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 ofcommunication competence (motivation,knowledge, and skill) within an organizationalcontext and analyzes the relationship between jobperformance, position level, and communicationcompetence. Data analysis revealed high jobperformers had significantly higher levels ofmotivation to adapt communication and higherlevels of communication skill (empathizing,adapting communication, and managinginteractions). Also, supervisors were more

motivated to communicate and empathize thansubordinates. Finally, level of job performanceand job position (supervisor or non-supervisor)did not influence level of communication

competence. These results along with limitationsand avenues for future research are discussed.

As organizational structures flatten andtransformational leadership styles are fostered,corporate demand for employees skilled in

interpersonal communication is on the rise.

Organizations are working to recruit, promote,develop, and train transformational leaders whoconnect with employees emotionally and haveverbal and coaching skills (Bass, 1999; 1990).Numerous studies querying graduates,employers, and faculty members showcommunication skill as one of the top areas

needing improvement among employees andnew graduates (Maes, Weldy, & Icenogle, 1997;Morreale, Osborn, & Pearson, 2000). Recently,HR managers from Fortune 500 corporationsincluded listening, speaking, team participation,and communication of information as most

important for business school graduates in the21’t century (Porterfield & Forde, 2001).Empirical research links social skills and othercommunication constructs with various

organizational outcomes including job mobility(Kilduff & Day, 1994), upward mobility, joblevel, and pay (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher &

Zom, 1986), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999)and general mental ability and job performance(Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001).

While a number of these studies articulatethe importance of communication skill, fewaddress the impact of communication

competence, which moves beyond social skillsby including affective, cognitive, and behavioralelements. Communication competence describesthe overall impression one has of a

communicator who meets interaction goals at

both an appropriate and effective level

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). This article

provides an overview of a relational model ofcommunication competence within the

organizational context and reports the findingsof how job performance for employees and

supervisors relates to communication

competence.

Literature Review

Defining Communication CompetenceRecognizing that communication

competence is multifaceted researchers of

employee communication competence should

develop comprehensive conceptual definitions.

64

Many scholars have attempted to define

interpersonal communication competence;however, the process is likened to &dquo;climbing agreased pole&dquo; (Phillips, 1984, p. 25) and

competence is still considered a &dquo;fuzzy&dquo; concept(Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 819). The lack of awidely-accepted definition is due to the

complexity of the communication process andproblems with measurement (Rubin & Martin,1994; Wiemann, Takai, Ota, & Wiemann, 1997).However, definitions of communication

competence are becoming more specific as theissue of context is given more consideration.

Current conceptualizations of competencecontinue to rely on Spitzberg and Cupach’s(1984) original criteria: appropriateness andeffectiveness. Jablin and Sias (2001) define

competence as &dquo;the set of abilities, henceforth,termed resources, which a communicator hasavailable for use in the communication process&dquo;(p. 125). This definition is a strategic, goal-oriented approach to competence stressingknowledge and ability.

Obviously these definitions go beyondcommunication that is simply successful byemphasizing two main components: knowledgeof communication and context and ability to

obtain goals (skill). According to Wright ( 1991 ),the diversity of definitions and treatments ofcompetence exists because of the diversity ofwhat scholars considered the most salient issuesto the construct: knowledge (McCroskey, 1982),behaviors (Wiemann, 1977), or goal attainment(Spitzberg, 1983).

Based on the research outlined above, a

more contextually sensitive definition ofcommunication competence within

organizations would extend the originalSpitzberg and Cupach (1984) model and defineorganizational communication competence as

the evaluative impression of the quality ofinteraction moderated by organizational normsand rules. In other words, organizationalcommunication competence is the judgment ofsuccessful communication where interactants’

goals are met using messages that are perceivedas appropriate and effective within the

organizational context. Communication

competence in organizations involves

knowledge of the organization and of

communication, ability to carry out skilled

behaviors, and one’s motivation to performcompetently.

Competence in the OrganizationalContext

Few researchers have attempted to

systematically study competence within the

organizational context. Monge, Bachman,Dillard, and Eisenberg (1982) tested a modelrepresenting a performance-based (behavioral)approach. The Communication CompetenceQuestionnaire (CCQ) measured two macro-levelskills, encoding and decoding. Although thiswas a positive move toward measuringorganizational communication competence theCCQ focused primarily on skills necessary toaccomplish work tasks, and did not includerelational forms of communication. Theseresearchers consider organizationalcommunication relationships between coworkersor with supervisors as &dquo;non-interpersonal&dquo; (p.507), overlooking relational forms ofcommunication as essential to workplacecommunication. Their research does not

incorporate motivation or knowledge, the

affective and cognitive elements of competence.Few studies in management use the

communication competence construct; however,Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, & Henwood ( 1991 )tested the impact of communication skills

(clarity, articulateness, and accuracy),motivation (oral, nonverbal, and writtencommunication apprehension), and cognitiveskills (cognitive complexity, perspective taking,and self-monitoring) on managerialperformance. Results showed higher performingmanagers had higher verbal communicationskills and lower communication apprehension;however, they did not have greater social

cognitive ability.More recently, Jablin and his colleagues

investigated threshold communication

competencies in organizations (Jablin, Cude,House, Lee, & Roth 1994; Jablin & Sias, 2001).They define threshold communication

competencies as, &dquo;... generic capabilities whichare essential to performing jobs, but which arenot sufficient to cause superior levels of

effectiveness in communication&dquo; (p. 120).Jablin et al. (1994) provide a continuum of

employee communication progressing from

precompetent to overcompetent.

65

The pre-competence stage is when a

newcomer to an organization &dquo;has not yetdeveloped the capacities necessary to

communicate competently in a particularenvironment&dquo; (Jablin & Sias, 2001, p. 828), andthreshold competence is achieved when an

employee eventually meets basiccommunication qualifications for his/her

specific job description. This approach assumesthat through the screening process, socialization,and training in the company, most employeesachieve the threshold level. Next, workers movetoward a proficient level of competence, inwhich the employee uses competent scripts toselect and perform messages. Finally, Jablin andSias (2001) describe the overcompetent level asa once- competent communicator who nowrelies on old scripts instead of developing newscripts for new or changing situations.

Jablin et al. (1994) use a developmental(assimilation) framework for analyzingcompetence, assuming that the further along inthe socialization process employees are, themore likely they are competent. This suggests aninability on the part of organizationalnewcomers to be highly competentcommunicators. Nevertheless, this line ofresearch brings to the forefront important issuesto competence research in organizations,including the idea that knowing thecommunication rules of an organization, whichare learned primarily through the socializationprocess, is essential to competentcommunication.

Although researchers have investigatedcommunication competence or social skills in

organizations, obvious gaps exist in the research.One substantial issue is the lack of adequatemeasurement instruments operationalizing theconstruct in organizations. While Monge et al.

(1982) developed an instrument specifically forthe organizational context, it relied too heavilyon skills. A second, more substantial gap in theliterature is the lack of clear conceptualization ofcompetence incorporating affective, cognitive,and behavioral elements. Spitzberg and

Cupach’s (1989) relational approach presents auseful model for measuring interpersonalcommunication competence, but it has not beenapplied within the organizational context.

Spitzberg and Cupach’s Relational ModelSpitzberg and Cupach’s relational model

(1984; 1989) incorporates personalcomponents-knowledge, motivation, skill, andcontextual components-patterns of interaction,norms and rules, relationships types, setting, andactivities. Both personal and contextual

components are essential to understanding theattribution of competence in organizations andthe outcomes of such judgments.

The competent communicator possessescertain motivations, knowledge, and skills.Motivation is often associated with one’s

willingness to approach or avoid interaction withothers. Motives are usually connected to goalssuch as self-presentation, relational, andinstrumental goals (Berger, 1997; Cody, Greene,Marston, Baaske, O’Hair, & Schneider, 1986).Most communication motivation research fallswithin a trait, anxiety framework such as

communication apprehension or shyness(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). Richmondand Roach (1992) found that employees withhigh levels of communication anxiety are

perceived as less productive and less likely toachieve, and have lower levels of jobsatisfaction than those with low communication

apprehension. Penley et al. (1991) found thathigher performing managers had lower levels ofpublic apprehension, interpersonal apprehension,and nonverbal apprehension.

Second, in order to achieve communicationgoals, individuals must have knowledge to

construct action plans, often referred to as

communication scripts (Berger, 1997).Competent communicators have the proceduralknowledge to construct and act out these scriptswithin different social situations, and must havethe perceptive ability to &dquo;read&dquo; social situations.

According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1989),procedural knowledge is &dquo;knowing how ratherthan the content of knowing that or knowingwhat&dquo; (p. 14). This knowledge is gained througheducation, experience and by observing whatPavitt and Haight (1986) called a prototype ofinterpersonal competence-a role model. In the

organizational setting, competence involves

knowing how to communicate and knowingwhat is appropriate and effective within thecontext. This involves knowing the correct

channels of communication and chains of

66

command, as well as knowing organizationalstandards for communication.

The third component, skill, encompassesthe actual performance of behaviors. This isoften the difficult part for communicators--

turning the motivation and plan into action.Individuals are often motivated to communicateand possess knowledge, yet lack skill in actuallycommunicating. Many skill measures tap relatedvariables such as other-orientation, social

anxiety, expressiveness, and interaction

management. Other skill approaches focus onpsychomotor ability-one’s s ability to speak,hear, see, and nonverbally express messages in agiven situation (Parks, 1994). The skills neededby organizations include relationship building,listening and following instructions, givingfeedback, information exchange, solicitingfeedback, and problem-solving (Maes et al.,1997). Similar skills are cited in empiricalresearch, such as interaction management andother-orientation or altercentrism, which

Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) found to be

powerful predictors of communicationsatisfaction. Assessing communication

competence within organizations involves

determining the specific communication skillsmost vital to organizational success. Existingresearch offers adequate starting points for

identifying skills salient to competencyjudgments and is important for determiningspecific competence criterion to use when

applying the relational model within the

organizational context.

Essential Skills Impacting CompetencyJudgments in Organizations

Many existing measures of competence areglobal in nature making the identification of themost essential skills for managers unclear

(Penley et al., 1991). Eight overlapping skill setsemerge in the literature as important to the

competence construct, which can be extended tothe 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), andadaptability (Duran, 1992). Because these skillsets consistently emerged in competence

research over the past three decades they meritspecial review.

First, listening and listening-related skillshave often been examined in the competenceliterature 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 employeesto describe competent communicators, andfound that one third of employees’ descriptorswere listening-related. Sypher et al. (1989)found connections between listening ability andjob level, and listening ability and upwardmobility. Often, researchers study listeningpaired with similar constructs such as empathyand attentiveness (Monge et al., 1982; Wiemann,1977). Wiemann (1977) described empathy asthe ability to reciprocate affect displays, sendverbal responses showing understanding and

feelings for others, and actively listen. Another,more parsimonious conceptualization was

provided by Martin and Rubin ( 1994) when theydefine empathy as a person’s ability to feel withothers. Listening and empathizing are ways ofbeing an attentive communicator (Cegela, 1981)or other-oriented.

Other-orientation is often referred to as

altercentrism, demonstrated by showing interestin and attention to others in conversations and

adapting messages accordingly (Martin &

Rubin, 1994). Wheeless and Berryman-Fink(1985) found competence impressions of womenmanagers include altercentrism and interaction

management. Altercentrism also involves

empathy, listening, and supportiveness. Thislevel of involvement requires skill in interactionmanagement--the degree to which theconversational setting, turn-taking, and episodepunctuation patterns are controlled (Spitzberg,1983).

Interaction management includes fluency,verbal ability, and social adaptability (Wiemann,1977). Individuals with the ability to manageinteractions are able to speak fluently, take thecorrect number of turns, begin and end

conversations, and manage topics. It seems clearthat managing interactions is inseparable fromadaptability. Adaptability is the ability to

perceive relationships and adapt messagesaccordingly (Duran, 1992). Communicatorsmust be flexible enough to adapt to

67

conversational partners and contexts (Spitzbergand Cupach, 1989). These specific skills assistemployees in managing impressions and

influencing members of the organization (Ferris,Russ, & Fandt, 1989).

Finally, the skills mentioned above requirecertain levels of articulation or expressiveness(Duran, 1983; 1992). These terms describe one’s sability to use language in grammatically correctways, and to clearly express ideas. Monge et al.(1982) included articulation as part of

encoding-the ability to clearly express ideasexemplifying high command of the language.

While we have a clear understanding of thenecessary communication skill sets vital to

organizational success, we are less informedabout the interaction between motivation,knowledge, and skills as they apply to the

organizational context. The components of therelational model of communication competencecan be systematically applied to the

organizational context, which is the goal of thisresearch. If an employee has motivation,knowledge, and skill appropriate to the

organization, then the attribution of competencecould lead to positive organizational outcomes,such as higher levels of productivity or overalljob performance.

Organizational OutcomesSeveral organizational outcomes have

been connected to communication abilityincluding upward mobility, job level, pay (Haas& Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986),managerial performance (Bednar, 1982; Penleyet al., 1991), leadership ability (Flauto, 1999),and productivity with new technology (Papa &

Tracy, 1988).Zom and Violante (1996) found significant

relationships between cognitive communicationabilities on upward mobility and job level.Individuals with more differentiated construct

systems and higher levels of person-centeredpersuasive communication attained higher joblevels, salary, and monetary career achievement(salary divided by age). High communicationskill levels are not only connected with

organizational success for managers and

supervisors, but also for employees. Scudder andGuinan (1989) found significant relationshipsbetween employees (systems developers’)ability to encode, decode, maintain

communication, and maintain user relations withsupervisor’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 throughcommunication 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 byinterpersonal communication factors (Henemanet al., 1989). Obvious benefits exist for in-groupmembers’ performance appraisals in that in-

group members’ ratings are higher regardless oftheir scores on objective job performancemeasures (Duarte & Goodson, 1994).

Since communication is inseparable fromrelationship formation (Spitzberg, 1993) andfrom organizations themselves (Putnam,Phillips, & Chapman, 1996), it seems logicalthat communication heavily impacts jobperformance and performance evaluation,specifically supervisors’ perception of employeecommunication and employees’ perception ofmanager communication. Clearly,communication impacts organizationaloutcomes; however, little research applies a

communication competence model within thiscontext to managers and supervisors. In additionto testing the applicability of a relational

competence model in organizations, studies

must be designed to investigate the relationshipsbetween levels of managerial communicationcompetence and job performance. Therefore,the following hypothesis is proposed:

HI: Employees with high levels of jobperformance will have higher levels ofcommunication motivation to communicate,

knowledge of communication, andcommunication skill than employees withmoderate and low levels of job performance.

The literature examining communication inorganizations draws a clear connection betweencommunication ability and upward mobility(Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom, 1986);job level (Zom & Violante, 1996); leadershipability (Flauto, 1999); and, managerialperformance (Bednar, 1982; Penley et. al, 1991).It seems that employees in supervisory positions

68

will demonstrate higher levels of competencethan nonsupervisors because their levels ofcommunication motivation, knowledge, and skillsecured their high level positions. Therefore,

H2: Supervisors will have higher levels ofcommunication motivation, knowledge ofcommunication, and communication skill than

nonsupervisorsH3: Employees in supervisory positions

with high levels of job performance will havehigher levels of communication motivation,knowledge of communication andcommunication skill than supervisors withmoderate and low levels of job performance.

Method

SampleAssessing and measuring competence

within context is an important assumption of therelational approach; therefore, finding a sampleorganization and measuring employeecompetence as judged by the supervisor adds tothe ecological validity of this study. The sampleorganization for this project was selected basedon criteria related to the importance of internalcommunication 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 andhierarchical status.

The population consisted of approximately1,329 technical and clerical employees of theInformation Technology Division of a largehealth care management corporation. This

organization values communication skill and hasincorporated communication as a basic

competency which is evaluated regularly in

performance appraisals. Associates typicallycommunicate with numerous corporate entities,and coordinate activities as opposed to manualproduction. At the request of the CIO, allmembers of the IT division were selected to

participate in the research.

Procedures

Employees were asked to complete the on-line survey, and the organization’s scommunication director provided informationabout how to access links to the survey throughcompany newsletters and direct e-mail. All

respondents were required to enter their

employee identification number which wouldallow the researcher to match employeeresponses with supervisors during phase two ofthe project. Three hundred and ninety-threesurveys were collected in phase one.

Company representatives manuallymatched supervisors and employees using thecompany’s database and current organizationalchart. Supervisors were contacted by e-maillisting his/her employees’ identification numberand name. The associate identification number

(AIN) was necessary for entry into the surveydatabase and allowed the program to match the

supervisor’s responses with employees’ previousrecords. Each supervisor was asked to completea skill and job performance measure for eachemployee. 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 ofservice of 7 years. Education levels were high,with 12% having associates/technical degrees,44% with bachelor’s degrees, and 22.5% witheither graduate coursework or master’s degrees.In terms of gender, 58% were male and 42%female. Ethnically, 93% of the sample wasCaucasian with the remaining 6% spanning sixother ethnicities.

MeasuresCommunication skill. The current research

builds on existing approaches by utilizing thecommunication skill dimensions provenessential for competency judgments in the

organizational setting. Perotti and DeWine

(1987) encourage this, stating, &dquo;measures ofcommunication competence are appropriatelyapplied within organizational contexts in orderthat the unique dimensions of such competencemay be identified and defined for organizationalrelationships&dquo; (p. 281 ). Empirically grounded, apriori skills can serve as the building blocks forassessing employee competence.

The skill scale has three dimensions:

empathy, adaptability, and interaction

management. The scale measures an employee’s sactual communication skill level as judged by asupervisor because supervisors exert the mostinfluence on evaluations of job performance.

69

Also, given the difficulty of evaluating one’sown skill level and the importance of obtaining amore objective view supervisor report format is

important (i.e. &dquo;My employee involves others inconversations in an effort to make them feel

valued,&dquo; &dquo;My employee always seems to say theright thing at the right time&dquo;). Research oftendoes not show consistently high correlationsbetween self and other’s ratings (Perotti &

DeWine, 1987; Sypher, 1984); therefore,supervisor evaluations are the most appropriategiven the supervisor’s power to impactorganizational outcomes.

Principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation extracted five factors. Items

failing to load using a 60/40 split criteria

(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminatedresulting in a stable three factor solution for

empathy, adaptability, and interaction

management. The scale consisted of 13 itemswith a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.

Communication motivation. Themotivation component is conceptualized as

one’s willingness to approach or avoidcommunicative interactions. The most salientskills to competence were narrowed to empathy,adaptability, and interaction management, so amotivation scale was designed to measure

employees’ willingness to extend empathy,manage interactions, and adapt communicationwithin the organization. Items were developedfor each of these dimensions, and ten items wereadapted from Mortensen, Amston, and Lustig’s(1977) Predispositions Toward Verbal Behavior(PVB) scale (a = .89) to measure employee’soverall willingness to approach communication.

The resulting instrument was composed of27 items and designed using a self-report formatfor employees to indicate their levels of

, motivation to communicate in the workplace(i.e. &dquo;I want to understand other people’sviewpoints and emotion;&dquo; &dquo;I want to be seen as a

good listener by my coworkers&dquo;).The 27-item scale was subjected to

principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation. Six dimensions with

eigenvalues exceeding 1.00 were extracted as

opposed to the intended four (predispositiontoward verbal behavior, empathy, adaptability,and interaction management) as designed. Itemsfailing to load using a 60/40 split criteria

(McCroskey & Young, 1979) were eliminated

and a stable three factor solution was obtainedon predisposition toward verbal behavior in

organizations, motivation to communicate

empathy, and motivation to adaptcommunication; however, no items loaded forthe interaction management dimension. The

resulting three factor scale was composed of 11 Iitems with a Cronbach’s a of .71 (N= 383).

Communication knowledge. The next

major component of the competence model is

knowledge. Different strategies for

operationalizing this dimension were analyzed.To simply ask subjects to self-report on theirknowledge of specific communication skillscreates undue social desirability bias. In

addition, subjects with lower levels of

competence may not have the cognitive abilityneeded to accurately assess knowledge level orcommunication performance (Spitzberg &

Cupach, 1989). Considering these factors, a

communication knowledge test was developedwhich avoided the use of complexcommunication vocabulary or jargon. Accordingto Backlund (1983), &dquo;Assessment should involvesituations that allow for a range of responses.The assessment procedure should recognize thata variety of responses could be considered

appropriate in everyday communicativesituations&dquo; (p. 65). This is consistent with adimension of cognitive assessment called

problem representation differences wherelearners are asked to make judgments aboutproblems or situations (Royer, Cisero, & Carlo,1993).

A knowledge assessment instrument wascreated based on communication scenarios in the

workplace. For each scenario subjects were

asked to choose the most appropriate andeffective response. The options have varyingdegrees of correctness, which is incorporatedinto the scoring. For example, the most

appropriate response is worth four points and theleast appropriate is worth one point. The rangeon the knowledge test is 15 to 60.

Questions were generated addressing thethree major dimensions of competencepinpointed in this research: empathy,adaptability, and interaction management. A

panel of communication scholars checked thequestions for face validity and narrowed them to15 items, five items for each factor. Theinstrument was reviewed and refined by the

70

panel on two occasions. Scenarios were selectedin the first meeting, and in the second meetingthe wording of the scenarios and responseoptions were clarified. The mean score on the

communication knowledge test was 39.08 (outof 60 possible).

Job performance. When studying jobperformance in connection with communicationand organizational variables researchers often

develop scales measuring global impressionssupervisors have of employees (Pettit, Goris, &

Vaught, 1997; Goris, Vaught, & Pettit, 2000;Scudder & Guinan, 1989). For this study, globalimpressions of job performance were measuredusing a combination of items referencingperformance in terms of quantity, quality, andeffectiveness 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 significantcorrelations between ratings of performancequality, quantity, and overall effectiveness (r =.61 between quality and quantity; r = .89between quality and overall performance; r = .90between quantity and overall performance).Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) used similaritems regarding fulfilling job roles and overallperformance, which demonstrated highcorrelations with other performance items (.83and .92 respectively). Similar items were usedto develop five performance items addressingeffectiveness at fulfilling roles and

responsibilities, quality of performance, quantityof performance, level of performance, andoverall ratings of performance. Supervisors wereto report on employees using a four-point Likertscale ranging from Strongly Disagree to

Strongly Agree. A narrowed set of options isacceptable when working with multiple itemsaddressing the same dimension because

variability can still be obtained and participantsexperience less fatigue (DeVellis, 1991).Further, an even number of response optionsforces participants to make a decision about aspecific behavior (Sudman & Bradbum, 1982).Because supervisor evaluations significantlyimpact organizational outcomes, the scale wasformatted as a supervisor report form; howevergiven the subjective nature of evaluating job

performance, the researcher also included thesame scale in an employee-report version.

Principal components factor analysis withvarimax rotation of the supervisor’s report of jobperformance showed a unidimensional solutionand a Cronbach’s alpha_of .93. The employeereport version of the job performance scale had aCronbach’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 themedian to create categories for high and lowperformance. Next, based on theseclassifications three categories of performancewere created. Subjects with scores above themedian on both supervisor and self-report wereclassified as high performing (26.1%); subjectswith one score above the median and one belowwere classified as moderate performers (44.7%);and, subjects with scores below the median onboth factors were considered low performers29.1 %).

Data AnalysisThis research investigates the relationships

between levels of job performance for

employees and supervisors and communicationcompetence employing multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) to test the hypotheses.The two independent variables are jobperformance (high, moderate, and low),supervisory position (supervisor or

nonsupervisor), and the dependent variables arethe three components of communication

competence (motivation, knowledge, and skill).

Results

There was mixed support for the

hypotheses concerning the main effects of jobperformance level and supervisory roles on thecomponents of communication competence andno support for the hypothesis predicting an

interaction between job level and jobperformance on motivation, knowledge, andskill (See Table 1).

Hypothesis 1 addressing level of jobperformance and communication competencewas partially supported. Multivariate analysisrevealed a significant main effect of job

71

Table 1 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance

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

bWilks Lambda = .90, p <05

performance on motivation to adaptcommunication (F 2, 189 = 3.34; p < .05) withhigh performers (M = 3.22) more motivated toadapt communication than moderate (M = 3.06)and low (M= 2.94) performers.

In terms of communication knowledge,there was a significant main effect of jobperformance on knowledge of empathizing (F 2,189 = 3.69; p < .05) with low performers (M =

12.51) more knowledgeable than high (M =

11.56) and moderate (M= 11.76) performers.Regarding communication skill, there was a

significant main effect for adaptingcommunication (F 2, 189 = 6.76; p - .001),empathizing (F 2, 189 = 4.12; p < .05), andinteraction management (F 2, 189

= 9.96; p <

.001). High performers were more skilled at

adapting communication (M - 3.08),empathizing (M = 3.25), and managinginteractions (M = 3.32). Table 2 shows groupmeans for the three job performance levels oneach dependent variable. There was no

significant effect of job performance on

motivation to verbally communicate (PVB) orempathize, or knowledge of interaction

management and adaptability.Partial support was also found for Hypothesis 2predicting a main effect of holding a supervisoryposition on motivation, knowledge, and skill.

Analysis revealed significant main effects formotivation to verbally communicate (F 1, 189

=

8.51; p < .05) and motivation to empathize (F 1,

189 = 7.73; p < .05). Supervisors were more

motivated to communicate (M = 2.98) and

empathize (M = 3 .50) than nonsupervisors (M =2.77, M = 3.30). There was no significant effectfor motivation to adapt communication,knowledge of empathy, interaction management,and adaptability, or skill at adapting,empathizing, and managing interactions. Table 2shows group means for supervisors and

nonsupervisors for each dependent variable.

72

Table 2

Group Means

Hypothesis 3, predicting an interactioneffect for job performance and job level on

motivation, knowledge, and skill was rejected.

Discussion

Little research has addressedcommunication competence in the workplaceand most studies have only addressed

competence from a skills perspective (Monge etal., 1982). This research expands traditional

approaches to the study of communication inorganizations beyond a social skills approach

using Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) relationalmodel of communication competence, which

incorporates motivation, knowledge, andskill.The primary findings of this researchindicate that high performing employees weremore motivated to adapt their communicationand were more skilled at communicatingempathy, adapting their communication, and

managing interactions than lower performingemployees. Interestingly, low performingemployees were more knowledgeable about howto communicate empathy than higher performingemployees. When supervisor communication

73

competence was compared with nonsupervisorsthe only significant relationship was that

supervisors had higher levels of motivation toverbally communicate and motivation to

empathize. Finally, there was no interactionbetween job performance and supervisoryposition on the communication competencecomponents.

Several findings warrant further discussion.First, contrary to hypothesis 1, there were nosignificant relationships between highperformance and communication knowledge;however, low performers had significantlyhigher levels of knowledge of empathy than highand moderate performers. In terms of therelational model this finding reinforces the

multidimensional nature of communication

competence in that one can be knowledgeableyet lack the ability to enact the knowledge(skill). &dquo;Knowledge alone is important but

unlikely to be sufficient. To give a qualityperformance, an actor should be motivated,knowledgeable, and skilled in performing&dquo;(Spitzberg, 1987, p. 28).

From a performance perspective, it is

plausible that this finding is connected with

using empathy in maladaptive ways. Employeeswho use emotional contagion as an empatheticresponse strategy are more prone to burnoutwhich leads to decreased performance. Omdahland O’Donnell (1999) studied empathy variablesin relation to burnout among nurses and foundthat nurses who practiced empathic concern

(showing concern without sharing emotion) andcommunicative responsiveness (effectivelycommunicating emotional topics) were less

likely to experience depersonalization andreduced personal accomplishment while nurseswho experienced emotional contagion (sharingthe feelings of others) experienceddepersonalization, reduced personalaccomplishment, emotional exhaustion, andreduced occupational commitment. It is

important to note that patients (or other

employees) receive benefits from all three

empathic responses, but it is the employee whomay experience negative affects by usingemotional contagion.

Next, despite the research showing directrelationships between various forms ofcommunication competence and upwardmobility (Haas & Sypher, 1991; Sypher & Zom,

1986; Zom & Violante, 1996) this study did notfind supervisors as more skilled or

knowledgeable of communication, although theywere more motivated to verbally communicateand empathize. This motivation more than likelystems from job role requirements. Althoughsupervisors may communicate more as a resultof their position, this study does not support thatthey are more skilled or knowledgeable of theprocess, but that higher performing employees ingeneral are more skilled and motivated.

The management literature generallysupports this finding in that promotion decisionsare based on numerous organizational,environmental, and individual characteristics

(Allen, 1997). London and Stumpf (1983) foundthat potential to perform in managerial roles,assessment center information, and a candidate’scurrent position plays a significant role whendeciding between numerous viable candidates(with acceptable levels of education and jobperformance), but that other communication

qualities such as leadership, behavioral

flexibility, and written communication skillswere generally used to support the decision,once made. Also, organizational factors maycontribute to the finding in that this study wasconducted within the information systemsdivision of a large company where technologicalknowledge may be valued over other factors inpromotion decisions.

Finally, this research has implications formanagement and researchers. First, ifcommunication motivation and skill are

contributors to high job performance, companiesshould look to develop communication

competence through the employees’ life span.This developmental approach would assist

employees in designing messages that are

appropriate and effective within their workenvironment. Specifically, this study supportedempathy, adaptability, and interaction

management as important skill sets within

organizations which can be targeted areas ofimprovement through structured trainingprograms. The development of these skills canclearly improve communication within the

organization and certainly enhance jobperformance.

74

Limitations and Suggestions forFuture Research

This research provides interestingimplications for future study of communicationcompetence in organizations, but some

limitations warrant examination. First, using asingle sample organization to test the model issufficient; however, different companies havedifferent rules of communicating, or differentcriteria for evaluating the appropriateness or

effectiveness of communication. For this reason,future research should apply this model in othertypes of organizations to ensure the

generalizability of the measures.Second, although exploratory in nature,

external validity was not investigated in thisresearch. This is partially explained by the lackof research applying competence in the

workplace. Although the scenario-based

approach to knowledge had high face validitythe scale needs further investigation. Theresearcher attempted to measure employee’sability to interpret scenarios and choose

appropriate responses; however, there may nothave been enough contextual clues within thescenarios for employees to determine the mostappropriate response. If the organizationalscenarios did not include contextual rulesrelevant to the sample organization it would bedifficult for an employee to respond. What mayprovide the richest information for the

knowledge component is a clearer focus on

cognition of situations and message design as alearning process. Also, the finding that low

performing employees were more

knowledgeable of empathy should be

investigated further. Researchers might considermeasuring multiple empathy strategies such asemotional contagion, empathic concern, andcommunicative responsiveness in order to

clearly investigate the relationship with jobperformance.

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 theorganizational system on individual level

competence and how the two are interdependent.Specifically viewing individual-level

competence as a developmental process, in that

employees are hired into the organization with acertain level of basic competencies, most likelyjob competencies and linguistic or conceptualcompetencies, which can be built upon as theemployee assimilates into the organization.

In summary, future directions for studyingcommunication competence in organizationsmight involve (a) applying the relational modelto different types of organizations, (b) refining ameasure of knowledge using a cognitiveapproach, (c) exploring the role of empathystrategies and job performance, and (d)designing and testing training curricula based onempathy, adaptability, and interaction

management.

Conclusion

This work clearly supportscommunication as a potential contributor ofjob performance, but this study is just onesmall step. High levels of communicationcompetence 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 competencecomponents are essential for establishingand developing strong relationships withinorganizational systems.

References

Allen, G. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of

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 listeningskills: New directions for college learningassistance. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to

transformational leadership: Learning to sharethe vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research anddevelopment in transformational leadership.European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.

75

Bauer, T.N. & Green, S.G. (1996). Developmentof leader-member exchange: A longitudinaltest. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1538-1567.

Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. &

Gilbert, N.L. (1996). Foci and bases of

employee commitment: Implications for jobperformance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 464-482.

Bednar, D.A. (1982). Relationships betweencommunicator style and managerialperformance in complex organizations: Afield study. Journal of Business

Communication, 19, 51-76.

Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategicinteraction: Attaining goals throughcommunicative action. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bostrom, R. N. (1984). Competence incommunication: A multidisciplinaryapproach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bostrom, R.N. (1996). Disentangling listening andverbal recall: Related but separate constructs?Human Communication Research, 23, 298-305.

Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: Acognitive dimension of communicative

competence. Communication Education, 30,109-121.

Cody, M.J., Greene, J.O., Marston, P.J., Baaske,E., O’Hair, H.D., & Schneider, M.J. (1986).Situation perception and the selection of

message strategies. In M.L. McLaughlin(Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 8, (pp. 390-420). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cupach, W. R. & Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). Thedark side of interpersonal communication.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theoryand aplications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Duarte, N.T. & Goodson, J.R. (1994). Effects ofdyadic quality and duration on performanceappraisal. Academy of Management Journal,37, 499-522.

Duran, R.L. (1983). Communicative adaptability:A measure of social communicative

competence. Communication Quarterly, 31,320-326.

Duran, R. L. (1992). Communication adaptability:A review of conceptualization andmeasurement. Communication Quarterly, 40,253-268.

Duran, R. L. & Kelly, L. (1988). An investigationinto the cognitive domain of competence II:The relationship between communication

competence and interaction involvement.Communication Research Reports, 5, 91-96.

Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989).Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone& P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impressionmanagement in the organization (pp. 143-

170). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Ferris, G.R., Witt, L.A., & Hochwarter, W.A.(2001). The interaction of social skill and

general mental ability on work outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075-1082.

Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The

relationship between leadership andcommunication competence. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 6, 89-97.

Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2000).Effects of communication direction on jobperformance and satisfaction: A moderated

regression analysis. The Journal of BusinessCommunication, 37,348-364.

Greene, J. O. (Ed.) (1997). Message production:Advances in communication theory. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Greene, J.O. (1984). A cognitive approach to

human communication: An action assemblytheory. Communication Monographs, 51,289-306.

Haas, J. W. & Arnold, C. L. (1995).Anexamination of the role of listening in

judgments of communication competence inco-workers. The Journal of Business

Communication, 32, 123-139.Haas, J. W., & Sypher, B. D. (1991). The impact of

communication abilities on individual successin organizational settings. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Speech

Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.Henemen, R.L., Greenberger, D.B., & Anonyuo,C.

(1989). Attributions and exchanges: Theeffects of interpersonal factors on the

diagnosis of employee performance. Academyof Management Journal, 32, 466-476.

Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & N.

R. Roth (1994). Communication competencein organizations: Conceptualization and

comparison across multiple levels of analysis.In .Thayer & G. M. Barnett (Eds.),Organization communication: EmergingPerspectives IV 114-140). Norwood, NJ.:Ablex Publishing.

76

Jablin, F. M., & Sias, P. M. (2000).Communication competence. In F. M. Jablin& L. L. Putnam (Eds.). The new handbook oforganizational communication. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Kilduff, M. & Day, D.V. (1994). Do chameleonsget ahead? The effects of self-monitoring onmanagerial careers. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37, 1047-1060.

London, M. & Stumpf, S.A. (1983). Effects ofcandidate characteristics on managementpromotion decisions: An experimental study.Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-259.

Maes, J.D., Weldy, T.G. & Icenogle, M.L. (1997).A managerial perspective: Oralcommunication competency is most

important for business students in the

workplace. Journal of Business

Communication, 34, 67-80.Martin, M.M. & Rubin, R.B. (1994). Development

of a communication flexibility measure. TheSouthern_Communication Journal, 59, 171-

179.

