G P I R. Communication and Commitment in Organizations: A Social Identity Approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2001 Vol 4(3)

Transcription

1 Communication and Commitment in Organizations: A Social Identity Approach Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2001 Vol 4(3) G P I R Tom Postmes, Martin Tanis and Boudewijn de Wit University of Amsterdam Results of two studies show that horizontal communications (informal, with proximate colleagues, of socio-emotional content) are less strongly related to levels of commitment at both organizational and unit level, than are vertical communications (strategic information and communication with management). In addition, it was shown that vertical communication from senior management predicts organizational commitment best, whereas commitment with the unit is predicted better by vertical communication at that level. Results are inconsistent with approaches to commitment in organizations and teams that assume commitment stems from interpersonal relations, but more consistent with approaches to organizational commitment based on a social identity approach which tend to focus on social-level antecedents of commitment and identification. keywords identity communication, identification, organizational commitment, social THE CENTRAL issue in this paper is to identify aspects of organizational communication that may contribute to affective organizational commitment. A distinction is made between horizontal communication and vertical communication. In this paper, horizontal communication refers to the informal interpersonal and socioemotional interaction with proximate colleagues and others in the organization who are at the same level. In contrast, vertical communication refers to work-related communications up and down the organizational hierarchy, and may range from employees receiving information about the organization s strategy to the ability for giving bottom-up feedback and advice to management. On the basis of a social identity approach we postulated that vertical communications would be more strongly related to affective organizational commitment in comparison Author s note Address correspondence to Tom Postmes, ASCoR, University of Exeter, School of Psychology, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, United Kingdom. [ T.Postmes@exeter.ac.uk] Copyright 2001 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) [ (200107)4:3; ; ]

2 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) with horizontal socio-emotional interactions among peers. Indeed, evidence from a prior meta-analysis of the literature suggests that communication is an important predictor of commitment, but that horizontal communication is a much weaker predictor than vertical communication is. The present studies follow up on this result, by trying to replicate this result in primary research (Study 1) and by examining whether horizontal communications do predict commitment with smaller units within the organization (Study 2). The social identity approach: Consequences of identification In recent years we have witnessed a remarkable increase in the application of ideas derived from Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) and its sister theory Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1985) often jointly described as the social identity approach to organizational problems and processes. We assume that our readers are familiar with the basic assumptions of this approach, which proposes that social psychological processes are grounded in a particular understanding of the social context (requiring the identification of social categories and groups), and on the placement and thereby definition of the self within that social context (self-categorization and group identification, see e.g. Haslam, 2001, for an excellent and detailed introduction to the social identity approach in organizations). Beginning with the seminal work by Ashforth and Mael (1989) a growing body of research has demonstrated the diversity of applications to which this approach can be put, and has simultaneously contributed to our awareness of the fundamental consequences of social self-definition in the professional sphere. More concretely, the social identity approach has enriched our understanding of several issues which are long-standing concerns of organizational psychologists as well as social psychologists, among others productivity and performance, leadership, group decision making, conflicts and negotiations (Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000, for recent overviews). Most of this work, including most of the research presented at the 2000 EAESP Small group meeting on social identity processes in organizations, speaks to the importance of social identity and in particular the centrality of social identification as a principal determinant and process variable for many of the outcomes and issues that have been studied (see also Ellemers, 2000). Organizational commitment: Its relation to identification and its consequences The findings within social identity research in organizations resonate to a certain degree with the more macro-level observations made in the tradition of organizational commitment research. In this literature a consensus has emerged that commitment is of central importance to a wide range of organizational outcomes (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990). Although we discuss the consequences of commitment in some more detail below, we first address the thorny debate of whether the twin concepts of commitment and identification can be meaningfully distinguished in organizational contexts. Although several authors have argued that there are some important differences between commitment and identification (e.g. Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2000), others have questioned the distinction between the two both conceptually (Miller, Allen, Casey, & Johnson, 2000) and due to the considerable empirical overlap (estimated to be r =.70 in a recent meta-analysis, Fontenot & Scott, 2000). Indeed, on the basis of Tajfel s (1972) original definition of social identity it has recently been proposed that commitment should be considered one of three components of social identification (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). Conversely, the work of Meyer and Allen (1991) has suggested that the affective components of employees commitment (in contrast to continuance and normative commitment) refers to the employee s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (p. 67, see also Allen & Meyer, 1988, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Reichers, 1985). Indeed this suggests that for all practical purposes the 228

3 Postmes et al. communication and commitment terms identification and (affective) commitment could be used interchangeably, although we are aware of the important differences between the two concepts historically and in relation to the disciplines which they stem from (e.g. Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Leaving these theoretical distinctions aside for the moment, we return to the main thread of the argument with the (admittedly somewhat simplified) observation that research of organizational commitment tends to supplement the empirical observations and theoretical arguments of the social identity approach. Commitment research has shown that it is quite strongly related to several important organizational consequences such as absenteeism, turnover, intention to search for other jobs and to leave the organization (e.g. Allen & Meyer, 1996; Somers & Casal, 1994; Tett & Meyer, 1993), and to a lesser degree to performance measures (e.g. Larson & Fukami, 1984; but see Meyer & Allen, 1997; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990). Major reviews in this area substantiate that these effects are quite robust and general. For example, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conducted a meta-analysis which showed that organizational commitment consistently and strongly predicts attendance and lateness and correlates negatively with turnover, the intention to search for job alternatives and to leave one s job. Thus, there is convergent evidence that employees with low organizational commitment tend to leave the organization more quickly as opposed to people with a high organizational commitment, and to a lesser extent that committed employees are willing to invest more effort on behalf of their organization in comparison with uncommitted employees. All of this speaks to the importance of both identification and commitment for organizations, especially to the extent that questions of loyalty are more important in professional contexts now than ever before (Albert, 1998). Antecedents of commitment and identification Despite the increasing recognition of the powerful influence that both commitment and identification in organizations may exert on a wide range of organizational outcomes and processes, as described above, our knowledge of the antecedents of commitment and identification is fragmented at best (Ellemers, 2000). Insight into such determinants could not only be of considerable practical value for organizations, but also of theoretical value, as it could aid our understanding of some of the bases of social aggregation within larger social structures. In part, the paucity of evidence is related to the different traditions from which the research on commitment and identification stems. Both literatures have emphasized different factors as important determinants, and this reflects to some extent that these two perspectives are based on fundamentally different perspectives on social identification and commitment. In a nutshell, the meta-theoretical differences find their origin in the different conceptions of the relation of the individual to the group: whereas the social identity approach is based on the assumption that identification implies that an individual ceases to distinguish between the self and the group 1 the distinction between social and individual losing its subjective relevance the commitment literature tends to think of commitment as an affective bond between the individual and the organization (Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2000). As a result of this difference, the antecedents both perspectives have focused on tend not to be the same. In the commitment literature, where affective commitment is equated with identification qua attraction, the determinants of commitment are often similar to the determinants of other forms of attraction, and in particular interpersonal determinants (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Thus, researchers have focused on factors such as proximity, similarity, interpersonal interaction, leadership, and aspects of the exchange relationship and reciprocity (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Especially relevant to the discussion here is that one particular set of determinants of organizational commitment has been located in the realm of interpersonal relations among coworkers and their direct superiors 229

4 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) (Buchanan, 1974; Kanter, 1968; Sheldon, 1971). Conversely, the social identity approach, which revolves around a definition of identification qua self-definition, has focused more on aspects that enhance the salience of social categorizations and that help define the identity of the group as a whole, such as group distinctiveness, intergroup conflict, and to a lesser extent factors such as proximity and similarity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001). From the latter background, one of the key means of setting the stage for enhancing identification or commitment would be to unequivocally define what the organization stands for by means of various types of organizational communication (Kramer, 1991; see also Smidts, van Riel, & Pruyn, 2000). From the former, relational factors within organizations and groups should also (if not more so) be predictive of commitment. It is this issue which is central to the rest of this paper and the present research. The relation between communication and commitment It has often been observed that communication creates the conditions for commitment, and hence should be seen as one of its important antecedents (Foy, 1994; Katz & Kahn, 1972; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Empirical evidence tends to support this assumption: One of the most striking findings of Mathieu and Zajac s (1990) meta-analysis was the strong impact of communication. Indeed, communication was the strongest of all contextual antecedents reported (r t =.45). However, unfortunately only four studies were included in their analysis, and then only ones that focused on satisfaction with one s superiors interaction. The strength of this effect, in combination with the doubts as to its robustness, in itself provides a reason to explore the communication commitment relation in more depth. However, of more importance to us in the present research is the consideration that we would like to know more of what types of communication are particularly good predictors of commitment. After all, there is a striking discrepancy between the different types of organizational communication even in the relatively simple terms of sender, content, and context of communications. Of the many possible distinctions between types of communication that can be made and the one we focus on here, partly due to prior research which is discussed in more detail below is a particular distinction between horizontal and vertical communication that captures the difference between the two approaches to identification discussed above: identification qua attraction and identification qua self-definition. This reflects a distinction between informal and socio-emotional communications with proximate colleagues (in general the brunt of day to day organizational communication), and the instrumental and bureaucratic organizational communication as practiced by (especially) higher level management. This conception of horizontal communication reflects some of the characteristics of the antecedents of identification qua attraction. On the basis of current developments in organizational theory, it would appear that horizontal (informal and socio-emotional) communication is considered very important for organizational involvement (Foy, 1994; Smith, 1997). This assumption is corroborated to a certain extent by research within groups, which has shown that communications with proximate others generally increases attachment and cohesiveness (Levine & Moreland, 1990; Lott & Lott, 1965). At the interpersonal level, affective socioemotional exchanges such as self-disclosure are related to attachment and relationship development (e.g. Collins & Miller, 1994). In group research, positive content and speech accommodation have proven powerful precursors to social identification (Giles & Coupland, 1991). Conversely, the conception of vertical communication as defined above is believed to have a greater impact on identification qua selfdefinition, because vertical communication should help define what the organization stands for, as it is less obviously related to the particular characteristics of individuals within the organization, and more representative of the organization as a whole. By enhancing the distinctiveness, vertical communication would 230

5 Postmes et al. communication and commitment thereby make it easier for people to identify themselves with the organization as an entity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In sum, attachment to a social group or organization could well be strongly related to horizontal communication, at least according to some perspectives on what identification is. According to other perspectives, identification is more likely to be enhanced by vertical communication. Prior research In order to investigate more closely the relation between communication and organizational communication, we recently conducted a metaanalysis of over 30 studies examining this relationship (Postmes, Tanis, & De Wit, 2000). These studies had a total sample size of thousands of respondents, and yielded about 70 relevant effect size estimates (these figures are based on our first wave of data collection). The results of the meta-analysis show that organizational communication and organizational commitment are related to each other positively, and that this is a moderately strong effect. However, the relation between communication and commitment was not equally strong for all types of communication. In particular, employees were strongly committed if they obtained adequate information to perform their task, and if this information was presented to them via formal bureaucratic channels rather than informally. Communications with proximate colleagues and with direct superiors predicted commitment less well than communication with more senior management did, and communication with a socio-emotional content was less predictive of commitment than formal communication was. Moreover, the relation between communication and commitment was stronger in large organizations. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that if there would be a causal relation such that communication fosters commitment vertical organizational communication is more effective in eliciting affective commitment than horizontal socioemotional communication. Consistent with the argument above, the limited impact of socio-emotional, informal, interpersonal and proximate communication on commitment could be paradoxical from a perspective that takes interpersonal relationships as the starting point for social affiliation, but not from a perspective which takes a more social level analysis. However, meta-analyses by themselves are not panaceas for finding universal truths. The principal problem with metaanalyses is that they rely on a post hoc interpretation of research and procedures, which is necessarily based on a less comprehensive understanding and representation of the empirical evidence than primary research. In addition, meta-analyses tend to focus on differences between studies, which may not be the best basis for policies within groups (or in this case organizations). Therefore, one should at least seek to replicate the findings of a metaanalysis in primary research (the purpose of Study 1). Moreover, meta-analyses are not only fallible because the interpretations of prior findings may be incorrect, but also because prior research may have consistently investigated particular kinds of contexts and constructs, using particular kinds of methodology. In particular, the meta-analysis did not allow for the clear distinction between two dimensions of communication, one being socio-emotional vs. workoriented content, the other being the locus of communicators as higher level management vs. more proximate colleagues. In part this may be due to the fact that (as we found out in later research) socio-emotional content is rarely discussed with superiors, and almost never with higher level management. Nonetheless this natural confounding of these two variables is something that we attempted to remedy in the present studies. Finally a problem with meta-analyses is that they are good for establishing if relations between variables exist, but that possible explanations of these relations will always have to be followed up on in primary research. One of the most likely explanations of the absence of effects of horizontal communication on commitment is that commitment at that level is neither the only nor perhaps the most relevant focus of commitment for employees (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; 231

6 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) Becker, 1992; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Reichers, 1985; van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). Other commitments may be more strongly affected by personal relations with others within the organization. For example, within smaller groups and units interpersonal relations would appear to be much more central and powerful determinants of group-based attraction (Lott & Lott, 1965; but see Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987 for a rather different view). Such an approach would suggest that horizontal and socio-emotional communication might have more of an impact on commitment and identification with (sub)units within the organization, and we examine this alternative explanation in Study 2. In sum, the purpose of this research is to replicate results of a prior meta-analysis in primary research, and secondly to examine an alternative explanation for this finding. In order to achieve this, we conducted a study of the relation between perceptions of organizational communication and organizational commitment in two organizations. In the first study, we focus on the variables included in the metaanalysis itself, and we ask whether these results can be replicated. In the second study, we examine a broader range of communication variables, and we look at commitment at both the organizational and the unit level. Study 1 The first study examined affective organizational commitment of the employees of a Dutch distance learning institute. In addition, perceptions of horizontal and vertical communication were included in the questionnaire. A series of structural equations models was conducted with the purpose of identifying whether horizontal or vertical communication would predict organizational commitment best. The reason that communication is assumed to be an antecedent of commitment rather than a consequence is partly because that is the prevalent assumption in the literature (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), because this assumption is supported by experimental research, and because it best accounts for some of the specific communication - commitment relations found in the literature (see the general discussion). The first model tested the assumption that horizontal communication would predict commitment. The second model tested the assumption that commitment would be best predicted by vertical communication. The final model included both horizontal and vertical communication as predictors of commitment. Predictions were that the meta-analytic results would be confirmed: horizontal communication was expected to be a weaker predictor of commitment, vertical communication a stronger predictor. Method All 237 employees of a distance learning institute received a questionnaire, of which 105 were returned (a 44% response rate). Respondents were 46 men (43.8%) and 59 women (56.2%) with a mean age of 38 years. Average employment within the organization was 14 years. These were all office employees of a large institute of over a thousand teachers and support staff throughout The Netherlands. In this study, we focused only on the office employees housed in one office building in the west of The Netherlands. Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of an affective organizational commitment measure, as well as several instruments assessing perceptions of organizational communication all measured on 5-point scales (see the appendix for a listing of items used and for scale reliabilities). Affective organizational commitment was measured using 5 items from the Allen and Meyer (1990) questionnaire, which were translated and adapted to the Dutch situation (De Gilder, Van den Heuvel, & Ellemers, 1997, alpha =.88). The perception of organizational communication distinguished four aspects. The first three assessed aspects of vertical communication, such as satisfaction with the communication with management, and used instruments adapted from standardized communication audits (Downs & Adrian, 1997). The three scales included were the perceived quantity of strategic information regarding the company s policies and direction (5 items, alpha =.90), the 232

7 Postmes et al. communication and commitment quantity of vertical interaction with management (top-down and bottom-up, 3 items, alpha =.90), and the satisfaction with management s responses to bottom-up feedback (3 items, alpha =.78). In addition, three items measured employees perceptions of the quantity and quality of social interaction with their colleagues. Analyses Our analyses consisted of the testing of several models of the communication commitment relationship. All models were tested using the structural equation modeling program EQS version 5.7a for Windows (Bentler, 1989). The conventional test of statistical significance when evaluating a structural equation model is the chi-square goodness-of-fit index. For this index, better fit is represented by lower chi-squares, and higher chi-squares indicate worse fit. A non-significant chi-square test statistic indicates that the difference between the estimated and observed variance covariance matrices is not reliable; hence that the model fits the data well. Other indices provide additional information about the fit of the model, and are designed to provide more stable estimates of fit. We report the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Bentler Bonnett Normed Fit Index (NFI). Both are indices of the degree to which the model in question is superior to a null model, which specifies no covariance between the variables. These indices may vary from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no fit, and 1 indicating a perfect fit. Values over 0.90 are generally considered to reflect adequate fit of the model to the data (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). Fit indices are not the only indicator by which the adequacy of models can be evaluated; we also assessed whether the models hypothesized relations were statistically significant or not. This is especially important in the present study: our purpose was to compare the extent to which different predictors explained variations in the degree of organizational commitment. Results Correlations among dependent and independent variables, scale means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 1. The horizontal communication model This model tested the prediction that the more people have friendly and rewarding interactions with their proximate colleagues, the more they will feel identified with the organization. To test this prediction, we specified a model in which horizontal communication was operationalized as a latent factor that was predicted by three indicators: the perceptions of the quantity of social interaction with (1) colleagues within the unit, (2) the quality of these interactions, and (3) the perceptions of the quantity of social interaction with colleagues outside the unit. This latent factor was hypothesized to predict organizational commitment. The hypothesized model fit the data well, which indicates that the latent factor of horizontal communication was able to adequately account for the covariation among the variables. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables in structural equation models, Study 1 M SD Quantity of strategic information (org.) Quantity of vertical interaction (org.) ** 3. Satisfaction with management s responses (org.) **.52** 4. Social communication (unit) Social communication (org.) *.07.50** 6. Overall grade communication (unit) **.24* 7. Commitment to organization **.27**.31**.17.24*.11 * p <.05 ** p <.01. Note: N = 105. Higher scores indicate higher levels of each dependent measure. 233

8 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) indicate a good match between the estimated and observed covariance matrices, ( 2 (2) = 4.25, p =.12, ns, NFI =.95, CFI =.97). However, although this model fit the data well, the estimated standardized path from horizontal communication to organizational commitment was not reliable ( =.17, Z = 1.74, p =.08, ns). Thus, the prediction that horizontal communication would not be a strong predictor of organizational commitment was confirmed. The vertical communication model This model tested the prediction that the more people evaluate the communication with toplevel management positively, the more they will feel identified with the organization. To test this prediction, we specified a model in which vertical communication was a latent factor predicted by three indicators: the quantity of strategic communication and vertical interaction, and the satisfaction with management s responses to feedback. As in the previous model, this latent factor of communication was hypothesized to predict organizational commitment. Once more, the hypothesized model fit the data well, indicating that the latent factor of vertical communication was able to adequately account for the covariation among the variables. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, all indicated a very good match existed between the estimated and observed covariance matrices ( 2 (2) = 0.48, p =.79, ns, NFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00). Moreover, the estimated path from vertical communication to organizational commitment was highly reliable ( =.40, Z = 3.54, p <.001). Thus, the prediction that vertical communication would be a strong predictor of organizational commitment was confirmed: the percentage of variance explained by vertical communication (16%) was substantially greater than that explained by horizontal communication in the previous model (3%) ( R 2 =.13). Moreover, the fit of the vertical communication model was better than that of the horizontal model ( 2 (1) = 3.77, p =.05). The mixed model This model tested the prediction that positive evaluations of both horizontal and vertical communication are necessary for people to feel identified with the organization. To test this prediction, we specified a model in which the two latent factors of horizontal and vertical communication described above were specified. Both latent factors of communication were included as predictors of organizational commitment. In addition, we allowed the two factors to be correlated with each other: it could be possible that evaluations of communication are strongly related to each other. The hypothesized model displayed in Figure 1 fit the data reasonably well. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, all indicated that the model specified rendered an acceptable match between the estimated and observed covariance matrices ( 2 (12) = 19.87, p =.07, ns, NFI =.92, CFI =.95). In confirmation of the horizontal and vertical communication models tested above, the estimated path from vertical communication to organizational commitment was highly reliable ( =.41, Z = 3.69, p <.001), whereas the path from horizontal communication to commitment was just reliable ( =.18, Z = 1.99, p <.05). Discussion Results provide support for the hypothesis that horizontal communication is a weak predictor of organizational commitment, whereas vertical communication is a stronger predictor. Thus, findings of a prior meta-analysis are replicated. Results indicate that employees perception of and satisfaction with aspects of communication with management are more strongly related to reported organizational commitment than their perceptions of and satisfaction with socioemotional communications with proximate colleagues are. One explanation of this result is that horizontal communication as operationalized here (and in the prior research included in the meta-analysis) consists almost entirely of socio-emotional communication, and hence is supposedly relevant especially to interpersonal relations. In line with a social identity approach to organizations (Haslam, 2001), the interpersonal relationships that people have do not necessarily lead to a 234

9 Postmes et al. communication and commitment Vertical interaction (org.).72* Satisfaction management (unit).61* Org. communication.41* Strategic info. (org.).83* -.03 Org. commitment Social comm. (unit) 1.00*.18* Social comm. (org.).58* Social Interaction overall communication (unit).50* Figure 1. Structural equation solution for the Mixed Model, Study 1 *p <.05. common group identification (Hogg, 1992; Turner et al., 1987). Rather, interpersonal relationships appear to be most relevant to people s personal identity, and not so relevant to social identity and social identification (Tajfel, 1978). This would explain why other types of communication, which are less concerned with interpersonal relations and more with organizational and work-related issues, would be more powerful determinants of commitment, because they are more relevant to one s self-definition as a member of the organization. A second explanation is that these results simply reflect the fact that people have different foci of identification and commitment (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Becker, 1992; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Reichers, 1985; van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). It is logical to assume that communications at a particular level within the organization are most strongly related to commitment at that level. Thus, senior management s communications would speak to identification with the organization as a whole, whereas communications at the unit level would be more important for commitment at that level. Table 2. Goodness of fit measures for the three theoretical models tested, Study 1 and Study 2 Model 2 df p CFI NFI Study 1 (N = 105) Horizontal communication < Vertical communication.48 2 < Mixed < Study 2 (N = 810) Horizontal communication < Vertical communication < Mixed <

10 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) A problem with disentangling these potential explanations is the confounding of two dimensions of communication in the research discussed so far, namely content (socio-emotional vs. work-oriented) and locus (higher level management vs. proximate colleagues). As we noted in the introduction, these dimensions could not be distinguished in the prior metaanalysis, and indeed they are to some extent naturally confounded (as socio-emotional interaction with senior management tends to be rare). This makes it hard to distinguish between the two separate issues that may play a role in these results. In order to address this, a followup study was designed which takes multiple foci of commitment into account, and which examines both socio-emotional and work-related communications within the unit. Study 2 In order to test these alternative explanations, Study 2 distinguishes between communication and commitment at two levels: that of the organization and that of the work unit or team. Units are generally much smaller entities within the organization, whose size may range (at least in the organization at hand) between 8 and 80 people. As in Study 1, three models were tested. The first proposes that horizontal and socio-emotional communication is a predictor of commitment, the second that vertical and work-related communication is a predictor. The third is a mixed model with both horizontal and vertical commitment as predictors. However, because both unit and organizational commitment are included we now measure vertical communication at two levels (that of general management and unit management) and commitment at two levels (the organization and the unit). Building on the potential explanations for the findings of Study 1, predictions are that commitment at each level will be best predicted by communications at that level. Thus, unit-level communications are stronger predictors of unit-level commitment, whereas organization-level communications are stronger predictors of organizational commitment. In addition, we predict that vertical workrelated communication at the unit level is a stronger predictor of commitment than horizontal and socio-emotional communication within the unit are. Thus, vertical organizational communication should predict organizational commitment, and vertical unit communication should predict unit commitment, but horizontal communication should once more predict relatively little variance. Method The second study was conducted within one of the major Dutch insurance companies with clients in the private as well as in the professional sphere. The organization is divided into eight departments dispersed all over The Netherlands, and each department is divided into smaller units of between 8 and 74 employees (the median was 24 employees, there were 56 units in total). A total of 1169 questionnaires were sent to a stratified random sample of employees, who were selected to represent each of the organization s units. A total of 810 questionnaires were returned, and the response rate was very high: 69 percent. The questionnaire was identical to that of Study 1, but all questions except for horizontal communication were asked twice: once with regard to the organization as a whole, and once with regard to the unit in which employees worked. Some questions could not be asked at the unit level, because some aspects of vertical communication were not relevant for unit management (see the appendix for details). As in Study 1, construct reliabilities were satisfactory, ranging from.75 to.86 (see the appendix). Results Preliminary analyses Correlations among dependent and independent variables, scale means, standard deviations, and construct reliabilities are displayed in Table 3. We conducted a preliminary confirmatory factor analysis to verify whether vertical evaluations of communication within the organization as a whole could be meaningfully distinguished from vertical communication at the unit level. Results indicated that although the two types of communication 236

11 Postmes et al. communication and commitment are correlated ( =.68, Z = 6.30, p <.001), the two-factor model fit the data better than the onefactor model. In the models specified, the measurement errors of the same type of communication evaluation were allowed to correlate across levels (organization and unit). This reflects the assumption that the evaluations of each type share a common error variance that should not be part of the model (Kline, 1998, p. 201). The one-factor model did not fit the data acceptably, as suggested by the fit indices ( 2 (6) = , p <.001, NFI =.89, CFI =.89). In contrast, the two-factor model was a reliable improvement over the one-factor model, and fit the data well ( 2 (5) = 46.01, p <.001, 2 (1) = , p <.001, NFI =.97, CFI =.97). It should be noted here that the fact that the model s 2 is still reliable is not surprising given the sample size, N = 810. With such large samples, other fit indices such as CFI are more reliable indicators. The horizontal communication model This model tested the prediction that horizontal communication will increase identification with the organization. The model was tested similarly to Study 1, but now the latent factor of horizontal communication was hypothesized to predict organizational commitment as well as unit commitment. The errors of these two types of commitment were allowed to correlate, which reflects the assumption that commitment at both levels should have error variance in common, and that the model should not take this variance into account when making the predictions of commitment at each separate level. The hypothesized model fit the data well, which also indicates that the latent factor of horizontal communication was able to adequately account for the covariation among the variables. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, indicate a good match between the estimated and observed covariance matrices ( 2 (4) = 33.53, p <.001, NFI =.96, CFI =.97). As in Study 1, the estimated standardized path from horizontal communication to organizational commitment was not reliable (and even slightly negative) ( =.05, Z = 1.29, p =.20, ns). Thus, once more the prediction that horizontal communication would not be a strong predictor of organizational commitment was confirmed. More surprisingly, the path from horizontal communication to unit commitment was also not reliable ( =.07, Z = 1.89 p =.06, ns). That horizontal communication had no reliable direct effects on either type of commitment is especially remarkable given the sample size: even small effects would have been reliable with such a sample size. The fact that no reliable effects were obtained therefore provides strong evidence that perceptions of horizontal communication are not very predictive of commitment. The vertical communication model The model tested differed from that of Study 1 in that two types of vertical communication were included, as well as two types of commitment (see Figure 2). As described above, errors of closely related independent and dependent variables were correlated. The model tested the prediction that vertical organizational communication would influence organizational commitment, and that vertical unit communication would influence unit commitment. In addition, the crossover predictions were also tested, although we assumed that these paths would be small. The hypotheses were confirmed by the estimated model. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, all indicated that the match between the estimated and observed covariance matrices was good ( 2 (13) = 62.49, p <.001, NFI =.97, CFI =.98). As predicted, the estimated path from vertical organizational communication to organizational commitment was highly reliable ( =.36, Z = 8.09, p <.001). Also, the prediction that vertical unit communication would be a predictor of unit commitment was confirmed: the estimated path was highly reliable ( =.36, Z = 8.25, p <.001). Of the crossover paths, only one emerged as reliable (although it was much weaker than the other predictors): vertical organizational communication was a reliable predictor of unit commitment ( =.12, Z = 2.33, p <.05). The mixed model As in Study 1, this model attempted to let both horizontal and vertical communication be predictors of commitment, and combines the two models above. In the 237

12 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) Figure 2. Structural equation solution for the Vertical Communication Model, Study 2 *p <.05. model specified, all three types of communication were allowed to covary, and in comparison with the vertical communication model, horizontal communication was also a predictor of organizational and unit commitment. Although the hypothesized model fit the data reasonably well, the addition of horizontal communication did not add explanatory power to the model. Goodness-of-fit indices, reported in Table 2, indicated that the model achieved an acceptable match between the estimated and observed covariance matrices ( 2 (33) = , p <.001, NFI =.92, CFI =.93). However, horizontal communication once more did not predict any significant amount of variance in commitment either at the organizational or at the unit level. In fact, the only reliable relation that was found in the model between horizontal communication and any other variable was a significant covariation with vertical communication within the unit ( =.28, Z = 4.55, p <.001). Discussion The results of Study 2 show that horizontal communication is only weakly related to organizational commitment and to unit commitment. In fact, the results are even clearer than those of Study 1: despite a very large sample, the path between horizontal communication and commitment did not differ reliably from zero. Once more, confirming findings of the first study, vertical communication was a strong predictor of commitment. Employees perception of and satisfaction with aspects of communication with management were strongly related to organizational commitment, and vertical communication with the unit s supervisor or manager was strongly related to unit commitment. In sum, we may infer two things from these results: (a) commitment with the organization or parts of it is best predicted by communication that is seen to originate from the level at which commitment is measured, unit communication predicting unit commitment, and organizational communication predicting organizational commitment, (b) horizontal communication with coworkers of an informal and socio-emotional nature is less strongly related to commitment with the unit than one s appreciation of the quantity and quality of vertical communication within the unit. 238

13 Postmes et al. communication and commitment Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables in structural equation models, Study 2 M SD Quantity of strategic information (organization) Quantity of strategic information (unit) ** 3. Quantity of vertical interaction (organization) **.29** 4. Quantity of vertical interaction (unit) **.38**.44** 5. Satisfaction with management s responses **.36**.47**.35** (organization) 6. Satisfaction with management s responses (unit) **.41**.26**.62**.45** 7. Social communication (unit) *.15**.02.15**.05.08* 8. Social communication (organization) *.14**.17**.16**.09*.06.40** 9. Overall grade communication (unit) **.27**.04.21**.10**.30**.54**.22** 10. Commitment to organization **.17**.24**.19**.28**.16** Commitment to unit **.27**.24**.31**.26**.35** **.65** * p <.05; ** p <.01. Note: N = 810. Higher scores indicate higher levels of each dependent measure. 239

14 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3) General discussion Two studies support and extend the conclusions of a prior meta-analysis: vertical communication is more strongly related to commitment than horizontal communication is. In other words, people s sense of belonging to the organization does not primarily depend on the quality of their informal and socio-emotional interactions with peers and proximate colleagues, but it is related more strongly to their appreciation of the management s communications. This finding was not only obtained for feelings of commitment to the organization which may have been large and somewhat impersonal structures but also for commitment to teams and units. A second conclusion that may be drawn from the results of the second study is perhaps less surprising: communication at a specific organizational level may elicit commitment at that level, but much less so at different levels of organizational abstraction. That results especially at the unit level indicate that the quality of communication relations with coworkers is less important than having good communications with management has certain implications for the meta-theoretical conceptualization of commitment. Findings suggests that interpersonal interaction and pleasant working relations are not directly responsible for commitment at either the organizational or the unit level, and this result would appear to be somewhat inconsistent with the conception of identification qua attraction. After all, an attraction-based conception of identification or commitment assumes that good interpersonal relations form if not the basis than certainly an important aspect of people s attachment to the group or organization (Lott & Lott, 1965; Sheldon, 1971). This argument is strengthened by the fact that this research did not rely on a measure of identification in a strictly self-categorical sense (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), but that we used an affective commitment scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990; De Gilder et al., 1997). This means that results were obtained using a measure which does not contain a cognitive self-categorical component, but mainly consists of affective items which would appear to be more sensitive to emotional attachment a priori, making the absence of a horizontal communication commitment relation all the more remarkable. This conclusion should not be overgeneralized, however, for it is entirely possible that vertical communication presented in a friendly and engaging manner is more effective in eliciting commitment and identification (attachment and self-definition reinforcing each other) than that which is not. Nonetheless, these findings do suggest that although the relations among coworkers may be important determinants of several aspects of people s working experiences (and we have no doubt that they are related to satisfaction and well being, among others), commitment is not one of them. Although findings are inconsistent with the identification qua attraction conceptions, they are much more in line with what would be expected on the basis of the identification qua selfdefinition perspective. On the one hand the findings are consistent with the suggestion that horizontal communication, to the extent that it reflects primarily interpersonal communication, should not necessarily lead to a common group identification or commitment (Hogg, 1992; Turner et al., 1987). Indeed, findings in experimental research have indicated that depersonalized communication is under some circumstances a more powerful predictor of social influence and social identification than interpersonal (individuated) interaction is (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998, 1999). On the other hand, this is consistent with the suggestion that vertical communication strengthens the distinctiveness of the organization and helps to define what the organization stands for in the eyes of its employees. On the basis of this explanation, one may venture that vertical communication fosters commitment to the extent that it succeeds in clarifying the nature of the organization for employees. After all, in contrast to tangible social groups, organizations tend to be rather ill defined and confused entities, composed of rivaling factions and departments, and often characterized by divisions along multiple lines. It may be that the understanding and appreciation 240

15 Postmes et al. communication and commitment of the organization as an entity is especially gained from formal information, communiqués and feedback about the organization s strategic objectives that reach the employee from higher regions. In this sense, communication may have its impact on organizational commitment primarily because it reduces uncertainty and thereby helps employees define and comprehend what their organization is about. Thus, vertical communication may aid the self-definition of an organization, and thereby reinforce employees self-definition within it. It is often argued that interpersonal communications and the social processes that occur within teams are of vital importance to modern organizations (Foy, 1994; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995; Smith, 1997). This belief is reflected in several practices: by budgets spent on team buildings, by programs that strive for horizontal integration and flattening of organizational hierarchies, by concrete management strategies such as management by walking around and broader approaches such as total quality management, and by aspects of the human resource endeavor more generally. Although our findings do not show that horizontal communication is unimportant within organizations and indeed that is not the conclusion one should draw from these findings they do suggest that many of the assumptions made about interpersonal communications and their impact on teams and the organization as a whole might have to be treated with more caution than is often the case. In particular one should be careful not to confuse the interpersonal with the social. For example, it is possible that good personal relations will benefit the organization and improve team functioning, that interpersonal networks will strengthen the organization, or that a manager who walks around while adopting an informal interaction style with underlings will do an organization some good (cf. Harley, 1999). All these assumptions may be true to a certain extent, but the present findings suggest that if they are, it is possible that this is because interpersonal relations have improved, rather than that people s relation to the organization has substantially changed. The point is that employees do not appear to confuse their interpersonal relationships with colleagues, team members, and direct supervisors with their relationship with the organization (Tajfel, 1978). It is suggested by the present findings that however well employees get on with each other interpersonally, they are more inclined to judge the organization in the light of its stated policies and strategies rather than in terms of relationships. Indeed, given the current trends in management, in which employees steadily increasing workload is repaid with decreasing security (Warhurst & Thompson, 1998), it might be fair to say that employees show good judgment of what matters in an organization: for employees good interpersonal relations appear to be no substitute for good management. Good management, at least according to these findings and within these organizations, keeps employees well informed about the future directions of the organization (in particular the organization s strategies and policies), allows them to interact with management about their policies, and lets this interaction have an impact on managerial decisions. In this sense, our findings are consistent with a human relations perspective on organizations, because they indicate that organizational communication is most productive in the sense of eliciting employee commitment if it is a two-way process of communication, rather than a oneway flow of feedback and instructions (Katz & Kahn, 1972; Leavitt, 1972). However, our findings also go beyond the human relations school of thought by qualifying the nature of communications needed: horizontal communications are not sufficient (cf. Foy, 1994). All of these findings speak to the usefulness of the social identity approach in organizational processes, in understanding not merely the consequences of organizational commitment and identification (Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000), but also in identifying its possible antecedents. The social identity approach is even more useful because it acknowledges the highly contextualized nature of commitment and identification: social identification is not an individual difference variable, but depends on contextual factors that may enhance the salience of 241