Posted: April 25th, 2025

hrmt

 

Discussion: Who knew that your own self-esteem and confidence could influence the success of your workplace? In our workplaces, personal self-image can create positivity that can be contagious. Likewise, poor self-image can breed negativity and hinder personal and professional growth.

Based on your readings this week (see Content – Week 2 – Reading and Resources), what steps can you take to garner the courage and self-esteem necessary to improve communication within your workplace(s)? What factors might stand in your way in relation to your ability to accomplish this objective? Be creative in your answer!

Abstract—Communication is a vehicle and central element in

an organization as it and serves many functions in organization.
What people in the organization say has a meaningful impact on
the total system of the organization. Encouraging subordinates
to communicate and participate in decision-making not only
can promote commitment among the subordinates, but also
increase job satisfaction among people who interact and work
interdependently. Based on this belief, this quantitative study
was to systematically develop a reliable and valid construct that
can facilitate and enhance the different Management
Communication Style (MCS) in the Malaysian context. Four
dimensions of MCS namely Tell, Sell, Consult and Join were
identified through an extensive literature review by following
Hinkin’s suggestions for construct development. A survey
questionnaire was administered to 388 executives working
directly under Human Resource Managers in the state-owned
organization known as Government Link Companies (GLCs).
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was initially conducted
on 20 items to explore the structure underlying the set of
questions designed. The results of CFA confirmed that the
measurement scale used in this study satisfactorily met the
standard of validity and reliability analyses. The MCS constr

uct

provides a multi-dimensional assessment tool to diagnose and
guide organizational communication.

Index Terms—Management communication style, leadership
style, communication, decision-making.

I. INTRODUCTION

MCS of a supervisor within an organization is a function of
both the management style imposed on the supervisor by the
organization (or chosen by the supervisor within the
parameters permitted by the organization) and the
communication style of the individual supervisor which that
individual brings to the organizational context [1]. The MCS
of managers in an organization has evidenced to influence the
level of employees’ satisfaction and circumvent conflict at
the workplace. MCS is directly and meaningfully linked to
employees’ satisfaction [2]. Managers who exercise more
employee centered and interactive MCS would increase
satisfaction among employees and vice versa [2]. According
to Richmond and McCroskey [3], employees’ satisfaction
could be directly varied by altering the management style of
the organization or selection of a supervisor with a differing
communication style. Numorous researchers that have
examined elements in the working environment agreed that,
communication between supervisors and subordinates and
inviting them to participate in decision-making process has

Manuscript received April 5, 2013; revised June 5, 2013.
The authors are with the Faculty of Business Management, Universiti

Teknologi MARA, Bandar Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia (e-mail:
rozilah@puncakalam.uitm.edu.my, Mokhtar413@salam.uitm.edu.my,
norlidak@salam.uitm.edu.my).

been found to increase employees’ satisfaction [4].
Central to the MCS development, the dimensions and the

operationalization of MCS was constructed by Richmond and
McCroskey [5]. The instrument was originated from the work
of Tannenbaum and Schmidt [6] and the research of Sadler
[7], where Tannenbaum and Schmidt [6] postulate a
continuum of leadership orientations within an organization
from the extreme “boss centered” to the extreme
“subordinated centered.” It describes that as a leaser moves
from the first extreme to the latter, the use of authority by the
manager decreases and the freedom for subordinate increases.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt [6] and Sadler [7] also provide a
continuum for leadership and involvement that includes an
increasing role for employees and a decreasing role for
supervisors in the decision process. Although the original
conceptualization by the earliest theorists [6], [7] envisioned
seven stem along the continuum, Richmond and McCroskey
[5] had removed apparently overlapping steps of the
continuum and formed a four-step continuum labeled: Tell,
Sell, Consul, and Join. The four continuum of MCS includes
Tell (manager makes decisions (or receive them from top
level management) and announces them to subordinates).
Sell: (manager receives decision from the above and is given
a little bit of authority to make decisions). Consult: (manager
invites subordinates input into a decision while retaining
authority to make the final decision herself). Join: (manager
usually does not make decision rather the authority to make
the decisions is delegated to the subordinates, either in
cooperation with the manager or in her or his absence [5]. An
examination of these approaches explicitly assumed that
relationship between leadership or management style and
communication style. Obviously, if all decisions are made by
the top management, managers can only decide to use a Tell
and Style styles which restrict the communication styles
available for use. Conversely if manages are given a great
deal of autonomy, suggesting a consult or joint style, they
have great flexibility in selecting MCS for interface with
employees [4].

Even though, Richmond and McCroskey [5] have
systematically developed a valid and reliable 19-point
continuum ranging from Tell (1-10), through Sell (11-16),
through Consult (17-22), and to Join (23-28), the items were
not highlighted. The subjects were simply asked to circle the
MCS under which they are working. The scale allowed
subjects to record position on the continuum that represent a
mixture of MCS [5]. Despite a number of theoretical models
describing the degrees of “freedom” that managers grant
employees during decision-making and the “communication
style” used in decision making, there is still a lack of a clear
picture of the forces biasing managers’ use of MCS in
Malaysia [8]. Though communication scholars had published
articles presenting various views about the nature and the

Validity and Reliability of the Management Communication
Style Scale

Abdul Aziz Rozilah, Mokhtar Muhammad, and Norlida Kamaluddin

390390

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013

DOI: 10.7763/IJSSH.2013.V3.268

importance of communication and participation in
decision-making, very few were attempted to develop a
measure of MCS using likert scale. Hence the focus of this
study was on the developing of a systematic, reliable and
valid measure of an organization’s capacity for MCS.
Furthermore, considering the importance of the MCS
construct, the inherent difficulties in its definition and
quantification, and dearth study on MCS in Malaysia, it
warrants an intensive research on the MCS construct that is
suitable and applicable to the Malaysian organizational
climate. Based on the gap, the concept of MCS was
developed in order to examine the role of leadership style and
communication in decision-making in the organizational
context, as well as to evaluate the strategies uses by the
managers to generate positive outcomes in organization.
Explicating traits biasing managers’ predilection for
employee participation, and communication used are
essential to deepen the understanding of MCS and provide
more complete models describing when and why different
type of MCS is utilized or avoided in contemporary
organizational context. The MCS construct provides a
multi-dimensional assessment tool to diagnose and guide
organizational communication.

II. HINKIN’S SCALE DEVLOPMENT CONSTRUCTION
Hinkin [9], [10] highlighted that to satisfactory

operationalize a construct with appropriate measures and
determine construct validity the best practice scale
development follows three basic stages: Item generation,
scale development, and scale evaluation.

A. Item Generation
The primary step to develop a new organizational scale is

to achieve a thorough item generation: deductive and
inductive [10]: In deductive approaches an understanding of
the MCS was investigated by reviewing thoroughly the
literature to develop theoretical definition of the construct.
The definition is then used as a guide for the development of
30 items in MCS. Inductive approaches were conducted by
interviewing six (6) Human Resource Managers (HR
Managers) and six (6) employees from the GLCs to obtain
ideas and opinion of some aspect of behavior towards MCS
from them. From the deductive and inductive process, 35
items were generated. The items were then distributed to the
same HR Managers and employees for their further
comments and opinion. This process served as a pretest
where items that were deemed to be conceptually
inconsistent are deleted, and items that conceptually
consistent remained. After the deletion process 25 items were
generated as MCS scale.

B. Scale Development
The second stage of scale development was performed by

focusing on the designing a development study, scale
construction, and reliability assessment. Adequate internal
consistency reliability was obtained with as few as five items
[10]. Hinkin [9] reported that an adequate internal
consistency reliabilities can be obtained with as few as three
items. Items were rated on a 6 point – Likert scale: (6)
strongly agree, (5) agree, (4) moderately agree (3)
moderately disagree (2), disagree, (1) strongly disagree was

used to generate sufficient variance among respondents for
subsequent statistical analysis. A sample size of 101
employees working directly under HR Managers was used as
a pilot study to analyze the data. An exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was conducted to test the validity and
reliability of the new instrument constructed. The EFA
analysis has confirmed the four dimensions of MCS namely
Tell, Sell, Consult, and Join. Consequently, a sample size of
388 of employees working under HR Managers was used to
appropriately conduct test of statistical significance. If
powerful statistical tests and confidence in results are desired,
a larger sample is better and the likelihood of attaining
statistical increases [11]. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was conducted to assess the quality of the factor structure by
statistically testing the significance of the overall model and
of item loadings on factors [12]. The purpose of the analysis
is to assess the goodness-of-fit of the new measure constructs.
Overall, the EFA and CFA purposes of this study were
conducted to examine the stability of the factor structure and
provide information that would facilitate the refinement of a
new MCS measure. EFA analysis allows the elimination of
obviously poorly loading items [13] and CFA allows more
precision in evaluating the measurement model [14].

Subsequently, a scale development which includes an
assessment of the psychometric properties of the scale was
constructed. It is necessary to administer the potential items
to a representative sample in order to examine how well the
items confirm expectations related to the structure of the
measure in question [15]. The scale has been consistently
administered and the psychometric properties of this scale
have been highly reliable.

C. Scale Evaluation
Content validity: Content validity refers to the extent to

which a measure represents all facets of a given social
concept [16]. Content validity signifies that the items
included in the questionnaire correctly represent the concept
to be analyzed [17] and evaluated based on logic and theory
[18] rather than statistical. In this study MCS scale was
validated by two experts in organizational communication
field and one expert in GLCs. At this stage, two items were
improved and five items were deleted as recommended by the
three experts.

Construct validity (Factor Analysis): Construct validity
refers to whether a scale measures or correlates with a
theorized psychological construct [18]. The EFA with
Varimax rotation was used to assess the construct validity of
the 20 items of the research instrument. EFA was performed
to identify and confirm the underlying structure of the items.
Initially the suitability for the data for factor analysis was
explored [8].

The EFA results are shown in Table I. Based on the sample
of 101 respondents; the 20 items of the MCS were subjected
to the EFA using SPSS version 18. The 20 items loaded onto
four factors with the factor loadings greater than 0.6 above.
The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin of Sample Adequacy (KMO) value
was 0.87, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser,
1974) which indicate an adequate sample. The Bartletts’s
Test of Sphericity for the 20 items correlation matrix was
highly significant (p<0.000) reached statistical significance,
supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix (Bartlett,
1954). An eigenvalue of 1.0 was set as the minimum criterion
for identifying a factor and used as a cutoff value for

391

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013

ex
on

fa
lo
w
ea
re
7.
do
hi
pr
M
th
ro
pr
fir
na
Th

xtraction. The
nly the expec

Among these
actors which e
oadings were

were minimal.
ach factor w
espectively. T
56, 4.10, 1.4
omains were r
igh factor loa
ractically sign

MSA>0.5 indic
his is suitable
otated compo
resences of fo
rst factor nam
amed Sell. Th
he last factor

results of the
cted four facto

TABL

e 20 items, th
explained 70.6
all greater th
The percent

were 37.78%,
he eigenvalue
49, and 1.01
retained. As fo
adings above
nificant if sam
cates the data
for the factor
onent matrix
our MCS havin

med Tell. The s
he third factor

included 5 it

analysis indic
ors (a scree p

LE I: PSYCHOMET

he factor analy
67 % of the v

han 0.60 and
ages of varia
20.46%, 7.
es of the first
respectively
or the test of u
the threshold

mple of respo
are low in mu
analysis [19]

x, the mode
ng 6 items we
second factor c
r, with 5 item
tems and was

cated the prese
plot confirmed

TRIC PROPERTIES

ysis extracted
variance, the f
the cross loa

ance explaine
.44%, and 5
t four factors
y. Four facto
uni dimension

of 0.4 consid
ondent >350.
ulticollinearity
. In the light o
el confirmed
ere allocated t
consists of 4 i

ms, named con
s named Join.

ent of
d this

num
[8].

OF THE FOUR DIM

d four
factor

adings
ed for
5.00%

were
ors or
nality,
dered
High

y, and
of the

d the
to the
items,
nsult.
This

analy
scale
rang

Co
using
analy
conv
throu
judg
[13].
loadi
extra
inter
cons
study
depic

mber of factors

MENSIONS OF THE

ysis confirmed
e. All of the i
ing from 0.80
onvergent Va
g the factor
ysis using the
vergent validi
ugh a within
ment of the d
. Convergent
ing, composit
acted (AVE)
rnal reliability
structs of MC
y exceeded the
cts the degree

s) show the ite

E MCS INVENTORY

d the final sel
items in MCS
0 to 0.90 for cr
alidty: Further

analysis (bet
e within scal
ity. Converge
factor in ord

dimensionality
validity was
te reliability
[20]. Table I
y and conve
S. The factor
e recommende
e to which the

ems loaded on

Y, 2012

lection of the
S variables hav
ronbach alpha
r to the constr
tween scales)
le was condu
ent validity w

der to obtain a
y of the constr
assessed base
(CR), and av

II summarize
ergent validit
r loading for
ed level of 0.6
e construct ind

n each constru

20 items for t
ve exhibit val
a.
ruct validity t
) another fact
ucted to test t
was carried o
a more in-dep
ruct under stu
ed on the fact
verage varian

es the results
ty for the fo
all items in th

6 [21]. CR whi
dicators indica

uct

the
lue

est
tor
the
out
pth
udy
tor

nce
of

our
his
ich
ate

392

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013

the latent construct, ranged from 0.890 to 0.930 exceeding
the recommended level of 0.7 which was suggested by [22].
The AVE which reflects the overall amount of variance in the
indicators accounted for by the latent construct, were in the
range between 0.658 and 0.726, exceeding the recommended
level of 0.5 as suggested by [13]. Hence, the analysis
provides support for convergent validity.

TABLE II: CONVERGENT VALIDITY

CONSTRUCT ITEM
ITEM

LOADING
AVE CR

Tell Tel1 0.803 0.658 0.920
Tel2 0.831
Tel3 0.844
Tel4 0.789
Tel5 0.759

Tel6 0.839
Sell Sel7 0.780 0.677 0.893

Sel8 0.846
Sel9 0.837

Sel10 0.826
Consult Con11 0.812 0.726 0.930

Con12 0.841
Con13 0.850
Con14 0.891

Con15 0.863
Join Jo16 0.870 0.657 0.905

Jo17 0.881
Jo18 0.760
Jo19 0.815
Jo20 0.714

Note: CR=Composite reliability, AVE=Average Variance Extracted, Scale
used was a 6 point Likert scale.

TABLE III: DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
Constructs Join Consult Sell Tell
Join 0.811
Consult 0.708 0.823
Sell 0.186 0.387 0.823
Tell -0.628 -0.699 -0.205 0.811

Note: Diagonals represents the square root of the average variance extracted
while the other entries represent the correlations

Fig. 1. Full measurement model for MCS

Next, discriminant validity which measures the degree to
which the measures of different concepts are distinct was
examined. Discriminant validity can be examined by
comparing the correlations between constructs and the square
root of the variance extracted for a construct [21]. Table III
illustrated that the correlations for each construct was less
than the square root of the AVE by the indicators measuring
that construct indicating that the measure had adequate
discriminant validity. In summary the measurement model
demonstrated adequate reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity.

To assess the fit of the measurement model, several indices
were generated, (see Fig. 1) the normed chi square was 2.356
which was lower than 3 [23]. The goodness-of-fit index
(GFI=0.908), the comparative fit indices (CFI=0.962) and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA=0.059)
was lower than 0.08 [14]. Thus, from the above discussion, it
can be concluded that the measurement model fit the data
well.

III. CONCLUSION
The current study provides greater detail as to the

measurement of MCS constructs that will be used in the
original study later in Malaysia. Though Richmond &
McCroskey [5] have identified four communication styles
namely, Tell, Sell, Consult, and Join, they have not
highlighted the measurement of the instrument they used to
measure these four dimensions or management
communication styles. Having developed this management
communication styles measurement, the authors believe that
such an instrument is a step forward towards effectively
measuring management communication styles namely, Tell,
Sell, Consult, and Join. The significance of this measurement
lies in the fact that departing from the majority of the existing
research that focuses on the importance of communication
styles on organizational conflict, commitment, job
satisfaction and other variables, this research is about the
instrument used to measure the above-mentioned styles.
Hence, this paper presents a valid and reliable instrument that
measures the different management communication styles in
the Malaysian context [8]. The concept of MCS offers
substantial promise as a topic for further research. An
additional particular importance for future research is the
impact of MCS on organizational conflict, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction. By addressing and
measuring specific MCS that imposed on managers from the
top management or chosen by the managers, we are able to
identify the styles of decision-making and communication
traits of an individual that, when applied in the organizational
context, will improve the relationship between supervisor
and the subordinates as well as achieve functional and
constructive conflict at the workplace, commitment, and job
satisfaction.

393

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
Construct Items Source

Tell Tel1=My manager receives decision from
the top management and announces it to
subordinates.

Richmond
and
McCroskey

(2009)

Tel2= My manager makes his/her own
decision and announces it to the
subordinates

Tel3=My manager expects me to carry out
tasks given by him/her without any
questions.

Tel4=My manager only accepts questions
concerning how work is to be done.

Tel5= My manager entertains any
inquiries on the desirability of the decision
that has been made by the top
management or him/her.

Tel6=My manager employs a downward
communication.

Sell Sel7= My manager persuades the
subordinates of the desirability of
decisions made by the top management or
him/her.

Richmond
and
McCroskey
(2009)

Sel8=My manager encourages inquiries
from subordinates concerning
clarification of the decision being made.

Sel9=My manager encourages inquiries
from subordinates concerning
clarification of the decision being made.

Sel10=My manager shows concerns
towards subordinate’s satisfaction with
the decision that he/she makes.

Consult Con11=My manager only makes final
decisions after he/she has discussed it with
the subordinates.

Richmond
and
McCroskey

Con12=My manager always makes
decisions based on the needs of both
employees and organization.

(2009)

Con13=My manager always makes sure
that the decisions make by the top
management or him/her will conserve the
well-being of the subordinates.

Con14=My manager encourages a
two-way communication.

Con15=My manager always explores the
advantages and disadvantages of various
options before making any decisions.

Join Jo16=My manager always delegates
decision-making to the subordinates.

Richmond
and
McCroskey

Jo17=My manager sets parameters and
lets subordinates make decisions.

(2009)

Jo18=Decisions being made are based on
the majority opinion after open
discussion.

Jo19=Decisions can also be made without
my manager’s presence.

J20=My manager is concerned with the
subordinates’ desirability in
decision-making.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to than R. A. Aziz, M. Muhammad,

and I. Abu-Jarad for Table 1: Psychometric properties of the
our dimentsion of the MCSs inventory (2012)

REFERENCES
[1] V. P. Richmond and J. C. McCroskey, Organizational Communication

for Survival: Making Work, Work. (10th ed.), 2009.
[2] V. P. Richmond, J. C. McCroskey, L. M. Davis, and K. A. Koontz,

“Perceived power as a mediator of management communication style
and employee satisfaction: A preliminary investigation,”
Communication Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 37-46, 1980.

[3] L. L. McCroskey, J. C. McCroskey, and V. P. Richmond, “Applying
organizational orientations theory to employees of profit and
non-profit organizations,” Communication Quarterly, vol. 53, pp.
21-40, 2005.

[4] S. Parayitam and R. S. Dooley, “The relationship between conflict and
decision outcomes: Moderating effects of cognitive-and affect-based
trust in strategic decision-making teams,” International Journal of
Conflict Management, vol. 18, pp. 42-73, 2007.

[5] V. P. Richmond and J. C. McCroskey, “Management Communication
Style, Tolerance for Disagreement, and Innovatives as predictors fo
employee satisfaction: A comparison of single-factor, two-factor, and
multiple factor approaches,” Communication Yearbook, vol. 3, pp.
359-373, 1979.

[6] R. Tannenbaum and W. H. Schmidt, How to choose a leadership
pattern, Institute of industrial relations, 1958.

[7] P. J. Sadler, “Leadership style, confidence in management, and job
satisfaction,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 6, pp.
3-19, 1970.

[8] R. A. Aziz, M. Muhammad, and I. Abu-Jarad, “Management
communication styles: conceptualization and scale development,” in
Proc. of Conference on Innovation Management and Technology
Research (ICIMTR), pp. 28-32, 2012.

[9] T. R. Hinkin, “A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations,” Journal of Management, vol. 21, pp. 967-988, 1995.

[10] T. R. Hinkin, “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use
in survey questionnaires,” Organizational research methods, vol. 1, pp.
104-121, 1998.

[11] A. Cohen, R. DeVore, and C. Schwab, “Convergence rates of best
N-term Galerkin approximations for a class of elliptic sPDEs,”
Foundations of Computational Mathematics, vol. 10, pp. 615-646,
2010.

[12] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate
Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed. Upper Sadler River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc., 2010.

[13] J. Pallant, “SPSS survival manual,” 4 ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2010.

[14] B. M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd ed.: Taylor and Francis
Group, 2010.

[15] C.-H. Chang, “The Influence of User’s Trait on Public e-Service Usage:
A Self-Service Technology Perspective,” Asian Social Science, vol. 7,
pp. 3, 2011.

[16] G. A. Churchill Jr, “A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 64-73,
1979.

[17] J. Nunnally, Psychometric methods, New York: McGraw, 1978.
[18] P. Muchinsky, “Enhancing industrial/organizational psychology: a

challenging mandate at the dawn of the 21st century,” Japanese
Association of Industrial/Organizational Psychology Journal, vol. 20,
pp. 1-27, 2006.

[19] P. R. Jackson, T. D. Wall, R. Martin, and K. Davids, “New measures of
job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, pp. 753, 1993.

[20] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics,”
Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 382-388, 1981.

[21] W. W. Chin, A. Gopal, and W. D. Salisbury, “Advancing the theory of
adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure
faithfulness of appropriation,” Information Systems Research, vol. 8,
pp. 342-367, 1997.

[22] D. Gefen, D. W. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau, “Structural equation
modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice,” 2000.

[23] R. P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, and L. W. Phillips, “Assessing construct validity
in organizational research,” Administrative science quarterly, pp.
421-458, 1991.

Rozilah Abdul Aziz was born in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. She is a postgraduate student at Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam and currently
conducting a doctoral research in the field of
Organizational Communication. Rozilah has obtained
her MSc. in Corporate Communication, Universiti
Putra Malaysia (UPM) and BBA in Business
Administration, Western Michigan University, USA.
She is currently a senior lecturer at the Faculty of
Business Management in Universiti Teknologi

MARA, Shah Alam. Her areas of interest include Organizational
Communication, Human Communication, Organizational Behavior and
Personality Development.

394

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013

Mokhtar Muhammad is a Phd holder in Malaysian
Political History from University Malaya; MSc in
Jounalism and Mass Communication, Iowa State
University, BSc in Journalism, University of
Colorado; and Diploma in Mass Communication
(Journalism) Institut Teknologi MARA (ITM). He is
currently a professor at Journalism Programme in
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). He is also the
Director, Institute of Journalism Studies, Faculty of
Communication and Media Studies, UiTM. Prof. Dr.

Mokhtar areas of expertise and research include, Journalism;
Communication; Social Science History; sociological Studies of Journalism;
News-Editorial Writing Journalism; Studies of the Media; Culture and
Society; Communication and Change, Organizational Communication;
Human Communication; International Communication; International
Relations; Global Contemporary and Political Studies.

Norlida has obtained his PhD in International
Business Management, from Universiti Sains
Malaysia; MBA from Governer State University of
Illinois, USA; BBA, Ohhio University Athens, USA;
and Diploma in Food Technology, Insitut Teknologi
MARA (ITM). She is currently a Deputy Dean at the
Faculty of Business Management in Universiti
Teknologi MARA. Dr. Norlida is an associate
member of Malaysian Institute of Human Resource
Management. Her areas of expertise include, but not

limited to International Management, Organizational Behavior, Human
Resource Management, Principal of Mangement, Communication. Her
paper entitled “The Impct of Communicatin to the Performance of
International Jiont Ventures Abroad: Case of Malaysia” has won the Best
Award Paper at the UNITEN International Business Management
Conference (2007)

395

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013