Description
Communication has crucial impacts within or among workgroups in that organization communication can be a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies.
THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION ON PUBLIC AND
NONPROFIT MANAGERS’ PERCEPTION OF RED TAPE
Eunju Rho
The University of Georgia
School of Public and International Affairs
Department of Public Administration and Policyhttp://www.uga.edu/padp/
Email: [email protected]
Prepared for delivery at the 10
th
National Public Management Research Conference (PMRC),
Hyatt on Capitol Square, Columbus, Ohio, October 1-3, 2009
THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION ON PUBLIC AND
NONPROFIT MANAGERS’ PERCEPTION OF RED TAPE
Eunju Rho
The University of Georgia
ABSTRACT
Communication has crucial impacts within or among workgroups in that organization
communication can be a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies. Given the
importance of organization communication and its managerial impacts, further research is
needed to explore this topic as it relates to the public administration field. To this end, this study
assesses the impacts of organizational communication on the perception of red tape by
comparing internal communication with external, especially client-oriented, communication in
both public and nonprofit organizations. This study is based on the questionnaire data from the
National Administration Studies Project (NASP)-III, closed in J anuary 2006, gathered from a
survey of public and nonprofit managers in the states of Illinois and Georgia. Results show that
frequent communication with clients plays an important role in reducing perceived red tape, and
sector-based differences between public and nonprofit sectors influence the impact of
communication type on red tape perception. The analysis controls for the organizational
characteristics, job characteristics, and personal characteristics.
1
INTRODUCTION
Communication has crucial impacts within or among work groups in that organizational
communication is a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies. Organizational
communication can be broadly defined as communication with one another in the context of an
organization (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1997; Shockley-Zalabak, 2006).This type of communication,
in turn, includes activities of sending and receiving messages through various layers of authority,
using various message systems, and discussing various topics of interest to the group we belong
to or the company we work for. Organizational communication research has mainly been
conducted both in the business management field and in the communication field; however,
researchers in the public administration field have provided little knowledge about organizational
communication and its roles and effects.
Several studies emphasize that effective communication can enhance organizational
outcomes (Garnett, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2008; Pandey & Garnett, 2006). Communication can
influence on the perceptions and opinions about persons, communities, organizations,
governments, and even society. One of the outcomes of administrative communication is related
to the flow of information, regulations, policies, and procedures. As a managerial tool,
communication is frequently expected to share information with members, to coordinate
activities, to reduce unnecessary managerial burdens and rules, and ultimately to improve
organizational performance. While the literature is contributing to establishing an understanding
of how the context of the organization influences communication processes and how the nature
of communication differentiates it from other forms of organizational behavior, theoretical and
2
empirical work still remains to be done to answer how organizational communication operates in
public and nonprofit organizations and how it influences managerial issues and outcomes.
The goal of this study is to develop and test an exploratory model of communication and
its impact on red tape, one of managerial issues, in public and nonprofit sector. The next section
explores organizational communication in more detail and summarizes the current state of
knowledge about it. Then, the study develops a measure of organizational communication and
constructs a theoretical model to analyze the relations between communication and red tape. This
model features communication types as the prominent variable with data from the National
Administration Studies Project Phase III.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION and RED TAPE
Public administration has focused on issues such as how to reduce the weight of the
mammoth government organization, how to make public organization businesslike, how to
improve effectiveness, responsiveness, accountability, cost-efficiency, and so on. Among them,
red tape is considered as bad rules that cause negative consequences, and efforts for cutting red
tape have been one of the prominent issues (Gore, 1993). Red tape is defined as “rules,
regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden but do not
advance the legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve” (Bozeman, 2000, p. 12).
Several studies have dealt with red tape as an independent variable that can influence various
organizational issues, including motivation, satisfaction, work alienation, and innovation
(DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005; Pandey & Bretschneider, 1997; Pandey, Coursey, & Moynihan,
2007; Scott & Pandey, 2000; Walker & Brewer, 2008). Also, other studies focused on factors
that can cause and determine perceptions of red tape (Bozeman, 1993; Brewer & Walker, 2006;
3
Pandey & Welch, 2005; Rainey, Pandey, & Bozeman, 1995b). In terms of sector-based
differences among public, private, and nonprofit, the majority of studies were conducted to
compare red tape in the public sector with that in the private sector (Bozeman, Reed, & Scott,
1992; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000; Rainey et al., 1995b) but research on red tape in the nonprofit
sector has been ignored. Government is likely to have higher degrees of perceived red tape in
general due to “external control, the need for accountability, and the shift to interorganizational
governance arrangements for the delivery of public service” (Brewer & Walker, 2006, p. 2). Red
tape has been considered as a barrier to improve benefits provided to clients (Scott & Pandey,
2000). This study seeks to advance the research on red tape by assessing the impact of
organizational communication types in both the public and nonprofit sectors. Is the perception of
red tape really different according to persons with whom employees communicate? If then, what
kinds of other factors mediate the relationship between communication types and red tape?
