Assessing the effect of interpersonal communications on employees' commitment and satisfaction

International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management Assessing the effect of interpersonal communications on employees' commitment and satisfaction Tamer A. Awad Suhaila E. Alhashemi Article information: To cite this document: Tamer A. Awad Suhaila E. Alhashemi, (2012),"Assessing the effect of interpersonal communications on employees' commitment and satisfaction", International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 134 - 156 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538391211233425 Downloaded on: 05 November 2014, At: 04:57 (PT) References: this document contains references to 43 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1173 times since 2012* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Mary Bambacas, Margaret Patrickson, (2008),"Interpersonal communication skills that enhance organisational commitment", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 51-72 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538391211233425 Assessing the effect of interpersonal communications on employees’ commitment and satisfaction Tamer A. Awad and Suhaila E. Alhashemi Department ofManagement andMarketing, University of Bahrain, Isa, Bahrain Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between employees’ motives for communicating with superiors and coworkers, their commitment to their organizations, satisfaction with jobs, and with superiors. Design/methodology/approach – This article makes use of survey research, using quantitative research methodology investigating employees’ motives for communicating with their superiors and co-workers, their satisfaction and commitment towards their organization. The research identifies pleasure, escape, relaxation, control and inclusion as motives explaining why people communicate with each other and how they relate to each other. Findings – The findings revealed a relationship between the motives along with satisfaction and commitment. Employees report a moderate commitment with their coworkers as well as superiors. Furthermore, the results showed strong relationships between the control, affection, inclusion, escape and relaxation motives. Research limitations/implications – The research showed strengthening communication ties from a need to encourage more healthy interpersonal relationships by using jointly constructed reality. This approach was more effective because it goes beyond information process and it involves the process of people together creating what will be the mission and vision of the organization and developing corporate values. In addition, the organization’s commitment can be enhanced through job enrichment together with matching the individual’s values to those of the organization besides, finding ways and means of improving job satisfaction through different strategies such as improving the quality of the supervision, decentralization of power and counselling. Finally, the investigation serves as a context for evaluating the applicability of previous studies to the manufacturing, oil and petrochemical industries in Bahrain, focusing on Bapco (Bahrain Petroleum Company), GPIC (Gulf Petrochemicals Industries) and ALBA (Aluminum Bahrain ). Originality/value – The study is the first thorough study conducted in the three above-mentioned organizations. Therefore, it would be of great value to understand their employees better and improving their communication ties as well as motivation. Keywords Interpersonal skills, Communication, Motives for communication, Job satisfaction, Commitment, Bahrain Paper type Research paper Introduction Communication today has become the lifeblood of every organization and is necessary to perpetuate the health of the organization. Organizations cannot exist without communication, and management will not be able to receive information inputs, and supervisors would not be able to give instructions, coordination of work is impossible and the organization will collapse for lack of it. Without personal communication skills, interpersonal relationships cannot be developed. More of the “work” in the society The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8394.htm IMEFM 5,2 134 International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management Vol. 5 No. 2, 2012 pp. 134-156 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1753-8394 DOI 10.1108/17538391211233425 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) involves communication activities. Without an improvement in the methods and practices of international communication, our world may have a short future. Thus, if we live a generally normal existence, about three-fourths of our working hours are spent in active communication – in conversations, reading and writing, watching television, listening to radio or tapes, meetings, visiting, etc. Moreover, most of our greatest pleasures in life depend on close relationships with other people. The achievement of meaningful relationships tends to be central to one’s happiness and well being in life (Hein, 1996). Newstrom and Davis (2006) define communication as a two-way process in which a sender reaches a receiver with a message. Communication is vital to create and maintain relationships as well as the ability to communicate effectively. Sharing ideas, giving opinions, finding out what one needs to know, explaining what one wants, working out differences with others, expressing one’s feelings (Goleman, 1998) can be regarded as essential elements in being able to relate to and work with other people. Whatever technological developments take place, the significance of relationships is not likely to be reduced. One of the main characteristics of behavior in organizations, as Greenberg (2009) indicates, is that it involves the interrelationships between individuals. This article touches on general aspects of communication in organizations focusing on interpersonal communication, job satisfaction and relationships at work in three major organizations in Bahrain covering the aluminum industry (Aluminium Bahrain (ALBA)). ALBA has been consistently ranked as one of the largest aluminium smelters in the world and is known for its technological strength and innovative policies (www.aluminiumbahrain.com). Petrochemicals sector is represented by Gulf Petrochemicals Industries (GPIC). GPIC has an internationally recognised Safety, Health and Environmental Management System. The company has won many accolades including the Sir George Earle Trophy from Rospa, UK and the R.W. Campbell Award from National Safety Council, USA for excellence in HSE management systems. The oil, sector represented by Bahrain Petroleum Company (BAPCO) which has won many awards for safety, accident free and quality over the years. These industries are among the most successful with the highest governmental investment in Bahrain. They are also considered as major contributors towards the economy. They were chosen because the researchers had access to information in these organizations. Aim and scope of the study This research is in three major industries in Bahrain (previously mentioned). The main objective is to examine the relationship between employees’ motives for communicating with superiors and co-workers, their commitment to their organizations, satisfaction with jobs, and with superiors. The study investigates motives for communicating in organizations from a need to know the following: . why employees communicate with their superiors and colleagues; and . how relational outcomes are linked to motives for communicating to fulfill a need. Since relationships at work affect both emotional and behavioral outcomes, the importance of this study is to depict how employees’ purposes for communication relate to satisfaction and commitment with their bosses, jobs, and the company for which they work. Gender is not examined in this research project due to the domination of males in the sample size. The study will concentrate on organizational communication, Employee commitment and satisfaction 135 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) focusing on the importance and use of interpersonal communication in organizations. Special emphasis will be placed on job satisfaction, commitment, relationships at work and ways of building up such relationships with superiors, co-workers and with the organization at large. The research will also cover other closely related topics including barriers to organizational and interpersonal communication, causes in communication breakdown, and various ways of overcoming them, along with feedback. The main theme would be to establish a link between relationships at work, job satisfaction and commitment to support other related research findings. Literature review Allen et al. (2007) define interpersonal communication as involving real time face-to-face or voice-to-voice conversation that allows instant feedback. They also add that interpersonal communication is appropriate for discussing matters that require give-and-take between participants. Such matters include discussion about performance appraisal; management by objectives (MBO) sessions conversations in which praise or criticism is given coaching, counseling or training sessions. Meetings and conferences are useful forms of interpersonal communication as well as brainstorming sessions, quality circles, committee meetings, and contract negotiations. It is important at this stage to distinguish between organizational communication and interpersonal communication. The former is defined clearly by Hitt et al. (2006), as the patterns of communication that occur at the organizational level. Anderson and Martin (1995) point to the following motives of interpersonal communication: pleasure, which is for fun; affection, which means caring; escape is the filling of time to avoid other behaviors; relaxation which is an “unwinding” concept; control concerns power and; inclusion means sharing of feelings and avoiding loneliness. Understanding people’s motives for communicating should lead to a better understanding of relationship outcomes (Schermerhorn, 2007; Rubin and Rubin, 1985). Components of the interpersonal communication process. Several components make up the interpersonal communication process: proximity, attraction, and contextual motives, sharing information, developing trust, and resolving conflict. The first component is “proximity”, which is developed through physical contact with the other person (Williams, 1989). Another component is “attraction”. Williams (1989) argues that people carry around attitudes that may immediately influence their perception of another individual. People with similar attitudes and values are more attracted to each other compared to those of dissimilar attitudes and values. The concept of cognitive dissonance attempts to explain how people reduce internal conflicts when they experience a clash between information they receive and their actions. The third component of interpersonal communication is “contextual motives”. Beyond factors of visual proximity and personal attraction, there can be relatively direct motives for getting to know another person better. Similarly, it is a lack of motive, or a negative motive, that prevents many of our everyday encounters with others from developing to the interpersonal level of communication (Schermerhorn, 2007). Part of the process of interpersonal communication is an orientation to individual rather than to role or general stereotype motives. The fourth component involves “sharing information”, “developing trust” and “resolving conflict”. It is a known fact that communication cannot move to the interpersonal level unless the individuals involved gain information about others. Williams (1989) questions how communication can be directed toward an individual’s IMEFM 5,2 136 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) personal motives unless those motives become known. This, according to Williams, necessitates openness and an agreement to share personal information, which is a critical part of the interpersonal transaction process. Once employees try to share information, they will try to develop trust with others and overcome any conflict. Communication in an organization often entail a substantial amount of group communication, as in staff or committee meetings, presentations, and brainstorming sessions. Allen et al. (2007) emphasize that managers need information on which to base decisions. As such, an understanding of the communication and its process and different barriers to communication can lead to improve in managerial performance. Hitt et al. (2006) point out to communication and behavior as closely connected and interwoven, and everything, which influence behavior, and communication. It is closely related to the particular culture of the organization. The following are characteristics present in the behaviors of successful interpersonal communicators, as elaborated by Pearce (2003) and Hodgetts (1993): . Positive self-concept. Individuals who have positive concepts of who they are (or who they think they would like to be) are in a better position to manage their relations with others and it does not necessarily mean a single view of self or a consistent view. . Open-mindedness – an open minded individual is able to see alternatives in situations, is willing to invite suggestions, and has the ability to assess the alternatives. . Ability to feel empathy – Goleman (1999) explains empathy as putting oneself in another person’s place and in doing so one begins to see things as the other person does. Managers empathize with their subordinates, and they know when to be task oriented and when to be people oriented, because they are capable of putting themselves in a subordinate’s place and answering the question: “what kind of direction does this person need?”. . Positive assertiveness and the ability to use persuasive strategies. Formal and informal communication pathways The formal communication pathways represent the official, sanctioned path over which messages are supposed to travel. In essence, it shows the arrangement of working relationships in an organization. In the not-too distant past, formal communication flowed down from the top and rarely in any other direction. A strict chain of command existed at each level and in every work unit or subsystem. As such feedback efforts were difficult and time consuming which led to a great dependence on paper and written communication. As a result, orders were given, procedures were written, and those who received them obeyed them. Today, organizations emphasize electronic means of communicating, empowerment of employees, flexibility, and integrated teams. Therefore, compared to the past, more communication flows from the bottom up and from side to side. Because layers of middle management have been removed, communications today are faster, more direct, and subject to less filtering than in the past. Managers and workers today occupy offices that are, in effect, without walls. On the other hand, an informal communication pathway is the unofficial network of communications used to supplement a formal pathway, in which many of these pathways arise out of necessity. Informal communication and relationships are all the job activities that are not Employee commitment and satisfaction 137 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) specified in the formal organization structure. They referred to informal relationships as being a powerful source of influence. Another important fact about informal pathways is that they account for some of the most baffling communications problems. A good way of gaining insight into these pathways is to study the grapevine, the rumors it carries, and gossip (Davidmann, 2006). Job satisfaction and commitment Job satisfaction is dynamic, for it can decline even more quickly than it develops. In the same line, Schermerhorn et al. (1995) define job satisfaction as an emotional response to one’s task as well as to the physical and social conditions of the workplace. High job satisfaction can lead to positive ends, such as loyalty, low turnover and good mental health Dubrin (1992). On the other hand, low job satisfaction can lead to negative ends, such as high turnover and poor mental health. Good managers are able to gauge the job satisfaction of others by carefully observing and interpreting what to say and do while going about their daily task. It can be useful at times to formally asses or “benchmark” the levels of job satisfaction among groups of workers (Shermerhorn et al., 1995). Newstrom and Davis (2006) approach the issue of job satisfaction and commitment in a slightly different manner. The authors associate the level of job satisfaction with groups and conclude that it is not constant, but related to a number of variables. They indicate that this allows managers to predict which groups are more likely to exhibit behaviors associated with dissatisfaction. The authors point to three key variables: age, occupational level and organizational size. They indicate that as workers grow older, they initially tend to be slightly more satisfied with their jobs. Later on, their satisfaction may suffer as promotions are less frequent and they face the realities of retirement. As for occupational level, people with higher-level occupations tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, and this is an expected result. There is some evidence to suggest that levels of job satisfaction are higher in smaller organizational units. Dubrin (1992) indicates several causes of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. He identifies the following factors as external causes of job satisfaction: . mentally challenging work; . contact with end-user of the product; . personal accountability; . scheduling of own work; . providing meaningful rewards; . helpful co-workers and superiors; and . having more power and authority. In addition, DuBrin identifies internal causes of job satisfaction as being interested in the work itself, a feeling of self-esteem, positive self-image, and positive expectations about the job and good personal adjustment. Consequently, job satisfaction and commitment along with relationships at work are interwoven and inseparable. Newstrom and Davis (2006) along with Schermerhorn et al. (1995) define organizational commitment as the degree to which an employee identifies with the organization and want to continue actively participating in it. They picture such ties like a strong magnetic force attracting one metallic object to another. Greenberg (2009) identifies three types of commitment: IMEFM 5,2 138 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) (1) continuance commitment; (2) affective commitment; and (3) normative commitment. The first refers to the strength of a person’s desire to remain working for an organization due to his or her belief that it may be costly to leave. Thus, the longer people remain in their organization, the more they stand to lose what they have invested in the organization over the years. The second type of commitment is affective commitment – the strength of people’s desires to continue working for an organization because they agree with its underlying goals and values. Finally, the third type of organizational commitment is normative commitment. This refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to stay with the organization because of pressures from others, concerned about what they would think of them for leaving. Cooper and Rousseau (1997) identify the perception of (un) favorableness to influence organizational commitment and consequently the readiness to accept work roles and tasks, the willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors, and the willingness to avoid negative behaviors such as coming in late and not performing well. Regarding commitment, Newstrom and Davis (2006) emphasize its importance in reflecting employee’s belief in the mission and goals of the firm, willingness to expend effort in their accomplishment and intentions to continue working there. Relationships at work When discussing relationships at work, it is important to have an understanding of interpersonal need gratification theory and its significance to such relationships. The theory according to Anderson and Martin (1995) is a goal-oriented perspective for communicating that explains why people enter into relationships. The needs theory states that people have individual needs for inclusion, control, and affection (Kram and Cherniss, 2001). By definition, inclusion is the need to establish and maintain a satisfactory relationship with another person, while affection concerns closeness and intimacy. The control need reflects dominance and power concepts. When employees’ needs are met through satisfying communication (Pearce, 2003), are more than likely to build relationships, and experience satisfaction. Conversely, unfulfilled needs result in counterproductive communication behaviors, which contributes to feelings of dissatisfaction with superiors, jobs and organizations. Like all human beings, employees are a complex set of paradoxes and contradictory characteristics. Therefore, by understanding how they relate to each other, the organization would achieve a better and more effective working environment. In understanding building relationships at work, two aspects are probably worth noting; first is building relationships with superiors, and second is building relationships with co-workers (Kram and Cherniss, 2001). It is also worth noting that both these aspects are linked to the importance of building good relationships with the organization. It is interesting to point out here to the Japanese style of relationships at work, their concept of tsukiai specifies one’s obligation to develop and maintain harmonious relations with one’s work colleagues. On the other hand, Harris and Harris (1996) argues that in order to build good relationships in an organization it is important to establish a sense of connection to the workplace that represent more than just a paycheck or benefits plan. The author stresses on employees longing for that special Employee commitment and satisfaction 139 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) sense of bonding that comes only from an environment of open communication. Today’s technologies, such as electronic mail and group-ware communication systems are powerful instruments in building connections between employees and the companies. The author indentified four major strategies in building connections and gaining commitment of employees: (1) establish internal listening as a priority; (2) use multiple internal communication channel; (3) encourage two-way interaction; and (4) give feedback in real time. Pearce (2003) points out that employees regard their manager as their single most important point of contact. Therefore, they want to communicate with them face to face, to understand rather than simply being given instructions. The second strategy requires establishing a relationship of trust and behaving in a trustworthy manner as a fundamental way of impressing superiors. The third strategy is helping your manager to succeed by bringing forth solutions as well as problems. Expressing constructive disagreement is another strategy identified by Dubrin (1994). It is equally important to build good relationships with co-workers at work, since they come in contact more frequently than with superiors. Moreover, relationships at work influence both affective and behavioral outcomes (Kram and Cherniss, 2001). Methodology The methodology used in this research was influenced by two factors. First is the importance and role of effective communication and the need to develop it in various organizations in Bahrain, with particular reference to ALBA, BAPCO and GPIC. The second factor is the nature of the research itself. The criteria used for selecting these organizations were based on their success, sound leadership, management style and their role in the society and economy of Bahrain. Quantitative research methodology was considered to be most appropriate for this research project due to the nature of topic and the purpose of the study. In addition, careful consideration was given to the sample selected in terms of rank and position, bearing in mind that the selected organizations in reality reflect impartially the manufacturing sector in Bahrain. The questionnaire used in this research is a modified version of the questionnaire used by Anderson and Martin (1995). Research questions and hypotheses The following hypotheses reflect the above-mentioned objective (Figure 1): H1. Employees’ commitment and satisfaction with superiors and jobs are positively related to the pleasure, inclusion, affection, duty, and relaxation motives with supervisors but negatively related to the control and escape motives for communicating with supervisors. H2. Employees’ commitment and satisfaction with superiors and jobs are positively related to the pleasure, inclusion, affection, duty, and relaxation motives with co-workers but negatively related to the control and escape motives for communicating with co-workers. IMEFM 5,2 140 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) The research identified four specific questions, which addressed differences in motives for communicating with their superiors and/or co-workers. These questions help in carrying out the analysis as identified below: RQ1. Is there a positive significant correlation between employees’ job satisfaction and commitment along with the pleasure, inclusion, affection and relaxation motives with supervisors? RQ2. Is there a positive significant correlation between employees’ job satisfaction and commitment along with the pleasure, inclusion, affection and relaxation motives with co-workers? RQ3. Is there a negative significant correlation between employees’ job satisfaction and commitment along with the control and escape motives with co-workers? RQ4. Is there a negative significant correlation between employees’ job satisfaction and commitment along with the control and escape motives with supervisor. Questionnaire design The questionnaire consisted of threemajor parts. Part one of the questionnaire used The interpersonal motives scale (IMS) developed by Rubin et al. (1988). The IMS is an 18-item Likert-type scale measuring affection, control, inclusion, pleasure, and relaxation dimensions. Likert scales commonly achieve higher levels of reliability, according to Hetch (1978), producing interval-type data, which permits a use of a wider range of statistical applications. Scale range was “Almost always true” – 5 to “Almost never true” – 1. Some of the items were discarded because they were either vague or sensitive questions, which did not suit our purposes, as mentioned earlier on. Part two of the questionnaire-measured commitment by using six Likert-type items from Mowday and Steers (1979) Organizational Commitment Scale. Responses to each item were measured Figure 1. Research model Employees' Commitment Pleasure Inclusion Affection Relaxation Control Escape Control Escape Pleasure Inclusion Affection Relaxation Superiors Coworkers (–) (–) (+)(+) Employee commitment and satisfaction 141 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) on a seven-point scale with scale point anchors labeled: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – moderately disagree, 3 – slightly disagree, 4 – neither disagree nor agree, 5 – slightly agree, 6 – moderately agree, 7 – strongly agree. Part three of the questionnaire, measured satisfaction, by adapting Hecht’s (1978) communication satisfaction scale. The purpose of this part is to investigate the respondent’s reactions to the most recent conversation they had, hence indicating their responses and attitudes towards the conversation. There are 19 items with a scale of seven, starting from agree – 1 and going on to disagree – 7. For some items, the scale was used normally and for other items the scale had to be inverted. Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16usedthe followingscalerate: stronglyagree – 7, moderately agree – 6, slightly agree – 5, neutral – 4, slightly disagree – 3, moderately disagree – 2 and strongly disagree – 1. For the other remaining items the scale was inverted, as the sentences were negatively phrased. The following factors were taken into consideration in conducting the analysis. First differences in the nature of the organizations undergoing the research, in terms of its structure, culture, flow of communication, nature and type of work, various tasks assigned, etc. Within the framework of organizational culture, many writers and researchers tackled this topic from different angles, such as Schermerhorn (2007), Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Hofstede (1984). They all pointed out that each cultural group has different norms, and individuals differ in their perceptions. Hofstede attempts to study cultural differences as a means of promoting broader thinking. Second the domination of males in the sample size, which influences the results. Many writers such as Anderson and Martin (1995) argued this point indicating that males have different motives in communicating than females. Sampling profile The target population consisted of 1,430 full-time employees, the sample size (n) was 104 out of which 87 percent were males and 13 percent were females; occupying top, middle management and supervisory positions. Specifying these levels in particular is due to the large number of employees in the three organizations undergoing this research, and because relationships among these levels are completely different than among workers in the plants. Their ages ranged between 25 and 60 (M ¼ 33.7, A VEDEV ¼ 2.4); 30 percent were between the ages of 25 and 35, 44 percent were between the ages of 35 and 45, and 23 percent were between 45 and 60. Their experiences ranged from less than ten years to over 30 (M ¼ 34.3, A VEDEV ¼ 6.4) The majority had experience between ten and 20 years (35.6 percent), 26 percent had experiences between 20 and 30 years, 25 percent had less than ten years of experience and only 12.5 percent had over 30 years of experience with their organization, refer to Table I. Technicians and secretaries were eliminated from the population, due to the large number of employees working in those organizations. Probability sampling was used, with stratified sampling technique;, i.e. to say that the sample was divided into groups and within each group, certain people were selected to take part in answering the questionnaire. Findings and discussion Table AI in the Appendix shows the respondents’ profile on the interpersonal motives. Regarding pleasure motive, 53.5 percent said they do not communicate with their superiors to have fun, 55.6 percent almost never communicate to have a good time, IMEFM 5,2 142 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) and 29.3 percent do not communicate with their superiors because they enjoy it, while 46.5 percent do not find excitement in communicating, 43.3 percent do not see communication with their peers as thrilling nor did 34 percent find it stimulating. As for communicating with co-workers, 28 percent almost always do because its thrilling, while 24 percent do not find it thrilling at all, and 36.4 percent almost always enjoy it, 23 percent almost never find it is fun and exciting to communicate. About 19 percent of the employees communicate with their fellow workers to have a good time, 30 percent indicate that it stimulates them while 25 percent disagreed. According to a study conducted by Infante and Gorden (1991), employees who communicate with their superiors for pleasure and not just to bide time (escape), report high satisfaction with those superiors and others who report that good communication climates. So for example, subordinates like superiors who are not verbally aggressive towards them or use threatening compliance-gaining tactics. This is not to say that superiors and subordinates have to be good friends or intimates (very personal), but that communication between them cannot be very irrelevant (escape) or totally, informative/task focused (duty). Regarding affection, 57.4 percent of the employees almost never communicate with their co-workers because they are concerned about them, while 41.6 percent of the respondents said they almost never communicate with their co-workers to encourage them, 38 percent did show encouragement usually. On the other hand, 41 percent of the respondents communicate with their co-workers almost always to let them know they cared about their feelings. About 34.3 percent said they almost always helped their fellow co-workers while 16.7 percent helped sometimes. When communicating with their superiors, 34.3 percent said they almost always communicate to thank them, 36 percent said to help them, and 27.3 percent because they cared about their superior’s feelings, 20 percent to show concern and 18.8 percent said to show encouragement. As for the inclusionmotive there were astonishing results, 73.3 percent of respondents indicate that they never need to communicate with their fellow workers because it made them feel less lonely, only 9.9 percent said they did almost always. Similar results applied to superiors, where 77.5 percent said they almost never communicate to make them feel less lonely, only 8.8 percent said they do almost always. This margin of respondents could be attributed to the small percentage of females in the sample size. Surprisingly 68.3 percent of the respondents almost never communicate with their co-workers to talk about their problems, which shows how males’ motives differ in communicating BAPCO % ALBA GPIC Total Mean (X) Age 25-35 2.6 11.8 25 13 4.3 35-40 10.5 23.5 18.8 17.3 6.0 40-45 28.9 5.9 9.4 16 5.3 45-50 31.6 35.3 18.8 29 10.0 50-60 26.3 23.5 18.8 23.1 8.0 Experience ,10 10.5 20.6 46.9 25 8.7 10-20 47.4 38.2 18.8 36 12.3 20-30 26.3 32.4 18.8 26 9.0 .30 15.8 8.8 12.5 13 4.0 Table I. Respondents’ profile Employee commitment and satisfaction 143 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) with females. Whereas 64.5 percent almost never communicate with their co-workers because it reassuring to know someone is there for them, only 10 percent of employees almost always find it necessary, 25.5 percent do it sometimes, although most of the employees have been with their organization for more than ten years. Regarding escape, the results revealed that the majority did not communicate with their fellow workers or with their superiors to get away from work. Table AII in the Appendix illustrates the percentage of respondents for superiors are much higher than for co-workers. This is justified by the fact that employees do not use their peers as a means of getting away from work or just to pass the time, which reflects commitment and dedication to work. When communicating with their fellow workers, 80.8 percent of the employees almost never use escape as a means of putting off something they should be doing, while 67.7 percent never did with their superiors. Meanwhile 66 percent never use communication purposes to get away from what they are doing with co-workers, and 76 percent said they do not when communicating with their superiors. About 76.8 percent indicate that they almost never communicate with their superiors because they had nothing better to do, nor to get away from work. Only a margin of employees used communication almost always as a means to get away work, 9 percent did so with their superiors, 11 percent did so with their co-workers. On the other hand, relaxation motive yielded normal results, as 58 percent of the respondents almost never communicate with their superiors because it relaxed them, while 17 percent almost always did, and 21 percent said sometimes. Similarly, 48 percent said they almost never communicate with their fellow workers because it relaxed them nor because did they consider it as a pleasant rest (45 percent). Meanwhile, 28.4 percent of the employees made them feel less tense to communicate always with their fellow workers, 20.6 percent said sometimes and 30.4 percent said almost never. Finally, controlmotive revealed that while 41.4 percent of the employees almost never communicate with co-workers to get something they do not have have, 23.3 percent do that almost always and 25.3 percent sometimes. This is natural because employees would rely more on the higher ups to get things done or whenever they want something, whereas the co-worker does not have the same authority and capabilities. As such, 28.7 percent communicate with their superiors because they want them to do something for them, while 22.2 percent said they do follow that with their co-workers. On the other hand, 41.6 percent almost never use their superiors as a means of doing something for them, while 41 percent of the employees never communicate with their superiors nor with their co-workers to get something, they do not have. Regarding co-workers, 32.3 percent indicate they almost never use communication to get something done for them. About 33.3 percent almost always communicate for control purposes to tell the co-workers what to do, 19.2 percent do that sometimes and 26.3 percent almost never use this strategy. The results of organizational commitment are presented in Table AII (the Appendix). The results reveal that employees are moderately committed to their organization, and that 58 percent were willing to put an effort beyond what is normally expected to help their organization to be successful; only 27.7 percent were not willing and 15.5 percent stayed neutral. About 48.5 percent the employees talk about their organization to friends as a great place to work for and (45.5 percent) are glad of the choice they made. Meanwhile, 46.6 percent of the employees feel loyal to the organization while 25 percent do not and 28 percent stayed neutral. AlHashemi (1987) looked IMEFM 5,2 144 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) at loyalty from the perspective of the Bahraini managers, where most managers seemed to value loyalty. Their rationale is that if an employee is loyal, can always be trained to improve on efficiency, an interesting phenomenon that loyalty is given priority on efficiency. Regarding matching values with the organization, only 32.7 percent found their values to be similar to the organization’s, while 51 percent disagreed on this point and 16.3 percent stayed neutral. This could be part of the problem of employees being moderately committed because, as many studies indicate the importance of matching individual values with that of the organization. Anderson and Martin (1995) argue that communication studies find commitment is linked to employee voice and argumentativeness. This indicates involved freedom to speak up about concerns and ability to argue issues surrounding those concerns. On the other hand, Greenberg (2009) presents opposing ideas, as he indicates that commitment may be completely unrelated to job satisfaction, also indicates that people who feel deeply committed to their organization behave differently than those who do not. The author clarify that the more highly committed employees are to their organization, the less likely they are to resign and be absent. Being committed leads people to stay on their jobs and to show up when they are supposed to. Greenberg (2009) also states that employees beyond remaining in their organizations, those who are highly committed demonstrate a great willingness to share and make sacrifices required for the organization to thrive. It seemed that employees were happy to be working of their organizations, as 45.4 percent were glad to choose their organization to work for over others, 12 percent were neutral, and 42.3 percent disagreed. Furthermore, there is much to be gained by sticking with one’s organization, as 35.8 percent agreed, 18 percent stayed neutral and 45.6 percent disagreed. Yet another set of analysis was determined to measure the scores of employees’ commitment towards the organization, hence, establishing an indicator of employee commitment. The scores were distributed between below average, average, and above average. Figure 2 shows a summary of the scores of respondents’ commitment along with the number of respondents for each score. The results show that 39.8 percent of the respondents’ score fell below average, reflecting low commitment. Meanwhile, 44.7 percent scored average indicating moderate commitment. Only 15.5 percent had scores above average indicating slightly high commitment. The results also show that most of the respondents scored average and above average, with the mean level of commitment being 4.5. It should be noted that mean scores are slightly above the midpoint on the seven-point Likert scale. Out of the 104 respondents, 41 scored below average indicating somewhat low commitment. The above analysis is illustrated in a pie chart reflecting the share of each score shown in Figure 3. From the figure, it shows how the largest part of the pie is allocated Figure 2. Summary of respondent’s scores for commitment Score out of No. of % of Mean Median 11 Respondents Respondents scores 7 6 5.8 4.5 17 6 10 9.7 5 23 22.3 4 23 22.3 3 30 29.1 2 11 10.7 41 46 41 Employee commitment and satisfaction 145 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) to the lower scores, while the smallest piece is allocated to the higher scores. Satisfaction and commitment are all part of the working environment, as the next coming paragraphs will cover results regarding employees’ satisfaction towards their work and their organization, illustrated in Table AIII in the Appendix. Although Rubin and Rubin (1985) argue convincingly for the interface of interpersonal and meditated communication motives, the escape motive may be more appropriate when examining motives and media. Employees did not communicate at all from a need to escape. Similarly, Anderson and Martin (1995) found that escape negatively relates to satisfaction in on-going task groups. Employees communicate for other reasons such as to fill in time at work or in task groups. The results showed that in a normal conversation at work, overall, the respondents seemed to be satisfied, but the other person with whom the conversation took place seemed to be the problem. Whereas 59.4 percent of the respondents were able to present themselves, as they wanted the other person to view them, only 22.8 percent disagreed on this point. While the respondents got along with the conversation, the problem seem to occur with the other person; whereby, 51.5 percent indicated that the other person did not show an understanding in what they said nor did they show any support, where 44 percent indicate that the other person frequently said things which added little to the conversation. Surprisingly, 52.9 percent said that the other person wanted to get to know them and that the other person expressed interest in what they were saying, as 36.3 percent agreed and 34.3 percent disagreed. Despite other things, the conversation seemed to flow smoothly, expressed by 49 percent, and disagreed by 29.4 percent. Correlation analysis The two hypothesis predicted relationships between interpersonal motives and organizational commitment and satisfaction. To investigate the relationship between the variables, bivariate correlation were used and the results are shown in Tables AIV and AV (the Appendix) indicating the coefficient for each variable along with the means and standard deviation. The analysis shown in the previous tables indicate the existence of a positive relationship between escape and control motives for communicating and their commitment and satisfaction towards work and the organization. The degree of correlation as Cooper and Emory (1995) state is apparent by the r, which symbolizes the coefficient’s estimate of linear association based on sampling data. Figure 3. Percentage of respondents’ commitment scores 22.3% 9.7% 5.8% 10.7% 29% 22.3% IMEFM 5,2 146 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) Cooper and Emory (1995) also indicate that 0.40 carries a modest relationship whereby the sign of the coefficient says nothing about the size, and stronger relationship are between 0.50 and 0.90. Hence, a negative moderate relationship exists between pleasure and satisfaction (r ¼ 0.47). Conversely, a weak negative relationship exists between pleasure and commitment (r ¼ 0.07) for both co-workers and superiors; indicating that pleasure motives do not contribute to being committed to the organization but rather leads to satisfaction with work. Since males dominate the sample size, a strong positive relationship was found between control, satisfaction and commitment with both superiors and co-workers. The findings in this study did not go in line with a similar study conducted in a different culture by Anderson and Martin (1995), where their hypothesis is substantially supported except for control and relaxation motives. According to the authors, such motives cannot be interpreted as meaningful. In this study analysis, the relaxation motive revealed a moderate positive relationship with satisfaction, co-workers and superiors (r ¼ 0.34), but a strong negative relationship (r ¼ 20.73) with commitment. One of the surprising results concerned the affection motive, as it revealed a weak positive relationship with commitment (r ¼ 0.18), indicating that employees did not communicate with their superiors and co-workers out of affection. Males depend less on affection and more on power and control when communicating with each other and with superiors. This is further supported by Anderson and Martin (1995) study, where they indicated that men are more likely to communicate for control purposes. Brass’s (1985) study demonstrates that women engage in informal networks “especially with other women” more so than men do, and that each gender tends to “interact with itself.” Although studies show males and females may communicate differently, these motives were not included in such studies. Brass (1985), Baker (1991) and Gayle (1991) also prove that men and women communicate differently at work, whereas women display less competitiveness than males in conflict management studies. Research carried out by Anderson and Martin (1995) both support and reflected the significance of the variables mentioned in the paragraph above. They reveal that females communicate more with co-workers out of affection needs, while males communicate with co-workers more for control. The study also reveals that both males and females communicate more with co-workers than with superiors for pleasure, escape, affection, relaxation, control and inclusion. Moving to the escape motive, there is a moderate positive relationship (r ¼ 0.49) regarding satisfaction with co-workers and superiors, but a strong negative relationship for commitment with co-workers (r ¼ 0.517). This contradicts with Martin et al.’s (1998) study, which indicate a negative relationship concerning escape and control motives. In line with their study, Rubin and Rubin (1985) argue that the escape motive may be more appropriate when examining motives and media and those employees did not communicate at all from a need to escape. Anderson and Martin (1995), claim that “a growing body of research finds that people’s communication motives explain satisfaction interpersonally.” Their study’s utility and value, is movement into the organizational context to connect communication motives for communicating with superiors and co-workers and jobs as well as commitment. This is what this research is attempting to investigate. By referring again to Tables AIV and AV (the Appendix), the results confirm control has the highest strong positive relationship with satisfaction and commitment when communicating with co-workers and superiors (r ¼ 0.74, r ¼ 0.63), respectively. Employee commitment and satisfaction 147 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) This explains how employees try to maintain a satisfactory relationship with their co-workers more than with their superiors, thus leading to job satisfaction. Likewise for control motive, employees exercise power over their fellow workers, but they are unable to do that with their superiors. Relaxation motive has a strong negative relationship with commitment (r ¼ 20.732), but a weak positive relationship with satisfaction. The weakest negative relationship exists in affection with commitment (r ¼ 0.000) and satisfaction (r ¼ 0.003) when communicating with co-workers. On the other hand, affection has a stronger negative relationship for satisfaction (r ¼ 20.53) when communicating with superiors. Table AVI in the Appendix presents partial analysis of correlation with the coefficient values ( p), which shows the level of significance for each motive. Hence, it should be borne in mind that employees’ motives differ when communicating with their superiors than communicating with their fellow workers. From Table AVI (the Appendix) one can also find that employees, who communicate with their co-workers to have fun and enjoyment, communicate with their superiors for other reasons, such as to have control and to relax. The reason, as pointed out earlier, is that females seek affection more than males, and therefore motivates them to engage in communication behaviors that seek caring responses. These finding were also supported by several researchers such as Anderson and Martin (1995), who conclude that employees communicate with their superiors for control purposes. Conclusions and recommendations The main aim of the study was to establish a relationship between employees’ commitment and satisfaction with superiors on one hand, and co-workers on the other, along with different motives for communicating. The analysis reveals partial support of the hypothesis, which states employees’ commitment and satisfaction with superiors and jobs are positively related to the pleasure, inclusion, affection, and relaxation motives with superiors on one hand and co-workers. The results therefore shows insignificance in the confidence level, and positive relationships existed only for escape and control motives. The hypothesis of employees’ commitment and satisfaction with superiors and jobs negatively related to the control and escape motives was not fully supported. Hence, pleasure, inclusion, affection and partially relaxation had negative relationships. The justification for such answer is attributed to the nature of the organizations undergoing this research. Another reason is the large sample size of males over females, which influences the outcome of the research, whereby the males represent 87 percent and females 13 percent. This research project aspires to be more than a mere organization study. The issue it raises centers around human relationships at work, in so far as the situation in the organizations undergoing this research project and future outlook for them and other organizations in Bahrain is concerned. These issues are the concern of most researchers today. Recommendations Some problems exist in the three organizations undergoing the research, which warrant further concern. Based on the findings, it is necessary to present some solutions and recommendations on ways to overcome such problems and issues relative to improving communication and interpersonal skills. One should therefore bear in mind that IMEFM 5,2 148 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) not all of these suggestions are applicable to every situation. However, some of these suggestions are very practical and are applied in most organizations successfully: . Strengthening communication ties from a need to encourage healthy interpersonal relationships. From this outset, organizations together with managers should work towards improving communication in their organization and managers should start to become good communicators. This eventually would lead to a healthier organization and would increase satisfaction, commitment and loyalty among employees. Also, providing and improving feedback systems, since the analysis revealed employees’ satisfaction and commitment were not very high. . Increasing flexibility and cooperation, as well as encouraging teamwork. Staff members of various departments could coordinate in specific tasks to improve communication effectiveness and to bring various people together. This could be achieved through creating guidelines for the staff designed to ensure the requisite amount of flexibility and cooperation in inter-company interaction and negotiation at the heart of this process is effective communication. . Using jointly constructing reality approach to communication. This approach has been argued by communication scholars to be more effective as it goes beyond information process and it involves the process of people together creating what will be the mission and vision of the organization, developing corporate values with the participation of all employees. . One way to enhance an organization’s commitment is through job enrichment. Many authors such as Greenberg (2009), put forward several suggestions emphasizing change in the way organizations manage people. Another way of effectively enhancing employee commitment, as Greenberg suggests is by aligning the interest of the company with those of the employees. This could be perhaps achieved by starting at the very beginning through recruiting and selecting newcomers whose values closely match those of the organization. A number of respondents in our study indicate such a match, which means that the organizations undergoing this research should take steps to ensure sustaining matching values. It is therefore thought that organizations should look upon commitment as an attitude that may be influenced by managerial actions. . Regarding job satisfaction, there are different strategies that can be implemented in the organizations under study. Such strategies have been supported by many scholars and more recently by as Greenberg (2009). . Improving the quality of supervision. Satisfaction tends to be highest among those who believe that their supervisors are competent, treat them with respect, and have their best interests in mind. Similarly, job satisfaction is enhanced when employees believe that they have open lines of communication, with their superiors. . Decentralizing the control of organizational power which gives people greater opportunities to control aspects of the workplace that affect them, making it possible for workers to receive the outcomes they most desire. . Matching people to congruent jobs that are congruent with their interests. . Counseling employees, organizations can effectively match their skills and interest to those positions to which they are best suited. Employee commitment and satisfaction 149 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) Limitations and future research To conduct a systematic and in-depth study of this nature and scope is a time consuming process. This research was no exception. Since communication is a vast topic to handle, the concentration was on specific aspects of interpersonal communication. The study was also limited to certain departments and ranks within the organizations under study. This was due to the large number of employees and nature of work in such organizations. Although the three organizations under study were used as a main source of data, it can be assumed that the employees largely represent Bahraini managers in the manufacturing sectors. Researchers should continue to investigate new motives for communicating, since motivation causes and sustains behaviors. Equally inviting is the prospect of extending the study in the form of a more ambitious research project focusing on in-depth analysis of communication motives not covered in this research. The study could consider the following topics: the role and effect of technology, the growth of group participation and how it influences communication between workers, dealing with professionalism, which would be highly relevant within the interpersonal communication context, differences in communication between males and females. However, there are many researches conducted on this topic, but it would be unique to investigate this in our culture. References AlHashemi, I.S.J. (1987), “The application of Western management to the development of a management education programme in Bahrain”, thesis (PhD), Vol. 1-3, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Allen, G.S., Attner, R.F. and Plunkett, W.R. (2007), Management, SouthWestern Publication, Cincinnati, OH. Anderson, C. and Martin, M. (1995), “Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: motives gender, and organizational satisfaction”, Journal of Business Communication, July. Baker, M.A. (1991), “Gender and verbal communication in professional settings, a review of research”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 36-63. Brass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1997), Trends in Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Cooper, D.R. and Emory, W. (1995), Business Research Methods, 5th ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL. Davidmann, M. (2006), “Using words to communicate effectively”, available at: www.solhaam. org/articles/words.html Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, The Rises and Rituals of Corporate Life, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Dubrin, A.J. (1992), Human Relations: A Job Oriented Approach, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Dubrin, A.J. (1994), Applying Psychology, Individual and Organizational Effectiveness, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Goleman, D. (1998), “The emotionally competent leader”,TheHealthcare Forum Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2. Goleman, D. (1999), Working With Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury Publishing, London. Greenberg, J. (2009), Managing Behavior in Organizations, Science in Service to Practice, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. IMEFM 5,2 150 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0893318991005001003 Harris, P.R. and Harris, K.G. (1996), “Managing effectively through teams”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 23-36. Hein, S. (1996), EQ for Everybody: A Practical Guide to Emotional Intelligence, 1st ed., Aristotle Press, Clearwater, FL. Hetch, M.L. (1978), “The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 4 No. 4. Hitt, M.A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T. and Connelly, B. (2006), “International diversification: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6. Hodgetts, R.M. (1993), Modern Human Relations at Work, International edition, The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL. Hofstede, G. (1984), “Culture’s consequences, international differences in work-related values”, Cross-cultural Research and Methodology Series, Vol. 5, Sage, New York, NY. Infante, D.A. and Gorden, W.I. (1991), “How employees see the boss: test of an argumentative and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior”, Western Journal of Speech Communication, Vol. 56, pp. 294-304. Kram, K.E. and Cherniss, C. (2001), “Developing emotional competence through relationships at work”, in Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 254-85. Martin, J.M., Knopoff, K. and Beckham, C. (1998), “An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labour: bounded emotionality at the Body Shop”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 429-70. Mowday, R.T. and Steers, R. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47. Newstrom, J.W. and Davis, K. (2006), Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work, 12th ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL. Pearce, T. (2003), Leading Out Loud, Inspiring Change Through Authentic Communication, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, Foreword by David S. Pottruck. Rubin, A.M. and Rubin, R.B. (1985), “Interface of personal and mediated communication: a research agenda”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 2, pp. 36-53. Rubin, R., Perse, E. and Barbato, C. (1988), “Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 602-28. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr (2007), Exploring Management in Modules, Wiley, New York, NY. Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (1995), Basic Organizational Behavior, 5th ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Williams, F. (1989), The New Communication, 2nd ed., Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA. Further reading AlHashemi, S.E. (2006), “Leadership and emotional intelligence: a study of managers in Bahraini organisations”, thesis (PhD), Napier University, Edinburgh. Basset, G. (1994), “The case against job satisfaction”, Business Horizons, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 61-7. Bedeian, A.G. (1986), Management, CBS College Publishing, The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL. Brass, D.J. (2002), “Intraorganizational power and dependence”, in Baum, J.A.C. (Ed.), Companion to Organizations, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 138-57. Brill, P.L. and Worth, R. (1997), The Four Levers of Corporate Change, American Management Association, New York, NY. Cohen, D. (2002), Body Language, What You Need to Know, Sheldon Press, London. Employee commitment and satisfaction 151 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10570319109374386 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10570319109374386 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x&isi=A1988P562300006 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206306293575&isi=000242342100003 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0007-6813%2894%2990007-8 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2393858&isi=000075246300008 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2393858&isi=000075246300008 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13527599610126247 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13527599610126247 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F15295038509360060&isi=A1985ARZ3800003 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0001-8791%2879%2990072-1&isi=A1979GS78600008 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0001-8791%2879%2990072-1&isi=A1979GS78600008 Downs, C.W., Clampitt, P.G. and Pfeiffer, A.L. (1988), “Communication and organizational outcomes”, Handbook of Organizational Comunication, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Graham, E., Barbato, C.A. and Porse, E.M. (1993), “The interpersonal communication motives model”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 172-86. Gray, J.L. and Starke, L. (1984), Organizational Behavior, Concepts and Applications, 3rd ed., Bell & Howell, Wheeling, IL. Ober, S.J. (2007), Contemporary Business Communication, 7th ed., SouthWestern College Publication, Cincinatti, OH. Torrington, D. and Weightman, J. (1994), Effective Management, People and Organization, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Walter, H.L., Anderson, C.M. and Martin, M.M. (2005), “How subordinates relate to satisfaction with superiors”, Communication Quarterly, Eastern Communication Association, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 57-70. Web sites AlBA: www.aluminiumbahrain.com GPIC: www.gpic.com IMEFM 5,2 152 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01463370500056051 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01463379309369877 Appendix A lm os t al w ay s S om et im es A lm os t n ev er n S * W S W * S W S W F a ct or 1 : pl ea su re B ec au se it is fu n 16 25 .5 25 .5 13 .3 56 32 .7 99 98 B ec au se it is ex ci ti n g 23 .8 25 28 .7 20 46 .5 34 10 1 10 0 T o h av e a g oo d ti m e 21 .2 19 27 .3 18 55 .6 34 99 10 0 B ec au se it is th ri ll in g 19 .6 28 17 .5 15 43 .3 24 97 10 0 B ec au se it is st im u la ti n g 24 .7 30 .3 17 .5 19 .2 34 25 .3 97 99 B ec au se I en jo y it 26 .3 36 .4 15 .2 19 .2 29 .3 23 .2 99 99 F a ct or 2 : a ff ec ti on T o h el p th em 36 34 .3 16 16 .7 22 27 .5 10 0 10 2 T o le t th em k n ow I ca re ab ou t th ei r fe el in g s 27 .3 41 22 .2 6 36 .4 13 99 10 0 T o th an k th em 34 .3 35 .9 9. 8 18 .4 18 .6 34 10 2 10 3 T o sh ow en co u ra g em en t 18 .8 38 20 .8 18 41 .6 40 10 1 10 0 B ec au se I am co n ce rn ed ab ou t th em 20 24 .8 19 20 .8 39 57 .4 10 0 10 1 F a ct or 3 : in cl u si on B ec au se I n ee d so m eo n e to ta lk to 9. 2 13 .7 28 .6 17 .9 67 .3 63 .2 98 95 T o ta lk ab ou t m y p ro b le m s 20 .8 12 .9 16 .8 21 .8 37 .6 68 .3 10 1 10 1 B ec au se it m ak es m e fe el le ss lo n el y 8. 8 9. 9 26 .5 26 .7 77 .5 73 .3 10 2 10 1 B ec au se it is re as su ri n g to k n ow so m eo n e is th er e 19 10 .2 25 25 .5 61 64 .3 10 0 98 F a ct or 4 : es ca pe T o p u t of f d oi n g so m et h in g I sh ou ld b e d oi n g 9. 1 11 .1 19 .2 25 .3 80 .8 6 7 .7 99 99 T o g et aw ay fr om w h at I am d oi n g 9 11 21 24 76 66 10 0 10 0 B ec au se I h av e n ot h in g b et te r to d o 10 .1 16 21 .2 22 76 .8 65 99 10 0 T o g et aw ay fr om p re ss u re s an d re sp on si b il it ie s 14 18 16 22 73 59 10 0 10 0 F a ct or 5 : re la xa ti on B ec au se it re la x es m e 17 22 21 17 58 48 10 0 10 0 B ec au se it al lo w s m e to u n w in d 14 .9 22 19 .8 18 53 .5 45 10 1 10 0 B ec au se it is a p le as an t re st 13 .9 25 .3 18 .8 23 .2 57 .4 44 .4 10 1 99 B ec au se it m ak es m e fe el le ss te n se 22 .8 28 .4 24 .8 20 .6 56 .4 30 .4 10 1 10 2 F a ct or 6 : co n tr ol B ec au se I w an t th em to d o so m et h in g fo r m e 28 .7 22 .2 15 .8 12 .1 41 .6 32 .3 10 1 99 T o te ll ot h er s w h at to d o 12 33 .3 19 .3 19 .2 49 .4 26 .3 83 99 T o g et so m et h in g I d o n ot h av e 26 .7 23 .2 23 .8 25 .3 41 41 .4 10 5 99 N o te : S – su p er io rs , W – w or k er s, n – n u m b er of re sp on d en ts Table AI. Motives for communicating with superiors and co-workers Employee commitment and satisfaction 153 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) C om m it m en t q u es ti on s A g re e N eu tr al D is ag re e n W il li n g n es s to p u t an ef fo rt b ey on d th at n or m al ly ex p ec te d to h el p th e or g an iz at io n to b e su cc es sf u l 58 .1 (% ) 15 .4 (% ) 27 .9 (% ) 10 4 T al k in g ab ou t th e or g an iz at io n to fr ie n d s as a g re at p la ce to w or k fo r 48 .5 18 .4 33 10 3 F ee li n g g re at lo y al ty to th e or g an iz at io n 46 .6 28 .2 25 .2 10 3 A cc ep ti n g an y ty p e of jo b as si g n m en t in or d er to k ee p w or k in g fo r th e or g an iz at io n 37 .7 14 .6 47 .6 10 3 S im il ar it y in v al u es 32 .7 16 .3 51 10 4 P ro u d in te ll in g ot h er s to b e p ar t of th e or g an iz at io n 41 .5 16 .3 42 .3 10 4 T h e or g an iz at io n in sp ir es th e v er y b es t in in d iv id u al s in th e w ay of jo b p er fo rm an ce 26 .1 16 .5 57 .3 10 3 G la d of th e ch oi ce to w or k fo r th e or g an iz at io n ov er ot h er s an d it s th e b es t 45 .4 12 .5 42 .3 10 4 T h er e is m u ch to b e g ai n ed b y st ic k in g w it h th e or g an iz at io n in d efi n it el y 35 .8 18 .4 45 .6 10 3 C ar in g ab ou t th e fa te of th e or g an iz at io n 40 .6 15 .4 44 .2 10 4 T h is is th e b es t of al l p os si b le or g an iz at io n s fo r w h ic h to w or k 34 23 .3 42 .7 10 3 Table AII. Organizational commitment measurement (%) IMEFM 5,2 154 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) Communication motives Commitment Satisfaction Mean SD Pleasure 20.07 0.47 19.36 6.46 Escape 20.51 0.49 16.09 5.22 Inclusion 0.49 0.17 14.52 4.52 Control 0.63 0.74 9.88 3.13 Affection 20.18 20.53 15.04 4.63 Relaxation 20.73 0.34 14.26 4.90 Satisfaction 0.00 0.00 78.2 44.92 Commitment 0.00 0.00 44.92 14.44 Table AIV. Bivariate analyses of employees’ motives for communicating with co-workers and their satisfaction and commitment Reactions to the most recent conversation you had Agree Neutral Disagree n The other person let me know that I was communicating effectively 38.8 27.2 34 103 Nothing was accomplished 44.5 25.2 30.1 103 I would like to have another conversation like this one 43.4 20.2 36.5 104 The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me 52.9 29.4 17.6 102 I was very dissatisfied with the conversation 34.6 36.3 29.4 102 I had something else to do 46.3 23.2 30.3 99 I felt that during the conversation I was able to present myself, as I wanted the other person to view me 59.4 17.8 22.8 101 The other person showed me his understanding of what I said 30.7 17.8 51.5 101 I was very satisfied with the conversation 45.1 17.6 37.3 102 The other person expressed a lot of interest in what I said 36.3 29.4 34.3 102 I did “not” enjoy the conversation 34.5 29.4 36.3 102 The other person did not provide support for what he was saying 26.7 21.8 51.5 101 I felt I could talk about anything with the other person 33.7 24.8 41.6 101 We each got to say what we wanted 42.6 28.7 28.7 101 I felt that I could laugh easily with the other person 48.5 24.8 26.7 101 The conversation flowed smoothly 49 21.6 29.4 102 The other person changed the topic when his feelings were brought into the conversation 25.6 38.2 36.3 102 The other person frequently said things, which added little to the conversation 31 25 44 100 We talked about something “not” interesting to me 43.5 18 39 100 Table AIII. Interpersonal communication satisfaction inventory Communication motives Commitment Satisfaction Mean SD Pleasure 20.067 20.472 17.6 5.05 Escape 0.517 0.490 14.7 4.96 Inclusion 20.018 20.781 15.0 4.86 Control 0.639 0.748 8.96 3.17 Affection 20.000 20.003 14.98 5.05 Relaxation 0.732 0.340 12.81 4.27 Satisfaction 0.00 0.00 78.2 44.92 Commitment 0.00 0.00 44.92 14.44 Table AV. Bivariate analysis of employees’ motives for communicating with superiors and their satisfaction and commitment Employee commitment and satisfaction 155 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) Corresponding author Tamer A. Awad can be contacted at: [email protected] bCP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 Affection aSA1 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 SA2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SA3 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 SA4 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.002 SA5 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 aSC1 0.000 0.000 0.8 0.002 0.005 0.004 Control SC2 0.003 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.01 SC3 0.245 0.000 0.153 0.077 0.022 0.327 aSE1 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.008 0.055 0.003 Escape SE2 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.07 0.048 SE3 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.002 SE4 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.018 0.029 Inclusion aSI1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.011 SI2 0.000 0.037 0.246 0.000 0.024 0.25 SI3 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.025 0.157 0.084 SI4 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.013 0.064 0.021 Two-tailed significance Note: aThese are the motives for communicating with superiors, bthese are the pleasure motives Table AVI. Partial analysis of correlation between motives To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints IMEFM 5,2 156 D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) This article has been cited by: 1. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Underneath organizational health and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Change Management 26:1, 139-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] D ow nl oa de d by O N D O K U Z M A Y IS U N IV E R SI T Y A t 0 4: 57 0 5 N ov em be r 20 14 ( PT ) http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811311307950 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09534811311307950 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09534811311307950