Management communication ILT's

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING

This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Griffith University in accordance with section 113P of the Copyright Act 1968 (Act).

The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act.

Do not remove this notice

Course of Study: (COM21) Management Communication

Title of work: Organizational communication in an age of globalization; issues, reflections, practices, 2nd ed. (2011)

Section: Chapter 6 Connecting through social relationships and networks pp. 141--176

Author/editor of work: Cheney, George

Author of section: George Cheney

Name of Publisher: Waveland

oci I ..

I

In this chapter, we'll consider the nature of workplace relationships and net­ works. We start with relationships, since they are usually the building blocks of net­ works. Consider the frequent advice to "network"-to build a set of relationships that can be advantageous to your career success. When organizations build networks of suppliers, distributors, and other partners, these often boil down to a set of relation­ ships among individuals-even though such partnerships may also involve binding legal contracts. Work relationships and personal or social relationships are not always easily separated. In addition, communication at work is about much more than just the work itself. There are all sorts of things we talk about other than how to get the work done. Social talk is an integral part of our experience of organizations and orga­ nizational communication. We will also discuss some of the most important organiza­ tional functions of relationships and networks �and some of the implications for relationships outside of work and the workplace. ·

.. Workplace Relationships How can we describe relationships at work? Let's consider the following scenario.

Cassandra, the on-duty manager of Habersham Kids' Clothing, is leaning over the checkout counter doing paperwork. She is white, in her late 20s, smartly dressed. There are no customers in the store. A 19-year-old Polynesian salesperson, Kara, is rearranging some clothing on a rack. A group of three women come in, one holding a baby. Cassandra immediately straightens up, tugs at the sides of her blouse to straighten it, changes her facial expression to a cheery smile, and tries to make eye contact with the customers. Her face is bright and cheerful. She then looks to Kara, who takes her cue from the manager.

Kara leaves the rack and approaches the customers. "Hello, how're you?" The customers smile and nod politely but don't say more than "Hi." "Can I help you find something?" Kara asks. The woman with the baby says, "No, we're just look­ ing." Kara turns her attention to the baby, reaches gently to take his hand, and says with exaggerated cheerfulness, "Well, you're a cutie, aren't you?" She looks back to the women: "Let me know if I can help you."

141

142 � Chapter Six

The women stay together at first, looking at, touching, and commenting on the clothes, the sizes, and the prices. Kara returns to rearranging clothes but to a differ­ ent rack closer to the shoppers. After a minute or so, Kara says to the women, "We've gotten in quite a few new items for winter this week. Those on display against the wall are quite nice." The three women all look to her and smile. The one with the baby says "thanks" and moves toward the display that Kara mentioned. Apparently taking this response as encouraging, Kara walks with her and points out one style of calor-coordinated shirts and pants sets. "Mrrun," the woman responds. The other two women have continued to look in other parts of the store. Cassandra has come out from behind the counter and moved closer to them. The woman with the baby seems very interested in the outfits to which Kara has led her. Kara holds a blue version up. They discuss the appropriate size. All the while, Kara is being very attentive, smiling, and occasionally playing with the baby. "That will look darling/' Kara says at one point. Shortly after, the woman buys the outfit.

The scenario in this case is recognizable by all of us as the sort of ritualistic cus­ tomer-salesperson interaction we expect when we enter a retail store. However mun­ dane it may be, there's a lot that's interesting about this interaction that took place in a downtown shop in Hamilton, New Zealand. W hat do you notice about the roles, the relationships, and the communication?

One way to look at the brief relationship is by considering its importance to the organization. Jan Carlzon, former CEO of Scandinavian Airline Systems (SAS), called the interaction between salespeople and customers "moments of truth."1 Such interac­ tions create a vivid and lasting impression of the organization for the customer-or potential customer. Customers decide, for example, if the organization is one to which they'd like to return. From the organization's perspective, relationships like the one between Kara and the woman with the baby are critical to attaining organizational goals. But that's not the only reason to consider such a relationship.

From another, quite different, point of view, such interactions are important in a "consumer culture" in which sales interactions are perceived as defining moments. There's a ritualistic aspect to such interactions; the way they unfold is familiar and comfortable, almost scripted. Recall from chapter 4 that rituals are rule-governed activ­ ities that have symbolic value.2 In a consumer culture, sales encounters can be thought of as rituals of reification, semi-scripted activities that maintain or reinforce existing social norms. We use the theoretical concept of reification here because it highlights the human tendency to see norms or rules as solid or unchangeable-creating the impres­ sion that "things are like that" or "things have always been this way." These are also sometimes rituals of reproduction, in which individuals in an otherwise impersonal world interact in order to establish, maintain, and reinforce a sense of community or bonding.3 Basically we're suggesting that sometimes the ritualistic aspects of the sales encounter reinforce our understandings and acceptance of social reality, and some­ times they provide a sense of belonging or identity. We feel momentarily connected to the other person, even if it is brief and fleeting and perhaps somewhat "synthetic."

Many kinds of relationships exist in organizations. We are all part of many differ­ ent types: superior-subordinate, coworkers or teammates, buyer-seller, or friends, just to name a few. The ones that have received the most attention from researchers are those that are seen as instrumental to the success of the organization. Superior-subor­ dinate relationships are frequently studied because many people believe that such relationships play a key role in the organization's productivity.

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Ill>- 143

Much of the research on relationships at work has focused on their instrumental role in career success-the networks that people form and the role of those networks in advancing careers. From this perspectiveF relationships are resources we compete for with others in order to help us "get ahead." Whlle there is no question that many of the relationships we form do have a substantial impact on our careersF we form relationships for other reasons as well. For exampleF one study that explored the rela­ tionships people considered significant in their professional lives found that many people cited the relationships themselves as importantF not as a means to some end. Among the most common reasons they gave were collegialityF admiration for the other personF personal friendshipF and pleasure and satisfaction in the relationship.4

Social-Historical Trends in Relationships and Networks

Are relationships and relational communication at work pretty much the same today as they always were? There's evidence to suggest that these phenomena have changed in some fundamental ways in recent times. A key facet of organizational life today is negotiating relationships and identities. Contemporary relationships and iden­ tities are actively constructed. They are dynamic and fluidF not stable or unitary. More­ over, relational communication in the workplace is expected to take on an egalitarianF interactive (versus one-way) nature. People don

F t always fulfill those expectations, of

course, but these expectations shape our views about what sorts of communication we consider competent. ThusF in North American and Western European organizations we expect meetings to have a friendly, informal feel versus being highly formal and structured (for exampleF following the rules for parliamentary procedure). Similarly, managers are advised to use informal and personalized practices, such as "Manage­ ment by Wandering Aroundn (MBWA), and to listen, connect with, and develop rap- port with staff. ,

The classical idea of organizations containing peopleF technologiesF and messages (see chapter 1) points us toward considering our lives and our relationships inside and outside the organization as separate-with professional, hierarchical relationships inside and family and friendships outside. Just a brief reflectionF howeverF suggests that such a model doesn

F t describe our experiences very well. The division between

work and nonwork life has changed dramatically over the years and in multiple ways. Prior to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, the two domains were closely intertwined. In societies based primarily on agriculture and craftsF families often worked together; work and home life were not clearly distinct. The Industrial Revolu­ tion changed all that. Factories had strict rules and procedures to be followed, many of which discouraged nonwork-related interaction. NowF there are some signs that the lines between work relationships and the social/personal are being blurred again, albeit in somewhat different ways.

For exampleF the number of hours worked has increased significantly in many countries in recent decades. This is trueF for exampleF for university-educatedF full-time workers and especially for women.5 This has important implications for relationships and relational communication. First, if we have less leisure time and spend more hours at work, the chances increase that our social and personal relationships will be with coworkers. We simply have less time to spend with people with whom we do not work. Despite developing deeper relationships with coworkersF the increase in stress that accompanies increased working hours6 and more intense work7may strain work relationships (as well as nonwork relationships). Also, as Arlie Russell Hochschild

144 <11111 Chapter Six

"Everybody's getting together after work to do some more work-- you in?"

reports, some people use work to escape stresses at home-thus inverting our usual assumption about people trying to be home and away from work as much as possible.8

Changes in the use of communication technology have important implications for work-related relationships and networks. First, such technology has enabled an increase in working virtually, either from home or other remote locations. This can further blur the distinction between personal and work domains, as someone may, for example, simultaneously work on a report and care for children. Second, more of our work-related interaction is mediated by technology as we use e-mail, videoconferenc­ ing, £axes, and mobile phones to cooperatively accomplish tasks. Thus, we are simul­ taneously more connected and available to our network of work associates and physically more distanced from coworkers.

The trend toward flattening organizational hierarchies and toward more team-based work also has implications for workplace relationships (as we will discuss in chapter 8). Many organizations today use self-managing teams or self-directed work teams (SMTs or SDWTs).9 In these arrangements, groups of coworkers may work together without a clearly designated supervisor. This changes the nature of organizational control, as we will discuss later in the chapter. Many supervisors have been troubled by the change to SMTs, since such a change often requires them to learn new ways of relating to cowork­ ers. Even if the organization doesn't specifically designate SMTs, there is a greater emphasis today on teamwork skills and less reliance on clearly defined hierarchies.

Finally, the trend toward increasing workplace diversity and globalization has inter­ esting implications for relationships and networks. People often find they are interacting with a more diverse array of people from different cultural, ethnic, and religious back­ grounds. Because of technology, coworkers are often geographically distant. For exam-

C onnecting through Social Relationships and Networks .,. 145

ple, India has developed a strong international business in software design, such that many firms from around the world outsource information processing work to Indian partners. Someone in Europe or Australia may be communicating more frequently via e ­ mail with a colleague i n India than they communicate with a colleague two doors away.

Bu i l d i n g o n the work of other social theorists, British critical discourse a n a lyst N o r m a n Fa i r­ dough h a s i dentified several characteristics of com m u nication in "post-traditional" societies. (Note the p a ra l l e l s in Fairc l o u g h's c h a racteristics to the discussion of Mongin's decorporation of society, box 5.2 i n c h a pter 5.) 1. Assumed (or traditional) roles, identities, and relationships have been lost or discarded. In tradi­

tional societies, people "knew" their roles a n d i dentities and thus t h e i r relat i o n s h i ps with oth­ ers. For exa m p l e , you were either n o b l e or c o m m o n , a ristocracy o r working class. The type of

relat i o n s h i p one had with other m e mbers of society was accepted as a give n . Today, roles, positions, identities, and relat i o n s h i ps m u st be negotiated; they are no l o n g e r fixed features of societies (and orga n i zations). 10

2. There is a n increased demand for emotional labor and "communicative labor.''11 Because negotiat­ ing identities a n d relationships can be a delicate matter, c o m m u nication has become more i mportant to everyday l ife and especially to org a n i zational life. For exa mple, superiors have to work to treat staff with respect, courtesy, a n d sometimes warmth, even when they might feel l i ke doing otherwise. As Fairclough stated, "A consequence of the i n creasingly negotiated nature of relationships is that contemporary social life demands highly developed dialogical capacities."1 2

3. Social interaction has become more conversational, informal, and democratic -the conversation­ alization of discourse. We expect less form a l ity a n d fewer power markers in o u r speech (e.g., c a l l i n g someone "Mister" or "Sir")-at least i n the Western world. That doesn't mean there a re n 't power differences, of course, but the power d ifferences typ i c a l of, say, m a n ager-subor­ d i n ate relati o n s h i ps are not so easily reco g n i zed in conversat i o n .13 So, for exam p l e , each of the a uthors-in three d ifferent cou ntries (and continents) a d d resses the d e a n by his first n a m e , even t h o u g h in each case t h e d e a n is o l d e r a n d of a h i g her o rg a n i zatio n a l rank.

4. There is an increase in promotional discourse. Advertising practices seep into other rea l m s of social life. Since identities and relati o n s h i ps are not fixed and m ust b e negotiated, we have come to expect some self-promotion as n o rm a l . Consider how people today have personal pages o n Web sites or social networking sites that are often q u ite s i m i l a r to advertisements.

5. Technologization of discourse. "Te c h n ology" d oesn't j u st refer to m a c h i nes, of course, but also to tech n i q u e i n the broader sense of the term (see cha pter 12). Orga n i zati o n a l c o m m u n ica­ tion researchers and c o n s u ltants tra i n mem bers of o rg a n i zations to c o m m u nicate. More than

l i kely, you r u n iversity o ffers works h o ps on how to conduct you rself i n e m ployment interviews. Perh a ps you r com m u n i cation courses provide some g u i delines for cond ucti n g meetings, making presentations, o r developing persuasive proposals. A l l of these are exa m ples of "tech­ n o l o g i zing" discou rse.

6. One result of the trends a b ove is an increase in "synthetic personalization, " sometimes ca l l ed "man ufactured fri e n d l i n ess," which is a k i n d of emotion a l l a b o r. You may have noticed some of this i n Ka ra's treatment of the customers i n our earlier exa m ple. The effects of synthetic per­ sonali zation are m ultiple, i n clu d i n g , for exa m pl e , i ncreased q u esti o n i n g of a uthenticity a n d perha ps even increased cyn i c i s m .1 4

146 411 Chapter Six

Key Elements of Relational Interaction

Communication between people in organizations is never as simple as the labels we typically use to describe it-for example, "making a sales pitch," "placing an order," or "gathering some information." These descriptions each suggest a simple, one-way transfer of information. Because there's always much more going on, it is helpful to review a few important communication concepts for a more sophisticated analysis.

Definition of the situation and communication goals. As we've discussed before, we believe that reality is socially constructed. We develop our understandings of things through interacting with other people and often by complying with social expectations and norms-but that doesn't mean we always reach the exact same meanings. W hen­ ever we have a conversation with another person or group, each of us has a definition of the situation, which includes an understanding of the kind of conversation we're having, the goals of the conversation, and the kind of relationship we have (or are expected to

·have) with the other(s) in the conversation.15 Sometimes our definition of the situation is quite similar to that of others involved in the conversation, and sometimes it's quite different. For example, let's say you and a coworker are discussing an issue at work You may think what's happening is a lively discussion or perhaps a friendly debate. However, if your coworker becomes agitated, her reaction signals that she perceives the discussion as a fight. Different definitions determine the realities experienced.

Part of what makes these situations complex is that people almost always have multiple goals when they communicate. Three types of goals are clearly identifiable in most conversations: instrumental (or task), identity, and relationship goals.16 Most often, the instrumental goal is easiest to determine; it's usually the primary reason given for a conversation. Some examples include persuading, gathering information, instructing, informing, selling, and teaching. But even when we're focused primarily on instrumental goals, we simultaneously try to achieve identity and relational goals. Identity goals include presenting yourself in a desired way and treating others as if they are certain kinds of people. How would you describe Kara's identity goals in the sce­ nario at the beginning of the chapter? Perhaps she wants to present herself as a friendly, competent, child-loving professional; she talks to the woman with the baby as if she is an important, valued customer, and mother. None of this is to say that Kara is insincere. She may or may not be. But we are constantly pursuing identity goals in communication-both in conversations like Kara's as well as in public relations mes­ sages that try to shape a corporate identity. Sometimes this happens with very little thought or "strategy." At other times, it may be well rehearsed and planned. Closely related to identity goals are relationship goals. Our messages in communication con­ stantly reflect what we think of the relationship and, sometimes, how we want to shape or modify that relationship. As with identity goals, this process can be quite spontaneous or strategic; it may be subtle or blatantly obvious. Often identity and relational aspects of messages are sent nonverbally. For example, notice that Kara's facial expressions and touching the baby all suggest she is trying to create a bond with the customer. Simultaneously; perhaps, she is trying to establish or shape her relation­ ship with her superior (the on-duty manager Cassandra) by demonstrating that she's a competent salesperson.

One of the ways that identity and relational goals are closely intertwined is that we seek legitimation for valued identities in our relationships.17 For example, if you desire an identity as a competent professionat you would like supervisors and

C onnecting through Social Relationships and Networks .,. 147

coworkers to treat you as if you are such a person. One of the factors that stimulate relationship development is the exchange of legitimation. Continuing the example, you would probably show respect for a supervisor who treats you as if you are competent and efficient. Relationships, like other meanings, however, are situated, fluid, and dynamic. As these examples show, identities and relationships are integrally con­ nected. The identity one wants to convey-for example, expert, leader, or adviser-is closely connected to the kind of relationships established with others. The reverse is also true. Relationships are based on perceived identities. Managers and subordinates, salespeople and shoppers, and coworkers and friends all construct, perform, and negotiate identities and relationships.

In order to converse and work cooperatively, communicators must negotiate shared definitions of the situation, including shared definitions of identities and rela­ tionships. That is, while each of us has a subjective point of view, we try to achieve "intersubjectivity," or a mutually understood view of the situation. That doesn't mean people always reach shared definitions, of course. But communicators typically try to understand each other and make themselves understood. Sociolinguist H. P. Grice suggested that the cooperative principle underlies most attempts to communicate.18 By this he meant that we typically assume that people are trying to be cooperative-by making themselves understood-even when it's quite difficult to figure out what they mean. He suggests that when someone isn't clear, we still search for a meaning that would make sense. This is why communication can work even when, on the sur­ face, it may seem irrelevant or incomplete. So, for example, if someone asks you if you support a proposal and you reply, "Is the Pope Catholic?" most of us will know that you mean "Yes, I do support it." Even though your reply is seemingly irrelevant, we search for a meaning that makes sense given our assump tion that you're trying to be cooperative.

Dialectics. Th e concept of relationship dialectics is a particularly useful way to examine prominent, recurrent tensions experienced in relationships.19 Let us start with a few examples.

" Scenario# 1: You've socialized with the same group of workmates the past two weekends in a row. One of them talks about plans for the coming weekend assuming you'll be joining them again. While you've greatly enjoyed your time with the group, you're uncomfortable with that assumption, and you are con­ sidering doing something else.

" Scenario # 2: Your supervisor reveals a bit of confidential information to you about another member of your department. You're definitely interested but wonder about the appropriateness of his sharing that information.

" Scenario # 3: You are chairing a weekly status-update meeting of your project team. Your team has a comfortable, routine agenda for these meetings, but you're thinking about trying something different.

In each of these scenarios, there is a tension between attractive choices (see box 6.2). In scenario one, you could strengthen your connection with your workmates or establish your autonomy from them. In scenario two, your supervisor is being very open with you, but you wonder if being a bit more closed in this case would be appro­ priate. In scenario three, the predictability of the routine is comfortable, but some nov­ elty might spice up the meeting a bit. Relational dialectics are tensions (opposing

148 � Chapter Six

Dialectic

Connecti o n ­ A utonomy

Openness­ Ciosedness

Novelty­ Predicta b i l ity

Equality­ Ine q ua lity

Essential tension

The desire to estab l is h con n e c tion with others vs. the desire to estab­ l i s h freedom of action

The desire to a l l ow information to be disclosed o r free flowing versus the d e s i re to m a inta i n privacy

The desire for the relati o n s h i p to be predicta b l e versus the desire for it to be new a n d fresh

The desire to have people consid­ ered equals versus the desire to have s o m e con s i d e red superior

Organizational examples

Wantin g to be p a rt of a team yet wanting to sta n d o ut as a n i n d i­ vidual In a networked organ i zation, want­ i n g to esta blish closer links to a partner organ i zation yet not want­ ing to limit your business choices by the partners h i p arrangement Esta b l i s h i n g rapport with a sales­ person b ut not wanting to feel obligated to purchase

Tal ki n g about your work with a colleague who works for a com­ petitor b ut being careful not to disclose organizational "secrets" Tel l ing a member of your team about o rg a n i zational plans b ut try­ ing not to disclose information you were asked to treat as confidential Chatti n g with your boss about your weekend b ut wanting to keep some t h i n g s private

Enjoying your friend's ritualistic gossi p a b o ut work yet fee l i n g a bit a n n oyed at his compla i n ing a b o ut "the same o l d things" Bei n g comfo rted by a vendor's s ta n d a rd i ze d service proced ure yet won d e ri n g if it's time for it to be updated Fee l i n g excited a bo ut a restruc­ turi n g of the o rga n i zation b ut anxious that i t w i ll d i s rupt familiar routines and relationships

Fee l i n g excited by a promotion yet anxious that it will stra i n rela­ tionsh i ps with coworkers i n your former work group A CEO downplaying sta tus d iffer­ ences (e.g., "Ca l l me Karen") b ut cultivating a l a rg e r tha n l ife image Arguing for equitable benefits for o rg a n i zational members but mak­ ing exceptions for con tract workers

Dialectic

Instrumentality­ Affection

lmpa rtiality­ Favo ritism

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Jtll> 149

Essential tension

The desire for liking/affection to be a n end i n itself versus t h e d esire to use liking /a ffection as a means to an end

The des ire to have people treated fairly a n d impa rtiall y versus the desire to be "special"

O�ganizational examples

• I nviting a coworker to lunch with the intention of asking for sup­ port on a con troversia l work issue Won d e ring why a supervisor has sudd e n ly started being so atten­ tive and conside rate

Wanting to get the "inside scoop" from the boss (who is a lso a dose frie n d ) wh ile wa n ting to portray the workp\ace as fair and impartial Esta blishing a policy to a d d ress lateness yet m aking e xceptio n s for certain people

forces) that are both interdependent and mutually negating.20 They are interdepen­ dent in that they are necessarily linked. For example, we can only know what being open looks and feels like in relation to b,eing closed, and vice versa. But pursuing one end of the dialectic necessarily negates the other. That is, by being more open, you're necessarily being less closed; by injecting novelty/ you necessarily lessen predictability.

Dialectics help explain why relationships constantly change and why, to make relationships successful and satisfying, they constantly need our attention. W hile we all experience the tensions, we don't necessarily experience them in the same way. So, while the usual routine in the third scenario may be reassuring to some members of the team, others may get bored with it or question whether there's a better way to do things. People differ in terms of what they consider the right balance at a given time, and an individual could change his or her interpretation of the right balance as well. Too much of one desired feature (e.g., openness) pushes us toward the other end of the dialectic (e.g., closedness). So, I may appreciate the routine of the status meetings for a while and even work to maintain the routine by suggesting a standard agenda, but later I could feel the agenda is too constraining. Or, a public relations practitioner who chooses to leave a company to work as a freelance consultant may cherish the increased autonomy at first, only to find later that she misses the connection to the larger group. Successfully pursuing one end of a dialectic can make the other more appealing. We become interested in the dimension that is absent or being neglected. Because individuals differ from each other and differ in terms of their own prefer­ ences over time/ relationships are constantly in flux-ebbing and flowing between the opposing forces. A move by one person to create more autonomy means less con­ nection within the relationship, which may spark a move to enhance connection, and so on.

Notice how relationship dialectics help explain why certain kinds of conflict occlir even in the best of relationships. We are different from each other in what we consider the right amount of connection versus autonomy in a particular relationship, so we may act in ways that are not preferred by the other person. Because our communica­ tion is typically focused on instrumental goals, the relational messages that manage dialectical tensions are often implied not e'Xplicit. So, for example, I probably would not say to the coworkers in the first scenario above "I'm feeling the need for more

150 <111l Chapter Six

autonomy, so I think I'll stay away from you this weekend." Rather, I might just say ui have other plans." The focus is on the instrumental goat giving enough information to deal with the situation but not acknowledging the underlying relational goals (the coworker's request for enhanced connection and your desire for more autonomy). However, the coworker may very well If read into" your response a relational message that is asking for some autonomy.

The connection-autonomy dialectic is perhaps most basic to relationships. To speak of any kind of relationship implies connection. Indeed, we only become humans through our relationships. Yet, to be an individual requires a certain degree of auton­ omy. For example, communication scholar Jennifer Gibbs found autonomy-connec­ tion to be a central dialectic in the virtual teams she studied; team managers struggled to preserve the sense of team (connectedness) while still allowing individual auton­ omy.21 While connection-autonomy, novelty-predictability, and openness-dosedness are the most common relationships, researchers have also looked at three other pairs (discussed in box 6.2): equality-inequality, instrumentality-affection, and impartial­ ity-favoritism.22

Communication is the means by which dialectics are manifested in the relation­ ship, and it is also the means to manage them. We notice the tension in a relationship and we experience the choices that move a relationship toward one or the other end of a dialectic through communication. Similarly, we can work to improve relationships by raising awareness of (a) the natural tensions faced in relationships, (b) what is being experienced in the particular relationship, (c) the individuals' goals vis-a-vis the dialectics, and (d) the array of choices available to the participants.

Communication competencies. People aren't equally competent at managing the complexities of relationships. Some people handle difficult situations effortlessly, accomplishing their instrumental goals while simultaneously helping people feeling good about themselves and their relationships. Others struggle with one or more of the three types of goals. As discussed above, many analysts today believe that com­ munication skills and abilities are more important than ever. Based on a large-scale analysis of changes in the workplace, one group of authors concluded: "New work systems demand substantially more from employees than did traditional arrange­ ments. Employees need more skills, particularly team-related behavioral skills, to suc­ ceed in these new systems."23

What sorts of communication skills are necessary? Researchers disagree on what constitutes competent communication--or indeed how to conceptualize compe­ tence.24 One of the reasons for this is that what constitutes competent communication depends on, among other things, the context and the evaluator. That is, someone may seem very competent in a one-on-one counseling situation, yet hopeless as a public speaker. Or, one can seem incompetent to other participants in a meeting because he seems to ramble on and on without making his point, while he evaluates himself as brilliant in the same context since his goal was to delay any decision to a future meet­ ing. National and organizational culture will also make a difference. For example, someone who is assertive and flamboyant may be seen as a competent communicator in U.S. workplaces. In contrast, communication scholars Nongluck Sriussadaporn­ Charoenngam and Fred Jablin found that communicative competence in Thai work­ places is most associated with demonstrating the ability to avoid conflict with others, controlling one's emotions, and displaying respect, tactfulness, modest}'i and polite-

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks .,_ 151

ness.25 While we cannot isolate one set of competencies as mandatoryr research does suggest some communication skills and abilities that are important in most organiza­ tional contexts. We will focus on three sets of competencies: social perception skills, message design skillsr and interaction management.

Social perception skills involve assessing people and situations: being able to think about people and social situations in complex ways; being able to pick up on the sub­ tleties of social situations and adapt to them. Someone skilled in social perception would be likely to try to imagine the situation from others' points of view, to consider the goals, valuesr feelings, and beliefs of others, and to use this knowledge to interact accordingly. Research shows that social perception skills are a key factor for success in the workplace. People with such skills tend to advance more quickly than those with lesser skills.26

Message design skills are closely related to social perception skills because percep­ tion of the situation will influence the messages crafted. In public speakingr for exam­ ple, one of the basic principles is to analyze and adapt to the audience. We do the same thing at the interpersonal level: sizing up the context and the other person(s) partici­ pating then adapting (at least somewhat) to them. Research has shown that people with advanced social perception skills adapt to their audiences more than do those with less developed perception skills.27

A basic dimension of difference in message design skills is listener adaptation: the degree to which a speaker adapts m�ssages to the goalsr valuesr and beliefs of the lis­ tener. The importance of listener adaptation is obvious in the example of a salesper­ son-customer relationship. A salesperson who successfully adapts to the interests and values of a customer has a much greater chance of being successful in making a sale (the likely instrumental goal of a salesperson-customer interaction) and also in achieving relational and identity goals.

There are many other important dimensions of message design skills: how well we use evidence, the degree to which our messages are vivid and novel, the degree to which our messages are confirming or disconfirming to othersr and so on. Messages that are disconfirming-such as having one's suggestion ignored or rejectedr or being interrupted-can be very damaging to relationships. The degree to which messages are clear versus ambiguous-and the degree to which ambiguity is intentional or stra­ tegic-is another dimension. Interpersonal communication scholar Barbara O'Keefe describes differences in messages in terms of three primary message design logics (see box 6.3).28

Finallyr a third set of skills focuses on interaction management, which includes man­ aging the flow of conversation. Appropriate turn taking and topic switching are two key elements of this set of skills. While they may seem rather mundaner they can be crucial in relating comfortably with others. If you've had a recent conversation with someone who interrupts you mid-sentence or tries to switch topics when the rest of the group is clearly enjoying the exchange of information on a topic that obviously inter­ ests them, you'll understand the importance of competence in interaction management.

These communication competencies are crucial to being able to achieve instru­ mentat relationalr and identity goals in conversations with others. We will identify other competencies and strategies that are specific to particular goals in other chap­ ters. For example, in chapters 7 and 10 we will discuss strategies for enacting leader­ ship and strategies for managing conflict.

152 .. Chapter Six

Message Design logic

Express ive

Conventi o n al

Rhetorical

Definition

Expressing o n e 's tho u g h ts and feeli ngs with no attempt to adapt to situ ational or rela­ tio n al constrain ts

Ad apti n g o n e 's messag e to s h ared conventions or norms for com m u n ication

Reframing or redefining the situation to avoid thre ats to identities and relatio n s h ips

Varieties of Organizational Relationships

Interpersonal Influence Examples

"! w an t t h at report d o n e by tomor­ row or else!"

"I really, really, REALLY want that report tomorrow!"

"Would you p l e as e h ave the report ready by tomorrow?"

"As your supervisor, I'm g o in g to h ave to ask you to h ave the report in tomorrow."

"I know getting the report in by tomorrow is as im portant to you as it is to me."

"How about we plan to celebrate getting that report completed tom o rrow afternoon ?"

Most research on relationships in organizations focuses on types of relationships. In this section, we discuss some of the major categories of relationships found in orga­ nizations and consider particularly useful and provocative research findings on each.

Superior-subordinate relationships. We use the traditional terms "superior" and "subordinate" to refer to dyads in which one person supervises another. However, we do so with a bit of discomfort. Given the sensitivity to language and meanings we are trying to bring to this book, calling one person superior to another because of his or her job is a questionable practice. Many organizations today have become sensitive to this issue as well, commonly replacing terms like "subordinate" or "employee" with "associate," "team member," or "colleague." For clarity, though, we'll stick with the traditional terms.

Structurally speaking, communication between superiors and subordinates con­ sists of upward and downward communication flows. Downward communication, accord­ ing to systems theorists Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, includes five categories of messages: (1) job instructions, (2) job rationales (the reasons justifying particular jobs), (3) information on procedures and practices, (4) feedback on performance of subordi­ nates, and (5) indoctrination messages, which are intended to convey the organiza­ tion's cultural values and assumptions and build employee identification.29 Katz and Kahn focused on instrumental messages that served clear organizational functions. Downward communication also includes messages that serve identity and relational goals-boasting, bonding, and humor for example. Communication researchers Stephanie Zimmerman, Beverly Sypher, and John Haas argue that there exists a cul­ turally shared meta-myth that more communication is better-yet in numerous organi-

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks � 153

zations people were unsatisfied because of a lack of downward communication.30 Consider also that the desire for more communication is in tension with the desire to avoid information overload.

Similarly, a number of functions have been identified for upward communication. These include messages conveying (1) job status and problems in performing work, (2) information about coworkers, (3) perceptions of organizational policies and prac­ tices, and (4) ideas and suggestions. Again, beyond these work-related messages, sub­ ordinates also communicate upward about personal and social matters. Of course, there are obstacles to the flow of accurate and timely upward communication, includ­ ing such things as impression management ("I want our department to look good"), careerism ("I've got everything under control here"), and fear of relaying bad news to superiors ("She told me never to complain like that again").31

Phillip Tompkins refers to the process through which stories change as they are communicated to different levels in the organization as uncertainty absorption. For example, if problems are reported to a supervisor who doesn't want to paint a bleak picture to executives, he can portray problems as minor concerns. In his long-term investigation of NASA' s Marshall Space Flight Center, Tompkins found that the use of a regular feedback mechanism, called "Monday Notes," proved to be one of the most useful channels of communication between levels of the massive space agency in the 1960s and 1970s.32 The director of the program, Wernher von Braun, asked each lab director to submit a one-page summary of the week's progress and problems every Monday morning. Von Braun read all the summaries, made comments, and circulated copies to all lab directors. All the units thus had knowledge-and responsibility-that extended beyond their specific areas of expertise. Listening to people from various levels in the organization plus people outside the organization, such as suppliers, con­ tributed to effective communication-and to a successful organization. After von Braun's departure, the flight center stopped using the Monday notes. The change in leadership contributed to what Tompkins calls organizational forgetting-abandoning founding values.

The superior-subordinate dyad is by far the most studied relationship by organi­ zational communication researchers. Much of the early research on organizational leadership focused primarily on supervisory communication toward subordinates (rarely considering communication from subordinates to superiors). In some respects, this attention seems justified. Research shows, for example, that superiors spend from one-third to two-thirds of their time communicating with subordinates.33 Research also shows that people in organizations prefer to hear messages about organizational change from their immediate superiors and that they generally trust superiors to give them the most accurate information about organizations.34 We will consider some of these concepts in chapter 7 on leadership; for now, we will focus particularly on con­ cepts that are helpful in explaining the relationship between superiors and subordinates.

One consistent finding is that superiors and subordinates have different percep­ tions of their relationships and that these perceptions are influenced by the nature of their roles. For example, research shows that superiors tend to believe they spend more time communicating with subordinates than subordinates believe. Also, superi­ ors tend to believe they initiate interaction with subordinates more than do subordi­ nates, whereas subordinates believe the opposite.35 Most people in organizations perceive that their superiors provide them with inadequate information. This is often true even though many of the same people complain of information overload.36 It is

154 _.. Chapter Six

easy to see how these differences in perception both contribute to and are influenced by the dialectical tensions we described above.

Because of such tensions, relationships are dynamic. and change over time. George Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien's model of superior-subordinate relationship development suggests three phases of superior-subordinate relationships, each char­ acterized by different patterns of communication.37 First, there is a stranger phase, characterized by communicatiqn that fulfills the contractual obligations of their roles. T hat is, superiors provide the direction and resources (including information) subor­ dinates need to perform their roles, and subordinates communicate to perform their work, and not much more. Second, there is an acquaintance phase, often prompted by one party's offer to improve the working relationship by exchanging favors, thus increasing interaction and allowing each to "test the waters" with the other. The third phase is called maturity, which is characterized by a partnership in which the partners exchange loyalty and support.

Of course, not all superiors and subordinates follow the same trajectory in the development of their relationships. Extensive research prompted by George Graen's leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that superiors develop in-group rela­ tionships with some subordinates and out-group relationships with others.38 In-group relationships are much like what's described in the maturity phase of the three-phase relationship development model. In-group subordinates and their superiors establish mutual trust, respect, and support. In-group members can communicate informally about work and nonwork matters with their superiors; they can disagree with and challenge each other without damaging the relationship. Communication scholar Vince Waldron and his colleagues have found that having an in-group relationship with a manager opens up a wider range of communicative options to subordinates, including certain influence and "relationship maintenance" tactics that otherwise wouldn't be possible.39 Out-group subordinates, on the other hand, have relationships with their superiors characterized by low trust and low support, often avoiding com­ munication or limiting it to task-related matters. Communication is often antagonistic, characterized by high face threats and competitive conflict. (We'll have more to say about LMX theory in chapter 7.)

Sometimes in-group relationships between superiors and subordinates develop beyond work relationships to become friendships. Such blended relationships can be beneficial to both parties.4° For example, Nancy Boyd and Robert Taylor argue that the "highest quality work experiences for both leader and follower potentially occur when both a close leader-follower friendship and a high LMX are present."41 How­ ever, blended relationships present special challenges, too, both for superiors and sub­ ordinates. For example, the impartiality-Javoritism dialectic is especially prominent, since superiors usually do not want to give the impression of giving preferential treat­ ment to friends. Subordinates may feel uncomfortable being labeled the boss's "pet" if it's widely known that the blended relationship exists.42

Substantial research suggests that effectiveness in superior-subordinate relations depends on situational factors. Like effective communicators generally, effective supe­ riors have to adapt their communication to target listeners as well as to the context. However, Charles Redding argued many years ago that competent supervisors value openness and supportiveness, including empathy and sensitivity to others' feelings. In essence, Redding asserted that building trust in supervisor-subordinate relation­ ships was critical.43

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks .. 155

Peer relationships. The relationships we form with peers-both within and external to the organizations in which we work-are critical to our career success and to the quality of our work lives. Coworkers are often a source of information and guidance, as well as emotional support. In addition, relationships with professional peers outside one's employing organization may be as important to one's satisfaction and success as relationships internal to the organization. On the other hand, while we usually think of peer relationships as a positive thing, close connections to others can provide the organization with a form of unobtrusive control by providing a reason for people to stay with the organization and not risk upsetting the status quo for fear of losing valuable relationships.44

While there has been much more research on superior-subordinate relationships, most of us interact more with coworkers than with supervisors. This may be increas­ ingly the case as organizations move toward flatter structures and team-based work arrangements. Relationships with peers can be quite influential in shaping attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions. As we have emphasized in the previous two chapters, cul­ tures and identities are socially constructed entities. As people interact with cowork­ ers on the job, they jointly construct beliefs about the organization, the work they do, and each other. For example, some research suggests that expressed attitudes about work by peers are more influential than expressed attitudes of supervisors.45 One study demonstrated that peers within teams of university students working together on summer jobs eo-constructed norms for what constituted competent supervisory communication.46 Thus, in what may seem counterintuitive, subordinates can some­ times set standards for supervisors.

Relationships with peers can take multiple forms, ranging from enemies, to casual work relationships, to friendships, to romantic partners.47 Remember, too, that relation­ ships are dynamic, moving to different states through interaction, subtly negotiating the dialectical tensions in the relationships. Relationships typically begin as casual work relationships but may develop into other forms. Organizational communication scholars Patricia Sias and Daniel Cahill interviewed pairs of coworker-friends to explore the fac­ tors that led them to become friends (from their initiat casual work relationships) and the ways their communication changed as their relationships deepened.48 Their analysis showed that the most prominent factors contributing to their relationship development, as well as their patterns of communication, changed as the pairs became closer friends:

Friendships tended to develop early due to the coworkers simply being around one another, working together on shared projects and tasks, and perceiving com­ mon ground. At this point the variety of communication topics discussed increased; however, the coworkers were somewhat cautious about sharing infor­ mation and opinions with one another. Relationships developed into close friend­ ships usually because of important personal or work-related problems, although perceived similarity and extra-organizational socializing continued to impact rela­ tional development. At this point, the coworker became a trusted source of support with communication becoming increasingly more intimate and less cautious. Over time, this trend continued into the third transition where the coworkers became an important part of each other's personal and work life.49

As we discussed earlier in this chapter, sometimes we value relationships in and of themselves and sometimes we value them because we see them as means to an end (the instrumentality-affection dialectic). Often in organizations, relationships are strate­ gically developed to help individuals accomplish personal or professional goals, rang-

156 <1111 Chapter Six

ing from garnering social support to attaining promotions. For example, one study found that fast-track women managers strategically sought two kinds of relationships: close, instrumental relationships with others inside the organization and relationships with women outside the organization. The internal relationships were intended to increase men's comfort with women and to lessen gender bias; the external relation­ ships were intended to share strategies for overcoming obstacles unique to women.50 Communication scholar Janie Harden Fritz found that men's and women's peer rela­ tionships were similar in many ways, but women tended to develop closer, stronger relationships with at least some peers than did men.51 As Fred Jablin pointed out, communication among peers may serve either formal-organizational functions (such as communication focused on task accomplishment) or psychological-individual functions (such as communication that meets one's need for affiliation).52 Our individual rela­ tionships with peers are the building blocks of our social and professional networks and an important element in the quality of our work lives.

Internal-external relationships. When we think of workplace relationships, we often think first of relationships between coworkers or between superiors and subor­ dinates. But there are many important relationships that bridge the "internal-external divide." People in organizations sometimes consider relationships with suppliers, consultants, and customers as important as their "internal" relationships. Several recent trends reinforce the importance of such relationships .

First, there is an increased emphasis o n being " customer-driven" in the last decade or so. Businesses, as well as government organizations, often organize with the key principle of being "close to the customer" or "customer responsive." This strategy places immense value on creating close relationships with customers and potential customers. One manager in a city government organization we studied occasionally invited "customers" (local citizens) to meetings to be interviewed by his staff to find out what his department was doing well and where it could improve. 53 A clear exam­ ple of a trend toward being customer responsive is what marketing professionals call "customer relationship marketing" and "relationship selling." These terms refer to a strategy that assumes that successful sales and marketing result from developing close relationships with key customers and clients, solidifying sales, and identifying oppor­ tunities for repeat business. For example, many organizations spend substantial sums for their staff to entertain clients and p otential clients, assuming that such money is well spent if it fosters close relationships that then result in sales.

Because of the importance of customer relationships, organizations spend sub­ stantial sums to train staff to initiate and manage these relationships. The Disney orga­ nization is renowned for its orientation and training of new employees-" the cast" as Disney refers to members of its organization.54 Many companies, particularly service organizations, use training programs to teach employees to develop positive and upbeat (although brief and superficial) relational interactions with customers. And, as already mentioned, sales and service staff are employed and trained to perform "emo­ tional labor" (discussed in chapter 3), a key task of which is to convey positive emo­ tions such as happiness, excitement, or a sense of fun. Such training is an example of the "technologizing" discourse discussed in box 6.1. Workers are taught specific strat­ egies and tactics for performing emotion work (see box 4.8). The training typically encourages the use of a personal, informal, conversational style-the style we might use with close friends-and is intended to make customers feel special and connected

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Jjl> 157

to the organization's employees (and thus, to the organization). This is what we referred to as the synthetic personalization of communication. While such emotional labor is often effective in creating a positive experience for customers, it can be str{OSS­ ful to employees. 55 And, some critics argue that emotional labor can have more serious negative consequences than stress. Workers may become more callous or manipula­ tive in their other relationships. As a result society can be negatively affected by the technologizing of relational encounters, perhaps becoming more cynical, or perhaps expecting superficial relationships and synthetic personalization to be the norm. 56

Marketing professor Stephen Brown from the University of Ulster, Northern Ire­ land, suggests that today's customers are sick and tired of customer relationship man­ agement (CRM)57 and its implications for their shopping experience. People, he claims "miss the days when a transaction was just a transaction, when purchasing a bar of soap didn't mean entering into a lifetime value relationship. " Customers, he contin­ ues, want old-fashioned products and services and old-fashioned marketing: "Wary of CRM-inspired tactics, which are tantamount to stalking, they appreciate the true transparency of a blatant huckster." Rather than listening to customers in order to give them what they want (customers, he claims, neither know what they want nor what they don't want), Brown proposes a retro approach to marketing that implies new relationships between producers and their customers based on exclusivity, secrecy, amplification, entertainment, and tricks. While some may question his unconven­ tional and rather cynical view of the market, his perspective brings fresh air into a field that keeps importing-and thus diluting-perspectives from real relationships, like dialogue and interactivity.58

"' can assure you, madam, that our commitment to transparency will never inhibit our willingness to kick ass. "

158 ... Chapter Six

A second set of trends likely to promote more internal-external relationships has to do with changing organizational forms. Organizations have attempted to become "leaner/' often outsourcing some functions that would formerly have been performed internally or hiring contract workers from temporary agencies. A closely related trend is that organizations today often "partner" with suppliers and vendors, developing long-term relationships with other companies. (We return to these trends later in this chapter in the discussion of network organizations.) These two trends make it more likely that staff in one company will have ongoing working relationships with staff from another company. In fact, people employed by an outside company often work for a year or more on the premises of another company, working more closely with staff from the host company than they do with staff from their own company. While internal-external relationships may be analyzed and influenced by many of the same constructs-dialectics, communication competencies, and so on-they take on their own special dynamics. Our main point here is to encourage you to think of work rela­ tionships more broadly and more critically.

Problematic relationships. Up to now, we've focused on varieties of relation­ ships based on roles. However, it is important to note another set of relationships that occur all too often in organizations: those marked by negativity or incivility, that is, those that are abusive, harmful, and unpleasant. Problematic relationships are impor­ tant to understand because they can adversely affect individuals in terms of stress, mental health, and physical health. They can adversely affect organizations in terms of reputation, lawsuits, absenteeism, turnover, and loss of productivity. If left unchecked, they may result in a "spiral of incivility" that can be explosive.

Troublesome relationships can vary in intensity, from simply working with peo­ ple we dislike or find irritating to much more deeply troubling relationships that involve bullying or abuse. Several studies have considered the kinds of relationships and people we find most problematic. Communication researcher Janie Harden-Fritz found that we tend to describe the most troublesome coworkers as lacking integrity and being self-centered, defensive, and insecure.59 Other research indicates that we use similar descriptions for the nonwork peers we most dislike, suggesting that we may have culturally shared schemas (or mental models) for the characteristics of peo­ ple we find most troubling.60

Of course, simply disliking someone or finding them annoying is a long way from relationships that are abusive or bullying. While people have had conflict in the work­ place as long as there have been workplaces, some observers note an increase in inci­ vility in organizations in recent years. Communication scholar Beverly Sypher refers to a "rolling tide toward antisocial behavior at work," with more than 70% of people surveyed perceiving that incivility has increased in recent years.61 Sypher identifies a number of trends that have led to an increase in antisocial behavior in the workplace, including the intensification of work, longer hours, continuous change, and job inse­ curity. Related sodetal trends are suburbanization (which results in longer commutes, more traffic, and "road rage"), increased geographic mobility (which decreases con­ nectedness and loyalty), and decreased amounts of sleep . Sypher suggests that incivil­ ity can vary on at least two dimensions: intentionality and intensity. As figure 6.1 shows, communication acts such as ignoring, interrupting, and excluding involve lower levels of intensity and less intentionality, while physical violence, harassment, and bullying involve high levels of each dimension.

High

Low

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks }i1> 159

i N T E N T I O N A l i T Y

Figure 6 . 1 Intensity and Intentionality of Worltplace Incivility

Communication scholar Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik and her colleagues go a step fur­ ther and suggest varying degrees of bullying. They argue that bullying is a specific phenomenon marked by four key features. It is intense, repeated, enduring, and char­ acterized by p ower disparity.62 Higher degrees of bullying are associated with greater intensity, frequency, and duration.63

Researchers differ on the consequences of acts at the lower end of the scale. Not surprisingly, research shows that higher degrees of bullying have more severe conse­ quences.64 However, Sypher cautions that we should not dismiss or downplay acts on the lower end of the scale. If engaged in repeatedly lower-level acts raise the intensity of harm beyond what may have been initially intended. People may be motivated to engage in incivility by a desire to hurt or to control.65 However, Sypher cautions that behavior intended to control can still be hurtful. She cites the example of an office assistant who repeatedly interrupted her supervisor and referred to the supervisor's "wrong" views. When confronted, the office assistant said, "I never meant to be con­ descending or rude; I certainly never meant to be hurtful. " In this case, the motivator may have been control, but such a pattern over time can still be damaging.

What behaviors do people associate with workplace bullying? Workers who report being bullied-as opposed to experiencing other negative behaviors-point most often to the following communicative acts: humiliation, ridicule, withholding information, hints to quit, physically threatening behavior, and overt expressions of hostility. Bullying is perhaps more frequent than most of us realize, with some surveys

160 <!Ill Chapter Six

suggesting that more than 25% of U.S. workers are bullied or emotionally abused sometime during their careers. Lutgen-Sandvik and her colleagues report that levels of persistent negative behavior toward others in the workplace in the USA and the UK are similar and are 20-50% higher than reported by Scandinavian workers. 66

Sarah Tracy and colleagues suggest that one useful approach to helping people who are victims of abusive relationships is to uncover the metaphors they use. Their research found that victims of bullying used metaphors such as battle, nightmare, and water tor­ ture for the experience of being bullied; victims characterize d bullies as narcissistic dic­ tators and devil figures. The metaphors influence what people see. Raising awareness about the metaphors used enables people to see how they are limiting their perspective on the situation, while enabling them to generate new meanings and possibilities.67

The terms we use to describe particular behaviors are important; they direct peo­ ple's attention to problematic behaviors and to possible solutions. "Bullying" has become a useful label in part because everyone can visualize episodes on the primary school playground-as well as remembering times when groups coalesced to confront dominant, sometimes violent, individuals.

Changing and Reframing Relationships

As people interact over time, relationships change from one form to another with­ out a great deal of conscious thought or intention. As people respond to the ebbs and flows of dialectical tensions, relationships evolve to a point where reframing is neces­ sary (for example, relabeling workmates as friends). Sometimes relationships are reframed strategically. The many different kinds of relationships we experience in organizations can retain their initial characterization or they can morph into new types of relationships. If the frame we construct to categorize the nature of the rela­ tionship no longer adequately describes the roles, expectations, and obligations, we choose a new frame. Relationships are not "given" by the roles or p ositions we are assigned or develop. Rather, relationships evolve in response to individual, relational, and contextual factors. The dynamic' nature of various relationships is one of the j oys-and one of the challenges-of organizational life.

Communication Networks

You have probably been advised to use your network of relationships to help your chances of getting a job. You may also already understand the value of developing and extending that network as a means for advancing your career. Such advice is predicated on the belief that networks of relationships can (a) make you aware of opportunities, (b) pass on valuable knowledge of trends or events that may affect your career, and (c) act as a base of influence to help you take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Organizations that emphasize relationship marketing may actively encour­ age network building by their members. Thus, professionals who depend on relation­ ship marketing often strategically join social and professional clubs and have an active social schedule in order to develop their professional networks.

Most of the discussion in the first part of this chapter focused on relationships between two individuals-that is, dyads. Dyads are the building blocks for communi­ cation networks, by which we mean patterns of contact between individuals that are created by exchanging messages.68 The last part of this chapter is devoted to exploring

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks ., 161

the role of communication networks in and between organizations. First, we'll take a look at networks of individuals, then we'll look at networks of organizations or, more simply put, network organizations.

Network linkages are created through people communicating with each other and establishing relationships. A single individual can be part of many communication networks. Some of these networks may be comprised totally of members of the orga­ nization, such as a group of young professionals who socialize together or a group of people in various parts of the organization who have a strong interest in a particular technology. The same individual may belong to networks comprised of people totally unconnected to the organization, such as a community improvement association or a church group . The individual may also belong to groups that include people from "inside" and "outside" the organization, such as professional associations.

Network Analysis

Network analysis has a long history in organizational communication studies. It is also used in a variety of other fields, ranging from studies of political socialization (e.g., "How do we predict your voting patterns by knowing the people with whom you asso­ ciate") to mental health (e.g., "How do we understand your difficulties with respect to your roles in certain networks of family and friends and coworkers?"). Network con­ cepts are also now applied to global technological interconnections. Network studies began in the 1940s and '50s when social researchers asked schoolchildren to name "your best friends in this class." Today, network analysis is amazingly sophisticated and combines examinations of the content of messages with the nature of linkages between people (or "nodes") in a system. Network analysis is useful for assessing the flow of communication in a group or organization, the strengths of relationships, and the topics discussed. For example, if you were trying to influence a group of people to accept a major organizational change, a network analysis could give you a sense of how information flows in the organization, who the key opinion leaders or gatekeepers of information are, and who is outside the network and thus not privy to regular infor­ mation updates. Interestingly, the idea of "networks" is now commonplace-part of everyday vocabulary. The term was borrowed originally from television networks and then applied to an array of social and technologically mediated interconnections.

Network concepts such as those listed in box 6.4 can b e useful to analyze the com­ munication patterns and the structural and process features of groups or entire organi­ zations. For example, sociologist Mark Granovetter developed an insightful analysis based on the "strength of weak ties."69 Granovetter argues that while we typically value strong ties in terms of network density and strength, for some purposes we should value and cultivate weak ties. For organizations to be innovative, for example, weak ties are essential because they foster new links that allow us to challenge taken­ for-granted routines and assumptions. We are more likely to be exposed to very differ­ ent points of view and different information sources from those with whom we have weak ties-people such as occasional acquaintances or friends of friends. Additionally, the concept of network density has applications in job-seeking (where weak ties are often the ones that give you the most leads), grieving (where individuals tend to need some "new blood" in their social networks after an initial period of loss), and innova­ tion (where new ideas often come from comparatively removed or distant sources).

Communication scholar Richard Farace and colleagues differentiated three impor­ tant types of networks in organizations. First, there are production networks, which

162 � Chapter Six

exist primarily to accomplish work tasks. Second are innovation networks, which emerge around the creation, development, and diffusion of new ideas. Finally, mainte­ nance networks exist to develop and maintain social relationships . The types may over­ lap, such as when a group of coworkers in a production network begin to bond and socialize together, forming a maintenance network. There will be also be differences­ sometimes subtle and sometimes blatantly obvious. Network analysis helps identify

Network roles (the positions that i n d iv i d u a l s occupy withi n networks) Group or clique members: those connected to others through interaction

Isolate: a n i ndivid u a l who does n't reg u l a rly interact with others

Bridge: an i ndivi d u a l w h o is a m e m be r of two or m o re g ro u ps

Liaison: an ind iv id u a l w h o interacts with two or more groups but is not a mem ber of them

Communication Star: a n i n d iv i d u a l who is highly central to a n etwork; stars are key points of contact for th e i r g ro u p

Gatekeeper: a n i n d ivid u a l w h o controls t h e flow o f c o m m u n ication between pa rts of a n etwork

Dimensions of analysis for individuals

Centrality: the degree to which an individual is "at the crossroads of i nformation flow" in a group71

Connectedness: the n u m be r of contacts a n indivi d u a l has

Range or diversity: n u m b e r of l i nks with i n dividu a l s d ifferent from oneself

Accessibility: the d e g ree to which a n i n d ivid u a l can easily c o m m u n icate with others in his/her network

Dimensions of analysis for dyads

Strength: the a m ou nt of interaction between two i n dividu a l s ��

Symmetry: degree to which the exchange of su p port or resources is relatively e q u a l or u n e q u a l

Direction: d e g ree t o w h i c h com m u nication i s from actor A t o B, o r vice versa

Stability: d e g ree to which the tie has lasted over a pe riod of time

Multip/exity: d e g re e to w h i c h the actors interact on more t h a n o n e i s s u e, o r for m o re than o n e reason

Openness: degree to which the i n d ividuals i n a dyad have interaction with others outside the dyad

Dimensions of analysis for whole networks ( N ote that some of these can b e a p p lied to dyads, j u st as some of the dya d i c d imensions can be a pp l i e d to n etworks.) • Size: n u m ber of i n d ivid u a l s in the n etwork

Heterogeneity: extent to which members i n the network a re s i m i l a r or d ifferent from each other

Mode o f communication: the primary means by w h i ch m e mb e rs com m u n i cate

Density: the ratio of actual to possible with in-group l i n ks

Clustering: d e g ree to w h i c h the network is composed of s ub g ro u ps or c l i q u e s

Consider these terms a n d Granovetter's notion of the "strength of weak ties." Think about those with whom you have the strongest ties-your closest friends; they are likely to share your views, have access to many of the same information sources, and so on. Where do you encounter challenges to your taken-for-granted routines and assumptions?

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Ill>- 163

the variations. Finding the isolates, the bridges, and other ne.twork indicators can help us understand why a network is functioning well or why it is experiencing problems.

Communities of Practice

One interesting form of network in the workplace today is what has been labeled "communities of practice." T hese are networks of relationships that bind people together with a focus on particular projects or professional interests. Etienne Wenger and William Snyder define community of practice as "a group of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise."72 Consulting firms that sometimes work within client organizations for months or even years often propagate such communities. Consultants and their clients may come to see them­ selves as coworkers after working together for relatively long, intense periods on projects. Similarly, contract employees may become part of a community of practice as they work on long-term projects. Wenger and Snyder argue that people in organiza­ tions form communities of practice for a variety of reasons-to maintain connections with peers when the company reorganizes; to respond to external changes such as new technologies or regulations; or to meet new challenges when the company changes strategies. Whatever the basis for forming the community, members share knowledge creatively. The free-flowing exchange fosters new approaches to prob­ lems.73 Wenger and Snyder emphasize that communities of practice emerge; they are not preestablished. However, organizations that value innovation and knowledge sharing should create conditions in which communities of practice can flourish?4

Interorganizational Relationships

Some of the most important organizational relationships involve people, resources, and procedures from several organizations. A growing number of organiza­ tions are entering into more or less formal relationships with other organizations in order to conduct their business. Sometimes such relationships are short term and loosely formed; at other times, they become long-lasting partnerships.

Interorganizational relationships are established for a host of reasons, including strategic, institutional, symbolic, personal, etc. Although such relationships vary in intensity, closeness, and scope of collaboration, they are typically designed to increase the competitiveness of the involved partners by creating synergy between their indi­ vidual resources, strategies, and skills. Most writers, however, seem to agree that interorganizational relationships are established primarily because organizations hope (1) to reduce risk and uncertainty by linking up with other players in the market and (2) to improve their resource base, including both material resources and the information they use to guide their decisions and actions.

Many organizations today find that their plans and strategies increasingly depend on the decisions of other organizations, that the problems they face are bigger than they alone can solve, and that their attempts to manage environmental contin­ gencies often create unanticipated problems.75 With increased environmental com­ plexity and fi:irbulence, organizations expand their boundary-spanning activities to include collaboration with other organizations. Interorganizational collaboration involves pooling tangible and intangible resources, such as expertise, information, money, technology, and labor by two or more organizations to solve problems that neither of them can solve on their own?6 Collaboration, as Barbara Gray points out, is based on the recognition that organizational activities are truly interdependent and

164 ... Chapter Six

Strategic Alliance: a close association of o rg a n i zations, formed to advance c o m m o n i nterests o r causes

Coalition: a l l ia n ce, typically temp o ra ry, between b u s iness o rg a n i zations

Industrial Cluster: organi zations in the same i n dustry that locate i n close geog rap h i ca l proxim­ ity for ease of i nteractio n a n d synergies (e.g., i n n ovation pa rks)77

Cartel: combi nation of i ndependent b u s iness organi zations formed to reg u late p ro d u ction, pric­ i ng, and marketing of goods by the m e m b e rs

Conglomerate: a corporation m a d e up of a n u m be r of d ifferent c o m p a n ies that each o p e rate i n a specific m a rket

Joint Venture: pa rt n e rships or conglomerates, often formed to s h a re risk or expertise

licensing: official o r legal permission to m a nufacture a produ ct developed a n d owned by

a n9ther orga n i zation

Franchise: authorization granted to someone to sell o r d i strib ute a company's goods o r services in a certa i n area

Research Consortium: a n association o r a c o m b i n ation (fo r exa m p l e, b u s i n esses, fin a n c i a l i n sti­ tutions, or i nvestors) for the p u rpose of engaging in research of common i nterest

Network Organization: two or m o re org a n izatio n a l u n its i nvolved in a (semi)fo rm a l i zed long­ term relationsh i p

that organizations, in order t o reduce risk and uncertainty, need t o come together to identify salient problems, develop shared interpretations of the situation, and gener­ ate joint frameworks to structure and, eventually, control the situation.

In addition to risk reduction, interorganizational relationships offer participating organizations access to resources (materiat information, know-how), technologies, markets, skills, or economies of scale (buying in bulk or having other advantages due to large-scale operations) that would otherwise be beyond the reach of a single organi­ zation.78 Indeed, the relationships between organizations may well be termed "access relationships" because they extend the reach of individual organizations.79 For exam­ ple, since most cars today have fairly sophisticated information technologies, a pro­ ducer of automobiles may establish a partnership with a producer of computer chips in order to stay competitive .

Interorganizational relationships may also help organizations share important knowledge, or /'intellectual capital." A buzzword for this type of knowledge sharing is c-commerce (collaborative commerce). Collaborative commerce refers to the develop­ ment of interorganizational teamwork, where organizations open their internal infor­ mation systems to their business partners. A Danish producer of work clothes (uniforms), for example, has access to databases of several of its major customers, including the police and the postal service. C-commerce also exists where several organizations collaborate on the development of a new product.

Interorganizational relationships build public confidence in the value of an orga­ nization's products or services. By linking up with well-known and respected part­ ners, organizations hope to attract customers and other corporate partners, develop

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks llll> 165

their reputations, and improve their performance.80 In order to improve the quality of its customer orientation, J.C. Penney, for example, sends point-of-sale information not only to its suppliers but also to its suppliers' suppliers.81

Finally, collaboration itself can be the goal of interorganizational relationships. For instance, Renee Heath has shown how a community partnership's interorganizational nature promotes democratic involvement in important public issues. She notes that the chief goal and challenge of community collaboration is sustaining the relation­ ships that make it possible.82

One useful way to understand interorganizational relationships is in terms of verti­ cal or horizontal integration. An organization is vertically integrated when its upstream suppliers or its downstream buyers have the same owner. If, for example, IBM buys Intel, which provides the processors for many computers today, IBM is considered ver­ tically integrated. Organizations are vertically integrated when one suborganization provides parts or services needed by another in order for the second one to produce or deliver products or services. Conversely, organizations are horizontally integrated when their customers are passed from one suborganization to the other in the service cycle. Some physical therapy clinics, for example, are horizontally integrated with hospitals in the sense that patients are referred to those clinics when discharged from the hospital.

166 .. Chapter Six

We can also distinguish interorganizational relationships by identifying two gen­ eral types: symbiotic and pooling relationships.85 In symbiotic relationships the partners combine different yet complementary products, resources, or capabil ities to form an entity that is qualitatively different from each of the participating organizations. This is the case when, for example, Procter & Gamble (a consumer-goods company) and Walmart (a retailer) invest in a joint information system in order to coordinate their different activities and competencies (production and sales, respectively).86 Symbiotic relationships sometimes involve public organizations. For example, universities form strategic partnerships with industries and governments in order to facilitate innova­ tion. In pooling relationships, by contrast, the cooperating partners bring in similar resources and capabilities in order to realize economies of scale or to augment their quantitative presence and power in the marketplace. For example, most airlines are now in pooled relationships. The Star Alliance is one such group, and includes Scandi­ navian Airlines System (SAS) Lufthansa, Thai Airways, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand, United Airlines, and others (see www.staralliance.com).

The types of interorganizational relationships imply different kinds of challenges to the organizations involved. While symbiotic relationships are established to exploit complementary differences and facilitate mutual learning, these very same processes potentially undermine such relationships. If, for example, one of the partners learns faster or more effectively than the other(s), the differences and mutual interdependen­ cies that gave rise to the relationship in the first place may disappear and thus propel that partner to leave the relationship or, alternatively, to take over the other organiza­ tion(s). As a consequence, organizations in symbiotic relationships may choose to be very strategic and selective in the way they disclose information to their partners. Indeed, such selectivity may be a prerequisite for the organizations to retain their spe­ cific identity and survival within the alliance. Interorganizational relationships are highly dynamic and often need to be reviewed and adjusted. As organizational sociol­ ogist Mark Ebers points out:

Because in an interorganizational relationship the partner organizations regularly exchange resources and information, the parties' resource and information bases indeed are affected by the interofganizational relationship. The outcomes of an interorganizational relationship thus change the conditions under which the coop­ erating organizations act.87

Still, interorganizational relationships may be stable for other reasons. For exam­ ple, partner-specific investments (such as specific computer hardware or software) may lock the partners into existing relationships. Or, an organization may rely on mul­ tiple links if it does not have sufficient information to make new decisions on its own. Finally, personal relations between individuals in the partnering organizations may prevent the organizations from investigating possibilities for partnerships with other organizations. Ebers argues that symbiotic interorganizational relationships are more stable if the relationship involves complex processes that organizations cannot repli­ cate on their own. Management scholars David Whetten and Howard Aldrich suggest that interorganizational relationships characterized by "multiplex linkages" (that is, connections between the partnering organizations on multiple dimensions) are more likely to be stable than those connected only by "uniplex" (one-dimensional) strands.88 Interorganizational relationships, in other words, are more stable the more the partnering organizations have to talk about. Interorganizational relationships

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Ill> 167

based on friendship or professional affiliation between individuals in the participating organizations are more likely to continue; in fact, they often become the basis for more formalized partnerships.

The Network Organization

The network organization can be regarded as the pinnacle of interorganizational relations. Network organizations are comprised of two or more organizational units from different organizations involved in a long-term, and more or less formalized, relationship. The relationships of network organizations are often global in scope and reach.89 The typical objective of a (global) network organization is to bring together the resources controlled by different organizations to create a new and stronger organiza­ tion, one that is better equipped for a new market, a new technology. or a new service.

Network organizations typically emerge from relationships among individuals or groups of individuals rather than from formal organizational structures. In contrast to the emergent networks discussed .in relation to .individuals, however, several dimt:m­ sions of a network organization's life-e.g., its legitimate authority, its strategies, and its visions-are prescribed and imposed by management and reflected in organizational charts and formal contracts.90 In other words, as the network is formalized, its emer­ gent nature is usually contained within a narrower frame of control. Still, compared to the traditional organizational hierarchy, the network organization is highly flexible.

Before the 1980s, markets in the Western world were typically dominated by large, hierarchically organized firms that were able to obta.in and susta.in advantages of scale through growth, central planning, and control. Often, those companies were able to use their size and experience to expand into-and to dominate-overseas mar­ kets as well. Many such firms still exist. Their advantages, however, have gradually diminished . Although the efficiency traditionally associated with economies of scale is still central in today's market, contemporary firms also need to be flexible and adapt­ able .in order to stay in business (see chapter 11) . This change can be attributed to a number of related developments, such as globalization, technological change, deregu­ lation, and demographic changes in the workforce.91

New information technologies eliminate, to a large extent, the constraints of time and space (see chapter 12). New technologies shorten product life cycles and lower bar­ riers to market entry. The latter trend is augmented by recent legal, policy, and deregu­ lation changes. Globalization (see chapter 13) has .intensified competition and lowered profit margins. Add to these market conditions the demographic fact that the work­ force of the Western world is generally becoming older, and the need for organizations to become flexible without losing the advantages of economies of scale is evident.

Core Competencies

Many organizations today focus on the functions for which they have expert skill-their core competencies-and outsource those activities that can be performed more quickly or cheaply by others. When organizations learn to do //fewer things bet­ ter with less"92 they simultaneously need to search globally for opportunities, resources, and partners. Often this search leads to vertical integration and the forma­ tion of strategic networks and alliances with companies upstream or downstream on the value chain. Upstream integration means developing ties of coordination with suppli­ ers, while downstream integration means developing ties of coordination with distrib­ utors and customers. For examp'le, the first firm in a network may research, plan, and

168 .. Chapter Six

Org a n i zations today p l a ce a great deal of e m p hasis on value cha i n a nalysis a n d the creation o f a network o f a l l i a n ces. These two features are closely related. Va l ue chain a n a lysis starts with the reco g n ition that a series of events h a p p e n s i n the creation and d e livery of a product o r service, a n d each of these events can be seen as a l i n k in the va l ue chain. That is, e a ch event contributes va l ue to the process. To overs i m p l ify a bit, a business that m a n ufactures prod ucts (for example, tires o r com p uters) involves research and development, purchasing and procurement, desig n a n d e n g ineering, m a nufa cturin g a n d production, sales a n d marketing, a n d fi n a l ly, d e livery a n d distribution. When o rg a n i zations engage i n va l ue cha i n a n a lysis, they ask, "On which pa rts i n the va l ue chain d o we want to focus our business?" That is, w h e re do we as an o rg a n i zation want to · a d d val ue a n d extract value? What are we good at a n d what is susta i n a b l e ? After d e ci d i n g the i r p ri m a ry expertise, they may decide t o create a network o f partners t o h a n d l e the l i n ks i n t h e

chain w h e r e they a r e l e s s effi cient. A clear exam p l e of this is Cisco, which has been p raised often as a pioneer "new economy"

corporation. At one point there were 38 fa ctories making Cisco prod ucts, with Cisco own i n g o n ly two of them. Many Cisco products s o l d are never touched or seen by a Cisco e m ployee. Rath e r, Cisco contracts with partner organ i zations to do m uch of the m a n ufacturing a n d d i stribution o f its products (mostly, computer networking equipment). Cisco focuses o n those parts of the val ue cha i n that they consider their specia lties, or core competen cies, w h i ch i n clude the design a n d m a rketing o f products. Then, they outsource the other functions in t h e va l ue chain, i n cl ud i n g m a n ufacturing a n d d i stribution, to partner o rg a n i zations.93 This trend fo r orga n i zations t o o ut­ source a l l b ut core com petencies to create a network organization is referred to as "dis-aggrega­ tion," w h i ch some pundits describe a s a central characteristic of the new economy.94

Some authors believe there is as much evidence for aggregation as for dis-aggregation-in other words organizations joining together in mergers and acquisitions. 95 Can you fin d examples of both trends? Which seems to be dominant? What are the possible social and economic conse­ quences of dis-aggregatio n ?

design a product; the second m a y engineer and manufacture it; while the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth may handle marketing, sales, distribution, and service.

By choosing the right partners, organizations operating in networks hope to be both efficient and flexible and to remain competitive throughout the value chain. Effi­ ciency is attained by housing specialized expertise in specific locations, and adaptive­ ness is secured by networking with many different specialized organizations. In addition, many network organizations now establish clear performance measures for internal divisions so that their performance can be continuously compared to that of external suppliers. Often this implies converting each division into a business unit that is encouraged or forced to sell their products on the open market. Charles Snow, Raymond Miles, and Hemy Coleman describe the philosophy behind this system:

For the network to operate properly each of its nodes must interact regularly with outsiders-trading, buying, or selling products or raw material to other firms in order to bring real prices to bear on internal transactions. Thus, inside the com­ pany, clusters of business units, grouped by region and product category, can be seen buying and selling from one another as well as from outside firms.96

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks Ill> 169

As competition intensifies in the twenty-first century, organizations will regularly subject their activities to so-called "market tests"-that is, comparing the capabilities of virtually all departments with the capabilities of external providers. The competi­ tion will determine who will be responsible for that link in the value chain. How do you imagine that the introduction of such regular market tests will affect life in con­ temporary organizations and the way their members communicate? (Think both in terms of interpersonal and interdepartmental communication and in terms of how organizations collect and use information from the environment.) What do you see as the advantages of this trend? What are the possible pitfalls?

Although network organizations are usually established in order to meet a num­ ber of critical needs-like getting access to technologies, products, skills, and knowl­ edge-the implications for the organizations involved are considerably more far­ reaching than these functional goals. In particular, ideas of "organization" and "envi­ ronment" need to be redefined considerably. As we have seen, organizations are tradi­ tionally regarded as bounded entities defined by their physical structures, their resources, their markets, and their legal statuses. Following this line of thought, an organization's environment is understood as non-organization, that is, everything that is not comprised by these definitions. In the network perspective, however, it becomes meaningless to disconnect the organization from its environment. Although all groups and organizations create their identity through interaction with their surroundings, this is especially the case for the network organization that explicitly defines itself through a complex set of interdependencies.

In contrast to the traditional, hierarchical firm, the network organization is embedded in a web of relationships that is not fully external to the organization but rather integral to its definition and existence. While resources, for example, tradition­ ally considered "internal" to the organization are now available to partners in the net­ work and thus not entirely controllable by the organization itself, a number of resources from other organizations in the network, typically seen as "external," now become subject to the organization's influence and control. In fact, one could claim

A q u arter of a cen tury a g o, marketing theorist J o h a n A rn d t d e c l a red tha t the buying and sell­ i n g process i n the Western world had become domesticated.97 The tra d i ti o n a l i mage of com p e ti­ tion in the marketplace d e te rm i n i n g s uccess o r fai l u re was g ra d u a l ly b e i n g eroded from within. Arndt c l a i m e d the vagaries of u nrestra i n e d competition were b e i n g replaced by vol u n ta ry, l o ng ­ term, a n d b i n d i n g com m i tm e n ts a m o n g a g rowi n g n um be r o f organizations. Wi thi n such arra n g e m e n ts-which we have cal led n e twork organizations-transactions are "tamed." By i n ternalizing a large n um be r of market transactions w i t h i n i ts b o u n d a ries, n e twork organ iza tions transform the a nonymous market clearing process i n to a n a d m i n i s trative proce d u re where rou­ tines a n d a g reed- u p o n rules replace market negotiati o n . As A rn d t put i t: "More and more trans­ actions are cond u c ted n o t in a d hoc promiscuousness, b u t in the con text of often s u rpris i n g ly s ta b l e l o n g-term corporate m a trim o n ies, a l l ow i n g for s o m e discreet asides."98

Think of examples of network organizations that support Johan Arndt's notion of domesticated markets. Think of limitations to Arndt's perspective based on what you know about contemporary organizations.

170 � Chapter Six

that the network itself is one of the organization's most valuable resources.99 By mak­ ing resources and activities available to the organization, the network becomes an integral part of the organization's definition. As a consequence, the meaning of orga­ nizational boundaries changes quite radically.

Communication in interorganizational Relationships

No matter how interorganizational relationships are organized, they challenge our conventional ideas about organizational communication. Traditional organiza­ tional structures were developed to simplify and minimize communication needs; indeed, they sometimes were a substitute for communication (as discussed in chapter 2) . In contrast, we expect interorganizational relationships to be highly communica­ tion intensive.100 This is especially true for global network organizations that depend on sophisticated communication linkages between partnering organizations.101

Eric Eisenberg and his colleagues distinguished between "types" and "levels" of interorganizational linkages.102 They identified two types of interorganizational link­ ages: material and information. Material refers to the flow of tangibles (money, goods, and personnel); information refers to symbolic exchanges (data, ideas, goodwill). One organization, for example, may lend equipment (or some of its members) to another� organization. Or it may make its databases available to its business partners-as in the case of c-commerce mentioned above.

Eisenberg and his colleagues found three levels of linkage: institutional, representa­ tive, and personal. An institutional linkage refers to exchanges of information or materi­ als between organizations without the involvement of specific organizational roles or personalities, for example routine data transfers between banks. Although few studies treat institutional exchanges explicitly, such exchanges-where transactions occur auto­ matically-are very important in contemporary organizations. In some countries, tax authorities, for example, automatically receive information about people's income from their employers. A representative linkage is when an official representative of one organi­ zation has contact with an official representative of another organization, for example in a negotiation situation. Representative lipl<ages have been studied in terms of boundary role occupants or overlapping memberships. Boundary roles are occupied by people who represent the organization to its environment, including other organizations. Such people filter input and output, search for and collect information, represent the organi­ zation to external constituencies, and protect the organization by buffering it from exter­ nal threats and pressures. For example, public relations professionals often represent organizations to the media, and employee relations professionals often represent organi­ zations to unions. A personal linkage takes place when an individual from one organiza­ tion exchanges information or material with an individual from another organization in a nomepresentative capacity. One example would be socializing or exchanging ideas between two marketing people who know each other through a professional association. Personal linkages may sound less important than more formalized linkages; most deci­ sion makers, however, are aware of the fact that interorganizational relationships often depend on informal contacts and goodwill in the business community. A prime example is the weekly golf match between business leaders. In some countries, interorganiza­ tional relationships are often intermingled with kinship relations. Can you think of other examples of informal communication between people from different organizations?

Communication in interorganizational settings, and networks in particular, often crosses traditional functional boundaries and hierarchical layers. Thus, information

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks IJII> 171

flows are potentially more efficient-fast and economical. The information exchanged, however, is simultaneously more complex. In addition to receiving information faster, current communication technologies allow their users to modify, enhance, or manipu­ late the received information in numerous ways. 103 As a consequence, the quality of communication exchanges becomes the most central concern in interorganizational relationships. Interorganizational communication centers around three important issues: trust, identity, and coordination.

Trust. When organizations establish far-reaching interdependencies with other organizations-implying, for example, mutual access to each other's information, skills, and resources-trust is an essential element in the relationship . Trust among organizational partners involves goodwill, commitment, and equity. Organizations need to trust that their partners enter the relationship with good intentions, that they are sincerely interested in contributing to the relationship, and that they are motivated to

The i m p o rtance of trust i n interorgan izati o n a l relationsh i ps is even more pronou nced when the relatio n s h i p o n l y exists in a virtual environment. Eva Kasper-Fuehrer a n d N e a l Ashkanasy defi n e a n interorganizati o n a l v i rt u a l organ ization as, a "temporary network organization, consist­ i n g of i n d e p e n d ent enterprises (organizations, comp a nies, i nstitutions, o r specialized i n d i v i d u als) that come together swiftly to exploit a n a p p a rent market opportu n ity. The enterprises utilize their core competencies in a n attempt to create a best-of-everyt h i n g organization in a val u e-add­ ing partnership (VAP), fac i litated by information and com m u n ication tech nology (ICT). Virtual organizations act in all a p p e a rances as a s i n g l e org a n izatio n a l u n it." 104 A good exa m p le is Virtu­ e/le Fabrik Euregio Bodensee (www.virt u e l le-fa b rik.org), a virtua l network of com pa n i es that helps other companies create tem p o ra ry interorg a nizational relation s hips.

I n contrast to other types of orga n izatio n a l relati o n s h i ps, the virtua l organ ization l acks the d i m ension of nonverbal com m u nication u s u a l ly regarded a s essential in trust b ui l d i ng. As a con­ sequence, this type of interorg a n izati o n a l relatio n s h i p needs to find alternative ways to esta blish trust. Also, the absence of h ierarchical control a n d a legal framework to regu late the formation, operation (and dissolution) of the organization m a kes produ c i n g a n d organ iz i n g trust in d ifferent

ways even more i m po rtant. F i n a l ly, the temporality of these types of virtua l org a n izations makes trust b u i l d i n g essential.

According to Kasper-Fu e h re r and Ash ka n a sy, interorga n ization a l virtual organ izatio n s m ust use what they c a l l "a ppropriate ICT" to com m u n icate trustworthiness a m o n g its members. Appropriate I CT, i n t h i s context, refers to both a tech n i c a l a n d a h u m a n d im e n si o n . First, ICT e q u i p ment needs to be sta n d a rd ized, in terms of products a n d i n terfaces, to e n a b l e stab i l ity a n d rel i a b i l ity i n t h e relati o n s h i p. Second, it needs t o a l l ow its users t o transmit a s many nonverbal cues as possible, i n cl u d i n g fac i a l expressions. The use of"emoticons"-such as :-) o r :-( is o n e pos­

s i b i l ity. I n a d dition to the use of a ppropriate ICT, i n terorganizational virtual organizations n eed to estab l i s h a common business understanding in order to com p ensate for the lack of legal sanctions and formal control. Such an u nd e rsta n d i n g involves clea r com m u n ication a b o ut what the p a rt­ ners stan d for, a b o ut the nature of t h e i r b u s iness transactions (in terms of production, coopera­ tion, a n d a g reements), a n d about the expected outcomes of t h e i r relationship. Finally, Kasper­ Fuehrer and Ashkanasy e m p h a size that h i g h standards of business ethics a re essential to b u i l d trust i n these relatio n s h ips. S u c h ethics can be esta blished, of c o u rse, b y agreeing o n s h a red codes of ethics but also through concrete b e h avior such a s payment h abits.

172 � Chapter Six

deal fairly. This is not always the case. Some organizations enter partnerships with the intention of absorbing the skills and activities of the other organizations, unfairly tak­ ing more than they contribute to the collaboration.

Trust is established through frequent communication between the partnering organizations. As Peter Ring and Andrew Van de V en point out, "Trust in the goodwill of other parties is a cumulative product of repeated past interactions among parties through which they come to know themselves and evolve a common understanding of mutual commitments. " 105 Trust often builds on interpersonal relationships already established between individuals in those organizations. The individuals may, for example, have established strong ties through a shared professional affiliation or through other shared interests. Or perhaps they are simply friends. The transition of trust from one type of relationship to another, however, is not easy. The fact that a per­ son is willing to attribute sincerity and trustworthiness to another individual as a per­ son does not necessarily imply that the same characteristics will be attributed to the individual in his or her role in the organization.106 In fact, the very institutionalization of the relationship through a formal agreement may weaken the trust on which it was established in the first place.

Conversely, interorganizational relationships established through formal chan­ nels may over time develop into more informal relations. Research has shown that as interorganizational relationships become institutionalized, personal relationships gradually supplement formal role relationships, that psychological affiliations increas­ ingly substitute for formal, legal contracts, and that over time formal agreements increasingly mirror informal understandings and agreements.107 Formal and informal communication, thus, are interwoven in complex ways in interorganizational relation­ ships. In fact, it may be argued that an imbalance between formal and informal pro­ cesses may lead to dissolution of the interorganizational relationship.

While partners in an interorganizational relationship rely on trust, they may fear that the information they exchange Will become accessible to competitors outside the network As a consequence, the openness that organizations encourage within the net­ work may be counterbalanced by carefully closing the network to outsiders.108

Identity. While transparency in transactions and decisions and an open commu­ nication climate between members of the partnership generally facilitate trust, it is equally important that each participating organization has a clear sense of itself and its stakes in the relationship . As we discussed in chapter 5, organizational identity has become a growing issue for organizations of all kinds. Interorganizational relation­ ships intensify this issue considerably. If given the option, many organizations would probably prefer not to engage in interorganizational relationships. Such relationships constrain their autonomy by limiting their actions and challenging their identity. 109 As mentioned above, there is always the risk that one party will absorb the sldlls and activities of another party and then abandon the network In fact, this is often the case. For example, Zenith, a producer of television sets, lost the manufacturing and design of color television and VCR technology to its Korean partner Goldstar. General Elec­ tric lost several of its domestic home appliance products to its partner Samsung. Because of this risk, organizations are often advised to enter a network with clearly defined identities and strategic cores so that the competencies and skills in the net­ work are truly complementary and so that each partner is considered indispensable by the others. 110

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks .. 173

On the other hand, it is ' through interaction with others that organizations

develop their own identity. Tirrough the process of projecting themselves onto their surroundings, organizations get to know their own strengths, weaknesses, and prefer­ ences, and learn to appreciate their identity. Relationships with other organizations, thus, can be instrumental for organizations to develop their identities and core compe­ tencies. Think of examples of organizations with strong and unique identities that would be difficult for partners to emulate or take over. Then think of organizational identities that would be too vague or fragile to retain their autonomy within an inter­ organizational network

Coordination. In contrast to the classical organization arrangement, interorgani­ zational relationships typically have unclear lines of authority and control. As a conse­ quence, processes of coordination within such relationships are potentially marked by confusion and ambiguity. Interorganizational relationships therefore require a strong commitment to cooperation. Although professionals are hard to supervise because they often are more loyal to their profession than to their organization, coordination is crucial. 111 While the motivation for organizations to enter relationships with other organizations is frequently to become more flexible, the reality of the new network is that activities-both within each organizational unit and across the network-must be monitored closely and coordinated precisely. As W. Graham Astley and Richard A Brahm put it:

On the one hand, the need for greater flexibility is requiring organizations to disag­ gregate their activities and externalize certain functions to be performed by collab­ orating partners, domestically or internationally. On the other hand, the need for greater integration and coordination of ac,tivities across interdependent markets, industries and countries is requiring organizations to manage their exchange rela­ tionships through negotiated arrangements designed to stabilize operations.U2

To accomplish these tasks, many network firms have assigned key managers to operate across rather than within hierarchies, creating and assembling information, skills, and resources from all parties.U3 While one may question the implicit assump­ tion that organizations in the network will be willing to fully disclose information to each other, the task of organizing information across the network and communicating it in relevant ways to all participants becomes a highly important activity in all phases of the network's life cycle. We conclude with a prominent example, the contemporary global social justice network (box 6.10), to help you further appreciate how interorga­ nizational communication networks operate in a wide variety of social contexts out­ side the world of work and how these networks are helping to change our world.

SNAPSHOT SYNTHESIS

The relationships we form are important for the success of our work-that is, accomplishing tasks-as well as for the quality of our work lives. These relationships are created, developed, sustained, and sometimes terminated through communica­ tion. The relationships form the building blocks of networks-from personal networks to organizational networks. In this chapter, we have explored relationships and net­ works in their cultural and historical contexts. Understanding the dynamics of rela­ tionships and networks and developing skills for managing them are essential to our personal and professional effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of organizations.

174 <4 Chapter Six

1 5 February 2003 saw the world's most dramatic exam p l e to date of international coordi n a ­ t i o n . As the s u n moved across t h e world, over 1 0 m i l li o n people i n s i x continents m a r c h e d i n pro­ test a g a i n st the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Seven years after the fact, scholars are still h a i l i n g the

event as o n e of the most networked collective actions ever to occur.1 14 What produced such an intricate mass p h e n o m e n o n ? Scholars of social movement n etworks say that it's a m i stake to

t h i n k of such events purely as a product of rage against g l o b a l i nj u stices related to war o r eco­ n o m i c o r environmental injustices. While the concerns that have m otivated such p rotests are well fou n ded, the networks that produce them are m o re accurately described as a product of interor­ g a n izatio n a l l i n kages, m e d i ated by technology.

Social movement scholar S i dney Tarrow argues that these complex networks do not emerge as a d i rect result of s i m pl e factors and variables such a s the seriousness of the issue, avai l a b l e resou rces, n u m be r o f activists, o r the a g e a n d intensity o f the movement.1 1 5 I n stead, Tarrow iden­ tifies six complex processes that have been particularly infl uential i n creating a m u lti-issue g l o b a l social justice network: g l o b a l fra m ing, internalization, diffusion, scale s h ift, externalization, a n d coalition b u i l d i ng .1 1 6 Here's what these terms mean.

Global framing refers to the process whereby loca l issues a re d i s c u rsively fra m e d i n terms that have g l obal res o n a n ce. For i n stance, activists i n a local com m u n ity may b e concerned about the effects of a proposed coal m i n e. The instant they begin to use g l o b a l terms, such as "g l o b a l warm­

i n g" o r "ozon e layer, " they a re entering a l a ng ua g e that begins to give them c o m m o n cause with activists i n other areas.

Internalization refers to the process whereby issues from another area become local issues. Thus, comm u n ities may i n te r n a l ize l a rger issues and protest against city councils who d o not enforce enviro n mental sta n d a rd s o r recyc l i n g policies that exist i n other places, thus connecting

them s u btly with other people and policies. Diffusion refers to the spread of forms and repertoires of contention-what a ctivists actually

do as they protest. For i n stance, protest i n g at the front gate of a l a rge factory o r corporation is a time-honored tactic that has diffused a l l over the world. As d ifferent groups take up s i m i l a r forms of contention, they b e g i n to get conn ected.

Scale shift describes a process w hereby collective action a n d organizatio n a l i dentity get trans­ formed a n d g l o b a l ized. For i n stance, u n i o n activists concerned with e q u ita b l e e m ployment m i g ht start to help raise p u b l i c awareness about sweatshops in other countries, but if the g l o b a l issue of sweatshops becomes their m a i n m i s s i o n , they h a v e u n d ergo n e a scal e s h i f t that orients them toward the g l o b a l network.

Externalization refers to local protests about issues that lie elsewhere: the protests across the world against the wars i n Iraq a n d Afg h a n istan are good examples.

Coalition building refers to explicit connections between groups of activists i n various parts of the world wh o b u i l d techn o l o g ical connections in order to engage i n protests, o rg a nize, a n d strategize. Activists themselves may sometimes m ove across borders.

it's important to remember that global justice networks are built as a result of all these processes put together. For instance, we might mistakenly consider coalition building as the most prominent network-building process. However, consider how coalitions could not happen without a range of other processes, including global framing, scale shifts or externalization. Have you or any of your friends ever taken part in a protest? Based on this, can you think of examples of global framing, inter­ nalization or scale shift? How solid and durable do these processes and mechanisms seem? How do you think technology has affected the global social justice network?

KEY CONCEPTS

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks /Ill> 175

" Discourse "Conversationalization": the tendency in contemporary times for discourse to be more informal and democratic, with less formality and fewer power markers.

" "Technologization" of Discourse: the tendency in contemporary times for dis­ course to reflect more strategizing based on research and/ or training that focuses on communication techniques that are effective in achieving communi­ cators' goals.

e Synthetic Personalization: sometimes called "manufactured friendliness" this is a kind of emotional labor in which organizations train and encourage their employ­ ees to use a friendly; informal, conversational communication style with customers.

" Definition of the Situation: a communicator 's interpretation of the situation, which includes an understanding of the nature of the interaction, the goals of the interaction, and the nature of the relationships between or among the com­ municators.

" Multiple Communication Goals: when people communicate, they simulta­ neously attempt to achieve instrumental or task goals (such as persuading or informing), identity goals (including self-presentation and treatment of the other party), and relationship goals (Such as increasing or decreasing intimacy).

" Intersubj ectivity: a mutually understood view of a situation or other phenomenon. " Relational Dialectics: tensions, or opposing forces, in any relationship that are

both interdependent and mutually negating. " Communication Competencies: individuals' abilities that include social per­

ception skills, message design skills, and interaction management. " Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: a theory that suggests (among other

things) that superiors develop in-group relationships with some subordinates and out-group relationships with others.

" Blended Relationships: relationships that combine both a work and personal relationship, such as a superior-subordinate dyad who are also friends.

" Formal-Organizational Function of Communication: communication that serves formally sanctioned organizational purposes, such as communication focused on task accomplishment.

" Psychological-Individual Function of Communication: communication that serves the needs of individual members, such as communication with peers that meets one's need for affiliation.

• Network Analysis: analysis of the structural or process features of a network or networks, such as assessing the flow of communication in a group or organiza­ tion, the strengths and types of relationships.

" Network Roles: the positions that individuals occupy within networks. " Strength of Weak Ties: the idea that for some purposes, such as encouraging the

flow of innovative ideas, we should value and cultivate weak ties in a network " Community of Practice: a type of network of relationships that binds people

together with a focus on particular projects or professional interests.

176 � Chapter Six

NOTES

" Virtual Community: a network of people with common interests who interact primarily online.

" Interorganizational Relationship: a (typically formal) relationship formed by two or more organizations to share resources in order to achieve their individ­ ual and shared goals.

" Network Organization: an organization that brings together the resources con­ trolled by different organizations to create a new and stronger organization, one that is better equipped for a new market or a new service.

1 Jan Carlzon, Moments of Truth (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987). 2 J. Van Maanen and G . Kunda, "'Real Feelings' : Emotional Expression and Organizational Culture,"

Research in Organizational Behavior 11 (1989): 43-104. 3 Brenda Gainer, "Ritual and Relationships: Interpersonal Influences on Shared Consumption," Journal of

Business Research 32 (1995): 253-260. 4 Connie J. G. Gersick, Jean M. Bartunek, and Jane E. Dutton, "Learning from Academia: The Importance

of Relationships in Professional Life," Academy of Management Journal 43.6 (2000): 1026-1045. 5 Peter Cappelli, Laurie Bassi, Harry Katz, David Knoke, Paul Osterman, and Michael Useem, Change at

Work: How American Industry and Workers Are Coping with Corporate Restructuring and What Workers Must Do to Take Charge of Their Own Careers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) pp. 193-194.

6 Cappelli et al., p. 195-198. 7 Francis Green, "Why Has Work Effort Become More Intense?" Industrial Relations 43 (2004): 709-741. 8 Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work (New York:

Henry Halt & Company, 1998). 9 B . S. Kuipers and J. l. Stoker, "Development and Performance of Self-Managing Work Teams: A Theoreti­

cal and Empirical Examination," International Journal of Human Resource Management 20.2 (2009): 399--419. 10 Norman Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (London: Longman Pub-

lishers, 1995) p. 137. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Norman Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1992). 14 Fairclough, Critical, p. 136. 15 Donald W. Ball, '"The Definition of the Situation': Some Theoretical and Methodological Consequences

of Taking W. L Thomas Seriously," Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 2 (1972): 61-82. 16 Ruth Anne Clark and Jesse G. Delia, "Topoi and Rhetorical Competence," Quarterly Journal of Speech 65

(1979): 187-206. 17 George J. McCall and J. L Simmons, Identities and Interaction: An Examination of Human Associations in

Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1978). 18 H. Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation," in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and

Jerry Morgan (New York: Academic Press, 1975) pp. 41-58. 19 Leslie A Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery, "Rethinking Communication in Personal Relationships

from a Dialectical Perspective," in Communication and Personal Relationships, ed. Kathryn Dindia and Steven Duck (New York: John W:rley, 2000) pp. 31-53; see also Kenan Bridge and Leslie A Baxter, "Blended Relationships: Friends as Work Associates," Western Journal of Communication 56 (1992): 20()... 225; and Theodore E. Zom, "Bosses and Buddies: A Constructive/Dramaturgical Analysis of Simulta­ neously Close and Hierarchical Relationships in Organizations," in Under-Studied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track, ed. Julia T. Wood and Steven Duck (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995) pp. 122-147.

20 Baxter and Montgomery, "Rethinking Communication in Personal Relationships from a Dialectical Per­ spective," pp. 31-53.

21 J. L. Gibbs, "Dialectics in a Global Software Team: Negotiating Tensions across Time, Space, and Cul­ ture," Human Relations 62.6 (2009).

22 Bridge and Baxter, "Blended Relationships," pp. 200--225; Zom, "Bosses and Buddies," pp. 122-147. 23 Cappelli et al., Change at Work, pp. 8--9 .

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks .,_ 177

24 Fredric M. Jablin and Patricia M. Sias, "Communication Competence," in The New Handbook of Organiza­ tional Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, ed. Fredric M. Jablin and Linda L. Put­ nam (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001) pp. 819-864.

