the ica communication audit and perceived communication effectiveness changes in 16 audited...

THE ICA COMMUNICATION AUDIT AND PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS CHANGES IN 16 AUDITED

ORGANIZATIONS

KEITH BROOKS JAMES CALLICOAT Ohio State University Central Michigan University

GAIL SIEGERDT Ohio State University

This study brings to light evidence on the benefits of a methodology for evaluation of organizational communication processes and outcomes-the ICA Communication Au- dit. The audit procedure was developed and tested by ICA (International Communica- tion Association) Division IV, between 197 1- 1974. Sixteen field tests of the audit have been conducted from 1974-1977. This study undertook an “after” survey of the 16 audited organizations to determine the degree to which the audit was perceived to improve organizational communication effectiveness as well as overall organizational effectiveness. The findings confirmed the ICA Communication Audit as a valid diagnostic methodology and organization development intervention technique which improved both communication awareness and processes in a majority of audited organizations.

The importance of communication t o organizations was astutely argued almost four decades ago by Barnard (1938) who stated that “in an exhaustive theory of organization, communication would oc- cupy a central place, because the structure, exten- siveness, and scope of the organization are almost entirely determined by communication tech- niques .” Since Barnard, organizational theorists have argued that an organization exists only when humans use communication to establish relations between people who are assigned (or assume) roles and to divide efforts and resources to achieve objectives (Goldhaber, Wiio, Dennis, & Richetto, 1978). Behavioral decision theorists (Simon, 1945; March & Simon, 1958; Cyert & March, 1963) build on this

view with the contention that communication is critical because people use information to make choices about a range of alternatives. The information they receive and send is a function of their role and relationship in the organization.

More recently, the importance of communication has been supported from a social systems perspective (Katz & Kahn, 1966). An organization receives its physical and energic inputs, accomplishes its work goals, and interfaces with the environment all through communicative acts. Communication sali- ence is argued, therefore, on the grounds that it is the process which connects the system parts to each other and the system to its environment (Goldhaber, 1976).

Keith Brooks (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1955) is professor The foregoing theories Of Organizational com- of organizational communication, Department of Comrnunica- munication strongly support an argument for both tion, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. James the value of communication Callicoar (M.B.A.. Ohio State University, 1969) is assistant professor of business administration, Department of Manage- area Of separate and in Organiza- ment, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859. tions. Unfortunately, the field of organizational Gail Siegerdr (M.A., University of Illinois, 1973) is a doctoral communication has supplied little insight as to candidate in the Department of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. This study accepted for where this begin* According to publication June 7, 1978. Guetzkow (1965), it is still unclear as to whether

its treatment as

Brooks, Callicoat, and Siegerdt 131

“communication in organizations is an area of study rich in contingent, interactive effects,” or if “it (is) merely a clarifying perspective which would make the pieces fall more simply into the whole.”

Thus, although it is generally agreed that communication is an important process in organizations, the degree of importance is still unclear. An- swers are needed concerning the impact of communication on the organization or the relationship between communication and organizational effectiveness criteria such as performance, productivity, profit, and satisfaction. In other words, systemic description and measurement of the organizational outcomes of communication and the nature and direction of its impact are questions communication researchers have still to answer.

COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS

One prominent view of organizational communication, to paraphrase Roberts and O’Reilly (1974), is that if communication is bad, an organization is likely to have its problems, and if it is good then an organization’s overall effectiveness will also be good. This theory, derived from Likert (1961, 1967), presents communication as an “intervening variable” affected by such “causal” variables as leadership behavior, organizational climate and structure, and affecting such ‘‘end result” variables as job satisfaction, productivity and profits (Gold- haber, 1976).

Evidence to support Likert’s theory has been provided by Likert himself (1961, 1967), Mann, Indik, and Vroom (1963), Marrow, Bowers, and Seashore (1967), Bowers and Mann (1969), and Seashore and Bowers (1970). In one study, Likert and Bow- ers (1969) reported correlations between a communication index and four monthly performance in- dexes to be - .57, - .58, - .67, and - .68. Hain and Widgery (1973) found that a communication index correlated with job satisfaction (.68) and supervisory leadership (- .76). Likert (1973) reported correlations from .55 to .83 between communication variables and organization performance measures. Dennis, Richetto, and Weimann (1974) found a significant relationship between perceived organization effectiveness and both communication

satisfaction (S9) and communication climate (.61). Finally, Hain and Tubb (1974) reported significant Spearman-Rank difference correlations between a communication index and absenteeism (.60), grievances (1.00), and efficiency (.60).

