US Consulting Part B

Running head: PREFERRED MACHINE WORKS, INC. 1
Organizational Communication Assessment: Preferred Machine Works, Inc.
US Consulting
Phara Brown
Cydnie Dalton
Nathan Page
Treena Pitts
Brandon Schultze
Department of Communication
Kennesaw State University

PREFERRED MACHINE WORKS, INC. 2
Executive Summary
Preferred Machine Works, Inc. (PMW) is a manufacturing facility within the job shop
industry, specializing in producing custom machined parts. PMW describes itself as a company
that highly values both customer and employee satisfaction. Emphasis on relationships and
productivity require the capacity to effectively conduct business in various aspects, which is why
PMW selected US Consulting to assess the quality of communication within the organization.
This evaluation was completed by utilizing four research methods including interviews, ICA
Survey, focus groups, and content analysis.
Using four research methods enabled US Consulting to gather useful data and compile
results, which led to the emergence of four major findings. The first finding was that PMW
heavily relies upon the on-the-job training method while there is no central standard by which
employees must be trained. Second, PMW documents all work-related materials manually.
Third, PMW does not provide formal feedback to employees regarding individual job duties,
task completion, or achievements. The final, fourth finding was that PMW employees maintain
cohesive interpersonal relationships through face-to-face communication.
After examining the four findings, US Consulting generated four major
recommendations, which include the following: Implement a standardized training program,
create a streamlined, digital document sharing and storage system, conduct semi-annual
performance evaluations and appraisals for each employee, and maintain interconnectedness by
coordinating team-driven activities. Finally, these recommendations were identified in order to
improve PMW’s communication effectiveness.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................2
Introduction.............................................................................................................................4
Research Methods...................................................................................................................6
Interviews....................................................................................................................6
ICA Survey .................................................................................................................8
Focus Groups ............................................................................................................10
Content Analysis.......................................................................................................12
Results...................................................................................................................................14
Interview results........................................................................................................15
ICA Survey results....................................................................................................16
Focus group results ...................................................................................................23
Content analysis results.............................................................................................24
Discussions and Recommendations......................................................................................27
References.............................................................................................................................33
Appendices............................................................................................................................34
Interview Agenda......................................................................................Appendix A
Interview Guide......................................................................................... Appendix B
ICA Survey ...............................................................................................Appendix C
Focus Group Protocol ...............................................................................Appendix D
Preferred Machine Works Training Manual..............................................Appendix E
Content Analysis Coding Sheet .................................................................Appendix F
ICA Survey Tables................................................................................Appendix G-K

Introduction
PMW is a manufacturing facility located just north of Metro Atlanta in Ball Ground, Ga.
Established in 2002, PMW has consistently grown over the years. It strives to conduct business
with its mission statement in mind:
Our mission is to provide our customers with unparalleled service in the machining
industry by becoming a one-stop-shop for all of your machined parts needs. From
prototype to production, we complete the circle by delivering ready to use quality parts
produced and finished to your specifications. (Preferred Machine Works, Inc., n.d., para.
1)
PMW employs 31 people, many of whom are experienced in programming and
producing parts for the aerospace, computer, energy, automation, military, and communication
industries. PMW specializes in Computer Numerical Control (CNC) jobs and manufacturing
small to medium size machined parts from raw materials such as aluminum, steel, stainless steel,
bronze, copper, and plastic. Finishes such as anodize, chromate, powder coat, black oxide, nickel
plate, and paint are provided through sub-tier outsourcing. This gives PMW the ability to take
parts through all stages of production to meet customer requirements and specifications.
Furthermore, sub-tier vendors are subjected to rigorous inspection and must meet PMW Quality
Control standards:
Preferred Machine Works is dedicated to deliver high quality products and services that
consistently meet or exceed our customer’s requirements and expectations by
implementing and maintaining quality and regulatory requirements. Preferred Machine
Works is committed to excellence through improving processes, the workplace, work
environment, and people. (PMW, n.d., para. 2)

Additionally, PMW production parts are inspected to meet the requirements of MIL-1-45208A
and MIL-STD-45662, which are strict government-mandated guidelines required for contract
work.
PMW is also an ISO 9001: 2008 certified company. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental membership organization that sets
quality requirements for companies across the globe (International Organization for
Standardization, n.d.). Being ISO certified promotes PMW’s credibility and assists the
participation in local and international trade. Due to the intense quality systems PMW has
maintained, it now has the opportunity to become Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
certified, which will require a lengthy preparation process.
PMW has received recognition for its commitment to quality products. In 2006, FATS,
another reputable company in the machining industry, awarded PMW “Mechanical Fabrication
Supplier of the Year,” in 2010, Southeastern Technology awarded PMW “New Supplier of the
Year” and in 2013, Meggitt awarded PMW “Certified Supplier” (PMW, n.d., para. 4). According
to Thriving Cherokee (2014), PMW is listed as a top contributor to the economic development of
Cherokee County (p. 23). Marshall Day, Chairman of COED, stated, “There is no better
testament to the pro-business climate of a community than the success of existing industries”
(Thriving Cherokee, 2014, p. 22). PMW has built strong relationships within its community,
frequently supporting local little league teams and various charities. In 2009, PMW received
special thanks and recognition from Special Olympics Georgia for its sponsorship and
contributions (Special Olympics Georgia, 2009, p. 16). PMW emphasizes the importance of
customer and community relationships, and attributes its continued growth and success to those
strong connections.

PMW welcomes the auditors from US Consulting to assess the effectiveness of its
organizational communication. US Consulting will perform an evaluation that offers a diagnostic
thoroughness, skilled evaluation, and a tailored design (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 7). This
assessment will not only help determine the quality of communication among the staff of PMW,
but will also provide recommendations for how the organization can maintain strengths and
improve upon weaknesses. US Consulting will help the staff of PMW identify its progress by
illustrating its current status in comparison to its future vision and goals (Downs & Adrian, 2004,
p. 15).
Research Methods
US Consulting will use four research methods to assess the organizational
communication effectiveness of PMW including interviews, ICA survey, focus groups, and
content analysis. Additionally, using multiple research methods will increase reliability and
validity of the data and findings. Each method will have a designated primary and secondary
researcher, but every team member will be involved in analyzing the collected data. After data is
gathered and analyzed, US Consulting will report findings and proposed recommendations to
PMW.
Interviews
US Consulting will lead a progression of exploratory and follow-up interviews to gauge
the communication environment and procedures within PMW. The interviews will yield, “high-
quality information that can be probed in detail in a face-to-face relationship with the employee”
(Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 76). The exploratory and follow-up interviews will give the
employees a confidential avenue to freely express their views on the communication within the
organization.

Instrument. US Consulting will compose an Interview Agenda (Appendix A), which
will serve as a list of topics to be covered in the interviews. A scope of issues will be discussed,
including matters such as chain of command within PMW and how information is essentially
communicated throughout the organization. Next, an interview guide (Appendix B) will be
created, which consists of a manuscript that includes a briefing statement, 25 distinct questions,
and a debriefing statement. The interview questions are designed to be open-ended and non-
controlling, allowing the participants the opportunity to reveal as much information as desired.
The questions will follow a funnel system that “begins with broad question and becomes
increasingly specific” (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 90).
Procedures. The interview process will be initiated by collaborating with the upper
management of PMW. Participants will be randomly selected to take part in the initial and
follow-up interviews. Randomization will be achieved by drawing names out of a hat, which will
give every employee an equal chance of being selected (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 92).
Interviews with the randomly selected respondents will be scheduled based upon the availability
of the interviewer and the interviewee. The timeframe for each interview will be between
approximately thirty to sixty minutes for machinists and management. The interviews will be
held on site in a conference room at the PMW facility. This designated area fosters privacy and
helps to maintain confidentiality between the interviewer and the interviewee. Each interview
will be conducted by the primary and secondary researchers. The primary researcher will ask
questions, while the secondary researcher will assist in transcribing data. Follow-up interviews
will be scheduled upon conclusion of the exploratory interviews. The follow-up interviews will
provide the researchers with an opportunity to gain more insight into themes presented in the
initial interviews.

Respondents. US Consulting will randomly select interviewees from within PMW by
drawing names out of a hat. The process will include a minimum of five machinists and five
management positions. Interviewing employees who work different shifts and in various
positions within the company will yield a comprehensive scope during the interview process.
ICA Survey
The ICA survey is a questionnaire developed by the International Communication
Association. Dr. Gerald Goldhaber and the ICA desired to create a way to measure an
organization’s current state of communication versus its desired state of communication. After
creating a package, which included interviews, observations, network analysis, and
communication diaries, Dr. Goldhaber also included a unique method of measurement in the
form of a standardized survey. Using a Likert Scale, the survey covers topics in communication
such as relationships, directionality, adequacy, outcomes, timeliness, and communication
practices within the organization (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 124).
Instrument. The ICA Survey is a “self-report, perception based” instrument (Downs &
Adrian, 2004, p. 138). The ICA Survey (Appendix C) contains 122 questions, and is often
accompanied by other research methodologies, which is the case of US Consulting’s audit of
PMW. These 122 questions are divided into eight communication-focused sections: information
received, information sent, follow-up on information sent, sources of information, timeliness of
information received, organizational communication relationships, organizational outcomes, and
channels of communication. The survey also includes an open-ended set of questions known as
the Critical Communication Experience (CCE) Survey in order to receive more detailed
responses. One criticism of the ICA Survey is that the subjective nature of the questionnaire may
skew results from what is reality, towards what is perception. However, the proven adaptability

of the survey makes it an effective tool for gaining both qualitative and quantitative results. US
Consulting has taken advantage of this adaptability by creating a customized a cover letter for
PMW, but has decided to keep all of the questions as they were. This decision was made because
the questions work well for this specific audit. Once US Consulting customized the cover letter,
the survey was uploaded to SurveyMonkey, a survey hosting website. This survey, combined
with the other research methods used by US Consulting, will help to provide an accurate
framework through which the auditors can accurately assess PMW’s communication practices.
Procedure. The team of auditors from US Consulting will use the ICA Survey to collect
qualitative and quantitative information pertaining to the organizational communication PMW.
The qualitative data will come from the CCE Survey, which consists of open-ended questions at
the end of each of the eight sections of the ICA Survey. The rest of the survey uses a Likert scale
to gain quantitative data. This survey will be accessible to PMW employees online, through
SurveyMonkey.
The group’s liaison will be responsible for distributing information to all employees
regarding the survey. The liaison will place flyers in multiple locations throughout the office and
will also pass out memos with more detailed information about the survey. This distribution
method is most effective for PMW because of employees’ limited access to computers. The
primary researcher will periodically check in with the liaison to gauge progress, and determine
whether employees need further incentive to complete the survey. Employees of PMW will be
given six weeks to complete the survey and will be reminded periodically to complete the
survey. Auditors will also encourage employees to complete the ICA Survey from their home
computers. The survey should take an estimated time of one hour to complete and should be
completed on the same computer on which the survey was started. After the six-week time

period allotted to finish the survey, the primary and secondary researchers will gather and
compile the responses from SurveyMonkey.
Respondents. Each of the 31 employees of PMW will be asked to participate in the ICA
Survey. Out of those 31 people, 30 are full-time employees. Additionally, 29 are male and 2 are
female. Employees range in experience from approximately less than one year to over twenty
years. Employees will be given the freedom to complete the survey either during work hours, or
on personal time.
Focus Groups
US Consulting will administer focus groups as a qualitative method to gather and assess
information regarding communicative exchanges and experiences among the employees at
PMW. As explained by Keyton (2011), “a focus group is a facilitator-led group discussion used
for collecting data from a group of participants about a particular topic in a limited amount of
time” (p. 292). The purpose of the focus groups is to initiate and encourage participant dialog.
The focus groups will consist of 5 to 10 participants for the duration of approximately one hour.
Downs and Adrian (2004) report, “the greatest advantage of a focus group is its efficiency in
collecting information” (p. 213). This platform will allow the facilitator to pose questions to the
group, as coordinated by the researcher, in addition to providing the opportunity for open
discussion to take place. Further, participants have the opportunity to expand upon or dispute the
comments and statements of their peers. One of the advantages of conducting focus groups to
gather information is that it provides participants the opportunity to share their unique
perceptions with one another (Keyton, 2011, p. 292). This forum will foster productive
communication practices within the organization.

Instrument. The instrument that US Consulting used for the focus group is a focus group
protocol (Appendix D), which includes a briefing statement, seven questions, and a debriefing
statement. The purpose of this protocol will be to assist the facilitator in identifying topics that
have or have not been discussed, specific to the organization, as well as maintaining structure
during the course of the focus group. Throughout the duration of each focus group, the facilitator
will also use the protocol to introduce or transition to new topics and questions that need to be
discussed. This will be a vital component of data collection for US Consulting in providing
accurate results to PMW.
Procedure. The researchers of US Consulting will direct focus groups with participants
from PMW. Each of the focus groups will be held on the premises of PMW in the conference
room which minimizes productivity disruption. This location provides privacy and is easily
accessible to all participants. The dates of the focus groups will be determined based on the
availability of the facilitator and the participants; however, the time designated for focus groups
will be during the employees’ one hour lunch break. PMW’s upper management and US
Consulting have agreed to provide refreshments in an effort to encourage employee participation.
Each of the focus groups will consist of two researchers from US Consulting: one serving
as the primary and the other as the secondary. The primary researcher will pose and introduce
questions to the focus group in addition to guiding the discussion accordingly. The secondary
researcher will provide support in the form of note taking and documenting participant
responses. The primary researcher will issue the briefing statement at the start of the focus group
which will clarify the purpose and procedure of the interactive discussion. The primary
researcher will facilitate discussion based upon seven questions designed by US Consulting to
reveal characteristics about internal communication at PMW while the secondary researcher

transcribes group proceedings. If appropriate, the primary researcher will ask probing questions
for clarification, elaboration, or to gain insight on participants’ perceptions (Downs & Adrian,
2004, p. 96). Focus group will conclude with the issuing of a debriefing statement which restates
the purpose, thanks the group, and provides a platform for additional discussion.
Participants. Based on the number of people employed at PMW, a minimum of five
employees will attend and participate in each of the focus groups. The first focus group will
include machinists, all of which are male, full-time employees. The second focus group will
consist of management, which has the potential to include both male and females. By grouping
the participants according to similar departmental position, the selection criteria can be met more
effectively. Thus, this creates a homogeneous focus group environment.
Content Analysis
In this study, content analysis will be used to analyze textual publications endorsed by, or
used within, PMW. According to Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas (2013), this method is
utilized to “determine trends and patterns of words used, their frequency, their relationships, and
the structures and discourses of communication” (p. 400). By using this method, US Consulting
will determine particular themes that are emphasized by PMW in order to gain insight as to what
the company values and finds relevant to its culture.
Instrument. US Consulting will analyze the Preferred Machine Works Training Manual
(Appendix E) using customized coding sheets (Appendix F) to record the frequency and intensity
of certain themes that continually emerge from within the document. The themes that US
Consulting will seek out in the text will include: importance of quality, importance of safety,
emphasis on following a process, efficiency, and importance of communication with customers.
These themes within the Preferred Machine Works Training Manual will be explored in further

detail. Themes were chosen before analysis of the document to provide a theoretical framework
from upon which to build. In addition to highlighting how many times and to what extent PMW
emphasizes these themes, the coding sheet will also serve in discovering the manifest and latent
content within these particular areas. After interpretation of the data, the coding sheet will also
contain a column which relates each theme to a certain focal area. Definitions will be given at the
end of the coding sheet so that PMW can interpret results with clarity.
Procedure. US Consulting will examine the Preferred Machine Works Training Manual
and seek to identify and record major themes and trends found to be important to the
organization. A print copy of the manual will be duplicated in order to take the documents off
site for analysis. Due to the atypical design of the manual, relying heavily upon third party
training literature within the organization’s own training program, US Consulting will utilize
stratified sampling to choose one subsection out of the eight sections available. This subsection
will be analyzed and scanned for recurring themes. Once identified, themes found within the
subsection will then be organized into five different categories. To assist with the categorization
of themes mentioned within the text, US Consulting will identify the manifest and latent content
of these themes. Auditors will then use the coding sheet to record the frequency of which these
themes occur within the text. All categories will be accompanied by a clear definition to provide
an academic baseline with which to compare future conclusions and provide reliability. Not only
will US Consulting seek to identify how many times a particular theme is mentioned, but it will
also seek to identify to what extent each theme is stressed. This will be referred to as intensity
and will be measured on a scale of low to high, which will be dependent upon how the text is
formatted and the type of font used to emphasize each theme. An analysis will be conducted after
the data is made available through frequency counts to connect each theme with its

organizational significance. This connection will then be tied to an organizational focal area,
which will give US Consulting a deeper insight into further findings and recommendations.
Results
Methods Summary
Conducting a communication assessment of PMW required using four research methods
including interviews, ICA Survey, focus groups, and content analysis. Each method was
performed by a designated primary and secondary researcher, which enhanced the quality of data
collection. All researchers from US Consulting participated in triangulating and synthesizing the
data by using a collaborative team approach. Changes and modifications to the research methods
are noted below.
The first research method utilized in this assessment was interviews. Exploratory
interviews were conducted in the PMW conference room and stayed within the expected
timeframe. Follow-up interviews were conducted after the majority of other research methods
were completed. This allowed US Consulting to create relevant, appropriate questions for the
second interview guide. The randomly selected respondents from exploratory interviews were
available and willing to be interviewed again during the follow-up round. Follow-up interviews
took less time than exploratory, which was expected, but provided the desired amount of
information. Consistency in location, participants, and researchers made for a smooth transition
from the first round of interviews to the second.
The second method utilized in this assessment was the ICA Survey. This method was
used to measure PMW’s current and desired state of communication. US Consulting’s strategy
for informing employees of the ICA Survey, which involved posting flyers around the office and
distributing detailed information, was successful and allotted for a high response rate of 23 out of

31 employees. US Consulting initially planned for employees to take the survey online, but due
to a lack in access to technology the liaison printed hard copies, personally distributed the copies,
and then manually entered the results into SurveyMonkey. This was not an ideal option, but was
necessary to obtain responses.
The third method utilized in this assessment was the focus groups. The first focus group
was designated for management, which included one female and four male employees. The
second focus group was designated for machinists and consisted of 11 males. Machinists
willingly volunteered because of the incentive for pizza and drinks, which was provided by
management. Both focus groups were conducted during employees’ lunch break, lasted
approximately one hour, and were held in the conference room at PMW.
The fourth method utilized in this assessment was content analysis. Significant changes
to this research method included choosing a single, 30-page excerpt titled the Preferred Machine
Works Quality Manual from the vast training manual on hand, changing one of the
aforementioned themes from “efficiency” to “effectiveness,” and consolidating the analysis of
manifest and latent content into the single category: “Organizational Importance.”
Results
Interview results. The exploratory and follow-up interviews revealed many prevalent
themes and trends. Quality of communication relationships, directionality of information flow,
and adequacy of information exchange were consistently present. Conducting exploratory and
follow-up interviews in two separate phases provided an appropriate time lapse to collect
information from other methods of assessment. The exploratory interviews provided insight into
organizational culture and identified areas in need of further analysis. The follow-up interviews

were issue-oriented and provided an enriched understanding of data collected by other research
methods.
PMW employees expressed strong interpersonal relationships built upon trust and mutual
respect on all organizational levels. These bonds formed outside of professional interactions
provided a foundation on which the following two trends flourished. Communication among
employees at PMW represents each of the three directionalities of communication flow: upward,
downward, and horizontal (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 53). This is substantiated by the
employees’ descriptions of open communication that takes place between all management,
subordinates, and peers. Employees voiced appreciation for management’s open-door policy and
participatory leadership style. This ease of upward communication facilitated a sense of pride
and inclusiveness within the PMW workforce. Furthermore, employees conveyed that informal
channels of communication helped to foster and maintain positive relationships within the
organization.
Responses indicated effective exchange of information when interviewing employees
about their job and specific positions within the organization. Employees stated there was a
willingness to share information pertinent to task-related duties. They also reported that the
distribution of information is solely delivered through face-to-face interactions. While this
communication approach is effective, some concern regarding information overload was evident.
It was stated that the “bombardment of information” creates interruption of tasks and results in
personal stress. Nonetheless, employees verbalized that the communication within PMW is
effective and results in commitment and job embeddedness (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 50).
ICA Survey results. It is important to again note that the ICA Survey uses a Likert scale,
which ranges from 1 to 5. The following illustrates the variance of the scale: very little (1), little

(2), some (3), great (4), and very great (5) (Adrian & Downs, 2004, p. 125). US Consulting
received 23 responses out of the 31 employees at PMW, which means that over 71% of the staff
completed the survey. Given that the majority of PMW’s staff completed the survey, US
Consulting has been given a fairly accurate view of this organization. However, the ICA Survey
results alone are not enough to gain an accurate view because every employee did not respond.
US Consulting will use interviews and focus groups to triangulate its findings.
Information received. This section of the survey addresses the reception of information
that is important both to the daily tasks, and to the overall productivity of the organization. The
latter questions may not always seem pertinent to accomplishing tasks, but can act as motivation
by helping employees identify with the organization (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 125). Table 1
shows the summary of the current, the desired, and the difference of information received from
others.
Table 1: Receiving Information
Question Actual Needed Difference
How well I am doing my job 2.96 3.30 0.34
My job duties 3.61 3.74 0.13
Organizational policies 2.87 2.83 -0.04
Pay and benefits 4.22 3.74 -0.48
How technologies changes affect my job 2.91 2.70 -0.21
Mistakes and failures of my organization 2.87 2.78 -0.09
How I am being judged 2.78 3.09 0.31
How my job-related problems are being handled 2.87 2.87 0.00
How organizational decisions are made that affect my job 2.83 2.70 -0.13

Promotion and advancement opportunities in my
organization
2.96 2.78 -0.18
Important new product, service, or program developments
in my organization
2.83 2.43 -0.40
How my job relates to the total operation of my organization 3.17 2.48 -0.69
Specific problems faced by management 2.17 1.91 -0.26
Grand mean: 3.00 2.87 -0.13
The mean difference score of -0.13 from Table 1 (above) shows very little deviation
between the amount of information that employees receive and the amount of information that
they need to receive. The largest discrepancies found in this section reveal that there is generally
more information received than needed: How my job relates to the total operation of my
organization (-0.69), pay and benefits (-0.48), and important new product, service, or program
developments in my organization (-0.40). These small discrepancies between the amount of
information received and the amount of information needed reveal that there is a proper amount
of information exchange concerning both individual tasks and broader organizational matters.
Information sent to others. Most people are concerned with the amount of information
that they do or do not receive. However, this section asks questions regarding the quality of
information sent. (Adrian & Downs, 2004, p. 125).
The questions in this section of the ICA Survey are related to seven topics: reporting
what I am doing, reporting what I think my job requires me to do, reporting job-related
problems, complaining about my job/working conditions, requesting job-related information,
evaluating the performance of my immediate supervisor, and asking for clearer work
instructions. As Table 2 (Appendix G) shows, there is a very low discrepancy between the
amount of information sent and the amount of information that needs to be sent. There is a

difference score of zero for requesting information necessary to do my job, and a discrepancy of
0.04 for reporting what I am doing in my job. These statistics reveal an extraordinarily low need
for information exchange.
Follow-up information sent. Understanding the word “follow-up” is the key to making
sense of this section of the ICA Survey. People send information with the expectation that the
recipient will acknowledge the information sent and respond to it. This section measures the
difference between the amount of follow-up information sent and the amount of follow-up
information needed (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 128). Table 3 (Appendix H) presents the
summary of this section. The results from this section reveal the lowest difference scores given
by respondents. The greatest discrepancy revealed is that of the communication between
employees and their subordinates. However, results show that the need for this type of
communication is low.
Source of information. The focus of this section is the amount of information shared
from various sources in contrast with the amount of information that needs to be received from
those sources. This section includes information from nine sources: subordinates, co-workers in
my unit, individuals in other departments, immediate supervisor, department meetings, middle
management, formal management presentations, top management, and the “grapevine” (Downs
& Adrian, 2004, p. 128-130).
A mean of 3.96 from this section of the survey reveal that the majority of information
comes from immediate supervisors. Table 4 (below) shows that the “grapevine” has a difference
score of -0.26, and is actually a source of more information than is needed. This is not the only
place where employees showed a desire for less information, as only three of the nine sections

contained a difference score revealing a need for more communication than was already being
received: subordinates, department meetings, and formal management presentations.
Table 4: Sources of Information
Subordinates 2.30 2.65 0.35
Coworkers in my own unit or department 3.52 3.39 -0.13
Individuals in other units,departments in my organization 3.43 3.35 -0.08
Immediate supervisor 3.96 3.73 -0.26
Departmentmeetings 1.26 1.83 0.57
Middle management 3.78 3.61 -0.17
Formal managementpresentations 1.26 1.43 0.17
Top management 3.61 3.48 -0.13
The “grapevine” 3.52 3.26 -0.26
Grand mean: 2.96 2.97 0.01
Timeliness of information. The timeliness of information affects its relevancy. When
information is received too early, too late, or before a proper amount of context is provided,
efficiency is hampered. In an effort to measure timeliness of communication, this section
consists of information received from six different sources: subordinates, co-workers, immediate
supervisors, middle management, top management, and the “grapevine” (Downs & Adrian,
2004, p. 130-131). Results from Table 5 (below) show a grand mean of 3.41, which indicates
that the timeliness of information is between “some” and “great”. Communication between

employees and their subordinates were shown to be the least timely with a mean response of
2.26.
Table 5: Timeliness of Information
Question Average Rating
Subordinates (if applicable) 2.26
Coworkers 3.35
Immediate supervisor 3.91
Middle management 3.96
Top management 3.74
“Grapevine” 3.26
Grand mean: 3.41
Organizational communication relationships. All communication between two or more
individuals affects their relationships. This means that communication relationships are among
the most important areas to be examined in an organization. This section is specifically designed
for co-workers, the immediate supervisors, and top management (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p.
131). Organizational and individual uncertainty often stems from poor internal communication,
which can negatively affect overall efficiency.
The organizational communication relationships section produced an overall mean of
4.22, which is seen in Table 6 (Appendix I). Only one employee responded to a question with an
answer of “little”, which displays an extraordinary amount of trust and relationship amongst
employees. The question regarding an immediate supervisor praising an individual for a good job
is the single instance in which an employee responded with “little” on the likert scale.

Organizational outcomes. This section of the survey is used to measure an employee’s
enjoyment of his or her organization. The goal of information exchange is to achieve what are
called “outcomes” (Downs & Adrians, 2004, p. 132). The grand mean for this section is 4.04. No
employees responded with “little” or “very little” to any of the questions in this section, which is
noted in Table 7 (Appendix J).
Channels of communication. This section of questions evaluates the effectiveness of the
channels of communication used in organizations. Every organization communicates differently
through various channels. These assessments need to take place periodically to identify any
changes in effectiveness regarding channels of communication (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 133-
134). Table 8 gives an average rating of the different channels of information.
Table 8: Channels of Communication
Face-to-face between two people 4.65
Face-to-face among two or more people 4.61
Telephone 1.48
Written memos, letters 1.13
Bulletin boards 1.13
Internal publications 1.04
Internal audio-visual media 1.04
External media 1.00
Facsimile 1.04
Email 1.57
Instant message system 1.09
Grand mean: 1.80

The mean for this section was 1.8, which falls between “very little” and “little”. Findings
in this portion of the questionnaire concluded that there was a lack of communication through
every channel except for face-to-face communication. This data from ICA Survey shows that
face-to-face contact between two people and face-to-face contact between two or more people
are the most used channels of communication.
CCE results. The ratio of return is not great for critical communication experiences, but
they can reveal unique information during the assessment process (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p.
159). Although less than 10% of PMW employees responded to this section, the results were
helpful when developing findings and recommendations.
One respondent explained that there is a constant and collaborative communication flow
at PMW, which removes any uncertainty that employees may have. This same employee
revealed that team leaders and upper management are eager to help, and that they are in constant
communication with subordinates. Another respondent agreed that the communication not only
happens often between team members, but also happens in a way that is productive and helpful
to the individual as well as the whole organization. These employees’ responses revealed a
satisfaction with the current communication standards and processes of PMW. These findings
coincide with the results from the Focus Groups and Interviews.
Focus groups results. Focus group questions were formulated to reflect three main
themes: tasks and communication, quality of communication relationships, and the link between
communication and organizational outcomes. These themes provide the opportunity to gain
insight to the participants’ perspectives of specific issues and communication within the
organization. While separate focus groups were conducted with machinists and management,

recurring themes emerged among both. These themes included: lack of feedback on work
performance, absence of regular staff meetings, emphasis on quality, and positive relationships
within the organization.
Questions pertaining to quality of work and products yielded, resulted in machinists
responding with descriptions about how they meet company standards and deadlines of time-
sensitive tasks. Machinists expressed pride in machining exceptional products and putting forth
their best effort for customer satisfaction. Further probing of these questions led to a discussion
about evaluations on their job performance. Machinists said there was no system in place for
appraisal or evaluation, which sometimes created uncertainty about areas of improvement.
Machinists also expressed a desire to have regular staff meetings to discuss performance
evaluations, inform them about any housekeeping issues, and to update them on projects and
current jobs.
Machinists and management detailed the strong bonds and interpersonal relationships
among all employees. For example, employees are willing to offer their assistance to others in
order to successfully complete job orders. Employees stated they work collaboratively and
appreciate the comradery and feeling of “teamness” at PMW. Employees said these connections
keep them motivated and engaged. Furthermore, management stated they feel these dynamics
positively impact company productivity.
Content analysis results. Five prevailing themes were found throughout the text upon
completion of coding the Preferred Machine Works Quality Manual. These themes were quality,
safety, following a process, effectiveness, and customer communication. Once major themes
were identified, the number of occurrences of each major theme were recorded in a frequency
count. Each theme was classified on an intensity scale, which measured from low, medium, and

high depending upon how these themes were framed, formatted, and how strongly they were
emphasized. These trends were analyzed to determine their specific meanings to the
organization. Meanings were assigned to these themes using frequency counts and intensity
classifications. US Consulting then linked the data to an organizational focal area, which aided
further analysis and the formation of recommendations.
Quality was the first theme identified within the Preferred Machine Works Quality
Manual. This theme occurred 184 times within the 30 pages of the manual and accounted for
65% of the total frequency counts. A high intensity classification was also recorded for this
theme. The contributing factors to this classification were the numerous mentions of the Quality
Management System, a formal statement of the Preferred Machine Works Quality Policy and
Quality Objectives, and the existence of a 30-page quality manual in general. The importance of
quality for PMW reflects on the revenue stream of the organization. With a low quality of
product, not only would it drive away customers, but the organization would also begin to build a
poor reputation resulting in a further loss of customers. Stressing the importance of quality
affects communication within the organization by encouraging more task-focused
communication and the importance of close, managerial supervision to ensure quality standards
are being upheld. Following a process occurred 16% of the time at a frequency count of 46.
Following a process was still classified at a high intensity despite occurring significantly less
than quality. The complexity of each procedure introduced and the external standard ISO 9001,
which pushes organizations to be consistent in their operating procedures, both contributed to
this intensity classification. Following a process is important to PMW because it fosters product
conformity and allows for ISO 9001 certification. This theme relates to internal communication
for the organization by affecting an adequacy of information exchange and task communication.

In regard to adequate information exchange, machinists and managers need the appropriate
“timing, type, and load” of information to ensure a process is successfully completed (Downs &
Adrian, 2004, p. 52). Effectiveness was the next frequent theme recorded occurring 22 times or
8% of the time and was found to have a low intensity. Like any business, PMW values
effectiveness in order to maintain profitability. However, when a conflict between quality and
effectiveness emerged, quality prevailed because of contrasting intensities. Effectiveness related
to organizational communication in regard to the introduction of new technologies and linking
internal communication to organizational goals. These two focal areas presented themselves
within the manual with the mention multiple areas that could benefit from an introduction of new
technology and with emphasis placed upon the impact of internal communication upon the PMW
bottom-line. Safety and customer communication were the last two themes identified and were
recorded at occurring 20 times and 11 times, respectively, in the text. This equates to a 7% and
4% occurrence rate. Safety had the unique quality of carrying dual intensities. When in regard to
emphasizing safety of the customer, due to the nature of the parts PMW creates, intensity was
classified as medium. However, when in regard to the safety of employees, intensity was
classified as low. Customer safety is important to the organization because this encourages
customer retention as well as 21 CFR 820 certification. This certification links the organizational
communication to an organizational outcome or goal. Concerning customer communication,
while frequency count may have been low, intensity was classified as high. This was due to the
fact that numerous procedures were in place to ensure proper fulfillment of customer orders,
proper customer feedback analysis, and, should the need arise, proper procedures in the event of
a recall. Customer communication is important to PMW because it provides a way for the
organization to continually improve its product and process in order to better serve the customer.

According to Miller (2006), this theme can be linked to the input-throughput-output process
found in systems theory of organizational communication (p. 63). The effectiveness of customer
communication can be further examined using media richness theory (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p.
57).
Discussions and Recommendations
The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of organizational
communication within PMW. US Consulting used four research methods, including interviews,
ICA Survey, focus groups, and content analysis, in order to gather data. The results from these
four methods were then analyzed and reviewed by each member of US Consulting. Findings
were then reported, which allowed for the development of four major recommendations. These
recommendations were generated with the intention of providing PMW with specific, useful
ways to maintain strengths and improve areas of potential weakness. Finally, the scope of this
assessment process enabled US Consulting to offer a comprehensive view of PMW’s quality of
communication.
Finding #1: PMW heavily relies upon the on-the-job training method while there is no
central standard by which employees must be trained.
According to the Preferred Machine Works Quality Manual, the current hiring manager
is responsible for evaluating new employees’ skills. Training needs are then determined
following this initial assessment. A custom training program is then created to fill the needs
detected in the initial assessment. New hires are then assigned to a trainer who is expected to fill
in training needs and initial/date a training sign-off sheet when adequate skill in a particular task
is demonstrated. It follows that on-the-job training is used to correct a flawed skill or to teach a
new skill to the new trainee. This heavily relies upon the prescriptive idea that all trainers hold to

the same standard and are consistent in their day-to-day expectations, which may not always be
the case when viewed through a descriptive lens. Furthermore, the idea of cross-training, or
training implemented across normal operational areas, is not emphasized or stated. According to
Cohen (2012), this has the potential to cause a reduction in output and form a bottleneck in the
PMW production line (p. 6072).
Recommendation #1: Implement a standardized training program.
New hires have the potential to experience radically different training procedures because
there is no centralized standard by which all employees undergo training. For example, if New
Hire X is assessed by Hiring Manager X, who is more easygoing with his assessment of training
needs, New Hire X will have a shorter, less in-depth training program. On the other hand, if New
Hire Y is assessed by Hiring Manager Y, who is stricter in regard to training assessment, New
Hire Y will undergo a more rigorous training program. US Consulting suggests that either all
new hires should be vetted against an unbiased, standardized training assessment or that all new
hires undergo the same training regimen regardless of previous skill and experience. This
eliminates the possibility of a biased or inconsistent training experience that commonly
accompanies on-the-job training. As Noe (2013) states in Employee Training and Development:
Managers and peers may not use the same process to complete a task… Unstructured on-
the-job training can result in poorly trained employees, employees who use ineffective or
dangerous methods to produce a product or provide a service, and products or services
that vary in quality. (p. 284)
Additionally, newly hired employees should be trained in multiple areas of operation. Cross
training would reduce the risk of a loss of production if an employee should be absent, because
alternate employees would be capable of filling the position. The learning curve experienced by

an employee filling a new position stunts production and creates a bottleneck effect (Cohen,
2012, p. 6072).
Finding #2: PMW documents all work-related materials manually.
Results from the ICA Survey, interviews, and focus groups reveal that the majority of
communication within PMW takes place in the face-to-face context. Data from Table 8
(Appendix K) shows that employees feel this channel of communication meets their
communication needs. Research findings also showed that PMW employees distribute
documents by physically sharing them with one another. These sole-copy documents are also
stored in a file cabinet at PMW. This information sharing and storage system can be especially
inefficient for those who are working with machines. Responses from interviews and focus
groups reveal that many of them have to leave the areas where they work to find work orders or
to communicate with other employees. This limits the speed of work because all work orders are
handled in a paper format and, since there is only one copy of each document, they have the
potential for being misplaced. Work is also slowed down because these singular copies are
passed betwixt workers throughout the office.
Recommendation #2: Create a streamlined, digital document sharing and storage system.
There are several ways to go about creating a streamlined, digital document sharing
process. US Consulting recommends that PMW purchase electronic tablets to be placed in each
workstation or machine room. A free solution for communication and data storage would be to
download a program such as Evernote to these tablets. Evernote, or similar programs, provide a
platform for note taking, digital discussion, document sharing, and data storage. Perhaps the
most useful feature to PMW is that any edits will be synchronized with all of the other tablets,
allowing for anyone with access to instantly communicate with all machinists. Having a

centralized, digital data backup can reduce the possibility of lost documents and the
inconvenience of having a sole copy of a work document. An employee would be able to take a
picture of each work order with the tablet, upload a digital copy, or have the ability to add
comments, photographs, or additional information. Implementing a streamlined, digital
document sharing and storage system fosters efficiency and reduces the risk of information loss.
Finding #3: PMW does not provide formal feedback to employees regarding individual job
duties, task completion, or achievements.
Data from interviews, ICA Survey, and focus groups revealed that informal channels of
communication, such as face-to-face, are predominantly used to discuss specifications related to
various jobs and tasks. Employees stated that problems or praise are addressed without delay.
Also, employees expressed that easy access to management allowed the opportunity for prompt
and direct feedback. PMW management emphasized high concern for maintaining cohesiveness
throughout the organization. Additionally, employee satisfaction was a top priority. Management
also discussed the desire to avoid conflict and felt that negative feedback had the potential to
cause tension, which would ultimately impact productivity. In light of this of this concern for
productivity, PMW strives to sustain a positive, unified atmosphere, which it feels is
accomplished through maintaining a fulfilling work environment.
Recommendation #3: Conduct semi-annual performance evaluations and appraisals for
each employee.
Even though cohesiveness is an important factor for satisfaction and productivity, it is
important to provide both favorable and unfavorable feedback. Potential negative outcomes,
conflict, or tension should not be a deterrent when considering the decision to conduct
performance evaluations. Providing accurate feedback allows employees the ability to gauge

their competencies when executing tasks and also brings attention to areas of improvement.
Performance evaluations also provide a structured, designated time where management and
employees can clarify expectations and discuss any issues that either party may have. When
conducted effectively, evaluations allow for employee growth, improvement, and development.
Further, performance evaluations would establish an additional, formal channel of
communication between management and employees.
Finding #4: PMW employees maintain cohesive interpersonal relationships through face-
to-face communication.
Interviews revealed that there is little interoffice conflict and employees value the level of
familiarity within PMW. Data from Table 6 (Appendix I) of the ICA Survey, showed that
employees trust each other, are satisfied with coworker relationships, and feel that supervisors
listen. Data also revealed that employees view management’s efforts as sincere, and therefore
feel that their suggestions are taken seriously. Participants in the focus groups voiced how much
they appreciated management’s recognition of birthdays and anniversaries. Focus group
discussions showed that management provides cake for these celebratory milestones. This
exemplifies how PMW management seeks to build and maintain relationships within the
organization. Employees expressed that face-to-face communication is the preferred medium for
all interactions. These constant, personal encounters foster strong relationships among PMW
constituents.
Recommendation #4: Maintain interconnectedness by coordinating team-driven activities.
While PMW currently meets the relational needs of its employees, it is important to
maintain and build upon these relationships. It would be beneficial to incorporate additional
team-oriented activities outside of the workplace in order to continue strengthening relationships

among PMW employees. Events such as company cookouts create opportunities for employees
and their families to connect in a more personal context. Planning events around common
interests such as fishing, bowling, or softball is also an innovative way to further bolster the
organizational culture of relational communication. Relationship building not only occurs during
company-wide events, but also from small gestures such as printed awards, gift cards, and other
acts of recognition. This is substantiated by a study, which stated, “small initiatives go a long
way in strengthening the bond among fellow workers” (Sullivan, 2015, para. 2). Scheduling any
of these team-driven events on a regular basis aids in improving employee morale and
productivity (Sullivan, 2015, para. 4).

References
Cohen, Y. (2012). Absenteeism as a major cause of bottlenecks in assembly lines. International
Journal of Production Research, 50(21), 6072-6080. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.651541
Downs, C. W. & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: Strategic
communication audits. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
International Organization for Standardization. (n.d.). Quality management systems. Retrieved
from http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
Keyton, J. (2011). Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, K. (2012). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Noe, R. (2013). Employee Training and Development. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Preferred Machine Works, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.prefmach.com
Special Olympics Georgia. (2009). Annual report. 1-16. Retrieved from
http://www.specialolympicsga.org/
Sullivan, J. (2015). How to improve an organization’s employee morale. Chron. Retrieved from
http://chron.com
Thriving Cherokee. (2014). Cherokee…our time is now. 22-23. Retrieved from
http://www.cherokeechamber.com/
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences,
15(3), 398-405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

Appendix A
Interview Agenda
1. What are the variables that influence organizational performance?
2. How does communication flow throughout Preferred Machine Works?
3. What are the variables that impact the quality of Preferred Machine Works’ products?
4. How does the overall structure of Preferred Machine Works affect its employees?

Appendix B
Interview Guide
Briefing Statement:
Hello, my name is Treena Pitts and this is Phara Brown, who will be assisting me with
interviews today. As you may already know, we are conducting interviews for our
Organizational Communication Audits course at Kennesaw State University. The purpose of
these interviews is to gain an understanding of the communication that takes place within PMW.
By drawing names out of a hat, you have been randomly selected for this interview, which will
help give us the most unbiased, comprehensive view of the company. This interview will involve
a series of primarily open questions related to your position. I want to assure you that everything
we discuss in these interviews is confidential. All of the information that we gather is for the
purpose of our course report, which will also be given to PMW management, but you will never
be mentioned by name or identified in any way. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Questions:
1. [Auditor: Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of the interview.] ←briefing
2. Identify name and position of the interviewee.
3. Describe your position in the organization.
-machinists and management
a. What are your chief responsibilities and duties?
b. With whom or with what positions do you regularly communicate?
c. What factors tend to facilitate your effectiveness on the job? Please give me an example.
d. What, if anything, inhibits your effectiveness?
-incorrect drawings/instructions
-stress
-interruptions
-other work-related tasks
4. Describe the way decisions are made in your organization.

-tony makes the majority of decisions in the shop
-stuart makes the majority of decisions on job details
a. What decisions do you normally make?
-machinists state freedom to prioritize tasks as long as it falls within certain guidelines
b. What information do you need to make these decisions?
-prints for set-up sheet, part drawings, spec sheets
-due dates, deadlines
c. Are these formal or informal policies that determine how you get information?
-all machinists said everything is informal
5. Describe the organization’s/unit’s primary objectives for this year.
-produce quality parts
-goal sheets posted in halls
-safety, eliminate use of headphones
-timely completion of parts
a. How does the organization know when it has done a good or a bad job? What are the criteria
for success?
-quality control
-parts will be rejected based on inspection/measurements
-customer feedback
7. Describe the formal channels through which you typically receive information. What kinds of
information do you tend to receive? How often?
-majority said none
-some customer websites require passcode
-management uses little to some email/phone
8. Describe the informal channels through which you typically receive information.
-f2f
-help eachother
-everyone communicates often
a. What kind of information do you hear?
-any work/project that have quick turnaround
-”housekeeping”

-time sensitive deadlines
b. How active are informal channels?
-extremely active, primary form
9. What are the major communication strengths of the organization? Be specific.
-f2f
-everyone is easily accessible
-info is easy to get hands on
10. What are the major communication weaknesses of the organization? Be specific.
-noise problem, but machinists expect this because of nature of job
11. What do you see as the greatest unresolved problem of this organization?
-keeping tools and materials constantly in stock
12. What would one like to see done to improve communication here?
-happy with way everyone communicates and interacts
a. Why hasn’t it been done already?
b. What are the major obstacles?
c. If you had a suggestion to improve communication, how would you make it?
-feel free to approach management
13. When conflict occurs, how is it resolved? What normally causes conflict here? Give
examples.
-discuss any issues with Tony or Stuart
-take people to the side and resolve
-conflict is usually over small disagreements
14. Describe the communication relationship you have with:
-satisfied with all relationships
-look forward to working with coworkers
a. Your immediate supervisor
b. Top management
c. Coworkers
d. Subordinates, if applicable
16. How would you evaluate your manager in terms of:
-open to trying new techniques

-ideas are accepted
-feel management listens
a. Openness to new ideas?
b. Willingness to share information?
c. Ability to clarify expectations?
21. How does your physical work setting here affect your communication?
-noisy, but earplugs are provided
-work environment is acceptable
-safety masks and goggles provided
23. How does communication here affect your productivity? Is this typical for others?
-communication is straightforward
-direct and immediate, which helps time sensitive material
25. Describe the chain of command in this organization and how it operates.
-machinists report mainly to shop manager
-programmers report to all upper management
-all levels/positions within company openly communicate
Debriefing Statement:
So that concludes our interview for today, is there anything else you would like to share
with us? As I stated earlier, everything discussed in this interview is confidential and you will
never be mentioned by name. This interview will certainly help US Consulting to gain a better
understanding of the communication that takes places within PMW. We want to thank you for
taking the time to respond to our questions and we sincerely appreciate you helping our team get
one step closer to graduation! Again, my name is Treena Pitts and this is Phara Brown, and if
you have any further questions feel free to contact Cydnie Dalton.

Appendix C
ICA Survey

Appendix D
Focus Group Protocol
Briefing Statement:
Hello, my name is Phara Brown and this is Treena Pitts, who will be assisting me with our
discussion today. As you may already know, we are in Cydnie’s group for our Organizational
Communication Audits course at Kennesaw State University. The purpose of this group
discussion is to assess the communication that takes place within PMW. I will lead this
discussion by asking several questions. I want to encourage everyone to speak openly and feel
free to mention anything that may come to mind. All of the information that we gather is for the
purpose of our course report, which will also be given to PMW management, but you will never
be mentioned by name or identified in any way. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Questions:
1. Do any of you use computers, laptops, tablets, etc. at home? If so, what type and how often?
-majority said they don’t use technology often
-few stated they have smart phones
2. How important is communication within the company to you?
-extremely valued by all members
-communication is crucial to success
-feels like a team and family atmosphere
-makes work more enjoyable
3. Do you feel that you have the necessary tools to perform your job to the best of your ability?
(such as drawings, tools, etc.)
-yes
-if not, they can freely ask and it will be provided or item located
4. How do you determine if the product that is being sent to the customer meets all of PMW
standards?
-quality control

-purchase order requirements
-information in job tickets
5. In an effort to avoid product rejection, that can potentially cost PMW time, revenue, and
reputation, what do you personally do to ensure that you are producing quality work?
-take pride in what they produce
-pay careful attention to instructions/detail
-follow quality control guidelines
6. How do you prioritize your work that is time-sensitive?
-judgement call if necessary
-based on experience with previous parts
7. What safety precautions do you incorporate daily when performing your job?
-safety goggles
-earplugs (but no headphones with music)
-rubber mats
-listening to sounds of machine to make sure nothing is going wrong
Debriefing Statement:
So that concludes our group discussion for today, is there anything else that anyone
would like to share with us? As I state earlier, you will never be mentioned by name or identified
in any way. Your responses will certainly help US Consulting to gain a better understanding of
the communication that takes places within PMW. We want to thank you for taking the time to
respond to our questions and we sincerely appreciate you helping our team get one step closer to
graduation! Again, my name is Phara Brown and this is Treena Pitts, and if you have any further
questions feel free to contact Cydnie Dalton.

Appendix E
Preferred Machine Works Training Manual

Appendix F
Content Analysis Coding Sheet
SelectedDocument: Preferred Machine Works Training Manual: The training manual is a 283
page physical document which contains company endorsed instruction required for all
employees to possess an adequate knowledge of. The majority of the manual is composed of
third party training manuals relating to the operating procedures of specific machines. Included
in the manual is a trainer checklist for employees tasked with training new hires.
Unit of Analysis: Themes
Measurement of Frequency: A record of the amount of times a particular theme appears within
the text.
Scale of Intensity: Dependent upon the formatting of the text and font used to emphasize theme,
use the scale: Low/Medium/High

Theme Organizational Importance Intensity Frequency
Total: 283
Focal Area
Quality Stressing the importance of quality
affects communication within the
organization by encouraging more
task-focused communication and
the importance of close,
managerial supervision to ensure
quality standards are being upheld
High 184
65%
1,6
Safety Customer safety is important to the
organization because this
encourages customer retention as
well as 21 CFR 820 certification.
This certification links the
organizational communication to
an organizational outcome or goal.
Medium
(Regarding
customer
safety)
Low (Regarding
employee
safety)
20
7%
1,9
Following a
Process
This theme relates to internal
communication for the
organization by affecting an
adequacy of information exchange
and task communication.
High 46
16%
1,2
Effectiveness Effectiveness related to
organizational communication in
regard to the introduction of new
technologies and linking internal
communication to organizational
goals.
Low 22
8%
4,9
Customer
Communication
Customer communication is
important to PMW because it
provides a way for the
organization to continually
improve its product and process in
order to better serve the customer.
High 11
4%
3,4,8

Appendix G
Table 2
Table 2: Sending Information
Question Actua
l
Neede
d
Differenc
e
Reporting what I am doing in my job 3.26 3.30 0.04
Reporting what I think my job requires me to do 2.61 2.91 0.30
Reporting job-related problems 3.09 3.22 0.13
Complaining about my job and/or working conditions 2.13 2.17 0.04
Requesting information necessary to do my job 3.00 3.00 0.00
Evaluating the performance of my immediate supervisor 1.13 1.52 0.39
Asking for clearer work 2.52 2.83 0.31
Grand mean: 2.53 2.70 0.17

Appendix H
Table 3
Table 3: Follow-Up on Information Sent
Subordinates 2.09 2.57 0.48
Coworkers 2.65 2.91 0.26
Immediate supervisor 3.43 3.48 0.05
Middle management 3.48 3.52 0.04
Top management 3.35 3.39 0.04
Grand mean: 3.00 3.17 0.17

Appendix I
Table 6
Table 6: Organizational Communication Relationships
I trust my coworkers 4.09
My coworkers get along with each other 4.09
My relationship with my coworkers is satisfying 4.04
I trust my immediate supervisor 4.22
My immediate supervisor is honest with me 4.22
My immediate supervisor listens to me 4.22
I am free to disagree with my immediate supervisor 4.22
I can tell my immediate supervisor when things are going wrong 4.22
My immediate supervisor praises me for a good job 3.87
My immediate supervisor is friendly with subordinates 4.39
My immediate supervisor understands my job needs 4.52
My relationship with my immediate supervisor is satisfying 4.26
I trust top management 4.35
Top management is sincere in efforts to communicate with employees 4.35
My relationship with top management is satisfying 4.26
My organization encourages differences of opinion 4.13
I have a say in decisions that affect my job 4.17
I influence operations in my unit or department 4.13
I have a part in accomplishing my organization’s goals 4.35
Grand mean: 4.22

Appendix J
Table 7
Table 7: Organizational Outcomes
My job 3.78
My pay 3.70
My progress in my organization up to this point in time 3.87
My chances for getting ahead in my organization 3.83
My opportunity to “make a difference” and to contribute to the overall success of my
organization
4.04
My organization’s system for recognizing and rewarding outstanding performance 3.22
My organization’s concern for its members’ welfare 4.57
My organization’s overall communication efforts 4.09
Working in my organization 4.13
My organization’s effectiveness, as compared to other such organizations 4.43
My organization’s overall efficiency of operation 4.00
The overall quality of my organization’s product or service 4.17
My organization’s achievement of its goals and objectives 4.17
Grand mean: 4.00

Appendix K
Table 8
Table 8: Channels of Communication
Face-to-face between two people 4.65
Face-to-face among two or more people 4.61
Telephone 1.48
Written memos, letters 1.13
Bulletin boards 1.13
Internal publications 1.04
Internal audio-visual media 1.04
External media 1.00
Facsimile 1.04
Email 1.57
Instant message system 1.09
Grand mean: 1.80

Signature Page
I have contributed to, proofed, and approved this assignment for submission.
1. Phara Brown _______________________________
2. Cydnie Dalton _______________________________
3. Nathan Page _______________________________
4. Treena Pitts _______________________________
5. Brandon Schultze _______________________________

US Consulting Part B

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to US Consulting Part B

Similar to US Consulting Part B (20)

US Consulting Part B