Chapter IV

RESULTS

The data collected from the sample by means of survey was analyzed in

Chapter IV. In this chapter the respondent’s socio demographic profile,

description of their job and their communication pattern, opinions about the

effectiveness and satisfaction etc. were analyzed in various parts. Part-I deals

with the socio demographic profile of professionals. Part-II deals with details

of employment, Part-III deals with communication channels and processes,

Part-IV deals with usage of communication tools, Part-V deals with

communication climate/organization climate and Part-VI deals with levels of

communication and satisfaction.

Following the analysis of the results, we tested the hypothesis via a Chi-

Square test to determine the relationship between Communication satisfaction

and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was the dependent variable. The test

results show that there is a significant relationship between communication

satisfaction and job satisfaction in organization as the chi-square analysis

illustrates (χ2=17.836 df=8, p< 0.05), where the p-value = 0.02 is less than the

level of significance at 0.05.

Demographic factors on job satisfaction: A case Study of two Malaysian

universities on factors influencing jobs satisfaction indicated that demographic

factors which include gender, age and designation (position/rank) of

employees had a great influence on how an employee is satisfied with their

work. Various researchers have presented diverse opinions in regards to the

relation between job satisfaction and these factors (Hooi 2012,Kosteas

2009,Hanif & Kamal 2009,and Chimanikire et al.2007).Kosteas (2009)

showed that there is a U-shaped relationship between age and satisfaction.

Part I: Socio demographic profile

This part of the study deals with socio demographic profile of the employees

of the organization. Their age, nativity, educational qualification and income

was studied in this part I.

Gender: In early times in India especially in Andhra Pradesh women

especially in rural areas did not show inclination for jobs. But the concept of

influence of westernization has changed the perception of women and started

taking up new careers. In cooperative setup also they found their place. The

gender profile of the sample here showed sharp polarity as the number of

female employees is very less compared to men. With regard to gender of the

234 respondents, 90.2% belongs to male category and the remaining i.e. 9.8%

belongs to female category (Table.1).

Table 1

Percentage distribution of respondents according to the gender

S.No. Gender fr %

1 Male 211 90.2

2 Female 23 9.8

Total 234 100

Age: C5 dis Jules Carrière(2007) Third, age had a minor negative correlation

with job satisfaction (r = -.22, p < .05) suggesting that younger employees

were slightly more satisfied with their job than older employees. Age is found

to be an important factor in communication and especially with regard to job

satisfaction. Hence the samples age was analyzed and found that 36.3% fall in

31- 40 years range, followed by 25-30 years (18.4%), 51-60 years (17.5%),

41-50 years (16.3%), 60 above (7.7%) and below 25 years age (3.8%) (Table

2).

Table 2

Percentage distribution of respondents according to age

S.No Age fr %

1 Below 25 9 3.8

2 25-30 43 18.4

3 31-40 85 36.3

4 41-50 38 16.3

5 51-60 41 17.5

6 60 above 18 7.7

Total 234 100

 Figure 1

Percentage distribution of respondent’s age

40 36.3
35

Percentage distribution
30
25
18.4 17.5
20 16.3
15
10 7.7
3.8
5
0
Below25 25-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 above
Age

Caste: The state of undivided Andhra Pradesh is known for diversity of

castes and this distribution of respondent’s shows that 65.4% of the

respondents belong to Open Category, followed by Backward Community

(26.1%), Scheduled Caste (8.1%) and Scheduled Tribes (0.4%) (Table 3).

Table 3

Percentage distribution of respondents according to caste

S.No Caste fr %

1 OC 153 65.4

2 BC 61 26.1

3 SC 19 8.1

4 ST 1 0.4

Total 234 100

 Figure 2

Percentage distribution of respondents according to caste

65.4
70

Percentage distribution
60
50
40 26.1

30 8.1
20
0.4
10
0
OC BC SC ST
Caste

Religion: Religion has been attributed a significant place in the Indian culture.

It is considered to be an important component in the individual’s life. Hence,

in this context it was enquired by the researcher and found that religion wise

distribution is more wide spread and in this study 91.9% of the respondents

belongs to Hindu Religion, followed by Muslim (5.6%), Christian (2.1%) and

other Religions (0.4%). (Table 4)

Table4

Percentage distribution of respondents according to religion

S.No Religion fr %

1 Hindu 215 91.9

2 Muslim 13 5.6

3 Christian 5 2.1

4 Any other 1 0.4

Total 234 100

Marital Status: With regard to marital status, 86.8% of the respondents are

got married and the remaining 13.2% comes under unmarried category

(Table 5).

Table 5

Percentage distribution of respondents according to marital status

S.No Marital Status fr %

1 Married 203 86.8

2 Unmarried 31 13.2

Total 234 100

Native Place: As this dairy is placed in a rural area and the majority of its

stakeholders belong to rural areas. The researcher tried to find out the nativity

of the respondents. With regard to nativity of respondents, 77.8% belong to

rural areas followed by urban (16.7%) and semi urban (5.6%) (Table 6).

Table 6

Percentage distribution of the respondents according to Native Place

S.No Native Place fr %

1 Urban 39 16.7

2 Semi Urban 13 5.6

3 Rural 182 77.8

Total 234 100

Mother Tongue: It is a well-established fact that, mother tongue would help in

effective communication. Though the company is located in Andhra Pradesh

it is very natural that most of the employees belongs to telugu community. But

Guntur district to which it belongs has a good number of Muslim population.

Hence, the researcher tried to find out composition of the sample. The data

shows that out of 234 respondents, 94.9% are have telugu as mother tongue

and the remaining 5.1% are having urdu as mother tongue (Table 7).

Table 7

Percentage distribution of the respondents according to Mother Tongue

S.No Mother Tongue fr %

1 Telugu 222 94.9

2 Urdu 12 5.1

Total 234 100

Annual Income: In any organization the employees would be placed at

different hierarchies and their income also would vary from one cadre to other.

Apart from the salary some of the staff might be claiming other incomes also

which is likely influence the communication pattern as well as the satisfaction.

With regard to annual income of the respondents, 40.2% are belongs income

range of Rs.1-2 lakhs, followed by Rs.2-3 lakhs (22.6%), Rs.5 - 10 lakhs

(12%), Below Rs. 1 lakh (9.8%), Rs.4-5 lakhs (6.4%), Rs.3-4 lakhs (6%), and

Rs.10-20 lakhs (3%).(Table 8). Mean income of the sample is Rs.317219.65

and the Standard deviation value is 291358.93.

 Table 8

Percentage distribution of respondents according to Annual Income

S.No Annual Income fr %

1 Below Rs. 1 Lakh 23 9.8

2 Rs.1 Lakh to Rs.2 Lakhs 94 40.2

3 Rs.2 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs 53 22.6

4 Rs.3 Lakhs to Rs.4 Lakhs 14 6.0

5 Rs.4 Lakhs to Rs.5 Lakhs 15 6.4

6 Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.10 Lakhs 28 12.0

7 Rs.10 Lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs 7 3.0

Total 234 100

Figure 3

Percentage distribution of respondents according to Annual Income

3 9.8 Below Rs. 1 Lakh

12
Rs.1 Lakh to Rs.2 Lakhs
6.4 Rs.2 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs
6 Rs.3 Lakhs to Rs.4 Lakhs
40.2 Rs.4 Lakhs to Rs.5 Lakhs
Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.10 Lakhs
22.6
Rs.10 Lakhs to Rs.20 lakhs

Mean income isRs. Rs.317219.65 & Standard deviation is 291358.93.

Level of Education: Generally in any organization many of the jobs would be

divergent and so are the educational qualifications as many of them would be

specific in nature. Some of the jobs would be skilled and some may not
require them. If the education qualifications of the staff members are known it

will help in understanding the educational status and so is the pattern of

communication. As the company has many departments and different types of

duties are performed the range of qualifications would also be interesting.

Since professional and non-professional jobs are performed by the employees

both the types of staff are found working in the company. To gain an entry

into any organization a trainee needs to have minimum qualification and some

of them may acquire others also. There is intense competition to get

admissions into these courses, and applicants must demonstrate the

perseverance, motivation and resilience required to succeed in the job, in order

to find a way into the industry. With regard to level of education of the

respondents, 45.7% have qualification of degree followed by Post Graduation

(38%), SSC (6.8%), Intermediate (5.6%), below SSC (3%) and no education

(0.9%) (Table 9).

Table 9

Percentage distribution of respondents according to the level of education

S.No Level of education fr %

1 Post Graduation 89 38.0

2 Degree 107 45.7

3 Intermediate 13 5.6

4 SSC 16 6.8

5 Below SSC 7 3.0

6 None 2 0.9

Total 234 100

 Figure 4

Percentage distribution of respondent’s level of education

50 45.7
38

Percentage
40
30
20
10 5.6 6.8
0 3
0.9

Level of Education

Diploma Certificates: Out of 234 respondents, 63.2% said that, they are not

having Diploma certificates and the remaining 36.8% said that, they have

Diploma certificates (Table 10).

Table 10

Percentage distribution of the respondents, who are having Diploma

Certificates

S.No Diploma holders fr %

1 Yes 86 36.8

2 No 148 63.2

Total 234 100

 Figure 5

Percentage distribution of respondents,who are having Diploma

Certificates

Yes No

36.8

63.2

Out of 86 Respondents (Diploma holders), 77.9% are having Diploma

certificates before taking up the job, followed by after joining the job (20.9%)

and after quitting the first job (1.2%).(Table 11).

Table 11

Percentage distribution of Diploma holding respondents, when they did

taken up the course

S.No Taking up the Course fr %

1 Before taking up the job 67 77.9

2 After joining the job 18 20.9

3 After quitting the Job 1 1.2

Total 86 100

Training for the job: As discussed earlier there are different types of jobs and

those who have suitable qualifications only will gain entry in to the jobs.

Training is also equally important for these employees as it imparts the skill
and knowledge. Out of the 234 respondents, 67.1% said that, they have

taken up training for the job and the remaining 32.9% said no (Table 12).

Table 12

Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the training for

the job

S.No Training fr %

1 Yes 157 67.1

2 No 77 32.9

Total 234 100

Generally organizations that utilize the services of professionals try to train the

newly recruited as per their requirements because it would help the employer

to extract maximum benefit with less wastage of time and perfection. At later

stages also efforts to update their knowledge and skills are taken up by the

organization itself. For skilled jobs the employees either acquire the training

before joining the job or after the joining the organization. In specific cases the

organizations would impart training to suit the needs such as technology. Out

of 157 respondents, who were taken up training for the job, 66.2% said that,

they have taken up the training in the present organization, followed by in the

first organization where they worked (26.1%) and in the second organization

(7.6%) (Table 13).

 Table 13

Percentage distribution of trained respondents according to the place of

training

S.No Training for the Job fr %

1 In the first Organization, where they worked 41 26.1

2 In the second Organization 12 7.6

3 In the Present Organization 104 66.2

Total 157 100

Reasons for joining the job: From a set of eight options, respondents were

asked to give rankings to the reasons for joining the job, 73.5% have given 1st

rank to that as a career they have chosen the present job, followed by un-

employment(12.8%), for more salaries(4.3%), with other reasons (3.4% ), it

just happened (2.9%), for recognition(2.4%), for perks and facilities(0.9%).

It is also significant that, 20.9% of the respondents have given 2nd rank for

‘un-employment’. (Table 14)

 Table 14

Percentage distribution of respondent’s rankings to the reasons

for joining the job

1stRank 2nd Rank 3rd Rank 4th Rank 5th Rank 6th Rank 7th Rank 8th Rank

Fr. % Fr % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %

As a career

172 73.5 19 8.1 9 3.8 1 0.4 3 1.3 - - - - - -

Unemploymment

30 12.8 49 20.9 10 4.3 2 0.9 5 2.1 3 1.3 1 0.4 8 3.4

It just happened

6 2.6 14 6.0 8 3.4 2 0.9 2 0.9 7 3.0 11 4.7 11 4.7

Recognition

5 2.1 23 9.8 19 8.1 12 5.1 4 1.7 4 1.7 3 1.3 1 0.4

More salaries

10 4.3 16 6.8 9 3.8 17 7.3 12 5.1 - - 4 1.7 1 0.4

Perks and facilities

2 0.9 10 4.3 14 6.0 12 5.1 14 6.0 9 3.8 - - 2 0.9

To meet influential people

- - 3 1.3 6 2.6 6 2.6 5 2.1 15 6.4 10 4.3 3 1.3

Any other

8 3.4 8 3.4 3 1.3 4 1.7 3 1.3 6 2.6 14 6.0 17 7.3

Part II: Details of Employment

This part of the study deals with details of the employment pertaining to the

employees of the organization. Their work place, type of appointment, age of

joining, years of experience, shift pattern etc. was studied in this part II.

Work Place: With regard to work place of the respondents, 76.5% working in

rural areas, followed by urban (13.7%), semi urban (9.4%) and habitation

(0.4%) (Table 15).

Table 15

Percentage distribution of the respondents according to Place of work

S.No Work Place fr %

1 Urban 32 13.7

2 Semi Urban 22 9.4

3 Rural 179 76.5

4 Habitation 1 0.4

Total 234 100

Figure 6

Percentage distribution of respondents according to Place of work

0.4

13.7
9.4 Urban
Semi Urban
76.5 Rural
Habitation
Type of appointment: Type of appointment of staff is crucial for individual

employees as well as the organization as the duties and responsibility would

vary and communication practices and ultimately the communication climate

would differ from one to other. With regard to type of appointment, 57.3% of

the respondents employed temporarily followed by permanently (22.6%),

contract basis (17.1%) and others (3%) (Table 16).

Table 16
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to type of
appointment
S.No Type of appointment fr %

1 Permanent 53 22.6

2 Temporary 134 57.3

3 Contract 40 17.1

4 Other 7 3.0

Total 234 100

Figure 7

Percentage distribution of respondentsaccording to type of appointment

3
17.1 22.6
Permanent
Temporary
Contract
Other

57.3
As seen from the data, 61.1% of the respondents knew about the present job

through advertisements followed by the organization itself (12.8%), through

friends (12.8%), through relatives (7.3%) and other sources (6%) (Table 17).

Table 17
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the knowledge
about the present job
S.No Through fr %

1 Advertisement 143 61.1

2 Friends 30 12.8

3 Relatives 17 7.3

4 From organization itself 30 12.8

5 Others 14 6.0

Total 234 100

With regard to the age of the respondents at the time of joining, 83.3% joined

in the job between the age interval of 20-30 years, followed by 30-40 years

(9.8%), 40-50 years (4.7%) and above 50 years (2.1%) (Table18).

Table 18
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the age of joining the present
job
S.No Age fr %

1 20 – 30 years 195 83.3

2 30 – 40 years 23 9.8

3 40 – 50 years 11 4.7

4 Above 50 years 5 2.1

Total 234 100

 Figure 8

Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the age of joining the present

job

4.7 2.1
9.8

20 – 30 years
30 – 40 years
40 – 50 years
Above 50 years

83.3

Jules Carrière (2007) organizational tenure had a moderate negative

correlation with paramedics’ perception of communication practices (r =-.31,

p < .05), communication satisfaction (r = -.34, p < .01), job satisfaction (r = -

.32, p < .01), and affective organizational commitment (r = -.33, p < .01). This

implies that perceptions of communication practices, communication

satisfaction, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment

deteriorate as length of service with the organization increases. The data show

that 56.3% of the total variance in communication satisfaction is explained by

the model, 49.8% of which is attributable to the organizations’ internal

communication practices. The remaining 6.5% of explained variation is

attributable to the shift pattern control variable.

Organizational Commitment: Organizational communication is linked to

organizational commitment in several ways. Ng, Vandenberg, and Wilson,

(2006) found that organizational communication, work schedule flexibility

through effective interpersonal communication, and opportunity for learning

affect organizational commitment. Effective organizational communication

leads to organizational commitment to total quality management (Allen, 1992)

and effective organizational communication is key to employee satisfaction

(De Rider, 2004).In this context the length of service was ascertained by the

researcher. With regard to the experience of the respondents in the present job

34.6% of the respondents have above 15 years of experience followed by 0-5

years (29.9%), 6-10 years (27.8%) and 11-15 years (7.7%) (Table 19).

Table 19
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the years of
experience in the present job
S.No Years fr %

1 0 to 5 years 70 29.9

2 6 to 10 years 65 27.8

3 11 to 15 years 18 7.7

4 Above 15 years 81 34.6

Total 234 100

According to Jules Carrière(2007) shift pattern had a moderate positive

correlation with communication satisfaction (r = .26, p < .05), job satisfaction

(r = .30, p < .01), and affective organizational commitment (r = .23, p < .05).

This suggests that employees working 12-hour shifts had higher levels of

communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and affective organizational

commitment compared to their colleagues working 8-hour shifts. With regard

to the respondent’s duties in shifts, 53.4% need not work in shifts in duties

and the remaining 46.6% need to work as per the scheduled shifts (Table 20).
 Table 20
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the work in shifts

S.No Work in shifts fr %

1 Yes 109 46.6

2 No 125 53.4

Total 234 100

Out of 109 Respondents, who work in shifts in duties 35.8% work in general

shifts followed by morning shift (30.3%), night shifts (24.8%) and afternoon

shifts (9.2%)(Table 21).

Table 21
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the type of shifts
they work mostly
S.No Work in shifts fr %

1 Morning 33 30.3

2 General 39 35.8

3 Afternoon 10 9.2

4 Night 27 24.8

Total 109 100

 Figure 9
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the type of shifts
they work mostly
40
35.8
35
30.3
30
24.8
25
20
15
9.2
10
5
0
Morning General Afternoon Night

With regard to the number of employees the respondents deal regularly with,

among the sample 53% said that they would interact with below 20 employees

followed by 20-50 employees (40.6%), 50-100 employees (4.3%) and above

100 employees (2.1%) (Table 22).

Table 22
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the number of
Employees in their Department
S.No No. of employees fr %

1 Below 20 employees 124 53.0

2 20 to 50 employees 95 40.6

3 50 to 100 employees 10 4.3

4 100 above 5 2.1

Total 234 100

 Research undertaken by Foehrenbach and Ruch in the 1980s demonstrated an

important link between an employee’s satisfaction with organizational

communication and the communication efforts of top management (Pincus,

1986). A review of the literature on the communication-job satisfaction

relationship reveals a significant relation. In this context, researcher has tried

to study with how many members the employees generally communicate with

others. Study reveals that, respondents were generally communicated with

others at an average of 19.62 persons followed by 10.20 in peer group, 6.44 in

sub-ordinates, 2.18 in superiors and at an average of 1.08 persons in Top

Management (Table 23).

Table 23
Mean distribution of the respondents, according to the number of
members they generally communicate
S.No Group Average

1 With Top Management 1.08

2 Superiors 2.18

3 Peer Group 10.20

4 Subordinates 6.44

5 Others 19.62

Part-III: Communication channels and processes

This part of the study deals with Communication channels and

Communication processes of the organization. The frequency of

communication, adequacy of communication, feedback, effectiveness of

channels and employees attitude towards communication etc., was studied in

this part III.

Jules Carrière (2007) found that the link between internal communication

practices and employee communication satisfaction is well established.

Communication audits reveal that greater communication efforts tend to result

in higher levels of communication satisfaction (Hargie et al., 2002). While

some researchers have suggested that an organization’s members will desire

“more information from other organization members regardless of the amount

of information they currently receive” (Zimmerman et al., 1996), others have

shown that improved internal communication decreases the gap between the

amount of information that employees desire and the amount of information

they receive (Hargie et al., 2002).

The frequency of communication with the members at various levels was

studied by the researcher. With regard to top management, 43.6%

communicated rarely followed by very rarely (30.3%), normally (14.1%),

regularly (6.4%) and very regularly (5.6%). With regard to frequency of the

respondents communication with superiors, 43.6% communicated regularly

followed by normally (27.8%), very regularly (16.7%), rarely (11.1%) and

very rarely (0.9%). With regard to frequency of communication with the

members in Peer Group, 50.9% communicated regularly, followed by very

Regularly(29.1%), normally(18.4%) and rarely(1.7%). In case of interacting

with subordinates, 50.4% communicated regularly, followed by very regularly

(25.2%), normally (20.9%), rarely (2.1%) and very rarely (1.3%). With regard

to frequency of communication with others, 40.2% communicated normally

 followed by regularly (27.4%), rarely (17.1%), very regularly (8.1%) and Very

rarely (7.3%) (Table 24)

Table 24
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the frequency of
Communication with others
Very Very
Regularly Normal Rarely
Sl.No. Group Regularly rarely

fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

Top
1 13 5.6 15 6.4 33 14.1 102 43.6 71 30.3
Management

2 Superiors 39 16.7 102 43.6 65 27.8 26 11.1 2 0.9

3 Peer Group 68 29.1 119 50.9 43 18.4 4 1.7 - -

4 Subordinates 59 25.2 118 50.4 49 20.9 5 2.1 3 1.3

5 Others 19 8.1 64 27.4 94 40.2 40 17.1 17 7.3

The respondents were questioned about the frequency of interaction with

employees at various levels on various issues such as personal, job related,

general and others. With regard to frequency of the interaction with the

members in Top Management on Personal Issues, 54.7% of the Respondents

interacted rarely, followed by very rarely (32.5%), normally(10.7%), very

Regularly (1.3%) and regularly(0.9%). In case Job related issues, 38%

interacted regularly followed by normally (22.6%), very regularly (19.7%),

rarely (12.0%) and very rarely (7.7%). In case of General Issues, 30.3% of the

Respondents interacted rarely, followed by regularly (26.9%), normally

(26.1%), very rarely (10.3%) and very regularly (6.4%). In case of other
issues, 41.5% of the Respondents interacted with Top Management rarely,

followed by normally (25.2%), very rarely (22.6%) and regularly (10.7%).

The findings are in support of McKinsey’s survey which shows that a large

number of top level executives are usually not satisfied with their performance

especially when it comes to people skills (see Eich, 2012), which explains the

feeling of being constantly judged. Such findings are also in line with the

Leader Member Exchange Theory by Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp (1982)

which argues that the way superiors communicate is different from

subordinates. Unlike the other sub-groups in the organization, the management

team in the organization has less number of strategies that are perceived as

impactful to creating a supportive communication climate.

With regard to frequency of the interaction with the Superiors on personal

Issues, 52.1% of the respondents interacted rarely, followed by very rarely

(32.1%), normally (12.0%), regularly (2.1%) and very regularly(1.7%). In

case of Job related issues, 59.4% of the respondents interacted regularly,

followed by very regularly (23.5%), normally (12.8%), rarely(3.0%) and very

rarely(1.3%). In case of General Issues, 44.0% of the respondents interacted

regularly, followed by normally (28.2%), rarely (13.2%), very regularly

(8.1%) and very rarely (6.4%). In case of other issues, 33.8% of the

respondents interacted normally, followed by rarely (25.6%), regularly

(24.4%) and very rarely(16.2%).

.
With regard to frequency of the Interaction with the Peer Group on Personal

Issues, 43.6% of the respondents interacted rarely, followed by normally

(26.5%), very rarely(14.1%), regularly(11.5%) and very regularly(4.3%). In

case of Job related issues, 61.1% of the respondents interacted regularly,

followed by very regularly (26.1%), normally (10.7%), very rarely (1.3%) and

rarely (0.9%). In case of General Issues, 53.0% of the respondents interacted

regularly, followed by normally (26.1%), very regularly (11.1%), rarely

(6.4%), very rarely (3.4%). In case of other issues, 39.3% of the respondents

interacted regularly, followed by normally (30.3%), rarely (13.2%), very

rarely (12.4%) and very regularly (4.7%).

With regard to frequency of the Interaction with the Subordinates on Personal

Issues, 34.6% of the respondents interacted rarely, followed by normally

(31.2%), very rarely (23.5%), regularly (7.7%) and very regularly (2.6%). In

case of Job related issues, 57.7% of the respondents interacted regularly,

followed by very regularly (23.5%), normally (15%), rarely (2.1%) and very

rarely (1.3%). In case of General issues, 47.9% interacted regularly, followed

by normally (24.4%), very regularly (11.5%), rarely (9.0%) and very rarely

(6.8%). In case of other issues, 36.8% of the respondents interacted regularly,

followed by normally (30.3%), very rarely (14.5%), rarely (13.7%) and very

regularly (4.3%) (Table 25).

 Table 25
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s according to the issues on
which they frequently interact with others
Very Very
Regularly Normal Rarely
Group Issues Regularly rarely

fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

Personal 3 1.3 2 0.9 25 10.7 128 54.7 76 32.5

Top Management

Job
46 19.7 89 38.0 53 22.6 28 12.0 18 7.7
related

General 15 6.4 63 26.9 61 26.1 71 30.3 24 10.3

Others - - 22 10.7 59 25.2 97 41.5 53 22.6

Personal 4 1.7 5 2.1 28 12.0 122 52.1 75 32.1

Job
55 23.5 139 59.4 30 12.8 7 3.0 3 1.3
Superiors

related

General 19 8.1 103 44.0 66 28.2 31 13.2 15 6.4

Others - - 57 24.4 79 33.8 60 25.6 38 16.2

Personal 10 4.3 27 11.5 62 26.5 102 43.6 33 14.1

Job
Peer Group

61 26.1 143 61.1 25 10.7 2 0.9 3 1.3

related

General 26 11.1 124 53.0 61 26.1 15 6.4 8 3.4

Others 11 4.7 92 39.3 71 30.3 31 13.2 29 12.4

Personal 6 2.6 18 7.7 73 31.2 81 34.6 55 23.5

Job
Subordinates

55 23.5 135 57.7 35 15.0 5 2.1 3 1.3

related

General 27 11.5 112 47.9 57 24.4 21 9.0 16 6.8

Others 10 4.3 86 36.8 71 30.3 32 13.7 34 14.5

𝒙𝟐 =2114.377, df=60 P<0.01 where p value is 0.00001 which is significant at 0.01

level

Feed back: The process needs to work from either side in that, both

management and employees are considerate in the communication and

applaud feedback that helps in achieving greater success (Trombetta 2008).

Studies indicate that, employees who experience open communication in their

organizations are led to increased performance and job satisfaction (Neves&

Eisenberger 2012). Abugre (2011) indicates that, open communication permits

employees to be more involved in organizational matters and understand that

their engagement is important in achieving the success of the organization. He

further notes that, it ensures that employees conceive the bigger picture and

the portion they contribute in the success of the organization. Generating an

open communication climate leads to greater job satisfaction reduced stress,

team building, increased loyalty and commitment by employees to the

organization plus mutual respect all over the organization. Open

communication assures a more industrious and productive work environment

with a positive workplace (Kumar BP 2008).Employees would be satisfied

with the organization if there is a positive feedback both vertically involving

managers and employees and horizontally between workers (Emmert and

Taher, 1992; Abugre, 2010b), and a participative style of management used by

superiors in organizations (Kim, 2002).

The respondents were found to interact with their colleagues for various

purposes as well as specific areas. In case of policies, 42.3% of respondents

interacted rarely followed by normally (24.8%), regularly (19.7%), very rarely

 (9.0%) and very regularly (4.3%). In case of problems 45.3% interacted with

others regularly followed by normally (31.2%), very regularly (11.5%), rarely

(10.7%) and very rarely (1.3%). With regard to updates, 47.9% respondents

interacted with others regularly followed by normally (33.3%), very regularly

(12%), rarely (5.1%) and very rarely (1.7%). With regard to feedback, 49.6%

interacted regularly with others followed by normally (35.5%), very regularly

(7.7%), rarely (5.1%) and very rarely (2.1%). With regard to suggestions,

48.3% of respondents communicated with others regularly followed by

normally (31.6%), very regularly (12.0%), rarely (5.6%) and very rarely

(2.6%). In case of others, 47.4% communicated normally, followed by rarely

(18.8%), regularly (18.4%), very rarely (13.2%) and very regularly (2.1%)

(Table 26).

Table 26
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to specific areas
of job in which they interact with others
Very Very
Regularly Normal Rarely
Sl.No. Areas Regularly rarely

fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

1 Policies 10 4.3 46 19.7 58 24.8 99 42.3 21 9.0

2 Problems 27 11.5 106 45.3 73 31.2 25 10.7 3 1.3

3 Updates 28 12.0 112 47.9 78 33.3 12 5.1 4 1.7

4 Feedback 18 7.7 116 49.6 83 35.5 12 5.1 5 2.1

5 Suggestions 28 12.0 113 48.3 74 31.6 13 5.6 6 2.6

6 Others 5 2.1 43 18.4 111 47.4 44 18.8 31 13.2

With regard to the opinion about company’s publications 61.1% of the

respondents said that the publications were interesting and helpful followed by

can’t say (23.1%) and no (15.8%) (Table 27).

Table 27
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the interest and
helpfulness of company’s publications
S.No fr %

1 Yes 143 61.1

2 No 37 15.8

3 Can’t say 54 23.1

Total 234 100

Figure 10

Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the Company’s

Publications were interesting and helpful

23.1

Yes
15.8 61.1 No
Can’t say

When the Respondents were asked, whether the Meetings well organized or

not, 93.2% have said that the meetings were well organized in the

organization followed by can’t say (3.8%) and no (3%) (Table 28).

 Table 28
Percentage distribution of the respondents about the meetings
S.No fr %

1 Yes 218 93.2

2 No 7 3.0

3 Can’t say 9 3.8

Total 234 100

Figure 11

Percentage distribution of the respondents about organizing the meetings

3 3.8

Yes
No
Can’t say
93.2

When the sample were asked about the written directives and reports, out of

234 respondents, 94.9% said that, they are clear and concise followed by can’t

say (3.8%) and 1.3% answered negatively (Table 29).

 Table 29
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the written directives
and reports are clear and concise
S.No fr %

1 Yes 222 94.9

2 No 3 1.3

3 Can’t say 9 3.8

Total 234 100

Figure 12

Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the written directives

and reports are clear and concise

1.3
3.8

Yes
No
Can’t say
94.9

With regard to the respondent’s attitude towards communication in the

organization, 82.5% of the respondents said that the communication in the

organization is healthy whereas 12.4% can’t say and answered as no (5.1%)

(Table 30).
 Table 30
Percentage distribution of the respondents about their attitude as to
whether the communication in the company is healthy
S.No fr %

1 Yes 193 82.5

2 No 12 5.1

3 Can’t say 29 12.4

Total 234 100

Figure 13

Percentage distribution of the respondents as to whether the attitude

towards communication in the company is healthy

5.1 12.4

Yes
No
82.5 Can’t say

With regard to the adequacy of the communication in the organization, 84.6%

of the respondents are said that, there is adequacy, followed by no (8.5%), and

said can’t say (6.8%) (Table 31).

 Table 31
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the adequacy of amount
of communication
S.No fr %

1 Yes 198 84.6

2 No 20 8.5

3 Can’t say 16 6.8

Total 234 100

Figure 14
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the attitude
towards communication in the company as to whether it is healthy or not

8.5 6.8

Yes
No
84.6 Can’t say

Hwange colliery company

In this study organizational communication can be perceived as the sending

and receiving of messages among interrelated individuals within a particular

environment or setting to achieve individual and common goals. Individuals in

organizations transmit messages through face to face, written, and mediated

channels (Deetz 2001). The study was also discussed about various factors

such as place of communication as well as impact of channels such as notice

boards and press notes, inter office memos and telephones along with HR

department and unions of staff members of the company.

The respondents were asked to identify the frequency with which they use

various channels of communication. In case of face to face meetings, 60.7% of

the respondents were found using it once in a day, followed by once in a week

(15.8%), once in a month (11.5%), every alternative day (8.5%) and thrice in a

week (3.4%). In case of letters, 29.1% of the respondents are using them once

in a week, followed by once in a week (28.6%), once in a day(17.9%), every

alternative day (16.7%) and thrice in a week (7.7%). In case of Circulars,

32.5% of the respondents using it once in a month, followed by once in a week

(26.5%), once in a day (16.2%), every alternative day (13.7%) and thrice in a

week (11.1%). In case of reports, 49.6% of the respondents are using once in

a month, followed by once in a day (22.2%), once in a week (15.8%), every

alternative day(9.0%) and thrice in a week (3.4%). In case of notice boards,

57.7% of respondents are using it once in a month, followed by once in a

week(16.7%), once in a day (12.8%), every alternative day(7.3%), and thrice

in a week (5.6%). In case of Meetings, 67.9% of the respondents are using

once in a month, followed by Once in a week (15.8%), once in a day (6.8%),

every alternative day(5.6%) and thrice in a week (3.8%). In case of Phone

calls, 83.3% of the respondents are using once in a day, followed by once in a

month (6.4%), Every alternative day(6.0%), thrice in a week (3.0%) and once

in a week (1.3%). In case of SMS, 41.0% of respondents are using once in a

month followed by once in a day(36.8%), once in a week(9.4%), every

alternative day(6.8%), thrice in a week(6.0%). In case of e-mails, 55.1% of

the employees using once in a month followed by once in a day(28.2%), once

in a week(10.3%), thrice in a week(3.4%), and every alternative day(3.0%). In

case of Newsletters, 82.9% are using once in a month, followed by once in a

 week (6.4%), once in a day (4.7%) every alternative day(3.8%) and thrice in a

week (2.1%). In case of others, 87.6% of the respondent are using once in a

month, followed by once in a week (5.6%), once in a day (3.0%), every

alternative day(2.1%) and thrice in a week (1.7%) (Table 32).

Table 32
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the usage of
channels for communication
Every
Thrice in Once in Once in
Once in a day Alternative
Sl.No. Channels a week a week month
Day
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Face to
1 Face 142 60.7 20 8.5 8 3.4 37 15.8 27 11.5
Meetings
2 Letters 42 17.9 39 16.7 18 7.7 68 29.1 67 28.6
3 Circulars 38 16.2 32 13.7 26 11.1 62 26.5 76 32.5
4 Reports 52 22.2 21 9.0 8 3.4 37 15.8 116 49.6
Notice
5 30 12.8 17 7.3 13 5.6 39 16.7 135 57.7
Boards
6 Meetings 16 6.8 13 5.6 9 3.8 37 15.8 159 67.9
Phone
7 195 83.3 14 6.0 7 3.0 3 1.3 15 6.4
Calls
8 SMS 86 36.8 16 6.8 14 6.0 22 9.4 96 41.0
9 E-mails 66 28.2 7 3.0 8 3.4 24 10.3 129 55.1
News
10 11 4.7 9 3.8 5 2.1 15 6.4 194 82.9
letters
11 Others 7 3.0 5 2.1 4 1.7 13 5.6 205 87.6

The above mentioned channels would have their own effect on the receiver

and with regard to effectiveness of face to face meetings 57.3% of the

respondents have opined it as effective, followed by very much

effective(32.1%), average(9.4%), not effective (0.9%), and not at all effective

(0.4%). In case of letters, 73.1% of the respondents have opined it as

effective, followed by very much effective (14.1%), average (10.7%), not

effective (1.3%) and not at all effective (0.9%). In case of circulars, 58.5% of

the respondents have opined it as effective, followed by average (21.4%), very

much effective (19.2%), not effective (0.4%) and not at all effective (0.4%).

In case of Reports, 54.3% of the respondents have opined it as effective

followed by average (28.2%), very much effective (15.4%), not effective

(1.3%) and not at all effective (0.9%). In case of Notice Boards, 38.5% of the

respondents have opined it as average followed by effective (37.6%), very

much effective (17.5%), not effective (4.3%) and not at all effective (2.1%).

In case of Meetings, 66.7% of the respondents have opined it as effective,

followed by very much effective (20.5%), average (10.7%), not effective

(1.3%) and not at all effective (0.9%). In case of Phone calls, 65.8% of the

respondents have opined it as effective, followed by very much effective

(26.9%), average (5.1%), not effective (1.7%) and not at all effective (0.4%).

In case of SMS, 49.6% of the respondents have opined it as effective followed

by average (29.1%), very much effective (12.8%), not effective (6.4%) and not

at all effective (2.1%). In case of E-mails, 32.5% respondents have opined it

as not effective, followed by effective (27.8%), average (19.7%), very much

effective (13.2%), not at all effective (6.8%). In case of Newsletters, 49.6% of

the respondents have opined it as not at all effective, followed by effective

(17.1%), not effective(16.2%), average(12.8%), very much effective(4.3%).

In case of others, 53.0% of the respondents have opined it as not at all

effective followed by average (15.4%), not effective (14.5%),

effective(13.7%) and very much effective (3.4%) (Table 33).

Table 33
Percentage distribution of the respondents, how effective the channels for
communication
Very
Not Not at all
much Effective Average
Sl.No. Channels effective effective
effective
fr % fr % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %
Face to
1 Face 75 32.1 134 57.3 22 9.4 2 0.9 1 0.4
Meetings
2 Letters 33 14.1 171 73.1 25 10.7 3 1.3 2 0.9
3 Circulars 45 19.2 137 58.5 50 21.4 1 0.4 1 0.4
4 Reports 36 15.4 127 54.3 66 28.2 3 1.3 2 0.9
Notice
5 41 17.5 88 37.6 90 38.5 10 4.3 5 2.1
Boards
6 Meetings 48 20.5 156 66.7 25 10.7 3 1.3 2 0.9
Phone
7 63 26.9 154 65.8 12 5.1 4 1.7 1 0.4
Calls
8 SMS 30 12.8 116 49.6 68 29.1 15 6.4 5 2.1
9 E-mails 31 13.2 65 27.8 46 19.7 76 32.5 16 6.8
News
10 10 4.3 40 17.1 30 12.8 38 16.2 116 49.6
letters
11 Others 8 3.4 32 13.7 36 15.4 34 14.5 124 53.0
.
A major study by Shockley-Zalabak and Ellis (2000) of 2,000 employees in 21

companies across 7 countries showed that the receipt of information was the

factor that correlated most highly with job satisfaction and organizational

effectiveness.
Quantity of info: Employees do not want to be ‘kept in the dark’ or informed

on a ‘need to know’ basis they want to be ‘in the know’. However, in many

organizations employees are swamped by irrelevant information (especially by

email) that they neither want nor need to receive. Rather they wish to receive

information that is directly relevant to their job, and to know where they can

access other information if they need it (Meehan, 2013).

The sample was also asked to respond about the adequacy of information

disseminated to them. When they were asked to respond about the information

received about various topics for communication, 63.7% of the respondents

said that, it is effective followed by average (19.2%), very much effective

(16.7%) and not effective (0.4%). With regard to adequacy of information sent

about various topics for communication, 65.8% of the respondents said that, it

is effective followed by average (20.9%) and very much effective (13.2%).

With regard to adequacy of information follow up versus amount desired,

53.8% said that it is effective, followed by average (31.6%), very much

effective (14.1%), and not effective (0.4%). With regard to adequacy of

information received from various sources 59% of the respondents said that, it

is effective, followed by average (23.9%), very much effective (14.1%), not

effective (3.0%). When asked about information received from various

channels, 62% of the respondents said that it is effective, followed by average

(23.5%), very much effective (10.7%), not effective (2.6%) and not at all

effective (1.3%). With regard to the adequacy of follow-up information,

49.6% said that, it is effective, followed by average (35.5%), very much

effective (12.4%), not effective (2.1%) and not at all effective (0.9%). With

regard to the adequacy of information in meetings, 59.4% of the respondents

 felt it is effective, followed by very much effective (19.2%), average (18.4%),

not effective (2.1%), and not at all effective (0.9%). With regard to the

adequacy of other information for communication, 51.7% of the employees

said it is average, followed by effective (29.5%), not at all effective (9.8%),

not effective (5.6%) and very much effective (3.4%) (Table 34).

Table 34
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the information
disseminated is adequate for communication
Very
Not Not at all
Sl. much Effective Average
Variable effective effective
No effective
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Information
1 received about 39 16.7 149 63.7 45 19.2 1 0.4 - -
various topics
Information sent
2 about various 31 13.2 154 65.8 49 20.9 - - - -
topics
Follow-up
3 versus amount 33 14.1 126 53.8 74 31.6 1 0.4 - -
desired
Information
4 received from 33 14.1 138 59.0 56 23.9 7 3.0 - -
various sources
Information
5 received from 25 10.7 145 62.0 55 23.5 6 2.6 3 1.3
various channels
6 Follow-up 29 12.4 116 49.6 83 35.5 5 2.1 1 0.4
7 Meetings 45 19.2 139 59.4 43 18.4 5 2.1 2 0.9
8 Others 8 3.4 69 29.5 121 51.7 13 5.6 23 9.8
Part- IV: Usage of communication tools

This part of the study deals with Usage of Communication tools and its impact

in the organization. The quality of information, sharing of information with

regard to organizational integration and different aspect of communication in

organization perspective view etc., was studied in this part IV.

With regard to the level at which the respondents often meet for

communication the study found that in case of One to One Group, 55.6% met

regularly, followed by very regularly (23.1%), normally (10.7%), rarely

(9.4%), and very rarely (1.3%). In case of Small Group, 55.6% of the

respondents often meet normally, followed by regularly (27.4%), rarely

(9.8%), very rarely (4.3%) and very regularly (3.0%). In case of Department,

33.3% of the respondents meet rarely, followed by regularly (27.4%),

normally (23.5%), very regularly (14.1%), and very rarely (1.7%). In case of

all staff, 35.5% of the respondents met rarely, followed by regularly (22.6%)

normally (22.2%), very regularly(14.1%) and very rarely (5.6%) (Table 35.1).

Table 35.1
Percentage distribution of the respondents, which level they often met for
communication
Very Very
Regularly Normal Rarely
Sl.No. Group Regularly Rarely
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
1 One to One 54 23.1 130 55.6 25 10.7 22 9.4 3 1.3
2 Small Group 7 3.0 64 27.4 130 55.6 23 9.8 10 4.3
3 Departmental 33 14.1 64 27.4 55 23.5 78 33.3 4 1.7
4 All Staff 33 14.1 53 22.6 52 22.2 83 35.5 13 5.6
The employees of an organization would discuss about various issues in

meetings and in this case 50.9% of the Respondents rarely discussed Personal

Issues in Meetings, followed by very rarely(26.9%), normally (15.4%),

regularly(4.7%), and very regularly (2.1%). In other case, 61.5% of the

respondents reviewed their work in meetings regularly followed by very

regularly (24.8%), normally (10.7%), rarely (2.1%) and very rarely (0.9%). In

other case, 37.6% of the respondents discussed about Policies rarely, followed

by regularly (31.2%), normally (16.7%), very regularly (12%) and very rarely

(2.6%). In other case, 50.0% of the respondents discussed problems at work

regularly, followed by normally (25.6%), very regularly (17.5%), rarely

(3.8%) and very rarely (3.0%). In other case, 38.9% of the respondents take up

evaluation of performance in meetings normally, followed by regularly

(34.6%), rarely (13.2%), very regularly (12.0%) and very rarely (1.3%). In the

case, take conflict settlements in meetings 52.6% of the respondents take up

regularly followed by normally (22.6%), very regularly (15.4%), rarely (7.3%)

and very rarely (2.1%). In exchanging their ideas 63.2% of the respondents

regularly followed by normally (16.2%), very regularly (15.8%) and rarely

(4.7%). In the sample. 56.8% of the respondents very rarely discussed

Cultural issues in meetings, followed by rarely (18.8%), normally (15.4%),

regularly (6.0%) and very regularly (3.0%) and about other issues, 65.0% of

the respondents discussed it very rarely, followed by rarely (16.2%), normally

(15.4%), and regularly (3.4%) (Table 35.2).

 Table 35.2
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to Issues in
Meetings
Very Very
Sl. Regularly Normal Rarely
Issues Regularly Rarely
No.
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

1 Personal 5 2.1 11 4.7 36 15.4 119 50.9 63 26.9

Review of
2 58 24.8 144 61.5 25 10.7 5 2.1 2 0.9
work

3 Policies 28 12.0 73 31.2 39 16.7 88 37.6 6 2.6

Problems at
4 41 17.5 117 50.0 60 25.6 9 3.8 7 3.0
work

Evaluation

5 of 28 12.0 81 34.6 91 38.9 31 13.2 3 1.3

Performance

Conflict
6 36 15.4 123 52.6 53 22.6 17 7.3 5 2.1
settlement

Exchange of
7 37 15.8 148 63.2 38 16.2 11 4.7 - -
Ideas

8 Cultural 7 3.0 14 6.0 36 15.4 44 18.8 133 56.8

9 Others - - 8 3.4 36 15.4 38 16.2 152 65.0

Jules Carrière,(2007 )said communication is central to the practice of

management. Managers spend 75% or more of their work time in engaging in

some form of communication (Mintzberg, 1973, p. 38; Klemmer & Snyder,

1972). There is good reason for this. Evidence suggests that, to some extent,
more is better when it comes to internal communication. Research by

Yammarino and Naughton (1988) demonstrates a positive relationship

between the amounts of time spent communicating and important work

outcomes such as the level of effort expended by employees and employee job

satisfaction. Muchinsky (1977) Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick

(1970) report that many previous studies have identified the existence of a

climate dimension dealing with organizational structure. It seems plausible

that such a climate dimension should be related to an organizational

communication dimension such as accuracy of communication, as both

dimensions assess characteristics of work procedures. Conversely, other

climate and communication dimensions share little conceptual communality

and thus should logically be unrelated.

Respondents expressed satisfaction with the information received from various

resources such as top management, superiors, peer group and others. With

regard to quality of information received from top management, in case of

timeliness, 68.4% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (23.5%), average (6.8%), not at all satisfied (0.9%) and not satisfied

(0.4%). In case of accuracy of information received from top management,

69.2% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied

(22.6%), average (7.3%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%).

In case of Usefulness of information received from Top Management, 65.4%

of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (26.5%),

average (7.3%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of

Aptness of information received from Top Management, 67.1% of the

respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (20.1%), average

(12.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%).

With regard to respondent’s satisfaction with the Quality of information

received from Superiors, In case of timely, 64.5% of the respondents were

satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (27.4%), average (7.3%), not

satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of Accuracy of

information received from Superiors, 65.4% of the Respondents were satisfied

followed by very much satisfied (26.9%), average (6.8%), not satisfied (0.4%)

and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of Usefulness of information received

from Superiors, 64.1% of the Respondents were satisfied followed by very

much satisfied (27.8%), average (7.3%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all

satisfied (0.4%). In case of Aptness of information received from Superiors,

69.2% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied

(22.2%), average (7.7%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%).

With regard to Respondent’s satisfaction with the Quality of information

received from Peer Group, In case of timely 62.8% of the respondents were

satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (24.8%), average (11.5%), not

satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of Accuracy of

information received from Peer Group, 69.7% of the respondents were

satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (22.2%), average (7.7%) and not at

all satisfied (0.4%). In case of usefulness of information received from Peer

Group, 63.7% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (25.6%), average (10.3%), and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of
Aptness, 68.8% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (20.9%), average (9.8%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%).

With regard to quality of information received from Sub-ordinates, in case of

timely 64.5% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (20.9%), average (13.2%) and not satisfied (1.3%). In case of

Accuracy of information received from Sub ordinates, 67.9% of the

Respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (17.9%), average

(13.2%) and not satisfied (0.9%). In case of Usefulness of information

received from Sub ordinates, 65.4% of the Respondents were satisfied,

followed by very much satisfied (21.4%), average (12.4%) and not satisfied

(0.9%). In case of Aptness of information received from Subordinates, 67.9%

of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (16.7%)

average (14.5%) and not satisfied (0.9%). (Table 36)

Table 36
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s satisfaction with the quality of
information received from various sources

Very
Not Not at all
much Satisfied Average
Group Variable satisfied satisfied
satisfied

Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %

Timely 55 23.5 160 68.4 16 6.8 1 0.4 2 0.9

Top Management

Accurate 53 22.6 162 69.2 17 7.3 1 0.4 1 0.4

Useful 62 26.5 153 65.4 17 7.3 1 0.4 1 0.4

Apt 47 20.1 157 67.1 29 12.4 - - 1 0.4

 Timely 64 27.4 151 64.5 17 7.3 1 0.4 1 0.4

Accurate 63 26.9 153 65.4 16 6.8 1 0.4 1 0.4

Superiors
Useful 65 27.8 150 64.1 17 7.3 1 0.4 1 0.4

Apt 52 22.2 162 69.2 18 7.7 1 0.4 1 0.4

Timely 58 24.8 147 62.8 27 11.5 1 0.4 1 0.4

Peer Group

Accurate 52 22.2 163 69.7 18 7.7 - - 1 0.4

Useful 60 25.6 149 63.7 24 10.3 - - 1 0.4

Apt 49 20.9 161 68.8 23 9.8 - - 1 0.4

Timely 49 20.9 151 64.5 31 13.2 3 1.3 - -

Subordinates

Accurate 42 17.9 159 67.9 31 13.2 2 0.9 - -

Useful 50 21.4 153 65.4 29 12.4 2 0.9 - -

Apt 39 16.7 159 67.9 34 14.5 2 0.9 - -

𝒙𝟐 =63.0623, df=60, P=0.36086 which is not significant at 0.01 level

They were also asked about the information related to organizational

integration. With regard to Organizational Integration, in case of Dept./Org.

Policies and goals 33.8% of the Respondents are sharing information regularly

, followed by rarely (26.1%), normally (23.1%), very regularly (15.0%) and

very rarely (2.1%). In case of requirements of Job, 53.8% of the respondents

are sharing information regularly, followed by normally (32.5%), very

regularly (8.1%), rarely (4.3%) and very rarely (1.3%). In case of Pay and

benefits, 46.6% of the respondents are sharing information normally, followed

by regularly (21.8%), rarely (20.9%), very regularly (9.0%) and very rarely

(1.7%). In case of Promotions, 40.6% of the respondents are sharing

information normally, followed by rarely (38.0%), regularly (11.5%), very

 regularly (5.1%) and very rarely (4.7%). In case of Progress in job, 39.3% of

the respondents are sharing information regularly, followed by normally

(34.6%), rarely (17.1%), very regularly (5.6%) and very rarely (3.4%). In

case of Mistakes, 43.2% of the respondents are sharing information normally,

followed by regularly (25.2%), rarely (15.4%), very rarely (9.4%) and very

regularly (6.8%). In case of Failures, 49.1% of the respondents sharing

information normally, followed rarely (18.8%), regularly (15%), very rarely

(12.0%) and very regularly (5.1%). In case of others, 45.7% sharing

information normally, followed by rarely (22.6%), very rarely (19.2%),

regularly (11.1%) and very regularly (1.3%). (Table 37)

Table 37
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to sharing of
information with regard to Organizational Integration
Very Very
Regularly Normal Rarely
Sl.No. Variable Regularly Rarely
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Dept/Org.
1 Policies and 35 15.0 79 33.8 54 23.1 61 26.1 5 2.1
goals
The
2 requirements 19 8.1 126 53.8 76 32.5 10 4.3 3 1.3
of job
Pay and
3 21 9.0 51 21.8 109 46.6 49 20.9 4 1.7
benefits
4 Promotions 12 5.1 27 11.5 95 40.6 89 38.0 11 4.7
Progress in
5 13 5.6 92 39.3 81 34.6 40 17.1 8 3.4
Job
6 Mistakes 16 6.8 59 25.2 101 43.2 36 15.4 22 9.4
7 Failures 12 5.1 35 15.0 115 49.1 44 18.8 28 12.0
8 Others 3 1.3 26 11.1 107 45.7 53 22.6 45 19.2
 When the sample were enquired about the aspects related to Organizational

Perspective, 54.3% of the respondents have opined that, to some extent

organization encourages difference of opinion followed by to a great extent

(26.5%), average(16.7%), and very less (2.6%). In other case, 62.4% of the

respondents to some extent have influence on operations in their unit, followed

by to a great extent (22.6%), average (12.0%), very less (2.1%) and less

(0.9%). In other case, 59% of the respondents were involved to some extent in

Achievement of Organization goals, followed by to a great extent (33.8%) and

average (7.3%). In other case, 61.1% of the respondents to a great extent

liking to work for organization, followed by to some extent (33.3%) and

average (5.6%). In other case, 44% of the respondents have opined that, to a

great extent, boss understand their job needs, followed by to some extent

(32.1%), average (22.2%), less (1.3%) and very less (0.4%) (Table 38).

Table 38
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the aspects with
regard to Organizational Perspective
To a great To some Very
Sl. Average Less
Variable extent extent Less
No.
Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %
The extent of
organization
1 encourages 62 26.5 127 54.3 39 16.7 - - 6 2.6
difference of
opinion
The extent of
2 influence on 53 22.6 146 62.4 28 12.0 2 0.9 5 2.1
operations in their
 unit
The extent of
involvement in
3 79 33.8 138 59.0 17 7.3 - - - -
achievement of
Org.goals
The extent of
4 liking to work for 143 61.1 78 33.3 13 5.6 - - - -
organization
The extent of Boss
5 understands their 103 44.0 75 32.1 52 22.2 3 1.3 1 0.4
job needs

With regard to Organizational Perspective, 60.3% of the respondents were

satisfied about company policies and goals, followed by very much satisfied

(34.6%), normal (4.7%) and not satisfied (0.4%). In case of decisions made,

69.7% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied

(24.4%) and normal (6.0%). In case of technical aspects, 67.5% of the

respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (21.8%), normal

(8.1%) and not satisfied (2.6%). In case of Programs/Services, 65.4% of the

respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (20.9%), normal

(12.8%) and not satisfied (0.9%). About relations with unions, 54.7% of

respondents were normal, followed by satisfied (28.2%), very much satisfied

(9.0%), not satisfied (6.0%) and not at all satisfied (2.1%). About Government

action affecting the organization, 59.8% were normal, followed by satisfied

(28.2%), very much satisfied (8.1%), not satisfied (3.4%) and not at all

satisfied (0.4%). In case of Organization’s Profits and financial standing,

61.5% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied

(31.6%) and normal (6.8%). In case of accomplishments or failures of the

 company, 47.0% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by normal

(34.6%), very much satisfied (17.9%), and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case

of others, 56.0% of the respondents were normal, followed by satisfied

(26.5%), not satisfied (6.8%), not at all satisfied (6.0%) and very much

satisfied (4.7%)(Table 39).

Table 39
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s satisfaction to the aspects
with regard to Organizational Perspective
Very Not at
Not
much Satisfied Normal all
Sl.No. Variable satisfied
satisfied satisfied
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
About Company 81 34.6 141 60.3 11 4.7 1 0.4 - -
1
policies and goals
2 Decisions made 57 24.4 163 69.7 14 6.0 - - - -
3 Technical aspects 51 21.8 158 67.5 19 8.1 6 2.6 - -
4 Programs/services 49 20.9 153 65.4 30 12.8 2 0.9 - -
About relations 21 9.0 66 28.2 128 54.7 14 6.0 5 2.1
5
with unions
Government 19 8.1 66 28.2 140 59.8 8 3.4 1 0.4
6 action affecting
the organization
Organization’s 74 31.6 144 61.5 16 6.8 - - - -
7 Profits and
financial standing
Accomplishments 42 17.9 110 47.0 81 34.6 - - 1 0.4
8 or failures of the
company
9 Others 11 4.7 62 26.5 131 56.0 16 6.8 14 6.0
Part-V: Communication Climate/ Organizational Climate

This part of the study deals with communication climate in the Organization.

How far communication plays vital role in employees identity, handling of

conflicts, gate keeping, communication relationship with Top management,

supervisors, peer group and sub ordinates, effectiveness of communication

pattern in the organization was studied in this part V.

Muchinsky (1977)"The communication pattern(s) used by the organization

has an immediate impact upon the individual's life within that same

organization and may be a vital, yet currently unexplored, aspect of

organizational climate" (Lawler et al., 1974, p. 153).While there are no

previous empirical studies in the literature relating climate to communication

upon which to draw specific hypotheses, the wealth of previous studies on

organizational climate would suggest that certain dimensions of organizational

communication would be related to certain dimensions of climate. Schneider

(1975) has commented on the multidimensional nature of organizational

climate and has cautioned against the logic and practice of seeking a relatively

simplistic relationship between climate and other multidimensional variables.

Out of 234 respondents, 50.9% were said that, to some extent

company’s communication make their identity or feel a vital part, followed by

to a great extent (29.5%), average (18.4%), to a very lesser extent (0.9%) and

to a lesser extent (0.4%) (Table 40).

 Table 40
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the extent which
the company’s communication makes their identity or feel a vital part
S.No Variable fr %

1 To a great extent 69 29.5

2 To some extent 119 50.9

3 Average 43 18.4

4 To a lesser extent 1 0.4

5 To a very lesser extent 2 0.9

Total 234 100

Among the respondents, 51.3% of the respondents were having

opinion that, to some extent staff has ability at various levels as

communicators, followed by to a great extent (29.5%), average (18.8%) and to

a lesser extent(0.4%). (Table 41)

Table 41
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the ability of staff
at various levels as communicators
S.No Variable fr %

1 To a great extent 69 29.5

2 To some extent 120 51.3

3 Average 44 18.8

4 To a lesser extent 1 0.4

Total 234 100

 Figure 15
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the ability of staff
at various levels as communicators

0.4

18.8 29.5
To a great extent
To some extent
Average
51.3
To a lesser extent

Among the respondents, 95.7% have received information needed to

do the job in time, followed by not received (2.1%) and said can’t say (2.1%)

(Table 42).

Table 42
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether they receive
information needed to do the job in time
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 224 95.7

2 No 5 2.1

3 Can’t Say 5 2.1

Total 234 100

Among the respondents, 48.3% said that, to some extent, the

communication pattern of the organization motivates enthusiasm to meet its

goals, followed by to a great extent (35.9%), average (14.5%), to a lesser

extent (0.9%) and to a very lesser extent (0.4%) (Table 43).

Table 43
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the communication
pattern motivates enthusiasm to meet its goals
S.No Variable fr %

1 To a great extent 84 35.9

2 To some extent 113 48.3

3 Average 34 14.5

4 To a lesser extent 2 0.9

5 To a very lesser extent 1 0.4

Total 234 100

Figure 16
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the communication
pattern motivates enthusiasm to meet its goals

Series 1
113
120
100 84
80
60 34
40
20 2 1
0
To a great To some Average To a lesser To a very
extent extent extent lesser
extent
Nordin et al.(2014) Effective communication skills can be the most useful tool

in dealing with organizational and personal conflicts. Fischer and Koue (1991)

argued that “communication is inherent in almost any organizational conflict”

(p.145).

Out of 234 respondents, 77.4% were said that, conflicts in the

organization are handled appropriately through proper communication

channels, followed by can’t say (12.8%), and no (9.8%) (Table 44).

Table 44
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether the conflicts handled
appropriately through proper communication channels
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 181 77.4

2 No 23 9.8

3 Can’t Say 30 12.8

Total 234 100

Out of 234 respondents, 82.9% have over all desire for interaction,

followed by no (9.0%), and can’t say (8.1%) (Table 45).

Table 45
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per overall desire for
interaction
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 194 82.9

2 No 21 9.0

3 Can’t Say 19 8.1

Total 234 100

 When the respondents were asked, whether the communication be

summarized, 86.3% said yes followed by no (7.7%) and can’t say (6.0 %)

(Table 46).

Table 46
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the need for
summarization of communication
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 202 86.3

2 No 18 7.7

3 Can’t Say 14 6.0

Total 234 100

According to Muchinsky (1977) the communication dimensions of

summarization and gate keeping had some revealing relationships with job

satisfaction. Dimensions of communication (e.g., gate keeping, overload,

written modality, other modality) were unrelated to any climate dimensions

and were not significantly related to any job satisfaction dimensions.

The measure of organizational communication was the questionnaire

developed by Roberts and O'Reilly (1974a). The questionnaire consists of 36

items measuring 16 dimensions of organizational communication. Eight of the

dimensions consist of multi item scales scored on a seven-point Likert format:

trust (three items); influence (three items); mobility (two items); desire for

interaction (three items); accuracy (three items); summarization (three items);

gate keeping (three items); and overload (two items). With regard to gate

keeping, 79.9% of the respondents said that, nobody is stopping

communication in the organization, followed by yes (12.8%), and can’t say

(7.3%) (Table 47).

Table 47
Percentage distribution of the respondents with regard to the existence
of gate keeping
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 30 12.8

2 No 187 79.9

3 Can’t Say 17 7.3

Total 234 100

Out of 30 respondents, who accepted the presence of gate keeping,

46.7% said that gate keepers found in Management, followed by in the

Department (43.3%), in other (6.7%) and in unions(3.3%) (Table 48).

Table 48
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the areas of
presence of gate keeping
S.No Area fr %

1 In my Dept. 13 43.3

2 In Management 14 46.7

3 In Unions 1 3.3

4 Others 2 6.7

Total 30 100
 Figure 17
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the areas of
presence of gate keepers

6.7
3.3

43.3 In my Dept.

In Management

46.7 In Unions

Others

With regard to Overload in communication, 85% of the respondents

said that, there is no overload in communication in the organization, followed

by yes (9.0%) and can’t say (6.0%) (Table 49).

Table 49
Percentage distribution of the respondents with regard to the experience
of overload in communication
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 21 9.0

2 No 199 85.0

3 Can’t Say 14 6.0

Total 234 100

 Figure18
Percentage distribution of the respondents, with regard to experience in
over load in communication

6
Yes
No
Can’t Say
85

Communication Climate in the Organization: The organization’s

communication climate may impact the atmosphere in and around the

organization which could either boost or hamper upward, downward and

horizontal communication among the employees (Azrai Abdullah et al

2013).Communication climate has been differentiated from other climates

such as motivational climate and organizational climate in that, management

has the sole responsibility of controlling the communication climate in an

organization (Zaremba, 2003).

According to Buchholz (2001), workers feel free to make voice complaints,

express opinions and give suggestions to their supervisors and superiors

through an open climate. Several studies indicate that there is an increased

trust in management when both of parties, the top management and its

employees, are open to views in decision makings (Mishra & Morrissey, 1990;

McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992; Meznor & Nigh, 1995). Studies indicate that

open communication enhances productivity as well as profitability toward an

organization (Rosenberg & Rosestein, 1980). Positive communication

amplifies identification which serves employees’ self enhancement in the

organization (Ale Smidts et.al, 2000).

Open communication climate can decrease uncertainty where it provides the

personnel as interactants with some level of predictability (Bercerra & Gupta,

2003). Moreover, communication openness in such climate is a key

component in decreasing any detrimental effect of conflict on trust (Lewicki

and Bunker, 1995). Communication therefore is seen as vital to building trust

within an organization (Atkinson and Butcher, 2003; Aubert and Kelsey,

2003) resulting in reduced conflicts and increased positive organizational

climate.

Communicative behaviors displaying mutual trust and openness in accepting

others’ views could enhance supportive communication climate in an

organization (Gibbs, 1999). The considerably high mean score indicates

equality in the communication climate of the organization instead of

superiority. Such display of concerns by the personnel is line with Buchholz’s

(2001) research on open climate, which similarly suggest that when workers

express their grievances, perspectives as well as provide propositions to their

supervisors or superiors. Such positive communication climate is essentially

crucial to the success of the organization as studies indicate that there is a

positive relationship between the communication climate in the organization

and the level of commitment of the employees to the organization (e.g.

Trombetta and Rogers, 1988).

According to Jules Carrière(2007) managers must provide employees with

timely and highly valued information. This demands that managers develop a
clear understanding of which communication practices are most valued by

employees, as well as the quantity and quality of information these individuals

require to perform their jobs well. Only then can managers design and

implement an effective and efficient internal communication system capable

of meeting employees’ communication needs and wants.

With regard to Management Communication/Relationship, 49.1% of

the respondents trust the top Management to a great extent, followed by to

some extent (42.7%), average (6.0%), little (1.7%), and very little (0.4%).

With regard to boss trusting them 51.7% of the respondents said that, to some

extent their boss trust them, followed by to a great extent (40.6%) and average

(7.7%). With regard to sincerity of management in giving information 49.6%

of the respondents said that, to some extent, followed by to a great extent

(37.6%), and average (12.8%). In the case of their boss listening to what they

say 52.1% of the respondents said that, to some extent followed by to a great

extent (32.9%), average (10.7%), very little (2.6%) and little (1.7%). In the

case of feeling free to disagree with their boss 33.8% of the respondents said

that, it is at an average rate followed by to some extent (22.2%), little (22.2%),

to a great extent (15%) and very little (6.8%). With regard to telling their boss

that things are going wrong 32.1% of the respondents said that they can

communicate to some extent followed by little (23.9%), to a great extent

(22.2%), average (14.5%) and very much little (7.3%). In the case of their

boss praising them for taking up a good job 38% of the respondents said that

he would praise to some extent followed by average (30.8%), to a great extent

(20.1%), little (8.5%) and very much little (2.6%). When asked the sample as

to whether the boss maintains friendly relations with them 38.9% of the
 respondents said that it is to some extent followed by to a great extent

(28.6%), average (23.9%), little (5.1%) and very little (3.4%) (Table 50).

Table 50
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the extent of
existence of Management Communication/Relationship
To a great To some Very
Sl. Average Little
Variable extent extent Little
No.
% fr % fr % fr % fr %
The extent you
1 trust the top 115 49.1 100 42.7 14 6.0 4 1.7 1 0.4
Management
The extent your
2 95 40.6 121 51.7 18 7.7 - - - -
boss trusts you
The extent to
which
3 management is 88 37.6 116 49.6 30 12.8 - - - -
sincere to your
information
The extent your
boss listens to
4 77 32.9 122 52.1 25 10.7 4 1.7 6 2.6
what you have to
say
The extent you feel
5 free to disagree 35 15.0 52 22.2 79 33.8 52 22.2 16 6.8
with your boss
The extent you can
tell your boss that
6 52 22.2 75 32.1 34 14.5 56 23.9 17 7.3
things are going
wrong
The extent your
7 boss praises you 47 20.1 89 38.0 72 30.8 20 8.5 6 2.6
for a good job
The extent your
8 boss maintains 67 28.6 91 38.9 56 23.9 12 5.1 8 3.4
friendly relations
𝒙𝟐 =465.11, df=28, P<0.01 where P =0.00001 which is significant at 0.01

level

In the case of communication/Relationship with Supervisor and with

regard to supervisor listening and paying attention to them 55.1% of the

respondents said that it is to some extent followed by to a great extent (34.2%)

and average (10.7%). In the case of supervisor offering guidance in

discharging duties 51.7% said that it is to some extent followed by a great

extent (38.0%), average (8.5%) and little(1.7%). In the case of supervisor

trusting them 49.6% of the respondents said that it is experienced to some

extent followed by to a great extent (36.8%), average (13.7%) as far as

supervisor opening to ideas 49.6% of respondents said that it is to some extent

followed by to a great extent (38.5%), average(9.4%), little (2.1%) and very

little (0.4%). Whether the amount of supervision is right 38.9% of the

respondents said that it is to some extent followed by to a great extent

(33.3%), average (27.4%) and little (0.4%) (Table 51).

Table 51
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to
Communication/Relationship with Supervisor
To a
To some Very
great Average Little
S.No. Variable extent Little
extent
Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %
Does the
Supervisor
1 listens and 80 34.2 129 55.1 25 10.7 - - - -
pays attention
to you
Does the
Supervisor
offers
2 89 38.0 121 51.7 20 8.5 4 1.7 - -
guidance in
discharging
duties
Does the
3 Supervisor 86 36.8 116 49.6 32 13.7 - - - -
trusts you
Supervisor
4 opening to 90 38.5 116 49.6 22 9.4 5 2.1 1 0.4
ideas
Adequacy of
5 78 33.3 91 38.9 64 27.4 1 0.4 - -
supervision
𝒙𝟐 =63.7663, df=16, P<0.01 where P =0.00001 which is significant at 0.01

level

Horizontal communication: This style of communication works best in

decentralized power (Larkin and Larkin 2004).It is believed that when such

horizontal communication happens frequently, job satisfaction also increases.

Miller (2007) through a survey discovered that decentralization of some

strategic decision making causes more interaction amongst employees yielding

greater job satisfaction. In this context the sample were questioned about the

horizontal communication and when they were enquired about certain aspects

such as whether the grapevine is active in organization 47% of the respondents

said that it is at an average followed by very little (25.2%), quite little

(14.5%), to some extent (9.4%), to a great extent(3.8%). When asked whether

the horizontal communication with other employees is accurate and free

flowing 44.4% of the respondents said that it is to some extent followed by

average (31.2%), to a great extent (17.1%), little (3.8%) and very little (3.4%).

When enquired about possibility of the adoptability of communication

practices to emergencies 47.4% of the respondents said that it is to some

extent followed by to a great extent (31.6%), average (17.1%), little (3.0%)

and very little (0.9%). With regard to compatibility among group members

49.6% of the respondents said that it is to some extent followed by to a great

extent (35.0%), average (15.0%), little (0.4%). When asked as to whether the

informal communication is active and accurate in the organization 36.3% of

the respondents said that it is average followed by to some extent (32.5%),

little (13.2%), very little (10.3%) and to a great extent(7.7%)(Table 52).

 Table 52
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to
Horizontal Communication
To a
To some Very
Sl. great Average Little
Variable extent Little
No. extent
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Is the grapevine
1 active in your 9 3.8 22 9.4 110 47.0 34 14.5 59 25.2
Organization
To what extent
horizontal
communication
2 with other 40 17.1 104 44.4 73 31.2 9 3.8 8 3.4
employees is
accurate and free
flowing
Are the
communication
3 practices 74 31.6 111 47.4 40 17.1 7 3.0 2 0.9
adaptable to
emergencies
What is the extent
of compatibility
4 82 35.0 116 49.6 35 15.0 1 0.4 - -
among group
members
To what extent
informal
5 communication is 18 7.7 76 32.5 85 36.3 31 13.2 24 10.3
active and
accurate

Upward Communication: All these avenues when left open, more often than

not, improves employee attitude towards their work and morale

(Goldhaber,2008:Bulutlar 2008).Upward communication could also entail

reports, complaints, grievances and even rumors which flow from subordinate

to superior management. Giri and Kumar (2009) indicate that, such

communication flow inspire employees to take part in forming policies for the

organization and eventually facilitates the acceptance of the same.

Downward communication: A study conducted by Candace (2004) on

employees of large, diverse organizations in the United States indicate that the

most crucial source of communication is direct from the head of the

organization. Employees are always doubtful of trickle-down information.

With regard to Communication/Relationship with Subordinates, 38.9% of the

respondents said that Subordinates are , to some extent responsive to

downward and directive communication followed by to a great extent (32.5%),

average (26.5%), little (1.3%) and very little (0.9%). When asked whether the

subordinates anticipate their needs for information 50.0% of the respondents

said that it is to some extent followed by to a great extent(28.2%),

average(17.5%), little (2.6%) and very little(1.7%). In other case, 30.3% of

the respondents said that, they feel overload of communication to some extent,

followed by average (26.9%), little (20.1%), very little (17.9%) and to a great

extent (4.7%). In other case, 49.6% of the respondents said that, to some

extent their subordinates are open to ideas, followed by to a great extent

(25.6%), average (21.4%), very little (2.6%) and little (0.9%). In other case,

38.0% of the respondents said that, to some extent Subordinates are receptive

to Evaluation, Suggestions and criticism, followed by average (34.2%), to a

great extent (21.8%),very little (3.4%) and little (2.6%). In other case, 32.9%

of respondents said that, Subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate

and upward communication to a great extent, followed by to some extent

(31.6.%), average (30.8%), little (2.6%) and very little (2.1%) (Table 53).
 Table 53
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to
Communication/Relationship with Subordinates
To a
To some Very
Sl. great Average Little
Variable extent Little
No. extent
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Extent to which the
Subordinates are
responsive to
1 76 32.5 91 38.9 62 26.5 3 1.3 2 0.9
downward and
directive
communication
Subordinates
anticipating the
2 66 28.2 117 50.0 41 17.5 6 2.6 4 1.7
needs for
information
Experience of
3 overload of 11 4.7 71 30.3 63 26.9 47 20.1 42 17.9
Communication
The extent the
4 subordinate is open 60 25.6 116 49.6 50 21.4 2 0.9 6 2.6
to ideas
Are the subordinates
receptive to
5 evaluation, 51 21.8 89 38.0 80 34.2 6 2.6 8 3.4
suggestions and
criticism
Subordinates feeling
responsible for
6 initiating accurate 77 32.9 74 31.6 72 30.8 6 2.6 5 2.1
and upward
communication

Part-VI: Levels of communication and satisfaction

This part of the study deals with communication satisfaction and job

satisfaction of the employees in the organization. Various levels of

communication satisfaction, evaluation of communication, satisfaction with

amount of information, and areas of communication need to be improved etc.,

were studied in this part-VI.

With regard to level of Communication and Satisfaction, 52.6% of the

respondents thought that, to some extent trust for management determines the

communication, followed by to a great extent (40.6%), average (6.4%) and

very little (0.4%). In other case, 52.6% of the respondents said that, to some

extent, superiors have influence in Communication, followed by to a great

extent (34.2%) and average (13.2%). In other case, 52.6% of the respondents

said that, to some extent, Superior has understanding of the problems faced by

the Subordinates, followed by to a great extent (29.5%), average (16.2%), little

(1.3%), very little (0.4%). In other case, 42.3% of the respondents said that, to

some extent importance of communication determines the upward mobility

followed by to a great extent (41.5%) and average (16.2%). (Table 54).

Table 54
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to
level of communication and satisfaction
To a
To some Very
Sl. great Average Little
Variable extent Little
No. extent
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %
Trust for
management
1 95 40.6 123 52.6 15 6.4 - - 1 0.4
determining the
communication
Extent of
influence of
2 80 34.2 123 52.6 31 13.2 - - - -
superior’s in
communication.
Superior
understanding
3 the problems 69 29.5 123 52.6 38 16.2 3 1.3 1 0.4
faced by
Subordinates
Importance of
communication
4 97 41.5 99 42.3 38 16.2 - - - -
determining the
upward mobility
 𝒙𝟐 =32.4215, df=12, P<0.01 where P =0.001 which is significant at 0.01

level

With regard to Frequency of work judged, 64.5% of the respondents

said that, their work judged regularly, followed by very regularly (26.1%),

normally (8.1%), not regular (0.9%), not at all regular (0.4%)(Table 55).

Table 55
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the frequency of their
work being judged
S.No Frequency of judging the work fr %

1 Very regularly 61 26.1

2 Regularly 151 64.5

3 Normal 19 8.1

4 Not regular 2 0.9

5 Not at all regular 1 0.4

Total 234 100

With regard to Idea of Evaluation, 48.7% of the respondents said that,

they have idea about how they are being evaluated, followed by can’t say

(28.6%) and no (22.6%) (Table 56).

 Table 56
Percentage distribution of the respondents as per the idea about how they
are being evaluated
S.No Idea fr %

1 Yes 114 48.7

2 No 53 22.6

3 Can’t Say 67 28.6

Total 234 100

With regard to frequency of feedback, 65.8% of the respondents said

that, Management received it regularly followed by very regularly (17.9%),

normally (14.5%), not regular (1.3%) and not at all regular (0.4%) (Table 57).

Table 57
Percentage distribution of the respondents, according to the frequency of
the feedback received by the Management
S.No Variable fr %

1 Very regularly 42 17.9

2 Regularly 154 65.8

3 Normal 34 14.5

4 Not regular 3 1.3

5 Not at all regular 1 0.4

Total 234 100

Out of 234 respondents, 64.1% of the respondents said that, specific

arrangements were made to get feedback in the organization, followed by no

(23.5%) and can’t say (12.4%) (Table 58).

 Table 58
Percentage distribution of the respondents, whether any specific
arrangements made to get feedback
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 150 64.1

2 No 55 23.5

3 Can’t Say 29 12.4

Total 234 100

Out of 150 Respondents, who said specific arrangements were made to

get feedback, 66.7% of the respondents said that through meetings

management gets feedback, followed by Specific Proforma (20.7%), others

(9.3%) and letters (3.3%) (Table 59).

Table 59
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to specific
arrangements made to get feed back
S.No Variable fr %

1 Meetings 100 66.7

2 Specific Proforma 31 20.7

3 Letter 5 3.3

4 Complaints Box - -

5 Grievance Cell - -

6 Others 14 9.3

Total 150 100

 Out of 234 Respondents, 64.1% were said that, they get reports about

how their problems were handled in the organization followed by no (29.5%)

and can’t say (6.4%) (Table 60).

Table 60
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the reports about
handling of their problems
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 150 64.1

2 No 69 29.5

3 Can’t Say 15 6.4

Total 234 100

When the sample were asked about the recognition to their work of

234 respondents, 89.3% said that, their work was recognized in the

organization followed by no (6.4%) and can’t say (4.3%) (Table 61).

Table 61
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to the recognition of the
work
S.No Variable fr %

1 Yes 209 89.3

2 No 15 6.4

3 Can’t Say 10 4.3

Total 234 100

With regard to respondent’s satisfaction with the amount of

information received from different sources, in case of Top

Management,62.0% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (25.2%), normal (10.3%), not at all satisfied (2.1%) and not

satisfied(0.4%). In case of superiors, 65.0% of the respondents were satisfied,

followed by very much satisfied (27.8%), normal(4.7%), not at all satisfied

(2.1%) and not satisfied (0.4%). In case of peer Group, 67.9% of the

respondents were satisfied, followed by very much satisfied (21.4%), normal

(9.8%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of

subordinates, 57.7% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very much

satisfied (20.9%), normal (19.7%), not satisfied (0.9%) and not at all satisfied

(0.9%). In case of others, 42.3% of the respondents were satisfied followed by

normal (36.3%), very much satisfied (14.1%), not satisfied (3.8%), and not at

all satisfied (3.4%) (Table 62).

Table 62

Percentage distribution of the respondent’s satisfaction with the amount

of information received from different sources
Very
Not Not at all
much Satisfied Normal
Sl. satisfied satisfied
Group satisfied
No.
fr % fr % fr. % fr. % fr %

Top
1 59 25.2 145 62.0 24 10.3 1 0.4 5 2.1
Management

2 Superiors 65 27.8 152 65.0 11 4.7 1 0.4 5 2.1

3 Peer Group 50 21.4 159 67.9 23 9.8 1 0.4 1 0.4

4 Subordinates 49 20.9 135 57.7 46 19.7 2 0.9 2 0.9

5 Others 33 14.1 99 42.3 85 36.3 9 3.8 8 3.4

𝒙𝟐 =142.87, df=16, P<0.01 where P =0.00001 which is significant at 0.01

level
 With regard to respondent’s satisfaction with the amount of

information received about specific job items, in case of Personal issues

58.5% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by normal (21.8%), very

much satisfied(17.9%), not satisfied (0.9%), not at all satisfied (0.9%). In case

of job related issues 65.0% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very

much satisfied (29.1%), normal (5.1%), not satisfied (0.4%) and not at all

satisfied (0.4%). In case of general, 68.4% of the respondents were satisfied,

followed by very much satisfied (15.0%), normal (14.1%), not satisfied (2.1%)

and not at all satisfied (0.4%). In case of others, 59.4% of the respondents

were satisfied, followed by normal (26.1%), very much satisfied (9.4%), not at

all satisfied (2.6%) and not satisfied (2.6%) (Table 63).

Table 63
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s satisfaction with the amount
of information received about specific job items
Very
Not Not at all
much Satisfied Normal
Sl. satisfied satisfied
Group satisfied
No
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

1 Personal 42 17.9 137 58.5 51 21.8 2 0.9 2 0.9

2 Job Related 68 29.1 152 65.0 12 5.1 1 0.4 1 0.4

3 General 35 15.0 160 68.4 33 14.1 5 2.1 1 0.4

4 Others 22 9.4 139 59.4 61 26.1 6 2.6 6 2.6

With regard to respondent’s overall satisfaction with communication in

the organization, 70.5% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by very

much satisfied (20.5%), normal (8.5%) and very much dissatisfied (0.4%)

(Table 64).
 Table 64
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s rate of overall satisfaction
with communication
S.No Variable fr %

1 Very much satisfied 48 20.5

2 Satisfied 165 70.5

3 Normal 20 8.5

4 Dissatisfied - -

5 Very much Dissatisfied 1 0.4

Total 234 100

Figure 19
Percentage distribution of the respondent’s rating towards overall
satisfaction with communication

0.4
8.5
20.5
Very much
satisfied
Satisfied

Normal
70.5
Very much
Dissatisfied

Overall satisfaction with Communication

With regard to improvement in the areas of communication, 51.3% of

the respondents have opined that to some extent Inter Personal communication

needs improvement followed by to a great extent (25.2%), average (18.4%),

less (3.4%) and very less (1.7%). In case of letters, 51.7% of the respondents
said that to some extent it needs improvement, followed by to a great extent

(20.1%), average (19.7%), less (6.4%), and very less (2.1%). In case of

Circulars, 51.7% of the respondents said that, to some extent they need

improvement, followed by to a great extent (20.9%), average (19.2%), less

(6.0%) and very less (2.1%). In case of reports, 47.9% of the respondents said

that to some extent they need to be improved followed by to a great extent

(25.6%), average (18.4%), less (6.0%) and very less (2.1%). In case of Notice

Boards, 32.9% of the respondents said that, to a great extent they need

improvement, followed by to a some extent (31.2%), average (24.4%), less

(6.8%) and very less (4.7%). In case of meetings, 41.5% of the respondents

said they need to be improved to a great extent followed by to some extent

(35.5%), average (16.7%), less (4.3%) and very less (2.1%). In case of Phone

Calls, 36.3% of the respondents said that they need to be improved to a great

extent followed by to some extent (33.8%), average (18.8%), less (7.7%) and

very less (3.4%). In case of SMS, 38% of the respondents said that to some

extent it needs improvement, followed by average (26.5%), to a great extent

(23.5%), less (8.5%) and very less (3.4%). In case of e mails, 45.3% of the

respondents said that, to a great extent it needs improvement, followed by to

some extent (24.4%), average (18.4%), less (7.3%) and very less (4.7%). In

case of newsletters, 45.7% of the respondents said that they should be

improved to a great extent followed by average (20.1%), to some extent

(19.2%), very less (9.0%) and less (6.0%). In case of others, 41.9% of the

respondents they need improvement to a great extent, followed by average

(20.9%), to some extent (19.2%), very less(11.1%) and less (6.8%) (Table 65).
 Table 65
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to
the areas that need improvement
To a great To some Very
Average Less
Sl. extent extent Less
Variable
No. fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

Inter
1 59 25.2 120 51.3 43 18.4 8 3.4 4 1.7
personal

2 Letters 47 20.1 121 51.7 46 19.7 15 6.4 5 2.1

3 Circulars 49 20.9 121 51.7 45 19.2 14 6.0 5 2.1

4 Reports 60 25.6 112 47.9 43 18.4 14 6.0 5 2.1

Notice
5 77 32.9 73 31.2 57 24.4 16 6.8 11 4.7
Boards

6 Meetings 97 41.5 83 35.5 39 16.7 10 4.3 5 2.1

Phone
7 85 36.3 79 33.8 44 18.8 18 7.7 8 3.4
Calls

8 SMS 55 23.5 89 38.0 62 26.5 20 8.5 8 3.4

9 E-mails 106 45.3 57 24.4 43 18.4 17 7.3 11 4.7

News
10 107 45.7 45 19.2 47 20.1 14 6.0 21 9.0
Letters

11 Others 98 41.9 45 19.2 49 20.9 16 6.8 26 11.1

With regard to Satisfaction with the job, in case of Satisfaction with

work, 51.3% of the respondents were very much satisfied, followed by

satisfied (44.0%), normal (3.8%) and not satisfied (0.9%). In case of

satisfaction with supervision, 54.7% of the respondents were satisfied,

followed by very much satisfied (38.9%) and normal (6.4%). In case of

satisfaction with pay, 38.5% of the respondents were satisfied, followed by

very much satisfied (26.1%), normal (26.1%), not satisfied (8.1%) and not at

all satisfied (1.3%). In case satisfaction with promotions 32.5% of the

respondents feel normal, followed by satisfied (25.2%), not satisfied (22.6%),

very much satisfied (17.5%) and not at all satisfied (2.1%). In case of

satisfaction with Co-workers, 50.0% of the respondents were satisfied,

followed by very much satisfied (31.2%), normal (17.5%), not satisfied (0.9%)

and not at all satisfied (0.4%) (Table 66).

Table 66
Percentage distribution of the respondents according to satisfaction with
the job
Very Not at
Not
much Satisfied Normal all
Sl. satisfied
Variable satisfied satisfied
No.
fr % fr % fr % fr % fr %

Satisfaction
1 120 51.3 103 44.0 9 3.8 2 0.9 - -
with work
Satisfaction
2 with 91 38.9 128 54.7 15 6.4 - - - -
Supervision
Satisfaction
3 61 26.1 90 38.5 61 26.1 19 8.1 3 1.3
with Pay
Satisfaction
4 with 41 17.5 59 25.2 76 32.5 53 22.6 5 2.1
Promotions
Satisfaction
5 with Co- 73 31.2 117 50.0 41 17.5 2 0.9 1 0.4
workers

𝒙𝟐 =301.36, df=16, P<0.01 where P =0.00001 which is significant at 0.01

level