Communication Satisfaction of SUC's Faculty Members

Abstract

The research examines the communication satisfaction of permanent faculty members

Full text

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
117
Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members
SUSAN R. BUTAC, PhD
Associate Professor
College of Arts and Sciences
San Beda University, Manila
susan_butac@yahoo.com
Abstract: The research examines the communication satisfaction of permanent faculty members
in the National Capital Region's State Universities and Colleges in terms of Interpersonal
Communication, Group Communication, and Organizational Communication. Its goal was to
address the question, "What is the degree of communication satisfaction of SUC faculty members
in terms of: Interpersonal communication context, Group communication context, and
Organizational communication context?" The study used a quantitative research design. Since the
study focused on quantitative data, the descriptive method, specifically the descriptive survey, was
used because the study focused on the levels of Communication Satisfaction of 377 regular faculty
members of SUCs at the NCR in terms of Interpersonal Communication, Group Communication,
and Organizational Communication. Downs and Hazen's modified communication satisfaction
survey form was used to collect the required quantitative data (1977). Findings would show that,
SUC faculty members were Significantly Satisfied in terms of communication satisfaction across
all aspects. Communication Satisfaction is Satisfied among SUC faculty members at the NCR.
Their satisfaction with their current communication system in terms of Interpersonal
Communication, Group Communication, and Organizational Communication has proved to be
extremely important in performing their work. It may also be deduced that Communication
Satisfaction improves Job Satisfaction and Productivity in certain situations. In selecting these
characteristics, communication satisfaction is a changeable choice.
Keywords: communication satisfaction, interpersonal communication, group communication,
organizational communication
I. INTRODUCTION
During the Covid-19 pandemic, communication remains an essential tool in connecting
with our loved ones, learners, clienteles, and even remote audience. In fact, many companies and
organizations adopt different modes of communication to get connected with their employees and
customers despite the restrictions of the pandemic. The same thing goes with teachers who have
started to embrace the call of remote learning and flexible learning. They utilize digital platforms
such as Zoom, Google meet, MS teams, and the like just to reach out with their students. Also,
they collaborate with their colleagues with the goal of training their students to become problem
solvers. The challenge of online communication that we have is linked to the idea of
Communication 2.0 that the transmission of information is made possible through electronic
channels. For the same point, Kemp (2018) claims that there are no excuses for teachers not to
collaborate with others since we get more connected. The presence of technology brings
connectivity into reality. This is indeed the trademark of the 21st century, However, this
technologically-oriented world challenges the teachers to advance on the usage of technology in
order to communicate effectively with others and eventually get satisfied with their

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
118
communication system. Their being technologically savvy enables them to establish and promote
critical thinking and learning styles among their students which serve as a guiding tool and a
catalyst in helping them learn.
Furthermore, communication now is considered as an intangible soft skill for careers. It
facilitates human connections. As a matter of consideration, Kathy Robinson, founder of Boston
career-coaching firm Turning Point considers it as one of the keys to building relationships,
gaining visibility, and creating more opportunities for advancement. Communication if it’s an
effective one really helps administrators and education leaders to be more focused in attending and
providing the needs of their members and colleagues, in making the existing system efficient for
better financial outcome, and in promoting a more productive working vicinity.
Communication satisfaction is the level of satisfaction of employees in an organization
experience during interactions between themselves and their superiors and between themselves
and their fellow employees (Wagner, 2013). It aims the common success of a group because it sets
the tone for the interaction of organization members. Besides, it is a social process whose ultimate
purpose is a common understanding- a unity within the social group or team (Hennings, 2013).
But the challenge now remains debatable in the Philippine context. The deficiency of local studies
investigating on the level of communication satisfaction particularly during this time of Covid-19
pandemic remains apparent. There is still least attention given to the usage of upward form of
communication where employees can express their concerns to the authorities. But the chance to
rectify the communication system in order to attain communication satisfaction remains
achievable.
Taking the case of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) at the National Capital Region
(NCR) is no excuse. It is assumed that the interaction between the administrators and the
subordinates is driven by Downward Communication. Since these schools are funded by the
government, the financial allocation and procurement of facilities, faculty development, education
and scholarship grants, and other work-related transactions come from the government itself.
Messages are received in the form of memoranda, school publication, performance assessment,
job instructions, school orientation, and training for the job. However, the usage of Upward
Communication should be given consideration to generate more open flow of communication
within the system. Also, the SUCs’ faculty members are expected to take part in the
communication process and in the operation of their schools. They, themselves, should have an
understanding of the communication process and be knowledgeable enough of the existing issues
that hamper it. Believed by Bangayan- Manera (2020) Teachers’ awareness of the existing
communication problems helps the administration in solving the issues that obstruct
communication satisfaction and eventually job satisfaction and productivity. This idea is
supported by Writing (2016) when he claims that organizations should address such problem
because poor communication strains the productivity of the organization.
II. METHODOLOGY
The study used the Quantitative design of research. Also, Descriptive method
particularly the Descriptive Survey as the most appropriated one was employed since it focused
on the quantitative data which are the levels of Communication Satisfaction of 377 regular
faculty members of SUCs at the NCR in terms of Interpersonal Communication, Group
Communication and Organizational Communication. Formplus Blog (2021) describes

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
119
Descriptive survey research as a process that uses surveys to gather data and to know the extent
to which conditions can be obtained from varying topics. The needed Quantitative data were
obtained using the modified communication satisfaction survey questionnaire of Downs and
Hazen (1977).
Twenty five percent (25%) was taken from the total population of Polytechnic University
of the Philippines (PUP) main campus only, Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science
and Technology (EARIST), Rizal Technological University (RTU), Technological University of
the Philippines (TUP), Philippine Normal University (PNU), Philippine State College of
Aeronautics (PhilSCA) and Marikina Polytechnic College (MPC). The said sample became the
participants of this study. However, the sample from PNU was not included since permission to
gather data was not given to the researcher. The sample size which was 25% was proportional to
the overall population of each school. It turned to be feasible after the computation. Simple
Random Sampling was employed in identifying the respondents.
The Communication Satisfaction Questionnaires (CSQ) by Downs and Hazen (1977) was
adopted and modified by the researcher. It underwent Expert Validity. Then, Reliability test was
completed. The modified CSQ, with the calculated Cronbach’s Alpha reliability value of 0.98
was used in this study. Lastly, the weighted Mean of each item was computed to determine the
levels of communication satisfaction of the SUC’s faculty members.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study yielded the following results on the Communication Satisfaction levels of the
SUC’s faculty members in terms of Interpersonal, Group, and Organizational levels.
Table 1
Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of Interpersonal
Communication
Communication Satisfaction in
terms of Interpersonal
Communication
Mean
Verbal Interpretation
Q4. Information about your
progress in your job.
3.71
Moderately Satisfied
Q8. Information about how you are
being performance managed.
3.50
Satisfied
Q9. Recognition of your efforts.
3.47
Satisfied
Q18. Extent to which your
manager/supervisors
understand the problems
faced by staff.
3.60
Moderately Satisfied
Q20. Extent to which your
supervisor listens and pays
attention to you.
3.43
Satisfied

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
120
Q22. Extent to which your
supervisor offers guidance
for solving job-related
problems.
3.47
Satisfied
Q25. Extent to which your
supervisor trusts you.
3.62
Moderately Satisfied
Q29. Extent to which your
supervisor is open to ideas.
3.55
Moderately Satisfied
Q33. Extent to which the amount
of supervision given to you is
about right.
3.48
Satisfied
Grand Mean
3.54
Moderately Satisfied
Note: 4.51-5.00 – “Highly Satisfied”, 3.51-4.50 – “Moderately Satisfied”, 2.51-3.50 –
“Satisfied”, 1.51-2.50 – “Fairly Satisfied”, 1.00-1.50 – “Highly Unsatisfied”
The Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s faculty members in terms of
Interpersonal Communication is presented here. Table 2 shows that the Level of Communication
Satisfaction of SUC’s faculty members in terms of Interpersonal Communication has
“Moderately Satisfied” response. Overall, the mean score for level of communication satisfaction
in terms of Interpersonal Communication which was 3.54 with moderately satisfied descriptor is
presented. Five items (Q8, Q9, Q20, Q22, Q33) got a “Satisfied” response while Four (Q4,
Q18, Q25, Q29) obtained a “Moderately Satisfied” response. It appeared that SUCs faculty
members are “Moderately Satisfied” with the score of 3.71 regarding their Information about the
progress in their job. It is however, found to have their least communication satisfaction with the
Extent to which their supervisor listens and pays attention to them with 3.43 score. Nevertheless,
four faculty members’ responses reveal that the level of SUCs communication satisfaction in
terms of Interpersonal Communication was to a “Moderately Satisfied.”
The yielded result correlates with the claim of Jooste (2010) that information on what to
do and a clear focus on what to be achieved is significant. Also, in order for the faculty members
to be highly satisfied, it is important for both supervisors and subordinates to understand each
other. This kind of atmosphere promotes efficiency among the members of a group. Effectiveness
in doing one’s job is also observed if there is an established respect and open communication
among the members of an organization. As a result of such practice, a school or an organization
will have its machinery to fulfill its goals.
Table 2
Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of Group
Communication
Communication Satisfaction in
terms of Group Communication
Mean
Verbal Interpretation
Q5. News regarding personnel.
3.40
Satisfied
Q7. Information about how your
job performance compares
with other.
3.45
Satisfied

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
121
Q10. Information about
departmental policies and
goals.
3.52
Moderately Satisfied
Q11. Information about the
requirements of the job.
3.65
Moderately Satisfied
Q26. Extent to which you receive
the information required to
do your job in time.
3.44
Satisfied
Q27. Extent to which conflicts are
handled appropriately
through proper
communication channels.
3.43
Satisfied
Q28. Extent to which the informal
communications network
(grapevine) is active in your
school.
3.47
Satisfied
Q30. Extent to which
communication with other
employees at your level is
accurate and free flowing.
3.38
Satisfied
Q31. Extent to which your work
group is compatible.
3.51
Satisfied
Q36. Extent to which informal
communication is active and
accurate.
3.50
Satisfied
Grand Mean
3.48
Satisfied
Note: 4.51-5.00 – “Highly Satisfied”, 3.51-4.50 – “Moderately Satisfied”, 2.51-3.50 –
“Satisfied”, 1.51-2.50 – “Fairly Satisfied”, 1.00-1.50 – “Highly Unsatisfied”
The Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of Group
Communication is shown on this table. Table 3 shows that the Level of Communication
Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of Group Communication is “Satisfied.”
Overall, the mean value of 3.48 for Group Communication is projected. Eight factors (Q5, Q7,
Q26, Q27, Q28, Q30, Q31, and Q36) obtained a “Satisfied” response while two factors (Q10,
Q11) got the “Moderately Satisfied” response. It showed that SUCs faculty members are
“Moderately Satisfied” with the value of 3.65 when it comes to the information about the
requirement of their job. It is however, found to have their least communication satisfaction level
in terms of extent to which communication with other employees at their level is accurate and
free flowing. The yielded score of 3.38 calls for an attention from administration to improve
group communication since faculty members are just satisfied. Thus, highly satisfied is needed
for them to be contented with their job.
It is important for the faculty members to get satisfied or even highly satisfied in
order for appreciate the value of group communication. They must be well informed about the
well-being of their colleagues because this promotes belongingness in an organization. Downs
& Hazen (1977) support this claim that the information conveyed to employees about their fellow

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
122
workers has large impact on their level of psychological belonging. Communicating with
colleagues empowers the Horizontal mode of communication which is evident in this kind of
occurrence. Table 3
Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of
Organizational Communication
Communication Satisfaction in terms
of Organizational Communication
Mean
Verbal Interpretation
Q6. Information about policies
and goals.
3.45
Satisfied
Q12. Information about government
regulations affecting your
school.
3.45
Satisfied
Q13. Information about changes in
your school.
3.37
Satisfied
Q14. Reports on how problems in
your job are being handled.
3.36
Satisfied
Q15. Information about employee
benefits and pay.
3.44
Satisfied
Q16. Information about profits and/or
financial standing of the school.
3.29
Satisfied
Q17. Information about achievement
and/or failures of your school.
3.38
Satisfied
Q19. Extent to which your school’s
communication motivates you
to meet its goals.
3.45
Satisfied
Q21. Extent to which school
employees have
communication abilities.
3.43
Satisfied
Q23. Extent to which communication
in your school make you identify
with it or feel a vital part of it.
3.42
Satisfied
Q24. Extent to which your school
communications are interesting
and helpful.
3.41
Satisfied
Q32. Extent to which your meetings
are well organized.
3.45
Satisfied
Q34. Extent to which written
directives and reports are clear
and concise.
3.49
Satisfied
Q35. Extent to which the attitudes
towards communication at your
school are basically healthy.
3.40
Satisfied

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
123
Q37. Extent to which the amount of
communication at your school is
about right.
3.44
Satisfied
Grand Mean
3.41
Satisfied
Note: 4.51-5.00 – “Highly Satisfied”, 3.51-4.50 – “Moderately Satisfied”, 2.51-3.50 –
“Satisfied”, 1.51-2.50 – “Fairly Satisfied”, 1.00-1.50 – “Highly Unsatisfied”
The Level of Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of
Organizational Communication is shown on this table. Table 4 shows that the Level of
Communication Satisfaction of SUC’s Faculty Members in terms of Organizational
Communication is “Satisfied.” Overall, the mean value of 3.41 for Organizational
Communication is presented. Fifteen factors (Q6, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q19, Q21,
Q23, Q24, Q32, Q34, Q35, and Q37) uniformly yielded a satisfied response. It showed that SUCs
faculty members are Satisfied with the score of 3.49 when it comes to the extent to which written
directives and reports are clear and concise. It is however, found to have their least
communication satisfaction level with respect to information about profits and/or financial
standing of the school. It obtained the score of 3.29. Nonetheless, this response, categorized that
the level of communication satisfaction was to a “Satisfied.” This instills that the faculty
members who are just satisfied need to feel highly satisfied in the process of their Organizational
Communication in order to give their best in working.
With this result, correct media of communication should be utilized for communication
satisfaction promotion. Downs & Adrian (1977) support the usage of formal media such as
meetings, written directives, reports and the like for formal and official communication.
However, the results call for the practice of transparency as to the expenditures of the school and
its related financial standing in order for the teachers to feel involved and be able to contribute
to the needed solution for any financial constraint experienced by an organization.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Communication Satisfaction level of SUC’s faculty members at the NCR is Satisfied.
Their feeling of being contented with their existing communication system in terms of
Interpersonal Communication, Group Communication and Organizational Communication is
proven very significant in doing their job.
This result instills that, it is essential for them to feel satisfied in order to be efficient in
discharging their duties as teachers since teaching is considered to be the prime source of their
bread and butter, their substantial source of living.
It can be inferred also that Communication Satisfaction promotes Job Satisfaction and
productivity in some areas. Communication satisfaction is a variable option in determining these
aspects.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions drawn in the study, the following are favorable
recommendations:

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
124
1) Regular supervision and supportive face to face communication must be provided in order
for the SUCs faculty member to have highly satisfied level of communication satisfaction.
This practice should be done in a communication-friendly space. Also, Administration
should create a rewarding team to recognize achievements and contributions of teachers.
2) There must be a creation of a culture with respect.
3) Schools should adopt appropriate media of communication and utilize appropriate
platforms for better and accurate transmission and dissemination of information to all the
concerned members of the organization.
4) The administration should fix poor obstructive policies and regulations since such
ambiguities compromise trust and commitment to one’s job.
References
[1] Bangayan- Manera, A. (2020) Doodle: Towards a Hermeneutical Appreciations of Jacques
Derrida’s Deconstruction. The Asian EFL Journal. 24( 4.2) 191-204
[2] Bortz, D. (2021). Soft skills to help your career hit the big time.
https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/soft-skills-you-need
[3] Downs, CW & Adrian, AD. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: Strategic
communication audits. The Guilford Press.
[4] Down C.W. & Hazen M.D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication, 14 (3), 63-73.
[5] Formplus Blog. ( 2021). Descriptive research designs: Types, examples & methods.
https://www.formpl.us/blog/descriptive-research
[6] Hennings, D. (2013) Communication in action: Teaching literature –Based
Language Arts: 7th Edition
[7] Jooste, K. ( 2010). The principles and practice of nursing and health care. Pretoria.
[8] Kemp (2018). Top 5 skills teachers need to continue to flourish in the fourth-industrial-
revolution. Retrived May 30, 2019 from https://www.ge.com/reports/ethical-
underbelly-fourth-indstrial-revolution
[9] Wagner J.D. (2013). Communication satisfaction of professional nurses working in selected
public health care services in the city of Johannesburg.
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/11959
[10] Whittlesey, A. (2020). Communication during a pandemic. https://www.raps.org/news-and-
articles/news-articles/2020/4/communication-during-a-pandemic

International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education
ISSN: 2799 - 1091 | Volume 1 Issue 2: 117-125
125