^
AN INVESTIGATION OF DOWNWARD COMMUNICATION
WITHIN A CHURCH ORGANIZATION
by
COLEMAN LAFAYETTE LEMMONS, JR., B.A.
A THESIS
IN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Accepted
December, 1975
IOo-lS7 (2.0 p ^
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to Dr. T. Richard Cheatham for
his direction of this thesis and to the other m.embers of
my committee, Dr. William J. Jordan and Dr. Margaret L.
McLaughlin, for their helpful criticism.
I am also grateful for the cooperation of the elders
of the Broadway Church of Christ in allowing me to do
this field research.
11
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES vi
I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1
Introduction 1
Review of Previous Theoretical Literature 2
The Value of Studying Communication
Systems 2
The Church Communication System 4
Previous Field Research 8
The Research Goals 9
Rationale 11
II. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 15
Methodology 15
Questionnaire Design and Pretesting 15
Sample Design 16
The Field Work 18
Coding, Programming, Machine
Punching, and Processing 21 Results 21
Summary of Answers to the Research Goals 21
Research Goals: Section One 39
Research Goals: Section Two 4 0
Research Goals: Section Three 42
iii
III. IMPLICATION OF RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 47
Implication of Results 47
Reasons for Small Response 47
Validity of Instrument Modification 4 9
Effects of Loosening Controls 49
Effective Downward Communication 50
Suggestions for Future Research 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY 55
APPENDICES 6 0
A. JACOBSON-SEASHORE CHECKLIST 61
B. MODIFIED JACOBSON-SEASHORE CHECKLIST 62
IV
LIST OF TABLES
1. Sunday School Class of Respondents 17
2. Age of Respondents 18
3. Sex of Respondents 20
4. Frequency of Contact from Ministers and Secretaries 23
5. Reason for Contact from Ministers and Secretaries 24
6. Function of Message Communicated from Ministers and Secretaries 25
7. Importance of Contact from Ministers and Secretaries 26
8. Frequency of Contact from Elders 27
9. Reason for Contact from Elders 28
10. Function of Message Communicated from Elders 29
11. Importance of Contact from Elders 30
12. Correlation of Structure Variables 31
13. Ministers' and Secretaries' Effective Downward Communication 33
14. Elders' Effective Downward Communication 34
15. The Messages' Dispersion 35
16. The Awareness of Messages 35
17. The Messages' Media Source 36
18. The Distortion of Messages 37
19. The Amount of Time Since the Messages Were First Received 37
20. The Physical Location When messages Received 38
V
LIST OF FIGURES
1. The Communication Structure 6
2. An Individual's Communication Structure 6
VI
CHAPTER I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The New Testament describes the church as an organiza
tion in several ways, but one of the prominent customs is
to compare it to a body. This practice corresponds to
what Burns and Stalker call the organic model of organiza-
2
tion. The model is accurate because it describes a system
which derives from the member's deep involvement and "pre
sumed community of interest with the rest of the working 3
organization m . . . survival and growth . . . "
In the organic system, relationships develop between
individuals in much the same way as the relationships which
develop between different organs of the body. Members are
joined with other members of the body to function in a cli
mate of supportiveness; participative decision-making; trust,
confidence, and credibility; openness and candor; and empha-4
sis upon high performance goals.
Communication serves as the "nervous system" for each
of the members of the body, passing information to aid the
functioning of relationships. Not only does communication
serve as the nervous system, but also: "the communication
of the church in all places, has to do with getting the word
of justice and love into the bloodstream of man and into the
veins and arteries of his human community." Both nervous
and circulatory systems are essential for survival and
growth.
Since church communication has been compared to the
message-giving properties of the nervous system, and to the
traits giving life to interdependent body functions within
the circulatory system of the blood, communication in the
church organization will be defined as the flow of messages
7 within a system of interdependent relationships.
Review of Previous Theoretical Literature
The Value of Studying Communication Systems
A principle value of the study of the communication
system of any organization is the measuring of effectiveness,
As Smith and Brown have stated, frequent and reciprocal com
munication between leaders and followers is "the important o
correlate of organizational effectiveness." If survival
and growth is to be maintained, effective vertical communi
cation must be encouraged between leaders and followers.
The term vertical communication is used to describe the
phenomenon of leader-follower communication.
Vertical communication is important for those concerned
with control, accountability, and authority; and for the
organization which specifies exactly who is responsible to 9
whom. When leaders (elders and ministers) of a church
organization communicate with followers (for example, Sunday
school members), the phenomena is called downward communica
tion. Communication originating from members of a church
organization and directed toward leaders is an example of
upward communication.
Planty and MacHaver in their article from the journal
Personnel point out that upward communication studies are
valuable to an organization for four reasons: (1) Leaders
can learn how fertile and receptive the soil is for communi
cation downward. (2) Leaders discover whether the members
get the intended meaning from what is communicated downward.
(3) It gives members the opportunity to offer ideas of value
on how to improve the communication between themselves and
their leaders. (4) It gives members the opportunity to
participate in the decision-making process, or at least, to
reflect their feelings about the merits and defects of pro-
^ 10
posed programs.
Vertical communication, both upward and downward, is
particularly important for leaders who are responsible for
"the growth and survival" of an organization which is func
tioning "in a climate of supportiveness, participative
decision making; trust, confidence, and credibility; open
ness and candor; and emphasis upon high performance goals.
This thesis is an experiment in vertical communication,
designed to investigate the downward communication between
elders and ministers (leaders) and Sunday school students
(members) of a local congregation of the Church of Christ.
The Church Communication System
The church, like any organization, behaves dynamically
in order to better serve its members. Eugene Walton has
stated that "the most significant factor accounting for the
total behavior of the organization is its communication
system, and that the dynamics of the organization can be
best understood by understanding its system of communica-
12 tion." Walton goes on to say that leaders communicate
downward in an organization for four reasons: (1) he feels
he has the assigned legal position of command; (2) he feels
he should use his capacity to influence the member's per
sonal opinions concerning the welfare of the organization;
(3) he views the member as a competent advisor in the orga
nization; and (4) he enjoys social interaction with the
members.
The need to communicate functions in four basic message
types: (1) to tell members about a decision and how it is
to be carried out; (2) to attempt to personally affect the
quality of work in the organization; (3) to share the making
of policy decisions with members in order to help the orga
nization to remain alive and perpetuate itself; and (4) to
help the members improve their attitude, morale, satisfac-
14 tion and fulfillment as individuals.
The reason for contact as well as the function of mes
sages are the structural characteristics of the communica
tive system. The structure of the system as a whole is made
up of four types of individuals who tend to fall into the
categories of communication (1) monopolizers, (2) keepers,
(3) sharers, and (4) givers. The reason for the monopo
lizer's communication is approval—he feels he has the
assigned legal position of command; and his message function
is to inform members about a decision and how it is to be
carried out. The reason for the keeper's communication is
influence; he feels he should use his capacity to influence
members' personal opinion concerning the welfare of the
church. His message function is to persuade--to personally
affect the quality of work in the church. The reason for
the sharer's communication is expertise--he views the member
as a competent advisor in the church. The sharer's message
function is to regulate--to share in the making of policy
decisions with the member in order to help the organization
to remain alive and perpetuate itself. The reason for the
giver's communication is sociability--he enjoys social in
teraction with the members; and his message functions to
integrate—to help the members improve their attitude,
morale, satisfaction and fulfillment as an individual in
the church. The structure is represented by the following
r. 16 figure.
Monopolizer Keeper Sharer Giver
(Approval-Inform)
(Influence-Persuade)
(Expertise-Regulate)
(Sociability-Integrate)
Figure 1.1. The communication structure.
The structure of the communication system is of as much
importance to the behavior of people in the church organiza
tion as roles, goals or other variables that could be men-
17 tioned. It is contended, therefore, that a person's
communicative behavior can be predicted; depending on
whether he is a monopolizer, keeper, sharer, or giver; and a
significant amount of his behavior in the organization will
be known. Ideally, every person should have all of these
qualities, because different situations call for different
reasons and functions of communication. Each individual
profile should resemble the following figure:
Monopolizer
(Approval-Inform)
25%
Keeper
(Influence-Persuade)
25%
Sharer
(Expertise-Regulate)
25%
Giver
(Sociability-Integrate)
25%
Figure 1.2. An individual's communication structure.
Deviations from these ideals will show the individual's
tendencies to be one of the four types of communicators.
Groups of people can also be measured in terms of tendencies,
such as the group of ministers could be keepers as a whole;
secretaries, sharers as a whole; and adult Sunday school
class #1, monopolizers as a whole. It could work in any way
to show the structural tendency of the communication system
of each group or individual.
The leader—member, contact—avoidance pattern in the
church will be influenced by the structure of the communica
tion system. Leaders who are consistently any one of the
four types of communicators will avoid contact, while the
leader who is an ideal type (25 percent or so of each type)
18 will probably contact members more frequently. No doubt,
the leaders who are consistently any one of the four types
will also be considered by the members as not very important
to their growth as a member of the church.
Sometimes church members do not get the bulk of their
information from the structure of the church that we have
previously described. An analysis will study whether mem
bers of the church are getting the majority of information
either from the elder, minister-secretary, Sunday school
class communication situations; or from somewhere outside
19 that communication system.
8
Previous Field Research
To my knowledge, no previous study of this type has
been done anywhere among the Churches of Christ. Such re
search, however, is being done to an increasing extent in
businesses, schools, hospitals and many other organizations
in an attempt to observe their communication system.
One of the earliest attempts to measure the vertical
20 communication system in an ongoing organization was done
by Eugene Jacobson and Stanley Seashore. The primary design
of their study was to discover communication networks, hier-
archial structure, relationship properties between members
of the organization, and the psychological concomitants
21 necessary for the success of the group. An instrument was
designed by Jacobson and Seashore to gather data about these
variables, and has been proven valid by several studies done
22
at the University of Michigan (see Appendix A).
In a pilot study conducted by Randal Jack Givens and
the author in the spring of 1974, the Jacobson-Seashore
instrument was found to be unreliable in the areas of
"Subject Matter" and "Reason for Contact," and has been
modified to better suit the church organization. Since
relationship variables are different for businesses (the
subjects of the University of Michigan studies) and churches
(the subjects of the present study) some wording was changed
in the instrument (see Appendix B). We also found a
definition and instructions page to be necessary to the data
collection procedures.
An instrument designed to test the flow of communica-
2 " tion m the organization was developed by Keith Davis.
O A
Called ECCO Analysis, it is intended to map the flow of
messages, focusing on a unit of information and following
it through time, space, people, to its ultimate amount of
dissemination in the organization; at the same time checking
for distortion, medium, direction and communication iso-25
lates. In the same pilot study as mentioned earlier, this
form of analysis was found to be both valid and reliable.
The Research Goals
The general research goal of this study was to audit
the vertical communication system of the Broadway Church of
Christ, using the Jacobson-Seashore Personal Contact Check
list and the Davis ECCO Analysis instruments. More specif
ically, answers to the following research questions will be
sought:
1. What patterns of contact can be established between
elders, ministers, secretaries, and Sunday school
members on the basis of data obtained by adminis
tering the Jacobson-Seashore Personal Contact
Checklist?
la. Will recurring amounts, reasons, functions,
and importance of communication from this
10
checklist give indications of a hierarchial
structure?
lb. Will unwritten communication rules between
individuals and groups be observable from
the checklist data?
2. Is there a correlation between the reason for con
tact plus function of message, and the tendency of
people to be either monopolizers, keepers, sharers,
or givers?
2a. What is the proportion of monopolizers,
keepers, sharers, and givers of the total
number of the population?
2b. What is the ratio of tendencies to be a
monopolizer, keeper, sharer, or giver in each
individual and group?
2c. Is there a correlation between the extent to
which a leader is a monopolizer, keeper,
sharer, or giver and the subject's view of
how important his contact with that individ
ual is? How does it effect the amount of
contact?
3. What data will ECCO Analysis provide concerning
the dissemination of messages throughout the
church system?
11
3a. What are the primary media in which messages
travel?
3b. What is the amount of distortion in the
system?
3c. What is the direction which information
tends to flow in the church system of
communication?
3d. Who are the communication isolates in the
system?
3e. Is there a correlation between monopolizers,
keepers, sharers, and givers and the amount
of dissemination their messages receive in
the system?
3f. Is there a correlation between the amount of
contact a person has and the amount of dis
semination his message has in the
organization?
Rationale
Since the Jacobson-Seashore and ECCO Analysis instru-
ments have been found to be valid and reliable in studies
of business and government organizations, it is reasoned
that, with only a few modifications their instruments may
be applied to the church organization. This communication
audit is considered in the remaining chapters as follows.
12
Chapter II will discuss the methodological concerns and give
a detailed report of the results. Chapter III will be a
discussion of the implications of the results and will
include suggestions for future research in church communica
tion systems.
END NOTES
Ephesians 1:22,23; Ephesians 4:11,16; I Corinthians 12:14-27.
2 T. Burns and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innova
tion (London: Tavistock, 1961), p. 121. 3 Arnold S. Tannenbaum, Control In Organizations (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), p. 21.
4 Gerald M. Goldhaber, Organizational Communication
(Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, Co., Pub., 1974), p. 79.
5 Keith Davis, "Management Conmiunication and the Grape
vine," Harvard Business Review, 31 no. 5 (Sept. 1953): 43.
Stephen C. Rose, "Communication in the Metropolis," comp. George A. Torney, Toward Creative Urban Strategy (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publishers, 1970), p. 91.
7 Goldhaber, p. 79. g Clagett G. Smith and Michael E. Brown, "Comniunication
Structure and Control Structure in a Voluntary Association," Sociometry, 27 no. 4 (Dec. 1964): 450.
9 . . . Richard L. Simpson, "Vertical and Horizontal Communi
cation in Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1959) : 189.
Earl Planty and William McHaver, "Upward Communications: A Project in Executive Development," Personnel 29 no. 4 (January 1952): 306.
Goldhaber, p. 79.
12 Eugene Walton, "A Study of Organizational Communica
tion Systems," Personnel Administration, 26 no 3 (May 1963): 46.
13 Walton, p. 46.
14 Goldhaber, pp. 13, 14.
15 Daniel A. Tagliere, People, Power, and Organization
(New York: American Management Association, 1973), Chapters 1-3.
13
14
Tagliere, p. 32.
17 Walton, p. 46.
18 Eugene Jacobson and Stanley Seashore, "Communication
Practices in Complex Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, 7 no. 3 (Autumn 1951): 33.
19 Keith Davis, "A Method of Studying Communication
Patterns, in Organizations," Personnel Psychology, 6 no. 3 (Autumn 1953): 301-12.
20 . Field research is different from laboratory experi
ments because the field organization was going on before the experiment, and will be ongoing after the field research is performed.
21 Jacobson and Seashore, pp. 28-40.
22 Robert Weiss, "An Investigation into Organizational
Structure using Sociometric Techniques," Master's thesis. University of Michigan,1952, and Mrs. 0. C. Poll, "The Application of Scaling Techniques to Partially-Ordered Stratification Systems, "Master's thesis, University of Michigan.
23 Davis, "A Method of Studying Communication," pp.
301-12. ECCO Analysis is derived from "episodic communication
channels in organizations," and reports data in the manner of communication echo.
^^Davis, "A Method of Studying Communication," pp. 306-7.
26 Weiss and Poll.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Methodology
As mentioned previously in Chapter I, the questionnaire
used in this study was designed with the presupposition that
churches have downward communication from leaders to followers
in much the same way as governmental and industrial organiza
tions. It was determined, therefore to test for downward
communication in a church organization by adapting instruments
designed to observe downward communication in business and
industry, and to find out how important such communication is
to the success of a church organization.
Questionnaire Design and Pretesting
In the pretest of the Jacobson-Seashore and ECCO Analysis
instruments on a church organization, the ministers and sec
retaries of the church under examination were asked to
describe their communication with the other ministers and
secretaries of the church, and were handed a copy of the
Jacobson-Seashore instrument and ECCO Analysis instrument,
with no other instructions given, no changes made on the
instrument, and no list of ministers and secretaries to go
by.''" They were then told to fill the questionnaire out, put
15
16
their name on it, and return it to a central location to be
picked up. Upon interviewing the ministers and secretaries
about any suggestions they might have, they commented that
the sections of the Jacobson-Seashore instrument on "subject
matter" and "reason for contact" were not suitable to
describe their communication. Secondly, they thought a defi
nition and instructions page was needed, and thirdly, includ
ing the names of all the ministers and secretaries on the
instrument instead of leaving it blank would facilitate speed
in filling out the questionnaire.
All three of these suggestions were carried out in order
to make the questionnaire as adequate for examining downward
communication in a church organization.
Sample Design
The proposed sample design was to study the 600 adult
subjects of the 12 adult Sunday school classes of the Broad
way Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas. The approval to
distribute questionnaires was coordinated by the minister of
education with the foreknowledge of interested church leaders
After consultation it was recommended that a representative
sample be taken from 4 Sunday school classes with a total
population of approximately 360. Groups one and two, with a
population of about 110, were representative of 20 to 30 age
group. Group 3, totaling 115, typified the 30 to 4 0 age
17
group, while group 4, with 135, would describe the 4 0 to 7 0
age group. Strict control over the age and size of these
groups was not possible, but by far the majority of members
fit those restrictions. Most groups are made up of both
husband and wife but again no control was possible. These
groups were chosen, not only because of age distribution,
but also because of their large percentage of the entire
adult population. Another factor involved in choosing these
groups was their theoretical lack of psychological condition
ing against studies of this type.
Results of the sample show a definite skewness toward
respondents in the first two classes and more specifically
in the 25 to 29 age group (see Tables 1 and 2). The theo
retical reasons for these results will be discussed in the
following chapter.
TABLE 1
SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS OF RESPONDENTS
S.S. Class of Respondents Age # %
Class #1
Class #2
Class #3
Class #4
20-30
20-30
40-70
30-40
11
11
4
10
31
31
11
27
18
TABLE 2
AGE OF RESPONDENTS
Age of Respondents # %
18-24 1 3
25-29 22 61
30-39 9 25
40-49 0 0
50-59 3 8
60-69 1 3
70-79 0 0
80+ 0 0
The Field Work
The conductor of a field investigation must be con
cerned with the implementation of the same theoretical,
methodological, and ethical considerations as any person
2
doing research with human subjects. This section will
describe the attempts in these areas, as well as the par
ticularly bothersome problems peculiar to field research.
Since the longer an experiment continues in a natural organization the more likely it is to have some loss of
3 control over experimental conditions, it was determined
that the questionnaire administration would best be accom
plished in the first 15 minutes of the Sunday school
period on any prearranged one Sunday. However, ethical
concerns make it mandatory that field research not disrupt
19
the normal processes of the ongoing organization, and since
there was some doubt among church leaders that taking 15
minutes of Sunday school time would be disruptive, proce
dures needed to be examined. At the risk of loosening
controls and therefore confounding results, class one with
a sample size of twenty 20- to 30-year-olds were given 15
minutes at the beginning of Sunday school on April 13, 1975,
to fill out their questionnaires and told to return them to
a box at the end of the period. Because there were two or
three people who complained about taking up class time for
such things, and the possibility of disruption on a larger
scale with a larger sample, the 15-minute class testing
period was eliminated.
At that time, the logical solution to the problem
seemed to be to let class members pick up the questionnaire
on the way out from class, and request that they bring them
back the following Sunday. On April 20, 1975, class two
with ninety-five 20- to 30-year-olds and class three with
one hundred thirty-five 40- to 70-year-olds were told, by
their class chairman, to take a copy of the questionnaire
when they left the classroom and to return it to a box
beside the secretary's desk in the minister of education's
office. In class two, of 95 questionnaires available, 67
were taken and two were returned after one week. Of the
140 questionnaires available for class three, 55 were taken
20
home with 4 brought back one week later. An appeal was made
in class two, two weeks after they took the questionnaires
home, and 9 more people responded over the course of a month,
Due to insurmountable circumstances the appeal was not made
in class three.
The primary reason for not including group four in
these plans was the fear that class members from group two
and three would not bring their questionnaires back after
they took them home. Since that assumption was proven true,
the same procedure was followed with class four as with two
and three except a self-addressed return envelope was
included for them to use. Of 125 questionnaires available
to take home, 64 were taken. From May 4, 1975, when they
picked them up, until June 29, 1975, a total of 10 people
responded.
Of the 36 total respondents to the questionnaire, 23
were male and 13 were female (see Table 3). A discussion
of some of the possible reasons for the low number of re
spondents can be found in Chapter III.
TABLE 3
SEX OF RESPONDENTS
Sex of Respondents # %
Male 23 64 Female 13 36
21
Coding, Programming, Machine Punching, and Processing
Coding, programming, and machine punching on IBM cards
were done to the specifications of the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences and processed through two different
sub-programs. A list of frequencies sufficient to answer
research questions 1, la, lb, 2b, 2c, 3, 3a, 3b, and 3c, was
5 tabulated by the "codebook" portion. Computation of correlations necessary to answer questions 2, 2c, 3e, and 3f,
6 were completed by the "Pearson Correlation" sub-program.
Results
Answers to the research goals declared in Chapter I
are risky based on a respondent sample only one-tenth of
the field population, but an attempt will be made to read
the results in order to shed light on those questions as
truthfully as these limitations allow.
Summary of Answers to the Research Goals
Brief answers will be made to the research questions
sought, and then discussed in full in the remainder of
Chapter II. The questions and their summary answers are
as follows:
1. VJhat patterns of contact can be established between
elders, ministers, secretaries, and Sunday school
members on the basis of data obtained by
22
administering the Jacobson-Seashore Personal Con
tact Checklist? The general pattern of leader-
member downward communication, as seen in Tables
4-11, seems to be several times yearly, for social
reasons, which functions to integrate the members,
and is of little to no importance.
la. Will recurring amounts, reasons, functions, and
importance of communication from this checklist
give indications of a hierarchial structure?
The data indicates little of the normal hier
archial structure associated with a church
organization.
lb. Will unwritten communication rules between in
dividuals and groups be observable from the
checklist data? There are no unwritten rules
that suggest that ministers isolate themselves
and communicate through their secreatries, or
that any one elder is doing all the
communication.
2. Is there a correlation between the reason for contact
plus function of message, and the tendency of people
to be either monopolizers, keepers, sharers, or
givers? Results exhibited in Table 12 indicate that
there is: a moderate correlation for Monopolizer
(Approval-Inform) (r=.46); a high correlation for
Keeper (Influence-Persuade)(r=.74); a moderate corre
lation for Sharer (Expertise-Regulate)(r=.56); and a
high correlation for Giver (Sociability-Integrate)
(r=.85).
w H
<: E^ W p:5 O w w Q
<
cn p^ w W H
H
o (^ PM
EH U '^
O U
o
u iz: H D O
PL4
CO 0)
e • H EH > I
rH rH - H
u >
Q
rH • H Id Q
4J u td •P C 0 u t+H 0
>i
o c o 3 D^ <U >H fc
CO o B
•rA
EH
ro
U 0
CN
CO 0)
e •H tH
rH fd
rH
0) <U S
rH > i
0)
s
^ 4J
0 s 5H
>
CO 0)
e •H EH
> i
rH M (d (d >H 0) Q) >H > 0)
s o Pi Pu
EH U < EH 2 o U
2 W EH W M z H
s
C(P ^
O CN
( J P O O O O O O O
^ f c O O O O O O O
c * P ' d ' n » ^ r o r o v O C D
4 t U n r H ( N r H r H ( N n
o •^ >^ "=* vD o r^ e«> CN rH r-{ CN rH
4 t = r ^ L n c N L n c N r - v o
dip pT) O O v£) CO CX) CN CN
4 t r r H r ^ r ^ C N r o r o ' *
dP o o CN
^ CN CN
03 CN
CN
4*: LD m CO i n
o o o o m o
O O O O rH o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
iX) r o O O O O r o
CN rH O O O O rH
VD f^ 00 vO *i) VD CO
CNJ m CN CN CN r o
rH vo r^ o rn vD 00
^ CM VD O rH CN rn
ro ro ro
rvj CN
ro ro
00 CN
CN ro ro
CN ro 00 CN CO rvj
•H
a
Pul
u •H
Mus
X 4J
You
Lon
cat;
Edu
r.
nis]
Spa
•P •H tn
veri
Uni
g CO
nge
Eva
m
ARIE:
:RET
C/5
4-) CO T
UO
T
:ept
• c
•H
• >
Uni
0
• c
-H 2
• C
Eva
0 EH
C •H 2
pit
Pul
0 EH
• C
•rl 2
-P
0
0 EH
•
C • H
2
U
0 EH
C •rl 2
•pit
r-1 3 04
0
23
24
CO w H Pi <
u H W
Q
<
w Pi w EH
LO H
W H
^ 9 C>H
U
EH
O U
P^
o
O
<
-P •H rH •H (d
•H u o
cu CO
• H -P
O <D
-P X
o u
u o m
O 0 CO U rd c; o cu Pi 0
r-i m H
«d > o u
Ol
B o u Cu CO
Pi +J Ci:i U EH fd en -P H
o H U S
c\o <N • ^
o> ro
CN • ^
*^ fO
00 CN
r-'sf
o in
=tt= i n '=3' in ro rH rH
00
00 "vf rH rH (^ dP
r f t z r o i n - ^ ' ^ j ' H ' ^ ^
0\0 r^ rH vo f o r^ cTt
r « : V D ' ^ ' ^ C N r H < ^ r ^
o\o KD m ro ro
4*: i n CN rH ^
00 CT> CJN CO CO i n cr» ^ ro ro CN CN CN ro
in ^ ^ o o cT» •^ T-{ r-\ r-\ r-^ f-i rH
r^ ro CO o ro fo ro
\o i-i en <D r-i
00 ro ro ro ro o o
ro rH rH rH O O
VD CO 00 >^ V£> VD
CN r o r o rsi rvj rvj
-p •H u
• H
Mus 4J
You
c 0
cat;
Edu
xi
nis]
Spa
> i 4-) •H to
ver:
Uni
B CO
•H rH
nge
Eva
CO cq H p:; <
;RET.
Ci3 CO
+J CO
•H
c: 0
•H
;ept
u Q) Pi
t
c •H
S •
>
Uni
0
•
c •H
s •
C
Eva
0 EH
C •H S
-P •H 04
Pul
0 EH
• C
•H S
^ -P :3 0
OJ,
c: •H
s •
u 3
0 EH
C •H S
-P •H Ol4
rH
p*
0 EH
25
Ciq H Pi < EH
U Ciq CO
Q
< :
CO p:i fi^ E H CO H
H
9 Cu
CLI t-q Q (Q M
EH < U H IS
o u
o < : CO CO
S CM O
o H EH U IZ D
EH
0) -P fd U Cr» 0 +•)
H
0 - P fd
0 rH CP ;3 fd tj» CO 0 CO Pi 0
MH O
o •H -P 0 O TJ c fd
Cu CO JH 0 p*
B u o MH
c H
S o }H CP CO
p:i •P Ci3 U b^ fd CO
4J H
O H U S
dP CN •^
ro ro
00 CN
rH ro
CN OJ
CJ ro
a\ ro
=tt= in CN 00 "sT "^ rH H
dP ^ fO ro rH O 00
= t t = L n r H i H ^ o r O " ^
c A o t n r H ' ^ c o v ^ r - i n C<1 r-{ r-\ iH (N
= t t I C 3 ^ ^ L n r o c N V D C T >
o\P CN CN
CO CN VD rM
^
4*= CO ro CO CN in *x>
in in in ** r- -^ CN CN CM rvj rH rH rH CN
cr> cj cr> in vD in 00
vx) ro o o o o o
CN rH O O O O O
* ro CO o o ro o
ri ro o o rH o
cr> ^ TT ^ r rH rH rH rH
in in in vo
^
in
4-> •H
a.
Pul] u
• H
Mus
X 4-)
You
c 0
•H 4J fd o
Edu
X CO
•H
Spa
> i 4J •H CO JH 0 >
Uni
B CO
•H rH 0
Eva
CO Ui H Pi < EH Ci3 P^ U
CO
4J CO
•H
c 0 •H 4-> CU 0 u 0 Pi
•
c •H S
• >
•H C D
0
• C
•H 2
• C fd > Ciq
0 E H
C •H
s -p •H CU
rH ;3 cu
0
• c:
•H
2
x: -p :3 0
0 EH
• C
•H
s •
c n)
Ti U
0 EH
C •H
s 4-> •H CU
r-\
7i PA
0 EH
26
CO Ci3 H Pi < EH u:i Pi U Ciq CO
Q
<
CO Pi c^ CO H IS H
C L ) ^^1 o CQ P i
EH U < EH 13 O U
CM O
Ciq
u < EH p:i O
- p CO O
4->
4-) fd 0
•P u o o fd 4J
o U
H H
0 0 B O
0 CO u c (d 4J u o cu 0 g rH H 4J
+J •H
0 d o 2;
B O u
CM CO Pi
4J C^ O EH fd CO
4J H
O H
U S
o\o ro O o O o VD ro
4*= iH O O O O CN
o\o o -"vr CO rH CO > * r -CVI rH rH r H rH
4*: r ^ i n r o - ' ^ r o i n v o
0\0 rH r^ 00 Cy> VD rH CO rH rH i H i H CN
4t= M ' v o r o r - c N ^ o
<A0 r ^ r H r H C O V O r g r H r-\ r-i ,-i CN rH
4^ v o r f ' ^ r o c N c o ^
o\o T:)* 00 o ^ i n r^ r^ rH CN rH rsl rH rH
44= L n r o r ^ i n c j ^ v o v D
>i B C +J CO O - H - H
- H 4 : : CO rH 4J +J CO S H 0 •H U ^ fd -H 0 Cn Q^ -r^ P O C > C
r H CO ;3 lU fd - H fd H ;3 o TJ Ol c: > cu S >H C£l W D Ctl
o o ro
VD r o ro
CN rH o o o iH o
' ^ ^ rH rH rH rH
rH vx> r-
^ i n i n M* ' ^ CN vr>
(y\ CO 00
ro vo ^ ro
CM
i n CO
G\ CTi o CN
VD
•^
in
CTi
CO M H Pi <: ir^ Ui Pi U Cil CO
4J CO
•H ci 0
•H 4J O4 0 U 0 Pi
c •H
s •
> •H d D
0 EH
• c: •H
s •
c: fd > u^ 0 ^
c •H
s +J • H
CU r-{
^ P4
0 EH
• C
•H
s x: 4J 13 0 >
0 i-*
• c: •H
s •
u d
T3 CiJ
0 EH
C •H
S V •H
a r H :3 04
0 ^
CO Pi cq p
o Pi CM
EH 00 U
cq EH 2
CQ O < U
CO 0)
6 •H EH > I
H rH -H fC fl3 V Q 0) > C/1
rH •H fd Q
to
e •H EH > I
H fO >^
<D
o :s 4J r>i u fO -P c o u t+H O
> 1 rH M
0)
o c Q) 13 C7^ <y en
CM g -H
P r-i C (Tj O 5H 2 0) > !< 0) Ui
(0 0)
e •H
> i rH rH Cd U U (d CD (U > >H (U
C/5
Q Pi CM
EH U < EH Z o u
s w Q K^
U
27 dP
4fc
<>P
4»: O O O O O O O
d P U J O r o O O r o O O f O O O f O O v O v O f O
4 t : r s i O H O O r H O O O O rH O 04 Ol H
dP ro 00 •^ rH ro v D r O r H r o r o c N r o r o r-A O l
: : ^ r - \ m i n - ^ ' - i ' = T O i ' - \ ^ rH C» rH
f-f 00
• ^ fO
dP ^ 3 r o 0 ^ v ^ v i ) > X > r o c O v O r H f O < ^ n
4fc '=3' Ol r-» OJ CNj OJ m O I T r H O J r H ' ^ ' ^
c T ^ o J O J L n o O r ^ l n - ^ c n l n L n o ^ c O f o a ^ L n d P r i o j c N o g o i f O O j f O r H O j c N O i o j r o r H r s i
9
•
r
c
r r CO CO 0^ CT> t^ o> cr> 00 OJ a> 4*:
(V o c (d
£ u
V4 <D •H rH r-A 0 u
c 0) 0) »H
o
> 1
(d X
u
0) +J (0
:3 X
(D
u u d) Ui
X 0 xi 'X3 <d 2
u d) c jd 2
rH ^ V4 0 u u 2
CO rH f-{
•H 2
>^ (1) C cn
•H Cti
to 4-> u d) X Q oi
tn M (U o^ 0 Di
to V4 0)
T> C (d CO
d> V •H ^ 1
s
28
y^
CQ <
C/3 Pi cq Q h^ Ciq
o Pi CM
b^ U
o u Pi o CM
IZ o CO
4J •H r H •H JQ fd
•H O O C/3
0 CO
•H 4J
-P ^ O 0 fd cu -P X
o u 5H
o
O 0 CO O fd a 0 0 Pi ^
rH MH i^ H
rH fd > o U OA 04
B 0 SH
CM
+J U CO fd Pi 4J c 0 u
m Q a pq
cAO CT\ i n ro CN
(DO OJ
c N i n r o i n m r H C N i n v D ' j r r N i r o o j C N r o f S C N r o
CN ro vo cr> CN ro ro ro
44= - ^ r H
a\ i n Cy> CN <T> CT» CO c j \ r o 0 0 CN ro r-i rH
o N o v D r o r o r o r o r o r o r o v o r o r o r o r o r o r o v o
4*: CN rH rH rH CN rH rH r H CN
c W S - ^ O O O O V D V i J C O V O V D r H r-\ rH
CO CO <^ 00 rH ^
4*: i n r o r o c N C ^ j r o c N O j ' ^ ^ - ^ r o r o c N c O ' ^ r i n
o\o 00 r H O O C O C O O O O O C O O O C O C O O O O O C O C O
4 » 3 ' ; } < f ^ ' N r r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o
9
m
e r
[ t
Chance
Lier
coi; a)
Gre(
Hay r-^
Hil
JH 0
i H
sted
Huf u
Ker dox
Mad
u 0
Man
0
orkl
McC
CO
Mil ney
Rig
lerts
XI 0 Pi
fers
en 0 Pi
iders
fd CO
0 4J
Whi
29
CO
Pi
Q
o Pi CM
Q Ci3
< U H
O ^ rH D
h^ o CQ U
EH Ci3 O < CO CO Ci^
CM O
o H E H U 12 D CM
0 4-> fd
en 0 •P
H
0 4J fd
0 r-i Cn :3 fd tr> CO 0 CO Pi 0
m o c o
•H 4-» 0 U 'C^ C! fd
CM W U 0 P4
5H O
H
g 0 u CM
4J O CO fd Pi -p cq c Q 0 H:? u c
o\o CO CN
r^ f-{
r>-f-\
CO CN
r^ f-\
CN CN
r-rH
c\ CN OJ
CN i n CT> CN CN rH
4t= VX) VD o r H
V ^ 0 0 V£> vo vo vD CO vD CO cr>
c ^ o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o
4 t : r H r H r H H r H r H r H rH rH rH H
o \ o r o r o f ^ r o r o v D r o r o v ^ r o r o v D r o r o < x > o o
4*: r H nH rH CN . H C N r H i H C N j r H r H C N r O
o\o ^ 00 "SJ* rH 00 O O C O C O r H C O O O - H V D O O
4 i = i n r o i n ' N r r O ' « : j ' ' ^ r o r o r o " ^ r o r O ' ^ c N r o
0 U
rd X U
U 0
•H
O U
0 0 u o
> 1 fd •H
0 .H
0 4J CO
MH >H >H 0
X O
fd
JH 0 c: (d S
0 rH ^ u 0 u u s
CO
•H
0
CO 4J >H 0
cn XI •H 0 Pi Pi
CO
u 0 cn 0 Pi
CO
u 0
fd CO
0 4J • H
30
•P CO o B 4J
o
tfp o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r o r o
4*: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
CO Pi Ci3 p y^
o Pi C M
u <
y^
< o u CM
o cq u <
Pi o PH
H
-p fd
+J 0 o u fd O 4J d o u MH O 0
B 0 o O CO
(d
}H
o 04 0 H 4->
•p •H
dP - « ; r r o * ^ c o r o r o r o < ^ c o r o r O r H r O r H v D c o
0 C O 2
g 0 SH CM
P U CO fd Pi 4-> C
Ciq Q
0 yA U Ciq
4*: in rH rs) ro
4*:
o\o
4t :
rH 04 r o rH ' ^ rH ^ CN ro
ti<3 r ^ i j D « : ; r i ^ v D r - c o v D ' i 3 ' o o o o r ^ ' s D rA r-\ r-\ T-{ rA r H
4*: v D ( N j L n v c ) C N v o r o o > i i n r o r o v D C ^ 4 ' ^ i n v D
cJP 00 o o r H o o o o ' X > c o c o r o * x > r H v x ) O O C o o o r o
m r O ' « * f O r o o g r o r O r H r M ' = i ' C N r o r o r O r H
o c N ^ L n c j ^ c r i < T » c r \ r ^ c j ^ r ^ c 3 ^ o ^ c 3 ^ r - » c r i C N C N r H C N r H r H r H r H r H r H r H r H r H r H r H r H
r^ CO i n c T i r - r ^ r - r ^ ' ^ i ^ ' ^ r ^ ' ^ f ^ ' ^ ^
ance
X
u
J 0
•H rH rH 0
u
c 0 0 u u
> 1 fd
rH rH •H
U 0 rH TJ 0 4J CO
MH :3
u u 0
fc«:i
X 0 T3 13 fd
u 0 i:: fd
0 r-A X u 0 u u
CO rH H •H
> 1
0 c cn
•H Pi
CO p U 0 -Q 0 Pi
CO U 0 cn 0 Pi
CO
u 0
T3 d fd
CO
0 P • H
IS
31
CO Ciq y^
< H Pi
Ciq Pi P E^
CN U -H D
p; EH CO
CM O
13 O H
< yA Ciq Pi Pi o u
C ^ yA CQ <
Q) U C (d +J >H o 04 g H
1 0) +J G H
0) 4-> fd
rH ^ cr> <u Pi
•P o fd 4J c 0 c> MH 0
d) P (d 5H Cr"
^ rd CU p 04 to
u O
UH d H
I >1 fd P
•H -H U rH O -H C/3 XI
I
CU cu cu cn X -H W -P
(U U
cu H MH
H
fd > o
cu 04
«4H 0
-p
u fd I C -P cu cu c >H D O CM D^ U
rH rH r o CTi
v^ r o r CN
r o O ro o«
r-rH O vo
O OJ i n CO
OI i n <o ^
'^ o iH 00
<-i r ro r--
r o \.0 CO 00
"^ yJD r-A cn *
r~ i n rH r *
VD iH ro rH
'=:}' "^ r-i LO
•Je
rH CO rH VO
*
rH r vO kO
•
00 IT) CO v£>
*
i n cr> IT) i n
*
CO VO ^ 00
*
OJ ^D O i n
*
"= OJ 00 • ^
*
rH OI rH VD
*
VD rH "d-00
*
vD 00 00 r *
i n cn i n r *
OJ CM 00
C^J
in
in
CO
tn o
rH LO
p
u fd C -P 0) c a 0 O" u d) M 'A-A Cl4 0
o 00 i n
00
o
CN cn o
H i n
fd > 0 cu cu <
ro t ^
rH
o rH r-A
i n
*
CTi
OI o 00
d) U C 0)
rH IM C
OJ ro f ^ 00 ro
OI O
cn in
OJ cn ID
ro CO ro
rH
00 00
OI
CM
O in
i n o i n
CO
OI in OI
OJ 00
i n
CD CO
• H p V4 <u 04
w
> 1
•rl X td
•H U 0
CO
0 MH c
(U 73 td D to u d)
OA
d) 4-> (d rH 3 cn 0) ffj
in ro in
r-A
CO
OI 00
00
00
vX) OI <X> <X)
CS O r-^
CM r ^ \D
m cn i n i n
00 i n 00 vo
"=3' '^ CN ro
•K
-^ OJ t n o
"^ 00 '^ o
o 00 i n
*
r r r-H
"vT ^ r-i i n
*
v£5 t-A cn <-\
cn *
cu p fd u cn 0) P c
ro VD 00 CO
t ^ ro
o rA 00
CM in
o OJ i n 00
rA
o
OJ o 00 \D
*
'^ ^ CM ro
•te
ro a» r-' * •te
O r-A H LO
•te
o> r-\ <-\ r~^
r «X» ro r •te
H r--*x> ^ *
r-A 00 H v£)
•K
ro O ro r •te
ro r-OJ
ro cn
(U o C fd P
0 04 e
p o td 4-) c o u
o
in o
• V 04
0 O
fd u
• H M-l • H ci cn
• H CO
32
2a. What is the proportion of monopolizers, keep
ers, sharers, and givers of the total number
of the population? The question is not ans
werable due to the lack of data in 2.
2b. What is the ratio of tendencies to be a monop
olizer, keeper, sharer, or giver in each
individual and group? The question is not ans
werable due to the lack of data in 2.
2c. Is there a correlation between the extent to
which a leader is a monopolizer, keeper, sharer,
or giver and the subject's view of how impor
tant his contact with that individual is?
How does it effect the amount of contact?
Tables 12, 13, and 14 indicate that keepers,
sharers, and givers correlate and are indica
tions of leadership effectiveness, while monop
olizers (Approval-Inform) are not.
3. What data will ECCO Analysis provide concerning the
dissemination of messages throughout the church
system? Tables 15 and 16 indicate that dissemina
tion of messages can be traced in the church system
using ECCO Analysis.
3a. What are the primary media in which messages
travel? The primary message media is the
printed page (see Table 17).
2 o H EH < U H IS ;D
o u Q Pi i * • ' "
g o Q
CL|
> H
ro EH H U
Ciq CL] C M
TABL
• EF
SECRETARIES
Q
<
^
CO Pi
ISTE
MIN
Contact
MH 0
0 u c fd •P
u 0 Ou B H
0 Cn td CO CO
0 s MH 0
CJ 0
• H 4J O C :3
CM
P
Contac
SH
o MH
c o CO fd 0 Pi
act
of Cont
ney
2que
SH CM
M C fd Pi -
ters
Minis
B CO
• H r-{ 0 Cn c: fd > Ci
r-A
4-) • H 04
r-A ^J 04
rH
4-) • H O,
rH :3
04
r-A
3ity
verj
Uni
rH
> . 4-> •rA CO
v 0 >
• H d P
CM
B CO
• H rH 0 cn C fd > &:!
fv]
u • H CO :3
CN4
pit
Pul
OJ
P • H 04
rH :3
04
ro
JH 0
• H 4J fd U 13
nd ^
ro
c 0
• H 4J fd
u :=!
Ol
Lism
nge!
Eva
ro
C 0
• H 4J fd U :3
TJ cq
^
> 1 4J • H CO SH 0 >
• H ci D
" ^
UIS
• H r-A 0 cn CJ fd > Ci:i
" ^
u •H
Mus
"^
u • H CO :3
S
i n
^ 4J CJ 0 >^
• ^
4J •rA CO SH 0 >
• H
i n
ion
cat.
Edu
i n
X •P •H 0 >H
VD
U - H CO CJ
S
vo
^ 4J ^ 0
V£>
4J
You
vo
^ CO
• H
a fd 04
CO
r
X CO
• H
a fd O.
CO
r
X CO
• H
c fd 04 CO
r
X ST
U
Spa
r-
1
^
c; fd p;
~ CO
.arie
Secret
4J CO
• H
ci 0
• H 4J 04 0 o 0 Pi
r H
P CO
• H C 0
• H 4J O4 0 U 0 Pi
rH
nist
0 • H 4J O4 0 U 0 Pi
r-A
P to T
UO
T
:ept
u 0 Pi
r-A
• H
B CO
• H rH 0 cn C fd >
Ci:j
0 ^
CN
• C
• H
S
e CO • H rH 0 Cn C fd > \A
0 EH
( N
t Min.
• H O4
rH ;3 04
0 EH
CN
Min.
UIS
• H
ngel
Eva
0
CM
• H
4J • H CO SH 0 >
• H C D
0 EH
ro
• C
• H
S > i 4J - H CO SH 0 >
• H
c: p
0 EH
ro , Min.
X P
0 >H
0 E H
O l
•rA 2
pit •
Pul
0
ro
•
a • H
S
x; p :i 0 >H
0 b^
' ^
•
c; • H
4J • H O4
rH 0
PA
0 EH
' ^
lin.
tion
I
fd
u C3
CJJ
0 E H
OJ
Min.
4J • H
vers
Uni
0
• ^
•
•rA
S 4J • H O4
H CJ
04
0 EH
i n
•
- H
s x; +> CJ 0 »
0 EH
i n
Min.
elism
cn c: fd > i^
0 E H
i n
•
• H
2
4J :3 0 >H
0
^
•
- H X •
d -H 0 s
• H 4J 4J fd - H U O4 13 rH
TJ CJ Ciq O4
0 0 ^ EH
(X) r^
•
a • H
d 0 s
• H 4J 4J fd - H U O4 ^ rH
^ ;3 &Q Ci4
0 0 ir^ EH
VD VD
Min,
irsity
.t Min.
cu -H > 0 .
• H r-A c: cJ p cu
0 0 EH EH
VD r^
•
•rA
2
c: -H
0 s
Lcati
•pit
tt l 04
0 0 EH ir*
VD r^
33
4-» U fd 4J
o u MH O
0
o fd 4J u o QA
B H
0
u
fd
0 CO
u 0
fd > i Cn cn -H
CO S H
0
SH 0
r-A
0 4J
o CO
0 rA
u 0 4 - > n d 0 C O 0 n 3 r H
SH 0
•H O rH
O ^ fd 0 M H C i T J - H H U t H r H
fd fd 0 o o
CsJ O l 'Jj^ " ^ VD CO 00
CO p u 0 Xi
U f f i P i P i l S C O O f f i S S S W S U f f i P i
CM Ol ^ i n i n ,-A r-A r-A r-A r-A
34
cq
<
iA
2 o M EH
U H
P
o u Q Pi
.H ^
o Q
> H iA U Ciq CM
CM
ca
CO Pi Ci:i Q
0
fd CO CO 0
MH O
o •H 4J O
CM
4J U fd 4J
o u S H
O MH
O CO fd 0
fd Pi
CO u 0
iH ca
0 U a fd
u
S H
0 r-A TJ 0 4J CO
MH C3
CO SH 0 nd
fd CO
fd
0
cn •H Pi
CO S H
0 CJ« O Pi
0 4J •H
0 0 SH O
S H
0
0
fd
CO
-H
X o nd nd fd
0 •H
O U
•H
0 rH M SH O U U
CO 4J SH 0
Xi O Pi
m ^ ^ ' ^ r ^ o o c r > o ^ < T > o j r o f n r o r o rH rH rH rH rH
0 r-A y, u n u D S
CO rH r-A •H
s:
h (!)
•H rH rH
n u
c (1) (1) SH (J
SH 0) a fd S
Q) U C fd ^ u
r-A H •H K
SH SH 0 «
X 0 n3 T i fd S
CO p U 0 XJ 0 Pi
CO SH 0 cn 0 p;
CO SH 0 'd a fd CO
0 p •rA
X '^
SH 0
rH nd 0 P c/)
MH C3 K
> i
0 Ci cn
•H cc,
> i
fd K
o o r o r o v D V D v o v D V D - ^ VD
4J u (d 4J
o u MH
o
o c 0 Id
0
[iM
>1 0
cn •H Pi
fd
CO S H
0
fd CO
OJ CM
0 u a fd
X u
SH 0
r-A nd 0 4J CO
MH
0 - P • H
[5
in VD
0 0 SH
U
SH 0
fd
CO >H 0 cn O Pi
r- a^
rH r-A •rA X
u 0
•H
o u
CO
•H
2
SH
SH
0 1 ^
CM r o
0 CO p u 0 ^ 0 Pi
X 0 TJ nd fd S
rH ^ SH 0 U u s
in in
35
TABLE 15
THE MESSAGES' DISPERSION
Message One Message Two
Message Sources
Specific Person
Generalized Source
#
8
13
%
22
36
#
5
3 .
%
14
8
TABLE 16
THE AWARENESS OF MESSAGES
Message One Message Two
Message Awareness
Knew All of the Message
Knew Part of the Message
Knew None of the Message
#
7
14
15
%
19
39
42
#
4
4
28
%
11
11
78
3b. What is the amount of distortion in the
system? The distortion that was found is
probably due to memory loss or poor reporting
on the part of the questionnaire subjects
(see Table 18).
3c. What is the direction which information tends
to flow in the church system of communication?
Unanswerable due to the loosening of controls.
(Answers wouLd be determined by consulting
Tables 19 and 20.)
36
TABLE 17
THE MESSAGES' MEDIA SOURCE
Message Media Message One Message Two #
1
7
4
0
0
0
3
0
Q.
3
20
11
0
0
0
8
0
#
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
Personal letter from the church
Church Bulletin
Rays of Sunshine
Bulletin Board
Public Newspaper or Magazine
Church Records
Talking with one other person in his presence
Talking over the telephone
Talking in a small group of two or more
Attending an organized meeting or conference
Overhearing what someone else said
Radio or television
I did it or I originated the information
Other
11
8
11
0
0
0
:ed 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
3
37
TABLE 18
THE DISTORTION OF MESSAGES
Message One Message Two
Message Distortion
Fact 1 Distortion
Fact 2 Distortion
Fact 3 Distortion
Fact 4 Distortion
Fact 5 Distortion
#
0
0
0
2
1
TABLE 19
%
0
0
0
6
3
#
0
0
0
0
1
%
0
0
0
0
3
THE AMOUNT OF TIME SINCE THE MESSAGES WERE FIRST RECEIVED
Message First Received
Today
Yesterday
Three Days Ago
Four Days Ago
Five Days Ago
Six Days Ago
Seven Days Ago
Two Weeks Ago
Three Weeks Ago
Four Weeks Ago
Five Weeks Ago
Six Weeks Ago
Message
#
0
0
9
0
1
0
0
9
2
2
0
5
One
%
0
0
9
0
3
0
0
25
6
6
0
14
Message
#
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
0
Two
%
0
0
9
0
0
0
6
3
6
3
3
0
38
TABLE 20
THE PHYSICAL LOCATION WHEN MESSAGES RECEIVED
Where Messages Received
At the Church Building
At Work
At Home
Other
Mes
#
11
0
10
0
sage One
%
31
0
28
0
Message
#
2
0
2
4
Two
%
6
0
6
11
3d. Who are the communication isolates in the
system? Unanswerable due to the loosening of
controls. (Answers would be determined by
consulting Tables 16, 19, and 20.)
3e. Is there a correlation between monopolizers,
keepers, sharers, and givers and the amount
of dissemination their messages receive in
the system? Unanswerable due to the lack of
correlation of the variables associated with
monopolizers, keepers, sharers, and givers;
and also due to the loosening of controls.
(Answers would be determined by comparing
Table 12 and other information not found due
to the lack of control.)
3f. Is there a correlation between the amount of
contact a person has and the amount of dis
semination his message has in the organiation?
39
Unanswerable due to the loosening of controls.
(Answers would be determined by comparing
Table 12 with other information not found,
due to the lack of control.)
Research Goals; Section One
The data indicates that the largest percentage of those
who recognize that they are contacted from church leaders,
(5 said they had no contact of any kind), are only con
tacted several times a year for the reason that the leaders
enjoy social interaction with them. The function that mes
sages from these leaders have is twofold; one is to inform
the members, and two is to integrate them. The importance
of contact from the leadership is minimal, with most re
spondents checking none or little, but with not as much
agreement here as in the other areas.
If the characteristics of a hierarchy are viewed accord
ing to McGregor's well-known "Theory X and Theory Y," then
this particular church organization seems to follow the
principle of Theory Y. Leadership following Theory X assume
that people dislike work and must be controlled and directed -J
toward organizational goals. Downward communication is the p
dominate pattern for its leaders. Those leaders who follow
the philosophy of Theory Y emphasize the integration of goals
believing that the average person is intrinsically interested
40
in his work and is self-directed and responsible.^ Communi
cation tendencies of this type of leadership reveal a lack
of downward communication. "'• Simply the fact that most of
the recognized leaders of this church organization only
communicate downward several times a year, for social rea
sons to inform and integrate, as seen in Tables 4 through
11, demonstrates this assumption.
Ministers communicate downward more often than elders
and they do not seem to filter their downward communication
through their secretaries. The pulpit minister, as a rule,
has more downward communication than anyone.
Research Goals: Section Two
The second section of research goals deals with the
theoretical structure of the downward communication. The
theorem being that the reason a leader communicates with
followers, combined with the function his message has in
the system, will create in the system a position for him
as a monopolizer, keeper, sharer, or giver (see Figure 1.1).
Ideally the more important leader in the system will be the
one who communicates for 25 percent of the time in each
role as a monopolizer, keeper, sharer, and giver (see
Figure 1.2). Also, if a leader has a high percentage of
communication in any role as a monopolizer, keeper, sharer
or giver he will not only communicate less frequently, but
his communication will be less important to men±)ers.
41
According to the theory expressed in Chapter I, Figure
1.1, certain reasons for communicating have a corresponding
message function. Approval should correlate with inform,
influence with persuade, expertise with regulate, and socia
bility with integrate. As Table 12 illustrates, there is a
correlation between approval and informing, but there is
also a higher coefficient for approval and regulating,
although there is no significant difference between them.
There is also a correlation between influence and persuade,
as well as between influence and almost every other structure
variable, with no significant difference between them.
Expertise functions as well with all other message types as
it does with regulate, with no significant difference
between them; as does sociability with integrate. Due to
these results it is fairly clear that there is no signifi
cant correlation between the reason for contact plus func
tion of message, and the tendency of leaders in this church
organization to be either monopolizers, keepers, sharers,
or givers.
The last question in section two asks if there is a
correlation between the extent to which a leader is a monop
olizer, keeper, sharer, and giver and the frequency and
importance of his contact. According to Table 12 there is
a high correlation except in the approval half of the monop
olizer trait. As was theorized in Chapter I, the closer a
42
leader is to the ideal structure, the more frequent and im
portant his downward communication will become. Even with
the small response to the questionnaire Tables 13 and 14
show some interesting trends that reflect the probable truth-
fulness of this theory. Generalizations about personal
effectiveness of any leader in these tables should be
weighed in light of the small response size (one-tenth of
the sample), and the overwhelming percentage of respondents
in the 25-29 age group (see Tables 1 and 2) .
Research Goals: Section Three
Section three pertains to the analysis of two particu
lar messages, tracing them through the church communication
system, to their ultimate dissemination. Davis' ECCO Analy
sis instrument was employed to gather this particular data.
The two messages that were followed, originated in the
church office and can be examined, along with the rest of
the ECCO Analysis instrument in Appendix B. Specific ques
tions about message dissemination pinpoint message media,
distortion, direction, and communication isolates. This
section of results was the one most effected by the loosen
ing of controls discussed in "the field work" section of
this chapter. Although, this loosening of controls did
confound some results, most are accurate enough to merit
discussion.
43
Again, it is necessary to reiterate the importance of
remembering that the respondents were few and primarily one
age group, which should limit generalizations about the
entire organization.
Tables 15 and 16 illustrate the limited effectiveness
of downward communication, unless a large amount of exposure
is given to the information leadership wants membership to
receive. Message one was put in print in the weekly church
bulletin March 16, p. 3; March 30, p. 1; April 6, p. 4; and
April 13, pp. 1 and 3. It was also mentioned in the minister
of education's bulletin Rays of Sunshine on March 1, April 4,
and April 11. Personal letters and announcements during
worship service was another way the message was dispersed.
With all this exposure only 58 percent of the respondents
knew the message. Message two was put in print only on
March 23, p. 3 in the church bulletin and March 14 in Rays
of Sunshine. This was about the only public exposure mes
sage two had, and would probably account for its 22 percent
knowledge by respondents with only half of that being full
knowledge.
Table 17 seems to reflect the generally ignored possi
bility that bulletins, reports, and memos from leadership do
increase the tendency for communication to take place inter-
personally and in small groups. Because of the large formal
exposure to message one its informal media channels also
44
increased. When message two received limited formal expo
sure, the informal media took up a large portion of the
slack. From this it seems that this church organization
does have an active "grapevine," which is a dynamic aid to
its communication system.
The distortion of messages was clearly one of memory
loss in the first message and an undetermined cause in the
second message. The distortion of message one could prob
ably be attributed to the loosening of controls on the time
for filling out the questionnaire, since the ones who had a
distorted portion of message one were late respondents.
Table 18 also shows that only one person recognized a dis
tortion in fact five of message two. This is particularly
troublesome because this fact was deliberately distorted on
the questionnaire and only one out of four who said they
knew all of the message reported the distortion. This
leaves room for doubt about how well they knew the rest of
the facts in the message.
The last two tables in this chapter (Tables 19 and 20),
indicate the time and physical location that the messages
were received. This was the part of the questionnaire most
effected by the loosening of controls in the field work.
When we changed from filling it out in one week's time, to
allowing them to take it home and fill it out, to sending it
in when they got ready, the reliability of this report of
45
the results decreased. However, of the 11 people who
filled out the questionnaire in the 15 minutes of the
April 13 Sunday school, 4 said they first received the mes
sage two weeks ago, while reading the church bulletin.
This is encouraging since two weeks previous to April 13,
message one was the front page story in the bulletin.
Any implications that these findings, or any other
might have due to circumstances unusual to this church orga
nization, will be discussed in the following chapter.
I
1
r
r
END NOTES
Secretaries were included because it was felt they were primarily a communicative appendage of the minister.
2 Stanley E. Seashore, "Field Experiments with Formal
Organizations," Human Organizations. 23 no. 2 (Summer 1964): 164-170. ~
3 Seashore, p. 167.
4 SPSS.
^"Codebook."
6.. "Pearson Correlation."
7 John J. Morse and Jay W. Lorsch, "Beyond Theory Y,"
Harvard Business Review, 48 no. 3 (May 1970): 61. p Gerald M. Goldhaber, Organizational Communication
(Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., Pub., 1974), p. 64.
9 Morse and Lorsch, p. 61.
10 t Goldhaber, p. 65. !»
11 • Testing the difference between correlations in these ' and other pairs was done with the help of Hubert N. Blalock, H Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), pp. J 309-311.
12 Rank orders for frequency and importance (a=frequency,
b=importance) were computed from Tables 4, 7, 8, and 11 for each sub-category in their category by using the following formulas: a=l(n)+2(n)+3(n)+4(n)+5(n)+6(n) and b=l(n)+2(n) +3(n)+4(n)+5(n). Rank orders for reason for contact and function of message (c=reason, d=function) were computed from Tables 5, 6, 9, and 10 for each sub-category in their category by using the following formula: c or d=25-(% of l)+25-(% of 2)+25-(% of 3)+25-(% of 4 ) . The highest scores of a and b are ranked highest, while the lowest scores of c and d are ranked highest.
r
r
4 6
CHAPTER III
IMPLICATION OF RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Implication of Results
The successes and failures of this study can be under-
stood as much from the several implications that can be
deduced from the results, and the circumstances that pro
duced them, as from the results themselves. For example,
the small response to this type of questionnaire may give
indication of its feasibility, but the probable reasons for
this small response are equally important to know in con
sidering feasibility. Other implications are the validity
of instrument modification and the effects of loosening I
controls on the overall results that were reported. Lastly, ' i
the results should be able to lead those who read them to j r
make a judgment concerning what they imply about the effec-
tive downward communication of a church organization. These , j
items plus suggestions for future research constitute the ;
contents of this chapter.
Reasons for Small Response
There are probably many reasons why only one-tenth of
the sample population returned their questionnaires, but
there are at least three reasons that are almost sure to
47
48
have effected the response. The first and probably most im
portant reason was the lack of clear understanding among
church leaders as to the value of this type of study, which
limited their willingness to sanction and "sell" the impor
tance of it to the members. This lack of downward communi
cation from the leadership probably caused confusion among
members and fear that something was amiss. The second
reason for lack of response was due to an unforeseeable
problem with asking them to put their name on the question
naire. Because they were hesitant to put their name on the
questionnaire, then drop it in a box in the church office
where anyone might see it, they balked at the idea of fill
ing it out at all. Add this to the fact that the question
naire was not exactly easy to fill out and response becomes
even more doubtful. Thirdly, the reason class #3 with 4 0-
70-year-olds did not respond as well as classes 1, 2, and 4
was probably a little mistrust of how the results might be
misused, and fear of what the results might reveal. Some
might have felt their friendship with church leaders might
have been threatened. These implications have been
gathered primarily from a few of the respondents in a casual
way and might not reflect the total reason for the lack of
overall response; but they are of some note.
49
Validity of Instrument Modification
There seems to be evidence from some of the results
shown in Tables 13 and 14 that changing the Jacobson-
Seashore instrument did not effect the validity of the
instrument, since there seems to be some agreement as to
the effective communication of some of the leadership.
Table 12 seems to indicate that there is some correlation
between reason for contact and function of message, as the
theoretical literature in Chapter I suggests. It is highly
probable that, had response been higher, the results would
have been more reliable. Results would have shown more
clearly the communication behavior of leadership downward
to membership.
Effects of Loosening Controls
The effects of loosening controls from a 15-minute
testing period to the eventual letting them take the ques-r
tionnaire home and mail it in, seem to have effected the i
reliability of the ECCO Analysis instrument and seems to
have had little to no effect on the Jacobson-Seashore in
strument. Since taking up Sunday school class time was the
issue with respect to disrupting the ongoing organization,
yet the ECCO Analysis instrument must be tested on the same
day and time to be accurate, a compromise could be worked
out. Each questionnaire could be divided into two parts
TEXAS TECH UBRARY
i I I r
50
and the same identification number assigned to each part.
The Jacobson-Seashore part could be mailed, with a self-
addressed return envelope, to the class members. The ECCO
Analysis part could easily fit into the first 5 or 10 minutes
of class time without disrupting. Care should be taken to
match numbers for part one and two so that they can be com
bined when part one comes in by return mail. This procedure
should eliminate the effects that loosening controls had on
this study.
Effective Downward Communication
As Chapter I states, effective vertical communication
is important if survival and growth is to be maintained.
Since the results show that, at least among those 36 who
responded, it was not the downward communication that was
most important, and since this church organization is sur
viving and growing, it could be that upward communication
is the more effective pattern for this organization. How
ever, as Table 12 shows, there is a correlation between the
structure of the downward communication system and the
contact-avoidance patterns of leaders and members. Those
who are more effective generally contact members more fre
quently and are more important to them (see Tables 13 and
14).
One peculiar result of the questionnaire is the results
of the frequency of contact from the pulpit minister (see
51
Table 4). If the pulpit minister is truly being effective,
everyone should recognize that he contacts them 2 or 3 times
weekly, or at least several times a month. But the largest
percent (30 percent) only felt he communicated with them sev
eral times yearly. There are several probable reasons why
his messages from the pulpit are not recognized as downward
communication. One might be the fact that respondents did
not understand the questionnaire or did not take time to
fill it out properly. It could be that the sermons are not
considered downward communication. The most distressing
possibility is that the messages from the pulpit do not
communicate any of the things on the questionnaire. As one
man has said, this may be one of "many signs that people do
not hear preaching anymore. They especially do not hear it
in ways that influence their behavior at deep levels." It
is probable, then, that "the preacher is not likely to get
anything clearly said that is not already implicit in his 2
relationships with his people in various settings . . . ."
The story is told of a preacher who began a new ministry at
a country church. He had a 9 to 5 routine studying in his
office everyday, and didn't go out and meet anyone. Another
country preacher got up early and went to the small coffee
shop where all the farming community met for their social
life. He had a vital ministry because everyone in town
knew him and were influenced by him. Needless to say this
i
52
illustration oversimplifies matters, but it does point to
the need to develop relationships away from the pulpit in
order to be heard in the pulpit.
Suggestions for Future Research
As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the reason
there seems to be so little downward communication is be
cause there may be a larger amount of upward communication.
The same type information present on the Jacobson-Seashore
and ECCO Analysis instruments could be developed so that
leaders could keep a log of upward communication from members
The log would be developed along lines similar to those sug-
3 gested in the Wickesberg studies.
There are three other areas of communication research
that relate to the church organization that would be worth
while. One deals with what business and government would'
call church management, and the second is concerned with
church growth, and the third is with audience analysis.
In a study done by Hjalmar Rosen it was found that,
in business, leaders' role evaluations of themselves and
other leaders were related to their predictions of sub
ordinates' demands, but in actuality subordinates' per
ceived the leaders' roles differently than the leaders had
The study could be employed among leaders and between
leaders and members of a church organization to evaluate
4
53
the effectiveness of leaders and members in the area of
role prescription.
The second area of research is an area very important
to church growth. Most churches, to one degree or another,
have goals to bring new members into the organization.
Yet, most members find this church activity very difficult.
It is contended here that fear of talking to non-members
about the church is similar to the three categories of 5
stage fright isolated by Gustav Friedrich. in fact,
treatment for this malady in churches could be adopted
from McCroskey's method or possibly with small group
practice.
The third area of suggestions for communication re
search in church organizations relate to the use of field
research in audience analysis. As many are now becoming
aware, both men in the pulpit, and men concerned with mass
media are looking for better ways to disseminate their 7
message to potential, available, and actual audiences.
It is clear that communications research in church organi
zations can play a great part in adding to the knowledge
in this area, the areas already mentioned, and in many
more ways in the future.
END NOTES
Clyde H. Reid, "Preaching as Communication," You and Communication in the Church: Skills and Techniques, ed. and compiled by B. F. Jackson, Jr. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 54.
2 Harvey H. Potthoff, "When Preaching Comes Alive,"
You and Communication in the Church: Skills and Techniques, ed. and compiled by B. F. Jackson, Jr. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 65.
3 A. K. Wickesberg, "Communications Networks in the
Business Organization," Academy of Management Journal, 11 no. 3 (September 1968): 253-262.
4 Hjalmar Rosen, Managerial Role Interaction: A Study
of Three Managerial Levels," Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 no. 1 (1961) : 30-34.
5 Gustav Friedrich, "An Empirical Explication of a
Concept of Self-Reported Speech Anxiety," Speech Monograph, 37 (March 1970): 67-72.
^James C. McCroskey, "The Implementation of a Large-Scale Program of Systematic Desensitization for Communication Apprehension," Speech Teacher, 21 (November 1972): 225-264.
^Menkir Esayas, "Communications Research," Let The Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis, Minnesota: World Wide Publications, 1975), 549-560.
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes, Louis B. "Organizational Change and Field Experi- y ments." in Methods of Organizational Research, pp. 57-111. Edited by Victor H. Vroom. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. " ~
Bretall, Robert W., ed. The Empirical Theology of Henry Nelson Wieman. Vol. 4: The Library of Living Theology. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1963.
Burgess, R. L. "Communication Networks: An Experimental ^ Reevaluation." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4 (1968) : 324-37.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961.
Cohen, Arthur M. "Communication Networks in Research and \ Training." Personnel Administration 27 no. 3 (May 1964): 18-24.
Cohen, Arthur M., and Bennis, W. G. "Continuity of Leadership in Communication Networks." Human Relations 14 no. 4 (November 1961): 351-67.
Dahle, Thomas L. "Barriers to Research in Communication." Journal of Communication 13 no. 4 (December 1963): 262-6.
"An Objective and Comparative Study of Five >
Methods of Transmitting Information to Business and Industrial Employees." Speech Monographs 21 no. 1 (March 1954): 21-8.
Davis, Keith. "Management Communication and the Grapevine." Harvard Business Review 31 no. 5 (September 1953): 43-9.
. "A Method of Studying Communication Patterns in Organizations." Personnel Psychology 6 no. 3 (Autumn 1953): 301-12.
55
56
Esayas, Menkir. "Communication Research." In Let the Earth Hear His Voice, pp. 549-60. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Minneapolis, Minnesota: World Wide Publications, 1975.
Friedrich, Gustav. "An Empirical Explication of a Concept of Self-Reported Speech Anxiety." Speech Monograph 37 (March 1970): 67-72. ~
Funk, Harry B., and Becker, Robert C. "Measuring the Effec- ^ tiveness of Industrial Communication." Personnel 29 ^ no. 3 (November 1952): 237-40.
Geutzkow, Harold. "Differentiation of Roles in Task-Oriented Groups." In Group Dynamics Research and Theory, pp. 683-704. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright and E. Zander. New York: Row, Peterson, & Co., 1960.
Goetzinger, Charles, and Valentine, Milton. "Communication Channels, Media, Directional Flow and Attitudes in an X Academic Community." Journal of Communication 12 no. 1 (March 1962): 23-6. ~~~~
Goldhaber, Gerald M. Organizational Communication. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1974.
Hall, M. F. "Communication Within Organizations." Journal of Management Studies 2 (February 1965): 54-69.
Hay, Robert D. "Modified Semantic Differentials to Evaluate Formal Organizational Structures." Journal of Business Communication 7 no. 3 (Spring 1970): 13-23.
Huseman, Richard C.; Logue, Cal M.; and Freshly, Dwight L., eds. Readings In Interpersonal and Organizational Communication. Boston: Holbrook Press, Inc., 1969.
Jacobson, Eugene, and Seashore, Stanley. "Communication Practices in Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues 7 no. 3 (Autumn 1951): 28-40.
Jacoby, Jacob. "Examining the Other Organization." Personnel Administration 31 no. 6 (November 1968): 36-42.
Larson, Carl E.; Knapp, Mark L.; and Zuckerman, Isadore. "Staff-Resident Communication in Nursing Homes: A Factor Analysis of Staff Attitudes and Resident Evaluations of Staff." Journal of Communication 19 (December 1969): 308-316.
4 I
4.
57
Leavitt, H. J. "Some Effects of Certain Patterns on Group Performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46 (1951): 38-50. '
McCroskey, James C. "The Implementation of a Large-Scale Program of Systematic Desensitization for Communication Apprehension." Speech Teacher 21 (November 1972): 255-64.
Massie, Joseph L. "Automatic Horizontal Communication in Management." Academy of Management Journal 3 no. 2 (August 1960): 87-91. ~
Morse, John J., and Lorsch, Jay W. "Beyond Theory Y." Harvard Business Review 48 no. 3 (May 1970): 61-8.
Nilsen, Thomas R. "Research Problems in Communication in Industry." Journal of Communication 4 no. 3 (Fall 1954): 98-103":
Odiorne, George S. "An Application of the Communication Audit." Personnel Psychology 7 no. 2 (Summer 1954): 235-43. ~ ~
V-
X
A
Planty, Earl, and McHaver, William. "Upward Communications: A Project in Executive Development." Personnel 29 no. 4 (January 1952): 306-11.
Poll, Mrs. 0. C. "The Application of Scaling Techniques to Partially-Ordered Stratification Systems." Master's thesis. University of Michigan, 1951.
Potthoff, Harvey H. "When Preaching Comes Alive." In You and Communication in the Church: Skills and Techniques, pp. 57-66. Edited and compiled by B. F. Jackson, Jr. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974.
Read, William H. "Communication in Organizations: Some Problems and Misconceptions." Personnel Administra- - tion 26 no. 2 (March 1963): 4-10.
Reid, Clyde H. "Preaching as Communication." In You and Communication in the Church: Skills and Techniques, pp. 45-56. Edited and compiled by B. F. Jackson, Jr. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974.
Rose, Stephen C. "Communication in the Metropolis." In Toward Creative Urban Strategy, pp. 87-104. Compiled by George A. Torney. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publishers, 1970.
\
58
Rosen Hjalmar. "Managerial Role Interaction: A Study of Three Managerial Levels." Journal of Applied Psychology 45 no. 1 (1961): 30-4. - ^
Rubenstein, Albert H. "Problems in the Measurement of Interpersonal Communication in an Ongoing Situation." Sociometry 16 no. 1 (February 1953): 78-100.
Scott, William G. "Communication and Centralization of Organization." Journal of Communication 13 no. 1 (March 1963): 3-11^ ~
Seashore, Stanley E. "Field Experiments With Formal Organizations." Human Organizations 23 no. 2 (Summer 1964): 164-70.
Shaw, M. E. "Some Effects of Problem Solution Efficiency of Different Communication Nets." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (1954): 38-50T
Simpscpn, Richard L. "Vertical and Horizontal Communication in Formal Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1959): 189-9TT
Smith, Clagett, G. , and Brown, Michael E. "Communication Structure and Control Structure in a Voluntary Organization." Sociometry 27 no. 4 (December 1964): 450-58.
Sommers, William A. "Improving Channels of Communication." Public Management 43 no. 3 (March 1961): 59-60.
Stanton, Erwin S. "Company Policies and Superviser's Attitude Toward Supervision." Journal of Applied Psychology 44 no. 1 (February 1960): 22-6.
Tagliere, Daniel A. People, Power, and Organization. New York: American Management Association, 1973.
Tannenbaum, Arnold S. Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
Thayer, Lee 0. "On Theory-Building in Communication: Some Conceptual Problems." Journal of Communication 13 no. 4 (December 1963): 217-35.
Thompkins, Philip K. "Measuring and Data-Gathering Instruments in Industrial Communication." Central States Speech Journal 15 no. 2 (May 1964): 112-6.
59
Walton, Eugene. "Communicating Down the Line: How They Y Really Get the Word." Personnel 36 no. 4 (July 1959): 78-82.
"How Efficient is the Grape Vine?" Personnel 38 no. 2 (March 1961): 45-9.
"A Study of Organizational Communication Systems." N | Personnel Administration 26 no. 3 (May 1963): 46-9.
Weiss, Robert. "An Investigation into Organizational Structure Using Sociometric Techniques." Master's thesis. University of Michigan, 1952.
Wickesberg, A. K. "Communications Networks in the Business ^ Organization." Academy of Management Journal 11 no. 3 (September 1968): 253-62.
t
APPENDICES
A. JACOBSON-SEASHORE CHECKLIST 61
B. MODIFIED JACOBSON-SEASHORE CHECKLING 62
60
61
EH C/D H
U
!i! U w Pi o cn <
cn I
o cn pq O U < 1-3
X H Q w P P< <
OJ 4J CJ CJ C ro (0 -P 4J C u o o o E «w H O
•AT
^o '^Ou,:
^ ^ ^ U l .
"^a
u o
u C Its
CO C ro O d) u K
^-r,
f^^,
?•?& ^t/Q<
Tn
•5. / 3 Q
®c/o-
'• 0 C? •^?^, P Q j -
' i THA
Q
O
m
<
•^Oi '^a
To.
+> u O OJ 0) -P
X
cn
^ ^-^ .e -'' ' r .^:^'^
?? ^H ^^s
-^^-^^e.
?c,^
^ v? , ®Q!i^
OAT ? r , •^Q. '"^Q,
o o C ro 0) •P D C tr o <D u U
O
-To
?&r
in
ro ®Qu U
^T r& f^^.
'Q c^
® ^ Q ,
•P 0
o o
s 0 CQ
0)
CO • H H
u 0)
o
62
APPENDIX B: MODIFIED JACOBSON-SEASHORE CHECKLIST
Date
Aciul t C l a s s #
IKSTRUCTIOKSi
Name
Age Sex
This questionnaire is designed to determine what type of contact elders, ministers, and secretaries have with you. No one will know how you answered these questions except the author of the test (who is neither a staff member, nor an elder or deacon of this church). Please answer the questions as correctly as you can by making as many check marks as you need to indicate your contact with the following people.
HELPFUL DEFINITIONS FOR QUESTIONNAIREt
Frequency of Contact - check the number of times you are contacted by the individuals on the following pages in a given year.
Reason for Contact - the reason the persons on the following pages communicate with you is because:
Approval - he/she feels they have the assigned, legal position of command.
Influence - he/she feels they should use their capacity to influence your personal opinions concerning the welfare of the church.
Expertise - he/she views you as a competent advisor in the church.
Sociability - he/she enjoys social interaction with you.
P'unction of Message - when they communicate with you, their message serves toi
Inform - to tell you about a decision and how it is to be carried out.
Persuade - as a personal attempt to effect the quality of your work in the church.
Regulate - to share the making of policy decisions with you in order to help the church to remain alive and perpetuate itself.
Integrate - to help you improve your attitude, morale, satisfaction, and fulfillment as an individual in the church.
Importance of Contact - the extent to which their contacts are important to your growth as a member of the church.
EXAMPLE OF HOW TO FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
Personal Contact Checklist
Reason for Contact
Function of Message
Importance of Contact
Make as many check marks per person as are needed.
Ministers
Joe Barnett
Horace Coffman
o
a a
u o
QJ W
•P
I X or
•H 0 o
cn 2 3 4
O
01 V ro
W
0) OA
(1) •P ro
0
QJ - P ro IA 0) (U
-P
c
1 2 3 4
y y y y
OJ c o
y
o •u
••H
0)
o CO
•p ro 0
o
•u W 0
•u
4 5
y
63
U U C ro ro -P •P C U O o u a E ^ H o
o CD
C D 0 ro
• H w • P to U O c s:
LI 0
U C ro O P cn C ro O CU U
> i -P
u u C ro 0) +J D C cr 0 0) u LI
O
'^Ou,, /7
?&Q '- 0
Q«^(
'f?:^
OS-
?7
^^o.
in
r
(N)
'^-^5. ?t/l
'?& ^"^Se,
^^^n ®-^Q_
' - o
n
CN
'Jl^i
-f? ?<?& fOo,
T^A
^T ^^Q
CM
^^iy Tz r^^e.
^ f ^ Q ,
' ^ Q ,
^^ ^r l £
r&(7 in
^?c/, %
^r. -^^e; SQy,
^^-^s A Q s-^
c o
•p
u ro +J C 0 u r^
ro C 0 w L I
0 a.
•p CO
• H H j« :
u OJ x: u
• H •P • H
c • H »W d) V
d) d) CO
•• d) •p 0 ^
• cu cn ro a CO 3 0
• H > d> u p
c 0
Hi u cu c ^ o U CO •
LI -O >i CU CU
^ ' S cu CL
cu CO u
cu ^ ro a u rg ro CO S E ro
c
i CO ro
CU
c
CO LI CU 4J CO
• H
c
4J •P CU
s
Joe
c m E
>4-l
M-l 0 O
CU
u
Hor.
cu 0 0 o ^A
Car:
L I
CU T3 - H >
cu r-i
ro
0 L I L I
ro O
0
rar
Ger
>> d) ^ u
• H
to
rle
Cha
cu - H O—«
Bob
to (U
• H Li to •P cu u tu 01
u d) r~i
i 3 L I
U X
Bet
r-A r-A
0 > 0 • T *
ti-c cu
Mor
>-cu <-< u ?
c 0
I—(
c 0 CO
c • H f H
? ro a cu
ro C C
CO L I
CU D 0 a r*
V Bet
Wl
0 o ro
& ^
L I
tu Q E 0 (0 ^ SI
tn •^ 2 (0
c ro
64
tu AJ u u C ro ro JJ •P C LI O O U a E M-l
M o
o tu
c d O ro
•rA to -P to U d> C S 3
LI O U-l 4J
u C ro O 4J to C ro O
o u tii
u u C lO tu +J 3 C cr o Q) U L< fc U-l
o
5s,
'r?: f?
in
m
CN
^ t ^ o , •V ^
^? • fie ?^j
^ ^ ^ Q ,
'^J-o
^? rr . ^ 9 * '•^'=>o,
^ ' - °- .,,
CM
(N
Tr^r
'^^^ee 'M So, " .r.; ^ -?o .
^f^e
f^^, ^M
^AQ
f . , S"
in
n
(N
^ ^ G ,
+J u ro •P C 0 u i H
ro C 0 to u Q) O.
•P to
•H H ^ U 0 x: u
CO c o
• H 4-» • • H 0) c c?
•H rO
KA a
-a to
tu o
3 o
• H > CU u a c o
u QJ C X o o tn •
LI T3 >i CU a
PTi d)
U CU cu c
to ex
c ro E
ro CO
cu ^ ^ LI jg m CO ^ c ro
cu LI rfl
CO U CU
H
cu u
Chai
Edqar
LI
•rA r-t
coi:
C. P.
c d) cu LI O
cu tJ
wren
J. La'
• Ul c/l
>
X
John
H rH •rA
C
Lenno
LI
tu i-A V cu
•p tn
Huf
E. K.
LI LI
Jimmi
X 0 TD
5 LI GJ C LI
5
LI
Mane
Otis
0 f-{
u 0
McC
J. B.
to
r-l • ^
P 1—1
Rando
> 0 c a
•H
J. C.
to 4J LI
Robe
Juno
tr.
C
a
1—t
C
to LI C
T3
(0
Durwof)d
:J:
p •rA
„ •
c
65
Prior to receiving this questionnaire, did you know the
information in the message below or any part of it?
^^^ church worker's seminar, held at Broadway
3 Saturday, April 5th, was for 26 different congregations
5
^^o came to learn about Broadway's program.
Please Check One:
Yes I knew all of it.
Yes I knew part of it. If so please list the
numbers of the parts you knew
No I did not know any of it.
If your answer above was "Yes I knew all of it," or
"Yes I knew part of it," please complete the questionnaire
by providing the information requested below.
If your answer above was "No I did not know any of
it," skip over the next two pages, and continue with the
next message.
If you had the information in the message but the
facts you heard were different, please write the facts you
heard next to the associated number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
66
Question #1.
From whom did you first receive the information in the
message?
Question #2.
Where were you when you first received the information
in the message? Please check one:
At the Church building.
At my work.
At home.
Other (please specify).
Question #3.
How long ago did you first receive the information in
the message? Please circle the approximate time:
Today Yesterday 3 4 5 6 7 days ago
2 3 4 5 6 weeks ago
Question #4.
By what method did you first receive the information
in the message on the previous page? Please check
only one of the following methods:
Written or Visual Methods
Personal letter from the church.
Church bulletin.
Rays of Sunshine.
67
Bulletin board.
Public newspaper or magazine.
Church records.
Talking or Sound Methods
Talking with one other person in his presence.
Talking over the telephone.
Talking (and listening) in a small group of two
or more.
Attending an organized meeting or conference.
Overhearing what someone else said.
Radio or television.
Miscellaneous
I did it or I originated the information or
decision.
Other (please explain).
Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please 2£
on to the message on the next page.
68
Prior to receiving this questionnaire did you know the
information in the message below or any part of it?
1 2 3 Lynda Corn, new secretary for the educational department.
IS a graduate of Lubbock Christian College.
Please Check One:
Yes I knew all of it.
- Y^s I knew part of it. If so please list the
numbers of the parts you knew
No I did not know any of it.
If your answer above was "Yes I knew all of it," or
"Yes I knew part of it," please complete the questionnaire
by providing the information requested below.
If your answer above was "No I did not know any of it,"
you have completed the questionnaire. Please return the
questionnaire to your class chairman. Thank you very much
for your cooperation.
If you had the information in the message but the facts
you heard were different, please write the facts you heard
next to the associated number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
69
Question #1.
From whom did you first receive the information in the
message?
Question #2.
Where were you when you first received the information
in the message? Please check one:
At the church building.
At my work,
At home.
Other (please specify).
Question #3.
How long ago did you first receive the information in
the message? Please circle the approximate time:
Today Yesterday 3 4 5 6 7 days ago
2 3 4 5 6 weeks ago
Question #4.
By what method did you first receive the information
in the message on the previous page? Please check only
one of the following methods:
Written or Visual Methods
Personal letter from the church.
Church bulletin.
Rays of Sunshine.
Bulletin Board.
70
Public newspaper or magazine.
Church records. '
Talking or Sound Methods
Talking with one other person in his presence.
Talking over the telephone.
Talking (and listening) in a small group of two
or more.
Attending an organized meeting or conference.
Overhearing what someone else said.
Radio or television.
Miscellaneous
I did it or I originated the information or
decision.
Other (please explain) .
Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please
return the questionnaire to your class chairman next
Sunday.
