See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312492341

Communication Satisfaction and Working Relationship Between

Public School Heads and Teachers in Calamba City, Philippines

Article  in  Prism · December 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,558

2 authors, including:

Ariel Tuazon
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ariel Tuazon on 03 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Communication Satisfaction and Working Relationship
Between Public School Heads and Teachers
in Calamba City, Philippines 1*
Ariel P. Tuazon, 2Marilyn P. Padiernos

ABSTRACT

For organizations to function well, they need to communicate within themselves as well
as with the external environment. Organizational managers must develop a system
of information exchange that is both understood and accessible to members. Within
this premise, the study was conducted to assess communication satisfaction among
teachers and to relate it to their working relationship with school heads. Ninety-eight
public elementary school teachers and five school administrators from Calamba City,
Philippines participated in the study where the descriptive-correlation research design
was applied. Self-report surveys and interviews were utilized in data-gathering. The
teachers were found very satisfied with school communication. A harmonious working
relationship between school heads and teachers was positively manifested. The
teachers' communication satisfaction was significantly related to school head-teachers
working relationship. When knowledge of vital school information and school plans
is thoroughly disseminated to teachers, such knowledge, consequently, will build
commitment among them and will further elicit their cooperation in accomplishing
school tasks.
Keywords: Communication satisfaction, working relationship, organizational integration,
communication climate, media quality.

INTRODUCTION Trenholm (2011), is an essential element for the

An organization can be viewed in many
ways, though, from a management standpoint,
its description always involves working on
the attainment of collective goals. Different
organizations have different goals which are hinged
on their intentions, members’ motives, society as
well as the environment in which it functions. As
Žibūda (as cited in Ziuraite, 2008) expounded,
all organizations need to communicate within
themselves and with the surroundings to function
properly. In contrast, Hargie and Tourish (2000)
acknowledged that poor communication is often
to blame for the failure of the functioning of an
organization. Thus, communication, according to
Member, Polytechnic University of the Philippines - Sto Tomas Branch, Batangas
1
2
Public School Teacher, Paciano Rizal Elementary School, Calamba City, Laguna
*arieltuazon@yahoo.com
success of any organization. For an organization
to perceive itself as effective, it has to have a
thorough understanding and knowledge of its
communication system.
Unfortunately, communication is rarely
recognized as a required leader’s competency
in an organization (Korkosz, 2011). Although
increasing awareness about the importance of
communication can be observed, the knowledge
relating to communication has rarely been
translated into practice. The most common
mistake made by organizational leaders is that
they often forget that message sent does not
equal the message received. In this regard, Fiske
(as cited in David & Singh, 2013:44) explained
Prism Volume 21 Issue 2, (July - Dec. 2016)
 50
that “communication is concerned with how
senders and receivers encode and decode, how
transmitters use the channels and media of
communication.” It is perceived as a process in
which one person affects the behavior or state of
mind of another.
To sum it up, communication, according
to Bratton, Callinan, Forshaw and Sawchuk (as
cited in Korkosz, 2011, 3), is “a symbolic process
in which individuals act to exchange perceptions
and, ultimately, to build a knowledge bank
for themselves and others, for the purpose of
shaping future actions.” As to the communication
satisfaction, Downs, and Hazen (as cited in
Kandlousi, Ali &Abdollahi, 2010) defined it as
an individual’s level of satisfaction with various
aspects of communication in the organization.
In the same context, communication satisfaction,
as described by Wagner (2013), is the level
of satisfaction members in an organization
experience during interactions between
themselves and their superiors and between
themselves and their fellow members.
The exchange of information is a prerequisite
for formal work organizations. However, as
Bratton et al.(as cited in Korkosz, 2011:3)
added, “Communication in the workplace is
more complex process than just the information
disclosure.” It can occur in many different modes:
written, verbal, and nonverbal (i.e. gestures or
facial expressions). To communicate effectively,
managers must develop a system of information
exchange that is both understood and accessible
to their subordinates. A sense of trust must also
be developed. Given this, Galvin (as cited in
Mallett-Hamer, 2005: 9) pointed out that“one's
effectiveness in employing the attributes of
leadership and the strengths of a company is
enhanced by one's aptitude for communication.
When leaders and managers are better
understood and appreciated, they are followed
and supported.”
Communication satisfaction and working relationship
In a similar perspective, leaders can
lead through effective communication, and
consequently, good communication fosters
trust, understanding, inspiration, and allows
subordinates to follow (Barrett, 2006) effectively.
Leadership is not limited to those who hold
managerial or supervisory positions. Leaders
include any subordinate who goes above and
beyond their responsibilities to advance the
organization. Therefore, it is necessary for
organizational managers and subordinates alike
to understand the principles of communication
and the potential barriers to communication
which leads up to communication satisfaction in
the workplace.
Furthermore, Ludema and Di Virgilio
(as cited in Bouckenooghe & Menguc, 2010)
explained that communication increases
organization members’ readiness for change.
It provides information on the intentions and
exigency for change. Inadequate dissemination
of information frequently generates widespread
gossips that facilitate a heritable condition for
the development of negative feelings and beliefs.
An organizational leader, therefore, has to focus
on establishing a viable interpersonal interaction
through communication to get the cooperation
and participation of members towards the
attainment of organizational goals and objectives
(Hindi et al., 2004). A good working relationship
must be realized, and in this situation, effective
communication is an essential element. For
different organizations, the complexity of
communication processes varies, and the extent
of their impact on member relationships adapts
to the general environment.
Research of Downs and Hazen (as cited
in Ziuraite, 2008: 4-5) came up with the multi-
dimensional constructs of communication
satisfaction. Accordingly, the personal
feedback dimension includes the degree to
which subordinates “feel that their efforts are
Tuazon, Padiernos
recognized, their superiors understand their
problems, and the criteria by which they are being
judged are fair.” Supervisor Communication
“covers both the upward and downward aspects
of communicating with supervisors,” whereas
subordinate communication “taps the receptivity
of subordinates to downward communication
and their willingness and capability to send good
information upward.” Meanwhile, horizontal
communication “shows the extent to which
horizontal and informal communication is
accurate and free flowing. This factor also includes
satisfaction with the activity of the grapevine.”
Furthermore, organizational integration
“reflects the degree to which individuals receive
information about their immediate work
environment and includes both information
received by subordinates and their opportunities
to participate in the unit.”
Meantime, Downs and Hazen (as cited in
Ziuraite, 2008: 4-5) further defined the other
constructs and one of which is the organizational
perspective dimension as “the satisfaction
with the broadest kinds of information about
the organization as a whole such as its goals
and performance, notification of changes, and
financial standing.” Communication climate,
on the other hand, reflects communication
on both: organizational and personal levels.
This dimension is about communication in the
organization which motivates and stimulates
subordinates to “meet organizational goals and
makes them identify with the organization. It also
includes estimates of whether or not people's
attitudes toward communicating are healthy
in the organization.” And finally, media quality
dimension “reflects the helpfulness, clarity, and
quantity of information associated with channels
such as publications, memos, and meetings.”
In particular to the school setting, the
intent of the study was to assess communication
satisfaction among teachers and how it was
51
related to their working relationships with their
superiors in selected public elementary schools
in the DepEd (Department of Education) Division
of Calamba City, Philippines. To measure the
communication satisfaction and assess the existing
superior-subordinate working relationship, the
Communication Satisfaction Model of Downs and
Hazen (as cited in as cited in Ziuraite, 2008and
the Leader-Member Exchange Model of Liden
and Maslyn (1998) were adopted. The first
construct, communication satisfaction, amounts
to a member’s satisfaction with information
flow and relationships with other members and
superior in an organization whereas Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX) refers to the effective
interaction between superiors and subordinates
which promotes a positive relationship towards
organizational success. Specifically, LMX involves
exchange behaviors between the two which lead
to the establishment of the mutual relationship
and, in turn, further develop a high level of mutual
respect and trust with one another (Hsiung &
Tsai, 2009).
METHODOLOGY
The researchers considered the descriptive
method as the most appropriate method for
this study. According to Adanza, Bermundo
and Rasonabe (2009), it is designed to gather
information about the present conditions, status
or trend, and dealing with what are prevailing. The
descriptive research design fitted well into this
study because it determined the communication
satisfaction among school heads and teachers
and how it related to their working relationship.
Furthermore, the descriptive research is a
method which may contain many types of studies
as in the case of the current investigation. The
inquiry also included correlation study since the
communication satisfaction and manifestation
of the harmonious working relationship among
 52 Communication satisfaction and working relationship

respondents were correlated. bracket, and have the position of Teacher 1.

The group participants of the study were
the school heads and teachers of the public
Table 1. Distribution of Respondents According to
elementary schools in Cluster VI in the City
Profile.
Division of Calamba, Philippines. All the five
Variable Frequency Percent
(5) school heads in the cluster participated in
Gender
the survey while ninety-eight (98) respondents
or 66.22 % of the 148 teachers were selected to Male 5 4.90
form the teacher-respondent group. Sufficiency Female 98 95.10
of representation for the sample group of a Total 103 100.00
descriptive research was assured by Gay (as cited Education F %
in Sevilla, 1992) as it was within the minimum Bachelor’s Degree 47 45.60
suggested sample size of respondents equal to With Master’s Units 34 33.00
10 percent of the population and 20 percent Master’s Degree 20 19.40
of the smaller population. The simple random With Doctorate Units 1 1.00
sampling technique was utilized in choosing the Doctorate Degree 1 1.00
sample members. Total 103 100.00
The study used the frequency and percent Service years F %
distributions in presenting the profile of the Less than 3 years 17 16.50
respondents whereas the four-point Likert 3 - 5 years 24 23.30
scale and mean were employed in reporting
6 - 10 years 28 27.20
communication satisfaction among school
11 - 15 years 13 12.60
heads and teachers as well as in describing the
Above 15 years 21 20.40
level of agreement among respondents on the
manifestation of harmonious school head-teachers Total 103 100.00
working relationship. Moreover, Goodman and Age F %
Kruskal’s Gamma Correlation analysis at 0.05 20 – 29 28 27.10
level of significance was conducted to establish 30 – 39 43 41.70
the level of relationship between communication 40 – 49 22 21.40
satisfaction and working relationship which 50 – 59 9 8.70
agrees with the suggestion of Ymas and Ferrer 60 & above 1 1.00
(2002). They propose that Gamma correlation be Total 103 100.00
used for correlation between ordinal variables of Position F %
more than thirty (30) samples. Teacher 1 72 69.90
Table 1 presents the distribution of the Teacher 2 8 7.80
respondents according to gender, educational Teacher 3 15 14.60
attainment, years of service, age, and position/ Master Teacher 1 4 3.90
rank. It shows female respondents exceed their
Master Teacher 2 1 1.00
male counterparts in numbers. Regarding highest
Principal 1 2 1.90
educational attainment, those with bachelor’s
Principal 2 1 1.00
degree come first. Majority of the respondents
Total 103 100.00
have 6-10 years of service, belong to 30-39 age
Tuazon, Padiernos
The main data-gathering instrument of the
study was a questionnaire. To establish its content
validity, the researchers had it examined by
educational authorities. Their suggestions and
corrections were incorporated in the succeeding
drafts of the questionnaire. Likewise, the
researchers sought a small group of public school
teachers to answer the survey. They were asked
to comment on parts of the questionnaire they
found ambiguous, and/or they did not understand.
Those parts mentioned were revised/improved to
ensure the construct validity of the instrument.
However, these teachers were not considered in
the final list of participants of the study.
As to the data gathering, the researchers
wrote a formal letter addressed to the Schools City
Division Superintendent of Calamba, requesting
permission to conduct the survey to the public
elementary schools. The questionnaires were
immediately administered once permission was
granted and relevant information specifically
the objectives of the study were related to the
respondents. Follow-up interviews with some
respondents were likewise conducted.
MEASURES
Dependent Variable
School Head-Teacher Harmonious Working
Relationship. This variable was measured using
the 12-item Leader-Member Exchange Scale by
Liden and Maslyn (1998). Sample items include:
“The teachers like their school head very much
as a person” “The school head would defend
the teacher to other teachers if the teacher made
an honest mistake” and “The teachers do work
for the school head that goes beyond what are
specified in their responsibilities.” Responses
ranged from “Strongly Disagree = 1” to “Strongly
Agree = 4”. A Higher score indicates good school
head-teacher harmonious working relationship.
53
Key Independent Variable
Communication Satisfaction. Measures of
this variable were adopted from Communication
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) developed by
Downs and Hazen (as cited in Ziuraite, 2008). The
measure has eight dimensions: communication
climate, supervisor communication,
organizational integration, media quality,
horizontal communication, general organizational
perspective, subordinate communication, and
feedback. Each dimension includes five questions
to measure perceived satisfaction on a four-
point Likert scale from “Very Dissatisfied = 1” to
“Very Satisfied = 4”. The instrument focuses on
subordinates’ attitudes and judgments of several
communicative practices, as these perceptions
will influence the behavior of subordinates in an
organization (Zwijze-Koning & De Jong, 2007).
RESULTS
Communication Satisfaction
The first objective of the study was to
determine how satisfied the teachers were on
the existing communication patterns in the
school. Generated information on these matters
is indicated in the table below.
Table 2 shows the mean levels of the eight
dimensions of communication satisfaction. As
seen, all have similar verbal interpretations. The
respondents reported that they were very satisfied
across eight dimensions (i.e. Personal Feedback,
Supervisor Communication, Subordinate
Communication, Horizontal Communication,
Organizational Integration, Communication
Climate, Media Quality and Organizational
Perspective). As a whole, therefore, the teachers
are very satisfied with the school communication.
 54
Table 2. Communication satisfaction in public elementary schools in Cluster VI in the DepEd Division
of Calamba City.
Dimensions Mean
1. Personal Feedback 3.40
2. Supervisor Communication 3.41
3. Subordinate Communication 3.44
4. Horizontal Communication 3.34
5. Organizational Integration 3.48
6. Organizational Perspective 3.58
7. Communication Climate 3.42
8. Media Quality 3.30
Overall Assessment 3.42
Legend: 3.25 - 4.00, Very Satisfied; 2.50 - 3.24, Satisfied; 1.75 - 2.49, Dissatisfied; 1.00 - 1.74, Very Dis-
satisfied
School Head-Teacher Working Relationship
Another concern of the study was to
determine the extent of a harmonious working
relationship among school heads and teachers
manifested in selected public elementary schools
in the Division of Calamba City. The following
table presents the results of the query.
Table 3 shows the mean levels of agreement
on the manifestation of indicators of a harmonious
working relationship between school head and
teachers. There is a strong agreement among
respondents on the manifestation of ten out of 12
indicators. With these results, it can be taken that
the harmonious working relationship between
school head and teachers is highly manifested.
Communication Satisfaction and Working
Relationship
The investigation also aimed to establish
the relationship, if there exists, between teachers’
communication satisfaction and their working
relationship with school heads. The following
table presents the information on these matters.
Communication satisfaction and working relationship
Standard Deviation Verbal Interpretation
0.41 Very Satisfied
0.45 Very Satisfied
0.38 Very Satisfied
0.39 Very Satisfied
0.41 Very Satisfied
0.47 Very Satisfied
0.40 Very Satisfied
0.40 Very Satisfied
0.41 Very Satisfied
Table 4 shows the results of all conducted
correlation analyses between communication
satisfaction and working relationship. In all these
cases, the decision is to reject the null hypotheses.
The conclusion can then be that the school head
and teachers' harmonious working relationship
is significantly related with the dimensions of
teachers’ communication satisfaction - personal
feedback, supervisor communication, subordinate
communication, horizontal communication,
organizational integration, organizational
information, communication climate, media
quality and overall communication satisfaction. As
a whole, there is a very high positive correlation
between the teachers’ communication satisfaction
and the manifestation of a harmonious working
relationship between school heads and teachers
in selected public elementary schools in the
DepEd Division of Calamba City in the province of
Laguna. Thus, communication satisfaction leads
to a harmonious working relationship between
school heads and the teachers.
Tuazon, Padiernos 55

Table 3. Level of agreement on manifestation of school head-teacher harmonious working relationship

Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean Deviation Interpretation

1. The teachers like their school head very much as a person. 3.25 0.65 Strongly Agree
2. The school head is the kind of person one would like to 3.57 0.68 Strongly Agree
have as a friend.
3. The school head is lot of fun to work with. 3.33 0.71 Strongly Agree
4. The school head defends the teacher’s work actions to 3.18 0.90 Agree
other teachers, even without complete knowledge of the is-
sue in question.
5. The school head would come to the teacher’s defense if he/ 3.21 0.61 Agree
she were “attacked” by other teachers.
6. The school head would defend the teacher to other teach- 3.41 0.63 Strongly Agree
ers if the teacher made an honest mistake.
7. The teachers do work for the school head that goes beyond 3.51 0.68 StronglyAgree
what are specified in their duties and responsibilities.
8. The teachers are willing to apply extra efforts, beyond 3.41 0.50 Strongly Agree
those normally required, to meet the school head’s work
goals.
9. The teachers do not mind working their hardest for the 3.27 0.79 Strongly Agree
school head.
10. The teachers are impressed with the school head’s knowl- 3.27 0.59 Strongly Agree
edge of his/her tasks.
11. The teachers respect their school head’s knowledge of 3.63 0.56 StronglyAgree
and competence on the tasks.
12. The teachers admire their school head’s working skills. 3.42 0.56 Strongly Agree
Overall Assessment 3.37 0.65 Strongly Agree
Legend: 3.25 - 4.00, Strongly Agree; 2.50 - 3.24, Agree; 1.75 - 2.49, Disagree; 1.00 - 1.74, Strongly Disagree

DISCUSSION communication is indeed crucial in education.

Undeniably, communication is important
in education. It served as a vital stimulus for the
study to be conducted with the aim of assessing
the communication satisfaction among teachers
in public elementary schools and how it was
related to their working relationship with their
school head. Rowicki (1999) concurred that good
Communication is at the heart of education.
The school head communicates with teachers,
teachers communicate with students, and students
communicate with one another. According to
Rowicki (1999: 2), the “paths for communication
are as diverse as they are numerous, yet this is
also the source of many problems that arise
within schools.” One critical area of interest is
 56 Communication satisfaction and working relationship

Table 4. Correlations of communication satisfaction and school head-teacher working relationship

Communication School Head-Teacher Working Relationship
Satisfaction Gamma- p-value Decision Conclusion
Value
1. Personal Feedback 0.769 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
2. Supervisor Communication 0.910 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
3. Subordinate Communication 0.791 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
4. Horizontal Communication 0.806 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
5. Organizational Integration 0.787 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
6. Organizational Information 0.826 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
7. Communication Climate 0.958 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
8. Media Quality 0.949 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Hypothesis Relationship
9. Overall Communication 0.874 0.000 Reject the Null With Significant
Satisfaction Hypothesis Relationship
Test Used: Goodman and Kruskal’s Gamma Correlation at 0.05 level of significance.
the communication that takes place between the environment. Pettinger (2010) substantiates
school head and their teachers. Since the school the result by insinuating that the quality of all
head and teachers are key players involved in human relations in organizations is underlined
the normal day-to-day operations of the school, by communication. Good communication
their ability to effectively communicate cannot be encourages good relations and improves work
overstated. Effective communication in a school performance. Gimbel (2003) explained that
setting, according to Habaci, Celik, Habaci, building and sustaining of relationships with
Adiquzelli and Kurt (2013), influences the teachers via communicative and supportive
motivations and satisfaction of school head and behaviors is the over arching trust-promoting
teachers as well as students. behavior of the school head. In line with this,
As the result of the investigation, the teachers’ Barge (2004) stated that interaction among
communication satisfaction elicited a harmonious people in the organization requires special skills
working relationship between school head and to gain positive feedbacks. It is the school head’s
teachers. Such relationship occurs as both parties interpersonal communication skill that is vital in
discuss topics and views and comments about creating an open communication in school. The
each other freely, observe and respect each other teachers’ satisfaction suggests that the school
and take part in developing a viable working head facilitates a healthy two-way communication
Tuazon, Padiernos
with their teachers – offering timely guidance
to address teachers’ difficulties and, at the
same time, accepting opinions, grievances
and viewpoints from the teachers. In this way,
communication satisfaction enables superiors
to facilitate strong and mutual relationship with
subordinates effectively (Sharma &Bajpai, 2010).
Communication satisfaction builds and improves
confidence between them as well as strengthens
trust and stewardship. In this scenario, the
communication satisfaction among school head
and teachers facilitates their good working
relationship.
The practical implication of the findings of
the study is its concurrence to the widely accepted
impression that the teachers’ positive view of
school communication elicits their cooperation
and tacit approval of the leadership of their
school head which may lead to a viable teamwork
towards the attainment of school goals and
objectives. In conjunction with the established
situation, effective communication, as expounded
by Azhar (2006), is essential to the overall success
of an organization, and therefore, should have a
fundamental role in the strategic planning process
for all organizations. Furthermore, Clampitt and
Downs (1993) explained that communication
is one of the essential components used to
meet organizational goals and objectives. The
stimulation and motivation of members via
organizational communication can achieve these
goals.
While this study was successful in eliciting
the cooperation of both the school heads and
teachers in selected public elementary schools,
it has still its limitations. Some school heads had
shown hesitations for the researchers to directly
conduct the survey. Despite the endorsement of
the Division Superintendent, they rather chose
to give the questionnaires themselves to their
teachers and scheduled the time to get them. In
this case, the validity of the data collected cannot
57
be totally ensured.
CONCLUSION
The existence of the teachers’ satisfaction
with school communication impacts positively
on the formation of a mutually beneficial working
relationship with their school head. It provides
a fertile ground to forge understanding, trust,
and inspiration among them that consequently
facilitates their efficient interactions. In using
communication as a multidimensional process,
it is critical for the school heads to understand
the internal communication strategies and the
working environment of the teachers, and to
continuously promote a culture that contributes
to collaboration, learning and directing
communication content towards teaching and
learning issues and student outcomes. And more
importantly, the school heads should always
positively engage the teachers. Disseminating
knowledge of vital school information and
school plansthoroughly to themconsequently
builds commitment and this will further elicit
their cooperation in accomplishing school tasks.
The researchers thus hope that the findings
of the study contribute to the attainment of a
deeper understanding of school communication
satisfaction and working relationship among
school head and teachers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their
gratitude to their superiors, Dr.Armando A.
Torres, the Director of PUP-Sto. Tomas Branch -
Batangas, and Ms. Aida J. Villanueva, the Officer-
in-Charge of Paciano Rizal Elementary School,
for their generous cooperation, relentless
motivation and assistance. Likewise, they would
like to thank the school heads and teachers of
the public elementary schools in Cluster VI in
 58
the City Division of Calamba, the Philippines
without whom this study would have never been
completed.
REFERENCES
Adanza, E. G.,Bermundo, P. J. U., & Rasonable,
M. B. (2009). Methods of Research: A Primer.
Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.
Azhar, A. (2006). Auditing communication
satisfaction among academic staff: An
approach to managing academic excellence.
The Business Review, 5(1), 330-333.
Barge, J. K. (2004).Reflexivity and managerial
practice. Communication Monographs,
71(1), 70-96.
Barrett, D. J. (2006). Leadership communication:
A communication approach for senior-
level managers. In Handbook of Business
Strategy. Houston, TX: Emerald Group
Publishing.
Bouckenooghe, D., &Menguç, B. (2010, May).
Organizational politics and the moderating
role of organizational climate on change
recipients’ readiness for change. Conference
Proceedings, Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada Conference, Regina,
Canada.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee
perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A
field study. The Journal of Business
Communication, 30(1), 5-28.
David, S., & Singh, M. (2013). Study of employees
perception about communication processes
in Indian Cooperative Society: A Case Study.
Communication satisfaction and working relationship
International Journal of Advance Research
in Computer Science and Management
Studies, 1(5), 43-52.
Gimbel, P. A. (2003). Solutions for promoting
principal-teacher trust. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Education.
Habaci, I., Çelik, E. E., Habaci, M., Adigüzelli, F.,
& Kurt, S. (2013). Effective communication
in educational administration.US-China
Education Review, 3(9), 690-702.
Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (2000). Handbook of
communication audits for organisations.
London: Routledge.
Hindi, N. M., Miller, D. S., & Catt, S. E. (2004).
Communication and miscommunication in
corporate America: Evidence from Fortune
200 firms. Journal of Organizational
Culture, Communications and Conflict,
8(2), 13-26.
Hsiung, H. H., & Tsai, W. C. (2009). Job
definition discrepancy between supervisors
and subordinates: The antecedent role of
LMX and outcomes. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 89-
112.
Kandlousi, N. S. A. E., Ali, A. J., &Abdollahi, A.
(2010). Organizational citizenship behavior
in concern of communication satisfaction:
The role of the formal and informal
communication. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5(10), 51-61.
Korkosz, M. (2011). Exploring a relationship
between organisational communication
and job satisfaction.A study of internal
communication within Irish-owned
Tuazon, Padiernos 59

pharmaceutical contract packaging of professional nurses working in selected

company (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).National College of
Ireland,Dublin.
Liden, R. C., &Maslyn, J. M. (1998).
Multidimensionality of leader-member
exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management,
24(1), 43-72.
Mallett-Hamer, B. (2005). Communication
within the workplace (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).University of Wisconsin-Stout,
Menomonie, Wisconsin.
Pettinger, R. (2013). Organizational behaviour:
Performance management in practice.
Oxon: Routledge.
Rowicki, M. A. (1999). Communication skills for
educational administrators. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED432830.pdf
public health care services in the city
of Johannesburg (Unpublished master’s
thesis). University of South Africa, South
Africa.
Ymas, S. E. Jr.,& Ferrer, F. P. (2002). College
Statistics. Manila: Sta. Monica Printing
Corporation.
Ziuraite, J. (2008). Relationships of internal
organizational communication,
performance and work motivation
(Unpublished master’s thesis).Växjö
University, Sweden. Retrieved from
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/
diva2:202585/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Zwijze-Koning, K., & de Jong, M. (2007).Evaluating
the communication satisfaction
questionnaire as a communication audit tool.
Management Communication Quarterly,
20(3), 261-282.

Sevilla, C. (1992). Research Methods. Manila: Rex

Book Store.

Sharma, J. P., &Bajpai, N. (2010). Effective

leadership and its linear dependence on job
satisfaction: A comparative study in public
and private organization in India. Research
Journal of International Studies, 16(9), 73-
83.

Trenholm, S. (2011).Thinking through

communication: An introduction to the
study of human communication (6th Ed.).
Boston, M.A.: Allyn & Bacon.

Wagner, J. D. (2013). Communication satisfaction

View publication stats