Likert’s theory, however, has been contradicted in part in a number of major studies (Miles, 1966; Farris, 1968; Smith, 1969; Morse, 1970; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1970; and Cummins, 1970). In research of direct importance to the relation between communication and organizational performance, Burhans (1972) found that communication satisfaction was insignificantly correlated with self-reports of productivity (- .08 and - .03). Jain (1972) found no relationship between employee knowledge of compensation policies and supervisory performance scores; Goodnight et al. (1974) found that communication satisfaction did not correlate with productivity (- .02); and Hazen and Balthrop (1975) reported insignificant correlations from .02 to .17 between communication satisfaction and productivity. Additionally, Dennis (1975) not only discovered nonsignificant correlations between communication climate and job satisfaction (. 14), managerial ratings (. 1 l ) , and absenteeism (. lo), but also provided evidence relating communication more closely to organizational climate (a causal variable) than to peer leadership and group process (intervening variables). Dennis, further, criticized the Likert model by showing that Likert himself appears to confuse communication’s role by first labeling it “intervening” and then listing “communication flow” as one of the six factors contribut- ing to organizational climate which is a causal variable. Moreover, Likert suggests that only causal variables can be controlled or changed by the organization, and yet communication is typically one of the least threatening variables for organizational change or intervention purposes (Richetto, 1975).

Hain (1 972) suggests that equivocation in the communication effectiveness research is due in part to methodological or organizational differences. Goldhaber, Porter, and Yates (1977) feel that a significant amount of the discrepancy can be ex- plained by the lack of standardization of concepts and measures of organizational communication variables. Regardless of the origin, the fact that the

132 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I Vol. 5, No. 2, WINTER 1979

evidence of the association between communication and organizational effectiveness is weighty on both sides leads to the conclusion stated by Goldhaber (1976), “as of today, we just don’t know whether communication effectiveness has a positive or nega- tive effect (if any) on organizational performance and effectiveness.”

THE ICA COMMUNICATION AUDIT

One of the recurrent research caveats which in- troduces inconsistencies, contradictions, and re- duces generalizability or organizational communication studies is the lack of standardized concepts and scales in the field. Between 1971 and 1974, under the auspices of the ICA, Division I V (Organi- zational Communication Division), over 100 researchers from six countries collaborated to develop and validate a standardized organizational communication technique for evaluating communication systems in operating organizations. The product of this project has become known as the ICA Commu- nication Audit. Administered by a team of profes- sionally qualified and ICA-trained auditors, the ICA Communication Audit “takes a picture” of internal communication processes in an organization at a given point in time. The picture is focused on eight key communication variables: (1) amount of information needed; ( 2 ) actions taken on information received; (3) timeliness, accuracy, and useful- ness of information; (4) sources of information; (5) channels for sending and receiving information; (6) quality of communication relationships; (7) formal and informal communication networks; and (8) outcomes of communication, including organizational effectiveness and individual satisfaction (Gol- dhaber & Krivonos, 1977).

The audit employs five separate but related data- gathering tools which provide a sound basis for internally validating data as well as helping to insure breadth of information. The instruments are: questionnaire survey (reliability ranges from .73 to .92; Goldhaber & Krivonos, 1977); interviews; network analysis; critical incident analysis; and communication diary. Both the instruments and the application are standardized (through the use of professional auditors) and, therefore, can be expected to provide

more comparability of data both within and across organizations for communication researchers.

The objectives of the audit are pragmatic as well as research-oriented. After an audit is conducted, information and recommendations, which should help an organization to improve both its communication and overall effectiveness, are submitted to the organization for its consideration and adoption. Logically, then, a feasible test of the relationship between communication effectiveness and overall organizational performance and effectiveness could be demonstrated through an analysis of the perceived changes in effectiveness (both communication and overall) of organizations which have been audited. This study was designed to measure these effectiveness objectives of the ICA Communication Audit.

THE STUDY

The primary objectives of the study were to (1) determine the relationship between communication variables and organizational effectiveness; ( 2 ) determine the pragmatic impact of the ICA Communi- cation Audit on communication and other organizational variables; and (3) ascertain the value of the audit as a research methodology for organizational communication.