Communication is essential to any kind of organization and information plays a crucial
role in effective communication. Theory on organizational communication has evolved from the
concept as a tool of management designed to facilitate task completion and as such was to
operate as one of many organizational variables (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006). As a tool of
management, communication is “the central means by which individual activity is coordinated to
devise, disseminate, and pursue organizational goals” (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan, &
Monaghan, 2001, p. 7). From the scientific management viewpoint, communication is a tool of
organizational design to facilitate and operate task completion so that the theorists had emphasis
on communication flow from supervisors to subordinates (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006). Likewise,
Taylor’s scientific management was operated by a well-defined chain of command and specific
division of labor. These two principles were developed based on work standards and
4
measurement of standards. From his point of view, communication can be explained as a tool to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the chain of command, rules, and regulations
On the other hand, many scholars view communication as a core process of organizing
(J ones, Watson, Garner, & Gallois, 2004; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994; Weick, 1987). As the
human behavior perspective has been important in the atmosphere to emphasize cooperation,
participation, satisfaction, and interpersonal relationships among workers, communication-
related issues have also been recognized for organizing processes. Effective communication was
a cornerstone of the human behavior perspective, so theorists emphasized interactive
communication among employees to improve mutual trust. They also recognized the importance
of both formal and informal communication. This perspective has provided an idea about
communication as an organizing process of human interaction and has influenced the theoretical
backgrounds of communication theorists. Weick (1987, pp. 97-98), for example, said
“Interpersonal communication is the essence of organization because it creates structures that
then affect what else gets said and done and by whom… the structures themselves create
additional resources for communication such as hierarchical levels, common tasks, exchangeable
commodities, and negotiable dependencies.” Orlikowski and Yates (1994, p. 541) also
understood communication as “an essential elements in the ongoing organizing process through
which social structures are produced, reproduced and changed.” As an organizing process,
communication is not just a tool of management but a critical element to affect management.
With regard to the levels of research, a plethora of research has been done at the micro-
level, as J ones and her colleagues (2004, p. 740) mentioned, including studies on 1) superior-
subordinate communication in one organization, 2) the areas of conflict and negotiation tactics,
5
and performance feedback, and 3) computer-mediated communication. However, at a more
macro-level, particularly at the organizational and inter-organizational levels, the trend that the
boundaries between organizations are more fluid has influenced recent works with more interest
in communication beyond the organizational boundaries. Examples of macro-level research
include 1) a stakeholder perspective, 2) strategic alliance and network theory to organizational
communication, and 3) crisis management and strategies by organization.
In terms of the relational aspect, organizational communication can be divided into two
dimensions: internal (intra) organizational communication and external organizational
communication. Goldhaber (1993, p. 14) defines organizational communication as “the process
of creating and exchanging messages within a network of interdependent relationships to cope
with environmental uncertainty.” The concepts and perceptions of organizational communication
covers messages, characteristics of senders and receivers and their relationships, functions,
medias, environment, and so on. Among them, this study explores the notion of organizational
communication by looking at the two types of internal and external communication and
considering some ways in which those types could be described.
Internal communication
Many authors have attempted to offer their conceptualization of organizational
communication within one organization (Foltz, 1981; Greenbaum, 1971; Knapp, 1969; Redding
& Sanborn, 1964; Thayer, 1968). According to the direction of information flow, communication
has been trichotomized into downward, upward, and horizontal directions, which depends upon
who initiated the communication and who received it. The boss-subordinate transaction through
downward or upward communication is probably the most common communicative situation
6
within a work organization.
First, downward communication means the flow of information from superiors to
subordinates and it is a dominant channel in accordance with formal communication networks.
Garnett (1992) identified four roles of downward communication: conveying a vision,
communicating to motivate subordinates, providing feedback on subordinates’ performance, and
assigning tasks and conveying task-related information. Likewise, Katz and Kahn (1966)
indicate five types of downward communication, including job instruction, job rationale,
procedures and practices, feedback, and indoctrination of goals. In most cases, task-related
messages, such as goals, disciplines, orders, policies, and directions, are dominant. Goldhaber
(1993) indicates two intriguing points of downward communication: message overload and
filtering. He mentioned “in one organization most of the employees, after eight months of
receiving countless messages every day, began to throw every message into the wastebasket
before reading it” (p.156). Thus, downward communication can cause message overload to
individuals, especially subordinates who usually receive messages, and it leads them to avoid
receiving messages from supervisors, senders. O’Reilly (1980) has empirically proved the
relationship between information overload and organizational satisfaction and performance. He
found that perceived information overload is associated with lower performance but higher job
satisfaction. On the other hand, filtering means that messages have chances to be changed or
distorted during their travel from top to down within an organization due to “number of links in a
network, perceptual differences among employees, and lack of trust in a supervisor” (p.157).
Managerial overcontrol results in internal rules and red tape, as Bozeman (2000) mentioned:
“Managers’ responsibilities for obtaining organizationally sanctioned objectives necessitate
7
developing tasks and rules ensuring that subordinates will take coordinated action to achieve the
objectives” (Bozeman, 2000, p. 95).
