Running head: COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES...

Running head: COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES IN MILLS

Communication and Leadership Styles Utilized by Mill Managers Compared to

Front Line Leaders

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Dr. Michael Hazel

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Andrea McCracken

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Ashley Meaghan Moore

May 2016

COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES IN MILLS


ABSTRACT

Paper mills can be a dangerous place to work; therefore, effective leadership by the mill manager

and front line leaders are crucial to the safety of their employees. Leaders within all mills

encompass many methods of leading and communicating with their teams. However, research on

the consistency in these methods across the two levels of leaders is lacking. To help fill the gap,

the author engaged in a case study and collected data through an online survey and guided

interviews to examine their personal experiences with their leadership and communication styles

within the mill environment with Mead’s (1934) Symbolic Interactionism Theory used as a

framework for this study. The results suggest that mill managers and front line leaders believe

they each utilize different methods of leadership and communication to lead their subordinates

and team members. Those leadership methods range from authoritative leadership to leading by

example. Similarly, communication methods used range from habitual interpersonal

communication to situational interpersonal communication. The findings of this study will help

guide future research on the leadership styles of mill managers and front line leaders within a

paper mill. The research presented in this thesis will also contribute to the general field of

research pertaining to leadership.

Key Terms: Front line leader, mill manager, mill environment, paper mill, leadership

style, communication style


Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1

Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Importance of the Study .............................................................................................2

Statement of Purpose .................................................................................................3

Definition of Terms Used ..........................................................................................3

Organization of Remaining Chapters.........................................................................4

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................................5

Philosophical and Ethical Assumptions .....................................................................5

Theoretical Basis ........................................................................................................5

Literature Review.......................................................................................................6

Rationale ....................................................................................................................12

Research Questions ....................................................................................................12

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................14

Scope of the Study .....................................................................................................14

Methodology ..............................................................................................................14

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................15

Validity/Reliability ....................................................................................................16

Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................................16

CHAPTER IV: THE STUDY ................................................................................................18

Introduction ................................................................................................................18

Results of the Study ...................................................................................................18

Discussion ..................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER V: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................27

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................27

Recommendations for Further Study .........................................................................27

Conclusions ................................................................................................................28

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................29

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................32

COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES IN MILLS 1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Within a paper mill, there are multiple tiers of management, and within each tier, there

exist many different communication and leadership styles. The communication style and

leadership skills of a mill manager, the senior manager, are much different than the skills of a

front line leader, also known as a first-level supervisor. Mill managers are typically more

seasoned papermakers. They have been in the industry for many decades and have accrued a

multitude of successful and unsuccessful job experiences. Generally, an employee’s quality of

work improves when given the chance to fail, since failure hones ability and expands knowledge

and experience (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Front line leaders are the individuals who “fight fires” throughout the day. Their

responsibilities are to manage their crews, administer their portion of the papermaking process,

and rectify equipment errors as they arise. This role is fast-paced and priorities can change by the

minute. The front line leader can often be faced with relentless and conflicting demands on their

time and must contend with a constant stream of requests, problems, inquiries, and reports from

the many different people who interact with these leaders (Yukl, 2013). Yukl (2013) stated that

the decisions and actions of leaders are often limited by many internal and external constraints,

such as policies, rules, standard procedures, budgetary requirements, and labor laws.

Mill managers are responsible for managing the people, process, results, and business of

their facility. Without the support of their department heads, this role would be a daunting task.

Leaders can shape, alter, and elevate the motives, values and goals of followers through the vital

teaching role of leadership (Burns, 1978). Leadership demands that, whatever disparate or even

conflicting interests individuals might hold, they are presently or potentially united in the pursuit


of “higher” goals (Burns, 1978). In order for a front line leader to gain the trust and support of

their followers, they should practice a transforming leadership communication style. Such

leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and

followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978). One of the

most effective ways to get a team engaged, regardless of one’s level of management, is to

celebrate small wins. “Small wins produce results for a simple reason: it’s hard to argue against

success” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 196).

Within a mill environment, there are many hazards to be aware of such as rotating

machinery, heavy mobile equipment, confined spaces, paper rolls weighing over a ton a piece,

chemicals, extreme heat and more. The nature of paper mill work is hazardous and calls for

extreme mindfulness around working safely. Leaders within the mill are the individuals who

initiate and drive the expectation for all employees to work safely. If leaders communicate the

importance of working safe in a compelling way, it encourages the other employees to follow

suit. Actions speak louder than words and employees have to believe with certainty that their

safety is more valuable than production. Effective leadership in the area of safety is imperative.

Importance of the Study

In an environment where circumstances are ever-changing, being able to lead and

communicate with team members and subordinates could potentially be the difference between

life and death. Knowing what hazards to inform others of, being aware of colleagues’ propensity

to take unnecessary risks, and understanding how to lead people in a way that makes them want

to follow, are all essential traits of a leader at a paper mill. The work reviewed in this study

reflects various literature about management leadership and communication as well as a


collection of thoughts from paper mill managers and front line leaders who utilize different

leadership styles daily.

Statement of Purpose

This study explores how different leadership styles are utilized within all levels of

management within the paper mill industry while specifically focusing on mill managers and

front line leaders. Mill managers have the challenge of leading subject matter experts,

individuals who are specialists in specific systems or areas of the mill and who may know more

about the specifics of the papermaking process, without knowing the “ins and outs” themselves.

Front line leaders are the subject matter experts who lead their crews to work safely through both

regular and/or upset conditions, work efficiently, and produce valuable results for the company.

While it is crucial for these two levels of management to work together, the leadership styles that

each must uphold are diverse.

Definitions

The following defined terms have been used in this study.

Front line leader – First-level manager who oversees a paper mill’s daily production

activities.

