managerial perceptions of barriers to …journal.azbea.org/v24n1/v24n1sgolen.pdf · abea journal;...
TRANSCRIPT
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-37-
Managerial Perceptions of Barriers to Internal Corporate Communication Within and
Across Hierarchical Levels
Lawrence P. Grasso
Central Connecticut State University
Steven P. Golen
Arizona State University
Alvin Burns
Louisiana State University
Abstract
A better understanding of managers' perceptions of barriers to communication would help accountants communicate more effectively
and improve their ability to promote more effective communication throughout the organization. This study examined barriers to
effective communication as perceived by managers, in three relational settings within the organization, (1) relationships with superiors,
(2) relationships with subordinates and (3) relationships with other managers. The major objective of this study was to determine the
seriousness of these barriers and to identify which of these barriers are related to each other across the three relational settings.
Interrelationships between the barriers were investigated using principal components analysis. Associations between personal or job
characteristics and the perceived seriousness of barriers to communication were also examined.
Four of the six underlying dimensions identified (attitudinal, perceptual, social, and physical) were common to all three relational
settings. A technical barrier dimension emerged for communication with superiors and subordinates, but not for communication with
other managers. A competitive barrier dimension emerged for communication with superiors and other managers but not for
communication with subordinates. Managers perceived attitudinal barriers to be the most serious and physical barriers to be the least
serious barriers to communication in each relational setting. Little evidence of an association between differences in perceived
seriousness of barrier dimensions and personal or job characteristics were found.
Differences in factor composition suggested that barriers to communication are perceived differently depending upon the relational
setting within the organization. Three contextual factors (locus of control, direction of communication, and the number of participants)
that may explain the perceptual differences are proposed. These factors may provide the basis for hypotheses to be tested in future
research.
Introduction
The world is in the midst of an information revolution that
is dramatically altering the nature of commerce. The
changing conduct of commerce is also affecting the role of
managers in organizations. In the quest for improvement in
quality, efficiency, and responsiveness, the responsibility of
operational control and supervision is shifting from middle
management to labor. Competitive, antagonistic, arms-length
relationships between customers and suppliers are being
replaced by more cooperative and coordinated arrangements.
Managers are increasingly viewed as enablers, facilitators, and
counselors rather than as organizers, directors, and monitors
(Stewart, 1991). More than ever, the ability to process, analyze,
and act quickly on information is critical to achieving a
competitive advantage in the current business environment. The
role of management will be to counsel and provide resources, to
build group consensus and cooperation across organizational
boundaries (Dumaine, 1991). Consequently, effective
communication, always critical to effective management, is
more important than ever in the current competitive
environment.
Communication must be considered in the context of the
organizational structure. Managerial communication takes place
vertically within the organizational structure, either upward
(communication with superiors) or downward (communication
with subordinates). Communication paths also exist across the
organizational structure, as managers may need to communicate
with peers having different product, regional, or functional
responsibilities. Managers may view communication and its
attendant barriers and problems differently depending on its
place in the organizational hierarchy. Roberts et al. (1974) stated
that within various levels of organizational analysis,
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-38-
communication operates differently. Therefore, this study
examined barriers to effective communication as perceived by
managers. An increased awareness and understanding of how
barriers are perceived should help managers improve their own
communication skills as well as increase their ability to help
other managers communicate more effectively. Brown (1976)
noted that awareness of the communication barriers must be
completed first before any serious efforts to improve
communication can occur.
Communication within the Organizational Structure
Managers view communication with superiors and people
external to the organization as both more challenging and more
important than communication with subordinates (Whitley,
1985). However, increasing communications between a superior
and subordinate will decrease informational discrepancies
(Jaworski and Young, 1992). Clement (1974) and Lawler et al.
(1968) found that managers were less satisfied with their
interactions with subordinates than they were with interactions
with their superiors. Others have found that there are
hierarchical distinctions in the accuracy and amount of
information passed in an upward direction (Athanassiades,
1973, 1974; Glauser, 1984; Level and Johnson, 1978; O'Reilly,
1978; O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974).
Bednar (1982) examined the relationship between
perceived communication style and managerial performance.
Managers were evaluated by all of their subordinates,
superiors, and peers on the basis of whether their
communication style was represented by various personal
characteristics. He concluded that effective managerial
performance was significantly associated with certain
characteristics of the managers' communication style.
Specifically, for the evaluation by superiors, there was a
direct relationship between performance and open-minded,
animation, and overall communication image and an
inverse relationship with contentious or argumentative
characteristics. For evaluations by subordinates, preciseness
was significant, and for the peer evaluation, attentive was
significantly associated with performance.
Klauss and Bass (1982) analyzed the verbal communication
behavior of managers and the impact of this behavior on
subordinates, peers, and superiors. In one part of the study, the
communication patterns of managers were examined as they
relate to their leadership or managerial styles. Based on the
analysis of subordinates describing their superiors' leadership
and communication behavior, consultative, participative or
delegative leadership was strongly linked to the managers'
communication style, credibility, and outcomes of role clarity,
satisfaction with the manager, and job satisfaction.
In the second part of the study, supervisory personnel from
social services, industry, and the military were rated by
their subordinates, peers, and subordinates regarding the
supervisors' communication style, credibility, and outcomes.
Based on the analysis of the three samples, no simple pattern
or direction emerged and that the relations appear to be
situation and rater specific. Therefore, as Klauss and Bass
(1982) noted, linkages among various dimensions of
structure need to be completed in order to appreciate their
impact on communication.
Barriers to Communication
An implicit assumption in the communication process is that a
free flow of information exists between the sender and receiver.
This process portrays communication as a continuous and
dynamic flow, but communication involves a constant
interpretation of messages by the sender or receiver. As a result,
problems or barriers arise that can inhibit or impede the free
flow of information during a communication exchange. As
Pearce et al. (1988) stated, "to communicate effectively in
business, you need to understand how barriers operate, why they
interfere with communication, and how you can decrease their
negative effect . . . You need to recognize the cues that signal
miscommunication" (p. 33).
Fisher (1981) stated that because individuals in organizations
tend to be specialists, communication difficulties can arise.
These specialists have different concerns and consequently
speak "different" languages. As a result, when two or more
specialists need to coordinate their work closely, barriers can
become difficult and significant. He went on to say that "barriers
tend to occur not singly, but in interrelated clusters. Most
communication problems are not understood well until several
barriers have been identified" (Fisher, 1981, p. 9). In addition,
Tafoya (1976) noted that causal relationships exist among
barriers, indicating that some barriers may be caused by other
barriers. Thus, there is evidence that suggests that there are
certain barriers that are indeed related to each other, and these
barriers must be identified first before any attempt to resolve a
communication problem can be made.
Only a couple of studies have dealt with the determination of
multiple barriers to effective communication (Golen et al., 1988;
Golen, 1987). However, several studies have dealt with
individual communication barriers or problems, such as trust
(O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Zand, 1972), credibility (Giffin,
1967; O'Reilly and Roberts, 1974); size (Bacharach and Aiken,
1977); physical distance (Allen and Gerstberger, s19730;
defensiveness (Gibb, 1961); listening (Hunt and Cusella, 1983;
Lewis and Reinsch, 1988; Watson and Smeltzer, 1984); and
resistance to change (Golen et al., 1985).
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-39-
In Golen et al. (1988), 244 CPAs indicated their perceptions of
communication barriers in an auditor-client relationship. Based
on a factor analysis, they found that the most serious barriers
appeared in four dimensions or factors. The dimensions
identified in this study were attitudinal, personal and physical,
lack of an accounting background, and defensiveness. The
respondents' gender, firm size, and job position were tested
across the dimensions. Female CPAs perceived the
communication barriers as more serious than males, and staff
accountants perceived these barriers as more serious than
managers and partners. The firm size had no effect.
Based on a study of 193 managerial banking personnel,
Golen (1987) found that a number of barriers to effective
communication exist between bank managers and their
customers. Six factors or dimensions were identified, and they
were close-mindedness and distractions, competitiveness,
superiority complex and credibility, personality concerns, lack
of banking knowledge, and perceptual differences. Various
demographics were tested across the six factors. Female
managers perceived the barriers to be more serious than males.
Bank managers who work in smaller banks perceive the
barriers to be more serious than those managers in larger
banks, while middle and upper bank managers perceived
the barriers to be more serious than first-line managers. The
respondents' age, number of years in present managerial
position, and number of employees supervised had no effect.
