Communication and miscommunication in corporate America: evidence from fortune 200 firms.

Hindi, Nitham M. ; Miller, Donald S. ; Catt, Stephen E. 等

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of vice presidents of Fortune 200 companies concerning selected communication practices and miscommunication in their companies. To accunulate relevant data, an appropriate questionnaire consisting of open-ended as well as check-indicator types of questions was mailed to two vice presidents at each of the Fortune 200 companies. A total of 81 completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 20 percent. The results showed that miscommunication can be very costly. As a result, a majority of the vice presidents surveyed indicated that their companies provide communication training for employees. Paperwork appears to increase for companies that did not provide communication training. Communication effectiveness was given significant consideration in the performance evaluation of employees. Oral/spoken communication was the prevailing source of communication errors, and e-mail was identified as the media form most involved in communication miscues. The vice presidents reported more miscommunication involving internal stakeholders, compared to external constituents. Specifically, interaction among business functions contributed to communication mistakes. Increased coverage of the importance of cross functional interactions in organizations, especially at the undergraduate level, by schools of business appears to be warranted by the findings of this study.

INTRODUCTION

Communication is the lifeblood of organizations. Without effective communication, organizations will drift without direction like a ship without a rudder. With effective communication, organizations help empower their employees to succeed and accomplish organizational goals. Fortune magazine conducts an annual survey to determine the 100 best companies to work for in the United States. Invariably, the companies identified as being best do an excellent job of listening to employee input, which helps these companies to keep highly skilled workers. One company, Southwest Airlines, has consistently been at or near the top of the list of 100 best companies identified by Fortune. In a recent interview with Colleen Barrett, President and COO of Southwest Airlines, Barrett was asked to account for the success of Southwest. Barrett's response was, "You have to talk and talk and talk to your people all the time." (Gittell, 2001) In recent research on what companies could do to improve retention, employees made it clear that they highly valued managers who would listen. (HR Focus, 2001)

Beyond understanding the need to engage in appropriate forms of communication interactions, organizations should also consider the extent to which communication training is offered to employees and realize that effective communication skills can influence superior-subordinate relationships, employee performance evaluations, and employee job satisfaction. This study examines these issues in relationship to reported forms of miscommunication by company vice presidents in Fortune 200 companies.

The paper consists of four additional sections. The next section reviews relevant literature regarding communication and miscommunication in Corporate America. Section three includes a description of methodology followed in development of the study. A summary of results is included in section four. Finally, implications and conclusions are presented in section five.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Indeed, communication is a vital component of organizational effectiveness. Due to an increasingly global marketplace, the pressure to accomplish more with fewer resources, and the need to exceed customer expectations, managers recognize the merits of effective communication: sharing meaning and minimizing communication errors. (Axley, 2000; Gordon, 1998; and Van Der Velde, Jansen, and Vinkenburg, 1999) New technology that increases the number and speed of messages that require the attention of employees emphasizes the need for clear and accurate communication in organizations.

Increasingly, businesses are characterized by flatter organizational structures, with the erosion of mid-management positions leading to fewer support-staff personnel. As a result, there is increased use of electronic technology to coordinate the flow of work in organizations. (Fulk and DeSanctis, 1995). Adopting to these changes and the increase in communication activities consumes vast amount of managerial time. CMA Management (2000) confirmed that managers spend about 80 percent of their time on communication.

Gillette (1994) observed that management communication involves both vertical and horizontal dimensions and also noted the importance of supplementing e-mail, information on policies, and progress reports with personal interactions. Morrow (1982) studied feedback in federated nonprofit organizations and found that horizontal feedback was positively related to goal attainment, superordinate approval, and lateral approval. Vertical feedback was positively related only to goal attainment.

Communication involving various managerial functions represents an integral aspect of organizational effectiveness. The need to provide essential information to all parts of an organization has become a great challenge. Marion (1998), for example, acknowledged the importance of providing communication to serve both overall fully-integrated strategies as well as small business units, which need relevant professional services. In an effort to learn how to improve communication in organizations, Griffin and Hauser (1992) surveyed differences between product-development teams with one team using a phase-review process and the other a (QFD) quality-function-deployment. The QFD approach had a positive impact and enabled members to communicate directly without "up-over-down" flows of information through management.

