Supervisor–Subordinate Communication Competence and Job and Communication Satisfaction

Abstract

In contrast to the predominant business and organizational communication research on supervisor influence, this article examined communication competence, communication satisfaction, and job satisfaction differences within and between groups in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. The study also examined the relationship among the three communication and satisfaction phenomena. Two survey questionnaires were completed by 152 subordinates and 20 supervisors/managers at a public utility in the first phase. A third survey questionnaire was completed by 32 supervisors/managers in the second phase. The results indicated no support for hypothesized differences in ratings of communication competence, and job and communication satisfaction within and between subordinate and supervisor groups, but positive and significant relationships among the variables. The significance of the results is discussed in terms of the implications for the dyadic and interactive nature of supervisor-subordinate communication and directions for future research in this field. Keywords management communication, organizational communication, quantitative, workplace interaction, supervisor-subordinate communication, Trinidad and TobagoSupervisor-subordinate communication has received much attention in the organizational communication literature. This attention has focused on the influence of the supervisor on the subordinate with an emphasis on achieving organizational goals and objectives. This attention has been widely explored in the United States (see Teven,

The importance of sociodemographic characteristics and personality dimensions for communication satisfaction

“…M. L. Hecht (1978) je dao sledeću definiciju zadovoljstva komunikacijom: "Zadovoljstvo komunikacijom je socioemocionalna posledica koja proističe iz komunikacionih interakcija". Brojna istraživanja su usmerena na ispitivanje korelacije između zadovoljstva komunikacijom i zadovoljstva poslom (Steele & Plenty, 2015;Jacobs et al, 2016;Raina & Roebuck, 2016). Uticaj zadovoljstva komunikacijom na produktivnost, radne performanse i privrženost organizaciji, takođe, predstavlja tematiku kojom su se bavili brojni autori Loebbecke et al, 2016;Solaja et al, 2016;Mehra & Nickerson, 2019).…”

“…There are different studies regarding the organizational communication, focused on researching the importance of communication satisfaction and its impact on employees' job satisfaction, productivity, or their organizational commitment (Steele & Plenty, 2015;Jalalkamali, Ali, Hyun & Nikbin, 2016;Vermeir, Blot, Degroote, Vandijck, Mariman, Vanacker & Vogelaers, 2018). Besides, there is an increased interest of numerous researchers in the ways in which trust can be established between the management and employees, especially when analyzing the personality dimensions of successful managers and the impact of those dimensions on the establishment of the aforementioned trust are in question (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016;.…”

Pozitif Ses Çıkartma Davranışının Öncülü Olarak İletişim Doyumu

“…İletişim doyumu ile ilgili yapılan literatür taraması sonucunda iletişim doyumunun, iş tatmini (Downs ve Hazen, 1977;Steele ve Plenty, 2015;Yalım, 2015), örgüt kültürü (Eroğlu ve Özkan, 2009), örgütsel bağlılık (Engin ve Eker Akgöz, 2013; Kant ve Balcı Akpınar, 2017), örgütsel özdeşleşme (Derin ve Tuna, 2017), algılanan adalet ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı (Chan ve Lai, 2017) gibi birçok farklı değişkenle ilişkili olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Ancak, ilişkili kavramlar olmalarına rağmen pozitif ses çıkartma davranışı ile iletişim doyumu ilişkisini inceleyen araştırmalara rastlanılmamıştır.…”

Industrial Leadership that Inspires Managerial Communication as an Emerging Pedagogical Focus in Engineering

“…The myriad quests to understand the sources and foundation of effective organizational leadership have introduced various paradigms, drawing on supervisor influence on subordinates [15]. Traditionally, leadership has been approached through three different theory lines: the first examined leader attributes, the second leader behavior, and the third, contingency theory acknowledged the role of situational variables or contingency factors in moderating leadership effects.…”

“…However, a group of leadership styles exists that does not fit into any of these theories directly as it cuts across several theories, directing the focus to a mixture of leader traits, conduct and contextual variables [16], [17]. Extrapolating from the core features of the above schools, the answer could be found with the constructivist theory, according to which leadership emerges in the relationship between leaders and followers [18], [19]. Sparked by this theory, the focus of leadership research has subsequently shifted from leader actions to the perceptions of the followers, taking the premise that without followers, there is noone to be led.…”