short written assignment

Chapter 7

Communication

OVERVIEW

This chapter deals with a topic that has been implicit and explicit throughout the preceding chapters. Power is exercised, leadership is attempted, and decisions are made on the basis of communication. Organizational structure shapes communication. The chapter starts with the obvious fact that individuals are at the core of the communication process. Individuals perceive or misperceive. Organizational factors are then introduced. Both individual and organizational factors contribute to communication problems. The problems are omission, distortion, and overload. Finally, possible solutions to communication problems are presented.

Organizations are information-processing systems. A vivid metaphor portrays the organization as a brain (Morgan, 1986). This imagery captures the idea that organizations receive and filter information, process it in light of what they have already learned, interpret it, change it, and finally act on it. Organizations also have memory lapses. To take the imagery even further, there are mind-altering stimulants and depressants— organizational highs and lows.

The communication process in organizations contains elements that are strongly organizational and strongly individual. At the individual level, consider the simple example of classroom examinations. If there were not individual differences in cognition and interpretation, everyone would give the same answer to an essay question. That obviously does not happen, as every student and faculty member knows. The organizational input into the communication process comes from the structured communication channels and the positions that people occupy. Organizational positions strongly influence the interpretation of communications by individuals. In this chapter, the factors that affect the sending, receiving, perception, and interpretation of communications will be examined.

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION

Organizational structures, with their varying sizes, technological sophistication, and degrees of complexity and formalization, are designed to be or evolve into information-handling systems. The very establishment of an organizational structure is a sign that communications are supposed to follow a particular path. Power, leadership, and decision-making rely upon the communication process, either explicitly or implicitly, since

Page 1 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

they would be meaningless in the absence of information. Organizational analysts have ascribed varying degrees of importance to the communication process.

Barnard (1968), for example, states: “In an exhaustive theory of organization, communication would occupy a central place, because the structure, extensiveness, and scope of the organization are almost entirely determined by communication techniques” (p. 91). This approach essentially places communication at the heart of the organization. More recently, Stinchcombe (1990) made communication the essence of his analysis. Other theorists, however, pay scant attention to the topic (e.g., Aldrich, 1979; Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980). Instead of declaring that communication is either at the heart or at the periphery of organizational analysis, a more reasonable view is that communication varies in importance according to where one is looking in an organization and what kind of organization is being studied.

Communication is crucial for organizational managers and their work. Managers spend an overwhelming proportion of their time in communications (Kanter, 1977). These communications usually involve face-to-face interactions with subordinates, superiors, peers, and customers. There are also meetings of one kind or another. E-mail and telephone messages have to be answered. In short, the business of the managers is communication. It is estimated that 80 percent of managers’ time is spent on interpersonal communications (Klauss and Bass, 1982). The work of clerical personnel is overwhelmingly concerned with information processing. Changing information technology is having a major and unfinished impact on managerial and clerical work and thus on organizations.

These intraorganizational differences are important. Equally important are interorganizational differences. Communication is most important in organizations and organizational segments that must deal with uncertainty, that are complex, and that have a technology that does not permit easy routinization. Both external and internal characteristics affect the centrality of communication. The more an organization is people and idea oriented, the more important communication becomes. Even in a highly mechanized system, of course, communications underlie the development and use of machines. Workers are instructed on usage, orders are delivered, and so on. At the same time, the routineness of such operations leads to a lack of variability in the communication process. Once procedures are set, few additional communications are required. Although communications occur almost continuously in such settings, their organizational importance is more limited unless they lead to severe distortions in the operations.

The communication process is by definition a relational one; one party is the sender and the other the receiver at a particular time. The relational aspect of communication obviously affects the process. The social relations occurring in the communication process involve the sender and the receiver and their reciprocal effects on each other as they are communicating. If a sender is intimidated by a receiver during the process of sending a message, the message itself and the interpretation of it will be affected. Intimidation is just one of a myriad of factors that have the potential to disrupt the simple sender-receiver relationship. Status differences, different perceptual models, sexual attraction, and so on can enter the picture and lead to distortions of what is being sent and received.

These sources of distortion and their consequences will occupy a good deal of attention in the subsequent discussion. Ignorance of the potentiality for distortion has been responsible for the failure of many organizational attempts to improve operations simply by utilizing more communications. Once the importance of communications was recognized, many organizations jumped on a communications bandwagon, believing that if sufficient communications were available to all members of the organization, everyone would know and understand what was going on and most organizational problems would disappear (Katz and Kahn, 1978:430). This communications bandwagon was at the heart of the flurry of interest in organizational “culture” as the cure-all for organizational problems that appeared in the 1980s (Mohan, 1993). Unfortunately, organizational life is not that simple, and mere reliance on more and better communications cannot bring about major, positive changes for an organization.

Before we turn to a more comprehensive examination of communication problems and their consequences in organizations, a simple view of optimal communications will be presented. The view is simple because it is complementary to the earlier discussion of rationality and decision-making.

Communications in organizations should provide accurate information with the appropriate emotional overtones to all members who need the communication content. This assumes that neither too much nor too

Page 2 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

little information is in the system and that it is clear from the outset who can utilize what is available. It should be evident that the above scenario is an impossible condition to achieve in a complex

organization. Indeed, organizations gather more information than they use but also continue to ask for more (Feldman and March, 1981). This is attributed to decision-makers’ need for legitimacy. In addition, the communication process is inherently paradoxical and contradictory (Brunsson, 1989; Manning, 1992). Paradoxes and contradictions permeate organizational life.

In the sections that follow, the factors contributing to the impossibility of perfect communication systems will be examined. These factors range from those that are apparently inherent (through learning) in any social grouping to those that are peculiarly organizational. The focus will be primarily on communication within organizations. Communication with the environments of organizations will be considered later.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

Since communication involves something being sent to a receiver, what the receiver does with or to the communicated message is perhaps the most vital part of the whole system. Therefore, the perceptual process becomes a key element in our understanding of communications in organizations.

The perceptual process is subject to many factors that can lead to important differences in the way any two people perceive the same person or message. Even physical objects can be perceived differently. Perceivers may respond to cues they are not aware of, be influenced by emotional factors, use irrelevant cues, weigh evidence in an unbalanced way, or fail to identify all the factors on which their judgments are based. People’s personal needs, values, and interests enter the perceptual process. Most communications take place in interaction with others, and how one person perceives the “other” in the interaction process vitally affects how a person will perceive the communication, since other people are more emotion inducing than physical objects are. For example, research has shown that a person’s interactions, and thus perceptions, are affected even by the expectations of what the other person will look like (Zalkind and Costello, 1962).

These factors are common to all perceptual situations. For the analysis of perceptions in organizations, they must be taken as basic conditions in the communication process. So it is obvious that perfect perception— that is, perception uniform across all information recipients—is impossible in any social situation. The addition of organizational factors makes the whole situation that much more complex.

Communications in organizations are basically transactions between individuals. Even when written or broadcast forms are used, the communicator is identified as an individual. The impression that the communication receiver has of the communicator is thus crucial in the interpretation of the communication. Impressions in these instances are not created de novo; the receiver utilizes his or her learned response set to the individual and the situation. The individual’s motives and values enter the situation. In addition, the setting or surroundings of the act of communication affect the impression. A neat, orderly, and luxuriously furnished office contributes to a reaction different from the one given by an office that looks and smells like a locker room. Since the perceptual process itself requires putting ideas and people into categories, the interaction between communicators is also subject to “instant categorization,” that is, you cannot understand other people unless they are placed in some relevant part of your learned perceptual repertoire. This is often done on the basis of a very limited amount of evidence—or even wrong evidence, as when the receiver notes cues that are wrong or irrelevant to the situation in question (Zalkind and Costello, 1962:221).

Organizational position affects how communications are perceived or sent. In almost all organizations, people can be superordinates in one situation and subordinates in another. The assistant superintendent of a school system is superordinate to a set of principals but subordinate to the superintendent and the school board. Communications behavior differs according to one’s position in a role set. If the individual is in a role in which he or she is or has been or feels discriminated against, communications are affected. A study found that women who had suffered discrimination in their roles had a lower feeling of autonomy than others in the same role. This in turn was related to distortions in the information that they communicated upward in the organization (Athanassaides, 1974).

All of these factors are further complicated by the well-known phenomenon of stereotyping. This predisposition to judge can occur before any interaction at all has taken place. It can involve the labels “labor,”

Page 3 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

“management,” “minority group,” and any other group membership. The individuals involved are assumed to have the characteristics of the group of which they are members; in probably the vast majority of cases, however, the characteristics attributed to the group as a whole are distortions of reality. In the sense being used here, stereotyping is the imposition of negative characteristics on the members of the communication system. The reverse situation—attributing socially approved characteristics—can also occur, of course, with an equally strong potential for damage to the communication process.

Other factors that enter the communication process in somewhat the same manner are the use of the “halo effect,” or the use of only one or a few indicators to generalize about a total situation: “projection,” or a person’s assuming that the other members of a communication system have the same characteristics as the person’s own; and “perceptual defense,” or altering inconsistent information to put it in line with the conceptual framework already developed. All the factors that have been mentioned here are part of the general literature on perception and must be assumed to be present in any communication system. They are not peculiar to organizations.

The characteristics of the perceived person affect what is perceived. Here are four conclusions from research on the perceiver:

Knowing oneself makes it easier to see others accurately. One’s own characteristics affect the characteristics that one is likely to see in others. The person who is self-accepting is more likely to be able to see favorable aspects of other people. Accuracy in perceiving others is not a single skill (Zalkind and Costello, 1962:227–229).

These findings are linked to the more general considerations, such as tendencies to stereotype or project. It is when the characteristics of the perceived are brought into the discussion that organizational conditions become important. Factors such as age affect how a person is perceived (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). The person may be labeled a sales manager (accurately or not) by a production worker, and the entire communication system is affected until additional information is permitted into the system. The situation in which the communication takes place also has a profound impact on what is perceived. This is particularly vital in organizations, since in most cases the situation is easily labeled and identified by the physical location.

Organizations are full of all kinds of information, including gossip. There is a great deal of variance in the degree to which people are in social networks and receive information, whether it is gossip or not. Thus, information itself and individuals are part of the paradoxical communication process.

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

It has already been noted that organizations develop their own cultures, with language, rituals, and styles of communications. It is clear that organizations attempt to socialize their personnel so that communication problems are minimized (Pascale, 1985). Despite the presence of a common culture and socialization efforts, however, organizations contain the seeds of communication problems when their vertical and horizontal components are considered.

VERTICAL COMMUNICATION

Patterns of vertical communication have received a lot of attention, primarily because they are so vital in organizational operations. From our discussions of organizational structure, power, and leadership, it should be evident that the vertical element is a crucial organizational fact of life. Since communication is also crucial, the vertical element intersects in a most important way. Vertical communications in organizations involve both downward and upward flows.

Downward Communication

1. 2. 3. 4.

Page 4 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

There are five elements of downward communication (Katz and Kahn, 1978:440–443). The first is the simple and common job instruction, in which a subordinate is told what to do through direct orders, training sessions, job descriptions, or other such mechanisms. The intent of job instructions is to ensure reliable and consistent job performance. The more complex and uncertain the task, the more generalized the instructions. As a rule, the more highly trained the subordinates, the less specific the instructions are, because it is assumed that those individuals will bring with them an internalized knowledge of how to do the job, along with other job-related knowledge and attitudes.

The second element is more subtle and less often stressed. It involves the rationale for a task and its relationships to the rest of the organization. It is here that different philosophies of life affect how much this sort of information is communicated. If the philosophy is to keep the organizational members dumb and happy, little such information will be communicated. The organization may feel either that the subordinates are unable to comprehend the information or that they would misuse it by introducing variations into their performance based on their own best judgment of how the task should be accomplished. Even apart from the philosophy-of- life issue, this is a delicate matter. All organizations, even those most interested in the human qualities of their members, have hidden agendas of some sort at some time. If the total rationale for all actions were known to all members, the potential for chaos would be high, since communication overload would quickly occur. The danger of too much communication is matched by the opposite danger—too little communication—which also has strong potential for organizational malfunctioning. If the members are given too little information, and do not and cannot know how their work is related to any larger whole, there is a strong possibility that they will feel alienated from the work and the organization. Obviously, the selection of the best path between these extremes is important in the establishment of communications.

The third element of downward communication is information regarding procedures and practices within the organization. Like the first element (job instruction), it is relatively straightforward and noncontroversial. Here again, whether or not this is linked to the second element is problematic.

Feedback to individuals regarding their performance is the fourth element of the downward communication system. This is almost by definition a sticky issue, particularly when the feedback is negative. If the superior has attempted at all to utilize socioemotional ties to his or her subordinates, the issue becomes even more difficult. It becomes almost impossible when the work roles are so thoroughly set in advance by the organization that the worker has no discretion on the job at all. In these cases, only a totally conscious deviation would result in feedback. In the absence of deviation, there will probably be no feedback other than the paycheck and other routine rewards. Where discretion is part of the picture, the problem of assessment deepens, because feedback is more difficult to accomplish if there are no clear criteria on which to base it. Despite these evident problems, feedback is a consistent part of downward communications.

The final element of downward communication involves attempts to indoctrinate subordinates into accepting and believing in the organization’s (or the subunit’s) goals. The intent here, of course, is to get the personnel emotionally involved in their work and add this to the motivational system.

Downward communication takes place at all levels, from the top down. At each level it is interpreted by individuals, so that individual factors reenter our picture as information flows and is interpreted downward.

Upward Communication

Contrary to the law of gravity, communication in organizations must also go up, even when nothing is going down. According to Katz and Kahn (1978):

Communication up the line takes many forms. It can be reduced, however, to what people say (1) about themselves, their performance, and their problems, (2) about others and their problems, (3) about organizational practices and policies, and (4) about what needs to be done and how it can be done. (p. 446)

The content of these messages can obviously range from the most personal gripe to the most high-minded suggestion for improving the organization or the world; and the messages can have positive or negative consequences for the subordinate, from a promotion or a bonus to dismissal. Whistle-blowers are constantly in fear of dismissal. The most obvious problem in upward communication is again the hierarchy.

Page 5 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

People are unlikely to pass information up if it will be harmful to themselves or their peers. Thus, the amount and kind of information that is likely to be passed upward is affected by hierarchy. Anyone who has been in any kind of organization knows that discussions with the boss, department head, president, supervisor, or other superior are, at least initially, filled with something approaching terror, regardless of the source of the superior’s power in the organization.

Another facet of upward communication is important: whereas communications downward become more detailed and specific, those going up the hierarchy must become condensed and summarized. Indeed, a major function of those in the middle of a hierarchy is the filtering and editing of information. Only crucial pieces of information are supposed to reach the top. This can be seen in clear relief at the national level, where the president of the United States receives highly condensed accounts of the huge number of issues of national and international concern. Regardless of the party in power, the filtering and editing process is vital in the hierarchy, since the basis on which things are “edited out” can have enormous repercussions by the time the information reaches the top. Here, as well as in downward communication, the perceptual limitations we noted earlier are in operation, so there is a very real potential for distorted communications and, more important, for decisions different from those that would have been made if some other editing process were in force (Halberstam, 1972; Wilensky, 1967).

There is an interesting technological twist here. Computer-based information technology is increasingly important in the organizational communication process. The twist is that top executives, especially older, more senior ones, may leave the handling of computer-based information to their staff and subordinates (March and Sproul, 1990). Only time will tell if this situation will change.

Dysfunctions of Hierarchy and Some Positive Outcomes

There are three specific dysfunctions of hierarchy for the communication process. In the first place, hierarchical divisions inhibit communications. There is a common tendency for people at the same status level to interact more with one another than with those at different levels. At the same time, there is a tendency for those in lower-status positions to look up to and direct friendship overtures toward those in higher-status positions. This increases the flow of socioemotional communications upward, but at the same time it leaves those at the bottom of the hierarchy in the position of receiving little of this type of input. This situation is further complicated by the fact that those in higher-status positions also direct such communications upward rather than reciprocating to their subordinates, thus reducing the amount of satisfaction derived for all parties.

A second dysfunction is that approval is sought from superiors rather than from peers in such situations. Nonperformance criteria enter the communication system, in that respect from peers, which can be earned on the basis of performance, can become secondary to approval-gaining devices that may not be central to the tasks at hand. The plethora of terms ranging from apple-polishing to more obscene expressions is indicative of this.

A third dysfunction has to do with the error-correcting function of normal social interaction. Interaction among peers tends to sort out errors and at least provides a common denominator through the interaction process. This is much less likely to happen in upward communication. Subordinates are unlikely to tell a superior that they think an order or an explanation is wrong, fearing for their own positions. Criticism of one’s superior is clearly not the most popular form of communication in organizations (Blau and Scott, 1962:121– 124).

These problems associated with upward communication in organizations are compounded by the factors affecting individual perception, which we discussed earlier. Since rank in an organization is a structural fact, it carries with it a strong tendency toward stereotyping. The very terms management, worker, student, general, and so on are indicative of the value loadings associated with rank. Status differences are necessary and do have their positive side; but the negative connotations attached to many of the stereotypes, and the likelihood that communications will be distorted because of real or assumed differences between statuses, build in difficulties for organizational communications.

In keeping with the earlier discussion in which it was noted that complex organizations contain paradoxes and contradictions, there are also beneficial aspects to hierarchical patterns for the communication process. The

Page 6 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

studies by Blau and his associates (Blau, 1968; Blau, Heydebrand, and Stauffer, 1966), cited earlier, are a case in point. It will be recalled that in organizations with highly trained or professionalized personnel, a tall or deep hierarchy was associated with effectiveness. The explanation was that the hierarchy provided a continuous source of error detection and correction. The presence of experts in an organization also increases the extent of horizontal communications (Hage, Aiken, and Marrett, 1971). These can take the form of scheduled or unscheduled committee meetings or more spontaneous interactions. Communications are a vital source of coordination when organizations are staffed with a diverse set of personnel offering different forms of expertise (Brewer, 1971). If a tall hierarchy is found in an organization with a low level of differentiation in expertise, it is apparently because of the need for extensive downward communications. There is an additional aspect of hierarchy that is important. Unless one assumes that people always rise to a level just above that of their competence (Peter and Hull, 1969), the superiors may in fact be superior; that is, they may actually have more ability than their subordinates since they have more experience. If this is recognized and legitimated by the subordinates, some of the hierarchical problems are again minimized.

The most obvious contribution of a hierarchy is coordination (Hage, 1980). If one accepts the common model of communications spreading out in more detail as they move down the hierarchy, then the role of the hierarchy becomes clear. It is up to the superior to decide who gets what kind of communication and when. The superior becomes the distribution and filtering center. Given the vast amount of information that is potentially available for the total organization, this role is crucial.

HORIZONTAL COMMUNICATION

Communications in organizations go in more directions than up and down. Horizontal or lateral communication is a regular and important facet of organizational life. The focus of most analyses of communication has been the vertical axis. The horizontal component has received less attention, even though a greater proportion of the communication in an organization appears to be of this type. A study of a textile factory indicates that the lower the level in the hierarchy, the greater the proportion of horizontal communication (Simpson, 1969). This is not surprising, if for no other reason than that in most organizations there are simply more people at each descending level. This fact and the already noted tendency for communication to be affected by hierarchical differences make it natural for people to communicate with those at about the same level in the organization. And those at the same level are more apt to share common characteristics, making horizontal communication even more likely.

Communication within an organizational subunit is quite different from communication between subunits. Within-unit communication is “critical for effective system functioning” (Katz and Kahn, 1978:444). In most cases, it is impossible for an organization to work out in advance every conceivable facet of every task assigned throughout the organization. At some point, there will have to be coordination and discussion among a set of peers as the work proceeds; therefore, this interplay between individuals is vital in the coordination process. Communication within subunits contains much richer content than organizational task coordination materials. Katz and Kahn state:

The mutual understanding of colleagues is one reason for the power of the peer group. Experimental findings are clear and convincing about the importance of socio-emotional support for people in both organized and unorganized groups. Psychological forces always push people toward communication with peers: people in the same boat share the same problems. Hence, if there are no problems of task coordination left to a group of peers, the content of their communication can take forms which are irrelevant to or destructive of organizational functioning. (p. 445; italics in the original)

The implication here is clear. It is beneficial to leave some task-oriented communications to work groups at every level of the organization so that the potentially counterproductive communications do not arise to fill the void. This implication must be modified, however, by a reference back to the general model that is being followed here. Organizational, interpersonal, and individual factors are all part of the way people behave in organizations. If the organizational arrangements are such that horizontal communications are next to impossible, then there is little likelihood of any communication. Work in extremely noisy circumstances or in

Page 7 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

isolated work locales would preclude much interaction. (These situations, of course, contain their own problems for the individual and the organization.) On the other side of the coin, too much coordination and communications responsibility left to those who, through lack of training or ability, are unable to come to a reasonable joint decision about some matter would also be individually and organizationally disruptive.

Although it is relatively easy, in abstract terms, to describe the optimal mix of vertical and horizontal communications, another element of communications among peers is important. Since the communications among peers tend to be based on common understandings, and since continued communications build up the solidarity of the group, work groups develop collective responses to the world around them. These collective responses are likely to be accompanied by collective perceptions of communications passed to or through the work groups. These collective perceptions can be collective distortions. It is clear that work groups (as well as other interest groups) can perceive communications in a totally different light from what was intended. A relatively simple piece of information, such as a memo about possible reorganization, can be interpreted to mean that an entire workforce will be eliminated.

Interaction among peers is only one form of horizontal communication. Another form, obviously vital, occurs between members of different organizational subunits. There is little research on this subject. The principal reason seems to be that such communications are not supposed to occur. In almost every conceivable form of organization, communications are supposed to go through the hierarchy until they reach the “appropriate” office, at the point where the hierarchies of the two units involved come together. That is, the communications are designed to flow through the office that is above the two departments or units involved, so that the hierarchy is familiar with the intent and content of the communications. In a simple example, problems between production and sales are supposed to be resolved through either the office or the individual in charge of both activities.

In reality, such a procedure occurs in only a minority of such lateral communications. There is a great deal more face-to-face and memo-to-memo communication throughout the ranks of the subunits involved, primarily because the communication system would be totally clogged if all information regarding subunit interaction had to flow all the way up one of the subunits and then all the way back down another. The clogging of the system would result in either painfully slow communications or none at all.

Therefore, the parties involved generally communicate directly with each other. This saves time and can often mean a very reasonable solution worked out at a lower level with good cooperation. However, it may also mean that those further up the hierarchy are unaware of what has happened, and that can be harmful in the long run. A solution to this problem is to record and pass along the information about what has been done, but that may be neglected; even if it is not neglected, it may not be noticed.

Although the emphasis in this discussion has been on coordination between subunits, much of the communication of this sort is actually based on conflict. Professional departments are a good example. When professionals or experts make up divisions of an organization, their areas of expertise are likely to lead them to different conclusions about the same matter (Hage, 1974:101–124). For example, in a petroleum company it is quite conceivable that the geological, engineering, legal, and public relations divisions could all come to different conclusions about the desirability of starting new oil-well drilling in various locations. Each would be correct in its own area of expertise, and the coordination of top officials would obviously be required when a final decision had to be made. During the period of planning or development, however, communications between these divisions would probably be characterized as nonproductive, since the specialists involved would be talking in their own language, one that is unfamiliar to those not in the same profession. From the evidence at hand, each division would also be correct in its assessments of the situation and would view the other divisions as not understanding the “true” meanings of the situation.

This type of communication problem is not limited to professionalized divisions. Communications between subunits inevitably contain elements of conflict. The conflict will be greater if the units involved invest values in their understanding and conceptualizations. Horizontal communications across organizational lines thus contain both the seeds and the flowers of conflict. Such conflict, by definition, will contribute to distortion of communications in one form or another. At the same time, passing each message up the line to eliminate such distortion through coordination at the top has the dangers of diluting the message in attempts to avoid conflict and of taking so much time that the message becomes meaningless. Here again, the endemic

Page 8 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

complexities of an organization preclude a totally rational operation. Both horizontal and vertical aspects of organizations create complications for communication. At the same

time, there are situations in which these obstacles are overcome. An excellent example is an analysis of aircraft carrier flight decks (Weick and Roberts, 1993). When aircraft are landing, the work pace is furious, the noise overwhelming, and the possibility for tragic error great. Despite these conditions, flight decks operate very effectively. Communication works across ranks and organizational divisions. Weick and Roberts believe that this is based on “heedful interrelating” and a “collective mind” (p. 357). Everyone is extremely focused. Everyone is well trained. Similar situations certainly exist with successful sports teams and in other spheres of life. At the same time, the flight-deck example is striking because it is so different. In the more mundane spheres of organizational life, the vertical and horizontal factors intrude on communication.

Communication Networks

Before we turn to a more systematic examination of the consequences of all these communication problems in organizations, there is a final bit of evidence regarding the manner in which communications evolve. The communication process can be studied in laboratory situations; among organizational characteristics, it is perhaps the most amenable to such experimentation. There has been a long history (Bavelas, 1950; Leavitt, 1951) of attempting to isolate the communication system that is most efficient under a variety of circumstances. These laboratory studies are applicable to both the vertical and the horizontal aspects of communications, since the manner in which the communication tasks are coordinated is the major focus. Three primary communication networks between members of work groups have been studied: (1) the “wheel” pattern, (2) the “circle” pattern, and (3) the “all-channel” system. The wheel pattern requires all persons at the periphery of the wheel to send their communications to the hub. This is an imposed hierarchy, since those at the periphery cannot send messages to each other; it is the task of the hub to do the coordinating. The circle pattern permits each member of the group to talk to those on either side, with no priorities. The all-channel system allows everyone to communicate with everyone else.

Using success in arriving at a correct solution as the criterion of efficiency, repeated investigations have found the wheel pattern to be superior. The other patterns can become equally efficient if they develop a hierarchy, but that takes time, and meanwhile efficiency is reduced. The more complex the task, the more time is required for the communication network to become structured. The importance of these findings for our purposes is that whether the communications are vertical or horizontal, hierarchical patterns emerge. In the vertical situation, the hierarchy is already existing, although the formal hierarchy can be modified through the power considerations of expertise or personal attraction. In the horizontal situation, a hierarchy will emerge. Communication takes place on the basis of organizational structure; it also contributes to the development of structuring.

COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS

It should be clear that communications in organizations are not perfect. The basic consequence of existing communication systems is that messages are transformed or altered as they pass through the system. The fact that they are transformed means that the ultimate recipient of the message receives something different from what was originally sent, thus destroying the intent of the communication process.

Omission

Omission is one of two major forms of transformation, the other being distortion (Guetzkow, 1965). Omission involves the “deletion of aspects of messages” (p. 551), and it occurs because the recipients may not be able to grasp the entire content of the message and receive or pass on only what they are able to grasp. Communication overload can also lead to the omission of materials, since some messages may not be handled because of the overload. Omission may be intentional, as when certain classes of information are deleted from the information

Page 9 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

passed through particular segments of the organization. Omission is most evident in upward communications, since more messages are generated by the large number of people and units lower in the hierarchy. As the communications are filtered on the way up, the omissions occur. When omissions are intentional, it is vital to know the criteria for omitting some kinds of information. Omission can occur simply as a removal of details, with the heart of the message still transmitted upward. This is the ideal, of course, but is not usually achieved, since part of the content of the message is usually omitted also.

Distortion

Distortion refers to altered meanings of messages as they pass through the organization. From the earlier discussion of perceptions, it is clear that people are selective, intentionally or unintentionally, about what they receive as messages. Guetzkow (1965) states:

[B]ecause different persons man different points of initiation and reception of messages, there is much assimilation of meanings to the context within which transmission occurs. Frames of reference at a multitude of nodes differ because of variety in personal and occupational background, as well as because of difference in viewpoint induced by the communicator’s position in the organization. (p. 555)

Distortion is as likely to occur in horizontal communications as in vertical, given the differences between organizational units in objectives and values. Selective omission and distortion, or “coding,” are not unique properties of organizations. They occur in all communication systems, from the family to the total society. They are crucial for organizations, however, since organizations depend upon accurate communications as a basis for decision-making.

Overload

The communication problem that is perhaps more characteristic of organizations than of other social entities is communication overload. Overload leads to omission and contributes to distortion. It also leads to other coping and adjustment mechanisms on the part of the organization. There are adaptive and maladaptive adjustments to the overload situation. Omission and distortion are maladaptive. They are also normal.

Another device used when overload occurs is queuing. This technique lines up the messages by time of receipt or by some other such criterion. Queuing can have positive or negative consequences. If the wrong priority system is used, less important messages may be acted upon before those that are really crucial reach the recipient. At the same time, queuing does allow recipients to act on messages as they come in without putting them in a state of inaction because of total overload. An example of this is an anecdote from a disaster following a major earthquake. Organizations dealing with the earthquake were besieged with messages. Some organizations allowed victims to plead for help face-to-face, letting them crowd into an office and all talk at once; this quickly brought the organizations involved to a halt. The overload was so great that the communications could not be filtered in any way. Another organization received its messages by telephone, a device providing an arbitrary queuing mechanism based on an operating telephone and the luck of finding an open line. This organization was able to keep functioning, because the messages came in one at a time. In such a queuing situation, of course, there are no real criteria to determine which messages get through and which do not, other than time phasing and luck in getting a telephone line.

A useful modification of queuing is the previously mentioned filtering process, which involves setting priorities for messages. The critical factor here is the nature of the priorities. Many organizations utilize a modified triage system in which the most important messages are permitted to come into the system if it is perceived that the organizations can take relevant actions. Less important messages are then taken in as time permits. This sort of filtering system must be set up in advance. The question always is, What is the principle on which filtering takes place?

All the communication problems discussed derive from the fact that communications in organizations require interpretation. If there is a case of extreme overload, the interpretive process becomes inundated with so much material that it becomes inoperative. Queuing and filtering are techniques designed to sort messages into

Page 10 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

priorities. Any priority system established in advance means that an interpretation of messages has already been made, with some deemed more important than others. Thus, interpretation occurs regardless of whether priorities are set in advance or simply as messages are received.

Organizations generate and receive a vast amount of material. If we think of an organization as a pyramid, the huge mass at the base is the information entering an organization’s communication system. As information moves up and through the organization, it is filtered and condensed. It arrives at the top in the form of an “executive summary.” The amount of information, like the pyramid, keeps getting smaller as it rises in the organization. Here the pyramid analogy must be abandoned, since the determination of which information moves up is subject to the types of human and organizationally based interpretations we have been considering.

COMMUNICATION TO AND FROM OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION

The focus thus far has been internal organizational communication. The complications and problems that have been identified appear even more severe when we realize that so much of what is really important for an organization comes into it from its environment—competitors, creditors, customers, regulators, taxers, constituents, and so on. In addition, there are the more general environmental messages that are sent to and from an organization, such as changes in prime interest rates, demographic shifts, or petroleum price increases. Communications with the environment greatly compound the communication problems that have already been identified.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

With all the problems, potential and real, in the communication process, it is obvious that a “perfect” communication system is unlikely. But although perfection, like rationality, will not be achieved, organizations do have mechanisms by which they attempt to keep the communication system as clear as they can. There are several devices that are available to reduce the distortions and other complications in the communication process (Downs, 1967). Redundancy, or the duplication of reports for verification, though adding to the flow of messages and paper in an organization, allows more people to see or hear a particular piece of information and respond to it. This is a correction device. There are several ways to create redundancy, including the use of information sources external to the situation—such as reports that are generated outside the organization—thus ensuring that reporting units and individuals coordinate their communications.

A common solution to at least some communication problems is the ubiquitous meeting. Meetings have the potential for yielding common meanings among participants, particularly when the intent of the meetings is to achieve consensus. Although meetings are quite valuable, it is obvious that time spent in meetings is time not spent on other activities. Research indicates that people vary in their perceptions of the usefulness of meetings (Rogelberg et al., 2006), and this may affect whether meetings are effective in helping solve communication problems.

Another way in which communication problems can be reduced is through matrix-like systems. A study of a psychiatric hospital found committees or teams that were composed of personnel from the various occupational specialties in the hospital and from the established departments in the hospital (Blau and Alba, 1982). The teams were designed to deal with various issues and programs of the hospital, and hospital personnel served on multiple teams. In addition, traditional ranks were eliminated. For example, a team could have a nurse as the team leader and psychiatrists as team members. Blau and Alba report that these overlapping circles of weak ties inhibited segmentation and sustained participation because participants were rewarded for participating. Their data indicate that there was extensive interunit communication. There are limitations to this approach, of course. Its applicability in other forms of organizations is uncertain, and the approach requires the commitment of all the participants up through the head of the organization.

Some organizations have turned to “project groups” as a means of solving communication problems. These groups, or task forces as they are sometimes called, are typically composed of personnel from a variety of organizational units. Their usual purpose is to develop a new product or service for the organization. They

Page 11 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...

may be isolated from the rest of the organization in the hope that this will enable them to think and work together. One analysis of research and development project groups composed of scientists and engineers found that such groups became increasingly isolated from key information sources within and outside their organizations (Katz, 1982). Over time, their productivity decreased, with the communication process increasingly focused inward. Such project groups or task forces are probably better off with a short span of existence and a sunset clause specifying a termination date.

A major mechanism for achieving consensus about the meaning of communication is putting things in writing, such as contracts. Even though communication in writing is subject to interpretation, lawyers and accountants make much of their living by negotiating consensus in meanings between parties. This is not the answer for all problems, of course, but it is one way to avoid communication chaos.

The nature of, problems in, and suggested solutions for communications all point to the centrality of this process in much of what happens in an organization. But it is evident that the communication system is vitally affected by other structural and process factors. Communications do not exist outside the total organizational framework. They cannot be over- or underemphasized. More and more accurate communications do not lead inevitably to greater effectiveness for the organization. The key to the communication process in organizations is to ensure that the correct people get the correct information (in amount and quality) at the correct time. All of these factors can be anticipated to some degree. If organizations, their members, and their environments were all in a steady state, communication tasks would be easier. Since obviously they are not, the communication process must be viewed as a dynamic one, with new actors, new media, and new definitions constantly entering the scene. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, ambiguities and paradoxes are to be anticipated.

The media of communication in organizations have received little attention in our analysis here. Breakthroughs in the forms of information and word processing, faxing, electronic message sending and receiving, and the Internet continue. Advanced communication technology itself is not the cure for organizational communication problems. The problems are rooted in the nature of organizations, their participants, and their interactions with their environments.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The communication process in organizations in itself is a complicated one because of individual idiosyncrasies, biases, and abilities and is further complicated by organizational characteristics such as hierarchy or specialization. Nonetheless, communications within organizations are central for the other processes of power, leadership, and decision-making. Communications are shaped by organizational structure and continue to reshape structure.

The “perfect” communication system is yet to be devised and probably never will be. Technological changes in various forms have contributed to more rapid processing of information, but the issues and problems considered in this chapter are not erased by advanced technology; in fact, in some instances they are exacerbated.

EXERCISES

Describe the extent to which communication omission, distortion, and overload take place in your two organizations. Why does this happen?

When communications take place in your two organizations, how are they affected by vertical and horizontal factors?

1.

2.

Page 12 of 12Organizations

8/25/2018https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781317345947/epub/OEBPS/016_9781317345947_chapter...