Effective management is essential for the survival and growth of any organization. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were many mergers and acquisitions. A key factor related to the success or failure of these business combinations was effective communication. (HR Focus, 2000) Interestingly, however, fewer than 60 percent of respondent human relations executives were involved in activities such as communicating strategies to employees, planning/leading integration efforts, or helping a new entity cope with change. Not surprisingly, Paterson (2000) reported that many firms simply do not devote sufficient attention to communication with employees early enough in the merger process.

It is common for organization to spend a lot of money training employees. In 2001, for example, Motorola anticipated spending $20-27 million on electronic learning (Eure, 2001). However, according to Smeltzer and Fann (1993), managers surveyed at large firms and entrepreneurial companies indicated that management development programs should focus on the role of organizational differences, not general communication mandates. Seibold, Kudsi, and Rude (1993) reported that communication training does make a difference. Supervisor and co-worker ratings of presentation skills studied improved for 12 of 16 skills that were measured. Several studies considered the perception concerning the role of communication in job satisfaction. Callan (1993) examined supervisor-subordinate perceptions involving the relationship between communication and job satisfaction. For significant comparisons, employee job satisfaction was higher in circumstances involving more opportunities for discussion with superiors, greater recognition of personal views, and more frequent self-disclosure opportunities. Downs and Hazen (1977) recognized the multidimensional construct nature of "communication satisfaction" and concluded that personal feedback, relationships with supervisors, and communication climate were most relevant communication dimensions that interacted with job satisfaction. Alexander, Helms, and Wilkins (1989) found that organization and job information as well as explanations of rationales for decisions positively impacted performance and satisfaction of vocational rehabilitation personnel.

Various studies considered the role of communication in superior-subordinate relationships (Hatfield and Huseman, 1982; Richmond and Roach, 1992; and Waldron, 1991). Eisenberg, Monge, and Farace (1984) found that greater levels of agreement on rules of initiation and termination for communication between supervisors or subordinates led higher evaluations of each other. Similarly, Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, and Couch (1980) concluded that managers who were more cognizant of subordinates' work attitudes tended to give them more positive evaluations. Also, greater congruence by subordinates toward attitudes of managers led to increased satisfaction with supervision administered by them.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used a questionnaire consisting of open-ended as well as check-indicator types of questions. The initial draft was submitted to administrative and faculty colleagues who suggested content revisions. The revised questionnaire (Appendix A), which was mailed to two vice presidents at each of the Fortune 200 companies, was designed to solicit information regarding communication and miscommunication by Corporate America and the existence of communication training programs. Eighty-one completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 20 percent. Eight returned surveys were not usable for various reasons.

The questionnaire asked respondents to identify their job titles, type of communication where miscommunication was likely to occur, most and least proficient communication methods, and number of hours to resolve miscommunication problems. The questionnaire also asked whether the firm provided communication training and whether there was a specific position responsible for communication training. Also, survey participants were asked to identify the level of management most likely to miscommunicate, the educational level of persons most apt to cause miscommunication, and the business function most responsible for communication mistakes. Finally, the questionnaire asked about specific sources of communication, most used methods of communication, and the importance of employee communication skills in performance evaluation.

RESULTS

Respondents included 58 (72 percent) VPs of management and 23 (28 percent) VPs of other areas such as finance, accounting, and information technology. Results of the survey showed that 53 (66 percent) persons reported miscommunication most often occurred in oral/spoken communication, followed by 32 (40 percent) responses indicating written communication, and 8 (10%) individuals noting nonverbal body communication. When asked specifically, 47 percent of respondents identified e-mail as the media responsible for the most miscommunication. Next, respondents were asked to identify the most proficient and least proficient ways that employees expressed themselves. While 43 percent identified written communication to be the least proficient method of communication, 59 percent reported their employees were most proficient with oral/spoken.

The next area involved asking respondents how many hours they spent resolving problems arising from miscommunication. The reason for asking the question was to gain insight into the cost of miscommunication. If time is money, then spending time in resolving these problems will cost Corporate America. Sixty-one percent of the survey participants reported they spent less than 5 hours per week, and 30 percent reported they spent from 6 to 10 hours per week resolving communication issues. When asked if the firm provided communication training to employees, 45 (56 percent) persons responded "yes," and 35 (44 percent) respondents indicated that their firms did not provide such training. This was interesting considering the size of the participating corporations. We also asked participants to estimate the amount of annual spending on communication training. Respondents estimated expenses ranged from less than $25,000 to $5-$10 million annually. Then, we asked whether there was a specific job position responsible for communication training. Sixty-eight percent responded negatively, while 32 percent indicated they had such a position. Most popular position titles responsible for communication training included VP of Public Affairs, Director of Corporate Human Resources, and Manager of Learning Development.

The next area dealt with the issue of a "paperless" business world. Interestingly, 34 percent noted the amount of the paperwork was decreasing, and 56 percent indicated either the same or a greater amount of paperwork. The next area of questioning asked about the level of management that committed the most miscommunication. Fifty-three percent stated middle-level managers; 22 percent indicated upper-level managers, and 18 percent noted lower-level managers. Ninety-six percent reported miscommunication occurred with internal constituents.

The vice presidents were asked which type of communication they used to the greatest extent. Not surprisingly, e-mail was the most used method of communication. Fifty-eight percent of respondents identified e-mail as the most widely used method of communication followed by telephone calls (27 percent), oral presentations (10 percent), and written letters and memos (5 percent).

The next question asked the vice presidents about the importance of communication skills in performance evaluation of employees. Seventy-five percent concluded that it was very important; 14 percent considered it to be important; 10 percent said it was somewhat important; and 1 percent indicated it was not important. When asked the level of education of people most likely to miscommunicate, 41 percent reported persons with a bachelor's degree; 19 percent responded those with a master's degree; 10 percent considered individuals with a high school diploma; and 5 percent indicated persons without a high school diploma. Interestingly, 25 percent of participants did not consider education an issue related to communication. This result was not surprising considering VPs interacted with middle-level managers who were more likely to posses at least a bachelor degree.

A final question asked which business function was likely to commit miscommunication. Seventy-one percent reported that it occurred in the interaction between functions, and 19 percent reported management. This is thought provoking since many accreditation agencies emphasize inclusion of cross functional learning experiences in graduate-level business programs.

OTHER STATISTICS

The chi-square non-parametric test was used to determine whether various relationships were statistically significant. Table 2 presents a summary of calculated values for various chi-square tests involving communication variables. Variables tested include position within the firm (VP of Management vs. other VPs), importance of employees' communication skills in performance evaluation, education level of employees who are most likely to commit miscommunication, and the perception of trends toward "paperless" world of business. While a lack of significance was noted for the majority of calculations, several significant relationships were apparent.

Vice presidents of management were more likely to notice the nonverbal/body miscommunication than other vice presidents. Actually, they were almost three times more likely to note that their employees were least proficient at expressing themselves using nonverbal body communication. While 38 percent of Management VPs felt that the paperwork was decreasing, 62 percent of other VPs felt it was decreasing.

The importance of employee communication skills in the performance evaluation was tested. VPs who felt employee communication skills were important or very important were less likely to believe miscommunication most often occurred in nonverbal body communication. VPs who felt employee communication skills were very important or not important were more likely to identify oral presentations/meetings as miscommunication than those who felt it was important or somewhat important VPs who felt employees skills were important or very important tended to be more likely to have a job position responsible for communication training. Finally, VPs who felt employee communication skills were important or very important were more likely to select telephone calls as the source of communication consuming the most amount of time.

VPs felt that employees with high school diploma were more likely to commit miscommunication through e-mail messages. Companies having a job position to train employees in communication were more likely to identify employees without high school diplomas to commit the most miscommunication at their firms. VPs who felt miscommunication was committed by employees with master's or bachelor's degrees were more likely to indicate that it occurred at middle-level and upper-level management positions. VPs who felt employee communication skills were very important were more likely to identify employees with bachelor's and master's degrees as a source for miscommunication. VPs who believed employees with high school diplomas committed the most miscommunication felt that it occurred in a cross-functional environment with other employees.

Finally, the impact of VPs' perception of the trend toward "paperless" world of business was tested. Thirty-eight percent of VPs of management felt that the paperwork was decreasing, compared to 62 percent of other VPs. One-hundred percent of VPs who reported the amount of paperwork at their firm was decreasing considered that nonverbal body communication was not a problem, while 16 percent of the VPs who reported an increase in the amount of paperwork felt their employees miscommunicated by nonverbal body method.

Of respondents who thought miscommunication most often occurred in nonverbal body communication, 50 percent reported the paperwork was increasing or increasing substantially. The remaining 50 percent felt the amount of paperwork at their firms was not changing. On the other hand, VPs who felt their employees did not miscommunicate nonverbally, 28 percent reported an increase in paperwork; 21 percent felt the paperwork was not changing; and 51 percent reported a decrease in paperwork.

Sixty-two percent of companies that had job position responsible for communication training reported the amount of paperwork at their firms to be decreasing or decreasing substantially, compared to 27 percent who reported the paperwork was increasing or increasing substantially. Seventy-two percent of VPs who reported the amount of paperwork was increasing or increasing substantially did not have a position responsible for communication training.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study surveyed the views of Fortune 200 vice presidents on how good employee communication skills impact critical issues associated with the success of their organizations. Specifically, the vice presidents reported that in their organizations miscommunication most often occurs in oral/spoken interactions, when compared to written communication and communication through nonverbal body language. When more individualized forms of interaction were examined, e-mail was identified as the media form most responsible for miscommunication. Compared to written and nonverbal body communication, employees for the companies appeared to make the most frequent use of oral/spoken method of expressing themselves and perceived that to be the method at which they are most skilled.

Not only do organizations experience miscommunication, they also found that mistakes and errors that occur due to miscommunication can be very costly. As a result, a majority of the vice presidents indicated that their companies provide communication training for employees. Interestingly, for companies that provided communication training, the amount of paperwork reported was unchanged or decreasing. However, for companies that did not provide communication training, the amount of paperwork was increasing. Furthermore, a majority of the vice presidents indicated that an employee's ability to communicate well plays a very important role in performance evaluation. Actually, many employees may be surprised at how important of a role communication skills play in their performance evaluation. Since upper-level management values good communication so highly, middle-level management must also appreciate the importance of demonstrating effective communication skills. As a sign of advances in technology in companies, the vice presidents indicated that e-mail was the most used method of communication in their organizations.

Many vice presidents would agree that middle-level managers have some of the most challenging and demanding jobs in today's organizations. Their role as a linking pin among sometimes diverse groups in companies puts them in various situations where the risk for miscommunication is high. In addition, middle-level managers typically lack the valuable experience gained by vice presidents in companies. As a result, survey results showed the vice presidents indicated that middle-level management created the most miscommunication in their companies. Compared to external constituents, the vice presidents reported that they believe most miscommunication in their companies occurred with internal constituents. We have to wonder, however, how the employees of these companies suddenly become so good at avoiding miscommunication when interacting with external constituents when they experience so much miscommunication while interacting with internal constituents. Perhaps, this finding was because vice presidents may not be as likely to know about miscommunication that occurs with external constituents, as compared to miscommunication with internal constituents

Most of the vice presidents surveyed reported that the interaction between business functions created miscommunication in their organizations. Interestingly, AACSB-International guidelines require that business schools address the importance of cross functional interactions in graduate programs, but coverage of this topic is optional at the undergraduate level. Perhaps, based on the findings of this research, coverage of the importance of cross functional interactions in organizations should also be an AACSB-International requirement for undergraduate programs in accredited business school curriculums. At the undergraduate level, inclusion of this coverage will enhance the understanding that an organization is more than a sum of its parts.

Appendix A
Survey Instrument

1. Which of the following areas represent your current position?

--Accounting --Management --Marketing --Finance
--Information technology --Other (Please specify)--

2. In which of the following types of communication does
miscommunication most often occur at your firm?

--Oral/Spoken communication --Written Communication
--Nonverbal body communication

3. At my firm, miscommunication most often occurs through:

--E-mail messages --Written letters and memos
--Telephone calls --Oral presentations/meetings
--Other: (Please specify)--

4. At my firm, people are most proficient at expressing themselves
through:

--Oral/Spoken communication --Written Communication
--Nonverbal body communication

5. At my firm, people are least proficient at expressing themselves
through:

--Oral/Spoken communication --Written Communication
--Nonverbal body communication

6. How many hours per week do you spend resolving problems arising
from miscommunication?

--Less than 5 --6-10
--11-15 --16 or more

7. Does your firm provide communication training to employees?
--Yes --No.

If yes, approximately how much do you estimate your firm spends per year
on communication training? $--

8. Is there a job position responsible for communication training at
your firm? --Yes --No.

If "yes", what is the title of the position? (Please specify)--

9. Much has been said about evolving toward a "paperless" world of
business. What is happening to the amount of paperwork at your firm?
(Please check one response)

--Increasing substantially --Increasing
--Unchanged/remaining about the same --Decreasing
--Decreasing substantially

10. Which level of management creates the most miscommunication at
your firm?

--Upper level management --Middle level management
--Lower level management --Other (Please specify)--

11. In terms of miscommunication, who does your firm miscommunicate
with the most?

--Internal constituents --External constituents

If external constituents, which group does your firm miscommunicate
with the most?

--Customers and potential --Suppliers and potential
 customers suppliers
--Creditors and potential --Investors and potential
 creditors investors
--Regulatory agencies --Other (please specify)--

12. Please rank the following based on the amount of time that you
spend on each of the following sources of communication (1 being the
most amount of time, 2 being the second most amount of time,
etc.).

--E-mail messages --Telephone calls
--Written letters and memos --Oral presentations
--Other: (Please specify)--

13. Please rank the following methods of communication based on how
much you use them (1 being the most amount of time, 2 being the second
most amount of time, etc.).

--Teleconference --Web-based communication
 (chat rooms)
--E-mail --Face-to-face
--Other (Please specify)--

14. Based on your firm's performance evaluation guidelines, how
important are employees' communication skills?

--Very important --Important
--Somewhat important --Not important

15. In terms of education level, who commits the most miscommunication
in your firm?

--Individuals without high school diploma --High school graduates
--Individuals with bachelor degree --Other--
--Individuals with masters degree (Please specify)

16. In which of the following business functions does miscommunication
occur most often at your firm?

--Accounting/finance --Management
--Marketing --Information technology
--Interaction between functional areas

REFERENCES

Alexander, E. R., M. M. Helms & R. D Wilkins. (1989). The relationship between supervisory communication and subordinate performance and satisfaction among professionals. Public Personnel Management, 18, 415-429.

Axley, S. R. (2000). Communicating change: Questions to consider. Industrial Management, 42, 18-22.

Callan, V. J. (1993). Subordinate-managers communication in difference sex dyads: Consequences for job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 13-28.

Downs, C. W. & M. D. Hazen. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-72.

Eisenberg, E. M., P. R. Monge & R. V. Farace (1984). Co-orientation on communication rules in managerial dyads. Human Communication Research, 11, 261-271.

Eure, R. (March 12, 2001). On the job. Wall Street Journal, R33.

Exclusive HR Focus Survey: When Companies Collide: What Works ... and What Doesn't. HR Focus, October 2000, 77, 1-3.

Fulk, J. & G. DeSanctis. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organization Science, 6, 337-349.

Gillette, D. (1994). Management communications. Information Systems Management, 11, 80-82.

Gittell, J. H. (2001). Investing in relationships. Harvard Business Review, 79, 28-30.

Gordon, G. (1998). The state of internal communication. Communication World, 15, 11-13.

Griffin, A. & J.R. Hauser. (1992). Patterns of communications among marketing, engineering, and manufacturing--A comparison between two new product teams. Management Science, 38, 360-373.

Hatfield, J. D. & R. C. Huseman (1982). Perceptual congruence about communication as related to satisfaction: Moderating effects of individual characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 349-358.

How to be an effective manager. CMA Management, October 2000, 74, 14.

Marion, G. (1998). Corporate communications managers in large firms: New challenges. European Management Journal, 16, 660-671.

Morrow, P.C. (1982). Explorations in macro communication behaviour: The effects of organizational feedback on organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 437-446.

Paterson, K. (2000). Courting employees. Best's Review, 100, 81-83.

Richmond, V. P. & K. D. Roach. (1992). Willingness to communicate and employee success in U.S. organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 95-115.

Seibold, D. R, S. Kudsi & M. Rude. (1993). Does communication training make a difference?: Evidence for the effectiveness of a presentation skills program. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 111-131.

Smeltzer, L. R. & G. L. Fann. (1989). Comparison of managerial communication patterns in small, entrepreneurial organizations and large, mature organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 198-215.

Smith, G. (2001). Simple rewards qre powerful motivators. HR Focus, 78, 10-11.

Van Der Velde, M. E. G., P. G. W. Jansen & C. J. Vinkenburg. (1999). Managerial activities among top and middle managers: Self versus other perceptions. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8, 161-174.

Waldron, V. R (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306.

Wexley, K. N., R.A. Alexander, J. P. Greenawalt & M. A. Couch. (1980). Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 320, 330.

Nitham M. Hindi, Texas State University--San Marcos

Donald S. Miller, Emporia State University

Stephen E. Catt, Emporia State University

Table 1: Statistical Summary

 Variable No. of % *
 Resp.

Position:
 Management 58 72
 Other 23 28

Type of Miscommunication:
 Oral/Spoken 53 66
 Written 32 40
 Nonverbal body 8 10

Type of miscommunication:
 E-Mail 37 47
 Oral presentations/meetings 18 23
 Telephone calls 17 22
 Written letters and memos 9 12
 Other 13 17

Most Proficient:
 Oral/spoken communication 47 59
 Written communication 30 38
 Nonverbal body comm. 5 6

Least Proficient:
 Oral/spoken communication 26 33
 Written communication 34 43
 Nonverbal body comm. 22 22

Hours/week resolving problems
arising from miscommunication:
 Less than 5 hours per week 49 61
 6 to 10 hours per week 24 30
 11 to 15 hours per week 3 4
 16 or more hours per week 4 5

Communication training:
 Yes 45 56
 No 35 44

Job position responsible for
training: 26 32
 Yes 55 68
 No

Amount of paperwork:
 Increasing substantially 12 15
 Increasing 13 16
 Unchanged/remain the same 20 25
 Decreasing 28 34
 Decreasing substantially 9 11

 Variable No. of % *
 Resp.

Who do we mis-comm. with?
 Internal constituents 74 96
 External constituents 3 4

Level of mgt. that miscomm.
 Upper-level 18 22
 Middle-level 43 53
 Lower-level 15 18
 Other 8 10

Methods of communications:
 E-Mail 46 57
 Face-to-face 34 42
 Teleconference 1 1
 Web-based communication 0 0
 Other 0 0

Sources of communication:
 E-mail messages 46 58
 Telephone calls 22 27
 Written letters and memos 4 5
 Oral presentations 8 10
 Other 0 0

Importance of communication
skills in performance evaluation:
 Very Important 60 75
 Important 11 14
 Somewhat important 8 10
 Not important 1 1

Who commits most miscomm.:
 Without high school diploma 4 5
 High school graduates 7 10
 With bachelor degree 30 41
 With masters degree 14 19
 Other 18 25

Which business function commits
 miscommunication the most?
 Accounting/finance 2 3
 Management 15 19
 Marketing 3 4
 Information technology 3 4
 Interaction between functions 55 71

* Percentages may total more than 100% due to inclusion of multiple
responses.

Table 2: Summary of Calculated Chi-Square Values for Selected Variables

 Variables Position Performance
 Evaluation
 ([chi square]) ([chi square])
 Value Prob Value Prob

Position N/A N/A 4.4435 0.2174

Types of Mis-comm:
 Oral/Spoken 1.3663 0.2424 3.2033 0.3613
 Written 0.8238 0.3641 4.1769 0.243
 Nonverbal Body 3.5867 .0582 * 8.1155 .0437 **

Media of Mis-comm:
 E-Mail 2.3608 0.1244 1.4302 0.6985
 Written letters/memos 1.0947 0.2954 3.3637 0.3389
 Telephone calls 0.3711 0.5424 0.5304 0.9122
 Oral presentations 1.8498 0.1738 10.397 .0155 **
 Other 0.3083 0.5787 2.969 0.3964

Most proficient 3.3189 0.506 9.5749 0.6532
Training 2.1396 0.1435 1.649 0.6483
Job responsible for trainin 1.5816 0.2085 6.9723 .0728 *
Paperless 12.719 .0262 ** 12.019 0.6775
Level of Management 4.7124 0.452 10.068 0.8154

Sources of Comm:
 E-Mail 2.5617 0.6336 7.678 0.8098
 Telephone calls 6.5084 0.1643 23.284 .0254 **
 Written letters/memos 3.4849 0.6257 16.813 0.3302
 Oral presentations 3.1393 0.5348 14.137 0.292
 Other 0.4317 0.8058 9.971 0.1259
Methods of Comm:
 Teleconference 2.5977 0.6272 7.4258 0.8282
 Web-based 1.4849 0.8293 5.835 0.9242
 E-Mail 3.5607 0.1686 4.3004 0.6361
 Face-to-face 5.0156 0.1707 7.11 0.6257
 Other 4.5332 0.3386 2.5571 0.9979
Performance Evaluation 4.4435 0.2174 N/A N/A
Business functions 6.8285 0.1452 5.4045 0.9431

 Variables Education Perception about
 "Paperless"
 ([chi square]) ([chi square])
 Value Prob Value Prob

Position 9.3079 0.157 12.719 .0262 **

Types of Mis-comm:
 Oral/Spoken 7.7729 0.2552 9.2172 .1007 *
 Written 6.8245 0.3374 5.6632 0.3404
 Nonverbal Body 2.6979 0.8457 9.6559 .0856 *

Media of Mis-comm:
 E-Mail 10.644 .1000 * 5.5689 0.3504
 Written letters/memos 13.361 .0376 ** 1.8146 0.8742
 Telephone calls 4.365 0.6274 4.9053 0.4276
 Oral presentations 4.9584 0.5492 5.073 0.407
 Other 8.4989 0.2038 4.8396 0.4358

Most proficient 11.272 0.9869 36.087 .0150 **
Training 6.7553 0.3441 7.5759 0.1812
Job responsible for trainin 10.894 .0917 * 14.728 .0116 **
Paperless 25.942 0.6781 N/A N/A
Level of Management 48.641 .0171 ** 15.381 0.932

Sources of Comm:
 E-Mail 9.424 0.9965 15.178 0.7661
 Telephone calls 20.173 0.6869 27.66 0.1177
 Written letters/memos 19.299 0.9335 25.479 0.4358
 Oral presentations 20.919 0.6435 21.305 0.3793
 Other 9.1239 0.6923 6.5736 0.765
Methods of Comm:
 Teleconference 13.538 0.9564 34.902 .0206 **
 Web-based 21.757 0.5938 24.968 0.2026
 E-Mail 17.883 0.1193 10.307 0.414
 Face-to-face 17.757 0.4717 14.257 0.5061
 Other 17.206 0.8397 14.575 0.8001
Performance Evaluation 26.694 .0849 * 12.019 0.6775
Business functions 36.262 .0518 * 19.684 0.4778

* Significant at 10% level

** Significant at 5% level

*** Significant at 1% level