Research paper submitted

Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE NAZARENE CHURCH 1
Effectiveness of Communication in the Nazarene Church
Kayla Moutvic
Olivet Nazarene University

EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION IN THE NAZARENE CHURCH 2
Abstract
The goal of this study was to measure how effectively leaders communicate their goals
throughout the Nazarene denomination, mainly at the local church level. The author constructed
a survey for Nazarene church leaders and congregation members which would measure
satisfaction with communication and goals. It was hypothesized that those in the congregation
would feel not satisfied with the amount of communication they are receiving from those in
leadership positions. Results indicated congregation members were satisfied with communication
and acknowledged goals. However, leaders were not as familiar with those in lower roles in the
church.

Introduction
Downward communication is when information is passed down from superiors to
subordinates. Most downward communication involves those in higher positions making
decisions which are then communicated to lower levels. Upward communication involves
messages from lower positions conveyed to upper levels (Riggio, 2008). Research has shown
that, though most communication is downward, there is a lack of information being
communicated. This may occur because superiors overestimate the frequency and amount of
information that is communicated (Likert, 1961). In order for a leader to communicate
effectively they need to communicate with clarity, accuracy and coherence (Spitzberg, 1998). As
a leader, it is important that communication is perceived by those in lower positions to be
effective in order to satisfy expectations. When communication is deficient, it affects the goals
and outcomes in the organization. Expanding beyond organizations, it is important to address if a
lack communication affects goals and outcomes in the church.
Communication and Goals
When there is a lack of communication, there is a lack of shared values and expectations
since communication facilitates goals. Leaders and members are more complaint to work with
one another when they share similar values. There is a greater sense of affiliation when sharing
beliefs and attitudes with others (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In a study by Gibson, Cooper and Conger
(2009), they noted that leaders and subordinates reciprocally influence the other but it is
necessary for a leader and team to have an awareness of the other’s perspective. When leaders
and subordinates do have similar opinions about communication, it enables them to make better
use of the information obtained through feedback. In contrast, a disagreement of information

received diverts interpretations of the same information. In sum, their research suggests that the
more aligned the leaders and subordinates were, the better the subordinates responded to the
leaders (2009). Their study highlights the importance of communication to goal attainment.
When leaders and members are striving for the same values and goals, there is a greater
identification in each other’s roles and it helps them to work towards the same thing. An
additional study explains how leadership development occurs with self-identification which leads
to effective communication. This enables pastors to become more adaptive to congregants
(Sosik, Zhu, & Blair, 2009).
Transfer of Communication
One aspect that I wanted to pursue further was not just communication itself but how it is
administered and received. Street, Wiemann and Mulac (1998) used 40 naturally occurring
conversations to see whether the evaluator’s perspective (participant or observer) impacted
satisfaction and competence. If the message was received by an observer it was given through
audiovisual, audio-solely or only visual formats. The results indicated that participants rated
conversational partners most favorably and solely-visual as the least favorable. Consistent with
this, in our churches it may be a worthwhile question to ask, “How much information are we
transmitting visually versus audibly?”
Other research suggests that dominant behavior is an ineffective way to communicate.
Driskell and Salas (2005) found that even when leaders think they are effectively
communicating, subordinates had lower evaluations for the content of the message. Even though
there is communication, it is not always transferred in the most appropriate manner. Each
position may feel disconnected in the relationship if they feel opposition from the other.

Similarly, Hollander and Offerman (1990) mentioned that effective communication comes from
reciprocity and the potential for collaborative influence. Another study examined how managers
and their subordinates perceive the nature of communication with each other. They answered a
questionnaire asking about the frequency and quality of communication perceived and
dominance of managers. Managers did not differ in their perceptions that they communicated
more often and more clearly than subordinates. They found that female subordinates who had
male or female superiors felt that their opinions were not recognized and had fewer opportunities
to give their views (Callan, 1993). This study inspired me to examine leader effectiveness in
communicating and opportunities that congregation members have to provide feedback.
Upward Communication
Communication can be effectively responded to if both positions are able to provide input
in terms of upward and downward communication. A study was constructed to measure if
superior communication did make an impact on job satisfaction and performance. A field study
was used on 327 participants and results indicated that satisfaction with superior communication
and opportunities for personal feedback were strongly related to job satisfaction and
performance. The study was able to confirm the importance of superior-subordinate
communication relationship (Pincus, 1986). A similar study (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995)
indicated that follower ratings of student leaders in a naval academy improved after leaders
received upward feedback. Leaders that received negative feedback (follower ratings were
substantially below self-ratings) improved the most. Wielkiewicz and Stelzner (2005) explored
the idea that organizations are dependent on the flow of information. When leaders reinforce this
perspective, it enhances their influence over subordinates to adopt their goals for the
organization. Ignoring subordinate feedback can negatively affect the organization but one that

responds to relevant feedback will be most adaptive to the community. When an organization is
declining, they will become more rigid in their procedures and decrease communication and
meetings throughout the organization. Upward communication allows for greater opportunities
to communicate, leading to higher satisfaction levels.
It was important to look at not just positive information being received but negative
feedback as well. This led me to investigate further how leaders and members respond to
different types of feedback (positive or negative) in my survey. In one study, 252 managers were
administered upward feedback evaluations over the course of five years. Initially managers were
rated poorly. Results showed that managers who met with direct reports to discuss their upward
feedback improved more than others. There was also significant improvement when they
discussed feedback from the year prior than those who did not. It again demonstrates the benefits
of upward feedback (Walker, Smither, 1999). Ashford and Tsui (1991) conducted a field study
including 387 managers observed by their superiors, subordinates and peers. Results indicated
that when managers seek negative feedback, it can enhance their self-awareness. This allows
them to better self-regulate their behavior. Seeking positive feedback, however, decreased
subordinates opinions of manager’s effectiveness. Even though it may be difficult to hear
unpleasant remarks as a leader, satisfaction can be improved when problems are addressed
appropriately.
Communication and Goals in the Church
Since a majority of the previous studies were conducted in the workforce, I wanted to
narrow my literature review to an area more closely aligned with my research questions. The
purpose of the next study was to examine the relationship of the Nazarene Church and their

church- college relationship. The study used an internet survey and it was distributed to general
church leaders, district superintendents, local church pastors and those in college/university
careers. Results showed that there was a lack of acknowledgement of the institutional mission to
the church (Mountain, 2009). This is important to my study because Nazarene colleges and
universities did not think they knew that mission and values of the church, highlighting a
potential lack of communication between these important roles.
The purpose of the current research study was to measure the effectiveness of
communication in the Nazarene church from church leaders to the congregants. I wanted to
know if congregants were satisfied with the communication they were receiving and the
acknowledgment of goals from church leaders. Other studies examined the communication in the
workforce, but I sought to identify communication in the church. Specifically, my first
hypothesis is that congregants would feel not satisfied with the communication that they were
receiving. Additionally, I predicted leaders will think they effectively communicate. My third
hypothesis is that congregants would be unfamiliar with the goals established by the leaders. My
fourth hypothesis is that leaders would think they are effectively communicating goals to the
congregants. The final hypothesis is that there would be a correlation between satisfaction with
communication and satisfaction with goals for both leaders and congregation members.
Method
Participants
There were a total of 281 participants consisting of 228 congregants and 53 leaders.
Participants were notified about the survey via their local pastors or Nazarene related pages on
Facebook. Participants recruited for this study were congregation members, local pastors,

District Superintendents and General Superintendents. Fourteen congregant and seven leadership
responses were not included due to survey incompletion or incorrect survey completion. The
member’s responses represented four countries and thirty-four different states. A majority of the
member responses were from Kansas, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Fifty-four male members and
173 female members responded along with one missing response. The members mean age was
50.90 years (SD = 15.04) and mean years in role was 32.59 (SD = 88.75).
Forty male and 13 female leaders represented four countries and eighteen different states.
A majority of the leader responses were from Indiana and Illinois. There were 52 pastors and 1
District Superintendent that responded. The leaders mean age was 49.17 years (SD = 12.79) and
mean years in role was 14.06 (SD = 14.41).
Materials
Two separate surveys consisting of similar questions were developed for this study, one
for congregation members and one for leaders (pastors, District Superintendents and General
Superintendents). Twenty-five questions on the member’s survey asked about satisfaction in
regards to leadership communication and knowledge of goals (Appendix A). Of the 25 questions,
18 questions addressed communication and seven questions addressed goals using a five point
Likert scale. Of the 18 questions that addressed communication, four questions were open ended.
Some of the questions were newly developed and others were based off of prior research such as
Katz and Kahn (1966), Callan (1993), Mountain (2009) and a Communication Competence scale
by Wiemann (1977). Twenty-six questions on the leader’s survey asked about satisfaction in
regards to communication and addressing goals (Appendix B). Of the 26 questions, 19 questions
addressed communication and seven questions addressed goals using a five point Likert scale. Of

the 19 questions that addressed communication, five questions were open ended. Some of the
questions were newly developed and some of the questions were based off of previous research
such as Katz and Kahn (1966), Callan (1993), Mountain (2009) and Communication Satisfaction
Questionnaire by Downs and Hazen (1977). At the end of each survey, five demographic
questions were included.
Procedure
The survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey, Facebook, and email to willing adult
participants who were a part of the Nazarene church. Before beginning the survey, informed
consent was obtained from each of the participants. There were two different links provided and
there was a description above the links describing the criteria so participants knew which survey
to take. The description stated: “The first link is intended for church members and the second
link is intended for pastors, District Superintendents and General Superintendents.” Again,
leaders answered twenty-six questions measuring their effectiveness at communicating to church
members and their ability to communicate goals. The congregants answered twenty-five
questions measuring their satisfaction of their leader’s communication and their acknowledgment
of goals received from leaders.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
As can be seen in Table 1, that the majority of congregants reported being familiar with
their DS (question 1). In addition, congregants reported being actively involved in their church
(question 14). Congregation members also rated highly their ability to communicate with their
pastors (question 3). Last, responses indicated that congregant members feel that goals are

adapting through the years (question 21) and that they recognize the goals of the church
(question 22). Members also rated highly their agreement with the goals and values of their
church (question 19). In regards to communication from the pastor (question 9) and District
Superintendent (question 10), respondents rated low their desire for increased communication.
Responses from leaders are available in Table 2. Leaders agreed that they were actively
involved with lower levels (question 1). Leaders disagreed that communication between local
pastors (question 7) and district superintendents was good (question 8). Leaders agreed that they
encourage those below them to reach their goals (question 15). Responses to question 19 indicate
that leaders do not typically set goals according to what those below them desire. Question 18
shows that as a leader, they agreed that they are familiar with the goals of the church.
Comparing between Congregants and Leaders
Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found with respect to
upward communication, t(291) = 5.58, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with the
statement, “If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor” (M = 4.71, SD =
.68) than leaders were to the statement, “There are opportunities available for those below me to
express their ideas” (M = 4.15, SD = .79). Significant differences between congregants and
leaders were found in regards to transferring communication, t(291) = 3.64, p < .001.
Congregants were more likely to agree with the statement “I interpret feelings and attitudes of
my pastor through behavior over words” (M = 3.78, SD = .84) than leaders were to the statement,
“I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over words” (M = 3.21, SD = .95).
Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found with respect to goals of the
church, t(291) = 6.13, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with the statement, “I
agree with the goals and values of my church” (M = 4.37, SD = .84) than leaders were to the

statement, “Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established” (M = 3.47, SD =
.61). Significant differences between congregants and leaders were found in regards to goal
agreement, t(291) = 5.61, p < .001. Congregants were more likely to agree with that statement,
“The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the congregation” (M = 3.85,
SD = .99) than leaders would to the statement, “I set goals according to what those below me
desire” (M = 2.79, SD = .91). Significant differences between congregants and leaders were
found with respect to upward communication, t(291) = 2.85, p = .005. Congregants were more
likely to agree with the statement, “The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a
church leader” (M = 3.77, SD = 1.06) than leaders were to the statement, “Subordinates feel
responsible for initiating accurate upward communication” (M = 3.15, SD = .89).
Correlational Analyses
For members, there was a significant negative correlation between questions 5 (I am
satisfied with the leadership in my church) and 9 (I would like to hear more from my pastor)
r(226) = -.29, p < .001. There was a significant positive correlation between question 22 (I am
familiar with the goals and values of my church) and 5 (I am satisfied with the leadership in my
church) r(226) = .38, p < .001. There was a significant positive correlation between question 19
(I agree with the goals and values of my church) and 24 (The goals and values of the church are
aligned with the pastor and the congregation) r(226) = .49, p < .001.
Open Ended Responses
When asked “Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the church?”
congregants had a variety of responses. They noted that fellowship (12), Bible study (16), prayer
meetings (7) and potlucks (8) would allow them to connect with leaders. When receiving
information they included Facebook (6), email (9), newsletters (7) and board meetings (18).

When asked “Which methods are most effective for communication?” members also recognized
emails (88), bulletins (31), announcements (12), social media (17), and one on one conversation
(43) as effective methods for communication. Responding to “Which role is most effective at
communicating?” members recognized that their pastor (212) was more effective at
communicating then District Superintendents (11) or General Superintendents (5).
When asked “Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the church?”
leaders had a range of responses. They stated that the church fellowship (12), church services (6),
emails (4), bible study (3) and activities outside of church such as going for coffee (2) or lunch
(3) would allow them to connect best with others. Expanding out of the local church, community
events (3) would increase communication between zone leaders by working with local churches
as well as having district activities and attending District and General Conferences (4). When
asked, “Which methods are most effective for communication?” leaders stated texting (11),
email (17), Facebook (11) and one on one (13) conversations as effective methods for
communicating. When asked, “Which role is most effective at communicating?” leaders stated
the pastor (42) was most effective at communicating to church members. Ten responded that it
was the DS, and the one that said the GS was most effective for communicating to church
members.
Discussion
Looking at the means from the member’s survey explains a lot about satisfaction with
communication and goals. Members are familiar with their DS. This is good, since it is important
that they know the source of communication received by themselves and their pastors (question
1). Members also indicated feeling involved in their local church, enabling members a greater

sense of affiliation and probably more opportunities to give and receive communication
(question 14). Since members feel as though they can communicate with their pastor, upward
communication is facilitated (question 3). By noticing the changing goals this indicates that they
feel the goals are adapting through the years (question 21). When members are able to recognize
goal change it corresponds to their overall goal acknowledgement (question 22). Since members
agree with the goals this shows their satisfaction with the established goals (question 19). Since
members do not have the desire for increased communication from pastors or DS’s, it appears
they are satisfied with the amount of communication from their leaders.
Looking at the means from the leader’s survey also explains a lot about satisfaction with
communication and goals. Leaders feel actively involved with lower positions. It can be
perceived then they feel connected with members or lower church roles (question 1). Leaders
however think that there is a lack of communication between the other leaders (question 7 & 8).
Leaders believe that they encourage those in lower positions to reach goals (question 15)
indicating the acknowledgment of goals and communication to those in lower roles. Leaders do
feel as though they are familiar with goals of members indicating upward communication
(question 18). Leaders also feel that they do not set goals according to what the congregation
desires (question 19). This could be attributed to setting goals beyond member’s expectations to
strengthen the church positively. This also could represent a disconnection between goals that
congregants have and the goals their pastors have.
Congregants were more likely to agree with questions regarding satisfaction of
communication received and acknowledgement of goals than leaders. Members thought they had
more opportunities for upward communication than leaders thought for downward. Members
recognized their ability to receive nonverbal communication more than leaders recognized how

they communicate nonverbally. Members agreed with the goals that were established more than
leaders knew of their satisfaction. Last, members recognized their ability to communicate more
than leaders recognized abilities for members to communicate.
Correlation analyses indicated that satisfaction in leadership is positively linked to
satisfaction with communication. Additionally, another correlation indicated that when
congregants are familiar with goals then they are satisfied with the leaders implementing these
goals. The last correlation that was found suggested that there was a positive relationship
between satisfaction of goals and goal alignment between congregants and pastors.
Congregants were open to a wide variety of methods that allows them to connect with
leaders. When expanding on methods that would increase communication, many were previously
addressed suggesting their communication needs were met. Leaders were also open to a plethora
of methods to better connect with those in lower positions. Some congregant and leader answers
overlapped indicating a mutual agreement on the communication methods that satisfied both
positions such as email, Facebook, and one on ones. At the local church level, face to face
conversations are effective but from the district level electronically may be the most effective.
By members and leaders indicating the pastor as more effective at communicating than DSs or
GSs, it provides insight as to what role is more important for both downward and upward
communication and goal satisfaction.
Limitations
A limitation of the study includes not using developed scales as a measurement of
communication satisfaction. Most of the analyses were done at the question level. While this
provides a good description into the investigation of this topic, using validated communication

and satisfaction scales is expected to help further our understanding of these topics. In addition,
those who took the survey may not represent the larger Nazarene denomination due to selective
distribution of surveys by pastors. The survey could have been completed by those who were
satisfied with their communication or pastors not distributing it if there was already
dissatisfaction in communication. Also, the study only reflected those in the Nazarene
denomination and may not be representative of other denominations. If I was to conduct
additional research, I would use research scales that have already been developed. I would also
expand the survey to more Nazarene congregants and leaders and to those outside of the
Nazarene denomination. Additional research should include the church context due to lack of
research done in this area.

References
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of
active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251. doi:
10.2307/256442
Atwater L., Roush P., Fischthal A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self-and
follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 34-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1995.tb01745.x
Callan, V. J. (1993), Subordinate–manager communication in different sex dyads: Consequences
for job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 13–27.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993.tb00513.x
Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-73.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2005). The effect of content and demeanor on reactions to dominance
behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(1), 3-14.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.3
Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex
effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(1), 62-76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013073
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:
Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179
Katz, D., Kahn, R. (1966).The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, Wiley.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill
McCroskey, J., Johnson, A., & Richmond, V. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy
scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication
Quarterly, 51(4), 504. doi: 10.1080/01463370309370170
McPhee, R. D., & Corman, S. R. (1995). An activity-based theory of communication networks in
organizations, applied to the case of a local church. Communication Monographs
[H.W.Wilson - EDUC], 62, 132. doi: 10.1080/03637759509376353
Mountain, M. C. (2009). The church of the Nazarene: A denomination and its colleges: A mixed
methods study (Order No. 3379729). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Full Text. (304947648).

Pincus, J. D. (1986), Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12: 395–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00084.x
Riggio, R. (2008). Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.
Sosik, J. J., Zhu, W., & Blair, A. L. (2011). Felt authenticity and demonstrating transformational
leadership in faith communities. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(3),
179-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032646
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C.
H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and
instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 67-
105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Street, R. L., Wiemann, J. M. and Mulac, A. (1988), Speech evaluation differences as a function
of perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and presentational medium. Human
Communication Research, 14: 333–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00160.x
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers
do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393-423. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1999
Wielkiewicz, R. M., & Stelzner, S. P. (2005). An ecological perspective on leadership theory,
research, and practice. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 326-341. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.326
Wiemann; J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human
Communication Research, 3, 195-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00518.x

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of survey items completed by congregants in order to measure
satisfaction of communication and acknowledgement of goals.
Question/Statement Mean SD
1. I know who my district superintendent is 4.47 1.02
2. I know who my general superintendent is 3.60 1.33
3. If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor 4.72 .68
4. I am more critical of a church pastor who starts a goal and does not
complete it than I am of a pastor who does not even attempt a goal
2.68 1.06
5. I am satisfied with the leadership in my church 3.88 1.16
6. I am satisfied with the district superintendents who are elected 3.81 1.01
7. I am satisfied with my elected general superintendent 3.77 .88
8. The local pastor has effectively implemented new ideas and
communication methods
3.94 1.14
9. I would like to hear more from my pastor 3.31 .96
10. I would like to hear more from my district superintendent 3.43 1.01
11. I would like to hear more from my general superintendent 3.49 .99
12. My local pastor would address any negative feedback in an appropriate
manner
3.97 1.10
13. I interpret feelings and attitudes of my pastor through behavior over
words
3.78 .84
14. I am actively involved in my church 4.48 .73
15. Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the
church?
16. Which methods are most effective for communication?
17. Who do you receive most of your church related communication from?
18. Which role is most effective at communicating?
19. I agree with the goals and values of my church 4.37 .84
20. My church effectively reaches its goals 3.71 .93
21. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant 2.48 1.09
22. I am familiar with the goals and values of my church 4.21 .77
23. My church is always successful meeting their goals 3.11 .97
24. The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the
congregation
3.85 .99
25. The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a church
leader
3.77 1.06
Note: SD = standard deviation. Also, the Likert scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree). Last, questions 15 – 18 were open-ended.

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of survey items completed by leaders in order to measure
satisfaction of communication and goals.
Question/Statement Mean SD
1. I am actively involved with those in lower positions 4.32 .85
2. I always address negative feedback in an appropriate manner 3.75 .70
3. I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over
words
3.21 .95
4. I effectively communicate the goals and missions of the church 4.02 .60
5. I am kept well informed about what other church leaders are doing 3.19 .98
6. There are opportunities available for those below me to express
their ideas
4.04 .76
7. There is good communication among the local pastors 2.92 1.17
8. There is good communication among the district superintendents 2.92 .76
9. I am satisfied with the communication at my level 3.25 .98
10. Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the
church?
11. Which methods are most effective for communication?
12. Who do you receive most of your church communication from?
13. Which role is most effective at communicating?
14. How would you change the communication in your role to make
you more satisfied?
15. I encourage those I watch over to reach their prospective goals 4.17 .55
16. I am effective in achieving prospective goals 3.83 .70
17. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant 2.81 .94
18. I am familiar with the goals and values of the church 4.28 .63
19. I set goals according to what those below me desire 2.79 .91
20. I am satisfied with the goals that are currently established 3.26 .90
21. Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established 3.47 .61
22. Those below me are responsive to downward directive
communication
3.42 .95
23. Subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions and criticism 3.30 .93
24. Subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate upward
communication
3.15 .89
25. I receive feedback from those below me in a timely manner 3.42 1.03
26. I receive feedback from those above me in a timely manner 3.02 1.15
Note: SD = standard deviation. Also, the Likert scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree). Last, questions 10 – 14 were open-ended.

Appendix A
This survey was completed by members in order to measure satisfaction of communication and
goals.
1. I know who my district superintendent is
2. I know who my general superintendent is
3. If I wanted to, I know I could communicate with my local pastor
4. I am more critical of a church pastor who starts a goal and does not complete it than I am of a
pastor who does not even attempt a goal
5. I am satisfied with the leadership in my church
6. I am satisfied with the district superintendents who are elected
7. I am satisfied with my elected general superintendent
8. The local pastor has effectively implemented new ideas and communication methods
9. I would like to hear more from my pastor
10. I would like to hear more from my district superintendent
11. I would like to hear more from my general superintendent
12. My local pastor would address any negative feedback in an appropriate manner
13. I interpret feelings and attitudes of my pastor through behavior over words
14. I am actively involved in my church
*15. Which activities would allow you to connect with leaders in the church?
*16. Which methods are most effective for communication?
*17. Who do you receive most of your church related communication from?
*18. Which role is most effective at communicating?
19. I agree with the goals and values of my church
20. My church effectively reaches its goals
21. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant
22. I am familiar with the goals and values of my church

23. My church is always successful meeting their goals
24. The goals and values of the church are aligned with the pastor and the congregation
25. The congregation is able to communicate desired goals to a church leader
26. Gender
27. Age
28. Location of Church
29. Role in Ministry
30. Years in position
*Questions are open ended

Appendix B
This survey was completed by leaders in order to measure satisfaction of communication and
goals.
1. I am actively involved with those in lower positions
2. I always address negative feedback in an appropriate manner
3. I convey feelings and attitudes to others through behavior over words
4. I effectively communicate the goals and missions of the church
5. I am kept well informed about what other church leaders are doing
6. There are opportunities available for those below me to express their ideas
7. There is good communication among the local pastors
8. There is good communication among the district superintendents
9. I am satisfied with the communication at my level
*10. Which activities would allow you to connect with those in the church?
*11. Which methods are most effective for communication?
*12. Who do you receive most of your church communication from?
*13. Which role is most effective at communicating?
*14. How would you change the communication in your role to make you more satisfied?
15. I encourage those I watch over to reach their prospective goals
16. I am effective in achieving prospective goals
17. The goals and values of the church have remained stagnant
18. I am familiar with the goals and values of the church
19. I set goals according to what those below me desire
20. I am satisfied with the goals that are currently established
21. Those below me are satisfied with the goals that are established

22. Those below me are responsive to downward directive communication
23. Subordinates are receptive to evaluation, suggestions and criticism
24. Subordinates feel responsible for initiating accurate upward communication
25. I receive feedback from those below me in a timely manner
26. I receive feedback from those above me in a timely manner
27. Gender
28. Age
29. Location of Church
30. Role in Ministry
31. Years in position
*Questions are open ended

Research paper submitted

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Research paper submitted

Semelhante a Research paper submitted (20)

Research paper submitted