Organisational Communication, Job Satisfaction and Occupational Stress in Catholic Primary Schools

ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS

JOHN J. DE NOBILE

A thesis submitted to the University of New South Wales in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

October, 2003

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in my thesis. Any contribution made to my research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis.

I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

(Signed) …………………………………………………………………………..

ABSTRACT

Previous research has suggested that organisational communication may be related to job satisfaction and occupational stress of primary school staff. However, few studies have attempted to relate job satisfaction and stress of school staff members to a comprehensive set of organisational communication variables that include direction of flow, function of messages, features of communication and methods of communication. Given recent moves toward greater staff member participation in school decision making and quality assurance measures, there is a need for a theoretical basis for the study of organisational communication in Catholic primary schools.

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between aspects of organisational communication and job satisfaction and occupational stress of staff members in Catholic primary schools.

Participants were the staff members of primary schools that were selected through stratified sampling. A total of 356 staff members from 52 Catholic primary schools of 6 diocesan school systems of New South Wales, Australia were involved in the study. Data were collected using a survey that comprised items related to organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress, and biographical details. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered.

Factor analysis was used to identify underlying data structures. Ten organisational communication dimensions were identified. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were employed to investigate the hypothesised relationships. Qualitative data were analysed and the results used to provide further insight into organisational communication in the participating schools.

Vertical openness of communication, Horizontal supportive communication, Access to communication channels, Cultural communication, Upward supportive communication, Downward supportive communication, Adequacy

i of information and Democratic communication were positively related to aspects of job satisfaction and negatively associated with domains of occupational stress. Additionally, some methods of communication were associated with job satisfaction and stress, but these relationships were generally weaker.

The findings suggest that organisational communication is associated with job satisfaction and occupational stress, particularly supportive communication (upward, downward and horizontal), democratic communication, cultural communication, access to communication channels and vertical openness of communication. This study generates implications for further theory building in organisational communication, school communication policies and practices, school principal selection processes and school review.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the many people and institutions that made the completion of this study possible.

I would like to acknowledge the willing assistance of the principals and school staff members who participated in this study and the access provided by the six New South Wales diocesan school offices. My thanks are extended to the Catholic Education Commission, and particularly Mr. John McKinnon, for the assistance provided with school staffing figures.

I would particularly like to thank my supervisor, Dr. John McCormick, for his careful and encouraging supervision throughout the preparation and completion stages of this thesis, and for his sense of humour. My thanks are also extended to my co-supervisor, Dr. Katherine Hoekman. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Robert Conners and Professor Fenton Sharpe for their guidance and encouragement during the initial planning stages of this thesis.

Most of all, I wish to thank my wife, Antonette, and my daughters, Rose Maree and Stephanie. Their patience, encouragement and continued support made the completion of this study possible.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES xiv

LIST OF FIGURES xvi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1.1. Background to the study 1 1.2. Need for the study 3 1.3. Purpose of the study 5 1.4. Research questions 5 1.5. Parameters and scope of the study 6 1.6. Assumptions of the study 7 1.7. Significance of the study 8 1.8. Chapter summary 10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1. Introduction 11 2.2. Organisational communication 12 2.2.1. Communication defined 12 2.2.2. Organisational communication defined 14 2.2.3. The process of organisational communication 15 2.2.2.1. Source 18 2.2.2.2. Message 19 2.2.2.3. Channel 19 2.2.2.4. Receiver 20 2.2.2.5. Feedback 22 2.2.3. How communication works in organisations 22 2.2.3.1. Levels of interaction 23 2.2.3.1.1. The dyad 23 2.2.3.1.2. The small group 23

iv Page 2.2.3.1.3. The whole organisation 23 2.2.3.2. Direction of flow 24 2.2.3.2.1. Downward communication 24 2.2.3.2.2. Upward communication 27 2.2.3.2.3. Horizontal communication 29 2.2.3.3. Formality of communication 32 2.2.3.3.1. Formal communication 32 2.2.3.3.2. Informal communication 32 2.2.3.4. Methods of communication 34 2.2.3.4.1. Staff meetings 35 2.2.3.4.2. Informal meetings 35 2.2.3.4.3. Telephone 36 2.2.3.4.4. Intercom / P.A. systems 36 2.2.3.4.5. Bulletin boards 36 2.2.3.4.6. Memoranda and other notes 37 2.2.3.4.7. Staff handbook 37 2.2.3.4.8. Other methods of verbal communication 38 2.2.3.4.9. Non-verbal communication 38 2.2.4. The functions of organisational communication 39 2.2.4.1. The directive function 42 2.2.4.2. The supportive function 43 2.2.4.3. The cultural function 46 2.2.4.4. The democratic function 50 2.2.5. Process variables in organisational communication 54 2.2.5.1. Internal environment 54 2.2.5.2. Noise 57 2.2.5.3. Openness 60 2.2.5.4. Trust 62 2.2.5.5. Organisational structure 63 2.2.5.6. Communication load 66 2.2.6. Summary of organisational communication 67 2.3. Job satisfaction 68

v Page 2.3.1. Job satisfaction defined 69 2.3.2. Theories of job satisfaction 69 2.3.2.1. Needs hierarchy theory 70 2.3.2.2. Two-factor theory 70 2.3.2.3. ERG theory 73 2.3.2.4. Expectancy theory 74 2.3.2.5. Job characteristics theory 75 2.3.2.5. Equity theory 76 2.3.2.7. Value theory 77 2.3.2.8. Social information processing theory 78 2.3.2.9. Further discussion of job satisfaction theories 79 2.3.3. The dimensionality of job satisfaction 81 2.3.3.1. General job satisfaction 81 2.3.3.2. Dimensions of job satisfaction 82 2.3.4. Organisational communication and job satisfaction 86 2.3.4.1. Directive communication and job satisfaction 86 2.3.4.2. Supportive communication and job satisfaction 87 2.3.4.3. Cultural communication and job satisfaction 88 2.3.4.4. Democratic communication and job satisfaction 89 2.3.4.5 Communication openness and job satisfaction 90 2.3.4.6 Communication load and job satisfaction 91 2.3.4.7. Communication methods and job satisfaction 92 2.3.4.8. Communication satisfaction and job satisfaction 92 2.3.5. Outcomes of job satisfaction 93 2.3.5.1. Withdrawal 93 2.3.5.2. Performance 95 2.3.5.3. Organisational commitment 95 2.3.5.4. Health 96 2.3.5.5. Life satisfaction 96 2.3.6. Summary of job satisfaction 97 2.4. Occupational stress 98

vi Page 2.4.1. Occupational stress defined 99 2.4.2. Theories and models of occupational stress 100 2.4.2.1. General adaption syndrome theory 101 2.4.2.2. Stress-strain theory 101 2.4.2.3. Person-environment fit theory 102 2.4.2.4. The Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model of teacher stress 103 2.4.2.5. Attribution-of-responsibility model 104 2.4.2.6. Further discussion of occupational stress theories 105 2.4.3. Antecedents of occupational stress 107 2.4.3.1. Role overload 107 2.4.3.2. Role ambiguity 108 2.4.3.3. Role conflict 109 2.4.3.4. Lack of control 109 2.4.3.5. Inadequate working environment 109 2.4.3.6. External demands 109 2.4.3.7. Poor relations with colleagues 110 2.4.3.8. Teacher-student relations 111 2.4.3.9. Other antecedents 112 2.4.4. Mediators of occupational stress 113 2.4.4.1. Gender 113 2.4.4.2. Age 114 2.4.4.3. Experience 114 2.4.4.4. Level of education 115 2.4.4.5. Employment status 115 2.4.4.6. Personality 116 2.4.4.6.1. Type A-Type B personality 116 2.4.4.6.2. Locus of control 117 2.4.4.6.3. Self-esteem 117 2.4.4.7. Organisation/school type 118 2.4.5. Organisational communication and occupational stress 118 2.4.5.1. Directive communication and occupational stress 119

vii Page 2.4.5.2. Supportive communication and occupational stress 119 2.4.5.3. Cultural communication and occupational stress 121 2.4.5.4. Democratic communication and occupational stress 122 2.4.5.5. Openness of communication and occupational stress 123 2.4.5.6. Communication load and occupational stress 124 2.4.5.7. Methods of communication and occupational stress 124 2.4.6. Job satisfaction and occupational stress 125 2.4.7. Outcomes of occupational stress 126 2.4.7.1. Psychological outcomes 126 2.4.7.2. Physical outcomes 127 2.4.7.3. Behavioural outcomes 128 2.4.7.3.1. Withdrawal 128 2.4.7.3.2. Lower performance 128 2.4.7.3.3. Deteriorating collegial relations 129 2.4.7.3.4 Substance abuse 129 2.4.7.3.5. Accidents 130 2.4.7.4. The costs to organisations 130 2.4.8. Summary of occupational stress 130 2.5. Conclusion of the literature review 131 2.5.1. Main findings of the literature review 131 2.5.2. Conceptual framework 133 2.5.3. Review of the research questions 134 2.5.4. Research hypotheses 135 2.5.5. Chapter summary 135

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3.1. Introduction 136 3.2. The research design 136 3.3. Sampling procedures 137 3.4. Instruments 138 3.4.1. Organisational communication 138

viii Page 3.4.2. Job satisfaction 146 3.4.3. Occupational stress 147 3.4.4. The survey 149 3.5. Data collection 150 3.6. Response rate 153 3.7. Data analyses 153 3.7.1. Quantitative analyses 154 3.7.1.1. Descriptive statistics 154 3.7.1.2. Factor analysis 154 3.7.1.3. Correlational analysis 155 3.7.1.4. Multiple regression 155 3.7.2. Qualitative data analysis 156 3.8. Chapter summary 156

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSES AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 4.1. Introduction 158 4.2. Analysis of the data 158 4.2.1. Demographic data 159 4.2.1.1. The sample 160 4.2.1.2. Gender 161 4.2.1.3. Age 162 4.2.1.4. Years of experience 162 4.2.1.5. Years of experience at current school 163 4.2.1.6. Employment position 164 4.2.2. Organisational communication items 164 4.2.3. Job satisfaction items 167 4.2.4. Occupational stress items 168 4.3. Factor analyses 168 4.3.1. Factor analysis of the organisational communication items 169 4.3.2. Factor analysis of the job satisfaction items 185 4.3.3. Factor analysis of the occupational stress items 193

ix Page 4.4. Analyses of the factor means 196 4.5. Correlation analyses 198 4.5.1. Correlations of organisational communication factors 198 4.5.2. Correlations of organisational communication with job 205 satisfaction 4.5.2.1. Supervision and organisational communication 206 4.5.2.2. Colleagues and organisational communication 209 4.5.2.3. Relationship with the principal and organisational 210 communication 4.5.2.4. Working conditions and organisational communication 212 4.5.2.5. Work itself and organisational communication 213 4.5.2.6. Responsibility for work and organisational communication 213 4.5.2.7. Job variety and organisational communication 214 4.5.2.8. Feedback and organisational communication 214 4.5.2.9. General job satisfaction and organisational communication 215 4.5.3. Correlations of organisational communication with occupational 216 stress 4.5.3.1. Information domain and organisational communication 217 4.5.3.2. School domain and organisational communication 218 4.5.3.3. General occupational stress and organisational 220 communication 4.5.4. Correlations of communication methods with organisational 221 communication factors 4.5.4.1. Staff meetings 222 4.5.4.2. Informal meetings 223 4.5.4.3. Notes/memos 224 4.5.4.4. Bulletin boards 224 4.5.4.5. Pupil delivered messages, intercom/P.A., handbook and 225 telephone 4.5.5. Communication methods and job satisfaction 225 4.5.6. Communication methods and occupational stress 228 4.5.7. Job satisfaction and occupational stress 229

x Page 4.5.7.1. Student domain and job satisfaction 230 4.5.7.2. Information domain and job satisfaction 230 4.5.7.3. School domain and job satisfaction 232 4.5.7.4. Personal domain and job satisfaction 233 4.5.7.5. General occupational stress and job satisfaction 234 4.6. Multiple regression analyses 235 4.6.1. Supervision 236 4.6.2. Colleagues 237 4.6.3. Relationship with the principal 239 4.6.4. Working conditions 241 4.6.5. Work itself 242 4.6.6. Responsibility for work 244 4.6.7. Job variety 245 4.6.8. Feedback 247 4.6.9. Relationships with the students 249 4.7. Analysis of the qualitative data 251 4.7.1. Supportive communication 252 4.7.2. Democratic communication 252 4.7.3. Undemocratic communication 253 4.7.4. Cultural communication (positive aspects) 254 4.7.5. Cultural communication (negative aspects) 255 4.7.6. Vertical communication (positive aspects) 255 4.7.7. Vertical communication (negative aspects) 256 4.7.8. Horizontal communication 257 4.7.9. Openness of communication 257 4.7.10. Closed communication 258 4.7.11. Adequacy of communication 259 4.7.12. Overload of communication 259 4.7.13. Staff Meetings 259 4.7.14. Bulletin boards 260 4.7.15. Printed messages 261

xi Page 4.7.16. P.A./intercom systems 261 4.7.17. Access to information 262 4.7.18. Time constraints 263 4.7.19. Interruptions 263 4.7.20. Communication in small schools 264 4.7.21. Communication in large schools 264 4.7.22. Communication in multi-campus schools 264 4.7.23. School climate 265 4.7.24. General positive comments about communication 265 4.7.25. General negative comments about communication 266 4.7.26. Other comments about communication 266 4.8. Chapter summary 266 4.8.1. Hypotheses 267 4.8.2. Research Questions 269 4.8.3. Other findings 271 4.8.3.1. Relationships between job satisfaction and occupational 271 stress 4.8.3.2. Relationships between organisational communication 272 variables 4.8.3.3. Analysis of factor means 272

CHAPTER 5: OVERVIEW, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 5.1. Introduction 274 5.2. Overview of the study 274 5.3. Main conclusions 274 5.3.1. The research hypotheses 275 5.3.2. The research questions 276 5.3.3. Other findings 278 5.4. Limitations of the study 279 5.5. Implications for theory 280

xii Page 5.6. Implications for policy 282 5.7. Implications for practice 283 5.8. Implications for other aspects of organisation 287 5.9. Implications for future research 287

REFERENCES 290

APPENDICES 332 Appendix 3.1: Staff consultation of OCPSQ items 333 Appendix 3.2: Final version of the survey 338 Appendix 3.3: Request for permission to conduct research 350 Appendix 3.4: Introductory letter to principals 351 Appendix 3.5: Reply form 353 Appendix 3.6: Second letter to principals 354 Appendix 3.7: Instructions for the coordinator 355 Appendix 3.8: Cover letter to participants 356 Appendix 3.9: Reminder fax 357 Appendix 4.1: Data summary tables 358 Appendix 4.2: Correlations among communication methods 367 Appendix 4.3: Early factor solution for organisational communication 368 Appendix 4.4: Early factor solution for job satisfaction 370 Appendix 4.5: Early factor solution for occupational stress 372 Appendix 4.6: Results of the qualitative analysis 373

xiii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Job dimensions from studies of job satisfaction 83 4.1 Proportions of metropolitan and country schools 160 4.2 Proportions of schools of varying size 161 4.3 Gender distribution of the sample 161 4.4 Age distribution of the sample 162 4.5 Work experience distribution of the sample 163 4.6 Years at current school statistics of the sample and staff from 163 the 6 Dioceses combined 4.7 Position at current school statistics of the sample and the of 164 total staff in the 6 Diocese 4.8 Means for methods of communication, extent of use and 167 effectiveness 4.9 Factor solution for organisational communication items 171 including factor loadings and reliability coefficients 4.10 Factor solution for job satisfaction scales including factor 186 loadings and reliability coefficients 4.11 Factor solution for occupational stress items including factor 194 loadings and reliability coefficients 4.12 Means and Standard deviations of the factor scores 196 4.13 Pearson correlations between organisational communication 199 variables 4.14 Pearson correlations for communication and job satisfaction 206 variables 4.15 Pearson correlations for Organisational Communication and 216 Occupational Stress variables 4.16 Correlations between perceived effectiveness of 221 communication methods and organisational communication factors

xiv Table Page 4.17 Correlations between perceived effectiveness of methods of 225 communication and job satisfaction factors 4.18 Correlations between perceived effectiveness of 228 communication methods and occupational stress factors 4.19 Pearson correlations between job satisfaction and 230 occupational stress variables 4.20 Stepwise Multiple Regression of the dependent variable 236 Supervision with communication and stress variables 4.21 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Colleagues with 238 communication and stress variables 4.22 Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable 240 Relationship with the principal with communication and stress variables 4.23 Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Working 241 conditions with independent communication and stress variables 4.24 Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Work 243 itself with communication and stress variables 4.25 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Responsibility for work as 244 dependent variable with independent communication and stress variables 4.26 Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Job 245 variety with communication and stress factors as independent variables 4.27 Stepwise Multiple Regression of Feedback as dependent 248 variable with communication and stress independent variables 4.28 Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable 249 Relationships with the students with communication and stress factors as independent variables

xv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1.1 Scope of the study 7 2.1 Simple model of communication 15 2.2 An adapted version of the Shannon and Weaver (1949) 16 model of communication 2.3 Model of communication used in this study 18 2.4 Conceptual framework of the study 134 4.1 SPSS Scree plot for the 10 factor solution for communication 171 items 4.2 SPSS Scree plot for the factor solution for job satisfaction 186 scales 4.3 SPSS Scree plot for the best factor solution for occupational 194 stress scales

xvi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

1.1. Background to the study Communication is a vital element of any organisation. All organisations, whether they are social clubs, manufacturing firms or schools cannot exist without systems of communication (Bantz, 1993; Smeltzer, Leonard & Hynes, 2002). Over the last few decades a lot of attention has been given to organisational communication and the way it operates in organisations (Dwyer, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Meyer, 2002; Putnam, Phillips & Chapman, 1996; Thayer, 1968).

The way communication takes place in an organisation is closely related to the organisation's culture. The patterns and structures of communication in one organisation are likely to differ from those of another (Bantz, 1993; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994; Schall, 1983). This may be attributed to the differing cultures existing among various organisations (More & Ross-Smith, 1990; Wilson, Goodall & Waagen, 1986).

Communication has been described as the means by which the culture of an organisation is spread and reinforced (Deal, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1992; Sypher, Applegate & Sypher, 1985). However, it is also accepted that culture influences the way communication occurs in organisations (Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Lau, Chiu & Lee, 2001; Phillips & Brown, 1993). Given that culture can play a key role in the success and effectiveness of organisations, including schools (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Heck & Marcoulides, 1996; Mitchell & Willower, 1992; Owens, 2001), the role of communication in organisations is worthy of investigation. Further, studies by Charles R. Bantz (1993) have suggested that organisational communication may be studied to analyse the values, norms and behavioural expectations of organisations.

1 Over the last four decades, research has suggested that organisational communication may be related to job satisfaction, occupational stress and other job attitudes (Allen, 1992; Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herington & Kim, 1993; Klauss & Bass, 1982; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986; Ray & Miller, 1991; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). These job attitudes, and organisational communication, have been related to organisational climate (Applebaum, 1976; Corbett, 1986; Dinham, Cairney, Craigie & Wilson, 1995; Guzley, 1992; Waters, Roach & Batlis, 1974; Witcher, 1993). Organisational climate, in turn, has been associated with employee attitudes and morale, organisational cohesiveness, effectiveness and productivity (Heck & Marcoulides, 1996; Witcher, 1993).

Recent years have seen movements by government and non-government schools in New South Wales, as well as other states, toward the development of more effective schools via quality assurance procedures (Berry, 2002; Dimmock & Hattie, 1994; Cuttance, 1995; Hatton, 2001). This arose from recommendations of the Karmel Report of 1973 and subsequent changes in the organisation of school systems from heavily centralised bureaucracies to systems where decisional responsibility has been largely devolved to the schools themselves (Bezzina, 1996; Dimmock & Hattie, 1994; Lingard, Hayes & Mills, 2002; Silins, Mulford & Zarins, 2002). There have, concurrently, been global moves towards quality assurance in other types of organisations, a movement for greater accountability of Australian schools to their communities and increased demand by systems for their schools to demonstrate efficiency in the use of resources and effectiveness at achieving educational outcomes for students (Australian Teaching Council, 1995; Berry, 2002; Bezzina, 1996; Dimmock & Hattie, 1994; Lingard, et al, 2002).

The diocesan Catholic school systems of New South Wales have responded to these developments by implementing processes of school review and development (see, for example, Bezzina, 1996; Sydney Archdiocesan Catholic Schools Board and Catholic Education Office, Sydney, 2000). School reviews and educational audits have been developed and implemented to examine the effectiveness of various organisational processes and outcomes.

2 Many of the aspects of organisation examined in these reviews, such as principal support and collegiality, involve communication (Berry, 2002; Cuttance, 1995; Sydney Archdiocesan Catholic Schools Board and Catholic Education Office, Sydney, 2000).

Given the associations of communication with the culture, climate, staff attitudes and the running of schools, the need for a theoretical basis for the study of organisational communication in schools is clear. However, little research has examined organisational communication in Australian schools, particularly Catholic primary schools. There is a need to investigate the relationships between organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress in a systematic way in the context of Catholic primary schools.

1.2. Need for the study Studies of organisational communication conducted in a variety of settings have revealed that it may be conceptualised in terms of the direction in which it flows, the methods used, the perceived load, the level of openness and the function or role of the message (Bantz, 1993; Goldhaber, 1993; Jablin, 1979; Koehler, Anatol & Applebaum, 1981; McKinnon, 1990; Muchinsky, 1993; Nutting & White, 1990; Thayer, 1968; Wilson et al, 1986). These aspects of communication may be considered as elements of an organisation’s culture that can be observed and analysed (Bantz, 1993; Hanna & Wilson, 1991).

Numerous studies have examined relationships between aspects of communication and the behaviour and attitudes of staff in organisations (Hanna & Wilson, 1991; Pace & Faules, 1994; Robbins, 1998). Some of the literature has established links between organisational communication and job satisfaction of staff members (for example, Pettit, Goris & Vaught, 1997; Stremmel, Benson & Powell, 1993; Whaley, 1994). Other studies have established relationships between organisational communication and occupational stress (for example, Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Raschke, Dedrick, Strathe & Hawkes, 1985; Thomas, Clarke & Lavery, 2003). These

3 studies have, generally, focussed on a limited number of aspects of organisational communication (for example, Brown & Ralph, 1992; Dick & Wagner, 2001; Muchinsky, 1977b; Spielberger & Reheiser, 1995).

However, very few studies have attempted to relate job satisfaction and stress to a comprehensive set of organisational communication variables such as flow, methods, function and load taken together. There is a need to investigate the extent to which various aspects of organisational communication are related to job satisfaction and stress. To do this, a comprehensive set of organisational communication variables needs to be used in a study.

Recent trends toward devolution of authority and greater worker participation in decision making have resulted in changes in the way communication occurs in organisations, including schools (Bantz, 1993; Chapman, 1988; Seibold & Shea, 2001). Communication to do with participation in decision making has increased (Chapman, 1988; Seibold & Shea, 2001). There is a need to investigate the relationships between such communication practices and job satisfaction and stress.

Very little research has been conducted into communication in Australian Catholic primary schools, let alone investigating relationships with job satisfaction and stress of staff members. Some research conducted in Australian schools has suggested that certain communication practices, such as support-giving, participation in decision making and supervisory feedback, are related to job satisfaction and stress of school staff (Dinham & Scott, 1996; Scott & Dinham, 2003). There is a need to use a schema of organisational communication variables to examine relationships between aspects of organisational communication, job satisfaction and stress of Catholic primary school staff that is more comprehensive in scope than in previous studies. Such a study could attempt to fill some of the gaps in the literature concerning how organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress are related in the context of New South Wales Catholic primary schools.

1.3. Purpose of the study The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between aspects of organisational communication and job satisfaction and occupational stress of staff members in Catholic primary schools. To fulfil this purpose a number of smaller goals needed to be achieved. First, the study sought to identify specific dimensions that represented how organisational communication occurred in Catholic primary schools.

It has been established that job satisfaction can be related to particular aspects of work, as well as with work overall (Lester, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000). Therefore, second, it was intended that this study should identify aspects of job satisfaction that may be experienced by staff members in Catholic primary schools. Third, the study sought to identify aspects of occupational stress consistent with characteristics of the work of staff members in Catholic primary schools. The literature has also established that occupational stress may result from a variety of potential stressors as well as the job overall (Luthans, 2002; Spector, 2000).

Finally, it was intended that the study would attempt to identify relationships between organisational communication dimensions and aspects of job satisfaction and occupational stress. Therefore, research methods would be employed and appropriate procedures used to investigate these relationships.

1.4. Research questions Based on the purpose of this study, three questions were formulated to guide it. The first aimed to investigate and identify what particular aspects of organisational communication might occur in Catholic primary schools of New South Wales. The other two questions sought to investigate the relationships of job satisfaction and occupational stress with organisational communication. The research questions follow.

5 1.What dimensions of organisational communication are salient within the Catholic primary schools in the study?

2.What relationships exist between organisational communication and job satisfaction?

3.What relationships exist between organisational communication and occupational stress?

1.5. Parameters and scope of the study Many organisations, including schools, comprise divisions or sections that, while working together, are distinct groups within the organisations (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994; Stoner, Yetton, Craig & Johnston, 1995). Australian schools, including Catholic primary schools, consist of three main groups that are constantly communicating with one another: students, teachers and parents (Flynn, 1993; Lock, 1989; Mellor & Hayden, 1981; Wilson, 2002). While students and staff members are normally together on the physical school site, parents (who are not as commonly on site) are included as members of the school community as many often participate in school activities quite regularly (Flynn, 1993; Lock, 1989; Mellor & Hayden, 1981). Nevertheless, as some literature refers to parents as external to the school environment (for example, Griffith, 1999), they warrant unique placement in a model of school organisation.

When studying organisations, it is useful to specify precisely what units or divisions are being examined in order to establish the scope of the study (Bantz, 1993). This study concerns organisational communication among staff members of Catholic primary schools. The scope of this study is illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.

6 School internal environment Students School external environment Staff

Principal Teachers

Non-Teaching Parents Staff

Figure 1.1: Scope of the study (shaded).

In defining the scope of this study, it is important to note that staff as a group may be further divided according to employment. Within the parameters of staff there are teaching staff, including the principal and teachers and there are also non-teaching staff members, such as teacher-aides, office staff, maintenance workers and school counsellors (Catholic Education Commission, 1998; Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2000). Hence, it was decided not to limit this study to teachers. Research into communication, job satisfaction and stress has often focussed on teachers (for example, Bernard, 1990; Dinham, 1993; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Otto, 1986; Scott & Dinham, 2003). There is a scarcity of research involving non-teaching staff in Australian Catholic primary schools.

1.6. Assumptions of the study Several assumptions were made based on an extensive review of the available literature. First, communication is an integral part of the organisational culture of a school, as well as being shaped by that culture (Sypher et al., 1985; More & Ross-Smith,1990; Phillips & Brown, 1993; Wilson

7 et al., 1986). A study of organisational communication in a school will reveal elements of its culture (Bantz, 1993; Pepper, 1995).

Second, aspects of organisational communication can be measured through quantitative survey instruments (Downs, DeWine & Greenbaum, 1994; Goldhaber, 1993). Third, aspects of job satisfaction and occupational stress can also be measured through survey instruments (Lester & Bishop, 1997; McCormick, 1997a; 1997b).

Finally, it is assumed that organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress are related to organisational (and, therefore, school) climate (Anderson, 1982; Applebaum, 1976; Corbett, 1986; Dinham et al, 1995; Guzley, 1992; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Owens, 2001). Therefore, any implications arising from the results of this study might be applicable to organisational climate theory as well.

1.7. Significance of the study This study is significant for a number of reasons. First, it seeks to examine organisational communication in primary schools using a comprehensive set of variables. Second, the conceptual framework used to guide this study is unique. No such configuration of variables has been used previously in a study of schools, let alone Catholic primary schools. This provides scope for the development of fresh insights into communication in Catholic primary schools and, to some extent, organisations in general. Third, relationships between these variables and aspects of job satisfaction and stress are examined. The results will contribute knowledge to the existing literature on job satisfaction and stress.

Fourth, organisational communication is closely linked to organisational culture (Bantz, 1993; Pepper, 1995). Literature suggests that Catholic schools are highly normative in cultural orientation compared to government-run schools in Australia, as well as the U.S.A. and U.K. (Johnson, McCreery & Castelli, 2000; Mok & Flynn, 1998; Potts, 1999; Reyes & Pounder, 1993).The

8 cultures of Catholic schools are invariably centred on the life of Christ and the teachings of the Church (Dorman, 1998; Flynn, 1993; Flynn & Mok, 2002; Helm, 2000; Johnson et al, 2000; Mok & Flynn, 1998; Starratt, 1990). These concern communication in some form. This study provides further insight into aspects of the culture of Catholic primary schools in terms of communication. The insights gained from this study will add to the current literature concerning organisational culture and school culture. It will also contribute to current knowledge about the culture of Catholic schools (Flynn & Mok, 2002).

Fifth, Catholic primary schools in New South Wales currently undergo ongoing review and development processes as part of their registration, accountability and quality assurance responsibilities (Bezzina, 1996; Sydney Archdiocesan Catholic Schools Board and Catholic Education Office, Sydney, 2000). As communication is vital to the life of an organisation, this study aims to provide insights that could inform such reviews.

Sixth, the study may have implications for school administrators, consultants and principals. Principals are often in the best position to change school cultures, and therefore communication practices, of a school (Collard, 1990; Flynn, 1993; Kottkamp, 1984). This study may be used to inform principals and school administrators in their endeavours to improve communication policies and practices. The results of the study may also be used by principals and administrators to respond to problems related to the job satisfaction and occupational stress of staff members. The findings will also be of practical use to consultants because they often liaise with principals and school staff in efforts to make schools more effective centres of learning. In a study of six administrators, Riccucci (1995) found communication skills to be important aspects of their effective management. The implication is that this study may provide directions for educational administrators to improve their communication skills and, thereby, become more effective managers of people.

Finally, this study is significant because teaching and non-teaching staff members are included. This is a response to the dearth of research into the

9 job satisfaction and stress of non-teaching staff. While the roles of non- teaching staff may differ from those of teaching staff, communication practices are, generally, organisation-wide and, therefore, an investigation of organisational communication in schools such as this should arguably include them.

1.8. Chapter summary This chapter has provided an introduction to the study. It has discussed the background, need for, purposes and significance of the study. Research questions that were used to guide the study were presented. The general scope of the study was explained and the assumptions, based on previous literature, were outlined. The following chapter provides a review of the literature. At the conclusion of the literature review the conceptual framework and hypotheses used in the study will be outlined.

10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction This chapter comprises a review of research and other literature relevant to the study. Discussion of the literature is presented in three sections. The first concerns organisational communication. The concept is defined for this study after a range of definitions from previous literature has been examined. An outline of the process, functions, methods and other aspects of communication in organisations follows. The relationships of communication with other aspects of organisational life are also discussed. Literature specifically about organisational communication in schools is analysed, and literature unrelated to schools is also considered to obtain a broader view of organisational communication.

The second section is concerned with job satisfaction. The concept is defined and explained. Theories of job satisfaction and research concerning job satisfaction in various organisations, especially schools are discussed. This section concludes with a discussion of the relationships of job satisfaction with other aspects of organisational life, including communication and occupational stress.

The third section concerns occupational stress. The concept will be defined for this study with the aid of literature. Theories of occupational stress are considered. These include the causes and consequences of occupational stress for individuals and organisations. Analysis of the relationships of occupational stress with other organisational variables, such as job satisfaction and communication conclude the section.

The literature review concludes with a conceptual framework. This conceptual framework was used to guide the study.

11 2.2. Organisational communication As a field of study, organisational communication is relatively young (Downs et al, 1994; Irwin, 1998). While communication in organisations has been investigated since the 1920s (Putnam et al, 1996), it has only been since the 1950s that organisational communication has emerged as an identifiable area of study (Downs et al, 1994; Redding, 1985). By the late 1960s the term “organisational communication” was being used to describe the field of study, and by the late 1970s universities were offering courses in organisational communication (Irwin, 1998; Redding, 1985).

As a result of the recent emergence of organisational communication, the field of study has received considerable attention in terms of research and theory (Irwin, 1998). As well, many theories of organisation refer to communication in some way, either as a variable in organisational diagnosis or as a key to organisational effectiveness or success (Goldhaber, 1993; Putnam, 1990; Putnam et al, 1996).

In this section the term “organisational communication” will be defined and explained. A brief discussion of the definitions of “communication” will be beneficial in making clear what organisational communication is. The process of communication is presented with explanations of the key components. This process is then discussed in terms of direction of flow, channels, and methods and other variables. Research on the functions of communication in organisations is then discussed. Finally, the relationship of organisational communication to other organisational phenomena is considered.

2.2.1. Communication defined There is no shortage of definitions of communication to be found in the literature (Goldhaber, 1993; Irwin & More, 1994; Kreps, 1990; Mortensen, 1972; Shannon & Weaver, 1949). They differ according to the orientation of the researchers and the purposes of the studies. While it is not intended, or practical, to include all of them in this review, some will be discussed with a

12 view to elucidating the scope and dimensions of the concept as presented by other scholars.

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary (1976), communication is a giving or exchanging of information (a process). Communication is also defined as the information itself. To communicate is to send information or send communications to a destination. This research is concerned with both communication as an action and communication as a phenomenon. However, when referring to communication as the information itself, “message”, will be used.

Communication has also been defined as “message transaction among participants” (Hanneman 1975, p.25). While this definition seems to make sense, it implies that, provided someone has received the message, communication has taken place. It does not distinguish whether or not messages are misunderstood. If the intended receiver does not understand a message, then communication has not taken place successfully.

Other broad definitions exist that do not necessarily depend on the accuracy of the message transmission. For example, Shannon and Weaver (1949) defined communication as any procedure by which one mind affects another. Implied in this definition is the possibility of two types of message, the intended and the unintended, both of which are able to influence a person. Likewise, Kreps (1990) defined communication as something that occurs when someone responds and assigns meaning to a message. Others have defined it as a means through which people can share words, feelings and ideas (Nutting, Cielens & White, 1996; Stoner, Yetton, Craig & Johnston, 1994). Again, intended or unintended meanings are not distinguished.

Irwin and More’s (1994) definition of communication as the sharing of meanings recognises the need for ideas to be accurately conveyed from one person to another. This means that for communication to have successfully taken place, the receiver of the message has understood what the sender meant to convey. Other writers define communication as the process whereby

13 the sender transmits a message and the receiver interprets the message accurately, as the sender intended (Elder, 1995; George & Jones, 2000; McKenna, 1987). In this case, communication is said to have occurred successfully only when a message is understood correctly.

Communication, therefore, can be seen in two ways. It can be the successful transmission of intended messages, or of unintended messages. From the point of view of the sender, the latter communication would be deemed unsuccessful, and the former, successful, or put another way, effective.

Unintended communication may also occur when one is communicating without really knowing one is doing so (Galvin, Prescott & Huseman, 1992). One’s facial expressions can communicate emotions. The way one moves or uses voice inflection can also communicate emotions and attitudes to others. Hanna and Wilson (1991) defined communication as the exchange of verbal and non-verbal messages.

2.2.2. Organisational communication defined In broad terms, organisational communication has been described as the communication that takes place within the boundaries of an organisation and is concerned with the achievement of that organisation’s goals (Blake & Haroldsen, 1982). Kreps (1990), however, made a distinction between two types of organisational communication. One is internal, which occurs between members within an organisation. The other is external, which is the communication between the organisation and its surrounding environment. This study is concerned with the internal variety.

Organisational communication has been defined as the process whereby messages are exchanged among members of the organisation (Goldhaber, 1993). It is gathering, processing, storing and disseminating messages that enable the organisation to function (Farace, Monge & Russell, 1977; Smeltzer et al, 2002). Rogers and Rogers (1976) offered a more functional definition, describing organisational communication as the process in which an idea is conveyed from a source to a receiver with the intention of changing the

14 receiver's behaviour. The resulting behaviour might be an action or simply a change in attitude. Katz and Kahn (1978), in their well-known book "The Psychology Of Organizations", gave a very similar definition and asserted that communication forms the very essence of the organisation.

Bantz (1993, p18) defined organisational communication as “the collective creation, maintenance, and transformation of organizational meanings and organizational expectations through the sending and using of messages”. Pace and Faules (1994) defined organisational communication as the process of interactions in which meanings are generated that create, maintain and change the organisation. These refer to communication not simply a one-way process, but rather a two-way interaction. Similar definitions have been put forward by more recent authors (Dwyer, 2002; George & Jones, 2000; Smeltzer et al, 2002).

The key factor emerging from these various definitions is the exchange of understandings, meanings or messages. There are senders and receivers. The message (intended or unintended) influences the receiver in some way. The influence may result in an act, a feeling or learning. For the purpose of this study organisational communication is, therefore, defined as the process of giving and receiving messages among people in an organisation.

2.2.3. The process of organisational communication The simplest models of communication involve a sender giving a message to a receiver (Nutting et al, 1996; Stoner et al, 1994). The reaction of the receiver is called feedback. Figure 2.1 below illustrates such a model of communication.

Sender Receiver Message

Feedback

Figure 2.1: Simple model of communication

While Figure 2.1 appears to explain the communication process clearly, the literature reveals that organisational communication is not this simple. While the message travels to the receiver, it passes through channels. The feedback the sender or source receives is an effect of the message and is not always registered right away. A message can often be interfered with by noise, which distorts it (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Figure 2.2 shows a version of the model of communication proposed by Shannon and Weaver (1949) that incorporates some of the adaptations made by other scholars (Albanese, 1978; Galvin et al, 1992; Goldhaber, 1993; Mohan, McGregor & Strano, 1992; Wilson et al, 1986). Adaptations such as this are still widely used to describe the process of communication today.

SOURCE CHANNEL RECEIVER Idea M e s s a g e Effects

F e e d b a c k

N O I S E Figure 2.2: An adapted version of the Shannon and Weaver (1949) model of communication.

It is important to remember that the Shannon and Weaver model of communication was originally intended to guide the development of mechanical communication devices (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Although the basic principles of the model apply to human communication, some elements of human behaviour in the process are not clear. Wilbur Schramm (1954) developed a model of communication that included the behaviour of senders and receivers of messages as encoders, interpreters and decoders.

When sending a message, the source must encode it. This usually means turning ideas into symbols that intended receivers can understand, such as speech, written words or signs. The receiver decodes the message. This

16 means accepting the symbols and recognising them. The receiver then interprets these. A response may follow. This is called feedback (Schramm, 1954).

Berlo (1960) presented a model of the communication process that elaborated the main components (source, message, channel and receiver) by outlining the characteristics of each. The important difference between this model and others discussed so far is that no direction of communication flow is implied. The model is a detailed depiction of the components of the communication process.

According to this model, the source is affected by communication skills, attitudes (to self, the subject of the message and the receiver), knowledge (of the subject and receiver) and his or her social/cultural background (Berlo, 1960). The message comprises elements (ideas and bits of code such as letters), structures (the arrangement of elements such as letters into words), a code (language, sound and expressions) and content (ideas and information) that are used for a purpose. The message is given treatment (the choice of elements, code and content) so that it reaches the receiver in a certain way (Berlo, 1960). The channel is the medium and the way the message is transmitted (Berlo, 1960). The channels can involve the use of any of the five senses. For example, a memo will be visual while a spoken command is aural. Finally, the receiver is the recipient of the message. He or she is influenced by communication skills, attitudes, knowledge and socio-cultural background when receiving and interpreting the message (Berlo, 1960).

Several other models of communication have been put forward in the literature (for example, Adler & Rodman, 1991; Barker & Barker, 1993; Galvin et al, 1992; Hanneman, 1975; Mortensen, 1972; Nutting et al, 1996), which tend to contain many of the same basic components of the process, or are adaptations of earlier models.

In the light of this, for this study the Shannon and Weaver (1949) model has been adopted with modifications based on the work of Schramm (1954) and

17 Berlo (1960). This is presented in Figure 2.3 below. Two additional components, noise and environment, are added to the model. These concepts are explained later in this chapter. Variations of the sender-Message- Channel-Receiver model are still used to describe the process of communication in current literature (Dwyer, 2002; 2003; George & Jones, 2000; Robbins, 1998). A discussion of the main components and features of communication follows.

E N V I R O N M E N T

Source Receiver Message Skills Channels Skills Attitudes Attitudes Knowledge Feedback Knowledge

Noise

Figure 2.3: Model of communication used in this study.

2.2.2.1. Source The source is the sender or originator of the message (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Dwyer, 2003; Berlo, 1960). The sender gives the message its meaning by encoding it. Encoding is the organising and arranging of symbols (written or spoken words or actions) to form the message and make it accessible to the receiver (Berlo, 1960; Dwyer, 2003). A source must also be able to decode by listening and reading if feedback is to be understood, to originate and encode the messages, decode feedback and determine the purpose of the message (Barker & Barker, 1993). These are the skills of communication (Berlo, 1960) and are consistent with the communication behaviour roles stated by Schramm (1954).

The source is affected by self-perceptions, and such perceptions may influence how she or he communicates (Berlo, 1960; Dwyer, 2003). The source may also be influenced by his or her attitudes to the subject, the receiver, and in terms of the way a message is delivered, what is

18 communicated and how accurate the message is (Berlo, 1960; Smeltzer et al, 2002). For example, an employee who does not trust her or his superior may report on the progress of a task, but withhold information that will reflect negatively on him or her, or emphasise what will reflect positively, perhaps even using exaggeration. In both instances the communication would not be accurate.

The third characteristic of a source is knowledge. This includes knowledge of the subject matter as well as knowledge of communication itself (Berlo, 1960). One cannot talk about a topic if one’s knowledge of it is poor. If someone has good knowledge of a topic, but poor knowledge of his receivers or of how to communicate appropriately it is not likely that he or she will be able to communicate ideas successfully.

Research has indicated that the attitudes, knowledge and communication skills of sources may affect receivers’ perceptions of the accuracy of messages and credibility of sources (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Smeltzer et al, 2002). Communication skills are related to the trust in a source. Trust in the source may be related to credibility. Trust in the receiver may influence how a source presents the message (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1974; 1976).

2.2.2.2. Message The message is the idea or emotion that is communicated to the receiver (Dwyer, 2003). It is the result of encoding (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Berlo, 1960; Schramm, 1954). The message is a piece of information that is given meaning by the source and carries that meaning to the receiver (Nutting et al, 1996; Rogers & Rogers, 1976). The message may be delivered as verbal and non-verbal information (Dwyer, 2003; Goldhaber, 1993; Wilson et al, 1986).

2.2.2.3. Channel Shannon and Weaver (1949) described communication channels as what the message passes through as it travels from the source to the receiver. While this is basically true, there is more to channels of communication than simply being pathways. Berlo (1960) described channels as ways that a message

19 may be carried, such as through visual or aural means. Other literature defines communication channels as the means, methods or devices used by the source to send a message to a receiver (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Barker & Barker, 1993; Dwyer, 2003; Clampitt, 1991; Elder, 1995).

As methods of communication, channels may be verbal or non-verbal (Barker & Barker, 1993). They can be interpersonal, such as two people in conversation, or they can be mass media driven, such as a newsletter sent across a company (Muchinsky, 1993). It has been suggested that the use of more than one channel when conveying important messages is beneficial as it ensures that receivers are more likely to get the message (Berlo, 1960; Clampitt, 1991). For example, sending a message as a written memo along with spoken words ensures that those who receive messages better either aurally or visually are both catered for. In many organisations, including schools, the common methods of communication (also known as media) include: staff meeting, report, handbook, telephone, bulletin board, intercom system, public address (P.A.) system, fax, video and electronic mail (email).

In organisations, communication channels have two other dimensions. First, the channels may be formal or informal (Barker & Barker, 1993; Hoy & Miskel, 1996). Second, and related to the first, channels have directions (Barker & Barker, 1993; Dwyer, 2003; Goldhaber, 1993). This means that messages travel up or down the hierarchy, or horizontally among peers. As a general rule, upward and downward communication is often formal, while horizontal communication is often informal. Direction of communication flow and level of formality are explained in greater detail in a later section.

For the purpose of this study channel will be defined as having three dimensions: a medium, a direction or path, and a level of formality.

2.2.2.4. Receiver The receiver is the person or persons who receive the message (Dwyer, 2003; George & Jones, 2000). For a receiver to get the message properly, the symbols must be translated into a form that he or she can understand (Dwyer,

20 2003; Smeltzer et al, 2002). This skill is called decoding (Dwyer, 2003; George & Jones, 2000) The decoding process is not always accurate. While the sender may send a message with a clear intent, a number of factors can lead to distortion or misinterpretation. For example, the sender may use language that is beyond the decoding capabilities of the receiver, thus ignoring the needs of the receiver (Dwyer, 2003; Rogers & Rogers, 1976). The receiver may also misunderstand the message due to language or hearing problems (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Robbins, 1998).

Attitudes or emotional state may also influence the receiver’s interpretation of the message (Berlo, 1960; Smeltzer et al, 2002). For example, a receiver who thinks he or she has more knowledge about the message then the source may not view the message as important. The recipient’s attitude to the source may also affect communication. If the source is not viewed as trustworthy, information may be viewed with scepticism. If the source is viewed as reliable, information may be accepted more readily.

A receiver’s understanding of the message is also likely to be influenced by knowledge (Mohan et al, 1992; Nutting et al, 1996; Smeltzer et al, 2002). It would be difficult to discuss a topic with someone who has no background knowledge of that topic because there are no points of reference to which the receiver can link new information to. Knowledge of communication is also important. In order to receive a message properly, the receiver must know how to listen and decode the information as it is received.

Receivers are vital to the communication process (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Berlo, 1960; Nutting et al, 1996). Much of the literature contends that If the receiver does not get a message then communication has not taken place (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Berlo, 1960; Nutting et al, 1996; Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Stoner, et al, 1994). Rogers and Rogers (1976) described receivers as the most important element in communication.

21 2.2.2.5. Feedback Feedback is the receiver's response to the message. Here, the sender (or source) gets a reaction from the receiver that either confirms the success or failure of the communication or failure to get the message through (Dwyer, 2003; Nutting et al, 1996; Schramm, 1954).

Feedback may be verbal or non-verbal. It may be positive (indicating agreement or understanding), negative (indicating disagreement or misunderstanding) or ambiguous (Barker & Barker, 1993; Nutting et al, 1996). Other literature clarifies the functions and types of feedback. Jablin’s (1978; 1979) studies indicated that feedback may be used to confirm, disagree with, accede to, repudiate or disconfirm the content of a message. Dwyer (2003) suggested that feedback, which is honest, but sensitive to the needs of the receiver, encourages openness and trust among colleagues. Feedback from staff can be used by managers to evaluate the channels used and change or maintain communication practices accordingly (Smeltzer et al, 2002).

Feedback has been linked to job attitudes. Whaley and Hegstrom (1992), for example, found that communication of feedback from the principal predicted job satisfaction in schoolteachers. In another study, positive feedback was linked to job satisfaction and trust (Stimson & Applebaum, 1988). It is apparent that feedback is not just important as part of the communication process, but may influence other variables.

2.2.3. How communication works in organisations Organisational communication can occur in a number of ways and moves through official and unofficial channels. It can occur at several levels of interaction, ranging from two people to many. Information may flow up, down or horizontally across a communication network or hierarchy. It may take place formally or informally and be transmitted through a number of methods. The following section addresses the literature on organisational communication in terms of levels of interaction, direction of flow, formality and the methods used.

22 2.2.3.1. Levels of interaction Several levels of interaction at which communication may take place are discussed in the literature (Bredeson, 1987; Dwyer, 2002; Farace & McDonald, 1974). These levels are based on the number of people involved in particular communication. Three levels at which communication takes place within organisations are the dyad, the small group and the whole organisation (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Farace & McDonald, 1974).

2.2.3.1.1. The dyad Communication between two people is termed dyadic (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Daniels & Spiker, 1987; Farace & McDonald, 1974). The dyad is the smallest unit of interpersonal communication in organisations (Daniels & Spiker, 1987; Goldhaber, 1993). The most common dyads in organisations are two peers and a superior and subordinate (Blair, Roberts & McKechnie, 1985; Daniels & Spiker, 1987; Heintzman, Leathers, Parrott & Cairns, 1993; Pepper, 1995).

2.2.3.1.2. The small group The small group is the next logical level of interaction in organisations (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Barker & Barker, 1993; Pepper, 1995). The literature suggests there is no limit on how many people constitute a small group, but indicates this level of interaction involves a part or subset of the whole organisational membership (Adler & Rodman, 1991; Barker & Barker, 1993; Burgoon, Heston & McCroskey, 1974). For example, the discourse that occurs in committees and teams is an example of small group communication (Burgoon et al, 1974; Goldhaber, 1993; Pepper, 1995).

2.2.3.1.3. The whole organisation The whole organisation is the next level of interaction within organisations (Farace & McDonald, 1974). Because of the large numbers of people that this level can involve, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for everyone to have a say, which is why there is usually one speaker, others listening and perhaps some allowances for questions or discussions at certain points (Adler & Rodman, 1991). Whole organisation communication may also take the form of

23 memos, notices, newsletters and other mass means of communication (Goldhaber, 1993).

2.2.3.2. Direction of flow Information may flow downward, upward and horizontally across positions in the organisational hierarchy (Goldhaber, 1993; Kreps, 1990). Downward and upward flows are also referred to as vertical communication (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Dwyer, 2002; Blair et al, 1985; Irwin & More, 1994; Kreps, 1990; Simpson, 1959). Horizontal information flow is sometimes referred to as lateral communication (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Dwyer, 2002; Robbins, 1998).

2.2.3.2.1. Downward communication Downward communication is the passing of information from superiors to subordinates (Goldhaber, 1993; Kreps, 1990; Muchinsky, 1993). Much of the literature suggests that superiors use downward communication to influence subordinates in some way (Dwyer, 2002; Robbins, 1998).

Superiors may use downward communication to: give subordinates information that will assist them with their tasks (Bredeson, 1987; Dwyer, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990), direct or in some way persuade subordinates (Bredeson, 1987; Fuchigami, 1993; Heintzman et al, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Russ, Daft & Lengel, 1990), provide feedback to subordinates (Goldhaber, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schnake, Dumler, Cochran & Barnett, 1990; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992), indoctrinate subordinates in terms of the organisation’s goals or mission (Goldhaber, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992), give support to subordinates (Bredeson, 1987; Infante et al, 1993; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992) and maintain working relationships with subordinates (Lee & Jablin, 1995).

Downward communication may take place at any level: dyad, small group or whole organisation. Several studies have revealed the dyad to be an important and common level at which superiors communicate with subordinates. One study suggested that the superior-subordinate dyad may

24 be important to organisations because face to face contact increased the likelihood of subordinate compliance (Heintzman et al, 1993).

A study conducted in schools found that principals engaged in downward communication (as part of the vertical communication dynamic) mostly at the dyadic level (Bredeson, 1987). This direct form of communication had the benefit of reducing distortion, which can easily occur if messages are sent down through successive persons in a hierarchy (Kreps, 1990), and offered the facility of support for staff (Bredeson, 1987). Other literature has suggested that downward communication can be useful at the small group and whole organisation levels in terms of the opportunity to air concerns and manage organisation-wide change (Young & Post, 1993).

Downward communication may produce a number of useful outcomes for organisations. It can give staff members information about procedures and provide direction for work and other job related information (Barker & Barker, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990). Through this it has been linked to increased job performance (Goris, Vaught & Pettit, 2000). Downward communication also provides subordinates with feedback about work performed (Downs, Berg & Linkugel, 1977; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990; Robbins, 1998; Smeltzer, 2002). It provides the avenue whereby staff members may be educated about an organisation’s mission, and the opportunity for superiors to acculturate subordinates (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990; Schein, 1987). It is through downward communication that superiors maintain professional relationships with their subordinates (Lee & Jablin, 1995). In addition, downward communication provides an opportunity for superiors to support subordinates. Much of the organisational communication literature does not mention the concept of support from superiors. However, it is evident in other literature, especially that concerning occupational stress and job satisfaction (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Otto, 1986; Ray & Miller, 1991; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992).

There are a number of problems associated with downward communication. A great deal of the literature suggests that there may be discrepancies between

25 information sent by superiors and information needed or received by subordinates (Albanese, 1978; Barker & Barker, 1993; Drucker, 1967; Goldhaber, 1993; Jablin, 1979; Koelher et al, 1981; Kreps, 1990; Muchinsky, 1977b; Stoner et al, 1994). In these studies subordinates have indicated that they did not have enough information to do a job or know why it needed to be done. The problems in this area occur for several reasons. Superiors may think they have communicated clearly, but may not have due to either their inadequate skills or misinterpretation by their subordinates (Koelher et al, 1981; Kreps, 1990; Stoner et al, 1994).

Superiors may withhold information that they think is harmful to their authority or not relevant (George & Jones, 2000; Robbins, 1998). They may also alter information. This is possible when messages must travel down successive levels of hierarchy. Senders may omit or change information accidentally or in attempts to gain advantages over others (Stimson & Applebaum, 1988). These are examples of noise, a concept that is dealt with more comprehensively later in this chapter. These problems may occur due to a lack of trust or openness, concepts that are also discussed later. In studies of downward communication conducted in a variety of organisations it was found that the perceived quality (accuracy and usefulness) of information from superiors was related to employee commitment to the organisation and intention to leave (Allen, 1996; Allen & Brady, 1997).

Other issues related to downward communication are timeliness and overload. Goldhaber (1993) proposed timing as a potential issue in downward communication, suggesting that superiors should consider the best times and circumstances for particular messages. Timeliness has also been found to facilitate positive perceptions of downward communication by employees (Allen & Brady, 1997). Subordinates may also feel overloaded by downward communication (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Goldhaber, 1993). Communication overload is discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter.

Just as the communication process is continued by feedback, so downward communication is part of a larger dynamic that may be called vertical

26 communication, and which includes upward communication (Dwyer, 2003). Influential writer on management issues, Peter F. Drucker (1967; 1982) stated that downward communication cannot exist without upward communication. It is through upward communication that feedback is given and the sender can be sure that a message was communicated (see Figure 2.1).

2.2.3.2.2. Upward communication Information may travel from those lower in the hierarchy to those higher in an organisation (Downs et al, 1977; Glauser, 1984; O’Reilly, 1978). Such information flow is termed upward communication (Dwyer, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Kreps, 1990).

Subordinates may engage in upward communication in order to: provide their superior with updates on work or inform them of what needs to be done (Goldhaber, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990; Zaremba, 1989); seek solutions to work related problems (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Goldhaber, 1993; Zaremba, 1989); be involved in decision-making, such as suggesting improvements to organisational activities (Dwyer, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Muchinsky, 1993, Zaremba, 1989); inform superiors of their attitudes to work, including any grievances (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Muchinsky, 1993; Robbins, 1998; Young & Post, 1993; Zaremba, 1989); satisfy personal needs such as affection, inclusion and relaxation (Anderson & Martin, 1995); offer support to their superior by way of advice or social interaction (Lee & Jablin, 1995); influence their superior’s decision about an issue (Edge & Williams, 1994; Krone, 1991; 1992) and maintain a working relationship with their superior (Lee & Jablin, 1995).

Upward communication can provide a number of positive outcomes in organisations. It can provide superiors with immediate feedback about how effective any preceding downward communication was (Downs et al, 1977; Kreps, 1990), thereby, continuing the process of communication described earlier in this chapter. Upward communication can keep superiors informed of the progress of any given tasks and the people responsible (Downs et al, 1977; Irwin & More, 1994).

Upward communication may also help superiors to identify potential problems (Barker & Barker, 1993). These interactions can assist superiors with their decision-making (Blair et al, 1985; Kreps, 1990). Upward communication also has the potential to encourage participation by subordinates in decision- making processes (Kreps, 1990). It may also provide an avenue through which subordinates can offer support to their superiors (Downs et al, 1977; Kreps, 1990). Upward communication has also been linked to meeting interpersonal needs of superiors and subordinates such as affection, inclusion and relaxation (Anderson & Martin, 1995). It has been linked to the development of staff morale and organisational climate (Jablin, 1979; Zaremba, 1989).

There are a number of problems associated with upward communication. As with downward communication, upward communication may be influenced by noise, openness and trust. These relationships are explained later. Additionally, there may be a lack of agreement between superiors’ perceptions of upward communication and that of subordinates. One study revealed that superiors’ perceptions of the number of opportunities for upward flow was higher than that perceived by subordinates in some organisations (Schnake et al, 1990). Similarly, in a study of various organisations, Young and Post (1993) found that managers perceived more opportunities for upward communication than could be identified by employees.

From an extensive review of the literature on upward information flow in organisations, Glauser (1984) identified the willingness of superiors to listen to subordinates as a factor influencing the extent to which subordinates actually communicated upwardly. Willingness, as well as ability, to listen, in upward interactions were identified as issues affecting open communication between principals and staff in a study of schools (Bredeson, 1987).

Related to this is the issue of avoidance. A study conducted in various organisations revealed that subordinates may have avoided interacting with superiors for reasons such as moodiness of superiors and apprehension

28 about the reception of ‘bad news’ (Lee & Jablin, 1995). There is also literature suggesting that upward communication is generally limited by superiors, either because they do not desire to hear what subordinates think or do not value it (Downs et al, 1977; Dwyer, 2002; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Zaremba, 1989). The extent of such behaviours may be an indication of the degree of openness in vertical communication overall (Jablin, 1978; 1979). Upward communication is generally encouraged if superiors exhibit an affirming and supportive leadership style (Albanese, 1978; Glauser, 1984; Zaremba, 1989). It is also likely to be encouraged if various organisational facilities exist for such communication to take place, such as suggestion boxes and an ‘open door’ policy of superiors (Albanese, 1978; Goldhaber, 1993).

2.2.3.2.3. Horizontal communication Horizontal communication is the exchange of information between people at the same level of authority within an organisation (Goldhaber, 1993; Koelher et al, 1981; Simpson, 1959). It involves peer-peer interaction (Odden & Sias, 1997). Within primary schools, horizontal interactions might include those between teachers who are not on the executive, those between coordinators or, in the case of large schools, interaction between assistant principals.

There are several reasons for people communicating horizontally in organisations. When encountering work related problems, a staff member may enlist the help of co-workers to solve them (Bidwell, 2001; Goldhaber, 1993; Simpson, 1959). Odden and Sias (1997) found this to be the case, especially when superiors were viewed as inconsiderate. Interestingly, Jablin (1979) concluded (albeit from limited references) that subordinates are most likely to seek help from superiors. It is likely, however, that the conditions identified by Odden and Sias where not controlled for in the studies Jablin (1979) reviewed.

Horizontal communication also occurs so that work may be generally coordinated (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Dwyer, 2002; Eden, 2001; Simpson, 1959). For example, teachers may need to meet with other grade partners to organise resources for a unit of work. In the same vein, co-workers may

29 communicate horizontally to share information (Bidwell, 1965; 2001; Goldhaber, 1993). This may need to occur if a staff member from one department needs information from another department to complete a task being worked on by both groups (Baird, 1977; Goldhaber, 1993). Peers may also communicate laterally to resolve conflicts (Goldhaber, 1993) or vent frustration about work or other co-workers (Eden, 2001).

Horizontal communication provides several beneficial outcomes for organisations and the people within them. When co-workers get together to solve work related problems, it can relieve superiors of the time and burdens associated with such help and allow staff to grow professionally through the experience which, in turn, can allow organisations to respond to sudden crises with minimal loss of resources (Baird, 1977; Stoner et al, 1994). This can be beneficial to organisations when quick action is needed and people need to solve problems. Communication can occur directly among those concerned instead of messages having to proceed up, then down a chain of authority, which is more time consuming (Koelher et al, 1981). Henri Fayol suggested this as a way of eliminating delays in action, referring to it as “Fayol’s Bridge” (Koelher, 1981).

Horizontal communication can become the basis for the development of teams and collegiality among staff (Drucker, 1967; Hoy, Tarter & Witkoskie, 1992; Ouchi, 1981; Timperley & Robinson, 1998). Horizontal interaction provides an avenue for the sharing of emotional and professional support among peers (Albanese, 1978; Allen & Brady, 1997; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Odden & Sias, 1997). Collegiality and teamwork, in turn, encourage professional development and innovation through the sharing of ideas (Eden, 2001; Wallace, 1999). It is also an avenue by which new staff members are socialised into the culture of the organisation (Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Pepper, 1995).

Horizontal communication caters for the need for information that may have been missed due to absence or timing (Bidwell, 1965). It can discourage feelings of isolation and satisfy various personal needs such as inclusion and

30 relaxation (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Wallace, 1999). In large organisations horizontal interaction allows for quicker and less distorted information, another benefit of “Fayol’s Bridge” (Koehler et al, 1981).

There are a number of problems that can occur with horizontal communication. The literature suggests that, as with upward and downward flow, horizontal communication may be associated with trust, openness, distortion and load (Allen & Griffeth, 1997; Goldhaber, 1993; Hoy et al, 1992; O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Wallace, 1999).

Rumours, which can be destructive and harmful to organisations and their members, flow very quickly in the horizontal network and are difficult to prevent once started (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Koelher et al, 1981; Davis, 1953). Overuse of the horizontal part of the communication network can lead to neglect of vertical channels of communication which are important for numerous reasons, including simply maintaining a relationship with a superior (Baird, 1977).

Horizontal communication may also be a disadvantage if there is a tendency for people to waste time on discussion that is not related to work or poor outcomes are generated due to lack of expertise within a group (Eden, 2001; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Groups, such as committees, may not solve the problems they intended to solve (Timperley & Robinson, 1998).

Horizontal communication often tends to be informal (Irwin & More, 1994; Wallace, 1999). Indeed, it is often linked to informal communication in the literature (Irwin & More, 1994; Stoner et al, 1994). However, horizontal communication is not the same concept as informal communication as is made clear in the next section. Much of the horizontal communication that occurs is sanctioned by the organisation and, as this section has explained, plays an important part in achieving the organisation’s goals.

31 2.2.3.3. Formality of communication Organisational communication can happen through formal channels, which are those that are generally accepted by the organisation. It can also flow through informal channels, which ignore the formal structure of the organisation (Dwyer, 2002; Johnson, Donohue, Atkin & Johnson, 1994).

2.2.3.3.1. Formal communication Formal communication is that which is sanctioned, or officially viewed as appropriate, by an organisation (Goldhaber, 1993; Johnson et al, 1994). Messages travel along paths that are deemed acceptable by the hierarchy, up, down and horizontally across positions on the organisational chart (Goldhaber, 1993; Hanna & Wilson, 1991). Interactions are characterised by their predictable, logical and generally planned nature (Albanese, 1978; Kreps, 1990).

It is through formal communication that staff members receive information that is official. Conversations among people are generally related to organisational goals and day to day work. From the findings of research based on communication audits in schools, Tourish and Hargie (1998) argued that effective formal communication is speedy, timely and free-flowing. They further argued from their observations that such communication prevents or lessens the occurrence of grapevines.

2.2.3.3.2. Informal communication Informal communication is the flow of information that does not follow sanctioned or official channels (Goldhaber, 1993; Irwin & More, 1994; Johnson et al, 1994; Krakhardt & Hanson, 1993). While formal communication follows rules, procedures and ‘proper channels’ (Hanna & Wilson, 1991), informal communication occurs whenever people are together and interacting and is generally not planned (Barker & Barker, 1993; Irwin & More, 1994; Kreps, 1990; Werther & Davis, 1989). Informal communication is often referred to as ‘the grapevine’ (Goldhaber, 1993; Irwin & More, 1994; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kreps, 1990; Rauschenberg, 1988; Werther & Davis, 1989). It

32 often, but not exclusively, involves horizontal communication (Eden, 2001; Johnson et al, 1994; Kreps, 1990; Robbins, 1998).

The informal communication network can spread information very rapidly within an organisation (Barker & Barker, 1993; Davis, 1953; Goldhaber, 1993). Krakhardt and Hanson (1993) attributed the rapidity of information flow to how it is spread from person to person directly, cutting across positions in the hierarchy in doing so. Informal communication has the potential to be accurate for this reason (Baird, 1977; Goldhaber, 1993; Krakhardt & Hanson, 1993). It has also been reported to be frequently used in organisations (Davis, 1953; Dwyer, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Krakhardt & Hanson, 1993: Kreps, 1990; Werther & Davis, 1989).

Informal communication occurs for a number of reasons. People may engage in informal communication to give and receive support from colleagues, share concerns or vent frustration in a relaxed environment (Bidwell, 2001; Eden, 2001; Ray, 1990; Wallace, 1999). It is also a way of getting information about the organisation that is not available through formal channels (Akintunde & Selbar, 1995; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986; Tourish & Hargie, 1998). Such information includes background of decisions made, personal details about individuals and interesting gossip (Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986; Rauschenberg, 1988).

It has been suggested that the informal communication network is better for transmitting aspects of an organisation’s culture than formal channels, provided there is a shared vision among staff (Johnson et al, 1994). For school administrators who care to use it, informal communication may be a source of information about the morale of staff and students (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Simiyu, 1990). Informal channels may also be used by managers to spread planned information or test ideas (Rauschenberg, 1988; Stoner et al, 1994).

While informal communication may serve to complement the formal communication network in these ways, it can also be a cause for concern.

33 Informal communication in the form of grapevines can be accurate in terms of the fidelity of the message, but the message itself may be untrue (Davis, 1953; Wilson et al, 1986). Rumours spread via such informal communication can be harmful to people or the organisation’s reputation. For example, rumour and misinformation spread by the grapevine in one school damaged the reputation of the school and rendered its formal communication system ineffective, contributing to the eventual closure of the school (Stockman, 1990).

2.2.3.4. Methods of communication Otherwise known as media, the methods of communication in organisations are the physical channels through which information is shared. Communication in organisations may be verbal (involving written or spoken messages) or non-verbal (Goldhaber, 1993). The methods of communication used commonly in schools are similar in variety to those used in other organisations (St. John, 1989). Literature suggests that the use of more than one method of communication improves chances that messages will be successfully transmitted (Clampitt, 1991; Nutting et al, 1996).

At present there is very little published research about methods of communication in schools. However, examination of the literature about general communication in schools suggests that the following are commonly used: formal staff meetings, informal meetings, bulletin boards, memos and other notes, handbooks, telephones and intercom or public address (P.A.) systems (Patten, 1984; Schempp, Sparkes & Templin, 1993; St. John, 1989).

The most preferred and common methods of communication in organisations, including schools, are those involving face to face interaction (Akintunde & Selbar, 1995; Bidwell, 1965; Jablin, 1979; Smeltzer & Fann, 1989; Westmyer, Di Cioccio & Rubin, 1998). In the study by Westmyer and her associates (1998), face to face interaction was identified as the most effective method of communication. These encounters have the advantage of minimising hierarchical distance (Bidwell, 1965), satisfying interpersonal needs and providing for immediate feedback (Westmyer et al, 1998). In schools, face to

34 face interactions usually occur in formal and informal meetings (Eden, 2001; Gronn, 1983). In the following sections the media identified as most commonly used in schools will be briefly discussed.

2.2.3.4.1. Staff meetings Staff meetings take many forms. They may occur as weekly sessions, daily briefings or dyads (Eden, 2001). Staff meetings are used by superiors to inform subordinates of current events and affairs (Gamble & Kelliher, 1999; Gresso & Robertson, 1992; Gronn, 1983; Patten, 1984; Schempp et al, 1993). They are also used in schools to conduct curriculum development (Moore, 1992; Schempp et al, 1993), conduct staff development (Stremmel et al, 1993) and allow staff to be more involved in decision-making (Patten, 1984; Gresso & Robertson, 1992). Principals may also use staff meetings to control or persuade staff (Gronn, 1983; Nutting et al, 1996; Strano et al, 1992). Staff meetings may also be used by principals to give feedback to staff and, often through such feedback, motivate staff or develop team spirit (Gamble & Kelliher, 1999). In the other direction, staff may also use staff meetings to air concerns or let off steam (Edge, 2001; Gronn, 1983).

2.2.3.4.2. Informal meetings Informal meetings are unplanned interactions that occur horizontally or vertically. Much of what can be said about them has been covered in the section on informal communication. In an Australian study of schools, it was revealed that informal meetings were used by a principal to keep in touch with what was going on in the school, supervise teachers and show concern for staff (Gronn, 1983). This principal used a technique of “management by walking around” (Kulmatycki & Montgomerie, 1993; Ouchi, 1981; Tourish & Hargie, 1998), which provides opportunities for informal interactions. The same study also found that staff may use informal interactions to attempt to influence the principal.

35 2.2.3.4.3. Telephone St. John (1989) listed telephones and related technologies such as tele- conferencing as a school communication medium. However, literature addressing their use in primary schools is scarce.

2.2.3.4.4. Intercom / P.A. systems Intercom / public address (P.A.) systems are the last form of oral communication to be dealt with in this review. They are used in organisations for making important announcements (Koelher et al, 1981). They are another form of technology identified by St. John (1989) in his comprehensive list of school communication methods. Dinham, Cairney, Craigie and Wilson (1995) suggested P.A. systems were sources of discontent if they do not work well.

2.2.3.4.5. Bulletin boards Bulletin boards are also referred to as news-boards, main-boards, whiteboards and notice boards (Galvin et al, 1992; Nutting & White, 1990; Patten, 1984). They are generally large boards that can be written on with chalk or markers and/or have dividers and information on the surface. They may also be surfaces on to which messages are pinned or otherwise attached.

Bulletin boards are generally used to notify or remind people of coming events, important dates, procedures and rosters, as well as to recognise and reward staff (Koelher et al, 1981; Lock, 1989; Patten, 1984). They provide a source of written information that is easy to access and which can be contributed to by anyone, thereby opening up the communication to all staff and not just in a downward flow (Koelher et al, 1981; Patten, 1984). Problems may occur when staff members do not read bulletin boards properly or regularly (Koelher et al, 1981). They may also become crowded with competing and confusing messages, thereby minimising effectiveness (Nutting & White, 1990).

36 2.2.3.4.6. Memoranda and other notes Memoranda and other notes are commonly used in business organisations and in schools (Patten, 1984; St. John, 1989; Tourish & Hargie, 1998). Memoranda, also known as memos, are written notes that are brief and have information about the sender, intended receiver(s), topic and date, followed by the message (Beisler, Scheeres & Pinner, 1993; Galvin et al, 1992; Mohan et al, 1992).

Other notes include information sheets (Koelher et al, 1981; Patten, 1984), bulletins (Mohan et al, 1992; Patten, 1984), letters (Mohan et al, 1992; Schempp et al, 1993; St. John, 1989), notices and posters (Beisler et al, 1993; St. John, 1989), staff newsletters (Fairhurst, 1990; Nutting et al, 1996; St. John, 1989), short reports (Koelher et al, 1981; Nutting et al, 1996) and informal notes (St. John, 1989).

Memos and other notes may be used to: request information, respond to a request, notify, report, clarify, acknowledge or instruct an intended audience (Beisler et al, 1993; Mohan et al, 1992; Nutting et al, 1996; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986). They have the advantage of being able to be filed away for future reference (Galvin et al, 1992). They also have the advantages of carrying complex information that is difficult to take in orally and being able to reach many people within a short time (Galvin et al, 1992; Nutting et al, 1996).

Memos can present problems. Di Gaetani (1983) reported that the overuse of memos could cause information overload. This is echoed in other literature that indicates overload from memos may also lead recipients to miss or forget information (Beisler et al, 1993). The overuse of memos may also be a sign of a poor communication climate between superiors and subordinates in schools (Tourish & Hargie, 1998).

2.2.3.4.7. Staff handbook Another written medium commonly referred to in the literature is the staff handbook. Staff handbooks are also known as employee handbooks (St.John, 1989) and orientation manuals (Koelher et al, 1981). Handbooks are used to

37 orient new staff to the organisation and provide a written record of organisational rules, procedures and other information staff need from time to time (Koelher et al, 1981; Nutting & White, 1990). They have the advantage of being permanent records, eliminating the chance of distortion common in oral methods, and saving superiors the time and effort required in explanation and revision (Nutting & White, 1990). There is, at present, not a lot of research dealing with handbooks in schools. However, one study of schools revealed handbooks were being used as a form of downward communication that transmitted organisational information, including information about the organisation’s values and culture (Kelly & Bredeson, 1991).

2.2.3.4.8. Other methods of verbal communication There are many other methods of communication available to schools. The following are listed from various sources: facsimile, video and/or audio presentation, video-conferencing, employee magazines and voice mail (Clampitt, 1991; St. John, 1989). Many of these, although available, are either not commonly used in schools, or, if they are, the messages generally originate from outside the school site (for example, videos and facsimile).

With the establishment of the internet, electronic mail (e-mail) and intranets have emerged as methods of communication that have the potential to be used among staff in schools for a number of purposes. They warrant mention here as they are becoming recognised in the literature as important and economical communication technologies (Goldhaber, 2002).

2.2.3.4.9. Non-verbal communication Non-verbal communication is communication by means other than words (Mohan et al, 1992; Smeltzer et al, 2002). It includes body language (Beisler et al, 1993; Braysich, 1979). Body language includes gestures such as facial expressions, vocal tones, movement of limbs, tilting of the head, shifting of the eyes, folding arms, crossing legs, touching the other person, general posture and physical actions such as slamming a door (Beisler et al, 1993; Braysich, 1979; Dwyer, 2003; Goldhaber, 1993; Muchinsky, 1993; Smeltzer et al, 2002). Body language influences the way in which receivers perceive messages, as

38 well as the way they feel about the senders. For example, the study by Heintzman and associates (1993) found that certain body language such as smiling, leaning and touching influenced staff perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness and feelings of rapport with the supervisor.

Non-verbal organisational communication also includes any part of the organisation’s internal environment that may ‘speak’ to a person seeing it. the physical layout of work areas can appear inviting to staff or indicate distance (Goldhaber, 1993). Symbols and artefacts such as logos, colours and organisational dress may also communicate non-verbally (Beisler et al, 1993; Galvin et al, 1992; Nutting & White, 1990). For example, the way an employee dresses may reflect his or her attitude to work (Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986), as well as communicate or reinforce an aspect of an organisation’s culture (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993). Non-verbal communication may be used to convey feelings, reinforce or enhance verbal information and reflect organisational culture (Goldhaber, 1993; Mohan et al, 1992; Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993).

2.2.4. The functions of organisational communication Communication performs a number of functions within organisations. Several scholars of organisational communication have put forward categories of these functions in order to facilitate analysis or build theory (See, for example, Dwyer, 2003; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Thayer, 1968). There exist several sets of categories in the literature, many with similar ideas, but collectively distinct. In this section, some of the function categories proposed in the literature will be examined.

Etzioni (1961) proposed one of the earliest explanations of the functions of communication in organisations. He distinguished two types of communication functions in organisations. The first, termed instrumental communication, involves messages that provide information necessary for the execution of tasks. An example would be a technical notebook. The other, termed expressive communication aims to influence attitudes, values and norms. Praise and expressions of appreciation would be examples of this.

39 Thayer (1968) expanded on the work of Etzioni by proposing four major functions of organisational communication. These were termed the informative, regulative, persuasive and integrative functions. The informative function involves information that individuals need in order to carry out their jobs. The information is used to make decisions or resolve conflicts. Regulative communication involves messages for the control and coordination of the activities that take place within the organisation. This often comes in the form of directives issued from a manager to subordinates. These messages are related to the accomplishment of organisational tasks or the implementation of policies. Persuasive communication has to do with power and authority within the organisation. In such instances, the superior is attempting to get subordinates to comply using persuasion rather than a command or directive (as is the case with regulative communication). The integrative function aids the development and maintenance of unity and cohesion within the organisation. In simple terms, integrative communication facilitates the smooth running of an organisation because it involves telling members what the aims and objectives are and feedback about their jobs and their roles in the organisation. The four functions are not mutually exclusive, as any single act of communication can perform several functions (Thayer, 1968).

The four functions of organisational communication suggested by Scott and Mitchell (1976) have been referred to by several other writers (for example, Muchinsky, 1993; Saal & Knight, 1988). Their attractiveness may lie in the clear and interpretable nature of the category names: information, control, motivation and emotive. The information function involves messages that simply inform. The function of control communication is to establish authority, usually over subordinates. It involves messages that aim to clarify duties and evaluate the progress of work. Motivation communication is that which is aimed at stimulating worker effort. Communication with this function includes praise, criticism and negotiation about goals and job descriptions. Communication that performs the emotive function involves the expression of feelings and exploration of attitudes. Examples of such communication

40 include award ceremonies, suggestion boxes and other interactions in which feelings are dealt (Scott & Mitchell, 1976).

Building on the work of other theorists, Goldhaber (1993) proposed four types of messages according to their function: task, maintenance, innovative and human. Task communication gives staff the information they need to do their jobs. Maintenance communication is required to keep an organisation running, such as orders, commands, regulations and policies. Innovative communication assists organisations to respond and adapt to change. Examples of this include planning, goal-setting and brainstorming interactions. Human communication includes affirmation, conflict resolution and other messages aimed at influencing attitudes and feelings about work (Barker & Barker, 1993; Goldhaber, 1993).

These are not the only sets of functions proposed by theorists. For example, Katz and Kahn (1978) suggested four functions: production, maintenance, adaptation and management. Building on this and other work, Wilson, Goodall and Waagon (1986) discussed task, integration/differentiation, maintenance and adaption functions. From a human interaction perspective, Dance and Larson (1976) proposed three functions of communication: linkage (associating the person to his or her environment), mentation (developing higher mental processes) and regulatory (controlling behaviour).

In addition to this, a survey of other literature about organisational communication suggested that it performs other functions within organisations. It is the way in which organisational culture is developed and transferred (Brown & Starkey, 1994; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). Among the other major roles it serves is that of support. Recent research has indicated that communication gives both information and emotional support to staff in the workplace (Allen, 1992; Ray & Miller, 1991). It also serves to facilitate involvement in decision-making (Hock, 1988; Miller, Ellis, Zook & Lyles, 1990; Ray & Miller, 1991).

41 For the purpose of arriving at a comprehensive, yet simple conceptual framework of the functions of communication for use in this study, the following are proposed as functions of communication in organisations: the directive function, the supportive function, the cultural function and the democratic function. These incorporate the functions proposed by earlier writers as well as those suggested by subsequent research. As with Thayer’s (1968) four functions, a message can perform more than one function.

2.2.4.1. The directive function The concept of a directive function of communication is proposed in order to account for behaviours that are focussed on influencing and persuading people to comply with expectations. Directive communication is consistent with Etzioni’s (1961) instrumental function, Thayer’s (1968) command/instruction function, Scott and Mitchell’s (1976) control function and the maintenance function (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Goldhaber, 1993) because all involve orders, instructions and directives. Also consistent with the directive function is the provision from superiors of information necessary for subordinates to do their work, which is an example of what Goldhaber (1993) described as task function. Directive communication may also include persuasion as subtle or overt appeals to influence behaviour (Miller, 1987; Rakes & Cox, 1994).

The concept of directive communication is supported by other literature. In an investigation of communication motives a factor termed “control”, related to instruction and gaining compliance emerged (Rubin, Perse & Barbato, 1988). Superiors informing subordinates of policy, practice and organisational goals, as reported by Jain (1973), are further examples of directive communication. Miles, Patrick and King (1996) used a variable consistent with directive communication. Their “Job-relevant communication” concerned the provision of information about rules, policies and instructions by superiors to subordinates.

A study of schools revealed examples of directive communication used by principals such as outlining school direction and policy at staff meetings,

42 supervising teachers and reprimanding staff who do not comply with expectations of professional dress (Eden, 2001). Research conducted in Australian Catholic schools, reported by Collard (1990) and Starratt (1990), found enforcing and directing behaviours to be prominent among the activities that principals engaged in with staff. This communication included information giving and directives. Bredeson (1987) found that task and maintenance communication were the purposes behind a majority of interactions with staff.

Directive communication is, by way of its relation to power and authority, a function almost exclusive to downward interactions. As well as the research mentioned above, the predominantly downward nature of directive communication is reflected in studies of communication in schools (for example, see Fuchigami, 1993). Directive communication has also been implied as principal behaviour that contributes to organisational climate in schools (Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo & Bliss, 1996; Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991).

Directive communication benefits organisations by giving staff the knowledge and direction that they need to stay on task and, consequently, help to achieve organisational goals (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Saal & Knight, 1988; Thayer, 1968). However, excessive use of directive communication may lead to subordinate discontent, lower morale and other negative attitudes to work (Ray, 1990; Stockman, 1990; Wilson, 2002).

2.2.4.2. The supportive function Supportive communication is that by which people in organisations fulfil and cater for needs for affirmation, encouragement, social interaction and assistance. The term has been used in relation to social and task support in organisations (Albrecht, Burleson & Goldsmith, 1994; Rosenfeld & Richman, 1999). It is consistent with Etzioni’s (1961) expressive and Scott and Mitchell’s (1976) emotive functions because it is concerned with expressions of feelings and deals with attitudes. It also incorporates Scott and Mitchell’s (1976) motivation function through praise and encouragement. Like Goldhaber’s

43 (1993) human function, the supportive function serves the emotional, interpersonal and morale needs of individuals.

There are several ways in which the supportive function of communication may be enacted. Generally, any show of concern or interest in others may be perceived as supportive communication (Albrecht et al, 1994; Hoy et al, 1992). Examples of this include praise, appreciation and other forms of recognition, encouragement, constructive criticism and demonstrating trust (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Chapman, 1983; Hoy et al, 1992; Keyes, Maxwell & Capper, 1999; Ramus, 2001). Listening and other signs of active engagement in others may also be perceived as supportive communication (Hoy et al, 1992; Rosenfeld & Richman, 1999). Research conducted in the area of communication motives revealed behaviours consistent with supportive communication to be associated with the fulfilment of needs for pleasure (communicating for fun and emotional lift), affection (communicating to help or thank) and inclusion (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Rubin et al, 1988).

Supportive communication can occur in any direction and provide a number of outcomes for organisations. Research in many settings, including schools, has indicated that supportive communication from superiors to subordinates (downward supportive communication) may result in more positive feelings about work (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Chapman, 1983; Whaley, 1994). In a study of schools, downward supportive communication from principals was found to be positively associated with teachers’ perceptions of school effectiveness (Hoy et al, 1992). Another study conducted in schools suggested that downward supportive communication was associated with greater school effectiveness (in terms of instruction) overall (Reitzug, 1989).

Support from superiors has also been linked to morale, employee commitment and intention to leave (Allen, 1992; Ray, 1990). A study of schools in Western Australia found that downward support was associated with staff turnover (Bruce & Cacciope, 1989). Other studies conducted in schools and other organisations revealed downward support to be associated

44 with support from peers (horizontal supportive communication), also known as collegiality (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Hoy et al, 1992).

Evidence of upward supportive communication is scant in the communication literature. Reitzug (1989) recorded incidents of teachers giving support to principals as part of a vertical reciprocation. Lee and Jablin’s (1995) communication category of “supportiveness” did not imply any direction, suggesting that upward as well as downward supportive interactions could take place in various situations.

There is ample evidence for the idea of horizontal supportive communication (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Ray, 1990; Rich, 1995). Rich (1995) described horizontal support in terms of teacher support groups and their dependence on collegiality, horizontal communication and social interaction among staff. This, in turn, meets the professional development and social interaction needs of staff. Buunk and Verhoeven (1991) found that horizontal support helped staff to deal with problems they encountered with superiors. Other studies have described how horizontal supportive communication allows an avenue for staff to share concerns and leads to more positive attitudes to work (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Ray, 1990).

Supportive communication has been linked to trust (Rich, 1995). The study of schools by Hoy et al (1992) identified a positive correlation between trust and support from both leadership and colleagues. These results were echoed in a later study of Australian schools (Wallace, 1999). From his extensive review of superior-subordinate communication literature, Jablin (1979) proposed that downward supportive communication (in the guise of a “consideration” leadership style) may reduce subordinate propensity to distort their upward communication.

Supportive communication is consistent with the ethos of Catholic schools which encourages the nurturing of individuals to achieve their full potential intellectually, physically, spiritually, emotionally and morally (Flynn, 1993;

45 Flynn & Mok, 2002; Helm, 2000). This may be achieved by imitating Christ by establishing positive and giving relationships with others (Flynn, 1993; Johnson et al, 2000; Starratt, 1990). Supportive communication is also implied in the in the notions of community and belonging often associated with Catholic schools in Australia (Bell, 1996; Flynn, 1993; Flynn & Mok, 2002; Mok & Flynn, 1998).

2.2.4.3. The cultural function There exists a substantial body of literature describing the way communication is used to inform, socialise or acculturate new members of an organisation to its culture (Asher, 1999; Bantz, 1993; Cawyer & Freidrich, 1998; Mignerey, Rubin & Gorden, 1995; O’Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987; Pepper, 1995; Putnam et al, 1996; Van Maanen, 1975). There has also been a number of studies describing how communication may be used to develop and maintain organisational cultures (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Ouchi, 1981; Pang, 1998; Smircich, 1983).

Communication that serves the function of transmitting cultural information may be termed cultural communication. This term has been used similarly by other writers (for example, Carbaugh, 1985; Sathe, 1985; Stage, 1999). Cultural information may include beliefs, values and assumptions about best practice, mission and goals of the organisation (Bantz, 1993; Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Schall, 1983; Schein, 1992). The notion of cultural communication is consistent with Thayer’s (1968) integration function because it may facilitate a person’s sense of identity with an organisation and ensure that procedures and practices continue to survive over time, assisting with the organisation’s longevity. Like the maintenance function (Goldhaber, 1993), such communication helps organisations to survive and perpetuate.

Cultural communication may occur in the form of downward or horizontal flowing messages (Jablin & Krone, 1994; Mignerey et al, 1995). From a review of literature, Jablin (1982) asserted that horizontal interactions are useful avenues for the transmission of role expectations and best practice to

46 newcomers. In one study, it was revealed that peers informed newcomers about organisational expectations of dress code (Gundry & Rousseau, 1994).

Horizontal communication has been found to be useful for the sharing of organisational mission and for the sharing of procedures that work well when the downward channels fail to do so (Corrie, 1995; Jablin, 1982; Johnson et al, 1994; Pang, 1998). A study of schools revealed that this occurs during informal exchanges with co-workers who teach new staff “how things really worked in the school” (Schempp et al, 1993, p.462). A study of schools in New South Wales, Australia described how the use of mentors and induction programs for new staff members spread and reinforced the ethos and culture of schools (Carter & Francis, 2001).

Narratives (also known as stories) used to illustrate ideal work values, appropriate behaviour or role models are often, but not exclusively, disseminated by the horizontal channel (Bantz, 1993; Corbett, 1986; Ott, 1989; Putnam et al, 1996). Often central to these narratives are “heroes” who are the main characters, often put forward as role models (Deal, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ott, 1989). A recent study of organisational culture reproduction identified narratives as strong influences on culture transmission (Lyons & Kashima, 2001). Another study found that narratives told by staff conveyed key values that reflected the culture of an organisation such as consideration for others, compassion among staff and high commitment (Meyer, 1995).

While horizontal communication may achieve the cultural function, it is downward communication that is arguably most important for the transmission and maintenance of organisational culture (Jablin, 1982; Jablin & Krone, 1994; Schein, 1992). In the literature concerning school cultures, it is evident that principals, including those of Australian Catholic schools, have a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of culture (Collard, 1990; Flynn, 1993; Kottkamp, 1984; Kulmatycki & Montgomerie, 1993; Reitzug & Reeves, 1992; Starratt, 1990).

47 The study by Kulmatycki and Montgomerie (1993) revealed that building and maintaining school culture was a significant leadership role of principals in Canadian Catholic and non-Catholic schools. This finding was echoed two years later in another study which found the principal (head-teacher) in one school to be the prime influence behind school ethos and general school culture (Corrie, 1995). In his study of Catholic schools in Australia, Flynn (1993) found that principals were the main developers and upholders of school culture, but teachers also had a role to play in culture transmission. Indeed, it would appear that a great deal of cultural communication occurs in Australian Catholic schools, given that the schools’ purposes and missions concern the promotion of Catholic values, beliefs and traditions (Flynn, 1993; Potts, 1999; Starratt, 1990). This commitment to culture transmission is often evident in school mission statements and ethos (Flynn, 1993; Flynn & Mok, 2002; Johnson et al, 2000; Potts, 1999).

Reitzug found that open and supportive vertical communication encouraged a supportive “culture of concern” (1989, p50). In a more recent study of schools, it was found that principals encouraged greater cultural cohesion among staff by engaging them in the decision-making process (Pang, 1998). This had the added effect of encouraging staff commitment to work and engendering a sense of teamwork and positive morale. In a qualitative study of culture in Australian Catholic schools, Bell (1996) identified principals who maintained school cultural values through non-verbal communication.

Direct communication is not the only avenue by which culture may be transmitted in organisations. Symbolism, such as ceremonies, rituals and artefacts, such as logos and signs, also communicate cultural information (Bantz, 1993; Carbaugh, 1985; Deal, 1985; Mitchell & Willower, 1992; Smircich & Calas, 1987). Celebrations and other ceremonies may be used to reinforce core values and beliefs of organisations (Deal, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; O’Reilly, 1989). In a study of school cultures, one principal used award ceremonies to reinforce school values such as academic success (Kelly & Bredeson, 1991). Rituals, the day to day activities performed by staff (Deal, 1985), communicate culture by showing newcomers what is expected

48 of them and reinforcing values in others (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Flynn, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979).

Organisations often use artefacts such as icons and signs to communicate their core values or missions. Some examples of cultural communication via artefacts include uniforms and professional dress (Kelly & Bredeson, 1991; Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993), physical workspace (Schein, 1992), icons, school badges and mottos (Flynn, 1993), stationery, displays, exhibitions and the actual name of the organisation (Robbins & Barnwell, 1994; Stockman, 1990).

Through the socialisation of newcomers, continuous reinforcement of values and transmission of culture over time, the main outcome of cultural communication is that it influences behaviour and attitudes in organisations (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Kilmann, Saxton & Serpa, 1985; Ouchi, 1981; Pepper, 1995; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994; Schall, 1983; Schein, 1992; Van Maanen, 1975). Cultural communication may influence staff morale (Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). Commitment of staff may be enhanced through their identifying with and becoming dedicated to the organisation (O’Reilly, 1989; Reyes & Pounder, 1993) and empathy with organisational goals or history (Pettigrew, 1979). In relation to schools, Deal (1985) concurred, adding that this can contribute to school effectiveness. Carter and Francis (2001) found that cultural communication (as mentoring) was associated with positive and supportive school climates.

Cultural communication may also foster a sense of belonging and identity in people (Deal, 1985; Mitchell & Willower, 1992; Pang, 1998; Schein, 1992; Stage, 1999). Indeed, Pang (1998) stated that socialisation and other sharing of values acts as a binding force, uniting people in an organisation. This is similar to the notion of a “glue” that holds organisations together, which is how Smircich (1983) described organisational culture.

Cultural communication may pose potential problems for organisations, especially if it is not carried out well. Stockman (1990) reported at least two instances when the careless use of symbolism resulted in negative

49 consequences for a school. The use of two different types of letterhead was construed by a school’s community as an indication that its administration was confused and that the staff was divided. The same study reported that the lack of a school uniform further spoiled the school’s reputation according to staff and parents. Van Maanen’s (1975) study suggested that cultural communication may discourage openness and promote attitudes that inhibit worker initiative and morale.

The notion of sub-cultures, subsets of culture within an organisation, is also important. While sub-cultures may work together because of shared values (Schein, 1992; 1993), problems emerge if they communicate values very different from the main organisational ones, affecting cohesion and causing dissension and disunity (Deal, 1985; Maxwell & Thomas, 1991; Schall, 1983). Conflicting sub-cultures can originate from socialisation by peers. Schein (1986; 1987) pointed to subcultures working against the organisation and generally inadequate socialisation factors that can harm organisations in terms of reputation and productivity.

2.2.4.4. The democratic function The democratic function of communication is associated with participation in decision making. The inclusion of this concept arises from literature that describes staff involvement in organisational decision-making (Alutto & Acito, 1974; Miller et al , 1990; Rice & Schneider, 1994; Stohl & Cheney, 2001) and teamwork, which entails collaborative participation in decision making (Corrie, 1995; Gilman, 1979; Pang, 1998; Southworth, 2000). Over the last few decades, increasing numbers of organisations, and especially schools, have adopted the practice of increased staff member participation in decision- making (Bantz, 1993; Chapman, 1988; Seibold & Shea, 2001; Stohl & Cheney, 2001).

Stohl and Cheney (2001) defined participation (in decision making) as a type of organisational communication. The term “democratic” is appropriate because participation in decision making and involvement in organisational improvement have frequently been described as democratic (Deery, Plowman

50 & Walsh, 1997; Eagley, Karau & Johnson, 1992; Epp, 1993; Evans, 1998; Hoy & Sousa, 1984; Seibold & Shea, 2002; Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Wilson, 2002).

Democratic communication occurs in a number of ways in organisations. Among the most common are membership of committees, submitting suggestions and simply having a voice in decisions made by the group (Epp, 1993; Gilman, 1979; Seibold & Shea, 2001). In schools, democratic communication may involve the principal seeking input from staff (Hoy & Sousa, 1984), which is a form of downward communication that encourages upward communication. Such input is successful when principals indicate that it is valued (Epp, 1993).

Democratic communication may also involve horizontal interactions by way of collaborative teamwork (Corrie, 1995; Deery et al, 1997 Seibold & Shea, 2001). Democratic communication may also involve the shifting of problem solving responsibility from principal to staff members. Reitzug (1994) provides several examples of this from a study of schools. Generally, staff members in these schools are encouraged by some principals to seek solutions to their work problems, usually guiding their thinking with questions. Democratic communication may also involve the critical review of current policy and practice by all staff (Keyes et al, 1999; Reitzug, 1994). Because policy and practice are reviewed, such communication could be cultural in nature as well.

Democratic communication may be used to facilitate school decisions on a wide variety of issues including: teaching programs, report design, assessment, budgeting, discipline policy, use of text books, student rights, staff hiring, school goals and school mission (Rice & Schneider, 1994; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994). The last issue is another example of how communication can have both cultural and democratic functions and lends further support to the earlier statement that messages may have more than one function.

Democratic communication provides a number of outcomes for organisations. It has generally been associated with positive attitudes to work (Haughey &

51 Murphy, 1983; Rice & Schneider, 1994). Prominent among the factors associated with democratic communication is morale (Conway, 1984). For example, the study by Pang (1998) revealed positive staff morale to be the result of team collaboration involved in participative management at a school.

Several studies have linked democratic communication to improved organisational commitment of staff (Alutto & Acito, 1974; Gilman, 1979; Pang, 1998; Rapert & Wren, 1998). Rapert and Wren (1998) suggested that democratic communication might motivate staff to become more involved in the organisation, which in turn may lead to better performance. Similarly, Hajnal, Walker and Sackney (1998) reported that democratic communication (collaboration) predicted school effectiveness. Democratic communication has also been associated with staff feelings of empowerment (Reitzug, 1994).

Teamwork, sharing of ideas and other forms of collaboration enable schools to become organisations (Hajnal et al, 1998; Silins et al, 2002; Southworth, 2000; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992) that are able to adapt to challenges and identify problems quickly (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1998; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992). This last point suggests that democratic communication may also include communication about innovation and change. There is evidence to support this. In a study of a business organisation. Fairhurst (1990) found that planned innovations to communication practices necessitated collaborative investigations by managers and staff that also examined current practices and the underlying culture of the company. Ramus (2001) reported that democratic communication practices in some firms encouraged innovation and change. Given that innovation requires whole staff and administrative collaboration to be successful (Loucks & Zacchei, 1983; Ridden, 1991; Silins et al, 2002; White, 1990), it is not unreasonable to include innovation as another area dealt with by democratic communication.

There are a number of problems that may be associated with democratic communication. Firstly, a number of studies have suggested that poor quality of democratic communication may have negative impacts on staff attitudes.

52 Stohl and Cheney (2001) warn of the possibility of enforced democracy. An example of this is when one is forced to engage in decision making oriented meetings. Having to participate in democratic communication, whether one wants to have a say or not is an undemocratic notion and can lead staff to harbour negative feelings about the organisation (Stohl & Cheney 2001). This is consistent with Conway’s (1984) assertion, from a review of literature, that too much participation in decision making can fatigue people and inspire negative feelings about work. It must be remembered that not all staff members want to be involved in decision making (Evans, 1998).

Another practice that may elicit negative affect in people is what Epp (1993) termed “pseudo-participation”. This is democratic communication that, while appearing on the surface to be participation, does not change anything and is generally undertaken for political reasons such as staff appeasement (Epp, 1993). Finally, while it has been said that democratic communication can aid an organisation in reacting to challenges, Brown and Starkey (1994) reported on interview data that suggested the time required by democratic communication may slow down decision making required to respond to a crisis. Such a situation was described as “too democratic for its own good” (p.817).

Democratic communication has been frequently linked to openness (Gilman, 1979; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1985; Rapert & Wren, 1998). Trombetta and Rogers (1988) found a positive correlation between amount of democratic communication and perceived openness.

Democratic communication has also been linked to trust. Alutto and Acito (1974) found that lower levels of democratic communication than desired was associated with lower interpersonal trust. Reitzug (1994) identified trust shown by principals as a vital ingredient in the establishment of an environment in which democratic communication could take place. This finding was echoed five years later by another study that found principals’ communication of trust encouraged democratic communication among staff (Keyes et al, 1999).

53 2.2.5. Process variables in organisational communication Communication in organisations does not occur independently. Various factors of the individuals or of the organisation have a role in shaping the way communication works in that organisation. Factors that may have an effect on organisational communication may be referred to as process variables (Muchinsky, 1993).

2.2.5.1. Internal environment Organisational environment has been defined in various ways, some of which appear to conflict. It has been described as a set of factors that influence organisations from outside (Dunford, 1992; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994). This approach generally places organisations within the context of the communities in which they are located (Bidwell, 1965; Jablin, Putnam, Roberts & Porter, 1987). Other literature refers to environments as part of organisations (Stoner et al, 1994). In this approach an environment includes the culture, climate and the purpose of the organisation (Dorman, 1998; Dorman & Fraser, 1996; Wilson et al, 1986). Some authors have referred to organisations as environments themselves. For example, Flynn (1993) referred to Catholic schools as “intensely relational environments” (p. 403).

Clearly, when investigating environments of organisations, a researcher needs to be specific about the concept’s meaning. Fortunately, some authors have attempted to make distinctions. Some authors refer to activities and influences outside the boundaries of organisations as external environments, and those within organisations as internal environments (Griffith, 1999; Jablin et al, 1987; O’Brien and O’Donoghue 1995; Stoner et al, 1994).

The internal environment is the set of circumstances in which communication takes place. The environment includes the organisational climate (Anderson, 1982; Dorman & Fraser, 1996; Tagiuri, 1968) and the organisational culture (Jablin et al, 1987; Wilson et al, 1986).

The concept of organisational climate has been described in various ways (Anderson, 1982; Schneider, 1975). However, the definition given by Tagiuri

54 (1968), which built on earlier work by Halpin and Croft has been used frequently in research and review literature (Finlayson, 1987; Guzley, 1992; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Owens, 2001). According to this definition, an organisation’s climate is the quality of the internal environment that is experienced by its members, which can influence their behaviour and can be described in terms of certain characteristics. Organisational climates are shared perceptions of those qualities (Glick, 1985; Hoy & Miskel, 1996). That is to say, there is generally some agreement among members about what the climate is (Glick, 1985; Hoy et al, 1996; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993). School climate is similarly defined and has also been described as the general working environment as perceived by staff members (Anderson, 1982; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Miskel, 1996).

There is a wealth of literature linking organisational climate to communication because communication variables have often been used as indicators to measure climates empirically (Falcione, Sussman & Herden, 1987). From an extensive review of literature, Falcione, Sussman and Herden (1987) argued that organisational climate should be considered when examining antecedents and consequences of organisational communication because climate comprises many communication variables. Some communication variables used in climate studies have included effectiveness of communication systems, openness, supportiveness, vertical communication and horizontal communication, (Anderson, 1982; Bassey & Yeomans, 1989; Downey, Hellreigel & Slocum, 1975; Hoy et al, 1991; Muchinsky, 1993; Nidich & Nidich, 1986; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993; Welsh & LaVan, 1981).

Other studies have suggested that climate may influence communication within an organisation. For example, one study of climate in Australian schools suggested that climate influenced the degree of openness of communication, collaborative decision making and communication among staff members generally (Dinham et al, 1995). However, the relationship is not that simple. Just as climate influences communication, communication plays an integral role in the formation of organisational climates (Hoy et al, 1996; Hoy et al, 1991; Guzley, 1992; Smeltzer et al, 2002).

Organisational culture is often confused or used interchangeably with organisational climate, however, the two are distinct concepts (Denison, 1996; Maxwell & Thomas, 1991; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998). That is not to say that they are not related. In fact, literature suggests that, as indicators of individual perceptions of the organisational internal environment, they are closely related (Anderson, 1982; Ott, 1989; Tagiuri, 1968). Although organisational culture has been defined in various terms, the common thread among these definitions is that culture is the result of perceptions of norms and beliefs that are shared by staff (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Ott, 1989; Owens, 2001).

At the simplest level, organisational culture is the system of informal rules that guides how people behave (Deal & Kennedy 1982). At a deeper level, organisational culture is the system of shared assumptions about how things are to be done in order to deal with work related issues and problems (Schein, 1984; 1986; 1992). Organisational culture is evident in the beliefs, values, behaviour patterns, stories and artefacts that are observable (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 1992). Less obvious are the basic assumptions that drive these (Schein, 1992). School culture is defined and explained the same way (Flynn, 1993; Maxwell & Thomas, 1991; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993).

Some studies have revealed that organisational culture influences the way people in an organisation communicate by way of agreed values and the consequently accepted behaviours (Gudykunst, 1997; Meyer, 1995; Reilly & Di Angelo, 1990; Smeltzer et al, 2002; Stage, 1999). Brown and Starkey (1994) found that organisational culture had some bearing on how communication took place in organisations as well as the contents of such communication. In a study of religious organisations it was found that culture precluded open debate about certain issues among personnel (More & Smith, 1990).

Jargon is language specific to a job or group (Beisler et al, 1993). It is a manifestation of communication unique to an organisation’s purposes as well

56 as its culture (Dunford, 1992; Kreps, 1990; Mohan et al, 1992; Ott, 1989). It is conceptually consistent with visible and audible behaviour pattern artefacts described by Schein (1992). As a purpose of schools is to educate children, much of the discourse among teachers will involve educational jargon.

It is, therefore, reasonable to include culture as part of the environment of organisations that can influence communication. However, as with climate, the relationship is more complex. Culture may influence communication, but communication is related to how organisational cultures are established and maintained (Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Lau et al, 2001; Ott, 1989; Phillips & Brown, 1993; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989).

Given the influences culture and climate have on communication, and vice versa, it is reasonable to state that internal environment provides the context in which such communication takes place. It influences how communication may be experienced as well as what is communicated.

2.2.5.2. Noise Noise can play a significant role in communication processes in organisations. Noise is anything that interferes with the transmission of messages or impedes the understanding of messages (George & Jones, 2000). Shannon and Weaver (1949) referred to noise as something that is added to a message that distorts it, making it less certain that the message will be received as intended. Such phenomena may be referred to as channel noise and could include physical barriers to message reception such as loud background noises, bad photocopies, static, distance from the source and closed doors (Galvin et al, 1992; Nutting et al, 1996). Noise can also arise from having too much information (Muchinsky, 1993).

Berlo (1960) broadened the concept of noise to include some of the possible human sources. In the discussion of the process of communication earlier in this chapter, it was seen that sources and receivers have characteristics such as attitudes, knowledge and skills. Any of these may influence the capacity of an individual to send or receive messages accurately. Any aspect of the

57 sender or receiver that distorts the intended message, whether it is poor communication skills of a sender, the emotional state of the receiver or some other variable, may be considered noise.

It is apparent that two types of noise can exist in organisations. Firstly, there is noise caused by physical barriers mentioned earlier. These may be referred to as channel noise because the sources affect the communication process. That is, the noise does not emanate from sender or receiver, but originates from somewhere along the channels.

The other type of noise is sender/receiver noise. It is so named because the noise arises from either the sender or receiver or both. Sender/receiver noise may arise from aspects of the individual such as their communication skills, attitudes or cultural background (Berlo, 1960; Dwyer, 2002; 2003). For example, one study revealed that differing cultural norms regarding non- verbal cues created the potential for misunderstanding between people during interviews between representatives of western culture and some African cultures. (Olaniran & Williams, 1995).

Sender/receiver noise may also arise from actions of the sender or receiver, such as exaggeration, withholding information (termed gatekeeping), filtering of details and changing the form of the message. Such actions are examples of what is described in much of the literature as distortion (Athanassiades, 1973; 1974; Gaines, 1980; O’Reilly, 1978; Larson & King, 1996). While many of these actions are the work of senders, receivers may also distort messages by way of their interpretations, knowledge of topic, attitude to sender and the like (Jablin, 1979).

Exaggeration, or ‘puffing’ as it is described by Gaines (1980), is the accenting on or expanding of certain details (O’Reilly, 1978; Larson & King, 1996). Filtering is the deliberate or unintended omission of certain details (Gaines, 1980; Krone, Jablin & Putnam, 1987; O’Reilly, 1978). Gatekeeping is the complete withholding of information (Muchinsky, 1993; Nutting et al, 1996). Changing the form of a message is the alteration of information that is neither

58 exaggeration nor filtering (O’Reilly, 1978). Communication avoidance may also be included as noise as it involves an intentional withholding of information (Avtgis, 2000).

Sender distortion may occur for a number of reasons. Research has indicated that people may initiate distortion in order to create favourable or unfavourable impressions, depending on the situation. Such research has revealed, invariably, that senders tend to relay information more readily if it reflects positively on them, and withhold information that reflects negatively or is considered ‘bad news’ (Rosen & Tesser, 1972; Larson & King, 1996). Some studies have found that gatekeeping by subordinates was related to the trust they had in their superiors (Gaines, 1980; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). For example, the research by O’Reilly and Roberts (1974) and O’Reilly (1978) found that lack of trust by a subordinate in his/her superior resulted in higher likelihood that the subordinate would withhold unfavourable information and exaggerate favourable information.

Distortion also occurs in downward communication. One study revealed distortion of downward communication taking place as a result of the superior making judgements on the relevance of certain information (Muchinsky, 1977b). A study conducted in schools suggested that principals may withhold information in order to exert some power over staff members (Stimson & Applebaum, 1988).

An experimental study involving university students found that communication could be distorted by politeness. Attempts to save face and avoid disharmony were associated with superiors being less direct and more vague in their instructions, particularly when messages could be misconstrued as authoritarian. In the same study, subordinates avoided giving genuine comments to avoid threatening the authority of the superior (Morand, 2000).

The literature has also revealed that not all distortion should be considered noise in organisations. For example, the study by O’Reilly (1980) found that senders filtered information that was unimportant or irrelevant, thereby

59 reducing potential noise from too much information. Other literature has asserted that some distortions such as changing of form and exaggeration, can actually enhance the meaning of messages (Cerulo, 1988).

Noise is an important aspect of communication as an interference or impediment to understanding. In the light of the literature and for the purposes of this study noise refers to anything that disturbs, confuses or interferes with communication at any stage of the process (Galvin et al, 1992; Mohan et al, 1992; Shannon & Weaver, 1949)

Noise influences organisational communication in terms of the perceived accuracy of information. If noise alters information then that information is not accurate. It stands to reason that in organisations which experience a lot of noise, information would be perceived as generally less accurate than in organisations where noise is less prevalent.

Because managers need accurate information to make decisions, the communication failures caused by noise have the potential to adversely affect organisations, including schools (Larson & King, 1996). Pettit, Goris and Vaught (1997) found that accuracy of information was related to job performance. It is logical to state that for organisations to succeed in their objectives it is important for members to minimise noise. This means ensuring that communication is as accurate and open as possible. While there is very little literature on noise/distortion in schools, it can be assumed that what applies to organisations generally, applies to schools.

2.2.5.3. Openness Openness of communication is the free flow of information, including feelings and opinions, between people (Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Muchinsky, 1993; Spillan & Mino, 2001). It is typified by the willingness of senders to impart information, whether favourable or unfavourable, and the willingness of receivers to listen and accept any information, favourable or unfavourable (Bergman, 1992; Jablin, 1978; 1979; Lee & Jablin, 1995; O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Spillan & Mino, 2001).

Some literature has described communication on a continuum from open (typified by honest and free exchanges) to closed (typified by reluctance to express true feelings and other distortions) (Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Jablin, 1978; Rasberry & Lemoine, 1986). In this light one may assume that the more open communication is in an organisation, the less sender/receiver noise there is likely to be. From a review of the literature, Kreps (1990) recommended the adoption of open and honest communication practices to avoid the problems of information distortion in organisations. Open communication and closed communication are consistent with behaviours typically observed in open and closed organisational climates (Hoy et al, 1996; Hoy et al, 1991). In fact, openness of communication has been identified as a desirable element of school climates (Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy et al, 1996; Jablin, 1979).

Openness has been studied as a feature of communication between superiors and subordinates in organisations (Jablin, 1979). In many of these studies openness, or its equivalent, was related to trust (Jain, 1973; O’Reilly, 1978; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). One study linked low trust to lack of openness among teachers and supervisors in educational systems (Obilade, 1992). In a qualitative study conducted in Australian schools, openness of communication between staff and principal was found to be influenced by trust of staff in the principal’s discretion and acceptance of open criticism (Bishop, 1999).

Other studies in organisations, including schools, have asserted that because hierarchical relationships tend to foster distrust, principals need to work to maintain open communication with teachers by demonstrating their willingness to receive honest feedback (Gilman, 1979; Stimson & Applebaum, 1988; Tourish & Hargie, 1998). From the results of communication audits of many organisations, including schools, Tourish and Hargie (1998) posited that openness could be developed through the approachability of superiors or management.

61 In the light of all this, it is reasonable to assume that members of organisations will relate openness to the perceived accuracy of information. Few studies have empirically investigated relationships between openness and information accuracy. Perhaps this is because the relationship is taken for granted. This appears to be the case in the studies by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974; 1976), who investigated relationships between other variables and accuracy and openness, but did not attempt to investigate what relationship existed between accuracy and openness themselves (see also O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977).

It is apparent, then, that openness is an influence on organisational communication processes in terms of honesty of interactions among senders and receivers as well as trust among them. The degree of openness may be related to the amount of distortion and, as a consequence, how accurate information is perceived. Openness may be dependent on the approachability of the superior as perceived by subordinates. It is also linked to organisational climate.

Openness of communication has been linked to other organisational outcomes. It has been found to be related to staff perceptions of their effectiveness (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977). Open communication can lead to a better capacity for staff members to share ideas (Gresso & Robertson, 1992) and this in turn may lead to school improvement and the development of schools into learning organisations (Silins et al, 2002; Southworth, 2000).

2.2.5.4. Trust At this point it is apparent that trust between senders and receivers influences the way communication operates in organisations. Trust is discussed here because it is associated with several aspects of communication. The term trust here refers to trust between people, which is also known as interpersonal trust (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995).

Trust has been defined as the belief of one person in the reliability and integrity of another (Zimbardo, 1979). Implicit in such a definition is the

62 expectation that the word and action of the other person can be believed and relied upon (Hoy et al, 1991; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Also implicit in trust is that one who trusts is vulnerable to harm or ill intent from those in whom trust is placed (Mayer et al, 1995; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Trust develops as a result of actions. Several studies in schools have found that trust of staff members in their principals is fostered by the principal’s genuine concern, readiness to help and ability to give staff autonomy or control over their work without constantly monitoring them (Keyes et al, 1999; Reitzug, 1994; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998).

Earlier research indicated that lack of trust between superiors and subordinates increased the likelihood that subordinates would distort upward communication (O’Reilly, 1978; O’Reilly & Roberts, 1974), thereby introducing noise. It has been found that trust between the principal and staff encourages openness through opportunities to voice concerns freely, take risks and question practices (Reitzug, 1994).

It is through its influences on noise and openness described earlier that trust also influences the quality of upward communication. For example, distortion of upward communication results in poor quality information received by superiors. This can lead to decisions being made based on incorrect information (Larson & King, 1996). Trust in superiors has been shown to be related to the perceived accuracy of downward communication (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974a). Trust has been shown to facilitate and enhance the quality of communication among staff members (horizontal communication), as well as to be a product of such communication and resulting collegial relationships (Rich, 1995; Spillan & Mino, 2001; Wallace, 1999).

2.2.5.5. Organisational structure Organisational structure is the arrangement of relationships, roles and component parts within an organisation (Bishop & George, 1973; Goldhaber, 1993). It is the way in which an organisation’s activities are coordinated and its membership divided in order to engage in those activities (Stoner et al, 1994). Structure can be described in terms of the organisational chart, which

63 shows the hierarchy of members within it and indicates how communication flows up, down and across positions in the hierarchy (Galvin et al, 1992; McPhee, 1985). This pattern of communication is often referred to as an organisation’s formal communication network (Dwyer, 2002; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986; Stoner et al, 1994) as well as its communication structure (Farace & McDonald, 1974).

Organisational structures may be tall or flat. Organisations with tall structures have many levels of hierarchy. They are also known as pyramid structures (Benjamin & Gard, 1993). There are many levels of management through which messages must pass as they are sent from the head of the organisation down to the subordinates and vice-versa (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Palardy, 1988). Organisations with flat structures have fewer levels of hierarchy. Put another way, there is greater opportunity for the head of the organisation to interact directly with all members. There are few or no levels of authority through which communications have to pass (Allen, Poteet & Burroughs, 1997; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Jablin, 1987; Palardy, 1988), and administrative control may be shared among the staff with the principal taking on more of a team-leader role (Wasley & Lear, 2001).

Primary schools, typically, have flat organisational structures (Bolman & Deal, 1984; Ridden, 1992). This is evident through the access teachers, students and parents have to direct contact with the principal, and Catholic schools do not appear to differ from other schools in this regard (Beare, 1995; Flynn, 1993). There is literature that suggests all schools are tall organisations, however, references have often been to secondary schools and school structures of the past (Brady, 1983; Marsh & Stafford, 1988) or schools existing within a larger organisation of systemic schools (for example, Bell, Halpin & Neill, 1996; Bergman, 1992). However, at the school site level the organisation is typically flat (see for example, Palardy, 1988 and Singe, 1976). In a study of primary (elementary) and secondary schools it was found that secondary schools exhibited more of a tendency for tall, hierarchical structures than the primary schools (Bishop & George, 1973).

64 Communication between superiors and subordinates is simpler in organisations with flat structures. The principal is generally accessible to all staff members and there is little need for communication to flow up or down a series of managerial levels (Wasley & Lear, 2001). A logical consequence of flatter organisational structure is the possibility of greater openness of communication (Rapert & Wren, 1998). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that primary schools would be places where communication is frequently described as open.

Tall organisational structure may contribute to distortion of communication (McPhee, 1985). Messages can be altered as they move up or down a hierarchy due to omission, exaggeration or reinterpretation. Larson and King (1996) likened this process to the game of “Chinese whispers”, in which a simple message alters after being passed on several times. The fewer the levels of hierarchy messages need to go through, the less the chance of distortion, and vice versa (Larson & King, 1996; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986).

Organisational structures can consist of tight or loose coupling of membership (Weick, 1976). Schools have been observed to have loosely coupled structures (Weick, 1976). One reason is because schools comprise connected but autonomous units, namely classrooms. Classrooms generally operate outside the direct supervision of the principal. Other literature has addressed this structural characteristic of schools. Bidwell (1965) referred to it as structural looseness. Lortie (1975) referred to it as cellular organisation, while Corrie (1995) described the autonomy of teachers in their classrooms in terms of decision making.

However, viewing schools solely as loosely coupled structures is too simplistic. Schools may comprise both loose and tight couplings (Fusarelli, 2002; Ogawa & Scribner, 2002). For example, a staff member who does not follow set organisational procedures may be described as loosely coupled to the administration. However, a grade group consisting of four classes whose teachers work closely to cover similar content may be described as tightly

65 coupled with one another, and perhaps even with administration if the administration is encouraging such cooperation.

Loose coupling may present problems when there are immediate or pressing needs for communication (Bidwell, 1965). However, staff meetings, informal meetings and written types of communication offer alternative channels of communication to meet these needs. The greater implication of loose coupling in schools is for supervision of work (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick, 1976). A principal may direct teachers to do certain things in class, but have difficulty following this up with direct supervision because he or she cannot personally be in all classrooms at the same time.

2.2.5.6. Communication load Communication load refers to the amount of information that is received as well as the complexity of messages received (Farace et al, 1977; McKinnon, 1990). Load can be described as excessive (overload) or insufficient (underload) (McKinnon, 1990). It is logical to presume that communication load may also be described as neither excessive nor insufficient (adequate), and that, conceptually, overload, adequacy and underload lie along a continuum. The overload-underload continuum is suggested by much of the literature (see for example, McKinnon, 1990; O’Reilly, 1980; Wilson et al, 1986).

Communication overload occurs when there is too much information received and/or not enough time to process it (Albanese, 1978; McKinnon, 1990; Muchinsky, 1993). It may also occur if a message is so complex that it places excessive demands on the receiver to understand it fully (Farace et al, 1977). Overload has been shown to be negatively related to decision making performance in organisations (O’Reilly, 1980), and been linked to lower levels of job performance (King & Behnke, 2000; O’Reilly, 1980).

Communication underload is said to exist when there is too little information to perform a task (Muchinsky, 1993; Wilson et al, 1986). Underload is more likely to be experienced by those who are outside the main communication network,

66 known as isolates (O’Reilly, 1980). Underload has been statistically associated with employee intentions to leave the job (Scott, Connaughton, Diaz-Saenz, Maguire, Ramirez, Richardson, Shaw & Morgan, 1999).

Communication adequacy (also known as information adequacy) is a term coined in some literature to describe having sufficient information (not too little and not too much) to perform tasks (Jablin, 1987; Scott et al, 1999). This has also been referred to as an optimum load (Downs et al, 1994). Communication adequacy may reduce uncertainty about work tasks and the organisation generally (Jablin, 1987; Scott et al, 1999).

Communication load is a subjective notion. The amount of information considered an overload for one individual may not be so for another (Muchinsky, 1993; O’Reilly, 1980). The same logic applies to perceived underload and adequacy. However, it is possible to measure communication load empirically (McKinnon, 1990; Muchinsky, 1993).

2.2.6. Summary of organisational communication Organisational communication was defined for this study as the process of giving and receiving messages among people in an organisation, with the aim of influencing the receivers. The process of organisational communication was explained and its main aspects described. Levels of interaction, direction of flow, level of formality and methods were explained as ways in which communication takes place in organisations.

The functions of organisational communication were explained. There was a need to develop a classification system of communication functions that included all types of communication that may occur in schools. Directive, supportive, cultural and democratic functions were put forward based on available literature from disciplines within and without the field of organisational communication. Process variables that may shape the way communication takes place in organisations were discussed. These included internal environment (climate and culture), noise, openness, trust, organisational structure and communication load.

In various sections it was established that communication is the basic tool with which organisations achieve their goals. Organisational communication provides members with information about work, procedures, roles and the general culture. It is the means by which superiors may gauge how tasks are progressing via interaction with subordinates. It is the means by which problems are solved, needs for interpersonal contact and belonging are met, work is coordinated among groups, support and feedback are given and behaviour is generally controlled towards the achievement of organisational goals.

It was also established that organisational communication is related to various attitudes about work such as commitment and morale. In the following sections the interactions between organisational communication and two significant work variables, job satisfaction and occupational stress, will be investigated in greater detail.

2.3. Job satisfaction Since the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s, job satisfaction has become an often examined and important aspect of organisational life (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). Thousands of articles describing research into the phenomenon in a variety of work settings and theoretical perspectives have been published (Locke, 1976; Muchinsky, 2000). Despite the wealth of research conducted over the last seven decades, there is still no agreement on a theoretical basis of job satisfaction (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Lester, 1987; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). It is, however, widely recognised that job satisfaction influences and is influenced by organisations (Henne & Locke, 1985; Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001; Muchinsky, 2000; Shann, 1998).

The aim of this section is to explain job satisfaction and draw on the literature that has linked it to organisational communication. Job satisfaction will be defined. Then, some of the numerous theories will be briefly examined. After

68 discussing the dimensionality of job satisfaction and research findings on outcomes for people and organisations, a review of the research into its links to aspects of organisational communication will be conducted. This section concludes with a discussion of the outcomes of job satisfaction for people and organisations.

2.3.1. Job satisfaction defined Job satisfaction has been defined as the favourable or, in the case of dissatisfaction, unfavourable, attitudes or feelings individuals have toward and about their work (Davis & Newstrom, 1989; Hurlbert, 1991; Wofford, 1971). Vroom (1964) defined job satisfaction as the affective response of an individual to the work environment. Locke conceptualised job satisfaction in more direct terms, defining it as "the pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from appraisal of one's job or job experiences" (1976, p.1300). This definition has become widely accepted and has been used extensively by other writers (Gerhart, 1987; Gregson, 1991; Gunn & Holdaway, 1986; Johnson & Holdaway, 1991; McFarlin, Coster, Rice & Cooper, 1995; Muchinsky, 1993; Naumann, 1993).

The common thread in many of the definitions is the extent to which people feel positive or happy about their work and work environment. Conversely, job dissatisfaction is used to describe unhappy or negative feelings toward work and work environment (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). For the purpose of this study, job satisfaction will be defined as the extent to which a staff member has favourable or positive feelings about work and the work environment. This definition suggests two extremes of job satisfaction: when the feelings toward work and work environments are positive, workers are satisfied and when feelings toward these are negative, they are dissatisfied.

2.3.2. Theories of job satisfaction A number of theories has been put forward to explain job satisfaction. Many of these theories have their bases in motivation because satisfaction may motivate effort and the results of motivation, such as extra effort may lead to satisfaction (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). The discussion of job satisfaction

69 theories commences with needs theories, then proceeds to cover other theories.

2.3.2.1. Needs hierarchy theory Among the earliest known theories of job satisfaction were those that related job satisfaction to the fulfilment of needs as outlined by Maslow's Needs Hierarchy (Locke, 1976). While Maslow did not directly intend for his theory to apply to job satisfaction, (his was a general theory of human motivation) some researchers and theorists found it easy to use the Needs Hierarchy to explain worker satisfaction (Gruneberg, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978).

According to this theory once lower order needs such as pay and security are satisfied the worker will seek to satisfy higher order needs such as belonging, self-esteem and, eventually, self-actualisation. The inability to satisfy needs at a particular level usually results in the individual seeking to satisfy that need, and higher needs will not emerge (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Owens, 2001).

Maslow’s theory has been criticised because his conceptualisation of the needs was not the result of systemic empirical study (Locke, 1976) and because the hierarchical order of the needs has not been generally supported by subsequent empirical research (Wofford, 1971). Despite this, it has been related to at least two theories of job satisfaction: Two-factor theory and the later ERG theory.

2.3.2.2. Two-factor theory Herzberg's two-factor (Motivation–Hygiene) theory can be related to the Needs Hierarchy by comparing Maslow's higher order needs of esteem and self-actualisation to recognition and achievement (Herzberg, 1968). Job satisfaction will result when satisfiers such as recognition, achievement, advancement and interest arising from the work itself meet the higher order needs. These satisfiers are what drive the employee to improve effort and performance. Hence they are called motivators (Herzberg, 1968). The absence of these motivator factors does not lead to dissatisfaction, but rather an absence of job satisfaction.

Herzberg's research revealed six strong motivators: achievement, growth, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. As these motivation factors arise from the work itself, they were considered intrinsic to the job (Herzberg, 1968).

Conversely, hygiene factors are those aspects of the job that, when inadequate, lead to job dissatisfaction. However, when adequate these factors do not result in job satisfaction. The factors found in the research to be potential dissatisfiers (hygiene factors) were company policy/administration, supervision, pay, relationship with supervisor, relationship with coworkers, status, security and working conditions (Herzberg, 1968). These hygiene factors are generally considered extrinsic to the job.

Herzberg's theory proposed that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites lying at ends of a continuum, but states determined by different sets of factors. Job satisfaction comes from the experience of growth and achievement that some aspects of the job, such as promotion and task achievement, provide. Job dissatisfaction derives from the frustration that is felt when other aspects of the job such as pay and work conditions are lacking.

Herzberg's theory has been widely criticised for its focus on worker needs at the expense of worker expectations, values and organisational structures (Locke, 1976). It has also been criticised on methodological grounds. The methodology used by Herzberg and others working in the same field involved asking employees to describe critical incidents that resulted in job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. There is the risk that the methodology created artefacts in the data (Gruneberg, 1979; McKenna, 1987). It has also been stated that sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not always represented by critical incidents, but by everyday work tasks (Gruneberg, 1979; Saal & Knight, 1988). For example, one may experience job dissatisfaction due to boredom, but tedium and repetition (likely causes) are not critical incidents as such. Most importantly, research designs other than the critical incident

71 approach have failed to yield results that support the theory (Gruneberg, 1979; Locke, 1969).

Despite the widespread criticism of the theory's two-factor construct, the theory has been supported to some extent by some studies (Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Galloway, Boswell, Panckhurst, Boswell & Green, 1985; Grunig, 1990; Hill, 1986; Knoop, 1994; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Nias, 1981; Savery, 1989; Wofford, 1971). Generally, evidence for the existence of motivation and hygiene factors has been found, but not the orthogonal relationship between the two factors proposed by Herzberg (1968).

Nias (1981) found that support was evident for satisfiers (motivators) and dissatisfiers (hygienes). However, a third class of job satisfaction factor, called “negative satisfiers”, was required to explain aspects of work that fitted into neither satisfier nor dissatisfier categories. The earlier research by Wofford (1971) had yielded similar results, but in that study no third factor was postulated.

The extensive work of Dinham and Scott in Australia and England (1996; 1998; 2000) also identified a three-fold structure of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. While the two factors originally proposed by Herzberg (1968) were somewhat supported, some variation in the arrangement of work characteristics had to be included, given changes in the work environment of teachers in recent years. Intrinsic satisfiers were those associated with the work of teaching itself. They were the strongest sources of job satisfaction for teachers. External dissatisfiers concerned issues outside the direct control of the school or staff such as societal attitudes to teachers and community expectations. These were the strongest sources of job dissatisfaction. A third domain called “school based factors” accounted for aspects of work that elicited either satisfaction or dissatisfaction to some extent in teachers. These included supervision and relationships with coworkers.

72 While these and other studies have generally supported Herzberg’s findings (Abu Saad & Isralowitz, 1992; Lacy & Shehan, 1997; Mercer, 1993; Scott, Cox & Dinham, 1999), the results suggest that the categorisation of work variables into motivation factors and hygiene factors was not realistic. The theory may still be useful for the study of job satisfaction in educational settings, so long as the researcher does not strictly abide by a two-factor paradigm.

In a study of the job satisfaction of teachers, Lester (1987) used the work variables posited by Herzberg (and Maslow’s theory) as the base for a classification of aspects of work consistent with educational settings. This study revealed nine sources of job satisfaction for teachers. No distinctions were made between motivation or hygiene factors, but the theories did yield a useful classification system of teacher job satisfaction constructs.

2.3.2.3. ERG theory C.P. Alderfer proposed a theory of work motivation that sought to adapt Maslow’s needs hierarchy to people at work (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973). The theory has been used to investigate job satisfaction (Schneider & Alderfer, 1973). Alderfer suggested the following categories of needs at work: existence, relatedness and growth, hence the often used abbreviation, ERG.

Existence needs are concerned with food, clothing, shelter and the means by which they are secured, such as pay, working conditions and job security. They are consistent with Maslow’s physiological and material safety needs. Relatedness needs are concerned with interpersonal relationships and social acceptance, a combination of Maslow’s interpersonal safety, belongingness and esteem needs. Growth needs concern personal development and improvement. These are consistent with Maslow’s self actualisation category (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973).

73 Unlike Maslow’s theory, ERG theory posited that individuals may seek to satisfy needs at different levels at the same time. The theory also posited that, unlike Maslow’s hypothesis, frustration of a higher order need may lead an individual to regress to lower order needs (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973).

A recent study that used ERG as a theoretical basis of need satisfaction at work established a link between satisfaction of growth needs and job performance (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002). However, although ERG theory has been used to explain job satisfaction in some organisational settings, research utilising the theory has not been extensive (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). Further empirical application of ERG theory would help to better establish its value as a theory of job satisfaction.

2.3.2.4. Expectancy theory Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory was primarily devised to explain work motivation. However, it has also been used to explain job satisfaction. Expectancy theory contends that people act according to the anticipated outcome (instrumentality) of the action, and how attractive the result of the outcome is (valence). Expectancy is the extent to which an individual believes action will achieve desired outcomes. In other words, it is the force of motivation (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964).

Vroom (1964) asserted that valence is conceptually equivalent to job satisfaction, hence, the link between motivation and job satisfaction. It is expected that highly motivated individuals would be more likely to experience job satisfaction. According to expectancy theory, people are motivated to work when it is anticipated that the outcome will satisfy needs such as recognition from superiors, fringe benefits, better relationships with co-workers, or pay (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Mitchell, 1974; Vroom, 1964).

Expectancy theory has been used in various studies to predict job satisfaction. While some studies provided support for the predictive power of the theory (for example, Johnson & Holdaway, 1991; Miskel, McDonald &

74 Bloom, 1983; Pool, 1997; Wofford, 1971), others have not, possibly because the basic tenets of the theory were not adhered to or due to poorly designed instruments (Locke, 1969; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987).

2.3.2.5. Job characteristics theory The job characteristics model proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) was built on earlier work by E.E. Lawler and others. Job characteristics theory suggests that five core job dimensions (skill variety, task identity, task significance, job autonomy and job feedback) contribute to psychological states (experience of how meaningful the job is, experience of responsibility for work and knowledge about the results of work), that, in turn, lead to job satisfaction (among other outcomes such as motivation, performance and withdrawal).

Skill variety is the extent to which a job requires a variety of skills and talents of the worker, as well as the variety of different activities involved in the work. Essentially, the presence of variety is the antithesis of routine. Task identity is the extent to which a job requires the completion of set tasks. This involves the worker seeing a job through from start to finish. Task significance is the importance of a job to the worker or the organisation. These three job dimensions contribute to a worker’s experience of how meaningful her or his job is (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Job autonomy is the degree to which a job provides a worker with the freedom and discretion to make decisions about how tasks are done. Job autonomy leads employees to experience responsibility for work. Job feedback is the degree to which a job results in workers getting information about the effectiveness of their work. This leads to knowledge about the results of work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

According to the theory, the five job dimensions may be measured and combined to arrive at an index of the overall motivational potential of work. The relationships between the job dimensions and the resulting psychological states, and between the psychological states and the outcomes (such as job

75 satisfaction) are moderated by an individual’s need for personal/professional growth (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Since the first publication of the job characteristics model, many subsequent studies have confirmed the association of the five job dimensions with job satisfaction (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Humphrys, 1981; Orpen, 1985; 1987; Naumann, 1993). However, the model needs to be tested further in order to ascertain whether its assumptions are indeed correct. For example, Pollock, Whitbred and Contractor (2000) confirmed support for the relationships between the job characteristics and job satisfaction, but not for the moderating effect of the need for growth.

2.3.2.6. Equity theory As has been the case with the theories of job satisfaction already discussed, equity theory has a basis in work motivation. However, instead of being concerned with need fulfilment, this theory addresses perceived fairness. Equity theory has been attributed to the work of J.S. Adams and his associates (Goodman & Freidman, 1971). However, the concept of equity had been applied in general and occupational psychology previously (Locke, 1969; Zimbardo, 1979).

Equity theory hypothesises that workers develop ideas of what constitutes appropriate outcomes for their given work inputs by comparing themselves to others (Downs, 1977; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). Inputs are the efforts applied to work and may include aspects such as study and preparation as well as actual work. Outputs are the results of the effort, usually conceptualised as rewards such as pay, Important to the theory is the effort and rewards of a referent other. These are observed and used as reference points for comparison of levels of input and output (Downs, 1977; Gruneberg, 1979).

If someone receives a reward for efforts and that reward is comparable to that which the referent other receives for the same effort, the person perceives equity. Satisfaction, in terms of equity, is the likely result. If the individual perceives that someone else gets more for the same effort or the same

76 reward for less, he or she may perceive inequity and feel that it is unfair. Dissatisfaction is likely to result (Locke, 1976; Robbins, 1998). Theorised in terms of equity, therefore, job satisfaction is derived from the perception that the rewards for, or outcomes of, work are equitable and fair compared to that received by others in similar circumstances.

Interestingly, the theory also posits that excessive reward (for example, receiving more pay for some work done as somebody else) will lead to job dissatisfaction, and the person will be moved to correct the inequity (Gruneberg, 1979; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987).

While there is some empirical support for equity theory in the literature (Goodman & Freidman, 1971; Gruneberg, 1979; Robbins, 1998), it has been criticised for being too loosely based. For example, Locke (1976) contended that the theory allowed for far too much variation of interpretation as to who constitutes an appropriate referent and what aspects of equity should be measured. It has also been argued that equity is not the only factor that may influence job satisfaction (Gruneberg, 1979; Locke, 1976).

2.3.2.7. Value theory Locke’s (1976) value theory proposed that job satisfaction is experienced when work provides individuals with what they value. Locke (1969; 1976) has contended that values rather than needs or expectancies lead to job satisfaction. According to Locke (1969; 1976), needs are elements that people must try to meet whether they want to or not, and expectancies are outcomes that people anticipate whether they want them to occur or not. To understand value theory one must understand the dynamics of values.

According to Locke (1969; 1976), entities that are valued are wanted or desired. Additionally, people assign different levels of importance to different values, generating a hierarchy of values. As a result, the strength of job satisfaction felt as a result of attaining a valued object is moderated by the importance of the object’s assigned value (Henne & Locke, 1985; Locke, 1976). For example, two workers may value a certain pay bonus. However,

77 the person who considers the bonus more valuable is likely to experience greater job satisfaction having attained it. Conversely, failure to obtain the bonus may arouse greater dissatisfaction in the same individual.

Locke has presented a substantial list of values that employees may associate with their jobs. Some of these include: work that is interesting, a sense of accomplishment, autonomy, feedback about performance, fair pay, enough income to meet living expenses, safe physical surroundings, empathetic co-workers and considerate superiors (Henne & Locke, 1985).

Intuitively, value theory makes sense, and there is some support for it in the literature (Gunn & Holdaway, 1986; McFarlin et al, 1995). For example, Locke’s identification of sense of accomplishment as a valued job attribute highly likely to be valued by workers was supported by a study of the satisfaction of school principals (Gunn & Holdaway, 1986). In that study accomplishment explained most of the variance in job satisfaction.

Support for the theory is limited. Another study revealed only partial support for the hypothesis that importance of values will explain variance in job satisfaction (Humphrys, 1981). In fact, the degree to which value theory may explain job satisfaction has not really been ascertained. This is because of the lack of substantial and systematic research utilising the theory to date (Landy, 1989; Saal & Knight, 1988).

2.3.2.8. Social information processing theory Social influence theory has also been referred to in various terms, such as interpersonal comparison (Muchinsky, 1993), social influence (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987) and social learning (Saal & Knight, 1988). The theory was introduced by Salancik and Pfeffer (1978). The theory posits that, when determining their level of job satisfaction, people compare themselves to others in similar roles and circumstances (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). By using comparable others as models, people learn what to be satisfied or dissatisfied with at work. They may also compare past experience with the present

78 situation to arrive at judgements about job satisfaction (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

Instead of being based on needs, expectancies or values, job satisfaction is derived from the social or interpersonal network. In this way the theory is similar to equity theory. For example, a worker may be influenced by the positive comments of a colleague to be satisfied with tea breaks. The same worker might observe another colleague’s dissatisfaction with the content of a task and develop a propensity to be dissatisfied with that sort of work as a result. Similarly, an employee may compare working conditions between present and previous jobs.

This theory has been supported by some empirical studies. For example, Pollock and associates (2000) were able to conclude that job satisfaction of employees was significantly influenced by the job satisfaction of others with whom they interacted. However, as with all the theories presented here, it will not explain all of the variance in job satisfaction. It is, for example, highly possible to conceive a worker who does not compare his or her work situation with others. This is especially so in cases where people work in isolation (Muchinsky, 1993; Saal & Knight, 1988).

2.3.2.9. Further discussion of job satisfaction theories By now it is apparent that no single theory of job satisfaction is capable of explaining the phenomenon completely. For each theory there is literature that supports it and literature that contests it. Some (for example, two-factor and expectancy theories) have been widely used as the bases of further research into job satisfaction. Others (such as ERG and value theory) have yet to be adequately tested or ratified by further use in various settings.

A fuller explanation of job satisfaction is, perhaps, achievable via the integration of more than one theoretical basis. Some studies have attempted this in order to come to grips with the range of variables that account for job satisfaction (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2002; Miskel et al, 1983; Naumann, 1993; Pollock et al, 2000; Wofford, 1971). For example, the study by Pollock and

79 associates (2000) used social information processing theory combined with job characteristics theory to explain how job satisfaction varies among workers. Arnolds and Boshoff (2002) used ERG theory as the main basis of their research, but referred to expectancy, two-factor and needs hierarchy theories to explain relationships between various job variables and satisfaction. Wofford (1971) combined expectancy theory with needs- hierarchy theory and two-factor theory to examine relationships between job satisfaction, motivation and performance.

After examining the seven theories it is suggested that many facets of job satisfaction are related to comparison and/or the perception of discrepancy. For example, according to the needs theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy, Herzberg’s two-factor and Alderfer’s ERG a worker compares what is needed (or expected from the meeting of a need) to what is received and is satisfied if what is received matches what is needed. Dissatisfaction may be the result if what is received is less than what is needed. Value theory implies the comparison of one’s values with job attributes. If the job is not providing enough of what is valued, there is a discrepancy and dissatisfaction may result. According to the equity and social influence approaches, an individual compares him/her self with others in terms of rewards or job satisfaction itself.

It is worth noting that the aforementioned are not the only theories of job satisfaction. Prior to the emergence of the two-factor theory, R.H. Schaffer hypothesised that job satisfaction was the result of the fulfilment of a set of needs (Landy, 1989). McClelland and his associates proposed a needs theory of motivation/job satisfaction based on another set of needs including the need to achieve (McKenna, 1987). Attribution theory suggests that individuals attribute their job satisfaction or dissatisfaction to perceived causes (Landy, 1989; Saal & Knight, 1988). Opponent process theory contends that feelings of job satisfaction are balanced by the opposing force of dissatisfaction and vice-versa as a form of emotional stabilisation (Landy, 1989).

Three other theories concern job satisfaction from facets of work. Lawler’s job facet model was one of the first to posit that people experience varying job

80 satisfaction with different aspects of the job (Wanous & Lawler, 1972). Similarly Warr’s vitamin model theorised that workers derive satisfaction from separate attributes of the work situation (Landy, 1989). Finally, Smith Kendall and Hulin’s (1969) frame of reference theory posited that workers can be satisfied or dissatisfied with any of five job facets: work, pay, promotion opportunity, supervision and coworkers. According to the latter, an individual compares his/her work situation to an internal standard or ideal and evaluates job satisfaction from that frame of reference.

2.3.3. The dimensionality of job satisfaction Job satisfaction has been conceptualised as a unidimensional construct, often referred to as overall or general job satisfaction (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). It has long been recognised, however, that job satisfaction is a multidimensional construct, even though considering overall job satisfaction is worthwhile in some circumstances (Locke, 1976; Muchinsky, 1993; Vroom, 1964). The conceptualisation of job satisfaction, whether unitary or multidimensional, has a direct impact on how it is measured in research. In this section, the dimensionality of job satisfaction is discussed.

2.3.3.1. General job satisfaction General, or overall, job satisfaction has been empirically measured using either a single questionnaire item (Ferrat, 1981; Hart, Wearing, Conn, Carter & Dingle, 2000; Kyriacou & Suttcliffe, 1979; Scott, Cox & Dinham, 1999) or a combination of similar items (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Ma & Macmillan, 1999). General job satisfaction has also been calculated by adding up the scores of satisfaction with various aspects of work (Judge, et al, 2001; Locke, 1969; 1976; Lowther, Gill & Coppard, 1985; Singh & Billingsley, 1996).

While some researchers advocate the use of aggregate scales to arrive at a measure of general job satisfaction (Locke, 1969; 1976; Lowther et al, 1985), the accuracy of such a method is far from certified. For example, Ferrat (1981) found the correlations between facet measures and aggregated general measures were unacceptably low and, therefore, advised against

81 such a calculation. Other writers have echoed this caution (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Spector, 2000).

In their review of job satisfaction research in educational settings Thompson, McNamara and Hoyle (1997) found general measures were the most frequently used. General job satisfaction measures are appropriate if the aim of a study is to identify overall relationships. For example, Singh and Billingsley (1996) used an overall job satisfaction measure to investigate the relationships between several work variables and intent to stay in teaching. General measures are also of use to identify aspects of work that contribute to job satisfaction. For example, Savery (1989) used a general measure to examine the influence of eleven facets of work on the job satisfaction of employees in Western Australia. Ma and MacMillan (1999) examined the relationships of perceptions of competence, school culture and administrative contact to teacher job satisfaction using a general measure.

2.3.3.2. Dimensions of job satisfaction Jobs generally have a number of dimensions such as job context, pay, relationships with superiors, interest and so forth (Locke, 1976). Because of this, the study of job satisfaction requires that the various job dimensions be investigated as contributors (McCormick & Ilgen, 1987). Job dimensions are also referred to as job facets, job factors and aspects of work.

Many studies have investigated various dimensions of job satisfaction. As a result, various sets of job dimensions exist to the extent that the literature on job satisfaction has been described as confusing (Muchinsky, 1993). Many of the theories discussed earlier provide sets of job dimensions. Herzberg’s motivation and hygiene factors have been interpreted as job facets (Lester, 1987; Nias, 1981). Hackman and Oldham’s five job characteristics have been correlated with general job satisfaction to ascertain their potential as job satisfaction dimensions (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Humphrys, 1981; Orpen, 1985). Tisher and Taylor (1982) operationalised Maslow’s five needs categories into fifteen aspects of work to investigate the job satisfaction of teachers. The most frequently used set of job dimensions appear to be the

82 five developed by Smith, Kendal and Hulin (1969): work, pay, supervision, coworkers and promotion (Alutto & Acito, 1974; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Downey, Sheridan & Slocum, 1975; Goris et al, 2000; Muchinsky, 1977b; Pincus, 1986; Russ & McNeilly, 1995; Wheeless, Wheeless & Howard, 1983).

An analysis of the job dimensions generated by many studies of job satisfaction reveals several common dimensions. These are listed in Table 2.1 below. The job dimensions presented arose from either factor analyses or pre-determined scales. All of the job dimensions presented in the Table applied to schools as well as other organisations. Only job dimensions reported in more than one study are included.

Table 2.1: Job dimensions from studies of job satisfaction

Job dimension/ Studies description Supervision Chaplain, 1995; Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Gaertner, 2000; management Grunig, 1990; Herzberg, 1968; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Lester, admin. support 1987; McCormick, 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; Scott & relationship with Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Smith et al, 1969; Ting, 1997; supervisor Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Colleagues Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli & Lynch, 1997; Gaertner, 2000; coworkers Galloway et al, 1985; Herzberg, 1968; Hill, 1986; Haughey & relationship with Murphy, 1983; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Lester, 1987; Poppleton, coworkers 1989; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973; Scott & Dinham, 2003; teacher-teacher Shann, 1998; Smith et al, 1969; Ting, 1997; Wanous & Lawler, relations 1972

Pay Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Eisenberger et al, 1997; Gaertner, income, money 2000; Gerhart, 1987; Haughey & Murphy, 1983; Herzberg, 1968; rewards, fringe Hill, 1986; Holdaway, 1978; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Lester, benefits 1987; Lortie, 1975; McCormick, 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; Savery, 1987; Shann, 1998; Smith et al, 1969; Ting, 1997; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Promotion Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Eisenberger et advancement al, 1997; Gaertner, 2000; Grunig, 1990; Herzberg, 1968; Lacy & opportunities for… Sheehan, 1997; Lester, 1987; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; McFarlin et al, 1995; Savery, 1987; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Scott et al, 1999; Smith et al, 1969; Ting, 1997; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Working conditions Chaplain, 1995; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Eisenberger et al, 1997; facilities Galloway et al, 1985; Herzberg, 1968; Nias, 1981; Savery, 1987; infrastructure Scott et al, 1999; Stremmel et al, 1993 resource support

83 Table 2.1. continued

Recognition Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Eisenberger et al, 1997; Herzberg, 1968; Hill, 1986; Lester, 1987; Nias, 1981; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Responsibility Eisenberger et al, 1997; Gaertner, 2000; Grunig, 1990; autonomy Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Haughey & Murphy, 1983; Herzberg, freedom 1968; Holdaway, 1978; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Lester, 1987; McFarlin et al, 1995; Nias, 1981; Savery, 1987; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Work itself Dinham & Scott, 1996; 2000; Galloway et al, 1985; Herzberg, customer contact 1968; Hill, 1986; Lester, 1987; Lortie, 1975; McCormick, 1997b; student achievement Nias, 1981; Savery, 1987; Scott et al, 1999; Shann, 1998; interesting work Stremmel et al, 1993; Ting, 1997; Tisher & Taylor, 1982; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Self growth Chaplain, 1995; Dinham & Scott, 1996; 2000; Eisenberger et al, professional learning & 1997; Herzberg, 1968; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; McFarlin et development al, 1995; Nias, 1981; Poppleton, 1989; Savery, 1987; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Scott et al, 1999; Stremmel et al, 1993; Tisher & Taylor, 1982; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Security Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Eisenberger et al, 1997; Herzberg, job security 1968; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; tenure Lester, 1987; Savery, 1987; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973; Shann, 1998; Tisher & Taylor, 1982

Feedback Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Lortie, 1975; McFarlin et al, 1995; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Job variety Eisenberger et al, 1997; Gaertner, 2000; Grunig, 1990; use of different skills Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Nias, try new things 1981; Poppleton, 1989; Savery, 1987; Ting, 1997; Wanous & innovation Lawler, 1972 non-routine

Status Dinham & Scott, 1996; 2000; Galloway et al, 1985; Gerhart, status in community 1987; Grunig, 1990; Herzberg, 1968; Holdaway, 1978; Savery, prestige of job 1987; Scott et al, 1999; Schneider & Alderfer, 1973; Tisher & Taylor, 1982; Wanous & Lawler, 1972

Reputation Eisenberger et al, 1997; Grunig, 1990; Scott & Dinham, 2003; School reputation Scott et al, 1999

Participation in Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Downey et al, 1975; Haughey & decision-making Murphy, 1983; Holdaway, 1978; McFarlin et al, 1995; Rodwell, involvement in work Kienzle & Shadur, 1998; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Shann, 1998; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994; Tisher & Taylor, 1982; Wanous & democracy Lawler, 1972; Wheeless et al, 1983

Achievement Chaplain, 1995; Eisenberger et al, 1997; Grunig, 1990; accomplishment Herzberg, 1968; McFarlin et al, 1995; Nias, 1981; Savery, 1987; challenging work Wanous & Lawler, 1972

84 Table 2.1. continued

Administration & Chaplain, 1995; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Galloway et al, 1985; Policy Herzberg, 1968; Hill, 1986; Nias, 1981; Poppleton, 1989; Smith leadership & Bourke, 1992 school organisation

Workload Dinham & Scott, 1996; 2000; Eisenberger et al, 1997; Gaertner, workload change 2000; Grunig, 1990; Holdaway, 1978; McCormick, 1997b; Scott being busy et al, 1999; Smith & Bourke, 1992

Curriculum Chaplain, 1995; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Poppleton, 1989; courses taught Shann, 1998 interest in subjects

Relationship with Lortie, 1975; Nias, 1981; Poppleton, 1989; Scott & Dinham, students 2003; Shann, 1998; Smith & Bourke, 1992

Authority Lortie, 1975; McFarlin et al, 1995; Poppleton, 1989; Shann, respect, discipline and 1998; Tisher & Taylor, 1982; Wanous & Lawler, 1972 behaviour control

External demands Dinham & Scott, 1996; 2000; Haughey & Murphy, 1983; community and system McCormick, 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; Scott & expectations Dinham, 2003

Organisational / Ma & MacMillan, 1999; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b; school culture O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991

Students attitudes Galloway et al, 1985; Haughey & Murphy, 1983; Holdaway, and behaviour 1978; Nias, 1981; Poppleton, 1989; Scott & Dinham, 2003

Communication Dinham & Scott, 1996; Downey et al, 1975; Goris et al, 2000; quality, adequacy, Muchinsky, 1977b; Nias, 1981; Pettit et al, 1997; Pincus, 1986; openness and Reyes & Hoyle, 1992; Rodwell et al, 1998; Scott & Dinham, direction of flow 2003; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992

Other dimensions were identified, but only in single studies, or were not applicable in this context. For example, the study by Shann (1998) identified parent-teacher relationships as a job dimension. Grunig (1990) identified dealing with the media and comparison to previous employment as job facets associated with satisfaction, but these were not considered relevant to this study. It is not within the scope of this study to explain or discuss each job dimension here. However, many that are relevant to this study are included in a discussion of the links between organisational communication and job satisfaction in the next section.

85 2.3.4. Organisational communication and job satisfaction It has long been established that job satisfaction and organisational communication are related. Some studies have identified general organisational communication as a variable related to job satisfaction (Nias, 1981; Rodwell et al, 1998; Stremmel et al, 1993). For example, Nias (1981) found that poor communication was related to job dissatisfaction of teachers. Relatively weak relationships have been identified between job satisfaction and downward, upward and horizontal communication (Goris et al, 2000; Muchinsky, 1977b; Pettit et al, 1997).

However, it is with particular dimensions of organisational communication that the strongest and most logical links with job satisfaction have been made. In the following section the research findings with regard to supportive, directive, cultural and democratic communication will be discussed. Research involving the process variables that apply to this study – openness and load - as well as any research on communication methods, will also be discussed.

2.3.4.1. Directive communication and job satisfaction Although directive communication from superiors is necessary, evidence suggests that too much directive communication may be related to lowered job satisfaction or higher job dissatisfaction. Ray (1990) found excessive directive communication by a principal led to teacher dissatisfaction and, in some cases, intention to leave. Conversely, directive communication by supervisors in the form of job-relevant information was found to be strongly related to the job satisfaction of employees in a manufacturing firm (Miles et al, 1996).

While only two studies are reported here, they suggest that the relationship between directive communication and job satisfaction may be quite complicated. the different occupations represented in the two studies cited above may also be significant. Teachers may not desire or need a lot of direction from their principal, while factory workers may think the otherwise. In any case, care should be taken to identify the different aspects of directive

86 communication when investigating the relationship, which warrants further investigation by way of systemic study.

2.3.4.2. Supportive communication and job satisfaction There is much evidence in the literature that relationships exist between supportive communication and job satisfaction. Several studies have reported that downward supportive communication from superiors is moderately to strongly related to subordinate job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al, 1997; Gaertner, 2000; Iverson, 2000). Studies conducted in schools have revealed strong relationships between supportive communication from the principal and teacher job satisfaction (Poppleton, 1989; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Dinham and Scott (1996) reported that lack of support from school leadership was a source of job dissatisfaction for teachers in Australian schools.

Downward supportive communication in the form of affirming supervisor style, supervisory feedback and recognition have been found to be associated with job satisfaction in a number of occupational settings, including teaching in schools (Chapman, 1983; Infante et al, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Whaley, 1994; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992). In Whaley and Hegstrom’s (1992) study, feedback communicated by the principal was the best predictor of teacher job satisfaction.

Downward supportive communication in the form of consideration and expressions of concern by superiors has been strongly linked to subordinate job satisfaction. This was observed by Vroom (1964) and later studies have confirmed the link. Litt and Turk (1985) reported that teachers were more satisfied with their job when they perceived their principals as people who took an interest in their professional and personal welfare and who comforted them. Considerate leadership behaviour, consistent with downward supportive communication, was found to be a strong predictor of job satisfaction in a later study (Pool, 1997). Dworkin, Haney, Dworkin and Telschow (1990) reported similar findings.

87 Horizontal supportive communication has received some attention as a source of job satisfaction. Leiter (1988) has linked the support that stems from informal interactions with coworkers to higher job satisfaction. Hurlbert (1991) reported that involvement in social networks of coworkers was a source of work support and that this was related to increased job satisfaction. In a more recent study, Ducharme and Martin (2000) reported that social support among coworkers (which involved such communication activities as sharing useful advice and assistance) improved the job satisfaction for a sample that included a variety of occupations.

2.3.4.3. Cultural communication and job satisfaction There is some evidence that suggests cultural communication is linked to job satisfaction. In terms of horizontal cultural communication, it has been suggested that receiving information about appropriate attitudes from coworkers may contribute to job satisfaction (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Some support for this is provided by a later study that investigated person- organisation fit in terms of culture (O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991). Person-organisation fit was a strong predictor of job satisfaction. This finding, however, assumed that socialisation took place effectively. Applying Salancik and Pfeffer's (1978) reasoning to this study, if appropriate attitudes (among other things) were not deemed attractive to a person, he/she would likely be dissatisfied and intend to leave the organisation. Satisfaction with, and commitment to, an organisation result if attitude congruence exists.

Mentoring and other socialisation practices have been related to satisfaction with socialisation and preparation at work (Cawyer & Friedrich, 1998). In a study of primary school teachers, Whaley and Hegstrom (1992) reported a significant, but weak relationship between a principal’s communication of school mission (downward cultural communication) and teacher job satisfaction. Reyes and Pounder (1993) found that teachers in schools that were highly normative (strong cultures as a result of effective cultural communication) had higher job satisfaction than their counterparts in other schools.

88 The literature reported here involved downward and horizontal cultural communication. Given the limited amount of investigation to date, there is a need to investigate relationships between cultural communication in all directions and job satisfaction.

2.3.4.4. Democratic communication and job satisfaction Democratic communication related to participation and influence in decision- making, especially when the latter impact on the work environment, has long been associated with job satisfaction. The association was noted more than three decades ago by Vroom (1964) and continues to be reported in recent studies in various occupational settings (Dinham & Scott, 1996; Naumann, 1993; Rodwell et al, 1998; Scott & Dinham, 2003; Trombetta & Rogers, 1988). Rodwell and associates (1998) reported moderate relationships with teamwork as well as participation in decision-making.

In many studies of schools and other educational institutions, democratic communication has frequently been associated with teacher job satisfaction. Haughey and Murphy (1983) identified involvement in decision-making as a factor that contributed strongly to teacher job satisfaction. In terms of facets of job satisfaction, participation in decision-making was found to be strongly related to teacher satisfaction with supervisor (Wheeless et al, 1983). Significant, but weak relationships were found between teacher job satisfaction and democratic communication practices in other studies (Shann, 1998; Taylor & Bogotch, 1994). In a qualitative study, undemocratic communication by a principal, such as the imposition of new rules and domination of staff meetings, resulted in teacher dissatisfaction. This provides some support for the findings in the literature that democratic communication is generally related to job satisfaction.

Other studies have suggested that the relationship is not straightforward. From their results, Davis and Wilson (2000) posited that democratic communication, by way of a principal’s teacher-empowering behaviour, positively affected teacher motivation and, through this, job satisfaction. From qualitative data, Evans (1998) was able to suggest that democratic

89 communication produced job satisfaction for those who desired it, but elicited dissatisfaction for those who did not. This relates back to the point made earlier about enforced democracy (see Section 2.2.4.4.). It has been accepted that not everyone is satisfied by the same things to the same extent (Locke, 1976). Care should be taken when examining relationships between democratic communication and job satisfaction.

2.3.4.5 Communication openness and job satisfaction There is evidence to suggest that openness of communication may be related to job satisfaction. In one of the few early studies of this relationship, Burke and Wilcox (1969) were able to conclude that more open communication between subordinates and superiors resulted in greater subordinate job satisfaction. The relationship existed for all of the facets of job satisfaction investigated, but was particularly strong for satisfaction with the job and satisfaction with the supervisor.

From a review of research literature conducted ten years later, Jablin (1979) concluded that employees would be more satisfied with their jobs if communication with their superiors was more open. In their study of university staff, Wheeless, Wheeless and Howard (1983) found superior-subordinate openness (termed superior receptivity to information) to be moderately correlated with satisfaction with work, coworkers, promotion and pay. It was highly correlated with satisfaction with superiors. In an investigation of supervisory communication and job satisfaction, upward openness was found to be a predictor of job satisfaction (Miles et al, 1996).

Other studies have investigated communication openness in directions other than strictly upward or downward. In one study, downward, upward and horizontal (lateral) openness were found to be moderately correlated to employee job satisfaction (Koike, Gudykunst, Stewart, Ting-Toomey & Nishida, 1988). Trombetta and Rogers (1988) used a measure of general openness (openness among all organisational members). Their study revealed openness of communication to have the second highest correlation with job satisfaction among the eight variables included. It was also found to

90 be a strong predictor of job satisfaction. Likewise, Klauss and Bass (1982) found that communication openness predicted job satisfaction.

In a recent study, Avtgis (2000) found satisfaction with organisational relationships was negatively related to communication avoidance. That is, higher satisfaction with ones relationship with supervisor was related to lower avoidance of communication by the employee and vice-versa. The relationship was similar for satisfaction with coworkers and avoidance of communication with them.

Much of the research into the relationship between openness of communication and job satisfaction appears to have focussed on vertical channels. Further research into openness in all three directions, but especially horizontal openness, would help to further establish the links between openness of communication and job satisfaction.

2.3.4.6 Communication load and job satisfaction The literature on communication load and job satisfaction will be discussed in terms of underload, adequacy and overload. While they seem to exist on a continuum, the literature suggests that their relationships with job satisfaction are varied (Morley, Shockley-Zalabak & Cesaria, 1997; Pettit et al, 1997; Scott et al, 1999).

Communication underload is generally related to job satisfaction in a negative direction. That is to say, the greater the perceived underload, the lower the job satisfaction experienced, and vice-versa. A study of high technology firms revealed that uncertainty, a form of underload caused by not receiving enough information, was negatively associated with employee satisfaction with relationships and work (Morley et al, 1997). Similarly, Pettit and associates (1997) reported moderate negative associations between underload and satisfaction with supervision and coworkers. In a later study, interview data revealed that lack of information was a source of job dissatisfaction (Scott et al, 1999). Lack of information about the job, limited feedback about work done

91 and limited knowledge about the importance of the job to the organisation were factors contributing to this relationship.

Communication adequacy has been linked to job satisfaction in at least one study. Trombetta and Rogers (1988) reported that communication adequacy was moderately positively correlated to, and a predictor of, job satisfaction. Relationships between communication overload and job satisfaction were investigated by Muchinsky (1977b). That study revealed no significant relationship.

There has been a lack of substantial research into the relationships between communication load and job satisfaction. More research would help to clarify what relationships exist between underload, overload and adequacy and job satisfaction.

2.3.4.7. Communication methods and job satisfaction Very limited research has been conducted into the relationships between methods of communication and job satisfaction. It is an area that warrants further investigation.

Muchinsky (1977b) included written, face to face, telephone and other methods in his analysis of correlations of various organisational communication variables and facets of job satisfaction. Of the twenty correlations calculated, only two were significant, but very weak. In a study of teachers, staff meetings were reported as being related to satisfaction with work itself and working conditions (Stremmel et al, 1993).

2.3.4.8. Communication satisfaction and job satisfaction Communication satisfaction is a construct that has been measured as an affective reaction to organisational communication in numerous studies since its first appearance in the early 1970s (Crino & White, 1981; Gregson, 1991; Hecht, 1978; Pincus, 1986; Ticehurst & Ross-Smith, 1992; Varona, 1996). While it is clearly about satisfaction, it has been established as a separate construct to job satisfaction (Gregson, 1991). It has been defined as an

92 individual’s satisfaction with various aspects of communication in the organisation (Crino & White, 1981). Other researchers have given similar definitions (Pincus, 1986; Ticehurst & Ross-Smith, 1992).

As distinct facets or as a single dimension, communication satisfaction has been associated with overall job satisfaction and facet job satisfaction in various studies (Downs, 1977; Muchinsky, 1977b; Pincus, 1986; Ticehurst & Ross-Smith, 1992). It has also been linked to other variables such as employee performance and commitment (Pincus, 1986; Ticehurst & Ross- Smith, 1992; Varona, 1996).

The concept of communication satisfaction is not within the scope of this study because this study is concerned with relationships between organisational communication variables per se and job satisfaction. However, it is included here as acknowledgment of the body of research that exists in this area.

2.3.5. Outcomes of job satisfaction Job satisfaction does not simply remain within individuals as a psychological state. It may influence people’s behaviours and, in turn, organisations (Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000). Research into the consequences of job satisfaction has revealed five areas: withdrawal, performance, organisational commitment, health and life satisfaction (Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000; Starnaman & Miller, 1992). These are briefly explained in the following sections.

2.3.5.1. Withdrawal There are two forms of withdrawal: absence and turnover (Deery et al, 1997; Henne & Locke, 1985). Absence, also termed absenteeism, is the act of not coming to work (Spector, 2000). Turnover is resignation from or just leaving a job (Spector, 2000). Absence and turnover can be costly to organisations, for example, in terms of casual relief, production delays and training for new recruits (Deery et al, 1997; Luthans, 2002).

93 It is reasonable to assume that dissatisfied workers would be tempted to be absent from work more often than satisfied workers. Some studies have reported moderate to strong relationships between satisfaction with aspects of work and attendance at work (for example, Smith, 1977). However, the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism is more complex. A great deal of research conducted into the relationship has actually suggested that, while usually negative in direction, it is weak at best (Henne & Locke, 1985; Luthans, 2002; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000; Saal & Knight, 1988; Spector, 2000). Other variables such as illness, misadventure or family commitments influence absence to a greater extent than job satisfaction (Deery et al, 1997; Saal & Knight, 1988).

Stronger relationships have been found between job satisfaction and turnover. Various studies have revealed moderate negative associations between them (Locke, 1976; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000; Saal & Knight, 1988; Scott et al, 1999; Sing & Billingsley, 1996). Day, Bedeian and Conte (1998) found job satisfaction was the strongest, predictor of employee turnover intention among numerous variables, including role stress.

Other research has indicated that, while the relationship may be valid, variables such as economic climate and availability of alternative careers may moderate it (Henne & Locke, 1985; Iverson, 2000; Landy, 1989). Other variables found to moderate the relationship include the extent to which work allows the attainment of values (George & Jones, 1996) and experience on the job (Russ & McNeilly, 1995).

Teachers are likely to be no different from others in what influences their turnover rate. In a study of Australian teachers, Bruce and Cacciope (1989) reported low levels of administrative support and democratic communication as factors contributing to staff resignations. The implication is that job dissatisfaction arising from these issues is related to turnover. Dissatisfaction with teaching as a job has been attributed as the reason for teacher resignations in another Australian study (Australian Teaching Council, 1995).

94 2.3.5.2. Performance The relationship between job satisfaction and worker performance has been investigated a great deal since job satisfaction emerged as a field of study. The logic behind such intense study has been that satisfied workers are more productive (Muchinsky, 2000). The direction of causality implied here has generally not been supported by studies that have examined causality. In fact, much of that research has suggested that good performance may lead to job satisfaction (Robbins, 1998).

In a meta-analysis involving seventy-four studies conducted over 3 decades, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) concluded that, generally, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance has been weak. A more recent meta-analysis reported a similar strength of relationship (Judge et al, 2001). Successive studies have revealed that job satisfaction and performance are, generally, either weakly or not directly related (Henne & Locke, 1985; Katzell, Thompson and Guzzo, 1992; Landy, 1989; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000).

Some studies have proposed, with some success, that the job satisfaction – performance relationship is moderated by certain variables, and therefore explains the weak relationships found without identifying the moderator variables (Orpen, 1985; Pettit et al, 1997; Robbins, 1998). In a recent meta- analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and performance based on over 300 research articles, Judge and associates (2001) were unable to clarify the strength of the relationship or its direction, but concluded that job satisfaction and performance may be related indirectly through intervening variables.

2.3.5.3. Organisational commitment Organisational commitment is the degree to which an individual feels a sense of loyalty and dedication to the organisation (Currivan, 2000; O’Reilly, 1989). Like job satisfaction, it is regarded as an attitude to work (Davis & Newstrom, 1989; Luthans, 2002). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment have been found to be related (Gaertner, 2000; Iverson, 2000; Russ & McNeilly,

95 1995; Starnaman and Miller, 1992; Welsch & La Van, 1989). Starnaman and Miller (1992) found job satisfaction to be a very strong antecedent of job commitment in teachers. Gaertner (2000) revealed job satisfaction to be a moderate to strong cause of organisational commitment.

Organisational commitment is an important variable because of its widely established link to lowered absence and turnover as well as better service, increased performance among other outcomes (Buchko, Weinzimmer & Sergeyev, 1998; Gaertner, 2000; Hendrix, Summers, Leap & Steel, 1994; Iverson, 2000; Luthans, 2002; Spector, 2000; Stoner et al, 1994; Welsch & La Van, 1989). Therefore, when one considers the outcomes of job satisfaction for organisations, the consequences of organisational commitment should also be considered.

2.3.5.4. Health There is some evidence that job satisfaction is linked to the general health of employees. Locke (1976) identified several early studies that linked job dissatisfaction to declines in health, including: headache, indigestion, loss of appetite, anxiety and tension. Henne and Locke (1985) identified these and other health consequences of job dissatisfaction.

From a brief review of literature, Spector (2000) was able to conclude that, while studies have certainly correlated health problems with levels of job satisfaction, the evidence is not completely convincing that a causal relationship exists. Obviously, this is an area that could benefit from further systematic study, but given the associations of health to job satisfaction discussed above, health is another area worth considering when investigating the consequences of job satisfaction. Health problems are also costly to organisations in terms of lost productivity, the cost of hiring replacements and medical compensation (Ashcraft, 1992; Manning, Jackson & Fusilier, 1996).

2.3.5.5. Life satisfaction The fifth area of study among the outcomes of job satisfaction is life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is “how satisfied a person is with his or her life.”

96 Spector (2000, p.216). The relationship is based on the assumption that work is a part of life. Many studies have found job satisfaction to be positively related to life satisfaction (Henne & Locke, 1985; Spector, 2000). However, as with many of the outcomes discussed in this section, further research is required to lead us to a more thorough understanding of the relationship.

2.3.6. Summary of job satisfaction Job satisfaction was defined for this study as the extent to which a staff member has favourable or positive feelings about work and the work environment. Job dissatisfaction was defined as unfavourable or negative feelings about work and work environment. Many theories have been discussed. Common among these theories is the notion of discrepancy between what is needed, desired or valued, and what is provided by the organisation.

Job satisfaction has been viewed as a unidimensional construct, but this ignores facets of work, which may elicit varying levels of job satisfaction according to circumstances or their importance to the individual. While looking at general or overall job satisfaction is acceptable in some circumstances, in most instances job satisfaction should be treated as a multidimensional construct. Job satisfaction is important to organisations because of its known relationships with such variables as turnover, performance, organisational commitment and the general health of employees. The negative consequences of these variables are potentially costly to organisations (Luthans, 2002).

Various dimensions of organisational communication have been linked to facets of job satisfaction. To varying degrees, relationships were identified between job satisfaction and the function variables of organisational communication: directive, supportive, cultural and democratic communication. Relationships have also been identified with the process variables: openness and load. Limited links were identified between the method of organisational communication, staff meetings, and job satisfaction.

97 It was concluded in many cases that further research was needed in order to clarify and confirm these relationships. Further research would also contribute valuable new knowledge to the existing literature. This is especially so for primary school staff, because limited research has been conducted in that occupational setting.

2.4. Occupational stress As a concept in human psychology, stress became an object of study and theory building within the last century. Among the earliest users of the term were Walter Cannon who, in 1914, described stress as an emotional state and Hans Selye, who later conceptualised stress as environmental stimuli acting on organisms (Beehr & Franz, 1987; Selye, 1976). Since this early work, and particularly during the last three decades, much study has been conducted to identify the processes involved in the development of occupational stress (Borg, 1990; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Luthans, 2002; Muchinsky, 2000). Occupational stress has been recognised as an influence on the behaviour, attitudes and general health of people in organisations (Luthans, 2002; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000).

Much of the literature suggests that teaching is one of the most stressful occupations, and that stress in teaching is an increasing phenomenon (Ashcraft, 1992; Bernard, 1990; Hatchard & Thomas, 1987; Manthei & Gilmore, 1994). It is, perhaps, alarming that many studies have reported that between one fifth and one third of school staff in their samples were experiencing high to extreme levels of occupational stress. This is the case in studies conducted in Europe, North America and New Zealand (Borg, Riding & Falzon, 1991; Chaplain, 1995; Cockburn, 1996; Fontana & Abouserie, 1993; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Manthei & Gilmore, 1994; 1996; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995). The statistics are no different from the various Australian studies (Bernard, 1990; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Laughlin, 1984; O’Connor & Clarke, 1990; Otto, 1986; Punch & Tuetteman, 1996; Solman & Feld, 1989; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). Given these significant numbers, the investigation of occupational stress of school staff

98 may be regarded as an important focus for schools and school systems wishing to improve their effectiveness.

This section aims to discuss occupational stress and draw on the literature that has linked it to organisational communication. Occupational stress will be defined and explained in the light of theory and models. The antecedents and mediators of occupational stress will then be discussed, followed by an examination of the findings of recent research linking aspects of organisational communication to occupational stress. This section concludes with a brief discussion of the outcomes of occupational stress.

Before proceeding, it is important to establish that this study refers to stress in its negative or undesirable manifestations. It has long been known that stress can be positive and beneficial or negative and harmful. Positive stress, which provides challenge and enthusiasm, is known as eustress. Negative stress is known as distress (Luthans, 2002; Selye, 1976). In this study, occupational stress refers to distress. The terminology is acceptable and has been used this way in most studies (Bernard, 1990; Boyle, Borg, Falzon & Baglioni, 1995; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Caputo, 1991; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; Savery & Detiuk, 1986; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995).

2.4.1. Occupational stress defined Occupational stress is also referred to as job stress (Beehr & Franz, 1987; McCormick & Ilgen, 1987; McGee, Goodson & Cashman, 1987; Ray, 1991; Ray & Miller, 1991; Spector, 2000; Summers, DeCotiis & DeNisi, 1995). It is also referred to as work stress (Smeltzer, 1987), organisational stress (Johnson & Indvik, 1990) and psychological distress (Finlay-Jones, 1986; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). Additionally, the occupational stress of teachers is often termed teacher stress (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977; 1978b;1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1994; 1996; Otto, 1986; Pithers, 1995; Troman, 2000).

Occupational stress has been described as the pressure individuals feel due to workload, relationships, confusion, fear or other factors (Davis & Newstrom,

99 1989; Stoner et al., 1994). It has also been described as the product of work demands being either beyond the capabilities of a worker or far too easy, to the point of being unstimulating (Zimbardo, 1979). Similarly, occupational stress has also been defined as an imbalance between work demands and the workers resources (Cherniss, 1980).

As a result of extensive work in the field of education, Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1987) developed a widely used definition of occupational stress in relation to teachers. According to this definition teacher stress is the experience of tension, frustration, anxiety, anger and depression resulting from aspects of the job of teaching. From an Australian perspective occupational stress has been defined as occurring when aspects of teaching cause frustration, worry, excessive or insufficient demand, threat to confidence, threat to security or threat to desired self image (Otto, 1986).

While the wording of the definitions vary, there are commonalities. For the purpose of this study occupational stress will be defined as the experience of negative feelings such as frustration, worry, anxiety and depression caused by work related factors. The term occupational stress, and not teacher stress, is applicable to this study as the subjects are teaching and non-teaching staff.

Having defined occupational stress, it needs to be stated that stress is an individual experience, depending on the person. It has long been established that not all people react to events the same way. What may elicit a stress reaction in one person may have no effect on another person. This happens for two reasons. First, one person may have a lower threshold compared to another or have a fear of certain things. Second, people differ in the coping resources they have at their disposal when responding to situations (Albanese, 1978; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McKenna, 1987; Pace & Faules, 1994).

2.4.2. Theories and models of occupational stress Many theories have been developed to explain occupational stress. It is not within the scope of this study to provide a detailed discussion of all of these

100 theories, and they have been reviewed in detail elsewhere (see, for example, Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). However, key theories that have been applied to teaching and schools are reviewed in the following sections.

2.4.2.1. General adaption syndrome theory One of the earliest theories of human stress was proposed by Hans Selye, who spent his life investigating the phenomenon (Luthans, 2002; Selye, 1976). His General Adaption Syndrome (GAS) theory posited that stress involves three stages: alarm, resistance and exhaustion.

At the alarm stage a stressor is recognised and the body prepares for it by secreting adrenalin, increasing heartbeat, increasing blood pressure, an increased state of alertness and other physical and chemical changes. If the stressor remains the individual enters the resistance stage. At this stage the individual reacts to the stressor by trying to normalise or rebalance, the result of which the stressor may diminish or remain. The continued presence of the stressor eventually leads to exhaustion. At this stage the adaptive resources used by the body become drained and more serious health problems, even death, may occur (Selye, 1976). This theory may be applied to all situations, including work (Selye, 1976).

2.4.2.2. Stress-strain theory Similar theories of stress related to occupations have been put forward that appear to elaborate and extend GAS theory and adapt it to work environments. These may be termed stress-strain models. They generally propose that work-based stressors are events or conditions that induce an adaptive response in an employee. These stressors lead to strains, which are the psychological, physical or behavioural reactions to stress, such as anxiety, illness and withdrawal (Beehr, Jex, Stacy & Murray, 2000; Dua, 1994; Spector, 2000).

These theories generally include the interaction of factors within people and the work environment known to mediate stress levels, such as personality and coworker support (Beehr et al, 2000; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Haines, Hurlbert

101 & Zimmer, 1991). For example, coworker support has been known to lessen stress and resultant strains experienced by people, while certain personality types may increase the likelihood of strains (Beehr et al, 2000; Kahn & Byrosiere, 1992). This last consideration extends the physiological work of Selye, who noted the positive effects social contact can have on people who work in isolation (Selye, 1976).

2.4.2.3. Person-environment fit theory The Person-Environment Fit theory that was developed by French, Caplan and associates (Glowinkowski & Cooper, 1987; Speilberger & Reheiser, 1995) is related to stress-strain models. According to this theory, stress is the result of a mismatch between an individual and the demands of the job (Speilberger & Reheiser, 1995). Stress results either when job demands exceed a person’s personal resources that enable him or her to perform tasks or when a person’s abilities far exceed the demands of the job, resulting in boredom (Glowinkowski & Cooper, 1987). This stress results in strains such as those discussed earlier.

A number of variations of the Person-Environment Fit theory have been used. For example, Rosemarie Otto described stress as the result of a lack of fit between the individual and the demands or restrictions imposed by the working environment. In her well known book "Teachers Under Stress", Otto (1986) built on the work of earlier researchers and proposed that stress can originate from five lack of fit situations: (1) lack of fit between work role expectations and the expectations/ideals of the individual; (2) lack of fit between role expectations and the individual's ability to meet them; (3) lack of fit between role expectations and resources provided by the workplace; (4) lack of fit between the individual's expectations and resources provided by the workplace to meet those expectations; (5) lack of fit between an individual's expectations and that individual's ability to meet them.

Person-Environment Fit theories have been criticised for their lack of clarity as to what constitutes a specific stressor. Also, attempts to use the theory to

102 explain occupational stress have not yielded consistent results (Feitler & Tokar, 1986; Glowinkowski & Cooper, 1987).

2.4.2.4. The Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model of teacher stress While theories discussed so far could be applied to staff in schools, it is important to examine models of occupational stress that have been applied to teachers. Theories of stress specific to teaching have developed, no doubt, because teaching is regarded as a stressful job (Borg et al, 1991; Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998). The model of teacher stress developed by Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1978a), built on the earlier work of Lazarus and associates, conceptualised stress as a result of an individual’s appraisals and perceptions of given situations. It has been used to guide other research into teacher stress (see, for example, Capel, 1989; Dick & Wagner, 2001).

According to the model, exposure to potential stressors may produce stress in the teacher, which, in turn, leads to negative reactions that may be psychological (for example, negative feelings toward work), physical (higher blood pressure, muscular tension) or behavioural (absenteeism). Continued exposure to stressors may lead to chronic symptoms, such as heart disease (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a).

Two aspects of the individual influence the level of stress. These are characteristics of the individual (such as age, sex, personality and self- efficacy) and the coping strategies used to deal with the stressors (not overtly specified in this model). The less adequate the coping strategies used, the greater the stress felt, and vice-versa (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a).

The stress process starts with the perception of a threat (to one’s well-being or esteem) from the work environment, followed by an appraisal of the threat (which is influenced by personal characteristics). Coping mechanisms are enacted, leading to a level of stress or the absence of stress depending on the effectiveness of the coping strategy. Characteristics of the individual may mediate the level of stress felt. Prolonged stress may lead to chronic symptoms (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a).

103

2.4.2.5. Attribution-of-responsibility model In more recent research, McCormick and his associates have attempted to explain teacher stress using an attribution theory. Attribution theory posits that people attribute situations or causal relationships to certain objects to explain their appearance or actions (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Feshbach & Weiner, 1991). Similarly, the attribution-of-responsibility model of teacher stress posits that teachers essentially blame their occupational stress on various aspects of the work environment (McCormick & Solman, 1992a).

Using Weick’s (1976) vision of schools as loosely coupled systems and applying the resulting notion of conceptual distances between individual teachers and the rest of the work environment, attribution-of-responsibility theory considers factors of the work environment (such as students, parents, school administration and system) as separate domains to which teachers may attribute their stress (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; 2000; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b). Central to the theory is the assumption that individuals tend to accept responsibility for success but deny responsibility for failure. As a result of this, individuals will attribute responsibility for their occupational stress to any number of these domains in varying degrees, because stress is a negative experience, often perceived as failure (McCormick, 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a). Typically, the attributed cause is related to established stress schemas (Saal & Knight, 1988). Therefore, for example, a teacher might attribute stress to the domain of student behaviour if students are perceived to consistently misbehave (McCormick & Shi, 1999).

Attribution-of-responsibility of teacher stress model does not attempt to explain the process of stress, or catalogue stressors, as previous theories have. It appears to contribute to those theories by explaining how teachers might conceptualise their experiences of stress. In Chapter 1 it was established that schools consist of various ‘subsystems’, such as parents, students, staff (teaching and non-teaching) and that certain factors outside the immediate school site interact with schools. These include system offices,

104 communities and the government. Attribution-of-responsibility theory seems suited to this schema of schools because teachers may view any combination of these as contributors to their occupational stress (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; 2000).

The basic tenets of the model (attribution of responsibility towards various domains and tendency to assign blame for negative experiences to domains other than the self) have been empirically supported in a variety of school systems and in different cultural settings (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; 2000; McCormick & Shi, 1999; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b).

2.4.2.6. Further discussion of occupational stress theories Review of occupational stress theories, models and other research reveals four factors that are fundamental to the development of occupational stress. These are demands, appraisals, coping and symptoms.

All the theories discussed so far refer to demands. Demands generally emanate from the work environment. Selye’s GAS theory posits that stress is a response to any demand, but it is excessive stress that may be termed distress (Selye, 1976). The adaptive response required to meet a stressor (Spector, 2000) may be interpreted as demand in the stress-strain models. For example, Beehr et al (2000) described time demands and role demands as stressors. Demands of the job are integral to person-environment fit theory. Demands are consistent with threats in the Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model of teacher stress.

Research using the attribution-of-responsibility theory of teacher stress has revealed domains that refer to demands. For example, “external to school domain” referred to the demands of school systems and the externally imposed curriculum, while “student domain” referred to the demands upon teachers to manage student discipline and motivation (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b).

105 Appraisal must occur if the alarm stage is to begin according to GAS theory. It is logical that before one is alarmed, one must first recognise a threat or excessive demand. For Stress-strain and person-environment fit theories appraisal must be a necessary step in the identification of stressors. The Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model of teacher stress refers to appraisal as the important step of deciding whether something is a threat or not (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a). Appraisal is also necessary to attribution-of-responsibility theory because a teacher needs to identify stressors before they are cognitively assigned to domains. In all cases, appraisal may negate the effect of a stressor if the individual perceives that the situation can be dealt with (Spector, 2000).

Coping is any attempt to deal with stressors (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a). Most theories and models incorporate coping as integral to the development of stress. The resistance stage of GAS theory implies attempts at coping, even if it is simply the body trying to return to a normal state (Selye, 1976). Reactions to stressors (strains) are consistent with the notion of coping. Behaviours such as increased smoking and alcohol intake and angry outbursts may be construed as ways individuals cope with stressors (Spector, 2000).

Person-environment fit theory suggests that stress arises from an individual’s inability to cope with demands. Coping is overtly built into the Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model of teacher stress and its role has been discussed. The apportioning of blame to specific domains according to attribution-of- responsibility theory may be construed as a way of coping with negative, unpleasant situations. General attribution theory postulates that the assignment of blame is a defensive strategy a person may use to distance his or herself from perceived failure (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976).

Symptoms are the psychological, physical and behavioural manifestations of the stress syndrome. They are closely related to coping as some symptoms are ways of coping or the result of inability to cope. GAS theory, stress-strain theory, person-environment fit theory and the Kyriacou and Sutcliffe model all

106 refer to symptoms as the end product of the stress process (Beehr et al, 2000; Glowinkowski & Cooper, 1987; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978a; Selye, 1976; Speilberger & Reheiser, 1995). The symptoms mentioned are generally similar, but GAS theory attempts to explain the more fundamental chemical and physiological changes that result from stress (Selye, 1976).

2.4.3. Antecedents of occupational stress The antecedents of occupational stress are also referred to as sources, causes or stressors (Luthans, 2002; Otto, 1986; Spector, 2000). Many antecedents of occupational stress in various settings, including schools, have been established in previous research. The following are brief syntheses of what has been found from previous research. All of the antecedents discussed here apply to schools.

The first three stressors discussed are to do with organisational roles. they are referred to collectively as role-based stressors and role stress (Day, et al, 1998; Glowinkowski & Cooper, 1987; Iverson, Olekalns & Erwin, 1998; Spector, 2000). They are termed role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict.

2.4.3.1. Role overload Role overload refers to quantitative load, such as having too much work to do in not enough time (Muchinsky, 2000; Pithers & Fogarty, 1995) and excessive hours spent on the job (Savery & Detiuk, 1986). It also refers to qualitative load such as not having sufficient knowledge to perform a task (Otto, 1986). Role overload is often referred to in stress research as workload (Summers et al, 1994; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992), as well as time pressure and lack of time (Borg et al, 1991; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996).

Role overload has been identified as a major source of stress in various occupational settings (Hendrix et al, 1994; Meier, 1963; Muchinsky, 2000). It has been identified as a prominent stressor in schools in Great Britain, New Zealand, the U.S.A. and Australia (Brown & Ralph, 1992; Dinham, 1993; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978b; 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996;

107 O’Connor & Clarke, 1990; Otto, 1986; Pithers & Fogarty, 1995; Pithers & Soden, 1998; Troman, 2000; Whithead & Ryba, 1995). A more recent Australian study revealed workload pressures to be the greatest source of stress among female primary school teachers (Thomas et al, 2003).

Qualitative data have provided further insight into the stress reactions (or strains) perceived to be caused by role overload. Dinham (1993) reported how a sample of Australian teachers who were emotionally upset used poorly judged discipline, took sick leave or resigned as a result of excessive workload. In another Australian study, teachers described how frustrated they were at what they felt was excessive workload that did not lessen despite hours and energy spent working (Otto, 1986). Time and work demands typical of schools, such as appraisals, school inspection requirements, parent meetings and exam preparation all happening at the same time, were responsible for strain reactions such as uncontrollable crying, nervous tension and nervous breakdown in an English study (Troman, 2000).

2.4.3.2. Role ambiguity Role ambiguity is the extent to which employees are uncertain about what their job is, how it is to be done and expectations associated with the role (Albanese, 1978; Otto, 1986; Spector, 2000). It is sometimes referred to as uncertainty (Johnson & Indvik, 1990; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995).

Role ambiguity has been identified as a source of stress for many occupations, including teaching, but its potency as a stressor compared to role overload has been found to be generally weaker (Caputo, 1991; Currivan, 2000; Haines et al, 1991; Pithers & Fogarty, 1995; Pithers & Soden, 1998; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995). However, Litt and Turk (1985) identified a moderate relationship between role ambiguity and teacher stress and that its relationship to stress was stronger than role overload. Role ambiguity has been linked to job commitment and, indirectly, to turnover intentions of staff (Currivan, 2000; Day et al, 1998).

108 2.4.3.3. Role conflict Role conflict refers to a clash between the goals of one task or responsibility and the goals of another. Situations that lead to this include having more than one supervisor, job-sharing or a job that involves two contradictory roles such as hiring and firing of staff (Caputo, 1991; Otto, 1986; Muchinsky, 2000). Research suggests that role conflict may be a source of tension, worry and stress (Caputo, 1991; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000). Litt and Turk (1985) revealed role conflict to be a strong contributor to the occupational stress of teachers.

2.4.3.4. Lack of control Control applied to occupations is concerned with the extent to which one is able to influence the work environment or work choices (Spector, 2000). It is also referred to as influence and autonomy (Caputo, 1991; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). Lack of, or no, control has been identified as a significant antecedent of occupational stress (Caputo, 1991; Dinham, 1993; Iverson et al, 1998; Johnson & Indvik, 1990; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). Control is related to two other concepts that are discussed later: locus of control and participation in decision-making.

2.4.3.5. Inadequate working environment A number of factors relating to facilities and physical work environment have been grouped together under this heading. The following have been identified as specific sources of occupational stress within the work environment for a variety of groups, including teachers: poor ventilation, lighting, noise, furniture, classroom design, large class sizes, inadequate equipment and lack of other resources (Bernard, 1990; Borg & Falzon, 1991; Caputo, 1991; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992).

2.4.3.6. External demands External demands are expectations, attitudes and impositions made by entities outside the immediate organisational site. Examples of external demands known to contribute to occupational stress of school staff include:

109 critical attitudes of parents, media criticism, cynicism about the profession in the community, demands from the system office, government policy and curriculum requirements (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b; Otto, 1986; Troman, 2000; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992).

The power of external demands as stressors is not yet clear. In studies in which stressors were compared in terms of their influences on occupational stress, external demands have been identified as lower ranked sources of stress (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Borg et al, 1991; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996). However, the work of McCormick and associates has identified external demands as a leading source of stress as perceived by teachers (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b). It is worth noting that these studies were conducted amid times of change in government and system policy, and clearly, contextual factors are likely to influence the role of a stressor.

Qualitative data have revealed more about the nature of external demands. Teachers have reported media and community attitudes to their profession as demeaning, derogatory or generally negative (Otto, 1986). Parents have been described as becoming more defensive about recalcitrant children and more critical of teachers and schools (Troman, 2000). Given this evidence, it is not surprising that external demands may be a source of stress for teachers.

2.4.3.7. Poor relations with colleagues Poor relations with colleagues is concerned with such matters as general behaviour and attitudes of other staff, personality clashes, differences of opinion, lack of integration among staff groups, lack of staff communal spirit, coping with difficult staff members and general tensions (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Borg et al, 1991; Boyle et al, 1995; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Cooper & Kelly, 1993; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Kyriacou, 1989; O’Connor & Clarke, 1990; Pierce & Molloy, 1990).

110 In many of the studies listed above situations consistent with poor colleague relations were generally of medium to low ranking magnitude as stressors. However, in their study of New Zealand teachers in primary and secondary schools, Whitehead and Ryba (1995) found poor relations with colleagues to be the most prevalent source of stress. As collegial relations are often considered a part of the organisational climate (Hoy et al, 1991; Litt & Turk, 1985; Owens, 2001), climate may also be considered a potential stressor.

2.4.3.8. Teacher-student relations Teacher-student relations are referred to in many ways. Some consonant terms include: difficult children, difficult classes, student misbehaviour, Relationships with the students, student problems, pupil recalcitrance, noisy pupils, unacceptable student behaviour, classroom discipline, students’ poor attitudes to work and student domain. Teacher-student relations have been established as potential and actual stressors in most studies of teacher stress (Borg, 1990; Borg & Falzon, 1991; Boyle et al, 1995; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Chaplain, 1995; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Hart, Wearing & Conn, 1995; Hock, 1988; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Kyriacou, 1989; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978b; 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; Otto, 1986; Pierce & Molloy, 1990; Smith & Burke, 1992; Troman, 2000; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995).

Kyriacou (1989) stated that teacher-student relations issues (namely, poor motivation and indiscipline) were among the major sources of teacher stress. There is ample research supporting this. In the following studies, teacher- student relations were either ranked highly (first, second or third most prevalent) in comparison of means or were strong predictors of stress (Borg et al, 1991; Boyle et al, 1995; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978; 1979; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997a; O’Connor & Clarke, 1990; Pierce & Molloy, 1990; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995). Other studies have revealed teacher-student relations to be low to middle order contributors to stress (Hock, 1988; Litt & Turk, 1985; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992).

111 Qualitative data have added greater depth to our understanding of the association between teacher-student relations and the occupational stress of teachers. From interviews conducted with primary and secondary school staff, Otto (1986) reported on various ways in which teacher-student relations could prove stressful, including confrontations with teachers, a minority of misbehaving students ruining classroom climate, verbal abuse, general lack of respect for teachers, violence against peers, violence against teachers, vandalism, apathy, lack of responsiveness, lack of appreciation and having to deal with the needs of problem children.

Dinham (1993) shed further light on the direction of the relationship by reporting on a teacher’s misuse of discipline as a result of workload related stress, which led to further conflict with students and further stress. This suggests that the relationship between teacher-student relations (and perhaps any stressor) and occupational stress may be quite complex.

2.4.3.9. Other antecedents The stressors discussed so far are those that are most prominent in the literature. There may be as many stressors as there are facets of work. Some other stressors that have been identified, particularly in schools include: inadequate salary, poor career structure, change and innovation, inadequate opportunities to achieve professionally, poor school ethos or culture, school climate, school discipline policy, involvement in research projects, personal issues, lack of participation in decision making, lack of appreciation or recognition, lack of support from the principal, lack of support from peers (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Boyle et al, 1995; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Dick & Wagner, 2001; Finlay-Jones, 1986; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Litt & Turk, 1985; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997b; Otto, 1986; Pierce & Molloy, 1990; Smith & Burke, 1992; Solman & Feld, 1989; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). The last four listed stressors are communication variables and they will be dealt with in a later section.

112 2.4.4. Mediators of occupational stress It is widely recognised that certain characteristics of the individual and certain aspects of the work environment may mediate (that is, influence) levels of felt occupational stress (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Muchinsky, 2000). This section discusses eight variables known to mediate occupational stress. The first six are characteristics of individuals. The last two are organisational.

2.4.4.1. Gender The role of gender as a mediator of occupational stress has been researched a great deal, but due mainly to inconsistencies of analysis, the nature of the relationship is unclear. Cooper and Kelly (1993) reported female school administrators experienced less stress and were better at coping than their male counterparts. Conversely, Laughlin (1984) reported female teachers were experiencing more occupational stress than males. The added workload of home responsibilities and equal opportunity issues were the speculated reasons for this difference. In another Australian study, it was found that female teachers were more affected by a given set of stressors than males (Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). Additionally, it has been found in several studies that females and males differed in their perception of most to least potent stressors (Borg & Falzon, 1991; Punch & Tuetteman, 1996; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992).

There is also an abundance of research that has found no difference in occupational stress (either overall or job facet-based stressors) between males and females (Chaplain, 1995; Dick & Wagner, 2001; Dua, 1994; Fontana & Abouserie, 1993; Hendrix et al, 1994; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978b; O’Connor & Clarke, 1990; Pithers & Soden, 1998; Solman & Feld, 1989; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995). Research to the present has been inconsistent due to differences in the variables measured, different instruments and the use of overall stress measures by some studies and facet stressors by others. A more consistent body of research would help to clarify the role of gender in the development of occupational stress.

113 2.4.4.2. Age It appears that age is a mediator of occupational stress. One consistent finding in the literature is that younger teachers reported higher levels of occupational stress than older colleagues (Corrigan, Holmes & Luchins, 1995; Russell, Altmaier & Van Velzen, 1987). Some studies have attempted to explain this. Caputo (1991) suggested that older individuals tend to gain more coping strategies over time from their wider experiences.

Other research indicates that the age-stress relationship may be influenced by other factors. Laughlin’s (1984) study compared stress variables among all age groups, and differences were found. For example, younger teachers experienced more stress from pupil recalcitrance, but less stress time/resource and curriculum demand than their older colleagues. More systematic research, with various stress variables along the lines of Laughlin’s study, may shed further light on the role of age in occupational stress.

2.4.4.3. Experience Experience refers to time spent in a particular occupation. It is related to, but not the same as, age. In terms of overall occupational stress, it has been frequently found that there is no relationship with experience (Chaplain, 1995; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996). Other studies have found that as experience increases, so does occupational stress (Borg et al, 1991; Whitehead & Ryba, 1995).

In terms of various stressors, relationships with experience have been found to exist. Some studies found that teachers with low experience reported greater stress from teacher-student relations issues (Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996). McCormick (1997a) found this relationship only existed for male teachers. This suggests that relationships between mediator variables such as experience and occupational stress are complex, influenced by other variables. Borg and Falzon (1991) identified differing rank orders of the strengths of a set of stressors for each years-of-experience category. From these results it may be suggested that analyses of mediator variables need to

114 be levelled at individual stressors because overall stress measures may not yield clear or accurate results.

2.4.4.4. Level of education Levels of educational qualifications (certificate, diploma, degree or higher) have been investigated for their links to occupational stress. Caputo (1991) reported on literature which suggested employees with higher qualifications were experiencing higher burnout from stress than those with lower qualifications. However, evidence from other literature suggested there were no significant relationships between overall occupational stress and qualifications (Laughlin, 1984; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Russell et al, 1987).

It appears that more systematic investigation is needed to elucidate any links between level of education and various stressors. Laughlin’s (1984) results suggested that relationships may have existed with different stressors. A later Australian study also identified differences, noting that teachers with qualifications other than degrees or diplomas experienced less stress (Solman & Feld, 1989).

2.4.4.5. Employment status Employment status refers to both hierarchical position and whether one is employed full-time, part-time or casually. For research conducted in schools the addition of grade level and subject area becomes necessary. While there is limited systematic research of the relationship between occupational stress and employment status available, there is some evidence that relationships do exist. Caputo (1991) reported on studies that found full time employed staff experienced greater burnout from stress. This is logical because full time staff would be exposed to potential stressors for a greater time.

While people in promotion positions appear to experience less stress from teacher-student relations than other staff members (Laughlin, 1984; Solman & Feld, 1989), it is evident that those in promotion positions experience greater stress than others from time/resource difficulties and curriculum demands

115 (Borg & Riding, 1993; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996). Whitehead and Ryba (1995) found that general occupational stress was higher for those in promotion positions.

In terms of grade levels taught, Laughlin (1984) found that stress levels differed among staff according to grade groupings. McCormick (1997a) found that infants/primary teachers reported greater stress in the student domain than secondary school teachers. Borg and Falzon (1991) found teachers of different age groups were affected by different sets of stressors. However, other studies have found no significant relationships (Borg et al, 1991; Russell et al, 1987).

2.4.4.6. Personality It has long been observed that personality variables moderate the level of stress experienced by individuals (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). Various aspects of personality, such as positive or negative attitudes and extroversion- introversion have been identified as mediators of occupational stress (Fontana & Abouserie, 1993; Iverson et al, 1998). However, the three personality variables most consistently examined in the literature are Type A and Type B personality, locus of control and self-esteem. These are discussed separately below.

2.4.4.6.1. Type A-Type B personality The typical characteristics of Type A and Type B personalities have been described in detail elsewhere (see, for example, Feshback & Weiner, 1991; Luthans, 2002). Briefly, Type A individuals are generally competitive, hasty, impatient, keen to achieve and concerned with time. Type B individuals are generally the opposite (Feshbach & Weiner, 1991).

It is generally proposed in the literature that Type A individuals experience higher levels of occupational stress than Type B individuals (McKenna, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000; Saal & Knight, 1988). However, recent investigations into the effects of personality types on occupational stress have produced inconsistent results (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Luthans, 2002). Cooper and

116 Kelly (1993) found that Type A behavioural patterns predicted stress reactions in head teachers. However, a later study found no significant relationship between Type A personality and occupational stress (Hendrix et al, 1994).

2.4.4.6.2. Locus of control Locus of control refers to individuals’ prevailing beliefs about why things happen to them (Feshbach & Weiner, 1991). In relation to occupational stress, it has generally been theorised that individuals who have an internal locus of control believe they are responsible for what happens in their lives, and tend to actively respond to stressors, while those with external locus of control believe other people, events or fate are responsible. As a result, it has been reasoned that those with external locus of control experience more stress than those with internal locus of control (Feshbach & Weiner, 1991; Luthans, 2002; McKenna, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000). Reviews of the literature appear to confirm this pattern of relationships (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Kyriacou, 1987; Luthans 2002). A study of secondary school teachers found that those with external locus of control were more likely to experience stress than those with internal locus of control (Capel, 1989).

2.4.4.6.3. Self-esteem The concept of self-esteem has been extensively described and explained in the literature (see, for example, Feshbach & Weiner, 1991; Zimbardo, 1979). Briefly, self-esteem refers to one’s perception of one’s self-worth and overall happiness with the way one is (Feshbach & Weiner, 1991).

It is a widely held view that people with higher self-esteem cope better with stressful situations than those with lower self-esteem (Feshbach & Weiner, 1991). Therefore, it is expected that staff members with lower self-esteem will report higher occupational stress than those with higher self-esteem. From studies of Australian teachers (primary and secondary) Bernard (1990) reported low teacher self-esteem was related to higher levels of felt occupational stress. However, in their extensive review of occupational stress research, Kahn and Byosiere (1992) found only limited support for this relationship. These authors have indicated that more systematic research

117 needs to be conducted into the role of self-esteem as a mediator of occupational stress.

2.4.4.7. Organisation/school type While some research has compared stress levels between organisational types, the extent of such work is limited. In Australia, there are different school systems (government, non-government and independent) and different school levels (primary and secondary schools) to name just two obvious divisions (McCormick, 2000; Solman & Feld. 1989). In terms of school systems, Solman and Feld (1989) reported that staff members in Catholic (non- government) schools experienced less stress than their counterparts in government schools.

The data on differences in occupational stress between staff of primary and secondary schools appears inconsistent. While one might assume that secondary schools would generate more stress for staff members because of the behaviour patterns of adolescents (Solman & Feld, 1989), this is not strictly the case. In his Australian study, Laughlin (1984) found primary school teachers were, overall, slightly more stressed than their secondary counterparts. McCormick (1997a) found stress in the student domain to be higher for primary school teachers compared to secondary school teachers. Cooper and Kelly (1993) reported similar findings. Other studies have reported little difference between primary and secondary schools (Finlay- Jones, 1986; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987).

2.4.5. Organisational communication and occupational stress As this study is concerned with links between occupational stress and organisational communication and some aspects of organisational communication may be stressors, mediators or both, it is appropriate to discuss these links here. In this section, relationships identified in the literature between aspects of organisational communication and occupational stress will be discussed.

118 2.4.5.1. Directive communication and occupational stress Evidence of a relationship between directive communication and occupational stress is limited. Caputo (1991) suggested that unclear information from superiors might lead to role ambiguity and, thereby, lead to occupational stress. Ray (1990) reported that excessive use of directive communication by a school principal caused teachers some degree of stress and some teachers considered quitting as a result. These findings suggest that directive communication may have a complex relationship with occupational stress. Some directive communication is needed to avoid stress from role ambiguity (therefore, being a mediator), but too much may be a cause of stress.

2.4.5.2. Supportive communication and occupational stress Studies of relationships between supportive communication and occupational stress and burnout have concentrated on downward support, horizontal support and general support.

Lack of downward supportive communication has been strongly related to increased occupational stress in a number of studies (Brown & Ralph, 1992; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Spielberger & Reheiser, 1995; Troman, 2000). According to Spielberger and Reheiser (1995), lack of downward support was a highly ranked source of stress for employees in various organisations. Troman (2000) recounted from interviews how lack of perceived support from a superior increased the stress a teacher felt from student behaviour.

Other studies have established downward supportive communication as a mitigator of occupational stress (Bernard, 1990; Caputo, 1991; Dick & Wagner, 2001; Dworkin et al, 1990; Iverson et al, 1998; Johnson & Indvik, 1990; Russell et al, 1987). Summers et. al. (1995) reported that downward supportive communication in the form of positive feedback, recognition and appreciation was related to reduced stress. Sarros and Sarros (1992) found feedback and recognition had a similar relationship with burnout in a large sample of Australian teachers. In a more recent study of New Zealand health workers, Kalliath and Beck (2001) also reported a negative relationship between downward supportive communication and aspects of burnout.

119

In a well-known study of U.S. teachers (in primary and secondary schools), downward supportive communication was strongly related to role stressors (role ambiguity and role conflict) and, indirectly, to burnout (Starnaman & Miller, 1992). From the consistency of the findings reported so far, it is possible to say that downward supportive communication has a significant role to play in mediating or causing occupational stress.

Horizontal supportive communication has been recognised as a mediator of occupational stress. Several studies have reported on the ameliorating influence this type of communication has on occupational stress (Beehr et al, 2000; Caputo, 1991; Cockburn, 1996; Lewis, 1999; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). In an Australian study of primary and secondary school teachers, Hart, Wearing and Conn (1995) investigated the relationships of several organisational variables to three known teacher stressors. They found that horizontal supportive communication was related to lower stress from teacher- student relations (as student misbehaviour). In other studies, behaviour consistent with horizontal supportive communication was also found to have moderate negative relationships with burnout (Corrigan et al, 1995; Leiter, 1988).

From interview data, Troman (2000) reported how horizontal supportive communication could help alleviate occupational stress. Behaviours consistent with horizontal supportive communication, such as having a laugh at the humorous side of issues and sharing advice and expressions of concern appeared to make teachers feel better about facing work problems. Similarly, Ray (1990) reported how horizontal communication channels were a source of support during stressful situations in terms of peers sharing concerns, needed information and advice.

In the opposite direction, lowered levels of horizontal supportive communication have been associated with higher occupational stress (Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Leiter, 1988). The findings of two Australian studies have suggested that this is especially so for primary

120 school staff (Finlay-Jones, 1986; McCormick, 1997a). It is worth noting that not all studies involving horizontal supportive communication behaviours have revealed the same result. Dworkin et. al. (1990), for example, found that horizontal supportive communication behaviour had no significant influence on the level of occupational stress of teachers.

Studies that have investigated general supportive communication (downward and horizontal support together) have suggested that this support may ameliorate stress from excessive workload and role conflict (for example, Haines et al, 1991). It has been found that general supportive communication predicts lower stress from role ambiguity (Miller at al, 1990; Miller, Birkholt, Scott & Stage, 1995; Ray & Miller, 1991). A study of Western Australian teachers revealed general support was associated with lowered stress from inadequate work environment (facilities), workload, teacher-student relations and external demands (Punch & Tuetteman, 1996).

It is important to note that the negative relationship consistently reported between supportive communication and occupational stress does not mean that supportive communication always lessens occupational stress. Buunk and Verhoeven (1991) reported a negative relationship, but reasoned that people with more stress are likely to seek more support. Ray (1991) found that, while supportive communication was generally related to lower occupational stress and burnout, those who handled more supportive communication interactions because of their role within the organisation (linkers) showed more signs of burnout. This may be the result of another communication variable, load. However, it does suggest that excessive traffic of supportive communication may be a stressor for some.

2.4.5.3. Cultural communication and occupational stress No literature could be found that directly investigated any relationship between behaviours consistent with cultural communication and occupational stress. Considering its role in socialising new members, maintaining organisational norms and clarifying expectations (Deal, 1985; Kilmann et al, 1985; Schemmp et al, 1993) one might predict that cultural communication

121 would be negatively associated with occupational stress, especially from the perspective of role ambiguity.

In outlining the function of culture in organisations, Schein (1992) made it clear that organisational culture serves to reduce anxiety caused by role uncertainty and overload. He asserted that the system of beliefs put in place by a culture acts as reference criteria for the solution of work problems. Similarly, Pheysey (1993) asserted that organisational cultures regulate behaviours through specified role purposes and descriptions, thereby reducing uncertainty. Pheysey (1993) also made a direct link between cultural communication and occupational stress by describing situations in which role expectations of the organisation conflicted with the role espoused by the individual. Such a situation may be expected to lead to stress from role conflict. This situation is consistent with person-environment fit theory.

2.4.5.4. Democratic communication and occupational stress Research into links of occupational stress with democratic communication activities has focussed on participation in decision making. There is general support for the idea that democratic communication is negatively related to occupational stress (Brown & Ralph, 1992; Cherniss, 1980; Hock, 1988; Litt & Turk, 1985; Luthans, 2002; Raschke et al, 1985; Summers et al, 1995; Tuetteman & Punch, 1992). This relationship between occupational stress and democratic communication is an expected one. Participating in decision making gives workers opportunities to exert control over their work environment, and to have a sense of control. Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making has been linked to stress from lack of control (Caputo, 1991; Johnson & Indvik, 1990).

Spielberger and Reheiser (1995) reported that lowered democratic communication (lack of participation in decision making) was a highly prevalent source of stress for a sample representative of a variety of occupations. In recent studies of Australian primary and secondary teachers, lack of participation in decision making has been linked to occupational stress (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b).

122

Qualitative data have provided further insight into the relationship. Otto’s (1986) study of Australian teachers suggested that lack of democratic communication resulted in stress because of ideas being imposed on teachers from administrators without consultation, and a felt lack of scope for innovation. As a result, teachers developed the notion that superiors thought they had “no professional expertise” and that they would “probably bludge [avoid work]” (1986, p.121).

Other literature has suggested that the relationship between democratic communication and occupational stress is not always negative. As with its relationship with job satisfaction, forced democratic communication (that is, democratic activities imposed on staff members) may produce stress. For example, Troman (2000) reported democratic communication practices perceived as excessive or done for their own sake were sources of frustration for some teachers.

Glowinkowski and Cooper (1987), citing other sources, suggested that democratic communication may increase stress from role conflict as people try to balance their normal work roles with additional roles of participation. The study by Miller et. al. (1990) found participation in decision making predicted almost a third of the variance in role stress. In another study, democratic communication practices predicted workload stress (Ray & Miller, 1991).

2.4.5.5. Openness of communication and occupational stress Very little has been written about a relationship between openness of communication and occupational stress. Despite this, some links can be made. Johnson and Indvik (1990) described how a supervisor’s sharing of information with staff members reduced role ambiguity. Clearly, behaviour consistent with openness is likely to be negatively associated with stress (from role ambiguity). There is a case for investigation of the link between occupational stress and communication openness.

123 2.4.5.6. Communication load and occupational stress Communication load has been conceptualised for this study as overload, underload and adequacy. According to McKinnon (1990), overload may lead to feelings of pressure (workload stress) through an excessive amount of information to process in a short time (quantitative overload) or difficulty understanding information (qualitative overload). In discussing the effect of communication load on librarians, Meier (1963) observed that information overload may lead to stress and, consequently, absenteeism or turnover. Communication overload may influence stress from workload or be a stressor itself.

Communication underload (not having enough information) may lead to stress from role ambiguity and lack of feedback about work (Otto, 1986; Stremmel et al, 1993). From interview data McCormick (1997a) found insufficient communication among staff to solve professional problems, especially those concerning children with needs, was a source of stress for teachers.

Given that adequate communication may logically lessen role ambiguity and, perhaps, even workload, there is not a great deal of investigation evident in this area. Johnson and Indvik (1990) promoted adequacy as a way of alleviating or preventing stress from role ambiguity. In a more recent study information adequacy (as a subset of overall communication quality) was found to be moderately correlated with job stress (Summers et al, 1995).

2.4.5.7. Methods of communication and occupational stress The quality of communication and the methods used to communicate are likely to influence the level of frustration a person feels (Scott et al, 1999). This may also lead to job stress (Davis & Newstrom, 1989; Raspberry & Lemoine, 1986). Others may alleviate or prevent occupational stress. An example is provided by Stremmel and associates (1993) who reported that staff meetings helped reduce occupational stress of child-care staff. However, too many meetings could become a source of stress through increased workload as reported by Whitehead and Ryba (1995). Staff meetings were

124 sited as a source of workload related stress by Australian female primary school teachers (Thomas et al, 2003).

Public address (P.A.) systems and delivered messages may also lead to frustration and stress. Lortie (1975) cited interruptions over the P.A. system or personal communications from staff during lessons as sources of complaint by teachers. Caputo (1991) related frequent interruptions (from sources not identified) to workload stress. Interruptions (again, not specified) were found to be sources of stress, albeit of lower ranking compared to other stressors, in the study by Speilberger and Reheiser (1995). Given the many methods of communication in schools, more systematic research into their links to occupational stress would add to our knowledge in this area.

2.4.6. Job satisfaction and occupational stress As it has been established that aspects of organisational communication may be related to job satisfaction and occupational stress, it is appropriate to include discussion of the relationship between these two variables. This relationship is well established in the literature as a negative one. That is to say, higher job satisfaction is related to lower occupational stress, and vice versa (Borg et al, 1991; Burke & Greenglass, 1994; Davis & Wilson, 2000; Day et al, 1998; Dua, 1994; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997b). From qualitative and quantitative data, Otto (1986) reported that occupational stress was highest among the most dissatisfied teachers and lowest among the satisfied. Otto also cautioned that satisfied teachers were not without stress.

Studies that have examined the interactions of job satisfaction and stress variables, rather than overall measures, have generally provided a more thorough picture of how job stress and satisfaction are related. Correlation, regression and structural equation analyses have shown that stress factors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload have differing strengths of relationships with job satisfaction, though still negative (Currivan, 2000; Miller et al, 1990; Ray & Miller, 1991; Smith & Bourke, 1992; Starnaman & Miller, 1992). For example, Currivan (2000) reported that role ambiguity was

125 more strongly related to job satisfaction than role conflict. In another study, role ambiguity and role conflict had relationships of various strength with extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction (Summers et al, 1995).

A direction of causality cannot be specified for job satisfaction and occupational stress. They influence one another. Given the multidimensional nature of both, the diversity of relationships discussed above is to be expected and may be also attributable to individual differences.

2.4.7. Outcomes of occupational stress The outcomes, or consequences, of occupational stress for individuals and organisations have been established (Luthans, 2002; Muchinsky, 2000). A discussion of them is appropriate, as they may be relevant to recommendations made at the conclusion of this study. The outcomes of occupational stress may be divided into three categories: psychological, physical and behavioural (Luthans, 2002; Spector, 2000). These are briefly discussed in the following sections.

2.4.7.1. Psychological outcomes Psychological responses to occupational stress are associated with emotions, moods and attitudes. Among the most commonly identified psychological responses is job dissatisfaction (Luthans, 2002; Spector, 2000). The relationship between job satisfaction and occupational stress has already been discussed. Lowered job commitment has also been consistently associated with occupational stress (Borg et al, 1991; Farber, 1984; Hendrix et al, 1994; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Miller et al, 1995). However, strong commitment may counteract the effects of occupational stress for some individuals (Kyriacou, 1987; Otto, 1986). Other reported psychological outcomes of occupational stress include anxiety, frustration, anger, tension, nervousness and burnout (Ashcraft, 1992; Cherniss, 1980; Luthans, 2002; Spector, 2000; Troman, 2000).

Burnout is, perhaps, best defined as the emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accomplishment that comes from

126 working with people (Maslach, 1982). Emotional exhaustion is the feeling of being drained, fatigued or worn out from working with clients and others. Depersonalisation refers to callousness, emotional hardening and even cynicism towards clients and others. Reduced personal accomplishment refers to a perceived lack of success on the job, often resulting in lowered self-esteem (Pines, 1993; Sarros & Sarros, 1992). The effects on teachers range from a loss of idealism about the job and making errors or neglecting planning, to the development of cynicism and other negative attitudes towards students (Farber, 1984; Fischer, 1983; Hock, 1988).

It is now widely accepted that, subject to the coping resources of individuals and the effects of mediators, prolonged occupational stress leads to burnout (Burke & Greenglass, 1994; Byrne, 1993; Carroll & White, 1982; Chan & Hui, 1995; Cherniss, 1980; Hendrix et al, 1994; Iverson et al, 1998; Pines, 1993; Sarros & Sarros, 1990; 1992; Starnaman & Miller, 1992). The consequences of burnout are similar to and often more severe than those resulting from stress alone (Caputo, 1991; Corrigan et al, 1995; Kalliath & Beck, 2001).

2.4.7.2. Physical outcomes Physical responses to occupational stress are changes to the normal state and functioning of the body (Ashcraft, 1992; Selye, 1976). Research conducted in numerous settings, including schools, have established links between the following and occupational stress (or burnout): hypertension, elevated blood pressure, dryness in the throat, nervous ticks, lessened immunity to illness, stomach complaints, ulcers, neck or back pain, headache, migraine, tiredness, chest pain, heart disease and stroke (Ashcraft, 1992; Brown & Ralph, 1992; Burke & Greenglass, 1994; Caputo, 1991; Dinham, 1993; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977; 1978b; Rees, 1998; Sakharov & Farber, 1983; Savery & Detiuk, 1986; Selye, 1976).

Selye (1976) described many of the above symptoms as physical signs of stress that may be observed by individuals themselves. What are not easily observed by individuals are the chemical and cellular changes that occur during stressful episodes (Selye, 1976). Ashcraft (1992) described how stress

127 can influence the immune system through the suppression of cells that attack viruses and other germs and, thereby increasing susceptibility to illness.

2.4.7.3. Behavioural outcomes Behavioural responses to occupational stress are actions by individuals. Five major behavioural outcomes have been identified in the literature (Caputo, 1991; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000). These are withdrawal, lower performance, deteriorating collegial relations, substance abuse and accidents.

2.4.7.3.1. Withdrawal Earlier, withdrawal was described in terms of both absences from work and turnover. Several studies have reported that occupational stress, including teacher stress, is linked to absenteeism (Brown & Ralph, 1992; Capel, 1989; Carroll & White, 1982; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Solman & Feld, 1989). Interestingly, Manthei and Gilmore (1996) reported that absence due to sickness was not correlated with occupational stress for a sample of teachers.

Turnover has been linked to occupational stress and burnout in a number of studies, including those conducted in schools (Day et al, 1998; Dinham, 1993; Kalliath & Beck, 2001; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Sarros & Sarros, 1990; Summers et al, 1995). Dinham (1993) reported from interview data that a majority of school staff members who resigned from their positions viewed resignation as release from a stressful work environment. The same study described how the blood pressure of a teacher who had resigned due to stress reduced dramatically after leaving teaching and starting a new career.

2.4.7.3.2. Lower performance Lower performance includes reduced effectiveness and reduced quality of service to clients (Carroll & White, 1982; Maslach, 1982), as they are consonant with the notion of lower performance. While occupational stress and burnout have been linked to lowered work performance (Beehr et al, 2000; Muchinsky, 2000), the relationship may be influenced by other variables. The following examples are from schools. Capel (1989) stated that

128 burned out teachers paid less attention to individual students, offered less encouragement and offered students less information than other staff. Troman (2000) reported that emotionally exhausted teachers were less patient with their students and more prone to be abusive of them, which had a negative impact on teacher-student relations.

In Scott, Cox and Dinham’s (1999) study, some teachers who were constantly tired and stressed from their workloads were becoming less involved in extra- curricular activities. Pitkoff (1993) noted that teachers considered to be underperforming had higher absences than those who were performing satisfactorily. Otto (1986) reported on how compromised productivity, manifested by lack of time to perform tasks well due to time limitations, bells and timetables was a source of stress for teachers. Clearly, performance and occupational stress are related, but it appears that the relationship may be complicated by other factors.

2.4.7.3.3. Deteriorating collegial relations While poor relationships with colleagues has been discussed as an antecedent of occupational stress, they may also be a consequence of a stressful work environment. Caputo (1991) identified blaming, conflict with and distancing from colleagues as individual behavioural outcomes caused by stress and burnout. Carroll and White (1982) identified expressions of mutual distrust and disrespect as signs of burnout among staff in organisations. This is consistent with closed or unfavourable organisational climates (Hoy et al, 1991).

2.4.7.3.4 Substance abuse Increased alcohol consumption, increased smoking and the use of other drugs have been identified as reactions to stressful work situations (Ashcraft, 1992; Bernard, 1990; Spector, 2000; Selye, 1976). Increased substance abuse has the additional effect of potentially compromising general health and well being (Ashcraft, 1992).

129 2.4.7.3.5. Accidents Finally, accidents may result in reduced physical preparedness or alertness from stress (Caputo, 1991; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000). This has been established in various work settings (Muchinsky, 2000), but not for schools.

2.4.7.4. The costs to organisations The outcomes of occupational stress discussed here ultimately lead to costs for organisations. Occupational stress poses a financial cost to organisations through lost productivity due to absence, the remuneration costs associated with sick leave, compensation claims, litigation by employees, increased salary to compensate for stress related claims, medical expenses paid by some organisations and the training of new staff following turnover (Ashcraft, 1992; Kyriacou, 1987; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Manning et al, 1996; Pitkoff, 1993; Rees, 1998; Savery & Detiuk, 1986). For these reasons, if not for improved employee satisfaction and commitment and improved climate, the reduction of occupational stress should be of great importance to schools and other organisations.

