University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Communication, consensus and commitment in collective action organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

Communication, consensus and commitment in collective action organizations

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content COMMUNICATION, CONSENSUS AND COMMITMENT
c.
IN COLLECTIVE ACTION ORGANIZATIONS
by
Lori Anne Collins-Jarvis
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communication)
August, 1993
Copyright 1993 Lori Anne Collins-Jarvis
UMI Number: DP22484
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, th e se will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP22484
Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S tates C ode
ProQ uest LLC.
789 E ast Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1 3 4 6
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, w ritten by
Lori Anne C ollins-Jarvis
under the direction of h.SX. D issertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirem ents for the degree of
D O C T O R OF PH ILOSOPH Y
Dean of Graduate Studies
D a te .......
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
C hairperson
Ph. P.
CM
C l 1 2 -
3211 Al.17
DEDICATION
To my father
Leon L.C. Collins
A self-educated man who taught me to value knowledge
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the words of innumerable award winners, I would like to thank all the
people without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. I would first
like to thank my committee members, Everett M. Rogers, Peter R. Monge and Eric
M. Eisenberg for their indispensable aid during the often agonizing process that
produced my dissertation. I would like to thank my chair, Everett M. Rogers.
Throughout my time as a doctoral student at Annenberg, Ev provided me with the
invaluable opportunity to explore my various research interests, as well as the
guidance that I needed to turn these explorations into successful conference papers
and publications. As I struggled through the process of defining myself as an
academic, Ev’s example reminded me that truly original communication scholarship
need not be confined to a particular mode (or medium) of research.
Thank you also to Peter Monge. Throughout my many roles at Annenberg
(student, research assistant, teaching assistant and editorial assistant) Peter has
provided me with the constant guidance that allowed me to conceptualize, design,
write up and critique "publishable" theory and research. Peter also provided me with
the knowledge, expertise, and confidence to master the seemingly incomprehensible
complexities of quantitative analysis (no small feat for a woman who hates math!).
I would also like to thank Eric Eisenberg. His creative support, as well as his
intuitive ability to weave together the apparently unrelated pieces of my theorizing
into an integrated whole were invaluable during that frustrating period when I was
iv
conceptualizing my dissertation.
I would like to thank Janet Fulk and Bill Dutton for their expert guidance in
helping me to conduct technological research at Annenberg. Thank you also to the
support staff at Annenberg, especially Jean, Roger, Linnea and Anne-Marie for their
help with all those annoying administrative tasks.
My five years at Annenberg were spent in the company of some wonderful
fellow graduate students and friends. I would especially like to thank Jennifer
Monahan, my class-mate, office-mate, carpool-mate and best friend at Annenberg.
Jennifer always provided me with the sword to cut through those Gordian theoretical
and statistical knots that I kept tangling myself up in. Thank you also to my dear
friends Jodi Gusek, Jackie O’Connell, and Gail Coover— who always provided a kind
word and a sympathetic ear when I needed to share a problem, or just conversation
and a cup of coffee.
Finally, thank you to my wondei'ful husband, Steve, who moved thousands of
miles from home to suffer with me through five years of endless hours, constant
complaining and continuous crises of confidence. Now he’s cheerfully agreed to
move thousands of miles to New Jersey so I can make a career of it! His
unwavering support and constant "TLC" got me through it all.
V
CONTENTS
D ed ication .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... iii
List of T ab les......................................................................................................................viii
List of F ig u r e s.......................................................................................................................x
A bstract.................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
CHAPTER TWO: THEORY ........................................................................................ 5
I. Integrative mechanisms in collective action organizations:
Commitment and consensus...............................................................................5
1. The role of interpersonal communication in
the development of organizational commitment .................................... 7
2. The role of interpersonal communication in
the development of goal consensus.................................................... . 10
II. The decreased importance of interpersonal communication
in collective action organizations ............................................................... 12
III. Interpersonal versus mass-mediated communication:
Effects on organizational commitment ..................................................... 18
IV. Interpersonal versus mass-mediated communication:
Effects on goal consensus............................................................................ 23
1. Goal consensus and volunteer sub-group members .......................... 23
2. Goal consensus and direct mail m em bers........................................... 25
vi
V. Interpersonal versus mass-mediated communication:
Effects on perceived consensus .................................................................. 28
1. Interpersonal interaction and perceived consensus........................... 28
2. Mass-mediated communication and perceived consensus................ 29
3. Differences in perceived consensus between volunteer
sub-group members and direct mail m em bers................................... 31
CHAPTER THREE: M ETHO D................................................................................ 34
I. Sample se ttin g ................................................................................................. 34
II. S a m p le .............................................................................................................. 36
1. Direct mail m em bers............................................................................. 36
2. Volunteer sub-group members ........................................................... 37
III. M easurem ent................................................................................................... 38
1. Organizational com m itm ent................................................................. 38
2. Goal consensus....................................................................................... 39
3. Perceived consensus ............................................................................. 41
4. Interpersonal communication frequency............................................ 42
5. Exposure to mass-mediated inform ation............................................ 43
IV. A nalyses........................................................................................................... 44
vii
CHAPTER FOUR: R E S U L T S ................................................................................... 51
I. Preliminary re s u lts .......................................................................................... 51
II. Primary results................................................................................................. 55
1. Organizational com m itm ent.................................................................. 55
2. Goal consensus........................................................................................ 57
3. Perceived consensus .............................................................................. 63
CHAPTER FIVE: D ISC U SSIO N .............................................................................. 70
I. Sum m ary............................................................................... 70
II. Conclusions...................................................................................................... 72
1. Organizational com m itm ent.................................................................. 72
2. Goal consensus........................................................................................ 75
3. Perceived consensus .............................................................................. 78
III. Limitations and future research ................................................................... 80
1. Organizational com m itm ent.................................................................. 80
2. Goal consensus........................................................................................ 81
3. Perceived consensus .............................................................................. 83
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 86
A P P E N D IX ...................................................................................................................... 94
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Reliabilities for a measure of organizational
commitment ............................................................................................................ 51
2. Reliabilities for a measure of perceived consensus
regarding overall organizational g o a ls.................................................................. 52
3. Reliabilities for measures of perceived consensus
regarding the objectives of organizational sub-groups...................................... 53
4. Reliabilities for a measure of frequency of interpersonal
communication in the organization....................................................................... 53
5. Reliabilities for a measure of exposure to information
in organizational mass m e d ia ................................................................................. 54
6. Reliabilities for a measure of exposure to information
in electronic mass m e d ia ........................................................................................ 55
7. A comparison of the frequency of interpersonal interaction
among volunteers and direct mail members ................................................ 56
8. A comparison of the degree of organizational commitment
maintained by volunteers and direct mail members ................................. 57
9. Covariance matrix between measures of overall goal
consensus for all m em bers...................................................................................... 58
10. A comparison of differences between volunteers and
direct mail members in ranking overall g o a ls..................................................... 59
11. Covariance matrix between measures of consensus
regarding sub-group objectives for all m em bers................................................ 60
12. A comparison of differences between volunteers and
direct mail members in ranking sub-group o b jectiv es...................................... 61
13. A regression model with communication variables as
predictors of volunteers’ perceived consensus regarding
the ranking of overall g o a ls ................................................................................... 63
ix
14. A regression model with communication variables as
predictors of volunteers’ perceived consensus regarding
the ranking of sub-group objectives .................................................................... 64
15. A regression model with communication variables as
predictors of direct mail members’ perceived consensus
regarding the ranking of overall g o als.................................................................. 65
16. A regression model with communication variables as
predictors of direct mail members’ perceived consensus
regarding the ranking of sub-group objectives................................................... 66
X
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Representation of proposed relationships
between co n cep ts..................................................................................................... 33
2. Actual relationships between concepts ................................................................ 71
3. Percentage of volunteers and direct mail members ranking
the leaders’ dominant goal as most important ................................................... 76
xi
ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATION, CONSENSUS AND COMMITMENT
IN COLLECTIVE ACTION ORGANIZATIONS
The present study compares how interpersonal and mass-mediated channels
influence the degree to which members are integrated into collective action
organizations. Hypotheses were tested through a survey of direct mail members
(connected to the organization solely through mass-mediated channels) and
volunteers (connected through interpersonal and mass-mediated channels) who
belonged to a Los Angeles area environmental action organization. Eighty-seven
direct mail members who were chosen through a random sample survey of the
organization’s membership list responded to a mailed questionnaire. Fifty-four
volunteers belonging to six different sub-groups within the organization responded to
the same questionnaire.
Results showed that volunteers interacted more frequently with other "
individuals in the organization than did direct mail members. Volunteers were also
more committed to the organization than direct mail members. Volunteers and
direct mail members maintained different interpretations regarding the relative
importance of the organization’s overall and operative goals. Contrary to
predictions, there was a higher degree of consensus (concerning the importance of
overall and operative goals) among volunteers than there was among direct mail
members.
xii
Direct mail members’ exposure to mass-mediated information sources exerted a
positive influence on their perceptions that other members shared their interpretations
(concerning which overall and operative goals were most important). However,
neither their involvement in interpersonal interactions, nor their exposure to mass-
mediated information sources significantly influenced volunteers’ perceptions of
consensus. Finally, there was no difference between the overall degree of perceived
consensus maintained by volunteers and the degree maintained by direct mail
members.
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
In the past, citizens participated in politically-oriented collective action
organizations almost exclusively through interpersonal channels. Today, however,
the sheer size and bureaucratic nature of modem political institutions makes this kind
of idealized interaction almost impossible. Instead, citizens have come to rely on
mass media channels to serve many of the functions that interpersonal channels once
served (Benjamen, 1982; Habermas, 1989; Hayes, 1986; Rucinski, 1991).
For example, when it was founded in the 1970’s, Greenpeace was comprised
of a tightly-knit network of less than 100 Canadian volunteers who lived and worked
in Vancouver, British Columbia. Through the dedication of these few volunteers,
Greenpeace became the first politically-oriented collective action organization to
bring world attention to the plight of the grey whale and the baby harp seal (Hunter,
1979). Today, thanks to its use of mass-mediated communication, Greenpeace has
grown into the world’s largest environmental action organization, encompassing
millions of members who learn about the organization through its newsletter, but
hardly ever talk to one another face-to-face (Horn, 1991).
How has this "communication revolution" (Benjamen, 1982) changed the way
that members participate in collective action organizations in general, and politically-
oriented collective organizations in particular? The present study addresses these
questions by comparing the influence of both interpersonal and mass-mediated
communication channels on members’ participation in collective action organizations.
2
As David Knoke defined them, collective action organizations:
(1) seek nonmarket solutions to particular individual or group problems;
(2) maintain formal criteria for membership on a voluntary basis; (3)
may employ persons under the authority of organizational leaders; and
(4) provide formally democratic procedures to involve members in
policy decisions (Knoke, 1990, p. 7).
Thus, collective action organizations are associations of individuals who voluntarily
come together and organize their resources to address some common need or
problem.
In the past, being a member of a traditional collective action organization
meant being involved in almost every aspect of the organization, from answering
telephones to participating in political demonstrations. Being a volunteer in a
traditional collective action organization also meant interacting with other volunteers
on a consistent basis, usually within the context of regularly scheduled group
meetings (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987).
In the 1960’s, collective action organizations became professionalized. As a
result of this professionalization process, the role of the organizational member was
divided into two very different functions. First, the traditional role of volunteer was
filled by a relatively small number of members who continued to actively participate
in the organization, and to interact with each other on a regular basis. Second, a
new, highly specialized membership role developed: the role of direct mail member.
This role was filled by a large number of members who were solicited to join the
organization through the mass media, and who participated in the organization by
just contributing money. This specialized role meant that most members in
professionalized organizations did not interact within small groups, but instead
depended on mass-mediated sources to connect them to their organization (McCarthy
& Zald, 1973/1987; McCarthy, 1987).
These fundamental changes pose a lot of interesting questions that
communication scholars have yet to answer. For example, how do these changes
affect the way that members support their organizations? Studies reveal that
members who feel a sense of commitment to their organization are more likely to
support the organization (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Studies also find that
members who interact frequently with each other are more likely to become
committed to their organization (Eisenberg, Monge & Miller, 1983; Hartman &
Johnson, 1989). However, research has yet to explore what happens when members
do not interact with each other, but only experience their organization through mass-
mediated channels. The first research question that the present study seeks to answer
is: How does the degree o f commitment that direct mail members maintain compare
with the degree o f commitment that volunteers maintain ?
Another way that changes in communication may affect members’ support is
through the mechanism of goal consensus. Researchers propose that when members
possess a high degree of goal consensus (i.e., they share similar interpretations of
their organization’s mission), they are more likely to support that organization in a
cooperative, unified manner (Bullis & Tompkins, 1989; Ouchi, 1981; Peters &
Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Simon, 1976). Researchers also assert that members
who interact frequently with each other are more likely to possess a high degree of
goal consensus (Downton & Wehr, 1991; Klandermans, 1988; Wilson, 1973). But
what happens when members do not interact with each other, but only experience
their organization through mass-mediated channels? The second research question
that the present study seeks to answer is: How does the degree o f goal consensus
that direct mail members share compare with the degree o f consensus that volunteers
share?
The present study first addresses these questions by examining the role that
interpersonal and mass-mediated communication channels play in facilitating
organizational commitment and goal consensus. The study then measures the
influence of these two different communication channels in the context of one
particular collective action organization.
Chapter Two
THEORY
Integrative Mechanisms in Collective Action Organizations:
Commitment and Consensus
According to Simon, (1976) all organizations maintain some kind of
integrative mechanisms that help align the personal goals of individual members with
the over-arching goals of the organization as a whole. The puipose of such
mechanisms is to encourage a diverse collection of individuals to act together as a
unified organizational entity (Simon, 1976).
The power-dependency relationship which exists between members and
leaders acts as the fundamental integrative mechanism in most corporate
organizations. According to Pfeffer, power in most corporate organizations derives
from
having something that someone else wants or needs, and being in
control of the performance or resource so that there are few alter
native sources, or no alternative sources, for obtaining what is
desired (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 99).
Because individual members depend more upon the rewards offered by organizational
leaders than vice versa, leaders in corporate organizations exert considerable power
over individual members.
Leaders in corporate organizations offer utilitarian incentives (i.e., money or
other tangible resources) to fulfill members’ needs, and to motivate them to pursue
the organization’s goals. In exchange, members offer their services to the
organization, and agree to enter into a hierarchical relationship whereby they
acquiesce (for the most part) to the authority of the organization’s leaders. This
power-dependency relationship leads members to tolerate many forms of enforced
compliance and integration that they would otherwise resist. Control is thus a
fundamental means whereby the leaders of a corporate organization ensure the
continued support and compliance of their members (Conrad, 1990; Hage, 1974;
Pfeffer, 1981; Simon, 1976).
In contrast, collective action organizations must forgo the fundamental appeal
of monetary incentives, and instead rely on other methods to attract members and
maintain their support (Knoke & Prensky, 1984). The primary mission of a
collective action organization is to solve a group problem (Knoke, 1991). Like most
corporate organizations, collective action organizations require considerable support
from their members to achieve this mission (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; 1973/1987).
Unlike most corporate organizations, however, collective action organizations can
offer utilitarian incentives to only a very small proportion of their members in
exchange for their support. Instead, leaders in collective action organizations must
depend upon members to voluntarily contribute resources to the organization (Knoke
& Prensky, 1984; Rothschild-Whitt, 1979).
In the absence of utilitarian incentives, the essential nature of the power-
dependency relationship between organizational leaders and members changes.
Because leaders depend more upon members than vice versa, leaders in collective
action organizations are prohibited from exercising the more rationalized forms of
control (i.e., threatened reductions in pay or status) commonly employed within
corporate organizations (Knoke, 1990; Knoke & Prensky, 1984). Instead, collective
1 action organizations must rely on two other integrative mechanisms to insure
members’ support; (1) organizational commitment, and, (2) goal consensus.
Although organizational commitment and goal consensus are important integrative
mechanisms in corporate organizations (Eisenberg, Monge & Miller, 1983; Schein,
1985), these mechanisms are even more critical in collective action organizations,
where leaders very few alternative means to ensure members’ support (Etzioni, 1961;
Knoke, 1990; Wilson, 1973).
The role of interpersonal communication in the development of organizational
commitment. Research reveals that organizational commitment is an important
integrative mechanism in both corporate and collective action organizations.
Researchers also suggests that organizational commitment develops through the
process of interpersonal interaction.
Mowday, Steers and Porter define organizational commitment as
(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and
values, (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization (Mowday et al 1979, p. 226).
Numerous studies of corporate organizations reveal that individuals who are highly
committed to their organization are more likely to continue to support that
organization (see Reichers, 1985, for a summary). Some studies of collective action
8
organizations also affirm that highly committed members are more likely to continue
to support their organization (Godwin, 1988; Godwin & Mitchell, 1984; Knoke,
1981, 1988, 1990; Van der Veen & Klandermans, 1989). Researchers like David
Knoke suggest that membership commitment is especially important to collective
action organizations, since these organizations cannot offer utilitarian incentives to
attract and sustain their members’ support (Knoke, 1981, 1988, 1990).
According to some studies, individuals who interact frequently with other
members are more likely to feel highly committed to their corporate organization
(Eisenberg, Monge & Miller, 1983; Eisenberg, Contractor & Monge, 1991; Hartman
& Johnson, 1989; Huff, Sproull & Kiesler, 1989). For example, a study by
Eisenberg, Monge and Miller (1983) found that individuals who were not satisfied
with their jobs still felt highly committed to their organization if they interacted
frequently with other organizational members (Eisenberg, Monge, & Miller, 1983).
Likewise, a study by Hartman and Johnson (1989) found that individuals who
interacted more often with other members (in four different types of interpersonal
networks) maintained a higher degree of organizational commitment than individuals
who interacted less often (Hartman & Johnson, 1989).
Some researchers propose that frequent interaction with other members also
fosters a high degree of commitment in collective action organizations (Downton &
Weyr, 1991; Knoke, 1990; Knoke & Wisely, 1990; McCarthy, 1987; Oliver &
Furman, 1988; Wilson, 1973). In many collective action organizations, active
membership participation occurs within the context of small group meetings.
9
According to Knoke, these kind of interactions are particularly well-suited for
generating organizational commitment, since:
A substantial portion of the communication content is expressive and
emotional, aimed at generating the high levels of member trust, con
sensus, and cohesion essential for effective performance in voluntary
associations (Knoke, 1990, p. 166).
Small group interactions socialize members to accept the social values and
behavioral expectations of the organization. Interactions also encourage members to
bond to other individuals in the group. Thus, the small group "functions to maintain
individual conformity and commitment" (Downton & Weyr, 1991, p. 132) to the
particular membership group, as well as to the organization as a whole.
Numerous studies confirm that individuals who maintain interpersonal
relationships with members of a collective action organization are more likely to
make an initial commitment to support that organization (Briet, Klandermans &
Kroon, 1987; Me Adam & Fernandez, 1990; Snow, Zurcher & Ekland-Olson, 1980).
However, few studies examine the role that interpersonal relationships play in
maintaining members’ commitment after they join a collective action organization
(Godwin & Mitchell, 1984; Knoke, 1988; 1990; Van der Veen & Klandermans,
1988).
Knoke’s 1988 survey, "Incentives in collective action organizations" represents
one of these rare studies. In his study, Knoke tested the influence of various
variables on the degree of organizational commitment maintained by 8,746 members
belonging to 35 randomly-selected collective action organizations. Knoke measured
10
members’ degree of commitment to their organization using an adapted version of
the Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) scale. He measured the effect of
communication on commitment through an additive regression model that controlled
for the relative influence of other variables such as the members’ interest in
organizational issues, and their organizational tenure. Unfortunately, this model did
not indicate the direction of the relationship between communication and
commitment.
When Knoke compared the influence of different variables on individuals’
commitment to their organization, he found a positive relationship between the
frequency with which individuals communicate (face-to-face, in writing, or over the
telephone) with other members (and leaders) and their degree of organizational
commitment (b = .17). He also found a negative relationship between
communication frequency and (in a reverse measure of commitment) members’
degree of organizational detachment (b = -.28) (Knoke, 1988, 1990). From his
results, Knoke concluded that
Communication clearly has the most consistently powerful effect in
all equations: the more often a member communicates with officers
and other members "about matters of all kinds," the more likely that
member is to participate and become committed to the organization
(Knoke, 1988, p. 322).
The role of interpersonal communication in the development of goal consensus.
Goal consensus is the degree to which members share a similar definition of their
organization’s core mission (or its overall goals), and its operational goals (or the
means for achieving overall goals), (Schein, 1985). According to some researchers,
11
the higher the degree of goal consensus in an organization, the more likely that
members will support the organization in a cooperative, unified manner (Bullis &
Tompkins, 1989; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Scheih, 1985; Simon,
1976; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Fostering a high degree of goal consensus among
members is especially important for collective action organizations, since these
organizations have few other means to ensure individual cooperation (Etzioni, 1961).
Some theorists propose that the ideology espoused by a collective action
organization serves as an important mechanism for generating goal consensus
(Downton & Wehr, 1991; Klandermans, 1988; Knoke & Wiight-Isak, 1982; Wilson,
1973). As Wilson defined it, a collective action organization’s ideology contains a
"diagnosis" or "an indication of the causes of discontent and the agents responsible
for it", a "prognosis" or "an indication of what must be done", and a "rationale", or
"arguments to convince the individual that action must be taken, self-justification"
(Wilson, as cited in Klandermans, p. 177, 1988). The purpose of a collective action
organization’s ideological system is therefore to construct a common definition of the
organization’s mission and the means for accomplishing this mission. The more that
organizational members come to share this definition, the greater the degree of goal
consensus within the organization as a whole (Downton & Wehr, 1991;
Klandermans, 1988; Wilson, 1973).
Researchers who support the integrative theoretical perspective propose that
communication has a unifying influence on organizational culture. Integration
researchers assert that members come to share a common definition of their
12
organization’s core mission through the socialization process (Bullis & Tompkins,
1989; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Simon, 1976; Tompkins
& Cheney, 1985). New members interact with other, more experienced members
and leaders, and in this way learn how the organization’s overall goals are commonly
defined (for example, in the organization’s ideological system). When individuals
interact with other members, they are exposed to various influences which encourage
them to share a common interpretation of the organization’s goals. These
interactions continue to reinforce the importance of this shared definition, even after
individuals become socialized (Downton & Wehr, 1991; Etzioni, 1961; Knoke &
Wisely, 1992; Louis, 1980; Schein, 1985; Wilson, 1973).
The Decreased Importance of Interpersonal Communication in Collective Action
Organizations
In the past, interpersonal interactions played an essential role in integrating
members into collective action organizations. Today, however, only a small
proportion of members in most collective action organizations interact with one
another. According to McCarthy and Zald, (1973/1987) this fundamental change can
be traced back to the 1960’s, when various factors led to changes in the structure of
social movement organizations.
McCarthy and Zald defined social movement organizations as formal
organizations of individuals who attempt to collectively change "some elements of
the social structure and/or reward distribution of a society" (McCarthy & Zald, 1977,
p. 1213). Social movement organizations can therefore be conceptualized as
13
politically-oriented collective action organizations.
Before the 1960’s, the majority of members in social movement organizations
maintained roles as volunteers. Volunteers contributed most (if not all) of the labor,
money, and leadership needed to maintain the "traditional" social movement
organizations (Freeman, 1977; McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987, 1977; Rothschild-Whitt,
1979). The volunteer role also required members to interact with each other on a
consistent basis, usually in the context of group meetings. These interactions served
a dual function in traditional social movement organizations, since (1) they allowed
volunteers to coordinate their various organizational activities in a consistent manner,
and, (2) they allowed volunteers to develop strong interpersonal bonds to each other,
and to the organization as a whole (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987).
After the 1960’s, the proportion of members acting as volunteers decreased in
many social movement organizations in the United States. However, the decline of
volunteers corresponded with the increase in members fulfilling a new, highly
specialized role. McCarthy and Zald referred to organizations which included this
new membership role as inclusive. McCarthy and Zald defined an inclusive
collective action organization as one that maintained minimal requirements for the
inclusion of members into the organization (i.e. paying only annual membership
dues), (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987).
McCarthy and Zald proposed that changes in the membership role resulted from
changes in the structure of social movement organizations. In the 1960’s, many
social movement organizations successfully gained public approval and social
"legitimation" for championing civil rights issues. The amount of funding that
social movement organizations received from external sources increased dramatically
as a result of this legitimation. According to McCarthy and Zald’s analysis, the
amount of foundation money awarded to social movement organizations reported in
the Foundation News increased from a low of $3.7 million in 1962 (or one percent
of the money awarded to all organizations) to a high of $54.9 million in 1969 (or
eight percent of the money awarded to all organizations), (McCarthy & Zald,
1973/1987, p. 360).
With the institutionalization of relatively stable sources of external funding,
social movement organizations could afford to hire a greater number of full-time,
professional personnel to perform the administrative services needed to maintain
these organizations. McCarthy and Zald pointed to the increase in the average
number of professional staff maintained by social issue-related voluntary associations
between 1964 and 1969 as evidence of this trend (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987, p.
367).
According to McCarthy and Zald, the increased rate of professionalization in
social movement organizations resulted in some profound changes in the membership
role. With a few professional staff members to perform the services formerly
fulfilled by large numbers of dedicated volunteers, volunteer labor became less
essential to the organizations’ survival. Professionalized organizations still required
monetary contributions from members, however, so they turned to direct mail
technologies to attract these contributions (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987).
15
The application of computer technologies to direct mail in the 1960’s and
1970’s made it a particularly efficient way for social movement organizations to
solicit new members (Benjamen, 1982; Sabato, 1981). Computerized direct mail
allowed organizations to identify thousands of potential members, request money
from them through specifically-targeted mailed solicitations, and maintain their
connection to the organization through newsletters or other mass-mediated
information sources. Increases in funding and professional staff also made it easier
for social movement organizations to purchase and make use of computerized direct
mail technologies (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987; McCarthy, 1987).
So, while most members in traditional organizations participated in numerous
different voluntary activities, most members in professionalized organizations
participated in only one activity: contributing funds. Since direct mail members in
professionalized organizations were not required to participate in organizational
activities, they were presented with few opportunities to interact with one another.
Direct mail members consequently lacked the interpersonal connections that linked
most members in traditional collective action organizations. In the absence of
interpersonal connections, direct mail members were forced to rely on mass-mediated
channels (such as the organization’s newsletter) to receive information about their
organization. Mass-mediated communication thus came to replace interpersonal
interaction as the dominant means of connecting members to social movement
organizations (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987; McCarthy, 1987).
In 1973, McCarthy and Zald predicted that these changes did not represent
temporary fluctuations in membership participation, but were part of a future trend.
They noted, for example, that some of the largest and most powerful social
movement organizations in the early 1970’s (i.e., Common Cause, the ACLU, the
NAACP, and Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen Inc.) were mostly comprised of
"inclusive" members. By the 1980’s, political researchers like Sabato (1981),
Benjamen (1982), and Hayes (1986) were remarking with some alarm that
the vast majority of new groups formed in recent years fail to con
form to the traditional conception of a mass-based membership group
(Hayes, 1986, p. 134).
By the end of the 1980’s inclusive membership was the norm for politically-oriented
collective action organizations in the United States (Fellow, 1987; Sabato, 1988).
McCarthy and Zald’s analysis revealed that differences between traditional and
professionalized collective action organizations are partly related to size, but have
more to do with the structure of organizational relations between members. Certainly,
interpersonal relations between members are easier to maintain in small,
geographically limited organizations, where members can easily meet with one
another. Small organizations also encourage a greater degree of membership
participation overall, since there are only a few members and a great many tasks to
perform.
In his 1987 study of political organizations that adopted direct mail
technologies, Anthony Fellow found an interactive relationship between
organizational size and professionalization (Fellow, 1987). Fellow found that larger,
wealthier political organizations were more likely to adopt direct mail technologies
17
because of their greater access to resources. He also found that when organizations
adopted direct mail technologies, they tended to become more specialized and
formalized in order to cope with the complexities of maintaining a direct mail
system. Fellow concluded that organizations with larger, more complex structures
were more likely to adopt direct mail. However, once adopted, direct mail could
also increase the size, wealth, and complexity of a political organization in a
relatively short time period (Fellow, 1987; Sabato, 1981).
Although large organizations are more likely to adopt direct mail technologies,
many small organizations also utilize direct mail. In 1982, Haight and Rubinyi
studied fifteen community groups that had adopted computer technologies for various
uses, including direct mail. Nine of these groups were relatively small in size,
maintaining ten or less paid staff members (Haight & Rubinyi, 1983). As direct mail
technologies become increasingly cheap and easier to use, their adoption by small
collective action organizations should also increase.
Although size has some effect on communication in a collective action
organization, the prevalence of interpersonal or mass-mediated connections depends
more upon the way that members’ relationships are structured. Before direct mail
became prevalent, most national-level collective action organizations (for example,
the NAACP) were populated almost exclusively by volunteers (Freeman, 1975;
Gitlin, 1980; McAdam, 1982). Volunteers participated in these national
organizations through a network of geographically dispersed local-level groups,that
were connected to the organization’s leaders through some kind of central
18
headquarters. This organizational structure allowed members to participate directly
in organizational tasks and maintain personal contact with each other. Unfortunately,
this structure also required leaders to exert considerable effort to connect the various
local groups into a unified entity working towards a common goal (Freeman, 1975;
Gitlin, 1980; McAdam, 1982).
The lack of connectedness between most members is the essential element
characterizing professionalized organizations that rely on direct mail members.
This organizational structure requires minimal effort to maintain, since direct mail
members rarely communicate with the central leadership. Leaders are not required to
personally communicate with direct mail members, or expend much effort
coordinating their actions (McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987; McCarthy, 1987). The
isolated nature of the direct mail member’s role makes it possible for organizations
to maintain a large number of members with a fairly low degree of effort. As noted
previously however, this organizational structure can also be maintained by relatively
small organizations (Fellow, 1987; Sabato, 1981).
Interpersonal Versus Mass-Mediated Communication: Effects on Organizational
Commitment
The rationalization of politically-oriented collective action organizations
represented a profound change in the history of political participation in the United
States. In the early 1800’s, De Toqueville asserted that the essence of American
democracy resided in a traditional form of collective action known as a "town
meeting" (De Toqueville, 1835/1900). According to De Toqueville, town meetings
19
(or community-level collective action organizations) function to socialize citizens into
democratic goals and values. As De Toqueville explained:
Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science;
they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use
and how to enjoy it (p. 60).
Since De Toqueville’s time, town meetings have come to symbolize the
importance of citizen participation in democratic decision-making through collective
action (Rucinski, 1991). Early in the twentieth century, democratic philosopher John
Dewey reiterated the importance of community-level collective action. According to
Dewey, community-level collective action provided an ideal form of political
participation, since citizens can only learn to meaningfully interpret the goals and
processes of democratic institutions by participating in "the relations of personal
intercourse in the local community" (Dewey, 1927, p. 218).
As twentieth-century democratic institutions became increasingly
professionalized, collective action organizations came to represent the last bastion of
traditional democratic participation (Hayes, 1985). They reminded Americans that
even the poorest, -most inexperienced group of citizens could directly influence the
political process by simply organizing themselves and working closely with one
another towards a common goal. When collective action organizations
professionalized, it represented a movement away from traditional collective action,
and towards collective action based on monetary power, highly-specialized
leadership, and indirect participation through the mass media. The movement
towards professionalized collective action thus signalled a change in the way that
citizens are socialized into democratic culture in general, and collective action
organizations in particular.
McCarthy and Zald’s research suggested that socializing influences are greatly
! reduced in professionalized collective action organizations, since most members in
these organizations do not interact with one another. As mentioned previously, most
studies of corporate organizations find that individuals who interact frequently with
: other members are more likely to be committed to their organization (Eisenberg,
Monge & Miller, 1983; Eisenberg, Contractor & Monge, 1991; Hartman & Johnson,
1989; Huff, Sproull & Kiesler, 1989). Thus, it would seem logical to assume that
since direct mail members do not interact frequently with other members, they are
less likely to be committed to their organization.
McCarthy explored the impact of different communication structures on
membership commitment in a 1987 article concerning abortion-related social
movement organizations. McCarthy sought to explain why "there are far more
people involved and they are more deeply involved" (p. 51) in political organizations
which seek to limit legal access to abortion, than those organizations which support
abortion legalization. McCarthy attributed the greater strength of Pro-Life
organizations to the strong, well-integrated, interaction networks that connect
organizational members to one another.
According to McCarthy, studies of Pro-Life organizations reveal that a
sizeable proportion of members belong to, and regularly attend Roman Catholic
Church services and other Church-related meetings. Church meetings provide Pro-
2 1
Life members with a common context for mutual interaction. These interactions tend
to reinforce members’ commitment— not only to the goals of their church, but also to
the goals of the Pro-Life organizations in which they share a common bond
(McCarthy, 1987; McCarthy & Zald, 1973/1987, 1977).
Studies also reveal that relatively few Pro-Choice members belong to
organizations which allow them to interact with other pro-choice members on a
regular basis. Instead, Pro-Choice organizations such as the National Abortion
Rights Action League rely heavily on direct mail technologies to recruit and maintain
membership support. McCarthy concluded that this reliance on "thin" or weakly
connected social networks led most Pro-Choice members to maintain a low level of
commitment to their organization (McCarthy, 1987).
McCarthy’s article highlighted the fact that membership commitment depends
upon continued interaction with other members. Members who participate in the
activities of local organizational groups interact with other members, and in this
manner, develop a high degree of commitment. Members who do not participate in
such groups must depend upon the organization’s mass media to inform them about
the organization and its goals. Such passive involvement is less likely to create a
high degree of commitment among members.
Unfortunately, McCarthy’s article did not define the concept of organizational
commitment or suggest how it should be measured. For example, the article failed to
indicate whether members are committed to their interpersonal network, or the goals
and values of the social movement organization as a whole. Similarly, an analysis
by Godwin and Mitchell also failed to precisely define organizational commitment.
A 1984 survey by Godwin and Mitchell represents one of the few empirical
studies that measures the influence of interpersonal and mass-mediated connections
on members’ continued commitment once they join an organization. Godwin and
Mitchell’s study compared the degree of organizational attachment maintained by
two different types of members: (1) those members who are motivated to join
through interpersonal communication channels, and, (2) those members who are
motivated by mass-mediated communication channels such as direct mail (Godwin,
1988; Godwin & Mitchell, 1984).
As mentioned previously in this chapter, studies show that members who are
consistently involved in interactive processes with other members are more likely to
become committed to an organization (Eisenberg, Monge and Miller, 1983; Hartman
& Johnson, 1989). However, Godwin and Mitchell’s study focused on the
interpersonal connections that influence members to make an initial commitment to a
collective action organization, rather than the interpersonal connections that influence
members to maintain that commitment. Godwin and Mitchell’s study thus failed to
measure the connections that are most likely to generate a high degree of continuing
commitment within members (Godwin, 1988; Godwin & Mitchell, 1984).
A more relevant study would compare the degree of commitment maintained
by (1) members who interact on a consistent basis in the organization (and who are
thus influenced by interpersonal connections), and, (2) members who do not interact
on a consistent basis (and who are influenced solely by the mass-mediated channels
23
that connect them to their organization). The most common context for regular
interaction between members in collective action organizations is the volunteer sub
group meeting. However, the numerical majority of members in collective action
organizations do not participate in volunteer sub-groups, but maintain their sense of
connection to the organization solely through mass-mediated channels. Thus, the
first hypothesis in the present study proposes that:
Hypothesis la: Volunteer group members interact more frequently than direct
mail members in a collective action organization.
Since interpersonal interactions are an essential mechanism for the
maintenance of commitment, volunteers are likely to develop a high degree of
commitment to their collective action organization. On the other hand, direct mail
members seldom interact with other members and are consequently unlikely to
develop a high degree of commitment to their collective action organization. Thus:
Hypothesis lb: Volunteer group members maintain a higher degree of organizational
commitment than direct mail members in a collective action organization.
Interpersonal Versus Mass-Mediated Communication: Effects on Goal Consensus
Studies suggest that interpersonal connections play a crucial role in fostering
a high degree of goal consensus among members. Yet recent changes in collective
action organizations mean that the majority of members do not interact with one
another. The logical impact of these changes on the degree of goal consensus that
members share is not altogether clear.
Goal consensus and volunteer sub-group members. At first glance, it seems
logical to propose that a high degree of goal consensus would exist between the
population of members who interact in volunteer sub-groups. Research reveals that
members usually come to share a common definition of organizational goals by
interacting with other members. But when members only interact within particular
organizational sub-groups, these restricted interactions may actually reduce the degree
of goal consensus within the organization as a whole.
Theories of cultural differentiation propose that communication exerts a
divisive influence on organizational culture (Riley, 1983; Schall, 1983). According
to researchers who study organizational sub-cultures, the relationship between
communication and organizational divisiveness can ultimately be traced to the
organization’s division of labor (Barnett, 1988; Falcione & Kaplan, 1984; Hall,
1977). Most organizations develop rationalized structures in order to cope with
modern efficiency and production requirements. These structures group members
together based on their hierarchical positions, their professional specializations, their
functional domain, etc. In a rationalized organizational structure, members who
fulfill similar roles are likely to interact more with one another, and less with
members fulfilling different roles. Numerous studies reveal that these restricted
interactions usually lead to the emergence of different goal definitions within
different sub-groups (Barnett, 1988; Brown & Williams, 1984; Oaker & Brown,
1986; Riley, 1983; Schall, 1983).
A study by Eisenberg, Contractor and Monge (1991) found that considerable
disagreement existed between different organizational sub-groups in regard to their
25
definitions of key organizational symbols. In their study, Eisenberg et al asked j
!
organizational members to interpret key organizational symbols. They then measured 1
I
the degree of similarity between members’ interpretations. The researchers found
i
that members who belonged to different organizational groups (based on their j
organizational tenure or their hierarchical level) interpreted the founder’s vision for j
the organization in distinctly different ways (Eisenberg, Contractor & Monge, 1991).
Available evidence suggests that Eisenberg et al’s findings may also apply to
professionalized collective action organizations. In most professionalized collective
action organizations, volunteers interact in separate sub-groups based on functions f
and/or geographic locations (Oliver & Furman, 1989). So, for example, Sierra Club
volunteers in Southern California can participate in groups that serve a particular
function within the organization as a whole, such as public relations or membership '
recruitment. Or these volunteers can participate in groups that are dedicated to
addressing environmental issues in a particular geographic area.
The same functional divisions that foster interpretive dissension in corporate ;
organizations are also likely to encourage disagreement in collective action
organizations. Volunteers tend to interact within particular sub-groups, and each of
these sub-groups is likely to develop their own particular interpretations of the
organization’s goals in different ways (Freeman, 1975). A comparison of all
volunteers within the organization as a whole should therefore reveal that most
volunteers do not interpret organizational goals in the same way.
Goal consensus and direct mail members. Based on the assumptions of mass
26
society theory (Kornhauser, 1959; Shils, 1962), some political researchers propose
that direct mail has a homogenizing influence on politically-oriented organizations
(Benjamen, 1982; Hayes, 1986; Topolsky, 1974). Hayes, for example, proposed that
interpersonal connections exert a pluralistic influence on collective action
organizations, since these connections facilitate discussion among diverse elements of
the organization. On the other hand, direct mail exerts a homogenizing influence on
organizational members, who become vulnerable to the "manipulation by group
leaders" when the mass media becomes their primary source of information about the
organization (Hayes, 1986, p. 135).
Studies in corporate organizations reveal that organizational mass media
sources tend to be relatively uniform in nature, mostly expressing the dominant views
of the organization’s leaders (Cameron & McCallum, 1992; Cheney, 1983, 1991;
Redding, 1972). Many professionalized collective action organizations also exert
control over information reported through the external media. Media dependency
theorists propose that the degree to which an organization influences the mass media
depends upon the amount of resources at its disposal (for a summary, see Shoemaker
& Reese, 1991). Wolfsfeld and Gamson (1992) asserted that the resources available
to most professionalized organizations provide them with the ability to exert control
over external mass media coverage. Since professionalized organizations are highly
specialized, they usually maintain a full-time public relations expert who gathers and
distributes information in a manner that meets most media organizations’ format
requirements. This professional format makes the information that professionalized
27
j requirements. This professional format makes the information that professionalized
organizations distribute more likely to be reported, and less likely to be seriously
altered when it is reported. Second, professionalized organizations maintain
sufficient resources to influence powerful external agencies (like the government).
The ability to influence external agencies fosters the perception among media
. professionals that professionalized organizations are serious players in the political
game, thus making the information that the organizations provide more newsworthy
to media professionals (Wolfsfeld & Gamson, 1992). For these reasons, leaders in
professionalized organizations may be fairly successful in controlling how the
external mass media reports the organization’s goals.
Evidence suggests that both organizational and external mass-mediated
sources of information about collective action organizations are likely to reflect the
dominant views of the organization’s leaders. Since direct mail members only
receive information about their organization through these mass-mediated sources
(and not interpersonal sources) they are more likely to form a consensual view of the
organization, based on this dominant view (Benjamen, 1982; Hayes, 1986).
In conclusion, research indicates that volunteers (who are exposed to different
interpersonal information sources) are likely to maintain a fairly low level of
consensus about the interpretation of organizational goals. On the other hand, direct
mail members (who are exposed to a few mass-mediated information sources) are
likely to maintain a fairly high level of consensus in their interpretation of
organizational goals. The second hypothesis in the present study proposes:
Hypothesis 2: Direct mail members maintain a higher degree of goal consensus than
volunteer group members in a collective action organization.
Interpersonal Versus Mass-Mediated Communication: Effects on Perceived
Consensus
Interpersonal communication and perceived consensus. The co-orientation
model of communication proposes that the more that individuals agree (or are
consensual) in their interpretation of some object of mutual interest, the less
conflictual the relationship between these individuals (Farace, Monge & Russell,
1977). However, Eisenberg, Contractor & Monge (1991) proposed that the nature of
a relationship depends more upon perceiving agreement or consensus than actually
realizing such consensus. Eisenberg et al (1991) defined perceived consensus as the
degree to which individual members believe that other members share their
interpretations of a key organizational symbol. According to these researchers, the
ambiguity associated with most organizational symbols allows individual members to
act towards these symbols in the same manner, while maintaining diverse personal
interpretations of their meaning (Eisenberg, Contractor & Monge, 1991).
Maintaining a high degree of perceived consensus should be especially
important to collective action organizations, since individuals are more likely to
support an organization if they perceive that other organizational members agree with
their interpretations (Knoke & Prensky, 1984). Studies reveal that volunteers and
direct mail members communicate through different channels (Godwin and Mitchell,
1984). However, studies have yet to explore how these different channels influence
members’ perceptions of organizational consensus.
Eisenberg et al (1991) found that individuals who interacted frequently with
other members were more likely to believe that other members shared their
perceptions of the organization. It seems logical to propose that the same
relationship would hold for members of volunteer sub-groups, since interactions
reinforce normative conformity, a particularly important value in collective action
organizations. The third hypothesis in the present study proposes:
Hypothesis 3: Among volunteer group members, the frequency of interpersonal
interaction with other members in a collective action organization is positively
related to the degree of perceived consensus.
Mass-mediated communication and perceived consensus. Although Eisenberg
et al’s study (1991) revealed a relationship between perceived consensus and
interpersonal interaction, it did not reveal how other communication channels
influenced perceived consensus. When traditional collective action organizations
became professionalized, they used mass-mediated communication channels to serve
the same integrative function for direct mail members that interpersonal channels one
served for volunteers. Research has yet to determine the success of this substitution.
Available evidence suggests that the intended role of most organizational mass
media is to foster greater perceived consensus within the organization as a whole
(Cameron & McCallum, 1992; Cheney, 1983, 1991; Redding, 1972). Two rhetorical
analyses conducted by George Cheney support this suggestion: (1) an analysis of
internal newsletters disseminated within several different corporate organizations
30
organizations (1983), and, (2) an analysis of a mission statement produced by the
organization of United States Catholic Bishops (1991).
Cheney concluded in both analyses that the fundamental purpose of most
organizational publications is to create the perception that the organization
represented all things to all people. According to Cheney, the organizations analyzed
achieved this purpose by incorporating strategically ambiguous (Eisenberg, 1984)
symbols into their mass media. These ambiguous symbols were used to foster
"maximally convergent interpretations" among organizational members with
"multiple interests and multiple identities" (Cheney, 1991, p. 179).
Researchers who analyze collective action organizations reveal similar
findings. Some researchers propose that collective action organizations use the mass
media to foster a perception of congruence between individual and organizational
views (Gamson & Modigliani, 1988; Klandermans, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden
& Benford, 1986). In one such study, Snow et al. proposed that the mass media
served a strategic role in an organization’s "frame alignment process", defined as:
the linkage of individual and SMO [social movement organization]
interpretive orientations, such that some set of individual interests,
values, and beliefs and SMO activities are congruent and comple
mentary (Snow et al., 1986, p. 464).
According to mass society theorists, the mass media is likely to exert more
influence over members when it provides them with their only source of information
about the organization (Komhauser, 1959; Shils, 1962). Overall then, direct mail
members who pay a high degree of attention to mass-mediated information about the
organization should be more likely: (1) to come to adopt the dominant goals stressed
within the organization’s mass media, and (2) to come to perceive that these goals
are shared by other members in the organization. Hypothesis 4 proposes that:
Hypothesis 4: Among direct mail members, the degree of exposure to mass-mediated j
information about a collective action organization is positively related to
the degree of perceived consensus.
If the organizational mass media influences direct mail members’ perceptions,
what effect does it have on volunteer group members’ perceptions? According to
theories of personal influence, interpersonal information sources exert a greater
degree of influence over individuals’ opinions than do mass-mediated sources
(Chaffee & Mutz, 1988; Katz & Lazersfeld, 1951; Rogers, 1983). Some researchers
who study collective action organizations also assert that volunteers’ opinions are
influenced more by interpersonal sources than by mass-mediated sources (Briet,
Klandermans & Kroon, 1987; Klandermans, 1988). Hypothesis 5 proposes that:
Hypothesis 5: Among volunteer group members, the frequency of interpersonal
interaction with other members exerts a greater influence on
perceived consensus than the amount of exposure to mass-mediated
information.
Differences in Perceived Consensus Between Volunteers and Direct Mail Members
If interpersonal connections act as a dominant influence on volunteers, and
mass-mediated channels act as a dominant influence on direct mail members, which
group maintains a greater degree of perceived consensus? Within most volunteer
sub-groups, interactions tend to center around activities that the group undertakes to
pursue the organization’s goals (Lichterman, 1992). In order to coordinate their
activities, sub-groups must communicate amongst themselves, or with the
organization’s central leadership (Oliver & Furman, 1988). This communication
process tends to unearth the kind of dissension that naturally arises between groups
that pursue different organizational goals, and compete for limited resources.
Through this process, sub-group members become aware that other groups in the
organization do not share their perceptions (Brown & Williams, 1984).
While interpersonal connections expose volunteer group members to diverse
organizational perspectives, mass mediated information exposes direct mail members
to one dominant perspective. In most organizations, the mass-media is carefully
censored to create the illusion of organization-wide agreement. Leaders’ dominant
perceptions are presented as representative of the entire organization, and differences
of opinion between organizational groups are ignored or smoothed over (Cameron &
McCallum, 1992; Cheney, 1983; 1991). Since direct mail members do not receive
interpersonal information that contradicts mass-mediated sources, they are not likely
to question these dominant perceptions. Direct mail members should thus maintain a
higher degree of perceived consensus than volunteers. Hypothesis 6 proposes that:
Hypothesis 6: There is a higher degree of perceived consensus among direct mail
members than among volunteer group members in a collective action
organization.
See Figure 1 for a summary of proposed theoretical relationships.
Figure 1
Representation of proposed relationships between concepts
Hypothesis la
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
(i.e. direct mail member or volunteer)
H ypothesis lb
INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION
FREQUENCY
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT
H ypothesis 2
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
GOAL
CONSENSUS
Hypothesis 3 (AMONG VOLUNTEERS ONLY)
INTERPERSONAL PERCEIVED
COMMUNICATION ------------------------------► CONSENSUS
FREQUENCY
* Hypothesis 4 (AMONG DIRECT MAIL MEMBERS ONLY)
EXPOSURE TO PERCEIVED
MASS-MEDIATED ------------------------------► CONSENSUS
INFORMATION
Hypothesis 5 (AMONG VOLUNTEERS ONLY)
INTERPERSONAL EXPOSURE TO PERCEIVED
COMMUNICATION ---- ► MASS-MEDIATED------ ► CONSENSUS
FREQUENCY INFORMATION
H ypothesis 6
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
. PERCEIVED
► CONSENSUS
Chapter Three
METHOD
Sample Setting
The sample setting for the present study is a politically-oriented collective
action organization called Heal the Bay. Heal the Bay is a moderate-sized collective
action organization founded in 1986 by Los Angeles-area environmental activists.
Since that time, Heal the Bay has pursued its mission to reduce pollution levels in
the Santa Monica Bay which borders most Los Angeles County beaches.
Heal the Bay’s membership has expanded enormously (both geographically
and numerically) during its seven-year history. Four years ago, Heal the Bay made
the transition from a traditional association run entirely by volunteers, to a
professionalized organization that presently maintains seven full-time paid staff
members.
Heal the Bay was chosen as an appropriate organizational setting for testing
the hypotheses proposed in the present study because it maintains both types of
membership roles discussed in the previous chapter: (1) the role of volunteer group
member, and, (2) the role of direct mail member. Heal the Bay maintains seven
volunteer sub-groups that actively pursue specific organizational objectives. These
sub-groups help the organization by engaging in litigation, political lobbying efforts,
public education, fund-raising, and membership outreach.
Most of these volunteer sub-groups meet on a monthly basis to discuss and
coordinate their organizational activities. Each sub-group attracts 10 to 20
35
volunteers who regularly attend these meetings and actively participate in the
organization, as well as a few volunteers who take a less active role. Each volunteer
sub-group is fairly well-connected to the central leadership of the organization, since
one staff member serves as a liaison to each sub-group. This staff member regularly
attends sub-group meetings and acts as a communication link between the sub-group
and the organization’s central leadership.
Heal the Bay also maintains a list of approximately 12,000 direct mail
members who, for the most part, live in communities near the Santa Monica Bay.
These members pay annual membership dues, but do not participate in organizational
activities other than purchasing products, or occasionally attending fund-raising
parties or other special events.
Direct mail members rely on mass-mediated sources to receive most of their
information about the organization. Heal the Bay maintains its connection with these
members by mailing them a bi-monthly organizational newsletter as well as
occasional invitations, announcements, and solicitations. Heal the Bay also maintains
a fairly high public profile through an active public relations program. Thus, direct
mail members can also receive information about the organization through the
external mass media (i.e., local newspaper and television news organizations). Heal
the Bay’s founder and its staff scientist (a marine biologist) are actively involved in
local water legislation and water safety testing and are thus frequently quoted in
news stories regarding water pollution (Personal communication, D. Green,
November 14, 1992).
36
Sample
Participants in the present study's survey were derived from two populations
of members: (1) members belonging to six volunteer sub-groups in Heal the Bay,
and, (2) members who contribute annual dues and receive direct mail, but do not
participate in volunteer activities.
Initial information about the relationship between Heal the Bay leaders and
members was gathered through interviews with staff members, members of the board
of directors and volunteers. Information was also gathered by reviewing the
organization’s internal publications, and observing volunteer meetings over a six-
month period prior to the administration of the survey.1
Direct mail members. A systematic random sample of direct mail members
was undertaken in three steps. First, a population of 972 members (who had not
performed any volunteer activities for Heal the Bay in the last year) was chosen from
a list of members who lived within the boundaries of three Los Angeles area codes.
These three area codes encompass the cities of Manhattan Beach and Culver City and
half of the city of Santa Monica (where the main office of Heal the Bay is located).
The cities of Manhattan Beach and Santa Monica both border the Santa Monica Bay,
although Culver City is located somewhat farther inland. The three areas chosen
represented areas in which a number of volunteer group members also live.
Second, 35 percent of the population of 972 direct mail members were chosen
through a random sampling procedure to create a sample 335 members. Next, 12 of
these members were eliminated from the sample due to insufficient addresses. All
37
323 remaining individuals in the sample were mailed a short questionnaire, with one
follow-up mailing four weeks after the first wave of questionnaires were mailed.
Of the returned questionnaires, 22 were eliminated because they were
incomplete, or because the respondents no longer belonged to Heal the Bay. A total
of 87 responses were usable. The response rate of 29 percent was thus rather low as
compared to the average response rate for most mailed surveys, which usually varies
between 46 to 84 percent (Baumgartner & Heberlein, 1984).
The low response rate among the members surveyed in the present study
means that the sample may not be an unbiased representation of the population of
direct mail members in Heal the Bay. This limits the degree to which the sample
can be generalized to the population of direct mail members within Heal the Bay.
Volunteer sub-group members. One set of questionnaires was given to
individuals who belonged to six volunteer sub-groups in Heal the Bay: the Storm
Drain Task Force, the Wetlands Preservation Task Force, the South Bay Chapter, the
Membership Outreach Committee, the Legal Committee, and the Speakers’ Bureau.
In order to ensure that these individuals had some familiarity with sub-group
cultures, questionnaires were only given to volunteers who had attended at least two
of the previous five meetings of a particular sub-group.
Questionnaires were distributed in two ways. First, questionnaires were
handed out at two consecutive monthly meetings of each sub-group. Second,
questionnaires were mailed to members who had attended at least two past meetings
of the sub-group (but had not attended the meetings where the questionnaires were
handed out). A total of 92 questionnaires were either (1) handed out to volunteers to
take home and fill out, or, (2) mailed to volunteers. The one exception to this rule
was the Speaker’s Bureau.
The Speaker’s Bureau differs from the other volunteer sub-groups in that it
does not sponsor monthly meetings. Volunteers go through an initial intensive
training period over the course of six monthly meetings, then maintain interpersonal
contact with the organization by attending Heal the Bay’s general monthly
membership information meetings on an intermittent basis. Since training meetings
were not being held during the time that this survey was conducted, questionnaires
were mailed to a list of volunteers belonging to this group.
A total of 54 questionnaires were returned from these volunteers, with 19
questionnaires returned from the South Bay Chapter sub-group, 13 from the
Speakers’ Bureau sub-group, 7 from the Legal sub-group, 7 from the Storm Drain
sub-group, 6 from the Wetlands Preservation sub-group, and 2 from the Membership
Outreach sub-group. A comparison of the total number of questionnaires distributed
to the total number of questionnaires returned (59 percent), reveals that the overall
response rate for sub-group volunteers was higher than the response rate for direct
mail members.
Measurement
Organizational commitment. Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) defined
organizational commitment as the degree to which individual members (1) believe in
the organization’s goals and values, (2) are willing to exert considerable effort to
pursue those goals and values, and, (3) wish to maintain their membership in the
organization (1979). Numerous studies of corporate organizations have proven that
Their scale is a highly reliable measure of organizational commitment (Reichers,
1985).
Mowday, Steers and Porter’s scale was also adapted by Knoke (1988, 1990)
to the context of collective action organizations. Knoke measures commitment
through three multi-item scales similar to those used by Mowday et al with (1) an
eight-item scale measuring individuals’ identification with their organization, and the
perceived importance of organizational goals and values (a = .89), (2) a three-item
scale measuring the degree to which the organization is central to the individuals’
life interests (a = .79), and, (3) a three-item scale measuring individuals’ degree of
detachment (or lack of desire to maintain membership) in the organization (a = .70),
(Knoke, 1990).
The present study used two of Knoke’s scales to measure the degree of
organizational commitment and organizational detachment maintained by members.
The present study did not measure the degree to which the organization acted as a
central interest in its members’ lives, since this dimension suggested a degree of
participation that was unlikely for direct mail members.
Goal consensus. Goal consensus is defined as the degree to which members
share a similar interpretation of their organization’s core mission (or overall goals),
and the means for achieving that mission (or operational goals), (Schein, 1985).
Goal consensus was measured according to the degree of agreement between
40
' members concerning the relative importance, or ranking, of the organization’s overall
I
and operational goals.
A list of Heal the Bay’s overall goals was derived from a mission statement
: produced by the organization (and presented at its 1992 annual meeting). The
i
mission statement outlined the most important "Issues for Action" by the
organization in 1992. Five primary issues for action were selected from this
statement. Heal the Bay staff members confirmed that these five issues represented
the most important overall goals that the organization was pursuing in November and
December of 1992, when the data was collected.
Heal the Bay’s operational goals were defined as the objectives pursued by
Heal the Bay’s volunteer sub-groups. Definitions of the sub-groups’ objectives were
derived from Heal the Bay’s Volunteer handbook, which describes each sub-group.
In the present study, two questions measured members’ goal consensus. The
first question listed Heal the Bay’s five overall organizational goals. The question
then asked members to rank the five goals in order of their importance, to determine
the degree of agreement between individuals regarding the ranking of organizational
goals (See Appendix A). The more that members rank goals in the same way, the
greater the degree of goal consensus. Sub-group objectives were measured the same
way.
According to the integrative theoretical perspective, organizational leaders
assert a unifying influence on their organizational by persuading members to adopt a
common interpretation of the organization’s mission. One way that leaders influence
41
members to adopt a common interpretation is by emphasizing the importance of a
dominant goal and objective in achieving the organization’s mission. Thus, if
individual members across different sub-groups adopt a similar interpretation of their
organization’s mission, that inteipretation is likely to come from the organization’s
leadership (Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 1985; Simon, 1976; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985).
Heal the Bay’s dominant goal and objective were identified through
interviews with leaders who were responsible for communicating Heal the Bay’s
goals to its membership. Interviews revealed that storm drain pollution prevention
was the dominant goal, and storm drain education was the dominant objective that
Heal the Bay’s leaders communicated to members at the time that the data was
collected (Personal communication L. Coonts, September 3, 1992; K. Francis,
September 1, 1992; D. Green, November 14, 1992; A. Liberman, Heal the Bay
Annual Meeting, January 30, 1993).2
Perceived consensus. Contractor, Eisenberg and Monge (1993) defined
perceived consensus as the degree to which individuals believe that other members
interpret the organization’s mission in the same way that they do. The researchers
measured perceived consensus by first asking members to write down their personal
interpretations of a key organizational symbol (i.e., the organization’s core mission).
They then asked individuals to indicate the degree to which other members in the
organization shared their inteipretation (Contractor, Eisenberg & Monge, 1993).
The present study measured perceived consensus in Heal the Bay by adapting
the question used in the Contractor, Eisenberg and Monge (1993) study. The first
42
question in the study asked members to rank the importance of five core
organizational goals. The second question measured perceived consensus by asking:
Consider the goal that you ranked as number J_ or most important.
Do you think that most other people at Heal the Bay also believe
that this goal is the most important?"
Members then used a five-point semantic differential scale (ranging from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree") to indicate the degree to which most other
members and most leaders in the organization shared their view (i.e., that the goal
they chose as number one was "most important"). The degree of perceived
consensus regarding organizational sub-group objectives was measured in a similar
manner.
Interpersonal communication frequency. Interpersonal communication
frequency is the number of times that members interact with other individuals in
their organization. The measurement of interpersonal frequency in the present study
was based on a scale used by Knoke (1988, 1990). In his study of collective action
organizations, Knoke (1988, 1990) measured communication frequency by asking
individuals to estimate the frequency of communication between themselves and (1)
other organizational members, and, (2) organizational leaders (i.e., the president and
executive director) during the previous year.
Most studies of corporate organizations measure communication frequency
over a short period of time, such as a week (Contractor, Eisenberg & Monge, 1993).
However, Knoke measured communication frequency over a longer period of time
since members in collective action organizations meet on a more infrequent basis
: than members of corporate organizations. ;
The present study measured interpersonal communication frequency (similarly
to Knoke) in a question which asked individuals:
During the past 6 months, how many times did you communicate— |
either in person or by telephone— about Heal the Bay matters of all i
kinds?
Individuals were presented with a list of four different categories of individuals with
whom they could interact. Individuals were then asked to indicate the number of
times they communicated with these interactants on a scale ranging from "0" to "9 or
more" times. The four categories of interactants from Heal the Bay were (1) paid
staff, (2) directors, (3) volunteer leaders or chairpersons, and, (4) other members or
volunteers.
Exposure to mass-mediated information. As indicated previously, studies
seldom measure members’ exposure to mass-mediated information about their
organization. Therefore, measures of exposure used in the present study were
adapted from studies which focus on individual exposure to other types of mass-
mediated information. According to Chaffee and Mutz (1988), the most common
measure of mass-mediated exposure (the frequency with which individuals use mass
media channels) does not provide the most reliable data. Chaffee and Mutz (1988)
assert that a more reliable measurement scale combines items concerning the
frequency with which individuals use each channel, and items regarding the degree
of attention that individuals pay to specific information disseminated by each
channel.
The present study took a similar approach to measuring members’ exposure to
information about Heal the Bay. The present study measured mass-mediated
exposure in a three-question scale. Two questions asked members to indicate their
1 degree of attention to information about Heal the Bay in (1) Heal the Bay’s general
newsletter, and, (2) the announcements, invitations or other forms of direct mail that
Heal the Bay sends to members. The amount of attention that members usually paid
to information from these sources was measured on a four-point scale ranging from
"No attention" to "A lot of attention". The third question asked members to consider
the last Heal the Bay newsletter that they received, and to indicate how much of the
newsletter they read on a four-point scale ranging from "None" to "All".
The present study also measured members’ exposure to information about
Heal the Bay in mass media channels that were not controlled by the organization.
Members’ exposure to information through external mass media was measured
according to their degree of attention to information broadcast over local television
or radio. Three questions were summed to create a scale measuring members’
degree of attention to information about Heal the Bay on local television and radio
news programs. Members’ exposure to information through external mass media was
also measured according to their attention to information in The Los Angeles Times
as well as their local newspaper.
Analyses
Cronbach’s alpha analyses models (Cronbach, 1951) were calculated to
determine the reliability of the measurement scales used in the present study.
! 45
; Student t statistics were also calculated in some preliminary analyses to determine if
the length of organizational membership differed from that of volunteer respondents.
Analyses also compared the average length of organizational membership of survey
respondents in the present study’s sample with the average length of membership in
the population from which the sample was derived. This analysis was undertaken to
determine if the sample of respondents was representative of the population as a
whole. Seven volunteers who responded to the survey, but were not dues-paying
members of the organization at the time of the study were not included in the
analysis of the length of time that members belonged to the organization.
A t test was calculated to test hypothesis la which proposed that volunteers
interacted more frequently than direct mail members. A t test was calculated to test
hypothesis lb which proposed that volunteers maintained a greater degree of
organizational commitment than direct mail members. Finally, a t test was also
calculated to test if volunteer group members maintained a greater degree of
perceived consensus than direct mail members (hypothesis 6). All t statistics
reported in the present study were calculated based on separate variance estimates in
order to compensate for unequal group variances which may result from unequal
sample sizes. Degrees of freedom associated with t statistics were also computed to
compensate for unequal group variances. The probability of rejecting the null
hypothesis was determined based on a one-tailed probability test accounting for the
proposed direction of influence, at an alpha level of less than .05.
Hollander and Sethurman’s model of two-group concordance was calculated
46
I
; to test hypothesis 2, which stated that volunteers maintained a greater degree of goal
consensus than direct mail members (Hollander & Sethurman, 1978; Serlin &
Marascuilo, 1983). In all tests involving measures of goal consensus, the ranks that
subjects assigned to the goals were reverse coded (i.e. a "1" which was originally
assigned to the most important or highest ranked goal was converted to a "5") so that
an increase in assigned numbers indicated an increase in the importance of the
ranked goal.
Hollander and Sethurman’s model tests the alternative hypothesis that the two
different groups provided unequal vectors of mean rankings to the same set of goals
or objectives, against the null hypothesis that the two groups provide equal vectors of
mean rankings (i.e. the groups assigned the same degree of importance to each
different goal or objective). Hollander and Sethurman’s model tests the alternative
hypothesis by calculating a x 2 using the following formula:.
X 2 = H1H2 ( E i - R a T X ^ C E 1 - £ 2 )
ni + n2
In the formula, Rt - R ^, represents the difference between the vectors of mean
rankings for the two different groups (rij + n^) of individuals, multiplied by the
matrix of covariances between the rankings of the total population of individuals.
If the x 2 statistic (with k-1 degrees of freedom, where k represents the number of
groups) is larger than a statistic obtained by chance, than the null hypothesis of
unequal rankings is rejected.
There are two limitations which should be considered in regard to Hollander
and Sethurman’s model. First, the calculation of Hollander and Sethurman’s model
47
requires that one of the ranks be eliminated from the analysis in order to calculate a
covariance matrix which is not singular (or non-determinable). The ranks of one of
two goals with similar mean differences, and one of two objectives with similar
mean differences were eliminated. Thus, the ranking of the goal concerning
defending "laws and regulations that preserve the Bay" and the ranking of the sub
group objective of raising awareness concerning "pollution problems that threaten
South Bay beaches" were eliminated from the calculations of the x 2 statistic.
Hollander and Sethurman’s model is also limited by the fact that it can reject
or support the non-directional hypothesis that the two groups ranked the goals and
objectives differently, but it cannot determine the direction of this difference
(Hollander and Sethurman, 1978; Serlin & Marascuilo, 1983). For this reason, two
other measures were calculated to indicate the direction of the difference in the
amount of goal consensus maintained by volunteers and direct mail members.
First, a Kendall’s coefficient of concordance measure W was calculated for
each group of volunteers and direct mail members as an indicator of the different
degrees of goal consensus maintained by the two groups. Kendall’s coefficient of
concordance measured the degree to which the individuals in each of the groups
agreed or were concordant in their ranking of the set of goals or objectives. The
larger the size of W, the greater the degree of goal consensus (agreement) within the
group (Siegel & Castellan, 1988).
Second, Mann-Whitney U measures were calculated to compare the degree of
consensus within each group regarding the goal and objective that the organizations’
48
leaders considered to be dominant. Mann-Whitney U analyses determined if the
mean ranking of storm drain pollution prevention and storm drain education for
volunteers was greater than the mean ranking for direct mail members.
Hypothesis 3 stated that among volunteers, the frequency of interpersonal
< interaction with other members is positively related to the degree of perceived
consensus. Hypothesis 3 was tested by calculating partial correlations (controlling
j for organizational mass media use and electronic mass media use) from a multiple
regression model. In all multiple regression analyses performed on only the
volunteer sample, the variable "attention to organizational mass-media" was recoded
to transform it to a from a variable with interval-level values to a dummy variable.
This transformation was performed because the distribution of the scale was highly
skewed (skew = -1.00) toward values indicating a very high degree of attention. In
order to avoid violating the normality assumptions associated with multiple
regression, the variable was recoded so that values below the mean (3.4 or below on
a 4-point scale) were assigned a value of "0" indicating an absence of attention, and
values above the mean ( 3.5 or above) were assigned the value "1" indicating the
presence of attention.
Hypothesis 4 stated that among direct mail members, the amount of exposure
to mass-mediated information was positively related to the degree of perceived
consensus. Hypothesis 4 was tested similarly to hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 5 stated
that among volunteer group members, the frequency of interpersonal interaction with
other members exerts a greater influence on perceived consensus than the amount of
! exposure to mass-mediated information. Hypothesis 5 was tested by calculating a
multiple regression model and comparing if the partial correlation between
individiuals’ interpersonal communication frequency and their degree of perceived
consensus was greater than the partial correlation between their degree of attention to
mass-mediated information and perceived consensus.
Power analyses indicated that the total sample size (142) was sufficiently
large to detect a moderate effect size (A = .30) in all analyses involving t-tests at a
= .05, one-tailed, with 95% power. However, the size of the volunteer group (54
subjects) was only large enough for a correlation test to detect a moderate effect size
with 70% power (Kraemer and Thiemann, 1987). All analyses were tested at a -
.05. A hypothesis was considered to be supported when the majority of sub
hypotheses tests indicated significant support for the alternative hypothesis.
I
ENDNOTES
50
1 Becoming a member of Heal the Bay provided the author of the present study with
some credibility that increased access to members and leaders. Participant
, observation of volunteer sub-group meetings also provided the author with
considerable information regarding the knowledge, opinions of Heal the Bay’s
volunteers as well as the communication linkages between volunteers and leaders.
The experiences of the present author attest to the fact that becoming a member of a
collective action organization can provide a researcher with a degree of access that is
often impossible to attain in corporate organizations.
2 Laurie Coonts is vice president of Heal the Bay’s board of directors and provides
pro bono public relations consulting to Heal the Bay through her position as vice
president of the Los Angeles area advertising firm, Chiat Day. Kim Francis is a paid
staff member at Heal the Bay who works with volunteers and other members as
community outreach coordinator. Dorothy Green is the founding president of Heal
the Bay and a board member. She also provides leadership in Heal the Bay’s
interactions with local government through her appointment as a commissioner of the
Department of Water and Power for the City of Los Angeles. As executive director
of Heal the Bay (a paid position) Adi Liberman outlined Heal the Bay’s past
accomplishments and future goals at its 1993 Annual Meeting.
51
Chapter Four
RESULTS
Preliminary results
I
Cronbach’s alpha analysis models were calculated to determine the reliability
of the measurement scales used in the present study. Cronbach’s alpha confirmed
that the seven indicators formed a moderately reliable measure of organizational
commitment (a = .76). Item-total correlations showed that one indicator was not
highly-correlated with other items in the scale (corrected item-total correlation = .27).
This item was deleted from the scale to increase the overall reliability. Analyses
revealed that the new six item organizational commitment scale was moderately
reliable (a = .79), (see Table 1).
Table 1
Reliabilities for a measure of organizational commitment
Indicators of Item-Total
Organizational Commitment Correlations
1. Don’t care what Heal the Bay says .42
2. What Heal the Bay stands for is important .50
3. Sense of pride in Heal the Bay .65
4. Heal the Bay’s values are important .58
5. Feel indifferent about supporting Heal the Bay .65
6. Sense of belonging to Heal the Bay .55
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .79
: 52
Cronbach’s alpha revealed that the three indicators from Knoke’s
organizational detachment scale served as a poor measurement instrument for the
construct (a = .67). Therefore, the scale was not included in the present study.
! Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the four indicator measure of perceived consensus
concerning overall goals was highly reliable (a = .87), (see Table 2).
Table 2
Reliabilities for a measure of perceived consensus regarding
overall organizational goals
Indicators of Item-Total
Perceived Consensus Correlations
1. Most members share my view .68
2. Most members have different opinion .74
3. Most leaders share my view .75
4. Most leaders have different opinion .71
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .87
The measure of perceived consensus for sub-group objectives was also highly
reliable (a = .88) (see Table 3).
Table 3
Reliabilities for a measure of perceived consensus regarding
the objectives of organizational sub-groups
Indicators of Item-Total
Perceived Consensus Correlations
1. Most members share my view .77
2. Most members have different opinion .69
3. Most leaders share my view .73
4. Most leaders have different opinion .76
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .88
Cronbach’s alpha also revealed that the measure of interpersonal
communication frequency was highly reliable (a = .91), (see Table 4).
Table 4
Reliabilities for a measure of interpersonal frequency in the organization
Indicators of Item-Total
Interpersonal Frequency Correlations
1. Times communicated with paid staff in last 6 months .87
2. Times communicated with leaders in last 6 months .89
3. Times communicated with directors in last 6 months .69
4. Times communicated with members in last 6 months .84
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .91
54
t
i
Item-total correlations revealed that one indicator was less highly correlated
than the others (corrected item-total correlation = .68). This indicator concerned the
amount of communication between members and Heal the Bay’s directors. However,
when this item was removed, the scale was no longer normally distributed. This
indicator was retained so that the scale could more closely approximate a normal
distribution.
Finally, the measure of exposure to information in the organizational mass
media was moderately reliable (a = .75), (see Table 5). The measure of exposure to
information in electronic media was also moderately reliable ( a = .78), (see Table
6). The reliability of the two-item measure of exposure to information in local
newspapers was quite low (a = .47). Therefore, this measure not included in the
present study.
Table 5
Reliabilities for a measure of exposure to information in organizational
mass media
Indicators of Item-Total
Mass Media Exposure Correlations
1. Amount of last newsletter read .65
2. Attention to information in newsletter .65
3. Attention to information in other direct mail .46
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .75
55
Table 6
Reliabilities for a measure of exDOSure to information in electronic
mass media
Indicators of Item-Total
Electronic Media Exposure Correlations
1. Attention to information in local tv news .67
2. Attention to information in local radio news .61
3. Attention to information in tv psas .56
Overall Reliability Coefficient a .78
Results from the present study also revealed that there were no significant
differences between the average years of organizational membership for volunteers
(M = 2.6) and direct mail respondents (M = 2.7) t (86.2, 126) = -.41, _ p > .05 .
Primary results
Organizational commitment. Hypothesis la stated that volunteer group
members interact more frequently than direct mail members in a collective action
organization. Results revealed that the mean number of times that volunteer group
members interacted over a six month period (M = 5.83) was significantly greater
than the mean number of times that direct mail members interacted (M = .40) t
(59.4, 141) = 14.20, £ < .05 (see Table 7). Hypothesis la was supported.
Table 7
A comparison of interaction frequency among volunteers and direct
mail members
Membership Role
M
SD df a t
b R
Volunteers
(n = 53)
5.84 2.74
59.9 14.2 .00001
Direct Mail
(n = 87)
.40 .85
Note. a t is calculated for seoarate variance estimates, b p is one-tailed
Hypothesis lb stated that volunteer group members maintain a higher degree of
organizational commitment than direct mail members in a collective action
organization. Results revealed that the average degree of commitment that volunteers
maintained (M = 4.54, SD = 1.6) was significantly greater than the average degree of
commitment that direct mail members maintained (M = 4.24, SD = 1.4) t (118.0,
140) = 3.61, £ < .05 (see Table 8).1 Hypothesis lb was supported.
Table 8
A comparison of the degree of organizational commitment maintained
by volunteers and direct mail members
Membership Role
M
SD df a t
b R
Volunteers
(n = 53)
4.54 .46
118 3.61 .0001
Direct Mail
(n = 87)
4.24 .51
Note, “ t is calculated for separate variance estimates. b p is one-tailed
Goal consensus. Hypothesis 2 stated that direct mail members maintain a higher
degree of goal consensus than volunteer group members in a collective action
organization. A x 2 test based on Hollander and Sethurman’s model of two-group
concordance was calculated from a matrix of covariances between the total sample of
goals (see Table 9). There was a significant difference between the way that
volunteers and direct mail members rank Heal the Bay’s overall goals x 2 (3, 135) =
26.79, _ p < .05 (see Table 10). The x 2 statistic confirmed the non-directional
hypothesis that volunteers maintained a different degree of goal consensus than direct
mail members.
58
Table 9
Covariance matrix between measures of overall goal consensus for all members
Variables WT WP ST SD
Water
Testing
(WT)
1.26 -0.60 -0.25 -0.21
Wetlands
Preservation
(WP)
1,92 -0.54 -0.61
Sewage
Treatment
(ST)
1.48 -0.06
Storm Drain
Prevention
(SD)
1.66
Note. N = 135
Table 10
A comparison of the differences between volunteers and direct mail members
in ranking overall goals
Volunteers
(n = 53)
Direct Mail
(n = 82)
Rankings
M M x2
df
2.
Legal
Enforcement
3.36 3.67 27.26 3 .001
Wetlands
Preservation
2.28 2.30
Sewage
Treatment
3.49 3.85
Storm Drain
Prevention
4.00 2.91
Two analyses suggested that volunteers maintained a greater degree of
consensus concerning overall goals than direct mail members. Coefficient of
concordance measures revealed that volunteers maintained a greater degree of
consensus concerning the importance of overall goals (W = .34) than did direct mail
members (W = .21). Mann-Whitney U analyses revealed that volunteers rank the
importance of the goal of storm drain pollution prevention (the organization’s
dominant goal according to organizational leaders) significantly higher (M rank =
86.78) than did direct mail members (M rank = 54.88) Z (134) = -4.77, £ < .05.
I 60
; Similar results were obtained from comparing the groups’ rankings of sub-group
objectives, based on the total sample of covariances between objectives (see Table
11).
Table 11
Covariance matrix between measures of overall goal consensus for all members
Variables SD MO WR SP LE ST
Storm Drain 1.77 0.23 -0.68 0.33 -0.99 -0.26
Education
(SD)
Membership ' 2.92 -1.08 0.15 -0.92 -0.48
Outreach
(MO)
Wetlands 3.43 -0.59 -0.27 -0.34
Restoration
(WR)
Speaking 2.83 -1.15 -0.28
(SP)
Legal 4.47 0.06
Defense
(LD)
Student 1.87
Training
(ST)
Note. N = 137
! 61
There was a significant difference between the importance that volunteers and direct
mail members attributed to sub-group objectives x 2 (6, 136) = 14.64 (see Table 12).
! Table 12
A comparison of the difference between volunteers and direct mail members
in ranking sub-group obiectives
Volunteers
(n = 52)
Direct Mail
(n = 85)
Rankings M M
x2
df
£
Storm Drain
Education
6.00 5.42 14.64 5 .02
Membership
Outreach
3.62 3.31
Wetlands
Restoration
4.21 3.96
Speaking 4.17 3.57
Legal
Defense
3.86 4.62
Student
Training
1.82 2.29
Note. a n = 52, b n = 85
Coefficient of concordance measures also revealed that volunteer group
members agreed more about the importance of the different sub-group objectives
62
revealed that volunteers ranked the importance of storm drain education (the
organization’s dominant objective according to organizational leaders) significantly
higher (M rank = 78.64) than do direct mail members (M rank = 62.22) Z (136) =
-2.46, £ < .05. Thus, both analyses suggested that volunteers maintained a greater
degree of consensus concerning sub-group objectives than did direct mail members.
Overall analyses confirmed that volunteers interpreted the importance of
organizational goals and objectives differently than did direct mail members. Thus,
the non-directional, null hypothesis of no difference between the two groups was
rejected. However, analyses also revealed that volunteers maintained a greater
degree of consensus than did direct mail members in regard to the importance of
particular goals. Since hypothesis 2 predicted a relationship in the opposite direction,
hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Perceived consensus. Hypothesis 3 stated that among volunteer group members,
the frequency of interpersonal interaction with other members in a collective action
organization is positively related to the degree of perceived consensus. Partial
correlations were derived from a regression model, controlling for the influence of
attention to organizational and electronic mass media. These correlations did not
indicate the existence of a positive relationship between volunteers’ interaction
frequency, and their degree of perceived consensus regarding the overall goal that
they considered to be most important (j3 = .22, £ > .05), (see Table 13).
Table 13
A regression model with communication variables as predictors of
volunteers’ perceived consensus regarding the ranking of overall goals
Overall Model a R2 F
£
.11 1.75 ns
Predictor Variables r
£
t £
Interpersonal
Interaction .25 .22 1.48 ns
Organizational
Mass Media -.04 -.03 -.17 ns
Electronic
Mass Media .26 .22 1.45 ns
Note. a n = 47
Partial correlations also failed to indicate the existence of a relationship between
the frequency of interpersonal interaction, and the degree of perceived consensus
regarding the sub-group objective that volunteers considered to be most important (£
= .10, £ > .05) (see Table 14). Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Table 14
A regression model with communication variables as predictors of volunteers’
perceived consensus regarding the ranking of sub-group objectives
Overall Model a R2 F
J2
.08 1.22 ns
Predictor Variables r
£
t
R
Interpersonal
Interaction .13 .10 .67 ns
Organizational
Mass Media .26 .25 1.63 ns
Electronic
Mass Media .10 .04 .24 ns
Note. a n = 47
Hypothesis 4 stated that among direct mail members, the degree of exposure
to mass-mediated information about their collective action organization was
positively related to the degree of perceived consensus. Partial correlations indicated
that, controlling for the influence of electronic mass media attention, a positive
relationship existed between members’ degree of attention to information in the
organization’s internal media, and their degree of perceived consensus regarding the
most important overall goal = .23, £ < .05). Partial correlations also indicated
65
that, controlling for organizational mass media attention, a positive relationship
existed between their degree of attention to information in the electronic media and
their perceived consensus (|3 = .23, £ < .05), (See Table 15).
Table 15
A regression model with communication variables as predictors of direct
mail members’ perceived consensus regarding the ranking of overall goals
Overall model a R2 F
£
.11 4.87 .01
Predictor Variables r
S l
t
£
Organizational
Mass Media .25 .23 2.14 .04
Electronic
Mass Media .24 .23 2.11 .04
Note. a n = 78
A positive relationship existed between direct mail members’ attention to
organizational mass-media, and their perceived consensus regarding the objective that
they consider to be most important (£ = 30, £ < .05). However, no relationship
existed between direct mail members’ attention to electronic media, and their
perceived consensus regarding sub-group objectives (J3 = .09, £ > .05). Since three
of the four tests of the hypothesis were significant, the overall results supported
hypothesis 4 (see Table 16).
Table 16
A regression model with communication variables as predictors of
direct mail members’ perceived consensus regarding the ranking of
sub-group objectives
a R2 F_
R
Overall Model .10 4.23 .02
Predictor Variables r
£
t
R
Organizational
Mass Media .30 .30 2.72 .01
Electronic
Mass Media .11 .09 .84 ns
Note. a n = 78
Hypothesis 5 stated that among volunteer group members, the frequency of
interpersonal interaction with other members exerted a greater influence on perceived
consensus than the amount of exposure to mass-mediated information. This
hypothesis was tested by calculating a multiple regression model predicting perceived
consensus, and comparing the relative contribution of the regression coefficient of
each independent variable (based on partial correlations) to that model.
Neither attention to organizational mass media (|3 = -.03, £ > .05), nor
interpersonal communication frequency (J3 = .22, £ > .05) were significantly related
to perceived consensus regarding the goal that individuals considered to be most
i important. Attention to electronic mass media was also unrelated to perceived goal
consensus (]3 = .22, £ > .05).
Similarly, neither attention to organizational mass media (J3 = .24, £ > .05),
nor interpersonal communication frequency (^ = .10, £ > .05) was significantly
related to perceived consensus regarding the objective that volunteers considered to
be most important. Attention to electronic mass media (jl = .04, £ > .05) was not
significantly related to perceived consensus regarding the most important objective
(refer to Tables 13 and 14). Although the relationship between interpersonal
communication frequency and perceived consensus was stronger than the relationship
between attention to mass media and perceived consensus, in neither case were these
relationships significant. Overall, hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Hypothesis 6 stated that there is a higher degree of perceived consensus
among direct mail members than among volunteer group members. However, there
was no significant difference between the average degree of perceived consensus
(regarding the most important overall goal) maintained by direct mail members
(M = 3.44, SD = .51), and the average degree maintained by volunteer group
members (M = 3.54, SD = .71) t (102.1, 131) = -.81, £ > .05. There was also no
significant difference between the average degree of perceived consensus regarding
the most important sub-group objective maintained by direct mail members,
68
CM = 3.70, SD = .89) and the average degree of perceived consensus maintained by
volunteers (M = 3.61, SD = .71) t (105.3, 130) = .55, £ > .05. Overall hypothesis 6
was not supported.
69
ENDNOTES
1 Although the difference between the mean degree of commitment maintained by
volunteers and direct mail members appears to be small, the t-test indicated a highly
significant difference. This difference may be attributable to the heterogeneous
variance between the two groups, since Petronivich and Hardyk, (1969) demonstrate
that when sample sizes are unequal, t-tests are particularly susceptible to
homogeneity of variance problems. A Bartlett-Box F test revealed that the variances
of the two groups were not significantly heterogeneous F (138, 1) = .56, £ > .05.
As a final check, these results were confirmed using a non-parametric test. A
Mann-Whitney U also found that volunteers maintained a higher degree of
commitment (M rank = 86.82) than direct mail members (M rank = 60.56) Z (139) =
-3.74, £ < .05. In sum, then, further analyses revealed that the results from the t-test
were valid.
70
Chapter Five
DISCUSSION
Summary
The present study compared how interpersonal and mass-mediated
communication channels influence the integration of members into collective action
organizations. Hypotheses were tested with data from a survey of direct mail
members (connected to the organization through mass-mediated channels) and
volunteers (connected through interpersonal and mass-mediated channels) in a Los
Angeles area environmental action organization.
Results showed that volunteers interacted more frequently with other
individuals in the organization than did direct mail members. Volunteers were also
more committed to the organization’s goals and values than direct mail members.
Volunteers and direct mail members maintained different interpretations regarding the
relative importance of the organization’s overall and operative goals. Contrary to
predictions, there was a higher degree of consensus (concerning the importance of
overall operative goals) among volunteers, than among direct mail members.
Direct mail members’ exposure to mass-mediated information sources exerted
a positive influence on their perceptions that other members share their
interpretations. However, neither their involvement in interpersonal interactions, nor
their exposure to mass-mediated information sources influenced volunteers’ perceived
consensus. Finally, there was no difference between the degree of perceived
consensus maintained by volunteers and direct mail members (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Findings for relationships between concepts
Hypothesis la
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
(i.e. direct mail member or volunteer)
H ypothesis lb
INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION
FREQUENCY
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT
H ypothesis 2
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
GOAL
CONSENSUS
Hypothesis 3 (AMONG VOLUNTEERS ONLY)
INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION
FREQUENCY
PERCEIVED
CONSENSUS
Hypothesis 4 (AMONG DIRECT MAIL MEMBERS ONLY)
EXPOSURE TO
MASS-MEDIATED
INFORMATION
Hypothesis 5 (AMONG VOLUNTEERS ONLY)
PERCEIVED
CONSENSUS
INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION —
FREQUENCY
H ypothesis 6
EXPOSURE TO
MASS-MEDIATED-----
INFORMATION
PERCEIVED
■ CONSENSUS
MEMBERSHIP
ROLE
PERCEIVED
CONSENSUS
_ _
Conclusions
Organizational commitment. The present study supports McCarthy and
Zald’s (1973, 1987) predictions concerning the negative impact of professionalization
on members’ support for collective action organizations. In particular, the findings
support McCarthy’s (1987) proposal that membership commitment will be greater in
traditional organizations that facilitate regular interactions between most of their
members, than in professionalized organizations that communicate with most
members through mass-mediated channels.
Results suggest that the increasing reliance on direct mail members rather
than volunteers may adversely affect the overall level of support in collective action
organizations. Regularly scheduled interactions between volunteers and other
members (such as monthly volunteer sub-group meetings) serve an essential
socializing function in collective action organizations (Downton & Wehr, 1991;
Knoke, 1990). The fact that direct mail members in the present study maintained a
lower level of organizational commitment than volunteer sub-group members
suggests that even regular exposure to mass-mediated information about the
organization cannot substitute for the degree of support engendered through
interpersonal interaction.
Findings from the present study may explain declines in overall membership
experienced by professionalized collective action organizations (i.e. the Sierra Club)
during the recent national economic recession. Numerous studies in corporate
organizations reveal a negative relationship between the degree that members are
---------------------------------------------- 73
committed to their organization, and the probability that members will leave that
organization (see Reichers, 1985). McCarthy and Zald (1977) assume that a similar
relationship exists in collective action organizations. According to McCarthy and
Zald, direct mail members are more likely to leave an organization than volunteers,
because the nature of direct mail members’ role makes them less committed to the
organization. The researchers conclude that a negative relationship exists between
the proportion of direct mail members and the stability of financial support, so that:
The more that collective action organizations rely on direct mail members for
financial support, the less stable their resources will be (McCarthy & Zald, 1977).
Resource instability is particularly problematic for professionalized collective
action organizations during times of national economic recession, when membership
dues become more difficult for individuals to pay. During these times, direct mail
members (who are less committed to the organization) are more likely to withdraw
their membership. On the other hand, volunteers (who are more committed to the
organization) are more likely to retain their support, even in the face of some
financial difficulty. These factors explain why organizations that rely on direct mail
membership have experienced funding shortages during the past year.
Clearly, mass-mediated channels cannot generate the same degree of support
among members of collective action organizations that interpersonal channels can
produce. Yet the amount of time, effort, and dedication required to participate in
monthly face-to-face meetings means that even concerted efforts to increase
interactions between members are likely to fail. Interactive computer networks may
74
offer a solution to this problem by providing individuals with a communication
channel combining the convenience of mass-mediated communication with the
interactivity of interpersonal communication (Downing, 1989; Huff, Sproull &
Kiesler, 1989; Rittner, 1992).
A study by Huff, Sproull and Kiesler (1989) suggests that participation in
interactive computer conferencing may actually increase the degree of commitment
maintained by organizational members whose face-to-face interactions are relatively
limited. Huff et al. examined the ability of various factors to predict the degree of
organizational commitment maintained by city government employees who worked
irregular shifts, and therefore interacted infrequently with other employees. The
researchers found that the frequency with which shift-workers engaged in computer-
mediated interactions was the only factor that predicted their degree of commitment.
The research findings suggest that direct mail members who interact infrequently
through interpersonal channels can actually maintain a feeling of commitment to their
organization by interacting with members through computer networks (Huff, Sproull
& Kiesler, 1989).
Hundreds of electronic bulletin boards specifically dedicated to issues
addressed by collective action organizations are already available to local, national
and internationally-dispersed users. EcoNet is an international computer network
designed to link together individuals and organizations dedicated to environmental
action (Stein, 1993). Nearly 200 environmental associations support online
discussion groups on EcoNet (Rittner, 1992). Thus, individuals who belong to the
75
same environmental association, but may be unable to attend face-to-face meetings,
can discuss issues of mutual interest through computer networks and in this way
develop a stronger bond to their organization. The actual functions, and impacts of
such networks for organizational members should be determined in future research.
Goal consensus. The finding that volunteers maintain a greater degree of
goal consensus than direct mail members supports the theoretical perspective that
proposes that communication has an integrative impact on organizational culture.
According to the integrative perspective, organizational leaders attempt to unify
organizational members by emphasizing the importance of one dominant goal in
achieving the organization’s mission (Ouchi, 1983; Peters & Waterman, 1982;
Schein, 1985; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985).
Interviews with various leaders at Heal the Bay revealed that "reducing public
pollution of city storm drains" was the dominant goal that they communicated to
members at the time that the survey was conducted. A substantial proportion (49
percent) of all volunteers responding to the present study interpreted the goal that
leaders considered to be dominant as the most important overall goal within the
organization. In contrast, only ten percent (see Figure 3) of direct mail members
responding to the present study considered storm drain pollution prevention to be the
most important organizational goal. Instead, the most important goal among direct
mail members was "forcing L.A. County...to fully treat all sewage before discharging
it into the bay". Results were similar for Heal the Bay’s dominant objective,
storm drain education.
76
Figure 3
Percentage of volunteers and direct mail members ranking the leaders’
dominant goal as most important
c «
i-
« a
W ) is
s ©
• ■ M CLl
£ £
c .s
O S
a. 2
s 6
2 a
sc 5 9
©i
< u
U I m
« C
g s
2 '£
4 > ©
& T 5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Storm Drain
Prevention
49%
Storm Drain
Prevention
10%
Direct Mail
V olunteers
The different communication channels which members rely on to obtain
information about Heal the Bay may explain the different interpretations maintained
by volunteers and direct mail members. Survey findings revealed that Heal the Bay’s
leaders interacted with volunteer sub-group members on a regular basis. The fact
that a large proportion of volunteers maintained the same interpretations of dominant
goals that leaders maintained suggests that these interactions exerted a powerful
influence on volunteers.
77
Survey findings also showed that direct mail members seldom interacted with
organizational leaders, but paid a fairly high degree of attention information about
the organization from the external mass media (i.e, local television and radio). The
fact that only a small proportion of direct mail members interpreted the leaders’
dominant goal as "most important" suggests that in the absence of interpersonal
connections, leaders do not directly influence members’ interpretations. The fact that
most direct mail members interpreted sewage treatment rather than storm drain
pollution prevention as the most important organizational goal suggests that the
external mass media influenced direct mail members’ interpretations.
In the six months prior to the administration of the present study, Heal the
Bay was most frequently cited within local newspapers and television news programs
in relation with the goal of sewage treatment (Hirabayashi, 1992). The issue gained
prominence in February, 1992 during an unusually heavy period of precipitation,
when the Los Angeles County treatment plant dumped untreated sewage from
overflowing storm drains into the Santa Monica Bay (Yarnall & Shaw, 1992;
Warren, 1992), Heal the Bay publicly criticized Los Angeles County sewage
treatment practices that led to the largest sewage spill in the bay in over a decade.
In August and September of 1992, Heal the Bay also publicly commented on the
levels and possible causes of water contamination leading to several beach closures
(McMillan, 1992).
According to one Heal the Bay staff member, the obvious cause (the Los
Angeles County Sewage Department) and direct effects of sewage spills (closing
78
beaches for a few days) led to a fairly high degree of coverage by the external mass
media in 1992. In contrast, the mass media was more reluctant to report on the more
complex causes (diffuse sources of public pollution) and indirect effects
(continuously higher levels of water contamination) of storm drain pollution
(Personal communication, T. Pogue, June 29, 1993). The frequency and recency of
sewage spill reports and the vivid nature of the visuals associated with the reports
(i.e., pictures of beaches and river basins strewn with sewage) probably increased the
salience of this issue to direct mail members (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). Lacking
interpersonal sources to convince them otherwise, direct mail members appear to
have adopted the external media’s interpretation that sewage treatment was the most
important goal associated with Heal the Bay in 1992.
Perceived consensus. The present study extended some of the findings in the
Eisenberg, Contractor and Monge (1991) study. Eisenberg et al. (1991) proposed
that members’ interactions would positively influence their perceived co-orientation
with other individuals in the organization. They found a positive relationship
between members’ frequency of interaction within the organization, and the degree of
perceived consensus between themselves and other members regarding the founder’s
vision (of the organization’s overall goal). However, the present study failed to find
a relationship between the frequency of volunteers’ interactions and their perceived
consensus.
The present study did support predictions (based on Eisenberg et al.’s study
and mass society theories) that the mass media increases the perceived co-orientation
79
of direct mail members. Mass society theories (Benjamen, 1982; Hayes, 1986;
Kornhauser, 1959; Shils, 1962) predict that in the absence of interpersonal channels,
mass-mediated channels should exert a homogenizing influence over individuals’
interpretations. The findings of the present study support mass society theories, since
(1) direct mail members seldom engaged in interpersonal interaction with other
organizational members, and, (2) direct mail members’ exposure to both
organizational and external mass-mediated channels was positively related to the
degree that they perceived that other members in the organization agreed with their
interpretations.
The present study did not support predictions based on personal influence
theories. Personal influence theories (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Chaffee & Mutz,
1988) predict that when both interpersonal and mass-mediated channels are available,
interpersonal channels exert greater influence on individuals’ perceptions than mass-
mediated channels. However, the present study’s findings reveal that neither
interpersonal channels nor mass-mediated channels exerted a significant influence on
volunteers’ perceived consensus.
Finally, the present study failed to support predictions based on
organizational differentiation theories. Theories of sub-cultural differentiation
suggest that when members are separated into volunteer sub-groups, they should
perceive a fairly low degree of consensus between their interpretations, and the
interpretations of the organization as a whole. On the other hand, direct mail
members are not separated into distinct sub-groups, and should thus perceive a fairly
80
high degree of interpretive consensus (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brown & Williams,
1984; Riley, 1983; Schall, 1983).
Findings from the present study do not support differentiation theories, since
volunteers and direct mail members maintained the same average degree of perceived
consensus regarding the organization’s goals and objectives. According to Ashforth
and Mael (1986), the differentiating tendencies of organizational sub-groups may be
reduced in organizations that foster a strong degree of identification with the
organization’s dominant culture. Volunteers’ identification with Heal the Bay’s
dominant culture may also account for the relatively high degree of perceived
consensus among this group.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Commitment. The low response rate (29 percent) from the sample of direct
mail members may limit the degree to which results can be generalized to the
population of Heal the Bay’s direct mail members from which this sample was
selected. Results revealed that the direct mail members who responded to the survey
belonged to Heal the Bay for an average of two and a half years. Since the
organization has only been in existence for seven years, it is possible that long-term
members may be over-represented among survey respondents.
Numerous studies in corporate organizations have found a positive
relationship between organizational tenure and organizational commitment (see
Reichers, 1985). It’s possible that longer-term direct mail members were more
motivated to respond to the survey because of their greater knowledge of, and
-------- _____ _ g j
commitment to Heal the Bay. If direct mail members with a greater degree of tenure
are over-represented among the survey respondents, the degree of organizational
commitment maintained by respondents should be greater than the degree of
commitment within the population of direct mail members as a whole as a whole.
Thus, the difference between the degree of commitment maintained by volunteers,
and the degree of commitment maintained by the actual population of direct mail
members may be even greater than reported in the present study.
The survey’s low response rate can be attributed to the time of year that it
was distributed (during a busy holiday season of November and December) as well
as the lack of repeated follow-up mailings or phone calls. Future surveys of direct
mail members should employ more follow-up techniques to yield a higher response
rate. If future surveys include a greater proportion of short-term direct mail
members, then the degree of commitment maintained by volunteers and direct mail
members should be greater than that reported in the present study.
Goal consensus. Problems encountered while conducting the present study
reveal the dearth of appropriate instruments to analyze the concept of "consensus".
The present study measured consensus by asking all members to rank the
organization’s goals, then comparing the degree to which members in each of the
two groups (direct mail members and volunteers) assigned the same ranks to the
same goals. Unfortunately, the analysis of this measure was limited by the lack of
statistical tests that measure differences in the rankings of two different groups.
Most statistical tests that compare the rankings of two or more groups
82
measure the similarity (consensus) rather than the difference between the groups
(Serlin & Marascuilo, 1983). Analyses in the present study were conducted using
Hollander and Sethurman’s model of between-group concordance, one of the few
statistics that tests the difference between two groups of rankings. Unfortunately,
Hollander and Sethurman’s model does not indicate exactly how these two groups
differ (Hollander & Sethurman, 1978). Until future research identifies a test statistic
that provides this information, analyses will continue to be limited.
Another question concerns the degree to which measures of goal consensus
within the organization in the present study can be generalized to environmental
action organizations as a whole. Although Heal the Bay has expanded enormously in
size and influence during the last few years, it is still a relatively young, moderate
sized organization confined to a localized geographic area. The organization’s
moderate size allows some of Heal the Bay’s leaders to maintain regular
interpersonal contact with all of its volunteer sub-groups. This interpersonal contact
may account for its successful integration of volunteers, who maintain a high degree
of goal consensus despite the fact that they function in separate sub-groups.
Results obtained from a study of Heal the Bay’s volunteers are not
generalizable to large environmental action organizations, in which volunteer sub
groups are dispersed across wide geographic areas. However, in many major
metropolitan areas, large environmental action organizations often maintain a network
of volunteer chapters linked to a central headquarters. For example, the Southern
California branch of the Sierra Club maintains a central headquarters in downtown
83
Los Angeles linked to dozens of volunteer chapters dispersed through outlying
communities. Future research could determine the degree to which a localized sub
section of a national environmental organization share the same characteristics as
Heal the Bay.
Perceived consensus. Analyses of hypotheses regarding perceived consensus
were limited by the small sample of volunteers, which reduced the power of
statistical tests to reject the null hypothesis. Future research should increase the
power of hypotheses tests by increasing the number of volunteer respondents.
Following Contractor, Eisenberg and Monge (1993) study, future research
should attempt to model the part that communication plays in the process of
developing perceived consensus and commitment in a collective action organization.
Two models should be developed in order to specify and compare the processes
experienced by volunteers and direct mail members. The model of communication
processes among volunteers should specify how interpersonal and mass-mediated
communication sources influences perceived consensus, and commitment. The
model of communication processes among direct mail members, however, should
include only mass-mediated sources.
The relationship between organizational commitment and communication is
reciprocal in Contractor et al’s model. However, the relationship between
commitment and communication should be non-reciprocal for the volunteer model,
since more committed members are more likely to engage in interaction.
84
ENDNOTES
Toni Pogue is a staff member for Heal the Bay who works as a Community
Outreach Coordinator.
------- g5
References
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review. 14, 20-39.
Barnett, G. (1988). Communication and organizational culture. In G. Goldhaber
& G. Bamett, (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication
(pp. 101-130). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Baumgartner, R. M. & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). Recent research on mailed
questionnaire response rates. In D. C. Lockhart, (Ed.), Making effective
use of mailed questionnaires (pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Benjamen, G. (1982). The communications revolution in politics. Washington,
D.C. The Academy of Political Science.
Briet, M., Klandermans, B. & Kroon, F. (1987). How women become involved in
the women’s movement of the Netherlands. In M. F. Katzenstein &
C. McClurg Mueller, (Eds.), The women’s movements of the United States
and Western Europe (pp. 44-63). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brown, R. & Williams, J. (1984). Group identification: The same thing to all
people? Human Relations, 37. 547-564.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A, Wade, G. & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining
Group differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 59, 273-286.
Bullis, C. and Tompkins, P. (1989). The Forest Ranger revisited: A study of
control practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56,
287-306.
Cameron, G. T. & McCallum, T. (1992, August). Competing corporate cultures:
A multi-method, cultural analysis of the role of internal communication.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, QE.
Chaffee, S. M., and Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing mediated and interpersonal
communication data. In R. Hawkins, J. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.),
Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal
processes (pp. 19-43). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8 6
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational
membership: a field study of organizational identification. Communication
Monographs, 50, 342-362.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple
identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Contractor, N. S., Eisenberg, E. M., and Monge, P. R. (1993). Antecedents and
outcomes of interpretive diversity in organizations. Communication
Monographs (in press).
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psvchometrika, 16, 294-334.
De Toqueville, Alexis. (1900). Democracy in America. New York: The Colonial
Press.
Dewey, J. (1925). The public and its problems. Chicago: The Swallow Press.
Downton, J. and Wehr, P. (1991). Peace movements: The role of commitment and
community in sustaining member participation. In L. Kriesberg &
M. Spencer, (Eds.), Research in social movements conflicts and change:
Vol 13 (pp. 113-134). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Downing, J. D. (1989). Computers for political change: PeaceNet and
Public Data Access. Journal of Communication, 39, 154-163.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R. and Miller, K. (1983). Involvement in
communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment.
Human Communication Research, 10, 179-202.
Eisenberg, E. M., Contractor, N. S. & Monge, P. R. (1991). Semantic networks in an
organization. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York:
The Free Press.
87
Falcione, R. L. & Kaplan, E. (1984). Organizational climate, communication,
and culture. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook: Vol. 8
(pp. 285-309). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R. & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and
organizing. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Fellow, A. (1987). Computers and political communication: Innovation in political
campaign organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Feree, M. & Miller, F. (1985). Mobilization and meaning: Toward an integration of
social psychological and resource perspectives on social movements.
Sociological Inquiry, 55, 361-380.
Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. New York: David McKay.
Gamson, W. and A. Modigliani. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on
nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology,
95, 1-37.
Gitlin, T. (1979). Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society,
2, 205-253.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Godwin, R. K. (1988). One billion dollars of influence: The direct marketing of
politics. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Pubs., Inc.
Godwin, R. K. & R. C. Mitchell. (1984). The implications of direct mail for
political organizations. Social Science Quarterly, 65: 829-839.
Habermas, J. (1989). Structural transformation of the public sphere. (C. T. Burger
and F. Lawrence Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hage, J. (1974). Communication and organizational control: Cybernetics in health
and welfare societies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Haight, T. R. & Rubinyi, R. M. (1983). How community groups use computers.
Journal of Communication, 33, 109-117.
8 8
Hall, R. H. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Hartman, R. L. & Johnson, J. D. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity:
Communication networks as predictors of commitment and role
ambiguity. Human Communication Research. 15, 523-548.
Hayes, M. T. (1986). The new group universe. In A. J. Cigler and
M. Loomis,(Eds.) Interest group politics, 2nd ed. (pp. 133-145) Washington:
Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Hollander, M. & Sethurman, J. (1978). Testing for agreement between two groups
of judges. Biometrika, 65, 403-411.
Horn, T. (1991, September). The green giant. Rolling Stone, pp. 42-51.
Huff, C., L. Sproull, and S. Kiesler. (1989). Computer communication and
organizational commitment: Tracing the relationship in a city
government. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1371-1391.
Hunter, R. (1979). Warriors of the rainbow: A chronicle of the Greenpeace
movement. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin,
L. L. Putnam, K. L. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational communication, (pp. 679-741). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played bv people in
the flow of mass communication. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.
Kraemer, H., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power
analysis in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological
expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review,
49, 583-600.
89
Klandermans, B. (1988). The formation and mobilization of consensus. In
B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action:
Comparing social movement research across cultures (pp. 173-196).
Cambridge, MD: JAI Press.
Knoke, D. (1981). Commitment and detachment in voluntary associations.
American Sociological Review, 46, 141-158.
Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations. American
Sociological Review, 53, 311-329.
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of
associations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Knoke, D. and Prensky, D. (1984). What relevance do organization theoxies have
for voluntary associations? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 3-20.
Knoke, D. and Wisely, N. (1990). Social movements. In D. Knoke, Political
networks: The structural perspective (pp. 57-84). Cambiidge, MA:
Cambiidge University Press.
Knoke, D. and Wood, J. (1979). Organized for action: Commitment in voluntary
associations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Knoke, D. and Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organizational
incentive systems. In P. Blau (Ed.), Research in the sociology of
organizations: Vol. 1 (pp. 209-254). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Komhauser, W. (1959). The politics of mass society. New York: The Free Press.
Lichterman, P. (1992). The search for political solidarity: Culture and commitment
in grassroots movements since the 1960’s. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Louis, M. L. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly,
25, 226-251.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency
1930-1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
90
McAdam, D. & Fernandez, R. (1990). Microstructural bases of recruitment to social
movements. In L. Kriesberg (Ed.), Research in social movements: Conflicts
and change: Vol. 12 (pp. 1-34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McCarthy, J. D. (1987). Pro-life and pro-choice mobilization: Infrastructure
deficits and new technologies. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.) Social
movements in an organizational society: Collected essays (pp. 48-66).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (1973/1987). The trend of social movements in
America: Professionalization and resource mobilization. In M. N. Zald &
J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society:
Collected essays (pp. 337-391). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social
movements: A partial theoiy. American Journal of Sociology, 82,
1212-1241.
McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (1987). Resource mobilization and social
movements: A partial theory. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social
movements in an organizational society: Collected essays (pp. 15-47).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
McMillan, P. (1992, August 17). Bacteria make a day at the beach no picnic.
The Los Angeles Times, pp. B l, B6.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4, 224-247.
Oaker, G. & Brown, R. (1986). Intergroup relations in a hospital setting: A further
test of social identity theory. Human Relations, 39, 767-778.
Oliver, P. & Furman, M. (1988). Contradictions between national and local
organizational strength: The case of the John Birch Society. In
B. Klandermans (Ed.), Organizing for change: Social movement
organizations in Europe and the United States, (pp. 155-178). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
91
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper &
Row.
Petronovich, L. F. & Hardyk, C. D. (1969). Error rates for multiple comparison
methods: Some evidence concerning the frequency of erroneous conclusions.
Psychological Bulletin, 71. 43-54.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishers Inc.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive
review of theory and research. Unpublished report of the Industrial
Communication Council, New York, NY.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.
Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of organizational culture. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, 414-437.
Rittner, D. (1992). Ecolinking: Everyone’s guide to online environmental
information. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, Inc.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rothschild-Whitt, J. (1979). The collectivist organization: An alternative to
rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review, 44, 509-527.
Rucinski, D. (1991). The centrality of reciprocity to communication and democracy.
Critical Studies and Mass Communication, 8 ., 184-194.
Sabato, L. J. (1981). The rise of political consultants: New wavs of winning
elections. New York: Basic Books.
Schall, M. A. (1983). A communication rales approach to organizational culture.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557-581.
Schein, E. J. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pubs.
Shils, E. (1962). The theory of mass society. Diogenes, 39, 45-66.
92
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. Jr. (1988). Nonparametrie statistics for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories of
influences on mass media content. New York: Longman.
Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Snow, D., Zurcher, L., & Ekland-Olson, S. (1980). Social networks and social
movements: A microstructural approach to differential recruitment.
American Sociological Review, (45), 777-801.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K. & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame
alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation.
American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
Tompkins, P. & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in
organizations. In R. McPhee and P. Tompkins, (Eds.) Organizational
communication: Traditional themes and new directions, (pp. 179-210),
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Topolosky, M. (1984). Common cause? Worldview, 17: 35-39.
Van der Veen, G. & Klandermans, B. "Exit" behavior in social movement
organizations. In B. Klandermans (Ed.), Organizing for change: Social
movement organizations in Europe and the United States, (pp. 155-178).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Warren, J. (February 12, 1992). Sewage spills, rain close 100 miles of
beach. The Los Angeles Times, pp. B l, B3.
Wilson, J. (1973). Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.
*
Wolfsfeld, G. & Gamson, W. (1992). Media and movements: A transactional
analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Communication Association, Miami, FL.
Yamell, L„ & Shaw, C. (February 19, 1992). Southland beaches off-limits
due to massive sewage spill. The Outlook, pp. A l, A6.
93
Appendix
HEAL THE BAY SURVEY
1. PEO PLE JO IN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS FO R A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOLLOW ING REASONS EXPLAIN W HY YOU JO IN ED HEAL THE BAY?
1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD) 2 = DISAGREE
(A) 3 = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE (NA)
4 = AGREE (A) 5 = STRONGLY AGREE (SA)
SD D NA A SA
a.To influence local governments to change their environmental
policies............................................................................................. 1 2
3 4 5
b.To socialize with other people who have the same concerns
and interests that I have................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
c.To help make the Santa Monica Bay cleaner for everyone
in Los Angeles................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
d.To help make the Santa Monica Bay cleaner for the fish and
wildlife living there......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
e.To meet other people who care about the Bay......................... 1 2 3 4 5
f.To become more informed about local environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5
g. To enforce laws and policies that improve the local
environment...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
i. To help change public behavior that threatens the local
environm ent...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
2. HO W LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A M EM BER OF HEAL TH E BAY?
PLEASE CH ECK THE ITEM THAT APPLIES TO YOU OR FILL IN THE
APPRO PRIATE NUMBER.
a. I am not currently a member q t a volunteer......................................... [ ]
b. I am not currently a member (but I am a volunteer)...........................
[ ]
c. I have been a member for LESS THAN 6 MONTHS.........................
[ ]
d. I have been a member for LESS THAN 1 YEAR................................
[ ]
e. I have been a member for. 1 YEAR OR LONGER— PLEASE INDICATE
THE EXACT NUMBER OF YEARS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN A MEMBER:
YEARS
3. BELOW IS A LIST OF HEAL THE BAY’S GOALS AS AN
ENVIRONM ENTAL ORGANIZATION. PLEASE RANK THESE 5 GOALS
FROM “ I ” TO “5” IN ORDER OF TH EIR IM PORTANCE, PLACING A “1”
BESIDE THE GOAL THAT YOU PERSONALLY CONSIDER TO BE
“MOST IM PORTANT”. A “2” BESIDE THE GOAL THAT IS 2ND IN
IM PORTANCE, A “3” BESIDE THE GOAL THAT IS 3RD IN
IM PORTANCE, A “4” BESIDE THE GOAL THAT IS 4TH IM PORTANCE,
AND A “5” BESIDE THE GOAL THAT IS 5TH IN IM PORTANCE.
RANKING
OF GOAL
a. Ensuring that government agencies enforce existing laws and
regulations that preserve the Bay............................................................. ...............
b. Testing the pollution levels of water near local beaches and
reporting these levels to the public.......................................................... ...............
c. Restoring and preserving the natural wetland habitats surrounding
the Santa Monica Bay.............................................................................. ...............
d. Forcing L.A.County Sanitation Districts to fully treat all sewage
before discharging it into the Bay.............................................................. ...............
e Reducing public pollution of city storm drains by informing and
educating the public about the problem.......................... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...
4. TH IN K ABOUT T H E GOAL THAT YOU RANKED AS NUMBER “ 1” OR
T H E “MOST IM PORTANT”. DO YOU THINK THAT MOST OTHER
PEO PLE AT HEAL THE BAY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS GOAL IS THE
“M OST IM PORTANT” ? PLEASE INDICATE YOUR OPINION BY
CIRCLING ONE NUMBER OPPOSITE EACH STATEM ENT, USING THE
FO LLOW ING SCALE.
1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD) 2 = DISAGREE (DA)
3 = N EITH ER AGREE NOR DISAGREE (NA)
4 = AGREE (A) 5 = STRONGLY AGREE (SA)
a.I think that most Heal the Bay members share my view
b.I think that most Heal the Bay members would have a
different opinion.....................................................................
c.I think that most Heal the Bay leaders share my view
d.I think that most Heal the Bay leaders would have a
SD D NA A SA
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
different opinion
2 3 4 5
95
5. BELOW IS A LIST DESCRIBING THE OBJECTIVES OF SOME
VOLUNTEER COM M ITTEES AT HEAL THE BAY. PLEASE RANK
THESE 7 OBJECTIVES. IN ORDER OF THEIR IM PORTANCE FROM “ 1”
TO “7” PLACING A “ 1” BESIDE THE OBJECTIVE YOU CONSIDER TO
BE “MOST IM PORT ANT”. A “2” BESIDE THE GOAL THAT IS 2ND IN
IM PORTANCE, ETC. UNTIL YOU HAVE RANKED ALL 7 OBJECTIVES.
RANKING O F
OBJECTIVE
a. Educating the public about ways to reduce the public pollution
of storm drains (STORM DRAIN TASK FORCE).............................. ...............
b. Recruiting new members to support Heal the Bay
(MEMBERSHIP OUTREACH COMMITTEE)..................................... ...............
c. Restoring the natural wetland habitats surrounding the Bay
(WETLANDS TASK FORCE)................................................................. ...............
d. Speaking to various groups about the natural systems of the Bay
and how to preserve them (SPEAKERS BUREAU) .........................................
e. Raising public awareness about pollution problems that threaten
South Bay beaches (SOUTH BAY CHAPTER)..................................... ...............
f. Defending Heal the Bay’s legal position on environmental issues
(LEGAL COMMITTEE)........................................................................... ...............
g. Training college students in environmental awareness and
participation (UCLA CHAPTER).......................................................... ...............
6. TH IN K ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE THAT YOU RANKED AS NUMBER
“1” OR TH E “MOST IM PORTANT”. DO YOU TH IN K THAT M OST
OTHER PEO PLE AT HEAL TH E BAY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS
O BJECTIV E IS THE “MOST IM PORTANT” ? INDICATE YOUR OPINION
BY CIRCLIN G ONE NUMBER USING THE FOLLOW ING SCALE.
1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD) 2 = DISAGREE (DA) 3 = NEITHER
AGREE NOR DISAGREE (NA) 4 = AGREE (A) 5 = STRONGLY AGREE
a.I think that most Heal the Bay members share my view
b.I think that most Heal the Bay members would have a
SD D NA A SA
1 2 3 4 5
different opinion............................ .................................
c.I think that most Heal the Bay leaders share my view
d.I think that most Heal the Bay leaders would have a
different opinion...............................................................
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
96
7. IN YOUR OPINION, HOW MUCH OPPORTUNITY IS TH ERE FOR
YOU TO HAVE A VOICE IN HEAL THE BAY’S AFFAIRS? PLEASE
CHECK ONE ANSWER.
[ ] A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF OPPORTUNITY
[ ] A FAIR AMOUNT OF OPPORTUNITY
[ ] SOME OPPORTUNITY
[ ] NO OPPORTUNITY
8. ARE M OST MEMBERS SATISFIED W ITH THE OPPORTUNITIES
PROVIDED TO THEM BY HEAL THE BAY TO HAVE A VOICE IN ITS
AFFAIRS? PLEASE CH ECK ONE ANSWER.
[ ] VERY SATISFIED
[ ] SATISFIED
[ ] NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED
[ ] DISSATISFIED
[ ] VERY DISSATISFIED
9. HOW MUCH ATTENTION DO YOU USUALLY PAY TO
INFORM ATION ABOUT HEAL THE BAY FROM THE FOLLOW ING
SOURCES? CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS USING THE
FOLLOW ING SCALE.
1 = NO ATTENTION 2 = A LITTLE ATTENTION
3 = SOM E ATTENTION 4 = A LOT OF ATTENTION
None Little Some A Lot
a.Heal the Bay’s general newsletter...................................
b.Heal the Bay's volunteer newsletter................................
c.The Los Angeles Times newspaper...... .............
d. Your local newspaper (i.e. The Outlook) ...............
e.Los Angeles television news programs..........................
f.Los Angeles radio news...................................... ........
g.Television public service announcements......................
h. Announcements, invitations, letters or other forms of
mail from Heal the Bay........................................................
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
97
10. THINK ABOUT THE LAST TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THE
FOLLOWING HEAL THE BAY PUBLICATIONS. HOW MUCH OF THAT
PUBLICATION DID YOU READ?
1 = READ NONE 2 = READ SOME 3 = READ MOST
4 = READ ALL OF IT NA = I DON’T RECEIVE IT
NONE SOME MOST ALL
a.Heal the Bay’s bi-monthly general newsletter 1 2 3 4 NA
b.Heal the Bay's volunteer newsletter Sea Stars 1 2 3 4 NA
11. DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. HOW OFTEN DID YOU
PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES RELATED
TO HEAL THE BAY? CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS USING
THE FOLLOWING SCALE.
1 = NEVER PARTICIPATED 2 = PARTICIPATED ONCE
3 = PARTICIPATED A FEW TIMES 4 = PARTICIPATED MANY TIMES
Never Once Few
M any
a. Attended a general membership meeting at
Dorothy Green’s house.................................................................. 1 2 3 4
b. Attended a Heal the Bay committee or Branch meeting 1 2 3 4
c.Helped out with some aspect of a Heal the Bay committee... 1 2 3 4
d. Attended a fundraising party or special fundraising event 1 2 3 4
e.Helped out with a fundraising party or special event............. 1 2 3 4
f.Helped recruit new members to Heal the Bay ............... 1 2 3 4
g.Wrote to a government representative about an issue of
concern to Heal the Bay................................................................. 1 2 3 4
h. Acted as a public speaker for Heal the B a y ................... 1 2 3 4
i.Helped out in Heal the Bay's main office.................................. 1 2 3 4
j .Purchased Heal the Bay products............................................... 1 2 3 4
k.Donated money to Heal the Bay 1 2 3 4
1 . Other (please specify)___________________________________________
98
12. DURING THE PAST 6 MONTHS. ABOUT HOW MANY TTMES DTD
YOU COMMUNICATE— EITHER TN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE—
ABOUT HEAL THE BAY MATTERS OF ALL KINDS? CIRCLE THE
NUMBER OF TIMES THAT YOU COMMUNICATED WITH THE
FOLLOWING PEOPLE.
Number of Times You Communicated
a.With Heal the Bay’s paid staff............ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
b.With Heal the Bay’s volunteer
leaders or chairpersons............................ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
c.With Heal the Bay’s directors............. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
d.With other Heal the Bay members or
volunteers................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
13. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR OPINION ON THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS ABOUT HEAL THE BAY USING THIS SCALE:
1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD) 2 = DISAGREE (A)
3 = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE (NA)
4 = AGREE (A) 5 = STRONGLY AGREE (SA)
SD D
NA
A SA
a.To be perfectly honest, I don’t care what Heal the Bay
says or does............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
b.What Heal the Bay stands for is very important to me... 1 2 3 4 5
c. I feel a sense of pride in supporting Heal the Bay.......... 1 2 3 4 5
d.It is important to me to maintain the values of
Heal the Bay........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
e. I feel indifferent about supporting Heal the Bay.............. 1 2 3 4 5
f. I feel a strong sense of belonging to Heal the Bay............ 1 2 3 4 5
g I don’t have much to say about what Heal the Bay does... 1 2 3 4 5
h.Without contributions like mine, Heal the Bay
could not carry out its programs............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
i Since other members are active, it doesn’t matter
whether I participate.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
j. I play an important part in Heal The Bay............................ 1 2 3 4 5
99
14. W HAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION THAT YOU HAVE
COM PLETED? PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER.
[ ] GRADE 8 OR LESS
[ ] SOME HIGH SCHOOL
[ ] HIGH-SCHOOL GRADUATE
[ ] 2-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE
[ ] SOME UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE TRAINING
[ ] UNIVERSITY OR 4-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE
[ ] SOME POST-GRADUATE TRAINING
[ ] POST-GRADUATE DEGREE
15. W HAT IS YOUR AGE?
[ ] LESS THAN 18 YEARS [ ] 41 to 44 YEARS
[ ] 18 TO 24 YEARS [ ] 45 to 50 YEARS
[ ] 25 TO 30 YEARS [ ] 51 to 54 YEARS
[ ] 31 TO 34 YEARS [ ] 55 to 60 YEARS
[ ] 35 TO 40 YEARS [ ] 61 YEARS OR MORE
16. W HAT IS YOUR GENDER? 1) FEMALE 2) MALE
17. W H ICH O F THESE CATEGORIES BEST
HOUSEHOLD INCOM E FO R 1992?
DESCRIBES YOUR TOTAL
$9,999 or less $70,000-79,999
$10,000-19,999 $80,000-89,999
$20,000-29,999 $90,000-99,999
$30,000-39,999 $100,000-149,000
$40,000-49,999 $150,000-199,000
$50,000-59,999 $200,000 or more
$60,000-69,999
1 0 0
18. HOW OFTEN DO YOU USUALLY GO TO THE BEACH DURING THE
SUMM ER MONTHS?
[ ] AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK
[ ] A FEW TIMES A MONTH
[ ] ABOUT ONCE A MONTH
[ ] NEVER
19. DO YOU FEEL THAT IT IS SAFE TO SW IM IN THE BAY?
[ ] ALWAYS
[ ] SOMETIMES
[ ] NEVER
20. DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER TH E AGE OF 18?
[ ] YES (IF YOU ANSWERED YES, CONTINUE TO QUESTION 21)
[ ] NO (IF YOU ANSWERED NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 23)
21. HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE? __________
W HAT ARE TH EIR AGES? _______ ____________
22. IF HEAL THE BAY OFFERED SOME ACTIVITIES THAT ALLOW
CHILDREN AND TH EIR FAM ILIES TO LEARN ABOUT THE NATURAL
COASTAL ENVIRONMENT W OULD YOUR FAMILY BE INTERESTED
IN PA RTICIPATING IN THOSE ACTIVITIES?
[ ] WE WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED
[ ] WE WOULD BE SOMEWHAT INTERESTED
[ ] WE WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED
1 0 1
23. ARE TH ERE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS THAT
YOU W OULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT HEAL THE BAY?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!!
Please return completed survey in attached stam ped envelope to:
M embership Survey
Heal the Bay
1640 5th Street
Santa M onica, CA
90401

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A dynamic reformulation of perceptions of inequity: Their organizational antecedents and outcomes

PDF

A structurational analysis of labor negotiations

PDF

Computers and political communication: Innovation in political campaign organizations

PDF

Communicative features of educational computer software

PDF

A system of participation and allocation preferences in organizations

PDF

Confirming media effects in voting behavior: A media dependency perspective

PDF

Communicating in organizations: The influence of context, job, task, and channel

PDF

Bringing social worlds together: Information systems as catalysts for new interactions in health care organizations

PDF

A structural equivalence and contingency theory perspective on media usage and communication performance: The case of voice messaging

PDF

Controlling myths of the new religious right: A narrative analysis of Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign

PDF

Avant-garde criticism: The criticism of exhaustion

PDF

A study on the content and determinants of close exchange relationships in channels of distribution

PDF

Employee Involvement, Prosocial Organizational Behavior, And Organization Performance

PDF

5-aza-2-deoxycytidine resistance and gene structure in mouse cells stripped of DNA methylation

PDF

Accommodation in small groups: Patterns and consequences of adjustments in group member communication style over time

PDF

Cooperative tactics theory

PDF

An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

PDF

A model of the witness communication process

PDF

Communicating via electronic mail: Patterns and predictors of use in organizations

PDF

A phenomenological inquiry into the experience of time pressure: The homeowner in foreclosure

Asset Metadata

Creator Collins-Jarvis, Lori Anne (author)

Core Title Communication, consensus and commitment in collective action organizations

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, industrial and labor relations,speech communication

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Rogers, Everett M. (committee chair), Eisenberg, Eric (committee member), Monge, Peter (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-727522

Unique identifier UC11345321

Identifier DP22484.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-727522 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22484.pdf

Dmrecord 727522

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Collins-Jarvis, Lori Anne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA