UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL

READINESS TO CHANGE: A QUANTITATIVE DISTRICT-WIDE STUDY OF

EMPLOYEES FROM A TECHNOLOGY CENTER

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY

in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

ANGELA DURANT-TYSON
Norman, Oklahoma
2022
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL

READINESS TO CHANGE: A QUANTITATIVE DISTRICT-WIDE STUDY OF

EMPLOYEES FROM A TECHNOLOGY CENTER

A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY STUDIES

BY THE COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF

Dr. Curt Adams, Chair

Dr. Beverly J. Edwards

Dr. Timothy Ford

Dr. Vickie E. Lake

© Copyright by ANGELA DURANT-TYSON 2022
All Rights Reserved.
 Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to all my former students who I told to “dream big and

aim high” and to all the teachers, professors, and staff who helped me along this

educational path. I would not be here if it were not for you all. Every single day you

inspired me, challenged me, and motivated me to become the educator that I am today.

For that I am truly grateful.

I also want to dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my late mother, Mardell

L. Durant, who was a lady way before her time. She was the pillar of my existence. I

would not be the woman I am today without her love and guidance. She is looking down

right down and is proud of me. I am actually proud of myself. I did it!
 Acknowledgements

To those who have encouraged and supported me in various ways toward the

completion of this project, please accept my sincere gratitude. To my Dissertation

Committee: Dr., Curt Adams, committee chair, thank you for your personal support that

kept me moving forward, Dr. Beverly Edwards for encouraging me about why I became

an educator, Dr. Timothy Ford for staying on me and helping navigate OU processes and

procedures, and Dr. Vickie Lake for your tenacity that made me a better researcher.

Colleagues and Friends: Dr. Mike Laverty, Dr. Tahsia Mills, and Dr. Sue Lee,

thank you so much for your guidance and letting me vent from time to time. Dr. Harold

Whitfield so appreciate your help with helping me understand SEM and PATH models.

Fauziah Walker, thank for being a great formatter. Doctoral Cohort, I am so blessed to

have each one of you in my life because of you added something special to this

educational journey and I have made life-long friends. Career Tech Women in

Leadership group, thank you for helping me change my perspective. My Tulsa Tech

Family, so many of you should be named, but I have to keep this to one page. I do want

to thank to Dr. Tiger and the rest of the ELT for allowing me to use Tulsa Tech to gather

data. I appreciate your constant encouragement and support. For my former TPS family,

thanks for checking on my progress and offering kind thoughts and prayers.

My Family: To my husband Lawrence and son Jefferson, thank you for

understanding my need to be a lifelong learner. I know you sacrificed, and I deeply love

and appreciate you both for that. Finally, in keeping with Romans 8:28, “I know all that

all things work together for good to them that love God and are called according to his

purpose.

iv
 Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4

Statement of Purpose ........................................................................................................... 5

Definition of Terms.............................................................................................................. 5

Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 7

Communication Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 8

Effects of Communication Satisfaction ............................................................................ 13

Job Satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 14

Organizational Commitment ............................................................................................. 15

Readiness for Organizational Change............................................................................... 17

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 21

Component of Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................................... 21

Cognitive Influences ...................................................................................................... 22

Behavioral Influences .................................................................................................... 23

Environmental Influences.............................................................................................. 24

Social and Psychological Aspects of Organizational Readiness to Change................... 26

Hypothesized Model and Rationale .................................................................................. 28

Chapter 4: Research Methods................................................................................................ 32

Background......................................................................................................................... 33
v
 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 34

Profile of Participants ........................................................................................................ 35

Measures ............................................................................................................................. 37

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire................................................................. 38

Job Satisfaction Scale .................................................................................................... 38

Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment ........................................... 39

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) .................................... 40

Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 40

Study Limitations ............................................................................................................... 43

Internal Validity ............................................................................................................. 43

External Validity ............................................................................................................ 44

Chapter 5: Results .................................................................................................................. 46

Descriptive Statistics of Participants ................................................................................ 46

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables ................................................................... 47

Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 48

Research Question One...................................................................................................... 53

Research Question Two ..................................................................................................... 57

Communication Satisfaction as the Independent Variable ......................................... 58

Job Satisfaction as a Mediator ...................................................................................... 59

Affective Commitment as a Mediator .......................................................................... 60

vi
 Normative Commitment as the Mediator ..................................................................... 61

Path Model with All Mediating Variables ................................................................... 63

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 65

Chapter 6: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 67

Leadership Communication and Readiness to Change.................................................... 67

Leadership Communication and Social-Psychological Processes Behind Readiness to

Change ................................................................................................................................ 71

Implications for Leadership Practice ................................................................................ 76

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 78

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 81

References .............................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix A........................................................................................................................... 103

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire ................................................................... 103

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 105

Job Satisfaction Survey.................................................................................................... 105

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 107

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ................................................................... 107

Appendix D........................................................................................................................... 108

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change Questionnaire ............................ 108

Appendix E ........................................................................................................................... 109

vii
 IRB Approval ................................................................................................................... 109

Appendix F ........................................................................................................................... 110

Letter for District Approval to Use Tulsa Tech Employees as Participants................. 110

viii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Eight Dimensions of Communication Satisfaction ................................................. 9

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Study Measures .................................................................. 44

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Sample ............................................................................. 47

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables ............................................................. 48

Table 5. Analysis of Age, Gender, or Job Role Differences in Scores on the Study

Measures ................................................................................................................................. 49

Table 6. Correlation Matrix of Demographic Variables and Continuous Variables 55

Table 7. Correlations between All Study Variables ............................................................. 52

Table 8. Comparative Fit Indices for the Structural Equation Models ............................... 65

Table 9. Results for Linear Regression with CommSatScore predicting ORCscore ......... 53

Table 10. Model Fit Statics for All Path Models Tested ..................................................... 65

Table 11. Unstandardized regression Weights for Complex Path Model .......................... 65

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model .............................................................................................. 30

Figure 2. Q-Q Scatterplot for Normality of the Residuals for the Regression Model

460

Figure 3. Residuals Scatterplot Testing Homoscedasticity 46

Figure 4. Studentized Residuals Plot for Outlier Detection 47

Figure 5. Path Model Examining Communication Satisfaction as a Variable for

Organizational Readiness for Change................................................................................... 59

Figure 6. Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Job

Satisfaction) ............................................................................................................................ 59

Figure 7. Path Model Examining Job Satisfaction as a Mediator in the Association

between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change ............ 60

Figure 8. Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Job

Satisfaction) ............................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 9. Path Model Examining Affective Commitment as a Mediator in the Association

between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change ............ 61

Figure 10. Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Normative

Commitment).......................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 11. Path Model Examining Normative Commitment as a Mediator in the

Association between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for

Change .................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 12. Complex Path Model Examining Multiple Mediators in the Association

between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change ............ 64

x
 Abstract

Although literature establishes the importance of top-level executives’

communication during times of change, there is a lack of empirical research focusing on

Communication Satisfaction’s role on Readiness for Organizational Change within a

CTE (Career Tech Education) institution. Questions arise on how these two variables

function during the change process. Within the context of change, this study

demonstrated that Communication Satisfaction contributed to Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment by targeting both employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Using

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) as the theoretical framework for the research,

this study explored what the relationship of Communication Satisfaction has on

Organizational Readiness to Change and how employees’ thoughts and behaviors related

to embracing new reforms that can affect the overall effectiveness of planned

organizational change. Using several different survey instruments, employees reported on

their level of Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,

and Organizational Readiness to Change. Structural equation modeling revealed

Communication Satisfaction contributed to changes in both attitudes and behaviors

suggesting that CTE institutions should emphasize incorporating various communication

methods in their reform efforts to set the foundation for employees embracing change.

This study focused on the role of both site/top level supervisors’ communication in

creating a high level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment through attitudes

and behaviors of employees. The study concludes with implications for theory and

practice along with recommendations for further research.

Keywords: communication satisfaction, organizational readiness to change

xi
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Receptiveness to change is vital to organizational growth and effectiveness

(Argenti, 2007). Change readiness reduces employees’ resistance to new expectations and

circumstances, helping them commit to intended changes (Allan, 2014). Because the

future is often uncertain, people may resist changes they view as unnecessary. People

need trust, support, and cooperation to function effectively and be receptive to uncertain

futures. If organizational members are unprepared for change, new reforms may be

rejected via sabotage, absenteeism, and output restrictions (Bray & Williams, 2017; Oso

et al., 2017). Thus, managers face the task of empowering employees to embrace new

strategies and commitment during organizational change (Simsek, 2016; Wagner, et al.,

2015).

Communication is one of the most important components of effective

organizational change (Bennebroak-Gravenhorst et al., 2006; Elving, 2005; Elving &

Hansma, 2008; Ngozi & Ifeoma, 2015). However, new initiatives are not always

communicated successfully and employees may be unsatisfied with the communication

strategies used to inform them of changes and desired goals (Burke, 2008; Fernandez &

Rainey, 2006; Hargie et al., 1999). Communication is critical to behavioral change and

goal attainment during strategic change initiatives (Saruhan, 2014). Without employee

support, change efforts are unlikely to achieve deep and lasting transformation (Oso, et

al., 2017).

A key to managing and planning effective change is the creation of environments

that provide psychological safety that allows employees to risk vulnerability

(Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Supportive, cooperative, and trusting relationships help

1
foster employee readiness and commitment to change. Readiness can also be achieved by

managing interpersonal relationships within organizations (Vakola, 2014). Change

readiness reflects individuals’ beliefs, feelings, and intentions about the necessity of

changes and how capable individuals and organizations are to enact those changes

(Vakola et al., 2013).

Communication is a catalyst for preparing individuals to perform in new ways.

Poor communication can foster negative rumors and resistance to change (Van Dam et

al., 2008), and undermine healthy corporate culture (Keyton, 2005). Accordingly,

managers’ use of effective communication strategies is essential to engaging employees

in new practices associated with organizational change. Employees view managers as key

decision makers (Simsek, 2016) and critical information sources about new strategies and

performance (Hindi et al., 2004) during organizational change.

Information about change management comes from different sources. In fact,

history reveals the necessity of embracing and proactively managing uncertainties in

order to survive, much less stay ahead of the competition. Although change management

is relatively straightforward, over 70% of reforms fail to produce meaningful and lasting

improvements (Tobias, 2014). Effective implementation of new initiatives requires

managers to leverage strategies to maintain existing investments while improving

processes and outcomes. Communication is essential to preparing employees for change

and motivating them toward organizational improvements (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012;

Wagner et al., 2015).

Attempts to implement strategic initiatives, practices, or policies in organizations

often fail because leaders do not establish sufficient organizational readiness for change

2
(Mrayyan, 2019; Rhodes et al., 2003). Organizational readiness refers to “the extent to

which organizational members are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to

implement organizational change” (Weiner et al., 2009, p. 298). When organizational

readiness is high, members are more likely to initiate change, exert greater effort, exhibit

greater persistence, and display more cooperative behavior; these behaviors result in

more effective implementation of proposed changes (Weiner et al., 2009). Conversely,

when organizational readiness is low, members are more likely to view changes as

undesirable and subsequently avoid or resist changes (Weiner et al., 2009).

A major source of apprehension during organizational change is employees’

belief they lack control over decisions and strategies that affect them (Harp, 2011). Open

and regular communication can counteract these apprehensions. Leaders who inform

employees of the rationale behind changes and clearly communicate expected outcomes

can keep workers engaged in the change process (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012; Von

Treuer, et al., 2018). Maintaining ongoing dialog with employees through effective two-

way communication allows leaders to communicate an understanding of employee

concerns and interest in worker input (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012). In this way,

communication can be a vehicle through which organizations move toward desired

changes and outcomes (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2012; Simsek, 2016).

The alignment between an organization’s communication strategy and its

implementation of strategic initiatives is imperative to success. According to Kotter and

Cohen (2002), effective communication strategy consists of seven key elements: clear

and simple messaging; utilizing metaphors, analogies, and examples whenever possible;

employing multiple forms of communication; making sure the same message is

3
transmitted through various mechanisms; repeating the message to ensure understanding;

top management role modeling expected behavior; implementing two-way

communication is the preferred method of communication flow. Establishing an

appropriate communication approach, especially during strategic planning and plan

implementation, helps ensure all employees understand the overall goals and their roles

in realizing those goals (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). The importance of communication for

activating social and psychological drivers for change provides the context for this study.

As existing evidence makes clear, effective communication brings clarity to what is often

an uncertain process (Ngozi & Ifeoma, 2015), and in doing so supports individuals in

bringing about desired changes. This knowledge provides a foundation for the current

study and the problem that the study seeks to address.

Statement of the Problem

As evidenced by the literature, a great deal of research exists on communication

and organizational change (Rapert et al., 2002; Saunders et al., 2008; Spee &

Jarzabkowski, 2011); however, existing scholarship does not fully account for the process

by which communication facilitates or impedes one’s willingness to change. Largely

overlooked in the existing research is the relationship between communication and

employees’ organizational commitment. Moreover, organizational communication has

not been examined within the technical education arena in the midst of new reforms. The

current study addressed these gaps in the literature by examining the relationship between

communication, satisfaction, and readiness to change in a career tech school that was in

the initial stages of a strategic planning initiative.

4
Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the connection between leadership

communication and employees’ willing to accept organizational change in a career tech

organization. The following research questions guided the review of literature and

informed the hypothesized model tested in this study:

RQ1: What is the relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational readiness to change in a career tech district implementing a new strategic

plan?

RQ2: What factors may mediate the relationship between communication

satisfaction and organizational readiness to change in a career tech district implementing

a new strategic plan?

The above questions guided the review of literature in which communication

satisfaction is defined and its effects on employee psychological states and behavior are

described. Additionally, readiness to change is defined and individual and organizational

conditions related to its formation are examined. Evidence related to the questions, along

with social cognitive theory, establish support for a hypothesized path model that is tested

in the empirical study.

Definition of Terms

Affective commitment. Affective commitment describes how much an employee

actually likes or feels part of an organization (Saunders et al., 2008).

Career tech education. Career and technical education (CTE) is the practice of

teaching specific career skills to students in middle school, high school, and post-

secondary institutions (Stauffer, 2019).

5
 Communication satisfaction. Communication satisfaction describes one’s level

of satisfaction with the various features of interpersonal and group communication within

an organizational context (Downs & Hazen, 1977).

Continuance commitment. Continuance commitment describes the costs an

employee associates with leaving an organization (Hartmann et al., 2014).

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined as the level of contentment and

achievement an employee experiences with their job responsibilities and work

environment (Tobias, 2014).

Normative commitment. Normative commitment is the degree to which

employees stay with an organization out of a sense of duty and obligation (Hartmann et

al., 2014).

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is the strength of

attachment an employee feels towards and organization (Hartmann et al., 2014).

Organizational readiness to change. Organizational readiness to change refers

to ‘organizational members’ shared resolved to implement a change (change

commitment) and a shared belief in their collective capability to do so (Weiner, 2009).

Social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory is used to describe learning and

motivation that occurs in a social context, with a dynamic and reciprocal interactions of

the person, environment, and behavior (Bandura, 1986).

Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter 1 explained the significance of this study in relation to addressing the

importance of communication satisfaction for employees during organizational change. A

problem statement, purpose of study, and definition of terms were also presented.

6
Chapter 2 provides a review of literature in which Social Cognitive Theory is the lens for

presenting and explaining the hypotheses. Key concepts are defined and described,

including communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

organizational readiness to change. This theory and key concepts provide a framework

for the current investigation.

Chapter 3 describes the hypotheses and rationale. Social cognitive theory is used

to explain the hypothesized relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational readiness to change. Chapter 4 depicts the methods used to analyze the

data. The research context, research design, and evaluation tools are explained. The data

source and measures are described, and analytical techniques are explained and justified.

Study results are presented in Chapter 5, including findings from descriptive

statistics, as well as findings from correlational analysis and multiple linear regressions.

Finally, Chapter 6 provides a discussion and summary of the findings with a restatement

of the hypothesis, explanation of data supporting each claim, whether the data supported

or disputed each claim, along with an argument for the evidence. This chapter also

provides an explanation for the findings based on theoretical and speculative analysis

with key implication for practice and suggestions for further research.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Effective communication is critical to the overall success of an organization and

vitally important to the strategic planning process (Kupritz & Cowell, 2011). To

understand the effects of communication on employee behavior, it is necessary to explore

the concept of communication satisfaction and examine evidence of its effects. It is also

7
necessary to define readiness to change and factors related to this condition. This review

of literature accomplishes both of these tasks.

Communication Satisfaction

Communication satisfaction has been generally defined as an individual’s or

group’s satisfaction with the information flow within the organization (Clampitt &

Downs, 1993; Downs & Adrian, 2004; Nakra, 2006). Traditionally, communication

satisfaction has been considered a one-dimensional construct, with employees expressing

general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with organizational communication. However,

recent research reveals communication satisfaction is multidimensional, encompassing

different types of information and means of dissemination (Asgari et al., 2008; De Nobile

& McCormick, 2008; Gülnar, 2007; Tobias, 2014). Employees are not merely satisfied or

dissatisfied with overall communication, but they tend to feel and express different

degrees of satisfaction about definite categories or types of communication (Downs &

Adrian, 2004).

To illustrate the diverse scope of organizational communication, Downs and

Hazen (1977) identified eight dimensions of communication satisfaction (Table 1), which

describe the type and quality of information, relationships, social channels, and

organizational climate. These dimensions provide a comprehensive foundation for the

conceptualization of communication satisfaction within an organization. Downs and

Hazen’s dimensions address the quality of information, the individuals involved in the

communicational, organizational conditions, and communication tools.

The first dimension described by Downs and Hazen (1977) is Organizational

Perspective. This dimension refers to the information shared about organizational

8
performance, strategies, and goals (Downs & Adrian, 2004). Information communicated

within this dimension includes general or major organizational changes, financial

standings, information about policies and goals, market analysis, and changing

regulations and environmental conditions. Satisfaction is based on the degree to which

managers keep employees abreast of organizational performance and future events or

issues to be aware of.

Table 1
Eight Dimensions of Communication Satisfaction

Organizational Perspective General information about the organization - overall

policies, goals, and progress

Communication Climate Extent that communications environment stimulates

employees and general attitudes about
communication

Organizational Integration The extent that individuals receive feedback about

the immediate work environment

Supervisor Communication Two-way communication with work supervisors;

consulting and participative styles

Personal Feedback How employees are judged and how their

performance is being appraised

Subordinate Communication Two-way communication of those in managerial

positions

Horizontal and Informal Accurate and free flowing lateral communication;

Communication includes information gathered informally; also called
the “grapevine”

Media Quality Technical tools used to deliver information

Communication Climate is the second dimension described by Downs and Hazen

(1977). Climate refers to the general pattern of attitudes and behaviors within an

organization. Communication climate, then, encompasses both personal and

9
organizational communication. Personal communication helps create community spirit by

informing employees about expectations, company policies, celebrating successes,

recognizing outstanding performance, and acknowledging other issues that affect an

organization’s esprit de corps (Elving, 2005). Communication climate also refers to the

extent to which communication stimulates and motivates employees to meet

organizational goals, as well as the degree to which employees identify with an

organization (Downs & Adrian, 2004).

The third dimension, Organizational Integration, refers to the satisfaction

employees have with the information they receive about their organization and immediate

work environment (Downs & Adrian, 2004). Organizational integration includes

interdepartmental policies and plans, requirements for individuals’ respective job

responsibilities, and news about co-workers and other personnel. Attempts to improve

organizational integration are often futile if leaders do not support team environments via

communication that integrates different divisions of an organization (Clampitt & Downs,

1993; Downs & Adrian, 2004; Downs & Hazen, 1977).

The fourth dimension described by Downs and Hazen (1977) is Supervisor

Communication, which includes the components of two-way communication. Two-way

communication is the process by which people exchange information, feelings, and

meaning through verbal and non-verbal messages, which may affect employee

performance. This dimension measures superiors’ sincerity toward subordinates as well

as their ability to listen and pay attention to employees (Downs & Adrian, 2004).

Additional elements of supervisor communication include perceived employee trust and

the extent to which supervisors offer quality guidance during problem-solving situations.

10
 Satisfaction with personal feedback is the fifth dimension described by Downs

and Hazen (1977). This dimension relates to employees’ desires to understand how their

job performance will be evaluated and appraised (Downs & Adrian, 2004). The fifth

dimension clarifies the methods used to evaluate employees, such as top-down, peer, 360

degree, and project-based. In addition, this dimension helps organizations identify and

categorize employees based on their work outcomes (Thelen, 2021), which helps leaders

motivate high performers and provide proper training to those who do not meet job

expectations. This dimension also encompasses questions about superiors’ understanding

of job-related problems.

Subordinate Communication is the sixth dimension, which reflects managers’

perceptions of two-way communication within an organizational structure (Downs &

Adrian, 2004). Employee responsiveness to downward communication, as well as their

willingness and capability to send accurate upward communication is measured.

Superiors are also asked whether they experience communication overload.

Horizontal and Informal Communication is the seventh dimension of Downs and

Hazen’s (1977) framework. This dimension refers to the information delivered and the

amount of activity within information networks (Downs & Adrian, 2004). For example,

to prepare an organization for change, the objectives of new initiatives must be

communicated, as well as why the changes are taking place. The accuracy and flow of

communication and information gathered informally and unofficially between co-workers

is also identified, often called the “grapevine,” that can be filled with innuendo and

uncertainty which could undermine new reforms.

11
 Media Quality is the final dimension, which describes the technical tools used to

deliver information to employees, such as answering employees’ questions regarding

efficiency, rewards, control, and relationship roles (Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Downs &

Adrian, 2004; Downs & Hazen, 1977). This dimension accounts for perception toward

various tools to communicate with employees. Electronic mail, intranet, social media,

video conferences, and webinars are some common communication tools used to apprise

employees of activities and organizational news (Hynes, 2015). For example, perceptions

of media quality may relate to an organization’s personnel meetings, the clarity of written

directives, and the helpfulness of organizational publications (Clampitt & Downs, 1993;

Downs & Adrian, 2004; Downs & Hazen, 1977). Employees are asked about the

helpfulness and clarity of information, along with the perceived quality.

Higher levels of communication satisfaction fostered through the eight

dimensions can enhance employees’ sense of membership and belonging. The traditional

workplace model, in which employees work in the same building, speak the same

language, and meet face-to-face, has become antiquated (Payne, 2013). Today’s

organizations require colleagues to communicate via phone calls, email, and virtual

meetings. Communication Satisfaction not only applies to the means of communication,

but also the context of communication, such as management meetings, annual appraisals,

and employee surveys (Ngozi & Ifeoma, 2015).

Perhaps the actual communication dimension is not suitable for the purpose

intended or the employees are not aware of how to properly utilize the dimension, and

lastly the dimension could conflict with the overall culture of the organization (Payne,

2013; Simsek, 2016). For example, video conferencing may be an ineffective means of

12
communication because the supporting technology is not available, participants may be

unable to adapt their communication styles, or employees may feel that face time and

interpersonal relationships are more important when communicating (Langone, 2018).

The effect of communication on an organization involves many factors. Organizations

can achieve high levels of communication satisfaction by providing employees with

necessary tools, support, guidance, and skills.

When employees’ needs and expectations are positively met, customers’ needs

and expectations are more likely to be satisfied, promoting increased organizational

productivity and growth. However, the outcomes of poorly managed communication

include rumors and resistance to change, creating potential barriers to organizational

changes (Kumar, 2009; Langone, 2018). Proper development of Downs and Hazen’s

(1977) eight Dimensions of Communication Satisfaction can guard against ineffective

communication during planned change.

Effects of Communication Satisfaction

Relevant and meaningful communication educates and informs employees at all

levels, and also motivates them to support new reforms (Langone, 2018). Previous

research on organizational communication revealed that when employees’

communication needs are met, they are more likely to build effective work relationships

(Gray & Laidlaw, 2004; Wagner et al., 2015). Langone (2018) and Hunt et al., (2000)

reported that individuals’ cognitive and affective perceptions of an organization influence

their behavior within the organization; this feature is vital because change readiness is

imperative to successful transformation initiatives (Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Lambert &

Hogan, 2009) and resistance is a major barrier to overcome.

13
 Employees look to management for credible information about the nature and

effects of new strategies because executive leaders often decide the direction and scope

of the new initiatives (Bray & Williams, 2017). Simsek (2016) along with Andevski and

Arsenijevi (2012) found that effective communication reduced the amount of time

employees needed to determine how to act in professional situations. When employees

understand management’s expectations, they are better positioned to contribute to

management’s goals (Gilsdorf, 1998). The researchers noted that employees who

received clear and accurate communication performed at higher levels and were more

likely to experience high job satisfaction. Alternatively, poor employee communication

satisfaction can result in increased stress, staff turnover, absenteeism, and burnout

(Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Ngozi & Ifeoma, 2015). Two possible outcomes associated

with effective Communication Satisfaction are job satisfaction and organizational

commitment.

Job Satisfaction

Positive relationships exist between the amount of time spent communicating new

initiatives, increased job satisfaction, and the level of effort expended by employees

(Carriere & Bourque, 2009). Recent researchers (Oso et al., 2017; Vermeir et al., 2018)

found organizational communication satisfaction was significantly and positively

associated with job satisfaction. Ngozi and Ifeoma (2015) reported that employee job

performance was influenced by the accuracy of information shared within the workplace,

and high job performance was related to high job satisfaction. As Tobias (2014)

explained, without open and ongoing communication among group members, behaviors

are likely to become random, disorganized, and uncommitted to specific goals.

14
Organizational leaders can help prevent low job satisfaction by providing accurate

information, enhancing communication, and training employees to cope with the stress

created by organizational change (Simsek, 2016; Tobias, 2014).

Researchers have identified significant relationships between organizational

communication and job satisfaction. If organizations can develop consistent

improvements to communication, it is likely that levels of employee job satisfaction will

increase (Kumar, 2009). Communication practices can affect employees’ sense of

community and organizational commitment (Carriere & Bourque, 2009), which

emphasizes the important role of organizational communication in employees’ job

perceptions and performance. Positive relationships between communication satisfaction

and job performance support further research about communication and its influence on

job satisfaction and performance (Carriere & Bourque, 2009).

Organizational Commitment

Researchers have linked effective organizational communication with reduced

turnover and change resistance, higher levels of employee engagement, and increased

employee commitment (Ammari et al., 2017). Evidence supports a relationship between

employee voice (freedom to speak up about concerns and the ability to argue the issues

surrounding those concerns) and organizational commitment (Tobias, 2014), which

describes an employees’ desire to remain employed by an organization, acceptance of its

goals and values, and willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization (Bray &

Williams, 2017).

Carriere and Bourque (2009) found that organizational commitment depended

largely on employees’ knowledge and understanding of a company’s strategic issues.

15
Accordingly, communication must be well managed during any change process to avoid

confusion. Messages should be clear, honest, accurate, and utilize a variety to mediums

with high coverage and effect (Karakaya, 2013; Simsek, 2016). Other researchers have

reported similar findings regarding communication and its influence on organizational

commitment. For example, Ghiyasvandian et al., (2017), Abdullah and Hui (2014), and

Stewart et al., (2019) discovered a positive relationship between communication

satisfaction and employees’ organizational commitment. Employees often decide how

they feel about an organization and set their commitment level accordingly.

In a study on similarities of underlying relationships between organizational

commitment and communication, Baker-Tate (2010) compared data from several

institutions of higher learning and found the communication practiced in an organization

was directly related to organizational commitment. As Allen et al. (2007) explains,

sincere and effective communication allows employees to integrate organizational

reforms by internalizing organizational objectives and rules. The extent to which

employees’ own values and goals relate to those of an organization influence their

organizational commitment; therefore, it is considered to be the linkage between the

individual employee and the organization (Allen et al., 2007; Ammari et al., 2017;

Wagner et al., 2015), and contributes to an organization’s successful implementation of

new reforms.

According to Baker-Tate (2010) and Bray and Williams (2017), the relationship

between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment supports additional

research about communication and its influence on job satisfaction and employee

commitment. The effect of communication on an organization involves many factors.

16
Communication may be used as a mechanism to dismantle the actual construct of

communication satisfaction; how communication relates to job satisfaction and

organizational commitment can provide a strong framework for understanding

employees’ readiness for organizational change.

Readiness for Organizational Change

Weiner (2009) defined organizational readiness for change as, “organizational

members’ shared resolved to implement a change (change commitment) and a shared

belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy)” (p. 295). Similar to

Bandura’s (1997) notion of collective efficacy, Weiner conceived of readiness to change

as a belief in the collective commitment of organizational members to the planned

change, along with organizational members’ confidence in their ability to bring about

change. Weiner emphasized shared beliefs and collective capabilities because effective

implementation entails collective and collaborative action among interdependent

employees and work teams.

As Bandura (2000) and others (Vermeir et al., 2018; Von Treuer et al., 2018) have

noted, efficacy judgments refer to action capabilities; efficacy judgments are neither

outcome expectancies nor assessments of knowledge, skills, or resources. Organizational

members influence the ways in which policies, procedures, and new reforms are

implemented (Weiner, et al., 2020). Differences in employees, such as cultures,

personalities, values, communication styles, education level, and a plethora of other

factors, can make efficacy judgments difficult. Change efficacy, an element of readiness,

is higher when people share a sense of confidence that they can collectively implement

complex organizational change. Weiner’s (2009) definition of organizational readiness

17
for change is suitable for examining changes in which collective action underpins system-

wide implementation of new processes. Shared resolve solidifies individuals’ collective

energy and motivation to bring a new vision to life.

Organizational readiness for change is considered a key precursor to successful

implementation of organizational reform (Lewin, 1951; Weiner, et al., 2020). The failure

to establish sufficient readiness accounts for almost fifty percent of failed organizational

change efforts (Kuhar et al., 2004). Change management research indicates that the

readiness of organizational members creates an atmosphere that encourages individuals to

embrace new process and initiatives (Weiner, 2009).

Using Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model of change, experts have suggested

several strategies to create readiness for change by “unfreezing” current mindsets and

generating motivation for change. These plans include emphasizing incongruities

between present and preferred performance levels, provoking dissatisfaction with current

situations, establishing an appealing image of the future, and encouraging confidence that

a desired future state can be achieved (Gupta, 2011; Holt et al., 2006; Levesque et al.,

2001; Mrayyan, 2019; Narine & Persaud, 2003; Weiner et al., 2009; Win & Chotiyaputta,

2018). Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) observed that organizational members can commit

to organizational change because they want to (they value the change), because they have

to (they have little choice), or because they ought to (they feel obliged). Commitment

based on “want to” indicates the highest level of commitment to readiness for

organizational change.

Organizational readiness for change fluctuates according to how strongly

organizational members value new initiatives (Weiner, 2009; Weiner, et al., 2020).

18
Problems can arise when some actors are committed to implementation, but others are

not. Previous research related to management communication suggests that employees’

perceptions of management communication affects their willingness to do things

differently, as well as the degree to which they engage in the change process (Mrayyan,

2019). Lasting change requires members to incorporate new innovations and policies into

their daily routines.

When readiness for change is high, employees are more likely to initiate change,

exert greater effort, exhibit persistence, and display more cooperative behaviors because

they know what to expect, how to proceed, and have necessary resources available to

implement new reforms (Weiner, 2009). A more effective implementation is the result.

Without the support of employees throughout an entire organization, sweeping and

radical transformation efforts are likely to fail (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Weiner, et

al., 2020). The unsatisfactory results of many reforms or improvements (Attaran et al.,

2019; Marks, 2006; Paper & Chang, 2005) accentuate the fact that organizations are

frequently ineffective at achieving the needed levels of employee commitment to change,

so then what are the conditions necessary to foster a shared sense of readiness?

Klein and Kozlowski (2000) argued that “leadership messages and actions,

information sharing through social interaction, and shared experience--including

experience with past change efforts--could promote commonality in organizational

members’ readiness perceptions” (p. 226). Organizational members are unlikely to hold

common perceptions and demonstrate willingness to embrace new ways of doing things

if communication is limited and/or leaders act in ways that are inconsistent with the new

vision. Additionally, limited opportunities for departments to share information and make

19
sense of new situations can constrain organizational readiness for change (Weiner, 2009).

Thus, lower organizational readiness for change could result from poor communication

strategies and a lack of information sharing (Weiner, et al., 2020).

Creating a shared sense of readiness can be difficult for organizations to achieve

(Courpasson et al., 2012; Mrayyan, 2019; Von Treuer et al., 2018; Win & Chotiyaputta,

2018). Such difficulties explain why numerous organizations fail to generate adequate

organizational readiness for change and subsequently experience complications or utter

failure when implementing complex organizational reforms (Weiner, 2009). While

organizational readiness for change may be challenging to achieve, social cognitive

theory proposes several circumstances or conditions that may promote it.

20
 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

Alberta Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) Bandura, (1986) is used in this

study used to examine the relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational readiness to change. This study makes the argument that an appropriate

hypothesized model would target the social and psychological drivers of organizational

readiness to change. This section lays out the design and argument for such a model,

deriving from two sources: 1) the cognitive, behavioral, and environmental components

of social cognitive theory, and 2) evidence on the use of communication satisfaction as a

means of increasing employees’ readiness to change by effecting their job satisfaction

and organizational commitment levels.

Component of Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is used in this study to explain the social and

psychological sources of motivation and human behavior. At the core of SCT, humans

are not forced to act according to external stimuli, neither are they driven by internal

forces (Bandura, 1997). Individuals are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and

self-regulating entities, not merely reactive organisms shaped and shepherded by external

events or internal forces. According to Bandura 2001, human growth, adaptation, and

change are inextricably linked to social systems. As a result, individual agency acts

within a complex network of social factors. Personal agency and social structure work as

co-determinants within this structure and people react based on their own perceptions,

conduct, and social surroundings (Bandura, 2001).

Human nature has a broad potential that may be shaped into a wide range of

forms within biological constraints by direct and observational experience (Bandura,

21
2001). To assert that one of the primary differentiating characteristics of humans is their

innate adaptability is not to imply that they lack nature or are created without structure

(Miles et al., 1996). The inherent flexibility of humans is dependent on

neurophysiological systems and structures that have evolved over time. These highly

developed brain networks specialized in processing, preserving, and utilizing coded

information enabled the development of distinctly human capacities such as generative

symbolization, foresight, evaluative self-regulation, reflective self-consciousness, and

symbolic communication (Bandura, 2001). These three influences-cognitive, behavioral,

and environmental-constantly interact with each other in a triadic and dramatic

relationship (Bandura, 1986). These capabilities are discussed in detail in the following

sections

Cognitive Influences

Cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes are important to

SCT. The majority of environmental variables have an effect on behavior indirectly,

through cognitive processes. Cognitive factors influence which environmental events are

perceived, how they are interpreted, whether they have enduring consequences, their

emotional impact and motivating strength, and how the knowledge they transmit is

organized for future use (Bandura, 2001). People process and turn temporary experiences

into cognitive models that serve as guides for judgment and behavior through the use of

symbols then people add meaning, form, and connection to their experiences.

By operating symbolically on the plethora of information gained from personal

and vicarious experiences, individuals develop an understanding of causal relationships

(Bandura, 2001). They also learn to resolve issues by developing solutions, evaluating

22
their potential results, and selecting suitable possibilities without having to engage in an

arduous behavioral search (Bandura, 2000). Through the use of symbols, humans can

communicate across time and space. However, social cognitive theory, in keeping with

the interactional perspective, puts the main focus on the social origins of cognition and

the mechanisms through which social factors influence cognitive functioning.

Behavioral Influences

Individuals are more than knowers and performers. They are also self-reactors

with the capacity for self-direction. Effective behavioral functioning creates the

elimination of external punishments and demands in favor of self-regulation (Bandura,

2001). Motivation, mood, and action are all self-regulated in part through internal

standards and evaluative reactions to one's own conduct (Bandura, 1997). Self-

satisfaction associated with meeting desired standards and dissatisfaction associated with

inadequate performance serve as intrinsic motivators for action (Bandura, 2001). The

motivational benefits of standards are not due to the standards themselves, but to the

evaluative self-investment in activities and positive and negative reactions to one's

performance.

Most self-regulation ideas are based on a negative feedback loop in which

individuals attempt to reduce the gap between their perceived performance and an

established benchmark (Bandura, 2001). However, self-regulation through negative

disparity only conveys half of the issue. Indeed, humans are proactive, aspirational

organisms. Human self-regulation is based on both the development and decrease of

discrepancies (Bandura, 2001). Through proactive control, individuals drive and direct

their behaviors by setting demanding goals and then utilizing their resources, talents, and

23
efforts to accomplish them. After achieving the goal for which they were striving,

individuals with a strong sense of competence set new ones for themselves. Adopting

additional challenges introduces fresh motivational discrepancies to overcome. Thus,

Bandura 2001 states that, self-regulation of motivation and activity entails a dual control

process that begins with the generation of disequilibrium discrepancies (proactive

control) and ends with the reduction of equilibrating discrepancies (reactive control).

Additional research indicates that successful completion of challenging tasks

fosters motivation (Abdullah, 2019; Porter et al., 2003). This does not mean, however,

that simply accomplishing a task will result in increased readiness to change. Rather,

readiness to change depends on how employees psychologically process the information

generated from tasks. Learning from one’s previous accomplishments, as well as those of

other employees, is particularly important when individuals have little prior experience

on which to arrive at a base assessment (Ozyilmaz et al., 2018).

Environmental Influences

Psychological theories have historically placed a premium on learning through the

consequences of one's actions. If information and skills were gained solely through

reaction consequences, human progress would be significantly slowed, to say nothing of

being extremely tiresome and dangerous (Bandura, 2000). A culture cannot transfer its

language, social behaviors, and essential abilities if they must be painstakingly sculpted

each time a new member responds in the absence of models exemplifying the cultural

norms (Bandura, 2001). Accelerating the acquisition process is critical for survival and

self-development, as natural endowment supplies few inborn abilities, threats are

constant, and errors can be fatal. Additionally, time, budget, and mobility constraints

24
severely restrict the places and activities that can be investigated directly for the purpose

of acquiring new information and competencies (Bandura, 2001).

Humans have acquired a sophisticated aptitude for observational learning, which

enables them to swiftly extend their knowledge and abilities through the information

communicated by a diverse array of models. Indeed, practically all behavioral, cognitive,

and affective learning can be accomplished vicariously through observation of other

people's behaviors and their outcomes (Bandura, 1986). Much social learning comes as a

result of models in one's immediate environment, either consciously or unintentionally.

However, thorough modeling in the symbolic context of organizational readiness to

change, yields a wealth of knowledge about human values, modes of thought, and

behavioral tendencies.

A significant aspect of symbolic modeling is its enormous scope and psychosocial

influence. Unlike learning by doing, which requires adjusting each individual's actions

through repetitive trial and error, observational learning allows a single model to

simultaneously transmit new ways of thinking and behaving to a large number of people

in widely scattered areas (Bandura, 2001). Another feature of symbolic modeling

amplifies its psychological and societal consequences. People come into close contact

with only a limited portion of the physical and social surroundings on a regular basis.

They work in the same environment, travel the same routes, see the same sights, and

interact with the same group of friends and acquaintances. As a result, without direct

experiencing corrections, their ideas of social reality are heavily impacted by vicarious

experiences—what they see, hear, and read (Bandura, 2000). People act mostly on the

basis of their perceptions of reality. The more people's perceptions of reality are shaped

25
by the symbolic environment of the media, the greater its societal impact (S. Ball et al.,

1976).

Modeling can provide a training approach for enhancing employees’ willingness

to change. Through this strategy, managers can develop effective procedures for coping

with cognitive and behavioral intricacies of a particular job. Those procedures can then

be conveyed to employees and used to create programs to improve competence (Bandura,

2000).

Social and Psychological Aspects of Organizational Readiness to Change

According to Bandura (1986), people experience physical and emotional

sensations when dealing with certain situations, which can influence their cognitive,

motivational and behavioral levels all of which can influence their willingness to change.

Some examples situations that can induce anxiety and stress include taking an exam,

giving a speech in front of a large group of people, or embarking on a task that one hasn’t

previously completed (Blackley, et al., 2021). Even though this source is the least

influential, it is important to note that if an individual is at ease with the task at hand, they

will feel more capable and experience a higher level of competence (Partin-Dunn, 2020).

Because working in teams is vitally important in today’s organizations, Bandura

(1986) extended social cognitive theory from a focus on individual competence, to the

group level and corresponding construct of collective competence (Porter et al., 2003)

which is defined as s group’s shared belief in its joint capabilities to perform actions

required to successfully achieve a certain level of performance (Bandura, 1986; Stajkovic

& Lee, 2001). When shared commitment to organizational readiness to change is

paramount, shared resolve is necessary because implementing complex organizational

26
changes requires collaborative action by a large number of people, each of whom

contributes something to the effort. According to Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002,

organizational members can commit to implementing a change because they want to

(they value the change), because they have to (they have little choice), or because they

ought to (they feel obliged). Commitment motivated by ‘want to’ demonstrates the

highest level of commitment to organizational change implementation. Due to the fact

that implementation is frequently a ‘team sport’, issues arise when some are committed to

implementation while others are not.

According to SCT, collective competence has the same antecedents of self-

competence, which operate through similar processes and have the same correlates and

consequences (Porter et al., 2003) because, as Bandura (1986) explained, "inveterate self-

doubters are not easily forged into a collective efficacious force" (p. 143). Individuals’

beliefs are not detached from the group in which they function, nor is a group’s

competence interdependent of the competence of individuals compromising the group. In

other words, it is hard to access individual competence without considering relevant

group dynamics and how well each member executes their respective roles (Porter et al.,

2003).

Organizational readiness to change is essential to determining group motivation

and performance because successful group performance is contingent upon cooperative

dynamics and shared skills and abilities (Bandura, 2000). Organizational readiness for the

context of this study is a multi-level, multi-faceted construct (Weiner, 2009) that more

precisely, refers to organizational members' commitment to implementing change

(Weiner et al., 2009). This definition is consistent with the common usage of the term

27
'readiness,' which denotes a state of psychological and behavioral readiness to act (i.e.,

willing and able). Organizational readiness to change determines what tasks groups

choose to complete, how much effort they put into those tasks, and how long they sustain

efforts in the face of adverse and uncertain conditions. Research on organizational

readiness to change reveals a strong relationship with work performance. In particular, a

meta-analysis (2,687 groups) by Stajkovic and Lee (2001) found an average correlation

of .45 between organizational readiness to change and group performance. Utilizing the

same probability of success shown for that study, this suggests there is likely almost a

76% probability that a group higher organizational readiness to change with outperform a

group with lower levels of readiness to change (Porter et al., 2003).

Similar to Bandura's concept of goal commitment, change commitment refers to

an organization's members' shared determination to pursue the change implementation

courses of action (Bandura, 1997). As a result, when an organizational readiness is

higher, its members are more likely to initiate change, exert additional effort, demonstrate

greater persistence, and exhibit more cooperative behavior. As a result, implementation

becomes more effective.

Hypothesized Model and Rationale

Previously, Bandura’s (1997) notion of collective efficacy was utilized to

conceptualize organizational readiness to change. The evidence on Social-Cognitive

Theory (SCT) is used to link motivation, self-regulation, and positive mental states. The

general explanation of how multiple motivational components relate to group

effectiveness provided by SCT leads to a hypothesized model that was tested in the

current empirical analysis.

28
 Bandura (1986) stated that humans are not forced to act according to external

stimuli, neither are they driven by internal forces. Rather, people react based on their own

perceptions, conduct, and social surroundings. These three influences—cognitive,

behavioral, and environmental—constantly interact with each other in a triadic and

dramatic relationship (Bandura, 1986).

Research on SCT signifies that individuals with increased self-efficacy beliefs are

increasingly likely to engage in innovative behavior and persist in the face of setbacks

(Abdullah, 2019). This persistence is vital for employees dealing with organizational

change. Researchers have observed that readiness to change is positively related to one’s

ability to successfully cope with changes at work (Mrayyan, 2019) and the perception

that such change is controllable (Vardaman et al., 2012). An employee’s increased

confidence of their capacity to change established work practices, norms, and routines

(Ng & Lucianetti, 2016) can promote new reform implementation. Early adopters might

encounter situations that can create distress (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). However,

employees who experience increases in readiness are increasingly able and motivated to

overcome any negative feelings associated with changes (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). Much

of the existing research indicates that employees’ favorable attitudes toward readiness to

change are positively related to their behavioral adoption and SCT (Coeurderoy et al.,

2014; Mrayyan, 2019). A general description of the social-psychological pathway to

evolution and growth provides the foundation for a hypothesized model that predicts how

communication provokes employee motivation to embrace new initiatives (Figure 1).

29
Figure 1
Hypothesized Model

Motivation to change is influenced by two prominent psychological

characteristics, including job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Both of these

characteristics create productive employee behaviors that foster positive attitudes, greater

cooperation, and increased performance (Memari et al., 2013).

According to Locke (1976), job satisfaction describes “a pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304).

Common predictors of job satisfaction include satisfaction with pay, supervision,

benefits, operating conditions, nature of work, and communication (Carriere & Bourque,

2009). Additionally, job satisfaction has emotional, cognitive, and behavioral

components (Bernstein & Nash, 2008). The emotional component refers to feelings

toward a job, such as boredom, anxiety, or excitement. The cognitive component of job

satisfaction refers to beliefs regarding one’s job, such as the belief that a job is mentally

demanding and challenging. Finally, the behavioral component includes people’s actions

in relation to their work, such as being tardy, staying late, or feigning sickness to avoid

work (Bernstein & Nash, 2008). Employees who exhibit greater job satisfaction are more

likely to exhibit employee empowerment (Gazzoli et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2009),

30
interpersonal relationships, work re-design, and increased service quality (He et al., 2012;

Stewart et al., 2019; Tutuncu & Kozak, 2007).

Organizational commitment is an additional interpersonal source of employee

empowerment. According to Porter et al. (1974), organizational commitment is an

attitudinal perspective to the psychological attachment or affective commitment formed

by employees in relation to their identification and involvement with respective

organizations. Organizational commitment can enhance employee performance (Alanezi,

2015) and foster less turnover and absenteeism (Nehmeh, 2009). In addition, employees

with higher levels of organizational commitment can bring positive outcomes to an

organization (Ngozi & Ifeoma, 2015). Individuals consider the extent to which their own

values and goals relate to that of the organization as part of organizational commitment;

therefore, organizational commitment can link individual employees to organizations.

Most current evidence indicates that employee motivation is fueled by cognitive

functioning, character traits, and motivational states that are partly acquiescent of one’s

job function and social network (Ozyilmaz et al., 2018). The current study focused on the

social–psychological connection to one’s readiness to change. As explained by SCT,

communication satisfaction can determine whether an environment is inspiring and

productive or defeating and limiting (Abdullah, 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on the

evidence, the researcher predicted that communication satisfaction would work to

increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment thus influencing employees’

readiness to change.

31
 Chapter 4: Research Methods

This study followed a non-experimental cross-sectional design. Cross-sectional

research designs have three distinctive features: (a) no time dimension; (b) a reliance on

existing differences rather than changes following an intervention; and (c) groups are

selected based on existing differences rather than random allocation (Hall & Lavrakas,

2008). A cross-sectional design can only be used to measure differences between or

among a variety of people, subjects, or phenomena, rather than a process of change

(Lavrakas, 2008). As such, researchers using this design can only employ a relatively

passive approach to making causal inferences based on findings.

According to Barratt and Kirwan (2009), cross-sectional studies provide a clear

“snapshot” of outcomes and characteristics associated with a change, at a specific point in

time. Unlike an experimental design, in which an intervention is used to produce and

measure change or to create differences, cross-sectional designs are used to study and

draw inferences about existing differences between people, subjects, or phenomena, for a

single point in time. While longitudinal studies involve multiple measurements over an

extended period of time, cross-sectional research examines relationships between

variables at one moment in time.

Groups identified for the current study included employees at Tulsa Technology

Center (TTC) who were faculty and staff that do not supervise employees. Demographic

data were collected from participants, including age, years employed, and job role within

the organization. A description of the participants was advisable so that other readers of

the study know whether the findings of the study of one group of participants might be

similar to another group of participants. These groups represented a cross-section of

32
employees working at TTC and were purposely selected based upon existing differences,

rather than random sampling. Cross-sectional studies are capable of using data from a

large number of subjects; unlike observational studies, cross-sectional studies are not

geographically bound. Because cross-sectional designs generally use survey techniques to

gather data, they are relatively inexpensive and take up little time to conduct.

Background

This research examined the structural relationships among employee

Communication Satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and readiness

to change at TTC. Tulsa Technology Center (TTC) is the oldest and largest technology

center in Oklahoma’s Career Tech System, and was founded in 1965 as part of Tulsa

Public Schools. Tulsa Technology Center purchased its single campus (now the Lemley

Campus) from Tulsa Public Schools and became an independent school district in 1973.

With sites now in Owasso and Sand Springs, along with five other campuses in the Tulsa

metro area, TTC serves over 5000 full-time adult and high school students and consists of

92 programs and 206 full-time faculty.

Tulsa Technology Center offers a wide range of opportunities to prepare students

for career success. Students can choose from a variety of programs including health

sciences, aerospace, pre-engineering, automotive/alternative fuels, and information

technology. Tuition is free for public, private, and home-schooled high school students,

with low-cost tuition for adult learners. Morning, afternoon, evening, and all-day classes

are available to fit any student’s schedule. TTC builds partnerships with business and

industry communities within the Tulsa area, creating opportunities for student placement

33
and work-based experience. Career advising is also available for middle school, high

school, and adult students.

The TTC is currently in the last phase of a four-part strategic planning

implementation. The plan addresses six priority initiatives: (a) increase market awareness

and understanding, (b) improve student access and success, (c) align program portfolio

with industry needs, (d) strengthen partner relationships, (e) enhance organizational

effectiveness, and (f) enrich human capital development and experience. One critical

internal issue identified by a 120-member stakeholder conference held in April 2014 was

internal communication. Horizontal and vertical communication needed to be improved

at all levels of the district, starting with management. The district, in turn, adopted

communication and collaboration as one of its core values, recognizing that success of

the organization depended on effective collaboration and strong partnerships. The TTC is

currently working on various projects and initiatives to promote two-way communication

flow and provide timely, accurate, and complete information to the public, faculty, staff,

and students.

Data Collection

This study was designed in accordance with the guidelines established by the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oklahoma (OU). After meeting

specific training certification requirements and obtaining IRB approval from OU to move

forward with the project, the researcher inquired about receiving approval from the TTC

Superintendent and/or Director of Human Capital to survey faculty and staff.

Oversampling of 425 full-time faculty and staff members at TTC was conducted to

ensure an adequate sample size was obtained. According to previous survey research

34
(Dillman, 2020; Pituch & Stevens, 2015), response rates for email-administered

questionnaires are typically between 20% and 30%.

The total number of faculty and staff available for selection at the time of the

study was obtained via e-mail and phone dialog with the human resource department

(Pam Winterscheidt, email communication, October 2017). To be eligible to participate,

individuals had to be full-time faculty and staff members who were currently employed

by TTC did not hold supervisory roles. Study participation was completely voluntary. For

the quantitative phase of the study, study participants were all currently employed, full-

time faculty and staff members as of October 2017. The survey was administered online

and consisted of several instruments. Participants varied in terms of age, job role, and

years employed within the TTC district. The unit of analysis was individual faculty/staff

for all indicators.

Profile of Participants

The study population included 425 full-time faculty and staff members at TTC

who do not hold supervisory roles. The survey was attempted by 136 employees;

however, 21 of those surveys were eliminated based on the following reasons: 15

participants provided informed consent but did not complete the entire survey; six

participants did not agree to the informed consent. The final dataset consisted of 113

completed surveys, resulting in a 27% response rate. According to Hall and Lavrakas

(2008), a 20-40% response rate for survey research is common; therefore, this response

rate was considered acceptable.

A number of instruments were used to collect quantitative data for this study

(Communication Satisfaction, Job Readiness Questionnaire, Organizational Commitment

35
Questionnaire, and Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change Questionnaire).

The survey instruments were used to assess faculty and staff members’ overall

satisfaction and willingness to implement strategic planning initiatives. These

questionnaires contained response items of different formats, including dichotomous

responses, multiple choice responses, self-assessment items, (measured on the Likert-type

scale), and open-ended questions.

The surveys were web-based and accessed through the URL provided by

Qualtrics, which was sent to all current full-time faculty and staff members identified by

the Human Resource Department at TTC. An advantage of web-based surveys is that

participants’ responses were automatically stored in a database, and the final dataset was

easily transformed into numeric data in Excel or SPSS formats. All of the employees at

TTC had a company email address. Email can be used for company announcements as

well as notifications, thus making work emails an ideal medium for reaching the majority

of TTC’s employees.

This study used a consent procedure to notify participants of the voluntary nature

of the study. Participants were informed of the purpose of the research, the time involved,

how the research would benefit them, who to contact for questions concerning the

research, and contact information regarding questions about their rights as a research

participant. This information was addressed in a cover letter to all participants of online

surveys. After the online survey was ready for delivery, an email notice was distributed to

announce the study. Flyers were placed on prominent bulletin boards, encouraging

faculty and staff to check their email for the study invitation. Five days after the

announcement, the web-based survey was sent to potential respondents along with the

36
aforementioned cover letter. When respondents clicked the link to the web-based survey,

they had to check a button that stated “I agree to complete these surveys.” This action

served as evidence of their agreement to participate in the research study and complete

the questionnaires.

Once completed, employees simply clicked a button and the electronic survey was

submitted. As an incentive to participate in the study, respondents were able to provide

contact information if they wanted to participate in a random drawing for a prize. This

information was kept separate from the actual data; after data collection was complete,

the information was destroyed.

Measures

The study survey consisted of 118 questions. The instrument was comprised of an

informed consent form, three demographic questions, items from four validated surveys,

and one qualitative, open-ended question. The first survey was the Communication

Satisfaction Questionnaire (Downs & Hazen, 1977), which consisted of 42 questions. The

second survey was the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997), which consisted of 36

questions. The third survey was the Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational

Commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997), which consisted of 18 questions. The fourth survey

was the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) questionnaire, which

consisted of 12 questions. Participants ranked questions on a 5 to 7-point Likert scale. A

qualitative question was added to the overall survey to provide the participants with an

opportunity to relay both positive and negative feedback regarding employee

communication at the institution.

37
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed by Downs

and Hazen (1977) and is widely-used instrument for measuring organizational

communication effectiveness. The CSQ has been used in a number of organizations and

industries (Abdullah & Hui, 2014), leading to a greater understanding about the

importance of communication in organizations. This instrument has been translated into

more than six different languages and utilized internationally (Alanezi, 2015). The CSQ

focuses on employees’ attitudes and judgments of several communicative practices, as

these perceptions influence employee behavior within organizations (Zwijze-Koning &

de Jong, 2007).

Downs and Hazen (1977) identified eight dimensions of communication

satisfaction in the CSQ, which illustrate the diverse scope of organizational

communication. Each dimension consists of five questions to measure perceived

satisfaction on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.

The CSQ is comprehensive, efficient, easily scored, and typically completed within 15

minutes (Greenbaum et al., 1988). Effective communication helps organizations

strengthen employees and reach organizational goals (Hindi et al., 2004). Several

researchers examined communication satisfaction with job satisfaction (Akkirman &

Harris, 2005; Nakra, 2006; Wagner et al., 2015) and reported a positive relationship

between these two factors.

Job Satisfaction Scale

The Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997) was used to measure job satisfaction.

The JSS is used to evaluate nine dimensions of job satisfaction, which relate to overall

38
satisfaction. This instrument is well established among the other job satisfaction scales

(Spector, 1997). The JSS consists of 36 items scored along a six-point Likert-type scale

ranging from Disagree Very Much (1) to Agree Very Much (6). A nine-facet scale is used

to assess employee attitudes about aspects of the job. The nine facets include Pay,

Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits, Contingent Rewards (performance based

rewards), Operating Procedures (required rules and procedures), Coworkers, Nature of

Work, and Communication (Spector, 1997). Each facet is assessed with four items, and a

total score is computed from all items. Although the JSS was originally developed for use

in human service organizations, it is applicable to organizations such as public employees

and teachers in secondary education because of its structure, validity, reliability and

internal consistency (Girma, 2016).

Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment

This construct for measuring organizational commitment was developed by

Meyer and Allen (1997) and is arguably the most popular measure of organizational

commitment in management and psychology literature (Jaros, 2007; Memari et al., 2013).

Meyer and Allen proposed that organizational commitment is felt by employees as three

simultaneous mindsets: the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS), the Normative

Commitment Scale (NCS), and the Continuance Commitment Scale (Jaros, 2007). The

scale is comprised of eight items; however, Meyer and Allen created an academic version

of the Three-Component Model (TCM) survey of commitment (2004). The academic

version of the TCM Employee Commitment Survey was prepared for researchers who

intend to use the commitment scales for academic research purposes. The survey consists

of 24 items, which hare scored long a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from

39
strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores indicate stronger organizational

commitment.

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC)

The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) was used to

measure change readiness. This 12-item instrument employs a five-point scale (ranging

from disagree to agree), drawing on Weiner’s (2009) theory of Organizational Readiness

for Change. The ORIC was “developed and validated to measure organizational readiness

in healthcare contexts” (Shea et al., 2014, p. 7). For the purpose of the current study, the

ORIC was used to assess employees’ organizational readiness to implement

organizational change, via perceptions of individuals responsible for initiating new

reforms. The climate concerning organizational change has been identified as major

contributor of employees’ readiness for change (Weiner, et al., 2020).

Analysis

Data analysis included descriptive statistics of the data, reliability estimation,

factor analyses, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and path analysis using

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The path analytic approach was utilized to study

the correlation between the variables. Details of the analyses and the statistical techniques

utilized to analyze and report the data are described in the following sections. Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for descriptive statistics, reliability

analysis, factor analysis, and regression analysis. Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS)

was used to conduct PATH analyses.

40
 Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics included the number of participants

who took the survey, the range of scores, the means, medians, modes, and standard

deviations for all the items.

Reliability analysis. According to Pedhezure and Schmelkin (1991), reliability is

a necessary condition of validity, which is used to check the homogeneity of items used

to measure a variable or to the extent to which item scores are free from “errors of

measurement” (p. 82). Cronbach’s alpha or alpha coefficient is the most commonly used

technique to estimate internal-consistency reliability (Pedhezure & Schmelkin, 1991). For

the current study, the reliability of the four scales of measurement for communication

satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and readiness to change was

estimated using Cronbach’s alpha technique.

Correlation analysis. The researcher used the correlation coefficient (r) to

determine if there were positive or negative associations between study variables. A

correlation analysis is used to examine if an association or covariance exists between two

variables (Kachigan, 1991). According to Kachigan (1991), “the correlation coefficient

finds application in the widest range of data analysis problems” (p. 125). A correlation

coefficient, or r, can range from -1 to + 1. While a correlation coefficient of +1 suggests a

perfect positive correlation, an r of -1 suggests a perfect negative correlation. An r of 0

suggests no relationship exists between the two variables of interest.

In this study, the researcher hypothesized a significant positive correlation would

exist between communication satisfaction and each of the dependent variables (job

satisfaction and organizational commitment). Similarly, the researcher hypothesized a

significant positive correlation would exist between job satisfaction and the readiness to

41
change. It was also hypothesized that a significant positive correlation would exist

between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. All hypothesized relationships

were unidirectional and were hence defined as one-tailed (Price, 2000).

Path analysis. A path analytic approach was used to depict the correlation

matrices hypothesized in the study and to test the hypothesized causal paths between

variables. The path model for this study was hypothesized based on the results of the

researcher who suggested a causal relationship among communication satisfaction, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. According to Klem (1995), a path analysis

is conducted under the following assumptions:

1. The casual flow is in one-direction. That is, there is no reverse causation;

2. Relations among models are linear, additive, and causal. Curvilinear,

multiplicative, or interaction relations are not included;

3. Residuals are uncorrelated with all other variables and other residuals; and

4. Variables are measured on an interval scale and variables used as predictors

are measured without error.

Based on path analysis literature (Garson, 2007; Mertler & Vannatta, 2005)

communication satisfaction was categorized as an exogenous variable. Exogenous

variables are defined as independent variables that do not have any clear causes. In

contrast, endogenous variables have explicit causes and include intervening/intermediate

variables and dependent variables. For the current study, job satisfaction and

organizational commitment were termed endogenous variables. Communication

satisfaction was examined as the independent variable, and readiness to change was

examined as a dependent variable. The path analysis approach was used to examine the

42
direct and/or indirect effects of communication satisfaction and its two dimensions, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment on readiness to change.

Study Limitations

Limitations exist in all facets of research, and this study was no exception.

Limitations that must be considered when rationalizing the evidence and conclusions

presented in this research. These limitations do not negate the findings, but clarify

particular aspects of the study for future reference.

Internal Validity

According to Gravetter and Forzano (2015) internal validity refers to the accuracy

and effectiveness of the measurement and test itself; that is, outcomes can be attributed to

the independent variable, not other factors. In experimental research, a cause-and-effect

relationship can be determined because researchers can control variables. In contrast,

non-experimental research relies interactions, observations, and interpretations to arrive

at conclusion. While non-experimental research cannot determine cause-and-effect

relationships, it can demonstrate high levels of external validity, and under certain

conditions, findings from non-experimental research may be generalized to larger

populations. All of the statistical data demonstrated valid research design measures and

good reliability based on Cronbach alpha acceptability of .70 or greater. The following

Cronbach alpha values report inter-item consistency. Alpha values greater than .80

suggest excellent reliability, between .80-.89, is good, between .70 - .79 acceptable,

below.70 is questionable, between .60 and .50 is poor and below .50 is unacceptable. As

shown in Table 2, all study measures demonstrated excellent to acceptable reliability,

according to guidelines suggested by George and Mallery (2016).

43
Table 2
Cronbac’s Alpha for Study Measures

α
Comm. Satisfaction 0.98
Job Satisfaction 0.94
Affective Commitment 0.88
Continuance Commitment 0.71
Normative Commitment 0.82
Org. Change Readiness 0.96

Steps were taken to control for alternative explanations for faculty and staff’s readiness to

change and embrace new district initiatives in the statistical models. However, factors

other than the variables of interest could contribute to organizational readiness to change.

External Validity

External validity refers to the ability to generalize the finding to a target

population. One limitation was that this research was cross sectional, and was susceptible

to time of measure effects. The data was taken at one point in time and could only reflect

that point in time for the organization studied. The use of longitudinal designs would

ensure a greater investigation in the relationships between variables. The participants

from Tulsa Tech were from a range of positions that are not utilized at other tech centers

so the findings cannot be generalized for other organization that are not similar in

structure to Tulsa Tech. Also, the timing of the questionnaire was limited to the discretion

of the Human Capital Office (HR Director) because the organization was in the midst of

conducting a third-party engagement survey and the researcher was delayed in

implementing the survey by several weeks which caused the response period to fall

between Thanksgiving and Winter Break.

44
 Another potential bias was in the administration of the questionnaire by the

researcher who is employed by the organization used in this study. It was important to

ensure that that the responses to the questionnaires by the survey respondents were

anonymous and that the research was done independently from the technology center

used in the study. It can be assumed that the researcher’s employment within the

organization may have affected participants’ responses to some items.

Yet another limitation was the length of the questionnaire. In the zeal for the

researcher to glean as much data as possible, the length (136 questions) was too long for

some individuals to finish and affected the response rate which could have impacted the

statistical power of the results. The larger the sample size, the more accurate a

generalization to the whole population, given the sample was smaller the results would

possibly be not as significant.

One more limitation of the study was the exclusion of job satisfaction to affective

commitment for the determination of whether the mediation was independent of the

effect of the other mediator when testing the complex path model. Research has

suggested that job satisfaction is a possible determinant of affective commitment (Rifai,

2005) and argued that experiences employees find particularly satisfying help to buffer

against the impact of stress and displeasure increasing levels of organizational readiness

to change.

45
 Chapter 5: Results

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the relationship

between communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change. The

following two research questions guided this study:

RQ1: What is the relationship between communication satisfaction and

organizational readiness to change in a career tech district implementing a new strategic

plan?

RQ2: What factors mediate the relationship between communication satisfaction

and organizational readiness to change in a career tech district implementing a new

strategic plan?

Findings from previous researchers (Ammari et al., 2017; Oso et al., 2017;

Wagner et al., 2015) revealed positive correlations between communication satisfaction

and organizational readiness to change (Varona, 1996). However, this relationship had

not been explored among a sample of employees at a technology center. Findings from

the current study are presented in this chapter. Findings include, a description of the

sample and results from the correlation analysis, comparison analysis, linear and multiple

regression analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Descriptive Statistics of Participants

Descriptive data for the study participants are reported in Table 3. Among the

overall target population of 435 bargaining unit employees, 40% were male and 60%

were female. The research sample consisted of 114 study participants of which 27.2%

male (n = 31), 71.1% female (n = 81), and 1.8% (n = 2) declined to provide their gender.

The age category, 50-59 years old, had the highest number of participants (n = 34;

46
30.1%). The next largest age group was 30-39 years old (n = 30; 26.5%), followed by the

40-49 years old category (n = 23; 20.4%). Participants 60 years or older comprised 16.8%

(n = 19) of the sample. The two smallest groups were 18-25 years old (n = 4; 3.5%) and

25-29 years respectively (n = 3; 2.7%). Over 67% of the sample was over the age of 40.

Regarding job role, 58.4% of participants worked as an instructor, trainer, counselor, or

coordinator (n = 66). The remaining participants (n = 47; 41.6%) held non-teaching roles

such as office support staff, technicians, and facilities/maintenance personnel.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Sample

Variable n %
Gender
Male 31 27.2
Female 81 71.1
Prefer not to answer 2 1.8
Age Range
18-25 years 4 3.5
25-29 years 3 2.7
30-39 years 30 26.5
40-49 years 23 20.4
50-59 years 34 30.1
60 years or older 19 16.8
Job Role
Instructor/Trainer/Counselor/Coordinator 66 58.4
Other 47 41.6

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables

Table 4 reports means and standard deviation for study variables. As reported,

Communication Satisfaction had a mean of 4.45 with a standard deviation of 1.27; Job

Satisfaction had a mean of 3.90 with a standard deviation of .80 which is marginally

below the “agree slightly” scale of 4; Affective Commitment had a mean of 4.75 with a

standard deviation of 1.2) and Continuance Commitment had a mean of 4.52 and a

47
standard deviation of 1.1 which is slightly below the “slightly agree” scale of 5;

Normative Commitment had a mean of 4.25 and a standard deviation of .96 which is just

above the “neither disagree nor agree scale of 4; Organizational Readiness to Change had

a mean of 3.04 with a standard deviation of .90 which is slightly above the “Neither

Agree nor Disagree” scale of 3.

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variable M SD Range

Comm. Satisfaction 4.45 1.27 1.27 – 6.84

Job Satisfaction 3.90 0.80 2.17 – 5.75

Affective Commitment 4.75 1.23 1.38 – 7.00

Continuance Commitment 4.52 1.11 1.75 – 6.63

Normative Commitment 4.25 0.96 2.00 – 6.88

Org. Change Readiness 3.04 0.90 1.00 – 4.75

Assumptions

The first research question examined the relationship between communication

satisfaction and organizational readiness to change. Before proceeding with the

preliminary and main study analyses, it is important to test that specific assumptions hold

true with the dataset that is being utilized. For data to be appropriate for use in linear

regression analysis and path analysis, it is essential that the assumptions of linearity,

heteroscedasticity, and normality are met (Osborne & Waters, 2002). In addition, if

outliers are identified in the data, transformations of these outliers may be essential for

accurately understanding the relations between variables.

48
 Normality. The assumption of normality was assessed by plotting the quantiles of

the model residuals against the quantiles of a Chi-square distribution, also called a Q-Q

scatterplot (Larnyo, 2017). For the assumption of normality to be met, the quantiles of the

residuals must not strongly deviate from the theoretical quantiles. Strong deviations could

indicate that the parameter estimates are unreliable. Figure 2 presents a Q-Q scatterplot of

the model residuals. The assumption of normality was met, since all skewness and

kurtosis scores were within the range of -2 to +2 (Larnyo, 2017). The normal probability

plots (i.e., q-q plots) for the measure scores yielded straight diagonal lines, with slopes

that roughly equaled 1.

Figure 2

Q-Q scatterplot for normality of the residuals for the regression model

49
 Homoscedasticity. Homoscedasticity was evaluated by plotting the residuals

against the predicted values (Osborne & Waters, 2002). The assumption of

homoscedasticity is met if the points appear randomly distributed with a mean of zero

and no apparent curvature. Figure 3 presents a scatterplot of predicted values and model

residuals. The data reports were evenly clustered about the line where y = 0, indicating

that this assumption was met (Osborne & Waters, 2002).

Figure 3

Residuals scatterplot testing homoscedasticity

Multicollinearity. Since there was only one predictor variable, multicollinearity

does not apply, and Variance Inflation Factors were not calculated.

Outliers. To identify outliers and leverage, shifts in the regression coefficients,

discrepancy, and influential cases in the model were calculated. Studentized residuals

50
were calculated and the absolute values were plotted against the observation numbers

(Pituch & Stevens, 2015). Studentized residuals are calculated by dividing the model

residuals by the estimated residual standard deviation. An observation with a Studentized

residual greater than 3.16 in absolute value, the 0.999 quantile of a t distribution with 114

degrees of freedom, was considered to have significant influence on the results of the

model. Figure 4 presents the Studentized residuals plot of the observations. Observation

numbers are specified next to each point with a Studentized residual greater than 3.16.

Which means no cases were identified that exceeded the DFBETA criterion of ± 1.0,

suggesting no changes in the relative influence of the predictor variables as a result of

omitting cases. Influential cases assessed using Cook’s Distance showed that no cases

exceeded values greater than the criterion of 1.0 (Pituch & Stevens, 2015).

Figure 4

Studentized residuals plot for outlier detection

51
 Subgroup differences. Before conducting the main analyses, a series of bivariate

comparison analyses were conducted – independent samples t-tests and an analysis of

variance (ANOVA) – to examine whether any scores on the study measures significantly

differed by participant age group, gender, or job role. Independent samples t-tests are

utilized when comparing score differences between two groups and ANOVA are utilized

when comparing score differences between more than two groups. Results of these

analyses are presented in Table 5; significant group differences are shown in red.

To examine whether scores differed by age group, an ANOVA was conducted

and demonstrated that scores were not significantly different between age groups for the

majority of scales. However, scores on the normative commitment scale differed

significantly for participants who were 49-49 (the lowest scoring participants on this

scale) compared to those who were 50-59 (the highest scoring participants on this scale)

(F = 2.52, p < .05).

To examine whether scores differed between male and female participants, an

independent samples t-tests was conducted and demonstrated that scores only differed on

one of the study measures – continuous commitment. Females scored significantly higher

on this measure than males (t = 3.55, p < .01).

To examine whether scores differed between participants who were instructors/

coordinators/counselors/trainers compared to those in other employee roles, another

independent samples t-tests was conducted and demonstrated that scores differed

significantly on two of the study measures – job satisfaction and organizational readiness

for change. On both of these scales, instructors/coordinators/trainers/counselors scored

significantly higher than other employees (t = 2.32, p < .05 and t = 2.51, p < .05,

52
respectively). Because there was a significant subgroup difference in the dependent

variable – organizational readiness for change by job role, this variable was included as a

covariate in the main study analyses.

Table 5
Analysis of Age, Gender, or Job Role Differences in Scores on the Study Measures
CommSat JobSat AC CC NC ORC
Age
18-25 4.18 4.45 4.19 5.19 3.44 2.54
25-29 4.89 3.23 4.04 4.63 4.17 2.86
30-39 4.55 3.45 5.03 4.76 4.29 3.08
40-49 4.30 3.95 4.60 4.36 3.78 2.75
50-59 4.23 3.82 4.64 4.55 4.51 3.13
60+ 4.75 3.94 4.91 4.11 4.45 3.34
Gender
Male 4.81 4.07 4.80 3.93 4.21 3.16
Female 4.36 3.86 4.78 4.72 4.27 3.02
Job Role
Instructor 4.59 4.05 4.80 4.36 4.23 3.22
Other 4.27 3.70 4.70 4.72 4.27 2.80

To determine whether any correlations existed between (a) demographic variables

and the independent variable (communication satisfaction) and (b) demographic variables

and the outcome variable (organizational readiness to change), a bivariate correlation was

computed for the demographic variables and the continuous variables of interest. A

correlation matrix is presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Correlation Matrix of Demographic Variables and Continuous Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Age (1) __
Gender (2) .09 __
Job Role (3) -.17 -.13 __
Communication Satisfaction (4) -.05 .16 -.12 __
Job Satisfaction (5) .06 .12 -.22 *
.84*** __
Affective Commitment (6) -.06 .01 -.04 .69 ***
.72*** __

53
Continuance Commitment (7) -.18 -.32** .16 -.14 -.18 .07 __
Normative Commitment (8) .04 -.03 .02 .20*
.21*
.41
***
.26** __
Organizational Change Readiness (9)
.03 .07 -.23* .57*** .62*** .57*** .01 __
.36***
Note. Age: 0=18-39, 1=40 and older; Gender: 0=Female, 1=Male; Job Role:
0=Instructor/Trainer/Counselor/Coordinator, 1=Other; ***p< .001, **p< .01, *p< .05, N = 113, two-tailed.

Analysis revealed that none of the demographic variables were significantly

related to both communication satisfaction and organizational change readiness;

therefore, they were not included in the structural equation models. Age was not

significantly related to communication satisfaction [r (113) = -.05, p = .609, two-tailed]

or organizational change readiness [r (113) = .03, p = .725, two-tailed]. Gender was not

significantly related to communication satisfaction [r (113) = .16, p = .091, two-tailed] or

organizational change readiness [r (113) = .07, p = .457, two-tailed]. Although job role

was not significantly related to communication satisfaction [r (113) = -.12, p = .193, two-

tailed], it was significantly and negatively related to organizational change readiness [r

(113) = -.23, p = .014, two-tailed]. Based on the variable coding, organizational change

readiness was higher for instructors/trainers/counselors/coordinators than for individuals

in other positions.

Research Question One

To address the first research question, examining the direct association between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change in a career tech

district implementing a new strategic plan, first a correlation analysis was conducted.

Pearson’s correlation statistics are shown in Table 7 for the correlation between each pair

of study variables. As shown, there were correlations between a number of study

variables, including a statistically significant, positive correlation between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change (r = .57, p < .001)

54
and the other variables such as communication satisfaction and job satisfaction (r = .84, p

< .001), communication satisfaction and affective commitment (r = .69, p < .001), and

communication satisfaction and normative commitment (r = .20, p < .001), but not

between communication satisfaction and continuance commitment (r = -.14, p < .05)

which had a statistically negative relationship.

Table 7

Correlations between All Study Variables

CommSat JobSat AC CC NC
JobSat .84***
AC .69*** .72***
CC -.14 -.18 .07
NC .20* .21* .41*** .26**
ORC .57*** .62*** .57 .01 .36***
Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. *** p < .05.

In addition, job satisfaction was significantly, positively associated with

organizational readiness for change (r = .62, p < .001). Positive correlations were

identified between communication satisfaction and affective commitment and normative

commitment [r (113) = .41, p < .001, two-tailed]. However, a positive association was not

indicated between communication satisfaction and continuance commitment [r (113) = -

.14, p = .001, two-tailed]. Therefore, continuance commitment was excluded from these

analyses because it was not significantly related to organizational readiness to change.

Job satisfaction was positively correlated with organizational readiness for change

[r (113) = .62, p < .001, two-tailed], and also positively correlated with affective

commitment [r (113) = .72, p <.001, two-tailed]. These findings revealed communication

satisfaction was positively associated with all of the other study variables (job

satisfaction, affective commitment), and that job satisfaction was significantly associated

55
with organizational readiness for change as indicated by results from the correlational

analyses presented in Table 7.

These findings provided partial support for the research question that

Communication Satisfaction would be positively associated with all of the other study

variables and that job satisfaction and organizational commitment would be significantly

associated with organizational readiness for change.

Next, because a significant subgroup difference was identified in scores on the

Organizational Readiness for change measure between participants in teacher/coordinator

/trainer/counselor roles compared to other employees at TTC, a linear regression analysis

was conducted to control for this difference. The organizational readiness for change

score was entered as the dependent variable, job role was entered as a covariate, and

communication satisfaction score was entered as the independent variable. Results from

this analysis are presented in Table 8 and indicate that even when controlling for the

subgroup differences in job role, communication satisfaction is significantly, positively

associated with organizational readiness for change among non-supervising employees of

Tulsa Tech.

Table 8
Association between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for
Change

Type III Sum of df Mean Square F p

Squares
Intercept 50.57 1 50.57 100.61 < .001
CommSat .42 1 0.42 0.87 .36
Job Role 72.71 80 0.91 1.87 .03

56
 To test whether Communication Satisfaction is the primary predictor of

Organizational Readiness to Change levels in employees, a regression analysis was

conducted. As shown in Table 9 since the p value was lower than .05, it was considered

statically significant (r = .57, p < .001). The results of the linear regression model were

significant, F (1,113) = 53.06, p < .001, R2 = 0.32, indicating that approximately 32% of

the variance in ORCscore is explainable by CommSatScore. CommSatScore significantly

predicted ORCscore, B = 0.40, t (113) = 7.28, p < .001. This indicates that on average, a

one-unit increase of CommSatScore will increase the value of ORCscore by 0.40 units.

Table 9 summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 9
Results for Linear Regression with CommSatScore predicting ORCscore
Variable B SE 95% CI β t p
(Intercept) 1.26 0.25 [0.76, 1.77] 0.00 4.97 < .001
CommSatScore 0.40 0.05 [0.29, 0.51] 0.57 7.28 < .001
2
Note. Results: F(1,113) = 53.06, p < .001, R = 0.32
Unstandardized Regression Equation: ORCscore = 1.26 + 0.40*CommSatScore

Research Question Two

To address the second research question, examining which factors may mediate

the relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational readiness to

change in a career tech system implementing a new strategic plan, structural equation

modeling was used to determine which factors could possibly mediate the relationship

between communication satisfaction and organizational readiness to change. A series of

path models were designed, while omitting the demographic variables that were not

significantly related to the independent and dependent variables, which would allow for

an examination of the following mediators in the association between communication

57
satisfaction and organizational readiness for change: job satisfaction, affective

commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Mediation is a four-

step process which requires running regression analysis to obtain the beta coefficients

(Ullman & Bentler, 2003). First, the causal variable must be correlated with the outcome

variable. Second, the causal variable must be correlated with the mediator. In the case of

this study, the causal variable is communication satisfaction and the outcome variable are

organizational readiness to change. Third, the mediator must be correlated with the

outcome variable. For this research, the three mediators (affective commitment,

normative commitment, and job satisfaction) were tested individually. Fourth, to

establish mediation between the predictor and the outcome variable, the effect of the

predictor variable on the outcome variable controlling for the mediator must be zero.

The first four path models were used to examine each of these mediators in

separate models; communication satisfaction was included as the exogenous variable and

the others were included as endogenous variables. The tested pathways included the

direct path from communication satisfaction to organizational readiness for change, as

well as the path mediated by job satisfaction.

Communication Satisfaction as the Independent Variable

As illustrated in Figure 5, the first path model confirmed that communication was

significantly related to organizational readiness to change (β = .5, Z = 7.32, p < .001).

58
Figure 5
Path Model Examining Communication Satisfaction as a Variable for Organizational
Readiness for Change

Job Satisfaction as a Mediator

As illustrated in Figure 6, the second model revealed the independent variable

(communication satisfaction) was correlated with the mediator of job satisfaction (β =

.84, Z = 16.76, p < .001).

Figure 6
Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Job Satisfaction)

The third model of mediation is shown in Figure 7. This model indicated that

when job satisfaction was included as a mediator in the relationship between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change, the direct effects of

the association were mitigated (β = .14, Z = 1.05, p = .29). To establish that a mediator

mediates the relationship between a predictor and outcome variable, the effect of the

predictor variable on the outcome variable controlling for the mediator should be zero.

59
The standardized regression weight for the relationship between communication

satisfaction and organizational readiness to change, after controlling for the mediator (job

satisfaction), was not significantly different from zero (p = .29). This finding suggested

that higher satisfaction communication led to higher overall job satisfaction; in turn, this

fostered increased positive perceptions of organizational readiness for change.

Figure 7
Path Model Examining Job Satisfaction as a Mediator in the Association between
Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change

Affective Commitment as a Mediator

It was previously established that communication satisfaction related to

organizational readiness to change. To determine whether affective commitment was a

mediator in this relationship, affective communication had to be correlated with

communication satisfaction. The path model established that the independent variable of

communication satisfaction was significantly associated with the mediator, affective

communication (β = .69, Z = 10.17, p < .001). See Figure 8.

Figure 8

60
Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Job Satisfaction)

Analyses indicated affective commitment partially mediated the relationship between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness to change. Partial mediation

occurs when the path from a causal variable to an outcome variable is reduced in size but

still differs from zero when the mediator is introduced. In this case, the path from

communication satisfaction to organizational commitment was affected when the

mediator of affective commitment was introduced (β = .33, p = .001). Specifically, the

standardized regression weight was reduced by a factor of 1.72 (.57/.33). See Figure 9.

Which suggests that affective commitment plays an important role in the association

between communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change, but that

only accounts for part of the variance in this dependent variable.

Figure 9

Path Model Examining Affective Commitment as a Mediator in the Association between

Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change

Normative Commitment as the Mediator

It was previously established that communication satisfaction related to

organizational readiness to change. To determine whether normative commitment was a

61
mediator, normative communication had to be correlated with communication

satisfaction. The path model established that the independent variable of communication

satisfaction was significantly correlated with the mediator of normative commitment (β =

.20, Z = 2.14, p = .033). See Figure 10.

Figure 10
Path Model Examining Causal Variable Correlated with Mediator (Normative
Commitment)

Based on the results of these analyses, normative commitment minimally

mediated the relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational

readiness to change. The path model examined normative commitment as mediator and

revealed the direct effect of communication satisfaction on organizational readiness for

change was significant (β = .52, Z = 6.86, p < .001). The indirect effect through

normative commitment was also significant (β = .26, Z = 3.41, p < .001). The path from

communication satisfaction to organizational commitment was affected when the

mediator of normative commitment was introduced (β = .52, p < .001). Specifically, the

standardized regression weight was reduced by a factor of 1.10 (.57/.52), which may be

considered negligible (See Figure 11). This finding suggested that, like affective

commitment, normative commitment played an important role in the association between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change; however, normative

commitment only accounted for part of the variance in organizational readiness for

change.
62
Figure 11

Path Model Examining Normative Commitment as a Mediator in the Association between

Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change

Path Model with All Mediating Variables

After running these potential mediators separately, a complex path model was

tested, which included three potential mediators: job satisfaction, affective commitment,

and normative commitment. The inclusion of all of these mediators in one complex

model allowed for the determination of whether the mediation was independent of the

effect of the other mediators.

In the full path model, Communication Satisfaction had statistically significant

relationships with job satisfaction (β = .41, Z = 3.15, p = .002) and normative

commitment (β = .20, Z = 2.82, p = .005). The other mediating pathway through affective

commitment was not significant (β = .13, Z = 1.34, p = .179). In addition, when all three

of these mediators were included, communication satisfaction was not statistically related

to organizational readiness for change (β = .10, Z = 0.65, p = .517), suggesting that

Communication Satisfaction works indirectly through job satisfaction and normative

commitment to influence employee readiness to change. As shown in Figure 12.

63
Figure 12

Complex Path Model Examining Multiple Mediators in the Association between

Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Readiness for Change

When considering path models, it is also important to consider the overall model

fit, which can be assessed by examining the comparative fit index (CFI). CFI values can

range from 0 to 1.00. and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The

closer the model is to 1.00, the better the fit for the data. For the full model, CFI = .90,

indicating a good fit for the data (Suhr, 2006). For the RMSEA, lower values indicate a

better fit; values below .08 are generally considered to be indicative of a good fit. CFI,

and RMSEA for each of the path models tested are shown in Table 10. As shown, each of

the models looking at each potential mediator separately demonstrated a good fit to the

data based on the CFI. The RMSEA values indicated a good fit to the data for the models

looking at affective and normative commitment as mediators. CFI and RMSEA values

for all the path models are presented in Table 10. Unstandardized regression weights for

the complex path model is presented in Table 11.

64
Table 10

Model Fit Statistics for All Path Models Tested

Path Model CFI RMSEA

CommSat  JobSat  ORC 0.98 0.19

CommSat  AC  ORC 1.00 0.00

CommSat  CC  ORC 0.97 0.12

CommSat  NC  ORC 1.00 0.00

CommSat  JobSat, AC, CC, NC ORC 0.89 0.23

Table 11
Unstandardized Regression Weights for Complex Path Model

Path Estimate S.E. C.R. p

NCscore <--- CommSatScore .15 .07 2.14 .033
JobSatScore <--- CommSatScore .53 .03 16.76 < .001
ACscore <--- CommSatScore .67 .07 10.17 < .001
ORCscore <--- CommSatScore .07 .10 0.65 .517
ORCscore <--- NCscore .19 .07 2.82 .005
ORCscore <--- JobSatScore .46 .15 3.15 .002
ORCscore <--- ACscore .09 .07 1.34 .179

Summary

This chapter included a presentation of statistical results of this survey research.

Each research question was answered based on the collected data. Descriptive statistics

were used to describe the sample and answer the two research questions regarding the

65
current level of communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment at the study site. In reference to the first research questions, significant

positive correlations were found between communication satisfaction and organizational

readiness to change. To answer the second research question, job satisfaction

organizational commitment mediated the effect that communication satisfaction had on

organizational readiness to change. Path analysis was used to reveal the relationships

between the different variables, via models to represent specific mechanisms through

which communication satisfaction produce both direct and indirect effects on

organizational readiness to change with open ended questions to help give voice to

respondents and provide critical information that provide anecdotal evidence of

participants’ thoughts and feelings. The final chapter provides a discussion of findings,

relationship of results to theoretical framework, implications for school leaders and

employees, and suggestions for future research.

66
 Chapter 6: Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the empirical evidence on the

relationship between communication satisfaction and readiness for organizational change

in a career tech system. The findings suggest that satisfaction with leadership

communication was related to employee self-reported readiness to change. Additionally,

results from the path model suggest that this relationship was largely mediated by

employee self-reported job satisfaction, and to an extent, employee normative

organizational commitment. These findings, when considered through social cognitive

theory, lead to two tentative claims about leadership communication: leadership

communication has the potential to influence readiness to change and the influence of

leadership communication works through social-psychological processes that underlie

readiness to change. Building from these claims, the chapter concludes with

recommendations for leadership practice and future research.

Leadership Communication and Readiness to Change

The first research question sought to examine if there was a relationship between

communication satisfaction and readiness to change for non-supervising employees at

Tulsa Technology Center. Correlation results showed a positive relationship between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness for change (r =.57, p <.001).

Higher levels of satisfaction with leadership communication was associated with stronger

perceptions of readiness to engage change. This finding is consistent with existing

evidence outside of the career tech context which found that higher levels of employees’

satisfaction with communication during new reforms has a positive relationship with

67
organizational readiness to change (Bray & Williams 2017; Holt 2007; McKay et al.,

2010).

To understand characteristics of leadership communication that might influence

readiness to change, it is necessary to understand the components of communication

satisfaction. To recap, Downs and Hazen (1977) defines communication satisfaction as

the overall degree of satisfaction that employees perceive concerning all forms of

organizational communication. Eight aspects of Downs and Hazen’s (1977)

Communication Satisfaction gives a preview of varying levels of fulfillment inside an

organization that support and reward readiness to change. These include a climate that

fosters identification with organization and employees’ ability to initiate communication

with supervisors; supervisors’ willingness to be open, honest, and attentive along with

providing feedback on job performance and recognizing employees’ efforts; accurate co-

worker communication and reduction of the gossip mill or “grapevine”; ability of the

organization to provide personnel updates, company financial standing, and any

disappointments or accomplishments; openness and transparency with polices, resources,

and decisions; capacity of the organization to work interdepartmentally and provide

timely information in various forms. Communication satisfaction, or lack thereof, stems

from the disparity between what an employee wants from communication and what an

employee gets from communication (Kandlousi et al., 2010).

The characteristics of effective communication can be used as means to activate

employees’ organizational readiness to change. Weiner 2009 states, “As an organization-

level construct, readiness for change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to

implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability

68
to do so (change efficacy).” Therefore, when organizational readiness levels are higher,

employees are more likely to initiate change, exert greater persistence and effort, and

display more cooperative behavior, which leads to better implementation of the proposed

change. Conversely, when organizational readiness is lower, members are more likely to

look at the change as undesirable and subsequently avoid, or possibly resist, planning for

the roadblocks that could occur within the change process. Given that many of Tulsa

Tech’s strategic initiatives need collaboration, administrators can benefit by leveraging

communication efforts to inspire employees to take control of their circumstances, thrive

in the face of adversity, and be eager to try new things. For that reason, higher levels of

communication satisfaction should equate with higher levels of employee buy-in and

acceptance of new reforms and initiatives.

To understand how communication satisfaction plays a role in a person’s

willingness to change, one must return to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory

(SCT). Bandura’s theory helps clarify how SCT affects an employee’s willingness to

change and can be applied to business settings (Bandura, 1986). Bandura’s (1997) SCT is

an individual motivation theory that explains group-motivated behavior. According to

Bandura’s theory, learning happens in a social context characterized by a dynamic and

reciprocal interaction between the individual, the environment, and behavior. SCT is

distinguished by its emphasis on social impact and its emphasis on both external and

internal social reinforcement. It explains individual and group motivation and behavior as

a function of social-psychological processes that interact to affect beliefs and perceptions

that underlie action (Bandura, 2000). Accordingly, beliefs like readiness to change, are

influenced through interactions with the social environment as well as psychological

69
responses to normative interactions that take place in an organization (Holt et al., 2007).

For Tulsa Tech, that positive interaction or lack thereof, comes from the various

communication dimensions. This theory is significant to this study because it may be

utilized to gain a better understanding of how characteristics of communication

satisfaction at a technology center can affect employees’ organizational preparedness to

adopt new reforms. Given the correlation findings, it seems reasonable to predict that

leadership communication is a social factor that has implications for employees’

readiness and potential engagement in change initiatives.

Furthermore, change in organizations is as much a function of cognitive processes

as behavioral (Sundel & Sundel, 2017). Leadership communication utilizing the

dimensions of communication satisfaction likely activate cognitive processes that place

employees in a position where they feel ready to change and existing research supports

this claim. In a study of higher education staff, Bray and Williams (2017) found that

communication satisfaction was related to employee buy-in to the mission and vision of

the organization. The results of this study also build on the existing evidence found by

McKay et al., 2013 and Holt, 2007 that states communication satisfaction influences

readiness to change by enabling employees to realize the appropriateness of change,

management support for the change, self-efficacy, and personal benefits. The implication

of this result is that increased satisfaction with overall communication in the organization

will positively enhance employee’s satisfaction with their position in the company and

the willingness to produce desired results. Buy-in to the mission and vision, as Bray and

Williams (2017) explain is necessary for employees’ change on behavior. When

administrators (of all levels) communicate frequently with staff, employee

70
communication satisfaction rises (Thomas et al., 2009). In other words, the higher the

employees’ communication satisfaction level, the less uncertainty they feel, and this

helps to keep them informed and focused. Therefore, communication satisfaction helps

employees make sense of new strategic initiatives that involve higher levels of

uncertainty.

Leadership Communication and Social-Psychological Processes Behind Readiness to

Change

The second research question examined the mediation of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment on the relationship between communication satisfaction and

readiness to change. The findings showed communication satisfaction was not only

positively related to job satisfaction but organizational (affective and normative)

commitment as well, and relationships found in the path models are consistent with

exciting evidence.

First, communication satisfaction had statistically significant positive associations

with job satisfaction (β = .84, p < .001). Likewise, evidence outside Career Tech indicates

that communication satisfaction has an effect on job satisfaction (Carriere & Bourque,

2009; Downs & Adrian, 2004; Pincus, 1986). Job satisfaction is critical for both

employees and employers. Several recent research studies have established that positively

viewed internal means of communication have a favorable effect on employee job

satisfaction (Dinger, 2018; Djordjevic et al., 2020; Yudiawan et al., 2017). Whereas,

lower level of job satisfaction is adversely connected to job disengagement and feelings

of stress (Miles et al., 1996). When it comes to job satisfaction criteria, P. E. Spector

(1997) is one of the pioneers in the literature. According to the author, job satisfaction

71
reflects relationships with colleagues and superiors and the nature of the tasks they

undertake. In short, job satisfaction is connected with many significant components of

employees’ attitudes and behaviors demonstrated in the workplace. Communication

satisfaction is one of the factors that has a significant ability to influence job satisfaction

and all of the beneficial outcomes associated with it (Vermeir et al., 2018). The results

from this study reveal that employees who are more satisfied with leadership

communication at work are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (Saruhan, 2014),

and their proclivity to accept change and recognize its beneficial effects is greater

(Cordery et al., 1993; Iverson, 1996). Similarly, the preceding implies that it is critical to

understand and identify the elements that contribute to (or detract from) employee job

satisfaction.

Secondly, results also showed communication satisfaction had statistically

significant positive associations with affective commitment (β = .69, Z = 10.17, p < .001)

and normative commitment (β =.20, Z = 2.82, p =.005). This suggest that higher

satisfaction with leadership communication was associated with employee satisfaction

with work and their commitment to the organization. However, the other significant

pathway via continuance commitment was not significant (β =.13, Z = 1.34, p =.179).

The relationships in the model are consistent with existing evidence. These findings are

consistent with Memari et al. (2013); also Engin and Akgöz’s (2013) that contend

communication satisfaction has an effect on organizational commitment and is associated

with greater levels of normative and affective commitment. The researcher asserts that

enhanced communication satisfaction is a predictor of increasing organizational

commitment. When employees feel respected and encouraged, they are better equipped to

72
pool their knowledge and abilities. Eby et al., (2000) argue that when employees believe

their organization’s priorities are aligned with its vision and mission and are satisfied

with communication about these issues, they believe the organization is capable of

successfully implementing change, which increases employee commitment to new

initiatives. As a result, individuals who are more content with their jobs are more engaged

when they have the opportunity to contribute to the organization’s success (Rapert et al.,

2002).

Communication satisfaction has a positive relationship with organization

readiness for change. However, when job satisfaction and organizational commitment are

also predictor variables, communication satisfaction no longer has a statistically

significant relationship with organizational readiness to change. When all four of these

variables were included in a regression analysis, communication satisfaction had no

statistically significant relationship with organizational readiness for change (β =.10, Z =

0.65, p =.517), implying that communication satisfaction influences employee readiness

to change indirectly via job satisfaction and normative commitment. These findings

corroborate prior research from fields other than career tech (Gray & Laidlaw, 2004;

Gülnar, 2007; Miles, et al., 1996; Saruhan, 2014), which demonstrate a substantial

positive association between communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and

organizational commitment.

To understand the importance of communication satisfaction and its ability to

foster job satisfaction, it is necessary to revisit Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory

(SCT). Bandura’s theory can be applied to work settings to illustrate how SCT influences

job satisfaction (Bandura, 1986). According to Bandura (2005), SCT approaches people’s

73
development, adaptation, and growth, from an agent-like perspective. Bandura defines an

agent as someone who purposefully changes another person’s functioning and life

circumstances (Bandura, 2005). By fostering interests, agents can influence the conduct

of others, thereby enabling self-beliefs and competences. The agents in this study are

Tulsa Tech’s immediate supervisors and senior leaders. Given that the frequency and

quality of communication from departments, campuses, and upper administration can

have a significant positive or negative effect on employees, it is critical for leaders to

understand how to maintain optimal levels of communication satisfaction and to

acknowledge and support employees. The way such professionals structure and delineate

information is critical to creating higher levels of employee job satisfaction. This

knowledge makes it easier to manage staff, thereby laying the groundwork for new

reforms and initiatives. Employees’ communication satisfaction levels can influence

whether they think optimistically or pessimistically in self-enhancing or self-defeating

ways when dealing with change and could affect their levels of organizational

commitment (Bandura, 2001). According to social cognitive theory (SCT), persons who

experience a surge in worry and dread are unlikely to grow, as negative emotions

overcome and they are prone to lower levels of performance (Bandura, 1986). This has an

effect on the degree of persistence with which an individual will attempt to learn a new

and challenging task. This approach is critical since one of the primary goals of

communication during times of transition is to alleviate employee insecurity (Allen et al.,

2007). Effective communication appears to alleviate psychological uncertainty about

change while also increasing acceptance, openness, and commitment to change

(Schweiger & Denisi, 1991; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Generally, many direct

74
supervisors at Tulsa Tech have a working awareness of communication satisfaction, as

reflected by the following survey statements: "I like my supervisor." “My supervisor

listens to me and pays attention to my concerns,” and “My supervisor assists me in

resolving job-related issues.” Inadequate or inaccurate information can have negative

implications, such as perceived pessimism about change and a lack of transparency

(Wanous et al., 2000).

Additionally, SCT considers the particular manner in which individuals acquire

and sustain behavior, as well as the social setting in which individuals practice the

behavior. SCT examines an individual’s prior experiences, which influence whether or

not behavioral action will occur. For example, supervisors and executives can give

opportunities for Tulsa Tech employees to participate in decision-making; attend

professional development courses; and serve on site, department, and district-wide

committees. By providing employees with opportunities for learning, leadership, and

progression, employers can meet job satisfaction standards while increasing their

organizational commitment to the organization. These experiences can shape and

reinforce expectancies, which has an effect on whether an individual engages in specific

behaviors and the reasons for doing so. These aspects, coupled with the literature on

communication satisfaction, contribute to the explanation of the findings in this study.

Accordingly, outcomes of this study suggest that job satisfaction and

organizational commitment may operate as mediators of communication satisfaction and

that these factors are also predictors of organizational readiness to change. Increased

employee communication satisfaction can assist in boosting job satisfaction and

organizational commitment during times of change by influencing employees’ general

75
perceptions of the objectives and effects of any changes (Nelissen & Van Selm, 2008).

Thus, organizational leaders may significantly contribute to employees’ increased levels

of job satisfaction and organizational commitment by incorporating all eight elements of

Communication Satisfaction into Tulsa Tech’s daily operations. According to the

research, employees who had higher levels of communication satisfaction also tended to

exert greater effort to ensure the success of new initiatives and reforms. This is because

communication satisfaction can indirectly increase job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, which is promoted by social cognitive theory as a strategy for boosting

employees’ willingness to change.

Therefore, practices for senior leadership are proposed both for enhancing

communication satisfaction which has a positive influence on job satisfaction and for

strengthening affective and nominative commitment among employees. In the next

section, implications for leadership practice are discussed. In addition, limitations of the

study, and opportunities for further research are examined along with the conclusion.

Implications for Leadership Practice

While this study fills a void in the literature regarding the relationship between

communication satisfaction and organizational readiness to change, it also provides

insight into the complexities of the change process and the critical importance of

understanding how communication satisfaction can affect employees’ willingness to

implement new reforms. The following three implications emerge as a result of theory

and evidence: persistent challenges of organizational change, how leaders might enhance

effective communication, and the effects of leader communication on the overall culture

and climate of the organization.

76
 The first implication involves persistent challenges of organization change during

the implementation phase. Most evidence seems to indicate that change runs into

problems during the implementation phase (Burgess et al., 2018). Readiness for change

has an effect on the success of any organizational changes by helping individuals to

recognize four imperatives: the appropriateness of the change, management support for

the change, self-efficacy, and personal benefits of the change (Holt et al., 2007; e.g.,

McKay et al., 2013, p. 31). Effective communication with all stakeholders, particularly

employees who are directly affected, from the beginning to the end of the organizational

change process and the integration of the outcomes helps to promote interaction,

understanding, and commitment to the change process (Christensen, 2014).

The second implication for leaders is to enhance their communication

effectiveness by employing the dimensions of communication satisfaction as a useful

framework. A thorough assessment of the literature suggests that effective

communication is a critical component in determining the effectiveness of organizational

change when applied at all phases. The Organizational Perspective dimension could be

utilized to send out data and information concerning Tulsa Tech’s organizational

objectives, financial situation, level of performance, as well as organizational and

government policies. Leadership could utilize Tulsa Tech’s internal "Hub" site utilizing

the communication satisfaction dimension of organization integration to present

information such as spotlight stories, site and department-specific news, construction

timelines, and information about how employees can align their goals with Tech’s vision

and mission. In addition, since the horizontal and informal communication dimension is

sensitive to the level of activity within coworkers’ information networks, as well as the

77
quality and accuracy of information shared, including via grapevines, it is vital that

leadership embraces ways to communicate with employees using a variety of methods.

Evidence drawn from a comprehensive review of literature, establishes that clear and

consistent communication throughout any organizational change initiative can enable

leaders and employees to achieve successful implementation of new reforms

(Christensen, 2014; Van der Voet et al., 2014).

Finally, the outcomes of this study reveal that the effects of leader communication

also appear to have consequences on employees’ willingness to change. Through

communication, leaders can increase awareness and provide clarity during the change

process (Van der Voet et al., 2014). Research has shown that the majority of change

initiatives fail to achieve their objectives because leaders either ignore or lack the skills

necessary to communicate effectively during change (Burgess, et al., 2018). By building

and encouraging a climate of willingness and resiliency among employees utilizing

communication satisfaction as a catalyst, top management can increase job satisfaction

and organizational commitment in the workplace. Implementation of well-developed

communication protocols will help leaders increase staff readiness for change (Akkirman

& Harris, 2005). Senior leaders may consider a variety of tactics to increase job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, including persuasive communication, active

participation, and managing the flow of internal and external information.

Recommendations for Future Research

In light of the research’s findings and conclusions, several recommendations

should be considered for future research to address limitations in this study. First, it is

important to address the generalizability of this study. Due to the study’s single-

78
institution design, these findings are limited to Tulsa Tech and may only be partially

transferable to comparable technology centers. Studying different post-secondary

institutions such as other technology centers, community colleges, and public and/or

private colleges and universities, would provide better insight into employee perceptions

of communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

willingness to change within different educational entities. Additional research that

includes a variety of institution types may yield more information and patterns of similar

or different themes on this subject, hence enhancing the generalizability of the results.

Furthermore, for the sake of this study, communication satisfaction was examined

as a single construct, limiting the scope of the research. Future research could duplicate

this study by examining all eight elements of communication satisfaction and recruiting

employees from a variety of technology center districts. Statistical analysis could be used

to determine which predictor variables (e.g. organizational perspective, communication

climate or personal feedback) have a statistical relationship with an organization’s

readiness to change. The findings of such a study could provide insight on how and

when to develop district-wide communication plans.

In addition, communication satisfaction during a pandemic could be researched

further. The global COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficulty of connecting

with colleagues while working remotely and observing critical nonverbal clues for

efficient communication. Through social cognitive theory, research may be able to

connect how communication satisfaction works when leaders adjust their communication

styles and how those techniques are regarded. While leaders say they appreciate listening

to their staff, they may not always prioritize it. As a result, research may also include

79
conducting periodic online pulse polls, utilizing video conferencing technology, and

utilizing mobile applications to determine which modes of communication provide the

highest degree of communication satisfaction during a pandemic.

Moreover, further research could examine the effect of demographic variables on

the link between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and communication

satisfaction. The association between some demographic characteristics such as gender,

age, and educational background was not examined in detail in this study. Earlier

research has established a relationship between age, educational background, number of

years in the organization, and gender and communication satisfaction (Gizir & Simsek,

2005); between age and organizational commitment (Brown & Sargeant, 2007); and

between employee tenure and affective commitment (Brown & Sargeant, 2007;

Karakaya, 2013). By examining professional and personal traits through the lens of

communication satisfaction and prospective predictors of job satisfaction and the three

categories of organizational commitment, technology center directors can gain a better

understanding of the established paradigms at their sites. These findings can be used to

determine current levels of communication satisfaction and their impact on the

organization’s readiness to develop strategies to address those needs.

Finally, because communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and organizational readiness to change may include more complexity in its

components, further qualitative research would allow participants some latitude to

provide additional detail about their responses. This could provide a better understanding

of the reasons and behaviors behind survey responses. Examples of such approaches are

focus groups and in-depth interviews.

80
Conclusion

A noteworthy finding of this research is that it provides insight and fills a gap in

the body of knowledge about employees’ perceptions of communication satisfaction, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and willingness to change in a technology

center district. The findings given in this study bolsters the theoretical argument made in

the body of literature that communication satisfaction might operate as a barrier to

organizational readiness to change. Readiness is a critical stage in the transformation

process (Bernstein & Nash, 2008). As Tulsa Tech evolves to increase its effectiveness in

delivering educational and training services, it is critical to understand how

communication satisfaction works through social cognitive theory to achieve the changes

in behavior necessary to gain employee acceptance and cooperation in implementing new

reforms and/or initiatives. The current research may help public sector leaders gain a

better understanding of how organizational commitment and job satisfaction affect

employees’ willingness to cooperate and embrace change. If low communication

satisfaction with technology center leadership can act as a barrier to embracing new

reforms or initiatives, this research study adds to the body of knowledge of how

communication satisfaction can affect organizational readiness to change, by increasing

job satisfaction and organizational commitment via social cognitive theory.

Employees at Tulsa Tech, on average, show a high level of affective

organizational commitment, which means they want to stay with the institution and

strongly identify with its ideals. Tulsa Tech’s budget, together with the considerable time

and human capital required to establish new educational programs, accounts for the

majority of financial outlays. District leadership and building-level administrators would

81
be well to consider how their communications with employees can either boost or

decrease employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Inadequate

communication can bring an implementation to a halt before it even begins. This study

established that lower employee satisfaction with district and site-level communication

may operate as a barrier to employees’ willingness to accept new reforms by lowering job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. It is critical to understand the significance of

organizational readiness to change and communication satisfaction, since these variables

can have an effect on the efficiency and productivity within technology centers and other

educational institutions. Understanding the relationship between communication

satisfaction and organizational readiness to change enables school districts to examine

and determine ways to improve employees’ communication satisfaction, hence increasing

the organization’s productivity. Given these factors, employees’ communication

satisfaction gives useful insights on how and when to make school improvements and

how to engage a workforce. As a result, extensive investigation into this relationship is

warranted.

82
 References

Abdullah, S. M. (2019). Social cognitive theory: A Bandura thought review published in

1982-2012. PSIKODIMENSIA, 18(1), 85-100.

Abdullah, Z., & Hui, J. (2014). The relationship between communication satisfaction and

teachers’ job satisfaction in the Malaysian primary school. Asian Journal of

Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS), 2(2), 58-71.

Akkirman, A. D., & Harris, D. L. (2005). Organizational communication satisfaction in

the virtual workplace. Journal of management development.

Alanezi, A. (2015). Communication satisfaction and its relationship to organizational

commitment among secondary teachers in Kuwait.

Allan, H. T. (2014). People and Teams Matter in Organizational Change: Professionals’

and Managers’ Experiences of Changing Governance and Incentives inPrimary

Care. Health Serv Res. 49: 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12084

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during

organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of

change management, 7(2), 187-210.

Ammari, G., Alkurdi, B., Alshurideh, A., & Alrowwad, A. (2017). Investigating the

impact of communication satisfaction on organizational commitment: a practical

approach to increase employees’ loyalty. International Journal of Marketing

Studies, 9(2), 113-133.

Andevski, M., & Arsenijevi, J. (2012). Correlation of leadership characteristics with

personality traits of employees in schools in Serbia. The New Educational

Review, 29(3), 33-45.

83
Argenti, P. A. (2007). Corporate Communication.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Sama, B. A. (2008). The relationship between

transformational leadership behaviors, leader-member exchange and

organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4),

140-151.

Attaran, M., Attaran, S., & Kirkland, D. (2019). The need for digital workplace:

increasing workforce productivity in the information age. International Journal of

Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS), 15(1), 1-23.

Baker-Tate, I. M. (2010). Organizational commitment patterns in higher education: A

study of selected midlevel student services professionals. University of Maryland

University College.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current

Directions in Psychological Science(9), 75-78.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of

psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great minds in

management, 9-35.

Barratt, H., & Kirwan, M. (2009). Cross-Sectional Studies Design, Application, Strengths

and Weaknessess of Cross-Sectional Studies.

84
 http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a-

epidemiology/cs-as-is/cross-sectional-studies

Bennebroak-Gravenhorst, K., Elving, ,. K., & Werkman, R. (2006). Test and application

of the communcation and organizational change questionnaire. Paper presented at

the Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, (pp. 1-31).

Dresden, Germany.

Bernstein, D. A., & Nash, P. W. (2008). Essentials of psychology (4th ed.). Boston:

Cengage Learning.

Blackley, C., Redmond, P., & Peel, K. (2021). Teacher decision-making in the

classroom: the influence of cognitive load and teacher affect. Journal of

Education for Teaching, 47(4), 548-561.

Bloom, J., Devers, K., Wallace, N., & Wilson, N. (200). Implementing capitation of

Medicaid mental health services in Colorado: Is "readiness" a necessary

condition? Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 27:437-445.

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change

questionnaire–climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new

instrument. The Journal of psychology, 143(6), 559-599.

Bray, N. J., & Williams, L. (2017). A quantitative study on organisational commitment

and communication satisfaction of professional staff at a master’s institution in

the United States. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(5),

487-502.

85
Brown, D., & Sargeant, M. A. (2007). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

religious commitment of full-time university employees. Journal of Research on

Christian Education, 16(2), 211-241.

Burgess, A., Roberts, C., Ayton, T., & Mellis, C. (2018). Implementation of modified

team-based learning within a problem based learning medical curriculum: a focus

group study. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 1-7.

Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization Change: Theory and practice. Sage.

Carriere, J., & Bourque, C. (2009). The effects of organizational communication on job

satisfaction and organizational commitment in a land ambulance service and the

mediating role of communication satisfaction. Career Development International.

Christensen, M. (2014). Communication as a strategic tool in change

processes. International journal of business communication, 51(4), 359-385.

Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship

between communication and productivity: A field study. The Journal of Business

Communication, 30(1), 5-28.

Coeurderoy, R., Guilmot, N., & Vas, A. (2014). Explaining factors affecting

technological change adoption. Management Decision, 52(6), 1082-1100.

https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2013-0540

Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W., & Parker, S. (1993). Correlates of employee

attitudes toward functional flexibility. Human relations, 46(6), 705-723.

Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at work: Generating productive

resistance in the workplace. Organization Science, 23(3), 801-819.

86
De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2008). Organizational communication and job

satisfaction in Australian Catholic primary schools. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 101-122.

Dinger, T. K. (2018). The relationship between teacher communication satisfaction,

teacher job satisfaction, and teacher perception of leadership efficacy. Western

Illinois University.

Dillman, D. A. (2020). Three Decades of Advancing Survey Methodology. In A Meeting

Place and More…: A History of the American Association for Public Opinion

Research (pp. 95-117). Washington, DC: AAPOR.

Djordjevic, P., Panic, M., Arsic, S. and Zivkovic, Z., (2020). Impact of leadership on

strategic planning of quality. Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence, 31(5-6), pp.681-695.

Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (Eds.). (2004). Assessing organizational communication:

Strategic communication audits. Guilford Press.

Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication

satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 14, 64-73.

Downs, C., Hazen, M., Quiggens, J., & Medley, J. (1973). An empirical and theoretical

investigation of communication satisfaction. . Paper presentedat the annual

meeting of the Speech Communication Association.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of

organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the

implementation of team-based selling. Human relations, 53(3), 419-442.

87
Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 10, 129-138 .

Elving, W., & Hansma, L. (2008). Leading Organizational Change: On the role of top

management and supervisors in communicating organizational change. Paper

presented Annucal meeting of the International Communcation Association, (pp.

1-45).

Engin, E., & Akgöz, B. E. (2013). The effect of communication satisfaction on

organizational commitment. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 14(2),

109-124.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the

public sector. Public Administration Review, 66, 168-176.

Garson, D. G. (2007). Path analysis. http://www.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/path.htm.

Gazzoli, G., Hancer, M., & Park, Y. (2010). The role and effect of job satisfaction and

empowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: A study in the

restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 34, 56-77.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). Descriptive statistics. In IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by

step (pp. 126-134). Routledge.

Ghiyasvandian, S., Sedighiyani, A., Kazemnejad, A., & Iranshahi, I. (2017). Relationship

between organizational communication satisfaction and organizational

commitment in nurses. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of

Medicine, 9(6), 20-33.

Gilsdorf, J. W. (1998). Organizational rules on communicating: How Employees are and

are not Learning the Ropes. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 173-201.

88
Girma, S. (2016). The relationship between leadership style, job satisfaction and culture

of the organization. IJAR, 2(4), 35-45.

Gizir, S., & Simsek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher

Education, 50(2), 197-221.

Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2015). Research Methods for the Behavioral

Sciences . Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.

Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H. (2004). Improving the measurement of communication

satisfaction. Management communication quarterly, 17(3), 425-448.

Greenbaum, H. H., Clampitt, P. G., & Willihnganz, S. (1988). Organizational

communication an examination of four instruments. Management Communication

Quarterly, 2(2), 245-282.

Gülnar, B. (2007, May). The relationship between communication satisfaction and job

satisfaction: A survey among Selcuk University research assistants. In The Fifth

Symposium Between Turkish and American Scholars Conducted at Indiana

University, Indiana, USA.

Gupta, P. (2011). Leading Innovation change - The Kotter way. International Journal of

Innovation Science, 3(3), 141-150.

Hall, J., & Lavrakas, P. (2008). Cross-sectional survey design. Encyclopedia of survey

research methods, 1, 172-173.

Hargie, O., Dickson, D., & Tourish, D. (1999). Communication in management. Gower.

Harp, A. (2011). Effective Change Communication in the Workplace. Master’s Thesis,

University of Tennessee: trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/975.

89
Hartmann, N. N., Rutherford, B. N., Feinberg, R., & Anderson, J. G. (2014). Antecedents

of mentoring: Do multi-faceted job satisfaction and affective organizational

commitment matter?. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2039-2044.

He, P., Murman, S.K. and Perdue, R.R. (2012).’ “Management Commitment and

Employees Perceived Service Quality: The Mediating Role of Affective

Commitment.” Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17(3), pp

79-97.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension

of three-component model. Journal Applied Psychology, 474-487.

Hindi, N. M., Miller, D. S., & SE, C. (2004). Communication and miscommunication in

corporate America: Evidence from Fortune 200 firms. Journal of Organizational

Culture, Communications and Conflict, 8(2), 13-26.

Holt, D., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Harris, S. (2007). Readiness of organizational

change: the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 43(2), 232-255.

Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Harris , S., & Feild , H. (2006). Toward a Comprehensive

Definition of Readiness for Change: A Review of Research and Instrumentation.

In Reasearch in Organaization Change and Development. JAI Press.

Hunt, O., Tourish, D., & Hargie, W. (2000). The communication experiences of

education managers: Identifying strenghs, weaknesses and critital incidents. The

International Journal of Educational Management, 14(3), 120-129.

Hynes, G. (2015). Get Along, Get it Done, Get Ahead: Interpersonal Communication in

the Diverse Workplace. Business Expert Press.

90
Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of

organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 7(1), 122-149.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of

leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job

satisfaction. Academy of management journal, 47(3), 368-384.

Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen model of organizational commitment: Measurement

issues. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6(4), 7-25.

Kachigan, S. K. (1991). Multivariate statistical analysis: A conceptual indroduction.

Radius Press.

Kandlousi, N. S. A. E., Ali, A. J., & Abdollahi, A. (2010). Organizational citizenship

behavior in concern of communication satisfaction: The role of the formal and

informal communication. International Journal of Business and

Management, 5(10), 51.

Karakaya, Y. E. (2013). Organizational commitment levels of faculty members in sport

education institutions in Turkey. South African Journal for Research in Sport,

Physical Education and Recreation, 35(2), 141-152.

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication & organizational culture: A key to understanding

work experiences. Sage.

Kim, H. J., Tavitiyaman, & Woo, G. K. (2009). The effect of management commitment

to Service behaviors: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33, 369-390.

91
King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2016). Culturalizing motivation research in

educational psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-7.

King, W., Lahiff, J., & Hatfield, J. (1988). Discrepancy Theory of the Relationship

Between Communication and Job Satisfaction. Communication Research Reports,

5 36-43.

Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. (2000). From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in

Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research. Organizational Research

Methods, 3, 211-236.

Klem, L. (1995). Path analysis.

Kotter, J. &. Cohen D. (2002). Heart of change. Harvard Business School.

Kuhar, P., Lewicki, L., Modic, M., Schaab, D., Rump , C., & Bixler, S. (2004). The

Cleveland Clinic’s magnet experience. Orthop Nurs, 23:385-390.

Kumar, B. P. (2009). Examining the relationship of organizational communication and

job satisfaction in Indian organizations. Journal of Creative Communications, 4,

177-184.

Kupritz, V. W., & Cowell, E. (2011). Productive management communication: Online

and face-to-face. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 48(1), 54-82.

Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice

Review, 34(1), 96-118.

Langone, C. A. (2018). Servant Leadership, Communication Satisfaction, and Leader

Trust within the Veterans Health Administration (Doctoral dissertation,

University of La Verne).

92
Larnyo, E. (2017). Data Analysis Plan for Social Science Research.

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947

Levesque , D., Prochaska, J., Procheska , J., Deward, S., Hamby, L., & Weeks, W.

(2001). Organizational stages and processes of change for continuous quality

improvement in health care. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and

Research, 53:139-153 16.

Lewin, K (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (ed.

Cartwright, D). Harper & Row.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology. Rand McNally.

Marks, M. L. (2006). Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings:

Facilitating indiviual adaption to major organizational transitions. Organizational

Dynamics, 384-398.

McKay, K., Kuntz, J. R., & Näswall, K. (2013). The effect of affective commitment,

communication and participation on resistance to change: The role of change

readiness. New Zealand Journal of Psychology (Online), 42(2), 29.

Memari, N., Mahdieh, O., & Marnani, A. B. (2013). The impact of organizational

commitment on employees job performance: A study of Meli

bank. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 5(5), 164-

171.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Adavanced and multivariate statistical

methods: Practical application and interpretation. Pyrczak Publishing.

93
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Sage publications.

Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King Jr, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in

predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job

satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-

292.

Mrayyan, M. T. (2019, September). Nurses’ views of organizational readiness for

change. In Nursing Forum.

Nakra, R. (2006). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational

identification: an empirical study. The Journal of Business Perspective, 10(2), 41-

51.

Narine, L., & Persaud, D. (2003). Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale

change in healthcare organizations. Health Service Manage Reasearch, 16:179-

187.

Nehmeh, R. (2009). What is organization commitment, why should managers want it in

their workforce and is there any cost effective way to secure it. Swiss

Management Center Working Paper, 5, 1-11.

Nelissen, P., & Van Selm, M. (2008). Surviving organizational change: how management

communication helps balance mixed feelings. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal.

Ng, T., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and

creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive

94
 theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14-34. Retrieved from

http://search.proequest.com/docview/1687049294?accountid=12964

Ngozi, N. P., & Ifeoma, O. R. (2015). The Role of Effective Communication on

Organizational Performance: A Study of Nnamdi Azikiwe University,

Awka. Review of public administration and management, 400(3617), 1-18.

Oso, O. L. U. W. A. T. O. Y. I. N., Adebayo, K., & George, F. (2017). Communication

Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of Agriculture Researchers in

South-West Nigeria: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Agriculturae Conspectus

Scientificus, 82(4), 403-408.

Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that

researchers should always test. Practical assessment, research, and

evaluation, 8(1), 2.

Ozyilmaz, A., Erdogan, B., & Karaeminogullari, A. (2018). Trust in organization as a

moderator of the relationship between self‐efficacy and workplace outcomes: A

social cognitive theory‐based examination. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 91(1), 181-204.

Paper, D., & Chang, R. (2005). The state of business process reengineering: A search for

success factors. Total Quality Management, 121-133.

Partin-Dunn, R. L. (2020). The Impact of Research-Based Professional Development on

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Collective Efficacy Beliefs with Respect to Applying

Techniques from Teach Like a Champion 2.0 (Doctoral dissertation, Gardner-

Webb University).

95
Payne, N. (2013). Four Facets of communication at Work. Retrieved from HrZone:

HrZone.com

Pedhezure, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis An

integrated approach. Lawrence Erlibaum Associates publishers.

Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance.

Human Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.

Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2015). Applied multivariate statistics for the social

sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge.

Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and work behavior.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment job

satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Price, I. (2000). Testing the significance of Pearson’s r.School of Psychology, University

of New England, Armidale.

http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/C6_Common_Statistical_tests/test

_significance_pearson.html.

Rapert M., Velliquette A., Garretson J., (2002). The strategic implementation process:

evoking strategic consensus through communication, Journal of Business

Research, No. 55, March, p. 302.

Rhodes, J. T., Pitts, S. T., & Kamery, R. H. (2003). MANAGEMENT'S

RESPONSIBILITY FOR POSITIVE COMMUNICATIONS. In Allied Academies

International Conference. Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications

and Conflict. Proceedings (Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 63). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.

96
Rifai, H. A. (2005). A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job

satisfaction, affective commitment and organizational citizenship

behavior. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 7(2), 131-154.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

68-78. http://doi.org/10.1037/003-066X.55.1.68

Saunders, M., Mann, R., & Smith, R. (2008). Implementing Strategic initiatives: A

framework of leading practices. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management.

Saruhan, N. (2014). The role of corporate communication and perception of justice

during organizational change process. Business and economics research journal,

pp. 5(4), 143-166.

Schnieder, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1669). Creating a climate and culture for

sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7-19.

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a

merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of management journal, 34(1),

110-135.

Shapira‐Lishchinsky, O. (2012). Teachers' withdrawal behaviors: integrating theory and

findings. Journal of Educational Administration.

Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014).

Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of

a new measure. Implementation Science, 9(1), 7.

Simsek, E. (2016). The Impact of Top-Down Communication on Career

97
 Satisfaction. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(3),

196-210.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences (Vol. 3). Sage.

Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative

process. Organization studies, 32(9), 1217-1245.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Lee, D. S. (2001, August). A meta-analysis of the relationship

between collective efficacy and group performance. In national Academy of

Management meeting.

Stauffer, B. (2019). What Is Career & Technical Education (CTE)?

https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/career-technical-education-cte

Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2019). Self-leadership: A paradoxical

core of organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 6, 47-67.

Sundel, M., & Sundel, S. S. (2017). Behavior change in the human services: Behavioral

and cognitive principles and applications. SAGE publications.

Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis?.

Tobias, R. M. (2014). Why do so many organizational change efforts fail? Public

Manager, 44(1) 35-36. Public Manager:

http://search.proquest.comezproxy.lib.ou.edu/docview/1688353773?accountid=12

964

98
Thelen, P. D. (2021). Leadership and Internal Communication: Linking Servant

Leadership, Communication Satisfaction, and Employee Advocacy. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 15(5), 440-462.

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in

developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. The Journal of Business

Communication (1973), 46(3), 287-310.

Tutuncu, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). An investigation of factors affecting job satisfaction.

International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 8, 1-19.

Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of

psychology, 607-634.

Vakola, M. (2014). What's in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the

perceived impact of organizational change. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal.

Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from

an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. The

psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee's

perspective, 95-122.

Vardaman, J. M., Amis, J. M., Dyson, B. P., Wright, P. M., & Randolph, R. V. (2012).

Interpreting change as controllable: The role of network centrality and self-

efficacy. Human Relations, 65(7), 835-859. http://doi.org/10.117-

0018726712441642

99
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to

organisational change: The role of leader–member exchange, development

climate, and change process characteristics. Applied psychology, 57(2), 313-334.

Van der Voet, J., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. S. (2014). Talking the talk or walking the

walk? The leadership of planned and emergent change in a public

organization. Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 171-191.

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship Between Communication Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment in Three Guatemalen Organization. The Journal of

business Communication, 33(2), 112.

Vermeir, P., Blot, S., Degroote, S., Vandijck, D., Mariman, A., Vanacker, T., &

Vogelaers, D. (2018). Communication satisfaction and job satisfaction among

critical care nurses and their impact on burnout and intention to leave: A

questionnaire study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 48, 21-27.

Von Treuer, K., Karantzas, G., McCabe, M., Mellor, D., Konis, A., Davison, T. E., &

O’Connor, D. (2018). Organizational factors associated with readiness for change

in residential aged care settings. BMC health services research, 18(1), 77.

Wagner, J. D., Bezuidenhout, M. C., & Roos, J. H. (2015). Communication satisfaction

of professional nurses working in public hospitals. Journal of nursing

management, 23(8), 974-982.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openess to change in

reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.

100
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational

change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization

Management, 25(2), 132-153.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation

science, 4(1), 1-9.

Weiner, B. J., Clary, A. S., Klaman, S. L., Turner, K., & Alishahi-Tabriz, A. (2020).

Organizational Readiness for Change: What We Know, What We Think We

Know, and What We Need to Know. In Implementation Science 3.0 (pp. 101-

144). Springer, Cham.

Weiner, B., Lewis, M., & Linnan, L. (2009). Using organization theory to understand the

determinants of effective implementation of worksite health promotion programs.

Health Educ Res, 24:292-305.

Win, N. N., & Chotiyaputta, V. (2018). MEASURING EMPLOYEE READINESS TO

CHANGE: A CASE STUDY OF AN ORGANIZATION IN

MYANMAR. Panyapiwat Journal, 10(3), 110-124.

Yudiawan, M., Setiawan, M., Irawanto, D. W., & Rofiq, A. (2017). THE INFLUENCES

OF LEADERSHIP STYLES, ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION, AND

JOB SATISFACTION TOWARD EMPLOYEES’JOB PERFORMANCE IN

DOING CONSTRUCTION JOBS: A STUDY ON THREE CONSTRUCTION

COMPANIES IN JAKARTA. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-

Economic Sciences, (5), 168-180.

101
Zwijze-Koning, K., & de Jong, M. (2007). Evaluating the communication satisfaction

questionnaire as a communication audit tool. Management Communication

Quarterly, 20(3), 261-282.

102
 Appendix A

Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

Introduction: Most of us assume that the quality and amount of communication in our jobs contribute to both
our job satisfaction and our productivity. Through this study we hope to find out how satisfactory
communication practices are and what suggestions you have for improving them. We appreciate your taking
time to complete the questionnaire. It should take 20 to 30 minutes.
Your answers are completely confidential so be as frank as you wish. This is not a test-your opinion is the
only right answer. Do not sign your name; we do not wish to know who you are. The answers will be
combined into groups for reporting purposes.

1. How satisfied are you with your job? (check 1)

- I. Very satisfied - 5. Somewhat dissatisfied
- 2. Satisfied - 6. Dissatisfied
- 3. Somewhat satisfied - 7. Very dissatisfied
- 4. Indifferent

2. In the past 6 months, what has happened to your level of satisfaction? (check 1)
- 1. Gone up - 2. Stayed the same - 3. Gone down

3. If the communication associated with your job could be changed in any way to make
you more satisfied, please indicate how:

A. Listed below are several kinds of information often associated with a person’s job. Please indicate how
satisfied you are with the amount and/or quality of each kind of information by circling the appropriate
number at the right.

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Information about my progress in my job

5. Personal news
6. Information about organizational policies and goals
7. Information about how my job compares with others
8. Information about how I am being judged
9. Recognition of my efforts
10. Information about departmental policies and goals
11. Information about the requirements of my job
12. Information about government action affecting my organization
13. Information about changes in our organization
14. Reports on how problems in my job are being handled
15. Information about benefits and pay
16. Information about our organization’s financial standing
17. Information about accomplishments and/or failures of the organization

103
B. Please indicate how satisfied you are with the following (circle the appropriate number at right).
18. Extent to which my superiors know and understand the problems faced by subordinates
19. Extent to which the organization’s communication motivates and stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting its
goals
20. Extent to which my supervisor listens and pays attention to me
21. Extent to which the people in my organization have great ability as communicators
22. Extent to which my supervisor offers guidance for solving job related problems
23. Extent to which the organization’s communication makes me identify with it or feel a vital part of it
24. Extent to which the organization’s communications are interesting and helpful
25. Extent to which my supervisor trusts me
26. Extent to which I receive in time the information needed to do my job
27. Extent to which conflicts are handled appropriately through proper communication channels
28. Extent to which the grapevine is active in our organization
29. Extent to which my supervisor is open to ideas
30. Extent to which horizontal communication with other organizational members is accurate and free flowing
31. Extent to which communication practices are adaptable to emergencies
32. Extent to which my work group is compatible
33. Extent to which our meetings are well organized
34. Extent to which the amount of supervision given me is about right
35. Extent to which written directives and reports are clear and concise
36. Extent to which the attitudes toward communication in the organization are basically healthy
37. Extent to which informal communication is active and accurate
38. Extent to which the amount of communication in the organization is about right

C. Answer the following only if you are a manager or supervisor. Then indication your satisfaction
with the following:
39. Extent to which my subordinates are responsive to downward directive communication
40. Extent to which my subordinates anticipate my needs for information
41. Extent to which I do not have a communication overload
42. Extent to which my subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions, and criticisms
43. Extent to which my subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate upward communication

104
 Appendix B

Job Satisfaction Survey

JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

Paul E. Spector
Department of Psychology
University of South Florida

.
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION

THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.

1 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should 1 2 3 4 5 6

receive.
6 Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of 1 2 3 4 5 6

people I work with.

17 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18 The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

105
 PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION
THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

19 I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay 1 2 3 4 5 6
me.

20 People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22 The benefit package we have is equitable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

23 There are few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25 I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29 There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6

30 I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6

31 I have too much paperwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6

32 I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6

33 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6

34 There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

35 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 Work assignments are not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6

106
 Appendix C

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

A Three-Component Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

By Natalie Allen and John Meyer

Instructions: Listed below are comments about how people may feel about their organizations. Using the seven-point
scale provided, please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each comment.
Scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) moderately disagree, (3) slightly disagree, (4) neither disagree nor agree, (5) slightly
agree, (6) moderately agree, and (7) strongly agree. An “(R)” denotes a negatively phrased and reverse-scored item.

Affective Commitment Scale Items

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
2. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
3. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one. (R)
5. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization. (R)
6. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization. (R) 7. This organization has a great deal of
personal meaning for me.
8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R)

Continuance Commitment Scale Items

1. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up. (R)
2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
3. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.
4. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization now. (R)
5. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
6. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. (R)
7. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available
alternatives.
8. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable
personal sacrifice—another organization may not match the overall benefits I have.

Normative Commitment Scale Items

1. I think that people these days move from company to company too often.
2. I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization. (R)
3. Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me. (R)
4. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important
and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
5. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization.
6. I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization.
7. Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers.
8. I do not think that wanting to be a “company man” or “company woman” is sensible anymore. (R)

107
 Appendix D

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change Questionnaire

Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC)

1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Agree
Disagree nor Disagree Agree

1. People who work here feel confident that the organization can 1 2 3 4 5
get people invested in implementing this change.

2. People who work here are committed to implementing this 1 2 3 4 5

change.

3. People who work here feel confident that they can keep track 1 2 3 4 5
of progress in implementing this change.

4. People who work here will do whatever it takes to implement 1 2 3 4 5

this change.

5. People who work here feel confident that the organization can 1 2 3 4 5
support people as they adjust to this change.

6. People who work here want to implement this change. 1 2 3 4 5

7. People who work here feel confident that they can keep the 1 2 3 4 5
momentum going in implementing this change.

8. People who work here feel confident that they can handle the 1 2 3 4 5
challenges that might arise in implementing this change.

9. People who work here are determined to implement this 1 2 3 4 5

change.

10. People who work here feel confident that they can coordinate 1 2 3 4 5
tasks so that implementation goes smoothly.

11. People who work here are motivated to implement this change. 1 2 3 4 5

12. People who work here feel confident that they can manage the 1 2 3 4 5
politics of implementing this change.

108
 Appendix E

IRB Approval

Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects

Approval of Initial Submission – Expedited Review – AP01

Date: October 30, 2017 IRB#: 8430

Principal Approval Date: 10/30/2017

Investigator: Angela Hope Durant-Tyson Expiration Date: 09/30/2018

Study Title: Communication Satisfaction and its Effects on Organizational Readiness to Change

Expedited Category: 7

Collection/Use of PHI: No

On behalf of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), I have reviewed and granted expedited approval
of the above- referenced research study. To view the documents approved for this submission, open
this study from the My Studies option, go to Submission History, go to Completed Submissions tab
and then click the Details icon.
As principal investigator of this research study, you are responsible to:

• Conduct the research study in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IRB and
federal regulations 45 CFR 46.
• Obtain informed consent and research privacy authorization using the currently approved, stamped
forms and retain all original, signed forms, if applicable.
• Request approval from the IRB prior to implementing any/all modifications.
• Promptly report to the IRB any harm experienced by a participant that is both unanticipated and related
per IRB policy.
• Maintain accurate and complete study records for evaluation by the HRPP Quality Improvement
Program and, if applicable, inspection by regulatory agencies and/or the study sponsor.
• Promptly submit continuing review documents to the IRB upon notification approximately 60 days
prior to the expiration date indicated above.
• Submit a final closure report at the completion of the project.
If you have questions about this notification or using iRIS, contact the IRB @ 405-325-8110 or
[email protected].
Cordially,

Fred Beard, Ph.D.

Vice Chair, Institutional Review Board

109
 Appendix F

Letter for District Approval to Use Tulsa Tech Employees as Participants

110