The second type of communication within an organization is upward communication,
which flows from subordinates to superiors. Upward communication is a channel to know “how
work is processing, what problems and opportunities subordinates see, what ideas subordinates
have for improving performance, what intelligence subordinates gather about what clients and
other organizations are doing and what subordinates feel about the agency, their superiors, and
their jobs” (Garnett, 1992, p. 115). Finally, horizontal communication indicates the lateral
exchange of information, which flows in accordance with the functional principle among people
on the same level within an organization. Upward and horizontal communication are emphasized
for employee satisfaction (Miller, 1999). However, upward communication could be another
instrument to control and regulate subordinates, as Shermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2005, p. 298)
mentioned: “upward communication keeps higher levels informed about what lower level
workers are doing, what their problems are, what suggestions they have for improvements, and
how they feel about the organization and their jobs.” When the upward communication channel
is formalized and becomes a mandatory burden that employees should do, upward
communication can cause administrative delay of the subordinate’s job duties and make them
perceive more red tape.
With this in mind, Internal communication usually occurs in the context of internal
processes where most rules, regulations, procedures, and constraints emerge, develop, and exist.
In this context, downward and upward communication within the organization could make
employees feel so many burdens on the job that they may want to throw emails into a
8
wastebasket. Thus, I hypothesize that internal communication is likely to be positively associated
with the red tape perception.
External communication: Client-centered communication
External communication processes link multiple organizations and connect the
organization to its environment. Organizations exist amidst a complex web of relationships
among multiple audiences, which Grunig and Hunts (1984) described as components enabling
the environmental sector that controls the allocation of authority (governments, regulatory
agencies); the functional sector (suppliers, employees, customers); the normative sector (trade
association, professional organizations); and the diffused sector (local community, media). Thus,
at the interorganizational level of research, communication is understood in the network
relationship. According to Farace, Monge, and Russell (1977), the network property of strength
refers to the frequency and length of interactions among linked individuals. Strong links
communicate more frequently than weak links and usually have longer periods of interaction.
External communication can also be divided into several types in accordance with the
target groups. There are, for instance, external communication types with clients, with private
companies, with political parties, with nonprofits, with government agencies, and so on. Among
them, this paper focuses on client-centered communication in terms of increased emphasis on
improving citizen-centered public service delivery. In light of the interest in the public and
nonprofit sectors, a starting point pertains to the concept of client. For the public organization,
client means its publics, particularly the clients who are recipients or targets of policy programs
and other stakeholder citizens. Nonprofits in the United States, defined under the federal tax code,
serve a broad public purpose. Charitable and religious 501(c)(3) organizations and the social
9
welfare 501(c)(4) organizations make up the majority of the nonprofit sector. Other types of tax-
exempt organizations such as business leagues 501(c)(6), and social and recreational clubs
501(c)(7) primarily serve their members. Thus, client for the nonprofit sector means mainly the
general public, particularly their members of the organization.
All kinds of external communication can actualize through individual organizational
members’ activity. In general, the boundary spanners who serve to link an organization with its
environment and transfer information across organizational boundaries (Miller, 1999; Tushman
& Katz, 1980) play meaningful roles for both their own organization and external organizations.
Aldrich and Herker (1977) point out two functions of boundary roles: information processing
and external representation. Boundary spanners can be both filters and facilitators by selecting,
transmitting, and interpreting information. Thus, peripheral public or nonprofit managers
frequently contact clients, answer their requests, exchange representative information with them,
collect their feedback, and transmit it to the core. Miller (1999, p. 258) also attempts to provide
three major functions of external communication: coordinating interorganizational relationships;
creating and maintaining organizational images; and providing customer services. Boundary
activity, which can be understood as one of activities of client-centered communicators,
contributes to the increase of variation within the organization because information from
peripheral managers could be the foundation for responding to the external environments and
make it possible to build various adaptive plans for them. The characteristics of boundary jobs
are relatively responsive, innovative, and vigorous in that they need to open and adapt the
kaleidoscope of organizational ecology. With this in mind, managers who are frequently
communicating with clients at the boundary of the organization can be regarded as information
deliverers or gatekeepers. Moreover, they might relatively feel less burdened by red tape in the
10
organization. Thus, it is hypothesized that client-oriented communication is likely to be
negatively associated with the red tape perception.
MODELING THE IMPACT OF COMMUNICATION ON RED TAPE
The primary purpose of this study is to explore the impacts of organizational
communication on managers’ red tape perception. I hypothesize that internal communication will
be positively associated with the red tape perception and that client-oriented communication will
be negatively associated with the red tape perception. In addition, this study has interest in the
degree of sector-based difference not only in red tape perception but also in communication type.
Figure 1 summarizes the basic framework and hypotheses for the variables used in this paper.
Figure1. A Model of Red Tape Perception
Communication Type
? Internal communication
? Client communication
Red tape perception
Organizational Characteristics: sector, size
Job characteristics: job position (managerial, professional, technical), managerial
authority, years on the job
Personal characteristics: gender, age
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Controls
11
The basic model for testing is: RI
ì
= [
1
IC
ì
+[
2
CC
ì
+[
3
S
ì
+e
ì
, where RT is red tape
perception, IC is internal communication, CC is client communication, and S means sector
dummy. To demonstrate the interaction between sector and communication type, the model
needs to be supplemented by a consideration of nonlinear elements. Nonlinear impacts can be
assessed by using interaction terms like the equation of RI
ì
= [
1
IC
ì
+[
2
CC
ì
+[
3
(IC
ì
S
ì
) +
[
4
(CC
ì
S
ì
) +[
5
S
ì
+e
ì
or by examining relationships with different subsets of the sample. I will
look for nonlinear relationships between communication types and red tape perception by
partitioning the data to avoid collinearity problems.
DATA
The primary data source for this study is the National Administration Studies Project
(NASP)-III, closed in J anuary 2006. NASP-III is the expanded version from NASP-I in 1992 and
NASP-II in 2003. The first NASP project was done with public and private organizations in New
York State and dealt with especially red tape and administrative procedures. NASP-II data were
collected during 2002-2003 from public managers of human service agencies in the 50 states and
Washington D.C. and focused on the impact of policy and political context on public
management. NASP-III covers public and nonprofit managers from various functional agencies
in two states, Georgia and Illinois. A total of 1,220 responses were obtained for a response rate
of approximately 65.8%. The NASP-III database includes 787 public managers and 375
nonprofit managers.
12
MEASURES
Dependent and Independent Variables
The dependent variable is red tape perception, which was measured with the question “If
red tape is defined as ‘burdensome administrative rules and procedures that have negative effects
on the organization's effectiveness,’ how would you assess the level of red tape in your
organization? (Please circle the appropriate response)” The response choices were on a ten-point
scale from 0 to 10, in which 0 means ‘almost no red-tape’ and 10 means ‘great deal of red tape.’
This measures the perception of the overall level of red tape in their organization.
Organizational communication is multidimensional and it can vary in frequency and
target groups. This paper focuses on two representative types of organizational communication,
the independent variables, 1) internal organizational communication and 2) external
communication with clients. The organizational communication variables were measured by
asking what percentage of work-related mail, email, and phone calls the state/nonprofit managers
sent to 1) persons within this organization or 2) clients of this organization. The answers were
continuous variables. Communication frequency concerns the amount of interaction among
communicators.
Control Variables
An assessment of relationship between communication types and red tape must control
for both organizational and personal characteristics that might influence the relationships. Two
organizational variables are used: organization size and sector. Size is measured as a logarithm
of the total number of full time employees (FTE). Alrich and Herker (1977, p. 225) argue that an
13
“organization that provides services for large numbers of persons and thus face many non-
members (relative to members) at the boundaries of the organization must either substantially
increase the number of personnel in a boundary position or else routinize the tasks of existing
staff so they can handle a higher volume of work.” Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman (1995a) found
that the organizational size is significantly related to the red tape. I expect larger organizations
to report higher levels of red tape perception. By sector, both organizational communication and
red tape might be different. Nonprofit organizations are usually assumed to have flexible and
communicative intra-structure and more frequently interact with external stakeholders.
Numerous nonprofit organizations have been known for their voluntary involvement, flexible
organizational structure, and relatively less political pressure from external stakeholders than
public agencies. Because of these structural characteristics, this analysis assumes that there will
be significant sector-based difference in red tape perception, and nonprofit managers are likely to
perceive less red tape than public managers.
Five variables as controls measured personal and job characteristics of respondents: for
personal characteristics – gender and age; for job characteristics – a job position (managerial,
professional, and technical), managerial authority (a measure of the total number of employees
the manager supervises), and years on the job (how many years respondent has been in his or her
present organization).
FINDINGS
Table 1 provides the results of the correlation analysis. Red tape perception is positively
correlated with internal communication and negatively correlated with client communication, as
14
expected in the hypotheses. A negative relationship between sector and red tape perception
indicates that public managers are much more likely to report higher levels of red tape. Except
for managerial authority and gender, every control variable is statistically correlated with red
tape perception. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the potential
multicollineariy inherent to these relationships.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Descriptive statistics Correlation
Variable Obs Mean s.d. Min Max
Red
tape
Internal
comm.
Client
comm. sector
Dependent Variable
1. red tape
1193 6.03 2.68 0 10 1.000
Independent Variables
2. internal communication
1197 61.50 28.25 0 100 0.278 1.000
3. client communication
1195 20.56 23.10 0 100 ?0.307 ?0.767 1.000
Control Variables
4. sector(1=nonprofit)
1220 0.35 0.48 0 1 ?0.527 ?0.351 0.363 1.000
size
1125 6.24 2.53 0 9.8 0.539 0.407 ?0.410 ?0.810
job? managerial position
1219 0.71 0.46 0 1 ?0.134 0.020* ?0.026* 0.197
job? professional position
1219 0.19 0.39 0 1 0.06 0.003* 0.019* ?0.151
job? technical position
1219 0.05 0.23 0 1 0.12 0.021* ?0.034* ?0.155
managerial authority
1057 21.12 73.08 0 1200 ?0.006* 0.067 ?0.075 ?0.055*
years on the job
1157 8.63 6.49 1 40 ?0.099 ?0.120 0.079 0.074
gender (1=male)
1208 0.55 0.50 0 1 ?0.009* ?0.047* ?0.011* ?0.042*
age
1204 49.44 8.91 23 81 ?0.115 ?0.089 0.062 0.062
* not significant at p
Communication has crucial impacts within or among workgroups in that organization communication can be a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies.
THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION ON PUBLIC AND
NONPROFIT MANAGERS’ PERCEPTION OF RED TAPE
Eunju Rho
The University of Georgia
School of Public and International Affairs
Department of Public Administration and Policyhttp://www.uga.edu/padp/
Email: [email protected]
Prepared for delivery at the 10
th
National Public Management Research Conference (PMRC),
Hyatt on Capitol Square, Columbus, Ohio, October 1-3, 2009
THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION ON PUBLIC AND
NONPROFIT MANAGERS’ PERCEPTION OF RED TAPE
Eunju Rho
The University of Georgia
ABSTRACT
Communication has crucial impacts within or among workgroups in that organization
communication can be a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies. Given the
importance of organization communication and its managerial impacts, further research is
needed to explore this topic as it relates to the public administration field. To this end, this study
assesses the impacts of organizational communication on the perception of red tape by
comparing internal communication with external, especially client-oriented, communication in
both public and nonprofit organizations. This study is based on the questionnaire data from the
National Administration Studies Project (NASP)-III, closed in J anuary 2006, gathered from a
survey of public and nonprofit managers in the states of Illinois and Georgia. Results show that
frequent communication with clients plays an important role in reducing perceived red tape, and
sector-based differences between public and nonprofit sectors influence the impact of
communication type on red tape perception. The analysis controls for the organizational
characteristics, job characteristics, and personal characteristics.
1
INTRODUCTION
Communication has crucial impacts within or among work groups in that organizational
communication is a channel to flow information, resources, and even policies. Organizational
communication can be broadly defined as communication with one another in the context of an
organization (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1997; Shockley-Zalabak, 2006).This type of communication,
in turn, includes activities of sending and receiving messages through various layers of authority,
using various message systems, and discussing various topics of interest to the group we belong
to or the company we work for. Organizational communication research has mainly been
conducted both in the business management field and in the communication field; however,
researchers in the public administration field have provided little knowledge about organizational
communication and its roles and effects.
Several studies emphasize that effective communication can enhance organizational
outcomes (Garnett, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2008; Pandey & Garnett, 2006). Communication can
influence on the perceptions and opinions about persons, communities, organizations,
governments, and even society. One of the outcomes of administrative communication is related
to the flow of information, regulations, policies, and procedures. As a managerial tool,
communication is frequently expected to share information with members, to coordinate
activities, to reduce unnecessary managerial burdens and rules, and ultimately to improve
organizational performance. While the literature is contributing to establishing an understanding
of how the context of the organization influences communication processes and how the nature
of communication differentiates it from other forms of organizational behavior, theoretical and
2
empirical work still remains to be done to answer how organizational communication operates in
public and nonprofit organizations and how it influences managerial issues and outcomes.
The goal of this study is to develop and test an exploratory model of communication and
its impact on red tape, one of managerial issues, in public and nonprofit sector. The next section
explores organizational communication in more detail and summarizes the current state of
knowledge about it. Then, the study develops a measure of organizational communication and
constructs a theoretical model to analyze the relations between communication and red tape. This
model features communication types as the prominent variable with data from the National
Administration Studies Project Phase III.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION and RED TAPE
Public administration has focused on issues such as how to reduce the weight of the
mammoth government organization, how to make public organization businesslike, how to
improve effectiveness, responsiveness, accountability, cost-efficiency, and so on. Among them,
red tape is considered as bad rules that cause negative consequences, and efforts for cutting red
tape have been one of the prominent issues (Gore, 1993). Red tape is defined as “rules,
regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden but do not
advance the legitimate purposes the rules were intended to serve” (Bozeman, 2000, p. 12).
Several studies have dealt with red tape as an independent variable that can influence various
organizational issues, including motivation, satisfaction, work alienation, and innovation
(DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005; Pandey & Bretschneider, 1997; Pandey, Coursey, & Moynihan,
2007; Scott & Pandey, 2000; Walker & Brewer, 2008). Also, other studies focused on factors
that can cause and determine perceptions of red tape (Bozeman, 1993; Brewer & Walker, 2006;
3
Pandey & Welch, 2005; Rainey, Pandey, & Bozeman, 1995b). In terms of sector-based
differences among public, private, and nonprofit, the majority of studies were conducted to
compare red tape in the public sector with that in the private sector (Bozeman, Reed, & Scott,
1992; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000; Rainey et al., 1995b) but research on red tape in the nonprofit
sector has been ignored. Government is likely to have higher degrees of perceived red tape in
general due to “external control, the need for accountability, and the shift to interorganizational
governance arrangements for the delivery of public service” (Brewer & Walker, 2006, p. 2). Red
tape has been considered as a barrier to improve benefits provided to clients (Scott & Pandey,
2000). This study seeks to advance the research on red tape by assessing the impact of
organizational communication types in both the public and nonprofit sectors. Is the perception of
red tape really different according to persons with whom employees communicate? If then, what
kinds of other factors mediate the relationship between communication types and red tape?
Communication is essential to any kind of organization and information plays a crucial
role in effective communication. Theory on organizational communication has evolved from the
concept as a tool of management designed to facilitate task completion and as such was to
operate as one of many organizational variables (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006). As a tool of
management, communication is “the central means by which individual activity is coordinated to
devise, disseminate, and pursue organizational goals” (Gardner, Paulsen, Gallois, Callan, &
Monaghan, 2001, p. 7). From the scientific management viewpoint, communication is a tool of
organizational design to facilitate and operate task completion so that the theorists had emphasis
on communication flow from supervisors to subordinates (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006). Likewise,
Taylor’s scientific management was operated by a well-defined chain of command and specific
division of labor. These two principles were developed based on work standards and
4
measurement of standards. From his point of view, communication can be explained as a tool to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the chain of command, rules, and regulations
On the other hand, many scholars view communication as a core process of organizing
(J ones, Watson, Garner, & Gallois, 2004; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994; Weick, 1987). As the
human behavior perspective has been important in the atmosphere to emphasize cooperation,
participation, satisfaction, and interpersonal relationships among workers, communication-
related issues have also been recognized for organizing processes. Effective communication was
a cornerstone of the human behavior perspective, so theorists emphasized interactive
communication among employees to improve mutual trust. They also recognized the importance
of both formal and informal communication. This perspective has provided an idea about
communication as an organizing process of human interaction and has influenced the theoretical
backgrounds of communication theorists. Weick (1987, pp. 97-98), for example, said
“Interpersonal communication is the essence of organization because it creates structures that
then affect what else gets said and done and by whom… the structures themselves create
additional resources for communication such as hierarchical levels, common tasks, exchangeable
commodities, and negotiable dependencies.” Orlikowski and Yates (1994, p. 541) also
understood communication as “an essential elements in the ongoing organizing process through
which social structures are produced, reproduced and changed.” As an organizing process,
communication is not just a tool of management but a critical element to affect management.
With regard to the levels of research, a plethora of research has been done at the micro-
level, as J ones and her colleagues (2004, p. 740) mentioned, including studies on 1) superior-
subordinate communication in one organization, 2) the areas of conflict and negotiation tactics,
5
and performance feedback, and 3) computer-mediated communication. However, at a more
macro-level, particularly at the organizational and inter-organizational levels, the trend that the
boundaries between organizations are more fluid has influenced recent works with more interest
in communication beyond the organizational boundaries. Examples of macro-level research
include 1) a stakeholder perspective, 2) strategic alliance and network theory to organizational
communication, and 3) crisis management and strategies by organization.
In terms of the relational aspect, organizational communication can be divided into two
dimensions: internal (intra) organizational communication and external organizational
communication. Goldhaber (1993, p. 14) defines organizational communication as “the process
of creating and exchanging messages within a network of interdependent relationships to cope
with environmental uncertainty.” The concepts and perceptions of organizational communication
covers messages, characteristics of senders and receivers and their relationships, functions,
medias, environment, and so on. Among them, this study explores the notion of organizational
communication by looking at the two types of internal and external communication and
considering some ways in which those types could be described.
Internal communication
Many authors have attempted to offer their conceptualization of organizational
communication within one organization (Foltz, 1981; Greenbaum, 1971; Knapp, 1969; Redding
& Sanborn, 1964; Thayer, 1968). According to the direction of information flow, communication
has been trichotomized into downward, upward, and horizontal directions, which depends upon
who initiated the communication and who received it. The boss-subordinate transaction through
downward or upward communication is probably the most common communicative situation
6
within a work organization.
First, downward communication means the flow of information from superiors to
subordinates and it is a dominant channel in accordance with formal communication networks.
Garnett (1992) identified four roles of downward communication: conveying a vision,
communicating to motivate subordinates, providing feedback on subordinates’ performance, and
assigning tasks and conveying task-related information. Likewise, Katz and Kahn (1966)
indicate five types of downward communication, including job instruction, job rationale,
procedures and practices, feedback, and indoctrination of goals. In most cases, task-related
messages, such as goals, disciplines, orders, policies, and directions, are dominant. Goldhaber
(1993) indicates two intriguing points of downward communication: message overload and
filtering. He mentioned “in one organization most of the employees, after eight months of
receiving countless messages every day, began to throw every message into the wastebasket
before reading it” (p.156). Thus, downward communication can cause message overload to
individuals, especially subordinates who usually receive messages, and it leads them to avoid
receiving messages from supervisors, senders. O’Reilly (1980) has empirically proved the
relationship between information overload and organizational satisfaction and performance. He
found that perceived information overload is associated with lower performance but higher job
satisfaction. On the other hand, filtering means that messages have chances to be changed or
distorted during their travel from top to down within an organization due to “number of links in a
network, perceptual differences among employees, and lack of trust in a supervisor” (p.157).
Managerial overcontrol results in internal rules and red tape, as Bozeman (2000) mentioned:
“Managers’ responsibilities for obtaining organizationally sanctioned objectives necessitate
7
developing tasks and rules ensuring that subordinates will take coordinated action to achieve the
objectives” (Bozeman, 2000, p. 95).
The second type of communication within an organization is upward communication,
which flows from subordinates to superiors. Upward communication is a channel to know “how
work is processing, what problems and opportunities subordinates see, what ideas subordinates
have for improving performance, what intelligence subordinates gather about what clients and
other organizations are doing and what subordinates feel about the agency, their superiors, and
their jobs” (Garnett, 1992, p. 115). Finally, horizontal communication indicates the lateral
exchange of information, which flows in accordance with the functional principle among people
on the same level within an organization. Upward and horizontal communication are emphasized
for employee satisfaction (Miller, 1999). However, upward communication could be another
instrument to control and regulate subordinates, as Shermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2005, p. 298)
mentioned: “upward communication keeps higher levels informed about what lower level
workers are doing, what their problems are, what suggestions they have for improvements, and
how they feel about the organization and their jobs.” When the upward communication channel
is formalized and becomes a mandatory burden that employees should do, upward
communication can cause administrative delay of the subordinate’s job duties and make them
perceive more red tape.
With this in mind, Internal communication usually occurs in the context of internal
processes where most rules, regulations, procedures, and constraints emerge, develop, and exist.
In this context, downward and upward communication within the organization could make
employees feel so many burdens on the job that they may want to throw emails into a
8
wastebasket. Thus, I hypothesize that internal communication is likely to be positively associated
with the red tape perception.
External communication: Client-centered communication
External communication processes link multiple organizations and connect the
organization to its environment. Organizations exist amidst a complex web of relationships
among multiple audiences, which Grunig and Hunts (1984) described as components enabling
the environmental sector that controls the allocation of authority (governments, regulatory
agencies); the functional sector (suppliers, employees, customers); the normative sector (trade
association, professional organizations); and the diffused sector (local community, media). Thus,
at the interorganizational level of research, communication is understood in the network
relationship. According to Farace, Monge, and Russell (1977), the network property of strength
refers to the frequency and length of interactions among linked individuals. Strong links
communicate more frequently than weak links and usually have longer periods of interaction.
External communication can also be divided into several types in accordance with the
target groups. There are, for instance, external communication types with clients, with private
companies, with political parties, with nonprofits, with government agencies, and so on. Among
them, this paper focuses on client-centered communication in terms of increased emphasis on
improving citizen-centered public service delivery. In light of the interest in the public and
nonprofit sectors, a starting point pertains to the concept of client. For the public organization,
client means its publics, particularly the clients who are recipients or targets of policy programs
and other stakeholder citizens. Nonprofits in the United States, defined under the federal tax code,
serve a broad public purpose. Charitable and religious 501(c)(3) organizations and the social
9
welfare 501(c)(4) organizations make up the majority of the nonprofit sector. Other types of tax-
exempt organizations such as business leagues 501(c)(6), and social and recreational clubs
501(c)(7) primarily serve their members. Thus, client for the nonprofit sector means mainly the
general public, particularly their members of the organization.
All kinds of external communication can actualize through individual organizational
members’ activity. In general, the boundary spanners who serve to link an organization with its
environment and transfer information across organizational boundaries (Miller, 1999; Tushman
& Katz, 1980) play meaningful roles for both their own organization and external organizations.
Aldrich and Herker (1977) point out two functions of boundary roles: information processing
and external representation. Boundary spanners can be both filters and facilitators by selecting,
transmitting, and interpreting information. Thus, peripheral public or nonprofit managers
frequently contact clients, answer their requests, exchange representative information with them,
collect their feedback, and transmit it to the core. Miller (1999, p. 258) also attempts to provide
three major functions of external communication: coordinating interorganizational relationships;
creating and maintaining organizational images; and providing customer services. Boundary
activity, which can be understood as one of activities of client-centered communicators,
contributes to the increase of variation within the organization because information from
peripheral managers could be the foundation for responding to the external environments and
make it possible to build various adaptive plans for them. The characteristics of boundary jobs
are relatively responsive, innovative, and vigorous in that they need to open and adapt the
kaleidoscope of organizational ecology. With this in mind, managers who are frequently
communicating with clients at the boundary of the organization can be regarded as information
deliverers or gatekeepers. Moreover, they might relatively feel less burdened by red tape in the
10
organization. Thus, it is hypothesized that client-oriented communication is likely to be
negatively associated with the red tape perception.
MODELING THE IMPACT OF COMMUNICATION ON RED TAPE
The primary purpose of this study is to explore the impacts of organizational
communication on managers’ red tape perception. I hypothesize that internal communication will
be positively associated with the red tape perception and that client-oriented communication will
be negatively associated with the red tape perception. In addition, this study has interest in the
degree of sector-based difference not only in red tape perception but also in communication type.
Figure 1 summarizes the basic framework and hypotheses for the variables used in this paper.
Figure1. A Model of Red Tape Perception
Communication Type
? Internal communication
? Client communication
Red tape perception
Organizational Characteristics: sector, size
Job characteristics: job position (managerial, professional, technical), managerial
authority, years on the job
Personal characteristics: gender, age
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Controls
11
The basic model for testing is: RI
ì
= [
1
IC
ì
+[
2
CC
ì
+[
3
S
ì
+e
ì
, where RT is red tape
perception, IC is internal communication, CC is client communication, and S means sector
dummy. To demonstrate the interaction between sector and communication type, the model
needs to be supplemented by a consideration of nonlinear elements. Nonlinear impacts can be
assessed by using interaction terms like the equation of RI
ì
= [
1
IC
ì
+[
2
CC
ì
+[
3
(IC
ì
S
ì
) +
[
4
(CC
ì
S
ì
) +[
5
S
ì
+e
ì
or by examining relationships with different subsets of the sample. I will
look for nonlinear relationships between communication types and red tape perception by
partitioning the data to avoid collinearity problems.
DATA
The primary data source for this study is the National Administration Studies Project
(NASP)-III, closed in J anuary 2006. NASP-III is the expanded version from NASP-I in 1992 and
NASP-II in 2003. The first NASP project was done with public and private organizations in New
York State and dealt with especially red tape and administrative procedures. NASP-II data were
collected during 2002-2003 from public managers of human service agencies in the 50 states and
Washington D.C. and focused on the impact of policy and political context on public
management. NASP-III covers public and nonprofit managers from various functional agencies
in two states, Georgia and Illinois. A total of 1,220 responses were obtained for a response rate
of approximately 65.8%. The NASP-III database includes 787 public managers and 375
nonprofit managers.
12
MEASURES
Dependent and Independent Variables
The dependent variable is red tape perception, which was measured with the question “If
red tape is defined as ‘burdensome administrative rules and procedures that have negative effects
on the organization's effectiveness,’ how would you assess the level of red tape in your
organization? (Please circle the appropriate response)” The response choices were on a ten-point
scale from 0 to 10, in which 0 means ‘almost no red-tape’ and 10 means ‘great deal of red tape.’
This measures the perception of the overall level of red tape in their organization.
Organizational communication is multidimensional and it can vary in frequency and
target groups. This paper focuses on two representative types of organizational communication,
the independent variables, 1) internal organizational communication and 2) external
communication with clients. The organizational communication variables were measured by
asking what percentage of work-related mail, email, and phone calls the state/nonprofit managers
sent to 1) persons within this organization or 2) clients of this organization. The answers were
continuous variables. Communication frequency concerns the amount of interaction among
communicators.
Control Variables
An assessment of relationship between communication types and red tape must control
for both organizational and personal characteristics that might influence the relationships. Two
organizational variables are used: organization size and sector. Size is measured as a logarithm
of the total number of full time employees (FTE). Alrich and Herker (1977, p. 225) argue that an
13
“organization that provides services for large numbers of persons and thus face many non-
members (relative to members) at the boundaries of the organization must either substantially
increase the number of personnel in a boundary position or else routinize the tasks of existing
staff so they can handle a higher volume of work.” Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman (1995a) found
that the organizational size is significantly related to the red tape. I expect larger organizations
to report higher levels of red tape perception. By sector, both organizational communication and
red tape might be different. Nonprofit organizations are usually assumed to have flexible and
communicative intra-structure and more frequently interact with external stakeholders.
Numerous nonprofit organizations have been known for their voluntary involvement, flexible
organizational structure, and relatively less political pressure from external stakeholders than
public agencies. Because of these structural characteristics, this analysis assumes that there will
be significant sector-based difference in red tape perception, and nonprofit managers are likely to
perceive less red tape than public managers.
Five variables as controls measured personal and job characteristics of respondents: for
personal characteristics – gender and age; for job characteristics – a job position (managerial,
professional, and technical), managerial authority (a measure of the total number of employees
the manager supervises), and years on the job (how many years respondent has been in his or her
present organization).
FINDINGS
Table 1 provides the results of the correlation analysis. Red tape perception is positively
correlated with internal communication and negatively correlated with client communication, as
14
expected in the hypotheses. A negative relationship between sector and red tape perception
indicates that public managers are much more likely to report higher levels of red tape. Except
for managerial authority and gender, every control variable is statistically correlated with red
tape perception. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the potential
multicollineariy inherent to these relationships.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Descriptive statistics Correlation
Variable Obs Mean s.d. Min Max
Red
tape
Internal
comm.
Client
comm. sector
Dependent Variable
1. red tape
1193 6.03 2.68 0 10 1.000
Independent Variables
2. internal communication
1197 61.50 28.25 0 100 0.278 1.000
3. client communication
1195 20.56 23.10 0 100 ?0.307 ?0.767 1.000
Control Variables
4. sector(1=nonprofit)
1220 0.35 0.48 0 1 ?0.527 ?0.351 0.363 1.000
size
1125 6.24 2.53 0 9.8 0.539 0.407 ?0.410 ?0.810
job? managerial position
1219 0.71 0.46 0 1 ?0.134 0.020* ?0.026* 0.197
job? professional position
1219 0.19 0.39 0 1 0.06 0.003* 0.019* ?0.151
job? technical position
1219 0.05 0.23 0 1 0.12 0.021* ?0.034* ?0.155
managerial authority
1057 21.12 73.08 0 1200 ?0.006* 0.067 ?0.075 ?0.055*
years on the job
1157 8.63 6.49 1 40 ?0.099 ?0.120 0.079 0.074
gender (1=male)
1208 0.55 0.50 0 1 ?0.009* ?0.047* ?0.011* ?0.042*
age
1204 49.44 8.91 23 81 ?0.115 ?0.089 0.062 0.062
* not significant at p