Expert Answer :Outcome #3 Critical Analysis of Management Communi


Solved by verified expert:You will complete a critical analysis that successfully demonstrates an analysis of management communication styles in organizations, using an organizational structure, matrix and context with which you are familiar. Identify a subject related to management communication styles from your personal work experience that addresses issues currently facing managers in your organization or one with which you are familiar.Locate a journal article or other published work relevant to management communication style and to the subject you identified, that was published within the last three years.Critically analyze the article or other published work using your experience and at least four other scholarly sources. Your analysis should show how management communication styles impact the topic or subject, and should include areas in which communication styles can be improved to result in greater organizational success.Your analysis must be at least ten (10) pages in length. This means that for this deliverable, your title page, abstract page and reference page, are not part of the ten (10) pages. The ten (10) pages are the body of the deliverable.Therefore, a successful deliverable should include a title page in APA format 6th edition; an abstract page in APA format 6th edition; at least ten (10) page of body in APA format 6th edition with all the elements needed and as described for Outcome #3; and a reference page that is in APA format 6th edition.As described above, you should have at least four (4) scholarly sources and APA format must be used for citations and references.Finally, you will write a reflection on the relative effectiveness of your analysis, including specific lessons learned and recommendations for improvement. . Your reflection should include an assessment of how well your analysis addressed the subject you chose, how likely your recommendations would result in improvement, areas in which your analysis could be improved, and what you learned from the exercise.Assignment Tip: Let’s break this down Outcome #3:You are to complete a critical analysis that demonstrates any sort of an analysis of management communication styles in organizations, using the organizational structure, matrix and context with which you are familiar.Now, for the assignment, you can pick an article or topic, or as I recommend to my Boeing students, is to pick where you work for this assignment. Reason….you already know the management communication styles (either good or bad) and you can use the organizational structure within your current department to illustrate this and beyond.Once you do this, then you can create the infrastructure of the assignment identifying the management communication styles within your department (based on your experience), and then address issues that are currently facing managers and supervisors within that department (explaining the micro and macro issues).To me, I could go on forever with this, but I know for a fact that there is friction at Boeing (just like at any other company) in terms of management communication (and their styles) between represented and non-represented people and groups; the issue of diversity (other cultures, countries, etc.); the issues between the “young bucks” and the workers who have been there for a while; the management communication style of the way the executive leadership and the way they communicate with the rank-and-file; how is management communicating with employees with the level of trust between Boeing employees and management being at an all-time low; etc.Once you figure out which way you want to go with the assignment in terms of subject/title, then you are going to critically analyze the topic. You are going to have the following sections for the assignment:So the components of the assignment should be:A. Title PageB. AbstractC. An Introduction of the Topic to the Audience/Reader (about 2 pages)D. How Management Communication Styles Impact Your Topic (about 3 pages)E. Areas in Which Communication Styles Can be Improved to Results in Greater Organizational Success (about 3 pages)F. Conclusion (about 1 page)G. Reflection – as outlined in the syllabus with the relative effectiveness, lessons learned, etc. (about 1 page)H. Reference page (1 page)You should have 4 sources that support your topic and rationale in the paper.Please let me know if you have any questions, and everyone who has been actively researching and composing assignments is doing great!


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert Answer :Outcome #3 Critical Analysis of Management Communi
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

BAM400: Organizational Communications
Larry Frazier
Management Communication Styles Analysis (Outcome #3)
This paper is a critical analysis of a study designed to determine the relationship between
leadership styles and communication styles in regards to knowledge sharing and other leadership
outcomes. The author believes that, although this study is one of the first of its kind and contains
valuable information, the study authors’ biases and assumptions, along with other factors, may
have had an effect on the findings. This belief is supported by an analysis of all aspects of the
study, including expectations of the study authors and the structure of the study, as well as a
critique of the journal article reporting the study. The relevance of the study topic to current
workplace environments is also discussed.
Critical Analysis: Leadership = Communication?
What is the relationship between leadership and communication? Organizational
communication has been described as “the exchange of oral, written, and nonverbal messages
among people working to accomplish common tasks and goals” (O’Hair, Friedrich, & Dickson,
2011). But what role do leaders and managers play in this process? As early as 1938, Chester
Barnard identified the main task of managers to be communication (Kline, n.d.). According to
Michael Hackman, the most important thing a leader does is communicate. “Leadership is
primarily trust and communication. The greater the leadership responsibility, the more the job is
a communications job” (Cox, 2006). Others agree with this definition. Mike Myatt (2012) has
written that it is impossible to become a great leader without being a great communicator; and he
distinguishes between being a communicator and just being a talker. John A. Kline, PhD. (n.d.),
Distinguished Visiting Professor of Communications and Leadership at Air University, believes
that the responsibility for communication mostly falls on an organization’s leaders, since those
under them will take cues from the leaders that are over them.
While most would agree that leaders need to be good communicators, there has been a lot
of discussion about the different leadership styles and how they affect communication. Along
with many different models of leadership styles, there are also many different models of
communication styles. And each of these leadership styles and communication styles affects the
others. Even though there is some agreement on certain communication traits that good leaders
have, there is continued discussion on the relationship between different leadership styles and the
communication styles that are most likely to be used by each type of leader. There also
continues to be a discussion on the effect that a leader’s communication style has on the people
he is leading and the outcomes he can expect based on his style of communication.
In light of this discussion, deVries, Bakker-Pieper, and Oostenveld (2010) conducted a
study to try and determine the relationship between the communication styles and leadership
styles of leaders and leadership outcomes. The study tested and analyzed three styles of
leadership and six communication styles. This study and the resulting journal article,
“Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with
Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes” (de Vries et al, 2010), are
being analyzed in the current paper.
Although this study is one of the first of its kind and contains valuable information, the
authors’ biases and assumptions, along with other factors, may have had an effect on the
findings. While some of these factors add to the validity of the study, others tend to take away
from its validity. This analysis will address these biases and assumptions, as well as the structure
of the study, the journal article itself, and the relevance of this topic to the workplace
Summary of Study
This study was conducted with 279 employees of the Dutch Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science. Three different questionnaires were compiled into one survey and included
154 questions on leadership styles, 87 questions for communication styles, and other questions
regarding leadership outcomes. Questions about leadership outcomes were, for example, “My
superior is not very efficient” or “I sometimes think: ‘I wish I had another superior’”; and
examples of communication style questions are “My leader often tells a lively story” or “My
leader likes to analyze everything” (de Vries et al, 2010).
The results of the study were then statistically analyzed to determine three things:
whether communication styles were significantly related to leadership outcomes; whether
communication styles were significantly related to leadership styles; and whether leadership
styles were significantly related to outcome variables. The study contained three separate
hypotheses with very specific outcome expectations. According to the article describing the
study, all three hypotheses were supported, at least to some degree, by the results of the study.
As de Vries et al point out, “this study is one of the first to use a comprehensive
communication style instrument in the study of leadership” (2010). Because of this, it was
necessary for them to have some underlying assumptions when approaching this topic. For
instance, they state their belief that “communication is central to leadership” (2010). Another
example is the statement that “one of the core elements of leadership is a leader’s interpersonal
communication style” (2010). However, although it is necessary to have underlying assumptions
in studies like this, they need to be based on previous research and solid grounding. In this
study, the authors did this in some cases; but they did not support all of their underlying
assumptions with evidence from other sources. Instead, they used results from their own
previous studies to support their underlying assumptions.
To their credit, de Vries et al have conducted more than one study in this area; so they
have experience beyond this current study. But using their own previous research as examples
can indicate a bias that could affect the outcomes. An example of this, which will be further
discussed later, is the use of communication styles that were the results of their own previous
study as one of the components of this study.
Besides underlying assumptions, the authors of this study also had preconceived
expectations for the results of the study. While there is an element of this that is necessary in any
study, since those conducting a study are looking or hoping for a particular outcome,
expectations can cause a bias to be present in the design of a study. The following statements
made by the authors are examples of this type of problem: “communication style of a team
member is likely to have an effect on the willingness and eagerness of team members to share
knowledge”, and “we expect the communication styles to be significantly related to the outcomes
in this study” (de Vries et al, 2010).
While it is true that all studies have limitations in their designs (due to the inability to test
all possibilities in all situations in one study), the design of the de Vries et al study contained
several limitations. First of all, there was only one leadership model used in this study. The
model they used was the transformational vs. transactional leadership styles originally developed
by James MacGregor Burns (James, n.d.). This model has been studied by numerous others and
has also been known as people-oriented vs. task-oriented leadership as well as other names. The
authors used this model exclusively to develop the component of leadership styles that they
studied, which they called consideration vs. initiating structure.
There are many other leadership models that have been developed but were not included
in this study. For example, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton identified five different leadership
styles in 1964: Country Club Leadership, Produce or Perish Leadership, Improvised Leadership,
Middle of the Road Leadership, and Team Leadership (What is, 2010). More recently, Daniel
Goleman (2000) identified six different leadership styles. These include Coercive Leaders,
Authoritative Leaders, Affiliative Leaders, Democratic Leaders, Pacesetting Leaders, and
Coaching Leaders. If de Vries et al wanted to avoid limiting their results, a larger view of
leadership styles should have been implemented in this study.
Similarly, de Vries et al used the results of their own previous study as the basis for the
communication styles component of this study. This indicates bias as well as limitation. The
communication styles they tested were: Verbal Aggressiveness, Expressiveness, Preciseness,
Assuredness, Supportiveness, and Argumentativeness. Even though the authors discussed the
results of some other studies on communication styles (most notably, Leary’s Interpersonal
Circumplex Model from 1957 and Gudykunst et al’s communication factors identified in 1996),
they largely discounted the findings based on their own previous studies. And there are
numerous other models of communication, particularly in relation to organizations and leaders,
which could have been discussed or tested in this study.
Organizational communication has been discussed since the beginning of the twentieth
century (O’Hair et al, 2011). Frederick Taylor believed that harmony and cooperation were
important leadership communication qualities, while Max Weber believed that leaders
communicate in a routine way according to set procedures. These classical ways of viewing
leaders and communication were later challenged by Elton Mayo’s and Douglas McGregor’s
humanistic theories, which focused more on workers than leaders. As the structure of
organizations and society in general has changed through the years, newer theories have
developed around the importance of environment and organizational culture on leaders’
communication styles.
O’Hair et al (2011) have developed a Model of Strategic Communication, defining
Situational Knowledge, Goal Setting, Communication Competence, and Anxiety Management as
important elements of a leader’s communication style. In line with these ideas, they have
identified the following communication characteristics of effective leaders: approachability,
sensitivity, credibility, supportiveness, confidence, honesty, frankness, respect, empathy, and
calmness, as well as someone who explains decisions, articulates clearly, and encourages
information and input from subordinates.
Others have developed more communication models that each identify slightly different
communication styles and characteristics. In his 1992 book Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the
Essence of Management, Harvard Business School professor Nitin Nohria has drawn upon
Aristotle’s classical elements of rhetoric (logic, emotions, and values) to determine that a
leader’s communication style should include portions of all three (Blagg & Young, 2001).
George Bradt’s statement, “Everything communicates. You can either make choices in advance
about what and how you’re going to communicate or react to what others do”, is evidence of his
belief that a leader’s communication style varies depending upon the purpose, strategy, and
posture of the team he/she is leading (2012). Myatt has identified ten important qualities of an
excellent communicator: trustworthiness, meaningful relationships with people, clarity, a
servant’s heart, open-mindedness, a good listener, empathy, reading between the lines,
knowledge, and speaking to groups as individuals. “Communication is not about you, your
opinions, your positions, or your circumstances. It’s about helping others by meeting their
needs, understanding their concerns, and adding value to their world” (2012). And Nobel (2012)
uses the term “organizational conversation” to replace the traditional idea of communication by
leaders to include the important elements of intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and intentionality
in her model.
The limitations of the de Vries et al study in regards to communication styles should be
obvious. While it would have been difficult to include all of these ideas and models within the
confines of one study, the authors’ reliance on their own previous findings for the determination
of the styles to be used and their lack of discussion in the article of any other communication
models certainly limits the effectiveness of this study to be applied in a broader way or for the
results to be used in other applications.
One positive element of the structure of this study was the addition of a knowledge
sharing component for leadership outcomes, which had not taken place in previous studies. This
allowed for a new dimension to be tested; and relationships between leadership styles,
communication styles, and knowledge sharing, along with other leadership outcomes, could be
studied. However, of the three hypotheses that were proposed by de Vries et al, two of them
were based on findings from their own previous studies in 2002 and 2009. By structuring the
study in this way, bias was inherently created.
Additionally, the actual method of how this study was conducted contains aspects that
also need to be pointed out. First, this study was only conducted in a government workplace. It
is possible that government employees could have different views of leadership than workers in
the private sector. This could limit the ability of the results to be applicable in all situations.
Second, the survey the questions that were used in this study were drawn from a variety of
outside sources. This is positive because it shows an unbiased approach and it encompasses a
well-rounded method that recognizes the previous contributions of others.
The construction of the journal article itself also brings up some topics for discussion.
First, de Vries et al provided excellent definitions of two of the components in this study,
specifically communication styles and knowledge sharing. The definitions were clear, concise,
and understandable to anyone reading the article. However, it was more difficult to understand
their definition of leadership styles, because they kept interchanging terms that were known to
leadership professionals but not everyone else. Sometimes they used the term “consideration”
while at other times interchanged this with “charismatic” or “human-oriented”. All of these
terms actually refer to transformational leadership, but that term is never used in the study.
Along the same lines, instead of using the term “transactional” leadership the authors used “task-
oriented” and “initiating structure” interchangeably. This made it confusing to follow the article
completely and understand the concepts they studied, which limited the scope of the article’s
audience. On the other hand, the thoroughness of the article stands out. The lengthy discussion
of many different aspects of the topic and the large number of sources that were cited contributed
to the reader’s respect for the authors and their commitment to this field of study.
Two other aspects to note that add to the credibility of this study were discussed by de
Vries et al in the conclusion section of the article. Because of some of the limitations we have
previously pointed out above, the authors admit that the outcomes may suffer from common
method biases. They do, however, still believe that the results of the study are valuable; and they
offered practical applications for the use of the results in the future, specifically in the area of
training employees.
This is the area where this study by de Vries et al would be the most useful to a real
workplace situation. The findings indicated that a person’s leadership style indirectly affects the
relationship between communication styles and leadership outcomes, and that communication
styles are strongly related to leadership outcomes. The proven importance of a leader’s
supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when communicating could be very useful for
leadership training programs as they seek to develop more effective leaders for the future. While
it is less likely that a leader can develop a completely different leadership style, it might be more
possible to instill new communication styles in leaders. The results of this study could be used to
determine which communication styles and skills to focus on the most when developing a
leadership training program. Also, for organizations that are very interested in knowledge
sharing across the demographics of the company, the addition of this component in the
leadership outcomes of this study provides a new dimension to the results that could be useful.
However, since the study by de Vries et al was one of the first of its kind, more research is
needed to confirm or disprove the results.
This critical analysis was a difficult project for me. The explanation in the syllabus was
difficult to follow and required follow-up on my part for clarification and further understanding.
The process of critical thinking and critical analysis is a new concept from when I was in college
thirty years ago. The professors I had then expected students to respect and trust the authority of
those who were published; so most papers, at least in the classes I was in, took the form of a
report rather than an analysis. The idea of questioning or “picking apart” someone else’s work
goes against the way I was taught previously. I also recognize that I am not in a position to
analyze many things about a professional study of this type, as I do not have a background in the
topic being studied or any training in the statistical analysis of study results.
Given that background, I think I have written a fairly effective analysis. I have tried to
look at this journal article from as many angles as possible and to analyze not only the content of
the study but also the structure of the article. I researched management communication styles in
order to do this analysis, but I’m still not sure whether I completed the project in the way it was
intended. I didn’t feel like I really analyzed the communication styles themselves as much as I
analyzed the journal article and experiment that studied them. But with the information given in
the syllabus, I think I have written an effective analysis and done a good job of supporting my
original thesis.
Aarons, G. (2006). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: Association With Attitudes
Toward Evidence-Based Practice. Psychiatric Services, 57 (8), 1162-1169. Retrieved
February 15, 2013, from
Blagg, D. & Young, S. (2001). What Makes a Good Leader? Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from
Bradt, G. (2012). How Leaders’ Communication Styles Impact the Delivery of Results. Forbes.
Retrieved February 13, 2013, from
Bush, C. (n.d.). Leadership Style: Initiating Structure and Consideration. Retrieved February 15,
2013, from …
Purchase answer to see full

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP