University of Phoenix Material

Chapter 7 Organizational Orientations and Communication Traits Koehler, Anatol, and Applbaum (1981) suggest that the personality or culture “of an organization, in many respects, is a composite of the varied behaviors of the people within it” (p. 172). They are absolutely correct. The individual organizational orientations, temperaments, and personalities in each unit influence how people outside, as well as within, view the unit.

Not all people approach their work in organizations with the same orientation. Some are “organization-friendly.” Others are not. Some are organization-friendly only part of the time. Individuals’ orientations are a major factor in their success or failure in the work environment. These orientations are associated with both the individuals’ temperaments and their communication traits. All of these are associated with workers’ job satisfaction and motivation to work.

Organizational Orientations Presthus (1962) advanced organizational orientation theory as an explanation of substantial differences in the way employees in organizations approach their jobs. Presthus believed that these orientations result in employees having different orientations toward work itself, motivation toward work, job satisfaction, and ways of dealing with coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates. Presthus viewed his theory as being a theory of organizational behavior. He viewed the behavior of people in organizations as being driven by their traits, which he believed were learned through their experiences while working in organizations.

Presthus identified three organizational orientations that are specifically

related to the way people approach their roles in organizations. These reflect the variable orientations different types of people have toward work and the place of work in their lives. These orientations are believed to be traits; that is, people will tend to have these orientations regardless of the organization in which they are employed, and the orientations are not expected to change markedly as a person moves from one organization to another. People with high scores on these orientations are known as “upward mobiles,” “indifferents,” and “ambivalents.” All three of these types are found in virtually all organizations. However, it is not common for a person to score highly on more than one of these orientations. Some people do not score highly on any of them.

Upward Mobiles Perhaps the most dedicated and most easily recognizable organizational type is the upward mobile. This is the typical “organizational man” or “organizational woman.” These people are deeply devoted to the goals and functioning of the organization. They have a strong identification with the organization. They are self-motivated, believe in the organization’s rules and procedures, and expect others also to. Their personal goals are in line with the organization’s goals, and they strive toward high job satisfaction.

Upward mobiles do not like associating with people they consider to be “losers,” people who are not on the same career path that they are. In fact, they might be highly critical of personnel who are not as dedicated or devoted as they are. They thrive on work, decision making, power, and organizational rewards and are ready and willing to “go the extra mile” for the organization. They will openly defend the organization and criticize those who are not dedicated to it. They have high standards and expect others to have the same.

All organizations look to hire potential upward mobiles, and when they have one, they are likely to groom her or him for bigger and better positions. Organizations know they can depend on these persons to follow the rules, enforce the rules if necessary, and give “110 percent” support to the organization. These are the people organizations are likely to reward and encourage. They represent the future of the organization.

If we work for or with an upward mobile, we will be expected to support the organization and its policies. Communicating with an upward mobile is really quite easy. You know where he or she stands and what is expected of you. Praise her or him and the organization, and rewards will come to you and your unit. However, if he or she thinks you are a “loser,” he or she will encourage you to go elsewhere. This person might even say things like, “If this is not the job for you, then try some other job,” or “In this organization, we expect commitment. You don’t seem to care, so it is time you move on.”

If you want to influence an upward mobile, your suggestions should be couched in terms of how what you want would be good for the organization and, if possible, might help the upward mobile move up in the organization. Such an approach indicates your loyalty to the organization and also your loyalty to this person. One of the best ways to move up in many organizations is to be “sponsored” by an upward mobile.

Indifferents The next orientational type is as easily recognizable as the upward mobile. This person is called the indifferent. These people make up a large portion of the employees in most organizations.

Whereas the upward mobile lives to work, the indifferent works to live. The indifferent is working because he or she has to. People have to make a living, they have to buy groceries, they want to make a better life for their children. Many people are motivated to work beyond their basic needs for survival. However, indifferents work only to satisfy their own very basic needs or the basic needs of their loved ones. This is not to say that they are evil or mean— they are simply not interested in the job or the organization. They are only in it for the paycheck.

These people will avoid participation in the daily organizational routines, they rarely share in the rewards the system has to offer, they are not highly satisfied with their jobs, and they rarely do any extra work without compensation. They would “never” volunteer to do extra work if the only reward were self-satisfaction. These people simply come to work, do their

job, and go home.

Much of their communication on the job is about their family or personal life. When encouraged to communicate about organizational matters with colleagues, they generally say nothing, change the topic, or suggest that others should discuss those matters. They are not dedicated or upwardly mobile in any aspect. Hence, if you work with one of these people or have one for a supervisor, depend on yourself. These people will never do more than what is absolutely necessary. Again, they are not evil; they are not a threat to others. They may even be very nice people, but they are in the organization to do their job and be left alone. Every organization needs these people because they can be assigned to do menial, routine tasks that require little thought, and that others would resent doing. They don’t resent these tasks—after all, it is a job and a paycheck—and such tasks do not require a personal commitment.

Getting along with indifferents in the organization usually is not difficult as long as you do not push them to “give their all” for the organization or your unit in it. They are indifferent to their work, but that does not mean they do not care about anything. They can be very interested in things outside the work environment. Talk with them about their family, what they plan to do over the weekend, where good spots are for fishing, the local sports team, where to go for a vacation—what most people refer to as “small talk.” Serious talk about work is not the indifferent’s cup of tea.

Ambivalents The final organizational type is perhaps the most difficult to work with because they are unpredictable. Although many of the personality orientations we discuss in this chapter are not necessarily likable, they at least are predictable—this type is not. They are the ambivalents. Koehler et al. (1981) describe the ambivalents as both “creative and anxious.” They go on to state, “The upward mobiles like the status quo and the indifferents accept it, the ambivalents want to change it” (p. 173).

The ambivalents are never truly comfortable in any organization. They may

take a position because it seems to be what they want, but within a few months they have found a number of “problem areas” that need changing. They cannot seem to accept organizations or the people within them for what they are. These people can be supportive one day and destructive the next. They are moody, which makes it difficult for people to work with or for them. Chances are they will not stay in any one organization for more than a few years. After a while, they feel they have done all they can do and must change positions. Or they get “disgruntled” with the system and change jobs.

Although ambivalents often are quite intelligent and highly skilled verbally, they reject the authority structure and will often try to turn others against the organization and the supervisors within it. They will openly criticize the system. Some of their criticism might be useful, but because of the way it is said, others reject it. Most systems are happy when ambivalents leave. These are the people for whom the going-away party is held the day after they leave!

Communicating with ambivalents can be difficult since you seldom can predict how they will react to ideas. About the only safe topic is criticism of the organization. Gripe sessions get ambivalents’ blood churning. However, entering such conversations can be dangerous. You may find yourself quoted the next time the ambivalent decides to take on the organization or the supervisor. The best advice is to stick to small talk with ambivalents.

Personality Types In the previous section, we considered people’s orientations, which are directly related to organizational life. In this section, we turn our attention to the way people are generally—their basic personalities. Personality can be defined as the sum of an individual’s characteristics that make her or him unique. There are literally thousands of ways people differ from one another. Each person is higher and/or lower than most other people around them on a scale for any given characteristic. This is how we come to distinguish each person from others we know well. Social scientists have identified some of the individual differences that have a distinctive impact on people in organizations as a function of their influence on communication behaviors.

We will consider several of these following.

Authoritarianism This personality type has highly predictable patterns of behavior. Authoritarians, if they are anything, are consistent. The authoritarian personality type is structured and rule-oriented. Often authoritarians are stern, unhumorous, conventional, suspicious, and at times hostile. Authoritarians respect authority. They are obedient to those above them, and they expect those below them to be obedient to their demands.

Authoritarians intensely dislike it when others do not show proper respect and obedience to their authority. They may become vindictive when treated in a disrespectful manner by those below them in the hierarchy. It might seem that this is one type an organization surely could do without, but some organizations want this type of person in certain jobs. They will get people to “toe the line” and keep order and make sure things run smoothly.

Since they firmly believe power and status should be recognized and that some people should have a lot of it, whereas others should obey those who have it, authoritarians often become the favorites of supervisors, particularly if the supervisor also is an authoritarian. As supervisors, high authoritarians make their subordinates feel as if they should “salute” each time they pass one another in the hallway. They usually manifest conservative attitudes, rarely find things funny at work, want others to be submissive and show deference to them, and become hostile when others ignore rules and policies.

In one organization with which we worked, there was such an authoritarian individual who was not a supervisor. Many of her peers went out of their way to torment her. They quickly learned that she truly had little control over them since she was not well liked by her supervisor, so they would do things that would “drive her up the wall.” If she commented on someone’s improper dress, the next day that person would show up even more poorly dressed and watch this person fuss and fume. If she suggested there was “too much fun in the office,” then there would be more of it the next day, and it would be directed at her. If she commented on the music people played in their offices,

they would play it more loudly and obnoxiously. Because high authoritarians are so demanding of others and expect others to always obey their wishes, they can become targets, particularly if they are not in a supervisory position.

If you work under a high authoritarian, you need to understand his or her need for authority and obedience. If you choose not to conform, he or she is likely to make your life miserable. If you cannot accept doing what you need to do to be able to work with this type of person, you probably should leave your position. In many ways, authoritarians are easy to work for because you know what you need to do to stay out of trouble. But if you are not willing to do what is necessary, leave.

Communicating with highly authoritarian people is easy. Agree with them. “Yes” is the word they most enjoy hearing. “No” is not often acceptable.

It is quite acceptable for you to ask them for explanations concerning how to do what they have instructed you to do. It is not acceptable for you to question why that should be done. Challenging a highly authoritarian person is like stamping on a dog’s tail. If you do it, you can expect to be bitten.

Although dealing with high authoritarians is not particularly difficult if you are willing to do it, dealing with people who are unusually low in authoritarianism may be even more difficult. These are people who have no respect for authority. They do not respect the rules, and their behavior may be seen as aberrant in the organization. Being seen as allied with such a person does not make one popular. Communication with these people should be handled very carefully and kept to a minimum, at least in the presence of other organization members.

Machiavellianism People with this personality orientation can be useful to the organization if they are working with and for the organization, not against it. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote the book The Prince, in which he described what a prince would need to do to be an effective leader and rise to greater control of a society. The book was long on tactics and short on morality. Since that time,

people who are highly manipulative have come to be known as Machiavellians.

People high in Machiavellian tendencies are willing to manipulate others, enjoy manipulating others, and are good at it. Usually they get what they want, either for themselves or for their organization. This is not to suggest that Machiavellians necessarily are evil or that manipulation is wrong. Although Machiavellians do not typically subscribe to traditional high moral principles, that does not mean they are immoral. They view their manipulative skills as amoral tools. Morals simply are not an issue. If people are manipulated into doing something against their best interests, others might be appalled, but the high Machiavellian would more likely be amused.

How do you know a high Machiavellian when you see one? Usually, you don’t unless you go out of your way to look. It is rare that high Machiavellians are widely recognized in an organization. In fact, it is more likely that people who are moderately high in Machiavellian tendencies will be thought to be high, since their attempts at manipulation will be more obvious. However, Machiavellians can be identified. Look for the following: they seem to get what they want without being pushy, they get people to do things for them that those people would not do for others, they rarely look as if they are manipulating, they generally are well liked by others in the organization, and they usually do well in the organizational environment.

Machiavellians typically do well in the “people professions.” That is, they succeed when influencing people is necessary for success. Some typical occupations with a large proportion of high Machiavellians include education, law, religion, politics, fund-raising, and many forms of sales. Most people that rise to the top, or near the top, in most organizations have high Machiavellian tendencies. High Machiavellians will manipulate to help themselves or others. Hence, they can be very good friends—or dreadful enemies.

How should one communicate with high Machiavellians? Very carefully! Remember, they get their way by being nice to others. They do not steal your money or power; they get you to give it to them! When communicating with a high Machiavellian, you need to be careful to have everything spelled out in detail. Do not consent to anything unless you are absolutely certain you know

what you are doing and that it is in your best interests. Even then, you should delay for as long as possible. There are plenty of easy targets for high Machiavellians to manipulate. If you can manage to delay, there usually is little reason for Machiavellians to persist in trying to take advantage of you. If they are just doing it for fun, your delaying takes the fun out of it. If they really are after some benefit, they quickly recognize their time would be better spent by going after another target.

While high Machiavellians provide a challenge to other people in the organization, low Machiavellians present a different picture. These people are particularly easy to manipulate. Hence, they are unreliable colleagues and/or friends. Whoever has the last word has these people on their side. This is a particularly serious problem if you have such a person for a supervisor. Who knows what others will convince this person to do that will not be in your best interests? The only advice we can give you, and it is easier said than done, is to be sure you get the last opportunity to influence this person before they have to make a decision important to you. Low Machiavellians often are the spineless wonders you find in middle-management positions who, in good faith, promise you one thing and then do the opposite—because someone else persuaded them to change their mind.

Achievement Orientation Organizations are particularly thankful for this personality orientation. These people are the high achievers, sometimes over-achievers. Money is not the main motivator behind the high achiever. These people work because they want to achieve certain goals for themselves. They are often overcommitted, overextended, and overworked. They will often take on more duties than they can handle, but they will work overtime to make sure things get done. They are the “workhorses” in most organizations.

You can spot them: They seem frazzled at times, have more work than most, more responsibility than most, and love it. They will often let others know how much they do by complaining about being overworked. They thrive on sympathy and praise. They are likely to volunteer for extra duties a minute after they have complained about being overworked. They are the people

who validate the old maxim that “if you want something done fast, give it to a busy person.”

High achievers have a tendency to blame themselves when things they are responsible for do not work out. They tend to be harder on and more critical of themselves than others would be, and often get overwrought when others show a streak of laziness. These people also need some praise from their coworkers or supervisors for jobs well done. If you praise high achievers, they will work, and work, and work, and work. The biggest drawback to this personality type is that they might take on more work than they are capable of handling effectively. Hence, an astute supervisor should be happy to have a high achiever, but must be careful that the person does not insist on more work than he or she is capable of handling. It is easy for systems to abuse these people because they are willing to do more than others. Hence, if you are a high achiever, be careful.

High achievers are easy to communicate with. They will try to assist you with your problems and make your job easier. In fact, they will rarely expect you to do what they don’t. However, they do expect you to work hard. The key to interacting with high achievers is the appropriate use of praise. These people need to know that you respect what they do. If you like their work, they like you.

Dogmatism People of the highly dogmatic personality type often are considered “difficult.” These are the people in organizations who have a narrow view of issues and expect others to see their point of view. They are rigid in their beliefs and do not tolerate viewpoints that disagree with theirs. They tend to be narrow in their thinking and will either avoid those who do not think as they do, or simply get rid of them if they can. Dogmatics see things as right or wrong, black or white—there are no gray areas or compromises. The classic example of a highly dogmatic person was Archie Bunker on the TV show All in the Family. On the same show there was another highly dogmatic person—Michael Stivic, Archie’s son-in-law. They were equally hardheaded and dogmatic. They each had their opinions, and neither was willing to see or

even listen to the other’s viewpoint. Their confrontations were hilarious to the millions of viewers who watched this show regularly, and still are funny today, decades after they were originally shown, to a whole new generation of viewers. While Archie Bunker and his son-in-law portrayed dogmatic characters who had different political positions, Hugh Laurie as the star of the TV show House portrays a dogmatic individual in an organizational context. He is always right, or at least he thinks so. Everyone in his environment is frustrated by his dogmatic belief that he knows best. As each show develops, his colleagues continue to propose the nature and/or causes of the illness of the week, and House tells them why they are wrong. In almost every show he turns out to be right and saves someone’s life. He is the hero. Unfortunately, we find dogmatics in our organizations to be much less entertaining and far less likely to always be right.

It is virtually useless to argue with a highly dogmatic peer, much less one who is your supervisor. He or she will simply discount your arguments as wrong, frivolous, or just plain stupid—and develop similar views about you. Hence, communication with highly dogmatic individuals is not easy. You have to determine what their views are, fit your ideas into their viewpoints, and even let them think they generated the idea, and only then might you be successful in communicating with them.

If you cannot do this and the dogmatic is your supervisor, you might have to leave the system. Think of what it would be like if your supervisor were a combination of a high authoritarian and a high dogmatic. Communication would be restricted to only views on issues with which he or she agrees. Even unemployment might look attractive in comparison.

Self-Esteem Many people in contemporary organizations have constant feelings of inadequacy. These feelings dominate their entire personalities. They have low self-esteem. We refer to these people as “inadequates” because that is the way they see themselves. They worry that they cannot perform their work well. They fear that others will not like them. They worry that they might be promoted because they know they could not succeed at a higher level. They

are insecure about their marriage, their children, life in general.

The first thing we should recognize is that a person who has low self-esteem can be right. That person may really be inadequate. But many people who have these perceptions are incorrect in the way they see themselves. Nevertheless, we must deal with these people every day in our organizational lives. Most of us have the common response of trying to tell these people they are more adequate than they think they are (even if they are not). That response will be met with rejection, as will praise for something the person does well.

As we noted in Chapter 5, these insecure people also tend to see attacks coming from all sides. Thus, to be on the safe side, we can simply accept an inadequate’s claims of inadequacy and move on to some other topic. Avoid praising his or her work, since the inadequate will not believe you anyway, and be extremely careful to avoid anything that would sound like criticism. Anything of that type is likely to prompt a highly defensive reaction (such as aggressive denial) or an emotional acceptance of blame. Either will be unpleasant. Fortunately, these people seldom are promoted to supervisory positions since others recognize they are not likely to succeed in such positions. Consequently, most of the inadequates we will encounter will be peers or subordinates.

Organizational Orientations and Temperament Although the early work with organizational orientations was based on the assumption that these orientations are learned, this view has come into question. More recent research (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2004) has determined that the three organizational orientations have substantial associations with temperament. Higher levels of both ambivalence and indifference are associated with both higher levels of neuroticism and higher levels of psychoticism. In contrast, higher levels of extraversion are associated with higher levels of upward mobile orientations. Because temperament has been determined to have a strong genetic base, it may well

be that organizational orientations do too.

Organizational Orientations, Temperament, and Communication Traits Research has determined that communication traits are substantially related to both temperament and organizational orientations (McCroskey, Richmond, Johnson, & Smith 2003; McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2004). Assertiveness has been found to be positively associated with extraversion and upward mobility. Responsiveness has been found to be negatively associated with psychoticism, ambivalence, and indifference. Nonverbal immediacy has been found to be positively associated with extraversion, but negatively associated with psychoticism, ambivalence, and indifference. Clearly these three sets of orientations are highly interrelated.

Organizational Orientations, Temperament, and Organizational Outcomes Two major outcomes for employees in organizations, as well as for the organization itself, are employee job satisfaction and employee work motivation. Research has indicated that both temperament and organizational orientations are substantially associated with these outcomes (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2004). Upward mobility and, to a lesser extent, extraversion are positively associated with both job satisfaction and motivation. Job satisfaction can also be affected by information overload (Cho et al., 2011), lack of organizational support (Reinardy, 2009), friendships at work (Raile et al., 2008), verbal aggressiveness of supervisors (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010), aggressive humor (Avtgis & Taber,

2006), and ethical conflicts that are generated by unethical organizational practices (Kang, 2010). Other factors that contribute to job satisfaction included achieving success and recognition, using one’s skills, feeling worthwhile, and being involved in the job (Gruneberg, 1979). Ambivalence, indifference, neuroticism, and psychoticism are all negatively associated with both job satisfaction and motivation. Clearly, both individually and collectively, these employee traits are very important predictors of success in organizations.

For many years, scholars believed that the kinds of trait orientations we describe in this chapter were learned by individuals as a function of contact with their parents, teachers, peers, siblings, and the general culture in which they live. The two studies referenced provide some support for this belief. The participants in the first study were upper-division college students (average age 20), who had comparatively little experience in full-time employment. The participants in the second study were older people with many years of experience working in organizations. The mean scores on both indifference and ambivalence were much higher for the younger group than the older group. It seems likely that the older group modified their indifference and ambivalence as a function of their work experience. It would be difficult to explain how genetic factors would produce such a major change.

Nevertheless, given the research findings discussed previously, it is clear that there are genetic factors influencing the relationships among these groups of trait orientations and their impact on organizational outcomes. Even if learning is a meaningful influence in establishing organizational orientation traits, they still are traits. That is, they remain generally consistent across organizations and across time.

This, of course, does not mean that people are totally unable to change their trait orientations. However, it does suggest that even if one really wants to change, change may be difficult, and the amount of change that can be made may be comparatively small. We need to keep this in mind so that we recognize how unrealistic it is to expect our supervisors and colleagues to change just because we want them to. Alternatively, we must learn to adapt (as much as our own traits will let us) our communication to the way other

people really are rather than the way we wish they were. This is the only realistic path to effective communication in organizations.

In conclusion, an organization is as good as its personnel. We have reviewed a number of personality orientations that exist in all organizations. Some are easier to work with than others. Of course, some people may exhibit characteristics of two or more personalities. For example, a person could be an upward mobile with high-achiever tendencies. What we must learn to do is recognize the personalities we work with. Then we must communicate with them in ways that will not go against their personality predispositions. If we can do so, we are likely to be pleased with the outcomes of our communication. If things do not work out right, we might wonder if our own personality orientations got in the way. Could it be that your personality fits into one or more of the types we have discussed in this chapter?

Study Guide 1. List and explain the three organizational orientations.

2. List and explain the five types of personality that are related to organizational communication.

3. Explain the relationships between organizational orientations and temperament.

4. Explain the relationships of organizational orientations and temperament with the communication traits of assertiveness, responsiveness, and nonverbal immediacy.

5. Explain the relationships of organizational orientation and temperament with organizational outcomes.

6. List the possible causes of organizational orientations and communication traits.

7. Explain what workers should do to deal with the traits of their supervisors and subordinates.

References and Recommended Readings

1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

2. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper and Row.

3. Avtgis, T. A., & Taber, K. R. (2006). “I laughed so hard my side hurts, or is that an ulcer?” The influence of work humor on job stress, job satisfaction, and burnout among print media employees. Communication Research Reports, 23, 13–18.

4. Cho, J. Ramgolam, D. I., Schaefer, K. M., & Sandlin, A. N. (2011). The rate and delay in overload: An investigation of communication overload and channel synchronicity on identification and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 38–54.

5. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

6. Ghiselli, E. (1963). The concept of role and theoretical basis for understanding organizations. Bologna: University of Bologna Press.

7. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: Macmillan.

8. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 72–80.

9. Kang, J. (2010). Ethical conflict and job satisfaction of public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 36, 152–156.

10. Koehler, J. W., Anatol, K. W. E., & Applbaum, R. L. (1981). Organizational communication: Behavioral perspectives (2nd ed.). New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

11. Madlock, P. E., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of supervisors’ verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42–62.

12. McClelland, J. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

13. McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

14. McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

15. McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (April, 2004). Applying organizational orientations theory to employees in profit and nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Eastern Communication Association, Boston, MA.

16. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Johnson, A. D., & Smith, H. T. (May, 2003). Organizational orientations theory and measurement: Development of measures and preliminary investigations. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

17. Presthus, R. (1962). The organizational society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

18. Raile, A. N. W., Kim, R. K., Choi, J., Serota, K. B., Park, H. S., & Lee, D. W. (2008). Connections at work: How friendship networks relate to job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 25, 168–178.

19. Reinardy, S. (2009). Beyond satisfaction: Journalists doubt career intentions as organizational support diminishes and job satisfaction declines. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 126–139.

20. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the assertiveness–responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67, 449–450.

21. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.