INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS cHANNELS17
Informal Communications Channels: We Heard it Through the Grapevine
Nancy J. Campbell
Lewis-Clark State College
Table of Contents
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………i
Abstract ii
Introduction 4
Review of Literature 5
Methodology 11
Participants 11
Instrument 12
Analysis 13
Results 13
Discussion 14
References 15
Appendix 16
Table 1 16
Abstract
The grapevine is present in every organization and plays an important role in the distribution and dissemination of information throughout the organization. This communication channel operates at all levels of the hierarchy and travels horizontally, vertically and diagonally throughout the organization. Prior studies have concluded that the grapevine exists in every organization, information distributed is fairly accurate, and employees have a natural need to send and receive information, whether formally or informally. This study sought to identify whether or not employees derive communication satisfaction from participation in their organizational grapevines. Downs and Hazen’s (1977) Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was used to survey a sample of employees and managers at one mid-size health care facility. Although the study results were inconclusive, evidence along with prior findings, encourages further research into the area of communication satisfaction in relationship to grapevine activity.
Introduction
Throughout history, the informal communication network, commonly referred to as the grapevine, has likely been instrumental in the distribution of information throughout organizations and among employees at all levels in an organization’s hierarchy. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a grapevine is “… informal person-to-person means of circulating information or gossip.” The term grapevine was coined during Civil War times when telegraph wires were strung from tree-to-tree near battle sites, and information coming through the wires was used by army intelligence (Mishra, 1990). According to Mishra’s (1990) study, this informal and unsanctioned information network flows within every organization. And, since unsanctioned, Newstrom, Monczka, and Reif (1974) found that it was commonly misunderstood, misrepresented and often times ignored by managers who may opt to have the organizations’ formal communications network utilized as the only source of internal information. Much of the early research on informal communications networks placed little emphasis on communication satisfaction of those participating. These earlier studies placed more focus on factors such as communication flow and role behavior. However, later research tended to place more emphasis on the influences, perceptions and value of the grapevine, resulting in further knowledge of the level of communication satisfaction derived from participation in grapevine activities. Further research into informal communication networks (the grapevine) and how it effects employees’ communication satisfaction will help organizations better understand the role of informal communication and why it may be on the rise within their organizations.
Review of Literature
Early studies of organizational communication networks were limited to location. According to Sutton & Barrett (1968), prior studies completed by Bavelas & Barrett (1951), Jacobsen & Seashore (1951), and Davis (1953a), did little to further progress in extending these grapevine studies to real-life organizations (field studies). Thus, Sutton & Porters’ (1968) study of the grapevine focused on adding knowledge to the studies of communications networks in actual organizational settings. Sutton & Porters’ (1968) study sought to partially replicate a prior study, Davis’ (1953a) classic study of the grapevine, but also to “…extend the study further by obtaining personality data on individuals” (Sutton & Porter, 1968, p.230). They wanted to know whether or not communication role behavior was a function of the work situation only, as with the Davis (1953a) study, or whether personality characteristics of the individuals played a part in this behavior, as well (Sutton & Porter, 1968). In a regional government tax office over a period of seven months, Sutton & Porter (1968) sampled 79 employees, including the regional director, auditors, tax representatives and support staff. Grapevine information was investigated using Davis’ (1953a) “Ecco analysis,” but added Bass’ Orientation Inventory for obtaining personality data. Subjects in the study were classified as isolates (didn’t receive the information); liaisons (received information and passed it along); and dead-enders (received information, but never passed it along). “Of the non-supervisory employees, 33% were isolates, 57% dead-enders, and 10% liaisons. “Those serving in a supervisory capacity were liaisons 100% of the time” (Sutton & Porter, 1968, p.226). Sutton & Porter (1968) found that individuals higher in the organization hierarchy were more informed of information passing through the grapevine than those lower in the hierarchy and the flow of information took place predominantly within functions (departments), rather than between them, which contradicted Davis’ (1953a) findings. Personality data showed only a slight relationship to role behavior. Knowing who participates in grapevine communication will aid in determining communication satisfaction. Rudolphs’ (1973) study attempted to add general knowledge of grapevine communication patterns and compare similarities and provide insights into the operation of grapevine communications within a multi-shift setting vs. a single shift setting. The organization studied in Rudolphs’ (1973) study allowed the investigator to trace the flow of information through the work day and through multiple work shifts. Among other things, Rudolph’s (1973) study found that informal information was found to be inaccurate less than six percent of the time, which assumes a 94% accuracy rating overall and is similar to previous study findings. This high level of accuracy may contribute to greater communication satisfaction among grapevine participants, but most important to this particular study, was the finding that some shifts receive less information than others. Newstrom, et al.’s (1974) study reviewed what was previously known about the grapevine and summarized common assumptions held by managers. After surveying a sample of both managers and non-managers, it was concluded that the grapevine is present and either functional or dysfunctional in all organizations, and, according to Newstrom, et al. (1974), if not recognized and managed, the grapevine has the potential to undermine management authority. It was also found that grapevines form when certain conditions are present in the organization. According to Newstrom, et al. (1974), when formal networks are too rigid or narrow, managers withhold critical information from employees, employees have too much free time, or they feel insecure in their job, grapevines are likely to emerge. And, “…these conditions create an overwhelming need in employees to receive and relay information” (Newstrom, et al., 1974, p. 12). When these conditions exist, says Newstrom, et al. (1974), employees have an overpowering need for information. This overpowering need may lead employees to seek information through informal channels, most likely the grapevine, to satisfy their communication needs.
Mishras’ (1991) article focused on developing a conceptual model of the grapevine for later testing. According to the article, grapevine networks supplement formal networks, and, while formal networks are sanctioned, documented, and unchangeable, grapevines are dynamic and the information that flows through them is continuous. As was found in Newstrom, et al. (1974), Mishra (1991) found that grapevine networks satisfy a natural need for information. Therefore, it may be reasonable to conclude that, in satisfying a need for information, grapevine networks likely create communication satisfaction or dissatisfaction among participants. Mishra (1974) goes on to suggest that grapevine information moves through the organization in all directions; up, down, horizontally and diagonally and in a short period of time. And, as communication, this informal network compares with formal communication channels. There are positive aspects of grapevine communications. According to Mishras’ (1974) article, the grapevine is a stress release for employees and it creates a spirit of teamwork within the organization. Information travels quickly through the grapevine, enabling employees to prepare for changes and adjustments in advance of formal communication (Mishra, 1974). Another important aspect, according to Mishra (1974), is that grapevine networks indicate the health of the organization, as well as company morale, trends and productivity of employees. Included in the article were recommendations to management for controlling potentially harmful rumors. Smiths’ (1996) article gives an account of an American Management Association (AMA) conference where speaker, Elaine Re’, President of Re’ Associates Inc., a New York and London based communications and human resources consulting firm, spoke to an audience about the organizational grapevine. As told by Smith (1996), Re’ defined grapevine as “…that unofficial communication network that weaves its way through every organization” and claimed grapevine networks can be both a positive and negative tool. According to Smiths’ (1996) account, Re’ warned the audience not to try stopping grapevine activity and referred to it as being a natural part of life.
According to Re’, the pervasiveness of grapevine communications has much to do with organizations not supplying real, or meaningful information, which is similar to the previous findings of Newstrom, et al. (1974).
Crampton, Hodge and Mishra (1998) researched the factors influencing grapevine activity with the purpose of measuring managers’ perceptions of and ability to monitor/control grapevine communications and finding whether or not the perceptions differed among management levels.
