| This study represents an interdisciplinary approach to the study of communicator competence within the information systems environment. Specifically, the researcher examined the communication behavior between a generalist and a specialist (which in this study is an end user and a systems developer) when defining the requirements for a computer-based information system.;An empirical investigation was conducted in a field setting with 58 systems developers who had been rated as demonstrating high or low effectiveness (over all job performance) by their supervisors. The research design consisted of a quasi-experimental session between a confederate end user and a developer. Using a case format, the developer was asked to conduct an initial interview with an end user; eliciting the requirements for a computer-based information system. The interviews were then analyzed for effective communication behaviors.;The investigation revealed that highly-rated developers used the following specific communication behaviors more frequently than their more lowly-rated counterparts: metacommunication, pointers, reframing techniques, backtracking and outcome frames. Moreover, the highly-rated developers were perceived (by confederate end users) as more able to generate rapport, satisfaction and shared meaning than the lowly-rated developers. Further, highly-rated developers were better calibrators than were their counterparts. These results provide empirical support for the relationship between performance and communicator competence.;Communication often is touted as the solution for many organizational problems, but there is little empirical evidence to back this claim. This study is an attempt to demonstrate the importance effective communication to organizations developing computer-based information systems (CIS). The investigator constructed and tested a generalized framework for communicator competence between a generalist and a specialist. The framework included specific communication patterns (metaphors, metacommunication) internal processes (frame flexibility and calibration) as well as outcome measures (rapport, satisfaction and shared meaning). |
