Week 2: Understanding Organizational Communication as Self-Organizing and Conversations

This week we begin an analytical "conversation" about organizational communication as more than "sender, receiver, message and noise." While that is the foundational principle of communication, human communication, be it individual, civic or organizational, is far more than that, and much more complex.

Organizational communication is strategic discourse. It is about human choice-making behaviors in formal enterprises be they for profit or nonprofit. It is about choices that lead to action. As Poole and Conrad (2005) point out in Strategic Organizational Communication:

"Communication is...defined as a process through which people, acting together, create, sustain, and manage meanings through the use of verbal and nonverbal signs and symbols within a particular context....During every conversation people create and exchange a complex set of messages with one another and in doing so create meaning for each message and for the interaction....The systems of meanings that individuals create together influence their impressions of one another, their interpretations of their relationship, and the meanings that they attach to their communication. As their conversation continues, their goals may change as they discover that the other person is more (or less) sympathetic to thei position than expected. Similarly, people's assumptions about how civil they should be toward one another may change when they notice others are more civil than ever before, and so on....We communicate with people at work because we like them or because our tasks require us to do so, or sometimes both. Thus, our relationships at work have both an interpersonal and an organizational dimension....[W]e have to negotiate an appriate mix of these two dimensions....[T]he mirracle of organizational communication processes is that they allow large numbers of people from very different backgrounds, ways of thinking, needs, and goals to coordinate their actions and craete "organizations" that at least seem to be stable containers within which information flows from person to person." (pp. 4-5, 10)


The understanding of communication has evolved over the last century, and can be exemplified by three key models.

• The first is Mechanistic-Linear-One Way Action. The core elements of this model were espoused by Shannon and Weaver (1949) as sender, receiver, content, channel, encoding, decoding and noise. This viewpoint, while working well for computer communication machinery, is limited because it does not account for feedback.

• DeFleur (1970), expanded upon the linear model by adding feedback, helping establish a Circular-Two Way Interaction Model. In this construct all involved are sender-receivers—participants who connect with each other in a manner so the message can be reviewed, better assuring its accuracy. This approach still does not recognize the complexity of the communication process. The context of the sender-receivers impact the verbal and nonverbal messages being sent is critical in understanding the communication process.

• In Barnlund’s (1962) Simultaneous-Transaction Model, participants are perceived as continuously being both a sender and receiver, with encoding and decoding processes being influenced by internal and external factors. Noise consists of physical, psychological and semantic entities. In this perspective, communication has a “past, present, and future” with “participants playing roles” (Byers, 1997, p. 12)

Organizations and their management are conversations, formal and informal networks of individuals and teams that interpret and reinterpret information and experiences, learn and unlearn in order to respond to organizational needs, guide projects, set directions, etc.

“Organizational tasks require work units to process information “ (Poole, 1977, 494).

Organizational communication is traditionally understood as a process involving information sharing and the enabling of the coordination of individuals, teams and activities in an organizational context. More completely, it involves systems that join people and technology in intimate relationships where one or more of the following occur: data and information is transferred (Shannon & Weavor, 1963), meaning is expressed (Isaacs, 1999), knowledge is created (Allee, 1997), interpersonal relationships are fostered (Cohen & Prusak, 2001), learning is facilitated (Argyris, 2001), and decision-making and action is enabled (Simon, 1997). It is “both the behaviors and symbols, generated whether intentionally or unintentionally, occurring between and among people who assign meaning to them, within an organizational setting” (Byers, 1997, 34).

Organizational communication systems are always evolving. They emerge based upon the people involved, job tasks occurring, and the specific needs of the organization at a particular time. In this manner the current work demands augment, at time even creates, the organization’s communication system and makes the organization more responsive (Deetz, 1995).

Organizational communication must create interest among employees, motivating them to review the material and utilize the information shared. The communication process must also be interactive, enticing, enchanting, and thought provoking, causing analytical reflection resulting in risk-taking and innovation.

So, how do you understand (interpret) this notion of organizational communication as the process by which a company or institution self-organizes itself so it 1) understands "what or who" it is--forms an identity, 2) can develop and seek a mission, 3) operate or function effectively, and 4) develop and provide a product or service? What examples have you seen of organizational communication in action? What are the challenges to effective organizational communication?

How are organizational communication and workplace "knowing" linked?

As you grapple with the above, think about how most communicate daily, whether on the job or off. For many the preference is still to communication or engage with others in a "face-to-face" (F2F) manner. This is the primary manner for human interaction for millenia.

For many, F2F is still considered the best way, the most effective manner. It is the most natural, allowing individuals and groups to personally interact and get to know each other. It allows for a broader range of emotions and for body langauge to be perceived and interpreted.

But, digital technologies have now become an ubiquitous component of human communication and networking--socially and workwise. Communicating and relating in a "sociotechnical" manner is part of one's lifestyle and work environment. It is how enterprises "organize," network, problem solve, make decisions, etc. It is how leaders manage, employees work, and teams collaborate. So, how can organizational communication incorporate a high level of "social capital," a sense of "high touch," as some would say.

What would be key characteristics of effective "high touch" organizational communication systems; i.e., systems and processes that enabled managers and staff member to create meaning, share information and craete knowledge, to develop working relationships, and to complete their tasks?

So, let stop there for this week.

I'll be interested in your insights.

Chuck Piazza

References:

Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

Argyris, C. (2000). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Byers, P. Y. (1997). Organizational communication: Theory and behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Conrad, C & Poole, M. S. (2005). Strategic organizational communication in a global economy (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.

Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.