Significant research has investigated Jack Gibb’s model of defensive and supportive communication, but little has explored the influence of the type of talk -- defensive or supportive -- on perceptions of communication climate and the role that verbal aggressiveness may play in influencing both the types of talk and these perceptions. This thesis explored the relationship between defensive and supportive talk, verbal aggressiveness and communication climate using a mixed-method approach. Specifically, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale was used to group participants for a dyadic problem solving exercise which generated conversational data that was analyzed qualitatively. Then, the Communication Climate Inventory was used to measure participants’ perceptions of the communication climate that emerged in their problem-solving dyad. The findings highlight factors that may influence the perception of communication climate. Examples of supportive talk that builds positive communication climates and limits the effects of verbal aggressiveness and examples of defensive talk that leads to negative communication climates are provided. This research demonstrates that language has an influence on communication climate through the words that shape the complex ways people perceive and understand each other and, interestingly, that the negative impact of defensive communication overrides the positive impact of supportive communication on the emergent communication climate.

Significant research has investigated Jack Gibb’s model of defensive and supportive communication, but little has explored the influence of the type of talk -- defensive or supportive -- on perceptions of communication climate and the role that verbal aggressiveness may play in influencing both the types of talk and these perceptions. This thesis explored the relationship between defensive and supportive talk, verbal aggressiveness and communication climate using a mixed-method approach. Specifically, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale was used to group participants for a dyadic problem solving exercise which generated conversational data that was analyzed qualitatively. Then, the Communication Climate Inventory was used to measure participants’ perceptions of the communication climate that emerged in their problem-solving dyad. The findings highlight factors that may influence the perception of communication climate. Examples of supportive talk that builds positive communication climates and limits the effects of verbal aggressiveness and examples of defensive talk that leads to negative communication climates are provided. This research demonstrates that language has an influence on communication climate through the words that shape the complex ways people perceive and understand each other and, interestingly, that the negative impact of defensive communication overrides the positive impact of supportive communication on the emergent communication climate.

Significant research has investigated Jack Gibb’s model of defensive and supportive communication, but little has explored the influence of the type of talk -- defensive or supportive -- on perceptions of communication climate and the role that verbal aggressiveness may play in influencing both the types of talk and these perceptions. This thesis explored the relationship between defensive and supportive talk, verbal aggressiveness and communication climate using a mixed-method approach. Specifically, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale was used to group participants for a dyadic problem solving exercise which generated conversational data that was analyzed qualitatively. Then, the Communication Climate Inventory was used to measure participants’ perceptions of the communication climate that emerged in their problem-solving dyad. The findings highlight factors that may influence the perception of communication climate. Examples of supportive talk that builds positive communication climates and limits the effects of verbal aggressiveness and examples of defensive talk that leads to negative communication climates are provided. This research demonstrates that language has an influence on communication climate through the words that shape the complex ways people perceive and understand each other and, interestingly, that the negative impact of defensive communication overrides the positive impact of supportive communication on the emergent communication climate.

Missing from extant social support literature is a measure of what support providers say to other individuals with problems. To address this void, a two-stage study focused on the messages of potential support providers and how recipients perceived those messages as Helpful, Comforting, and Appropriate. Responses elicited from subjects (n=587) in Stage I were coded according to content (emotional, cognitive, emotional/cognitive) and given to Stage 2 subjects (n=433) for assessment. The results indicate that supporters and recipients react discriminately according to relationship, problem type, and sex. The Measure of Supportive Communication developed in this study demonstrated better than adequate reliability.

Significant research has investigated Jack Gibb’s model of defensive and supportive communication, but little has explored the influence of the type of talk -- defensive or supportive -- on perceptions of communication climate and the role that verbal aggressiveness may play in influencing both the types of talk and these perceptions. This thesis explored the relationship between defensive and supportive talk, verbal aggressiveness and communication climate using a mixed-method approach. Specifically, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale was used to group participants for a dyadic problem solving exercise which generated conversational data that was analyzed qualitatively. Then, the Communication Climate Inventory was used to measure participants’ perceptions of the communication climate that emerged in their problem-solving dyad. The findings highlight factors that may influence the perception of communication climate. Examples of supportive talk that builds positive communication climates and limits the effects of verbal aggressiveness and examples of defensive talk that leads to negative communication climates are provided. This research demonstrates that language has an influence on communication climate through the words that shape the complex ways people perceive and understand each other and, interestingly, that the negative impact of defensive communication overrides the positive impact of supportive communication on the emergent communication climate.

No description available.

No description available.

Bakalauro baigiamajame darbe atliekamas vadovo bendravimo su pavaldiniais vertinimas paslaugų sektoriuose (Šiaulių miesto valyklose, viešbučiuose, Šiaulių ir Norvegijos skalbyklose). Klausimynas, pagal kurį atlikta darbuotojų apklausa tiriamų paslaugų sektorių įmonėse, parengtas remianti vadybinės literatūros autorių (Jasinavičius, Sokol, 2005; Kasiulis, Barvydienė, 2005; Baršauskienė, Janulevičiūtė, 1999) išskirtomis asmeninėmis vadovo savybėmis, originaliu Costigan ir Schmeidler sudarytu bendravimo klimato (CCI) klausimynu bei lietuvių autorių (Bakanauskienė, Petkevičiūtė, 2003; Misevičius, Urbonienė, 2006) išskirtais bendravimo trukdžiais. Apklausoje dalyvavo 181 respondentų (63 – viešbučių darbuotojų, 65 – valyklos, 26 – Šiaulių skalbyklos, 27 – Norvegijos skalbyklos). Tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad visuose paslaugų sektoriuose išryškėjo trys darbuotojams imponuojančios vadovo asmeninės savybės: santykių šiltumas, nuoširdumas, empatija. Tiriamose paslaugų sferose dominuoja palaikantis bendravimo klimatas, tačiau yra ir gynybinio bendravimo klimato apraiškų. Palaikantį bendravimo klimatą labiausiai stiprina tokie veiksniai kaip „problemų įvardinimas darbuotojams“, „vadovo pagarbus elgesys su pavaldiniais“ ir „vadovo aiškus ir objektyvus situacijos apibūdinimas“. Tuo tarpu gynybinio bendravimo klimato raišką labiausiai stiprina „vadovo asmeninės pozicijos pabrėžimas“ ir per didelis „vadovo asmeninės atsakomybės prisiėmimas už darbo rezultatus“. Tiriamuose paslaugų sektoriuose... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The aim of the paper is to compare supervisor - employee communication patterns in a different type of service providing organizations (laundries, hotels in Šiauliai, Šiauliai washhouse, Norway washhouse). Framework of this study is the personal supervisor characteristics, offered by managerial literature authors (Jasinavičius, Sokol, 2005; Kasiulis, Barvydienė, 2005; Baršauskienė, Janulevičiūtė, 1999) original communication climate inventory (CCI) operationalized by J. I. Costigan and M. A. Schmeidler (1984) and communication barriers, offered by lithuanian authors (Bakanauskienė, Petkevičiūtė, 2003; Misevičius, Urbonienė, 2006). There were 181 respondents involved in this survey (63 - employees from Šiauliai hotels, 65 - employees from Šiauliai laundries, 26 - employees from Šiauliai washhouse, 27 - employees from Norway washhouse). The final results of the survey were grouped and interpreted as well as conclusions made. While carrying out the survey it was found out that sincerity, empathy, warm relationships are the most important personal supervisor characteristics. The results showed that supportive communication climate dominates in all service sectors, but there are some manifestations of the defensive communication climates as well. The most important factors of the supportive climate dominance in the organizations are that supervisors define clearly problems, treat with their employees with respect and characterize situation clearly and objective. The most important... [to full text]

No description available.

No description available.