research paper submitted

Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE NAZARENE CHURCH 1

Effectiveness of Communication in the Nazarene Church

Kayla Moutvic

Olivet Nazarene University

EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE NAZARENE CHURCH 2

Abstract

The goal of this study was to measure how effectively leaders communicate their goals

throughout the Nazarene denomination, mainly at the local church level. The author constructed

a survey for Nazarene church leaders and congregation members which would measure

satisfaction with communication and goals. It was hypothesized that those in the congregation

would feel not satisfied with the amount of communication they are receiving from those in

leadership positions. Results indicated congregation members were satisfied with communication

and acknowledged goals. However, leaders were not as familiar with those in lower roles in the

church.


Introduction

Downward communication is when information is passed down from superiors to

subordinates. Most downward communication involves those in higher positions making

decisions which are then communicated to lower levels. Upward communication involves

messages from lower positions conveyed to upper levels (Riggio, 2008). Research has shown

that, though most communication is downward, there is a lack of information being

communicated. This may occur because superiors overestimate the frequency and amount of

information that is communicated (Likert, 1961). In order for a leader to communicate

effectively they need to communicate with clarity, accuracy and coherence (Spitzberg, 1998). As

a leader, it is important that communication is perceived by those in lower positions to be

effective in order to satisfy expectations. When communication is deficient, it affects the goals

and outcomes in the organization. Expanding beyond organizations, it is important to address if a

lack communication affects goals and outcomes in the church.

Communication and Goals

When there is a lack of communication, there is a lack of shared values and expectations

since communication facilitates goals. Leaders and members are more complaint to work with

one another when they share similar values. There is a greater sense of affiliation when sharing

beliefs and attitudes with others (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In a study by Gibson, Cooper and Conger

(2009), they noted that leaders and subordinates reciprocally influence the other but it is

necessary for a leader and team to have an awareness of the other’s perspective. When leaders

and subordinates do have similar opinions about communication, it enables them to make better

use of the information obtained through feedback. In contrast, a disagreement of information


received diverts interpretations of the same information. In sum, their research suggests that the

more aligned the leaders and subordinates were, the better the subordinates responded to the

leaders (2009). Their study highlights the importance of communication to goal attainment.

When leaders and members are striving for the same values and goals, there is a greater

identification in each other’s roles and it helps them to work towards the same thing. An

additional study explains how leadership development occurs with self-identification which leads

to effective communication. This enables pastors to become more adaptive to congregants

(Sosik, Zhu, & Blair, 2009).

Transfer of Communication

One aspect that I wanted to pursue further was not just communication itself but how it is

administered and received. Street, Wiemann and Mulac (1998) used 40 naturally occurring

conversations to see whether the evaluator’s perspective (participant or observer) impacted

satisfaction and competence. If the message was received by an observer it was given through

audiovisual, audio-solely or only visual formats. The results indicated that participants rated

conversational partners most favorably and solely-visual as the least favorable. Consistent with

this, in our churches it may be a worthwhile question to ask, “How much information are we

transmitting visually versus audibly?”

Other research suggests that dominant behavior is an ineffective way to communicate.

Driskell and Salas (2005) found that even when leaders think they are effectively

communicating, subordinates had lower evaluations for the content of the message. Even though

there is communication, it is not always transferred in the most appropriate manner. Each

position may feel disconnected in the relationship if they feel opposition from the other.


Similarly, Hollander and Offerman (1990) mentioned that effective communication comes from

reciprocity and the potential for collaborative influence. Another study examined how managers

and their subordinates perceive the nature of communication with each other. They answered a

questionnaire asking about the frequency and quality of communication perceived and

dominance of managers. Managers did not differ in their perceptions that they communicated

more often and more clearly than subordinates. They found that female subordinates who had

male or female superiors felt that their opinions were not recognized and had fewer opportunities

to give their views (Callan, 1993). This study inspired me to examine leader effectiveness in

communicating and opportunities that congregation members have to provide feedback.

Upward Communication

Communication can be effectively responded to if both positions are able to provide input

in terms of upward and downward communication. A study was constructed to measure if

superior communication did make an impact on job satisfaction and performance. A field study

was used on 327 participants and results indicated that satisfaction with superior communication

and opportunities for personal feedback were strongly related to job satisfaction and

performance. The study was able to confirm the importance of superior-subordinate

communication relationship (Pincus, 1986). A similar study (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995)

indicated that follower ratings of student leaders in a naval academy improved after leaders

received upward feedback. Leaders that received negative feedback (follower ratings were

substantially below self-ratings) improved the most. Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2005) explored

the idea that organizations are dependent on the flow of information. When leaders reinforce this

perspective, it enhances their influence over subordinates to adopt their goals for the

organization. Ignoring subordinate feedback can negatively affect the organization but one that


responds to relevant feedback will be most adaptive to the community. When an organization is

declining, they will become more rigid in their procedures and decrease communication and

meetings throughout the organization. Upward communication allows for greater opportunities

to communicate, leading to higher satisfaction levels.

It was important to look at not just positive information being received but negative

feedback as well. This led me to investigate further how leaders and members respond to

different types of feedback (positive or negative) in my survey. In one study, 252 managers were

administered upward feedback evaluations over the course of five years. Initially managers were

rated poorly. Results showed that managers who met with direct reports to discuss their upward

feedback improved more than others. There was also significant improvement when they

discussed feedback from the year prior than those who did not. It again demonstrates the benefits

of upward feedback (Walker, Smither, 1999). Ashford and Tsui (1991) conducted a field study

including 387 managers observed by their superiors, subordinates and peers. Results indicated

that when managers seek negative feedback, it can enhance their self-awareness. This allows

them to better self-regulate their behavior. Seeking positive feedback, however, decreased

subordinates opinions of manager’s effectiveness. Even though it may be difficult to hear

unpleasant remarks as a leader, satisfaction can be improved when problems are addressed

appropriately.

Communication and Goals in the Church

Since a majority of the previous studies were conducted in the workforce, I wanted to

narrow my literature review to an area more closely aligned with my research questions. The

purpose of the next study was to examine the relationship of the Nazarene Church and their


church- college relationship. The study used an internet survey and it was distributed to general

church leaders, district superintendents, local church pastors and those in college/university

careers. Results showed that there was a lack of acknowledgement of the institutional mission to

the church (Mountain, 2009). This is important to my study because Nazarene colleges and

universities did not think they knew that mission and values of the church, highlighting a

potential lack of communication between these important roles.

The purpose of the current research study was to measure the effectiveness of

communication in the Nazarene church from church leaders to the congregants. I wanted to

know if congregants were satisfied with the communication they were receiving and the

acknowledgment of goals from church leaders. Other studies examined the communication in the

workforce, but I sought to identify communication in the church. Specifically, my first

hypothesis is that congregants would feel not satisfied with the communication that they were

receiving. Additionally, I predicted leaders will think they effectively communicate. My third

hypothesis is that congregants would be unfamiliar with the goals established by the leaders. My

fourth hypothesis is that leaders would think they are effectively communicating goals to the

congregants. The final hypothesis is that there would be a correlation between satisfaction with

communication and satisfaction with goals for both leaders and congregation members.

Method

Participants

There were a total of 281 participants consisting of 228 congregants and 53 leaders.

Participants were notified about the survey via their local pastors or Nazarene related pages on

Facebook. Participants recruited for this study were congregation members, local pastors,


District Superintendents and General Superintendents. Fourteen congregant and seven leadership

responses were not included due to survey incompletion or incorrect survey completion. The

member’s responses represented four countries and thirty-four different states. A majority of the

member responses were from Kansas, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Fifty-four male members and

173 female members responded along with one missing response. The members mean age was

50.90 years (SD = 15.04) and mean years in role was 32.59 (SD = 88.75).

Forty male and 13 female leaders represented four countries and eighteen different states.

A majority of the leader responses were from Indiana and Illinois. There were 52 pastors and 1

District Superintendent that responded. The leaders mean age was 49.17 years (SD = 12.79) and

mean years in role was 14.06 (SD = 14.41).

Materials

Two separate surveys consisting of similar questions were developed for this study, one

for congregation members and one for leaders (pastors, District Superintendents and General

Superintendents). Twenty-five questions on the member’s survey asked about satisfaction in

regards to leadership communication and knowledge of goals (Appendix A). Of the 25 questions,

18 questions addressed communication and seven questions addressed goals using a five point

Likert scale. Of the 18 questions that addressed communication, four questions were open ended.

Some of the questions were newly developed and others were based off of prior research such as

Katz and Kahn (1966), Callan (1993), Mountain (2009) and a Communication Competence scale

by Wiemann (1977). Twenty-six questions on the leader’s survey asked about satisfaction in

regards to communication and addressing goals (Appendix B). Of the 26 questions, 19 questions

addressed communication and seven questions addressed goals using a five point Likert scale. Of


the 19 questions that addressed communication, five questions were open ended. Some of the

questions were newly developed and some of the questions were based off of previous research

such as Katz and Kahn (1966), Callan (1993), Mountain (2009) and Communication Satisfaction

Questionnaire by Downs and Hazen (1977). At the end of each survey, five demographic

questions were included.

Procedure

The survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey, Facebook, and email to willing adult

participants who were a part of the Nazarene church. Before beginning the survey, informed

consent was obtained from each of the participants. There were two different links provided and

there was a description above the links describing the criteria so participants knew which survey

to take. The description stated: “The first link is intended for church members and the second

link is intended for pastors, District Superintendents and General Superintendents.” Again,

leaders answered twenty-six questions measuring their effectiveness at communicating to church

members and their ability to communicate goals. The congregants answered twenty-five

questions measuring their satisfaction of their leader’s communication and their acknowledgment

of goals received from leaders.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

As can be seen in Table 1, that the majority of congregants reported being familiar with

their DS (question 1). In addition, congregants reported being actively involved in their church

(question 14). Congregation members also rated highly their ability to communicate with their

pastors (question 3). Last, responses indicated that congregant members feel that goals are


adapting through the years (question 21) and that they recognize the goals of the church

(question 22). Members also rated highly their agreement with the goals and values of their

church (question 19). In regards to communication from the pastor (question 9) and District

Superintendent (question 10), respondents rated low their desire for increased communication.

Responses from leaders are available in Table 2. Leaders agreed that they were actively

involved with lower levels (question 1). Leaders disagreed that communication between local

pastors (question 7) and district superintendents was good (question 8). Leaders agreed that they

encourage those below them to reach their goals (question 15). Responses to question 19 indicate

that leaders do not typically set goals according to what those below them desire. Question 18

shows that as a leader, they agreed that they are familiar with the goals of the church.

Comparing between Congregants and Leaders

Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found with respect to

upward communication, t(291) = 5.58, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with the

statement, “If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor” (M = 4.71, SD

= .68) than leaders were to the statement, “There are opportunities available for those below me

to express their ideas” (M = 4.15, SD = .79). Significant differences between congregants and

leaders were found in regards to transferring communication, t(291) = 3.64, p < .001.

Congregants were more likely to agree with the statement “I interpret feelings and attitudes of

my pastor through behavior over words” (M = 3.78, SD = .84) than leaders were to the statement,

“I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over words” (M = 3.21, SD = .95).

Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found with respect to goals of the

church, t(291) = 6.13, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with the statement, “I

agree with the goals and values of my church” (M = 4.37, SD = .84) than leaders were to the


statement, “Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established” (M = 3.47, SD

= .61). Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found in regards to goal

agreement, t(291) = 5.61, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with that statement,

“The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the congregation” (M = 3.85,

SD = .99) than leaders would to the statement, “I set goals according to what those below me

desire” (M = 2.79, SD = .91). Significant differences between congregants and leaders were

found with respect to upward communication, t(291) = 2.85, p = .005. Congregants were more

likely to agree with the statement, “The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a

church leader” (M = 3.77, SD = 1.06) than leaders were to the statement, “Subordinates feel

responsible for initiating accurate upward communication” (M = 3.15, SD = .89).

Correlational Analyses

For members, there was a significant negative correlation between questions 5 (I am

satisfied with the leadership in my church) and 9 (I would like to hear more from my pastor)

r(226) = -.29, p < .001. There was a significant positive correlation between question 22 (I am

familiar with the goals and values of my church) and 5 (I am satisfied with the leadership in my

church) r(226) = .38, p < .001. There was a significant positive correlation between question 19

(I agree with the goals and values of my church) and 24 (The goals and values of the church are

aligned with the pastor and the congregation) r(226) = .49, p < .001.

Open Ended Responses

When asked “Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the church?”

congregants had a variety of responses. They noted that fellowship (12), Bible study (16), prayer

meetings (7) and potlucks (8) would allow them to connect with leaders. When receiving

information they included Facebook (6), email (9), newsletters (7) and board meetings (18).


When asked “Which methods are most effective for communication?” members also recognized

emails (88), bulletins (31), announcements (12), social media (17), and one on one conversation

(43) as effective methods for communication. Responding to “Which role is most effective at

communicating?” members recognized that their pastor (212) was more effective at

communicating then District Superintendents (11) or General Superintendents (5).

When asked “Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the church?”

leaders had a range of responses. They stated that the church fellowship (12), church services (6),

emails (4), bible study (3) and activities outside of church such as going for coffee (2) or lunch

(3) would allow them to connect best with others. Expanding out of the local church, community

events (3) would increase communication between zone leaders by working with local churches

as well as having district activities and attending District and General Conferences (4). When

asked, “Which methods are most effective for communication?” leaders stated texting (11),

email (17), Facebook (11) and one on one (13) conversations as effective methods for

communicating. When asked, “Which role is most effective at communicating?” leaders stated

the pastor (42) was most effective at communicating to church members. Ten responded that it

was the DS, and the one that said the GS was most effective for communicating to church

members.

Discussion

Looking at the means from the member’s survey explains a lot about satisfaction with

communication and goals. Members are familiar with their DS. This is good, since it is important

that they know the source of communication received by themselves and their pastors (question

1). Members also indicated feeling involved in their local church, enabling members a greater


sense of affiliation and probably more opportunities to give and receive communication

(question 14). Since members feel as though they can communicate with their pastor, upward

communication is facilitated (question 3). By noticing the changing goals this indicates that they

feel the goals are adapting through the years (question 21). When members are able to recognize

goal change it corresponds to their overall goal acknowledgement (question 22). Since members

agree with the goals this shows their satisfaction with the established goals (question 19). Since

members do not have the desire for increased communication from pastors or DS’s, it appears

they are satisfied with the amount of communication from their leaders.

Looking at the means from the leader’s survey also explains a lot about satisfaction with

communication and goals. Leaders feel actively involved with lower positions. It can be

perceived then they feel connected with members or lower church roles (question 1). Leaders

however think that there is a lack of communication between the other leaders (question 7 & 8).

Leaders believe that they encourage those in lower positions to reach goals (question 15)

indicating the acknowledgment of goals and communication to those in lower roles. Leaders do

feel as though they are familiar with goals of members indicating upward communication

(question 18). Leaders also feel that they do not set goals according to what the congregation

desires (question 19). This could be attributed to setting goals beyond member’s expectations to

strengthen the church positively. This also could represent a disconnection between goals that

congregants have and the goals their pastors have.

Congregants were more likely to agree with questions regarding satisfaction of

communication received and acknowledgement of goals than leaders. Members thought they had

more opportunities for upward communication than leaders thought for downward. Members

recognized their ability to receive nonverbal communication more than leaders recognized how


they communicate nonverbally. Members agreed with the goals that were established more than

leaders knew of their satisfaction. Last, members recognized their ability to communicate more

than leaders recognized abilities for members to communicate.

Correlation analyses indicated that satisfaction in leadership is positively linked to

satisfaction with communication. Additionally, another correlation indicated that when

congregants are familiar with goals then they are satisfied with the leaders implementing these

goals. The last correlation that was found suggested that there was a positive relationship

between satisfaction of goals and goal alignment between congregants and pastors.

Congregants were open to a wide variety of methods that allows them to connect with

leaders. When expanding on methods that would increase communication, many were previously

addressed suggesting their communication needs were met. Leaders were also open to a plethora

of methods to better connect with those in lower positions. Some congregant and leader answers

overlapped indicating a mutual agreement on the communication methods that satisfied both

positions such as email, Facebook, and one on ones. At the local church level, face to face

conversations are effective but from the district level electronically may be the most effective.

By members and leaders indicating the pastor as more effective at communicating than DSs or

GSs, it provides insight as to what role is more important for both downward and upward

communication and goal satisfaction.

Limitations

A limitation of the study includes not using developed scales as a measurement of

communication satisfaction. Most of the analyses were done at the question level. While this

provides a good description into the investigation of this topic, using validated communication


and satisfaction scales is expected to help further our understanding of these topics. In addition,

those who took the survey may not represent the larger Nazarene denomination due to selective

distribution of surveys by pastors. The survey could have been completed by those who were

satisfied with their communication or pastors not distributing it if there was already

dissatisfaction in communication. Also, the study only reflected those in the Nazarene

denomination and may not be representative of other denominations. If I was to conduct

additional research, I would use research scales that have already been developed. I would also

expand the survey to more Nazarene congregants and leaders and to those outside of the

Nazarene denomination. Additional research should include the church context due to lack of

research done in this area.


References

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251. doi: 10.2307/256442

Atwater L., Roush P., Fischthal A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self-and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 34-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01745.x

Callan, V. J. (1993), Subordinate–manager communication in different sex dyads: Consequences for job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 13–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993.tb00513.x

Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-73.

Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2005). The effect of content and demeanor on reactions to dominance behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(1), 3-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.3

Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62-76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013073

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179

Katz, D., Kahn, R. (1966).The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, Wiley.

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill

McCroskey, J., Johnson, A., & Richmond, V. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504. doi: 10.1080/01463370309370170

McPhee, R. D., & Corman, S. R. (1995). An activity-based theory of communication networks in organizations, applied to the case of a local church. Communication Monographs [H.W.Wilson - EDUC], 62, 132. doi: 10.1080/03637759509376353

Mountain, M. C. (2009). The church of the Nazarene: A denomination and its colleges: A mixed methods study (Order No. 3379729). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (304947648).


Pincus, J. D. (1986), Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communication Research, 12: 395–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00084.x

Riggio, R. (2008). Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Sosik, J. J., Zhu, W., & Blair, A. L. (2011). Felt authenticity and demonstrating transformational leadership in faith communities. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(3), 179-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032646

Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 67-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Street, R. L., Wiemann, J. M. and Mulac, A. (1988), Speech evaluation differences as a function of perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and presentational medium. Human Communication Research, 14: 333–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00160.x

Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393-423. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999

Wielkiewicz, R. M., & Stelzner, S. P. (2005). An ecological perspective on leadership theory, research, and practice. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 326-341. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.326

Wiemann; J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00518.x


Table 1

Means and standard deviations of survey items completed by congregants in order to measure satisfaction of communication and acknowledgement of goals.

Question/Statement Mean SD1. I know who my district superintendent is 4.47 1.022. I know who my general superintendent is 3.60 1.333. If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor 4.72 .684. I am more critical of a church pastor who starts a goal and does not

complete it than I am of a pastor who does not even attempt a goal2.68 1.06

5. I am satisfied with the leadership in my church 3.88 1.166. I am satisfied with the district superintendents who are elected 3.81 1.017. I am satisfied with my elected general superintendent 3.77 .888. The local pastor has effectively implemented new ideas and

communication methods3.94 1.14

9. I would like to hear more from my pastor 3.31 .9610. I would like to hear more from my district superintendent 3.43 1.0111. I would like to hear more from my general superintendent 3.49 .9912. My local pastor would address any negative feedback in an appropriate

manner3.97 1.10

13. I interpret feelings and attitudes of my pastor through behavior over words

3.78 .84

14. I am actively involved in my church 4.48 .7315. Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the

church?16. Which methods are most effective for communication?17. Who do you receive most of your church related communication from?18. Which role is most effective at communicating?19. I agree with the goals and values of my church 4.37 .8420. My church effectively reaches its goals 3.71 .9321. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant 2.48 1.0922. I am familiar with the goals and values of my church 4.21 .7723. My church is always successful meeting their goals 3.11 .9724. The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the

congregation3.85 .99

25. The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a church leader

3.77 1.06

Note: SD = standard deviation. Also, the Likert scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Last, questions 15 – 18 were open-ended.


Table 2

Means and standard deviations of survey items completed by leaders in order to measure satisfaction of communication and goals.

Question/Statement Mean SD1. I am actively involved with those in lower positions 4.32 .852. I always address negative feedback in an appropriate manner 3.75 .703. I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over

words3.21 .95

4. I effectively communicate the goals and missions of the church 4.02 .605. I am kept well informed about what other church leaders are doing 3.19 .986. There are opportunities available for those below me to express

their ideas4.04 .76

7. There is good communication among the local pastors 2.92 1.178. There is good communication among the district superintendents 2.92 .769. I am satisfied with the communication at my level 3.25 .9810. Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the

church?11. Which methods are most effective for communication?12. Who do you receive most of your church communication from?13. Which role is most effective at communicating?14. How would you change the communication in your role to make

you more satisfied?15. I encourage those I watch over to reach their prospective goals 4.17 .5516. I am effective in achieving prospective goals 3.83 .7017. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant 2.81 .9418. I am familiar with the goals and values of the church 4.28 .6319. I set goals according to what those below me desire 2.79 .9120. I am satisfied with the goals that are currently established 3.26 .9021. Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established 3.47 .6122. Those below me are responsive to downward directive

communication3.42 .95

23. Subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions and criticism 3.30 .9324. Subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate upward

communication3.15 .89

25. I receive feedback from those below me in a timely manner 3.42 1.0326. I receive feedback from those above me in a timely manner 3.02 1.15

Note: SD = standard deviation. Also, the Likert scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Last, questions 10 – 14 were open-ended.


Appendix A

This survey was completed by members in order to measure satisfaction of communication and goals.

1. I know who my district superintendent is

2. I know who my general superintendent is

3. If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor

4. I am more critical of a church pastor who starts a goal and does not complete it than I am of a pastor who does not even attempt a goal

5. I am satisfied with the leadership in my church

6. I am satisfied with the district superintendents who are elected

7. I am satisfied with my elected general superintendent

8. The local pastor has effectively implemented new ideas and communication methods

9. I would like to hear more from my pastor

10. I would like to hear more from my district superintendent

11. I would like to hear more from my general superintendent

12. My local pastor would address any negative feedback in an appropriate manner

13. I interpret feelings and attitudes of my pastor through behavior over words

14. I am actively involved in my church

*15. Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the church?

*16. Which methods are most effective for communication?

*17. Who do you receive most of your church related communication from?

*18. Which role is most effective at communicating?

19. I agree with the goals and values of my church

20. My church effectively reaches its goals

21. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant

22. I am familiar with the goals and values of my church


23. My church is always successful meeting their goals

24. The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the congregation

25. The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a church leader

26. Gender

27. Age

28. Location of Church

29. Role in Ministry

30. Years in position

*Questions are open ended


Appendix B

This survey was completed by leaders in order to measure satisfaction of communication and goals.

1. I am actively involved with those in lower positions

2. I always address negative feedback in an appropriate manner

3. I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over words

4. I effectively communicate the goals and missions of the church

5. I am kept well informed about what other church leaders are doing

6. There are opportunities available for those below me to express their ideas

7. There is good communication among the local pastors

8. There is good communication among the district superintendents

9. I am satisfied with the communication at my level

*10. Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the church?

*11. Which methods are most effective for communication?

*12. Who do you receive most of your church communication from?

*13. Which role is most effective at communicating?

*14. How would you change the communication in your role to make you more satisfied?

15. I encourage those I watch over to reach their prospective goals

16. I am effective in achieving prospective goals

17. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant

18. I am familiar with the goals and values of the church

19. I set goals according to what those below me desire

20. I am satisfied with the goals that are currently established

21. Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established


22. Those below me are responsive to downward directive communication

23. Subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions and criticism

24. Subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate upward communication

25. I receive feedback from those below me in a timely manner

26. I receive feedback from those above me in a timely manner

27. Gender

28. Age

29. Location of Church

30. Role in Ministry

31. Years in position

*Questions are open ended

research paper submitted

Documents