Mount,

JOURNALBack
OF/ HOSPITALITY
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION
& TOURISM RESEARCH

A FACTOR-ANALYTIC STUDY OF
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION
IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY
Daniel J. Mount
Ki-Joon Back
The Pennsylvania State University

Communication, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction have been popular topics in
hospitality and business research. The most widely used business communication satisfac-
tion questionnaire, the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), has not been
used in the hospitality industry. This article presents a factor-analytic study of the CSQ in a
lodging setting. After the factor analysis, the article will then discuss the findings of com-
munication satisfaction as they compare to findings in other business-related studies.

KEYWORDS: communication satisfaction; job satisfaction; Communication Satisfac-

tion Questionnaire; hospitality; lodging.

Communication is probably the most central process in organizations (Frone &

Major, 1988). Employees spend tremendous amounts of time collecting and dis-
seminating information concerning such critical matters as company policy,
placement, promotion, performance feedback, and so forth. The importance of
effective communication has been recognized through numerous studies in vari-
ous fields of industry (Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Downs & Hazen, 1977; Pincus,
1986; Sparks, 1994). Generally, most researchers believe intuitively that there is a
positive relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational
effectiveness (Pincus, 1986). In fact, that relationship has been shown to be fairly
strong when it comes to the relationship between communication satisfaction and
job satisfaction (Downs, 1988).
The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed by
Downs and Hazen (1977) in an attempt to discover the relationship between com-
munication and job satisfaction. Clampitt and Downs (1993) noted that the CSQ
has been used in more than 50 organizations. Crino and White (1981) and Hecht
(1978) investigated the reliability and validity of the CSQ and found the instru-
ment to be basically sound. In his review of all instruments used to measure com-
munication satisfaction, Hecht stated, “The thoroughness of the construction of
this satisfaction measure is apparent. The strategies employed in this study” (cited
in Downs & Hazen, 1977, p. 363) are exemplary. Even with the continued review

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, November 1999, 401-418
© 1999 Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
401

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

402 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

of the CSQ and its popularity, Downs and Hazen (1977) recommend that
researchers factor-analyze the scale to confirm the dimension structure.
Communication is critical in the hospitality industry. Understanding commu-
nication satisfaction, with its link to job satisfaction, should provide an ability to
better target resources to improve communication satisfaction issues. The CSQ is
the most widely used communication satisfaction questionnaire in business, and
yet no research has been noted that used the CSQ in hospitality. The CSQ should
provide a framework in which to study, measure, and address communication sat-
isfaction issues in the hospitality industry.
The primary objective of this article is to validate the CSQ as proposed by
Downs and Hazen to determine whether the CSQ can be used in research concern-
ing hotels. A review of the relationship of communication and job satisfaction will
be provided first, followed by a discussion of the theoretical structure of the CSQ.
A factor analysis will be completed with a discussion of the results. Once the CSQ
has been validated or modified as necessary, the results of this study can be com-
pared to results of studies in other fields. This research may then provide a guide
for further examination of the relationship between communication satisfaction
and job satisfaction in hospitality industries.

BACKGROUND

Communication
Organizational communication has been defined in research in a number of
different ways (Pincus, 1986). Goldhaber (1983) identified two major research
perspectives, process and perception. Information flow is the main concern for the
process perspective, whereas attitude or perception is the main concern for the
perception perspective. Both areas offered valuable contributions for understand-
ing structural properties of organizational communication systems (Pincus,
1986).
From a process perspective, Andrews and Herschel (1996) stated that informa-
tion could flow in three directions within organizational communication systems,
namely: downward, upward, and horizontally:

1. Downward communication: Information flowing from upper to lower organiza-

tional levels. Five general categories of downward communication are job instruc-
tions, rationale, information, feedback, and attempts to motivate.
2. Upward communication: Information flowing from subordinates to superiors. Em-
ployees have the opportunities to share their ideas and concerns with management.
3. Horizontal communication: Information flowing between and among individuals on
the same organizational level. Horizontal communication exists in two forms: formal
and informal. A formal structure identifies individuals who are the official sources of
information to coordinate a task. An informal communication recognizes that a vari-
ety of needs, including social ones, underlie communication in organizations.

The direction of communication flow depends on the structure or type of the

organization (Pincus, 1986). The effective use of each flow or combination of

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 403

flows should be analyzed within the organization. In addition, it is clear that the
communicating organization must communicate with all of its employees at every
level whether the flow is downward or upward. Furthermore, Burns and Stalker
(1966) argued that organizations should have a flexible, or organic structure that
allows communication across various organizational departments and hierarchi-
cal levels such as open structures or upward systems.
The second perspective in the organizational communication research is the
perception perspective. Downs (1988) developed and defined the concept of com-
munication satisfaction as one emerging construct emphasizing the perception
perspective. Communication satisfaction is simply defined as satisfaction with
communication that is linked with the employee’s position in the organization.
Downs and Hazen (1977) stated that “communication satisfaction is multidimen-
sional rather than unidimensional” and set out to determine how the individual
dimensions relate to global job satisfaction. Therefore, this multidimensional
construct has been defined as “a summary of an individual’s satisfaction with
information flow and relationship variables” (Pincus, 1986).

Job Satisfaction and Quality

Job satisfaction has been one of the most intensely recognized and studied top-
ics in organizational behavior research (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, &
Schlesinger, 1994; Schneider & Bowen, 1993). Job satisfaction has been defined
in varying ways, but it is generally considered to be an individual’s perceptual/
emotional reaction to important facets of work (Vroom, 1964). Locke (1976)
defined job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences. Bettencourt and Brown (1997) have
recently defined job satisfaction as an employee’s overall perceived evaluation of
the job situation.
Several studies in management reveal a relationship between job satisfaction
and service quality (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Heskett, Sasser, & Hart, 1990).
Hallowell, Schlesinger, and Zornitsky (1994) stated that internal service quality is
very important because it relates to both customer satisfaction and job satisfac-
tion. It is necessary for organizations to deliver service quality to their internal
customers if they expect to deliver service quality to their external customers.
Lovelock (1989) reported that internal marketing is viewing employees as
internal customers, viewing jobs as internal products, and then endeavoring to
offer internal products that satisfy the needs and wants of these internal customers
while addressing the objectives of the organization. Berry and Parasuraman
(1992) stated that employees must clearly understand their part in the organiza-
tion and its importance in meeting the company’s objectives. Therefore, mutual
understanding of both parties, employees and organizations, will enhance the
relationship and satisfy their needs and wants.
In relating internal marketing to service quality, Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and
Berry (1990) stressed the important relationship between service quality and
communication. Ineffective communication within the organization leads to ser-
vice delivery gaps in many of their constructs, most noticeably, the constructs of

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

404 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

role ambiguity and role conflict. In both cases, employees are unsure or confused
about the requirements of their job, which leads to job dissatisfaction.
For employees, needs satisfaction refers to the satisfaction of both economic
(i.e., wages) and noneconomic needs (i.e., internal service quality). Hallowell et al.
(1994) suggested that satisfaction with internal service quality is more powerful
than satisfaction with wages and benefits in predicting job satisfaction. They
regressed several dimensions of internal service quality on job satisfaction and
found significant relationships with goal alignment, management, teamwork, and
communication. By focusing on these and other components of internal service
quality, managers may develop their employees’ satisfaction toward their jobs,
which in turn may result in lower unintentional turnover and improved internal
and external service quality.

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)

The communication construct has been used in three distinct contexts; inter-
personal, group, and organizational (Hecht, 1978). Greenbaum, Clampitt, and
Willihnganz (1988) state that the CSQ is one of the most widely used instruments
in the organizational context and that the instrument is “arguably the best measure
of communication satisfaction in the organizational arena” (p. 6).
Downs and Hazen (1977) developed the CSQ. Initial studies revealed eight sta-
ble factors. A revised questionnaire containing 5 items per factor was adminis-
tered to 510 employees in various industries in four different states. The 40 items
were used with a Likert-type scale ranging from 10 = very satisfied to 1 = very dis-
satisfied. The 5 items were averaged for a factor score. Factor analysis revealed
the items clustered along the proposed eight factors. These factors are:

1. Communication Climate: reflects communication on both the organizational and

personal level. On one hand, it includes items such as the extent to which communi-
cation in the organization motivates and stimulates workers to meet organizational
goals and the extent to which it makes them identify with the organization. On the
other, it includes estimates of whether people’s attitudes toward communicating are
healthy.
2. Supervisory Communication: includes both upward and downward dimensions of
communication with supervisors. Three of the principal items include the extent to
which a supervisor is open to ideas, the extent to which the supervisor listens and
pays attention, and the extent to which guidance is offered in solving job-related
problems.
3. Organizational Integration: revolves around the degree to which employees receive
information about the immediate work environment. Items include the degree of
satisfaction with information about departmental plans, the requirements of their
jobs, and some personnel news.
4. Media Quality: focuses on the extent to which meetings are well organized and writ-
ten directives are short and clear, as well as the degree to which the communication
in the organization is about right.
5. Coworker Communication: relates to satisfaction with horizontal and informal
communication relationship in the organization. This factor also concerns the extent
to which horizontal and informal communication is accurate and free-flowing; ad-
dresses the activeness of the grapevine.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 405

6. Corporate Information: deals with the broadest kind of information about the or-
ganization as a whole. It includes items on notification about changes, information
about the organization’s financial standing, and information about the overall poli-
cies and goals of the organization.
7. Personal Feedback: concerns what employees need to know about how they are
judged and how their performance is appraised. This deals with feedback in some
formalized setting or information that should be expected to be passed from supervi-
sor to subordinate.
8. Subordinate Communication: focuses both on upward and downward communica-
tion with subordinates. Only workers in a supervisory capacity respond to these
items, which include subordinate responsiveness to downward communication and
the extent to which subordinates initiate upward communication.

The coefficient alpha for the 510-employee test was .94. Coefficient alphas for
the eight dimensions have been consistently high, ranging from .72 to .96 for stud-
ies in the United States (Potvin, 1991/1992). The eight-factor structure has been
confirmed in numerous studies (Clampitt & Girard, 1987; Crino & White, 1981;
Pincus, 1986). Evidence of concurrent validity exists in that CSQ factors have
been found to be highly correlated with job satisfaction (Downs & Hazen, 1977),
to predict organizational commitment, and to be related to turnover (Clampitt &
Downs, 1993).
Clampitt and Downs (1993) feel that the most theoretical contribution of the
CSQ is the suggestion that communication satisfaction is a multidimensional con-
struct as opposed to a unidimensional one. It appears that, in the studies cited
above, the factors of Supervisory Communication and Subordinate Communica-
tion are the areas of the greatest employee satisfaction, whereas Personal Feed-
back provides the least satisfaction. In general, the research has suggested a rela-
tionship between job satisfaction and communication satisfaction (Clampitt &
Girard, 1993; Lee, 1989; Varona, 1996). Both Downs and Hazen (1977) and
Downs, Clampitt, and Pfeiffer (1988) found that three of the factors—Personal
Feedback, Communication Climate, and Supervisory Communication—have
been most strongly correlated with job satisfaction measures.
Greenbaum et al. (1988) suggested several advantages to using the CSQ. First,
the CSQ provides a relatively short and understandable instrument that can be
completed within 15 minutes. Second, scoring can be done easily using the Statis-
tical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Third, the instrument can be easily modi-
fied for various types of organizations. Last, the CSQ can measure more than one
outcome variable, such as job satisfaction and productivity. Although there are
several positive attributes associated with the CSQ, there is also one limitation:
Items dealing with interdepartmental communication and top management com-
munication are not within the dimensional structure (Greenbaum et al., 1988).

METHOD

The process of determining whether a model and the constructs that compose it
are valid is accomplished by investigating construct validity. To the extent that a
variable is abstract rather than concrete, it is spoken of as being a construct. Such a

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

406 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

variable is literally a construct in that it is something that experimenters put

together from their own imaginations, something that does not exist as an isolated,
observable dimension of behavior. If the constructs are valid, the use of the model
will be supported (Nunnally, 1978).
Construct validity will be determined through confirmatory factor analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis is appropriate when there is a desire to verify previ-
ous findings, either those of the investigator or those of others, using a new sample
from the same population or a sample from a different population (Comrey & Lee,
1992). The number of factors will be forced into the data analysis to determine if
the specified variables group themselves into the expected constructs. An oblique
rotation method, promax, will be used for this analysis. Oblique rotation is best
used when the variables have a high correlation (Nunnally, 1978).
If the expected constructs do not confirm, exploratory factor analysis will be
used to determine which variables do group together and what those variables rep-
resent. Comrey and Lee (1992) and Gorsuch (1983) suggest that a principal com-
ponents extraction method is appropriate to begin an exploratory analysis but that
a common factor extraction method should be used to define the model. This
requires the researcher to determine the number of factors from the principal com-
ponents analysis and enter that number of factors in the common factor analysis.
New factors identified will be analyzed by the variables that compose them.
New factor names may be created to help define the construct. Only variables that
reduce the alpha if deleted will be removed from the analysis at this point. Other
variables may be eliminated at a later stage if they do not contribute to the reliabil-
ity of the factor.
If a new model is developed through exploratory analysis, comparisons will be
made between the models to determine whether model improvement has been
achieved. Item-to-total correlations test convergent validity, factor intercorrela-
tions test discriminant validity, and alphas can be determined for each multiques-
tion factor. Model comparisons can be made on each of the three issues.

Data Collection
The main components of the CSQ were used as presented by Downs and
Hazen (1977). Wording was changed on questions to make the questions more
understandable to hotel employees. Some of the demographic information was
modified or changed to fit the research situation. Questions 4 to 39 (36 ques-
tions) on the questionnaire composed seven of the eight proposed factors. Ques-
tions 42 to 46, answered only by management, composed the eighth factor, sub-
ordinate communication.
The questionnaires were administered at six hotels managed by the same com-
pany, located in South Texas. There was a large Hispanic employee population so
the questionnaires were translated into Spanish. The translation was completed by
a double-blind process. One person translated the original English CSQ into
Spanish. A second person took the Spanish-translated version and translated that
back to English. The translated English version was compared to the original to
determine if the original content of the question was retained. The questionnaire
used in this study is presented in the appendix.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 407

The questionnaires were distributed by the general manager of the hotel at an

all-employee meeting. Employees were given sufficient time to complete the
questionnaires, with assistance available if they had questions regarding terminol-
ogy used in the instrument. Employees were instructed to put the completed ques-
tionnaires in a blank envelope, seal the envelope, and place the sealed envelope in
an express-mail box. The express-mail box was sealed after the completion of the
questionnaires by all employees and sent to the researchers. Response data infor-
mation is presented in Table 1. Some questionnaires were returned but were con-
sidered unusable because they were not filled out, were incomplete, or had the same
responses throughout the questionnaire indicating that the respondent had not com-
pleted the survey in good faith. Questionnaires that had one missing datum per fac-
tor were included by using mean substitution for the missing information.

RESULTS

The first step in the data analysis was to perform a reliability analysis. The
alpha for the 40-item instrument was .96, similar to the .94 alpha reported by
Downs and Hazen (1977). It was determined that the deletion of one question,
No. 28, would raise the alpha to .97. This question, “The grapevine is active in our
organization,” was found to be confusing even to the English respondents. There
is a positive connotation in all questionnaire items but, as phrased on this ques-
tionnaire, this question did not provide the positive connotation anchor. It was also
determined that the slang grapevine did not translate well into Spanish. This ques-
tion was removed from the analysis at this point.
A variety of rules have been suggested for determining the sample size
required to produce a stable solution when performing factor analysis. Many
researchers typically recommend that the necessary sample size be determined as
a function of the observed variables (Gorsuch, 1983; Nunnally, 1978). Guadag-
noli and Velicer (1988) studied the various rules in a Monte Carlo procedure. They
concluded that component saturation (the magnitude of factor loadings) and abso-
lute sample size were of major importance. They stated that the N-to-observed
variable rules were clearly not substantiated. The proposed factor analysis in this
study had 40 variables and eight factors, an average factor loading of .64. Based
on their suggestions, the minimum sample size is 150. Thus, the actual sample
size of 374 exceeds the suggested minimum.
The next step was to perform a confirmatory factor analysis based on the pro-
posed eight-factor structure of the original CSQ. The results of the confirmatory
analysis are presented in Table 2. To aid in the visual analysis, questions were
grouped by proposed factors. The actual question number from the survey is pre-
ceded by a two-letter designation of the proposed factor. The designations are as
follows: OI (organizational integration), PF (personal feedback), CI (corporate
information), CC (communication climate), SC (supervisor communication),
MQ (media quality), CW (coworker communication), and SB (subordinate com-
munication). Only the greatest factor loading for each variable is shown. Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggest that factor loadings less than .30 are
not considered practically significant, and that factor loadings of .30 are statisti-

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

408 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
Response Information

Questionnaires Unusable Usable

Returned Questionnaires Questionnaires
Employees (% of employees (% of questionnaires (% of employees
Hotel of Record of record) returned) of record)

Hotel No. 1 95 61 (64) 16 (26) 45 (47)

Hotel No. 2 134 92 (69) 17 (18) 75 (56)
Hotel No. 3 38 27 (71) 2 (7) 25 (66)
Hotel No. 4 118 84 (71) 12 (14) 72 (61)
Hotel No. 5 170 146 (86) 12 (8) 134 (79)
Hotel No. 6 34 31 (91) 8 (26) 23 (68)
Total 589 441 (75) 67 (15) 374 (63)

cally significant if the sample size exceeds 350. The sample size for this study was
374, so factor loadings of .30 or greater are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2, the eight-factor structure did not confirm as pro-
posed. Although some factors, such as Communication Climate and Subordinate
Communication, held together well, in many, questions were separated over three
factors. The next step was to perform an exploratory factor analysis. As was dis-
cussed, a principal components extraction method analysis was completed first to
identify the number of factors in the factor solution. The number of factors was
identified through the use of a scree plot. Then, the number of factors was input
back into a common factor extraction method analysis. The scree plot of the prin-
cipal components extraction is shown in Figure 1.
As can be seen, the number of factors falling above the straight line was seven.
The selection of the seven factors for use in the common factor analysis is sup-
ported by other selection criteria. Only seven factors had eigenvalues greater than
1, and the cumulative percentage of variance explained by the seventh factor
exceeded 75%. The results of the common factor analysis are presented in Table 3.
Again, only loadings greater than .30 are presented.
Two of the proposed factors, Subordinate Communication and Coworker Com-
munication (without question No. 28), remain as originally constructed. Factor 1
had three variables from the Supervisor Communication factor and two variables
from the Media Quality factor. The proposed Supervisor Communication factor
seemed to separate based on the direction of the communication. The three vari-
ables that remained in Factor 1 all seemed to deal with a downward aspect of the
communication. The two Supervisor Communication variables that did not load
into Factor 1 seemed to deal more the supervisor listening to the employee, repre-
senting an upward or vertical flow of information. It is interesting to note that the
original definition found on page 6 defined Supervisory Communication in terms
of both upward and downward communication. The respondents in this study
seemed to differentiate between the two directions of communication. The two
Media Quality variables that loaded on Factor 1 addressed downward communi-
cation aspects that are controlled by the supervisor, clarity of written directives and
organization of meetings. This factor was renamed Downward Communication.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 409

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OI 4 .73
OI 5 .40
OI 10 .39
OI 11 .73
OI 15 .54
PF 7 .49
PF 8 .74
PF 9 .76
PF 14 .42
PF 18 .49
CI 6 .42
CI 12 .79
CI 13 .63
CI 16 .66
CI 17 .56
CC 19 .50
CC 21 .57
CC 23 .54
CC 26 .44
CC 27 .63
SC 20 .78
SC 22 .60
SC 25 .79
SC 29 1.00
SC 34 .72
MQ 24 .44
MQ 33 .69
MQ 35 .89
MQ 36 .72
MQ 38 .45
CW 30 .88
CW 31 .76
CW 32 .35
CW 37 .57
SB 42 .90
SB 43 .95
SB 44 .75
SB 45 .73
SB 46 .63

Note: The actual question number from the survey is preceded by a two-letter designation of
the proposed factor. The designations are as follows: OI (organizational integration), PF (per-
sonal feedback), CI (corporate information), CC (communication climate), SC (supervisor
communication), MQ (media quality), CW (coworker communication), and SB (subordinate
communication). Only the greatest factor loading for each variable is shown.

Factor 2 had seven variables. Four of the variables, representing the three larg-
est factor-loading scores, were from the original Corporate Information factor. It
is best to look at the three other variables in a Corporate Information perspective.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

410 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 1
Scree Plot for Exploratory Factor Analysis

Question No. 24, from the original Media Quality factor, dealt with the quality of
the company’s publications. Question No. 5, from the original Organizational
Integration factor, dealt with the reception of information about personnel. Ques-
tion No. 14, from the original Personal Feedback factor, dealt with receiving
information about how problems on the job were being handled. It is possible to
understand how these questions could be interpreted in an Organizational Infor-
mation perspective. The factor name, Corporate Information, was retained for this
factor.
Factor 4 had eight variables. Three of the variables were from the original
Communication Climate factor, two variables were from the Organizational Inte-
gration factor, and one variable each was from the Personal Feedback, Supervi-
sory Communication, and Media Quality factors. A review of the variables not
from the original Communication Climate factor indicates that the factor may still
be interpreted from a Communication Climate perspective. For example, question
No. 24, from the original Media Quality factor, dealt with the appropriate amount
of communication in the company. The factor name, Communication Climate,
was retained for this factor.
Factor 5 had six variables, three from the original Personal Feedback factor.
Two of the other variables, questions No. 6 and 10, dealt with receiving informa-
tion about both departmental and corporate policies and goals. Question No. 4,
from the original Organizational Integration factor, dealt with receiving informa-
tion about progress in their job. It was surprising to see that this was not in the

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 411

Table 3
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

OI 4 .67
OI 5 .43
OI 10 .31
OI 11 .86
OI 15 .62
PF 7 .46
PF 8 .69
PF 9 .70
PF 14 .58
PF 18 .62
CI 6 .36
CI 12 .81
CI 13 .74
CI 16 .57
CI 17 .72
CC 19 .67
CC 21 .36
CC 23 .37
CC 26 .50
CC 27 .43
SC 20 .61
SC 22 .49
SC 25 .86
SC 29 .87
SC 34 .77
MQ 24 .35
MQ 33 .76
MQ 35 .87
MQ 36 .48
MQ 38 .59
CW 30 .91
CW 31 .87
CW 32 .30
CW 37 .65
SB 42 .81
SB 43 .90
SB 44 .68
SB 45 .82
SB 46 .67

Note: The actual question number from the survey is preceded by a two-letter designation of
the proposed factor. The designations are as follows: OI (organizational integration), PF (per-
sonal feedback), CI (corporate information), CC (communication climate), SC (supervisor
communication), MQ (media quality), CW (coworker communication), and SB (subordinate
communication). Only the greatest factor loading for each variable is shown.

original Personal Feedback factor as it seems to define the concept of Personal

Feedback. The factor name, Personal Feedback, was retained for this factor.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

412 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 4
Factor List and Model Comparison Summary Information

Original Model Factors Proposed Model Factors

Communication climate Communication climate

Subordinate communication Subordinate communication
Coworker communication Coworker communication
Corporate information Corporate information
Personal feedback Personal feedback
Supervisory communication Downward communication
Media quality Vertical communication
Organizational integration
Factor intercorrelation .674 Factor intercorrelation .683
Item-to-total correlation range .49-.87 Item-to-total correlation range .68-.89
Factor coefficient alpha range .73-.88 Factor coefficient alpha range .81-.90

Factor 7 had four variables. Although the variables do seem to capture several
concepts, there was one variable that loaded very strongly on this factor. That vari-
able was question No. 29, from the original Supervisory Communication factor,
which dealt with the supervisor being open to ideas. This factor was named Verti-
cal Communication. Table 4 presents a list of the original factors and the factors
identified in this study along with the summary model comparison information. It
can be seen that the summary information generally supports the use of the new
factor structure. The factor intercorrelation average was slightly higher for the
new factor structure; this may be because of the reduced number of factors.
The new factor structure was then used to compare the results of communica-
tion satisfaction relationships to job satisfaction between this study and other pre-
viously cited studies. In a study of the CSQ, Clampitt (1993) suggested that it
appeared that the factors of Supervisory Communication and Subordinate Com-
munication were the areas of the greatest employee satisfaction whereas Personal
Feedback provided the least satisfaction. The means of the new factors, in
descending order, in this study were: Downward Communication (7.39), Subordi-
nate Communication (7.39), Coworker Communication (7.00), Vertical Commu-
nication (6.86), Communication Climate (6.56), Personal Feedback (6.21), and
Corporate Information (5.85). In that the largest number of variables of the new
factor, Downward Communication, were from the Supervisory Communication
factor, the results support the suggestions of Clampitt (1993). In this study, Per-
sonal Feedback was the second lowest in terms of satisfaction.
Downs and Hazen (1977) and Downs et al. (1988) found that three of the fac-
tors—Personal Feedback, Communication Climate, and Supervisory Communi-
cation—have been most strongly correlated with job satisfaction measures. The
correlation coefficients of the new factors with overall job satisfaction, in
descending order, were: Downward Communication (.575), Communication Cli-
mate (.560), Vertical Communication (.535), Personal Feedback (.502), Corpo-
rate Information (.468), Coworker Communication (.415), and Subordinate Com-
munication (.319). All of the correlation coefficients were significant at .01 with
the exception of Subordinate Communication, which was significant at .05.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 413

Again, remembering that the new Downward Communication is very much asso-
ciated with the old Supervisory Communication, these results again support the
findings of Downs and his colleagues.

CONCLUSION

As Downs and Hazen (1977) recommend, the use of the CSQ, or any other fac-
tor study, should be preceded by a factor analysis. The factor analysis presented in
this research indicates changes to the factor structure of the proposed CSQ.
Although the factor structure changed, the underlying theoretical structure of the
CSQ was supported. Factors that were the same as, or similar to, those factors
found least satisfying in previous research were identified in this research. Also,
factors that were found to be most correlated to job satisfaction were also similar
to factors proposed in previous research.
Future research should continue to explore the factor structure of the CSQ in
hospitality settings. Also, it would appear that more focused research can be con-
ducted on specific factors. From the factors identified as providing the least satis-
faction, coupled with the factors that are most correlated to job satisfaction, it
would appear that the Personal Feedback factor provides the greatest opportunity
for operational improvement. Future research should explore this factor in detail
to determine how hospitality operations could improve the satisfaction levels of
the Personal Feedback factor.

LIMITATIONS

The Downs and Hazen (1977) work in developing the CSQ occurred more than
20 years ago. Although subsequent work in numerous studies, discussed earlier,
generally supports the CSQ, some differences in factor structures have been iden-
tified. This is to be expected when dealing with a variety of subjects in a variety of
industries. The CSQ has survived as a useful model because of the general stabil-
ity of the original factor structure.
This study, in addition to the time factor, also dealt with the issues of homoge-
neity of management and ethnic background of the respondents. All six hotels are
managed by the same company and, due to the location of the hotels, all had a
large percentage of Hispanic employees. The findings in this research are limited
by these factors. Future research that builds from this work must acknowledge
that factor structures and results may be different based on the characteristics of
the sample. As Downs and Hazen (1977) suggest, and we agree, a confirmatory
factor analysis should be a prerequisite for any research using the proposed fac-
tors identified in this study.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

414 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

APPENDIX

The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

The questionnaire items are listed below. The page format was changed for this presentation.
1. How satisfied are you with your job? Place the number 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 in
the blank space provided. Let 0 represent no satisfaction, 5 represent average satisfaction,
and 10 maximum satisfaction.________
2. In the past 6 months, what has happened to your level of satisfaction? Check the
most appropriate response; if you have not worked for the organization for 6 months, leave
this blank.
________ 1. Stayed the same
________ 2. Gone up
________ 3. Gone down
3. If the communication associated with your job could be changed in any way to make
you more satisfied, please indicate how. Use the back of this page if you need more room.

Listed below are several kinds of information often associated with a person’s job. Please
indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements by placing the number
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 in the blank space provided. Let 0 represent strong disagreement, 5
represent neither agreement nor disagreement, and 10 represent strong agreement.
________ 4. I receive information about my progress in my job.
________ 5. I receive information about personnel.
________ 6. I receive information about company policies and goals.
________ 7. I receive information about how my job compares with others.
________ 8. I receive information about how I am being judged.
________ 9. I receive recognition of my efforts.
________ 10. I receive information about departmental policies and goals.
________ 11. I receive information about the requirements of my job.
________ 12. I receive information about government action affecting my company.
________ 13. I receive information about changes in the organization.
________ 14. I receive information on how problems in my job are being handled.
________ 15. I receive information about employee benefits and pay.
________ 16. I receive information about company profits and financial standing.
________ 17. I receive information about accomplishments and/or failures of the
company.
________ 18. Upper management knows and understands the problems faced by
employees.
________ 19. Company communication motivates and stimulates an enthusiasm for
meeting company goals.
________ 20. Upper management listens and pays attention to me.
________ 21. People in my organization have great ability as communicators.
________ 22. My supervisor offers guidance for solving job-related problems.
________ 23. Company’s communication makes me identify with it or feel a vital part
of it.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 415

________ 24. My company’s publications are interesting and helpful.

________ 25. My supervisor trusts me.
________ 26. I receive on-time information needed to do my job.
________ 27. Conflicts are handled appropriately through proper communication
channels.
________ 28. The “grapevine” is active in our organization.
________ 29. My supervisor is open to ideas.
________ 30. Communication with employees in other departments is accurate and
free-flowing.
________ 31. Communication practices are adaptable to emergencies.
________ 32. My work group is compatible.
________ 33. Our meetings are well-organized.
________ 34. The amount of supervision given me is about right.
________ 35. Written directives and reports are clear and concise.
________ 36. Attitudes toward communication in the company are basically healthy.
________ 37. Informal communication is active and accurate.
________ 38. The amount of communication in the company is about right.
39. How would you rate your productivity in your job? (Check one)
________ 1. Very low ________ 5. Slightly higher
________ 2. Low than most
________ 3. Slightly lower ________ 6. High
than most ________ 7. Very high
________ 4. Average
40. In the past 6 months, what has happened to your productivity? Check the
most appropriate response, if you have not worked for the organization
for 6 months, leave this blank.
________ 1. Stayed the same
________ 2. Gone up
________ 3. Gone down
41. If the productivity associated with your job could be changed in any way
to make you more satisfied, please indicate how. Use the back of this
page if you need more room.

Answer the following section only if you are a MANAGER OR SUPERVISOR (Non-
managers, skip to No. 47).
________ 42. My employees are responsive to downward directive communication.
________ 43. My employees anticipate my needs for communication.
________ 44. I do not have a communication overload.
________ 45. My employees are receptive to evaluation, suggestions, and criticism.
________ 46. My employees feel responsible for initiating accurate upward
communication.
47. What is your age? ________ (years)
48. How long have you been in
your current position? ________ (years/months)

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

416 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

49. How long have you worked

for this organization? ________ (years/months)
50. What is your gender?
________ Male
________ Female
51. Please check the box which best indicates your formal education?
________ a) Did not finish ________ d) Specialized/
high school professional/
________ b) High school technical degree
________ c) Completed some ________ e) College degree
college ________ f) Graduate degree
52. What is your ethnic background?
________ African American
________ Asian
________ Hispanic
________ Caucasian
________ Other
53. What is your primary language?
________ English
________ Spanish
________ Other

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. H., & Herschel, R. (1996). Organizational communication: Empowerment in

a technological society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Prescriptions for a service quality revolution in
America. Organizational Dynamics, 20(4), 5-15.
Bettencourt, L., & Brown, S. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction, and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1),
39-61.
Burns, T., & Stalker, R. C. (1966). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Clampitt, P. G. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication
and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication, 30(1), 5-28.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28.
Clampitt, P. G., & Girard, D. (1987, May). Time for reflection: A factor analytic study of the
communication satisfaction instrument. Paper presented to the International Commu-
nication Association, Montreal.
Clampitt, P. G., & Girard, D. (1993). Communication satisfaction: A useful construct? New
Jersey Journal of Communication, 1(2), 84-102.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Mount, Back / COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION 417

Crino, M. D., & White, M. C. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of

the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838.
Downs, C. W. (1988). Communication audits. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P. G., & Pfeiffer, A. (1988). Communication and organizational
outcomes. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communi-
cation (pp. 171-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor-analytic study of communication satisfac-
tion. The Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-73.
Frone, M., & Major, B. (1988). Communication quality and job satisfaction among mana-
gerial nurses. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 332-347.
Goldhaber, G. (1983). Organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenbaum, H. H., Clampitt, P. G., & Willihnganz, S. (1988). Organizational communica-
tion: An examination of four instruments. Management Communication Quarterly,
2(2), 245-282.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of compo-
nent patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265-275.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hallowell, R., Schlesinger, L. A., & Zornitsky, J. (1994). Internal service quality, customer
and job satisfaction: Linkages and implications for management. Human Resources
Planning, 19(2), 20-31.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication
Research, 4(4), 350-368.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994).
Putting the service profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164-174.
Heskett, J., Sasser, W. E., & Hart, C. W. L. (1990). Service breakthroughs: Changing the
rules of the game. New York: Free Press.
Lee, Y. (1989). A study of the relationship between communication and job satisfaction
among faculty at the junior colleges of technology in the Republic of China. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Lovelock, C. H. (1989). The interaction of operation and marketing: Their impact on cus-
tomers. In D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, & T. C. Cummings & Associates (Eds.), Service
management effectiveness (pp. 343-368). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance.
Human Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Potvin, T. C. (1991/1992). Employee organizational commitment: An examination of its
relationship to communication satisfaction and evaluation of questionnaires designed
to measure the construct. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas,
Lawrence.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

418 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organization: Human resources man-
agement is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 39-52.
Sparks, B. (1994). Communicative aspects of the service encounter. Hospitality Research
Journal, 17(2), 39-50.
Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational
commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. The Journal of Business Communica-
tion, 33(2), 111-140.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Bal-
ancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.

Submitted December 15, 1998

First Revision Submitted March 19, 1999
Second Revision Submitted May 19, 1999
Accepted May 28, 1999
Refereed Anonymously

Daniel J. Mount, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of HRRM, The Pennsylva-
nia State University (227 Mateer Building, University Park, PA 16802-1307; e-mail:
dmount@psu.edu) and Ki-Joon Back is a Ph.D. candidate in School of HRRM, The Penn-
sylvania State University (1400 Martin St. #3101, State College, PA 16803; e-mail:
kxb261@psu.edu).

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016