2.4.8. Summary of occupational stress Occupational stress was defined for this study as the experience of negative feelings such as frustration, worry, anxiety and depression caused by work related factors. While several theories of occupational stress have been developed, there is general agreement that occupational stress is the result of a process that begins with the appraisal of a stressor, is influenced by mediators and may result in some attempt to cope. Occupational stress may lead to psychological, physical and behavioural outcomes. The level of stress and subsequent range of the outcomes depends on the coping resources and circumstances of the individual.

Several aspects of organisational communication have been linked to occupational stress in previous research. There is considerable evidence that supportive and democratic communication have strong relationships with occupational stress. There is also some literature linking directive communication to occupational stress. It was established from organisational

130 culture literature, that cultural communication might be related to occupational stress through role ambiguity and role conflict. Although limited, some literature suggests links with communication openness, noise, load and methods. While some of the research reviewed here was based on schools, there is a need for further research into the relationships, especially in the context of primary schools, as research in those settings has been limited.

The outcomes of occupational stress may be considerable in terms of employee attitudes, illness and behaviour. Organisations bear many of the ultimate costs of occupational stress and burnout in both human and financial terms. Given this, that research into these factors in primary schools is limited, and that virtually no research so far has included non-teaching staff, there is a need to explore the roles communication factors play in the development of occupational stress in primary school staff.

2.5. Conclusion of the literature review This section brings the literature review to its conclusion. It comprises a summing up of the findings of the review and how that information was used to guide this study. Firstly, the main findings pertinent to this study will be briefly reviewed. In the second section, a conceptual framework of the study will be presented that builds on the findings of the literature review. In the third section research questions of the study will be presented in light of the literature review. Statements of the hypotheses generated by the conceptual framework will follow. The chapter concludes with a short summary.

2.5.1. Main findings of the literature review Several aspects of organisational communication were identified from the results of previous research. These may be thought of as dimensions of organisational communication. Four dimensions emerged from the classification system of functions of organisational communication that was developed to account for types of communication that may occur in schools. These were directive, supportive, cultural and democratic communication. They may be classified further according to their direction of flow. Hence, the

131 following dimensions of organisational communication are proposed: downward directive, downward supportive, upward supportive, horizontal supportive, downward cultural, horizontal cultural, downward democratic, upward democratic and horizontal democratic.

Of the process variables identified as influencing communication, two can be defined as dimensions of communication: openness and load. Internal environment and organisational structure are organisational variables. Trust is a characteristic of relationships between people. Noise interferes with communication, but is not part of the process. It is however, accepted that noise is minimal in open communication, so noise is somewhat accounted for by openness in any case. Openness and load can be further categorised according to direction of flow. Hence, the following additional dimensions of organisational communication are posited: downward, upward and horizontal openness and downward, upward and horizontal load.

Methods of communication comprise the final set of organisational communication variables. The methods of communication that apply to schools for this study are staff meetings, informal meetings, pupil delivered messages, bulletin boards, memos and other notes, handbooks, telephone and P.A. systems.

From the review of literature on organisational communication it was evident that organisational communication had been found to have significant relationships with job satisfaction and occupational stress. Therefore, a review of these two concepts was conducted. This revealed that there were indeed many links between organisational communication and job satisfaction and occupational stress. In most cases a need for further study in the context of primary schools was identified.

While these links were made, and it was apparent that the studies were conducted in a variety of settings, including schools, it was also evident that only a small proportion of the studies were conducted in primary schools. Research of these relationships in Australian Catholic primary schools was

132 limited to a small number (see, for example, McCormick, 2000; Solman & Feld, 1989). Also, no study could be found that included non-teaching staff in their samples. The need to investigate these relationships in Catholic primary schools is apparent and this study attempts to address the scarcity of research here.

2.5.2. Conceptual framework The theoretical framework on which this study is based consists of the 16 dimensions of organisational communication linked to job satisfaction and occupational stress. Job satisfaction and occupational stress are conceptualised as both global and multi-dimensional for this study, as suggested in the literature review. This framework is illustrated in Figure 2.4.

Based on the relationships identified in the literature, it is possible to hypothesise the links between variables as well as their probable direction. Therefore, it is expected that supportive communication, cultural communication and democratic communication (in their various directions of flow) will be positively related to job satisfaction, but negatively related to occupational stress. Given that directive communication, while necessary, may be viewed as opposite to democratic communication because of the lack of freedom it implies for subordinates, it is expected that a negative relationship exists with job satisfaction and a positive one is expected with occupational stress.

Openness (downward, upward and horizontal) is expected to be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. Load (overload and underload) is expected to be negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress. No directions of causality were suggested for the links with methods of communication. The literature did not provide strong evidence in these terms.

133 Directive communication Downward

Supportive communication Downward Upward Horizontal Job Cultural communication Downward Horizontal Satisfaction

Democratic communication Downward Upward Horizontal

Openness of communication Occupational Downward Upward Horizontal Stress Load of communication Downward Upward Horizontal

Methods of communication

Figure 2.4: Conceptual framework of the study

2.5.3. Review of the research questions In chapter one three research questions were proposed to guide the study. These were: 1. What dimensions of organisational communication are salient within the Catholic primary schools involved in the study?. 2. What relationships exist between organisational communication and job satisfaction? and 3. What relationships exist between organisational communication and occupational stress? The literature review and

134 subsequent conceptual framework indicate that these questions are still relevant and useful to guide the study.

2.5.4. Research hypotheses The following hypotheses are based on the relationships outlined in the conceptual framework. The relationships between organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress are to be tested using six hypotheses.

H1. Directive communication will be negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress. H2. Supportive communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. H3. Cultural communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. H4. Democratic communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. H5. Openness of communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. H6. Communication load will be negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress.

2.5.5. Chapter summary In this chapter the main concepts of the study were defined and explained. Links were identified between job satisfaction and organisational communication and occupational stress and organisational communication. These links confirmed the relevance of the research questions and formed the bases of the conceptual framework for this study. The chapter concluded with statements of hypotheses, which will be used to test the relationships posited in the conceptual framework.

135 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

3.1. Introduction In this chapter the research methods used for this study are explained in terms of the overall research design, the sampling, the instruments used, the data collection procedures, and, finally, the methods of analysis utilised. A discussion of methodology is integrated into this chapter to explain the logic of some procedures and provide theoretical background to the research methods.

3.2. The research design The principal aim of this study was to investigate relationships between aspects of organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress. Therefore, a correlational research design was used. Correlational research is used to test for the existence, and measure the magnitude of, relationships between given variables (Gay & Airasian, 2000).

This research was based on a survey, which was administered to a carefully selected sample. Data from the survey were reduced by factor analysis. The emergent factors were submitted to multiple regression analyses. While this study used mainly quantitative methods, some qualitative data were also gathered. The inclusion of qualitative data allows for some triangulation of the results (Meyer, 2002). Triangulation offers a form of confirmation of the findings of a quantitative study (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen, 1993). It also provides additional data about issues not covered by the quantitative methods (Krathwohl, 1998).

Descriptive statistics were used to determine how similar the sample was to the population. The greater the similarity of the sample to its population, the more generalisable the results of the study are for that population (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Welkowitz, Ewen & Cohen, 1988).

136 3.3. Sampling procedures Sampling is the process whereby individuals, known as subjects or participants, are selected for inclusion in research (Gay & Airasian, 2000). It is generally considered important that the sample be representative of the population from which it is drawn if generalisations are to be made from the study to the target population (Babbie, 1995; Gay & Airasian, 2000; Kitchens, 1987; Krathwohl, 1998; Welkowitz et al, 1988).

Catholic primary schools were chosen because of their potentially highly normative cultures (Dorman, 1998; Johnson et al, 2000; Potts, 1999; Reyes & Pounder, 1993). It was anticipated that behaviours valued by Catholic communities are consistent with aspects of communication such as the cultural and supportive functions.

It was originally intended that the sample would be drawn from Catholic primary schools in the Sydney metropolitan area. However, schools were ultimately drawn from six of the eleven Catholic diocesan education systems in New South Wales. The reason for the change is explained in the section concerning data collection. Sydney metropolitan area schools were initially chosen for reasons of sample homogeneity. It has been suggested that differences may exist between urban and rural schools (Derlin & Schneider, 1994).

Catholic primary schools of New South Wales may be classified according to the size of their student enrolments. Generally, the larger the school student enrolment, the larger the staff population (Catholic Education Commission, 1998). Because the number of staff may impact on organisational communication (Jablin, 1987) a stratified sampling procedure was used. Stratified sampling is the process of selecting a sample that contains representations of subgroups approximating those existing in the population (Gay & Airasian, 2000).

137 Each school in each of the three systems was grouped according to its size and assigned a number. Small schools had between one and 300 students, medium schools had between 300 and 600 students and large schools had 601 or more students. For each diocese, ten schools were randomly chosen for participation in the study. The number of schools picked for each category (school size) was in proportion to the number found in the diocese. In this way the sample was made more representative of the population.

There are no firm guidelines about the appropriate size of a sample, apart from being as large as possible (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Krathwohl, 1998). Given this, it was decided that the sample should number, at minimum, 600 participants. This number represented approximately 20% of the population of primary school teachers in the three diocesan systems (Catholic Education Commission, 1998). Figures for non-teaching staff members were not available from all dioceses or the Catholic Education Commission.

3.4. Instruments In order to obtain data for this study a survey form was devised. The form comprised four sections. The first requested biographical information. The second consisted of items concerning communication in schools. The third was a job satisfaction instrument and the fourth was an occupational stress instrument. Their construction and selection are explained in the following sections.

3.4.1. Organisational communication Several questionnaire-based instruments have been devised to measure organisational communication. They vary in what dimensions of communication they measure and how they are structured (Downs et al, 1994; Greenbaum, Clampitt & Willihnganz, 1988). Two frequently used instruments are the Organisational Communication Questionnaire and the Communication Audit Survey (Greenbaum et al, 1988; Goldhaber, 1993).

138 The Organisational Communication Questionnaire (OCQ) was developed by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974a; 1974b). It comprises 35 items that measure 16 dimensions of communication, including trust, influence, mobility, desire for interaction, amount of upward, downward and lateral communication, accuracy of information, gate-keeping, summarisation, load, satisfaction and amount of written, face to face, telephonic and other modes of communication (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974b). The OCQ has been established by a number of studies as a reliable and valid instrument (Goris et al, 2000; Muchinsky, 1977a; 1977b; Pettit et al, 2000; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974a; 1974b).

The Communication Audit Survey is better known as the International Communication Association Audit (ICA Audit). It was developed by organisational communication scholars within the International Communication Association in the 1970s (Downs et al, 1994; Goldhaber, 2002). The ICA Audit utilises several methods, including questionnaire, interviews, network analysis and records of communication episodes. The questionnaire comprises 122 items that measure 8 dimensions of communication and 12 demographic items (Goldhaber, 1993; Greenbaum et al, 1988).

Many studies have utilised the ICA Audit, or components of it, successfully and its reliability has been well established (Allen, 1992; Avtgis, 2000; Koike et al, 1988; Morley et al, 1997; Scott et al, 1999; Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989). Dimensions of organisational communication measured by the ICA Audit questionnaire include: amount of information received, amount of information sent, amount of follow-up, amount of information received from certain sources, amount of information received from certain channels, timeliness of information, quality of communication relationships and satisfaction with organisational outcomes (Goldhaber, 1993).

However, neither the ICA Audit nor the OCQ purport to measure all the variables identified in the conceptual framework of the study. For example, supportive communication and democratic communication are not addressed in either instrument. Also, it was desirable to use an instrument that was

139 suited to primary schools so that those participants may be more familiar with the terminology and concepts addressed by the items.

This led to the development of the Organisational Communication in Primary Schools Questionnaire (OCPSQ). The OCPSQ was developed by the researcher to measure the dimensions of organisational communication that were identified in the literature review and posited in the conceptual framework.

Development of the questionnaire started with the operationalisation of the theoretical dimensions of organisational communication (identified in the previous chapter) into statements, which would become questionnaire items. The statements were intended to represent various ways in which the dimension may occur or be described (Benson & Nasser, 1998). Statements were short, clearly expressed and did not refer to more than one concept so that the questionnaire would be as easy as possible to complete and not confuse participants (Cass, 1983; Gay & Airasian, 2000; Krathwohl, 1998).

Between five and eight statements were initially written for each of the dimensions of communication except methods (methods items are explained later). A total of 81 items were developed. Dimensions and sample items are elaborated below.

Upward supportive communication refers to instances when staff members communicate emotional or professional support to the principal. This was represented by items such as “Staff give emotional support to the principal” and “Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about his/her work”.

Upward democratic communication refers to involvement in decision making through upward channels. It was represented by items such as “ Staff are able to influence the principal’s decisions” and “The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on an issue”.

140 Upward openness refers to honesty and trust in communications from staff members to the principal. It was represented by such items as “Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal” and “Staff have withheld information from the principal”.

Upward load is concerned with the general traffic of communication from staff members to the principal. Because of the underload-adequacy-overload continuum specified for this dimension, items addressed either adequacy, “There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues”, or overload as in “The principal gets more information than he/she can handle”. Underload would be evident if adequacy scores were low.

Downward directive communication refers to directions and job information given to staff by the principal. It was represented by items such as “The principal often directs work”, “The principal tells staff how things are to be done” and “The principal is autocratic”. This last statement refers to highly directive communication by a principal.

Downward supportive communication refers to instances when the principal communicates support to staff members. It was represented by such items as “The principal provides staff with positive feedback about the job”, “The principal compliments staff” and “The principal is warm and considerate”.

Downward cultural information is concerned with times when the principal communicates information about school mission or culture to staff. It was represented by items such as “Information about this school’s goals and mission comes from the principal” and “The principal is actively involved in the induction of new staff”.

Downward democratic communication refers to instances when the principal communicates encouragement for staff participation in decision making. It was represented by such items as “The principal asks for input from the staff on policy issues” and “The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile”.

141

Downward openness refers to the degree of trust and honesty reflected in communication from the principal to staff members. It was represented by such items as “The principal communicates honestly to staff”, “Much of what the principal says is the truth” and “The principal reveals his/her true feelings about issues.

Downward load is concerned with the degree of communication traffic from the principal to staff members. Adequacy was represented by such items as “Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times” (referring also to timeliness) and “Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs”. Overload was represented by items such as “The principal sends too many messages”.

Horizontal supportive communication concerns instances when staff members communicate support and encouragement to one another. It was represented by items such as “Teachers at this school support one another”, “Staff tend to give supportive comments or feedback to other staff members” and “As a staff we help each other get through the day”.

Horizontal cultural communication refers to occasions when staff members share information about the school’s culture or ethos. It was represented by such items as “Staff members show new staff ‘the ropes’” and “Staff give new employees information about how things should be done at this school”.

Horizontal democratic communication is concerned with times when teamwork and collaboration are used to facilitate school decision-making and development. It was represented by such items as “Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review school decisions” and “The staff at this school make each other feel that they are part of a team”.

Horizontal openness is concerned with honesty of interactions among staff (which is built on trust). It was represented by items such as “Information that

142 comes from other staff members is accurate” and “The staff at this school are honest and trustworthy”.

Horizontal load is concerned with the volume of communication traffic among staff members. It was represented by items such as “Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally” and “There is too much information from other staff”. As with Upward and Downward load, the same logic of interpretation applies.

In order to test the effectiveness of the statements, staff members of a Catholic primary school were consulted. Twelve staff members were provided with copies of the statements and asked to review the items in terms of their appropriateness to the dimensions, clarity, grammar and redundancy in the light of other items. They were invited to make comments alongside the items. This form of item screening has been used successfully in other studies (Cawyer & Freidrich, 1998; O’Reilly et al, 1991). The statements were listed underneath a title frame that contained the name of the dimension and brief accompanying phrases that were designed to help define the dimension for the reviewers. A copy of the consultation items is found in Appendix 3.1.

The consultation process resulted in the deletion of 12 items. Five items that were considered redundant or very close to double-barrel statements were also discarded by the researcher. The remaining 64 statements became items of the (draft) questionnaire. Instead of keeping the items in their dimensional groupings, they were mixed in an effort to minimise the possibility of response set bias (Babbie, 1995).

The items were numbered in consecutive fashion. Items were presaged by brief instructions, which directed the participants to indicate the extent to which each statement was indicative of communication practices at their schools by circling the appropriate response. The responses were represented by numbers on a five-point Likert-type scale (Gay & Airasian, 2000). Each response was represented by a number: 1 (strongly disagree), 2

143 (disagree), 3 (undecided), 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). A key was provided under the instructions.

In order to address the methods of communication used in these primary schools a further questionnaire instrument was devised. This contained a list of the eight most common methods of communication used in schools. These were explained in the preceding chapter. The eight methods were: staff meetings, informal meetings, pupil delivered messages, notes/memos, bulletin boards, intercom/P.A. system, staff handbook and telephone. A ninth category of “other” was included to cater for unanticipated communication methods. Respondents were requested to specify what it was.

Respondents were requested to rate each method of communication in terms of extent of use and effectiveness on a semantic differential scale (Cass, 1983). The scale ranged from 1 (least used or least effective) to 5 (used most frequently or most effective).

Three open-ended questions concluded the questionnaire. The first asked participants to make comments about communication between staff and the principal. The second asked respondents to comment about communication among staff (horizontal). The third asked for general comments about communication at the school.

The questionnaire items were organised in a well spaced, uncluttered and easy to read format (Babbie, 1995; Krathwohl, 1998). Each section was preceded by brief instructions.

Once the format was set, copies of the OCPSQ were given to twelve staff members of the same metropolitan Catholic primary school described earlier for piloting purposes (Babbie, 1995; Gay & Airasian, 2000). Of the twelve participants in this pilot test, eight had participated in the item consultation conducted previously. Participants were asked to complete the (draft) questionnaire and indicate the time it took to complete. Participants in the pilot

144 test were also asked to comment on the directions, completion procedures, answerability of the items and the overall design (Gay & Airasian, 2000).

The pilot testing resulted in a number of changes. First, it was found that each of the three open-ended questions elicited similar information. The three open-ended items were condensed into one item, which asked for comments about communication at the school, in general. It was intended that this would ensure that data would not be difficult to interpret and an extensive range of comments could be elicited. Second, two further items were discarded, as they appeared redundant in the light of other items.

Third, it was decided to divide the methods of communication item into two. One item requested participants to rate the extent of use of each of the methods on a semantic differential Likert scale ranging from 1 (rarely used) to 5 (used very frequently). The other item requested participants to rate the effectiveness of the same methods on a semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (rarely effective) to 5 (very effective). Instructions and a key were provided for each item.

No problems were identified with the overall format of the questionnaire. Two grammatical errors were corrected. Two pilot test participants suggested that the questionnaire was, perhaps, too lengthy. Completion times were reported between 10 and 20 minutes.

After all the changes were made, the questionnaire was deemed ready for use. The final version of the OCPSQ consisted of 62 statements about dimensions of communication that were to be rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale. There were 2 sets of items that addressed methods of communication in terms of extent of use and effectiveness. It concluded with one open-ended response item that was expected to elicit valuable qualitative data. A copy of the full survey form is in Appendix 3.2.

145 3.4.2. Job satisfaction Questionnaire surveys are commonly used to measure satisfaction with job dimensions. (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). The five job dimensions developed by Smith, Kendal and Hulin (1969) originated from their Job Descriptive Index (JDI). The JDI has been one of the most frequently used job satisfaction questionnaires (Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000). The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is another widely used job satisfaction questionnaire (Muchinsky, 2000; Saal & Knight, 1988; Spector, 2000). It comes in two forms, long and short, and is designed to measure satisfaction with as many as twenty job facets. The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) measures the five job characteristics described earlier.

The major limitation of the JDI, MSQ and other measures is that they only measure a limited portion of the possible dimensions of work (Saal & Knight, 1988; Spector, 2000). While it is not possible, or even desirable, to measure every job dimension with one instrument, it is obviously necessary to use a measure of job satisfaction that is relevant to the organisational characteristics and workforce concerned in a study. Many questionnaires have been custom-designed for this reason (Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Chaplain, 1995; Chapman, 1983; Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Ivancevich & Donnely, 1975; Poppleton, 1989).

Two instruments that have been used successfully to measure satisfaction with aspects of teaching work are the questionnaire developed by Holdaway (1978) and the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) developed by Lester (1987). While these instruments measure job facets that are similar for other occupational settings (such as pay, colleagues and working conditions), the items relate more to the job of teaching and the typical internal environments of schools (Holdaway, 1978; Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Lester, 1987).

The TJSQ was selected for use in this study because of its applicability to primary schools and its theoretical bases, which yielded a classification system of job satisfaction dimensions suitable for Catholic primary school

146 staff. The TJSQ has proven to be a valid and reliable instrument in various studies, including many doctoral dissertations (Lester, 1987; Lester & Bishop, 1997; McCormick & Solman, 1992b).

The TJSQ is a 77 item questionnaire. It contains items relating to supervision, colleagues, working conditions, responsibility, work itself, recognition, advancement, security and pay (Lester & Bishop, 1997). Fifteen items concerning advancement, security and pay were omitted from this study because they did not relate to the purposes of this study. A further 11 items were omitted because of reported low factor loadings (Lester & Bishop, 1997).

This process of elimination left 51 items for use in the study. They related to the first six job satisfaction dimensions listed above. The wording of some items was altered to better target the population for this study. For example, the word “supervisor” was replaced by “principal”, as this was considered more appropriate for the organisational structure of the schools concerned.

A general job satisfaction item was included. This item required participants to indicate how satisfied they were with their job in general by circling the most appropriate response on a Likert-type scale. Possible responses were 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (neutral), 4 (satisfied) and 5 (very satisfied). The TJSQ was formatted in the same way as the OCPSQ for consistency and ease of use. The TJSQ was named simply “Job satisfaction” to orient the participant to the basic thrust of the section.

3.4.3. Occupational stress A number of instruments have been developed to measure aspects of occupational stress (Downs, Driskill & Wuthnow, 1990; Lester & Bishop, 1997). One instrument that has been used extensively for the measurement of stress is the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). The MBI emerged in 1981 and was designed to measure burnout through the three dimensions described in Chapter 2: depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1982). A form of the MBI exists for use in schools (Downs et al, 1990). Despite its well established validity and reliability (Downs

147 et al, 1990) it does not suit the theoretical basis of this study which conceptualises burnout as a consequence of stress and not as stress itself.

A number of other instruments exist that have been designed primarily for use in educational settings. The Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI) was developed by Fimian and associates (Lester & Bishop, 1997). While its validity and reliability have been consistently proven to be high, it includes items pertaining to consequences of stress as well as stressors (Lester & Bishop, 1997). As this study was concerned with stressors and not the consequences, the TSI was considered unsuitable.

The occupational stress items were taken from a refined version of the Teacher’s Attribution of Responsibility for Stress Questionnaire (TARSQ) developed by McCormick and Solman (McCormick, 1997a). The instrument contains 20 items. Each item is a statement evocative of a common source of stress. Participants are required to rate each item according to how stressful they are on a scale ranging from 1 (no stress) through to 5 (extreme stress). Successive studies have proven it to be a valid and reliable instrument (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b). The TARSQ is based on attribution theory (see Chapter 2) and the items relate to various domains of occupational stress.

Given that the TARSQ was designed for schools in Australia, particularly in the state of New South Wales, it was deemed an appropriate instrument for the measure of occupational stress required for by this study. Three items, all pertaining to external demands, were omitted. These were replaced by items that were developed to deal specifically with communication. These items were “Communication at this school”, “Interruptions due to messages” and “Inadequate means of sharing information among staff”. They were added to address communication as a stressor in schools.

An overall stress measure was added at the end of the section. This required the participants to indicate how stressful they found working at their schools by circling the most appropriate response. The possible responses were 1

148 (not at all stressful), 2 (mildly stressful), 3 (moderately stressful), 4 (very stressful) and 5 (extremely stressful).

The adapted TARSQ comprised the final section of the survey. It was simply named “Occupational Stress” to orient participants to the general nature of the section. It was formatted in the same way as the preceding sections for consistency and ease of use. Instructions and a key to the scale of responses were included.

3.4.4. The survey A section requesting demographic information from the participants was constructed and placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. Participants were required to tick the appropriate boxes to indicate their sex, age (20-30, 31-40, 41-50 or 50+), number of years teaching (0-5, 6-10, 11-15 or 15+), number of years at current school (0-5, 6-10, 11-15 or 15+) and position at the current school (teacher, executive, and non-teaching staff). Only one category for each item could be ticked. Set categories were used in order to facilitate data processing and avoid confusion about points of reference, especially concerning years of age and experience (Gay & Airasian, 2000).

This was also pilot tested by the individuals involved in the earlier testing. As a result, a separate category of “Teachers aide” was added to the “Position at current school” item. Teachers aides are generally regarded by educational systems as non-teaching staff members (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2000). However, it was suggested that teachers aides might not categorise themselves as non-teaching staff because they are occasionally engaged in assisting pupils individually or working with small groups. These situations were regarded as instances when teaching occurs or taught concepts are revised.

Overall, the survey comprised four sections: biographical information, communication in your school, job satisfaction and occupational stress, and was 12 pages in length. Items were spaced and formatted so that completion would be better facilitated and later data encoding could be performed with

149 minimal error (Babbie, 1995; Krathwohl, 1998). The full survey form can be found in Appendix 3.2.

3.5. Data collection In order to proceed with the study, permission was sought from the relevant Catholic Education Offices. A copy of the letter seeking permission is displayed in Appendix 3.3. If permission to conduct the study was granted, a letter of introduction was sent to the principal of each selected school. The letter comprised background information and a request for permission to conduct the study. The letter also stressed the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study. It was requested that a suitable staff member (not the principal) be responsible for distribution, collection and return of the surveys. Contact details of the researcher were provided in case of any queries.

A copy of the survey and a reply form were attached to the letter. The reply form required principals to indicate whether or not the study could proceed in the chosen school and provide staff numbers so that an appropriate number of surveys could be sent. The reply form could be faxed or mailed back to the researcher (a stamped, self-addressed envelope was supplied). Appendix 3.4 and 3.5 comprise the introductory letter and reply form respectively.

Schools that replied indicating that the study could proceed were sent a package. This package contained another letter to the principal expressing gratitude and indicating the contents of the package (see Appendix 3.6). A document entitled “Instructions for the Coordinator” (Appendix 3.7) provided directions about distribution, collection and return of surveys to the staff member responsible. A large self addressed express post satchel was provided for return purposes along with enough copies of the survey for all members of staff (except casual relief staff).

Each survey was enclosed in a large envelope. A cover letter was attached (Appendix 3.8). The letter introduced the research and invited staff members to participate. Confirmation of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the

150 study was clearly indicated with instructions on how to complete the survey form and appropriate background information. The researcher’s contact details were also provided in case there were queries or participants desired to mail the form directly to the researcher. In any case, the survey could be sealed in the envelope, ensuring privacy.

A number, indicating to the researcher the diocese and school, was printed on each survey so that records could be maintained on response rates and participation of schools. This was explained in the cover letter for participants. Schools that did not send a reply form or return surveys after a period of two weeks from initial mail-out dates were sent reminder faxes (Appendix 3.9). Schools that still did not respond or return surveys were contacted by the researcher via telephone to make sure the material did arrive or was not lost.

In order to keep track of the data collection, a database of schools was maintained. For each school the database contained a record of the diocese, school number (as printed on surveys), name of school, name of principal, address, phone and fax numbers, date introductory letter was sent, date any reminders were sent, whether the school agreed to participate, date surveys were mailed out, number of surveys sent, number of surveys returned, number of surveys rejected and total number of useable surveys. This information was used to facilitate calculation of the return rate and avoid embarrassing errors such as schools being invited to participate twice.

Once surveys were returned each participating school was sent a letter of thanks and appreciation for the time and effort afforded by the Principal, Coordinator of the survey and staff members who participated. Returned surveys were stored in a safe place for later entry of data into an SPSS database.

Problems were encountered obtaining a sample that represented the population of staff from the three metropolitan dioceses. One diocese, from which a majority of the sample was to be drawn because of its size, declined to participate in the study. That Diocesan Office cited the sensitive nature of

151 some of the questionnaire items relating to principals as the reason for its refusal to allow the study to take place within its schools.

From the other two dioceses that agreed to participate, 20 schools were randomly selected, using the method outlined earlier. Of these 20 schools, only 8 agreed to participate. The number of questionnaire recipients numbered no more than 133. This was not an acceptable number of participants for the subsequent statistical work to be meaningful. Therefore, another 20 schools were randomly chosen and approached. Further schools were selected, but this still did not yield a satisfactory number of participants. Ultimately, each primary school in the two dioceses was approached. Another 17 schools agreed to participate bringing the total number of schools to 25 and potential participants to 350. Three hundred and fifty questionnaires were sent out. After four weeks only 165 had been returned.

In an endeavour to arrive at a larger sample size, and due to the fact that time was advancing, it was decided to widen the scope of the study. Instead of focussing on metropolitan Sydney alone, as originally stated, it was decided that the study would include a sample drawn from schools of six Catholic dioceses across the state of New South Wales.

There needed to be a proportion of city to country schools similar to the schools of the dioceses involved, so that the sample would be an accurate representation of the population. Therefore, the process of stratified random sampling was employed and introductory letters sent out to the principals, as had been done earlier.

The Catholic Education Offices from four additional dioceses were approached, and approval was given by them for this research to be conducted in their schools. There was a considerable time delay because two of the dioceses required time to process the researcher's application to conduct the study and grant permission. Two of these education offices required six weeks to process the research application and grant permission. Because every primary school in the first two dioceses was approached to

152 participate in the study, it was decided to approach every primary school in the next four dioceses. In approaching every school it was expected that the study could gain a suitable number of participants.

Ultimately, Fifty-two schools from six Catholic diocesan school systems agreed to participate in the study. A total of 684 questionnaires were sent out to these schools. The questionnaires were sent out as schools replied to the researcher indicating their willingness to participate in the study. Distribution of questionnaires began in June 1998 and ended in September 1998.

Factors beyond the control of the researcher may have influenced the willingness of schools and staff members to participate in the study. It was found, through comments made by school principals in their responses to the request for participation, that some schools had been “inundated” with requests for research. A small number of participants wrote comments about the length of the questionnaire. Certainly, while the length of a questionnaire may have deterred some potential participants (Cass, 1983; Dinham & Scott, 1996), all participants had the choice not to take part. Additionally, the researcher was told that some of the schools chosen for this study declined to participate due to workloads imposed by other processes such as School Reviews or other research projects and surveys that had just been completed.

3.6. Response rate Of the 684 questionnaires sent out, 372 were returned. Of these, 16 were rejected because they were not completed properly. This left 356 questionnaires suitable for use in the study and a final overall response rate of 52%.

3.7. Data analyses Once all surveys were returned, data input to an SPSS database commenced. Missing cases were coded and any reverse scoring that was necessary performed. Analysis of the data commenced once all entries were completed. Four types of statistical analysis were carried out on these

153 numeric data: descriptive statistics, factor analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. Qualitative data analysis was conducted on data from question 65 of the OCPSQ.

3.7.1. Quantitative analyses Quantitative analysis involve statistics. They are based on numeric measures or scales (Krathwohl, 1998). Generally, these involve the use of such numeric values as the scores derived from measures (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Smith & Glass, 1987). The four statistical analyses used in this study are outlined in the following sections.

3.7.1.1. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics include frequencies, percentages and means (Gay & Airasian, 2000). They are useful in summarising large amounts of data so that patterns and trends may become more obvious (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Krathwohl, 1998). They are also useful to analyse data that do not need to be examined via more powerful statistical procedures (Krathwohl, 1998).

For this study, the descriptive statistics for all variables were scrutinised. To understand the biographical data, descriptive statistics such as means and percentages sufficed. For other variables, particularly the communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress instrument items, descriptive statistics were the first in a series of steps leading to more complicated statistical work (Gay & Airasian, 2000).

3.7.1.2. Factor analysis Factor analysis is a statistical procedure that identifies relationships among large numbers of variables (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995). In terms of this study, the questionnaire items were the variables. Factor analysis attempts to link related variables together into groups that represent concepts or dimensions (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984). These groups of variables are called factors. It is through these factors that a researcher can determine the structure of the data that has been collected.

154 Factor analysis is a method of data reduction (Stevens, 1996). The conversion of many variables into fewer factors reduces the data down to a size that is useful for other statistical procedures (Benson & Nasser, 1998; Hair et al, 1995). Therefore, factor analysis was the first major statistical procedure to be carried out on the data after examining the descriptive statistics.

Items from the communication questionnaire (items 1 to 62 only), the job satisfaction questionnaire (excluding the general measure) and the occupational stress questionnaire (excluding the general measure) were factor analysed separately to determine the underlying structure of the data (Hair et al, 1995). Factors were extracted on the bases of the scree plot, eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and interpretability (Hair et al, 1995; Stevens, 1996). Factors were transformed on the SPSS database into unweighted factor scores and these were used for subsequent correlational and multiple regression procedures.

3.7.1.3. Correlational analysis Correlational analysis is the examination of data for relationships between quantitatively derived variables (Gay & Airasian, 2000). The correlation procedure used for this study was the Pearson moment as the data were ordinal and not ranked (Gay & Airasian, 2000). It was intended that unweighted factor scores would undergo correlation analysis to test the strengths and directions of the relationships among them according to the hypotheses. General measures and communication method items would also be analysed in the same way.

3.7.1.4. Multiple regression Multiple regression is a special correlational procedure that is used to predict an outcome variable by other variables. Outcome variables are referred to as dependent variables (Stevens, 1996). This kind of analysis is appropriate given the number of variables that may emerge from factor analyses and their hypothesised relationships. Multiple regression is a procedure that ensures

155 interrelationships among independent variables are taken into account when examining relationships among the range of variables (Pedhazur, 1997).

3.7.2. Qualitative data analysis Qualitative analysis is the analysis of words as opposed to numbers, which is the prime focus of quantitative analysis (Krathwohl, 1998; Smith & Glass, 1987). Question 65 of the communication questionnaire invited written responses by participants. Such a body of data can only be analysed through qualitative methods. The qualitative data may benefit this study by clarifying the nature of communication in the participating schools. It may also provide further insight into the relationships and provide some corroboration of the quantitative results (Krathwohl, 1998). The latter is referred to as triangulation, which is useful in confirming the validity of the findings of a study (Babbie, 1995; Krathwohl, 1998).

In line with much of the accepted methodology required for qualitative analysis, all written comments from item 65 were coded according to their content (Erlandson et al, 1993; Krathwohl, 1998; Smith & Glass, 1987). All comments were then cross-compared and grouped into categories according to their common themes. This was an iterative process that was repeated until a logical, concise and conceptually sound structure of data was established (Erlandson et al, 1993).

Data emerging from this analysis were then compared to the statistical results in terms of how the latter may be clarified or further explained. Some confirmation of the quantitative data was sought. The qualitative data were also looked at in their own right to see how they added to knowledge of how communication operated in the participating schools.

3.8. Chapter summary This chapter provided a description of the research methods and procedures used in the study. It was established that a combination of methods should be used. While the main findings of the study would evolve from quantitative

156 data, some qualitative data would also be included to add depth to the findings and triangulate the results. It was also established that the study would be correlational in nature.

The stratified sampling method to be used was described and explained. The data collection method of the mailed survey was explained in terms of the development of the questionnaire components and the logistics involved in its distribution, collection and return. Finally, the methods of data analysis (descriptives, factor analysis, correlation, multiple regression and qualitative analysis) were explained. The following chapter presents the results of the study.

157 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSES AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

4.1. Introduction This chapter comprises a description of the data and the results of the statistical analyses that were conducted as part of the study.

The data were collected from the questionnaire that was described in the previous chapter. The returned forms were examined to determine their suitability for analysis. Unusable questionnaires were eliminated. Data from the questionnaires were entered into an SPSS database. Initial analyses of the data were used to produce demographic statistics for the sample of this study as well as general descriptives of the data. The data were also investigated in terms of missing cases, the means of items, and underlying patterns.

Following this initial work, factor analyses were conducted on the organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress sections of the questionnaire. Factor analyses were applied, as data reduction, to identify variables that could represent aspects of communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress. This was followed by correlation and multiple regression analyses. Correlation and multiple regression were used to investigate relationships between aspects of organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress.

This chapter concludes with a summary of the findings of this study.

4.2. Analysis of the data Data from the questionnaires were entered into an SPSS database. Once entered, certain job satisfaction items were reverse scored as suggested by the author of the TJSQ (Lester & Bishop, 1997). Frequencies and descriptive statistics were then generated in order to summarise the data. These statistics were condensed into Tables (See Appendix 4.1).

158

The purpose of summarising data is for the researcher to be able to examine and make sense of what are essentially many numbers (Welkowitz et al, 1988). By summarising the data, one is able to identify patterns that might serve to make trends clearer to the reader (Cass, 1983). It is necessary for a researcher to know how the subjects responded to certain questions, as well as what the means were for various questions before any analysis. It is also necessary for the researcher to know what the response rates were for certain items on a questionnaire. Such information may influence any decisions to include items in subsequent analyses.

The examination of the data included missing responses. This was because a high proportion of missing entries for a question might indicate a problem with the question or the instrument. Explanations were sought for items with comparatively numerous missing entries. Data were also examined in terms of the means of items and patterns or trends.

4.2.1. Demographic data The data for the demographic section of the questionnaire were characterised by a high response rate. There were very few missing responses. The exceptions were "Number of years teaching" and "Number of years teaching at current school" for which comparatively large percentages of missing responses were found (6.7% and 5.3% missing responses respectively). Closer examination of the data revealed that a majority of the missing responses were from non-teaching staff. The question did ask respondents to indicate their years of teaching experience and years they have been teaching at their current school. This was an oversight on the part of the researcher, who anticipated that non-teaching staff would interpret the questions as "years of working experience". However, many non-teaching respondents simply skipped the question, perhaps assuming they were not meant to answer it because the question referred to 'teaching'.

159 4.2.1.1. The sample The summary statistics for the demographic items were analysed to provide background information about the participants in this study. What follows is a description of the sample from the data analysis of the variables "Sex", "Age", "Number of years teaching", "Years teaching at this school", and "Position at current school".

The 356 respondents were from 52 schools across 6 of the 11 Catholic diocesan school systems in New South Wales. They were from a wide geographical area, covering most regions of New South Wales including the coastal, outback, mountain and urban/metropolitan areas.

It was intended that the sample would be representative of the total population. In this way one can be more confident about having results that could be generalised to the whole population. The proportion of metropolitan schools to country (non-metropolitan) was similar to the proportion that existed for the total number of schools in the six dioceses. There were slightly more metropolitan schools. A breakdown of the sample is presented in Table 4.1. The statistics for the six dioceses were obtained from the Catholic Education Commission (1998).

Table 4.1: Proportions of metropolitan and country schools School Sample Total for the 6 Dioceses Number Percentage Number Percentage Metropolitan 23 46% 84 42% Country 27 54% 115 58% Total Schools 50 100% 199 100%

Stratified sampling had been carried out to ensure as accurate as possible a proportion of schools according to student numbers. Although, all schools in the six dioceses were eventually approached, it is worth noting that the proportions of school sizes for the schools participating in this study were similar to those for schools of the six dioceses as a whole. The larger schools

160 (601+ students) were slightly under-represented. Table 4.2 shows the proportions of school sizes within the sample and for the total schools in the 6 dioceses.

Table 4.2: Proportions of schools of varying size Type of Sample Total for the 6 school by Dioceses size Number Percentage Number Percentage 0 - 300 28 56% 113 56.8% 300 - 600 20 40% 73 36.7% 601 + 2 4% 13 6.5%

4.2.1.2. Gender The statistics for gender of the sample are presented in Table 4.3 below. A majority of the participants was female, which was typical of the population of the six dioceses. It is well known that there are relatively few males in the primary teaching profession compared to females. This ratio was even more pronounced for non-teaching staff. Only one of the 41 non-teaching staff members was male.

Table 4.3: Gender distribution of the sample Sample Total for the 6 Dioceses Gender Number Percentage Number Percentage Males 49 13.8% 695 15.2% Females 305 85.7% 3877 84.8% Unstated 2 0.5% n/a n/a TOTAL 356 100% 4572 100%

161 4.2.1.3. Age A majority of the sample was aged between 31 and 50 years of age. Just less than one quarter of the sample was aged 20 - 30 years. The smallest age group was of those aged 51 or more years. No age population statistics were available from either the Catholic Education Offices or the Catholic Education Commission. Therefore, a comparison with the total population of staff from all six dioceses was not possible. The statistics are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Age distribution of the sample Age Number Percentage

20 - 30 84 23.6% 31 - 40 109 30.6% 41 - 50 102 28.7% 50 + 58 16.3% Unstated 3 0.8% TOTAL 356 100%

4.2.1.4. Years of experience Table 4.5 comprises a comparison of the statistics for years of experience for this sample with the total teachers from the 6 dioceses. Staff who had 16 or more years of experience comprised the largest group. This distribution of years of experience matched that of the population of Catholic primary school teachers in the six dioceses according to the Catholic Education Commission (1998). Unfortunately, no statistics for years of experience were available that combined teachers and non-teaching staff.

162 Table 4.5: Work experience distribution of the sample Years of Total for the 6 Experience Sample Dioceses* Number Percentage Number Percentage 0 - 5 67 18.8% 543 15.9% 6 - 10 61 17.1% 610 17.9% 11 - 15 54 15.2% 684 20.0% 15 + 150 42.1% 1581 46.2% Unstated 24 6.7% n/a n/a TOTAL 356 100% 3418 100% * Statistics are for teachers only. No statistics were available from the Catholic Education Commission for either non-teaching staff or all staff.

4.2.1.5. Years of experience at current school As shown in Table 4.6, more than half of the sample were in their first five years of employment in their current school. The next largest category was 6 - 10 years. Smaller numbers reported that they were in either the 11 - 15, or greater than 15 years categories.

Table 4.6: Years at current school statistics of the sample and staff from the 6 Dioceses combined Years at current Sample Total for the 6 school Dioceses* Number Percentage Number Percentage

0 - 5 196 55.1% 1962 57.4% 6 - 10 79 22.2% 792 23.2% 11 - 15 28 7.9% 384 11.2% 15 + 34 9.6% 280 8.2% Unstated 19 5.2% n/a n/a TOTAL 356 100% 3418 100% * Statistics here are for teachers only. No statistics were available from the Catholic Education Commission for either non-teaching staff or all staff.

The statistics for the sample are similar to those for all teachers in the six dioceses. Again, statistics for total staff, including non-teaching, were not

163 available from either the Catholic Education Offices or the Catholic Education Commission.

4.2.1.6. Employment position While a variety of employment positions were represented in this study, a great majority of the subjects consisted of classroom teachers. The next largest group consisted of school executives. Teacher Aides accounted for a relatively small 3.9% of the overall sample, and 7.6% were non-teaching staff. Non-teaching staff could be office secretaries, library assistants, paid canteen supervisors, paid maintenance workers and school psychologists. A breakdown of the statistics for employment position is presented in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7: Position at current school statistics of the sample and the of total staff in the 6 Diocese Sample Total for the 6 Dioceses Position Number Percentage Number Percentage

Teacher 233 65.4% 2739 59.9% Executive 81 22.8% 679 14.9% Teacher Aide + 41 11.5% 1154 25.2% Non-Teaching* Unstated 1 0.3% n/a n/a TOTAL 356 100% 4572 100% * Teacher-aides and non-teaching staff are classed together by the Catholic Education Commission as "ancillary staff".

Compared to the employment configuration for the six dioceses, the proportion of teachers in the sample was slightly greater. There were more executive staff in the sample than in the population. Teacher-aides and non- teaching staff were somewhat under-represented.

4.2.2. Organisational communication items Statistics for the organisational communication items are presented in Appendix 4.1. (Table A4.1f) What follows is an outline and explanation of

164 missing responses for the communication items and a discussion of the means.

There were not many missing cases for these items. Missing cases were limited to no more than 2, with one exception. The communication item with the comparatively high number of missing responses was "The principal is autocratic". There were 15 missing entries for this item (4.2% of cases). Twelve of these missing cases were teachers. The others were an executive member, a teacher's aide and a non-teacher. It may be (somewhat disappointingly) that the respondents did not understand what the word "autocratic" meant and, therefore, were not able to respond. Alternatively, some respondents might have wanted to avoid writing something negative about their principals even though their anonymity was assured.

In the communication methods section (Questionnaire items 63 and 64), items that had more missing cases compared to others were extent of use items: "Intercom / P.A. system", "Handbook", "Telephone" and effectiveness items: "Intercom / P.A. system", "Handbook", and "Telephone".

These three methods of school communication were not frequently used or absent altogether (as indicated in Table A4.1g of Appendix 4.1). Respondents may have skipped the items assuming that if a communication method was not used at their school there was no need to indicate its effectiveness. There were certainly more missing cases for effectiveness of "Intercom / P.A., "Handbook" and "Telephone" than for others.

An examination of the means for each of the organisational communication items revealed that the majority (37) had means between 3.00 and 4.00. Twenty items had means above 4.00. Of these, eight were related to horizontal communication. Examples include “Staff members express feelings about work issues to one another” (4.27) and “As a staff we help each other to get through the day” (4.23). Another eight items concerned upward communication. Examples include “The principal is willing to listen to staff” (4.24) and “Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news”

165 (4.17). Also, four items were concerned with downward communication, for example, “The principal communicates openly to staff” (4.07).

Five items had means below 3.00. Four were concerned with communication load, for example, “The principal sends too many messages” (2.28) and “There is too much information from other staff” (2.37). This indicates that for the staff members who participated in this study, a majority was not experiencing excessive communication load. The other item “The principal is autocratic” (2.29) concerned directive communication.

Items 63 and 64 in the communication section of the questionnaire concerned methods of communication used in schools. Item 63 listed a number of methods of communication; staff meetings, informal meetings, pupil delivered messages, notes/memos, bulletin boards, intercom/P.A. system, handbook and telephone. Respondents were asked to rate these methods in terms of extent of use on a scale ranging from “rarely used” to “used very frequently”. Item 64 asked respondents to rate the same communication methods in terms of their perceived effectiveness on a scale ranging from “rarely effective” to “very effective”. There was provision in both questions for respondents to include other methods of communication. No additional methods were identified in either question.

Table 4.8 shows the means and rankings of the methods of communication for the schools in terms of extent of use and perceived effectiveness.

166 Table 4.8: Means for methods of communication, extent of use and effectiveness Communication Extent of use Extent of use Perceived Perceived methods mean rank effectiveness effectiveness mean rank a. Staff meetings 4.58 1 4.46 1 b. Informal meetings 3.42 4 3.93 2 c. Pupil delivered messages 3.19 5 3.47 5 d. Notes / memos 3.57 3 3.77 4 e. Bulletin boards 4.13 2 3.86 3 f. Intercom / P.A. system 2.82 6 3.21 6 g. Handbook 2.18 8 2.32 8 h. Telephone 2.29 7 2.88 7

Staff meetings were the most extensively used method of staff communication for the schools in this study. The second was bulletin boards. The least used method was the handbook.

The effectiveness of the communication methods, as perceived by the participants, were closely matched to their extent of use, in terms of ranking. This was confirmed by a correlation analysis, the results of which are presented in Table A4.2 of Appendix 4.2. The extent of use for any given method of communication correlated most highly with the perceived effectiveness of that method and substantially less with others methods.

4.2.3. Job satisfaction items Examination of the Job satisfaction items revealed 22 items with missing responses. The number of missing responses ranged from 1 to 3. No further investigation was warranted. Attention was then turned to the means of the job satisfaction items.

Recall that respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each of fifty-one statements describing aspects of work on a 1 to 5 scale. The means for the job satisfaction items are presented in Table A4.1i of Appendix 4.1.

167

For the job satisfaction section of the questionnaire a majority of the means (27) were above 4.00. The means ranged from 1.86 to 4.56 with a majority above 4.00. Of the items with higher means, 15 were concerned with extrinsic sources of job satisfaction such as the principal's supervisory behaviour, relations with colleagues and staff-student relations. The other items represented intrinsic sources, such as the chance to innovate, interesting work and job autonomy.

The mean for the general job satisfaction item (Question 51) was 4.13 (See Table 4.1j of Appendix 4.1), indicating that, in general, a majority of respondents were satisfied with their jobs.

4.2.4. Occupational stress items There were only eight occupational stress items with missing cases. No occupational stress item had more than five missing responses.

Responses were on a scale from 1 to 5. The means for all of the job satisfaction items are presented in Table A4.1k of Appendix 4.1.

There was no mean above 2.81 for these scales. The two highest means were from items related to student behaviour and discipline. The mean for the general stress item was 2.40 (See Table 4.1l, Appendix 4.1). This suggests that, generally, the respondents were experiencing mild to moderate job stress.

4.3. Factor analyses The principal aim of this study was to investigate relationships between organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress. Factor analyses were conducted to effect data reduction and to identify specific underlying factors. The factor analyses were performed using the principal axis procedure for extraction with varimax rotation on the organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress sections of the

168 questionnaire separately. For these analyses, eigenvalues greater than 1.00, examination of the scree plot and interpretability of the new 'factors' were the criteria used for extraction.

Principal axis factoring was used as an exploratory technique. While the researcher had some idea of what the constructs might be, and what the factor structure might look like, based on a review of relevant literature, there was no certainty that the anticipated factors would, in fact, emerge. This approach was applied to the job satisfaction and occupational stress instruments as well as the organisational communication instrument. Although these two instruments had been used in other studies and factor structures established in repeated studies (McCormick 1997b; Lester 1987), the context of this study was different and there was the additional possibility of structural change due to altered wording and addition of new items to those instruments.

4.3.1. Factor analysis of the organisational communication items The initial principal axis factoring of the items with varimax rotation generated a factor structure that was not conceptually sound. The main problem was that the first 'factor' was very large and difficult to interpret. It contained 30 items, many relating to a number of different hypothetical constructs such as directive communication, upward communication, supportive communication and involvement in decision making. A few other items were not related to any of these constructs and their omission did not improve the interpretability of the factor. The result of the initial factor analysis is presented in Appendix 4.3.

Closer examination of the items suggested that this 'factor' was a conglomeration of two or more correlated factors and that varimax rotation may not have been appropriate. While varimax rotation can yield factor solutions that are interpretable, it is orthogonal and, as such, assumes that factors are independent. Of the many dimensions represented by the communication scales, some or all could, arguably, be correlated to some degree. If the communication dimensions were correlated, use of varimax rotation might be inappropriate (Ferguson & Takone, 1989).

169

This consideration, and the need to arrive at a better factor solution, led to the consideration of an oblique rotation solutions (Hair et al, 1995). Oblique rotation is used when the researcher is looking for a solution with factors that are correlated (Benson & Nasser, 1998; Hair et al, 1995; Stevens, 1996). A direct oblimin rotation was used for the next factor analysis of the communication scales.

The use of principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation yielded an interpretable factor solution. The first factor had considerably fewer items and was easier to interpret. Nevertheless, there were some factors with items that did not appear to fit well. These items were omitted and the process repeated until a 'best' solution was obtained.

Three communication items were, ultimately, omitted from the factor analysis and, hence, from the rest of this study. They were "The principal sends out more information than staff can deal with", "Staff members do not withhold personal information when talking socially" and "Staff members have opportunities to meet and discuss issues". These items had low communalities (less than 0.40), so their removal was acceptable (Benson & Nasser, 1998; Hair et al, 1995).

The final factor solution consisted of ten factors. Together these accounted for 58% of the variance. This solution was checked using the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1.00. The scree plot suggested that the solution was reasonable. (see Figure 4.1 below). Most importantly, all of the factors were interpretable.

170

Scree Plot 30

0 Eigenvalue 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58

Factor Number

Figure 4.1: SPSS Scree plot for the 10 factor solution for communication items

Each of the identified scales was then submitted to an alpha reliability analysis. The factor solution for organisational communication, with alpha reliabilities, is presented in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Factor solution for organisational communication items including factor loadings and reliability coefficients

Factor / Item / (Reliability coefficient) Loading

Factor 1: Vertical openness of communication (α = 0.95) 52 The principal is truthful .83 07 The principal communicates honestly to staff .80 12 The principal communicates openly to staff .80 03 The principal is willing to listen to staff .75 15 Staff can approach the principal with personal information .74 59 The principal is warm and considerate .72 26 Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news .67 30 Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what .63 is going on 47 The principal gives staff ‘the whole story’ when discussing issues .63

171 Table 4.9 continued… 09 Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times .59 24 The principal reveals his/her true feelings about issues .59 41 The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles .58 50 The principal is actively involved in the induction of new staff .50

Factor 2: Horizontal supportive communication (α = 0.89) 51 Staff members at this school support one another .75 32 Staff at this school can approach one another .74 06 Staff members at this school share personal information .72 54 The staff at this school talk to one another when they have a problem .70 08 Staff tend to give supportive comments or feedback to other staff .69 members 11 As a staff we help each other to get through the day .66 42 The staff at this school make each other feel they are part of a team .63 19 Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally .57 02 Staff members express feelings about work issues to one another .51 20 Staff members receive enough information from one another .49

Factor 3: Directive communication (α = 0.61) 53 The principal tells staff how things are to be done .70 40 The principal often directs work .61 18 Information about this school’s goals and mission comes from the .46 principal

Factor 4: Access to communication channels (α = 0.84) 13 Staff at this school have ample opportunities to see the principal about .83 work issues 01 There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues .81 04 Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about .60 his/her work 05 The principal sets times when staff can meet with him/her to discuss .59 things without interruptions 35 Staff members have ample opportunities to meet and discuss work issues .55 with one another

172 Table 4.9 continued…

Factor 5: Cultural communication (α = 0.81) 43 Staff members show new staff ‘the ropes’ .79 31 Staff members inform new staff about the school’s past achievements .76 62 Staff members inform new staff about the school’s mission .72 23 Staff members give new employees information about how things should .67 be done at this school 44 Staff members tell new staff stories about people or past events in the .50 school 34 The principal supplies information about how things are done around here .36

Factor 6: Vertical load of communication (α = 0.45) 14 The principal gets more information than he/she can handle .55 45 The principal sends too many messages .44

Factor 7: Upward supportive communication (α = 0.85) 28 Staff give moral support to the principal -.91 16 Staff members give emotional support to the principal -.78 27 Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal -.66

Factor 8: Downward supportive communication (α = 0.94) 61 The principal is encouraging -.91 48 The principal compliments staff -.88 22 The principal provides staff with positive feedback -.84 49 The principal indicates staff input in decision making is valuable -.77 33 The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile -.72 57 The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which -.64 they are not confident

Factor 9: Adequacy of information (α = 0.63) 46 Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do .55 their jobs 58 Information that comes from other staff members is reliable .52 37 The information staff members send to the principal is usually accurate .45 *60 There is too much information from other staff .37

173 Table 4.9 continued…

Factor 10: Democratic communication (α = 0.85) 38 The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues .77 17 The principal asks for input from staff on policy issues .75 39 The principal listens to suggestions from staff .74 21 Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review .66 aspects of the school’s organisation 25 There are times when staff can speak to the principal .59 29 Staff are able to influence the principal’s decisions .49 *55 The principal is autocratic .42 * Indicates reverse-scored items

The first factor, named Vertical openness of communication, had an eigenvalue of 21.99 and accounted for 37% of the variance. This factor contained items that were concerned with the openness of communication between the principal and the staff. As discussed in the literature review, openness refers not only to the freedom of information flow, but also to honesty and low levels of distortion of communication. The openness is referred to as 'vertical' because the items refer to both upward and downward communication flow. Upward openness is accounted for by items such as "Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news" and "Staff can approach the principal with personal information". Downward openness is accounted for by items such as "The principal communicates openly to staff" and "The principal gives staff 'the whole story' when discussing issues".

There are some items that appear, at first sight, to be not directly about openness of communication between the principal and the staff, but do fit well within that factor anyway. The inclusion of "The principal is warm and considerate" is explainable as behaviour consistent with vertical openness. Consideration and warmth are attitudes that may be communicated downward by a principal and are less likely to manifest themselves where vertical lines of communication are not open.

174 Items "Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what is going on" and "The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles" are explainable within this factor as a consequence of openness. If there is open communication between the principal and staff, the staff members are likely to have enough information to do their jobs, because pertinent information is not withheld.

Although “The principal is actively involved in the induction of new staff” was originally composed as a culture item, it fits well among the other items when viewed as principal behaviour associated with vertical openness of communication. If a principal is involved in the induction of new staff there are likely to be many opportunities for the exchange of information from the principal to the new staff and vice versa.

In multivariate statistical research such as this, it is not uncommon for items that load highly on one factor to cross-load significantly on other factors (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984; Hair et al, 1995). This is not problematic, as oblique rotation acknowledges that factors will be correlated (Hair et al, 1995; Stevens, 1996). Notwithstanding, cross-loadings should be investigated (Hair et al, 1995). Hence, for each factor explained in this study, significant cross- loadings are reported and analysed. Loadings are included in parentheses next to the relevant items.

A number of items cross-loaded on Vertical openness of communication. These items were investigated in terms of their association with this factor. The items "The principal is encouraging" (0.63), "The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which they are not confident" (0.60), "The principal provides staff with positive feedback" (0.57) and "The principal compliments staff" (0.53) all have elements of supportive communication from the principal. This suggests that openness is related, to some extent, with supportive communication.

The items "The principal indicates staff input in decision making is valuable" (0.63), "The principal listens to suggestions from staff" (0.61), "The principal

175 indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile" (0.60), "The principal listens to suggestions from staff" (0.59) and "The principal asks for input from staff on policy issues" (0.54) are related to the principal allowing staff to contribute to decision making. This suggests that Vertical openness of communication is associated with some aspects of democratic communication between the staff and the principal.

Items "There are times when staff can speak to the principal" (0.57), "Staff at this school have ample opportunities to see the principal about work issues" (0.53) and "There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues" (0.50) are related to opportunities to see the principal. These items are probably associated with this factor because opportunities to interact with the principal are consistent with openness and approachability of the principal in terms of communication.

The item "Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal" (0.56) is clearly concerned with the honesty of staff interactions with the principal. As open communication is underpinned by honesty, this cross- loading is understandable. The cross-loading of "Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs" (0.52), is understandable because openness allows for information to be exchanged between the principal and the staff. Without vertical openness information is more likely to be restricted.

The second factor had an eigenvalue of 4.79 and accounted for 8% of the variance. It was named Horizontal supportive communication. The items of this factor describe support given by staff members to one another. The item "Staff at this school can approach one another" fits logically with the factor. If staff members are supportive of one another, then they must be able to approach one another. The same explanation applies to "Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally".

The items "Staff members at this school share personal information" and "Staff members express feelings about work issues to one another" are linked

176 to supportive communication, but also imply openness among staff. In a closed climate, people might probably feel less free to discuss work, personal issues or engage in any Horizontal supportive communication. The same explanation applies to "Staff members receive enough information from one another". "The staff at this school make each other feel they are part of a team" is also related to horizontal support as teamwork usually involves support from others.

Only one item cross-loaded with this factor. "Staff members show new staff 'the ropes'" (0.56). This makes sense because the item represents another form of peer support.

Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 2.51 and accounted for 4% of the variance. It was interpreted as Directive communication. During the conceptual framework development stage of this study a dimension termed "Directive communication" was proposed. Two of the questionnaire items (“The principal often directs work” and “The principal tells staff how things are to be done”), that were written to represent directive communication, loaded on this factor. "Directive communication" is concerned with direct instructions given to the staff from the principal as a way of gaining their compliance.

Items "The principal tells staff how things are to be done" and "The principal often directs work" are consistent with this factor. "Information about this school's goals and mission comes from the principal" was originally written as an item for the proposed construct called 'Downward democratic communication'. However, it fits well within this factor because goal and mission sharing may come about as a consequence of direction or vice versa.

The fourth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.64 and accounted for 2.78% of the variance. It was named Access to communication channels. Four of the items concerned opportunities to communicate with the principal. One item was concerned with staff having ample opportunities to discuss work issues. The factor was named Access to communication channels because the items

177 dealt with convenience of communication in either the vertical or horizontal channels.

Several items cross-loaded on this factor. Two Items, "The principal communicates openly to staff" (0.56) and "The principal is willing to listen to staff" (0.55) were about open lines of communication between the staff and the principal. Their association with Access to communication channels makes sense because they represent examples of behaviour that may be expected when access to communication channels is well established at a school. The items "Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what is going on" (0.55) and "Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times" (0.53) also suggest adequate access to channels.

It is understandable that the item, "There are times when staff can speak to the principal" (0.58) is associated with Access to communication channels as it relates to access to the upward channel. The cross-loading of "The principal provides staff with positive feedback" (0.51) makes sense because staff members must have access to channels of communication when the principal provides feedback.

The fifth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.61 and accounted for 2.5% of the variance. It was named Cultural communication. This factor consisted of items that had, originally, been constructed for the proposed dimension "Horizontal cultural communication" ("Staff members show new staff 'the ropes'", "Staff members inform new staff about the school's past achievements", "Staff members inform new staff about the school's mission", "Staff members give new employees information about how things should be done at this school" and "Staff members tell new staff stories about people or past events in the school"). The item, "The principal supplies information about how things are done around here" was constructed for the proposed dimension called "Downward cultural communication".

178 The participants in this study appear to have perceived cultural communication as a single dimension and not the two separate constructs proposed by the researcher. The factor is about the passing on of cultural information among staff members and the principal.

Two items that cross-loaded with this factor, "The staff at this school make each other feel that they are part of a team" and "Staff members at this school support one another" (0.60 and 0.51 respectively), related to team-building and support among staff members. The cross-loadings are understandable because support and team-building may be associated with such cultural behaviours as showing staff 'the ropes' and sharing information about how the school works.

The sixth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.49 and accounted for 2.5% of the variance. It consisted of two items, "The principal gets more information than he/she can handle" and "The principal sends too many messages". The factor was named Vertical load of communication because one item concerned communication traffic from the staff to the principal while the other item dealt with downward load of communication. It was decided to retain this factor despite a relatively low alpha reliability of 0.45 as it was theoretically and conceptually consistent. The relatively low alpha reliability coefficient may be partly explained by the small number of items. There were no noteworthy cross-loadings of other items on this factor.

The seventh factor had an eigenvalue of 1.18 and accounted for 2% of the variance. It was termed Upward supportive communication. This factor was a dimension conceptualised by the researcher and contained two of the items specifically created for the construct, "Staff members give emotional support to the principal" and "Staff give moral support to the principal". The third item, "Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal" was originally written to represent the construct "Upward openness" proposed by the researcher. However, it fits logically within this factor. If staff members are giving support to the principal they are likely to have a positive relationship.

179 Honesty is a logical consequence of good relations between people, and vice versa.

A number of items cross-loaded on to this factor. Items "Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news" (-0.58), "Staff can approach the principal with personal information" (-0.57), "The principal communicates openly to staff" (-0.55), "The principal communicates honestly to staff" (-0.53) and "The principal is willing to listen to staff" (-0.51) are related to openness of communication between the principal and staff. Upward supportive communication would be unlikely unless the vertical lines of communication were open. Therefore, the cross-loadings are logical.

"The principal provides staff with positive feedback" (-0.54), "The principal is encouraging" (-0.54), "The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which they are not confident" (-0.51) and "The principal compliments staff" (-0.51) all represent aspects of supportive communication from the principal to staff. If a principal is receiving support from staff members, one could expect that supportive communication is being reciprocated from the principal. The cross-loadings are logical when viewed in these terms.

The items "The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues" (-0.52), "The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile" (-0.50) and "The principal indicates that staff input in decision making is valuable" (-0.50) are to do with staff members making contributions to school decision making. If the lines of communication are sufficiently open that upward support is given, then it is likely that other forms of communication will also flow upward. Therefore, the cross-loadings are understandable.

"Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about his/her work" (-0.55) was originally written to represent Upward supportive communication, but loaded highest on "Access to communication channels". It would appear that “opportunities” evoked the prime response. "The staff at this school make each other feel that they are part of a team" (-0.55) may

180 represent a consequence of Upward supportive communication. As giving support is consistent with the notion of teamwork, the cross-loading is understandable. Staff members who are supportive of their principal are likely to be supportive of one another and teamwork would be associated with this.

Factor 8 had an eigenvalue of 1.17 and accounted for 1.98% of the variance. It was named Downward supportive communication and was another dimension proposed by the researcher early in the study. Four of the six items ("The principal provides staff with positive feedback", "The principal compliments staff", "The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which they are not confident" and "The principal is encouraging") were composed with this construct in mind. This factor is concerned with the different ways in which a principal might communicate support to staff members.

"The principal indicates that staff input in decision making is worthwhile" fits logically with the factor. Indicating that staff input is valuable may be construed as a form of support. The same reasoning applies to "The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile". Both of these items were originally composed to represent the proposed dimension "Downward democratic communication".

A number of items cross-loaded with Downward supportive communication. "The principal is willing to listen to staff" (-0.68) and "The principal listens to suggestions from staff" (-0.67) may be related to downward support, in that listening is a key element in the process of giving support to someone. "The principal is warm and considerate" (-0.70) was originally created to represent this communication concept and its association makes sense. Support may be construed as considerate behaviour.

Five of the cross-loaded items concerned openness of communication between principal and staff. These were: "The principal communicates honestly to staff”, (-0.64), "The principal communicates openly to staff" (-0.63), "Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal" (-0.58) "The

181 principal is truthful" (-0.58) and "The principal gives staff 'the whole story’ when discussing issues" (-0.51). Downward supportive communication is likely to be related to open lines of communication in the vertical channels. Therefore, the cross-loadings are understandable.

Four of the cross-loaded items concerned staff getting accurate and timely information from the principal. These were: "Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what is going on" (-0.59), "Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times" (-0.58), "The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles (-0.58) and "Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs" (-0.50). This, again, is related to Downward supportive communication. Giving information about a job can also be construed as a form of supportive communication. When viewed this way the cross-loadings make sense.

The cross-loading of "The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues" (-0.65) is perhaps explainable as a positive consequence of a supportive staff environment. It has been suggested previously that listening is a key element of support.

The ninth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.15 and accounted for 1.79% of the variance. It was named Adequacy of information because the items concerned the satisfactoriness of information. The items that loaded on this factor are concerned with adequacy, accuracy and load. Information may be perceived as adequate if it is sufficient for what is needed, is accurate and is not an overwhelming load. Adequacy of communication has been conceptualised similarly in other studies (Day et al, 1998; Reyes & Hoyle, 1992).

Of all the items that loaded on this factor, "Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs" loaded highest. The items "The information staff members send to the principal is usually accurate" and "Information that comes from other staff members is reliable" deal directly with accuracy of information. If information is not accurate it cannot be satisfactory

182 for the purposes to which it will be applied and, therefore, cannot be regarded as adequate.

“There is too much information from other staff” also loaded on this factor. This item is about the overload of information from other staff members. It was originally created to represent the construct “Horizontal load”. The item was reverse scored prior to the factor analysis because it represented a negative attitude towards communication. Despite its relatively low loading (0.37), it was decided to retain it because it was conceptually consistent with the factor in the sense that an overload of information can interfere with work and is, therefore, not an adequate way of delivering information.

The tenth organisational communication factor had an eigenvalue of 1.03 and accounted for a further 1.75% of the variance. It was named Democratic communication. Democratic communication was originally proposed as three separate constructs (upward, downward and horizontal). However, the factor analysis identified a single dimension related to staff participation in decision- making processes within the school. The notions of teamwork and inclusiveness are implicit in this factor, evident in items such as “Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review aspects of the school’s organisation” and “The principle listens to suggestions from staff”.

Three items of this factor related to upward communication flow and upward influence. These were "The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues", "The principal listens to suggestions from staff" and "Staff are able to influence the principal's decisions". The item "The principal asks for input from staff on policy issues" is about the downward request for upward communication in policy development. This can be construed as democratic behaviour by the principal.

The item "Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review aspects of the school's organisation" is consistent with horizontal democratic communication. The item "There are times when staff can speak to the

183 principal" implies a democratic relationship between the staff and the principal.

"The principal is autocratic" had originally been created to represent the proposed theoretical dimension of "Downward directive communication". However, the item, which was reverse-scored, fits well with this factor because it represents undemocratic behaviour.

A number of items cross-loaded on this factor. Items "The principal indicates staff input in decision making is worthwhile" (0.72), "The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile" (0.69) and "The principal is willing to listen to staff" (0.60) are understandable cross-loadings as they are related to democratic modes of communication.

Five items that cross-loaded were concerned with honesty and openness of communication between the principal and staff. These were "Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news" (0.66), "The principal communicates openly to staff" (0.61), "The principal communicated openly to staff" (0.60), "Staff can approach the principal with personal information" (0.55) and "The principal gives staff 'the whole story' when discussing issues" (0.55). Genuine democracy in a school is likely to have these qualities.

Three cross-loaded items concerned supportive communication from the principal to staff members. These were "The principal provides staff with positive feedback" (0.59), "The principal compliments staff" (0.54) and "The principal is warm and considerate" (0.51). It is logical that a principal who espouses democratic practices is also a supporter and encourager of staff. Many staff members would probably not participate in decision-making processes unless they felt supported in that activity by the principal. The cross-loadings suggest that Democratic communication is associated with supportive communication from the principal.

Three of the cross-loaded items were about the principal giving job-related information to staff members. These were "Staff receive enough information

184 from the principal to know what is going on" (0.58), "Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times" (0.54) and "The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles” (0.52). These cross- loadings suggest that the sharing of such information at appropriate times is associated with democratic communication.

The ten factor solution was sound and interpretable. The reliability alpha coefficients ranged from 0.45 to 0.95. Six of the ten factors had alpha coefficients of between 0.80 and 0.95.

Of the ten communication factors revealed in this solution, four were identified that were similar to the theoretical ones proposed at the commencement of the study. These were Horizontal supportive communication, Directive communication, Upward supportive communication and Downward supportive communication. Another four were variations of the proposed theoretical dimensions. These are Vertical openness of communication, Cultural communication, Vertical load of communication and Democratic communication. Two unanticipated factors were Access to communication channels and Adequacy of information.

4.3.2. Factor analysis of the job satisfaction items Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was carried out on the job satisfaction scales. Varimax rotation was employed because it was suggested by the author of the instrument (Lester & Bishop, 1997). The criteria for extraction were the same as those for the communication items: eigenvalues greater than 1.00, examination of the scree plot and interpretability.

The initial factor analyses were not satisfactory. The items "I do not have the freedom to make my own decisions" and "I try to be aware of the policies of this school" were omitted because they loaded on factors for which they were not conceptually consistent. They also tended to have low loadings on those factors, and their communalities were sufficiently low to warrant omission. Results of the initial factor solution are presented in Appendix 4.4.

185

After these items were removed, a satisfactory factor solution was achieved. The result was a nine-factor solution, accounting for 58.5% of the variance. The scree test suggested that a nine-factor solution was reasonable. The scree plot for this factor solution is presented in Figure 4.2 below. The factor solution for job satisfaction items, including Alpha reliabilities, is presented in Table 4.10.

Scree Plot 16

0 Eigenvalue 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49

Factor Number

Figure 4.2: SPSS Scree plot for the factor solution for job satisfaction scales.

Table 4.10: Factor solution for job satisfaction scales including factor loadings and reliability coefficients

Factor / Item / (Reliability coefficient) Loading

Factor 1: Supervision (α = 0.94) 46 When I do a good job the principal notices .85 06 I receive recognition from the principal .81 48 The principal praises good work by staff .79 09 I receive full recognition for successful work .74 12 The principal gives me assistance when I need help .64 47 The principal explains what is expected of me .61 *38 I receive too little recognition .57

186 Table 4.10 continued... 30 The principal provides assistance for improving work .56 *17 The principal does not back me up .53 *03 No one tells me that I am good at my job .53 41 The principal makes available the resources I need to do my best .51 23 The principal treats everyone equally .50 *11 The administration in this school does not clearly define its policies .47

Factor 2: Colleagues (α = 0.83) 15 I like the people with whom I work .77 10 I get along with my colleagues .63 *27 Staff at this school are highly critical of one another .62 *37 I dislike the people with whom I work .61 *51 Other staff members seem unreasonable to me .54 42 I have made lasting friendships among this staff .53 24 My colleagues stimulate me to do better work .47 39 My interests are similar to those of other staff .42 *31 I do not get cooperation from the people I work with .34

Factor 3: Relationship with the principal (α = 0.82) *36 I receive too many meaningless instructions from the principal .60 *02 My principal turns one staff member against another .60 *33 The principal at this school is not willing to listen to suggestions .57 *44 The principal makes me feel uncomfortable .49

Factor 4: Working conditions (α = 0.81) 43 Working conditions at this school are good .77 13 Working conditions at this school are comfortable .73 *05 Working conditions at this school can be improved .56 *26 The physical surroundings in this school are unpleasant .53 *19 Working conditions at this school could not be worse .33

Factor 5: Work itself (α = 0.69) 18 My work is interesting .63 *34 I am indifferent towards my work .57 35 The work I do at this school is very pleasant .36

187 Table 4.10 continued... 14 My work provides me with the opportunity to help the students .33 *49 I am not interested in the policies of this school .32

Factor 6: Responsibility for work (α = 0.69) 28 I do have responsibility for my work .51 01 My work provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills .49 25 I am responsible for planning my work each day .48 32 My work encourages me to be creative / imaginative .47

Factor 7: Job variety (α = 0.50) *20 My work discourages originality .48 *22 My work does not provide me with the chance to try new things .37 *04 My work consists of routine activities .30

Factor 8: Feedback (α = 0.50) 08 The principal offers suggestions to improve my work .51 29 Staff provide me with suggestions or feedback about my work .44

Factor 9: Relationships with the students (α = 0.64) 16 The students respect me .80 50 I get along with the students .46 * Indicates reverse scored item

The first factor had an eigenvalue of 14.33 and accounted for 29.24% of the variance. It was named Supervision because a majority of its thirteen items were about supervisory behaviour from the principal, such as support, praise, the provision of resources, explanation of tasks and recognition.

Support from the principal was represented by items such as "The principal gives me assistance when I need help", "The principal provides assistance for improving work", and "The principal does not back me up".

188 This factor contained items that were related to recognition for work done. The items "When I do a good job the principal notices", "I receive recognition from the principal" and "The principal praises good work by staff", were about recognition from the principal. The items "No one tells me I am good at my job", "I receive full recognition for successful work" and "I receive too little recognition", could also be related to supervisory behaviour in the context of this factor.

The items "The principal treats everyone equally" and "The administration in this school does not clearly define its policies" were concerned with other facets of supervisory behaviour. If school policy is not clear, a staff member may be unsure of procedures and feel unsupported in his or her role.

The factor, Supervision was a combination of two factors from the original TJSQ (Lester, 1987; Lester & Bishop, 1997), "Recognition" and "Supervision". However, Lester reported that a similar combination of these factors occurred when the sample of that study was split and factoring was repeated (Lester, 1987).

Two items cross-loaded on Supervision. “The principal offers suggestions to improve my work” (0.42) could be thought of in terms of supervisory behaviour” and “The principal at this school is not willing to listen to suggestions” (0.41) could be thought of in terms of supervisory behaviour. So the cross-loading was understandable.

The second factor had an eigenvalue of 3.46 and explained 7.06% of the variance. It was named Colleagues, and was concerned with job satisfaction with social, personal and professional aspects of working with other staff members within the organisation. This was an almost exact replication of the similarly named factor identified by Lester (1987).

The third factor had an eigenvalue of 2.47 and accounted for 5.04% of the variance. It was named Relationship with the principal. This factor referred to

189 the general way in which a principal might relate to staff. All of the items of this factor were reverse-scored.

Aspects of interpersonal relations with the principal were identified by items such as "My principal turns one staff member against the other" and "The principal at this school is not willing to listen to suggestions". The item "The principal makes me feel uncomfortable" refers to the result of unfavourable aspects of a principal's interpersonal style.

This factor was comprised totally of items that were originally part of the Lester (1987) factor "Supervision". This suggests that staff members in this sample perceived supervision as separate from the overall relationship with the principal.

One Item, "The principal treats everyone equally" (0.50), cross-loaded on this factor. This item was part of the factor Supervision. The cross-loading was logical because how the principal treats people is consistent with relationship with the principal.

The fourth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.80 and accounted for 3.67% of the variance. It was named Working conditions. The five items referred to various aspects of the work environment such as comfort, physical surroundings and the general conditions. All five items loaded on the equivalent factor in the earlier study by Lester (1987).

The fifth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.63 and accounted for 3.33% of the variance. It was called Work itself. This factor was concerned with intrinsically satisfying aspects of the job. Three of the items, which comprised this factor, were part of an equivalent factor reported by Lester (1987). These were "My work is interesting", "I am indifferent towards my work" and "The work I do at this school is very pleasant". The other two items were in the Lester (1987) factor named "Responsibility", but are consistent with the factor.

190 The item “I am not interested in the policies of this school” is about an attitude that is consistent with involvement in the work and intrinsic motivation. For example, it is conceivable that a teacher who is enthusiastic about the job of teaching may not be concerned about school policy because of her/his preoccupation with doing the job. Because of this conceptual consistency the item was retained despite a relatively low loading of 0.32.

The sixth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.35 and explained a further 2.76% of the variance. It was called Responsibility for work and contained four items. Two of the items were directly concerned with the desire to be accountable for one's own work. These were "I do have responsibility for my work" and "I am responsible for planning my work each day". The two other items were concerned with opportunities to use a variety of skills and being creative. Giving teachers, for example, the autonomy to plan their work would open up opportunities for them to try new ideas. These two items were part of the Lester (1987) factor called "Work itself".

The seventh factor had an eigenvalue of 1.27 and accounted for 2.59% of the variance. It was named Job variety. The three items that comprised this factor were concerned with the lack of scope for originality and the routine nature of work. As all of the items were reverse-scored, the opposite of these notions had to be considered. The term "Job variety", was used to name the factor because it best encapsulated the sense of originality and job variation that were common among the items. The notion of being able to be innovative in one’s work is also consistent with this factor.

Locke (1976) identified variety as a job dimension and it has been measured as a job attribute in other studies. For example, in an Australian study, Humphrys (1981) used the concept to describe opportunities for change, variety and working with different people. The concept of job variety is similar to “Skill variety”, a job characteristic put forward by Hackman and Oldham (1975). Skill variety refers to the extent to which a job requires a variety of skills to be performed. This concept has also been used in other studies (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Orpen, 1997; Pollock et al, 2000).

191

All of the items had been part of the Lester (1987) factor called "Work itself". Clearly, the sample in this study perceived satisfaction with the work itself and Job variety as conceptually distinct from one another. The item "My work consists of routine activities" was retained despite its relatively low loading (0.30) because it was conceptually suited to the factor.

The eighth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.19 and accounted for a further 2.43% of the variance. It was titled Feedback. This marginal, two-item factor was retained because of its conceptual clarity. Both items were related to feedback about work from various sources. One was about feedback from the principal, while the other was about feedback from other staff.

Like Job variety, this was not consistent with the earlier factor structure reported by Lester (1987). The items had been part of different factors reported in that earlier study. "The principal offers suggestions to improve my work" had been part of the Lester factor "Supervision". "Staff provide me with suggestions or feedback about my work" belonged to the Lester (1987) factor titled "Colleagues". One item cross-loaded with this factor. "The principal provides assistance for improving work" (0.50) suggests behaviour related to feedback, so the association is understandable.

The ninth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.18 and accounted for 2.41% of the variance. It was named Relationships with the students. The two items that made up this factor were directly concerned with how staff members relate to students. This also differed from the factor structure reported by Lester (1987), although, both items loaded on the same factor named “Responsibility”. Apparently, the participants in this study conceived relations with the students and responsibility as two separate aspects of work in their primary schools.

These nine factors accounted for 58.5% of the variance in the job satisfaction scales. Alpha reliabilities ranged from 0.50 to 0.94. Of the nine factors identified in this study, two were replications of factors found by Lester (1984).

192 Those factors were related to colleagues and working conditions. Items from three others, Relationship with the principal, Job variety and Relationships with the students had been part of other factors identified by the earlier study (Lester, 1987). One factor, Supervision, was a combination of the earlier Lester (1987) factors "Supervision" and "Recognition". Five factors were conceptually different to the solution reported by Lester (1987). These were Supervision, Relationship with the principal, Job variety, Feedback and Relationships with the students.

The changes to the wording of the items described in Chapter 3 did not appear to undermine the validity of the job satisfaction scales. The factor structure found was, overall, satisfactory with respect to the aims of this research.

4.3.3. Factor analysis of the occupational stress items Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was performed on the occupational stress scales. The initial analyses produced four 'factors'. Of these, three were interpretable. One factor, mainly concerned with communication, was difficult to interpret due to the mix of items. Three items: "The conviction that the education system is getting worse", "The rate at which change occurs" and "Difficulty of setting and maintaining standards", did not suit the factor they had loaded on. They were items that related to issues mostly external to the school. The result of the initial factor analysis is presented in Appendix 4.5.

New factor solutions were generated by omitting those three items, one at a time, and then finally all three. The best solution was achieved when the three items were omitted. This solution is presented in Table 4.11. Alpha coefficients were generated and these are also presented in the Table. The solution consisted of four interpretable factors that accounted for 65% of the variance. Both the latent root and scree plot criteria indicated that a four- factor solution was acceptable. The scree plot is presented in Figure 4.3 below.

193

Scree Plot

0 Eigenvalue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Factor Number

Figure 4.3: SPSS Scree plot for the best factor solution for occupational stress scales

Table 4.11: Factor solution for occupational stress items including factor loadings and reliability coefficients.

Factor / Item / (Reliability coefficient) Loading

Factor 1: Student domain (α = 0.87) 15 Having to deal with students who constantly misbehave .85 20 Maintaining discipline with difficult classes .82 05 Poor attitudes of students .79 01 Difficulty in motivating students .58 17 Verbal abuse by students .56 08 Inadequate discipline in the school .53

Factor 2: Information domain (α = 0.82) 18 Inadequate means of sharing information among staff .71 11 Lack of opportunity to find out what is happening .70 14 Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making .58 02 Communication at this school .55 19 Principal’s reluctance to make tough decisions .55 06 Interruptions due to messages .42

194 Table 4.11 continued…

Factor 3: School domain (α = 0.80) 09 Lack of support from the principal .87 16 Not being appreciated by the principal .63 03 Lack of a supportive and friendly atmosphere .55

Factor 4: Personal domain (α = 0.63) 04 Feeling of not being suited to the job .66 13 Personal failings .53

The first factor had an eigenvalue of 6.06, accounted for 35.7% of the variance and was named Student domain. Student domain comprised six items that referred to student related stressors such as verbal abuse and discipline problems. Each of these items fitted well.

The second factor had an eigenvalue of 2.73 and accounted for a further 16.1% of the variance. It was named Information domain. "Information domain" consisted of the four additional items composed by the researcher for this instrument. These were "Communication at this school", "Interruptions due to messages", "Lack of opportunity to find out what is happening" and "Inadequate means of sharing information among staff". The other two items (“Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making” and “Principal’s reluctance to make tough decisions”) were from the original instrument and could be interpreted in terms of communication.

The third factor had an eigenvalue of 7.51, and accounted for 7.5% of the variance. It was named School domain. This factor concerned support and appreciation from the principal as well as the extent to which the general atmosphere of the school was supportive and friendly. The three items in this factor were found to exist in the similarly named factor in other studies in which the occupational stress scale was used (McCormick & Shi, 1999; McCormick & Solman, 1992b).

195 The fourth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.01 and accounted for a further 5.9% of the variance. It was named "Personal domain" and comprised two-items. This factor was concerned with issues that were personal in nature, such as the feeling of not being suited to the job and feelings of inadequacy or lack of preparedness for the job. A similar factor had been achieved in other studies in which this scale was used (McCormick, 1997a; 1997b; McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b).

The factor solution for the occupational stress items was satisfactory for the purposes of this study. The instrument had been developed over time before this study. The factor structure was consistent earlier studies that used the instrument (McCormick & Solman, 1992a; 1992b), with the addition of the "Information domain" which contained items designed for this study. Those items did not upset the factor structure of the scale.

4.4. Analyses of the factor means Analyses of the means of the unweighted factor scores revealed further information about the states of organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress in the participating schools. These unweighted factor scores were based on the items that comprised the factors described previously. Means and standard deviations for the factor scores are presented in Table 4.12 below.

Table 4.12: Means and Standard deviations of the factor scores Factor N Mean Std. Deviation ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION: Horizontal supportive communication 351 4.07 0.75 Downward supportive communication 355 3.97 0.86 Vertical openness of communication 352 3.94 0.75 Democratic communication 340 3.92 0.65 Adequacy of information 356 3.75 0.54 Access to communication channels 354 3.74 0.82 Upward supportive communication 355 3.72 0.80 Cultural communication 354 3.66 0.67 Directive communication 351 3.31 0.78

196 Table 4.14 continued… Vertical load of communication 356 2.63 0.75 JOB SATISFACTION: Responsibility for work 353 4.37 0.47 Relationships with the students 355 4.33 0.50 Work itself 351 4.29 0.51 Relationship with the principal 356 4.29 0.75 Colleagues 354 4.00 0.48 Job variety 354 3.83 0.73 Supervision 351 3.82 0.76 Working conditions 352 3.70 0.77 Feedback 355 3.31 0.82 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS: Student domain (stress) 347 2.33 0.89 Information domain (stress) 354 1.91 0.72 Personal domain (stress) 356 1.91 0.83 School domain (stress) 356 1.64 0.80

The organisational communication factors with the highest means were Horizontal supportive communication and Downward supportive communication. This suggests that communication with a supportive function was the most prevalent form in the participating schools. Vertical openness of communication and Democratic communication also scored highly. Vertical load of communication and Directive communication had the lowest means of the organisational communication factors. With this information it is possible to describe these schools as organisations in which communication was generally supportive, open and democratic and staff members did not experience excessive communication load.

An examination of the means of unweighted factor scores of job satisfaction suggests that the participants in this study were most satisfied with responsibility for their work, the relationships they had with students and the work itself. It makes sense that these three factors have the highest means. Two were about aspects of the real work that goes on in schools - dealing with students and some level of autonomy with regard to work. If these two factors were not prominent, one would not expect satisfaction with the work

197 itself to be high either because this factor concerns the intrinsic satisfaction obtained from planning work and dealing with the students. In their recent study of Australian schools, Scott and Dinham (2003) reported that staff members in primary and secondary schools gained the greatest satisfaction from these aspects of work.

The participants appeared to be least satisfied with feedback they received from other staff and the principal. Nevertheless, the mean was over 3.00, indicating that, generally, the participants were to some extent satisfied.

Examination of the means of the occupational stress factors revealed Student domain to have the highest mean. Information and Personal domains were the next most stressful aspects of school life for these participants. The stress domain with the lowest mean was School domain.

4.5. Correlation analyses Pearson correlations were calculated to determine the relationships between the various communication, job satisfaction and stress variables. A one-tailed test of significance was used because of the theoretical predictability of the directions of the relationships. For example, one could expect that job satisfaction variables and stress variables would be negatively related. An examination of the correlation coefficients for all of the paired variables revealed no unexpected results in terms of direction. Only moderate to strong correlations (|r| > 0.30) are discussed in this section.

4.5.1. Correlations of organisational communication factors As oblique rotation was employed in the factor analysis, a number of the communication factors were correlated. It was also stated in the literature review that no two facets of organisational communication should be considered mutually exclusive (Goldhaber, 1993; Hanna & Wilson, 1991; Wilson et al, 1986). Pearson correlations were calculated for the organisational communication factors. The results are presented in Table 4.13.

198

Table 4.13: Pearson correlations between organisational communication variables

variables on

Vertical openness of communication Horizontal supportive communicati Directive communication to Access communication channels Cultural communication Vertical load of communication Upward supportive communication Downward supportive communication Adequacy of information Horizontal .49** supportive communication Directive .04 .07 communication Access to .73** .51** .04 communication channels Cultural .47** .62** .21** .46** communication Vertical load of -.16** -.08 .17** -.21** -.02 communication Upward .72** .52** .04 .55** .45** -.09* supportive communication Downward .86** .46** .01 .70** .45** -.22** .69** supportive communication Adequacy of . 52** .55** .15** .39** .50** -.11* .52** .48** information Democratic . 81** .46** -.12* .67** .45** -.24 .64** .80** .46** communication

** p<0.01 * p<0.05 (1 tailed)

A number of communication variables correlated very highly with Vertical openness of communication. The high correlations with Downward supportive communication (r = 0.86), Democratic communication (r = 0.81), Access to communication channels (r = 0.73) and Upward supportive communication (r = 0.72) are understandable. Each of these variables is conceptually distinct, but related to the vertical flow of communication.

The correlation between Vertical openness of communication and Downward supportive communication is not surprising. Support from the principal for staff members logically only happens along vertical lines of communication. Therefore, at a school in which there is a great deal of openness between the

199 staff and the principal, one is likely to find more occurrences of supportive communication from the principal than if the vertical lines of communication were less open, and vice versa. The same explanation applies to the high correlation with Upward supportive communication.

Democratic communication relates to interactions between staff and principal. Communication practices such as staff members working with their principal on school policy and the principal asking staff for ideas or advice are consistent with vertical openness in communication. The correlation between Vertical openness of communication and Democratic communication is logical.

The correlation of Vertical openness of communication with Adequacy of information (r = 0.52) is understandable because Adequacy of information deals with the reliability and adequacy of information sharing between staff and the principal. Openness (vertical or otherwise) has been described previously as a concept involving honesty, trust and low distortion of information. Therefore, it is conceivable that these two factors are positively correlated. Higher levels of Vertical openness of communication will be associated with higher Adequacy of information and vice versa.

The correlation of Vertical openness of communication with Cultural communication (r = 0.47) is understandable because that type of communication involves some vertical flow of information (in this case 'the way things are done around here') between the principal and staff members. The relationship with Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.49) is explainable in terms of the openness implicit in horizontal communication as mentioned when the factor was described earlier. Thus, at a school where openness is a common feature of its communications, one might expect to find that both horizontal and vertical communication systems are open and vice versa.

Besides Vertical openness of communication, a number of communication variables correlated with Horizontal supportive communication. The

200 relationship with Cultural communication (r = 0.62) may be anticipated because some of the cultural information sharing happens among staff members. The correlation with Adequacy of information (r = 0.55) makes sense because that factor deals with information sharing among staff members. Access to communication channels relates to both vertical and horizontal communication flow, so the correlation (r = 0.51) is not unexpected.

Democratic communication involves sharing of information among staff members. This might be in the form of staff meetings or as distinct task- oriented groups. Whatever the case, the correlation with Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.46) is logical. A possible link of Horizontal supportive communication with Upward supportive communication (r = 0.52) and Downward supportive communication (r = 0.46) was discussed in the previous section. It is reasonable to anticipate that in a school in which Horizontal supportive communication is a regular feature of the organisational behaviour of the staff upward and downward supportive communication would also be regular features, and vice versa. Dworkin et. al. (1990) reported a similar relationship.

No significant correlations above 0.30 were found between Directive communication and any of the other communication factors. The negative direction of the very weak correlation with Democratic communication is to be expected. Directive behaviour such as a leader dictating what is to be done and how it will be done is likely to be construed as the antithesis of democratic behaviour (Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Knight, 1995).

Aside from the relationships identified with Vertical openness of communication and Horizontal supportive communication, Access to communication channels correlated with five other communication factors.

A relatively strong correlation was found between Access to communication channels and Downward supportive communication (r = 0.70). The relationship may be anticipated because access to the vertical (principal-staff) channels of communication must be clear for messages of encouragement

201 and support from the principal to flow down to staff members, and vice versa. Access to communication channels is concerned with opportunities for the principal and staff to meet. A similar explanation may be applied to the correlations with Democratic communication (r = 0.67) and Upward supportive communication (r = 0.55). Staff must have access to the principal in order to contribute thoughts on issues, influence, or give support to the principal.

The correlation with Cultural communication (r = 0.46) is logical because the communication of cultural information from other staff members or the principal requires that the receivers of that information have access to those people. The weaker, but still significant, correlation with Adequacy of information (r = 0.37) makes sense because access to horizontal and vertical communication channels is needed for staff to receive sufficient information to do a job.

Besides Vertical openness of communication, Horizontal supportive communication and Access to communication channels, a number of other communication factors correlated with Cultural communication. These were Adequacy of information, Upward supportive communication, Downward supportive communication and Democratic communication.

The correlation of Cultural communication with Adequacy of information (r = 0.50) suggests that the more accurate and adequate information is perceived to be, the higher the level of Cultural communication, and vice versa. Information about the school’s culture needs to be accurate and adequate, whether it comes from the principal or other staff. The accuracy of such information is easily confirmed once the individual matches information to organisational reality. The same reasoning applies to Adequacy of information. On the other hand, a high level of Cultural communication may encourage better Adequacy of information in terms of accuracy and adequacy. Accuracy and adequacy may, also, be perceived as aspects of an organisation’s culture.

202 The relationships of Cultural communication with Upward supportive communication (r = 0.45) and Downward supportive communication (r = 0.45) are explainable in terms of the direction of flow all three types of messages take. Cultural communication occurs along the vertical channels, as do downward and upward supportive messages. Therefore, there are opportunities to communicate cultural information at the same time as support. Cultural information may be seen as consistent with support and vice versa.

The relationship between Cultural communication and Democratic communication (r = 0.45) makes sense in terms of their possible complementary roles. As Democratic communication takes place, school practices (culture) may be discussed or changed. In the other direction, cultural information may be used during policy development or decision making. Additionally, both types of communication utilise vertical flow so the chances of both occurring simultaneously are greater. It must also be kept in mind that democracy may be embedded in an organisation’s culture (Ouchi, 1981) and that Democratic communication practices can be a sign of this.

No correlations above 0.30 were found between Vertical load of communication and any other communication factors. The directions of the weak correlations that were found were generally negative, supporting the notion of communication load having potentially unfavourable effects. The only positive relationship was with the other, arguably, “unfavourable” factor, Directive communication.

Besides Vertical openness of communication, Horizontal supportive communication, Access to communication channels and Cultural communication, Upward supportive communication correlated with three other communication factors.

The strongest among these was the correlation with Downward supportive communication (r = 0.69). This relationship is readily explained. If there is a high level of upward support for the principal, there is more likely to be a high

203 level of supportive communication from the principal to staff, and vice versa. The links between all forms of supportive communication have already been discussed.

The strong correlation with Democratic communication (r = 0.64) may be explained in terms of upward influence. If staff members can influence the principal's decisions, they are also likely to feel free to give supportive comments to the principal, and vice versa, because the relationship would be open to such interaction. The correlation with Adequacy of information (r = 0.52) is logical given that Adequacy of information deals with upward flow of communication.

Besides Vertical openness of communication, Horizontal supportive communication, Access to communication channels, Cultural communication and Upward supportive communication, two other communication factors correlated with Downward supportive communication. These were Democratic communication (r = 0.80) and Adequacy of information (r = 0.48).

The strong correlation of Downward supportive communication with Democratic communication is conceivable because of the nature of this factor. In situations when staff members are giving input to school-based decisions, it is likely that the principal would offer support and encouragement, and vice versa. In fact, one might expect that staff input to school policy and other forms of democratic communication would be less likely to happen without encouragement and support from the principal. Reporting on a similar relationship, Starnaman and Miller (1992) reasoned that staff members who are allowed to become involved in decision-making processes might perceive their principal as supportive.

The correlation with Adequacy of information can be accounted for because the factor is about whether staff members get sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs. In these situations it is possible that the principal may offer words of support and encouragement in relation to a task.

204 Adequacy of information correlated moderately with all of the communication factors except Directive communication and Vertical load of communication. The correlation with Democratic communication (r = 0.46) suggests that higher perceived adequacy of communication will be associated with higher levels of Democratic communication, and vice versa. This relationship may be explained in terms of the issues of reliability and adequacy referred to in Adequacy of information. If staff are working together with the principal to review or change aspects of the school's organisation, sufficient and reliable information is needed so that informed decisions can be made. Successful teamwork and group decision making depends on honesty and sufficient information. Democratic communication provides opportunities for the flow of accurate information, and vice versa.

4.5.2. Correlations of organisational communication with job satisfaction Pearson correlations were calculated for all of the organisational communication and job satisfaction variables and the general job satisfaction measure. These correlations are presented in Table 4.14. What follows is a discussion of the relationships between organisational communication and job satisfaction variables, then a similar discussion of the relationships between organisational communication and general job satisfaction.

205 Table 4.14. Pearson correlations for communication and job satisfaction variables

variables

Vertical openness of communication Horizontal supportive communication Directive communication t Access communication channels Cultural communication Vertical load of communication Upward supportive communication Downward supportive communication Adequacy of information Democratic communication Supervision .82** .47** .06 .69** .46** -.18** .59** .87** .47** .73**

Colleagues .41** .70** .04 .39** .54** -.12* .44** .38** .52** .36**

Relationship .74** .38** -.11 .53** .36** -.22** .52** .72** .38** .71** with the principal Working .59** .41** .09 .44** .37** -.16** .43** .53** .38** .46** conditions Work .38** .40** .06 .35** .35** -.12* .31** .42** .24** .33** itself Responsibility .28** .27** -.09 .22** .22** -.11* .19** .30** .21** .36** for work Job variety .36** .32** -.15** .30** .21** -.18** .23** .34** .19** .35**

Feedback .46** .41** -.18** .46** .41** -.05 .36** .44** .34** .40**

Relationships .19** .26** .06 .16** .21** -.14** .18** .16** .14** .16** with the students General .37** .35** .04 .34** .27** -.07 .35** .38** .23** .30** Job Satisfaction

** p<0.01 * p<0.05

4.5.2.1. Supervision and organisational communication A very strong correlation was found between Supervision and Downward supportive communication (r = .87). A high correlation such as this requires the researcher to consider whether they are two measures of the same phenomenon. This result gave support to Hypothesis 2, which predicted a positive association between supportive communication and job satisfaction.

The questionnaire items for each factor were re-examined and compared in terms of wording and conceptual similarity. There are similarities in the terminology of some items belonging to these factors. For example: "The principal provides staff with positive feedback", and "The principal is

206 encouraging" from the communication scale and "When I do a good job the principal notices" and "The principal praises good work by staff", from the job satisfaction scale.

However, they are conceptually different. This difference was emphasised in the way subjects were instructed to think about and respond to the items. For the communication part of the questionnaire the subjects were asked to rate the extent to which they thought certain communication practices occurred at their schools. In the job satisfaction section, subjects were asked to think of items in terms of how satisfied they were with aspects of their work. This difference justifies their being treated as discrete for subsequent analyses.

The correlation is logical because the communication variable is consistent with the supportive aspect of supervisory behaviour. It is reasonable to consider that higher levels of Downward supportive communication would be related to greater satisfaction with Supervision, and vice versa.

Another high correlation was found between Supervision and Vertical openness of communication (r = .82). Again, these two variables are conceptually different. Supervision includes encouragement and support given by a school’s leadership to staff members, Vertical openness of communication is about the free flow of information between the principal and the staff. One might expect that supportive and encouraging communication from the principal would be more likely when communication is more open, and vice versa.

Democratic communication correlated highly with Supervision (r = .73). One could reasonably expect that if a principal is a regular supporter and encourager he/she might also be an advocate of inclusion of staff in decision making, and vice versa. These behaviours are consistent with the more democratic styles of leadership (Stoner et al, 1994). The result offered support to Hypothesis 4, which presumed a positive association between job satisfaction and democratic communication.

207 Access to communication channels also correlated quite highly with Supervision (r = .69). The higher the levels of access to formal communication channels within the school, the higher the level of reported satisfaction with supervision is likely to be, and vice versa. This is a conceivable relationship because support and recognition involve communication. Hence, the lines of vertical communication must be fairly accessible.

The correlation between Upward supportive communication and Supervision (r = 0.59) suggests that, for the participants, higher levels of that type of communication were associated with higher levels of satisfaction with supervision, and vice versa. One of the elements of Supervision was support from the principal. It is likely that satisfaction with this aspect of work is related to opportunities for staff to convey support to the principal. The correlation offers support for Hypothesis 2.

Horizontal supportive communication correlated moderately with Supervision (r = 0.47), suggesting that higher levels of this type of communication will be associated with higher satisfaction with supervision, and vice versa. As satisfaction with supervision includes support from the school leadership, it is reasonable to presume that in an environment where school leadership is supportive, staff will also communicate support for one another. Therefore, the correlation makes sense. This association offered further support to Hypothesis 2.

The correlation between Adequacy of information and Supervision (r = 0.47) may be explained in terms of information playing an important role in supervision. Information about tasks needs to be accurate and adequate so that work can be completed successfully.

The correlation of Supervision with Cultural communication (r = 0.46) may be explained in terms of the role that the principal plays in establishing and maintaining a school culture (Kelly & Bredeson, 1991; Kottkamp, 1984; Reitzug & Reeves, 1992). This includes inducting new staff into that culture, praise and recognition for work that is congruent with the school’s culture, and

208 so on. Principal supervisory behaviours such as support, assistance and recognition may involve teaching and reinforcing cultural norms within a school. This result supported Hypothesis 3, which proposed that cultural communication would be positively related to job satisfaction.

4.5.2.2. Colleagues and organisational communication There was a strong correlation between Colleagues and Horizontal supportive communication (r = .70). This makes considerable sense. One might expect to find that, at a school in which communication among staff members frequently involves support and affirmation, staff members would be likely to report high levels of satisfaction with colleagues, and vice versa. This association provided further support to Hypothesis 2.

A moderate correlation was found between Colleagues and Cultural communication (r = 0.54). This may be explained by the horizontal aspect of Cultural communication. It is apparent that organisational culture transmission may be effected, in part, by horizontal transactions among staff members. The result provided some support to Hypothesis 3.

The correlation between Colleagues and Adequacy of information (r = 0.52) makes sense in terms of the reliability and adequacy of information that comes from other staff members. The correlation suggests that if the levels of reliability and adequacy of information that comes from other staff is high, then satisfaction with colleagues is likely to be high, and vice versa.

A moderate correlation was found between Colleagues and Upward supportive communication (r = 0.44). This relationship is logical because both variables may be interpreted in terms of support. It makes sense that, in an environment where collegiality is fostered, Upward supportive communication would be a feature of organisational communication. The correlation between Colleagues and Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.41) can be explained in a similar way. Hypothesis 2 was given further support by this result.

209 Weaker, but significant, correlations were also found between Colleagues and three other communication variables.

The correlation of Colleagues with Access to communication channels (r = 0.39) may be interpreted in terms of opportunities for staff to communicate with one another. Higher access to horizontal communication channels will be related to higher satisfaction with colleagues and vice versa. The relationship with Downward supportive communication (r = 0.38) is plausible. The two variables have the concept of support in common. It is possible that in school cultures where support is a prominent feature, there is greater likelihood that staff members get support from interaction with colleagues. If that is so, it is likely that higher levels of Downward supportive communication are related to higher satisfaction with Colleagues. The relationship with Democratic communication (r = 0.36) is also plausible. The review and change of school policy and organisation, in a democratic manner, requires collaboration among staff members. Also, this activity is likely to provide opportunities for staff interaction, and the chance to gain stimulation and, ultimately, satisfaction from work colleagues. Conversely, satisfaction from colleagues could also stimulate democratic communication activities.

4.5.2.3. Relationship with the principal and organisational communication Three communication variables correlated relatively highly with Relationship with the principal. These were Vertical openness of communication (r = .74), Downward supportive communication (r =.72) and Democratic communication (r = .71). All three associations make sense because they are all concerned with aspects of a staff member's relationship with the principal. These results gave further support to Hypotheses 1, 2 and 4.

Vertical openness of communication and Relationship with the principal are both concerned with leadership behaviours that have to do with trust, openness and honesty. Hence, if vertical openness is perceived as high, satisfaction with the relationship with the principal is likely to be high, and vice versa. Downward supportive communication refers to supportive leadership

210 behaviour. Comfortableness with and trust in the principal is likely to be related to felt support. It is not inconceivable, then, to find that higher levels of Downward supportive communication will be associated with higher satisfaction with relationship with the principal, and vice versa.

Democratic communication is partly about the extent to which the spirit of inclusiveness and team building governs the staff-principal relationship. Because this provides opportunities to interact with the principal, it is understandable that this type of organisational communication is related to Relationship with the principal. Higher levels of Democratic communication will be associated with higher satisfaction with Relationship with the principal, and vice versa.

A moderate correlation was found between Relationship with the principal and Access to communication channels (r = 0.53). The communication factor is mainly concerned with opportunities to interact with the principal. The correlation suggests that higher satisfaction with the principal-staff relationship is associated with higher levels of opportunity to interact, and vice-versa.

Upward supportive communication correlated moderately with Relationship with the principal (r = 0.52). This relationship is logical. If staff members are satisfied with their relations with the principal they are more likely to report that they are comfortable with and positive about the principal, than otherwise. Also, if staff members feel comfortable with and positive about interactions with the principal it is more likely that they would communicate support to the principal.

Three other communication factors correlated significantly with Relationship with the principal. These were Adequacy of information (r = 0.38) Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.38) and Cultural communication (r = 0.36).

Adequacy of information may be related to Relationship with the principal because both variables address issues of reliability of information. One might expect to find positive relations with the principal associated with perceptions

211 that information shared between staff members and the principal is reliable. Both variables also imply trust. Recall, from the literature review, that trust can be related to a person’s propensity to hold back or distort information (O’ Reilly 1978; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). Hence, satisfaction with the relationship with the principal could be linked to perceptions of information accuracy, and vice versa.

The correlation of Relationship with the principal with Horizontal supportive communication makes sense because both variables have to do with relationships. Horizontal supportive communication and positive relations with the principal or manager are consistent with a supportive (open) climate (Applebaum, 1976; Ross-Thomas & McTaggart, 1983). If relations between staff and principal are generally positive, then it is more likely that they will report satisfaction with Relationship with the principal. There is also greater likelihood that staff relations will be positive too. Therefore, it is conceivable that higher satisfaction with relationship with the principal will be associated with higher levels of horizontal supportive communication, and vice versa.

The correlation with Cultural communication provided further support for Hypothesis 3, and might be explained in terms of both variables involving positive relations between staff and the principal. Relationship with the principal is about issues consistent with positive relations. Cultural communication involves, in part, the principal interacting with the staff. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that higher levels of Cultural communication is likely to be associated with higher satisfaction from relationship with the principal, and vice versa.

4.5.2.4. Working conditions and organisational communication Vertical openness of communication had the strongest correlation with Working conditions (r = 0.59). The other moderate correlations were with, in descending order, Downward supportive communication (r = 0.53), Democratic communication (r = 0.46), Access to communication channels (r = 0.44) and Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.41). Weaker correlations were found between Working conditions and Adequacy of

212 information (r = 0.38) and Cultural communication (r = 0.37). The clear implication of the results is that these facets of organisational communication were perceived by the participants to be related to their working conditions. These data offered support for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

4.5.2.5. Work itself and organisational communication Work itself was found to correlate moderately with Downward supportive communication (r = 0.42) and Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.40). These results provided further support for Hypothesis 2. It is conceivable that higher satisfaction with the work itself is related to higher levels of support. Encouragement and positive feedback from the principal or other staff members may add to one’s feelings of satisfaction from aspects of one’s work. Support from peers and the principal may also assist staff to do their work well.

Weaker correlations with Work itself and organisational communication variables included Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.38), Access to communication channels (r = 0.35), Cultural communication (r = 0.35) and Democratic communication (r = 0.33). These data tended to offer further support for Hypotheses 1, 3 and 4. The results suggest that these aspects of organisational communication were perceived by the participants as somehow related to the achievement of their work goals and subsequent satisfaction.

4.5.2.6. Responsibility for work and organisational communication The only communication factor to be correlated even moderately with Responsibility for work was Democratic communication (r = 0.36). Hypothesis 4 was given further support by this finding. Democratic communication relates to staff having the power to shape the way the school is organised. Responsibility for work refers to the extent to which staff members felt they were free to direct their work. It is in terms of autonomy, therefore, that such a relationship makes sense.

213 4.5.2.7. Job variety and organisational communication There were four moderate correlations between Job variety and organisational communication factors. These were with Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.36), Democratic communication (r = 0.35), Downward supportive communication (r = 0.34) and Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.32). These results gave further support to Hypotheses 2, 4 and 5. The relationship with Democratic communication may be explained by the opportunities democratic communication practices may present for individuals to influence work practices, change the way they work and be more original about their work practices.

Vertical openness of communication, Downward supportive communication and Horizontal supportive communication may each be conceived as important for the success of innovation in schools. Work practice change and innovation requires the support of the principal and colleagues (Loucks & Zacchei, 1983; Hajnal et al, 1998), and openness along the vertical channels would assist the flow of downward support. Innovation also stimulates horizontal communication by way of professional discussion and support, and gives rise to opportunities for principals to support and encourage staff as they learn new concepts. Again, communication needs to be open to encourage honesty, support, the free exchange of ideas and the frank discussion of problems associated with changes and variations to work practices. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that greater amounts of these types of communication will be associated with higher satisfaction from job variety, and vice versa.

4.5.2.8. Feedback and organisational communication Correlations were found between Feedback and Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.46), Access to communication channels (r = 0.46), Downward supportive communication (r = 0.44) and Horizontal supportive communication (r = 0.41). These relationships offered further support for Hypotheses 2 and 5. All these communication factors provide channels through which feedback may travel from the principal or from other staff to the individual.

214

The relationship with Cultural communication (r = 0.41) is conceivable. As new staff members are socialised into the organisation, they may receive feedback about their progress or their work. The relationship with Democratic communication (r = 0.40) may exist because of the feedback staff members may receive as part of a team or in their interactions with the principal. These results tended to give further support to Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Upward supportive communication (r = 0.36) may be related to Feedback by way of the opportunity feedback from the principal provides for reciprocation, and vice versa. The relationship with Adequacy of information (r = 0.34) may be because feedback can be perceived in terms of accuracy and adequacy. It is logical to assume that low perceptions of information quality will be associated with low satisfaction from feedback, and vice versa.

4.5.2.9. General job satisfaction and organisational communication Several communication variables correlated moderately with General job satisfaction. These correlations gave further support to Hypotheses 2, 4 and 5. The highest correlation was with Downward supportive communication (r = .38). The relationship is understandable. Supportive comments from the principal are likely to be associated with a staff member’s overall satisfaction with work because such comments may lead to, or arise from, satisfactory or better work. A similar explanation applies to the correlations of General job satisfaction with Vertical openness of communication (r = .37), and Access to communication channels (r = .34).

The correlation of General job satisfaction with Horizontal supportive communication (r = .35), makes sense. Horizontal supportive communication can assist staff members with their work, thereby increasing the likelihood of job satisfaction. Conversely, Horizontal supportive communication could arise from successful and, therefore, satisfying work.

The correlation of General job satisfaction with Upward supportive communication (r = .35) may be explained in terms of positive attitudes

215 towards work. A person who is experiencing job satisfaction may be more likely to offer support to the principal. Conversely, upward support may result in a staff member feeling more positive about the workplace. The correlation with Democratic communication (r = .30) suggests that participation in decision making and other democratic practices are related to job satisfaction.

4.5.3. Correlations of organisational communication with occupational stress Pearson correlations were calculated for all of the organisational communication and occupational stress variables, and the General Occupational Stress measure. These correlations are presented in Table 4.15. What follows is a discussion of the relationships between organisational communication and occupational stress variables, then a similar discussion of the relationships between organisational communication factors and General Occupational Stress.

Table 4.15: Pearson correlations for Organisational Communication and Occupational Stress variables

variables tion

orizontal supportive

Vertical openness of communication H communication Directive communication to Access communication channels Cultural communication Vertical load of communication Upward supportive communication Downward supportive communication Adequacy of information Democratic communica Student -.19** -.06 .07 -.21** -.03 .11 -.07 -.17** -.01 -.18** domain Information -.62** -.37** .02 -.53** -.35** .18** -.46** -.54** -.41** -.54** domain School domain -.65** -.45** .10 -.48** -.32** .18** -.49** -.67** -.38** -.61**

Personal -.01 -.08 .06 -.10 -.03 .11* -.01 -.01 .02 -.05 domain General -.39** -.26** -.04 -.34** -.16** .09 -.27** -.35** -.18** -.30** Occupational Stress

** p<0.01 * p<0.05

216 No significant correlations above 0.30 were found between any of the organisational communication variables and Student domain or Personal domain. A number of high and moderate correlations were found between some of the organisational communication items and Information domain and School domain. The directions of all of these correlations were generally negative, which is to be expected given the unfavourable nature of stress.

4.5.3.1. Information domain and organisational communication A relatively strong correlation was found between Information domain (stress) and Vertical openness of communication (r = -0.62). The negative direction of the relationship suggests that the lower the level of Information domain stress the greater the Vertical openness of communication and vice versa. Open communication between staff and executive is needed to facilitate genuine information sharing within a school in terms of general information and participation in decision making. Lack of openness leads to stress from the information domain, and vice versa. This finding provided support for Hypothesis 5, which predicted a negative association between openness of communication and occupational stress.

Moderate correlations were found between Information domain and Downward supportive communication (r = -0.54), Democratic communication (r = -0.54), Access to communication channels (r = -0.53), Upward supportive communication (r = -0.46), and Adequacy of information (r = -0.41). There was a slightly weaker relationship found with Horizontal supportive communication (r = -0.37). These findings gave further support to Hypotheses 2 and 4.

It makes sense that the higher the levels of these facets of communication, the lower the reported stress from information domain are likely to be and vice versa. Each of these communication factors address aspects of information sharing related to the information domain (stress) factor.

Downward supportive communication relates to opportunities to find out what is happening and general communication within a school. Therefore, the

217 association is logical. Democratic communication is concerned with participation in decision making. Access to communication channels relates to the information domain issues, which are about opportunities to find out what is happening, and communication generally in a school. Upward supportive communication may relate to the principal's difficulty in making decisions and communication at a school generally. Adequacy of information may be related to information sharing among staff members and within the school. Horizontal supportive communication is related to the stress factor through the issue of information sharing among staff members.

4.5.3.2. School domain and organisational communication Three communication variables had relatively high correlations with School domain. These were Downward supportive communication (r = -0.67), Vertical openness of communication (r = -0.65) and Democratic communication (r = - 0.61). The negative directions of these relationships indicate that the greater the degree of these aspects of communication, the lower the school domain stress, and vice versa. These results are supported by a recent Australian study, which identified poor communication between school administration (including the principal) and staff members as a source of stress (Thomas et al, 2003). The results provided further support for Hypotheses 2, 4 and 5.

Downward supportive communication is about support and encouragement from the principal to staff members. The School domain (stress) variable incorporates stress connected to lack of support and appreciation from the principal. Hence, the negative association is logical. Vertical openness of communication may be related to School domain (stress) because the willingness of a principal to listen to staff and be approachable is consistent with staff members being appreciated and supported, and vice versa.

A principal encouraging staff to contribute their ideas on a variety of school issues, or seeming eager to listen to suggestions from staff members may be perceived as demonstrating appreciation for staff. In the light of this, it is logical that Democratic communication be related to School domain (stress).

218 The more democratic the forms of communication used, the less stress is likely to be experienced in this domain, and vice versa.

Several communication factors correlated moderately with School domain (stress). The correlation with Upward supportive communication (r = -0.49) may be explained in terms of support. Staff members may be less likely to offer support to the principal if there is not a supportive atmosphere in a school. Hence, the negative relationship between the two factors. Healthy upward supportive communication may be expected to be associated with lower levels of school domain stress, and vice versa.

The correlation of School domain with Access to communication channels (r = -0.48) suggests that higher levels of access to the communication network within a school will be associated with lower levels of reported stress in the school domain, and vice versa. This could be due, again, to the issue of supportiveness. At a school in which the principal is unsupportive, or where there is an unsupportive climate, staff members are less likely to experience discussing issues with the principal or other staff than if the opposite were so.

The correlation between School domain and Horizontal supportive communication (r = -0.45) is quite straightforward, and may be explained in terms of both variables having to do with supportiveness.

The correlation of School domain with Adequacy of information (r = -0.38) suggests that lower perceived adequacy of information is associated with higher levels of stress in the school domain, and vice versa. Inadequate or unreliable information is not consistent with the supportive school atmosphere implicit in School domain.

The same explanation applies for the correlation of School domain with Cultural communication (r = -0.32). The sharing of stories and information about the school is consistent with a supportive and friendly atmosphere. Additionally, acculturation and organisational socialisation is likely to leads to a staff member to a better understanding of the rules and norms of the

219 organisation. Therefore, it is easy to anticipate that higher levels of cultural communication would be associated with lower stress in the school domain, and vice-versa. This finding offered some support for Hypothesis 3.

4.5.3.3. General occupational stress and organisational communication Four Organisational Communication variables had moderate correlations with General occupational stress. The highest correlation was with Vertical openness of communication (r = -.39). The negative direction suggests that higher levels of vertical openness are associated with lower general occupational stress, and vice versa. As vertical openness is concerned with positive aspects of organisational life, such as honesty, trust and willingness to share information, the negative association with stress makes sense.

The correlation between General occupational stress and Downward supportive communication (r = -.35) can be explained in terms of the positive aspects of the communication factor, such as encouragement and supportive comments. Downward supportive communication could, potentially, alleviate role ambiguity and bolster confidence about work. Therefore, the negative association is logical. Higher levels of Downward supportive communication are related to lower General occupational stress, and vice versa. A similar explanation applies to the correlation with Access to communication channels (r = -.34).

The correlation between General occupational stress and Democratic communication (r = -.30) can be explained in terms of participation in decision making. Having a say on issues that influence work may give a staff member some impression of control over the demands placed on him or her. In this light it is understandable that higher democratic communication will be associated with lower general occupational stress, and vice versa. Other studies have identified participation in decision making as being related to job stress (Kyriacou & Suttcliffe, 1978; Otto, 1986). Hypotheses 2, 4 and 5 were further supported by these results.

220 4.5.4. Correlations of communication methods with organisational communication factors In the OCPSQ, participants were asked to rate certain communication methods according to extent of their use in the school and their effectiveness. A fuller description of these items was provided previously. Correlations were calculated for each of these sets with the organisational communication factors. This was done in order to investigate what relationships may exist between communication methods and facets of organisational communication.

No correlation higher than .30 was observed with the “extent of use of communication methods” items. Correlations of communication factors with the effectiveness items proved more numerous and generally were higher. Table 4.16 below shows the correlations for the effectiveness items. What follows is a discussion of these correlations.

Table 4.16: Correlations between perceived effectiveness of communication methods and organisational communication factors

tion

Vertical openness of communication Horizontal supportive Directive communica to Access communication Cultural communication Vertical load Upward supportive communication Downward supportive Adequacy of information Democratic communication Staff meetings .38** .24** .01 .30** .23** -.18** .26** .32** .26** .35** Informal .27** .22** .03 .30** .24** -.06 .25** .26** .26** .31** meetings Pupil delivered .07 .08 -.03 .14* .15** .01 .04 .07 .18** .10 messages Notes / memos .23** .14** .06 .25** .18** -.06 .12* .22** .21** .20** Bulletin boards .23** .11 -.01 .20** .21** -.13* .12* .21** .13* .23** Intercom/ P.A. .10 .07 .02 .18** .07 -.12* .03 .14* .03 .11* Handbook .11* -.05 .11* .14* .05 .04 .02 .13* -.01 .07 Telephone .17** .06 .06 .14* -.13* .03 .09 .14* .11* .13* ** p < 0.01 (2 tailed) * p < 0.05 (2 tailed)

221

4.5.4.1. Staff meetings Effectiveness of staff meetings had the most and the highest correlations with organisational communication factors. The highest was with Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.38). This is a logical relationship, as staff meetings are typical fora in which a principal may share information with staff and staff can inform the principal. It stands to reason that more effective staff meetings are associated with higher levels of vertical openness, and vice versa.

Staff meetings may also provide opportunities for democratic forms of communication to take place. They provide fora in which staff members can possibly give their input on issues or voice concerns. The relationship (r = 0.35) between staff meetings and this facet of organisational communication is, therefore, conceivable. The more effective the staff meetings are perceived to be, the higher the level of democratic communication is likely to be, and vice versa.

The third highest correlation with Effectiveness of staff meetings was Downward supportive communication (r = 0.32). This relationship is logical because staff meetings may provide opportunities for the principal to offer general encouragement and positive feedback to staff members. Therefore, higher levels of perceived effectiveness of staff meetings are likely to be associated with higher levels of downward supportive communication, and vice versa.

The correlation of Effectiveness of staff meetings with Access to communication channels (r = 0.30) makes sense. Staff meetings are a form of access to the formal communication channels because of the information shared. There are times when staff meetings are used to discuss issues for which staff member-principal dyads are not possible. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that, for the participants, the greater the access to communication channels the more effective staff meetings are perceived to be, and vice versa.

222

Weak correlations with Effectiveness of staff meetings were also found for Upward supportive communication, Adequacy of information and Horizontal supportive communication. A weak negative correlation was found between staff meetings and Vertical load.

4.5.4.2. Informal meetings A number of organisational communication factors correlated with Effectiveness of informal meetings. The strongest correlation was with Democratic communication (r = 0.31). This correlation suggests that effective informal meetings may have some role in democratic communication practices or that informal meetings may be more effective when there is democratic communication.

Formal staff meetings may not always provide the appropriate setting for staff members to have their say about certain issues. Informal meetings might be a more comfortable way for some staff members to share their opinions, especially about sensitive or contentious issues. Informal meetings may also meet a principal's need for immediate 'ground level' information. The more effectively informal meetings are used in a school, the higher the level of democratic communication is likely to be, and vice versa.

Access to communication channels also correlated with Effectiveness of informal meetings (r = 0.30). This relationship is understandable because informal meetings may provide extra opportunities for staff members to meet with the principal and other staff members about work issues.

The correlation between Effectiveness of informal meetings and Vertical openness of communication (r = 0.27) is easily explained. Effective informal meetings may encourage the open flow of communication between principal and staff. In fact, informal meetings may be a healthy sign of vertical openness of communication, because the principal may be spontaneously engaging in information sharing with staff members.

223 In the same way, Effectiveness of informal meetings may be expected to be related to Upward supportive communication (r = 0.25) and Downward supportive communication (r = 0.26). An example of an informal exchange of upward supportive communication is a staff member complimenting the principal on the way he/she had dealt with a disgruntled parent. Formal meetings are not appropriate for these types of exchanges. A similar argument applies to exchanges of downward supportive communication.

The correlation of Effectiveness of informal meetings with Adequacy of information (r = 0.26) is logical. Effective informal meetings may provide channels for staff members to receive information that is not otherwise available. Examples include a staff member needing information about a child from another teacher and the principal seeking information about a class timetable. Both require sufficient and accurate responses in order to satisfy their need for the information. Therefore, it makes sense that greater perceived effectiveness of informal meetings is related to higher adequacy of information, and vice versa. Weak, but significant, correlations were also found between Effectiveness of informal meetings and Cultural communication and Horizontal supportive communication.

4.5.4.3. Notes/memos While a small number of organisational communication factors correlated with Effectiveness of Notes/Memos, the strongest was Access to communication channels (r = .25). This relationship is conceivable, given that notes and memos are another way for staff and their principals to share information regarding some issues. Therefore, greater effective use of notes/memos will be associated with higher levels of access to channels of communication, and vice versa.

4.5.4.4. Bulletin boards Five organisational communication factors correlated with Effectiveness of bulletin boards. However, these were weak correlations. The highest was with Vertical openness of communication (r = .23). This reflects the use by principals and staff of bulletin boards to share information with one another.

224 Effective use of noticeboards may contribute to vertical openness of communication. Conversely, vertically open communication may encourage effective use of noticeboards.

4.5.4.5. Pupil delivered messages, intercom/P.A., handbook and telephone No correlations with the effectiveness measures of these methods of communication were strong enough to warrant discussion of the relationships. Each of these methods had only one (weak) correlation with an aspect of organisational communication. All correlations were below .20.

4.5.5. Communication methods and job satisfaction Correlations were calculated for each part of the Methods of Communication items with job satisfaction factors. No significant, high correlations were found between any method of communication (extent of use) and the job satisfaction factors. Stronger correlations were found between perceived effectiveness of communication methods and aspects of job satisfaction. The results are presented in Table 4.17.

Table 4.17: Correlations between perceived effectiveness of methods of communication and job satisfaction factors

Supervision Colleagues Relationship with the principal Working conditions Work itself Responsibility for work Job variety Feedback Relationships with the students General job satisfaction Staff meetings .31** .30** .34** .31** .27** .26** .20** .26** .18** .24** Informal meet. .23** .22** .19** .20** .13* .09 .06 .22 .05 .09 Pupil del. mes. .11* .12* .02 .08 .06 .14** -.02 .13* .13* .04 Notes / memos .26** .15** .17** .26** .12* .14** -.04 .15** .08 .06 Bulletin boards .27** .15** .23** .30** .16** .12* .06 .14* .05 .12* Intercom/ P.A. .09 .04 .07 .18** .04 .03 .01 .05 .06 .09 Handbook .15** .04 .04 .15** .03 .02 -.11* .12* .01 .04 Telephone .16** .07 .14** .11 .22** .21** .10 .12* .12* .09 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 (2 tailed)

225 Effectiveness of staff meetings correlated weakly to moderately with all job satisfaction factors. The highest correlation was with Relationship with the principal (r = 0.34). The latter suggests that perception of the effectiveness of staff meetings is related to the way in which an individual relates to his or her principal. The positive direction of the relationship suggests that the more effective staff meetings are perceived to be, the higher satisfaction with the relationship with the principal is likely to be, and vice versa.

The next highest correlation was with Working conditions (r = 0.31). Staff meetings may be a major source of information about what is happening at the school, about policy and about curriculum. At staff meetings, staff members may receive information that they can use to perform their job. Effective staff meetings are likely to be associated with higher levels of satisfaction with working conditions, and vice versa. This is evidence that participants in this study may have viewed communication as connected with their working conditions.

Effectiveness of staff meetings correlated moderately with Supervision (r = 0.31). This suggests that the more effective staff meetings were perceived to be, the higher the satisfaction with supervision was likely to be, and vice versa. This may be explained by good work being recognised at staff meetings. The correlation with Colleagues (r = 0.30) could be the result of the staff interaction that occurs at staff meetings. Staff meetings provide an avenue for peers to interact. However, high satisfaction with colleagues may facilitate effective staff meetings. It is conceivable, then, that perceived effectiveness of staff meetings is associated with satisfaction with colleagues.

Because work itself relates to intrinsic job satisfaction, it makes sense that Effectiveness of staff meetings is related to Work itself (r = .27). Satisfaction with the job itself may lead staff members to have more favourable attitudes to staff meetings, as they are part of the work. Conversely, effective meetings may enhance satisfaction with work itself as staff members get the information they need to do their jobs or have had issues clarified.

226 The correlation of Effectiveness of staff meetings with Feedback (r = .26) may be explained by effective staff meetings providing opportunities for feedback among staff and between staff and the principal. The relationship with Responsibility for work (r = .26) may be explained by effective meetings providing information that staff can use to carry out work properly. Such information could assist the planning of one’s own work and increase satisfaction from that aspect of work. Conversely, satisfaction with this aspect of work could incline staff members to work towards more effective staff meetings.

Effectiveness of staff meetings was the only method of communication method to correlate significantly with general job satisfaction (r = .24). Although the relationship is comparatively weak, it is possible that, for these participants, more effective staff meetings were associated, to some extent, with general job satisfaction.

Weak correlations were noted with Effectiveness of informal meetings, and Effectiveness of pupil delivered messages correlated (very weakly) with only one factor. Effectiveness of notes/memos correlated weakly with several job satisfaction factors. The highest of these were with Supervision (r = .26) and Working conditions (r = .26).

Effectiveness of bulletin boards had the next highest set of correlations after Effectiveness of staff meetings. The strongest of these was with Working conditions (r = .30), followed by Supervision (r = .27). As bulletin boards can be a source of useful or essential information to staff members the link to working conditions is not surprising. The effective use of bulletin boards may be associated with Supervision because supervisors may use this medium to convey information.

The other communication methods did not have sufficiently strong correlations with any of the job satisfaction factors to warrant discussion.

227 4.5.6. Communication methods and occupational stress Pearson correlations were calculated for each part of the Methods of communication (extent of use and effectiveness) items with occupational stress factors. The correlations between methods of communication were similar to those for job satisfaction, in that stronger correlations were found with the effectiveness measures. No correlations stronger than -.20 were found between extent of use of methods of communication and occupational stress. Table 4.18 below shows the significant correlations between methods of communication (effectiveness) and occupational stress factors.

Table 4.18: Correlations between perceived effectiveness of communication methods and

occupational stress factors

tudent S domain Information domain School domain Personal domain General occupational stress a. Staff meetings -.03 -.33** -.26** -.04 -.13* b. Informal meetings -.09 -.30** -.20** -.05 -.11* c. Pupil delivered messages -.01 -.07 -.04 -.04 .03 d. Notes / memos -.05 -.21** -.17** -.02 -.13* e. Bulletin boards -.08 -.26** -.22** -.05 -.16** f. Intercom/ P.A. -.04 -.11* -.09 -.04 -.06 g. Handbook -.03 -.02 -.02 -.07 -.07 h. Telephone -.10 .02 -.05 -.04 -.12* ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

The strongest correlations were with Information domain and School domain. This is to be expected, as both are conceptually related to communication. Information domain deals with communication generally, while the School domain communication issues are to do with support and appreciation. There were no noteworthy correlations with general occupational stress.

The correlations with Information domain were the strongest. The correlation with Effectiveness of staff meetings (r = -.33) is understandable as those meetings are generally the formal channel for announcing what is happening

228 in the school. As expected, the direction of the relationship suggests that more effective staff meetings are associated with lower information domain stress, and vice versa.

The correlation between Information domain and Effectiveness of informal meetings (r = -0.30) also makes sense because informal meetings are also times when information about curriculum, coming events and other issues are shared. The more effective the use of informal meetings, the lower the incidence of stress from the Information domain is likely to be, and vice versa. Information domain also correlated significantly, but more weakly, with Effectiveness of bulletin boards and Effectiveness of notes/memos.

School domain correlated strongest with the same communication method effectiveness items as Information domain. Given that School domain relates to aspects of communication in schools, the relationships are understandable. Staff meetings and informal meetings are occasions when the principal may show appreciation and support for staff as well as share other information.

4.5.7. Job satisfaction and occupational stress Table 4.19 shows the correlations between the job satisfaction and occupational stress variables. The direction of all the relationships between the job satisfaction factors and the stress factors are negative.

229 Table 4.19: Pearson correlations between job satisfaction and occupational stress variables

variables

ationship

Supervision Colleagues Rel w. principal Working conditions Work itself Responsibility for work Job variety Feedback Relationship w. students General Job Satisfaction Student -.24** -.11* -.19** -.22** -.31** -.11* -.17** -.17** -.35** -.17** domain Information -.56** -.34** -.53** -.51** -.31** -.15** -.23** -.38** -.16** -.28** domain School -.72** -.45** -.65** -.49** -.38** -.22** -.37** -.38** -.10 -.40** domain Personal -.10 -.15** -.09 -.14* -.37** -.10 -.22** -.12* -.24** -.29** domain General -.43** -.29** -.40** -.38** -.46** -.10* -.22** -.27** -.14** -.50** Occupat. Stress

** p<.01 * p<.05

4.5.7.1. Student domain and job satisfaction The strongest correlation with Student domain was Relationships with the students (r = -.35). This suggests that higher satisfaction with student-teacher relations is associated with lower levels of stress from students, and vice versa. This is to be expected because Relationships with the students clearly relates to issues that are consistent with Student domain.

The correlation of Student domain with Work itself (r = -0.31) makes sense. The work in primary schools involves contact with and performing tasks for the students. Additionally, for teachers, the job of teaching and helping students to achieve (work itself) has emerged in many studies as a source of satisfaction (Hill, 1987; Scott, Cox & Dinham, 1999). It is logical that higher satisfaction with the work itself be related to lower stress from the students and vice versa.

4.5.7.2. Information domain and job satisfaction Several job satisfaction factors correlated with Information domain. The highest correlation was with Supervision (r = -0.56). Supervision involves communication between the principal and staff. The information communicated may be recognition, support or explanations relating to tasks.

230 Therefore, it makes sense that higher satisfaction with supervision is associated with lower information domain stress, and vice versa.

The correlation between Information domain (stress) and Relationship with the principal (r = -0.53) may be explained by the fact that both relate to communication. Aspects of the relationships with the principal, such as perceived relevance of instructions and listening to staff are communication issues. Hence, it is conceivable that higher satisfaction with the relationship with the principal is related to lower stress in the information domain, and vice-versa.

A moderate correlation was found between Information domain (stress) and Working conditions (r = -0.51). The higher the level of reported stress from the information domain, the lower the satisfaction with working conditions is likely to be, and vice versa. This relationship suggests that the participants in this study viewed aspects of school life such as information sharing among staff, participation in decision-making processes and communication generally as being related to their working conditions.

Weaker, but still significant, correlations were also found between Information domain and Feedback, Colleagues and Work itself. It is logical that Feedback is associated with Information domain (r = -.38), because feedback involves the sharing of information between the principal and staff and among staff, which is consistent with the stress factor. Therefore, it is understandable that a lower level of stress from information domain is associated with higher satisfaction with feedback, and vice versa.

The association of Information domain with Colleagues (r = -.34) is understandable. Relationships with colleagues are unlikely to develop without adequate communication flow within the school. Therefore, it is understandable that low stress from information sharing issues within the school is related to higher satisfaction with colleagues, and vice versa.

231 The association of Information domain with Work itself (r = -.31) indicates that higher satisfaction with Work itself is related to lower stress from the Information domain, and vice versa. It could be that strong positive affect from the work itself may mitigate stress attributed to information sharing. On the other hand, stress from the information domain could possibly lead to lower satisfaction from the work itself.

4.5.7.3. School domain and job satisfaction As anticipated, a strong correlation was found between Supervision and School domain stress (r = -0.72). It is to be expected that stress attributed by staff members to lack of support and appreciation would be associated in a negative way with job satisfaction attributable to this facet of organisational life.

School domain (stress) also correlated relatively highly and negatively with Relationship with the principal (r = -0.65). Support and appreciation being key aspects of school leadership behaviour may explain the association. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that higher satisfaction with the relationship with the principal is related to lower stress from the school domain, and vice- versa.

A moderate correlation was also found between School domain (stress) and Working conditions (r = -0.49). This relationship provides further evidence that the participants in this study considered working conditions to be more than the physical surroundings and facilities. Support from the hierarchy, and the school in general, are also components of work conditions. Hence, higher satisfaction with working conditions is associated with lower school domain stress, and vice versa.

The correlation between School domain (stress) and Colleagues (r = -0.45) indicates that, for these participants, higher satisfaction with co-workers was related to lower stress in the school domain, and vice-versa. This relationship is conceivable because, fellow staff members can also contribute to, or be a part, of the school's support system.

232

The correlation of School domain (stress) and Feedback (r = -0.38) suggests that higher satisfaction with feedback is associated with lower school domain stress, and vice versa. The relationship is understandable because feedback from other staff or the principal has the potential to make one feel supported and appreciated, lessening the likelihood that one might experience stress from lack of support. On the other hand, there may be less feedback in environments that are perceived to be stressful.

A similar correlation was identified between School domain and Work itself (r = -0.38). This relationship may be explained by the intrinsic nature of the job satisfaction factor. An individual who is satisfied with the job itself and what it provides intrinsically, is less likely to be solely dependent on appreciation and support from others and is, therefore, less likely to report stress from lack of support. This argument also holds in the opposite direction. Hence, it is understandable that higher satisfaction with work itself is related to lower school domain stress, and vice versa.

The correlation of School domain with Job variety (r = -0.37) suggests that higher satisfaction with job variety is associated with lower School domain stress, and vice versa. Innovative teaching practices are likely to have a greater chance of success when support from the school and its administration is present (Hall, 1988; Hall, Rutherford, Hord & Huling, 1984; Renner, 1990). The same may apply to situations when individuals are attempting to diversify their job roles or seek more challenges. However, feelings of frustration arising from lack of support may diminish one’s enthusiasm to try new things. Inadequate support from the principal and the school in general is a source of stress conceptualised in School domain. Hence, the association between these two variables makes sense.

4.5.7.4. Personal domain and job satisfaction Work itself was the only significant correlation above -0.30 with Personal domain (r = -0.37). Higher satisfaction with the work itself was associated with lower stress in the personal domain. The relationship may arise from the

233 fit, or otherwise, between the intrinsic motivations associated with the job and the personal characteristics of the individual. It is, for example, more likely that one may experience stress from feeling unsuited to the job if one does not get satisfaction from the work itself, and vice versa.

4.5.7.5. General occupational stress and job satisfaction Five job satisfaction variables had moderate to strong correlations with General occupational stress. The strongest correlation was with General job satisfaction (r = -.50). The negative direction of the correlation suggests that higher general satisfaction is associated with lower levels of general occupational stress, and vice versa. This is to be expected because job satisfaction is an indication of positive attitudes towards work, while occupational stress relates to negative aspects of work. Previous studies have also found job stress and job satisfaction to be negatively related (Borg et al, 1991; Kyriacou & Suttcliffe, 1979; Otto, 1986; Summers et al, 1995).

General occupational stress correlated negatively and moderately with Work itself (r = -.46). It makes sense that higher satisfaction with the work itself is associated with lower general occupational stress, and vice versa. High intrinsic job satisfaction is likely to moderate the effects of stressors because of the value the individual places on the work. Conversely, higher stress may be associated with lower satisfaction from the work itself. Work itself correlated moderately with all four of the occupational stress facet variables.

The moderate negative correlation of General occupational stress with Supervision (r = -.43) can be explained in terms of the centrality of the principal’s role for others’ work in a school. Good supervision by the principal may prevent or lessen job stress. Conversely, job stress may work to lessen satisfaction with supervision, especially if the stress is partly attributed to less than adequate performance and supervisory support is not forthcoming. Other studies have found low supervisory support to be related to job stress (Miller et al, 1990; Otto, 1986).

234 General occupational stress correlated moderately and negatively with Relationship with the principal (r = -.40). The negative direction of the relationship suggests that higher stress is associated with lower satisfaction with the relationship with the principal, and vice versa. This makes sense because the relationship with the principal can influence one’s attitude to work. For example, if a staff member feels dissatisfied with the way the principal relates to him or her, this could, conceivably, contribute to job stress. Conversely, stress could influence one’s perception of the principal.

A moderate and negative correlation was found between General occupational stress and Working conditions (r = -.38). This is logical. A perception of less than satisfactory working conditions may influence job stress in terms of the adequacy of facilities or comfort. Conversely, job stress may influence one’s perceptions of working conditions. Research by Brown and Ralph (1992) identified working conditions, in terms of staff facilities, as a source of teacher stress. Punch and Tuetteman (1996) reported a similar finding.

It is worth noting that the five job satisfaction variables that correlated more strongly than |0.30| also had the highest (on average) correlations with other stress variables (particularly School domain and Information domain). This suggests that stress relating to facets of work may contribute to overall stress felt towards work.

4.6. Multiple regression analyses Multiple regression is a procedure that is used by researchers to predict a dependent variable or outcome from a set of independent variables (Hair et al, 1995; Stevens, 1996). It is appropriate for this research due to the large number of variables and their hypothesised relationships.

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine how variables, such as those associated with job satisfaction, might be predicted by communication and stress factors. A stepwise procedure was used to generate regression

235 models. Data were checked for normality using a normal probability plot for standardised residuals. Normality was found to be satisfactory.

When interpreting the multiple regression models, it is important to remember that the models represent combinations of independent variables that predict a dependent variable. For the multiple regression analyses, each job satisfaction factor was treated as a dependent variable. The independent variables were the communication and occupational stress factors.

4.6.1. Supervision Table 4.20 shows the results for the regression of Supervision with communication and stress variables. In this regression model Supervision was predicted by four communication variables. These were Downward supportive communication, Vertical openness of communication, Directive communication and Access to communication channels, and School domain occupational stress. Together they explained over 81% of the variance. The model provides further support for Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5.

TABLE 4.20: Stepwise Multiple Regression of the dependent variable Supervision with communication and stress variables

Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Downward supportive communication .75 948.27* 2 School domain (stress) .79 .04 48.37* 3 Vertical openness of communication .81 .02 28.02* 4 Directive communication .81 .00 7.16** 5 Access to communication channels .81 .00 4.82*** *p<.001 **p<.01 ***p<.05

The strongest predictor was Downward supportive communication. Seventy five percent of the variance for Supervision was explained by this variable. It makes sense that Downward supportive communication is strongly related to Supervision. If a principal is generally supportive and complimentary when

236 communicating with staff, then staff members would be more likely to report job satisfaction with supervision, and vice versa.

The association reported here supports some earlier findings. Whaley (1992) reported a strong association, in their study, between job satisfaction and support from principals. Dinham and Scott (1996) reported that, in their study, the dearth of support from school leadership was the most common concern for teachers in terms of their satisfaction with the leadership.

School domain (stress) explained a further 4% of the variance and had a negative relationship with Supervision. Various studies have reported negative relationships between the support aspect of supervision and job stress (for example, Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978; Miller et al, 1990; Ray & Miller, 1991).

The next significant predictor was Vertical openness of communication, which accounted for a further 2% of the variance. As described previously, this factor relates to the openness of communication between the principal and staff (in both downward and upward directions). One might expect some degree of openness in communication between staff members and their principals if recognition and support are to occur. Alternatively, supportive and recognitive supervision might encourage openness in communication.

Directive communication and Access to communication channels were the next two predictors in the model for Supervision. However, the negligible amount of variance explained does not warrant further discussion.

4.6.2. Colleagues Table 4.21 displays the results of the regression analysis, with Colleagues as the dependent variable. It was revealed there were five predictors that, together, explained 52% of the variance in terms of satisfaction from Colleagues.

237 TABLE 4.21: Stepwise Multiple Regression of Colleagues with communication and stress variables. Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Horizontal supportive communication .45 254.58* 2 Adequacy of information .48 .03 17.68* 3 Cultural communication .50 .02 10.68* 4 School domain (stress) .51 .01 7.17** 5 Personal domain (stress) .52 .01 4.09*** *p<.001 **p<.01 ***p<.05

The first predictor, Horizontal supportive communication accounted for 45% of the variance and was the best predictor of job satisfaction from Colleagues. This association is to be expected. If there is strong, horizontal supportive communication in a school it is more likely that teachers would have ample opportunity to discuss work issues, frequently communicate support and affirmation to one another and enjoy closer social bonds in the staffroom. In such a situation, staff would be likely to report relationships with colleagues to be sources of job satisfaction. Satisfaction with collegial relations may also encourage the transmission of horizontal support. This finding provided more support for Hypothesis 2.

The next best predictor of satisfaction with Colleagues was Adequacy of information. This accounted for a further 3% of the variance. If one were to perceive the information coming from other staff be unreliable, feelings of distrust could emerge. It has been stated before that trust is essential to open communication. These feelings could influence a staff member's feelings about their colleagues. On the other hand, if individuals were confident that communication with their colleagues was genuinely reliable and trustworthy, they would be more likely to have positive feelings about colleagues.

The third predictor was Cultural communication, which explained a small, but significant, 2% of the variance. Hypothesis 3 was given further support by this result. Cultural communication provides opportunities for staff to learn about the school in order to work more effectively in achieving the school's goals. It

238 can also provide individuals with recognition that the individual is keeping in step with organisational goals.

Cultural communication involves colleagues. The sharing of stories, reinforcing of values and sharing of information relating to or consolidating the ethos of the organisation can occur between colleagues. Satisfaction with colleagues may also encourage cultural communication among staff. Therefore, higher satisfaction with colleagues will be associated with higher levels of cultural communication, and vice versa.

The fourth predictor of satisfaction from Colleagues was School domain (stress) which accounted for a small but significant 1% of the variance. The association was negative (r = -.45) indicating that, for these staff members, higher levels of job stress in the school domain was associated with lower levels of job satisfaction from colleagues, and vice-versa.

The factor Personal domain (stress) also had a statistically significant, but negative relationship with Colleagues. It accounted for a small 1% of the variance. This may be due to issues relating to lack of fit between the type of work and the individual. A person who does not feel suited to the work in schools may not feel that he or she has anything to share with other staff members. Conversely, an individual who has poor relations with colleagues may feel unsuited to the work at his or her school.

4.6.3. Relationship with the principal Table 4.22 shows the results of the multiple regression with the dependent variable Relationship with the principal. The model provided further support for Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5. Vertical openness of communication was the strongest predictor of Relationship with the principal, accounting for 57% of the variance. The principal's openness in communication as well as his/her attitude to staff is related to how satisfied staff are with the relationships they have with their principals, and vice-versa.

239 TABLE 4.22: Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Relationship with the principal with communication and stress variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Vertical openness of communication .57 414.37* 2 School domain (stress) .62 .05 44.05* 3 Downward supportive communication .64 .02 13.50* 4 Directive communication .65 .01 7.34** *p<.001 **p<.01

This association may be explained in terms of the frankness and honesty that comes with openness in communication being likely to lead people to think that information is truthful and accurate (Saal & Knight, 1988). The willingness of a principal to receive all kinds of messages (whether they are good news or bad) is likely to alleviate feelings of anxiety and discomfort of staff when relating to the principal. Conversely, satisfaction with the way the principal relates to staff may encourage openness in communication.

The association established here appears to support previous studies. Open communication promotes trust, and vice versa (Galvin et. al., 1992; O'Reilly, 1978; Roberts & O'Reilly, 1974). The amount of trust in supervisory relationships has been shown to be strongly related to job satisfaction in that area (Muchinsky, 1977). Openness of communication, and the quality of communication between superiors and subordinates in general, have been found to be associated with job satisfaction (Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Jablin, 1979; Miles et al, 1996; Whaley & Hegstrom, 1992).

School domain (occupational stress) explained a further 5% of the variance. The association was negative. This suggests that stress arising from a perceived lack of support, including support from the principal, and a feeling of not being appreciated by the principal is likely to be related to how satisfied staff members are with their relationships with their principals. If a principal is not being supportive or appreciative towards staff and this is stressful to them there is not likely to be much job satisfaction associated with this aspect of

240 work. On the other hand, lack of satisfaction with the supervisory relationship might lead individuals to report stress in this domain.

Downward supportive communication was the next best predictor, adding a further 2% of the variance. This is another example of how supportive behaviour from the principal is associated with satisfaction with Relationship with the principal. Similar findings have been noted in other studies. For example, Chapman (1983) found that supportive communication via recognition was associated with job satisfaction and Whaley and Hegstrom (1992) found support from principals was related to teacher job satisfaction.

Directive communication added a small but statistically significant 1% of the variance in Relationship with the principal. The association is weak and negative in direction. Excessive direction from the principal is likely to be associated with lower satisfaction with relationship with the principal.

4.6.4. Working conditions Table 4.23 shows that the regression with Working conditions as the dependent variable yielded a three factor model that explained 38% of the variance.

TABLE 4.23: Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Working conditions with independent communication and stress variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Vertical openness of communication .33 154.84* 2 Information domain (stress) .37 .04 15.93* 3 Horizontal supportive communication .38 .01 4.54** *p<.001 **p<.05

The strongest predictor was Vertical openness of communication, which accounted for 33% of the variance. The association gave further support to Hypothesis 5. The positive association suggests that staff members who reported higher levels of vertical openness for their school were likely to report higher satisfaction with work conditions, and vice versa.

241

Clearly, staff members in these Catholic primary schools viewed openness and honesty of communication with the principal as somehow connected to their working conditions. This could be explained in terms of openness and its relationship with feelings about work. If a staff member feels that the principal is a willing listener and honest leader, he or she is likely to be more positive about work because of the opportunities for frank discussion about work concerns. The flow of accurate and adequate information helps people to do their jobs properly.

The second predictor in the model, Information domain (stress) explained a further 4% of the variance in Working conditions. The association was negative, which indicates that job stress arising from school communication is also related to lower levels of satisfaction from working conditions, and vice versa. Information domain concerns stress from communication practices. Whether it concerns roles, direction or background information, information is often required if one is to perform tasks successfully. Just as tools and physical settings, communication may be seen as part of the work conditions. It is, therefore, conceivable that staff members associate information issues with their work conditions.

The third predictor, Horizontal supportive communication, accounted for a small, but significant additional 1% of the variance. This can be explained by the importance of peer to peer support. Staff who support one another, and help with problems, may contribute to an individual's perceptions of the working conditions at the school as well as foster a culture of professional sharing and growth. Satisfaction with work conditions may also lead to higher levels of staff to staff support as individuals are not as likely to be preoccupied with work conditions. This association tended to give more support to Hypothesis 2.

4.6.5. Work itself The multiple regression model with Work itself as the dependent variable had four predictors. Together they explained 34% of the variance. The model

242 provided further support for Hypothesis 2. The results are displayed in Table 4.24 below.

TABLE 4.24: Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Work itself with communication and stress variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Downward supportive communication .16 59.90* 2 Personal domain (stress) .30 .14 59.56* 3 Horizontal supportive communication .33 .03 12.50* 4 Student domain (stress) .34 .01 5.26** *p<.001 **p<.05

The strongest predictor was Downward supportive communication, which accounted for 16% of the variance. This indicates that if the principal is an encourager and someone who affirms staff often, staff are more likely to be satisfied with the work itself, and vice versa. If a principal is providing positive feedback about a job, complimenting staff on a job well done or getting behind those who are unsure of what to do, it is likely to assist them to do a good job and enjoy their work experience. On the other hand, if a staff member intrinsically enjoys his or her work, he or she is likely to receive supportive communication from the principal.

The second predictor of satisfaction from Work itself was job stress from the Personal domain, which explained another 14% of the variance. The two variables have a negative association indicating that the greater the level of stress in the personal domain, the lower the job satisfaction from the work itself, and vice-versa. This relationship is to be expected. If one feels stress because one does not feel suited to the job, one is hardly likely to like the work, and vice-versa.

The third predictor of satisfaction with Work itself, accounting for a small but significant 3% of the variance, was Horizontal supportive communication. Positive comments and help from peers could lead staff members to develop a more positive view of their work. Comments like "You do a great job with

243 that Year 4 reading group!" might lead the teacher to an understanding of how intrinsically satisfying his or her job can be. On the other hand, staff members who are more intrinsically motivated and positive about their job might achieve better results and naturally elicit positive feedback from peers.

The fourth predictor, Student domain (stress) contributed a small but significant 1% of the variance. A negative relationship was found to exist between these two variables, indicating that the greater the stress from this aspect of work, the lower the job satisfaction derived from the work itself, and vice versa. Work in schools involves interaction with students in varying degrees, depending on the role of the staff member.

4.6.6. Responsibility for work Table 4.25 presents the results of the regression with the dependent variable Responsibility for work. Only one predictor, Democratic communication, was entered into the model. It explained 11% of the variance and provided support for Hypothesis 4.

TABLE 4.25: Stepwise Multiple Regression of Responsibility for work as dependent variable with independent communication and stress variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Democratic communication .11 37.83* *p<.001

This association can be explained in terms of leadership communication. If principals allow staff to contribute to school decision making and policy, staff are likely to have had more of a say in how things are done and feel more responsible for their day to day work. Having responsibility for one’s own work is consistent with democratic communication in that the principal allows staff to have input into their own work.

In a school where Democratic communication is not practised, and the principal closely controls policy and other major aspects of school work, staff are unlikely to have the freedom and autonomy to make decisions about their

244 work. They could feel dissatisfied as a result of this lack of self-determination and professional discretion.

4.6.7. Job variety Multiple regression with Job variety as the dependent variable revealed a six predictor model, which explained 21% of the variance. The results are presented in Table 4.26.

TABLE 4.26: Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Job variety with communication and stress factors as independent variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 School domain (stress) .12 43.60* 2 Horizontal supportive communication .15 .03 9.68** 3 Personal domain (stress) .17 .02 7.51*** 4 Democratic communication .19 .02 7.12*** 5 Information domain (stress) .20 .01 5.18**** 6 Vertical load of communication .21 .01 4.10**** *p<.001 **p<.005 ***p<.01 ****p<.05

School domain (stress) was the best predictor, accounting for 12% of the variance. A negative relationship was found to exist between these two variables. This suggests that a higher level of stress from the school domain is associated with lower satisfaction from job variety, and vice versa.

Work stress ascribed to the School domain refers to stress perceived by individuals to have arisen from lack of support from the principal and the staff generally. The success of an innovative work practice is likely to depend on support. Without support from the school, especially from the principal, such changes to work practices are not given the best chance to develop (Hajnal et al, 1998; Loucks & Zacchei, 1983; Marsh & Stafford, 1988). This is likely to result in stress arising from a lack of school-based support.

Because of the time and energy it takes to try out new things one needs encouragement and support to keep it going and stay enthused. If that

245 support is not forthcoming, innovation is less likely to continue (Brady, 1983; Marsh & Stafford, 1988). It will certainly not thrive. The opportunity to try new things is also an opportunity to escape routine and the associated boredom with work. It is easy to see why school domain stress and job variety are associated when that relationship is viewed in terms of support.

Horizontal supportive communication was the next best predictor, accounting for 3% of the variance. The association provided further support for Hypothesis 2, and suggests that higher levels of horizontal supportive communication are associated with greater satisfaction with job variety. Support from peers is also a vital ingredient for successful innovation (Marsh & Stafford, 1988; Ridden, 1991). One study found that horizontal support, by way of close working relationships, was considered a necessity by leading teachers whose roles included facilitating change and innovation (Smylie & Denny, 1990). Given this, it is conceivable that a higher level of support from peers should be associated with higher levels of satisfaction with job variety. Logically, in schools in which staff members are reporting lower stress from the school domain combined with higher levels of horizontal supportive communication, one may expect more satisfaction with job variety.

Personal domain (stress) accounted for a further 2% of the variance in Job variety. This relationship may be explained in terms of person-work fit. It is unlikely that someone is going to experience job satisfaction from job variety if he or she is experiencing stress from feeling unsuited to the work. If someone does not feel suited to the job, they may not be as likely to try new things. Additionally, the lack of scope in a job may result in the feeling that one is unsuited to it. Conversely, satisfaction with opportunities to try new things may alleviate personal domain stress, especially if this results in an individual feeling more positive about their suitability for the job. An individual may also experience personal domain stress because of a lack of challenge or scope to use or expand skills.

Democratic communication was the fourth predictor, accounting for a further 2% of the variance. Hypothesis 4 was given further support by this

246 association. Innovation and other situations likely to result in changes to routine are likely to involve information sharing between staff and with the principal being geared toward changing some aspect of work, especially if the change is being implemented school-wide (Brady, 1983; White, 1990). This information sharing is consistent with democratic communication. Therefore, democratic communication is likely to be associated with satisfaction with job variety.

Information domain (stress) and Vertical load of communication each accounted for 1% of the variance. The percentage of variance explained is very small, but still significant. Vertical load of communication was found to have a negative relationship with this job satisfaction variable, as did Information domain. The association with Vertical load of communication provided some support for Hypothesis 6.

Changes to work practices require much sharing of information among staff. As Information domain concerns the sharing of information within the school, the association makes sense. Lower stress from the information domain is associated with higher satisfaction with job variety, and vice versa. The association with Vertical load of communication is understandable. The time required to cope with vertical load may mean less time to develop an innovation or change. Therefore, the higher the vertical load of communication, the lower the satisfaction with job variety is likely to be, and vice versa.

4.6.8. Feedback Multiple regression of the job satisfaction variable Feedback revealed four predictors that together explained 32% of the variance. The results are presented in Table 4.27 below.

247

TABLE 4.27: Stepwise Multiple Regression of Feedback as dependent variable with communication and stress independent variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Access to communication channels .22 86.50* 2 Cultural communication .27 .05 24.13* 3 Directive communication .30 .03 9.77** 4 School domain (stress) .32 .02 9.46** *p<.001 **p<.005

Access to communication channels was the best predictor of satisfaction from Feedback, accounting for 22% of the variance. This factor is concerned with the adequacy of opportunities to talk to the principal, and other staff, about professional and personal issues. Access to communication channels may provide opportunities for the sharing of feedback, especially as work related issues are often the focus of interactions in this communication variable. Therefore, it is reasonable that satisfaction with feedback is associated with access to communication channels. Past studies have revealed similar findings (Wheeless et al, 1983).

Cultural communication was the second predictor in the model, accounting for another 5% of the variance. This association further supports hypothesis 3. Organisational cultures continue because the cultural norms are reinforced among staff, and new staff members are socialised into the organisation (Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Schein, 1986; 1987). Cultural information is transmitted from staff member to staff member, and between staff members and the principal. These are the same channels through which feedback can be delivered. Because cultural communication relies on relationships with others (that is, mentor-inductee, principal-staff, etcetera) it provides another avenue for feedback. It, therefore, makes sense that higher satisfaction with feedback is associated with greater cultural communication, and vice versa.

Directive communication explained a further 3% of the variance. This association offered further support for Hypothesis 1. The relationship is

248 negative, indicating that higher satisfaction with feedback is associated with lower levels of directive communication, and vice versa. It is conceivable that while a principal is giving direction to staff, some feedback is also given. However, the negative direction of the relationship suggests that this may not be so. As directive communication is one-way, there may be little or no feedback and, hence, little or no satisfaction with feedback.

School domain (stress) was the fourth predictor of satisfaction with Feedback. It accounted for a small but significant 2% of the variance. This negative association makes sense because the notions of support and appreciation implicit in the stress variable are related to feedback. Hence, when an individual is experiencing stress attributable to an unsupportive work environment, it is likely that he or she will report little or no satisfaction with feedback, and vice versa.

4.6.9. Relationships with the students The multiple regression with Relationships with the students as the dependent variable revealed that the independent variables Student domain (stress), Horizontal supportive communication, School domain (stress) and Vertical load of communication together predicted 21% of the variance. The results of the multiple regression are presented in Table 4.28.

TABLE 4.28: Stepwise Multiple Regression of dependent variable Relationships with the students with communication and stress factors as independent variables Step Variable R2 R2 F Change Statistic 1 Student domain (stress) .12 43.82* 2 Horizontal supportive communication .18 .06 21.09* 3 School domain (stress) .20 .02 5.95*** 4 Vertical load of communication .21 .01 6.84** *p<.001 **p<.01 ***p<.05

Student domain (stress) accounted for 12% of the variance. The direction of the association was negative. This is a straightforward relationship which suggests that staff members who are reporting higher levels of stress from

249 student related issues are also likely to have lower job satisfaction with relationships with students, and vice versa.

Horizontal supportive communication accounted for a further 6% of the variance. A possible explanation for this might be that staff members support each other with advice on difficult pupils or share information about the children. Positive relationships with the students may also result and be a reflection of positive relations among staff. Therefore, in a school where horizontal supportive communication is frequent, staff members are likely to report satisfaction with relationships with the students, and vice versa. The association provided more support for Hypothesis 2.

Stress attributable to the School domain accounted for a small but significant 2% of the variance. This might be explained in terms of support from the principal and school. A staff member experiencing difficulty with students, for example, may desire support from the principal in this area. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if this is not forthcoming, stress attributable to the school domain may increase and satisfaction with relationships with the students decrease. Conversely, a staff member experiencing a lot of satisfaction from relationships with the students may experience less stress attributed to the school domain simply because of a more positive personality or other circumstances.

Vertical load of communication accounted for a small but significant 1% of the variance. The direction of the association is negative, indicating that the higher the load of vertical communication, the lower the job satisfaction from Relationships with the students and vice versa. Coping with a high communication load could interfere with relationships with the students. In this light the relationship is understandable. This association means that Hypothesis 6 was given further support.

250 4.7. Analysis of the qualitative data Question 65 of the OCPSQ, invited respondents to make any comments about communication at their school. One hundred and three participants from 38 schools responded to this item, providing 260 statements. These were recorded, sorted and analysed according to the qualitative data methodology described in the previous chapter. An iterative process of content analysis was used to categorise statements under distinct headings. Once categories were organised, they were evaluated and re-evaluated for consistency several times. The result was that 32 initial categories were ultimately refined to 26. Each category name represented an aspect of organisational communication.

Full results are presented in Appendix 4.6. Included in that table are the statements under their allotted categories, the abbreviated coding used to distinguish the theme of each statement at the end of the content analysis, the statement number and subject/school identification numbers used in this study.

Seventeen of these communication categories were conceptually similar to statistical factors that emerged from the factor analysis. These were Supportive communication, Democratic communication, Undemocratic communication, Cultural communication (positive aspects), Cultural communication (negative aspects), Vertical communication (positive aspects), Vertical communication (negative aspects), Horizontal communication, Openness of communication, Closed communication, Adequacy of communication, Load of communication, Staff meetings, Bulletin boards, Printed messages, P.A./Intercom system and Access to information.

Nine categories were about communication issues that were not directly related to the dimensions already identified statistically, but added further to the body of information about communication in the participating schools. These were: Time constraints, Interruptions, Communication in small schools, Communication in large schools, Communication in multi-campus schools,

251 School climate, General positive comments about communication, General negative comments about communication and Other (issues).

4.7.1. Supportive communication Fourteen statements dealt with supportive communication among staff members. Supportive communication was identified not only through the appearance of the word “support”. Other expressions were interpreted as supportive communication behaviour. For example; “warm and inclusive”, “willing to help one another” and “approachable and helpful”.

Supportive communication took many forms, such as assistance with study. One respondent, a male teachers aide aged between 41 and 50, wrote: “I am at present doing a school support course by correspondence and I have received great support and assistance from the principal and staff answering any question I may have and clarifying points I am unsure of.”

Supportive communication was also implied by mentor-protégé relationships as typified by this comment from a young female teacher: “Being so isolated, there are a lot of ‘mother figures’ which is great…”

Further analysis of the statements revealed that supportive communication might result in staff feeling included, comfortable and valued at their schools. Staff members showed courtesy and respect for one another through supportive communication. Another aspect of supportive communication was that assistance is given when it is needed. Overall, supportive communication appears to have a positive relationship with healthy staff relations in these schools, as well as openness of communication among staff members.

4.7.2. Democratic communication There was evidence of behaviour consistent with democratic communication in these schools through involvement in decision making, collaboration and teamwork. It is apparent that democratic communication can yield constructive and beneficial results. For example:

252 “The different committees/work done and negotiated has also been a plus for the safety and unity in developing a sound school environment.” and “Very satisfied secretary- always made to feel a valued part of team”.

It is clear that democratic communication can have a beneficial effect on staff relationships such as feelings of belonging to a team and receiving assistance from others as a result of collaboration. However, staff members who do not embrace this sort of behaviour can disappoint those who do. This is evident in the following comment by a male executive member: “There exists an atmosphere of teachers wanting greater influence in forums of decision making without taking any responsibility.”

It is also apparent that democratic communication is related to openness. For example, a principal who elicits suggestions from staff to make it appear that they are part of the decision-making process and who does nothing more with the suggestions is not being entirely open to staff. Conversely, participation in school-based decisions and teams requires some degree of open communication. This provides some explanation for the relationship between Vertical openness of communication and Democratic communication.

4.7.3. Undemocratic communication There was evidence of behaviour contrary to democratic communication in statements about the hesitancy of some staff members to engage in democratic communication, or a general lack of it. These were categorised as Undemocratic communication. Some comments that referred to problems associated with undemocratic communication included these by a female teacher and male executive member (who both had more than 15 years experience) respectively: “ I also believe that those who sit ‘on the fence’ waiting for the facts/ information to come along are falling short of their team effort”; and “ Staff are asked their views, but are rarely acted upon, hence staff don’t see the need in contributing to decision making”.

253

Other participants felt that they were left out of their schools’ decision making process altogether. An example was this comment by an experienced female teacher: “Sometimes the principal will listen, but a lot of times she has already decided what to do with the executive teachers”.

4.7.4. Cultural communication (positive aspects) Five statements referred to the positive aspects of cultural communication. The statements generally related to induction, being shown how things are done at the new school and the necessity for interaction with other staff to ‘learn the ropes’.

Recall that the statistical factor, Cultural communication, referred not only to induction of new staff, but to the transmission of organisational culture through the sharing of school values and goals. One comment by a female teacher with between 11 and 15 years experience referred to the transmission of school ethos as a part of the overall culture. “Despite personal & professional differences which occasionally (unavoidably?) lead to some minor tension, all staff members are truly committed to building a school that encourages education & growth of the whole child. This shared vision is our common goal and so, we must also apply this in dealing with our peers/colleagues”.

Overall, the comments in this area add to our knowledge of how Cultural communication works as a tool for acculturation of new members and the ongoing transmission of a school’s pervasive culture. There is also some support for the strong statistical relationship between Cultural communication and Horizontal supportive communication because many of the statements refer to assistance from other staff. Assistance with learning about the school is less likely to occur where supportive exchanges from peers are not common, and vice versa.

254 4.7.5. Cultural communication (negative aspects) Six statements referred to the negative or undesirable aspects of cultural communication. Three comments referred to a lack of cultural communication. An example is this comment by a female teacher in her first years of teaching- “Being new to the school I find that some information was not made explicit – some things were expected knowledge”.

One comment by an experienced female teacher appeared to be referring to strong cultures and the problems they pose in terms of negative attitudes to change. “Most staff have worked in this particular school for 10 – 20 years. this is my first year here. I’m finding it difficult to get past the ‘this is the way it’s always been done’ attitude.”

From these comments it can be ascertained that a lack of needed cultural information and the presence of strong cultures that foster resistance to change may be sources of frustration for staff members of these schools.

4.7.6. Vertical communication (positive aspects) Twenty-one statements were concerned with vertical communication behaviours. These made up the second largest body of statements about aspects of communication in schools, suggesting that vertical communication is a significant feature of communication in these schools. The statements were concerned with characteristics of vertical communication, but not the content of such communication. A majority of statements concerned the communication behaviours of the principal.

The original set of twenty-one was further broken down into positive and negative statements about vertical communication. Ten statements addressed positive aspects of vertical communication. Several statements indicated satisfaction with aspects of the principal’s downward communication behaviour, such as approachability, as expressed in the following statements made by a male teachers-aide and a female teacher respectively:

255 “[principal] makes herself available to all staff for discussions regardless of the staff member’s position in the school”, “We are lucky to have a principal that is a good listener as well as communicator”.

The vertical channel allowed for the flow of supportive communication and openness, as exemplified by this statement by a female teacher who had a relatively high level of teaching experience in more than one school: “The principal is supportive, open and honest with her dealings with staff, students and parents”. It also included communication between staff members and the assistant principal. The assistant principal’s role in collecting and distributing information was made obvious by statements such as this one, by a female executive member: “The AP also likes to be informed of changes, dates etc. The AP puts together a weekly briefing with the principal, which outlines what is happening during the coming week and on the back, activities, events etc. are explained in detail and congratulations, best wishes messages etc. are communicated…”.

Interestingly, comments describing the central role of the assistant principal in vertical communication (from both positive and negative aspects) were from medium to large schools (350-601+ pupils enrolled). One may speculate that, because of the larger staff numbers, the assistant principal may be more involved in vertical communication flow in larger schools.

4.7.7. Vertical communication (negative aspects) Eleven statements dealt with negative or unfavourable aspects of principal communication styles, such as frequency of communication, moodiness and the upward influence of certain staff members. The following two statements, by a female teacher and a non-teaching staff member respectively, illustrate some negative aspects of vertical communication in these schools: “Our principal needs to make a decision on some issues and not be swayed [sic] by female executives who have very strong personalities”; “ Principal communicates with teachers, but this rarely happens with ancillary staff and clerical staff”.

256

In addition, some negative aspects of vertical communication described situations when the principal appeared ineffective at decision-making and advising. This is illustrated by the following comment by a female teacher with less than 15 years experience: “Sometimes decisions need to be made and the principal is asked for advice, but is of little or no help”, and this statement by a more experienced female teacher: “ [The principal] appears to listen, but doesn’t seem to have the will to act on her own”.

4.7.8. Horizontal communication Six statements concerned horizontal communication flow. All of these statements were about negative or unfavourable aspects of horizontal communication such as: dominant staff members, inconsistent communication behaviours due to mood swings and the grapevine. One statement referred to horizontal communication being limited by departmentalism, “Communication between staff is quite effective, however it is easier to communicate with some staff members than others (primary with primary and infants with infants) as you work more closely with them.”

These statements add an extra dimension to the concept of horizontal communication used in this study, in terms of varied personality traits and the perceived relationships among staff members.

4.7.9. Openness of communication Openness of communication among staff was addressed by 18 statements, making this aspect of communication the most voluminous. This suggests that openness, like vertical flow, is an important feature of communication in these schools. It is to be expected that there be many comments about openness and vertical communication.

Open communication was identified as communication that was characterised by honesty, trust and freedom of expression. This is demonstrated by the

257 following statements made by a teacher and an executive member (both female) respectively: “There is a balance here that demonstrates just how important acceptance and trust are in building a team”, “Communication is open amongst the staff. People feel free to express an opinion & an atmosphere of trust is always there”.

This aspect of communication was also identified with the approachability of staff members and their openness to communication, as demonstrated by the following statement by an experienced female teacher: “All people at this school community usually feel quite confident in approaching other staff about most matters and parents and students are encouraged to do the same”. Other statements described openness along vertical (between staff members and the principal) and horizontal channels (among staff).

4.7.10. Closed communication Seven statements referred to situations when communication was not open. In keeping with the conceptual notion of openness established in the literature review, they are referred to here as Closed communication. There were comments that indicated communication was not always perceived as open. A female teacher from a medium-sized school described an example of closed downward communication: “The principal only tells you what she wants you to know”.

A comment, written by a female teacher with less than five years experience from a small school, linked closed communication to lack of trust: “There are some staff members who do not share their worries or problems and, at times there is an element of mistrust. This is a breakdown in communication”.

It is apparent, however, that not all communication needs to be open. One statement suggests that a closed approach to communication is sometimes appropriate:

258 “Our principal respects the privacy of families and will only pass on personal family information (concerning pupils) on a “need to know” basis”.

4.7.11. Adequacy of communication Eleven statements described situations when staff members had the information they needed to do their jobs. These included the passing on of information and being well informed. These were grouped under the heading Adequacy of communication because the notion of having enough information was consistent with adequacy. All of the statements were positive in tone. The following statement, by a female teacher from a small school, typified this aspect of communication: “I think it’s great. We have information we need when we need it, and not overloaded”.

There is obviously a difference between having enough information and having too much. That is why the adequacy and load of communication are treated as separate (but linked in terms of volume) concepts in this study.

4.7.12. Overload of communication Five statements had to do with situations consistent with the notion of communication overload. Interestingly, these statements emanated from two schools. The notion of overload was evident through complaints about many meetings, too many lines of communication and too much communication in general. A female teacher from a large school conceded that communication overload, while a source of stress, is part of the inevitable milieu of school life: “The numerous amounts of messages and communication are stressful, but they are part of the system (the roundabout) that we are on”. School size does not appear to lessen the possibility of communication overload, as one female teacher from a small school wrote: “Paper trails a mile long make it difficult to keep track of information”.

4.7.13. Staff Meetings Nineteen statements referred to staff meetings. There were more statements about staff meetings than for any other communication method. Most of the

259 statements were positive about staff meetings. Many, also, gave a brief outline of how meetings were organised in the schools. Comments indicated that these meetings were effective and facilitated the flow of needed information. The following statement, by an experienced female teacher in a medium sized school, is an example of how staff meetings were viewed: “We have a staff meeting & a communication meeting each week. The staff meeting is mainly for K.L.As , but the communication meeting allows us to “catch up” with what’s going on”.

Analysis of the statements revealed that staff meetings were being used for a variety of purposes. The main purposes included: sharing ideas or opinions on issues, discussing teaching and learning, curriculum development, updating information, planning events and staff development.

Three comments concerned unfavourable aspects of staff meetings, such as: lack of opportunity for discussion, a focus on non-educational issues that were better dealt with via other methods and domination of the meeting by the principal. For example, a highly experienced female teacher from a small school wrote: “Staff meetings are generally briefing meetings with little opportunity for discussion - overlong agendas full of superficial nonsense means that most teachers “hate” as being unproductive, being more related to housekeeping than educational issues / curriculum issues”.

4.7.14. Bulletin boards Fifteen statements referred to the use of bulletin boards. This was the second highest number of comments for a method of communication after staff meetings. Within the statements bulletin boards were referred to in a number of terms, such as, “whiteboard”, “whiteboard calendar” and “noticeboard”. All of the statements referred to the usefulness and effectiveness of this method of communication. For example, one female teacher wrote: “We also have whiteboards with the days of the week on them & written for each week day is “what’s on” so we all know & are kept informed”.

260 Further analysis of the statements revealed that bulletin boards were being used to provide overviews of events (weekly, for the term, and even yearly), incidental messages, update information, inform staff of what is going on, confirm previous information and to affirm staff.

4.7.15. Printed messages Fourteen statements concerned the use of memos, newsletters and printed bulletins. As these all concerned printed media on paper, they were grouped under this heading. The fourteen statements constituted the third highest number of comments about a method of communication.

All of the comments about printed messages were positive in tone. Printed messages were described as “worthwhile”, “effective” and “very good”. Further examination of the statements revealed that printed messages were used to inform staff of coming events, act as reminders, acknowledge staff for work done, confirm decisions reached at staff meetings and provide other messages for staff. A female executive member provided a typical description of how printed messages are used: “The principal sends out a letter each week outlining what’s happening in the week, thanking people, encouraging people, reminders of coming events and current issues relating to teaching/education”.

4.7.16. P.A./intercom systems Of the seven statements about public address (P.A.) or intercom systems, five referred to negative aspects of their use. P.A. systems, in particular, were viewed as “frustrating”, “an interruption”, “intrusive” and “demeaning”. Only one statement described a P.A. system as effective. One respondent described the use of an intercom phone system as being for emergency communication. This comment by a female executive member from a small school typified feelings of staff members towards the medium: “We have no PA system in classrooms. We have opted to not use bells, whistles or other loud, demeaning devices”.

261 The remaining categories referred to aspects of communication that were not dealt with in the quantitative research. They provide further insight into how organisational communication works in the participating schools.

4.7.17. Access to information Ten statements were grouped under the heading of Access to information. It referred to the timing of information, opportunities to get information and the infrastructure that facilitates the getting of needed information at appropriate times. Most of the statements referred to a lack of access. Five statements concerned the lateness of information, which can result in the frustration of staff members. This statement, by an experienced female teacher is illustrates the problem: “Lots of decisions on timetable changes are made at short notice (for me) which I find frustrating”.

Three statements were about staff members not getting needed information because they were not present to hear it at the time it was given. When staff members miss information they are not informed later. The following comments, the first by a young male teacher and the second by an experienced female teacher, typify this problem: “Sometimes messages are given to staff at play time or lunch time when a teacher is on playground duty and the teacher on duty is uninformed,” “If you miss a staff meeting because of illness or duty it’s hard to find out what’s going on even if you ask. Most people don’t think anything is major enough to tell you”.

Other statements referred to the infrastructure needed to make communication more timely. For example, a female teacher with less than five years experience stated, “We don’t have daily notices system which I like to remind me about the things happening”.

Overall, poor access to information was a source of frustration and annoyance for the respondents. Therefore, timing of information and, perhaps more

262 importantly, access to missed information is an area that may need to be addressed at these schools. The category is conceptually similar to the statistical dimension Access to communication channels because both refer to opportunities to get information.

4.7.18. Time constraints Fourteen statements addressed problems with communication in schools due to time constraints. The comments ranged in focus from lack of time to communicate due to heavy work commitments, to inability to discuss issues with principals due to their work demands. The following are statements that typify these issues: “I feel that the methods of communication used are very effective, but our enemy is ‘time’. With the increasing demands made upon the principal, they are not always available to discuss matters of concern when they arise.”

“We seem to be always rushing to speak to each other”. Two experienced female teachers from metropolitan schools made these comments. All but one of the comments in this category was from metropolitan school staff.

Some respondents stated that teaching and learning suffered due to a lack of time to engage in horizontal communication and plan with other teachers. The following is typical of comments referring to this issue. “In the business of schools, learning suffers because there is no time! set aside for teachers to discuss practise and plan future learning”.

These schools are obviously busy places. The resulting fast pace of work may be viewed as an organisational trait that is impeding the flow of communication among staff members to some extent.

4.7.19. Interruptions Four statements referred to interruptions due to messages. No particular method of communication was identified in any statements except for one, in which pupil delivered messages were mentioned. All of the statements

263 referred to interruptions as unfavourable occurrences. They were described as “intrusive” and “disruptive” and “detrimental to learning”. This comment, by a female teacher, illustrates how communication may be a source of frustration for teachers: “Any form of message during teaching time is disruptive to the class and detrimental to learning. Therefore, messages given outside breaks should only be emergencies”.

4.7.20. Communication in small schools Fourteen statements referred to aspects of communication in small schools. The schools concerned ranged in size from 2 classrooms to 2 streams of classes from Kindergarten to Year 6.

The statements suggest that, for these schools, in general, communication was viewed as effective and easy due to the close proximity of people and buildings and the resultant opportunities for staff members to see one another regularly each day. The roles of trust and honesty were referred to as important for communication at these schools. This statement, by a young female teacher in a non-metropolitan school, underscores the importance of trust in small school communication: “As this is a small school, it’s really important to rely on one another and trust one another.”

4.7.21. Communication in large schools All of the five statements that concerned communication in large schools described communication as being more difficult because of the school’s size or becoming so as the size of the school increased. What this young female teacher from a metropolitan school wrote was typical of the sort of comment in this area: “Due to the large number of staff and students at our school, communication over the years has become more difficult”.

4.7.22. Communication in multi-campus schools Five statements were about communication in multi-campus schools. The comments emanated from two schools. Communication in these schools was

264 described as “difficult”, but overall “effective” and “reliable”. Both schools were described as having some kind of reliable system of communication in place. For example, a young female teacher from a non-metropolitan school wrote, “School is a central school K-10 with 3 separate campuses. makes communication difficult at times, although a reliable delivery system is in place”.

4.7.23. School climate Nine statements referred to the tone or atmosphere of the school. The notions of tone and atmosphere have been described in the literature as consistent with school climate (Flynn, 1993; Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Owens, 2001). The term School climate was, therefore, used as the heading for this category of statements.

All of the statements described the schools concerned as having positive, friendly, warm and cohesive school climates. For example, one female executive member wrote, “A lovely “living, loving, learning together” atmosphere permeates our school”, and a relatively less experienced younger female teacher stated, “It’s a very warm and friendly school, that is a great place for a first year teacher”.

4.7.24. General positive comments about communication Sixteen statements were simply positive about communication. The comments were either positive about communication in the school generally, or were positive about aspects of communication that did not fit into the earlier categories. Therefore, they were grouped into this general category. Some typical comments included, “Good communication throughout the whole school”, which was written by an experienced female teacher, and “I consider that communication at this school occurs at a very high level – professionally, administratively and informally.” which was stated by a male executive member.

265 4.7.25. General negative comments about communication Eight statements were identified that described communication as unfavourable for a number of reasons or no reason at all. As they did not fit into any other category, they were placed in this general category due to the negative tones of the comments. Some of the reasons communication was viewed as not favourable were: methods were not used effectively, there was uncertainty caused by changes in administration and that there was a general lack of communication. This example, suggests links between the state of communication in a school and the work attitudes of staff members: “Communication at present is ineffective, furthering uncertainty and increasing tension”.

4.7.26. Other comments about communication Five statements did not fit into any other category. One statement referred to how information was filtered down to staff from the central office (CEO). Two statements referred to staff expectations about leadership and co-leadership. They did not refer directly to communication, but leadership involves communication, so the statements were not discarded. A fourth statement referred to changes in communication methods being trialed at a school. The fifth comment simply explained communication at a school as verbal and non- verbal.

4.8. Chapter summary In this chapter the results of the study were presented and discussed. Inspection of the descriptive statistics established that the sample was representative of the population in terms of gender, age, years experience, job position, school size and location. The results of factor analyses, correlations and multiple regression were examined. Findings are summarised below in relation to the hypotheses and research questions.

266 4.8.1. Hypotheses H1: Directive communication will be negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis received only partial support. While Directive communication was negatively correlated to some job satisfaction variables (Job variety, Feedback, Relationship with the principal and Responsibility for work), these correlations were relatively weak. Directive communication correlated positively, but weakly, with the other job satisfaction dimensions. The associations with occupational stress variables were generally positive, but, again, weak.

H2: Supportive communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis was supported by the results of the correlation and multiple regression analyses. Downward supportive communication, Upward supportive communication and Horizontal supportive communication correlated moderately to strongly positively with Supervision, Colleagues, Relationship with the principal, Working conditions and Feedback. Downward supportive communication and Horizontal supportive communication were also predictors of these variables, as well as Work itself, Job variety and Relationships with the students. All three supportive communication variables were negatively correlated with occupational stress domains, but the associations were strongest for Information and School domains.

H3: Cultural communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis was supported. Cultural communication correlated positively with all facets of job satisfaction. The strongest associations were with Colleagues, Supervision, Feedback, Relationship with the principal, Working conditions and Work itself. It was a predictor of Colleagues and Feedback. Cultural communication correlated negatively with all the occupational stress variables. The strongest associations were with Information and School domains.

267 H4: Democratic communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis was supported. Democratic communication correlated positively with all the job satisfaction variables. The strongest associations were with Supervision and Relationship with the principal. Moderate correlations were found between Democratic communication and the other job satisfaction variables except Relationships with the students. It was a predictor of Responsibility for work and Job variety. Democratic communication correlated negatively with all the occupational stress variables. The strongest associations were with Information domain, School domain and General occupational stress.

H5: Openness of communication will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis was supported. Vertical openness of communication was positively correlated to all the job satisfaction variables. Vertical openness of communication had moderate to strong correlations with all job satisfaction variables except Responsibility for work and Relationships with the students. Additionally, Vertical openness of communication was the best predictor of Relationship with the principal and Working conditions. Vertical openness of communication was negatively correlated with all the occupational stress variables. The associations were strongest with Information domain, School domain and General occupational stress.

H6: Load of communication will be negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress. This hypothesis was supported. No correlations above |.22| were found. Vertical load of communication was a predictor of Job variety and Relationships with the students.

268 4.8.2. Research Questions Research Question One: What dimensions of organisational communication are salient within the Catholic primary schools involved in this study? Based on a review of the literature, a number of theoretical organisational communication dimensions were proposed. Factor analysis of the organisational communication section of the questionnaire resulted in the identification of ten dimensions of organisational communication. These factors were called: Vertical openness of communication, Horizontal supportive communication, Directive communication, Access to communication channels, Cultural communication, Vertical load of communication, Upward supportive communication, Downward supportive communication, Adequacy of information and Democratic communication.

The eight methods of communication were also examined. Analysis of the means indicated that their extent of use varied, as did the extent to which participants perceived each to be effective. No other method of communication was identified from that section of the questionnaire.

Qualitative analysis revealed twenty-six aspects of communication. Seventeen of these corresponded, to varying extent, with the organisational communication factors and methods of communication identified statistically. Nine other aspects of communication were not anticipated in the study, but added greater depth to our view of organisational communication as experienced in these schools.

This study has, therefore, identified a number of dimensions of organisational communication. The statistical dimensions varied in terms of the means of unweighted factor scores.

Research Question Two: What relationships exist between organisational communication and job satisfaction? Factor analysis of the job satisfaction items revealed nine dimensions of job satisfaction. These were: Supervision, Colleagues, Relationship with the

269 principal, Working conditions, Work itself, Responsibility for own work, Job variety, Feedback and Relationships with the students. The factor structure was similar, but not identical to that found by the author of the TJSQ (Lester, 1987). Three different dimensions of job satisfaction emerged from the analysis: (Relationship with the principal, Job variety and Feedback), but these were consistent with aspects of work in primary schools. Acceptable levels of reliability were achieved.

It was established earlier that relationships existed between organisational communication and job satisfaction. Eight organisational communication variables had moderate to strong correlations with job satisfaction facets. Correlations with general job satisfaction were generally less strong than most other facets of job satisfaction. Additionally, some methods of communication variables correlated weakly to moderately with job satisfaction variables. The strongest correlations were with effectiveness of staff meetings. All the communication variables (not methods) were shown to be predictors for job satisfaction variables to varying degrees.

Research Question Three: What relationships exist between organisational communication and occupational stress? Factor analysis of the occupational stress items revealed four facets of occupational stress (called domains). These were Student domain, Information domain, School domain and Personal domain. The factor structure was similar, but not identical to that found by the author of the TARSQ (McCormick, 1997). A domain of occupational stress, termed Information domain, was identified. Acceptable levels of reliability were achieved.

It has been established that relationships exist between organisational communication and occupational stress. Eight organisational communication variables had moderate to strong correlations with occupational stress. Some moderate correlations were also found between general occupational stress and some organisational communication variables, but the relationships between organisational communication and facets of stress were generally

270 stronger. In terms of the perceived effectiveness of methods of communication, Staff meetings and informal meetings correlated moderately with Information domain.

4.8.3. Other findings This research yielded other findings that, although they do not pertain to the research questions, add to the literature on communication in schools, job satisfaction and stress. Some of these findings give support to earlier research. The additional findings concern relationships between job satisfaction and occupational stress, interrelationships among the organisational communication variables and a summing up of the means analyses.

4.8.3.1. Relationships between job satisfaction and occupational stress While it was not the aim of this study to directly investigate the relationships between job satisfaction and occupational stress, it is important to include these for two reasons. First, it provides a deeper knowledge of job satisfaction and stress in this study and, second, it adds to the literature already available on these two phenomena.

Many studies have determined relationships between job satisfaction and occupational stress (for example, Dua, 1994; Hock, 1988; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997b; Otto, 1986). This study found that general job satisfaction was negatively and moderately correlated with general occupational stress.

In terms of job dimensions, there were several moderate to strong correlations between facets of job satisfaction and domains of occupational stress, especially the school and information domains. Only one occupational stress domain correlated moderately with general job satisfaction, while four job satisfaction facets correlated moderately with general stress. It was frequently the case that the facets that were correlated were about similar aspects of work. For example, Supervision and Relationship with the principal correlated most strongly with stress in the school domain. All three variables were

271 concerned with aspects of principal behaviour and leadership style, but with different emphases.

The multiple regression analyses suggested that occupational stress domains were predictors of job satisfaction facets. However, they were generally not as strong as the organisational communication dimensions in their predictive power. The results indicated that, if the communication variables were not in the regression model, occupational stress, especially school domain stress, could predict variance in job satisfaction.

4.8.3.2. Relationships between organisational communication variables The literature suggested that one message can serve several purposes (Koehler, 1981). Therefore, it was anticipated that some organisational communication variables would be correlated.

Strong correlations were found between variables such as Vertical openness of communication and Downward supportive communication. Qualitative analysis of statements about communication appeared to support the statistical results. These associations were explained in terms of the likelihood of different variables achieving similar goals. For example, openness may foster more supportive communication, and vice versa.

The perceived effectiveness of two methods of communication, staff meetings and informal meetings correlated with all of the organisational communication factors except Directive communication and Vertical load of communication. This gave further support for the interrelation of organisational communication variables generally and, more specifically, indicated that effectiveness of certain methods of communication was related to certain functions and characteristics of communication.

4.8.3.3. Analysis of factor means Analysis of factor means was carried out to reveal further information about the status of the variables in the participating schools. It was found that Horizontal supportive communication, Downward supportive communication,

272 Vertical openness of communication and Democratic communication had the highest means. Vertical load of communication and Directive communication had the lowest means.

In terms of job satisfaction, the facets with the highest means were Responsibility for work and Relationships with the students. Interestingly, these facets of job satisfaction had relatively weak relationships with communication and stress variables. Participants were least satisfied with feedback, but this was still, generally, not a major source of dissatisfaction.

In terms of occupational stress, Student domain had the highest mean. This suggests that stress in the student domain may be the most dominant stressor for these school staff members. Information and personal domains were the next most prominent stress areas in terms of means. As with the two job satisfaction factors mentioned earlier, student and personal domains did not have strong relationships with many job satisfaction and communication variables. School domain had the lowest mean.

273 CHAPTER 5 OVERVIEW, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

5.1. Introduction This chapter concludes the thesis. It comprises a brief overview of the purposes and procedures of the study, a summary of the main findings, followed by conclusions that may be drawn from them. This is followed by discussion of the limitations of the study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and directions for future research.

5.2. Overview of the study The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress among staff members of Catholic primary schools in New South Wales, Australia. An extensive review of the literature suggested that there are certain aspects of communication that may be salient in these schools and that a number of these may be related to job satisfaction and/or job stress.

Data were collected using a questionnaire that comprised three instruments: the OCPSQ developed by the author, an adapted TJSQ developed by Lester (1987) and an adapted TARSQ developed by McCormick (1997a). Data were entered and analysed using the SPSS statistical package. Factor analyses revealed ten organisational communication, nine job satisfaction and four occupational stress factors. Correlations of the unweighted factor scores were analysed and subjected to multiple regression analyses to test the hypotheses and achieve the purposes of the study.

5.3. Main conclusions The findings of this study were presented in detail in the previous chapter. This section provides a summary of these findings and presents conclusions

274 that may be drawn. They are discussed first with reference to the research hypotheses, then the research questions. A discussion of the other findings follows.

5.3.1. The research hypotheses Of the six hypotheses, five were supported. Hypothesis 1, referring to directive communication, only received partial support. Generally, supportive, cultural, democratic and open communication were found to be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to occupational stress. Communication load was negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to occupational stress. Several conclusions can be made about relationships between organisational communication and job satisfaction.

First, for this sample of school staff members, openness in the vertical channels, supportive communication from peers and the principal, democratic communication and access to communication channels were strongly positively associated with job satisfaction with various facets of work, as well as general job satisfaction. Whilst upward supportive communication was related to job satisfaction, other communication dimensions were better predictors.

Second, cultural communication was positively related with several aspects of job satisfaction. While the associations were not as strong as for other aspects of organisational communication, such as supportive communication, the finding suggests that cultural communication plays an important role in Catholic primary schools.

Third, directive communication was only weakly related to facets of job satisfaction. This might be explained by the fact that it was not a prominent feature of organisational communication in the participating schools. Despite the very weak associations, this aspect of communication needs to be investigated further, especially in the light of the varying directions of those associations.

275 Fourth, it can be also asserted that vertical openness of communication, supportive communication (in all three directions), cultural communication, democratic communication, access to communication channels and perceived adequacy of information were negatively associated with levels of occupational stress in the school and information domains. Organisational communication did not have a significant relationship with stress in the other domains. Openness of communication, downward supportive communication, democratic communication, and access to communication channels were also negatively associated with general stress.

5.3.2. The research questions Research question one: What dimensions of organisational communication are salient within the Catholic primary schools in the study? First, it can be concluded that there were many dimensions of organisational communication in these schools. The quantitative results revealed: vertical openness of communication, supportive communication (upward, downward and horizontal), directive communication, cultural communication, democratic communication, access to communication channels, adequacy of information and vertical load of communication. Given the analysis of the factor scores reported earlier, it may also be concluded that these schools were organisations in which supportive and democratic communication were most prominent and vertical channels of communication were generally open.

Second, qualitative analysis revealed twenty-six aspects of communication. Seventeen corresponded to varying extent with the organisational communication factors and methods of communication that were identified statistically. While supporting the statistical analyses, the qualitative data provided evidence of other issues related to organisational communication. For example, interruptions, time constraints and school climate. The qualitative data also added to our knowledge of how vertical openness of communication and supportive communications were experienced in these schools.

276 Third, it can be concluded that the most commonly used methods of communication in these schools were staff meetings, bulletin boards, notes/memos, informal meetings and pupil delivered messages. The least commonly used were Intercom/PA systems, telephone and handbooks. In terms of the perceived effectiveness of these methods, staff meetings were perceived to be most effective. The least commonly used methods were also perceived to be the least effective. However, perceived effectiveness did not always have the same rank as extent of use. For example, while informal meetings was the second most effective method perceived by the participants, it was the fourth most commonly used. Given the negative association with stress from information issues, staff members may not be gaining benefits from informal meetings as much as they could.

Research Question Two: What relationships exist between organisational communication and job satisfaction? Several dimensions of organisational communication were related, in varying degrees, to facets of job satisfaction. Most of the relationships were positive. However, vertical load of communication and directive communication were negatively related to some job satisfaction facets. The results also suggest that the perceived effectiveness of staff meetings and bulletin boards are associated with job satisfaction relating particularly to working conditions, supervision and relationship with the principal.

Research Question Three: What relationships exist between organisational communication and occupational stress? Several dimensions of organisational communication were related, in varying degrees, to domains of occupational stress. Most of the relationships were negative. However, vertical load of communication and directive communication were positively related to most aspects of occupational stress. All the methods of communication were negatively related to all aspects of occupational stress. Perceived effectiveness of staff meetings and informal meetings had the strongest associations with stress related to information.

277 5.3.3. Other findings This study confirmed previous findings of negative associations between job satisfaction and occupational stress (Borg et al, 1991; Davis & Wilson, 2000; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Laughlin, 1984; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; McCormick, 1997b). Correlations between the job satisfaction and occupational stress variables were generally moderate to strong. For this sample, job satisfaction and occupational stress were negatively associated. Higher levels of job satisfaction were related to lower occupational stress.

The organisational communication dimensions were all interrelated to varying degrees. It can be concluded that, as literature has suggested (Koehler et al, 1981; Thayer, 1968), messages may serve more than one function at a time. It is possible, for example, for supportive communication to also be perceived as cultural if both purposes are being served by the same interaction. Upward and downward supportive communication may thrive on vertically open channels because openness permits the exchange of supportive messages. Openness also permits collaboration between staff and the principal and among staff in teams. This explains the strong link between vertical openness and democratic communication.

Finally, upon examination of the means of unweighted factor scores, organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress variables, it was found that some had higher means than others. The results suggest that, in these Catholic primary schools, supportive, cultural and democratic communication were prevalent types of communication in terms of function. Openness and adequacy were prominent features of communication in these schools. It was anticipated that some of these aspects of communication would be prominent in the organisational milieu of these schools because of their similarity to espoused Catholic values (Flynn, 1993; Potts, 1999; Starratt, 1990). One could suggest that these features of communication may, to some extent, represent the special dimension that distinguishes Catholic schools from others (Flynn, 1993; Flynn & Mok, 2002; Helm, 2000; Johnson et al, 2000).

278 Participants were generally quite highly satisfied with intrinsic aspects of work, in fact it should be noted that individuals were generally not particularly dissatisfied with any facet of work. Stress related to managing student behaviour was the area of occupational stress that concerned most participants.

5.4. Limitations of the study The limitations of a study are factors that may negatively influence the results and their generalisability (Gay & Airasian, 2000). This study has several limitations that should be taken into consideration.

First, the sample size was relatively small. While 356 cases is an acceptable number for statistical procedures (Gay & Airasian, 2000), it represented approximately 10% of the entire population of primary school staff in the six dioceses. As it was up to the schools to decide whether to participate in this study, the size of the sample could not be increased.

Second, with self-reported data there is always the risk of selective recall on the part of participants (Smith & Glass, 1987). The collection of data by more objective means may have minimised the potential for this problem (Dorman & Fraser, 1996; Litt & Turk, 1985; Smith & Glass, 1987). Of course, it was beyond the scope of this study to employ more objective techniques.

Third, the number of theoretical variables examined limited the study. For instance, there could be dimensions of organisational communication that were not identified or used in this study, but which may have accounted for significant variance in job satisfaction. On the other hand, however, too many variables can confound the results of statistical analyses, especially multiple regressions (Hair et al, 1995). The number of variables investigated in this study was quite large.

279 Finally, the generalisability of this study is limited to a small subgroup of Catholic systemic primary school staff members. The results of this study are not generalisable beyond the six dioceses from which the sample was taken.

5.5. Implications for theory The results of this study have a number of implications for theory. These are discussed according to their relevance to theory building in the areas of organisational communication, job satisfaction and occupational stress.

This study employed a conceptual framework of organisational communication that, in the main, was supported by factor analysis. This has been the first study to use all the ten dimensions of communication described earlier. This constitutes a new approach to the study of communication in organisations, especially primary schools. There is a need to test the applicability of this approach to other types of organisations to ascertain its relevance as a framework of study.

The findings of this study add to the body of literature concerning organisational communication, especially in the context of Catholic primary schools. In particular, significant associations of the supportive, cultural and democratic communication functions, as well as openness and adequacy of communication with job satisfaction and stress of Catholic primary school staff members were established. This study also adds to the literature by providing support for the findings of previous research. In particular, it supports research that has established links between various types of supportive communication and job satisfaction and stress (for example, Dinham & Scott, 1996; Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Lortie, 1975; Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Starnaman & Miller, 1992; Vroom, 1964).

Through the concept of democratic communication, further evidence is provided about the links between participation in decision-making and job satisfaction and stress that have been identified in previous studies (for

280 example, Haughey & Murphy, 1983; Otto, 1986; Shann, 1998; Vroom, 1964; Wheeless et al, 1983).

This study also provides support for literature that has posited a link between communication openness and job satisfaction (for example, Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Jablin, 1979; Miles et al, 1996). The relationships found in this study between vertical openness of communication and several facets of job satisfaction not only supported the previous research, but identified other facets related to openness apart from general satisfaction and satisfaction with supervision (Burke & Wilcox, 1969; Wheeless et al, 1983).

In terms of occupational stress, openness in the vertical channels was found to be associated with general occupational stress. However, its associations with occupational stress in the information and school domains were much stronger. There is a need to investigate the links between openness of communication and occupational stress in greater detail. However, the results reported here constitute a significant contribution to the body of knowledge concerning associations of communication variables with occupational stress.

The findings of this study include information about communication variables that have been less extensively studied in relation to job satisfaction and stress. Access to communication channels and adequacy of information were linked to job satisfaction and occupational stress. Although these relationships were not as strong or as extensive as other communication dimensions, they do provide evidence that less restricted access to formal channels and communication adequacy may be related to job satisfaction and stress.

The finding that cultural communication was associated with aspects of job satisfaction and occupational stress is an important contribution to theory because the existing literature concerning cultural communication is limited. Likewise, the finding that directive communication accounted for some variance in job satisfaction facets provides new information about variables that have not been associated extensively in the literature.

281 This research provides support for the approach to job satisfaction put forward by Lester (1987) because the factor structure that emerged in this study was similar. It contributes to the body of theory concerning job satisfaction by linking various communication variables to job satisfaction. This study was unique in the variety of communication variables that were linked to job satisfaction.

This study adds to the current knowledge of occupational stress. The findings offer support to the teacher attribution of responsibility for stress model through the four domains that were established in the factor analyses. This study also provides support for previous literature that established student behaviour as a prevailing source of stress for school staff members (for example, Borg & Falzon, 1991; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; McCormick, 1997a).

Finally, the communication dimensions established in this study may provide a means by which one can examine and compare this aspect of a school’s culture. Recall that in earlier chapters communication and culture were described as closely linked. Indeed, one of the main assumptions of this study was that communication practices formed part of the organisational culture, as well as being shaped by it.

5.6. Implications for policy The findings of this study pose implications for schools and school systems in terms of policy setting. Given the strong associations of vertical openness of communication, access to communication channels and supportive communication (downward and upward) to job satisfaction and stress of staff members, the selection criteria for principals should include a capacity to develop and encourage open and supportive communication within schools. This study found that vertical openness of communication and (upward and downward) supportive communication were strongly related to democratic communication. The suggestion was made that democratic communication may depend on vertical openness and supportive communication, and vice

282 versa. Given their interrelation, and associations with job satisfaction and occupational stress, principal selection criteria should also include a capacity to develop and promote democratic communication structures and behaviours within their schools.

Schools and school systems need to develop policies relating to best practice in communication. The actual requirements may differ from school to school because different schools may have varying communication priorities (as suggested by the qualitative data). Communication policies should be negotiated and developed by the principal through consultation with the staff and formalised in written documentation. This documentation should be revisited and reviewed as part of ongoing professional development in order to blend new communication practices into the school culture. Such a policy should promote supportive communication, openness, democratic communication, cultural communication and adequate access to communication channels.

Professional development should include instruction and workshop exercises on the benefits of supportive communication, open communication, democratic communication behaviours and the setting up of adequate access to upward, downward and horizontal channels of communication. Similarly, staff members could benefit from professional development about organisational communication. For example, they might be encouraged to develop horizontal support networks or given opportunities to examine how they might alleviate stress by engaging with peers or the principal. If staff members were more aware of the functions of communication, they could use communication more efficiently by catering their messages to suit organisational and staff needs.

5.7. Implications for practice Effective communication is vital to the functioning of organisations (George & Jones, 2000; Smeltzer et al, 2002). Successful management has its basis in effective communication skills, (Drucker, 1967; Klauss & Bass, 1982;

283 Riccucci, 1995). This applies to all managers, including educational administrators (Owens, 2001). This study poses a number of implications for communication practices in Catholic primary schools. These are discussed in terms of the relevant dimensions of organisational communication.

The strong relationships between supportive communication (particularly downward and horizontal) and job satisfaction and stress suggest that principals need to be developers, facilitators and encouragers of supportive communication in all channels. There are several ways this can be done. Many of these involve the principal leading by example and doing such things as showing genuine concern, treating staff members as valued persons, providing staff members with recognition and praise and maintaining regular contact with all staff members. Considerable responsibility rests with the principals because of their widely recognised role in schools as cultural leader (Flynn, 1993; Kottkamp, 1984; Reitzug & Reeves, 1992).

However, staff members should also be encouraged to take initiatives with supportive communication. While it is important that they engage in horizontal supportive communication, it would also be beneficial for all if staff engaged in upward communication as well. Principals are colleagues and need to feel appreciated and supported by staff.

Developing a collegial team approach among staff members may help to foster horizontal, upward and downward supportive communication (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, 1987; Rich, 1995; Smeltzer, 1987). Teamwork is consistent with democratic communication. The use of democratic communication practices is recommended not only to encourage participation in decision making, but to maximise opportunities for supportive communication.

The need for democratic communication to be part of the established practices in primary schools is suggested by this study. However, as previous literature has shown, it should be done with regard to the needs of staff members (Conway, 1984; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). As not all staff may desire

284 to be fully involved in decision-making or committees, the principal needs to foster a balance of democratic communication behaviours ranging from full participation to simple consultation. The suggestion of balance made here is in line with the recommendations of previous research (for example, Dinham et al, 1995; Wheeless et al, 1983).

Vertical openness of communication was strongly related to job satisfaction and occupational stress of staff members. Again, because of their unique role in schools, principals must be active in encouraging and facilitating open communication with staff. Principals need to exhibit a willingness to accept bad news and avoid ‘shooting the messenger’ or being judgemental. In this way, honesty and trust may be encouraged.

However, this alone may not be enough. It is through sufficient access to the vertical and horizontal network that a school may establish open communication as a regular aspect of communication in schools. This is supported by previous literature which recommended such practices as the principal frequently engaging in formal and informal interactions, encouraging staff to approach her or him and having an open-door policy (Dinham et al, 1995; Reitzug, 1989; Smeltzer, 1987; Whaley, 1994).

Supportive communication is another avenue by which open communication may be encouraged. For example, for a principal to communicate encouragement to a teacher, the lines of communication must be open. It is apparent that communication openness, supportive communication, access to channels and democratic communication are all desirable not only for their relationships to job satisfaction and stress, but because of their association with each other.

It has also been established that cultural communication was related to the job satisfaction and stress of these primary school staff members. The implication for principals is that it is important to be involved in the induction of new staff members and mentoring structures. The implication for staff

285 members is that they also play a role in mentoring peers or assisting with the enculturation of new staff.

Vertical load of communication was negatively associated with job satisfaction and positively with occupational stress. The implication for schools is that communication load should be something that is monitored regularly. Simply asking staff members if they are overloaded with information is one way. Surveys could also be used.

The results of this study suggest that staff meetings, noticeboards, memos/notes and informal meetings are likely to be the most effective methods of communication. Handbooks were among the least used and least effective as perceived by the sample. Given that handbooks can contain a great deal of information about the workings and culture of a school, they could possibly be utilised more. This might change people’s perceptions of the handbook to being more effective. Jointly negotiated (between staff and the principal) policies and procedures, and ongoing review of a staff handbook could assist in better utilisation of this method of communication for schools.

Given the increasingly complex and demanding work of principals, primary schools should consider appointing a member of staff whose role it is to oversee communication within the site. This role could include monitoring the number of memos sent, identifying communication needs, training staff in interpersonal and organisational communication skills, helping to build an effective communication climate and developing communication policy. This sort of employment has also been suggested in previous literature (Di Gaetani, 1983; Simiyu, 1990).

Primary schools in most Catholic diocesan systems undergo regular audit and review processes. Given the importance of organisational communication established by this study, it is highly desirable that an audit of communication becomes part of these processes. The OCPSQ may be a worthwhile instrument when auditing school communication. Similar surveys could be used to audit parent-school communication.

286

5.8. Implications for other aspects of organisation The direct or indirect relationships of organisational communication with variables such as organisational climate, morale, commitment, withdrawal, performance and health warrant mention. They were found in the literature review to be related to organisational communication, job satisfaction and stress (Falcione et al, 1987; Muchinsky, 2000; Spector, 2000).

For example, lack of support and openness in communication may indicate a closed school climate, in which collaboration and collegial relations are discouraged (Bassey & Yeomans, 1989; Hoy et al, 1991). Job satisfaction and occupational stress have been linked to level of organisational commitment which, in turn, is linked to withdrawal behaviours (Miller et al, 1995; Starnaman & Miller, 1992). Job satisfaction and stress have also been linked to health problems of workers and burnout (Ashcraft, 1992; Burke & Greenglass, 1994).

Therefore, it is not only simply with regard to optimal satisfaction and stress levels of staff members that certain communication practices are recommended in Catholic primary schools. The establishment of best practice in organisational communication in Catholic primary schools is important and school administrators must be aware that relationships, however indirect, may exist between organisational communication and variables, such as organisational commitment, organisational climate and withdrawal, some of which can be quite costly and disruptive to schools and school systems.

5.9. Implications for future research The results of this study suggest a number of possible directions for future research. First, there is a need to establish whether the results can be replicated. This should, perhaps, first be done with another group of Catholic primary school staff. However, in terms of wider application of the conceptual framework, the study could be replicated in other primary schools, secondary schools and even other organisations (subject to appropriate adaptations).

287

If this were successful, it would be logical that similar research be conducted using multiple methods of data collection. Inevitably, this would involve quantitative and qualitative methods, such as direct observation. This would help to determine the validity of the approach to organisational communication used in this study. Longitudinal research designs could also check the validity of the results as suggested by Dick and Wagner (2001).

The analyses of qualitative data revealed a number of possible other communication dimensions. This suggests a need for research operationalising these new dimensions. The benefits may be twofold. First, the items could enrich or add to the current communication dimensions. Second, they could emerge as distinct factors. In any case, there is the potential for a more complete picture of organisational communication in schools.

This study has been an investigation of organisational culture in terms of certain behaviours and established practices. The OCPSQ has the potential to measure and compare ‘communication cultures’ of schools. Such an approach has been put forward by Claudet and Ellett (1997).

This study has revealed relationships between organisational communication dimensions and job satisfaction and occupational stress. However, directions of causality were not established. There is a need to examine these relationships further through repeated studies aimed at establishing causal links between these variables. Structural equation modelling of longitudinal data could be used for this purpose.

In the light of the relationships of job satisfaction and occupational stress with other variables such as commitment, withdrawal, productivity and health discussed in the literature review, there is a need to explore these relationships and the extent to which organisational communication may influence them (directly or indirectly), and vice versa. The results of such a study could hold potential benefits for administrators seeking to improve

288 worker commitment, reduce absenteeism and reduce costs to their organisations.

This study and many of the directions for future research suggested above represent a different paradigm in terms of the way organisational communication should be viewed and studied. The approach of this study adds new dimensions of organisational communication to the existing body of research. This is especially relevant for schools given the limited research conducted in that environment. It is to be expected that as further research of this type is conducted, a more sophisticated understanding of organisational communication in schools will eventually result.

289 REFERENCES

Abu Saad, I. and Isralowitz, R.E. (1992). Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in Transitional Society within the Bedouin Arab Schools of the Negev, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132, No.6, pp. 771-781.

Adigun, I.O. and Stephenson, G.M. (1992). Sources of Job Motivation and Satisfaction Among British and Nigerian Employees, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.132, No.3, pp. 369-376.

Adler, R.B. and Rodman, G. (1991). Understanding Human Communication (4th ed.) Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College Publishers.

Akintunde, S. and Selbar, J.J. (1995). Intra-organizational Communication: A Comparative Study of Two Nigerian University Libraries, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 33-45.

Albanese, R. (1978). Managing: Toward Accountability For Performance, Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

Albrecht, T.L., Burleson, B.R. and Goldsmith, D. (1994). Supportive Communication. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (Ed.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. (pp. 419-449). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Allen, D.G. and Griffeth, R.W. (1997). Vertical and Lateral Information The Effects of Gender, Employee Classification Level, and Media Richness on Communication and Work Outcomes, Human Relations, Vol. 50, No. 10, pp. 1239-1260.

Allen, M.W. (1992). Communication and Organizational Commitment: Perceived Organizational Support as a Mediating Factor, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 357-367.

Allen, M.W. (1996). The Relationship Between Communication, Affect, Job Alternatives and Voluntary Turnover Intentions, The Southern Journal of Communication, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 198-210.

Allen, M.W. and Brady, R.M. (1997). Total Quality Management, Organizational Commitment, Perceived Organizational Support, and Intraorganizational Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 316-341.

Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L. and Burroughs, S.M. (1997). The Mentor’s Perspective: A Qualitative Inquiry and Future Research Agenda, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 51, pp. 70-89.

Alutto, J.A. and Acito, F. (1974). Decisional Participation and Sources of Job Satisfaction: A Study of Manufacturing Personnel, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 160-167.

290

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992). Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 634-665.

Anderson, C.M. and Martin, (1995). Why Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses: Motives, Gender, and Organizational Satisfaction, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 249-265.

Anderson, C.S. (1982). The Search For School Climate: A Review of the Research, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 368-420.

Applebaum, S.H. (1976). The Organizational Climate Study: An Intervention Strategy to Change a Department, University of Michigan Business Review, vol 28, No. 5, pp 12-17.

Arnolds, C.A. and Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, Esteem Valence and Job Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Alderfer’s ERG Theory, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 697-719.

Ashcraft, D.M. (1992). Health in the Workplace. In Kelley, K. (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and research in Industrial / Organizational Psychology. (pp. 259-283). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publications B.V.

Asher, D. (1999). Building Better Assimilation Programs: Five Keys to Success, Journal of Career Planning & Employment, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 24-27.

Athanassiades, J.C. (1973). The Distortion of Upward Communication in Hierarchical Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 207-226.

Athanassiades, J.C. (1974). An Investigation of Some Communication Patterns of Female Subordinates in Hierarchical Organizations, Human Relations, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 195-209.

Australian Teaching Council, (1995). What Do Teachers Think?, Leichhardt: Australian Teaching Council.

Avtgis, T.A. (2000). Unwillingness to Communicate and Satisfaction in Organizational Relationships, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 82-84.

Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research (7th ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Baird, J.E. (1977). The Dynamics of Organizational Communication, New York: Harper and Row.

291

Barker, L.L. and Barker, D.A. (1993). Communication (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bassey, M and Yeomans, B. (1989). School Climate: Monitoring Staff Opinion in a Primary School, School Organisation, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 219-222.

Beare, H. (1995). New Patterns for Managing Schools and School Systems. In C.W. Evers and J.D. Chapman, (Ed.), Educational Administration: An Australian Perspective. (pp. 132-152). St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Beehr, T.A. and Franz, T.M. (1987). The Current Debate About the Meaning of Job Stress. In Ivancevich, J.M. and Ganster, D.C. (Ed.s), Job Stress: From Theory to Suggestion. (pp. 5-18). New York: The Haworth Press.

Beehr, T.A., Jex, S.M., Stacy, B.A. and Murray, M.A. (2000). Work Stressors and Coworker Support as Predictors of Individual Strain and Job Performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 391-405.

Beisler, F., Scheeres, H. and Pinner, D. (1993). Communication Skills (2nd ed.), Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Bell, D. (1996). The Culture of Catholic Schools: An Outsider Looks Inside, Catholic School Studies, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 20-23.

Bell, L., Halpin, D. and Neill, S. (1996). Managing Self-governing Primary Schools in the Locally Maintained, Grant-maintained and Private Sectors, Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 253-261.

Benjamin, S. and Gard, J. (1993). Creating a Climate for Change: Students, Teachers, Administrators Working Together, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 77, No. 552, pp. 63-67.

Benson, J. and Nasser, F. (1998). On the Use of Factor Analysis As a Research Tool, Journal of Vocational Education Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13-33.

Bergman, A.B. (1992). Lessons for Principals from Site-Based Management, Educational Leadership, September 1992, pp. 48-51.

Berlo, D.K. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bernard, M.E. (1990). Taking the Stress Out of Teaching, Burwood: Collins Dove.

292 Berry, G. (2002). Towards Quality Systems Development in NSW Public Schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 201-223.

Bezzina, M. (1996). System Level Support for School Effectiveness: A Practitioner Perspective on Work in Progress, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 96-106.

Bidwell, C.E. (1965). The School as a Formal Organization. In March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. (pp. 972-1022). Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.

Bidwell, C.E. (2001). Analyzing Schools as Organizations: Long-Term Performance and Short-Term Change, Sociology of Education, Extra Issue 2001, pp. 100-114.

Bishop, L.K. and George, J.R. (1973). Organizational Structure: A Factor Analysis of Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 66-80.

Bishop, P. (1999). School-based Trust in Victoria: Some Telling Lessons, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 273-284.

Blair, R., Roberts, K.H. and McKechnie, P. (1985). Vertical and Network Communication in Organizations: The Present and the Future. In McPhee, R.D. and Tompkins P.K. (Ed.s), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. (pp. 55-77). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Blake, R.H. and Haroldsen, E.O. (1982). A Taxonomy of Concepts in Communication, New York: Hastings House Publishers.

Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1984). Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borg, M.G. (1990). Occupational Stress in British Educational Settings: A Review, Educational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 103-126.

Borg, M.G. and Falzon, J.M. (1991). Sources of Teacher Stress in Maltese Primary Schools, Research in Education, 46, pp. 1-15.

Borg, M.G. and Riding, R.J. (1993). Occupational Stress and Job Satisfaction Among School Administrators, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 4-21.

Borg, M.G., Riding, R.J. and Falzon, J.M. (1991). Stress in Teaching: A Study of Occupational Stress and its Determinants, Job Satisfaction and Career Commitment Among Primary Schoolteachers, Educational Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 59-75.

293

Boyle, G.J., Borg, M.G., Falzon, J.M. and Baglioni, A.J. (1995). A Structural Model of the Dimensions of Teacher Stress, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, pp. 49-67.

Brady, L. (1983). Curriculum Development in Australia, Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Braysich, J. (1979). Body Language, Sydney: Joseph Braysich & Associates.

Bredeson, P.V. (1987). Principally Speaking: An Analysis of The Interpersonal Communications of School Principals, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 55-71.

Brown, A.D. and Starkey, K. (1994). The Effect of Organizational Culture on Communication and Information, Journal of Management Studies, 31, 6 November 1994, pp. 807-828.

Brown, M. and Ralph, S. (1992). Towards the Identification of Stress in Teachers, Research in Education, No. 48, pp. 103-110.

Bruce, K. and Cacioppe, R. (1989). A Survey of Why Teachers Resigned from Government Secondary Schools in Western Australia, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 68-82.

Buchko, A.A., Weinzimmer, L.G. and Sergeyev, A.V. (1998). Effects of Cultural Context on the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment: A Study of Russian Workers, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.109-116.

Burgoon, M., Heston, J.K. and McCroskey, J.C. (1974). Small Group Communication: A Functional Approach, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Burke, R.J. and Greenglass, E. (1994). A Longitudinal Study of Psychological Burnout in Teachers, Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 1-15.

Burke, R.J. and Wilcox, D.S. (1969). Effects of Different Patterns and Degrees of Openness in Superior-Subordinate Communication on Subordinate Job Satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 12, pp. 319-326

Buunk, B.P. and Verhoeven, K. (1991). Companionship and Support at Work: A Microanalysis of the Stress-Reducing Features of Social Interaction, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 243-258.

Byrne, B.M. (1993). Burnout: Testing for the Validity, Replication and Invariance of Causal Structure Across Elementary, Intermediate and Secondary Teachers, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 645-673.

294 Caldwell, D.F. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1982). Task Perceptions and Job Satisfaction: A Question of Causality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 361-369.

Campbell, J.P. and Pritchard, R.D. (1976). Motivation Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Capel, S. (1989). Stress and Burnout In Secondary School Teachers: Some Causal Factors. In Cole, M. and Walker, S. (Ed.s), Teaching and Stress. (pp. 36-48). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Caputo, J.S. (1991). Stress and Burnout in Library Service, Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Carbaugh, D. (1985). Cultural Communication and Organizing. In Gudykunst, W.B., Stewart, L.P. and Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.s), Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes. (pp. 30-47). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Carroll, J.F.X. and White, W.L. (1982). Theory Building: Integrating Individual and Environmental Factors Within an Ecological Framework In Paine, W.S. (Ed.), Job Stress and Burnout. (pp. 41-60). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Carter, M. and Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and Beginning Teachers’ Workplace Learning, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 249-262.

Cass, T. (1983). Statistics at Work, New York: Longman.

Catholic Education Commission, (1998). NSW Annual Statistical Returns, Sydney: Catholic Education Commission.

Cawyer, C.S. and Friedrich, G.W. (1998). Organizational Socialization: Processes for New Communication Faculty, Communication Education, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 234-245.

Cerulo, K.A. (1988). What’s Wrong With This Picture?, Communication Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 93-101.

Chan, D.W. and Hui, E.K.P. (1995). Burnout and Coping Among Chinese Secondary School Teachers in Hong Kong, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 15-25.

Chaplain, R.P. (1995). Stress and Job Satisfaction: A Study of English Primary School Teachers, Educational Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 473-489.

295 Chapman, D.W. (1983). Career Satisfaction of Teachers, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 40-50.

Chapman, J.D. (1988). Decentralization, Devolution and the Teacher: Participation by Teachers in the Decision Making of Schools, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 39-72.

Chapman, R.P. (1995). Stress and Job Satisfaction: A Study of English Primary School Teachers, Educational Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 473-489.

Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff Burnout: Job Stress in the Human Services, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Clampitt, P.G. (1991). Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Claudet, J.G. and Ellett, C. (1997). Reconceptualizing Supervision as an Organizational Variable: Implications for School Climate and Effectiveness, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 169-192.

Cockburn, A.D. (1996). Primary Teachers’ Knowledge and Acquisition of Stress Relieving Strategies, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 399-410.

Collard, J. (1990). The Communication of Principals. In McMahon, J., Neidhart, H., Chapman, J. and Angus, L. (Ed.s), Leadership in Catholic Education. (pp. 166-182). Richmond: Spectrum Publications.

Conway, J. A. (1984). The Myth, Mystery and Mastery of Participative Decision Making in Education, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 11-40.

Cooper, C.L. and Kelly, M. (1993). Occupational Stress in Head Teachers: A National UK Study, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 130-143.

Corbett, W.J. (1986). The Communication Tools Inherent in Corporate Culture, Personnel Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 71-74.

Corrie, L. (1995). The Structure and Culture of Staff Collaboration: Managing Meaning and Opening Doors, Educational Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 89-99.

Corrigan, P.W., Holmes, E.P. and Luchins, D. (1995). Burnout and Collegial Support in State Psychiatric Hospital Staff, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 703-710.

296 Crino, M.D. and White, M.C. (1981). Satisfaction in Communication: An Examination of The Downs-Hazen Measure, Psychological Reports, Vol. 49, pp. 831-838.

Currivan, D.B. (2000). The Causal Order of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Models of Employee Turnover, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 495-524.

Cuttance, P. (1995). Quality Assurance and Quality Management in Education Systems. In Evers, C. and Chapman, J. (Ed.s), Educational Administration: An Australian Perspective. (pp. 296-316). St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin

Dance, F.E.X. and Larson, C.E. (1976). The Functions of Human Communication: A Theoretical Approach, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Daniels, T.D. and Spiker, B.K. (1987). Perspectives on Organizational Communication, Dubuque: W.M.C. Brown.

Davis, J. and Wilson, S.M. (2000). Principals’ Efforts to Empower Teachers: Effects on Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction and Stress, The Clearing House, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 349-353.

Davis, K. (1953). Management Communication and the Grapevine, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 43-49.

Davis, K. and Newstrom, J.W. (1989). Human Behavior at Work: Organizational Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Day, D.V., Bedeian, A.G. and Conte, J.M. (1998). Personality as Predictor of Work-Related Outcomes: Test of a Mediated Latent Structural Model, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 22, pp. 2068-2088.

Deal, T.E. (1985). The Symbolism of Effective Schools, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 601-620.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Deery, S., Plowman, D. and Walsh, J. (1997). Industrial Relations: A Contemporary Analysis, Roseville: McGraw-Hill.

Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the Difference Between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 619-654.

297 Derlin, R. and Schneider, G.T. (1994). Understanding Job Satisfaction: Principals and Teachers, Urban and Suburban, Urban Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 63-88.

Dick, R.V. and Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and Strain in Teaching: A Structural Equation Approach, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 243-259.

Di Gaetani, J.L. (1983). A Systems Solution to Communication Problems, Business Horizons, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp 57-61.

Dillon, W.R. and Goldstein, W. (1984). Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dimmock, C. and Hattie, J. (1994). Principals’ and Teachers’ Reactions to School Restructuring, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 36-55.

Dinham, S. (1993). Teachers Under Stress, Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 1-16.

Dinham, S., Cairney, T., Craigie, D. and Wilson, S. (1995). School Climate and Leadership: Research into Three secondary Schools, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 36-58.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (1996). The Teacher 2000 Project: A Study of Teacher Satisfaction, Motivation and Health, Kingswood: University of Western Sydney, Nepean – Faculty of Education.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (1998). A Three Domain Model of Teacher and School Executive Career Satisfaction, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 362-378.

Dinham, S. and Scott, C. (2000). Moving Into the Third, Outer Domain of Teacher Satisfaction, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 379-396.

Dorman, J.P. (1998). Climate Down Under, Momentum, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 57-59.

Dorman, J.P. and Fraser, B.J. (1996). Teachers’ Perceptions of School Environment in Australian Catholic and Government Secondary Schools, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 78-87.

Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1975). Congruence Between Individual Needs, Organizational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 149-155.

298

Downey, H.K., Sheridan, J.E. and Slocum, J.W. (1975). Analysis of Relationships Among Leadership Behavior, Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal Approach, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 253-262.

Downs, C.W. (1977). The Relationship Between Communication and Job Satisfaction. In Huseman, R.C., Logue, C.M. and Freshley, D.L. (Ed.s), Readings in Interpersonal and Organizational Communication. (pp. 363-376). Boston: Holbrook Press.

Downs, C.W., Berg, D.M. and Linkugel, W.A. (1977). The Organizational Communicator. New York: Harper & Row.

Downs, C.W., DeWine, S. and Greenbaum, H.H. (1994). Measures of Organizational Communication. In Rubin, R.B., Palmgreen, P. and Sypher, H.E. (Ed.s), Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook. (pp. 57-78). New York: The Guildford Press.

Downs, C.W., Driskill, G. and Wuthnow, D. (1990). A Review of Instrumentation on Stress, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol 4, No. 1, pp543-571.

Drucker, P.F. (1967). The Effective Executive. London: Heinemann.

Drucker, P.F. (1982). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, Practices. London: Heinemann.

Dua, J.K. (1994). Job Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health, and Job satisfaction in a University, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 59-78.

Ducharme, L.J. and Martin, J.K. (2000). Unrewarding Work, Coworker Support, and Job Satisfaction: A Test of the Buffering Hypothesis, Work and Occupations, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 223-243.

Dunford, R.W. (1992). Organisational Behaviour: An Organisational Analysis Perspective. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

Dworkin, A.G., Haney, C.A., Dworkin, R.J. and Telschow, R.L. (1990). Stress and Illness Behavior among Urban Public School Teachers, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 60-72.

Dwyer, J. (2002). Communication in Business (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Prentice-Hall.

Dwyer, J. (2003). The Business Communication Handbook (6th ed.). Frenchs Forest: Prentice-Hall.

299

Eagley, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Johnson, B.T. (1992). Gender and Leadership Style Among School Principals: A Meta-Analysis, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 76-102.

Eden, D. (2001). Who Controls The Teachers? Overt and Covert Control in Schools, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 97-111.

Edge, H.A. and Williams, M.L. (1994). Affirming Communicator Style of Supervisor and Subordinate Use of Upward Influence Tactics: An Analysis of Nonmanagerial and Managerial Employees, Communication Research Reports, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 201-208.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli ,S. and Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support, Discretionary Treatment and Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 812-820.

Elder, B. (1995). Communication Studies. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Epp, J.R. (1993). Psuedo-Participation, Participation and Shared Governance: Teachers and School Administration, The Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 54-64.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L. and Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Evans, L. (1998). The Effects of Senior Management Teams on Teacher Morale and Job Satisfaction, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 417-428.

Fairhurst, G. (1990). Changing the Information Culture at the Pearson Company. In Sypher, B.D. (Ed.), Case Studies in Organizational Communication. (pp. 223-234). New York: Guildford Press.

Falcione, R.L., Sussman, L. and Herden, R.P. (1987). Communication Climate in Organizations. In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Ed.s), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (pp. 195-227). Newbury Park: Sage.

Farace, R.V. and MacDonald, D. (1974). New Directions in the Study of Organizational Communication, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 1-19.

Farace, R.V., Monge, P.R. and Russell, H.M. (1977). Communicating and Organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

300 Farber, B.A. (1984). Stress and Burnout in Suburban Teachers, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 325-331.

Feitler, F.C. and Tokar, E.B. (1986). School Administrators and Organizational Stress: Matching Theory, Hunches, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 254-271.

Ferguson, G.A. and Takone, Y. (1989). Statistical Analysis In Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ferratt, T.W. (1981). Overall Job Satisfaction: Is It a Linear Function of Facet Satisfaction?, Human Relations, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 463-473.

Feshbach, S. and Weiner, B. (1991). Personality (3rd ed.). Lexington: D.C. Heath & Co.

Finlay-Jones, R. (1986). Factors in the Teaching Environment Associated with Severe Psychological Distress Among School Teachers, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 20, pp. 304-313.

Finlayson, D.S. (1987). School Climate: An Outmoded Metaphor?, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 163-173.

Fischer, H.J. (1983). A Psychoanalytic View of Burnout. In Farber, B.A. (Ed.), Stress and Burnout in the Human Service Professions. (pp. 40-45). New York: Pergamon Press.

Flynn, M. (1993). The Culture of Catholic Schools: A Study of Catholic Schools: 1972-1993. Homebush: St. Pauls.

Flynn, M. and Mok, M. (2002). Catholic Schools 2000: A Longitudinal Study of Year 12 Students in Catholic Schools 1972-1982-1990-1998, Sydney, Catholic Education Commission.

Fontana, D. and Abouserie, R. (1993). Stress Levels, Gender and Personality Factors in Teachers, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 261-270.

Fuchigami, K. (1993). A Study of Organizational Communication in a School During the Pre- and Post-Innovation Periods, The Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 35-42.

Fusarelli, L.D. (2002). Tightly Coupled Policy in Loosely Coupled Systems: Institutional Capacity and Organizational Change, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 561-575.

Gaertner, S. (2000). Structural Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Turnover Models, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 479-493.

301 Gaines, J.H. (1980). Upward Communication in Industry: An Experiment, Human Relations, Vol. 33, No. 12, pp. 929-942.

Galloway, D., Boswell, K., Panckhurst, C., Boswell, C. and Green, K. (1985). Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction for New Zealand Primary School Teachers, Educational Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 44-51.

Galvin, M., Prescott, D. and Huseman, R. (1992). Business Communication: Strategies and Skills (4th ed.). Sydney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gamble, P.R. and Kelliher, C.E. (1999). Imparting Information and Influencing Behaviour: An Examination of Staff Briefing Sessions, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 261-279.

Gay, L.R. and Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1996). The Experience of Work and Turnover Intentions: Interactive Effects of Value Attainment, Job Satisfaction, and Positive Mood, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 318-325.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2000). Essentials of Managing Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Gerhart, B. (1987). How Important are Dispositional Factors as Determinants of Job Satisfaction? Implications for Job Design and Other Personnel Programs, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 366-373.

Gilman, P.J. (1979). Recommendations for Neophyte Administrators, Education, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 311-313.

Glauser, M.J. (1984). Upward Information Flow in Organizations: Review and Conceptual Analysis, Human Relations, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 613-643.

Glick, W.H. (1985). Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 601-616.

Glowinkowski, S.P. and Cooper, C.L. (1987). Managers and Professionals in Business/Industrial Settings: The Research Evidence. In Ivancevich, J.M. and Ganster, D.C. (Ed.s) Job Stress: From Theory to Suggestion. (pp. 177-193). New York: The Haworth Press.

Goldhaber, G.M. (1993). Organizational Communication (6th ed.). Madison: Brown & Benchmark.

Goldhaber, G.M. (2002). Communication Audits in the Age of the Internet, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 451-457.

302 Goodman, P.S. and Friedman, A. (1971). An Examination of Adams’ Theory of Inequity, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 271-288.

Gorden, W.I. and Infante, D.A. (1991). Test of a Communication Model of Organizational Commitment, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 144-155.

Goris, J.R., Vaught, B.C. and Pettit, J.D. (2000). Effects of Communication Direction on Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Moderated Regression Analysis, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 348-368.

Greenbaum, H.H., Clampitt P. and Willihnganz S. (1988). Organizational Communication: An Examination of Four Instruments, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 245-282.

Gregson, T. (1991). The Separate Constructs of Communication Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol 51, No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Gresso, D.W. and Robertson, M.B. (1992). The Principal as Process Consultant: Catalyst for Change, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 76, No. 540, pp. 44-48.

Griffith, J. (1999). The School Leadership / School Climate Relation: Identification of School Configurations Associated With Change in Principals, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 267-291.

Gronn, P.C. (1983). Talk as the Work: The Accomplishment of School Administration, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 1-21.

Gruneberg, M.M. (1979). Understanding Job Satisfaction. London: MacMillan.

Grunig, L.A. (1990). An Exploration of the Causes of Job Satisfaction in Public Relations, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 355-375.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1997). Cultural Variability in Communication, Communication Research, Vol.24, No. 4, pp. 327-348.

Guglielmi, R.S. and Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational Stress, Burnout and Health in Teachers: A Methodological and Theoretical Analysis, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 61-99.

Gundry, L.K. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Critical Incidents in Communicating Culture to Newcomers: The Meaning is in The Message, Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 9, pp. 1063-1087.

303

Gunn, J.A. and Holdaway, E.A. (1986). Perceptions of Effectiveness, Influence, and Satisfaction of Senior High School Principals, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 43-62.

Guralnik, D.B. (Ed.), (1976). Webster’s New World Dictionary (2nd ed.). Cleveland: William Collins Publishing.

Guzley, R.M. (1992). Organizational Climate and Communication Climate: Predictors of Commitment to the Organization, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 379-402.

Guzman, N. (1997). Leadership for Successful Inclusive Schools: A Study of Principal Behaviours, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 439-450.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 250-279.

Haines, V.A., Hurlbert, J.S. and Zimmer, C. (1991). Occupational Stress, Social Support and the Buffer Hypothesis, Work and Occupations, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 212-235.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hajnal, V., Walker, K. and Sackney, L. (1998). Leadership, Organizational Learning, and Selected Factors Relating to the Institutionalization of School Improvement Initiatives, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol 44, No. 1, pp. 70-89.

Hall, G.E. (1988). The Principal As Leader of the Change Facilitating Team, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 49-59.

Hall, G., Rutherford, W.L., Hord, S.M. and Huling, L.L. (1984). Effects of Three Principal Styles on School Improvement, Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 22-29.

Hanna, M.S. and Wilson, G.L. (1991). Communicating in Business and Professional Settings (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hanneman, G.J. (1975). The Study of Human Communication. In Hanneman, G.J. and McEwen, W.J. (Ed.s), Communication and Behavior. (pp. 21-45). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

304 Harrison, J.R. and Carroll, G.R. (1991). Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 552-582.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J. and Conn, M. (1995). Conventional Wisdom is a Poor Predictor of the Relationship Between Discipline Policy, Student Misbehaviour and Teacher Stress, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 27-48.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., Conn, M., Carter, N.L. and Dingle, R.K. (2000). Development of the School Organisational Health Questionnaire: A Measure for Assessing Teacher Morale and School Organisational Climate, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 70, No. 2, pp. 211-239.

Hatchard, D. and Thomas, E.B. (1987). Teacher Stress and Burnout: Myth or Reality?, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 42-48.

Hatton, E. (2001). School Development Planning in a Small Primary School: Addressing the Challenge in Rural NSW, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 118-133.

Haughey, M.L. and Murphy, P.J. (1983). Profile of a Rural School Teacher in British Columbia, Education Canada, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 4-9.

Hayward, H.E. (1986). Common Room Conversation, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 4-5.

Hecht, M.L. (1978). Toward a Conceptualization of Communication Satisfaction, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 64, pp. 47-62.

Heck, R.H. (1996). School Culture and Performance: Testing the Invariance of an Organizational Model, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 76-95.

Heintzman, M., Leathers, D.G., Parrott, R.L. and Cairns, A.B. (1993). Nonverbal Rapport-Building Behaviors’ Effects on Perceptions of a Supervisor, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 181-208.

Helm, C. (2000). An Australian Journal, Momentum, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 54-56.

Hendrix, W.H., Summers, T.P., Leap, T.L. and Steel, R.P. (1994). Antecedents and Organizational Effects of Employee Status and Health. In Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L. (Ed.s), Occupational Stress. (pp. 73-92). Washington D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Henne, D. and Locke, E.A. (1985). Job Dissatisfaction: What are the Consequences?, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 221-240.

305

Herzberg, F. (1968). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46, pp. 53-62.

Hill, M.D. (1987). A Theoretical Analysis of Faculty Job Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol 10, No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Hock, R.R. (1988). Professional Burnout Among Public School Teachers, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 167-189.

Holdaway, E.A. (1978). Facet and Overall Satisfaction of Teachers, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 30-47.

Hoy, W.K. and Hannum, J.W. (1997). Middle School Climate: An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Health and Student Achievement, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 290-311.

Hoy, W.K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D. and Bliss, J. (1996). The Organizational Climate of Middle Schools: The Development and Test of the OCDQ-RM, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 41-59.

Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (1996). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W.K. and Sousa, D.A. (1984). Delegation: The Neglected Aspect of Participation in Decision Making, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol 30, No. 4, pp. 320-331.

Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Kottkamp, R.B. (1991). Open Schools / Healthy Schools: Measuring Organizational Climate. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty Trust in Colleagues: Linking the Principal with School Effectiveness, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 38-45.

Humphrys, P. (1981). The Effect of Importance Upon the Relation Between Perceived Job Attributes, Desired Job Attributes and Job Satisfaction, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 121-133.

Hurlbert, J.S. (1991). Social Networks, Social Circles and Job Satisfaction, Work and Occupations, Vol. 18, N0. 4, pp. 415-430.

Iaffaldano, M.T. and Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 251-273.

306 Infante, D.A., Anderson, C.M., Martin, M.M., Herington, A.D. and Kim, J.K. (1993). Subordinates’ Satisfaction and Perceptions of Superiors’ Compliance- Gaining Tactics, Argumentativeness, Verbal Agressiveness and Style, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 307-326.

Irwin, H. (1998). Communication Studies in Australia: Tensions and New Challenges, Communication Education, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 274-285.

Irwin, H. and More, E. (1994). Managing Corporate Communication. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Ivancevich, J.M. and Donnelly, J.H. (1975). Relation of Organizational Structure to Job Satisfaction, Anxiety-Stress, and Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 272-280.

Iverson, R.D. (2000). An Event History Analysis of Employee Turnover: The Case of Hospital Employees in Australia, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 397-418.

Iverson, R.D., Olekalns, M. and Erwin, P.J. (1998). Affectivity, Organizational Stressors, and Absenteeism: A Causal Model of Burnout and its Consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Jablin, F.M. (1978). Message-Response and “Openness” in Superior- Subordinate Communication. In Ruben, B.D. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook II. (pp. 293-309). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Jablin, F.M. (1979). Superior-Subordinate Communication: the State of the Art, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, No. 6, pp. 1201-1222.

Jablin, F.M. (1982). Organizational Communication: An Assimilation Approach. In Roloff, M.E. and Berger, C.R. (Ed.s) Social Cognition and Communication. (pp. 255-286). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Jablin, F.M. (1987). Formal Organization Structure. In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Ed.s), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (pp. 389-419). Newbury Park: Sage.

Jablin, F.M. and Krone, K.J. (1994). Task/Work Relationships: A Life-Span Perspective. In Knapp, M.L. and Miller, G.R. (Ed.s), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. (pp.621-675). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (1987). Context: Internal and External Environments. In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Ed.s), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (pp. 123-129). Newbury Park: Sage.

307

Jain, H.C. (1973). Supervisory Communication and Performance in Urban Hospitals, The Journal of Communication, Vol. 23, March, pp. 103-117.

Jayaratne, S. and Chess, W.A. (1983). Job Satisfaction and Burnout in Social Work. In Farber, B.A. (Ed.), Stress and Burnout in the Human Service Professions. (pp. 129-141). New York: Pergamon Press.

Johnson, J.D., Donohue, W.A., Atkin, C.K. and Johnson, S. (1994). Differences Between Formal and Informal Communication Channels, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 111-122.

Johnson, H., McCreery, E. and Castelli, M. (2000). The Role of the Headteacher in Developing Children Holistically, Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 389-403.

Johnson, N.A. and Holdaway, E.A. (1991). Perceptions of Effectiveness and the Satisfaction of Principals in Elementary Schools, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 51- 70.

Johnson, P.A. and Indvik, J. (1990). The Role Communication Plays in Developing and Reducing Organizational Stress and Burnout, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 5-9.

Joint Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Stress, (1987). Teacher Stress: Summary Report. Perth: Western Australian Education Dept.

Joyce, W.F. and Slocum, J.W. (1984). Collective Climate: Agreement as a Basis for Defining Aggregate Climates in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 721-742.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001). The Job Satisfaction – Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 376-407.

Kahn, R.L. and Byosiere, (1992). Stress in Organizations. In Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Ed.s), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Volume 3). (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kalliath, T.J. and Beck, A. (2001). Is the Path to Burnout and Turnover Paved by a Lack of Supervisory Support?, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 72-78.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

308 Katzell, R.A., Thompson, D.E. and Guzzo, R.A. (1992). How Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Are and Are Not Linked. In Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (Ed.s), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How It Affects Their Performance. (pp. 195-217). New York: Lexington Books.

Keenan, A. and Newton, T.J. (1984). Frustration in Organizations: Relationships to Role Stress, Climate and Psychological Strain, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 57-65.

Kelly, B.E. and Bredeson, P.V. (1991). Measures of Meaning in a Public and in a Parochial School: Principals as Symbol Managers, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 6-22.

Keyes, M.W., Maxwell, C.H. and Capper, C.A. (1999). “Spirituality? It’s the Core of My Leadership”: Empowering Leadership in an inclusive Elementary School, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 203-237.

Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (1985). Five Key Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture. In Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (Ed.s), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. (pp. 1-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P.E. and Behnke, R.R. (2000). Effects of Communication Load, Affect and Anxiety on the Performance of Information Processing Tasks, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 74-84.

Kitchens, L.J. (1997). Exploring Statistics: A Modern Introduction to Data Analysis and Inference. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

Klauss, R. and Bass, B.M. (1982). Interpersonal Communication in Organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Knight, T. (1995). Parents, the Community and School Governance. In Evers, C.W. and Chapman, J.D. (Ed.s), Educational Administration: An Australian Perspective. (pp. 254-273). St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Knoop, R. (1994). Work Values and job Satisfaction, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128, No. 6, pp. 683-690.

Knudson, D.P. and Wood, F.H. (1998). Support from Above, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 27-32.

Koehler, J.W., Anatol, K.W.E. and Applebaum, R.L. (1981). Organizational Communication: Behavioral Perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

309 Koike, H., Gudykunst, W.B., Stewart,, L.P., Ting-Toomey S. and Nishida, T. (1988). Communication Openness, Satisfaction, and Length of Employment in Japanese Organizations, Communication Research Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 97-102.

Kottkamp, R.B. (1984). The Principal as Cultural Leader, Planning and Changing, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 152-160.

Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J.R. (1993). Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 104-111.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

Kreps, G.L. (1990). Organizational Communication: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Krone, K.J. (1991). Effects of Leader-Member Exchange on Subordinates’ Upward Influence Attempts, Communication research Reports, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 9-18.

Krone, K.J. (1992). A Comparison of Organizational, Structural, and Relationship Effects on Subordinates’ Upward Influence Choices, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Krone, K.J., Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (1987). Communication Theory and Organizational Communication: Multiple Perspectives. In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Ed.s) Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (pp. 18-40). Newbury Park: Sage.

Kulmatycki, M.B. and Montgomerie, T.C. (1993). A Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions About Their Leadership Roles in Catholic and Non- Catholic Schools, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 375-392.

Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review, Educational Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 146-152.

Kyriacou, C. (1989). The Nature and Prevalence of Teacher Stress. In Cole, M. and Walker, S. (Ed.s) Teaching and Stress. (pp. 26-34). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Kyriacou, C. and Suttcliffe, J. (1977). Teacher Stress: A Review, Educational Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 299-306.

Kyriacou, C. and Sutcliffe, J. (1978a). A Model of Teacher Stress, Educational Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-6.

310

Kyriacou, C. and Sutcliffe, J. (1978b). Teacher Stress: Prevalence, Sources, and Symptoms, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 159-167.

Kyriacou, C. and Sutcliffe, J. (1979). Teacher Stress and Satisfaction, Educational Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 89- 96.

Lacy, F.J. and Sheehan, B.A. (1997). Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff: An International Perspective, Higher Education, Vol. 34, pp. 305-322.

Landy, F.J. (1989). Psychology of Work Behaviour. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Larson, E.W. and King, J.B. (1996). The Systemic Distortion of Information: An Ongoing Challenge to Management, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 49-61.

Lau, I.Y.M., Chiu, C. and Lee, S.L. (2001). Communication and Shared Reality: Implications for the Psychological Foundations of Culture, Social Cognition, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 350-371.

Laughlin, A. (1984). Teacher Stress in an Australian Setting: The Role of Biographical Mediators, Educational Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7-22.

Lee, J. and Jablin, F.M. (1995). Maintenance Communication in Superior- Subordinate Work Relationships, Human Communication Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 220-257.

Leiter, M.P. (1988). Burnout as a Function of Communication Patterns, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 111-128.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1998). Leadership and Other Conditions Which Foster Organizational Learning in Schools. In Leithwood, K. and Louis, K.S. (Ed.s), Organizational Learning in Schools. (pp. 65-90). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lester, P.E. (1987). Development and Factor Analysis of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ), Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 223-233.

Lester, P.E. and Bishop, L.K. (1997). Handbook of Tests and Measurement in Education and the Social Sciences. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co.

Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers Coping with the Stress of Classroom Discipline, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 3 pp. 155-171.

311 Lincoln, J.R. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1985). Work Organization and Workforce Commitment: A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan, American Sociological Review, Vol. 50, December, pp. 738-760.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D. and Mills, M. (2002). Developments in School-Based Management: The Specific Case of Queensland, Australia, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 6-30.

Litt, M.D. and Turk, D.C. (1985). Sources of Stress and Dissatisfaction in Experienced High School Teachers, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 178-185.

Lock, G. (1989). The Establishment of an Effective Communication System in Schools, The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 40-49.

Locke, E.A. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction?, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 309-336.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Loucks, S.F. and Zacchei, D.A. (1983). Applying our Findings to Today’s Innovations, Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 28-31.

Lowther, M.A., Gill, S.J. and Coppard, L.C. (1985). Age and the Determinants of Teacher Job Satisfaction, The Gerontologist, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 520-525.

Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational Behavior (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lyons, A. and Kashima, Y. (2001). The Reproduction of Culture: Communication Processes Tend to Maintain Cultural Stereotypes, Social Cognition, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 372-394.

Ma, X. and MacMillan, R.B. (1999). Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 39-47.

Manning, M.R., Jackson, C.N. and Fusilier, M.R. (1996). Occupational Stress, Social Support, and the Costs of Health Care, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 738-750.

Manthei, R. and Gilmore, A. (1994). Is Stress Among New Zealand Teachers Increasing?, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 73-87.

312

Manthei, R. and Gilmore, A. (1996). Teacher Stress in Intermediate Schools, Educational Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Marsh, C. and Stafford, K. (1988). Curriculum: Practices and Issues (2nd ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding Burnout: Definitional Issues in Analyzing a Complex Phenomenon. In Paine, W.S. (Ed.) Job Stress and Burnout. (pp. 29-40). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Maxwell, T.W. and Thomas, A.R. (1991). School Climate and Culture, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 72-82.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 709-734.

McCormick, E.J. and Ilgen, D. (1985). Industrial and Organizational Psychology (8th ed.). London: Unwin Hyman.

McCormick, J. (1997a). Occupational Stress of Teachers: Biographical Differences in a Large School System, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 18-38.

McCormick, J. (1997b). An Attribution Model of Teachers’ Occupational Stress and Job Satisfaction in a Large Educational System, Work and Stress, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 17-32.

McCormick, J. (2000). Psychological Distancing and Teachers’ Attribution of Responsibility for Occupational Stress in a Catholic Education System, Issues in Educational Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 55-66.

McCormick, J. and Shi, G. (1999). Teachers’ Attributions of Responsibility for Their Occupational Stress in the People’s Republic of China and Australia, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 393-407.

McCormick, J. and Solman, R. (1992a). The Externalised Nature of Teachers’ Occupational Stress and its Association with Job Satisfaction, Work and Stress, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 33-44.

McCormick, J. and Solman, R. (1992b). Teachers’ Attributions of Responsibility for Occupational Stress and Satisfaction: An Organisational Perspective, Educational Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 201-222.

313 McFarlin, D.B., Coster, E.A., Rice, R.W. and Cooper, A.T. (1995). Facet Importance and Job Satisfaction: Another Look at the Range-of-Effect Hypothesis, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 489-502.

McGee, G.W., Goodson, J.R. and Cashman, J.F. (1987). Job Stress and Job Dissatisfaction: Influence of Contextual Factors, Psychological Reports, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 367-375.

McKenna, E.F. (1987). Psychology in Business: Theory and Applications. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McKinnon, R. (1990). Corporate Communication: How to Survive the Load, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 81-97.

McPhee, R.D. (1985). Formal Structure and Organizational Communication. In McPhee, R.D. and Tompkins, P.K. (Ed.s) Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. (pp. 149-177). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Meier, R.L. (1963). Communications Overload: Proposals from the Study of a University Library, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 521-544.

Mercer, D. (1993). Job Satisfaction and the Headteacher: A Nominal Group Approach, School Organisation, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 153-164.

Meyer, J.C. (1995). Tell Me a Story: Eliciting Organizational Values from Narratives, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 210-224.

Meyer, J.C. (2002). Organizational Communication Assessment: Fuzzy Methods and the Accessibility of Symbols, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 472-479.

Mignerey, J.T., Rubin, R.B. and Gorden, W.I. (1995). Organizational Entry: An Investigation of Newcomer Communication Behavior and Uncertainty, Communication Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 54-85.

Miles, E.W., Patrick, S.L. and King, 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, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 277-292.

Miller, G.R. (1987). Persuasion. In Berger, C.R. and Chaffee, S.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Communication Science. (pp. 446-483). Newbury Park: Sage.

Miller, K., Birkholt, M., Scott, C. and Stage, C. (1995). Empathy and Burnout in Human Service Work: An Extension of a Communication Model, Communication Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 123-147.

314

Miller, K.I., Ellis, B.H., Zook, E.G. and Lyles, (1990). An Integrated Model of Communication, Stress, and Burnout in the Workplace, Communication Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 300-326.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2000). National Report on Schooling in Australia 2000, Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Miskel, C., McDonald, D. and Bloom, S. (1983). Structural and Expectancy Linkages within Schools and Organizational Effectiveness, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 49-82.

Mitchell, J.T. and Willower, D.J. (1992). Organizational Culture in a Good High School, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 6-16.

Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction, Occupational Preference and Effort: A Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Appraisal, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 12, pp. 1083-1077.

Mohan, T., McGregor, H. and Strano, Z. (1992). Communicating! Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Sydney: Harcourt Brace.

Mok, M. and Flynn, M. (1998). Effect of Catholic School Culture on Students’ Achievement in the Higher School Certificate Examination: A Multilevel Path Analysis, Educational Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 409-432.

Moore, J.L. (1992). The Role of the Science Co-ordinator in Primary Schools: A Survey of Headteachers’ Views, School Organisation, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7-15.

Morand, D.A. (2000). Language and Power: An Empirical Analysis of Linguistic Strategies Used in Superior-Subordinate Communication, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 235-248.

More, E. and Smith, A.R. (1990). Organisational Communication: The Culture Approach, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 98-112.

Morley, D.D., Shockley-Zalabak, P. and Cesaria, R. (1997). Organizational Communication and Culture: A Study of 10 Italian High-Technology Companies, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 253-268.

Mortensen, G.D. (1972). Communication: The Study of Human Interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

315 Muchinsky, P.M. (1976). An Assessment of the Litwin and Stringer Organization Climate Questionnaire: An Empirical and theoretical Extension of the Sims and Lafollette Study, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 371-392.

Muchinsky, P.M. (1977a). An Intraorganizational Analysis of the Roberts and O’Reilly Organizational Communication Questionnaire, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 184-188.

Muchinsky, P.M. (1977b). Organizational Communication: Relationships to Organizational Climate and Job satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 592-607.

Muchinsky, P.M. (1993). Psychology Applied to Work (4th ed). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Muchinsky, P.M. (2000). Psychology Applied to Work (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Naumann, E. (1993). Organizational Predictors of Expatriate Job Satisfaction, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 61-80.

Nias, J. (1981). Teacher Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: Herzberg’s ‘Two- Factor’ Hypothesis Revisited, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 235-246.

Nidich, R.J. and Nidich, S.I. (1986). A Study of School Organizational Climate Variables Associated With Teacher Morale, The Clearing House, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 189-191.

Nutting, J., Cielens, M. and Strachan, J. (1996). The Business of Communicating (3rd ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Nutting, J. and White, G. (1990). The Business of Communicating (2nd ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Obilade, S.O. (1992). Supervisory Behaviour as Perceived by Secondary School Teachers in Nigeria, School Organisation, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 237-243.

O’Brien, S. and O’Donoghue, T.A. (1995). Reflection on School Mission in School Climate: Celebration or Compromise?, Catholic School Studies, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 26-30.

O’Connor, P.R. and Clarke, V.A. (1990). Determinants of Teacher Stress, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 41-51.

Odden, C.M. and Sias, P.M. (1997). Peer Communication Relationships and Psychological Climate, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 153-166.

316

Ogawa, R.T. and Scribner, S.P. (2002). Leadership: Spanning the Technical and Institutional Dimensions of Organizations, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 576-588.

Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. (1998). Organizational Culture: It’s Not What You Think…, Journal of General Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 35-48.

O’Keefe, G.J. and Reid-Nash, K.R. (1987). Socializing Functions. In Berger, C.R. and Chaffee, S.H. (Ed.s) Handbook of Communication Science. (pp. 419-445). Newbury Park: Sage.

Olaniran, B.A. and Williams, D.E. (1995). Communication Distortion: An Intercultural Lesson From the Visa Application Process, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 225-240.

O’Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in Organizations, California Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 9-25.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1978). The Intentional Distortion of Information in Organizational Communication: A Laboratory and Field Investigation, Human Relations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 173-193.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1980). Individuals and Information Overload in Organizations: Is More Necessarily Better?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 684-696.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487-516.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Roberts, K.H. (1974). Information Filtration in Organizations: Three Experiments, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 253-265.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Roberts, K.H. (1976). Relationships Among Components of Credibility and Communication Behaviors in Work Units, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 99-102.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Roberts, K.H. (1977). Task Group Structure, Communication, and Effectiveness in Three Organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp. 674-681.

Orpen, C. (1985). The Effects of Need for Achievement and Need for Independence on the Relationship between Perceived Job Attributes and Managerial Satisfaction and Performance, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

317

Orpen, C. (1997). The Interactive Effects of Communication Quality and Job Involvement on Managerial Job Satisfaction and Work Motivation, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 131, No. 5, pp. 519-522.

Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 203-223.

Ott, J.S. (1989). The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.

Otto, R. (1986). Teachers Under Stress: Health Hazards in a Work-Role and Modes of Response. Melbourne: Hill of Content.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Owens, R.G. (2001). Organizational Behavior in Education: Instructional Leadership and School Reform (7th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pace, R.W. and Faules, D.F. (1994). Organizational Communication. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Palardy, J.M. (1988). Institutional Structure: An Impediment to Professionalism?, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 72, No. 508, pp. 82-84.

Pang, N.S.K. (1998). The Binding Forces That Hold School Organizations Together, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 314-333.

Patten, M. (1984). Internal Communications: How to Make Staff Meetings Work, Panorama, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 35-37.

Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction (3rd ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Pepper, G.L. (1995). Communicating in Organizations: A Cultural Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 570-581.

Pettit, J.D., Goris, J.R. and Vaught, B.C (1997). An Examination of Organizational Communication as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Job Performance and Job Satisfaction, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 81-98.

318 Pheysey, D.C. (1993). Organizational Cultures: Types and Transformations. London: Routledge.

Phillips, N. and Brown, J.L. (1993). Analyzing Communication In and Around Organizations: A Critical Hermeneutic Approach, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1547-1576.

Pierce, C.M.B. and Molloy, G.N. (1990). Relations Between School Type, Occupational Stress, Role Perceptions and Social Support, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 330-338.

Pincus, J.D. (1986). Communication Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance, Human Communication Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 395-419.

Pines, A.M. (1993). Burnout. In Goldberger, L. and Breznitz, S. (Ed.s), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects (2nd ed.), (pp. 386-402). New York: The Free Press.

Pithers, R.T. (1995). Teacher Stress Research: Problems and Progress, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 387-392.

Pithers, R.T. and Fogarty, G.J. (1995). Occupational Stress among Vocational Teachers, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 3-14.

Pithers, R.T. and Soden, R. (1998). Scottish and Australian Teacher Stress and Strain: A Comparative Study, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 269-279.

Pitkoff, E. (1993). Teacher Absenteeism: What Administrators Can Do, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 77, No. 551, pp. 39-45.

Pollock, T.G., Whitbred, R.C. and Contractor, N. (2000). Social Information Processing and Job Characteristics: A Simultaneous test of two Theories with Implications for Job satisfaction, Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 292-330.

Pool, S.W. (1997). The Relationship of Job Satisfaction with Substitutes of Leadership, Leadership Behavior and Work Motivation, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 271-283.

Poppleton, P. (1989). Rewards and Values in Secondary Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Job Satisfaction, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 71-94.

Potts, A. (1999). Public and Private Schooling in Australia, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 242-245.

319 Punch, K.F. and Tuetteman, E. (1996). Reducing Teacher Stress: The Effects of Support in the Work Environment, Research in Education, No. 56, pp. 63-72.

Putnam, L.L. (1990). Emerging Directions in Organizational Communication, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 1-10.

Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N. and Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of Communication and Organization. In Clegg, S.R., Handy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Ed.s) Handbook of Organization Studies. (pp. 375-408). London: Sage.

Rafaeli, A. and Pratt, M.G. (1993). Tailored Meanings: On the Meaning and Impact of Organizational Dress, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 32-57.

Rakes, T.A. and Cox, G.C. (1994). Persuasive Strategies for School Administrators: A Key to School Effectiveness, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 564, pp. 97-102.

Ramus, C.A. (2001). Organizational Support for Employees: Encouraging Creative Ideas for Environmental Sustainability, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 85-105.

Rapert, M.I. and Wren, B.M. (1998). Reconsidering Organizational Structure: A Dual Perspective of Frameworks and Processes, Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 287-302.

Raschke, D.B., Dedrick, C.V., Strathe, M.I. and Hawkes, R.R. (1985). Teacher Stress: The Elementary Perspective, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 559-564.

Raspberry, R.W. and Lemoine, L.F. (1986). Effective Managerial Communication. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing.

Rauschenberg, G. (1988). Cultivating the Grapevine, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 328-330.

Ray, E.B. (1990). Assessing the Ties That Bind: Social Support Versus Isolation in Communication Networks. In Sypher, B.D. (Ed.) Case Studies in Organizational Communication. (pp. 150-160). New York: Guildford Press.

Ray, E.B. (1991). The Relationship Among Communication Network Roles, Job Stress, and Burnout in Educational Organizations, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 91-102.

Ray, E.B. and Miller, K.I. (1991). The Influence of Communication Structure and Social Support on Job Stress and Burnout, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 506-527.

320

Redding, W.C. (1985). Stumbling Toward Identity: The Emergence of Organizational Communication as a Field of Study. In McPhee, R.D. and Tompkins, P.K. (Ed.s) Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. (pp. 15-64). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rees, P. (1998). We’re Stressed More Than Ever, The Sunday Telegraph, 29 March, p. 2.

Reilly, B.J. and DiAngelo, J.A. (1990). Communication: A Cultural System of Meaning and Value, Human Relations, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 129-140.

Reitzug, U.C. (1989). Principal-Teacher Interactions in Instructionally Effective and Ordinary Elementary Schools, Urban Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 38-58.

Reitzug, U.C. (1994). A Case Study of Empowering Principal Behavior, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 283-307.

Reitzug, U.C. and Reeves, J.E. (1992). “Miss Lincoln Doesn’t Teach Here”: A Descriptive Narrative and Conceptual Analysis of a Principal’s Symbolic Leadership Behavior, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 185-219.

Renner, J. (1990). Planned Educational Change: Statewide Implementation of a New Curriculum in Western Australia, Curriculum Perspectives, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 45-53.

Reyes, P. and Hoyle, D. (1992). Teachers’ Satisfaction With Principals’ Communication, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 163-168.

Reyes, P. and Pounder, D.G. (1993). Organizational Orientation in Public and Private Elementary Schools, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 86-93.

Riccucci, N.M. (1995). “Execucrats,” Politics and Public Policy: What Are the Ingredients for Successful Performance in the Federal Government?, Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 219-230.

Rice, E.M. and Schneider, G.T. (1994). A Decade of Teacher Empowerment: An Empirical Analysis of Teacher Involvement in Decision Making 1980-1991, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 43-58.

Rich, S.J. (1995). Teacher Support Groups: Why They Emerge and the Role They Play, Education Canada, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 15-21.

Ridden, P. (1991). Managing Change in Schools. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.

321 Ridden, P. (1992). School Management: A Team Approach. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, S.P. and Barnwell, N. (1994). Organisation Theory in Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Roberts, K.H. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1974a). Failures in Upward Communication in Organizations: Three Possible Culprits, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 17. No. 2, pp. 205-215.

Roberts, K.H. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1974b). Measuring Organizational Communication, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 321-326.

Rodwell, J.J., Kienzle, R. and Shadur, M.A. (1998). The Relationships Among Work-Related Perceptions, Employee Attitudes, and Employee Performance: The Integral Role of Communication, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 277-293.

Rogers, E.M. and Rogers, R.A. (1976). Communication in Organizations. New York: The Free Press.

Rosen, S. and Tesser, A. (1972). Fear of Negative Evaluation and the Reluctance to Transmit Bad News, The Journal of Communication, Vol. 22, June, pp. 124-141.

Rosenfeld, L.B. and Richman, J.M. (1999). Supportive Communication and School Outcomes, Part II: Academically “At Risk” Low Income High School Students, Communication Education, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 294-307.

Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M. and Barbato, C.A. (1988). Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal Communication Motives, Human Communication Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 602-628.

Russ, F.A. and McNeilly, K.M. (1995). Links Among Satisfaction, Commitment, and Turnover Intentions: The Moderating Effect of Experience, Gender, and Performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 57-65.

Russ, G.S., Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1990). Media Selection and Managerial Characteristics in Organizational Communications, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 151-175.

Russell, D.W., Altmaier, E. and Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job Related Stress, Social Support, and Burnout Among Classroom Teachers, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 269-274.

322

Saal, F.E. and Knight, P.A. (1988). Industrial / Organizational Psychology. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Sakharov, M. and Farber, B.A. (1983). A Critical Study of Burnout in Teachers. In Farber, B.A. (Ed.) Stress and Burnout in the Human Service Professions. (pp. 65-81). New York: Pergamon Press.

Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 224-253.

Sarros, J.C. and Sarros, A.M. (1990). How Burned Out Are Our Teachers? A Cross-Cultural Study, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 145-152.

Sarros, J.C. and Sarros, A.M. (1992). Social Support and Teacher Burnout, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 55-69.

Sathe, V. (1985). How to Decipher and Change Corporate Culture. In Kilmann R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (Ed.s), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. (pp. 230-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Savery, L.K. (1987). Effects of Motivators on Job Satisfaction, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 28-31.

Savery, L.K. (1989). Job Satisfaction and Nurses, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 11-16.

Savery, L.K. and Detiuk, M. (1986). The Perceived Stress Levels of Primary and Secondary Principals, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 272-281.

Schall, M.S. (1983). A Communication Rules Approach to Organizational Culture, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 557-581.

Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 3-16.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E.H. (1986). Are You Corporate Cultured?, Personnel Journal, Vol. 65, No. 11, pp. 83-96.

Schein, E.H. (1987). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management. In Schein, E.H. (Ed.) The Art of Managing Human Resources. (pp.83-100). New York: Oxford University Press.

323 Schein, E.H. (1993). On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22, Autumn, pp. 40-51.

Schempp, P.G., Sparkes, A.C. and Templin, T.J. (1993). The Micropolitics of Teacher Induction, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 447-472.

Schnake, M.E., Dumler, M.P., Cochran, D.S. and Barnett, T.R. (1990). Effects of Difference in Superior and Subordinate Perceptions of Superiors Communication Practices, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 37-50.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational Climates: An Essay, Personnel Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 447-479.

Schneider, B. and Alderfer, C.P. (1973). Three Studies of Measures of Need Satisfaction in Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 489-505.

Schramm, W. (1954). How Communication Works. In Schramm, W. (Ed.) The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. (pp. 3-10). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Scott, C., Cox, S. and Dinham, S. (1999). The Occupational Motivation, Satisfaction and Health of English School Teachers, Educational Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 287-308.

Scott, C. and Dinham, S. (2003). The Development of Scales to Measure Teacher and School Executive Occupational Satisfaction, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 74-86.

Scott, C.R., Connaughton, S.L., Diaz-Saenz, H.R., Maguire, K, Ramirez, R., Richardson, B, Shaw, S.P. and Morgan, D. (1999). The Impacts of Communication and Multiple Identifications on Intent to Leave: A Multidimethodological Exploration, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 400-435.

Scott, W.G. and Mitchell, T.R. (1976). Organizational Theory: A Structural and Behavioural Approach, Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Seibold, D.R. and Shea, B.C. (2001). Participation and Decision Making. In Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (Ed.s) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Methods. (pp. 664-703). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Selye, H. (1976). The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sergiovanni, T.J. and Starratt, R.J. (1993). Supervision: A Redefinition (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

324 Shann, M.H. (1998). Professional Commitment and Satisfaction Among Teachers in Urban Middle Schools, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 67-73.

Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. and Morley, D.D. (1989). Adhering to Organizational Culture: What Does it Mean? Why Does it Matter?, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 483-500.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. and Morley, D.D. (1994). Creating a Culture: A Longitudinal Examination of the Influence of Managerial and Employee Values on Communication Rule Stability and Emergence, Human Communication Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 334-355.

Silins, H.C., Mulford, W.R. and Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational Learning and School Change, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 613-642.

Simiyu, J. (1990). The Importance of Good Communication in Schools, Education Canada, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 42-45.

Simpson, R.L. (1959). Vertical and Horizontal Communication in Formal Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 188-196.

Singe, A.L. (1976). The Multiunit Elementary School: Implications for Instructional Leadership, Educational Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 538-542.

Singh, K. and Billingsley, B.S. (1996). Intent to Stay in Teaching: Teachers of Students with Emotional Disorders Versus Other Special Eductors, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 37-47.

Smeltzer, L.R. (1987). The Relationship of Communication to Work Stress, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 47-58.

Smeltzer, L.R. and Fann, G.L. (1989). Comparison of Managerial Communication Patterns in Small, Entrepreneurial Organizations and Large, Mature Organizations, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 198-215.

Smeltzer, L.R., Leonard, D.J. and Hynes, G.E. (2002). Managerial Communication: Strategies and Applications (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 339-358.

325 Smircich, L. and Calas, M.B. (1987). Organizational Culture: A Critical Assessment. In Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Ed.s), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (pp. 228-263). Newbury Park: Sage.

Smith, F.J. (1977). Work Attitudes as Predictors of Attendance on a Specific Day, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 16-19.

Smith, M. and Burke, S. (1992). Teacher Stress: Examining a Model Based on Context, Workload and Satisfaction, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 31-46.

Smith, M.L. and Glass, G.V. (1987). Research and Evaluation in Education and the Social Sciences, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Smylie, M.A. & Denny, J.W. (1990). Teacher Leadership: Tensions and Ambiguities in Organizational Perspective, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 235-259.

Solman, R. and Feld, M. (1989). Occupational Stress: Perceptions of Teachers in Catholic Schools, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 55-68.

Southworth, G. (2000). How Primary Schools Learn, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 275-291.

Spector, P.E. (2000). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spielberger, C.D. and Reheiser, E.C. (1995). Measuring Occupational Stress: The Job Stress Survey. In Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L. (Ed.s), Occupational Stress: A Handbook. (pp. 51-69). Washington D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Spillan, J.E. and Mino, M. (2001). Special Peers’ Perceived Use of Communication Openness and Functional Communication Skills in Specific Organizational Contexts, Communication Research Reports, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 53-66.

Stage, C.W. (1999). Negotiating Organizational Communication Cultures in American Subsidiaries doing business in Thailand, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 245-280.

Starnaman, S.M. and Miller, K.I. (1992). A Test of a Causal Model of Communication and Burnout in the Teaching Profession, Communication Education, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 40-55.

326 Starratt, R.J. (1990) The Dramatic Consciousness of the Principal. In McMahon, J., Neidhart, H., Chapman, J. and Angus, L. (Ed.s), Leadership In Catholic Education. (pp. 40 – 59). Richmond, Spectrum Publications.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stimson, T.D. and Applebaum, R.P. (1988). Empowering Teachers: Do Principals Have the Power?, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 313-316.

St. John, W. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Your Organization’s Communications, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 520, pp. 99-109.

Stockman, T.R. (1990). Why Summerhill? The Significance of Organisational Identity to an Educational Institution, Scottish Educational Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 108-116.

Stohl, C. and Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory Processes / Paradoxical Practices: Communication and the Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 349-407.

Stoner, J.A.F., Yetton, P.W., Craig, J.E. and Johnston, K.D. (1994). Management (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Stremmel, A.J., Benson, M.J. and Powell, D.R. (1993). Communication, Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion among Child Care Centre Staff: Directors, Teachers, and Assistant Teachers, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 221-233.

Summers, T.P., DeCotiis, T.A. and DeNisi, A.S. (1995). A Field Study of Some Antecedents and Consequences of Felt Job Stress. In Crandall, R. and Perrewe, P.L. (Ed.s) Occupational Stress: A Handbook. (pp. 113-128). Washington D.C.: Taylor & Francis.

Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a Learning Organization: Beyond the Learning Curve. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.

Sydney Archdiocesan Catholic Schools Board and Catholic Education Office, Sydney (2000). Towards 2005: Strategic Management Plan Mark 2. Leichhardt: Catholic Education Office, Sydney.

Sypher, B.D., Applegate, J.L. and Sypher, H.E. (1985). Culture and Communication in Organizational Contexts. In Gudykunst, W.B., Stewart, L.P. and Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.s), Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes. (pp. 13-29). Beverly Hills: Sage.

327 Tagiuri, R. (1968). The Concept of Organizational Climate. In Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G.H. (Ed.s) Organizational Climate: Explorations of a Concept. (pp. 10-32). Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Tarter, C.J., Sabo, D. and Hoy, W.K. (1995). Middle School Climate, Faculty Trust, and Effectiveness: A Path Analysis, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 41-49.

Taylor, D.L. and Bogotch, I.E. (1994). School-Level Effects of Teachers’ Participation in Decision Making, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 302-319.

Thayer, L. (1968). Communication and Communication Systems In Organization, Management, and Interpersonal Relations. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

Thomas, A.R. and McTaggart, E.A. (1983). Organizational Climate in Catholic Schools: the Development of a Concept, The Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 78-93.

Thomas, N., Clarke, V. and Lavery, J. (2003). Self-Reported Work and Family Stress of Female Primary Teachers, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 73-87.

Thompson, D.P., McNamara, J.F. and Hoyle, J.R. (1997). Job Satisfaction in Educational Organizations: A Synthesis of Research Findings, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 7-37.

Ticehurst, B. and Smith, A. R. (1992). Communication Satisfaction, Commitment and Job Satisfaction in Australian Organisations, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 130-144.

Timperley, H.S. and Robinson, V.M.J. (1998). Collegiality in Schools: Its Nature and Implications for Problem Solving, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34, December, pp. 608-629.

Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Federal Government Employees, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 313-334.

Tisher, D. and Taylor, S. (1982). New Teachers’ Job Satisfactions, The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 9-16.

Tourish, D. and Hargie, O. (1998). Auditing Staff-Management Communication in Schools: A Framework for Evaluating Performance, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 176-182.

328 Troman, G. (2000). Teacher Stress in the Low Trust Society, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 331-353.

Trombetta, J.J. and Rogers, D.P. (1988). Communication Climate, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: The Effects of Information Adequacy, Communication Openness and Decision Participation, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 494-514.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the Need for Trust, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 308-331.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W. (1998). Trust in Schools: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 334-352.

Tuetteman, E. and Punch, K.F. (1992). Psychological Distress in Secondary Teachers: Research Findings and Their Implications, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 42-54.

Van Eerde, W. and Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s Expectancy Models and Work- Related Criteria: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 575-586.

Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police Socialization: Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police Department, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 207-228.

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship Between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Three Guatemalan Organizations, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 111-141.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wallace, J. (1999). Professional School Cultures: Coping with the Chaos of Teacher Collaboration, Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 67-85.

Wanous, J.P. and Lawler, E.E. (1972). Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 95-105.

Wasley, P.A. and Lear, R.J. (2001). Small Schools, Real Gains, Educational Leadership, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 22-27.

Waters, L.K., Roach, D. and Batlis, N. (1974). Organizational Climate Dimensions and Job Related Attitudes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 465-476.

Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-19.

329

Welkowitz, J., Ewen, R.B. and Cohen, J. (1988). Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Welsch, H.P. and La Van, H. (1981). Inter-Relationships Between Organizational Commitment and Job Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, Professional Behavior, and Organizational Climate, Human Relations, Vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 1079-1089.

Werther, W.B. and Davis, K. (1989). Human Resources and Personnel Management (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Westmyer, S.A., DiCioccio, R.L. and Rubin, R.B. (1998). Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Communication Channels in Competent Interpersonal Communication, Journal of Communication, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 27-48.

Whaley, K.W. (1994). Leadership and Teacher Job Satisfaction, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 564, pp. 46-50.

Whaley, K.W. and Hegstrom, T.G. (1992). Perceptions of School Principal Communication Effectiveness and Teacher Satisfaction on the Job, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 224-231.

Wheeless, V.E., Wheeless, L.R. and Howard, R.D. (1983). An Analysis of the Contribution of Participative Decision Making and Communication with Supervisor as Predictors of Job Satisfaction, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 145-160.

White, G.P. (1990). Implementing Change in Schools: From Research to Practice, Planning and Changing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 207-223.

Whitehead, A.J. and Ryba, K. (1995). New Zealand Teachers’ Perceptions of Occupational Stress and Coping Strategies, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 177-188.

Wilson, G.L., Goodall, H.L. and Waagen, (1986) Organizational Communication. New York: Harper & Row.

Wilson, S. (2002). Student Participation and School Culture: A Secondary School Case Study, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 79-102.

Winter, J.S. and Sweeney, J. (1994). Improving School Climate: Administrators Are the Key, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 564, pp. 65-69.

Witcher, A.E. (1993). Assessing School Climate: An Important Step for Enhancing School Quality, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 77, No. 554, pp. 1-5.

330 Wofford, J.C. (1971). The Motivational Bases of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 501-518.

Young, M. and Post, J.E. (1993). Managing to Communicate, Communicating to Manage: How Leading Companies Communicate with Employees, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22, Summer, pp. 31-43.

Zaremba, A. (1989). Communication: The Upward Network, Personnel Journal, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 34-39.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1979). Psychology and Life (10th ed.). Glenview: Scott, Foresman & Co.

331

APPENDICES

332 Appendix 3.1: Staff consultation of OCPSQ items

Organisational Communication in Schools (Primary) Questionnaire

STAFF MEMBER CONSULTATION

Dear Colleague,

The questionnaire that I will be using in my research is being prepared. As part of the process of survey item development, I am asking school staff members to share their opinions of these items in terms of their- appropriateness to the concept clarity grammar repetitiveness anything else you feel relevant

Please feel free to jot your opinions next to any items you feel need commenting on In doing this you are making an important contribution to my research. The meanings of the terms are outlined by phrases in their boxes. Thank you for your support.

John De Nobile

333 Appendix 3.1 cont. QUESTIONNAIRE...... ITEM...... BANK...... ….....Version 4 Pilot Instrument Items

NOTE: All items preceded with "Rate the extent to which you perceive the following statements are indicative of communication in your current school " There is a scale of 1 2 3 4 5 (1 = never...... 5 = always)

UPWARD COMMUNICATION UPWARD LOAD OPPORTUNITIES FOR UPWARD COMMUNICATION OVERLOAD-ADEQUACY-UNDERLOAD ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES IN PLACE TO ALLOW UPWARD COMMUNICATION * There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues * Staff at this school have ample opportunities to see the principal about work issues * There are times when staff can speak to the principal * The principal sets times where staff can meet with him/her to discuss things without interruptions * The principal gets more information than he/she can handle

UPWARD OPENNESS DEGREE OF HONESTY & TRUST IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TEACHER AND SUPERIOR DISTORTION SUCH AS FILTERING AND MODIFYING ARE SIGNS OF DISTRUST-CLOSEDNESS * Staff can approach the principal with personal information * The principal is willing to listen to staff * Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news * Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal * The information staff members send to the principal is usually accurate

UPWARD SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION SUPPORT GIVEN TO PRINCIPAL * Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about his/her work * Staff give emotional support to the principal * Staff give moral support to the principal

UPWARD DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATION INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING VIA UPWARD CHANNELS PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL'S ORGANISATION * Staff are able to influence the principal's decisions * The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on an issue * The principal listens to suggestions or opinions of staff

334 Appendix 3.1 cont.

DOWNWARD COMMUNICATION DOWNWARD LOAD ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES IN PLACE TO ALLOW DOWNWARD COMMUNICATION OVERLOAD-ADEQUACY-UNDERLOAD * Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times * Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what is going on * The principal sends out more information than staff can deal with * The principal sends too many messages * Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs

DOWNWARD OPENNESS DEGREE OF HONESTY & TRUST IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TEACHER AND SUPERIOR DISTORTION SUCH AS FILTERING AND MODIFYING ARE SIGNS OF DISTRUST-CLOSEDNESS * The principal communicates honestly to staff * The principal communicates openly to staff * The principal reveals his/her true feelings about issues * The principal gives staff "the whole story" when discussing issues * Much of what the principal says is the truth

DOWNWARD SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION MORAL & PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT GIVEN TO STAFF ENCOURAGEMENT AND WARMTH COMMUNICATED TO STAFF * The principal provides staff with positive feedback about the job * The principal gets behind staff when they are doing something they are not confident about * The principal compliments staff * The principal is warm and considerate * The principal is an encourager

DOWNWARD DIRECTIVE COMMUNICATION DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO STAFF DOWNWARD SENDING OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE JOB/HOW TO DO IT * The principal often directs work * The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles * The principal tells staff how things are to be done * The principal is autocratic

DOWNWARD DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATION INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING DOWNWARD MESSAGES THAT ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING / PLANNING * The principal asks for input from the staff on policy issues * The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile * The principal indicates that staff input is valuable

335 Appendix 3.1 cont.

DOWNWARD CULTURAL COMMUNICATION INFO ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE BEST DONE AT THIS SCHOOL INFO ABOUT THE MISSION, GOALS OR ETHOS OF THE SCHOOL (CULTURE) * Information about this school's goals and mission comes from the principal * Information about how things are done around here is supplied by the principal * The principal is actively involved in the induction of new staff

HORIZONTAL COMMUNICATION HORIZONTAL LOAD ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES IN PLACE TO ALLOW PEER-PEER COMMUNICATION OVERLOAD (TOO MUCH)...... UNDERLOAD (NOT ENOUGH) * Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally * Staff have ample opportunities to meet and discuss work issues * Staff have ample opportunities to meet and discuss personal issues * There is too much information from other staff * Staff receive enough information from one another

HORIZONTAL OPENNESS DEGREE OF HONESTY & TRUST IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TEACHERS DISTORTION SUCH AS FILTERING AND MODIFYING ARE SIGNS OF DISTRUST-CLOSEDNESS * Staff members express feelings to each other about work issues * Staff members at this school share personal information * Staff members do not withhold personal information when talking to one another * Information that comes from other staff members is reliable * The staff at this school are honest and trustworthy

HORIZONTAL SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION MORAL & PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT STAFF GIVE ONE ANOTHER ENCOURAGEMENT AND WARMTH COMMUNICATED BY STAFF TO ONE ANOTHER * Teachers at this school support one another * Teachers at this school encourage each other * As a staff we help each other to get through the day * The staff members at this school talk to one another when they have a problem * Staff tend to give supportive comments or feedback to other staff members

HORIZONTAL DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATION INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING MESSAGES FROM PEERS THAT ENCOURAGE TEAMWORK IN DECISION MAKING / PLANNING * Staff are encouraged to work with one other to change or review school decisions * The staff at this school make each other feel that they are part of a team * There are no barriers, anyone can approach any other staff member

336 Appendix 3.1 cont.

HORIZONTAL CULTURAL COMMUNICATION INFO ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE BEST DONE AT THIS SCHOOL INFO ABOUT THE MISSION, GOALS OR ETHOS OF THE SCHOOL (CULTURE) * Staff give new employees information about how things should be done at this school * Staff members show new staff 'the ropes' * Staff members inform new staff about the school's past achievements * Staff members tell new staff stories about people or past events in the school * Staff inform new staff members with information about the schools vision / goals / ethos

COMMUNICATION METHODS Rate the extent to which the following methods are used when staff at this school wish to communicate with one another. Also indicate how effective you think these methods are in passing messages to other staff members. METHOD EXTENT EFFECTIVENESS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Face to face meetings (informal) Face to face meetings (formal ie appointment) Written notes and memos Staff meetings Bulletin board Intercom / PA system Pupil delivered message (oral or note) Staff meetings Staff Handbook Other ______Other ______

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Comments (open question, not yet finalised )

337 Appendix 3.2: Final version of the survey

Organisational Communication in Primary Schools Staff Questionnaire

This questionnaire concerns information about communication practices typical of your school as well as your attitudes to your work. It should take about 20 minutes to complete. Please follow the instructions for each section and answer ALL of the questions as best as you can. Then seal it in the envelope labelled “COMMUNICATION IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE” and hand it to the person responsible for collecting these questionnaires at your school.

SECTION A BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Please tick the appropriate box (only 1 for each section please):

SEX - male Female AGE - 20 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 50 + NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING - 0 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 15 15 + YEARS WORKING AT THIS SCHOOL - 0 - 5 6 – 10 11 – 15 15 + POSITION AT CURRENT SCHOOL - Teacher Executive Teachers aide Non-teaching staff (office staff, etc.)

338 Appendix 3.2 cont. SECTION B COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL

Please rate the extent to which you agree that the following statements are indicative of communication practices in the school at which you currently work.

KEY : 1 2 3 4 5 |______|______|______|______| strongly disagree undecided agree strongly disagree agree

Circle the best response to the statements below. Please circle only one number.

1. There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues. …………………………………………...... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Staff members express feelings about work issues to one another. …………………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 5

3. The principal is willing to listen to staff. …………………….. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about his/her work. ……………………………... 1 2 3 4 5

5. The principal sets times when staff can meet with him/her to discuss things without interruptions ...... 1 2 3 4 5

6. Staff members at this school share personal information. …… 1 2 3 4 5

7. The principal communicates honestly to staff. ……………….. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Staff tend to give supportive comments or feedback to other staff members. ……………………………………...... 1 2 3 4 5

9. Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times. ……………………………………………………….... 1 2 3 4 5

10. The principal sends out more information than staff can deal with. ……………………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 5

11. As a staff we help each other to get through the day. ……...… 1 2 3 4 5

12. The principal communicates openly to staff. ……………….... 1 2 3 4 5

13. Staff at this school have ample opportunities to see the principal about work issues. …………………………….... 1 2 3 4 5

14. The principal gets more information than he/she can handle. ... 1 2 3 4 5

339 Appendix 3.2 cont.

COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL (continued)

15. Staff can approach the principal with personal information.…. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Staff members give emotional support to the principal. ……... 1 2 3 4 5

17. The principal asks for input from staff on policy issues. …...... 1 2 3 4 5

18. Information about this school’s goals and mission comes from the principal. ……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally. …………………………………………...……….. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Staff members receive enough information from one another. ……………………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review aspects of the school’s organisation. ………………. 1 2 3 4 5

22. The principal provides staff with positive feedback ...... 1 2 3 4 5

23. Staff members give new employees information about how things should be done at this school. ………...... 1 2 3 4 5

24. The principal reveals his/her true feelings about issues ...... 1 2 3 4 5

25. There are times when staff can speak to the principal. ……..... 1 2 3 4 5

26. Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news. ……………………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 5

27. Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

28. Staff give moral support to the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

29. Staff are able to influence the principal’s decisions...... 1 2 3 4 5

30. Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what is going on...... 1 2 3 4 5

31. Staff members inform new staff about the school’s past achievements. ………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

32. Staff at this school can approach one another. ……………...... 1 2 3 4 5

33. The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile...... 1 2 3 4 5

340 Appendix 3.2 cont.

COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL (continued)

34. The principal supplies information about how things are done around here...... 1 2 3 4 5

35. Staff members have ample opportunities to meet and discuss work issues with one another...... 1 2 3 4 5

36. Staff members do not withhold personal information when talking socially...... 1 2 3 4 5

37. The information staff members send to the principal is usually accurate...... 1 2 3 4 5

38. The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues...... 1 2 3 4 5

39. The principal listens to suggestions from staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

40. The principal often directs work...... 1 2 3 4 5

41. The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles...... 1 2 3 4 5

42. The staff at this school make each other feel that they are part of a team...... 1 2 3 4 5

43. Staff members show new staff ‘the ropes’...... 1 2 3 4 5

44. Staff members tell new staff stories about people or past events in the school...... 1 2 3 4 5

45. The principal sends too many messages...... 1 2 3 4 5

46. Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do their jobs...... 1 2 3 4 5

47. The principal gives staff ‘the whole story’ when discussing issues...... 1 2 3 4 5

48. The principal compliments staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

49. The principal indicates that staff input in decision making is valuable...... 1 2 3 4 5

50. The principal is actively involved in the induction of new staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

51. Staff members at this school support one another...... 1 2 3 4 5

341 Appendix 3.2 cont.

COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL (continued)

52. The principal is truthful...... 1 2 3 4 5

53. The principal tells staff how things are to be done...... 1 2 3 4 5

54. The staff at this school talk to one another when they have a problem...... 1 2 3 4 5

55. The principal is autocratic...... 1 2 3 4 5

56. Staff members have opportunities to meet and discuss issues...... 1 2 3 4 5

57. The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which they are not confident ...... 1 2 3 4 5

58. Information that comes from other staff members is reliable...... 1 2 3 4 5

59. The principal is warm and considerate...... 1 2 3 4 5

60. There is too much information from other staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

61. The principal is encouraging...... 1 2 3 4 5

62. Staff members inform new staff about the school’s mission ...... 1 2 3 4 5

Please see over for questions 63 – 65 . . . . .

342 Appendix 3.2 cont.

COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL (continued)

63. Please indicate the extent to which the following methods are used when staff at this school (including the principal) wish to communicate. Please circle the appropriate number below.

KEY: 1 2 3 4 5 |______|______|______|______| rarely used very used frequently

Method Extent Used a. Staff meetings ...... 1 2 3 4 5 b. Informal meetings ...... 1 2 3 4 5 c. Pupil delivered messages ...... 1 2 3 4 5 d. Notes / memos ...... 1 2 3 4 5 e. Bulletin boards ...... 1 2 3 4 5 f. Intercom / P.A. system ...... 1 2 3 4 5 g. Handbook ...... 1 2 3 4 5 h. Telephone ...... 1 2 3 4 5 i. Other (specify)______... 1 2 3 4 5

64. Please indicate how effective these methods of communication are in getting messages across in your school. Please circle the appropriate number below.

KEY: 1 2 3 4 5 |______|______|______|______| rarely very effective effective

Method Effectiveness a. Staff meetings ...... 1 2 3 4 5 b. Informal meetings ...... 1 2 3 4 5 c. Pupil delivered messages ...... 1 2 3 4 5 d. Notes / memos ...... 1 2 3 4 5 e. Bulletin boards ...... 1 2 3 4 5 f. Intercom / P.A. system ...... 1 2 3 4 5 g. Handbook ...... 1 2 3 4 5 h. Telephone ...... 1 2 3 4 5 i. Other (specify)______... 1 2 3 4 5

343 Appendix 3.2 cont.

COMMUNICATION IN YOUR SCHOOL (continued)

65. Please make any comments you wish about communication at this school ?

344 Appendix 3.2 cont.

SECTION C JOB SATISFACTION

This section of the questionnaire is designed to find out to what extent you are satisfied with aspects of your job. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your school by circling the appropriate number. Please circle one number only. KEY 1 2 3 4 5 |______|______|______|______| strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree

1. My work provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills...... 1 2 3 4 5

2. My principal turns one staff member against another...... 1 2 3 4 5

3. No one tells me that I am good at my job ...... 1 2 3 4 5

4. My work consists of routine activities...... 1 2 3 4 5

5. Working conditions at this school can be improved...... 1 2 3 4 5

6. I receive recognition from the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

7. I do not have the freedom to make my own decisions...... 1 2 3 4 5

8. The principal offers suggestions to improve my work...... 1 2 3 4 5

9. I receive full recognition for successful work...... 1 2 3 4 5

10. I get along with my colleagues...... 1 2 3 4 5

11. The administration in this school does not clearly define its policies...... 1 2 3 4 5

12. The principal gives me assistance when I need help...... 1 2 3 4 5

13. Working conditions at this school are comfortable...... 1 2 3 4 5

14. My work provides me with the opportunity to help the students...... 1 2 3 4 5

15. I like the people with whom I work...... 1 2 3 4 5

16. The students respect me...... 1 2 3 4 5

17. The principal does not back me up...... 1 2 3 4 5

345 Appendix 3.2 cont.

JOB SATISFACTION (continued)

18. My work is interesting...... 1 2 3 4 5

19. Working conditions at this school could not be worse...... 1 2 3 4 5

20. My work discourages originality...... 1 2 3 4 5

21. The administration at this school communicates it’s policies well...... 1 2 3 4 5

22. My work does not provide me with the chance to try new things...... 1 2 3 4 5

23. The principal treats everyone equally...... 1 2 3 4 5

24. My colleagues stimulate me to do better work...... 1 2 3 4 5

25. I am responsible for planning my work each day...... 1 2 3 4 5

26. The physical surroundings in this school are unpleasant...... 1 2 3 4 5

27. Staff at this school are highly critical of one another...... 1 2 3 4 5

28. I do have responsibility for my work...... 1 2 3 4 5

29. Staff provide me with suggestions or feedback about my work...... 1 2 3 4 5

30. The principal provides assistance for improving work...... 1 2 3 4 5

31. I do not get cooperation from the people I work with...... 1 2 3 4 5

32. My work encourages me to be creative / imaginative...... 1 2 3 4 5

33. The principal at this school is not willing to listen to suggestions...... 1 2 3 4 5

34. I am indifferent towards my work...... 1 2 3 4 5

35. The work I do at this school is very pleasant...... 1 2 3 4 5

36. I receive too many meaningless instructions from the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

37. I dislike the people with whom I work...... 1 2 3 4 5

38. I receive too little recognition...... 1 2 3 4 5

346 Appendix 3.2 cont.

JOB SATISFACTION (continued)

39. My interests are similar to those of other staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

40. I am not responsible for my actions...... 1 2 3 4 5

41. The principal makes available the resources I need to do my best...... 1 2 3 4 5 42. I have made lasting friendships among this staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

43. Working conditions at this school are good...... 1 2 3 4 5

44. The principal makes me feel uncomfortable...... 1 2 3 4 5

45. I try to be aware of the policies of this school...... 1 2 3 4 5

46. When I do a good job the principal notices...... 1 2 3 4 5

47. The principal explains what is expected of me...... 1 2 3 4 5

48. The principal praises good work by staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

49. I am not interested in the policies of the school...... 1 2 3 4 5

50. I get along with the students...... 1 2 3 4 5

51. Other staff members seem unreasonable to me...... 1 2 3 4 5

52. In general, how satisfied are you with your job ? Please circle the most appropriate number below:

1 2 3 4 5 Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Satisfied

Adapted from Lester (1984).

347 Appendix 3.2 cont.

SECTION D OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

Below is a list of possible sources of stress. Please indicate, by circling the appropriate number, how stressful each is for you at your current school. Please circle one number only. KEY : 1 2 3 4 5 |______|______|______|______| no mild moderate much extreme stress stress stress stress stress

1. Difficulty in motivating students...... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Communication at this school...... 1 2 3 4 5

3. Lack of a supportive and friendly atmosphere...... 1 2 3 4 5

4. Feeling of not being suited to the job...... 1 2 3 4 5

5. Poor attitudes of students...... 1 2 3 4 5

6. Interruptions due to messages...... 1 2 3 4 5

7. The conviction that the education system is getting worse...... 1 2 3 4 5

8. Inadequate discipline in the school...... 1 2 3 4 5

9. Lack of support from the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

10. The rate at which change occurs...... 1 2 3 4 5

11. Lack of opportunity to find out what is happening...... 1 2 3 4 5

12. Difficulty of setting and maintaining standards...... 1 2 3 4 5

13. Personal failings...... 1 2 3 4 5

14. Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making...... 1 2 3 4 5

15. Having to deal with students who constantly misbehave...... 1 2 3 4 5

16. Not being appreciated by the principal...... 1 2 3 4 5

17. Verbal abuse by students...... 1 2 3 4 5

18. Inadequate means of sharing information among staff...... 1 2 3 4 5

19. Principal’s reluctance to make tough decisions...... 1 2 3 4 5

348 Appendix 3.2 cont.

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS (Continued)

20. Maintaining discipline with difficult classes...... 1 2 3 4 5

21. In general, how stressful do you find working at this school ? (please circle)

1 2 3 4 5 not at mildly moderately very extremely all stressful stressful stressful stressful stressful

Adapted from McCormick (1997)

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for taking the time to complete it.

349 Appendix 3.3: Request for permission to conduct research

J. De Nobile PO Box 56 Casula NSW 2170 ______

* 15th April 1998 Mr T. Bennison Director Catholic Education Office 120 Education Rd. Townville 2159

Dear Mr. Benison,

My name is John De Nobile. I am a teacher working at St. Gertrude’s Primary School, Smithfield (CEO Sydney). I am currently working towards completion of my Ed.D. degree at the University Of New South Wales. As part of the required thesis I am conducting research that seeks to find relationships between aspects of organisational communication and job satisfaction and stress among staff in primary schools.

I write this letter seeking permission to conduct research into schools in your diocese. The research would involve staff from between 10 and 15 schools answering a mailed questionnaire survey. This would help me to make links between communication practices, job satisfaction and stress. I am also applying to do the same at Catholic schools in the Sydney metropolitan under other diocese so that my research may be more reliable in terms of the subjects and interpretation of results.

If you wish to contact me please note the above address or, better still, The following phone numbers: home: 9607 8162 work: 9609 4144.

I would greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to any assistance that would make the research possible.

Yours sincerely,

John De Nobile.

* NB: Names and addresses changed for anonymity purposes.

350 Appendix 3.4: Introductory letter to principals

* 18th September 1998 Mr. S. Jones, Principal St. Robert’s Catholic Primary School 36 Edison Ave. Green Park NSW 2777

Dear Mr. Jones,

My name is John De Nobile. I am a teacher working within the Sydney Archdiocese. I am writing to you to ask for your cooperation in research that I am conducting in the area of organisational communication and its relationships to the job satisfaction and stress of primary school staff. This research is being done as part of the requirements for a Doctor of Education degree. My supervisor is Dr. John McCormick of the School of Education Studies at the University Of New South Wales.

While the Catholic Education Office has already approved this research I would like to emphasise three points.

Firstly, participation by you and your staff is voluntary. I am merely asking for questionnaires to be distributed and it is up to each staff member to decide whether or not to complete one.

Secondly, at no time will any staff member or school be identified. Anonymity of participants will be maintained at all times. Names of individuals or schools would not be of any use to the study.

Thirdly, the research is not being conducted on behalf of the CEO. It is strictly an investigation for a doctoral thesis being conducted by myself.

If you agree to participate I will send copies of the questionnaires which may be distributed to staff (teaching and non-teaching) and returned to me via a prepaid, self addressed envelope. I have enclosed a copy of the survey with this letter. Please do not distribute this copy to staff.

The survey will involve minimal disruption to your school. Staff may complete the survey in their own time or as part of a staff meeting. If you decide to participate I ask that a suitable staff member be made responsible for distribution, collection and return of the surveys.

351 Appendix 3.4 cont.

I hope that you will agree with me that any knowledge gained of communication practices and the occupational satisfaction and stress of primary school staff is potentially of great value. Participating schools will receive a report of the results once the investigation is completed.

For your convenience I have included a REPLY FORM with this letter. Please complete this form and fax or mail it to myself whatever you decide. This will facilitate the distribution of surveys. If you seek clarification about anything please feel free to contact me on the following: Wk- 9609 4144 Home- 9607 8162 Mail- PO Box 56 Casula NSW 2170.

I hope that you will be able to assist me in this most challenging and exciting task.

Yours sincerely,

John De Nobile

* NB: Names and addresses changed for anonymity purposes.

352 Appendix 3.5: Reply form

Organisational Communication In Primary Schools: A Study of its Relationships with Job Satisfaction and Stress.

REPLY FORM

To: Mr. John De Nobile

From: ______(name of school)

(please tick)

[ ] YES. We wish to participate in this research.

There are _____ staff (teaching and non-teaching) at this school. Please do not include casual staff.

[ ] NO. We do not wish to participate in this research.

Please fax to: 9609 3198

or mail to : John De Nobile PO Box 56 Casula NSW 2170

353 Appendix 3.6: Second letter to principals

Organisational Communication In RESEARCH Primary PROJECT Schools : A Study of its Relationships with Job Satisfaction and Stress.

T O T H E P R I N C I P A L

Dear ______,

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Enclosed are all the materials that will be needed. Would you please pass them on to the staff member responsible for distribution, collection and return of the surveys.

The package should include the following: • “INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COORDINATOR” letter. This contains essential information for the staff member responsible for collection etc. of surveys. • Copies of the questionnaire for staff to complete, along with envelopes. There should be enough for every staff member as indicated on your REPLY FORM. • Reply paid, self addressed Express Post satchel for return of questionnaires.

If there is anything missing please do not hesitate to contact me by fax on 9609 3198 or by phone on 9609 4144.

It would be greatly appreciated if all completed questionnaires could be returned to me two weeks or as soon as possible from the date they arrive at this school.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Yours sincerely,

John De Nobile.

354 Appendix 3.7: Instructions for the coordinator

Organisational Communication In RESEARCH Primary PROJECT Schools : A Study of its Relationships with Job Satisfaction and Stress.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COORDINATOR

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for assisting me with this project. Please find the following items enclosed: • Questionnaires for all members of the school staff. Each should have a cover letter attached. • Envelopes labelled “COMMUNICATION IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE”. There should be one of these for each staff member too. • A large, self-addressed, envelope for return of the completed questionnaires to me.

The process for the administration of the questionnaires at this school should be as follows:

1. Distribute the questionnaires to staff. • The survey is for teachers and non-teachers, such as the secretaries and other paid non-teaching personnel. • The best way to distribute the survey is at a staff meeting. • This survey is voluntary, but please encourage as many as possible. • Please ask staff to complete the questionnaire individually without discussion. • Please point out that the survey is confidential and all responses are anonymous. • Remind staff to seal the completed questionnaires in the envelope provided.

2. Collect the questionnaires. • Make arrangements for collection of questionnaire. Perhaps a box, or delivery to your room, whatever is comfortable and practical. • Constant reminders on the noticeboard or staff memos are a good idea. • Please do not give staff more than two weeks to return the surveys to you.

3. Return the questionnaires. • Please put all completed questionnaires into the pre-addressed, prepaid large envelope provided and mail as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

John De Nobile. Ph: 9609 4144 Fax: 9609 3198 Email: [email protected]

355 Appendix 3.8: Cover letter to participants

Organisational Communication In RESEARCH Primary PROJECT Schools : A Study of its Relationships with Job Satisfaction and Stress.

Dear Colleague,

This research is being conducted as part of a Doctor of Education degree. The research is being supervised by Dr. John McCormick of the School of Education Studies at the University of New South Wales. Your school was randomly selected for participation in this research.

I would like to invite you as a staff member of a Catholic primary school to complete the attached survey. The survey consists of three sections and will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. I would like to emphasise three points.

Firstly, participation by you and your staff is voluntary. Secondly, at no time will any staff member or school be identified. Responses to questionnaires will be entirely confidential. Anonymity of participants will be maintained at all times. Names of individuals or schools would not be of any use to the study. Thirdly, the research is not being conducted on behalf of the CEO. It is an investigation for a doctoral thesis being conducted by myself.

Once you have completed the survey please seal it in the envelope provided and hand it to the staff member responsible for the collection of these surveys at your school. If you do not wish to do that please feel free to post it directly to me. Numbers have been placed on the first page of the questionnaire to facilitate collection of surveys and ensure an accurate return rate.

This study also seeks interview subjects. Again, this is voluntary. See the last page of the survey for details about this. You are not obliged to participate in an interview if you do this survey.

Finally, I can assure you that this is not merely an exercise for my benefit. When the investigation is completed a report will be forwarded to participating schools.

Yours sincerely,

John De Nobile

Phone: 9609 4144 Fax: 9609 3198 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Postal correspondence: PO Box 56 Casula NSW 2170

356 Appendix 3.9: Reminder fax

Organisational Communication In RESEARCH Primary PROJECT Schools : A Study of its Relationships with Job Satisfaction and Stress.

To: From: John De Nobile

ATTENTION: ______

JUST A REMINDER 

The end of term is fast approaching, so I would like to remind you that the questionnaires that were sent out to you a few weeks ago now due for collection. If you have not already done so could you please ensure that your staff have completed the questionnaires and that they are collected.

As the next phase of the study is due to begin soon, I would appreciate the return of completed questionnaires by ______

If there are any difficulties or if extra questionnaires are needed please do not hesitate to contact me on: Phone: 9609 4144 Fax: 9609 3198

Thank you for your participation in this research project. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and your staff a restful and happy spring vacation.

Yours sincerely,

John De Nobile

357 Appendix 4.1: Data summary tables

Table A4.1a Frequencies and descriptives for Sex (Gender) Sex Male Female Unstated

Frequency 49 305 2 Percentage 13.8 85.7 0.6

Table A4.1b Frequencies and descriptives for Age

yrs Age

50 yrs 50 30 yrs 40

- - - 4 50+ yrs 3 41 1 20 2 31 missing mean standard deviation Frequency 84 109 102 58 3 2.38 1.02 Percentage 23.6% 30.6% 28.7% 16.3% 0.8%

Table A4.1c Frequencies and descriptives for Number of years teaching

Years teaching

15 yrs 15

5 yrs 10 yrs - - - 1 0 missing mean standard deviation 2 6 4 15+ yrs 3 11 Frequency 67 61 54 150 24 2.87 1.20 Percentage 18.8% 17.1% 15.2% 42.1% 6.7%

Table A4.1d Frequencies and descriptives for Number of years teaching at current school

Years teaching at current school

15 yrs 15

5 yrs 10 yrs - - - 1 0 missing mean standard deviation 4 15+ yrs 2 6 3 11 Frequency 196 79 28 34 19 1.70 0.99 Percentage 55.1% 22.2% 7.9% 9.6% 5.3%

Table A4.1e Frequencies and descriptives for Position at current school

Years teaching

1 teacher 2 executive 3 teachers aide 4 non - teaching missing mean standard deviation Frequency 233 81 14 27 1 1.54 0.89 Percentage 65.4% 22.8% 3.9% 7.6% 0.3%

358 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Table A4.1f Frequencies and descriptives for Communication items

Communication item

1 strongly disagree 2 disagree 3 undecided 4 agree 5 strongly agree missing mean standard deviation 1. There are adequate times to talk to the 5 52 22 181 95 1 3.87 1.01 principal about work issues 1.4% 14.6% 6.2% 50.8% 26.7% 0.3% 2. Staff members express feelings about 1 10 23 181 141 0 4.27 0.73 work issues to one another 0.3% 2.8% 6.5% 50.8% 39.6% 3. The principal is willing to listen to staff 7 15 24 148 162 4.24 0.90 2.0% 4.2% 6.7% 41.6% 45.5% 4. Staff have opportunities to make positive 7 37 54 165 93 3.84 0.99 remarks to the principal about his/her work 2.0% 10.4% 15.2% 46.3% 26.1% 5. The principal sets times when staff can 18 53 40 161 84 3.67 1.14 meet with him/her to discuss things without 5.1% 14.9% 11.2% 45.2% 23.6% interruptions 6. Staff members at this school share 2 20 47 199 87 1 4.00 0.81 personal information 0.6% 5.6% 13.2% 55.9% 24.4% 0.3% 7. The principal communicates honestly to 12 14 45 158 127 4.05 0.97 staff 3.4% 3.9% 12.6% 44.4% 35.7% 8. Staff tend to give supportive comments 5 19 25 195 112 4.10 0.85 or feedback to other staff members 1.4% 5.3% 7.0% 54.8% 31.5% 9. Staff receive messages from the principal 9 37 33 187 90 3.88 0.99 at appropriate times 2.5% 10.4% 9.3% 52.5% 25.3% 10. The principal sends out more 45 195 59 49 7 1 2.38 0.94 information than staff can deal with 12.6 54.8% 16.6% 13.8% 2.0% 0.3% % 11. As a staff we help each other to get 3 9 28 177 137 2 4.23 0.77 through the day 0.8% 2.5% 7.9% 49.7% 38.5% 0.6% 12. The principal communicates openly to 11 30 45 151 119 3.95 1.04 staff 3.1% 8.4% 12.6% 42.4% 33.4% 13. Staff at this school have ample 13 58 38 157 90 3.71 1.12 opportunities to see the principal about 3.7% 16.3% 10.7% 44.1% 25.3% work issues 14. The principal gets more information 20 88 157 60 31 2.98 1.00 than he/she can handle 5.6% 24.7% 44.1% 16.9% 8.7% 15. Staff can approach the principal with 7 12 32 183 122 4.13 0.86 personal information 2.0% 3.4% 9.0% 51.4% 34.3% 16. Staff members give emotional support 7 41 97 169 42 3.56 0.91 to the principal 2.0% 11.5% 27.2% 47.5% 11.8% 17. The principal asks for input from staff 5 16 17 197 121 4.16 0.82 on policy issues 1.4% 4.5% 4.8% 55.3% 34.0% 18. Information about this school’s goals 22 74 80 147 31 2 3.26 1.08 and mission comes from the principal 6.2% 20.8% 22.5% 42.3% 8.7% 0.6% 19. Staff members generally have 1 23 19 241 72 4.01 0.74 opportunities to meet informally 0.3% 6.5% 5.3% 67.7% 20.2% 20. Staff members receive enough 3 40 58 213 41 1 3.70 0.85 information from one another 0.8% 11.2% 16.3% 59.8% 11.5% 0.3% 21. Staff are encouraged to work with one 3 22 40 209 82 3.97 0.82 another to change or review aspects of the 0.8% 6.2% 11.2% 58.7% 23.0% school’s organisation 22. The principal provides staff with 11 24 29 180 112 4.01 0.97 positive feedback 3.1% 6.7% 8.1% 50.6% 31.5% 23. Staff members give new employees 8 28 58 195 67 3.80 0.91 information about how things should be 2.2% 7.9% 16.3% 54.8% 18.8% done at this school

359 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Communication item

strongly strongly disagree missing mean standard deviation disagree undecided agree strongly agree 24. The principal reveals his/her true 13 40 82 168 52 1 3.58 0.99 feelings about issues 3.7% 11.2% 23.0% 47.2% 14.6% 0.3% 25. There are times when staff can speak to 3 23 14 224 92 4.07 0.79 the principal 0.8% 6.5% 3.9% 62.9% 25.8% 26. Staff at this school can approach the 5 10 23 199 118 1 4.17 0.78 principal with bad news 1.4% 2.8% 6.5% 55.9% 33.1% 0.3% 27. Staff are generally honest in their 12 27 60 186 71 3.78 0.96 interactions with the principal 3.4% 7.6% 16.9% 52.2% 19.9% 28. Staff give moral support to the principal 5 31 50 207 62 1 3.82 0.87 1.4% 8.7% 14.0% 58.1% 17.4% 0.3% 29. Staff are able to influence the 18 60 112 137 29 3.28 1.00 principal’s decisions 5.1% 16.9% 31.5% 38.5% 8.1% 30. Staff members receive enough 9 36 43 195 72 1 3.80 0.96 information from the principal to know 2.5% 10.1% 12.1% 54.8% 20.2% 0.3% what is going on 31. Staff members inform new staff about 10 48 85 170 43 3.53 0.97 the school’s past 2.8% 13.5% 23.9% 47.8% 12.1% achievements 32. Staff at this school can approach one 3 9 22 208 113 1 4.18 0.73 another 0.8% 2.5% 6.2% 58.4% 31.7% 0.3% 33. The principal indicates that the opinions 10 19 39 176 112 4.01 0.95 of staff are worthwhile 2.8% 5.3% 11.0% 49.4% 31.5% 34. The principal supplies information 9 48 67 183 48 1 3.60 0.97 about how things are done around here 2.5% 13.5% 18.8% 51.4% 13.5% 0.3% 35. Staff members have ample 9 57 53 185 51 1 3.60 1.00 opportunities to meet and discuss work 2.5% 16.0% 14.9% 52.0% 14.3% 0.3% issues with one another 36. Staff members do not withhold personal 11 55 132 137 21 3.29 0.91 information when talking socially 3.1% 15.4% 37.1% 38.5% 5.9% 37. The information staff members send to 3 10 48 240 55 3.93 0.69 the principal is usually accurate 0.8% 2.8% 13.5% 67.4% 15.4% 38. The principal allows staff to contribute 7 13 21 205 109 1 4.12 0.82 their thoughts on issues 2.0% 3.7% 5.9% 57.6% 30.6% 0.3% 39. The principal listens to suggestions 6 21 30 187 112 4.06 0.89 from staff 1.7% 5.9% 8.4% 52.5% 31.5% 40. The principal often directs work 8 67 83 152 45 1 3.45 1.01 2.2% 18.8% 23.3% 42.7% 12.6% 0.3% 41. The principal gives information that 5 23 43 220 63 2 3.88 0.82 helps staff to carry out their roles 1.4% 6.5% 12.1% 61.8% 17.7% 0.6% 42. The staff at this school make each other 11 23 34 171 116 1 4.01 0.98 feel that they are part of a team 3.1% 6.5% 9.6% 48.0% 32.6% 0.3% 43. Staff members show new staff ‘the 9 24 32 212 78 1 3.92 0.90 ropes' 2.5% 6.7% 9.0% 59.6% 21.9% 0.3% 44. Staff members tell new staff stories 9 38 64 191 53 1 3.68 0.94 about people or past events in the school 2.5% 10.7% 18.0% 53.7% 14.9% 0.3% 45. The principal sends too many messages 44 211 66 27 8 2.28 0.86 12.4 59.3% 18.5% 7.6% 2.2% % 46. Staff receive sufficient information 5 36 52 218 45 3.74 0.86 from the principal to know how to do their 1.4% 10.1% 14.6% 61.2% 12.6% jobs

360 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Communication item

strongly strongly disagree missing mean standard deviation disagree undecided agree strongly agree 47. The principal gives staff ‘the whole 13 53 93 135 61 1 3.50 1.06 story’ when discussing issues 3.7% 14.9% 26.1% 37.9% 17.1% 0.3% 48. The principal compliments staff 12 24 22 173 125 4.05 0.99 3.4% 6.7% 6.2% 48.6% 35.1% 49. The principal indicates that staff input 10 28 30 176 112 3.99 0.98 in decision making is valuable 2.8% 7.9% 8.4% 49.4% 31.5% 50. The principal is actively involved in the 11 45 70 142 88 3.71 1.07 induction of new staff 3.1% 12.6% 19.7% 39.9% 24.7% 51. Staff members at this school support 5 14 24 174 139 4.20 0.84 one another 1.4% 3.9% 6.7% 48.9% 39.0% 52. The principal is truthful 3 18 33 158 143 1 4.18 0.86 0.8% 5.1% 9.3% 44.4% 40.2% 0.3% 53. The principal tells staff how things are 9 104 75 132 34 2 3.22 1.05 to be done 2.5% 29.2% 21.1% 37.1% 9.6% 0.6% 54. The staff at this school talk to one 1 9 39 229 78 4.05 0.67 another when they have a problem 0.3% 2.5% 11.0% 64.3% 21.9% 55. The principal is autocratic * 98 117 69 43 14 15 2.29 1.13 27.5% 32.9% 19.4% 21.1% 3.9% 4.2% 56. Staff members have opportunities to 3 34 33 230 55 1 3.85 0.83 meet and discuss issues 0.8% 9.6% 9.3% 64.6% 15.4% 0.3% 57. The principal gets behind staff when 8 39 66 164 78 1 3.75 0.99 they are doing things about which they are 2.2% 11.0% 18.5% 46.1% 21.9% 0.3% not confident 58. Information that comes from other staff 4 23 83 209 37 3.71 0.78 members is reliable 1.1% 6.5% 23.3% 58.7% 10.4% 59. The principal is warm and considerate 15 23 37 158 123 3.99 1.04 4.2% 6.5% 10.4% 44.4% 34.6% 60. There is too much information from 32 199 92 29 4 2.37 0.80 other staff * 9.0% 55.9% 25.8% 8.1% 1.1% 61. The principal is encouraging 13 25 25 173 120 4.02 1.01 3.7% 7.0% 7.0% 48.6% 33.7% 62. Staff members inform new staff about 13 57 92 159 35 3.41 0.99 the school’s mission 3.7% 16.0% 25.8% 44.7% 9.8%

361 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Table A4.1g Frequencies and descriptives for extent of use of communication methods items (Q. 63)

Communication method item

rarely used rarely 1 2 3 4 5 used very frequently missing mean standard deviation 63a. Staff meetings 1 3 27 92 233 4.58 0.66 0.3% 0.8% 7.6% 25.8% 65.4% 63b. Informal meetings 21 44 114 112 61 3.42 1.10 5.9% 12.4% 32.0% 31.5% 17.1% 63c. Pupil delivered messages 32 55 124 97 45 3 3.19 1.13 9.0% 15.4% 34.8% 27.2% 12.6% 0.8% 63d. Notes / memos 13 46 101 115 80 1 3.57 1.09 3.7% 12.9% 28.4% 32.3% 22.5% 0.3% 63e. Bulletin boards 9 21 54 101 167 4 4.13 1.04 2.5% 5.9% 15.2% 28.4% 46.9% 1.1% 63f. Intercom / P.A. system 115 33 61 76 62 9 2.82 1.53 32.3% 9.3% 17.1% 21.3% 17.4% 2.5% 63g. Handbook 151 66 67 43 20 9 2.18 1.27 42.4% 18.5% 18.8% 12.1% 5.6% 2.5% 63h. Telephone 138 69 69 40 30 10 2.29 1.33 38.8% 19.4% 19.4% 11.2% 8.4% 2.8%

Table A4.1h Frequencies and descriptives for effectiveness of communication methods items (Q. 64)

Communication method item

very very rarely rarely 1 effective 2 3 4 5 effective missing mean standard deviation 64a. Staff meetings 1 6 30 108 207 4 4.46 0.75 0.3% 1.7% 8.4% 30.3% 58.1% 1.1% 64b. Informal meetings 13 25 61 127 124 6 3.93 1.07 3.7% 7.0% 17.1% 35.7% 34.8% 1.7% 64c. Pupil delivered messages 24 37 107 116 67 5 3.47 1.12 6.7% 10.4% 30.1% 32.6% 18.8% 1.4% 64d. Notes / memos 8 32 82 140 90 4 3.77 1.00 2.2% 9.0% 23.0% 39.3% 25.3% 1.1% 64e. Bulletin boards 17 41 49 109 134 6 3.86 1.19 4.8% 11.5% 13.8% 30.6% 37.6% 1.7% 64f. Intercom / P.A. system 81 33 45 76 95 26 3.22 1.56 22.8% 9.3% 12.6% 21.3% 26.7% 7.3% 64g. Handbook 122 64 82 43 20 25 2.32 1.26 34.3% 18.0% 23.0% 12.1% 5.6% 7.0% 64h. Telephone 101 33 80 57 68 17 2.88 1.50 28.4% 9.3% 22.5% 16.0% 19.1% 4.8%

362 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Table A4.1i Frequencies and descriptives for Job Satisfaction items

Job satisfaction item

1 strongly disagree 2 disagree 3 undecided 4 agree 5 strongly agree missing mean standard deviation 1. My work provides an opportunity to use 1 4 15 154 182 4.45 0.63 a variety of skills 0.3% 1.1% 4.2% 43.3% 51.1% 2. My principal turns one staff member 253 59 32 10 2 4.55 0.82 against another * 71.1% 16.6% 9.0% 2.8% 0.6% 3. No one tells me that I am good at my job 100 141 53 41 21 2.28 1.16 28.1% 39.6% 14.9% 11.5% 5.9% 4. My work consists of routine activities 57 106 52 112 28 1 2.85 1.25 16.0% 29.8% 14.6% 31.5% 7.9% 0.3% 5. Working conditions at this school can be 21 62 85 141 47 3.37 1.10 improved 5.9% 17.4% 23.9% 39.6% 13.2% 6. I receive recognition from the principal 11 28 38 179 100 3.92 0.99 3.1% 7.9% 10.7% 50.3% 28.1% 7. I do not have the freedom to make my 99 166 42 38 11 3.85 1.04 own decisions * 27.8 46.6% 11.8% 10.7% 3.1% 8. The principal offers suggestions to 25 83 88 142 17 1 3.12 1.05 improve my work * 7.0% 23.3% 24.7% 39.9% 4.8% 0.3% 9. I receive full recognition for successful 20 42 44 168 82 3.70 1.12 work 5.6% 11.8% 12.4% 47.2% 23.0% 10. I get along with my colleagues 0 2 17 172 165 4.41 0.61 0.0% 0.6% 4.8% 48.3% 46.3% 11. The administration in this school does 84 172 62 29 9 3.82 0.97 not clearly define its policies * 23.6% 48.3% 17.4% 8.1% 2.5% 12. The principal gives me assistance when 9 25 34 184 104 3.98 0.95 I need help 2.5% 7.0% 9.6% 51.7% 29.2% 13. Working conditions at this school are 9 50 45 169 82 1 3.75 1.04 comfortable 2.5% 14.0% 12.6% 47.5% 23.0% 0.3% 14. My work provides me with the 1 2 15 159 179 4.44 0.63 opportunity to help the students 0.3% 0.6% 4.2% 44.7% 50.3% 15. I like the people with whom I work 0 2 23 146 185 4.44 0.64 0.0% 0.6% 6.5% 41.0% 52.0% 16. The students respect me 0 1 24 208 122 1 4.27 0.59 0.0% 0.3% 6.7% 58.4% 34.3% 0.3% 17. The principal does not back me up * 190 118 27 13 7 1 4.33 0.91 53.4% 33.1% 7.6% 3.7% 2.0% 0.3% 18. My work is interesting 2 2 29 167 155 1 4.33 0.70 0.6% 0.6% 8.1% 46.9% 43.5% 0.3% 19. Working conditions at this school could 168 115 33 27 10 3 1.86 1.06 not be worse 47.2% 32.3% 9.3% 7.6% 2.8% 0.8% 20. My work discourages originality * 149 143 38 19 6 1 4.16 0.93 41.9% 40.2% 10.7% 5.3% 1.7% 0.3% 21. The administration at this school 6 28 73 185 63 1 3.76 0.89 communicates it’s policies well 1.7% 7.9% 20.5% 52.0% 17.7% 0.3% 22. My work does not provide me with the 143 168 24 14 6 1 4.21 0.86 chance to try new things * 40.2% 47.2% 6.7% 3.9% 1.7% 0.3% 23. The principal treats everyone equally 22 49 58 143 82 2 3.61 1.16 6.2% 13.8% 16.3% 40.2% 23.0% 0.6% 24. My colleagues stimulate me to do better 7 30 85 183 50 1 3.67 0.89 work 2.0% 8.4% 23.9% 51.4% 14.0% 0.3% 25. I am responsible for planning my work 4 6 7 157 181 1 4.42 0.72 each day 1.1% 1.7% 2.0% 44.1% 50.8% 0.3%

363 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Job satisfaction item

1 strongly disagree 2 disagree agree missing mean standard deviation 3 undecided 4 agree 5 strongly 26. The physical surroundings in this 144 132 43 30 7 4.06 1.02 school are unpleasant * 40.4% 37.1% 12.1% 8.4% 2.0% 27. Staff at this school are highly critical of 147 126 49 22 12 4.05 1.05 one another * 41.3% 35.4% 13.8% 6.2% 3.4% 28. I do have responsibility for my work 3 1 6 166 180 4.46 0.63 0.8% 0.3% 1.7% 46.6% 50.6% 29. Staff provide me with suggestions or 9 53 85 168 41 3.50 0.97 feedback about my work 2.5% 14.9% 23.9% 47.2% 11.5% 30. The principal provides assistance for 12 53 83 164 44 3.49 1.00 improving work 3.4% 14.9% 23.3% 46.1% 12.4% 31. I do not get cooperation from the 136 171 22 15 11 1 4.14 0.94 people I work with * 38.2% 48.0% 6.2% 4.2% 3.1% 0.3% 32. My work encourages me to be creative / 4 9 34 199 109 1 4.13 0.77 imaginative 1.1% 2.5% 9.6% 55.9% 30.6% 0.3% 33. The principal at this school is not 168 128 29 20 11 4.19 1.01 willing to listen to suggestions * 47.2% 36.0% 8.1% 5.6% 3.1% 34. I am indifferent towards my work * 177 123 36 14 4 2 4.29 0.89 49.7% 34.6% 10.1% 3.9% 1.1% 0.6% 35. The work I do at this school is very 5 16 42 207 85 1 4.00 0.82 pleasant 1.4% 4.5% 11.8% 58.1% 23.9% 0.3% 36. I receive too many meaningless 168 138 35 10 5 4.28 0.86 instructions from the principal * 47.2% 38.8% 9.8% 2.8% 1.4% 37. I dislike the people with whom I work 228 105 17 5 1 4.56 0.68 64.0% 29.5% 4.8% 1.4% 0.3% 38. I receive too little recognition * 121 138 39 46 12 3.87 1.12 34.0% 38.8% 11.0% 12.9% 3.4% 39. My interests are similar to those of 11 56 98 177 14 3.36 0.90 other staff 3.1% 15.7% 27.5% 49.7% 3.9% 40. I am not responsible for my actions * 236 92 4 10 14 4.48 0.96 66.3% 25.8% 1.1% 2.8% 3.9% 41. The principal makes available the 8 37 55 199 56 1 3.73 0.93 resources I need to do my best 2.2% 10.4% 15.4% 55.9% 15.7% 0.3% 42. I have made lasting friendships among 4 33 60 162 97 3.89 0.95 this staff 1.1% 9.3% 16.9% 45.5% 27.2% 43. Working conditions at this school are 7 29 43 196 81 3.89 0.92 good 2.0% 8.1% 12.1% 55.1% 22.8% 44. The principal makes me feel 166 121 37 21 11 4.15 1.03 uncomfortable * 46.6% 34.0% 10.4% 5.9% 3.1% 45. I try to be aware of the policies of this 1 3 18 238 96 4.19 0.59 school 0.3% 0.8% 5.1% 66.9% 27.0% 46. When I do a good job the principal 16 24 48 189 79 3.82 1.00 notices 4.5% 6.7% 13.5% 53.1% 22.2% 47. The principal explains what is expected 9 39 68 193 46 1 3.64 0.93 of me 2.5% 11.0% 19.1% 54.4% 12.9% 0.3% 48. The principal praises good work by 12 16 26 202 99 1 4.01 0.92 staff 3.4% 4.5% 7.3% 56.7% 27.8% 0.3% 49. I am not interested in the policies of the 182 141 23 7 2 1 4.39 0.75 school * 51.1% 39.6% 6.5% 2.0% 0.6% 0.3% 50. I get along with the students 1 1 5 200 149 4.39 0.56 0.3% 0.3% 1.4% 56.2% 41.9% 51. Other staff members seem unreasonable 153 151 34 15 3 4.23 0.85 to me * 43.0% 42.4% 9.6% 4.2% 0.8%

364 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Table A4.1j Frequencies and descriptives for Job Satisfaction item 52: General Job Satisfaction

General job satisfaction item

1 very dissatisfied 2 dissatisfied 3 neutral 4 satisfied 5 very satisfied missing mean standard deviation 52. In general, how satisfied are you with 5 22 21 179 126 3 4.13 0.88 your job? 1.4% 6.2% 5.9% 50.3% 35.4% 0.8%

Table A4.1k Frequencies and descriptives for Occupational stress items

Occupational stress item

1 no stress 2 mild stress 3 moderate stress 4 much stress 5 extreme stress missing mean standard deviation 1. Difficulty in motivating students 90 132 95 30 5 4 2.23 0.97 25.3% 37.1% 26.7% 8.4% 1.4% 1.1% 2. Communication at this school 123 133 74 18 8 2.03 0.98 34.6% 37.4% 20.8% 5.1% 2.2% 3. Lack of a supportive and friendly 203 111 33 3 6 1.59 0.83 atmosphere 57.0% 31.2% 9.3% 0.8% 1.7% 4. Feeling of not being suited to the job 230 83 27 12 4 1.53 0.86 64.6% 23.3% 7.6% 3.4% 1.1% 5. Poor attitudes of students 97 139 68 40 10 2 2.23 1.06 27.2% 39.0% 19.1% 11.2% 2.8% 0.6% 6. Interruptions due to messages 103 128 87 26 12 2.20 1.05 28.9% 36.0% 24.4% 7.3% 3.4% 7. The conviction that the education system 90 100 94 46 24 2 2.48 1.20 is getting worse 25.3% 28.1% 26.4% 12.9% 6.7% 0.6% 8. Inadequate discipline in the school 133 121 59 32 10 1 2.06 1.08 37.4% 34.0% 16.6% 9.0% 2.8% 0.3% 9. Lack of support from the principal 210 91 26 20 9 1.67 1.01 59.0% 25.6% 7.3% 5.6% 2.5% 10. The rate at which change occurs 93 111 65 57 30 2.49 1.27 26.1% 31.2% 18.3% 16.0% 8.4% 11. Lack of opportunity to find out what is 140 127 65 21 3 1.93 0.94 happening 39.3% 35.7% 18.3% 5.9% 0.8% 12. Difficulty of setting and maintaining 100 128 90 29 9 2.21 1.02 standards 28.1% 36.0% 25.3% 8.1% 2.5% 13. Personal failings 88 144 74 36 14 2.28 1.07 24.7% 40.4% 20.8% 10.1% 3.9% 14. Lack of opportunity to participate in 167 110 58 12 8 1 1.83 0.97 decision making 46.9% 30.9% 16.3% 3.4% 2.2% 0.3% 15. Having to deal with students who 57 106 79 70 42 2 2.81 1.26 constantly misbehave 16.0% 29.8% 22.2% 19.7% 11.8% 0.6% 16. Not being appreciated by the principal 214 88 29 15 10 1.65 0.99 60.1% 24.7% 8.1% 4.2% 2.8% 17. Verbal abuse by students 205 79 38 23 11 1.75 1.08 57.6% 22.2% 10.7% 6.5% 3.1% 18. Inadequate means of sharing 181 119 43 6 6 1 1.70 0.87 information among staff 50.8% 33.4% 12.1% 1.7% 1.7% 0.3%

365 Appendix 4.1 cont.

Occupational stress item

ing

1 no stress 2 mild stress 3 moderate stress 4 much stress 5 extreme stress miss mean standard deviation 19. Principal’s reluctance to make tough 209 74 40 20 13 1.75 1.09 decisions 58.7% 20.8% 11.2% 5.6% 3.7% 20. Maintaining discipline with difficult 77 84 77 65 48 5 2.78 1.34 classes 21.6% 23.6% 21.6% 18.3% 13.5% 1.4%

Table A4.1l Frequencies and descriptives for Occupational stress item 21: General occupational stress

General occupational stress item rd

1 not at all stressful 2 mildly stressful 3 moderately stressful 4 very stressful 5 extremely stressful missing mean standa deviation 21. In general, how stressful do you find 53 154 109 32 7 1 2.40 0.92 working at this school? 14.9% 43.3% 30.6% 9.0% 2.0% 0.3%

NB. For all tables in Appendix 4.1 * denotes reverse scored item

366 Appendix 4.2: Correlations among communication methods

Table A4.2 Pearson correlations between Items 63a-h (extent of use of method of communication) and 64a-h (effectiveness of method of communication). E f f e c t i v e n e s s

Extent Of Use

ings

64a. Staff meet 64b. Informal meetings 64c. Pupil delivered messages 64d. Notes/memos 64e. Bulletin boards / P.A. Intercom 64f. 64g. Handbook 64h. Telephone 63a. Staff meetings .34** .05 .05 .17** .10 .13* .07 .05 63b. Informal meetings .18** .54** .09 .12* .04 .05 .01 .06 63c. Pupil delivered -.05 .14** .42** .10 -.10 -.11 .04 .10 messages 63d. Notes/memos .13* .06 .14** .35** .12* .05 .23** .18** 63e. Bulletin boards .15** .03 -.01 .18** .69** .16** .22** .10 63f. Intercom / P.A. -.16 .03 .04 .05 .05 .66** .09 .07 63g. Handbook -.02 .06 -.07 .07 .11* -.01 .67** .14* 63h. Telephone -.06 .13* .16** .14* .08 .03 .26** .71** * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

367 Appendix 4.3: Early factor solution for organisational communication

Table A4.3: Initial factor solution for the communication scales Factor / Item Loading Factor 1: Staff – Principal communication 12 The principal communicates openly to staff .84 49 The principal indicates staff input in decision making is valuable .84 03 The principal is willing to listen to staff .84 39 The principal listens to suggestions from staff .83 07 The principal communicates honestly to staff .83 38 The principal allows staff to contribute their thoughts on issues .80 33 The principal indicates that the opinions of staff are worthwhile .80 52 The principal is truthful .77 22 The principal provides staff with positive feedback .76 26 Staff at this school can approach the principal with bad news .75 48 The principal compliments staff .74 30 Staff members receive enough information from the principal to know what .74 is going on 47 The principal gives staff ‘the whole story’ when discussing issues .71 15 Staff can approach the principal with personal information .71 57 The principal gets behind staff when they are doing things about which .71 they are not confident 09 Staff receive messages from the principal at appropriate times .70 25 There are times when staff can speak to the principal .70 41 The principal gives information that helps staff to carry out their roles .68 13 Staff at this school have ample opportunities to see the principal about .68 work issues 17 The principal asks for input from staff on policy issues .68 27 Staff are generally honest in their interactions with the principal .67 04 Staff have opportunities to make positive remarks to the principal about .63 his/her work 46 Staff receive sufficient information from the principal to know how to do .62 their jobs 01 There are adequate times to talk to the principal about work issues .59 24 The principal reveals his/her true feelings about issues .56 28 Staff give moral support to the principal .54 21 Staff are encouraged to work with one another to change or review .51 aspects of the school’s organisation

Factor 2: Horizontal communication 06 Staff members at this school share personal information .75 51 Staff members at this school support one another .74 32 Staff at this school can approach one another .70 08 Staff tend to give supportive comments or feedback to other staff .70 members 54 The staff at this school talk to one another when they have a problem .66 11 As a staff we help each other to get through the day .65 02 Staff members express feelings about work issues to one another .62 42 The staff at this school make each other feel they are part of a team .57 19 Staff members generally have opportunities to meet informally .52

368

Appendix 4.3 cont.

Factor 3: Cultural communication 62 Staff members inform new staff about the school’s mission .73 31 Staff members inform new staff about the school’s past achievements .72 44 Staff members tell new staff stories about people or past events in the .64 school 43 Staff members show new staff ‘the ropes’ .59 23 Staff members give new employees information about how things should .53 be done at this school

Factor 4: Quality of shared information 60 There is too much information from other staff .61 58 Information that comes from other staff members is reliable .59 37 The information staff members send to the principal is usually accurate .58

Factor 5: Access to information 05 The principal sets times when staff can meet with him/her to discuss .57 things without interruption 20 Staff members receive enough information from one another .56 35 Staff members have ample opportunities to meet and discuss work issues .54 with one another

Factor 6: Directive communication 40 The principal often directs work .79 53 The principal tells staff how things are to be done .77 18 Information about this school’s goals and mission comes from the .50 principal 34 The principal supplies information about how things are done around here .45

Factor 7: Vertical load 10 The principal sends out more information than staff can deal with .76 14 The principal gets more information than he/she can handle .69 45 The principal sends too many messages .68

‘Factor 8: ‘ 16 Staff members give emotional support to the principal .55

‘Factor 9: ‘ 36 Staff members do not withhold personal information when talking socially .72

369 Appendix 4.4: Early factor solution for job satisfaction

Table A4.4: An early factor solution fro the job satisfaction scales Factor / Item Loading Factor 1: Recognition / Support 46 When I do a good job the principal notices .77 06 I receive recognition from the principal .75 09 I receive full recognition for successful work .73 30 The principal provides assistance for improving work .72 47 The principal explains what is expected of me .71 48 The principal praises good work by staff .69 12 The principal gives me assistance when I need help .68 08 The principal offers suggestions to improve my work .67 38 I receive too little recognition .59 11 The administration in this school does not clearly define its policies .57 41 The principal makes available the resources I need to do my best .56 21 The administration at this school communicates it’s policies well .52 03 No one tells me that I am good at my job .51

Factor 2: Supervision 02 My principal turns one staff member against another .68 44 The principal makes me feel uncomfortable .68 36 I receive too many meaningless instructions from the principal .67 23 The principal treats everyone equally .60 17 The principal does not back me up .60 33 The principal at this school is not willing to listen to suggestions .59

Factor 3: Colleagues 15 I like the people with whom I work .78 27 Staff at this school are highly critical of one another .73 37 I dislike the people with whom I work .65 10 I get along with my colleagues .64 51 Other staff members seem unreasonable to me .64

Factor 4: Working conditions 43 Working conditions at this school are good .75 13 Working conditions at this school are comfortable .74 26 The physical surroundings in this school are unpleasant .71 05 Working conditions at this school can be improved .65 19 Working conditions at this school could not be worse .40

Factor 5: Work itself 18 My work is interesting .70 01 My work provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills .63 14 My work provides me with the opportunity to help the students .57 32 My work encourages me to be creative / imaginative .48 34 I am indifferent towards my work .44 35 The work I do at this school is very pleasant .31

Factor 6: The students 16 The students respect me .72 50 I get along with the students .72

370 Appendix 4.4 cont.

Factor 7: ? 20 My work discourages originality .62 29 Staff provide me with suggestions or feedback about my work .49 24 My colleagues stimulate me to do better work .43 31 I do not get cooperation from the people I work with .43 22 My work does not provide me with the chance to try new things .43

Factor 8: School policy 49 I am not interested in the policies of the school .61 45 I try to be aware of the policies of this school .57

Factor 9: ? 40 I am not responsible for my actions .64 42 I have made lasting friendships among this staff .45 07 I do not have the freedom to make my own decisions .39

Factor 10: ? 25 I am responsible for planning my work each day .78

371 Appendix 4.5: Early factor solution for occupational stress

Table A4.4: Initial factor solution fro the occupational stress scales Factor / Item Loading Factor 1: School 09 Lack of support from the principal .82 16 Not being appreciated by the principal .77 03 Lack of a supportive and friendly atmosphere .77 02 Communication at this school .72 14 Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making .64 19 Principal’s reluctance to make tough decisions .59

Factor 2: Students 15 Having to deal with students who constantly misbehave .86 20 Maintaining discipline with difficult classes .83 05 Poor attitudes of students .82 01 Difficulty in motivating students .65 17 Verbal abuse by students .65 08 Inadequate discipline in the school .56

Factor 3: Information & Quality Issues 10 The rate at which change occurs .71 11 Lack of opportunity to find out what is happening .68 06 Interruptions due to messages .61 18 Inadequate means of sharing information among staff .53 12 Difficulty of setting and maintaining standards .52 07 The conviction that the education system is getting worse .52

Factor 4: Personal Issues 04 Feeling of not being suited to the job .79 13 Personal failings .68

372 Appendix 4.6: Results of the qualitative analysis

Table A4.6: Qualitative analysis of comments about communication (Q65). Statement Participant/ Statements Code Number School ID

SUPPORTIVE COMMUNICATION 092 112 224 Staff relationships at this school are exceptionally SUPP friendly and supportive and the feeling of community is a really strong one. Therefore honest communication is not difficult. 122 153 315 I am a specialist language teacher, so don’t have as SUPP much in common with the other staff, but they are still warm and inclusive. 146 177 411 I have found the other teachers willing to help one SUPP another with any educational or school related problems. I believe this follows on from the principal’s lead. 148 177 411 I am at present doing a school support course by SUPP correspondence and I have received great support and assistance from the principal and staff answering any question I may have and clarifying points I am unsure of. 159 194 413 The communication is very good, as the staff take the SUPP time to treat each other with courtesy and respect. 160 198 413 All the staff get along and support each other. SUPP

173 216 414 I never hesitate to ask questions if I need to know SUPP something or be shown “the ropes” and have always received an appropriate response. 185 238 503 Staff care for each other and “look out” for personal SUPP needs on a daily basis. 217 275 601 Most of the staff are approachable and helpful. SUPP

219 282 602 there are a lot of staff willing to give up their time and SUPP knowledge to help others with any problems a person might have – professional or personal. 220 282 602 Being so isolated, there are a lot of “mother figures” SUPP which is great (and very much needed)! 225 294 701 Our staff is a very supportive, enthusiastic and open SUPP school where communication is a key to our success. 228 301 702 Great supportive atmosphere between staff and SUPP principal at this school makes communication easy and effective. 236 307 702 Each member of staff is valued and feels very SUPP comfortable in the workplace.

DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATION 003 010 212 Staff are keen to discuss work based issues. DEMO

079 090 220 …and enhances the group’s ability to work as a team. DEMO

108 130 311 the school’s development is collaborative; one DEMO assisting another.

373 Appendix 4.6 cont.

114 142 314 There exists an atmosphere of teachers wanting DEMO greater influence in forums of decision making without taking any responsibility. 194 252 505 Very satisfied secretary – always made to feel a valued DEMO part of team. 211 271 601 The different committees / work done and negotiate DEMO has also been a plus for the safety and unity in developing a sound school environment. 080 090 220 I believe the principal is generally able to accept ideas DEMO and opinions from others, but this does not always mean that an “executive decision” is forestalled. 081 090 220 I think that the “key” is that the principal listens, but that DEMO the staff realise that, in some instances, decisions are made that do not always suit individuals.

UNDEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATION 027 037 214 I feel that as a professional body we don’t share UNDEM enough and plan enough together 072 076 219 Would like to see more opportunity for teachers in UNDEM similar grades eg. upper primary, middle, to meet & discuss issues as a team. 112 141 314 I also believe that those who sit “on the fence” waiting UNDEM for the facts / information to come along are falling short of their team effort. 006 020 212 Sometimes the principal will listen, but a lot of times UNDEM she has already decided what to do with the executive teachers. 158 193 413 Staff are asked their views, but are rarely acted upon, UNDEM hence staff don’t see the need in contributing to decision making. 165 201 413 Sometimes “indicating” that the staff’s input is UNDEM important is all that the principal does. Sometimes I feel the decision has been made but the staff will be asked to make it look like we have a say. 168 205 413 Decisions are generally made at executive meetings. UNDEM

188 242 504 We sometimes get to vote on issues, but results are UNDEM never displayed – only the final decision.

CULTURAL COMMUNICATION (POSITIVE ASPECTS) 083 090 220 Despite personal & professional differences which CULT+ occasionally (unavoidably?) lead to some minor tension, all staff members are truly committed to building a school that encourages education & growth of the whole child. This shared vision is our common goal and so, we must also apply this in dealing with our peers / colleagues. 134 168 410 I’m new to the school, but I must say that everyone CULT+ made a point of telling the “new kid” exactly how things are done – from playground duties & playing boundaries to how to use the photocopier & who should be “doing” the copying. 147 177 411 As a “new” teachers aide I have found I can discuss CULT+ any problem I am encountering at school with any of the staff. 162 199 413 If you are new “ask” is the best policy. People CULT+ sometimes take it for granted that you will “just know”.

374 Appendix 4.6 cont.

227 298 701 This is my first year as a teachers aide. I have found CULT+ the staff at my school very encouraging.

CULTURAL COMMUNICATION (NEGATIVE ASPECTS) 015 032 213 Being new to the school I find that some information CULT- was not made explicit – some things were expected knowledge. 088 096 221 Sometimes, a person organising something for school CULT- will not be told the way things should be done until they’ve done it the “wrong” way – rather than being supported (particularly by the principal) and guided through the process. 093 117 224 As a fairly new member of staff, I found that while CULT- everyone was friendly, there was very little guidance given as per school routines & programs. Most information was achieved through trial and error. 106 130 311 The process of induction, as opposed to orientation, is CULT- very limited. The orientation process is effective considering the school’s size and limited deviation from Anglo background. 240 313 704 New staff often have to ask for information about the CULT- way things are done. 241 313 704 Most staff have worked in this particular school for 10 – CULT- 20 years. this is my first year here. I’m finding it difficult to get past the “this is the way it’s always been done” attitude.

VERTICAL COMMUNICATION (POSITIVE ASPECTS) 002 010 212 We are lucky to have a principal that is a good listener VERT+ as well as communicator. 011 022 212 [Communication at this school] mainly comes through VERT+ the A.P. 049 051 215 The principal is supportive, open and honest with her VERT+ dealings with staff, students and parents. 051 054 216 The principal and executive are very approachable. VERT+

067 075 219 The AP also likes to be informed of changes, dates, VERT+ etc. The AP puts together a weekly briefing with the principal, which outlines what is happening during the coming week and on the back activities, events etc. are explained in detail and congratulations, best wishes messages etc. are communicated on this page. 077 086 219 All information passed to assistant principal who VERT+ collates and disperses information. 113 141 314 It’s important to keep the principal “in the loop” and it VERT+ only takes a minute for a quick informal update. 145 177 411 [principal] makes herself available to all staff for VERT+ discussions regardless of the staff member’s position in the school. 191 252 505 Communication from principal to maintenance man VERT+ excellent! 244 319 705 Our school has excellent communication lines between VERT+ the principal and staff.

375 Appendix 4.6 cont.

VERTICAL COMMUNICATION (NEGATIVE ASPECTS) 013 029 213 She [the principal] doesn’t communicate as frequently VERT- as she should 125 157 316 Sometimes decisions need to be made and the VERT- principal is asked for advice, but is of little or no help. 127 163 317 [The principal] doesn’t seem to be able to make & VERT- deliver firm decisions, but leaves it up to lower executive. 128 163 317 [The principal] appears to be able to listen, but doesn’t VERT- seem to have the will to act on her own. 130 163 317 The principal seems to be easily swayed by lower VERT- order executive staff, who appear to hold great power. 149 179 411 Not everyone’s opinions of events or criticisms are VERT- heard fairly.

166 203 413 Principal communicates with teachers, but this rarely VERT- happens with ancillary staff and clerical staff. 170 213 414 The principal in our school means well, but has a big VERT- problem with social skills. The principal is often very moody and is often hard to approach. Basically staff communicate mainly with the deputy and feel more at ease doing this. 189 242 504 Our principal needs to make a decision on some VERT- issues and not be swayed by female executives who have very strong personalities. 242 313 704 The principal (who has been here approx 8 years) is VERT- very supportive, however appears ineffective in dealing with some staff attitudes. 259 351 710 the co-ordinator is not easy to pin down and deputy VERT- principal is not easy to approach – judgemental.

HORIZONTAL COMMUNICATION 129 163 317 Some staff members are communicated to more than HORZ others. There are “golden haired” males & females who are included but others not. 150 179 411 It seems that certain people are incapable of telling lies HORZ while others are at blame without having any input to the situation. 172 216 414 Communication between staff is quite effective, HORZ however it is easier to communicate with some staff members than others (primary with primary and infants with infants) as you work more closely with them. 187 242 504 Certain people in this school voice opinions in such a HORZ way that they are always heard. i.e. “the squeaky wheel gets the attention.” 190 242 504 Certain people are very moody & only talk when they HORZ want something. On all other days you can be ignored (I’d like people to be consistent!). 216 275 601 The grapevine gossip / opinion is strong in the school HORZ and perhaps not as informed as it could / should be so the “facts” can be hard to get sometimes.

OPENNESS OF COMMUNICATION 048 051 215 We are informed of all events, good and bad, that are OPEN happening around us.

376 Appendix 4.6 cont.

050 054 216 I think that at this school there is open communication OPEN among staff. 052 058 217 We are always informed about important issues and OPEN decisions to be made and given opportunities for input if desired. 082 090 220 There is a balance here that demonstrates just how OPEN important acceptance and trust are in building a team. 084 090 220 We may not always agree with decisions and opinions, OPEN but we accept that none have all the answers and that all have valuable contributions to make. 092 112 224 Staff relationships at this school are exceptionally OPEN friendly and supportive and the feeling of community is a really strong one. Therefore honest communication is not difficult. 100 127 311 Communication is open and truthful. OPEN

105 128 311 Everyone gathers in staffroom at morning tea / lunch OPEN and openly discuss news etc. 107 130 311 Staff are able to influence the principal’s decisions on OPEN many policy based or communication based matters because of the principal’s open approach. 139 174 410 Principal is very open. A wonderful leader. OPEN

144 177 411 The principal makes a point of keeping staff updated OPEN on information and 178 222 501 The teachers communicate fairly openly with one OPEN another and our principal is very approachable 184 238 503 Communication is very good at our school. Staff OPEN communicate openly both on a professional and social level. 225 294 701 Our staff is a very supportive, enthusiastic and open OPEN school where communication is a key to our success. 235 305 702 Communication is open amongst the staff. People feel OPEN free to express an opinion & at atmosphere of trust is always there. 237 307 702 Because of the acceptance and trust staff are quite OPEN open about personal & professional issues. Discussion is free & frank, sensitive and contributions are sought & received from all. 245 319 705 All people at this school community usually feel quite OPEN confident in approaching other staff about most matters and parents and students are encouraged to do the same. 254 333 707 This year particularly we have a very good principal OPEN who values the staff’s input and is honest in expressing her own concerns.

CLOSED COMMUNICATION 012 029 213 The principal only tells you what she wants you to CLOS know. 018 032 213 Sometimes the principal asks for opinions, but you get CLOS the feeling that only her way will be right, so you don’t bother. 056 067 218 Often, decisions are made by the principal / Ass. CLOS Principal / Executive staff, and the teaching staff are not informed.

377 Appendix 4.6 cont.

074 078 219 Not all decisions made by executive are passed on to CLOS the rest of the staff.

090 096 221 There are some staff members who do not share their CLOS worries or problems and, at times there is an element of mistrust. This is a breakdown in communication. 101 127 311 Our principal respects the privacy of families and will CLOS only pass on personal family information (concerning pupils) on a “need to know” basis 167 205 413 It is clear there is communication between executive CLOS members which is excluded from the rest of staff.

ADEQUACY OF COMMUNICATION 004 011 212 Feel comfortable knowing that any messages missed ADQY will be passed on by grade partners or other members of staff. 046 050 215 I feel that I hear what I need to know effectively. ADQY

047 051 215 I think it’s great. We have information we need when ADQY we need it, and not overloaded. 066 075 219 Communication is usually clear. ADQY

091 111 224 Communication at this school is quite adequate. ADQY

111 141 314 I believe that I cannot do my job effectively if I do not ADQY have the information / facts that I need. 117 148 315 We have specific times set for communicating unless ADQY in emergency. Eg. messages over intercom after recess. 137 174 410 Communication, overall, is quite good. Most staff relate ADQY well. School information is communicated relatively adequately. 143 177 411 I believe the staff at this school are very well informed ADQY on subjects relating to the school, students and staff.

196 255 505 Messages are delivered immediately by office staff. ADQY

206 268 601 All efforts are made to allow teachers to know what is ADQY happening at school.

LOAD OF COMMUNICATION 021 034 214 Too many professional development sessions with LOAD notes / messages on top of this as meetings. 031 040 214 We have a lot of communication in our school. LOAD Sometimes too much I feel. 033 040 214 The numerous amounts of messages and LOAD communication are stressful, but they are part of the system (the roundabout) that we are on. 155 191 412 Too many lines of communication – needs to be LOAD streamlined. 156 191 412 Paper trails a mile long make it difficult to keep track of LOAD information.

STAFF MEETINGS 010 020 212 Staff meetings are very well run, very efficient and STFMTG relevant.

378 Appendix 4.6 cont.

039 046 214 That is why we have staff meetings and briefings to be STFMTG informed about different school issues. Module meetings are spent sharing ideas & thoughts on issues and teaching/learning activities suitable for the children we are teaching. 043 049 215 Staff meetings are generally briefing meetings with STFMTG little opportunity for discussion - 044 049 215 - overlong agendas full of superficial nonsense means STFMTG that most teachers “hate” as being unproductive, being more related to housekeeping than educational issues / curriculum issues. 070 075 219 Communication also takes place in general business STFMTG staff meetings approx 3 – 4 a term. 071 075 219 As a member of the executive team, I also feel that we STFMTG communicate well with a meeting each week approx 1 – 1 ½ hrs in length. 094 125 311 [Staff meetings] are dominated by the principal STFMTG

119 148 315 [Other meetings used] Administration staff meeting STFMTG weekly before school. Curriculum development fortnightly after school. 135 168 410 We have a staff meeting & a communication meeting STFMTG each week. The staff meeting is mainly for K.L.As , but the communication meeting allows us to “catch up” with what’s going on. 138 174 410 Communication meetings are held every Wednesday STFMTG morning. Used to inform staff of the going ons around the place eg. Fete, RE Liturgies, discipline, etc. 152 187 411 We have a communication meeting 1 morning per STFMTG week where everybody is free to share information. 153 187 411 We also have staff meetings once a week. STFMTG

163 200 413 Communication has improved since weekly STFMTG communication meetings were implemented.

164 200 413 The [communication] meetings are held one afternoon STFMTG a week and teachers can speak about any important events etc. An agenda book is sent to classes on the day of the meeting. 175 222 501 Several years ago the school underwent a review. STFMTG From the review came a more efficient process to conduct staff meetings, which also included printed memos which are distributed weekly. Each teacher is encouraged to add to the memo, therefore as many ideas, programs, meetings, courses can be discussed and / or dealt with as possible. 181 226 501 Staff meetings occur every week. STFMTG

183 226 501 Memos are used as part of staff meeting for reading STFMTG only. This speeds up the meeting. 197 263 506 Staff meetings are number 1 area to discuss STFMTG curriculum issues, planning events for school functions, activities etc. 210 271 601 Staff meetings, curriculum meetings & inservice of STFMTG K.L.As allows update on various subjects.

379 Appendix 4.6 cont.

BULLETIN BOARDS 022 034 214 Find the whiteboard very effective and “whiteboard BULLBD calendar” the best way [to communicate?] 068 075 219 The school also has 3 white boards: yearly overview of BULLBD events, term events and daily changes. 073 076 219 White board messages are very effective in relaying BULLBD messages.

118 148 315 [The school uses] A daily noticeboard, a weekly BULLBD noticeboard and a general noticeboard. 131 164 317 Whiteboard in staffroom – divided up into 3: term, this BULLBD week and incidental messages. Very effective. Able to see whole term at a glance. Staff see it throughout day & take note of any additional messages. 136 168 410 We also have whiteboards with the days of the week BULLBD on them & written for each week day is “what’s on” so we all know & are kept informed. 182 226 501 Whiteboard is used extensively every day & the whole BULLBD weeks activities can be seen at a glance. 199 263 506 Whiteboard displays whole term calendar & is regularly BULLBD added to and updated 202 267 601 The bulletin board is used much more & is successful BULLBD in informing all staff. 207 271 601 I find that the bulletin board in the staff room has been BULLBD an effective, positive and sound means of communication for the staff. 208 271 601 Everyone’s focus on board is very noticeable for BULLBD affirmation, confirmation, awareness to the happenings in such a big school. 214 275 601 Notice board is good. BULLBD

222 287 603 Teachers are expected to read the staff notice board BULLBD every day 231 304 702 Whiteboard used for daily, weekly and next weeks BULLBD events. 232 304 702 Anyone able to write messages [on whiteboard] BULLBD

PRINTED MESSAGES (NEWSLETTER, MEMOS, ETC.) 014 030 213 The weekly newsletter “SCAN” is a really worthwhile PRIMES thing – informing staff of the next week’s events 016 032 213 The weekly newsletter is very good – the best system I PRIMES have seen in several schools.

040 046 214 The principal sends out a letter each week outlining PRIMES what’s happening in the week, thanking people, encouraging people, reminders of upcoming events and current issues relating to teaching/education. 053 062 217 Each week Principal’s “Bits and Pieces” bulletin is PRIMES issued to each staff member informing them of what’s happening, when, by whom, etc. 054 062 217 [It] also thanks staff members who may have been PRIMES involved in extra curricular activities & acknowledges organisational skills etc.

380 Appendix 4.6 cont.

069 075 219 Each term a calendar is put together for each staff PRIMES member outlining the terms events. 076 086 219 Facilitated by clear weekly briefing notes & updated PRIMES calendars – yearly, term, weekly. 102 127 311 All other information concerning the smooth running of PRIMES the school is discussed at staff meetings and once decisions are reached, are published in a staff newsletter and on a notice board in the staffroom. 177 222 501 Newsletters are distributed weekly. PRIMES

195 255 505 We have effective newsletters weekly amongst staff & PRIMES parents. 198 263 506 General business is handled by a memo book in the PRIMES staff room, with whole week , messages, notes on correspondence added. 203 267 601 the pigeon holes are also a good way of leaving PRIMES messages for staff. 209 271 601 Pigeon holes for teachers is another plus. PRIMES

251 333 707 As a team-teach with another teacher we do keep a PRIMES communication book for thoughts as they come up.

P.A. / INTERCOM SYSTEMS 059 069 218 Interruption from PA system can be frustrating – PAICOM

061 069 218 Several ideas have been trialed to avoid [interruptions PAICOM from PA system and students delivering…] occurring. 161 198 413 PA system is a very effective form of communication. PAICOM 176 222 501 With the remodification of the school’s physical PAICOM surroundings came intercom systems which allows easier communication to the office, principal, other executives, teachers, canteen and highschool teachers departments. 180 226 501 Emergency communication is usually conducted via PAICOM personal delivery of message or intercom phone.

200 263 506 We have no PA system in classrooms. We have opted PAICOM to not use bells whistles or other loud, demeaning devices. 204 267 601 The PA system is very ineffective, especially used PAICOM around / just before lunch & teachers often miss the information. 215 275 601 PA announcements are intrusive, but have been cut PAICOM down this year.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION 007 020 212 Most communication happens at lunch-time or recess ACCES in the staffroom. This can be annoying at times because if you aren’t in the staffroom at the time you do not find out what is going on until later. 008 020 212 Most decisions are made during this time because ACCES obviously you can’t leave your class alone during class time. 057 067 218 Often, teacher find out about decisions during ACCES assemblies when parents are being informed, or find out by word of mouth from other staff.

381 Appendix 4.6 cont.

058 069 218 Any messages from Principal / AP, verbally, tend to ACCES travel Principal / AP > Co-ordinator > Teachers concerned, which can sometimes affect other classes or left teachers little time to make new timetable arrangements. 121 153 315 I am a part time teacher and therefore miss some ACCES information and have fewer opportunities than most to communicate with colleagues. 123 153 315 Lots of decisions on timetable changes are made at ACCES short notice (for me) which I find frustrating. 124 153 315 There is no direct system in place to inform people like ACCES me in advance, as far as I know. 157 193 413 Important issues are late in being communicated. ACCES

169 205 413 Sometimes we are expected to “know” what is going ACCES on. For eg. once we had a staff meeting from 3 – 5 & they are supposed to finish at 4pm, but we were not told on this day. 213 275 601 If you miss a staff meeting because of illness or duty ACCES it’s hard to find out what’s going on even if you ask. Most people don’t think anything is major enough to tell you. 223 287 603 We don’t have daily notices system which I like to ACCES remind me about the things happening. 224 287 603 Most mornings I don’t go to the staff room so I miss out ACCES on daily notices. Eg. “Is there morning prayer or not?” 256 347 709 Sometimes messages are given to staff at play time or ACCES lunch time when a teacher is on playground duty and the teacher on duty is uninformed.

TIME CONSTRAINTS 017 032 213 Staff meetings are often overburdened with agenda TIMCON items &, therefore, not enough time – things are carried over / not done. 019 032 213 The school is stressful not because of classroom TIMCON teaching, but because of extras such as assemblies, prayer assemblies, staff prayer and also there is strict guidelines about how to do programs, including order & format. This does not allow for professionalism in my opinion. It could stop advancements in educational practice. 024 035 214 We seem to be always rushing to speak to each other. TIMCON

025 035 214 We run out of time for staff and module meetings. TIMCON

026 037 214 In all the schools in which I have taught (4) there is not TIMCON enough time for teachers on grades and modules to prepare the learning for the students for the upcoming term. This also applies in the assessment of the students. 028 037 214 In the business of schools, learning suffers because TIMCON there is no time! set aside for teachers to discuss practise and plan future learning. 029 037 214 Running the school becomes the focus because there TIMCON simply aren’t the resources or personnel to do all the work.

382 Appendix 4.6 cont.

042 049 215 As in most schools, communication is rarely 1:1 TIMCON because of time constraints & the nature of teachers work & classroom isolation. 095 126 311 I feel that the methods of communication used are very TIMCON effective, but our enemy is “time”. 096 126 311 With the increasing demands made upon the principal, TIMCON they are not always available to discuss matters of concern when they arise. 097 126 311 Special needs of individual children are a concern of TIMCON mine and the special needs teacher is employed one day a week & this is often overloaded so some concerns do not get dealt with or at least discussed even though these would be discussed with other staff members. 098 126 311 I’d appreciate more time with the principal, but TIMCON appreciate the demands put on her. 140 174 410 At times though [principal] can be unavailable for TIMCON meetings or help due to busy schedule. 249 333 707 Generally, the busy nature of the school does not allow TIMCON for a quick meeting whenever we can.

INTERRUPTIONS 060 069 218 - as is the knock on door from students delivering last INTS minute notes for parents etc. 065 072 218 but at times it is intrusive to the daily classroom INTS activities, as it is so frequent. 154 190 412 Any form of message during teaching time is disruptive INTS to the class and detrimental to learning. Therefore, messages given outside breaks should only be emergencies. 233 304 702 Class being interrupted in minimised. INTS

COMMUNICATION IN SMALL SCHOOLS 086 090 220 I believe that the small numbers of staff enables more COMSML effective communication and interaction to occur. 089 096 221 As this is a small school, it’s really important to rely on COMSML one another and trust one another. 103 128 311 Small school – news travels quickly. COMSML

104 128 311 All classes in one building – lots of contact. COMSML

179 223 501 [communication is] highly efficient! COMSML

226 294 701 We can do this because we are a small staff and we all COMSML communicate effectively. 229 302 702 Because we are a small staff you generally get on well COMSML together. 230 302 702 People [in a small staff] have a better opportunity to COMSML communicate with each other. 239 310 704 Small staff so we have the opportunity to see one COMSML another each day. 246 320 705 Because we are a small school there doesn’t seem to COMSML be any problem with communication in our school.

383 Appendix 4.6 cont.

248 333 707 We are a small country school of 36 students, 2 full- COMSML time teachers and 2 part-time so communication is pretty vital. 252 333 707 As you can imagine, without effective communication COMSML in a school this size it would cease to exist. 253 333 707 As there are only 2 of you in the school (as on Fridays) COMSML there is no room for dishonesty and the holding of grudges etc. because there’s no one else to talk to and nowhere really to hide. 255 346 709 As we are a very small school it is not difficult for us to COMSML communicate at all times during the day.

COMMUNICATION IN LARGE SCHOOLS 001 002 211 If it were a large school, communication would be very COMLGE unsatisfactory. 023 035 214 We have good communication, but as the school gets COMLGE bigger it’s getting harder. 034 040 214 We have minimised the amount of meetings that we COMLGE have. As a consequence- communication is not as effective in a large (3 stream) school such as this one. 037 046 214 Due to the large number of staff and students at our COMLGE school, communication over the years has become more difficult. 062 069 218 In fairness it is difficult in a large primary school to COMLGE overcome these problems.

COMMUNICATION IN MULTI-CAMPUS SCHOOLS 109 137 313 Because we are a two campus school, great effort has COMMUL to be made to pass information from one campus to the other. We are effective, in most cases, at doing this. 110 138 313 We are in a split campus situation hence paper COMMUL communication is important so that all receive same but of course it is not always absorbed. 257 350 710 [communication is] Very difficult being a K-10 multi- COMMUL campus school. 258 351 710 We only see the principal about once a week if we are COMMUL lucky. It is a three campus school which doesn’t help the situation. 260 352 710 School is a central school K-10 with 3 separate COMMUL campuses. makes communication difficult at times, although a reliable delivery system is in place

SCHOOL CLIMATE 099 126 311 I’m sure she [principal] shares my concern for the CLIM children and we want the best for them. 142 175 411 There is also a good tone existing between staff. CLIM Cooperation levels are high. 186 238 503 We have a fantastic parish priest who also CLIM communicates easily and socially with all the staff. He is probably one of the main forces in getting staff together regularly. 192 252 505 Tone of school excellent! CLIM

193 252 505 Great principal, teachers and kids. CLIM

384 Appendix 4.6 cont.

201 263 506 A lovely “living, loving, learning together” atmosphere CLIM permeates our school.

218 282 602 It’s a very warm and friendly school, that is a great CLIM place for a first year teacher. 234 305 702 There is a very friendly, welcoming atmosphere at this CLIM school. 238 307 702 Each gives & receives respect. Students are also CLIM treated with care & concern for their personal & academic needs.

GENERAL POSITIVE COMMENTS ABOUT COMMUNICATION 005 011 212 Good communication throughout the whole school. GENPOS 030 038 214 I think there is a good system of communication at this GENPOS school. 045 050 215 There is excellent communication at this school. GENPOS

055 063 217 Overall, the communication system at this school is GENPOS very effective and non time consuming. 063 069 218 In general, communication is quite satisfactory. GENPOS

064 072 218 Communication is generally very good, GENPOS

075 083 219 I would not say our communication methods are 100% GENPOS effective however the staff as a whole communicate well in both social and formal situations. 078 090 220 Communication at this school is effective GENPOS

085 090 220 It’s not perfect, but it’s a far cry from some school GENPOS situations previously experienced! 126 162 316 Generally fairly good – at times messages, schedules GENPOS etc. go astray & at other times there is an overduplication of info, but not to frustration level. 141 175 411 I consider that communication at this school occurs at GENPOS a very high level – professionally, administratively and informally. 151 187 411 I find the communication system at this school to be GENPOS effective. 174 222 501 In the five years that I have worked at this school the GENPOS modes and methods of communication have been refined and updated greatly. 212 275 601 Generally it’s pretty good. GENPOS

221 287 603 The school has good communication system. GENPOS

247 321 705 We have great communication in this school! GENPOS

GENERAL NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT COMMUNICATION 009 020 212 It is very difficult sending children on a message when GENNEG you have Kindergarten. 035 041 214 There are plenty of forms of communication such as: GENNEG staff meeting, staff briefing, module meetings, letters from principal, rosters, timetables, surveys and questionnaires, but I don’t feel that these are used as effectively as they could.

385 Appendix 4.6 cont.

041 046 214 Communication works well for people who choose to GENNEG listen and learn. Some people can be unwilling to put in the extra time for communication to be more effective. 087 096 221 Communication can be a little poor at times. GENNEG

132 165 317 There have been changes in administration in this GENNEG school at all levels (principal, assistant principal). So many changes have caused uncertainty. 133 165 317 Communication at present is ineffective, furthering GENNEG uncertainty and increasing tension.

171 215 414 [communication] is lacking considerably. GENNEG

243 313 704 Only working two days per week also presents GENNEG problems as well as the fact that my position (Resource teacher) has had a large turnover of staff over the last 9 years.

OTHER 032 040 214 This [communication] is, of course, filtered down from OTHER the CEO rather than obviously coming from the principal. 038 046 214 At present we are trialing different communication OTHER methods to suit our school. 115 142 314 Executive team are expected by staff to be an “all OTHER purpose” team. 116 142 314 Co-leadership is actively promoted – but not accepted. OTHER “You’re the (position), you do it!”

250 333 707 Naturally our mode of communication is centred OTHER around verbal communication with the occasional non- verbal.

386