METHODOLOGY

The study surveyed 16 organizations which had completed ICA audits. Thirteen responses were included in the sample. One organization did not respond and the audits of the two remaining organizations were too recent for change evaluation. Four organization types were represented among the 13 respondents: health care organizations (3), educa- tional organizations (4), private enterprise (3), and governmental organizations (3).

A survey questionnaire instrument was used to elicit responses from audited organizations on the following questions:

1. Has the audit led to changes in the organizational

2 . Has communication effectiveness been im- communication system?

proved?

Brooks. CaUicoat, and Siegerdt 133

TABLE 1 Organizational/Communication Changes

Resulting from ICA Communication Audits

N- of A- Altered Organizations

Create: -specific beliaviors ( 6 ) 7 -events, practices or

-enployee s k i l l s (3 ) ac t iv i t i e s ( 6 )

Change: -specific behaviors 10 -events, practices o r

-employee s k i l l s ( 2 ) a c t iv i t i e s (9 )

Eliminate or Discontinue: - s p c i f i c behaviors ( 6 ) 5

-events, p a c t i c e s or

-er;,lovee s k i l l s (0) ac t iv i t i e s ( 5 )

3.

4.

5 .

What communication variables have been most affected? Least affected? What organizational effectiveness criteria show the greatest improvement? Least improvement? Was the audit perceived to be beneficial?

FINDINGS

On the question of changes in organizational communication systems resulting from the audit, organizations were asked to indicate the extent to which recommendations of the audit were adopted within their organizations. The responses werenone - 3; some - 5 ; most - 5 ; all - 0. Ten of the firms indicated that specific recommendations of the audit conducted within their organizations had been adopted.

In an attempt to further describe the nature and impact of audit changes, firms were asked to indicate the organizational actions (create, change, eliminate, or discontinue) they had instituted and alterations (specific behaviors; events, practices, or activities; employee skills) in organizational processes and behaviors which resulted from adoption of these actions. The responses to this question are tabulated in Table 1.

The above data indicate that most organizations tended to adopt changes or create new communication practices and processes as a result of the audit. Further, an analysis of responses revealed that a

majority of audited organizations instituted mean- ingful changes in their organizational systems. Examples provided of alterations adopted were grouped into nonexclusive areas of structural, communication methods, and training changes. Structural changes included new, revised, or eliminated divisions, work units, job specifications, pol- icy manuals, standard operating procedures, com- mittees, committee memberships, and “open door” policies. Changes in communication methods involved added, revised, or eliminated schedules and formats of existing communication facilities, feedback spans, periodic and incident reports, newsletter, balletin boards, internal office memos, group planning sessions, top management visits, meetings and presentations with employees, and employee recognition ceremonies and ban- quets. Training changes added or revised existing training programs to include workshops on communication practices and processes, orientation training, reorientation training, skill interviews, and skill training.

The second and third concerns of the study at- tempted to determine the impact of the audit on communication effectiveness variables. Table 2 which follows reveals that most organizations felt the audit actions resulted in “some” or “significant” improvement of all variables with the excep- tion of communication overload (which was only identified as a problem or “need” in several of the responding organizations during their audits).

Communication sources and channels were variables which stood out as most improved by the audit. This may be attributable to the bureaucratic or highly structured nature of many of the organizations included in the study. In these organizations, changes which have impact on the formal organization network and flows are generally perceived to be more visible and measureable than other changes.

Communication impact was determined by audited firms on an “after” basis using largely perceptual and attitudinal measures (staff interviews, ques- tionnaires, conversations). Improvements reported included: reduced useless communication, incident reports, and complaints and grievances; new capac- ity to meet deadlines; new cooperative projects between departments; less reliance on “grapevine” as

134 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I Vol. 5, No. 2, WINTER 1979

TABLE 2 Communication Audit Impact

on Communication Effectiveness

C m i c a t i o n Irnpact

some s i g n i f i c a n t Total V a r i a b l e Worse None Improvement I m p r o v m t Respnding

Cbmunication munt: overload underload

C o m i c a t i o n Sources Comunication Channels C o m i c a t i o n Qual i ty

t imel iness , useful- ness, accuracy

C o m i i c a t i o n

C o m i c a t i o n Roles Relationships

- 6 - 2 1 - 1 -

- 2

1 2 1 -

primary communication channel; better employee understanding of mission and purpose; better relationships among staff; improved satisfaction and morale; and better overall communication awareness.

Another important finding of communication effectiveness impact was that four of the five organizations which indicated ‘‘significant improvements” had adopted “most” of the audit responses. This suggests that the audit has been beneficial both as a diagnostic and direct intervention technique for functioning organizations.

The fourth question of the study was to determine whether organizational effectiveness criteria had shown improvement as a result of the audit. Of the organizations responding to this question, six indicated that measures of effectiveness were based on perceptual estimates and four had used some objective measures (employee performance reports, monthly productivity results, number of errors). Table 3 indicates the responses to the organizational effectiveness criteria (Price, 1972).

The evidence revealed that few respondents could perceive specific organizational effectiveness benefits. However, three of the four organizations that had used objective measures to determine effectiveness change reported “some” or “significant” improvement on all items appropriate to their organizations.

Variables receiving the most favorable impact

- 3 9 5 3 10 4 4 9 4 4 9

6 2 10

5 2 10 7 2 10

responses were, not surprisingly, morale, complaints/grievances, and productivity. These items have traditionally been included in perceptu- ally based and objectively based measures of effectiveness. in organizations (Campbell, 1973). Fur- ther, as noted earlier in this paper, the positive relationship between communication effectiveness and these organizational effectiveness variables has long been a part of the organizational perceptual set.

Profit, net operating costs and sales, all “hard” variables of effectiveness (Katzell, 1957), were felt to be inappropriate or not applicable because the organizations audited were nonprofit or com- monweal, or had experienced little measureable impact which could be directly attributable to communication. Further, time was cited as a frequent factor which limited impact analysis. Of the 16 organizations which had completed audits, 10 had been completed within 1.25 years of the present survey. This concern tended to be borne out by the data, as five of the eight organizations reporting favorable impact on overall effectiveness variables had completed their audits at least a year or more preceding this survey.

To summarize the findings of the survey of audited organizations, the relationship between communication effectiveness and overall organizational effectiveness was not elucidated by the study.

However, clear support for the value of the audit as a pragmatic technique to enhance communication


TABLE 3 Communication Audit Impact

on Organizational Effectiveness

Effectiveness I w c t

Total Orqs Variables None Sow Significant Respmding

P r o f i t s > 5 Net *rating Costs 7 1 8 Sales 6 6 Praiuctivity (output) 5 3 2 10 M r k Errors 4 4 1 9 P e r f o m c e Rating 6 4 1 11 Wrale 4 5 I 11 Turnover 7 2 9 Absenteeism 7 2 9 Corrplaints/Grievanrs 4 4 2 10 Accidents 7 2 9

effectiveness of organizations was provided. Fur- ther, while organizations were equivocal about the impact of the audit on overall effectiveness measures, possibly due to the lack of any beforelafter audit designs, they were not in doubt about the perceived advantages of having experienced the audit. Ten organizations responding indicated the audit was beneficial, and 11 reported they would recommend continued use of the audit to evaluate and improve communication in organizations.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The major conclusions to be drawn from the study support the ICA Communication Audit as a demonstrated organizational intervention of value. Without reservation, the audit resulted in perceived favorable changes in communication effectiveness.

Three possible explanations can be offered for these findings. The first argues for the direct value of the audit as a diagnostic technique. In this explanation, the “needs-analysis’’ focus of the audit helped create a greater awareness of communication problems, processes, and behaviors within organizations. Through this understanding, organizational members could more readily perceive the impact of communication changes on effectiveness.

A second explanation for the reported effectiveness changes could be associated with the “participation effect” which results from the audit procedure. The procedure attempts to maximize the in- volvement of organizational personnel in both the diagnostic and implementation stages of an audit.

This, presumably, leads to both heightened awareness and personal commitment to the audit by members of the organization. This commitment, in turn, generally leads to increased acceptance and success of organizational interventions, according to participation theories (Likert, 1961, 1967; Argyris, 1970).

A third explanation for the perceived benefits reported in the study focuses on the degree of organizational support, both pre- and postaudit, for the need and adoption of the audit. The findings of the study revealed a clear association between adoption of audit recommendations and perceived effectiveness gains. Organizations which “felt” communication needs and expressed intention to use audit findings, reported the most benefits in terms of increased communication and organizational effectiveness. Contrarily, several of the organizations which did not record any, or indicated unfavorable, audit impact, stated adoptions had not been desired or accepted by key members or administrators, or they felt their organizations had no serious “communication needs” which would justify revisions of their existing communication behaviors. These findings, too, are hardly surprising as the influence of the “environmental state” on the success of training and other interventions has long been chronicled by organizational researchers and theorists (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Argyris, 1970).

