A case study of the internal communication of the government of Jefferson City, Tennessee

How can management persuade, motivate, and lead if it does not know where its followers stand? How do the employees perceive management's initiatives? Just how aware of the city's problems are they? Is city government making the employees aware of these concerns, or are employees getting their information from sources other than the city? From what source within the city does each employee get his information about city government? From the grapevine? From the bulletin board? From a supervisor? Orally or in writing? In a formal meeting or over lunch? More importantly, where does the workforce prefer to get its information?

This thesis considers the current communication climate within Jefferson City government. The researcher attempted to "take a picture" of the present state of affairs. In other words, considering who they are and what they do, what kind of a job are they doing at communicating? The analysis considers both strengths and weaknesses. What Jefferson City management desired to determine was the current organization for communication, the level of that communication, and the effectiveness of its efforts. Perhaps the greatest problem is the uncertainty of it all: How can you evaluate and build upon what is not known? It is only after this data are collected that the city may evaluate how effective its past efforts have been and then set objectives for the future.

Although this research was conducted for a practical and particular purpose, the data that are obtained and the conclusions that are drawn can contribute to a greater purpose. It is obvious that the results of one case study or experiment do not produce conclusive data. Rather, it is the cumulative results of many case studies and experiments conducted over time that provide "wisdom" and "theory." This is not to say, however, that little bits of "wisdom" cannot be found in a single case study or that these results do not provide support for a theory. Just the opposite: The researcher should search for "wisdom" and ways in which his or her results can contribute to the field's body of knowledge.