four (predisposition adaptability, and interaction management. A
toward verbal behavior, empathy, adaptability, panel of communication scholars checked the
and interaction management) as designed. Items questions for face validity and narrowed them to
failing to load using a 60/40 split criteria 15 items, five items for each factor. The
(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminated instrument was reviewed and refined by the

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

70
panel on two occasions. Scenarios were selected
in the first meeting, and in the second meeting
the wording of the scenarios and response
options were clarified. The mean score on the
communication knowledge test was 39.08 (out
of 60 possible).
Job performance. When studying job
performance in connection with communication
and organizational variables researchers often
develop scales measuring global impressions
supervisors have of employees (Pettit, Goris, &
Vaught, 1997; Goris, Vaught, & Pettit, 2000;
Scudder & Guinan, 1989). For this study, global
impressions of job performance were measured
using a combination of items referencing
performance in terms of quantity, quality, and
effectiveness of fulfilling job roles.
Using several examples from the
organizational behavior literature (Pettit et al.,
1997; Goris et al., 2000; Scudder & Guinan,
1989), a five-item scale was developed. Goris,
Vaught, and Pettit (2000) found significant
correlations between ratings of performance
quality, quantity, and overall effectiveness (r =
.61 between quality and quantity; r = .89
between quality and overall performance; r .90=
between quantity and overall performance).
Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) used similar
items regarding fulfilling job roles and overall
performance, which demonstrated high
correlations with other performance items (.83
and .92 respectively). Similar items were used
to develop five performance items addressing
effectiveness at fulfilling roles and
responsibilities, quality of performance, quantity
of performance, level of performance, and
overall ratings of performance. Supervisors were
to report on employees using a four-point Likert
scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree. A narrowed set of options is
acceptable when working with multiple items
addressing the same dimension because
variability can still be obtained and participants
experience less fatigue (DeVellis, 1991).
Further, an even number of response options
forces participants to make a decision about a
specific behavior (Sudman & Bradbum, 1982).
Because supervisor evaluations significantly
impact organizational outcomes, the scale was
formatted as a supervisor report form; however
given the subjective nature of evaluating job
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
performance, the researcher also included the
same scale in employee-report version.
an
Principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation of the supervisor’s report of job
performance showed a unidimensional solution
and a Cronbach’s alpha_of .93. The employee
report version of the job performance scale had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .84, a slightly lower
reliability than the supervisor report scale.
Using a procedure similar to that used by
Penley et al. (1991), the supervisor and self-
report of job performance scores was split at the
median to create categories for high and low
performance. Next, based on these
classifications three categories of performance
were created. Subjects with scores above the
median on both supervisor and self-report were
classified as high performing (26.1%); subjects
with one score above the median and one below
were classified as moderate performers (44.7%);
and, subjects with scores below the median on
both factors were considered low performers
29.1 %).
Data Analysis
This researchinvestigates the relationships
between levels of job performance for
employees and supervisors and communication
competence employing multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) to test the hypotheses.
The two independent variables are job
performance (high, moderate, and low),
supervisory position (supervisor or
nonsupervisor), and the dependent variables are
the three components of communication
competence (motivation, knowledge, and skill).
Results
There mixed support for the
was
hypotheses concerning the main effects of job
performance level and supervisory roles on the
components of communication competence and
no support for the hypothesis predicting an
interaction between job level and job
performance on motivation, knowledge, and
skill (See Table 1).
Hypothesis 1 addressing level of job
performance and communication competence
was partially supported. Multivariate analysis
revealed a significant main effect of job
 71

Table 1 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance

*p <. 05
**p< .001
aWilks Lambda =.81, p < 05
bWilks Lambda .90, p <05
=

performance on motivation to adapt significant effect of job performance on

communication (F 2, 189 = 3.34; p < .05) with
high performers (M = 3.22) more motivated to
adapt communication than moderate (M = 3.06)
and low (M= 2.94) performers.
In terms of communication knowledge,
there was a significant main effect of job
performance on knowledge of empathizing (F 2,
189 = 3.69; p < .05) with low performers (M
motivation to verbally communicate (PVB) or
empathize, or knowledge of interaction
management and adaptability.
Partial support was also found for Hypothesis 2
predicting a main effect of holding a supervisory
position on motivation, knowledge, and skill.
Analysis revealed significant main effects for
=
motivation to verbally communicate (F 1, 189 =

12.51) more knowledgeable than high (M =

8.51; p < .05) and motivation to empathize (F 1,
11.56) and moderate (M= 11.76) performers. 189
=
7.73; .05). Supervisors were more
p <

Regarding communication skill, there was a motivated to communicate (M =

2.98) and
significant main effect for adapting empathize (M = 3 .50) than nonsupervisors (M =
communication (F 2, 189 = 6.76; p - .001), 2.77, M = 3.30). There was no significant effect
empathizing (F 2, 189 = 4.12; p < .05), and for motivation to adapt communication,
interaction management (F 2, 189 9.96; p <
=
knowledge of empathy, interaction management,
.001). High performers were more skilled at and adaptability, or skill at adapting,
adapting communication (M - 3.08), empathizing, and managing interactions. Table 2
empathizing (M = 3.25), and managing shows group means for supervisors and
interactions (M 3.32). Table 2 shows group
=
nonsupervisors for each dependent variable.
means for the three job performance levels on
each dependent variable. There was no

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

72
Table 2
Group Means
Hypothesis 3, predicting an interaction
effect for job performance and job level on
motivation, knowledge, and skill was rejected.
Discussion
Little research has addressed
communication competence in the workplace
and most studies have only addressed
competence from a skills perspective (Monge et
al., 1982). This research expands traditional
approaches to the study of communication in
organizations beyond a social skills approach
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
using Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) relational
model of communication competence, which
incorporates motivation, knowledge, and
skill.The primary findings of this research
indicate that high performing employees were
more motivated to adapt their communication
and were more skilled at communicating
empathy, adapting their communication, and
managing interactions than lower performing
employees. Interestingly, low performing
employees were more knowledgeable about how
to communicate empathy than higher performing
employees. When supervisor communication
 73

competence was compared with nonsupervisors 1986; Zom & Violante, 1996) this study did not
the only significant relationship was that find supervisors as more skilled or
supervisors had higher levels of motivation to knowledgeable of communication, although they
verbally communicate and motivation to were more motivated to verbally communicate

empathize. Finally, there was no interaction and empathize. This motivation more than likely
between job performance and supervisory stems from job role requirements. Although
position on the communication competence supervisors may communicate more as a result
components. of their position, this study does not support that
Several
findings warrant further discussion. they are more skilled or knowledgeable of the
First, contrary to hypothesis 1, there were no process, but that higher performing employees in
significant relationships between high general are more skilled and motivated.
performance and communication knowledge; The management literature generally
however, low performers had significantly supports this finding in that promotion decisions
higher levels of knowledge of empathy than high are based on numerous organizational,
and moderate performers. In terms of the environmental, and individual characteristics
relational model this finding reinforces the (Allen, 1997). London and Stumpf (1983) found
multidimensional nature of communication that potential to perform in managerial roles,
competence in that one can be knowledgeable assessment center information, and a candidate’s
yet lack the ability to enact the knowledge current position plays a significant role when
(skill). &dquo;Knowledge alone is important but deciding between numerous viable candidates
unlikely to be sufficient. To give a quality (with acceptable levels of education and job
performance, an actor should be motivated, performance), but that other communication
knowledgeable, and skilled in performing&dquo; qualities such as leadership, behavioral
(Spitzberg, 1987, p. 28). flexibility, and written communication skills
From a performance perspective, it is were generally used to support the decision,

plausible that this finding is connected with once made. Also, organizational factors may

using empathy in maladaptive ways. Employees contribute to the finding in that this study was
who use emotional contagion as an empathetic conducted within the information systems
response strategy are more prone to burnout division of a large company where technological
which leads to decreased performance. Omdahl knowledge may be valued over other factors in
and O’Donnell (1999) studied empathy variables promotion decisions.
in relation to burnout among nurses and found Finally, this research has implications for
that nurses who practiced empathic concern management and researchers. First, if
(showing concern without sharing emotion) and communication motivation and skill are
communicative responsiveness (effectively contributors to high job performance, companies
communicating emotional topics) were less should look to develop communication
likely to experience depersonalization and competence through the employees’ life span.
reduced personal accomplishment while nurses This developmental approach would assist
who experienced emotional contagion (sharing employees in designing messages that are
the feelings of others) experienced appropriate and effective within their work
depersonalization, reduced personal environment. Specifically, this study supported
accomplishment, emotional exhaustion, and empathy, adaptability, and interaction
reduced occupational commitment. It is management as important skill sets within
important to note that patients (or other organizations which can be targeted areas of
employees) receive benefits from all three improvement through structured training
empathic responses, but it is the employee who programs. The development of these skills can
may experience negative affects by using clearly improve communication within the
emotional contagion. organization and certainly enhance job
Next, despite the research showing direct performance.
relationships between various forms of
communication competence and upward
mobility (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