Of particular interest to the researchers, was to what extent, if any, managers’ positions, affected their perceptions of the grapevine. The methodology used in Crampton, et al.’s (1998) study was a fifty-three item questionnaire, designed to obtain information on managers’ perceptions and attitudes toward grapevine communications in organizations. The questionnaire included the following areas: 1) intensity and importance to employees, 2) ambiguity and lack of clarity to employees, 3) an insecure or threatening environment, and 4) a lack of trust among employees toward formal communications. The questions used a five-point Likert-type rating scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A random sample was sent via mail to 416 diverse, profit and non-profit organizations with at least fifty employees. One hundred and fifty-eight of those organizations responded with completed questionnaires giving a response rate of 38 percent. Of the 38 percent, the highest percentage of completed questionnaires came from top management.
Crampton, et al.’s (1998) study resulted in a majority indicating there was, indeed, an informal communication network (grapevine) operating in their organizations, and most managers indicated grapevine activity increased when information was perceived to be important. The sample also indicated activity increased when a threatening or insecure environment existed and the organizational climate created a lack of trust among employees. Accuracy of the information was examined, as well, with 62 percent of managers perceiving the information to be partially accurate. An 82 percent majority considered the grapevine to be useful to employees in times of stress and ambiguity. Managers were also asked if grapevine activity should be monitored and if so, to what extent, and 86 percent believed it should be influenced indirectly by improving formal communications channels. Ninety-two percent of managers indicated they had no formal policies in place for dealing with grapevine activity.
Crampton, et al.’s (1998) study concludes that grapevine activity increases when four conditions are present: uncertainty, importance of the information, insecure environments where formal communication is lacking, and ambiguous subject matter, which is similar to previous studies that also indicate a need for communication satisfaction amongst those participating in grapevine activity. Crampton, et al.’s (1998) position is in agreement with experts who suggest that management should influence, rather than control grapevine activity and make recommendations to management based on this position.
Harcourt, Richerson, and Wattiers’ (1991) study attempted to determine the quality of communication within organizations and to compare one company’s data findings to that of national findings. The study focused on middle managers, who were assumed to play a central role in the operational success in organizations. According to Pearce & Robinson, (1989), middle managers are in a position to communicate up, down and diagonally, which puts them in a good position to evaluate communication quality.
Harcourt, et al.’s (1991) study used a survey instrument designed to gather data on the quality of information managers receive in organizations. Frequency distributions, cross tabulations, and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the data. The questionnaire covered 14 information topics (e.g., company objectives) and 3 sources of information (formal, grapevine, and network communication). The survey was mailed to 3,602 middle managers across the United States and 36 middle managers from a small marketing organization. Participants were randomly selected from an American Management Association mailing list of 83,867 middle managers. Estimated error rate for this sample was approximately 3.3 percent with a 95 percent confidence level. Of the managers surveyed, 871 responded (24.2 percent). Findings were presented in three parts: quality of information, sources of information, and a comparison of a company’s assessment to the national assessment. Over 62 percent of the managers surveyed disagreed or strongly disagreed that the quality of information they receive is good, company information was rated good by only 19.2 percent, and departmental information was rated even lower. Over four-fifths of the managers reported overall poor communication received in their organizations. In rating sources of information, managers used three different modes of communication: formal communication, grapevine communication, and other informal network communication. Formal communication was ranked lowest, 49.1 percent ranked the grapevine higher than that of formal communication and the grapevine, but on average, 61 percent of managers ranked other network communications as the best out of the three.
Findings from Harcourt, et al.’s (1991) study found that the grapevine and informal network communications were frequently ranked higher than that of formal communication channels, which encourages further study of communication satisfaction associated with informal communication networks in organizations.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the topic of informal communication networks in the workplace, resulting in similarities in the findings. These findings suggest that people have a natural need to send and receive information, and have further suggested that when certain conditions exist within an organization, grapevine activity increases. Most studies in this literature review concur; grapevine activity is present in every organization. Thus, it is important for organizations to understand the level of communication satisfaction employees derive from informal communication channels. Further studies can help organizations better understand the grapevine and its significance in the workplace.
H: Employees who report greater participation in an informal communication network such as the grapevine, also report greater communication satisfaction than employees who report little or no participation in grapevine activity.