While these explanations are not mutually exclu- sive, they present a strong argument supporting the view that the pragmatic objectives of the audit are being realized for a number of reasons. Perhaps, most importantly, as Sincoff and Goyer (1977) stated in a recent critique of the ICA audit, “the experience of the audit teams to date provides a sound beginning in offering any organization a systematic and reliable means to satisfy its organizational development needs in an area heretofore de- void of such means.”

Unfortunately, the study did not shed any new light on the relationship between communication effectiveness and overall organizational effectiveness. Problems with the types of effectiveness measures used and the short time spans since audit adoption prevented many organizations from re-

136 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 5, No. 2, WINTER 1979

sponding. This is, however, a vital issue that cannot be left unresearched if further benefits are to accrue in the field of organizational communication, at both practitioner and theoretical levels, through the communication audit. On this matter, Sincoff and Goyer (1977) have observed: “The Communication Auditor’s most challenging problem may be to sen- sitize the target organization to an awareness of the pervasive impact of communication behaviors (goodbad, effectivehneffective) at all levels of the organization. Every organization will ask about how much will it cost and what will be its benefits?”

In conclusion, further research on the ICA Com- munication Audit, which shows promise as the most systematic measurement approach available in organizational communication, should proceed with “before/after” effectiveness designs in field studies to specifically measure the impact of the audit on communication and organizational effectiveness variables. This approach may lead to resolution of a difficult and limiting argument which is inhibiting growth of the organizational communication field. Simultaneously, it may provide the interpersonal models of organizational effectiveness which, according to Steers (1975), are necessary to achieve convergence across various existing effectiveness paradigms in organization theory.

REFERENCES

ARGYRIS, C. Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1970.

BARNARD, C. The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvad University Press, 1938.

BOWERS, D., & MANN, F. Three studies in change. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969.

BRAYFIELD, A, , & CROCKETT, W. Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 5,

BURHANS, D. The development and field testing of two internal communication measuring instruments. Unpublished manuscript delivered 1972 International Communication As- sociation Convention in Atlanta.

CAMPBELL, J.P. Research into the nature of organizational effectiveness: An endangered species? Working Paper, Uni- versity of Minnesota, 1973.

CUMMINS, R. Group size, task, structure and productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University, 1970.

CYERT, R., & MARCH, J. A Behavioral theory ofthefirm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

1955, 396-424.

DENNIS, H. The construction of a managerial “communication climate” inventory for use in complex organizations. Unpub- lished manuscript delivered at 1975 International Communi- cation Association Convention in Chicago.

DENNIS, H., RICHETTO, G., & WEIMANN, J. Articulating the need for an effective internal communication system. Unpublished manuscript delivered at 1974 International Communication Association Convention in New Orleans.

FARRIS, G. Effects of performance on leadership, cohesive- ness, influence, satisfaction and subsequent performance. Unpublished manuscript delivered at the Sloan School of Management, MIT, 1968.

GOLDHABER, G. The ICA communication audit: Rationale and development, Unpublished manuscript delivered at 1976 Academy of Management Convention.

GOLDHABER, G. , & KRIVONOS, P. The ICA communication audit: Process, status and critique, Journal ofBusiness Communication, 15, 1, 1977, 41-64.

GOLDHABER, G., PORTER, T., & YATES, M. The ICA communication audit survey instrument: 1977 organizational norms, Paperpresented to the 27th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Berlin, 1977.

GOLDHABER, G., WIIO, O., DENNIS, H., & RICHEITO, G. Information power and managementfunction: Develop- ing organizational intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, in press, 1978.

ZEN, M. The relationship between communication satisfaction and productivity, role discrepancy and need level, Un- published manuscript delivered in 1974 to the International Communication Association Convention in New Orleans.

GUETZKOW, H. Communication in organizations, in J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand- McNally, 1965.

HAIN, T. Organizational change patterns. Flint, MI: General Motors Institute, 1972.

HAIN, T., & TUBBS, S. Organizational development: The role of communication in diagnosis, change and evaluation, Un- published manuscript delivered in 1974 to the International Communication Association Convention in New Orleans.

HAIN, T., & WIDGERY, R. Organizational Diagnosis: The significant role of communication, Unpublished manuscript delivered in 1973 to the International Communication Asso- ciation in Montreal.

HAZEN, M., & BALTHROP, V. A causal analysis of the relationship between communication satisfaction and productivity, role discrepancy, need level and organizational position, Unpublished manuscript delivered in 1975 to the International Communication Association Convention in Chicago.

JAIN, H. Employee knowledge of hospital compensation policies and supervisory effectiveness, Unpublished manuscript delivered in 1972 to the International Communication Association in Atlanta.

KATZ, D. , & KAHN, D. The social psychology of organiza- lions. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1966.

KATZELL, R. Annual review of psychology, Industrial

LAWRENCE, P., & LORSCH, J. Studies in organization design. Homewood, IL: Irwin, Inc., 1970.

LIKERT, R., & BOWERS, D. Organizational theory and human resources accounting, American Psychologist, 24, 1%9,

GOODNIGHT, G. , CRARY, D., BALTHROP, V., & HA-

Psychology, 1957, 8, 237-268.

585-592.


LIKERT, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

LIKERT, R. Human resource accounting, Personnel, May- June, 1973, 8-19.

LIKERT, R. The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

MA”, F. , INDIK, B., & VROOM, V. The productivity of work groups. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1963.

MARCH, J., & SIMON, H. Organizations. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1958.

MARROW, A, , BOWERS, D., & SEASHORE, S. Manage- ment by participation. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.

MILES, R. The affluent organization, Harvard Business Re- view, May-June, 1966, 106-1 14.

MORSE, J . Organizational characteristics and individual moti- vation, in P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch (Eds.), Studies in Organization Design, Homewood, IL: Irwin, Inc., 1970.

PRICE, J. Handbook of organizational measurement. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1972.

RICHETTO, G. Organizational communication: An “uncon- ventional” perspective, inR. Applebaum, 0. Jensen, andR. Carroll (Eds .), Speech Communication: A Basic Anthology , New York: Macmillan and Co., 1975.

ROBERTS, K., & O’REILLY, C. Measuring organizational communication, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 1974,

SEASHORE, S. , & BOWERS, D. Durability of organizational change, American Psychologist , 25, 1970, 219-226.

SIMON, H. Administrativie behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1945.

SINCOFF, M., & GOYER, R. Communication audit critique: The researcher’s perspective, The Journal of Business Com- munication, 15, 1, Fall, 1977, 57-62.

SMITH, P. Relationship between managers and their work as- sociates, Administrative Science Quarterly, September, 1969.

STEERS, R. Problems in measurement of organizational effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly , December,

321-326.

1975, 20, 546-558.

Television as an Instrument of Terror Edited by Arthur As0 Bergei

Arthur Asa Berger is widely recog- nized as one of the leading scholars working today in the area of popular culture. He is one of the earliest students of the field. and his work has helped shape the thinking of an entire genera- tion of scholars.

This volume of collected essays explores the vast and endlessly grow- ing subject variously called popular culture,massculture,thepublicarts,and now. most recently, mass-mediated culture. Someofthese essays havealready been published in such periodicals as Society magazine. others are appear- ing in print for the first time. They cover such varied forms ofmass communication as television; the comics; advertis- ing; humor; and fads, foods. and ar- tifacts. The essays are written in a popular style. and are introduced by Stan Lee, the publisher of Marvel Comics.

Here, within these pages, you’ll be assaulted by o vast cornucopia of daring concepts, dazzling critiques. and dramatic conclusions. Stan Lee, from the Introduction

Berger approaches his topic with a totally new perspective, and therefore is often able to bring insights into these areas which hove escaped the usual scholarly analysis Garth S. Jowett. Head. Department of Communication Studies. University of Windsor

His creotiveonolysis of popular culture is built on his uniquesynthesisof materials and methods from cultural anlhropology. sociol psychology. sociology, literary criticism. ond history David W. Noble. Professor of History. University of Minnesota

He i s . . . the Pop of populor cu l ture . . . stimulating. witty. ond provocative Harry M Geduld. Director of Film Studies. Indiana University

When we look bock 01 these times. I think we are more likely to read and cite Arthur Aso Berger than most sociol commentators of this period. Aaron Wildavsky. President. Russell Sage Foundation

Berger brings the skills of o great teacher to his writing. . . . His work is lucid and offers many insights about media in the context of popular culture study. Everette E. Dennis, Associate Professor. university of Minnesota

ISBNtW37.355-708-3 (poper) W.9S m0 PP. 1979

Order from your bookstore or prepaid from Transaction Books Box 970, Edison, N.J. 00017 I

the ica communication audit and perceived communication effectiveness changes in 16 audited...

Documents