In comparing the two studies, only one dimension or factor
was similar and that dealt with the lack of technical
knowledge. Females perceived barriers as more serious in
both studies. However, in the accounting study, there was
no firm size effect; but in the banking study, bank
managers from smaller banks perceived the barriers as
more serious than those from larger banks. Interestingly,
lower level personnel in the accounting study and middle
and upper managers in the banking study perceived
barriers to be more serious. It appears, therefore, that the
context of the communication activity changes the type of
problem that exists. Thus, as Klauss and Bass (1982)
stated, the "communication activity will vary considerably
across situations and will have a differing impact as well,
depending on the immediate context" (pp. 15-16).
Research Questions
This study examined the seriousness of barriers to effective
communication, as perceived by managers, in three relational
settings within the organization: (1) relationships with
superiors, (2) relationships with subordinates, and (3)
relationships with other managers. The major objective of
this study was to determine the seriousness of these
barriers and to identify which of these barriers are related
to each other across the three relational settings. The
following four research questions were formulated:
1. What barriers are perceived as most serious in each of
the three relational settings?
2. Is the perceived seriousness of the barriers stable across
settings?
3. What are the interrelationships between barriers in each
setting?
4. Are these interrelationships consistent for each of the
three settings?
A number of communications researchers believe that
existing evidence suggests that effective superior-subordinate
communication is contingent on a number of factors,
including organizational climate, task type, gender, and
work unit size (Dansereau and Markham, 1987). Tafoya
(1976) noted that barriers to communication may be
perceived differently by different races, age groups, or between
sexes, and that these barriers may vary in different settings as
well. Klauss and Bass (1982) noted that the process of
communication needs to be analyzed in the specific context
within which it occurs, and what works in one communication
context man not have similar results in another context.
For example, Pinder and Pinto (1974) found that young
managers (age 20-29) tend to be more autocratic and low in
human relations skills. Consequently, communication style
could change with age, leading to a change in perceived
importance of communication barriers. Jablin (1979)
suggested that upper level managers tend to involve their
subordinates more in decision making than do lower level
managers. Thus, the importance of communication barriers
may change with the difference in focus. Golen et al.
(1988) found that women accountants perceive com-
munication barriers to be more serious than do men. They
also found that the perceived seriousness by CPAs of attitudinal
and personal and physical barriers to client communication
varied depending on job position. Therefore, a comparison of
the managers' perceptions with those of managers in other
functional areas leads to the final research question:
5. Is a manager's perception of the seriousness of barriers
to communication associated with personal or job
characteristics?
Method
Questionnaire Construction
The questionnaire was constructed initially through a review of
the literature, which identified the most common barriers to
communication across disciplines (Allen, 1977; Argyris, 1966;
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-40-
Aveleyra, 1980; Brown, 1976; Golen et al., 1988; Pearce et al.,
1988; Rice and Colby, 1976; Rogers and Roethlisberger, 1952;
Sigband, 1977; Tafoya, 1976). These barriers were edited after
feedback from managers and university accounting and business
communication professors. Comments were received and
changes were made based on the questionnaire's content, clarity
of directions, vocabulary difficulty, ambiguities, and length. The
final questionnaire contained a list of 32 possible barriers to
communication for each setting.1 A five point scale, anchored
on "(1) not serious" and "(5) very serious," was used to elicit
managers' perceptions as to the seriousness of the barriers in
affecting the quality of communication in each of the three
relational settings. To give the respondents an opportunity to
identify any other barriers that were not included on the
questionnaire, an "other" category was provided for open-ended
responses. However, no substantive comments were received
from the respondents.
Sample Selection
One hundred and twelve members, mostly middle
managers, attending an executive development program at
a large university in the southeastern United States participated
in the study. The participants completed the questionnaire
during a session, ranking the barriers to communication in each
of three managerial relationships: (1) their relationships with
superiors, (2) their relationships with subordinates, and (3)
their relationships with other managers. The participants also
provided demographic data which are summarized in Table 1
(Appendix A).
Most (96 out of 112) of the participants provided a
complete set of 96 barrier rankings (32 barriers ranked in
each of three settings). The sixteen participants that left
one or more rankings blank may have felt that a particular
barrier did not apply to their situation. There was,
however, no systematic pattern of omissions. Sixty-six of
the 96 barriers had a complete set of responses. Of the
remaining 30 barriers, one had three omissions and the
other 29 had only one or two omissions. The responses
covered the entire range of seriousness ranks from 1 to 5
for 92 of the barriers. The responses ranged from 1 to 4 for
the other four barriers.2 In general, the variability, range,
and completeness of the responses seems to indicate that
the participants had a reasonably high level of interest in
the questionnaire.
Data Analysis and Results
Seriousness of Individual Barriers to Communication
The mean seriousness ratings for each barrier to
communication with superiors, subordinates, and other
managers are reported in Table 2. The barriers' ranks (as
determined by mean rating) are presented in the table.
Tukey T-tests were run to assess the significance of
differences between means within each relational setting. If
the Tukey T-tests showed that the mean for a barrier was
significantly (p < .05) different from every barrier with a
mean below the overall mean for that relational setting, the
barrier was classified as high in seriousness and is shown
in bold print on Table 2. Similarly, a barrier significantly
(p < .05) different from every barrier with a mean above
the overall mean for that relational setting, was classified
as low in seriousness and is also shown in bold print on
Table 2. Barriers with mean seriousness ratings between
the two extremes were classified as moderate in seriousness.3
Lack of credibility, lack of trust, tendency not to listen, and
resistance to change were in the high seriousness classification
in all three settings. Know-it-all attitude was also high for
communication with superiors and other managers and
hostile attitude was high for communication with superiors.
Both barriers just missed the high threshold in other
settings. The too many intermediate receivers barrier was
classified as high in seriousness only for communication
with superiors.
Four barriers (speaking too loudly, poor spatial arrangements,
inappropriate physical appearance, and physical distance
between sender and receiver) were classified as low in
seriousness across all three settings. Status or position was
a moderately serious barrier for communication with other
managers but was low in other settings. Overly competitive
attitude and use of profanity were low for communication
with subordinates and inability to understand non-verbal
communication was low for communication with superiors.
While the other three barriers were moderate in other settings,
inability to understand non-verbal communication and use of
profanity were just above the threshold in other settings.
Stability of Perceived Seriousness across Relational Settings
The results reported in Table 2 suggest that the perceived
seriousness of the barriers was generally stable across the
different relational settings. The overall mean seriousness
rating was approximately 2.9 in each setting. As discussed
above, there was a substantial amount of agreement across
settings regarding barriers classified as high or low in
seriousness. In addition, the correlation of the barriers’
mean seriousness rankings between relational settings each
exceeded .9 and was highly significant.4
There were, however, a few differences. Seven Tukey T-
tests of differences in means for each barrier across
relational settings were significant at p < .05. The mean
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-41-
level of seriousness for lack of understanding of technical
language was significantly lower for communication with
superiors than it was in the other two settings. The mean for
status or position was significantly higher in the manager setting
than it was for communication with superiors or subordinates.
The mean for overly competitive attitude was lower for
communication for subordinates than for communication with
other managers. The other two significant differences were for
lack of knowledge of work operations (higher for subordinates
than for superiors) and defensiveness (higher for other
managers than for superiors).
Interrelationships between Barriers: Factor Analysis
The barrier ratings in each of the three communications settings
were factor analyzed in order to better understand the
relationships between the individual barriers and to determine
whether these interrelationships appeared to be stable across the
three settings. The principal components method was used to
extract the factors. Factors with an eigen value greater than one
were retained. The minimum eigen value criterion resulted in
the retention of six factors for communication with superiors,
five factors for communication with subordinates, and five
factors for communication with other managers. These factors
can be seen as representing dimensions of barriers to
communication. The retained factors explained over 65 per cent
of the overall variance in the barrier ratings for each of the three
relational settings.5 The factor loadings were subjected to an
orthogonal rotation using the varimax procedure. The results are
presented in Tables 3 through 5 (Appendix A). In each setting
the barriers are listed under the factor for which they had their
primary (highest) loading. Factor loadings exceeding .40 are
listed in bold print.
The Dimensions of Barriers to Communication: Analysis of
Factor Composition
Attitudinal Barriers
Attitudinal barriers were by far the most significant barriers to
communication across all three settings. All of the barriers to
communication classified as high had their primary loadings on
this factor across all three settings. The barriers strongly
associated with this factor across all three settings were lack of
trust, lack of credibility, tendency not to listen, hostile attitude,
lack of interest in the subject matter, know-it-all attitude, and
emotional reactions.6 Another five barriers had their primary
loadings on this factor across all three settings. Like the barriers
with strong associations, the direct connection with individual
behavior is readily apparent for three of these barriers (either-or
thinking, resistance to change, prematurely jumping to
conclusions). For the other two barriers (too many intermediate
receivers and lack of feedback) the connection with individual
behavior is not as clear. It may be that these barriers are viewed
as manifestations of a lack of interest or caring.
Another eight barriers had at least moderate loadings
across all three settings. Two of these (defensiveness,
personality conflicts) are directly connected with individual
behavior. The other six are better characterized as
manifestations or outcomes of attitudinal problems. The
barriers representing manifestations or outcomes of
attitudinal problems tended to have higher loadings for
communication with superiors than for the other settings.
Prejudice or bias, informal social groups and cliques, and
status or position were associated with attitude for
communication with superiors while they were considered
primarily social or perceptual barriers for the other settings.
Managers may attribute control of their communication
with superiors as residing with their superiors. If so, the
presence or absence of some physical, social, and
perceptual barriers may be seen as evidence of deliberate
or strategic behavior by the superior rather than as a "fact
of life" beyond the superior's immediate control.
One exception to this general trend was the fear of
information distortion barrier, which was perceived as an
attitudinal barrier for communication with managers and
subordinates and as a technical barrier for communication
with superiors. Peer managers and subordinates may be
seen as distorting information primarily by engaging in
strategic behavior and withholding, biasing, or selectively
reporting information. Superiors may be viewed as
distorting information primarily by misreading information
they receive due to a lack of technical knowledge. This
view would be consistent with a flow of information
primarily up and across the organizational hierarchy.
Technical Barriers
The primary technical barriers to communication were lack of
understanding of technical language and lack of knowledge of
work operations. These barriers were viewed as perceptual
barriers in communication with other managers, as the technical
dimension did not emerge for that relational setting. It could be
that technical knowledge is not required for many
communications across the corporate hierarchy, so that the
problem is more one of mind-set than of understanding details
of particular messages.
Competitive Barriers
Overly competitive attitude loaded strongly on this dimension
for communication with superiors and with other managers.
Defensiveness had its primary loading on this factor for
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-42-
communication with managers but only a weak secondary
loading for communication with superiors. Defensiveness was
significantly higher in seriousness as a barrier to communication
with managers than with subordinates (Table 2). The mean
seriousness was moderate for communication with superiors
(Table 2), but was much closer to the mean for subordinates
than it was to the mean for the other manager setting. The
competitive dimension did not emerge for communication with
subordinates. Overly competitive attitude was perceived as a
social barrier for communication with subordinates, perhaps
being associated more with status seeking than with a threat to
the manager in relational setting.
Social Barriers
The composition of the factor that appeared to represent a
social dimension of barriers to communication was
somewhat different for communication with superiors than
for communication with subordinates or with other managers.
Two barriers were strongly associated (informal social groups
or cliques and status or position) with this factor in the
latter two settings. The same barriers had only moderate
secondary loadings for communication with superiors,
where they were primarily associated with attitudinal
barriers. Use of profanity and physical distance between
sender and receiver were strongly associated with this
factor under communication with superiors. Perhaps distance
and the use of profanity were seen as a means of enforcing
status or position in this setting. On the other hand, it may
be that status and position is viewed as giving the superior
power to "get away" with using profanity and distance, as
inappropriate physical appearance also had a primary
loading on this factor in the superiors setting. These
barriers were associated more with the physical barriers
factor in the subordinates and other managers settings.
An interesting pattern of secondary loadings also emerged on
the social factor. Attitudinal barriers (personality conflicts,
prematurely jumping to conclusions, defensiveness) had
secondary loadings on this factor for communication with
subordinates. Of these barriers, however, only personality
conflicts had high loadings in either of the other two settings.
Thus the "cause" of barriers seems to be attributed to the
individual in communication with superiors and to broader
social or class differences in communication with subordinates.
Two "attitudinal manifestation" barriers (information overload
and too many intermediate receivers) had moderate secondary
loadings on the social factor for communication with other
managers, but not in either the superiors or the subordinates
setting. The intermediate receivers barrier did not have a high
secondary loading in either the superiors or the subordinates
settings. Information overload had a primary (secondary)
loading on the physical barriers factor in the subordinates
(superiors) setting.
Physical Barriers
Barriers representing distractions, static, or interference had high
loadings on the factor characterized as representing a physical
barriers dimension. The barriers had to do with the surroundings
(e.g., poor spatial arrangements, physical noise and distractions,
inappropriate physical appearance) as well as the delivery (e.g.,
speaking too loudly, poor organization of ideas, use of profanity,
poor timing of message) of the communication. The barriers
forming the core of this factor were among those rated the least
serious by the managers.
In general, the barriers had stronger loadings on the physical
factor in the subordinates and other managers settings than in
the superiors setting. Many of these variables were also
associated with attitudinal and social dimensions in the superiors
setting. An interesting exception to this trend is the poor
organization of ideas barrier. This barrier is associated with both
the physical and attitudinal dimensions in both the superiors and
other managers settings, but its association with the physical
barriers dimension is stronger in the superiors setting. This may
indicate that the direction of the communication as well as the
perceived locus of control affects the degree to which barriers
are attributed to individual attitudes rather than group or external
factors. Poor organization of ideas was strongly associated with
the perceptual barrier dimension for communication with
subordinates.
Perceptual Barriers
The differences in perception barrier was (not surprisingly)
strongly associated with the factor characterized as representing
a perceptual barrier dimension across all three settings. With
that exception, the perceptual barriers factor had more
variation across settings than the three other factors
representing dimensions found in all three relational settings.
In the superiors setting, poor message timing and inability to
understand non-verbal communication had high loadings on
this factor. Poor message timing also had a high loading on
this factor for communication with subordinates, as did
prejudice or bias, resistance to change and (as mentioned
earlier) poor organization of ideas.
However, inability to understand non-verbal communication did
not have a high loading on this factor in either the subordinates
or the other managers settings. Poor message timing did not
have a high loading on this factor in the other managers setting,
where it was associated with the physical barriers dimension.
Technical barriers, which emerged as a separate factor in the
other settings, were associated with the perceptual barriers
dimension in the other managers setting.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-43-
Stability of Barrier Interrelationships across Relational Settings
As was the case with the mean seriousness ratings for individual
barriers, a comparison of the rotated factor loadings across the
three hierarchical settings revealed a degree of consistency as
well as some interesting differences. Of the 32 barriers to
communication investigated, eight had strong loadings on the
same factor across all three hierarchical settings. Another eight
barriers had primary loadings on the same factor across all three
hierarchical settings, but they also had at least one other high
loading in one or more settings.
Four factors with similar composition emerged in each of the
three relational settings. The four common dimensions of
communication barriers were labeled attitudinal, physical,
perceptual, and social. Another factor interpreted as re-
presenting technical barriers to communication emerged for
communication with superiors and subordinates, but not for
communication with other managers. A factor interpreted as
representing competitive barriers emerged for communication
with superiors and other managers but not for communication
with subordinates. Thus the factor analysis identified six
dimensions of barriers to communication. At least five of the
dimensions were found in each setting, and four were common
to the three relational settings investigated. A comparison of the
higher loadings on each factor across the three settings is
presented in Table 6. To facilitate evaluation of the factors and
comparisons across relational settings, factor loadings for
barriers having "strong" associations with a single factor are
shown in bold print. A barrier was considered to be strongly
associated with a single factor for a relational setting if the
following three criteria were met: (1) the barrier's loading on the
factor was .50 or higher, (2) the barrier's loading on the factor
exceeded its loading on any other factor by at least .20, and (3)
the barrier did not have a loading of .40 or higher on any other
factor for the relational setting.
Differences Associated with Personal or Job Characteristics
Standardized factor scores (mean=0, variance=1) were
generated for each of the sixteen factors identified. Using the
demographic data supplied by the participants (Table 1,
Appendix A), it was possible to test for group differences on
three personal (age, educational level, and level of experience)
and three job (functional area, hierarchical level, and number of
subordinates) characteristics.7 A total of 96 (16 communications
barrier factors * 6 characteristics) tests were run.8
Age
Using the age classifications reported in Table 1, separate
one way ANOVAs were run for each of the sixteen factors.
The age classification achieved at least a 10 percent level
of significance explaining the variation of three factors,
attitudinal barriers to communication with other managers
and with subordinates, and competitive barriers to
communication with other managers. The results of these
three ANOVAs are summarized in Table 7 (Appendix A).
An analysis of group means (Table 8, Appendix A)
revealed that young managers (age 21-30) appeared to
perceive attitudinal barriers as more serious than did older
managers in the subordinates and other managers settings.
The young managers and the oldest managers (over 50)
perceived competitive barriers to communication with
other managers to be less serious than did managers in the
middle age classes.9 This latter result was the strongest
evidence of group differences found in this study. Given
the non-monotonic nature of the observed relationship, the
result may be related to the types of managerial positions
and/or the career aspirations held by managers aged 31 to
50. The management level and functional area variables,
however, did not capture this effect.
Educational Level
The educational level classifications from Table 1 were
modified by collapsing the advanced degrees (masters and
doctorates) into a single classification. Separate one way
ANOVAs were then run for each of the sixteen factors.
Educational level achieved a significance level of at least
ten percent in explaining variance in attitudinal barriers to
communication with other managers (Table 7).
The data in Table 8 (Appendix A) show that the mean perceived
seriousness of attitudinal barriers to communicating with other
managers was higher for managers holding either bachelors or
associates degrees than for managers holding only high school
diplomas or holding advanced degrees. The mean perceived
seriousness of competitive barriers to communicating with other
managers was higher for managers with bachelors and advanced
degrees than for managers with lower levels of formal
education. None of the differences between means related to
educational classifications, however, were significant.
Experience
The classifications reported under experience in Table 1 were
collapsed into two groups. Mean factor scores for managers
reporting five or less years of experience were compared to the
mean scores for managers reporting six or more years of
experience. Managers with less experience perceived technical
barriers to communication with superiors to be more serious
(.170 vs. -.204, p=.0538). None of the other factors had
significant differences between group means at a 10 percent
level of confidence. One reason for the failure to find more
significant results may have been the weakness of the
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-44-
experience measure. The responding managers were asked to
report the number of years they had worked in their current
position or for their current employer or in the general area.
These can be viewed as three separate constructs with three
different effects, and perhaps three different answers for each
manager.
Functional Area
The responses from managers providing information about
functional area were divided into two groups: accountants and
all others. Only one of the sixteen T-tests comparing group
means on the factor scores revealed a difference between group
means at better than a 10 percent level of significance. The
accountants (mean -.281) perceived the social barriers to
communication with other managers to be less serious than did
the other managers (mean .094, p=.0790).
Hierarchical Level
Using the upper, middle, and lower management classifications
reported in Table 1, separate one way ANOVAs were run for
each of the sixteen factors. Hierarchical level achieved at least a
10 percent level of significance explaining the variation of two
factors, physical barriers to communication with other managers
and social barriers to communication with subordinates. The
results of these two ANOVAs are summarized in Table 7.
An analysis of group means (Table 8) revealed that middle
managers perceived physical barriers to communication with
other managers and social barriers to communication with
subordinates as a less serious problem than did upper level
managers. The mean scores for the lower level managers were
between the upper and middle management group values for
both factors and were not significantly different from either
group.
Number of Subordinates
T-tests were run comparing mean factor scores for managers
with ten or less subordinates to the scores for managers with
eleven or more subordinates. Managers with ten or less
subordinates had significantly higher mean scores than
managers with eleven or more subordinates for competitive
barriers to communication with other managers (.141 vs. -.270,
p=.0317). Differences between group means on the other fifteen
factors were not significant at test-wise 10 percent level of
confidence.
Summary: Differences Associated with Personal or Job
Characteristics
The "significance" of the differences must interpreted with
caution. As 96 separate tests of overall significance were
conducted, the result (nine tests significant at a 10 percent
threshold) was no different than what would be expected due to
chance. Only the effect of age on perceived seriousness of
competitive barriers to communication with other managers and
the effect of hierarchical level on social barriers to
communication with subordinates were highly significant. The
nature of the associations in these relationships was not
monotonic. Middle age groups and middle management levels
appeared to differ from the extremes. The significant results may
well be due to omitted variables, perhaps related to stage of
career. The evidence of differences in perception of barriers to
communication based on the demographic characteristics in this
study is minimal at best.
This does not mean that group differences in perception do not
exist. To examine whether interactions between demo- graphic
variables were obscuring significant group differences, fully
crossed multivariate ANOVAs were run for each factor with
age, hierarchical level, and educational level as the independent
variables.10 Overall F tests were significant at p<.10 for physical
and competitive barriers to communication with other managers.
Partial F tests for the three-way interaction between the
independent variables were significant for the competitive
barriers, and the interaction between age and hierarchical level
was significant for the physical barriers. Partial F tests were also
significant at p<.10 for the three way interactions associated
with attitudinal and social barriers to communication with
subordinates and attitudinal barriers to communication with
other managers, although the overall F tests were not significant
for these models.
The above results suggest that the relationship between
demographic factors and the perceived seriousness of barriers to
communication may be subtle and complex. The classifications
in this study were ad hoc. The need to obtain adequate cell
populations for statistical testing often determined the
classifications. In addition, the expectation of group differences
was not derived from a well developed theory. A stronger theory
coupled with a finer measurement of demographic factors in the
context of the theory may be necessary to before the true
significance of group differences in perception of barriers to
communication is revealed.
Summary and Conclusions
The results of this study are subject to a number of
limitations. As the responding managers were participants
in an executive development program at a single university, they
may not represent an unbiased sample of managers in general.
The questionnaire prompted the managers to attribute the source
of the communication barriers to the other member(s) of the
communication dyad or to the surroundings. Results might have
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-45-
been different if the respondents had been asked to focus on
their own behavior as a source of barriers to communication in
each of the settings.
The other managers setting could refer to communication with
other managers in the same or in different functional areas. The
managers also could be on the same or different levels in the
corporate hierarchy. No information was available regarding the
primary form of communication (e.g., telephone, face-to-face
meeting, letters or written reports) used, which may have varied
both within and across the relational settings examined. In short,
there are a number of unobserved variable that may have
affected the results.
The respondents were also not asked to calibrate their rankings
of perceived seriousness, limiting the ability to make inferences
regarding the relative importance of individual barriers to
communication. However, the order in which the barriers
appeared on the questionnaire was identical for the three
settings. After completing the assessment of barriers in the first
setting, the respondents knew that they would be evaluating the
importance of the same barriers in the latter two settings. Thus,
the consistency of the seriousness ratings across settings for
some barriers provides some indication that lack of calibration
may not have been a serious problem.
Despite the limitations, a number of interesting results
emerged that provide directions for future research. Four
dimensions of communications barriers, attitudinal, perceptual,
social, and physical, emerged in all three settings. The
attitudinal barriers were perceived as the most serious
barriers to communication, and the physical barriers were
perceived as the least serious. Attitudinal barriers were also
perceived by CPA's to be the most serious barriers to
communications with their audit clients in a study by Golen
et al. (1988). Of the communication barriers receiving "high"
mean seriousness ratings in any of the three settings in this
study, only know-it-all attitude (considered a moderate
barrier by the CPAs) did not also receive a "high" mean
rating from the CPAs. The results reported by Golen et al.
(1988) and this study suggest that the relative importance
of the attitudinal dimension may hold in a wide variety of
business settings.
The competitive barrier dimension did not emerge for
communication with subordinates. An overly competitive
attitude on the part of a subordinate was associated with
social barriers. It may be that subordinates were viewed as
competing with one another, while competitive superiors
and other managers were viewed as posing a direct threat
to the respondent's position or agenda. The perceived focus
of competition may affect the perception of communication.
The technical barrier dimension did not emerge for
communication with other managers. Lack of specific know-
ledge may be perceived as evidence of incompetence or lack of
caring in a superior or subordinate while it is viewed as an
unfortunate but unavoidable condition when communicating
with a manager in a different functional area. In some cases,
communication may not require specific knowledge of the
respondent's operations on the part of the other managers.
Differences in specific knowledge may nevertheless impede
communication due to differences in perception or mind-set
arising from the differences in technical and experiential
backgrounds.
The most interesting results of this study relate to the
composition of the four dimensions common to all three
relational settings. These dimensions can be considered as
representing different attributions of the cause of impediments to
communication. In the attitudinal and perceptual dimensions,
communication is impeded by an individual. The attitudinal
dimension seems to represent overt actions and behavior
by the individual. The behavior may be strategic in nature,
representing deliberate attempts to obscure or impede
communication. The perceptual barriers, on the other hand,
appear to represent a more subconscious dimension of
individual behavior. Behavior does not appear to be as willful
or strategic. Communication is impeded as the result of
ingrained personal differences between individuals. These
barriers seem to be more interpersonal and intrapersonal.
The social dimension is similar to the perceptual
dimension, but social barriers are attributed to group or
class rather than individual differences. The physical dimensions
contains barriers assigned an external attribution. Physical
surroundings and the communication medium rather than
the individuals involved are seen as the source of the
impediments to communication. Because these barriers are
more related to the channel or medium, they appear to be more
organizational and external to the sender and receiver.
A comparison of the composition of barrier dimensions in
each of the relational settings revealed a number of
interesting differences. For example, prejudice or bias,
informal social groups and cliques, and status or position
were associated with attitude for communication with
superiors while they were considered primarily social or
perceptual barriers for the other settings. Fear of
information distortion was perceived as an attitudinal
barrier for communication with managers and subordinates
and as a technical barrier for communication with superiors. Use
of profanity and physical distance between sender and receiver
were strongly associated with social barriers for
communication with superiors and with physical barriers
for communication with other managers. Physical distance
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-46-
was also strongly associated with the physical dimension
for communication with subordinates, but use of profanity
had moderately high loadings on both the physical and
social dimensions in this relational setting.
Three contextual factors are proposed to explain the
differences in perception across the relational settings: (1)
locus of control, (2) direction of information flow, and (3)
number of participants. Examination of the effects of these
factors on barriers to communication and more generally
on effective communication in organizations should provide a
fruitful avenue for future research.
Locus of Control
Many of the communication barriers in this study describe
behaviors or behavioral responses (e.g., emotional reactions,
hostile attitude, prematurely jumping to conclusions). Other
barriers, such as "too many intermediate receivers" or
"information overload," describe conditions or outcomes. If
managers perceive control over communication as residing
primarily with the other party, barriers that would otherwise be
assigned an external attribution may be perceived as a
manifestation of strategic behavior. Relatively high loadings on
the attitudinal dimension in communication with superiors for
barriers that were primarily considered physical, social, and
perceptual barriers in other settings may have been due to
managers' perception that their superiors control communication
in this setting.
Direction of Information Flow
An individual's perception of barriers to communication
and their importance may depend upon whether they are
primarily senders or receivers of information in a particular
setting. Fear of distortion or omission of information, for
example, could represent concern that senders may engage
in strategic behavior, withholding or biasing information. It
could also represent concern that a receiver will misread or
distort the communication.
Number of Participants
Managers typically communicate directly with only one or
perhaps two superiors. They are likely, however, to
communicate directly with several subordinates and other
managers. Communication barriers may be more likely to
be attributed to individual factors than to group factors in
the superiors setting. Communication with subordinates,
on the other hand, may well occur in a group setting or it
may involve repeated one-on-one communications of a
similar nature. Managers may be more likely to attribute
barriers to group differences as a result. Communication
with other managers is likely to fall somewhere in between.
While a manager is likely to have contact with several
other managers, the communication is more likely to take
place on a one-on-one basis and is more likely to vary in
substance and form than is communication with subordinates.
In this study, attitudinal barriers (personality conflicts,
prematurely jumping to conclusions, defensiveness) had
secondary loadings on the social dimension for communication
with subordinates. Only personality conflicts had high loadings
in superiors or other managers settings. Thus the "cause" of
barriers seems to be attributed to the individual in
communication with superiors or other managers and to
broader social or class differences in communication with
subordinates. Two "attitudinal manifestation" barriers (in-
formation overload and too many intermediate receivers) had
moderate secondary loadings on the social factor for
communication with other managers, but not in either the
superiors or the subordinates setting.
Attitudinal barriers, generally attributable to overt individual
behavior, were considered the most serious barriers to
communication in all three relational settings. Under certain
circumstances, barriers that might otherwise be associated with
physical, social, or perceptual dimensions may be perceived as
manifestations of strategic behavior. Behavioral consequences
associated with these barriers may be more severe when barriers
are attributed to strategic behavior than when they are not. It
may be particularly important to develop system designs and
analytical aids that minimize these barriers when the chance is
high that they will be associated with the attitudinal dimension.
Further research examining the relationship of perceived barriers
to com- munication with perceived locus of control, direction of
information flow, and the number of participants should
improve our understanding of communication within organi-
zations. The research may also provide a means of directing
designers of information systems to the organizational settings
where reduction of barriers will have the greatest benefit.
References
Allen, T. J., & Gerstberger, P. D. (1973). A field experiment to improve
communications in a product engineering department: the non-territorial
office. Human Factors, 15, 487-498.
Argyris, C. (1966). Interpersonal barriers to decision making. Harvard
Business Review, 44 (2), 84-97.
Athanassiades, J. C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in
hierarchical organizations. Academy of Management, 16, 207-226.
Athanassiades, J. C. (1974). An investigation of some com-munication
patterns of female subordinates in hierarchical organizations.
Human Relations, 27, 195-209.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-47-
Aveleyra, E. (1980). Hurdling the barriers of effective communication.
The Internal Auditor, xx, 81-83.
Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1977) Communication in administrative
bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 365-377.
Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communication style and
managerial performance in complex organizations: a field study. The
Journal of Business Communication 19, 51-76.
Brown, D. S. (1976). Barriers to successful communication. The Accountant,
175, 101-102.
Clement, S. D. (1974). An analytical field study of selected message
and feedback variables in the officer hierarchy of the U.S. Army.
Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University (Dissertation Abstracts
International, 35, 609A, University Microfilms No. 74-15).
Dansereau, F., & Markham, S. E. (1987), Superior-subordinate com-
munication: multiple levels of analysis. in F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K.
Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational
Communication: an Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 343-388).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Dumaine, B. (1991) The bureaucracy busters, Fortune, 123(13) (Volume 123,
No. 13, June 17, 1991) 36-50.
Fisher, D., Communication in Organizations (New York: West Publishing Co.,
1981).
Gibb, J. R. Defensive Communication, The Journal of Communication
(vol. 11, September 1961) 141-148.
Giffin, K. The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a Theory of
Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process, Psychological
Bulletin (vol. 68, 1967) 104-120.
Glauser, M. J. Upward Communication Flow in Organizations: Review
and Conceptual Analysis, Human Relations (vol.37, 1984) 613-
643.
Golen, S. An Insight into Communication Barriers between Bank
Managers and Their Customers Journal of Education for
Business (April 1987) 293-296.
Golen, S. P., S. W. Looney, and R. A. White An Empirical Examination of
CPA Perceptions of Communication Barriers Between Auditor
and Client, Advances in Accounting (Volume 6, 1988) 233-249.
Golen, S. , J. Waltman, and S. White, An Analysis of Factors that
Contribute to Resisting Technological Change in the Office
Office Systems Research Journal (vol.4, 1985) 1-7.
Hunt, G. T. and L. P. Cusella, A Field Study of Listening Needs in
Organizations Communication Education (vol. 32, 1983) 393-
401.
Jablin, F. M. Superior-Subordinate Communication: The State of the
Art, Psychological Bulletin (Volume 86, No. 6, 1979) 1201-
1222.
Jaworski, B. J. and S. M. Young, "Dysfunctional Behavior and Management
Control: An Empirical Study of Marketing Managers,"
Accounting, Organizations and Society (1992) 17-35.
Klauss, R. and B. Bass, Interpersonal Communication in
Organizations (New York: Academic Press, 1982).
Lawler, E. E., L. W. Porter, and A. Tenenbaum Managers' Attitudes
Toward Interaction Episodes, Journal of Applied Psychology
(Volume 52, 1968) 432-439.
Level, D. A. and L. Johnson, Accuracy of Information Flows within the
superior/subordinate Relationship Journal of Business Communication
(vol. 15, 1978) 12-22.
Lewis, M. H. and N. L. Reinsch, Jr. Listening in Organizational
Environments The Journal of Business Communication (vol.25,
1988) 49-67.
O'Reilly, C. A. The Intentional Distortion of Information in
Organizational communication: a Laboratory and field approach
Human Relations (vol.31, 1978) 173-193.
O’'Reilly, C. A. and K. H. Roberts, Information filtration in
organizations: three experiments Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance (vol.11, 1974) 253-265.
Pearce, C. G., R. Figgins, and S. P. Golen Business Communication:
Principles and Applications (2nd ed.) (New York: John Wiley,
1988).
Pinder, C. C., and P. R. Pinto Demographic Correlates of Managerial Style,
Personnel Psychology (Volume 27, 1974) 257-270.
Rice, J. A., and J. B. Colby Communication Barriers: Individual Quirks
and Corporate Personalities, Supervisory Management (April,
1976) 2-10.
Roberts, K. H., C. A. O'Reilly, G.E. Bretton, and L. W. Porter Organizational
Theory and Organizational Communication: A communication failure
Human Relations (vol.27 1974) 501-524.
Rogers, C. R., and F. J. Roethlisberger Barriers and Gateways to
Communication, Harvard Business Review (July/August, 1952) 46-52.
Sigband, N. B. Communication for Results, Governmental Finance
(February, 1977) 10-14.
Stewart, T. A. GE Keeps Those Ideas Coming, Fortune (Volume 124,
No. 4, August 12, 1991) 40-49.
Tafoya, D. W. Barriers to Interpersonal Communication: A Theory and
Typology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, (The University of
Michigan, 1976).
Watson, K. W. and L. R. Smeltzer, Barriers to Listening: Comparison
between students and practitioners Communication Research
Reports (vol. 1, 1984) 82-87.
Whitley, W. Managerial Work Behavior: an Integration of Results from
Two Major Approaches, Academy of Management Journal
(Volume 28, No. 2, 1985) 344-362.
Zand, D. Trust and Managerial problem solving Administrative Science
Quarterly (vol. 17, June 1972) 229-240.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-48-
Notes 1. A thirty-third line was included on the questionnaire to give
respondents the opportunity to add a barrier to communication not
included among the 32. Only a few respondents availed themselves
of this opportunity, so analysis was restricted to the 32 barriers.
2. "Speaking too loudly" and "Inability to understand non-
verbal communication" for communication with superiors,
"Speaking too loudly" for communication with subordinates,
and "Poor spatial arrangements" for communication with
other managers were the four barriers that had no responses
with a rank higher than 4.
3. Despite the use of T-tests, the classification criteria are
subjective and are primarily intended to provide a basis for
discussion rather than to clearly differentiate between barriers
closely ranked in relative seriousness. Significance tests of
differences between means within each relational setting are
suspect because the respondents were not asked to calibrate
their rankings of perceived seriousness. However, the order
in which the barriers appeared on the questionnaire was
identical for the three settings. After completing the assessment of
barriers in the first setting, the respondents knew that they
would be evaluating the importance of the same barriers in
the latter two settings. Thus, the consistency of the seriousness
ratings across settings for some barriers provides some
indication that lack of calibration may not have been a
serious problem.
4. Communication with Superiors vs. Communication with
Subordinates, r = .91; Communication with Superiors vs.
Communication with Other Managers, r = .93; Communication
with Subordinates vs. Communication with Other Managers,
r = .92. All three correlations significant at p < .001.
5. The percentage of variance in the barriers explained by the
retained factors was 69.14% for communication with superiors,
66.54% for communication with subordinates, and 65.68%
for communication with other managers. The percentage of
variance explained by each individual factor after the
orthogonal rotation is provided in Tables 3 through 5.
6. A barrier's association with a factor was considered strong if
the following three conditions were satisfied: (1) the factor
loading was .50 or greater, (2) the loading was at least .20
higher than the barrier's loading on any other factor, (3) the
barrier had no other factor loading greater than or equal to .40.
7. Group differences for "Gender" and "Number of Superiors"
were not examined due to the lack of variability in the
responses on these dimensions.
8. Multivariate MANOVAs could have been run instead of
using multiple tests to reduce the experiment-wise probability
of type 1 error. However, the examination of group differences (or
lack thereof) was not conducted to test a theoretical
proposition. The tests were conducted to uncover empirical
evidence that might suggest avenues for future research. In
the absence of any theory to predict significant interactions
between the independent variables, simple univariate tests
(evaluated with an allowance for the increased risk of type 1
errors) reduced the loss of data due to missing observations
and provided results that were easy to interpret.
9. Tukey T-tests were used to determine the significance of
differences between group means. The tests were conducted
using both 5 percent and 10 percent significance thresholds.
10. Data were insufficient to run fully crossed ANOVAs or
MANOVAs in model with all six demographic variables
included as independent variables.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-49-
Appendix A
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-50-
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Age
21-30
31-40
41-50
Over 50
Not Responding
Number
11
42
43
15
1
Percent
9.9
37.8
38.7
13.5
Functional Area
General Managers
Accounting
Production
Marketing
Data Processing
Finance
Personnel
Not Responding
Number
47
35
8
7
4
4
3
4
Percent
43.5
32.4
7.4
6.5
3.7
3.7
2.8
Total Responding
111
100.0
Total Responding
108
100.0
Gender
Male
Female
Not Responding
Number
99
6
7
Percent
94.3
5.7
Hierarchical Level
Upper Management
Middle Management
Lower Management
Not Responding
Number
24
76
10
2
Percent
21.8
69.1
9.1
Total Responding
105
100.0
Total Responding
110
100.0
Educational Level
Doctorate or JD
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Associate's Degree
High School Diploma
Not Responding
Number
6
10
64
10
17
5
Percent
5.7
9.3
59.8
9.3
15.9
Number of
Subordinates
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
Over 50
Not Responding
Number
72
14
7
3
3
11
2
Percent
65.5
12.7
6.4
2.7
2.7
10.0
Total Responding
107
100.0
Total Responding
110
100.0
Experience (years in
area, or at current
position or employer)
Less than 1
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
Not Responding
Number
7
50
25
14
9
2
1
2
2
Percent
6.4
45.5
22.7
12.7
8.2
1.8
.9
1.8
Number of Superiors
Respondent Reports to
Directly
None
1 or 2
3 or 4
5 or more
Not Responding
Number
2
101
7
1
1
Percent
1.8
91.0
6.3
.9
Total Responding
110
100.0
Total Responding
111
100.0
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-51-
TABLE 2
PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION1
with
Superiors
with
Subordinates
with
Other Managers
Barrier to Communication
Rank,
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Rank,
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Rank,
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Lack of credibility
Lack of trust
Tendency not to listen
Hostile attitude
Know-it-all attitude
Resistance to change
Too many intermediate receivers
Lack of feedback
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
Differences in perception
Either-or thinking
Lack of interest in the subject matter
Emotional reactions
Personality conflicts
Defensiveness
Fear of distortion or omission of
information
Poor organization of ideas
Prejudice or bias
Poor timing of the message
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Informal social groups or cliques
Information overload
Overly competitive attitude
Physical noise and distractions
Use of profanity
Lack of understanding of technical
language
Inability to understand non-verbal
communication
Physical distance between sender
and receiver
Status or position
Inappropriate physical appearance
Poor spatial arrangements
Speaking too loudly
1, 3.61
2, 3.61
3, 3.50
4, 3.49
5, 3.47
6, 3.38
7, 3.35
8, 3.25
9, 3.23
10, 3.22
11, 3.15
12, 3.14
13, 3.09
14, 3.05
15, 3.04
16, 2.96
17, 2.96
18, 2.87
19, 2.68
20, 2.65
21, 2.61
22, 2.61
23, 2.52
24, 2.47
25, 2.34
26, 2.33
27, 2.26
28, 2.25
29, 2.23
30, 1.96
31, 1.95
32, 1.92
1.48
1.51
1.37
1.43
1.38
1.30
1.27
1.19
1.17
1.22
1.08
1.33
1.28
1.22
1.19
1.14
1.21
0.99
1.05
1.19
1.04
1.01
1.11
1.12
1.22
1.01
0.90
1.07
1.00
1.04
0.90
0.91
2, 3.56
3, 3.54
4, 3.46
5, 3.41
7, 3.34
1, 3.57
17, 2.97
6, 3.35
14, 3.05
18, 2.95
9, 3.17
8, 3.25
12, 3.10
15, 3.02
13, 3.08
11, 3.12
16, 2.99
19, 2.93
22, 2.50
10, 3.13
24, 2.42
21, 2.62
29, 2.26
23, 2.46
26, 2.33
20, 2.86
25, 2.35
27, 2.29
28, 2.29
31, 2.12
30, 2.13
32, 2.10
1.40
1.59
1.33
1.48
1.38
1.17
1.32
1.18
1.07
1.03
1.11
1.39
1.21
1.18
1.12
1.16
1.07
1.18
1.03
1.22
1.11
1.08
1.00
1.12
1.25
1.12
1.04
1.07
1.00
1.09
1.02
0.97
1, 3.71
2, 3.66
4, 3.49
6, 3.42
3, 3.62
5, 3.46
16, 3.05
13, 3.19
15, 3.10
11, 3.21
12, 3.20
8, 3.23
10, 3.22
9, 3.22
7, 3.39
14, 3.12
18, 2.97
17, 3.01
22, 2.66
19, 2.88
25, 2.60
23, 2.66
20, 2.84
28, 2.42
26, 2.52
21, 2.72
27, 2.46
29, 2.32
24, 2.60
32, 2.12
31, 2.12
30, 2.17
1.34
1.34
1.20
1.29
1.28
1.11
1.22
1.04
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.26
1.23
1.18
1.02
1.10
0.99
0.91
0.99
1.17
1.08
1.00
1.11
1.08
1.26
0.98
1.03
1.03
0.98
1.07
0.93
0.99
Overall
2.85
1.28
2.87
1.26
2.95
1.20
1 Bold listings indicate mean values significantly higher (lower) than every barrier mean below (above)
the overall mean within each relational setting based on Tukey T-tests (p < .05).
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-52-
TABLE 3
FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH SUPERIORS
(Barriers are listed with the factor for which they had the highest loading)
Factor Name (percentage of overall
variance explained)
Factor Loadings
Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V VI
2
4
3
1
7
5
11
9
12
13
15
8
6
22
24
10
21
14
29
I Attitudinal (28.82%)
Lack of trust
Hostile attitude
Tendency not to listen
Lack of credibility
Too many intermediate receivers
Know-it-all attitude
Either-or thinking
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
Lack of interest in the subject matter
Emotional reactions
Defensiveness
Lack of feedback
Resistance to change
Information overload
Physical noise and distractions
Prejudice or bias
Informal social groups or cliques
Personality conflicts
Status or position
.849
.812
.788
.762
.701
.697
.690
.685
.675
.662
.661
.658
.628
.586
.538
.518
.492
.456
.408
.228
.178
.169
.353
.247
.224
.113
.162
.306
.278
.123
-.049
.341
.045
.030
.272
-.011
.154
-.187
.099
.118
.275
.009
.187
.225
.260
.162
.133
.003
.251
.434
.312
.268
.101
.343
.254
.370
.078
.215
.266
.186
.276
.104
.184
.068
.092
.284
.229
.152
.129
.009
.301
.537
.475
.191
.216
.265
.157
.204
.141
.112
.291
.092
.179
.126
.095
.159
.181
.217
.174
.273
.164
.098
.446
.347
.364
.041
.082
-.093
-.103
.139
.176
.174
.312
.152
.328
.358
-.125
.068
.168
.095
-.078
.075
.066
.260
26
20
16
II Technical (8.98%)
Lack of understanding of tech. language
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Fear of dist. or omission of information
.206
.233
.394
.851
.709
.653
.116
.097
.262
.035
.103
.135
.129
.194
.043
.085
.072
.001
18
19
27
III Perceptual (8.82%)
Differences in perception
Poor timing of message
Inability to understand non-verbal comm.
.156
.326
.397
.195
.124
.164
.814
.719
.542
.009
.326
.173
.004
.140
.287
.136
.101
.081
32
31
17
IV Physical (8.70%)
Speaking too loudly
Poor spatial arrangements
Poor organization of ideas
.199
.241
.513
.236
-.103
.326
.055
.213
.157
.664
.642
.579
-.045
.434
.097
.463
.108
-.055
25
28
30
V Social (8.52%)
Use of profanity
Physical dist. betw. sender and receiver
Inappropriate physical appearance
.218
.138
.205
.139
.261
.218
-.028
.147
.300
.018
.091
.437
.798
.676
.538
.015
.247
-.015
23
VI Competitive (5.30%)
Overly competitive attitude
.177
.062
.148
.107
.191
.867
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-53-
TABLE 4
FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH SUBORDINATES
(Barriers are listed with the factor for which they had the highest loading)
Factor Name
(percentage of overall variance explained)
Factor Loadings
Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V
3
5
8
4
2
15
12
17
7
13
6
9
1
11
14
I Attitudinal (25.85%)
Lack of trust
Hostile attitude
Lack of interest in the subject matter
Tendency not to listen
Lack of credibility
Personality conflicts
Emotional reactions
Too many intermediate receivers
Know-it-all attitude
Defensiveness
Lack of feedback
Either-or thinking
Resistance to change
Fear of distortion or omission of information
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
.814
.802
.790
.789
.704
.698
.674
.669
.630
.609
.601
.579
.572
.566
.497
.238
.129
.287
.203
.188
.232
.153
.238
.249
-.026
.365
.236
.185
.129
.206
.031
.053
.229
.209
.263
.159
.139
.167
.323
.211
.261
.406
.558
.350
.336
.108
.306
.079
.070
.055
.301
.336
.274
.220
.459
.091
.172
.189
.144
.466
.304
.250
.232
.156
.342
.040
.125
.175
.257
.097
.120
-.128
-.071
.416
.142
31
23
30
27
32
21
25
II Physical (12.78%)
Poor spatial arrangements
Physical noise and distractions
Inappropriate physical appearance
Physical distance between sender and receiver
Speaking too loudly
Information overload
Inability to understand non-verbal communicat'n
.033
.340
.242
.311
.178
.441
.425
.826
.662
.639
.602
.588
.466
.450
.172
.246
.183
-.072
.221
.218
.207
.107
.152
.255
.248
.296
.168
.150
.032
.247
.089
-.045
.410
.356
.293
18
19
16
22
III Perceptual (10.91%)
Prejudice or bias
Differences in perception
Poor organization of ideas
Poor timing of message
.034
.384
.340
.313
.062
.154
.151
.454
.792
.652
.620
.605
.172
.277
.120
.100
.186
.137
.205
.103
29
24
28
26
IV Social (9.06%)
Overly competitive attitude
Informal social groups or cliques
Status or position
Use of profanity
.220
.172
.272
.234
.358
.208
.287
.424
.118
.289
.314
-.045
.693
.688
.549
.466
.066
.091
.082
.315
20
10
V Technical (7.94%)
Lack of understanding of technical language
Lack of knowledge of work operations
.195
.440
.137
.128
.168
.150
.171
.013
.820
.698
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-54-
TABLE 5
FACTOR LOADINGS: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER MANAGERS
(Barriers are listed with the factor for which they had the highest loading)
Factor Name
(percentage of overall variance explained)
Factor Loadings
Rank Barriers to Communication I II III IV V
1
2
4
14
3
8
6
5
15
12
13
10
16
18
23
I Attitudinal (28.15%)
Lack of Credibility
Lack of Trust
Tendency Not to Listen
Fear of distortion or omission of information
Know-it-all Attitude
Lack of interest in the subject matter
Hostile Attitude
Resistance to change
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
Either-or thinking
Lack of feedback
Emotional reactions
Too many intermediate receivers
Poor organization of ideas
Information overload
.869
.865
.823
.754
.746
.739
.727
.667
.626
.620
.614
.613
.613
.532
.441
.214
.160
.187
.145
.220
.229
.333
.136
.332
.302
.284
.305
.272
.446
.387
.090
-.022
.184
.314
.156
.246
.104
.208
.168
.226
.264
.166
.105
.408
-.080
.151
.164
.176
.022
.115
.223
.270
.261
.179
.222
.205
.236
.410
-.013
.402
.058
.059
.016
.150
.265
.029
.165
.208
.281
.118
-.042
.239
-.023
.168
.083
31
32
30
28
29
26
22
27
II Physical (16.14%)
Poor spatial arrangements
Inappropriate physical appearance
Speaking too loudly
Physical noise and distractions
Physical distance between sender and receiver
Use of profanity
Poor timing of message
Inability to understand non-verbal communicat'n
.133
.163
.256
.351
.196
.153
.411
.386
.805
.747
.732
.667
.655
.593
.560
.511
.040
.423
.159
-.083
-.063
.320
.294
.287
.182
.056
.064
.301
.207
.146
.204
.070
.081
-.017
.231
.034
.058
.106
.082
.160
17
21
19
11
III Perceptual (8.28%)
Differences in perception
Lack of understanding of technical language
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Prejudice or bias
.083
.479
.454
.318
.031
.200
.338
.213
.685
.627
.497
.493
.331
-.005
.145
.411
.269
.048
.034
.056
25
24
9
IV Social (7.75%)
Informal social groups or cliques
Status or position
Personality conflicts
.282
.178
.456
.158
.259
.326
.259
.123
.122
.688
.622
.503
.032
.151
.186
20
7
V Competitive (5.36%)
Overly competitive attitude
Defensiveness
.145
.550
.254
.067
.087
.254
.146
.106
.858
.610
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-55-
TABLE 6 (Part 1)
FACTOR LOADINGS1: A COMPARISON ACROSS HIERARCHICAL SETTINGS
(Factor loadings below .30 are omitted, strong associations2 are in bold)
Factor Name Superiors Subordinates Managers
Barriers to Communication Rank Load Rank Load Rank Load
Attitudinal
Lack of trust
Tendency not to listen
Hostile attitude
Lack of credibility
Lack of interest in the subject matter
Know-it-all attitude
Too many intermediate receivers
Emotional reactions
Either-or thinking
Resistance to change
Lack of feedback
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
Defensiveness
Fear of distortion or omission of information
Personality conflicts
Information overload
Poor organization of ideas
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Inability to understand non-verbal commun.
Physical noise and distractions
Prejudice or bias
Informal social groups or cliques
Status or position
Lack of understanding of technical language
Poor message timing
2
3
4
1
12
5
7
13
11
6
8
9
15
16
14
22
17
20
27
24
18
21
29
26
19
.849
.788
.812
.762
.675
.697
.701
.662
.690
.628
.658
.685
.661
s .394
.456
.586
s .513
s .397
.538
.518
.492
.408
t .326
3
4
5
2
8
7
17
12
9
1
6
14
13
11
15
21
16
10
25
23
18
24
28
20
22
.814
.789
.802
.704
.790
.630
.669
.674
.579
.572
.601
.497
.609
.566
.698
s .441
s .340
s .440
s .425
s .340
t .313
2
4
6
1
8
3
16
10
12
5
13
15
7
14
9
23
18
19
27
28
11
25
24
21
22
.865
.823
.727
.869
.739
.746
.613
.613
.620
.667
.614
.626
s .550
.754
s .456
.441
.532
s .454
s .386
s .351
t .318
s .479
s .411
Technical
Lack of understanding of technical language
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Fear of distortion or omission of information
Speaking too loudly
26
20
16
32
.851
.709
.653
20
10
11
32
.820
.698
s .416
s .410
Competitive
Overly competitive attitude
Defensiveness
Speaking too loudly
23
15
32
.867
s .358
s .463
20
7
30
.858
.610
1 "s" Designates the barrier's second highest factor loading for this type of communication.
"t" Designates the barrier's third highest factor loading for this type of communication.
Unless otherwise indicated, the factor loading is the barrier's highest (primary) loading. 2 Strong associations (1) are .50 or higher, (2) exceed the next highest factor loading for the barrier
by .20, and (3) are for a barrier that does not have a loading .40 or higher on another factor.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-56-
TABLE 6 (Part 2)
FACTOR LOADINGS1 A COMPARISON ACROSS HIERARCHICAL SETTINGS
(Factor loadings below .30 are omitted, strong associations2 are in bold)
Factor Name Superiors Subordinates Managers
Barriers to Communication Rank Load Rank Load Rank Load
Social
Informal social groups or cliques
Use of profanity
Status or position
Overly competitive attitude
Physical distance between sender & receiver
Inappropriate appearance
Personality conflicts
Prematurely jumping to conclusions
Defensiveness
Poor spatial arrangements
Too many intermediate receivers
Information overload
21
25
29
23
28
30
14
9
15
31
7
22
s .446
.798
s .364
.676
.538
t .347
s .434
24
26
28
29
27
31
15
14
13
30
17
21
.688
.466
.549
.693
s .301
s .466
s .459
25
26
24
20
29
32
9
15
7
31
16
23
.688
.622
.503
s .410
s .402
Physical
Poor spatial arrangements
Speaking too loudly
Physical noise and distractions
Inappropriate physical appearance
Physical distance between sender & receiver
Inability to understand non-verbal commun.
Poor organization of ideas
Use of profanity
Poor timing of message
Information overload
Prejudice or bias
31
32
24
30
28
27
17
25
19
22
18
.642
.664
s .537
s .437
.579
s .326
s .301
s .475
30
32
23
31
27
25
16
26
22
21
18
.826
.588
.662
.639
.602
.450
s .424
s .454
.466
31
30
28
32
29
27
18
26
22
23
11
.805
.732
.667
.747
.655
.511
s .446
.593
.560
t .387
Perceptual
Differences in perception
Poor timing of message
Prejudice or bias
Poor organization of ideas
Inability to understand non-verbal commun.
Lack of understanding of technical language
Lack of knowledge of work operations
Resistance to change
Lack of feedback
Inappropriate physical appearance
Either-or thinking
10
19
18
17
27
26
20
6
8
30
11
.814
.719
t .343
.542
t .312
s .434
t .300
19
22
18
15
25
20
10
1
6
30
9
.652
.605
.792
.620
s .558
s .406
17
22
11
18
27
21
19
5
13
32
12
.685
.493
t .408
.627
.497
s .423
1 "s" Designates the barrier's second highest factor loading for this type of communication.
"t" Designates the barrier's third highest factor loading for this type of communication.
Unless otherwise indicated, the factor loading is the barrier's highest (primary) loading. 2 Strong associations (1) are .50 or higher, (2) exceed the next highest factor loading for the barrier
by .20, and (3) are for a barrier that does not have a loading .40 or higher on another factor.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-57-
TABLE 7
SUMMARY: UNIVARIATE ANOVAs1
COMMUNICATION WITH SUBORDINATES
Factor (Dependent Variable)
Source
SS
df
F
Prob.
ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS
AGE
error
8.66
93.37
3
100
3.09
.0305
SOCIAL BARRIERS
HIERARCHICAL
LEVEL
error
11.37
90.62
2
100
6.28
.0027
COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER MANAGERS
Factor (Dependent Variable)
Source
SS
df
F
Prob.
ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS
AGE
error
9.17
92.55
3
99
3.27
.0244
EDUCATIONAL
LEVEL
error
7.22
92.93
3
95
2.46
.0673
COMPETITIVE BARRIERS
AGE
error
14.65
87.47
3
99
5.53
.0015
PHYSICAL BARRIERS
HIERARCHICAL
LEVEL
error
6.27
96.54
2
99
3.21
.0445
1 Forty-eight univariate ANOVAs were run, three on each of the sixteen barrier dimensions. Results
of ANOVAs where the F test did not achieve a test-wise level of significance of at least p < .10 are
not reported.
ABEA Journal; Volume 24, Fall 2005
-58-
TABLE 8
MEAN FACTOR SCORES BY GROUP1
Communication Setting >
Barrier to Communication Factor >
Other Managers
Subordinates
ATTITUDINA
L
ATTITUDIN
AL
COMPETITIV
E
AGE
21-30
31-40
41-50
Over 50
A A .725
AB B -.119
AB AB .115
B B -.451
A A -.705
B B .299
AB B .133
A A -.631
A .766
B -.212
AB .075
AB -.112
Communication Setting >
Barrier to Communication Factor >
Other Managers
Subordinates
SOCIAL
PHYSICAL
HIERARCHICAL LEVEL
Upper Management
Middle Management
Lower Management
A .474
B -.137
AB -.030
A .584
B -.196
AB .385
Communication Setting >
Barrier to Communication Factor >
Other Managers
PHYSICAL
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Graduate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Associate's Degree
High School Diploma
A -.270
A .126
A .357
A -.512
1 Group means with the same letter are not significantly different from one another based on Tukey
tests at a p<.10 (p<.05) confidence level.