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication

competence: The elusive construct. In R. N.Bostrom (Ed.) Competence in

communication: A multidisciplinaryapproach (pp. 259-268). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication

competence and performance: A research andpedagogical perspective. Communication

Education, 31, 3-7.McCroskey, J.C. & Young, T.J. (1979). The use

and abuse of factor analysis incommunication research. Human

Communication Research, 5, 375-382.Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., &

Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator

competence in the workplace: Model testingand scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.),Communication Yearbook, 5 (pp. 505-527).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Morreale, S.P., Osborn, M.M., & J.C. Pearson

(2000). Why communication is important: Arationale for the centrality of the study ofcommunication. Journal of the Associationfor Communication Administration, 29, 1-25.

Mortensen, C. D., Arntson, P. H., & Lustig, M.(1977). The measurement of verbal

predispositions: Scale development and

application. Human Communication

Research, 3, 146-158.

Omdahl, B.L. & O’Donnell, C. (1999). Emotionalcontagion, empathic concern, andcommunicative responsiveness as variables

affecting nurses’ stress and occupationalcommitment. Journal of Advanced Nursing,29, 1351-1359.

Papa, M. J. & Tracy, K. (1988). Communicativeindices of employee performance with newtechnology. Communication Research, 15,524-544.

Parks, M. R. (1994). Communication competenceand interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp andG. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofinterpersonal communication. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.Pavitt, C. & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of

communication competence: Situational and

competence level differences in judgments ofprototype and target. Communication

Monographs, 53, 221-233.Penley, L.E., Alexander, E.R., Jernigan, I.E., &

Henwood, C.I. Communication abilities of

managers: The relationship to performance.Journal of Management, 17, 57-76.

Perotti, V.S. & DeWine, S. (1987). Competence incommunication: An examination of threeinstruments. Management Communication

Quarterly, 1, 272-287.Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997).

An examination of organizationalcommunication as a moderator of the

relationship between job performance and jobsatisfaction. The Journal of Business

Communication, 34, 81-98.Phillips, G.M. (1984). A competent view of

"competence." Communication Education,33, 25-36.

Porterfield, S.C. & Forde, C.M. (2001).Competencies required in the 21st century ofentry-level Fortune 500 employees with four-year business degrees. NABTE Review, 28,25-32.

Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N, & Chapman, P. (1996).Metaphors of communication and

organization. In S.R. Clegg, C.Hardy, & W.R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizationstudies (pp. 375-408). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. (1992).Communication: Apprehension, avoidance,and effectiveness (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbirck.

77

Richmond, V.P. & Roach, K.D. (1992).Willingness to communicate and employeesuccess in U.S. organizations. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 20, 95-

116.

Royer, J.M., Cisero, C.A., Carlo, M.S. (1993).Techniques and procedures for assessingcognitive skills. Review of Educational

Research, 63, 201-243.Rubin, R.B. & Martin, M.M. (1994).

Development of a measure of interpersonalcommunication competence. CommunicationResearch Reports, 11, 33-44.

Scudder, J. N. & Guinan, P. J. (1989).Communication competencies as

discriminators of superior’s s tings of

employee performance. The Journal ofBusiness Communication, 26, 217-229.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication

competence as knowledge, skill, and

impression. Communication Education, 32,323-329.

Spitzberg, B.H. (1987). Issues in the study ofcommunication competence. Progress in

Communication Sciences, 8, 1-46.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of

(in)competence. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158.Spitzberg, B.H., Canary, D.J., & Cupach, W.R.

(1994). A competence-based approach to thestudy of interpersonal conflict. In D.D. Cahn(Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp.183-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1984).Interpersonal communication competence.Beverly Hills: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (1989).Handbook of interpersonal competenceresearch. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B. H. & Hecht, M. L. (1984). Acomponent model of relational competence.Human Communication Research, 10, 575-599.

Spitzberg, B. H. & Hurt, H. T. (1987). Themeasurement of interpersonal skills in

instructional contexts. Communication

Education, 36, 28-45.

Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982). Askingquestions: A practical guide to questionnairedesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sypher, B.D., Bostrom, R.N. & Seibert, J.H.

(1989). Listening, communication abilities,and success at work. The Journal of BusinessCommunication, 26,293-303.

Sypher, B. D. (1984). The importance of socialcognitive abilities in organizations. In R. N.Bostrom (Ed.), Communication and

Competence. Beverly Hills: Sage.Sypher, B. D. & Zorn, T. E. (1986).

Communication-related abilities and upwardmobility: A longitudinal investigation.Human Communication Research, 12, 420-431.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. & Liden, R.C. (1997).Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchangeperspective. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40, (1): 82-111.

Wheeless, V.E. & Berryman-Fink, C. (1985).Perceptions of women managers and theircommunication competencies.Communication Quarterly, 33, 137-148.

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of amodel of communicative competence. HumanCommunication Research, 3, 195-

213.Wiemann, J.M., Takai, J., Ota, H. &

Wiemann, M.O. (1997). A relational modelof communication competence. In B.Kovacic (Ed.), Emerging Theories of HumanCommunication, pp. 25-44. New Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Wright, A. W. (1991). Developing a model ofcommunication competence fororganizations. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Michigan State University, AnnArbor.

Zorn, T. E. (1996). Motivation to communicate: Acritical review with suggested alternatives inD. Mumby (Ed.), Communication Yearbook,16, pp. 515-549.

Zorn, T. E. & Violanti, M. T. (1996).Communication abilities and individualachievement in organizations. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 10, 139-146.