Mill manager – Upper-level manager who manages a paper mill’s overall objectives

while overseeing all mill employees, production, and efficiency.

Leadership style – The methodology used to guide others toward a well-defined goal

(Moore & Rudd, 2006).

Communication style – The methodology used to deliver, verbally or nonverbally, one’s

message to their targeted audience.


Organization of the Study

This thesis is organized into five chapters. In Chapter I, the researcher has introduced the

study, which examined the leadership and communication styles of mill managers and front line

leaders. The importance of the study and problem statement has been presented along with a

statement of purpose. Finally, key terms were defined.

The researcher included a review of the literature that provides explanation for the study

in Chapter II. A discussion of the management leadership and communication is detailed

followed by a discussion around mill managers and front line leaders in a mill environment. The

literature review concludes with a rationale for the study and two research questions.

In Chapter III, the researcher explains the scope and methodology of the study and

addressed the research design, selection of participants, the survey instrument utilized for the

study, and data collection procedures. Chapter III also encompasses an overview of the data

analysis tools that were used to examine the variances between the leadership approaches and

communication styles in mill managers and front line leaders. Finally, questions about

validity/reliability and ethical considerations were examined.

Findings and analysis of the data collected are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter IV

begins with an introduction followed by the findings of the study regarding the two research

questions. Chapter V offers conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for future research.


CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Philosophical Assumptions

How a mill manager and a front line leader decide to lead their team is based on their

own idea of what the priority is and what needs to be communicated at the time. “Humans

normally responded to stimuli as symbols, signals that required cognitive transformation before

they could become the basis of action” (Dingwall, 2011, p. 238). For example, if a mill manager

was seeking a course of action, they would produce a symbol that they would expect their

follower to read in a particular way, based on their knowledge of a symbolic system and their

empathic understanding of their position. The follower would then similarly construct the mill

manager’s reading of the symbol and respond to it, based on the follower’s empathic

understanding of the mill manager’s probable intentions. In the case of a mill manager e-mailing

their subordinate to inform them of a safety policy change that is in the process of being

implemented, the mill manager might ask for feedback on the most effective way to reach all

four shifts. The subordinate understands the mill manager’s concern for ensuring the safety of all

employees and puts together a timely yet thoughtful response to assist the mill manager on

following through with the intent of the policy change.

Theoretical Basis

The review of literature will primarily examine interactionism in order to relate the

theory to both communication and leadership styles within multiple facets of mill management.

This thesis will employ George H. Mead’s (1934) theory of symbolic interactionism. Further, it

will support the idea that one particular trait, symbolic interactionism, is commonly tied to

success in effective leadership. Additionally, modes of communication and leadership will be

examined.


Literature Review

Most social stimulation is typically found in the early stages of social acts, which serve as

stimuli to other forms whom these acts would affect (Mead, 2002). Mead stated, “This is the

field of gestures, which reveal the motor attitude of a form in its relation to others; an attitude

which psychologists have conceived as a predominately emotional, though it is emotional only in

so far as an ongoing act is inhibited” (p. 402). Mead posited that the methods we use to

communicate are closely linked to the way an individual interprets the message we are trying to

send. Mill managers and front line leaders use multiple approaches when trying to effectively

communicate.

Mead asserted that the true test of any theory is whether it is useful in solving complex

social problems (Griffin, 2009). Mead’s idea of the looking glass self was an additional

philosophical element that focuses on the mental self-image that results from taking the role of

the other, which has a direct correlation to symbolic interactionism (Griffin, 2009). Symbolic

interactionism offers an alternative perspective into the creation of symbolic messages and the

impact they have on individuals who hear them as well as speak them (Mead, 2015).

Management communication.

Leadership has been the subject of rigorous academic inquiry; in the past half century,

leadership has been organized into over 60 different classifications (Northouse, 2010). Northouse

(2010) stated that leadership had been conceptualized as a process involving influencing others

and goal attainment. It is not the leader’s role to make sure that people know exactly what to do

and when to do it. Instead, leaders need to ensure that there is strong and evolving clarity about

who the organization is (Wheatley, 2006). Wheatley (2006) stated that when this clear identity is

established, it serves every member of the organization such that even in chaotic circumstances,


individuals can make congruent decisions. Northouse (2010) identified several leadership models

(as follows) that can lead to effective leadership. Further evaluation of the trait, skills, and styles

approaches should enable a better understanding of management communication.

Trait approach. According to Northouse (2010), the trait approach was one of the first

attempts to study leadership in the early nineteenth century. This approach suggests that the

personal traits of an individual strongly influence the way they lead. “Hundreds of studies were

conducted over a period of several decades to examine how traits and skills are related to

leadership emergence, effectiveness, and career advancement” (Yukl, 2013, p. 137). Some traits

and skills increase the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they do not guarantee

effectiveness (Yukl, 2013). According to Fleenor (2006), trait approach concentrates on personal

characteristics, such as personality and competencies.

When considering how trait approach applies to leadership and communication within the

paper industry, specifically mill manager and front line leader roles, these individual attributes

strongly influence the process. The mill manager sets the daily targets and objectives regarding

how many tons of paper need to be made to fill orders for customers. It is up to the front line

leaders to supervise their crew, make sure they understand what their goals for the day are, and

then be a resource to the team while pushing them to meet the target.

The term trait refers to a variety of individual attributes, including aspects of personality,

temperament, needs, motives, and values (Yukl, 2013). One of the major challenges for a new

front line leader is earning the trust and respect of the employees who are following them. “The

chief monitors of transactional leadership are modal values such as honesty, responsibility,

fairness, and the honor of commitments” (Burns, 1978, p. 426). Once the front line leader has

proven those qualities and demonstrates that the safety of those working under him are his


foremost priority, they will be able to do their job much more effectively and efficiently.

“Effective leaders do not keep their distance from the people they are meant to lead” (Gorder,

2015, p. 2). This also applies to mill managers. Although a mill manager has already proven

those qualities by the time they are promoted to leading the entire mill, as they are charged with

overseeing a greater number of people. Not only is a mill manager using the framework of trait

approach with their subordinates and employees within the mill, they are also proving their

credibility and producing results for the senior leaders of the company. Credibility is usually

described by leaders in terms of the effectiveness of their results and the transparency of their

methods (Gorder, 2015).

Skills approach. Katz (1955) framed leadership as a set of developmental skills. “With

regard to different criteria, such as advancement, unit performance, subordinate satisfaction, and

management of crisis, the pattern of skills that best predicts the criterion varies somewhat from

one criterion to another” (Yukl, 2013, p. 137). Katz suggested that effective leadership depends

on three basic personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual. These three competencies are

primarily descriptive and suggest that the importance of certain leadership skills vary depending

on where leaders are in a management hierarchy (Katz, 1955).


Figure 1. Skills of an effective administrator (Kats, 1955)

While front line leaders, who constitute supervisory management, must be able to focus

on the daily “fire fighting” (technical skills) problems within the paper mill, the mill manger,

who constitutes top management, must look at the overall “big picture” (conceptual skills) while

considering the future longevity of the firm. The skills approach, in all three aspects, is

something that must be developed over time after being exposed to a vast amount of experiences.

Technical skills include competencies in a specialized area, analytical ability, and the

ability to use appropriate tools and techniques (Katz, 1955). Papermaking is a craft that requires

an immense amount of knowledge learned over time and intense hands-on application. A human

skill, also known as people skills, is the ability to work with people, as distinct from technical

skill, which has to do with working with things (Katz, 1955). Multi-tier managers within a paper


mill need to be able to work with people and things. The people, such as the crews, are what

make the things, such as the equipment, operate and run properly. Conceptual skills are centered

on envisioning long-term goals and strategic initiatives for an organization. For example, the mill

manager looks at the overall vision of what the mill needs to strategically accomplish while

deliberately making improvement to operation systems to make those goals a reality.

“Conceptual skills have to do with the mental work of shaping the meaning or organizational or

policy issues – understand what a company stands for and where it is or should be going” (Katz,

1955, p. 46).

Style approach. Distinct from the skills approach, the styles approach focuses more on

the behavior and actions of a leader (Northouse, 2010). By the late 1940s, researchers became

less interested in identifying individual traits of leadership and started to focus more on

leadership behaviors (Katz, 1995). Katz suggested that there are three predominant skills that a

leader should attain: technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. “When it comes to the

style utilized within interpersonal relationships, the ability to listen to others, manage conflict,

and develop and build rapport with others within the workplace are all factors of whether a

leader is successful in a job that hinges on how well you can communicate with supervisors and

peers” (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 2008, p. 7). Interpersonal communication skills are a

fundamental quality within leaders.

Yukl (2013) stated that most of the managers studied had strong technical skills; they had

a string of prior successes; and they were initially viewed as others as “fast risers” in their

company. To be successful when working in the paper industry, an incredible amount of

technical skill is necessary, but it must be balanced against and work in tandem with conceptual

and human skills. A leader may be a “fast riser” and earn respect from their followers because of


the position they uphold; however, according to Burns (1978), interpersonal communication

skills are still crucial:

The crucial variable is purpose. Some define leadership as leaders making followers do

what followers would not otherwise do, or as leaders making followers do what the

leaders want them to do; I define leadership as leaders inducing followers to act for

certain goals that represent the values and the motivations – the wants and needs, the

aspirations and expectations – of both leaders and followers. (p. 19)

If a leader effects change that she/he intended, she/he has exercised his/her power; if the

leader causes that which was not intended or wanted, she/he has only exercised influence (Burns,

1976). Strategically leading an organization, in this case a paper mill, requires coordinating

leadership across all levels. This process involves many formal and informal leaders. “Even in

organizations with a powerful CEO, the implementation of a new strategy or major change can

be delayed by prolonged conflicts among top executives, or be resistant to change from

managers at middle and lower levels” (Yukl, 2013, p. 283). When a major change arises within

the mill, it is the mill manager’s responsibility to communicate what is happening, why the

change is important, and explain what is needed from all employees to successfully implement

the change. A leader displaying transparency enables their followers to accept the change while

reducing their anxiety and uncertainty. Bisel and Arterburn’s (2012) model on sensemaking

encompasses the idea that anxiety and uncertainty influence an employee’s performance at work.

When employees do not easily understand what is being communicated or why a change is being

implemented, without effective communication, they try to make sense of what is happening (i.e.

sensemaking). “The ubiquity and reliability of their sensemaking becomes apparent when


individuals engage in interactions that make interpretation difficult” (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p.

218).

The key to successful implementation of organizational changes is to communicate what

specifically is changing and what the need for that change is. If the gesture (or upcoming change)

simply indicates the object to another, it has no meaning to the individual who makes it (without

proper buy-in), nor does the response which the other individual carries out become a meaning to

him, unless he assumes the attitude of having his attention directed by an individual to whom it

has a meaning (Mead, 2002). It is at this time that the individual interprets his own response

based on the meaning of what was indicated.

Rationale

Research shows that managers at all levels use different methods of leading and various

communications styles. The way a front line leader or mill manager effectively or ineffectively

communicates within a mill system can vary in accuracy and delivery. Although the two types of

leaders fall into different levels of management, their fundamental responsibilities are similar –

keep everyone safe and produce quality paper for customers. The policies, procedures, and

systems that are in place to ensure those two things happen are continuously evolving.

Overall, there is a gap in both leadership and communication literature pertaining

specifically to the paper industry. For better understanding of how mill managers and front line

leaders communicate with their followers, there exists a need to conduct further research in this

field of study. In order expand on the research within this thesis and examine these unanswered

inquiries, the following research questions were explored:

RQ1: What reasons do mill managers and front line leaders report for believing their

subordinates follow them?


RQ2: What do mill managers and front line leaders report as necessary communication

trait(s) that enable them to communicate effectively with their team members?


CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Chapter III outlines the methodology employed for this research study. The researcher

presents two research questions, and the research design is explained. An overview of the survey

tools used, the participants selected for the study, the systems selected for collecting data, and the

results of the data in sectors are also covered in Chapter III.

The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study includes front line leaders and mill managers at multiple sites

within a single mill corporation. The goal is to determine how front line leaders and mill

managers lead and communicate; therefore they were exclusively the two management levels

considered in this study. This research will apply the findings to analyze the necessary skills to

be an effective mill manager and/or front line leader.

Methodology

The intent is to investigate and understand how leadership within a paper mill, especially

mill managers and front line leaders, effectively communicate with their followers. A proposed

sample of mill managers and front line leaders were identified from mills within the Eastern

region of the United States and asked to participate in an online survey. The survey link was

distributed by e-mail and individuals who participated completed their thoughts to two open-

ended questions.

Soliciting participation and contact.

Prospective participants were sent an e-mail using a prefabricated distribution list of mill

managers and front line leaders in order to mitigate selective bias on the part of the researcher.

Each individual was informed of the research study and offered the same opportunity to


participate in the surveys to ensure randomization of the samples. Once the participants formally

consented to participation, they were added to the survey distribution e-mail.

The surveys were administered two ways: by e-mail with a link to Survey Monkey (an

online survey tool) or printed hard copies. Mill managers and front line leaders elected to take

the survey online as rather than taking the survey from a hard copy. The researcher knows this

due to the fact that participants did not submit any hard copied of the survey via printed

document.

Survey instruments.

One survey instrument, Survey Monkey, was used to collect data from the mill manager

and front line leader participants. Each group had its own survey, and each survey consisted of

two open-ended questions. Two separate survey links ensured data from the two sample groups

were not mixed together.

Data Analysis

A link to the survey website was distributed via e-mail within one organization to a

possible 16 mill sites. These key individuals at the 16 mill sites were asked to read the

description of the study and participate in the surveys to help further the research within that

field. After 14 days of being available online, the survey was closed and the survey results were

downloaded using the survey tool, Survey Monkey.

Data collected from the survey was analyzed and coded into categories by the themes

found in the responses. The researcher used open coding to determine themes in respondents’

answers, which is how categories were subsequently defined. The results of the survey were

analyzed to unveil relationships between the leadership style and communication skills necessary

to be effective as a mill manager as opposed to a front line leader.


Validity/Reliability

Given that there is a total population of 38 mill managers within the mill system who

were asked to participate in the survey, a sample size of five gives a +/- 40 confidence interval

with 95% certainty. If five of the mill managers were to ask a yes/no question and if three (60%)

of them were to say “yes,” then the results of the study would be “sure” that if all 38 mill

managers were asked the same question, between 20% and 100% would have said “yes.” This

would produce an inadequate degree of reliability. Hence, the study required that nine mill

managers were surveyed to reduce that figure to +/- 30%, fifteen mill managers to reach +/-

20%, etc. The impracticality of that approach is discussed in the limitations of this study in

Chapter V.

Assumptions

Assumptions are aspects involved in the research that the researcher assumes to be true

(Pyrczak & Bruce, 2007). In this study, it was assumed that all survey participants answered the

surveys honestly, that participants were able to read and clearly understand what the survey

questions were asking, and that participants had some level of comprehension of and familiarity

with the leadership styles and communication skills as they participated in the survey.

Ethical Considerations

According to Bryman and Bell (2007), there are ten principles of ethical considerations

that should guide social science research. The following principals of ethical considerations were

applied within this study:

1. Research participants were not subjected to harm in any way whatsoever.

2. Respect for the dignity of research participants was prioritized.

3. Full consent was obtained from the participants prior to the study.


4. The protection of the privacy of research participants was ensured.

5. An adequate level of confidentiality of the research data has been ensured.

6. Anonymity of individuals and organizations participating in the research was ensured.

7. All deception or exaggerations about the aims and objectives of this research have been

avoided.

8. Affiliations in any form, sources of funding, as well as any possible conflicts of interests

have been declared.

9. Any communications in relation to this research have been conducted honestly and

transparently.

10. Any type of misleading information, as well as representation of primary data findings in

a biased way, has been avoided. Although a personal relationship was prevalent with

some individuals, those entities were neither included or excluded based on the present

relationship.


CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the communication and

leadership styles used in a paper mill by mill managers and front line leaders. As indicated in

Chapter III, a purposive sample of mill managers and front line leaders was used. Of the 16 mill

managers solicited to participate in the survey, 12 completed the questionnaire. This represents a

response rate of 75%. Of the 130 front line leaders solicited to participate in the survey, 53

completed both research questions. This represents a response rate of 40.8%.

Two research questions were investigated in this study: What reasons do mill managers

and front line leaders report that they believe their subordinates follow them, and what traits

enable mill managers and front line leaders to communicate effectively with their team

members?

Results of the Study

This section examines the results pertaining to the two research questions.

Mill manager results for Question 1.

Do you believe your subordinates or team members follow you because of your authority,

because of the way you lead, or for other reasons? Please describe your choice and why you feel

that way. All twelve mill managers who participated in the online survey answered this open-

ended question. Five participants (41.7%) believed that their subordinates or team members

follow them because of their leadership style, such as leading by example, listening before

speaking, and building consensus. Five participants (41.7%) believed that their subordinates or

team members follow them because of their authority as well as the way they lead their team.


Two participants (16.6%) gave “other” answers. None of the participants believed they are

followed based on their authority alone.

Front line leader results for Question 1.

Do you believe your subordinates or team members follow you because of your authority,

because of the way you lead or for other reasons? Please describe your choice and why you feel

that way. All fifty-three front line leaders who participated in the online survey answered this

open-ended question. Thirty participants (56.6%) believed that their subordinates or team

members follow them because of the way they lead. Sixteen participants (30.2%) believed that

their subordinates or team members follow them because of their authority as well as the way

they lead their team. Four participants (7.5%) believed that others follow them because of their

authority alone. Three participants (5.7%) gave “other” answers. Table 1 illustrates the mill

managers and front line leaders’ perceptions of their leadership styles.

Table 1

Correlation between Mill Manager and Front Line Leader Perception of Authority vs.

Leadership

Do you believe your subordinates or

team members follow you because of

your authority, because of the way you

lead or for other reasons? Please

describe your choice and why you feel

that way.

Authority LeadershipAuthority &

LeadershipOther

41.70% 41.70% 16.60%

(5 participants) (5 participants) (2 participants)

7.50% 56.60% 30.20% 5.70%

(4 participants) (30 participants) (16 participants) (3 participants)

Mill Managers (12 Total) 0%

Front Line Leaders (53 Total)


The results of the first survey question clearly indicate that the respondents agreed on

several concepts. While mill manager respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the component of

why their subordinate or team members follow them was due to their leadership style, the front

line leaders indicated that they believed they are followed because of both their leadership style

and their formal authority. An additional conclusion that one could draw from the data in Table 2

is that mill managers see their authority level differently than do front line leaders. Not one of the

twelve mill managers believed that they are followed based on their level of authority alone

while 7.5% of the front line leaders (or four participants) believed that they are only followed

because of their level of authority.

Mill manager results for Question 2.

Do you believe that leaders with formal authority and control (such as mill managers)

communicate with their subordinates or team members differently due to their perceived power

than a leader with perceived informal authority (such as front line leaders)? Please explain.

Eleven of the twelve mill managers who participated in the online survey answered this open-

ended question. Five participants (45.5%) believed that leaders communicate more formally with

less face-to-face communication depending their position in their organization. Three

participants (27.3%) believed that mill managers and front line leaders communicate the same

way. Three participants (27.3%) gave “other” answers.

Front line leader results for Question 2.

Do you believe that leaders with formal authority and control (such as mill managers)

communicate with their subordinates or team members differently due to their perceived power

than a leader with perceived informal authority (such as front line leaders)? Please explain. All


fifty-three front line leaders who participated in the online survey answered this open-ended

question. Thirty-four participants (64.2%) believed that front line leaders and mill managers

communicate differently with their teams. Eleven participants (20.8%) gave “other” answers.

Eight participants (15%) believed that front line leaders and mill managers communicate with

their teams the same way. Table 2 demonstrates the two groups’ distinct perceptions of their

communication styles.

Table 2

Correlation between Mill Manager and Front Line Leader Perception of Communication Styles

The results of the second survey question were overwhelmingly the same on account of

the mill managers as well as the front line leaders. In both cases, both groups of respondents

agreed that both sample groups of leaders communicate differently. Many examples of this were

given, ranging from front line leaders using more interpersonal communications methods due to

their frequent face-to-face encounters with their subordinates to the fact that mill managers tend

to communicate more directly with formal authority.

Approximately 20% of both the mill managers and front line leaders gave answers

“other” than the two sample groups communicated differently or the same. An example given

Do you believe that leaders with formal

authority and control (such as mill

managers) communicate with their

subordinates or team members

differently due to their perceived power

than a leader with perceived informal

authority (such as front line leaders)?

Please explain.

Same

Communication

Style

Different

Communication

Style

Other

45.50% 27.30%

(5 participants) (3 participants)

15.00% 64.20% 20.80%

(8 participants) (34 participants) (11 participants)

Mill Managers (12 Total)27.3%

(3 participants)

Front Line Leaders (53 Total)


refers to managers allowing their crews to offer opinions and suggestions before speaking in the

knowledge that once the supervisor gives their opinion, the crews would put it into practice

rather than generating their own ideas. Another example given is that mill managers

communicate with conviction because they have knowledge of the bigger picture and understand

the end outcome, while front line leaders tend to communicate based on their focus on “fire

fighting,” or grappling with daily issues that arise in the workplace.

Discussion

Question 1 results and interpretation.

Mill manager participants provided mixed results when it came to identifying why team

members followed them because of their authority or their leadership style. For example, one

respondent (6) wrote, “I believe our team follows me because of the way I lead. I only use

positional authority as a last resort. Influence is the key to success.” Another respondent (10)

wrote, “I believe it is a combination of both. People respect authority; however, appreciate my

leadership style. You will always have compliance due to authority. Leadership drives

discretionary energy.” Another respondent (12) considered the aspect of building up a strong

team and cultivating their engagement:

Leadership requires that you build relationships and trust your team. Many follow the

‘chain of command’ mentality while others follow due to their commitment to the team.

People will follow someone they feel is looking out for the best interest of the mill and

their team. They’ll trust that concept.

Well over half of the front line leader participants gave various responses indicating that

they believed their leadership style was the sole reason their subordinates or team members


followed them. In many instances, respondents drew from experiences in the field where they led

by example (e.g., “My team feels like I care about them. They know I walk the talk. I have

worked very hard to earn their respect” [5]) and demonstrated integrity (e.g., “A true leader leads

by example. People will follow a leader trying to lead with integrity” [19].) Respondents also

considered the rapport they have built with their crew (e.g., “I have developed a good

relationship with my crew and I’ve shown them that I am approachable and interested in their

ideas. My crew understands that we are a team and are most successful when working together”

[3]) by being open (e.g., “I am very open and non-confrontational. I allow them to talk to me

about any and all of their concerns without getting upset or complaining” [12]) and creating

personal relationship with crew members (e.g., “I believe my subordinates follow me because

they know I am personally invested with them. I have an open door and try to be transparent so

they know we are all in it together. I’ve got their backs when they need my support” [40]).

In some cases, front line leaders felt as though they were followed by their subordinates

due to the authority of their position. One participant (39) stated:

I believe I’m followed because of my authority. I have no experience as a supervisor and

limited experience on the machines. Yet I lead 17 people. They look to me for decision

making and permission to do things only because I am their supervisor.

This is regardless of their leadership style (e.g., “They respect the position, not necessarily the

leader or their style of leadership” [51]).

“Other” responses as to why subordinates follow front line leaders reflect the

subordinates’ desire to be part of deliberate improvement in the mill system (e.g., “Because of

their desire to use their abilities for improvement and my ability to collaborate with them to


influence the direction of their efforts” [48]) and to do their job as a team member (e.g., “They

follow me because it’s their job and they are part of this team” [21]).

Question 2 results and interpretation.

Mill managers primarily agreed that the way a mill manager communicates is different

than the way a front line leader communicates, partially due to the perceived formal authority of

the mill manager and the perceived informal authority of the front line leader. Mill managers

look at the bigger picture when leading their team (e.g., “A mill manager’s focus is leadership on

a broad scale” [6]) while choosing to use more formal communication methods, as described by

one participant (10):

There are some differences such as formal communication methods such as meetings,

memos and presentations that a mill manager may utilize where a front line leader may

utilize face-to-face communication more frequently. This is due to his/her more intimate

relationship with the crew members.

In several instances, mill manager respondents gave “other’ answers regarding the

differences in communication methods of mill managers as opposed to front line leaders. One

respondent (5) wrote:

I think people will follow you through just about anything when you lead by influence

rather than positional authority. You can achieve greater results, as you will be able to get

discretionary effort while winning their hearts and mind. Positional authority only gets

done what you want. No more and no less.


Another respondent (7) wrote, “It should not be the intent to lead differently but to lead in such a

manner that garners support through engagement, good communication, and alignment with

agreed upon goals.”

More than 64% of front line leaders believed that the way they communicate is different

from the way mill managers communicate. “I believe many mill managers communicate

differently than front line leaders,” wrote a front line leader (13). “Front line leaders should

know more about the daily job, causing them to communicate their expectations differently”

(13). Understanding the overall business initiative and the role that each level of management

plays always alters the way managers communicate. For example, one respondent (15) wrote:

I believe there is a division between how the two manager categories communicate with

subordinates. As manager levels increase, so does the respect and understanding for

business decisions. A front line leader must have a clear understanding of the top

initiatives as well as how these initiatives will be supported at the lowest levels.

Many front line leaders (such as Participant 39, as follows) described feeling like the

respect of a mill manager was given because of the authority of their position:

I know they communicate differently. Supervisors must build teamwork, drive consensus,

and motivate their subordinates. Without these elements, people won’t just jump in and

give it their all. A mill manager has more respect and can get the same support with much

less explanation or pleading.

Front line leaders such as Participant 19 also attributed this to their assertiveness:


Leaders with formal authority tend to lead with a “do or else” assertiveness instead of

working together for group resolution. Front line leaders are striving for longer term

results based on drawing strength from the team, which results in process ownership.

In relation to Bisel and Arterburn’s (2012) sensemaking-resource model, the results of

the mill manager and front line leader surveys validate that leaders at all levels make sense out of

their surroundings based on their own perception. For example, the survey shows that mill

managers believe they are followed by their subordinates because of their leadership style, while

the data shows that front line leaders would argue that it is a balance between the manager’s

leadership style and the perceived authority of that manager. As Yukl (2013) wrote, “A leader’s

authority usually includes the right to make particular types of decisions for the organization” (p.

186). When a decision is made within the organization, it is the leadership of the manager, at the

mill level and front line leader level, who leads and communicates the expectations for the

decision. One front line leader (51) respondent wrote, “Mill managers are responsible for making

decisions, but the front line leaders are responsible for getting the crew on board and seeing to it

that the work gets done.”

The data collected in this study support Mead’s (1934) theory of symbolic interactionism.

Mill managers and front line leaders who participated in the survey unintentionally addressed

symbolic interactionism and the idea of the self looking glass as they referenced the way they

interpreted their own leadership and communication styles. The intent behind symbolic

interactionism focuses on the way individuals receive the information one is trying to

communicate leaving it to their own discretion to decipher the meaning. Similarly, front line

leaders and mill managers interpret the messages they intend to send by deciphering what they

are sending verbally and/or nonverbally. For example, both groups that participated in the survey


mentioned that they believe they “lead by example” and primarily use interpersonal

communication skills when interacting with their subordinates or team members. It is through

everyday interactions that mill managers and front line leaders utilize the methodology behind

symbolic interactionism.


CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Limitations of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between leadership and

communication styles of mill managers and front line leaders within a mill environment. This

study involved several limitations, which are design characteristics that set restrictions on the

application and interpretation of the results (Pyrczak & Bruce, 2007). First, in this study,

purposive sampling was used, which limits the ability to generalize conclusions from the sample

to the larger population of all mill managers and front line leaders. In addition, involvement in

this study was voluntary, and responses may be biased due to self-reporting.

Further Recommendations

After researching the different communication and leadership styles utilized among mill

managers and front line leaders, several further recommendations are presented that would

benefit future leaders in the papermaking industry. This study was limited to two types of mill

supervisors. Further research on leadership and communication styles of front line leaders and

mill managers in a paper mill would benefit from accessing a larger sample of leaders. An

additional recommendation for further research is to have the front line leader’s hourly

employees and the mill manager’s direct reports fill out a questionnaire regarding their thoughts

on their manager’s leadership and communication styles. A leader may think they have effective

and efficient skills regarding the way they interact with their employees while their employees

feel otherwise. Exploring this dichotomy by analyzing the direct reports could offer insight into

the nature of the various managers’ leadership and communication styles.

Another recommendation for future research includes conducting surveys, interviews,

focus groups, and questionnaires with leaders from multiple papermaking companies. Examining


the leadership and communication styles of the heads of more than one company would also

provide valuable insight as to the influential management skills utilized across the paper industry

as one entity.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in leadership and

communication styles between front line leaders and mill managers in a paper mill. An analysis

of the data gathered suggests there are differences between the two different levels of managers.

Front line leaders lead by example while walking “hand in hand” with their crews and

communicating with them in a way that makes the crew members feel like their opinion counts.

Mill managers, in contrast, appear to lead more by authority while relying less on interpersonal

communication methods. The study did not separate out each separate component of leadership

styles or communication styles. The results indicated that both front line leaders and mill

managers believed that the way they communicated with team members was at times situational

and dependent on the urgency of the state of the mill. Ultimately, the study demonstrates that

leaders at different levels of a mill environment, especially mill managers and front line leaders,

lead their team members and communicate differently than one another.

Due to the communication and leadership differences between mill managers and front

line leaders, both of these management groups have an eminence amount of opportunity to learn

and grow from one another. For example, the data analysis presented in this study show that half

of the mill manager participants believe their subordinates follow them because of their

leadership style while the other half of mill manager participants believed it was due to their

position as well as their leadership style. Comparing the front line leader’s responses to the same

question, more than half believe they are followed because of their leadership style, not their


authority. Gorder (2015) states, “Effective leaders do not keep their distance from the people

they are meant to lead.” It is imperative that leaders at all levels of the mill environment take a

personal interest in getting to know their team members. Based on feedback from the majority of

front line leaders participants in this study, the better rapport one has established with their

followers often time determines the level of commitment to the job from both the leader and the

follower(s).

Utilizing management communication skills such as the trait, skills and style approaches

can be important when it comes to ensuring ones leadership presence. Technical, human and

conceptual skills go hand-in-hand with effective leadership styles throughout the mill

environment. As stated by front line leader and mill managers who participated in this study’s

survey, having regular interpersonal communication interaction with team members or

subordinates makes them feel like they are valued and truly cared for by those they are working

under. Management by walking around, listening to understand rather than listening to respond

and being supportive were all qualities of an effective leader emphasized by survey participants.

An effective communicator and leader within a paper mill promotes a team environment and

includes themselves as a fellow team member emphasizing and demonstrating that they are all in

this together.


References

Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. A., & Redmond, M. V. (2008). Interpersonal communication:

Relating to others (5th

ed.). Publishers’ Design and Production Services.

Bisel, R. & Arterburn, E. (2015). Making sense of organizational members’ silence: A

sensemaking-resource model. Communication Research Reports, 29(3), 217-226.

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods (2nd

ed.). Oxford University

Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publisher, Inc.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. Atlantic Monthly Press.

Dingwall, R. (2001). Notes toward an intellectual history of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic

Interaction, 24(2), 237-242. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2001.24.2.237

Fleenor, J. (2006). Trait approach to leadership. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

industrial and organizational psychology (830-832). Charlotte, NC: Sage.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication, communication. Communication: A first look at

communication theory (7th

ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Gorder, C. (2015). The front-line leader: Building a high-performance organization from the

ground up. Jossey-Bass.

Hałas, E. (2013). The past in the present: Lessons on semiotics of history from George H. Mead

and Boris A. Uspensky. Symbolic Interaction, 36(1), 60-77. doi:10.1002/symb.47

Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1),

33-42.

Mead, G. H. (2002). Mechanism of social consciousness. Journal of Philosophy,


Psychology and Scientific Methods. 9(15), 401-406.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: The definitive edition. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Moore, L., & Rudd, R. (2006). Leadership styles of current extension leaders. Journal of

Agriculture Education, 47(1), 6-16.

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th

ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications.

Pyrczak, F., & Bruce, R. (2007). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students

of the social and behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Turner, J. H. (2011). Extending the symbolic interactionist theory of interaction processes: A

conceptual outline. Symbolic Interaction, 34(3), 330-339.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2011.34.3.330

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.

Berrett-Koehler, Inc.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th

ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.


Appendix A

Front Line Leader Survey, Instructions and Informed Consent

Survey Instructions

Please indicate the response that best represents you, your leadership style and your

communications style. You should not need to look up any data to complete this survey. Your

completion of this survey constitutes your acceptance to participate in this study. There are no

personal identifying items. Please do not put your name on this survey.

Before you begin, please read the informed consent below. You have a voluntary choice

to participate in this research based on an accurate and complete understanding of its purposes,

procedures, risk, benefits, and alternatives. This survey will be completely anonymous and

voluntary. We do not ask or identify any individuals who plan to participate in his survey. If you

have any questions before completing this survey, please contact the researcher, Ashley Moore,

by email at [email protected] or [email protected].

Informed Consent

This study is about leadership and communication skills necessary to be a mill manager

vs. front line leader. There is no right answer to any question. The data analysis will be reported

for the group of respondents as a whole. There are no known risks involved in completing this

survey. There are no tangible benefits for completing this survey. You may request a copy of the

group result by sending an email to [email protected]

or [email protected]. This survey may take about 5 minutes to complete.

Participation is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time.


There are no physical injury risks involved with this survey. All data obtained will be strictly

confidential. Dr. Michael Hazel is directing this study and can be reached at

[email protected].

After reading the consent items, please begin the survey questions below.

1. Do you believe your subordinates or team members follow you because of your

authority, because of the way you lead or for other reasons? Please describe your

choice and why you feel that way.

2. Do you believe that leaders with formal authority and control (such as mill managers)

communicate with their subordinates or team members differently due to their

perceived power than a leader with perceived information authority (such as front line

leaders)? Please explain.


Appendix B

Letter to Front Line Leaders

February 21, 2015

Dear Mill Manager or Front Line Leader,

I am writing to request your assistance. My name is Ashley Moore, and I am a graduate

student at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. I am conducting an anonymous survey

about self-perceived leadership and communication styles of mill managers and front line leaders

as part of my thesis in communication and leadership. I am requesting your participation in this

very important research study by completing this survey. I appreciate your support and your

willingness to participate in this study.

The survey is online, does not require any information to be gathered on your part, and is

completely anonymous. The results will be reported for the group of respondents as a whole and

participants may request a summary of the results by sending an email request to

[email protected]. The information obtained on your survey will be strictly

confidential. I have sent a copy of this email to every mill manager and front line leader selected

to participate in this study. Once the data analysis is complete, all responses will be destroyed.

The thesis will contain only compiled information with no reference to individual companies or

mills.

I am aware of your extremely busy schedule and multiple requests for your time. I know

your time is valuable. Your participation is greatly appreciated. This study will add to the body

of knowledge regarding necessary leadership and communication skills to be an effective mill

manager vs. front line leader. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thank you

very much for your consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to


contact my thesis chair, Dr. Michael Hazel. You may reach Dr. Hazel through the Department of

Communication and Leadership Studies, Gonzaga University, at (509) 313-3679 or by email at

[email protected].

You may complete the survey by clicking on the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CK7FGY9

This survey must be completed by: March 11, 2016 or sooner if at all possible.

Should you choose to participate, once you click on the survey link, please read the

instructions related to the survey and information related to your informed consent. Thank you in

advance for agreeing to participate in this survey.

Thank you,

Ashley M. Moore



Appendix C

Front Line Leader Survey, Instructions and Informed Consent

Survey Instructions

Please indicate the response that best represents you, your leadership style and your

communications style. You should not need to look up any data to complete this survey. Your

completion of this survey constitutes your acceptance to participate in this study. There are no

personal identifying items. Please do not put your name on this survey.

Before you begin, please read the informed consent below. You have a voluntary choice

to participate in this research based on an accurate and complete understanding of its purposes,

procedures, risk, benefits, and alternatives. This survey will be completely anonymous and

voluntary. We do not ask or identify any individuals who plan to participate in his survey. If you

have any questions before completing this survey, please contact the researcher, Ashley Moore,

by email at [email protected] or [email protected].

Informed Consent

This study is about leadership and communication skills necessary to be a mill manager

vs. front line leader. There is no right answer to any question. The data analysis will be reported

for the group of respondents as a whole. There are no known risks involved in completing this

survey. There are no tangible benefits for completing this survey. You may request a copy of the

group result by sending an email to [email protected]

or [email protected]. This survey may take about 5 minutes to complete.

Participation is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time.

There are no physical injury risks involved with this survey. All data obtained will be strictly


confidential. Dr. Michael Hazel is directing this study and can be reached at

[email protected].

After reading the consent items, please begin the survey questions below.

1. Do you believe your subordinates or team members follow you because of your

authority, because of the way you lead or for other reasons? Please describe your

choice and why you feel that way.

2. Do you believe that leaders with formal authority and control (such as mill managers)

communicate with their subordinates or team members differently due to their

perceived power than a leader with perceived information authority (such as front line

leaders)? Please explain.


Appendix D

Letter to Mill Managers

Instructions and Informed Consent

February 21, 2015

Dear Mill Manager or Front Line Leader,

I am writing to request your assistance. My name is Ashley Moore, and I am a graduate

student at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. I am conducting an anonymous survey

about self-perceived leadership and communication styles of mill managers and front line leaders

as part of my thesis in communication and leadership. I am requesting your participation in this

very important research study by completing this survey. I appreciate your support and your

willingness to participate in this study.

The survey is online, does not require any information to be gathered on your part, and is

completely anonymous. The results will be reported for the group of respondents as a whole and

participants may request a summary of the results by sending an email request to

[email protected]. The information obtained on your survey will be strictly

confidential. I have sent a copy of this email to every mill manager and front line leader selected

to participate in this study. Once the data analysis is complete, all responses will be destroyed.

The thesis will contain only compiled information with no reference to individual companies or

mills.

I am aware of your extremely busy schedule and multiple requests for your time. I know

your time is valuable. Your participation is greatly appreciated. This study will add to the body

of knowledge regarding necessary leadership and communication skills to be an effective mill

manager vs. front line leader. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thank you


very much for your consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to

contact my thesis chair, Dr. Michael Hazel. You may reach Dr. Hazel through the Department of

Communication and Leadership Studies, Gonzaga University, at (509) 313-3679 or by email at

[email protected].

You may complete the survey by clicking on the following link:


This survey must be completed by: March 11, 2016 or sooner if at all possible.

Should you choose to participate, once you click on the survey link, please read the

instructions related to the survey and information related to your informed consent. Thank you in

advance for agreeing to participate in this survey.

Thank you,

Ashley M. Moore


Running head: COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLES...