Superior/subordinate Questionnaire

1. Abstract

The Superior/subordinate Questionnaire—psychometrically recognized as the Interpersonal Communication Inventory – Superior/Subordinate Version (ICI-SS)—is a specialized multi-source assessment battery designed to systematically quantify dyadic interaction patterns, emotional regulation, communicative barriers, and social decoding between organizational leaders and their direct reports. Originally adapted from Millard J. Bienvenu’s foundational Interpersonal Communication Inventory (ICI), this adapted version captures interpersonal dynamics within formal organizational hierarchies across three parallel evaluation perspectives: an observer-rating form evaluating a manager’s behavioral repertoire, a subordinate self-reflection form addressing upwards communication with superiors, and a superior self-reflection form examining downwards communicative interactions with subordinates.

Comprising 40 core operational items per perspective, the instrument evaluates critical dimensions of organizational functioning, including self-disclosure, active listening, perspective-taking (empathy), handling of negative feedback, defensiveness, and emotional composure under conversational conflict. Responses to the behavioral items are captured using a discrete trichotomous response format: YES (usually), NO (seldom), and Sometimes, accompanied by a complementary comparative diagnostic modality (capturing both ‘REAL’ enacted behavior and ‘IDEAL’ aspirational benchmarks), concluding with a five-point global item evaluating communicative effectiveness. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency, with global Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across organizational applications ranging from .81 to .89, alongside stable multi-week test-retest reliability (r = .78 to .84). Factor analytic paradigms consistently reveal a stable multidimensional structure corresponding to core communicative faculties: decoding non-verbal cues, expressive clarity, emotional self-regulation, trust/openness, and communicative dominance. The ICI-SS serves as an indispensable psychometric tool across industrial and organizational psychology, sports administration, executive coaching, and leadership development initiatives.

2. Keywords

Interpersonal Communication Inventory, Superior/Subordinate Questionnaire, Dyadic Communication, Organizational Hierarchy, Active Listening, Emotional Self-Regulation, Leadership Communication, Feedback Receptivity, Self-Disclosure, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The foundational conceptual architecture of the Interpersonal Communication Inventory was formulated by Millard J. Bienvenu, Sr., who established the original theoretical paradigms of interpersonal communication assessment during his tenure in human development and social research. Bienvenu’s early diagnostic scales were engineered to bridge humanistic counseling theories with empirical behavioral measurement, providing practical instruments for marital, social, and organizational consultation.

The contextualized adaptation of the instrument into the Superior/Subordinate Version—refining the items for hierarchical management relationships and professional sports governance—was prominently operationalized and psychometrically investigated by Jennifer Lyn Graham (1998) at the Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Graham’s research investigated the communicative competencies of sports administrators and executive directors across Ontario amateur sports federations, validating the structural stability and practical diagnostic value of the tri-perspective superior-subordinate paradigm.

4. Purpose

Organizational performance, employee engagement, and interpersonal conflict are critically governed by the communicative clarity and psychological safety maintained across organizational ranks. The Superior/subordinate Questionnaire was engineered to diagnose, quantify, and address systematic communicative breakdowns within managerial dyads. While conventional performance appraisals frequently rely on unidimensional Likert ratings of generic management traits, the ICI-SS operationalizes concrete, highly contextualized verbal and non-verbal communicative interactions that occur on a day-to-day basis between supervisors and their personnel.

From an applied clinical, counseling, and human resource development perspective, the instrument fulfills multiple complementary functions. First, it identifies systemic perceptual discrepancies between management and staff. By capturing identical communicative behaviors across the managerial self-assessment, the subordinate self-assessment, and the external observer format, organizational consultants can conduct gap analyses that reveal unperceived blind spots. For instance, a supervisor may perceive themselves as highly approachable and open to dissent, whereas subordinate reports may reveal high avoidance of disagreement, defensive reactions to criticism, and habitual conversational interruptions.

Second, the instrument measures both REAL (perceived actual communicative behavior) and IDEAL (normative desired communicative behavior) interaction patterns. This dual-track diagnostic mechanism permits practitioners to separate structural frustration from behavioral variance. When substantial gaps emerge between the ‘REAL’ and ‘IDEAL’ scores, organizational psychologists can pinpoint whether friction stems from poor interpersonal mechanics (such as conversational dominance or non-verbal inattentiveness) or deeper psychological dynamics (such as a profound lack of trust, fear of emotional disclosure, or chronic workplace resentment).

Third, in research settings, the Superior/subordinate Questionnaire serves as an empirical criterion measure for investigating the structural antecedents and consequences of executive leadership styles, such as transformational, transactional, and servant leadership paradigms. Within sports management, corporate administration, and public health governance, the scale has been implemented to evaluate the efficacy of leadership communication interventions, establishing empirical baselines prior to communicative workshops and tracking post-training behavioral change.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Superior/subordinate Questionnaire is dyadic interpersonal communicative competence within structured hierarchical environments. Rather than viewing communication merely as the mechanical transmission of data, the scale treats communication as a multi-layered transactional process involving cognitive framing, emotional regulation, empathic decoding, and relational self-disclosure. The 40 items operationalize six underlying sub-constructs:

Expressive Clarity and Self-Disclosure

This dimension encompasses an individual’s capacity and willingness to convey thoughts, internal states, and professional perspectives accurately without ambiguity or dissimulation. It captures authentic self-disclosure—sharing beliefs, core values, and subjective rationale (e.g., Item 26: helping others understand by articulating thoughts, feelings, and beliefs)—balanced against the defensive impulse to conceal personal shortcomings (e.g., Item 25: deliberately trying to conceal faults) or withdraw emotionally (e.g., Item 27: difficulty confiding in others).

Active Listening and Cognitive Decoding

Communicative efficacy requires continuous, disciplined reception and decoding of the interlocutor’s messages. This dimension assesses active attentiveness versus communicative disengagement. Key behavioral markers include the inhibition of premature interruption (Item 29: letting the other person finish talking before reacting), deep semantic processing (Item 31: listening for meaning), and the avoidance of pseudo-listening behaviors (Item 34: pretending to listen when actually disengaged, and Item 30: mind-wandering during conversation).

Perspective-Taking and Empathic Resonance

Grounded in the psychological constructs of Theory of Mind and cognitive empathy, this dimension reflects an individual’s cognitive flexibility to step outside their own institutional agenda and perceive situations from the interlocutor’s vantage point (Item 9: putting oneself in the other person’s shoes; Item 33: seeing things from the other’s perspective). Furthermore, it gauges the capacity to detect latent emotional undercurrents beneath manifest verbal statements (Item 35: discerning the discrepancy between what a person is saying and what they are feeling).

Emotional Composure and Conflict Management

Hierarchical relationships inevitably provoke disagreements, cognitive friction, and administrative tension. This dimension evaluates the regulatory mechanisms deployed when conversational conflict erupts. It identifies non-productive coping strategies, such as sulking and affective freezing (Item 21: pouting and sulking for a long time), cognitive impairment driven by anger (Item 17: inability to think clearly when angry), and acute hypersensitivity to ideological disagreement (Item 16: becoming greatly upset when opposed), contrasted with constructive collaborative problem-solving (Item 19: discussing problems without anger).

Feedback Receptivity and Humility

Constructive dialogue within organizations depends heavily on psychological flexibility regarding personal fallibility. This dimension measures an individual’s resilience in the face of negative evaluation and their willingness to validate others. It benchmarks the capacity to assimilate constructive critique (Item 13: accepting constructive criticism), acknowledge error (Item 40: admitting when one is wrong), offer authentic interpersonal praise (Item 24: complimenting and praising others), and apologize for social transgressions (Item 15: apologizing for hurt feelings).

Communicative Dominance vs. Parity

The final facet indexes conversational balance and egalitarian discourse within unequal power structures. Items examine conversational floor-hogging (Item 10: doing more talking than the other person), conversational coercion (Item 3: having words put into one’s mouth), and dogmatic rigidity (Item 39: always seeming to think one is right), evaluating whether the interaction is characterized by psychological safety or authoritarian communicative imposition.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Superior/subordinate Questionnaire synthesizes several foundational models from social psychology, communication theory, and psychodynamics:

The Transactional Model of Communication

In contrast to linear transmission models (e.g., Shannon-Weaver), the ICI-SS is anchored in the Transactional Model of Communication formulated by Dean Barnlund and expanded by interpersonal theorists. This paradigm posits that communication is an ongoing, dynamic, simultaneous process wherein communicators act concurrently as senders and receivers. Meaning does not reside purely within verbal utterances; it is co-constructed through ongoing mutual feedback, continuous paralinguistic monitoring (such as vocal tone evaluated in Item 11), and non-verbal decoding. When applied to supervisor-subordinate dyads, the transactional model emphasizes how subtle micro-behaviors continuously negotiate authority, respect, and mutual alignment.

Carl Rogers’ Humanistic Theory and Empathic Understanding

Bienvenu’s original psychometric design was heavily influenced by Carl Rogers’ humanistic psychology, particularly Rogers’ core conditions for therapeutic and relational growth: congruence (genuineness), unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding. Within the ICI-SS framework, communicative competence is inextricably linked to congruence—the alignment between inner affective experience and outward verbal articulation (Item 26)—and the absence of defensive facade maintenance (Item 25). Rogers posited that interpersonal threat triggers perceptual distortion and rigid defensiveness; similarly, the questionnaire operationalizes how threat responses in hierarchical settings derail objective listening and provoke interpersonal conflict.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

Within the organizational literature, the superior-subordinate adaptation directly interfaces with Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory, pioneered by George Graen and colleagues. LMX theory posits that leaders do not interact with all subordinates uniformly; instead, they develop idiosyncratic dyadic relationships ranging from low-quality transactional exchanges (characterized by formal authority, restricted information, and low mutual trust) to high-quality partner-like exchanges (characterized by emotional support, bidirectional feedback, open self-disclosure, and shared decision-making). The items on the ICI-SS systematically operationalize the behavioral mechanics through which high-LMX versus low-LMX relationships are negotiated, maintained, or degraded.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Superior/subordinate Questionnaire has been evaluated across multiple organizational sectors, sports governance federations, and human service institutions, yielding solid empirical support across diverse validation domains:

Construct Validity

Construct validity is substantiated through predictable convergent patterns with established psychological and communication inventories. In empirical evaluations, total and subscale scores on the ICI-SS demonstrate statistically significant positive correlations (r = .52 to .68, p < .001) with measures of cognitive empathy, such as Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and standardized scales of organizational psychological safety. Conversely, strong inverse relationships (r = -.48 to -.62, p < .001) are observed between defensive communicative patterns (e.g., pouting, dogmatic dominance) and measures of emotional intelligence (e.g., the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test). Studies examining structural validity confirm that individuals scoring higher on the constructive communication composite display significantly lower scores on scales measuring interactional social anxiety and conversational apprehension.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is corroborated by aligning the 40 items with objective behavioral indices in structured simulation assessments. Managers who score higher on active listening and empathic perspective-taking demonstrate significantly greater accuracy during behavioral coding tasks evaluating the detection of subordinate affective states. In terms of discriminant validity, the instrument displays negligible correlations (r = .06 to .14, non-significant) with measures of general cognitive ability (IQ) and standardized technical task knowledge tests, confirming that the ICI-SS assesses an independent domain of socio-emotional and communicative competence rather than general intelligence or administrative acumen.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Predictive validity has been repeatedly documented across managerial studies. Graham (1998) established that executive directors within amateur sports organizations who demonstrated balanced, high-empathy communication profiles on the ICI-SS exhibited substantially higher overall organizational effectiveness ratings. Moreover, in multi-rater feedback analyses, higher subordinate-reported communicative scores for superiors directly predict lower turnover intentions among staff (r = -.41), elevated job satisfaction (r = .56), and reduced levels of workplace burnout as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory.

8. Reliability

Reliability estimates for the Superior/subordinate Questionnaire consistently fulfill established psychometric criteria for both research and diagnostic applications:

Internal Consistency

Across validation samples, the internal consistency of the global 40-item scale has been established as robust. In Graham’s (1998) organizational investigation, the overall instrument exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .84. Distinct subscale alpha reliabilities exhibit consistent acceptable-to-strong parameters: active listening and decoding items typically range from α = .78 to .83; emotional regulation and composure indices yield α = .74 to .81; and self-disclosure/authenticity dimensions range from α = .72 to .79. Deletion of individual items does not substantially improve the aggregate alpha, confirming that the items cohesively measure the overarching construct of interpersonal competence.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over two- to four-week intervals demonstrate high stability coefficients in non-interventional control cohorts. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the overall questionnaire consistently fall within the range of r = .78 to .86. Subscale stability remains similarly elevated, confirming that the questionnaire reflects stable trait-like behavioral dispositions in communicative style rather than transient momentary affective states. Parallel-form reliability between the superior and subordinate perspectives, when adjusted for systemic hierarchical role variance, demonstrates coherent inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = .64 to .73), confirming structural alignment across observational perspectives.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted on both the original Bienvenu inventory and its organizational superior/subordinate adaptations demonstrate a robust, interpretable multidimensional factor structure:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early principal component and common factor analyses utilizing varimax and promax rotations identified five primary latent dimensions accounting for approximately 48% to 56% of total item variance:

• Factor 1: Active Listening and Attentive Processing (accounting for ~18% of variance), dominated by high positive factor loadings (> .50) from items assessing non-interruption (Item 29), listening for meaning (Item 31), and low factor loadings from pseudo-listening (Item 34) and distraction (Item 30).
• Factor 2: Emotional Composure and Frustration Tolerance (~12% of variance), characterized by strong negative loadings from items indexing cognitive dysregulation during anger (Item 17), affective sulking (Item 21), and dogmatic defensiveness (Item 16).
• Factor 3: Expressive Openness and Self-Disclosure (~9% of variance), defined by items measuring the active articulation of inner beliefs (Item 26), willingness to confide (Item 27 reversed), and transparency regarding personal limitations (Item 25 reversed).
• Factor 4: Empathic Perspective-Taking and Social Sensitivity (~7% of variance), containing substantial loadings from items indexing cognitive role-taking (Item 9, Item 33) and the decoding of unstated affective states (Item 35).
• Factor 5: Communicative Balance and Non-Dominance (~6% of variance), anchored by items examining monopolization of conversational airtime (Item 10) and interpersonal dogmatism (Item 39).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Contemporary structural equation modeling testing the five-factor model against a unidimensional communicative competence model confirms superior fit for the multidimensional architecture. Standard fit indices across organizational samples validate structural adequacy: Chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df) < 2.10, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .92 to .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91 to .93, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 to .056 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .041 to .062). Standardized factor loadings across primary target items routinely exceed the .40 threshold, confirming substantial construct representation.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-perspective behavioral rating assessment; suitable for self-report, direct-report subordinate evaluation, and third-party observer evaluation.
• Target Population: Organizational executives, managers, administrative supervisors, sports administrators, and subordinate personnel operating within formal organizational hierarchies.
• Item Count: 40 primary behavioral diagnostic questions, followed by 1 summary global single-item evaluative rating of overall communication effectiveness.
• Diagnostic Perspective Modalities:
  • Observer/Manager Rating Form: Measures perceptions of a specific manager’s communication behaviors.
  • Subordinate Self-Reflection Form: Measures how the respondent communicates upwardly with their superior(s).
  • Superior Self-Reflection Form: Measures how the respondent communicates downwardly with their subordinate(s).
• Response Scale (Core Items 1–40): Evaluated across two parallel assessment frames (REAL behavior versus IDEAL behavior) utilizing a discrete 3-point format:
  • YES (usually)
  • NO (seldom)
  • Sometimes
• Global Communicative Effectiveness Item: 5-point ordinal rating scale:
  • Very Ineffective
  • Ineffective
  • Neither Ineffective or Effective
  • Effective
  • Very Effective
• Scoring and Directionality: The inventory contains a balanced mixture of positively phrased communicative competence items (e.g., Items 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 35, 36, 40) and negatively keyed communicative barrier/defensiveness items (e.g., Items 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39). Standard psychometric scoring assigns 3 points for constructive communicative options (e.g., ‘YES’ on positive items; ‘NO’ on negative items), 2 points for ‘Sometimes’, and 1 point for non-constructive responses (e.g., ‘NO’ on positive items; ‘YES’ on negative items). Total composite scores range from 40 to 120, where higher aggregated scores reflect superior interpersonal competence, communicative flexibility, and lower interpersonal defensiveness.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes per form.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational Interpersonal Communication Inventory was originally developed and published by Millard J. Bienvenu, Sr. in 1971. The specific adaptation formatted for formal organizational hierarchies—the Interpersonal Communication Inventory – Superior/Subordinate Version (ICI-SS)—was extensively deployed and validated in organizational settings by Jennifer Lyn Graham in 1998 through the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the University of Windsor, Canada.

The instrument is archived within the academic public domain for scholarly research, educational analysis, and non-commercial institutional studies via thesis archives and library repositories (such as Library and Archives Canada / Bibliothèque et Archives Canada). Researchers wishing to reproduce, modify, or deploy the instrument within commercial consulting packages, for-profit executive assessment platforms, or automated psychometric assessment platforms should verify attribution rights and obtain clearance through relevant rights-holders or academic institutions holding archival rights.

12. References

• Bienvenu, M. J. (1971). An interpersonal communication inventory. The Journal of Communication, 21(4), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1971.tb02658.x
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Graham, J. L. (1998). An analysis of sport managers’ interpersonal communication skills in selected Ontario amateur sport organizations (Master’s thesis, University of Windsor). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Paper 2559. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/2559
• Hargie, O. (2021). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182269
• Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3572-9

13. Items of the Scale