Division of Research School of Business Administration September 1990 EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION: A COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK Working Paper #637R Robert E. Quinn, University of Michigan Herbert W. Hildebrandt, University of Michigan Priscilla Rogers, University of Michigan Michael P. Thompson, Brigham Young University FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY None of this material is to be quoted or reproduced without the expressed permission of the Division of Research Copyright 1990 University of Michigan School of Business Administration Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1234

a / ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION: A COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK Robert E. Quinn, School of Business, University of Michigan Herbert W. Hildebrandt, School of Business, University of Michigan Priscilla S. Rogers, School of Business, University of Michigan Michael P. Thompson, School of Management, Brigham Young University ABSTRACT Through the history of communication there has been an interest in evaluating message effectiveness. More recently, communication specialists stress the need for effectiveness measures that account for situational expectations and constraints. Drawing from the literature on organizational and managerial effectiveness, we constructed an empirical model applicable to presentational communication. Over 100 communication professors evaluated the relevance of 32 sets of effectiveness criteria for six different types of business presentations: three oral and three written. Their judgments were used to create similarity scores, which were submitted to multidimensional scaling. A three-dimensional model emerged. This "competing values model" illustrates the dynamic interplay between the highly contrasting characteristics of four general foci or categories of presentational communication: relational, informational, instructional, and transformational. In conclusion, we discuss the benefits of the model and suggest its usefulness as a evaluative tool, particularly for managerial training. INTRODUCTION Communication is an ancient discipline which has evolved considerably. Throughout this evolutionary process, effectiveness has been a central concer. In the fifth century BC, for Instance, Corax, one of the first practitioners of human discourse, suggested the need for speakers to "produce an effect in listeners" (Hlnks, 1940; Kennedy, 1959). Such a need filters through the ages In the voices of familiar sophists, rhetoricians, logicians, philosophers, preachers, and textbook writers, as one pivotal question: How does one communicate effectively? In addressing this question, subsequent writers add, amend or critique the work of predecessors. Modem writers are no less hesitant to express dissatisfaction with the traditional approaches to presentational effectiveness. Smith (1968, 323), for example, calls for a "dynamic" model that views speech as a continuous stimulus stream with corresponding effects on the audience. Past models, he contends, are "static" and do not faithfully account for the communication processes they purport to describe, nor are they viable as generators of new communication research. Monge (1973, 16) suggests that theory construction in the future should "focus on a new set of variables and employ a new set of analytic techniques."

Growing criticism is also extended to speaking and writing "rules" that are a part of pedagogical texts. There is a recognition that formulaic, prescriptive approaches alone do not produce effects in listeners or in readers. Halpern (1988) characterizes current pedagogy as "folklore and textbook incantations about what business and technical communications ought to be." Hagge (1989) believes pedagogy "Ignores the real complexities of how writers actually get texts to cohere in the real world." Similarly, Huckin and Hutz (1987) conclude that the rules of the plain English movement lack a solid empirical base of support because they fail to depict how language is actually used. Recent field research supports these views. Brown & Herndl (1986) discovered that managers deliberately employed superfluous nominalizations and narrative, structures understood as "verbose" and "muddy" and which the managers could have eliminated. Similarly, Rogers (1989) found that automotive field managers persisted in using narrative for their Dealer Contact Reports despite the company's declared preference for an inductive problem-recommendation format. These and other findings suggest the inadequacy of writing rules, forms and formulas that do not account for situational demands communicators face day-to-day. As Janis writes: "Anyone who is willing to make a comparison cannot fail to be Impressed by the disparity between 'rules' that govern the style of business correspondence and the actual on-the-job performance in almost any large company" (1973, 81). The rules of rhetoric, Janis concludes, are unrealistic because they are not responsive to the context of communication. As early as the fifties, social psychologists tried to replace the hunches of ancient rhetoricians with experimentally-grounded laws of behavior by identifying elements of messages that would trigger particular audience reactions. Hovland, Janis and Kelly (1953) actually tested various modes of message presentation and tried to measure changes in audience attitudes. Hovland and his colleagues were interested in many of the same questions that occupied earlier rhetoricians: Are messages on controversial topics more persuasive if their counter-arguments are included or omitted? Is an appeal to fear more effective than an appeal to some intrinsic rationality? Is it more effective to present the strongest arguments in a case first or last? In contrast to the ancients, Hovland and his contemporaries applied the scientific method to these questions. By analyzing audience reactions in a systematic way they attempted to make the art of rhetoric into a science in which audience reactions could be predicted. But, as Billig suggests, their dream was not realized. Social Psychologists working in the area of persuasion would freely admit that the bold vision of Hovland remains unfulfilled....The clear principles whose discovery Hovland anticipated have not emerged... [and] the fixed rules of rhetoric have failed to materialize, despite the efforts of the old-style rhetoricians and their psychological descendents (1989, 69 & 55). What emerged from the work of Hovland and others was a bewildering collage of evidence and counter-evidence. Subsequently, as Fishbein and Ajzen (1981) conclude, much of the experimental work on communication "has been an accumulation of largely contradictory and inconsistent research findings with a few (if any) generalizable principles of effective communication" (1981, 340). Neither classical or renaissance rhetorical principles, nor contemporary social science research has provided unvarying rules for presentational effectiveness. At best we have only guidelines, expressed in the modem idiom of social psychology. As Billig (1989) notes, we are not much better at predicting and advising the functional orator

today than we were 2500 years ago. However, Billig suggests, extensive experimentation on communication effectiveness has demonstrated the infinite complexity of rhetorical phenomena and the need for constant alertness to the possibility of exceptions. We believe it is necessary to draw from both the traditionally-accepted precepts of the past and the experimental insights of the mid-twentieth century to develop theoretical and pedagogical approaches that ultimately help speakers and writers achieve results with their audiences. However, we also believe that past precepts and recent insights alone are insufficient. Today's message givers and message receivers operate in a diverse, complex, information-rich, rapidly changing, and often chaotic world. Consequently, theories of communication and tools for assessing communication effectiveness must be adaptable to a variety of contexts and must help communicators understand the complexities of their task and the multiplicity of their choices. In other words, contemporary notions of communication must account for situational demands and present communicators with the possibility of exceptions to the traditionally established rules and norms. We believe the search for theoretical frameworks and assessment tools that address these needs is enriched by exploring studies on managerial effectiveness in the field of Organizational Behavior. Scholars in Organizational Behavior are engaged in a discussion very similar to ours. They too are debating the adequacy of traditional, rule-based approaches and exploring managerial adaptation to situational demands. As a result, organizational theorists have proposed a number of theoretical models, one of which we have found particularly useful for thinking about communication effectiveness. After briefly reviewing this organizational model, we describe the methods used to build a similar model for presentational communication. We conclude by discussing the significance of this model for management communication. THE COMPETING VALUES MODEL In the literature of Organizational Behavior, many attempts have been made to answer the question, "What is an effective organization?" Of particular Interest to us is a study that resulted in an integrative model of organizational effectiveness called the "competing values model." We describe the model below. In a series of studies, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) had organizational theorists and researchers make judgments regarding the similarity or dissimilarity between pairs of effectiveness criteria. Multidimensional scaling was used to analyze the data. Results of the analyses suggested that organizational theorists and researchers shared an implicit theoretical framework, or cognitive map of organizational and managerial effectiveness. This framework became the basis for the competing values model illustrated in Figure 1. The competing values model has two axes which define four quadrants. The vertical axis ranges from flexibility to control; the horizontal axis ranges from an internal to an external focus. Each quadrant of the framework represents one of the four major organizational theories. In the human relations quadrant one finds effectiveness criteria such as cohesion and morale, criteria suggesting the value of human resources and training. Horizontally contiguous to the human relations quadrant is the open systems quadrant stressing criteria such as adaptability, readiness, growth, resource acquisition, and external support. The lower-right rational goal quadrant includes criteria such as

Figure 1 A Competing Values Model of Organizational Effectiveness Human Relauons Model R. ~~~~_ Open Sstiems Model Toward Human Commulment Toward Maintenance of the Socamechncal System Ir MA Co Toward Consoidauon. Conunuty Toward Decentralization. Differenuauon i Toward Expansion. Adaptation Value of Human Resources Training Adaptability. Readines Cohesion. Morale Internal Focus nformaion u agement., mmunauon / Subility. Control i I I I I I I I I I Growth. I / Resource Acquisition. i / / ~ External Support I r External ___ _ _ __ _ _ ___ Cal,~.m.m,.,. o.. d,,, Focus I1/ t \ ^s Producuvity. / 2 \ Efficiency I k3 Planning. Goal Setung Toward Ma Centraliuaon. o Integation tw tj Toward mpertiive Position of he Overll System Toward ixlmusuon f Output Internal Proce Model Raonal Goal Model From Beyond Rational Management: Mastenng t.e Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Perormance (Quinn, 1988:50)

planning, goal setting, productivity and efficiency. Last, the lower-right Internal process quadrant stresses information management and communication, stability, and control. As presented in the model, each quadrant has a polar opposite. For instance, the human relations quadrant, emphasizing flexibility and internal focus, stands in stark contrast to the rational goal quadrant, emphasizing control and external focus. Characterizing flexibility and 6xtemal focus, the open systems quadrant runs counter to the internal process quadrant where control and internal focus are valued. Parallels among the quadrants are also important. For example, the human relations and open systems quadrants share an emphasis on flexibility. In the same manner, the open systems and rational goal quadrants have an external focus which responds to outside change and production needs in a competitive market. Central to both the Internal process and rational goal quadrants is the concept of control; whereas the internal process and human relations quadrants share a concern for the human and technical systems inside the organization. Brought together in this fashion, the four quadrants form a model that illustrates the conflicts or competing values of organizational life. We want our organizations to be adaptable and flexible, but we also want them to be stable and controlled. We want growth, resource acquisition, and external support, but we also want tight information management and formal communication. We want an emphasis on the value of human resources, but we also want an emphasis on planning and goal setting. The competing values model portrays these oppositions as mutually existing in real systems. By implication, it suggests that these criteria, values and assumptions are oppositions only in our minds —we tend to think that the four organizational approaches are very different from one another, and may sometimes even assume them to be mutually exclusive. Quinn (1988) and his colleagues used the competing values model to examine organizational and managerial performance. They found that one major advantage of the model Is that it allows the observer of an organization or of a manager to assess the presence of perceptually contrasting characteristics. In a certain situation an effective manager may behave in a way that is both caring and demanding; or a manager may take a position that advocates both change and stability. The model suggests these seemingly contrasting approaches may occur simultaneously and, In this way, it contributes to our understanding of managerial and organizational complexities. Our research seeks to develop a similar model for communication. More specifically, we endeavor to build a competing values model including effectiveness criteria applicable to oral and written presentations in managerial contexts. METHOD To construct a competing values model for presentational communication we employed a process very similar to that Quinn used to build his organizational model. Generally, this process involved the following: 1) originating a comprehensive list of effectiveness criteria, 2) designing and distributing a research instrument that would provide information on the relevance of and relationships between the criteria, and 3) analyzing responses to the research instrument using several computer programs that served to categorize and place the criteria in a model.

Originatng a Comprehensive List of Effectiveness Criteria We originated a list of effectiveness criteria through a series of developmental steps. First, three communication professors listed characteristics of effective presentation. Once their initial lists were created, they were asked to match each characteristic with a highly contrasting characteristic. If, for example, they listed the characteristic "technically correct," they might list a contrasting characteristic such as "creative" or "insightful." Such a process forced them to think more comprehensively than they might have otherwise. The resulting lists were combined into a single list of effectiveness criteria. Five professors independently reviewed and evaluated this list. A single list of 36 two-word items resulted. Second, using the list of 36 two-word items, we developed a research instrument, similar to the one in Appendix A. This instrument asked respondents to indicate the extent to which each of the 36 items was reflective of each category of communication. Forty-five management communication students completed this instrument. In performing the analysis we took an "appropriateness data" approach (Hair, Anderson, and Tatham, 1987), which allowed us to obtain similarity measures on the effectiveness criteria. As indicated in the final instrument in Appendix A, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently good instances of each of the six types of communication are characterized by the items or effectiveness criteria using a sevenpoint scale. Respondents' rankings of the criteria in relationship to the six types of communication became cases for drawing pairwise correlations between the 36 criteria. For example, if two criteria are both ranked low on two types of communication, moderate on two others, and high on the remaining two, then there is a high correlation between the two criteria and they are treated as closely related. The correlation matrix became the distance measures submitted to multidimensional scaling. The results were used to eliminate highly redundant items and to combine neighboring items. We repeated this process with a second group of 43 students. This resulted in the list of 32 four-word items seen In Appendix A. The comprehensive and systematic nature of this multistep listing-reviewing-revising process leads us to believe that the resulting list of 32 four-word items is fairly representative of the characteristics or criteria experts use to evaluate presentations. Designing and Distributing the Research Instrument We used the list of effectiveness criteria to design the final research instrument seen in Appendix A. The research instrument consists of the 32 sets of effectiveness criteria and six types of communication. Since the purpose of the six communication types used in the research instrument was to associate the 32 criteria, the key property of the communication types had to be that they were very diverse. They did not need to be representative of all types of communication. As can be seen in Appendix A, the six communication types we used are diverse: technical briefing, letter of condolence, convention keynote address, instructional manual, sales presentation, and congratulatory note. We mailed the research instrument to 150 communication professors, all members of communication journal boards and associations. The response rate was 70%.

Analyzing Responses to the Research Instrument The completed instruments were coded and analyzed using the same approach described earier. All measures of similarity derived from the correlations between the 32 items were analyzed using the SPSS multidimensional scaling program including the INDSCAL algorithm. INDSCAL, developed by Carrol and Chang (1970), assumes that respondent's judgments of similarly depend on the euclidlan distances between stimuli in an underlying psychological space common to all-participants. INDSCAL does not, however, assume that participants share common weightings for each dimension in this common space. A summation of the grand means and the means for each of the six types of communication can be seen in Appendix A; grand means range from 3.83 to 6.11. All but one of the grand means are above four, the midpoint on the original scale. Only one grand mean falls below the midpoint, 3.83, hence, only one grand mean misses by less than.20. This suggests that all 32 items are reasonable criteria of effectiveness. Initial MDS results required a choice between a three-dimensional and a fourdimensional solution. The three-dimensional solution had a stress level of.189 and an R squared of.603. A view of the four-dimensional solution showed an improvement in both numbers (.142 and.628), but interpretability decayed badly. For this reason, the three-dimensional solution was selected (Kruskal and Wish, 1978). It is shown in Figure 2. DISCUSSION Preliminary findings suggest that the participants in our study share an implicit framework for organizing the effectiveness criteria generated. Furthermore, the analysis suggests the criteria can be interpreted according to three dimensions, as seen in Figures 2 and 3. The first dimension in Figure 3 is the equivalent of the horizontal axis in Figure 2. At one end of this first dimension are criteria such as practical, informative, realistic, instructive, focused, clear logical and organized. At the other end are criteria such as aware, discerning, sensitive, perceptive, Inspired, passionate, vital and compelling. Consequently, we have labeled this dimension "instrumental logic" at one end (which suggests communication that is focused and logically organized) and "relational awareness" at the other end (which suggests communication that recognizes and expresses feeling). The second dimension in Figure 3 is the equivalent of the vertical axis in Figure 2. At one end are criteria such as technically correct, conventionally sound, rigorous, precise, disciplined and controlled. At the other end are criteria such as innovative, creative, original, fresh, interesting, stimulating, engaging and absorbing. This dimension is labeled "conventional structure" at one end (which suggests following traditional rules), and "dynamic content" at the other end (which suggests innovative material). The third dimension in Figure 3 is represented by the boxes and circles in Figure 2. At one end are criteria such as documented, practical, credible, conclusive, strongly worded, insightful and inspired. At the other end are criteria such as focused, rigorous, technically correct, audience centered, expressive, crafted, interesting, innovative and aware. The first we have labeled "forceful presentation" and the second "perceptive preparation."

Figure 2 A Multidimensonal Mode of 16 Effectiveness Criteria 2 0 -Technically Correct:* -- 4 Rigorous 10-.: Credibl \\ Expressive:S Exre ~:Docuentce ud ience 0.o srCentered Practical Focused -0.0 ----- ------------------------------------—......................................................................................... —.............. / trongly Avre(r / Worded:/ ~ ~/ ~ Cconclusive -0.5 - / /:/ ~/:v~ Crafted - 0 -* Inspired. //: - { trtInteretng:,. Insightful' nnovativt -2.6 -2.0 -. -1.0 -0.5 -0.0 0.5 1.0 1. 2.0 2. 0 - neactive score oa dimension 3. positive ecore on dimension 3.

Figure 3 A Simplified Version of the Three Dimensional Model Conventional 4 Structure Hi ^^; C 2 2 Dynamic Content 8 Lo 6 6 C E L DIMENSIONS L S CRITERIA 1 2 3 1. Hi Hi Hi * Dc4memed. Soatrial, Fctl Accue * Prcml om-, RInuti, RnCal, 2. H Hi H Lo * Foaed, Olaea, Oui, d d * Riou, Pece, Dplind, Coiotrd * Tedmaily conet, Coav ly nd 3. Hi Lo Hi * CmiAe Bievab, Bieble P, Craeivb 4. Hi Lo Lo * Amm ceff m, Cf.-"b-ie, Undmsrdrabe, Enw. heic * E u.m ive, Open, Cand, Honet 5. Lo Hi Hi *Cnive, Conseqeil, Decisive, Action oriened 6. Lo Hi Lo *~ raftd, Refined, Polished, Smoodh * Ineresrin, Stimalati, Engains, Absotbing * Imnvativc, Ceative, Originl, Fresh 7. Lo La Hi * Stronly worded, Emnhmic, Foace.l PowsrlI * Insiht, Expaive, Md sici, Vioary * Inpird, Pma ona, Vinta, Coapllk 8. Lo Lo Lo * Awm, Dicemmi, Senmiwe, Pnrpoopi

Four General Orientations This analysis and labeling resulted in the competing values model of presentational communication seen in Figure 4. The first two dimensions in this model create a four quadrant space, which in tum suggests four different orientations toward effective presentational communication. The lower left hand quadrant represents communication high on conventional structure and instrumental logic. Therefore, the effectiveness criteria rigorous, precise, disciplined, controlled, focused, clear, logical and organized occur in this quadrant. We call this quadrant "informational communication" and suggest that it has to do with the providing of factual messages. This kind of communication implicitly assumes that the sender and receiver share the same underlying paradigm that makes the factual information understandable and acceptable. The upper right quadrant represents communication high on relational awareness and dynamic content. Here are criteria such as strongly worded, emphatic, forceful, powerful, insightful, expansive, mind-stretching and visionary. In contrast to informational communication that dispenses facts, we call this quadrant "transformational communication" and suggest that this is communication which stimulates change. Here are the images and ideas of the charismatic communicator who creates new visions and paradigms in the minds of an audience. Emphatically, this communicator primarily aims to "transform" message receivers. The lower right quadrant represents communication high on instrumental logic and dynamic content. Here the criteria are conclusive, consequential, decisive, action oriented, interesting, stimulating, engaging and absorbing. These criteria suggest the quadrant be called "Instructional" or "persuasive communication." This communication directs an audience toward specific action. In contrast, is the upper left quadrant which represents communications high on conventional structure and relational awareness. Here the criteria are credible, believable, plausible, conceivable, expressive, open, candid and honest. As opposed to instructional communication, which directs action, this quadrant is called "relational communication." The kind of messages represented by this upper left quadrant build trust, establish rapport between people and approach Intimacy. ADVANTAGES OF THE MODEL The result of the preceding analysis is a competing values model for presentational communication. We believe this model articulates a set of perceptual relationships, which, In turn, have some Important advantages for helping us think about communication effectiveness. First, the model suggests that there are alternative approaches to viewing communication effectiveness. As suggested earlier, the four quadrants in Figure 4 might be considered general orientations. They are, however, not emotionally neutral orientations. Given the parallels between these orientations and the managerial leadership styles articulated by Quinn (1988), it might be expected that certain individuals will be biased towards certain quadrants; that is, some individuals may believe some orientations are inherently more important for communication effectiveness than others. Such assertions may arise from the success individuals have had with certain orientations or from experience in particular kinds of organizations. It may further be argued that even textbooks may support some orientations over others. For example, the pedagogical literature on management communication (and on most topics in management) tends to display a strong orientation towards the two bottom

Figure 4 A Competing Values Model of Managerial Communication Awuae. Disocni., RELATIONAL COMMUICATION BUIIDS TRUST C d-iblk, Blrievable, in. Technicdaly ConetaUy Po, |, Rilolme,. Pi'ecu, Dici'ind, CmnoUbed TRANSFORMATIONAL COMMUNICATION 4. STIMULATES CHANGE hu", Expanive, Mind S,ehing, Innovaive, resive, son, Abpobin. aFocued, | j Concluive, Clear. Coqueia,. ogical. Ptaaical, Decriive, O-lmiod Inornmaive, Aciom Orieaed Realiticv Ihsaumcive INFORMATIONAL WOMMUNICATION PROVIDES PACTS INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION ACTION

quadrants. Going a step further, we suggest that not only individuals and texts may be biased, but even groups and cultures may be predisposed in a certain way. The two top quadrants, for example, tend to receive far less attention in western organizations. Second, the model suggests the paradoxical nature of effective communication. That is, an effective presentation may tend to be balanced, including ingredients from all quadrants. Thus, a message only characterized by one criterion in one quadrant and not its opposite criterion in another quadrant, may be ineffective. A presentation, for example, that is high on all the criteria associated with the informational communication quadrant and yet possesses no characteristics associated with the transformational communication quadrant may be so boring and monotonic as to receive miniscule consideration. We assert that the proposed model suggests that effective messages must have some combination of characteristics from all the quadrants. Figure 5 illustrates the above argument. In Figure 5 we profile the mean scores from the instrument in Appendix A for two of the types of communication. A good keynote address, as represented in the collective judgment of our respondents, is indicated via a dotted line. Contrast that conceptual map with the continuous line which profiles a good instructional manual. The two profiles contrast sharply, with the keynote address weighted towards the upper right and the instructional manual weighted toward the lower left. Notice, however, that the profile of the manual stays just below the midpoint for many of the effectiveness criteria in the upper right quadrant, while the keynote address is slightly above the midpoint on the criteria in the lower left. This result suggests that, according to our respondents, each communication type will manifest some contrasting characteristics to be effective. At the same time, the profile keeps us from assuming away the presence of those characteristics not Immediately associated with a given type of communication. Third, the model provides a scheme for empirically exploring the complexity and trade-offs involved in effective communication. Suppose, for example, that the 100 best instructional manuals were selected from all those published last year, and that each of the 100 best was then rated from 1 to 7 on each effectiveness criterion. Further suppose that the scores were then cluster analyzed so as to create subsets of manuals with similar characteristics and that each subset was then profiled on Figure 5. What would emerge from such an analysis? There might be one subset of effective manuals that exactly fit the assumptions of our respondents as represented in the profile in Figure 5. There would, however, be other profiles that differed from that general expectation. These other profiles would show unexpected relationships among the criteria. There might be, for example, one subset of effective manuals with a profile similar to that of the convention keynote address. If this were so, an analysis of the manuals in that subset might modify how we currently think about the writing of instructional manuals. This argument would also hold for any other type of message. (For a parallel illustration, relating to management style, see Quinn, 1988). Fourth, the model can be used for applied as well as theoretical purposes. Student efforts, for example, can be evaluated with the model. Profiles of student presentations can be constructed as part of the evaluative process. Such feedback may be helpful to students in orienting their thought processes around targeted areas for improvement. The model can also be used to organize how the instructor presents various approaches to improvement. Here there are interesting possibilities in linking communication evaluation, feedback and improvement efforts with the similarly structured management improvement framework outlined in Quinn, Faerman, Thompson and McGrath (1990).

Figure 5 A Competing Values Profile of Two Types of Communication ULIATIONAL BUIDS ille rTRFST Cdimi1 mam o..d O0dMaUdNICAail MIOV)IiBS PACrSC noz~Pnc PUS~h TRANSPORMAIONAL COMMUNICATION STlMULATES CHANGE ACN n{, INSTRUCLIONAL COMMUNICATON DIRECTS ACnION incaral.c trealcritta Inncv -- Good ltructioal Mamal - - - ood Cowvectloo Kay Mote Addrea

In using the model in executive education programs we find that experienced managers respond very positively, especially when it is employed to provide them with feedback on their individual performances. More specifically, we have used the model to offer managers evaluations of their presentational communication abilities from their communication instructors, subordinates, peers and superiors. In reviewing these evaluations with managers, we have discovered that the model also lends itself well to discussing interpersonal communication skills; in fact, practitioners have recommended that we build a model that considers types of interpersonal communication, such as performance evaluation interviews. The model might also be appropriated for group communication. We hope the competing values model proposed here is useful in studying communication performances, such as oral presentations and written proposals, in their real contexts. The model may help us understand how audiences construct meaning from these performances and how audience reactions compare with the communicators intentions —we know from research that compares self assessments with assessments by others that communicators often evaluate their effectiveness very differently than do their peers, subordinates and superiors in the same organization (Sypher and Sypher, 1984). Perhaps the model can help us determine more precisely how communicators' intentions and audiences' reactions differ. In concluding, it should be noted that the competing values framework suggested by our model is tentative and developmental. This study is an effort to conceptualize at a very general level. While we use data and systematic analyses that can be replicated, the data are ultimately based on the subjective judgments of communication specialists. Surely the effectiveness criteria in the study might be rearranged into numerous patterns or models. Additional criteria might also be identified and different communication types might be employed. Alternative analytic methods might also be used. All would modify the present findings. It should be remembered, however, that rather than finding some preexisting, empirical reality, we are here engaged in the process of creating meaning. Ultimately, the competing values model offered here is a theoretical tool. We are empirically and systematically building a model that normally would be developed in the armchair of some scholar. Our efforts are exploratory and our expectations are modest. We see this as an initial model, one that starts a conversation, and leads to future modifications and improvements. Along the way, we hope it provides some useful insights into our understanding of effectiveness In management communication.

1 Never 5 Often 2 Very Seldom 4 Sometimes 6 Very Often 3 Seldom 7 Always Inspired, Passionate, Vital, Compelling......................... Technically Correct, Conventionally Sound.................. Conclusive, Consequential, Decisive, Action Oriented................ Audience-centered, Comprehensible, Understandable, Empathetic.............. Rigorous, Precise, Disciplined, Controlled......................... Innovative, Creative, Original, Fresh............................ Documented, Substantiated, Factual, Accurate.................. Expressive, Open, Candid, Honest........................... Strongly Worded, Empathic, Forceful, Powerful.................... Credible, Believable, Plausible, Conceivable....................... Focused, Clear, Logical, Organized......................... Insightful, Expansive, Mind Stretching, Visionary................ Crafted, Refined, Polished, Smooth........................... Interesting, Stimulating, Engaging, Absorbing......................... Practical, Informative, Realistic, Instructive........................ Aware, Discerning, Sensitive, Perceptive......................... Grand Mean 4.36 5.39 4.50 6.11 4.36 4.69 4.91 4.92 4.54 6.00 5.47 3.83 5.20 4.96 4.73 5.01 A Good Technical Briefing Is 1. 2.99 2. 6.57 3. 4.89 4. 5.59 5. 5.89 6. 3.83 7. 6.36 8. 4.42 9. 3.62 10. 6.18 11. 6.53 12. 3.34 13. 5.18 14. 4.51 15. 6.10 16. 4.07 A Good Letter Of Condolence To The Widow Of An Employee Is 17. 3.97 18. 4.73 19. 2.12 20. 6.30 21. 2.88 22. 3.88 23. 2.76 24. 5.28 25. 3.87 26. 5.79 27. 4.10 28. 2.80 29. 4.79 30. 3.74 31. 2.51 32. 6.32 A Good Convention Keynote Address Is 33. 6.00 34. 4.91 35. 5.32 36. 6.24 37. 4.08 38. 5.74 39. 4.81 40. 5.13 41. 5.90 42. 5.95 43. 5.58 44. 5.80 45. 5.79 46. 6.24 47. 4.68 48. 5.26 rn c> m I C m z I m z cn - DU 3> m 0) C 0 m o rn o c: '_ rn c) -o -U m z a

1 Never 5 Often 2 Very Seldom 4 Sometimes 6 Very Often 3 Seldom 7 Always A Good Instructional Manual Is Inspired, Passionate, Vital, Compelling.........................49. 2.79 Technically Correct, Conventionally Sound................. 50. 6.56 Conclusive, Consequential, Decisive, Action Oriented................ 51. 5.03 Audience-centered, Comprehensible, Understandable, Empathetic..............52. 5.92 Rigorous, Precise, Disciplined, Controlled........................53. 5.73 Innovative, Creative, Original, Fresh...........................54. 4.12 Documented, Substantiated, Factual, Accurate........................ 55. 6.39 Expressive, Open, Candid, Honest...........................56. 3.90 Strongly Worded, Emphatic, Forceful, Powerful............... 57. 3.34 Credible, Believable, Plausible, Conceivable........................ 58. 5.93 Focused, Clear, Logical, Organized......................... 59. 6.55 Insightful, Expansive, Mind Stretching, Visionary.............. 0. 3.23 Crafted, Refined, Polished, Smooth.......................... 61. 5.20 Interesting, Stimulating, Engaging, Absorbing......................... 62. 4.47 Practical, Informative, Realistic, Instructive........ 63. 6.52 Aware, Disceming, Sensitive, Perceptive.........................64. 3.62 A Good Sales Presentation Is 65. 5.67 66. 5.26 67. 6.22 68. 6.47 69. 4.35 70. 5.60 71. 5.36 72. 5.00 73. 5.67 74. 6.13 75. 5.63 76. 4.38 77. 5.40 78. 5.99 79. 5.43 80. 5.06 A Good Congratulatory Note Is 81. 4.74 82. 4.32 83. 3.35 84. 6.12 85. 3.22 86. 4.94 87. 3.78 88. 5.77 89. 4.80 90. 5.99 91. 4.39 92. 3.43 93. 4.81 94. 4.79 95. 3.13 96. 5.73

REFERENCES Billig, M. (1989). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R.L., & C.C. Hemdl (1986). An ethnographic study of corporate writing: Job status as reflected in written texts. In Couture, B. (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Carroll, J.D., & J.F. Chang (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckhart Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283-319. Fishbein, M. & I. Ajen (1981). Acceptance, Yielding and Impact: Cognitive Processes in Persuasion. In Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, ed. R.E. Petty et al. Hllsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hagge, J. (1989). The spurious paternity of business communication principles. The Journal of Business Communication, 26(1), 33-55. Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, & R.C. Tatham (1987). Mutivariate data analysis (2nd ed). New York: Macmillan. Halpem, J.W. (1988). Getting in deep: Using qualitative research in business and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2(2), 22-43. Hinks, D.A.G. (1940). Tisias and Corax and the invention of rhetoric. Classical Quarterly, 34(1,2), 61-69. Hovland, C.I., I.L. Janis, & H.H. Kelly (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Huckin, T.N., & L. Hutz (1987). Existential "there." (CDC Technical Report No. 36). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Janis, J.H. (1973). The writing behavior of businessmen. Journal of Communication, 15, 1965, 81-88, Reprinted in Janis, J.H., Writing and communicating in business (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Kennedy, G.A. (1959). The earliest rhetorical handbooks. American Journal of Philology, 80(2), 169-178. Kruskal, J.B., & M. Wish (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Monge, P.R. (1973). Theory construction in the study of communication: The system paradigm. Journal of Communication, 23 (March), 5-16. Quinn, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R.E., S.R. Faerman, M.P. Thompson, & M.R. McGrath (1990). Becoming a master manager: A competency framework. New York: Wiley.

Quinn, R.E. & J. Rohrbaugh (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. Rogers, P.S. (1989). Choice-based writing in managerial contexts: The case of the Dealer Contact Report. Ths Journal of Business Communication, 26(3), 197-216. Smith, R.G. (1968). Public speaking models: Process and response. Southern Speech Journal, 33 (Summer), 316-327. Sypher, B.D., & H.E. Sypher (1984). Seeing ourselves as others see us: Convergence and divergence in assessments of communication behavior. Communication Research, 11(7), 97-115.