Organizational communication is just that—organizations and communication. The key is how one understands organizations and how they operate, and what form of communication one needs to use and what level of communication one needs to achieve. It also entails how one envisions employees and the workplace at large.
So, keep in mind that today a large portion of workers are seen as knowledge workers, and the workplace is to be team-oriented and collaborative and to include interactive communities of practice. What type of organizational communication is needed in such and organization?
To begin, organizational communication is about organizations and how they self-organize, creating and maintaining an identity and operational processes so their members can coherently and consistently interact so they can achieve their purpose, thus providing their product and/or service. As Conrad and Poole state, it is about strategic discourse.
For today’s fast-paced, market-driven, knowing organizations, though, I hold that this definition needs to be expanded to dialogical and collaborative strategic discourse, i.e., empowering knowledge networks comprised of conversations and relationships that cut across time zones, geographies, and cultures. This is a challenge for organizations, particularly older organizations and large corporations who find it easier to function in a “top-down,” directive manner.
Building upon this, this course views organizations through the lens of communication in a digital Information Age, i.e., through a sociotechnical framework of collaborative information processing, knowledge generation and application, and innovative problem solving and decision making.
The Digitally Networked Organization
Thus, 21st century organizations, whether they be for-profit businesses, non profit organizations or government agencies, are dynamic sociotechnical systems driven by information and powered by knowledge. Organizations:
Are a system of networks, even a network of networks. They are partnerships and alliances with internal and external individuals and groups.
Organizations are a dynamic self-organizing web of conversations and relationships. They are formed and given life by interaction. No conversation and interaction, no organization or, at least, not a living one. The web of conversations and relationships include organizational partners, vendors, competitors, local communities, and customers/clients.
Effective organizations, while emergent and evolutionary in nature thus being creative and having a spontaneous element, are consciously, and thoughtfully designed.
- Organizations now are a hybrid entity, a blend of physical and virtual aspects. Workers routinely and freely move in and out of physical and virtual domains.
- Have both a human infrastructure and technological infrastructure. These two infrastructures are intertwined.
- Organizations are information and knowledge ecologies where information must continuously be able to be accessed, as well as be continuously flowing on a “as needed” or “on demand” basis. These ecologies are comprised of various types of “communities” that support individual and teams, share resources, foster learning, and aid each other problem solve.
- The workforce is people and information and communication technology woven into one system. Business technologies are not merely tools. By augmenting human capabilities, they create a more agile, versatile, mobile and interconnected employee and team….the knowledge worker who functions in an intelligent organization.
- Virtual information spaces, the various organizational forums for sharing information using the Internet and organizational intranets, need to be transformed into information places, forums where people actual meet (feel present to each other) and interact with each other, not just review and respond to text.
- Digital-based social networking is a vital element of how work tasks are completed, business conducted and customers served.
Knowledge Sharing Organizations and Information Systems
While communication has always been at the heart of organizations, it can easily be seen that in a global work environment and dispersed organizational business arena, it is even more important. Plus, there are more chances for misinterpretation. In an organization, leaders, staffs members, and frontline workers, individually and collectively as departments and teams, communicate for a variety of reasons. The same hold true for organizational partners, vendors and customers. They communicate to a) convey information, b) influence and persuade, c) make a public statement, d) address an injustice, e) share personal meaning, or f) construct a social or organizational worldview. It is key that all parties involved understand why each is communicating so communication is efficient and an effective dialogue.
As Burton, DeSantis and Obel (2006) point out in Organizational Design, designing organizations—firms, departments, teams, etc.—involves understanding and strategically setting out the specifications regarding “strategy, structure, processes, people, coordination and control, and incentives,” i.e., motivational processes and reward systems. (p. 17)
The organization’s configuration—structure or architecture—determines it complexity, and eventually it communication style. The configuration must match the organization’s goals, strategy, and environment. Designing an organization’s involves 1) envisioning the overall organization’s mission, 2) understanding the tasks needed to achieve the mission, 3) breaking up the overall task into smaller takes that can be carried out by sub groups, and 4) coordinating the smaller subunit tasks so they fit together to efficiently and effectively accomplish the overall organizational goals (p. 57).
This takes coordination and control, with leaders ranging from those who empower workers, giving them voice and freedom to be innovative and productive to micro managers who do not trust employees, and thus do not delegate, feeling a need to oversee and hold onto the authority of making the final decisions. (p. 57)
In light of the above, information processing structures and processes are conceived and developed. In designing this organizational component one answers: Who makes what decisions based upon what information? Who talks with whom about what, or what is the structure of communication? (p. 57)
Organizational information systems can be designed in 4 ways:
Workplace Engagement
Fundamental to communication and knowledge sharing is social interaction and engagement, finding meaning in work, having a voice, and feeling valued by and making a contribution to the organization. In Managing Interactivity: Executing Business Strategy, Improving Communication, and Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture, Mary Boone (2001) highlights 3 key elements of the organizational communication process that must be imbedded in the organizations culture:
Thus, when designing organizations and the knowing culture in which their departments and teams function, the above constructs are an important starting point—aligning organizational structure and communication with people and the task, and developing a knowledge generating and applying system that arising from an “open knowledge common or forum” culture that is rooted in mutual collaboration.
Conducting business and collaboratively functioning as a knowledge worker and team member in a distributed workplace is very challenging. Often current organizational communication and collaborative processes, tools and platforms do not foster the needed level of human interconnectivity and interaction needed to enable the establishment of deep trusting workplace relationships and foster the needed credibility and risk to authentically problem solve.
So, in light of this discussion, continue to develop your own vision of organizational communication.
Focusing on practical application: How does the above overall visions mirror or challenge your current organizational communication practice? How does your organization connect, inform, and engage? How can such a perspective enhance or improve organizational communication and collaboration in your organization, department, and/or team?
Chuck Piazza
12 comments:
I WORK IN AN ENVIROMENT THAT IS LARGELY KNOWLEDGE WORKERS. MOST HAVE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE ACCORDING TO SHERE THEY WORK IN THE HOSPITAL, BUT THERE ARE A FEW WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABUT MORE THAN JUST THEIR SPECIALTY. I BELEIVE THAT THIS IS A TEAM ORIENTED ENVIROMENT; ALTHOUGH, IT HAS A HIERACAL MANAGEMENT STYLE. STAFF ARE ABLE TO VOICE THEIR OPION AND HAVE IT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THIS IS ALSO ENCOURAGED BY THOSE IN POWER. IT IS DEFINATELY PEOPLE DRIVEN/RELATIONSHIP DRIVEN SYSTEM. WITH MANY DIVISIONS. I DO BELEIVE THAT WE AS AN ORGANIZATION NEED TO WORK ON HOW WE CONNECT PEOPLE TO ONE ANOTHER, AS WELL AS MAKING INFORMATION A LITTLE MORE ACCESSIBLE. BY DOING THE THINGS I HAVE LISTED ABOVE IT WOULD EMPOWER THE EMPLOYEES, ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE INFORMED CHOICES THOURGOUT THEIR DAY AND ALLOW THEM TO GIVE BETTER INFORMATION AS WELL AS CUT DOWN ON HAVING TO REPEAT WORK OR ERRORS PERIOD.
Most of the organizations that I have worked in do not match the vision stated in the blog. I am mostly familiar with the typical heirarchy structure because it is easier to implement and is efficient. However, all companies have cracks started in the fascade as they start outsourcing and using contractors. In addition, the proliferation of "Centers of Excellence", aka Shared Services has caused my company to look at, and consider, different structural solutions.
My company is a high communicator but the communication seems to flow mostly down. From my perspective more discourse can be encouraged by the leaders through face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, and surveys.
This same company does periodically survey all employees to determine if they feel engaged. They need to expand the communication strategy.
Companies can improve organizational communication by valuing the discourse and drawing out the knowledge (inside thge people) so it can start a knowledge management processes. This would move them closer to becoming a learning organization.
I had been working in a dispersed team management, when I was working in Dubai; UAE for a US based company. Basically a very good organization, I personally felt that the flow of information was not very effective as we lacked timely and not very clear communication. It was a kind of hierarchal organization, though they claimed to be open and interactive. But in actual sense, we were expected to follow the instructions as rolled out by the higher management as it is without any deviation.
The higher management was not accessible by any project team (project manager or team members) and the middle management will remain as the medium of communication. At times, there will be no communication or delay in reaching us on timely basis which created lot of delays and miscommunication. There were also delays due to difference in time zone. This kind of work environment at times de-motivates the employees to concentrate and work harder towards the common goal. Middle management will try to be the mediator for each and every flow of information and by the time it reaches the actual team working on that particular project, the message would deviate from the real requirement.
We realized the real need of direct communication with the management and were addressed. But due to the hierarchal management and mediators, the communication problem between the ultimate project team and the management remained resulting in failure of projects. Communication does play a significant role in any organization, for the success of the organization and keeps the team spirit to work together. All the team members should be made accessible to the required information on timely basis. Management should empower the project manager and the team to be in understanding with each other and be on the same page. As discussed in the class many times it is important that we communicate clearly and make sense in what we say and self organize ourselves to convey what exactly we want to communicate and keep working together to achieve organization’s goal.
As the way we communicate and the environment we create, reflects on our personality and growth of the organization. Hence I feel with clear and good communication we can bring in that synergy in the team, people together, no matter where we work or live in geographical terms. Our communication style would help any organization to keep the bond and build relationship and reflects on the culture and environment we live in and gaining knowledge in the organization. Organizations should progress with better communication and with knowledge management.
I had been working in a dispersed team management, when I was working in Dubai; UAE for a US based company. Basically a very good organization, I personally felt that the flow of information was not very effective as we lacked timely and not very clear communication. It was a kind of hierarchal organization, though they claimed to be open and interactive. But in actual sense, we were expected to follow the instructions as rolled out by the higher management as it is without any deviation.
The higher management was not accessible by any project team (project manager or team members) and the middle management will remain as the medium of communication. At times, there will be no communication or delay in reaching us on timely basis which created lot of delays and miscommunication. There were also delays due to difference in time zone. This kind of work environment at times de-motivates the employees to concentrate and work harder towards the common goal. Middle management will try to be the mediator for each and every flow of information and by the time it reaches the actual team working on that particular project, the message would deviate from the real requirement.
We realized the real need of direct communication with the management and were addressed. But due to the hierarchal management and mediators, the communication problem between the ultimate project team and the management remained resulting in failure of projects. Communication does play a significant role in any organization, for the success of the organization and keeps the team spirit to work together. All the team members should be made accessible to the required information on timely basis. Management should empower the project manager and the team to be in understanding with each other and be on the same page. As discussed in the class many times it is important that we communicate clearly and make sense in what we say and self organize ourselves to convey what exactly we want to communicate and keep working together to achieve organization’s goal.
As the way we communicate and the environment we create, reflects on our personality and growth of the organization. Hence I feel with clear and good communication we can bring in that synergy in the team, people together, no matter where we work or live in geographical terms. Our communication style would help any organization to keep the bond and build relationship and reflects on the culture and environment we live in and gaining knowledge in the organization. Organizations should progress with better communication and with knowledge management.
The company I work for consists of specilization of knowledge in workers' compensation. It requires knowing the State regulations, laws and statues otherwise one small dip in handling the claims can cause penalty situation.
People who specialize in handling work compensation claims are very knowledgeable in what they do but sometomes having a specialized knowledge of one field can prove to be very difficult when trying to associate the knowledge in something. Having a knowledge in certain specialty can restrict an individual to think outside the box often times, thus lead to communication problem when interacting with others.
To avoid this from happening, the company should encourage employee's to have hobbies or or encourage them from participating in extra curricular activities organized by company.
Given the idea that organizations are not simply networks, but are even networks of networks, communication can get muddled, confused, or even lost. The larger an organization is, the more opportunity it has to fall prey to these issues. There are times when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, not necessarily because of a lack of a desire to collaborate, but simply because the various employees do not know what each is doing. For example, a couple of years ago I was contacted by a Regional group with the “great news” that they were in production on a new program that would make my job of managing clinic and hospital space much easier as they planned to “go electronic”. You can imagine how stunned the group was when I contacted them for a verbal conversation and alerted them that I had been utilizing a program for the Diablo Service Area (DSA) that I had had created nearly two years prior. The Regional team not only lacked an awareness of the current system, but was spinning their wheels to create a new system for the DSA. After having a discussion with the Regional representatives, it became clear that they were also unaware of what my service area’s needs were that needed to be addressed in order to make any system they created successful. So how could these networks of networks have avoided this complete lack of communication? For starters, employees could be more aware of the technology available to them that delivers this type of data. Had the Regional employees viewed the intranet, they could have easily seen the information posted online regarding the current system that was available in the DSA. Additionally, reaching out prior to all possible contacts in advance as opposed to starting the work first would be advisable so-as to avoid any wasted time. Another option would be for an information communication to have been sent directly to each surrounding service area contact on the DSA’s new process. However, this still does not resolve any issues that might arise as employees depart and new staff comes on board. The key to assisting with these issues is keeping the lines of communication as open as possible. Establishing and maintaining relationships and ensuring that we keep one another informed not just within our own area, but across the various lines of the business can be a lofty feat, but an important one in order to maximize employee and organizational effectiveness and efficiencies.
An organization’s structure helps to determine its complexity and communication style. In examining communication breakdowns, such as the ones I continually experience at work, the structure is a starting point for how to identify problems. The structure is too complex for the managers who are should be gatekeepers of information, monitoring the flow and quality of information, to truly manage the communication vertically and laterally through the organization. Floods of information are difficult to manage and forced trickles slowly dampen moral and relationships. Yet, when a reorganization is not possible nor is a high tech information support system anywhere in sight, how does an organization improve communications? The leadership must hold employees accountable while at the same time foster a culture rich with quality communication. This realization that communication systems are dysfunctional can take some time, so as a non-manager, how can one person start to instigate change?
I have spent almost equal parts of my career in consulting and in industry. When I was a consultant I found that the organizations I worked within found it easier to connect, inform, and engage. Knowledge and expertise was our product. As a consultant, there is little to no time for organizational communication efficiency; inefficiency was lost revenue. Systems were in place to not only offer mentoring but bring new information and ideas to the table in an attempt to improve the level of service we provided.
Now that I am in industry, I see a much different organizational structure and politics plays a much stronger role in how we operate. While top down communication is critical to the success of the organization, I find that although you can be creative in how you connect, inform, and engage there is often a disconnect when it comes to action; especially in the lower levels or more junior managers. There is often a sense of awaiting permission to take initiative. This is exacerbated in a global company where cultures favor a more hierarchical structure. To this regard, I would offer that often times in organizational communication process there is a failure to properly delegate and in some aspects reward risk taking.
In the knowledge workforce, every employee is a contributor and therefore is feeding the knowledge database. If employees do not feel empowered or valued in their ability to connect and engage and in many cases lead, we are losing out on uncultivated knowledge.
Communication in retail banking is sometimes crucial when it comes to customer relationship.For retail financial institutions, better communications can improve the customer experience, increase
connectedness and consistency among dispersed branch locations, and improve employee productivity. But email is too static and impersonal, and face-to-face interaction is too expensive and cannot scale.Retail banking services traditionally involved a personal relationship between customers and their local
branch. The emergence of alternative banking channels that offer customers more flexibility has eroded these relationships. At the same time, mergers and acquisitions, increasing customer expectations, and the introduction of more bank products and services have accelerated employee turnover and reduced awareness of corporate values and goals at remote branches
The following could be helpful to ovMore powerful and effective ways to reach customers and deliver a superior customer experience in the
branch
• Tools that can improve the productivity and capabilities of branch employees and help them more rapidly
acquire new product information and sales techniques to increase revenues
• Ways to forge a stronger brand identity and a consistent corporate culture across all branch locationsercome that:
From a practical standpoint, there are some challenges for the current organization in which I am involved. The organization for which I currently work is extremely data-driven and people-driven. It requires a substantial amount of hard data, as well as information that people have in their heads. These types of systems, communication, and decision making, however, tend to take a much longer period of time. This is due to the fact that it requires additional time to research, gather, and summarize the requested data. Time must also be set aside to track down and talk to the pertinent parties involved. These types of systems allow people to connect with one another. We all know that we are pieces of a larger puzzle and that it is imperative for the health of the organization overall that we are accessible to each other when important data is needed. Relationships are forged with one another and people are more willing to listen and engage one another in support of a more positive outcome and experience for the patient.
There are situations that occur sometimes, however, in which there is not a sufficient amount of time in which to sequester all of the requested data to make a decision, particularly given that decisions and communications frequently need to be made within that same day; sometimes within the same hour. In these situations, I have seen what appears to be an almost automatic swap over to being event-driven. In situations where swift decisions need to be made, typically higher levels of management become more actively involved to quickly secure the most pertinent pieces of data as needed to deal with the current event.
This type of swap is not surprising to me, as I do not believe any organization can have steadfast resolve to sticking solely to one type of system. Various situations arise and there is no one system that effectively managed every possible event to its greatest resolution.
Working for mortgage company our communication with the customer is either on the phone, emailing business letters, and setting appointment with the clients to meet in person for a review of their financials for mortgage loan.
As a taem we are assign to two divisions. Under each division there are multiple team leaders. Every morning we have our company meetings for two hours with the president of the company, followed by another half hour meeting with our team leader. After lunch another group meeting with the team before we begin working. Engaging in communication, constant interaction with the top management, people I work with, and assisting clients face to face, the job training was so intense I was promoted within five months :D
I am currently self-employed, and so the issue of organizational communication in a knowing organization is very critical. The reason is that I am hired for short term projects, which means that if there is a communication issue, it will impact me directly. I am not part of a team, so, I have to take full responsibility for all my actions and my work. I also have to meet the requirements on a timely basis because everything is due in the time span I am hired to do the job. So, I cannot slack off. Working for an employer is challenging, but, working for yourself can be even more challenging because the person has to wear all hats, like I have to do my own marketing, accounting, email correspondence, resolving issues and prepare my own measures for success. There is no other person besides me and this is what makes it different than a knowing organization where communication is all interacting in a group with each other.
However, from my past job experiences, I have learned that in a knowing organization, being connected through technology is very crucial; it is the reason why they have an emphasis on experience and job skills. The essence of success depends on understanding the culture within an organization. It is the key to interact with everyone and transform communication; it is a crucial skill for leaders trying to achieve strategic outcomes. Intelligent leaders have the best perspective, because of their position in the organization. They have the vision to see the dynamics of the culture, especially regarding what needs transformation.
Post a Comment