The multidimensionality of communication satisfaction was explored in

three stages. An original questionnaire was administered and factor-

analyzed. On this basis, a new questionnaire was refined and administered
to four different organizations in order to compare the factor structures
derived from each. FinaUy, each of the stability factors were correlated
with a global measure of job satisfaction.

A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF

COIVJIVIUNICATION SATISFACTION
Cal W. Downs
University of Kansas
Michael D. Hazen
Wake Forest University

THERE IS A GROWING INTEREST in developing comprehen-

sive procedures for auditing communication in organizations.
The development of an audit must necessarily take into account
the fact that different communication variables and strategies
apparently contribute to a multiplicity of organizational goalls.
Likert [8], for example, conceptualized a causal sequence in
which communication is seen as an intervening variable that
leads to any of four end results: 1) productivity, 2) satisfaction,
3) labor-management relations, and 4) profit. This particular
study is designed to explore the relationships between commun-
ication and satisfaction.
A number of researchers have already generated some data
about the relationships between communication and job satis-
faction. One of the earliest w ^ Herzberg [5]. "Communication"
was one of ten original factors which he later synthesized into
Ms two-factor theory. Burhans [1] designed several instruments
to measure employee satisfaction with communication; but his
instruments were based only on item validity analysis,, not fac-
tor analysis, and thus he failed to explore the generalizability or
dimensionality of the relationship. Downs [2] studied a public
utility company and discovered that satisfaction with commun-
ication was linked with employee position in the organization.
Such examinations of the communication-satisfaction rela-
tionship have produced, a construct called "communication sat-
 64 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION • 14:3

isfaction," which is becoming a common reference in organiza-

tional literature. So far this term has apparently represented a
unidimensional, generalized feeling which an employee has
toward his total communication environment. Thayer, for
example, refers to it as "the personal satisfaction inherent in
successfully communicating to someone or in successfully being
communicated with . . . ." [13, p. 144].
In his book. Communication Within the Organization, Red-
ding [1] summarizes some additional research by Level [7],
Sanborn [12], Tompkins [14], Zima [17], Minter [9], and
Jain [6] that has focused on communication satisfaction. He
notes that these different studies have varied the specific com-
ponents of communication satisfaction. Some, for example,
included both message-receiving and message-initiating activi-
ties; others considered only one of these. The composite aspects
of communication satisfaction in these references are:
1. Explanation of policies, in answer to employee question.
2. Understanding what is expected of one in job performance.
3. Advance notice of changes, through official sources.
4. Freedom to make suggestions to superiors.
5. Adequacy of information on those company matters
regarded by the receiver as relevant to him.
6. Extent to which important information is obtained from
sources or media preferred by the receiver.
7. Freedom to make complaints, to "sound off."
8. Accessibility or approachability of superiors.
9. Degree to which supervisor makes an effort to understand
feelings and problems of subordinates.
10. Degree to which supervisors express appreciation of good
performance by subordinates.
11. Degree to which higher officers or managements are open
and willing to initiate communication.
Redding further specvilates as to whether or not communica-
tion satisfaction is a unitary concept and whether or not it is a
"measurable and meaningful tool in advancing our understanding
of organizational communication." [10, p. 430]. This study was
designed to answer some of these questions. Specifically, the
objectives are to test the hypothesis that communication satis-
faction is multidimensional rather than unidimensional, and to
determine how the individual dimensions relate to global job
satisfaction.
 COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION • DOWNS/HAZEN 65

METHOD

This research was done in three stages. First, an original ques-

tionnaire was developed, administered, and factor-analyzed.
Second, on the basis of the early factor analysis, a new question-
naire was refined, administered to four different organizations,
and factor-analyzed again. Third, the correlation of each factor
to job satisfaction was explored to determine which communi-
cation dimensions tend to interact most with job satisfaction.

First Stage
Questionnaire
In assembling items for the original questionnaire, an attempt
was made to be as inclusive as possible. In line with such a goal,
items were gathered from a detailed examination of communi-
cation and organizational literature, other research instruments,
three pilot studies (in the form of marker variables), aind a col-
lection of critical incidents. It was felt that such a diverse group
of soxirces would provide items of both theoretical and "naive"
relevance to the construct under consideration. The resulting
pool of 88 items was roughly classified into information types,
communication relationships, process elements, and global
items. The questionnaire received by subjects contained each of
the 88 items listed separately followed by a response measure
consisting of a seven-point scale with one being "very satisfied"
and seven being "very dissatisfied."
Subjects
The questionnaire was administered to 225 employees at the
manajjerial and professional staff Jevels .and r.atrgiJi>ted bjr JiU.
Since the purpose of this study was to explore the dimension-
ality of "communication satisfaction," subjects with diverse
attributes were chosen to provide differences in the domain
under consideration [Thurstone, 15,pp. 324-3261. The resultinig
heterogeneous group of subjects was selected from the army,
hospitals, professional organizations, universities, government
agencies, and a wide variety of businesses across the United
States.
Data Analysis
Two forms of analysis were performed on the data: 1) factor
analysis and 2) item validity analysis. Factor analysis was per-
 66 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION • 14:3

formed using a principle-components factor analysis with a vari-

max rotation. An item was considered to load significantly on a
factor if it had a primary loading of .50 or above.
An item validity analysis was performed on all 88 items to
determine whether they differentiated significantly between
satisfied and dissatisfied workers. Subjects were divided into
quartiles on the basis of their responses to the one item dealing
with overall satisfaction. The first and fourth quartiles were
then taken to represent satisfied and dissatisfied workers and
their responses on the other 87 items were compared. A chi
square statistic and a .05-level of significance were used to
determine whether the responses of the "satisfied" and "dis-
satisfied" workers were significantly different.
Results
Factor analysis of the satisfaction items yielded 10 factors
which accounted for 61 percent of the total variance. Seven of
the factors had more than one primary loading above .50 and
each accounted for at least 4 percent of the original variance. As
a result, the following 7 dimensions of communication satisfac-
tion were isolated:
1) Satisfaction with Communication Climate. Factor one
accounted for 14 percent of the original variance and 22 percent
of the explained variance. This broad climate factor reflects
communiction on both the organizational and personal level.
On one hand, it reflects satisfaction with such items as the
extent to which communication in the organization motivates
and stimulates workers to meet organizational goals and the
extent to which attitudes toward communication are perceived
to be basically healthy. On the other hand, it includes items
such as the extent to which superiors know and understand the
problems faced by subordinates, and information about how I
am being judged. Of particular significance is the fact that the
global meEisure of satisfaction with "communication within the
organization" loaded on this factor. This may indicate that
workers tend to think of climate when they respond to general
questions about communication.
2) Satisfaction with Superiors. This factor accounted for
11.6 percent of the original variance and 19.1 percent of the
explained variance. Items loading on the factor include both up-
ward and downward dimensions of communication with super-
iors. Three of the principle items include the extent to which
 COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION • DOWNS/HAZEN 67

my superior listens and pays attention when I talk, and the

extent to which my supervisor offers guidance for solving job-
related problems.
3) Satisfaction with Organizational Integration. This factor
accounted for 7.6 percent of the original variance and 12.4 per-
cent of the explained variance. It revolves around the satisfac-
tion of individuals with the information that they receive about
the organization and the immediate work environment. In
particular, items which load on this factor are getting informa-
tion about departmental policies and plans, and requirements of
one's job and personnel news.
4) Satisfaction with Media Quality. This factor accounted
for 6.3 percent of the original variance and 10.3 percent of the
explained variance. It reflects the degree to which employees
perceive major forms of company media as functioning effec-
tively. Of principle concern here is the extent to which, meetings
are well organized, written directives are well written, organiza-
tional publications are helpful, and the amount of communica-
tion in the organization is about right.
5) Satisfaction with Horizontal Informal Communication.
Items on this factor accounted for 5.6 percent of the original
variance and 9.2 percent of the explained variance. This factor
reflects items relating to both horizontal communication and
informal communication. Since informal communication seems
to be more inclusive than horizontal communication this seems
to suggest that employees tend to think of their communication
with fellow workers as having the properties of informal com-
munication. Items which loaded on this factor include the
extent to which the grapevine is active in the oi^anization,
the extent to which horizontal communication is accurate ajid
free-flowing, and the extent to which informal commtinication
is accurate and free-flowing.
6) Satisfaction with General Organizational Perspective. This
factor accounts for 4.7 percent of the original variance and 7.8
percent of the explained variance. Items loading on this dimen-
sion reflect information relating to the overall functioning of
the organization. Specific items reflect whether or not employ-
ees get information about govemment action affecting the
organization, changes in the organization, company financial
standings, and organizational policies and goals.
7) Satisfaction with Communication with Subordinates. This
factor accounted for 4.1 percent of the original variance and 6.8
 68 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION -14:3

percent of the explained variance. It focuses on both upward

and downward communication with subordinates. Items reflect
such things as the extent to which subordinates are responsive
to downward communication, the extent to which they feel
responsible for initiating upward communication, and the
degree to which the manager feels he has a communication
overload.
Item analysis of the questionnaire revealed that 83 out of the
88 items discriminated significantly between "satisfied" and
"dissatisfied" workers. All items which loaded significantly
on the communication satisfaction dimensions discriminated
significantly between "satisfied" and "dissatisfied" workers.
Discussion
The finding of seven factors seems to support the hypothesis
that communication satisfaction is indeed multidimensional.
Two of the factors seem to identify different types of informa-
tion and five seem to identify relationships. Of the seven
factors, communication climate seems to stand out as the single
most important factor. Not only does it account for more
variance than the other factors, but the subjects' responses
to a general item, "satisfaction with the organization," also
loaded on the communication climate factor.
One puzzling aspect of the communication climate factor
is the inclusion of items relating to personal feedback which
had emerged as a separate factor in earlier pilot studies [Hazen
and Quiggins, 3]. To explore this further, it was decided to
eliminate those items which did not load significantly on any
factor—i.e. above .50—thus reducing the number of items to
52. The resulting 52 items were then analyzed using a principle-
components factor analysis and varimax rotation.
The resulting factor analysis yielded nine significant factors.
Six factors were identical to those found before. The broad
general factor which was previously labeled as communication
climate split into three factors: a narrower communication
climate factor, the personal feedback factor, and a communi-
cation timing factor. The communication climate factor dealt
solely with how the organization handles communication prob-
lems. As in earlier studies, the personal feedback dimension
reflected communication relating to personal achievement and
work. The communication timing factor reflected how well
communication meets immediate needs on time.
 COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION • DOWNS/HAZEN 69

While there seems to be some variation in the dimensionality

of communication satisfaction, an eight-factor structure com-
posed of communication climate, personal feedback, organiza-
tional integration, corporate perspective communication with
superiors, communication with subordinates, informal commun-
ication, and media quality seems to be the most satisfactory.
This conclusion is based on the following reasons: 1) these
eight factors are the most consistent over the factor analytic
work, 2) they account for the largest part of the variance, and
3) they represent the consistent separation of certain marker
variables from earlier pilot studies.

Second
Questionnaire
On the basis of the factor analytic study in the first
a conamunication satisfaction questionnaire was ccinstructed
to measure each of the eight factors. Five items were selected
to represent each factor. The criteria for selecting these items
were: 1) that each item had its. primary loading on the dimen-
sion, 2) that it discriminated between satisfied and dissatisfied
subjects, and 3) that it had a primary loading of .40 or above
on the factor. The instrument was constructed so that each
respondent was asked to indicate his degree of satisfaction vdth
the particular item on a one to seven point scale between being
"very satisfied" and being "very dissatisfied." Additionally,
each subject was asked to indicate his/her global level of job
satisfaction.
To test its reliability, the Communication Satisfaction
Questionnaire was administered to twenty subjects. One week
later it was readministered to the same subjects. The reliability
coefficient between the two administrations was .94.

Subjects
The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire was adminis-
tered to four different organizational settings: 1) 96 managers
participating in a training program in California, 2) 81 employees
in a division headquarters of an international firm located in
Chicago, 3) 151 employees of an equipment plant in Florida
and, 4) 182 employees of a can manufacturing plant in Minne-
sota.
 70 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION • 14:3

Analysis and Results

Factor analysis was performed on the data from each organ-
ization separately. A principle-components factor analysis with
a varimax rotation was used to determine how the items clustered.
The results, displayed in Table 1, support the results found
in the first stz^e of this study. The items tend to cluster along
Table 1
Comparative Factot Analysis

Original Mgt. Trng. Reg. Div. Equip. Plant Can Plant

Item Loading N=96 N=81 N=151 N=182
General
Organizational
Perspective 6 1 1 g
12 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 5 2
16 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1
Organizatiomtl
Integration. . . . . 4 2 3 2 2 3
5 2 3 2 2 2
10 2 1 2 2 2
11 2 12 2 2 2
15 2 10 7 4 2
Personal
7 3 3 2 2 3
8 3 3 2 2 3
9 3 3 2 2 3
14 3 3 12 2 3
18 3 8 4 5 3
Relation with
Supervisor . . . . . 20 4 4 4 4 4
22 4 4 4 4 4
24 4 4 4 4 4
29 4 4 4 4 4
34 4 4 4 4 4
Horizontal
Informal
Communication. . 28 5 5 9 9 5
30 5 5 5 5 5
31 5 5 5 7 5
32 5 5 5 5 5
37 5 5 8 7 8
Relation with
Subordinate . . . . 42 6 6 6 6 6
43 6 6 6 6 6
44 6 6 6 6 6
45 6 6 6 6 6
46 6 6 6 6 6
Media
25 7 7 1 10 1
33 7 7 4 8 8
35 7 7 4 8 8
36 7 5 11 8 8
38 7 5 1 8 8
Communication
Climate...... 19 8 8 11 7 8
21 8 5 11 8 8
23 8 8 2 8 8
26 8 4 4 7 8
27 8 5 4 7 8
 COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION • DOWNS/HAZEN 71

the same e^ht factors, and there is a great stability in the way
they cluster. In fact, in only two cases is there an interweaving
across factor lines. First, Personal Feedback and Organizational
Integration tend to merge in the results from the divisional
headquarters and in the equipment plant. This may be under-
standable since one way of integrating an employee into the
immediate work environment is through the giving of personal
feedback. Second, in the equipment and can plants. Media
Quality and Communication Climate seem to merge.

Third Stage
The relationships between the facets of communication
satisfaction and a global measure of job satisfaction were
explored by examining the correlations from the data in the
first stage. These correlation coefficients are displayed in
Table 2.
Table 2
Job Satisfaction—Communication Satisfaction Correlation Matrix

Management Divisional Equipment Can

Training Headquarters Plant Plant

Organizational Peiespective. . .21 .04 .46 .45

Personal Feedback. . . . . . . .67 .46 .59 .57
Organizational Integration. . .48 .38 .54 .57
Relation with Supervisor. . . .56 .58 .48 .63
Horizontal-Informal. . . . . . .33 .17 .56 .47
Communication Climate . . . .39 .45 .64 .62
Media Q u a l i t y . . . . . . . . . . .43 .37 .25 .62
Relation with Subordinates. .27 .19 .08 .16

Two observations can be made from these data. First, it can be

seen that the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire is able
to pick up wide-spread differences among organizations. This
would seem to support the contingency theory that the situation
among organizations and people differ, and that the dimensions
affecting job satisfaction may also differ. Second, it can be seen
that the communication satisfaction dimensions which correlate
most highly with job satisfaction are Personal Feedback, Rela-
tion with Supervisor, and Communication Climate.
 72 THE JO URNAL OF B USINESS COMMUNICATION '14:3

Conclusions
Several conclusions are evident from this research. First,
"communication satisfaction" is a multidimensionjil construct.
Since the individual constructs of "communication" and "job
satisfaction" are each multidimensional, this result should not
be too surprising.
Second, the primary dimensions of communication satisfac-
tion include: general organizational perspective, organizational
integration, personal feedback, relation with supervisor,
horizontal-informal communication, relation with subordinates,
media qualtiy, and communication climate. The study indicates
that the most important communication dimensions interacting
with job satisfaction are Personal Feedback, Relation with
Supervisor, and Communication Climate.
Third, the results from several factor analyses in different
organizations indicate a great amount of stability among the
factors.
Fourth, these factors seem to reflect most of the major
components of organizational functioning in terms of role
relationships, types of information, and the climate of the
organizational functioning in terms of role relationships, types
of information, and the climate of the organization. Thus,
it is possible that the various dimensions of communication
satisfaction can provide a barometer of organizational func-
tioning, and the concept of communication satisfaction can be
a useful tool in an audit of organizational communication.

ttt
NOTES AND REFERENCES

David Burhans, "The Development and Field Testing of Two Internal

Communication Measuring Instruments, unpublished manuscript, Cal-
ifornia State University, Los Angeles, 1971.
^Cal W. Downs, "Study of Satisfaction in a Public Service Company,"
unpublished manuscript. University of Kansas, 1971.
Michael D. Hazen and James Quiggins, "Conimunication Satisfaction
in a Publishing House," unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas,
1972.
* Neal Herrick and R. P. Quinn, "The Working Conditions Survey as a
Source of Social Indicators,"Monfh/y Labor Review, April, 1971, pp. 15-24.
F. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland: World Publish-
ing Company, 1966.
 COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION • DOWNS/HAZEN 73

C. Jain, "Internal Communications and Supervisory, Effective-

ness In Two Urban Hospitals," Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1970.
^Dale A. Level Jr., "A Case Study of Human Communication in an
Urban Bank," Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1959.
^Reosis Likert, The Human Organization, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967.
^Robert L. Minter, "A Comparative Analysis of Managerial Commun-
ication in Two Divisions of a Large Manufacturing Company," Ph.D.
dissertation, Purdue University, 1969.
'"W. Charles Redding, Communication Within the Organization,
New York: Industrial Communication Council, 1972.
Howard Greenbaum, et al. Organizational Communication Abstracts,
1975, American Business Communication Association, Urbana, Illinois,
1976.
^^ George A. Sanborn, "An Analytical Study of Oral Communication
Practices in a Nationwide Retail Sales Organization," Ph.D. dissertation,
Purdue University, 1961.
Lee Tbayer, Communication and Communication Systems, Home-
wood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.
^''Phillip K. Tompkins, "An Analysis of Communication Between
Headquarters and Selected Units of National Labor Union, Ph.D. disser-
tation, Purdue University, 1962.
L. L. Thurstone, Multiple Factor Analysis, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1947.
^*J. P. Wanous and E. E. Lawler, "Measurement and Meaning of Job
Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (1972), pp. 95-105.
^ ^Joseph P. Zima, "The Counseling-Communication of Supervisors in
a Large Manfacturing Company," Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University,
1968.

IN MEMORIAM
Dorothea L. Chandler, 1907-1977

ABCA mourns the death of Dorothea L. Chandler, Past President

and Fellow of ABCA, on March 11, 1977, at her home in Syracuse,
NY, after a long illness. Burial was at Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, near where
she was born.
Dot served ABCA in every way possible: three terms as a director,
as Vice-President—East, and as National President in 1963. She was
also active in the Society for Technical Communication (President
of Central New York Chapter), the English Speaking Union, the
AAUW, National League of America Pen Women, and others.
Every letter from Dot since her retirement as Associate Professor
of Management at Syracuse University listed more activities than
most un-retired people could handle.
Her many friends and associates will miss her and ABCA has lost
a staunch supporter and indefatigable worker.