74
Limitations and Suggestions for
Future Research
This research provides interesting
implications for future study of communication
competence in organizations, but some
limitations warrant examination. First, using a
single sample organization to test the model is
sufficient; however, different companies have
different rules of communicating, or different
criteria for evaluating the appropriateness or
effectiveness of communication. For this reason,
future research should apply this model in other
types of organizations to ensure the
generalizability of the measures.
Second, although exploratory in nature,
external validity was not investigated in this
research. This is partially explained by the lack
of research applying competence in the
workplace. Although the scenario-based
approach to knowledge had high face validity
the scale needs further investigation. The
researcher attempted to measure employee’s
ability to interpret scenarios and choose
appropriate responses; however, there may not
have been enough contextual clues within the
scenarios for employees to determine the most
appropriate response. If the organizational
scenarios did not include contextual rules
relevant to the sample organization it would be
difficult for an employee to respond. What may
provide the richest information for the
knowledge component is a clearer focus on
cognition of situations and message design as a
learning process. Also, the finding that low
performing employees were more
knowledgeable of empathy should be
investigated further. Researchers might consider
measuring multiple empathy strategies such as
emotional contagion, empathic concern, and
communicative responsiveness in order to
clearly investigate the relationship with job
performance.
Finally, researchers should consider
applying competence models to groups and
organizations, which Jablin and Sias (2001)
suggest is an often neglected area of research.
This approach emphasizes the impact of the
organizational system on individual level
competence and how the two are interdependent.
Specifically viewing individual-level
competence as a developmental process, in that
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014
employees are hired into the organization with a
certain level of basic competencies, most likely
job competencies and linguistic or conceptual
competencies, which can be built upon as the
employee assimilates into the organization.
In summary, future directions for studying
communication competence in organizations
might involve (a) applying the relational model
to different types of organizations, (b) refining a
measure of knowledge using a cognitive
approach, (c) exploring the role of empathy
strategies and job performance, and (d)
designing and testing training curricula based on
empathy, adaptability, and interaction
management.
Conclusion
This work clearly supports
communication as a potential contributor of
job performance, but this study is just one
small step. High levels of communication
competence are important to organizations.
The communication skill dimensions
supported by this study are all critical
thinking skills involving motivation and
knowledge. High levels of affective,
cognitive, and behavioral competence
components are essential for establishing
and developing strong relationships within
organizational systems.
References
Allen, (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of
G.
promotion systems. Human Resource
Management, 36, 251-259.
Backlund, P. (1983). Methods of assessing
speaking and listening skills. In R.B. Rugin
(Ed.), Improving speaking and listening
skills: New directions for college learning
assistance. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to
transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-
31.
Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and
development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
 75

Bauer, T.N. & Green, S.G. (1996). Development Duran, R. L. & Kelly, L. (1988). An investigation
of leader-member exchange: A
longitudinal into the cognitive domain of competence II:
test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, The between communication
relationship
1538-1567. competence and interaction involvement.
Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. & Communication Research Reports, 5, 91-96.
Gilbert, N.L. (1996). Foci and bases of Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989).
employee commitment: Implications job for Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone
performance. Academy of Management & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression
Journal, 39, 464-482. management in the organization (pp. 143-
Bednar, D.A. (1982). Relationships between 170). Hillsdale,
communicator style and managerial NJ:Erlbaum.
performance in complex organizations: A Ferris, G.R., Witt, L.A., & Hochwarter, W.A.
field study. Journal of Business (2001). The interaction of social skill and
Communication, 19, 51-76. general mental ability on work outcomes.
Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075-
interaction: Attaining goals through 1082.
communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. relationship between leadership and
Bostrom, R. N. (1984). Competence in communication competence. Journal of
communication: A multidisciplinary Leadership Studies, 6, 89-97.
approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2000).
Bostrom, R.N. (1996). Disentangling listening and Effects of communication direction on job
verbal recall: Related but separate constructs? performance and satisfaction: A moderated
Human Communication Research, 23, 298- regression analysis. The Journal of Business
305. Communication, 37,348-364.
Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A Greene, J. O. (Ed.) (1997). Message production:
cognitive dimension of communicative Advances in communication theory. Mahwah,
competence. Communication Education, 30, NJ: Erlbaum.
109-121. Greene, J.O. (1984). A cognitive approach to
Cody, M.J., Greene, J.O., Marston, P.J., Baaske, human communication: An action assembly
E., O’Hair, H.D., & Schneider, M.J. (1986). Communication Monographs, 51,
theory.
Situation perception and the selection of 289-306.
message strategies. In M.L. McLaughlin Haas, J. W. & Arnold, C. L. (1995).An
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 8, (pp. 390- examination of the role of listening in
420). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. judgments of communication competence in
Cupach, W. R. & Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The co-workers. The Journal of Business
dark side of interpersonal communication. Communication, 32, 123-139.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Haas, J. W., & Sypher, B. D. (1991). The impact of
Associates. communication abilities on individual success
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory in organizational settings. Paper presented at
and aplications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. the annual meeting of the Speech
Duarte, N.T. & Goodson, J.R. (1994). Effects of Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
dyadic quality and duration on performance Henemen, R.L., Greenberger, D.B., & Anonyuo,C.
appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The
37, 499-522. effects of interpersonal factors on the
Duran, R.L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: diagnosis of employee performance. Academy
A measure of social communicative of Management Journal, 32,466-476.
competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & N.
320-326. R. Roth (1994). Communication competence
Duran, R. L. (1992). Communication adaptability: in organizations: Conceptualization and
A review of conceptualization and comparison across multiple levels of analysis.
measurement. Communication Quarterly, 40, In .Thayer & G. M. Barnett (Eds.),
253-268. Organization communication: Emerging
Perspectives IV 114-140). Norwood, NJ.:
Ablex Publishing.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

76

Jablin, F. M., & Sias, P. M. (2000). Omdahl, B.L. & O’Donnell, C. (1999). Emotional
Communication competence. In F. M. Jablin contagion, empathic concern, and
& L. L. Putnam (Eds.). The new handbook of communicative responsiveness as variables
organizational communication. Newbury affecting nurses’ stress and occupational
Park, CA: Sage. commitment. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Kilduff, M. & Day, D.V. (1994). Do chameleons 29, 1351-1359.
get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on Papa, M. J. & Tracy, K. (1988). Communicative
managerial careers. Academy of Management indices of employee performance with new
Journal, 37, 1047-1060. technology. Communication Research, 15,
London, M. & Stumpf, S.A. (1983). Effects of 524-544.
candidate characteristics on management Parks, M. R. (1994). Communication competence
promotion decisions: An experimental study. and interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp and
Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-259. G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of
Maes, J.D., Weldy, T.G. & Icenogle, M.L. (1997). interpersonal communication. Thousand
A managerial perspective: Oral Oaks: Sage.
communication competency is most Pavitt, C. & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of
important for business students in the communication competence: Situational and
workplace. Journal of Business competence level differences in judgments of
Communication, 34, 67-80. prototype and target. Communication
Martin, M.M. & Rubin, R.B. (1994). Development Monographs, 53, 221-233.
of a communication flexibility measure. The Penley, L.E., Alexander, E.R., Jernigan, I.E., &
Southern_Communication Journal, 59, 171- Henwood, C.I. Communication abilities of
179. managers: The relationship to performance.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication Journal of Management, 17, 57-76.
competence: The elusive construct. In R. N. Perotti, V.S. & DeWine, S. (1987). Competence in
Bostrom (Ed.) Competence in communication: An examination of three
communication: A multidisciplinary instruments. Management Communication
approach (pp. 259-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Quarterly, 1, 272-287.
Sage. Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught,B. C. (1997).
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication An examination of organizational
competence and performance: A research and communication as a moderator of the
pedagogical perspective. Communication relationship between job performance and job
Education, 31, 3-7. satisfaction. The Journal of Business
McCroskey, J.C. & Young, T.J. (1979). The use Communication, 34,
81-98.
and abuse of factor analysis in Phillips, G.M. (1984). A competent view of
communication research. Human "competence." Communication Education,
Communication Research, 5, 375-382. 33, 25-36.
Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Porterfield, S.C. & Forde, C.M. (2001).
Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator Competencies required in the 21
st century of
competence in the workplace: Model testing entry-level Fortune 500 employees with four-
and scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), year business degrees. NABTE Review, 28,
Communication Yearbook, 5 (pp. 505-527). 25-32.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N, & Chapman, P. (1996).
Morreale, S.P., Osborn, M.M., & J.C. Pearson Metaphors of communication and
(2000). Why communication is important: A organization. In S.R. Clegg, C.Hardy, & W.R.
rationale for the centrality of the study of Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization
communication. Journal of the Association studies (pp. 375-408). Thousand Oaks, CA:
for Communication Administration, 29, 1-25. Sage.
Mortensen, C. D., Arntson, P. H., & Lustig, M. Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. (1992).
(1977). The measurement of verbal Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,
predispositions: Scale development and and effectiveness (2nd
ed.). Scottsdale, AZ:
application. Human Communication Gorsuch Scarisbirck.
Research, 3, 146-158.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014

 77

Richmond, V.P. & K.D. (1992).

Roach, Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982). Asking
Willingness to communicate and employee questions: A practical guide to questionnaire
success in U.S. organizations. Journal of design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Applied Communication Research, 20, 95- Sypher, B.D., Bostrom, R.N. & Seibert, J.H.
116. (1989). Listening, communication abilities,
Royer, J.M., Cisero, C.A., Carlo, M.S. (1993). and success at work. The Journal of Business
Techniques and procedures for assessing Communication, 26,293-303.
cognitive skills. Review of Educational Sypher, B. D. (1984). The importance of social
Research, 63, 201-243. cognitive abilities in organizations. In R. N.
Rubin, R.B. & Martin, M.M. (1994). Bostrom (Ed.), Communication and
Development of a measure of interpersonal Competence. Beverly Hills: Sage.
communication competence. Communication Sypher, B. D. & Zorn, T. E. (1986).
Research Reports, 11, 33-44. Communication-related abilities and upward
Scudder, J. N. & Guinan, P. J. (1989). A longitudinal
mobility: investigation.
Communication competencies as Human Communication Research, 12, 420-
discriminators of superior’ss tings of 431.
employee performance. The Journal of Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. & Liden, R.C. (1997).
Business Communication, 26, 217-229. Perceived organizational support and leader-
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication member exchange: A social exchange
competence as knowledge, skill, and perspective. Academy of Management
impression. Communication Education, 32, Journal, 40, (1): 82-111.
323-329. Wheeless, V.E. & Berryman-Fink, C. (1985).
Spitzberg, B.H. (1987). Issues in the study of Perceptions of women managers and their
communication competence. Progress in communication competencies.
Communication Sciences, 8, 1-46. Communication Quarterly, 33, 137-148.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a
(in)competence. Journal of Social and model of communicative competence. Human
Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158. Communication Research, 3, 195-
Spitzberg, B.H., Canary, D.J., & Cupach, W.R. 213.Wiemann, J.M., Takai, J., Ota, H. &
(1994). A competence-based approach to the Wiemann, M.O. (1997). A relational model
study of interpersonal conflict. In D.D. Cahn of communication competence. In B.
(Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. Kovacic (Ed.), Emerging Theories of Human
183-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Communication, pp. 25-44. New Albany,
Associates. NY: State University of New York Press.
Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Wright, A. W. (1991). Developing a model of
Interpersonal communication competence. communication competence for
Beverly Hills: Sage. organizations. Unpublished doctoral
Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1989). dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann
Handbook of interpersonal competence Arbor.
research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zorn, T. E. (1996). Motivation to communicate: A
Spitzberg, B. H. & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A critical review with suggested alternatives in
component model of relational competence. D. Mumby (Ed.), Communication Yearbook,
Human Communication Research, 10, 575- 16, pp. 515-549.
599. Zorn, T. E. & Violanti, M. T. (1996).
Spitzberg, B. H. & Hurt, H. T. (1987). The Communication abilities and individual
measurement of interpersonal skills in achievement in organizations. Management
instructional contexts. Communication Communication Quarterly, 10, 139-146.
Education, 36, 28-45.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at SETON HALL UNIV on September 12, 2014