25 N. Sriussadapom-Charoenngam and F. M. Jablin, "An Exploratory Study of Communication Compe­ tence in Thai Organizations, " Journal of Business Communication 36.4 (1999): 382-418.

26 Beverly Davenport Sypher and Theodore E. Zom, "Communication Related Abilities and Upward Mobility: A Longitudinal Investigation," Human Communication Research 12 (1986): 420-431; Theodore E. Zom and Michelle Violanti, "Communication Abilities and Individual Achievement in Organizations," Management Communication Quarterly 10 (1996): 139-167.

27 Sypher and Zom, "Communication Related Abilities and Upward Mobility," pp. 420-43 1 . 28 Barbara J. O'Keefe, "The Logic of Message Design: Individual Differences in Reasoning about Commu­

nication," Communication Monographs 55 (1988): 80-103. 29 Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John wney, 1978). 30 John Haas, "A Communication Metamyth Revisited: Is More Communication in the Workplace Better?"

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, 2007; S. Zimmermann, B. D. Sypher, and J. W. Haas, "A Communication Metamyth in the Workplace: The Assumption that More Is Better. The Journal of Business Communication 3 (1996): 185-204.

31 John C. Athanassiades, "The Distortion of Upward Communication in Hierarchical Organizations," Academy of Management Journa/ 16 (1973): 207-226.

32 Phillip K. Tompkins, Organizational Communication Imperatives: Lessons of the Space Program (Los Angeles: Roxbury Press, 1992).

33 Fredric M. Jablin and Kathleen Krone, "Task/Work Relationships: A Life-Span Perspective," in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2nd ed., ed. Mark L. Knapp and Gerald R. Miller (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).

34 T. J. Larkin and Sandar Larkin, "Reaching and Changing Frontline Employees," Harvard Business Review (May-June 1996): 95-104; Helena Economo and Theodore E. Zom "Survivor Perceptions of Communica­ tion during Downsizing," Asia Pacific Public Relations Journa/ 1 (1999): 19-41.

35 Jablin and Krone, "Task/Work Relationships," p. 632. 36 Zimmermann, Sypher, and Haas, "A Communication Metamyth i n the Workplace." 37 George Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien, "Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years-Applying a Multi-Level, Multi­ Domain Perspective," Leadership Quarterly 6 (1995): 219-247. (They actually refer to their model as focus­ ing on leader-follower, not supervisor-subordinate relationships, but that seems to be what they're talk­ ing about.)

38 Graen and Uhl-Bien, pp. 219-247. 39 V. R. Waldron, "Achieving Communication Goals in Superior-Subordinate Relationships: The Multi­

Functionality of Upward Maintenance Tactics," Communication Monographs 58.3 (1991): 289-306; V. Waldron, M. D. Hunt, and M. Dsilva, "Towards a Threat Management Model of Upward Communication: A Study of Influence and Maintenance Tactics in the Leader-Member Dyad," Communi­ cation Studies 44.3-4 (1993): 254-272; V. R. Waldron and M. D. Hunt, "Hierarchical Level, Length, and Quality of Supervisory Relationship as Predictors of Subordinates' Use of Maintenance Tactics," Communication Reports 5.2 (1992): 82-89.

40 Bridge and Baxter, "Blended Relationships," pp. 200-225. 41 Nancy G. Boyd and Robert R. Taylor, "A Developmental Approach to the Examination of Friendship in

Leader-Follower Relationships," Leadership Quarterly 9 (1998): 4. 42 Zom, "Bosses and Buddies," pp. 122-147. 43 W. Charles Redding, Communication within the Organization (New York: Industrial Communication

Council, 1972). 44 Gary A. Fine, "Friendships in the Workplace," in Friendship and Social Interaction, ed. Valerian J. Derlega

and Barbara A. Winstead (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986) pp. 185-206; also Patricia M. Sias and· Daniel J. Cahill, "From Coworkers to Friends: The Development of Peer Friendships in the Workplace," Western Journal of Communication 62 (1998): 273-299.

45 Jablin and Krone, "Task/Work Relationships," p. 641. 46 Theodore E. Zom and Sarah Ruccio, "Motivational Communication in College Sales Teams," Journal of

Business Communication 35 (1998): 468-499. 47 Zom, "Bosses and Buddies," pp. 122-147.

178 <Ell Chapter Six

48 Sias and Cahill, "From Coworkers to Friends," pp. 273-299. 49 Ibid., pp. 288-289. 50 Herminia Ibarra, "Paving an Alternative Route: Gender Differences in Managerial Networks for Career

Development," Social Psychology Quarterly 60 (1997): 91-102. 51 }. H. Fritz, "Men's and Women's Organizational Peer Relationships: A Comparison," Journal of Business

Communication 34.1 (1997): 27-36. 52 Fredric M. Jablin, "Organizational Entry; Assimilation, and Disengagement/Exit," in The New Handbook

of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, ed. Fredric M. Jablih and Linda L Putnam (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001).

53 Theodore E. Zorn, Deborah Page, and George Cheney, "Nuts about Change: Change-Oriented Commu­ nication in a Public Sector Organisation," Management Communication Quarterly 14 (2000): 515-566.

54 John Van Maanen, "The Smile Factory: Work at Disneyland," in Reframing Organizational Culture, ed. Peter J. Frost, Larry F. Moore, Meryl Reis Louis, Craig C. Lundberg, and }oanne Martin (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991) pp. 58-76.

55 Arlie R. Hochschild, The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (Berkeley: University of Cal­ ifornia Press, 1985); Sally Planalp, Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

56 Fairclough, Critical, pp. 137-138. 57 CRM is sometimes applied to the use of electronic systems to monitor customers' buying habits and the

use of that data to target marketing efforts. 58 Stephen Brown, "Torment Your Customers (They'll Love It)," Harvard Business Review (October 2001): 82. 59 J. M. H. Fritz, "How Do I Dislike Thee? Let Me Count the Ways," Management Communication Quarterly

15.3 (2002): 410-438; B. D. Sypher and T. E. Zorn, "Individual Differences and Construct System Content in Liked and Disliked Coworkers," International Journal of Personal Construct PsycholOgiJ 1.1 (1988): 37-51.

60 T. E . Zorn, M. S. McKinney, and M. M. Moran, "Structure of Interpersonal Construct Systems: One Sys- tem or Many?" Journal of Constructivist Psychology 6.2 (1993): 139-166.

61 B . D . Sypher, "Reclaiming Civil Discourse in the Workplace. Southern Communication Journal 69.3 (2004): 257-269: 257.

62 P. Lutgen-Sandvik, S. J. Tracy, and J. K. Alberts, "Burned by Bullying in the American Workplace: Preva- lence, Perception, Degree and Impact," Journal of Management Studies 44.6 (2007): 837-862.

63 Sypher, "Reclaiming Civil Discourse in !:he Workplace." 64 Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts. 65 M. P. Tagle, "Violence at Home and Violence at the Workplace: Bridging Different Views on Violence,"

unpublished manuscript, West Lafayette, IN: Department of Communication, Purdue University, 2003 (cited in Sypher). '

66 Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy and Alberts, "Burned by Bullying. " 67 S. J. Tracy, P. Lutgen-Sandvik, J. K. Alberts, "Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves: Exploring the Painful

Metaphors of Workplace Bullying," Management Communication Quarterly 20.2 (2006): 148-185. 68 Adapted from Peter R. Monge and Noshir S. Contractor, "Emergence of Communication Networks," in

The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, ed. Fredric M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam (Thou­ sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001) pp. 440-502.

69 Mark S. Granovetter, "The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology 81 (1973): 1287-1303. 70 Adapted from the following sources: Monge and Contractor, "Emergence of Communication Net­

works"; Terrance L Albrecht and Betsy W. Bach, Communication in Complex Organizations: A Relational Approach (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997).

71 Albrecht and Bach, pp. 147. 72 Etienne C. Wenger and William M. Snyder, "Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier,"

Harvard Business Review (January-February 2000): 139-145. 73 Wenger and Snyder, pp. 139-145. 74 Theodore E. Zorn and Jarnes R. Taylor, "Knowledge Management and/as Organizational Communica­

tion," in Key Issues in Organisational Communication, ed. Dennis Tourish and Owen Hargie (London: Rout­ ledge, 2003).

75 Barbara Gray; "Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration," Human Relations 38.10 (1985): 911-936.

76 Ibid., p. 912. 77 P. McCann and T. Arita, "Clusters and Regional Development: Some Cautionary Observations from the

Semiconductor Industry," Information Economics and Policy 18.2 (2006): 157-180.

Connecting through Social Relationships and Networks � 179

78 William W. Powell, "Hybrid Organizational Arrangements," California Management Review 30.1 (1987): 67-87. "Economies of scale" commonly emphasizes the advantages gained by moving from a smaller size to a larger one. Here, the bias is toward growth and massification. On the other hand, there are advantages to a smaller unit or system that are de-emphasized or kept out of view with the application

of this concept. 79 Toby E. Stuart, "Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and

Innovation Rates in a High Technology Industry," Strategic Management Journal 2l (2000): 791-811 . so Ibid., pp. 791-811. 81 John F. Rockart, "Toward Survivability of Communication: Intensive New Organization Forms," Journal

of Management Studies 35.4 (1998): 417-420. 82 Renee Guarriello Heath, "Rethinking Community Collaboration through a Dialogic Lens: Creativity;

Democracy, and Diversity in Community Organizing," Management Communication Quarterly 21 (2007): 145-171).

83 Peter R. Monge and Noshir S. Contractor, Theories of Communication Networks (New York: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 2003).

84 Noshir S. Contractor, Barbara J. O'Keefe, and Patricia M. }ones, IKNOW: Inquiring Knowledge Networks On the Web. Computer Software. Urbana-Champaign: University of lllinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1997, <http:/ /iknow.spcomm.uiuc.edu>; Noshir S. Contractor, Dan Zink, and Mike Chan, "IKNOW: A Tool to Assist and Study the Creation, Maintenance, and Dissolution of Knowledge Networks/' in Community Computing and Support Systems, ed. Toru Ishida (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998) pp. 201-217; Noshir S. Contractor and Ann Bishop, "Reconfiguring Community Networks: The Case of PrairieKNOW," in Dig­ ital Cities: Technologies, Experiences, and Future Perspectives, ed. Toru Ishida (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000) pp. 151-164; Julie Fesenrnaier and Noshir S. Contractor, "Inquiring Knowledge Networks on the Web (IKNOW): The Evolution of Knowledge Networks for Rural Development," The Journal of the Community Development Society 32 (2001): 160-175.

85 Mark Ebers, "The Dynamics of Inter-Organizational Relationships," Research in the Sociology of Organiza- tions 16 (1999): 31-56.

86 Stanley Baldwin, "Tying the Knot," The Economist Newspaper, Ltd. (May 14, 1994): 73. 87 Ebers, "The Dynamics of Inter-Organizational Relationships," pp. 39. 88 David A. Whetten and Howard Aldrich, "Organization Set Size and Diversity: Links between People

Processing Organizations and Their Environments," Administration and Society 11 (1979): 251-282. 89 Peter R. Mange and Janet Fulk, "Communication Technology for Global Network Organizations," in

Shaping Organizational Form: Communication, Connection and Community, ed. Gerardine DeSanctis and Janet Fulk (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1999) pp. 71-100.

90 Mange and Contractor, "Emergence of Communication Networks. " 91 Charles C. Snow, Raymond E. Miles, and Henry J. Coleman, Jr., "Managing 21st Century Network Orga­

nizations," in Organizational Dynamics (Wmter 1992): 5-20; Mange and Fulk, "Communication Technol­ ogy for Global Network Organizations."

92 Snow, Miles, and Coleman, Jr., "Managing 21st Century Network Organizations," pp. 5-20. 93 Don Tapscott, David Ticoll, and Alex Lowy, Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs (Boston:

Harvard Business School Press, 2000). 94 Tapscott, Ticoll, and Lowy; see also Kevin Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy," Wired (Sept.1997):

1-12. <http:/ /www.wired.com/wired/ archive/5.09 /newrules.htrnl> 95 John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, The Social Life of Information (Boston: Harvard Business School

Press, 2000). 96 Snow, Miles, and Coleman, Jr., "Managing 21st Century Network Organizations," p. 13. 97 Johan Arndt, "The Market Is Dying: Long Live Marketing!" MSU Business Topics 27 (Wmter 1979): 5-13. 98 Ibid., p. 6. 99 Hiikan HiikarlSson and I van Snehota, "No Business Is an Island: The Network Concept of Business Strat-

egy," Scandinavian Journal of Management 5.3 (1989): 187-200. 100 Rockart, "Toward Survivability of Communication," pp. 417-420. 101 Monge and Fulk, "Communication Technology for Global Network Organizations." 102 Eric M. Eisenberg, Richard V. Farace, Peter R. Monge, Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Ronnie Kurchner-Hawkins,

Katherine I. Miller, and Lynda Rothman, "Communication Linkages in Organizational Systems: Review and Synthesis," in Progress in Communication Sciences, ed. Brenda Dervin and Melvin Voigt (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985) pp. 231-258.

103 Mange and Fulk, "Communication Technology for Global Network Organizations."

180 .,. Chapter Six

104 Eva C. Kasper-Fuehrer and Neal M. Ashl<anasy, "Communicating Trustworthiness and Building Trust in Interorganizational Virtual Organizations," Journal of Management 27 (2001): 235-254.

105 Peter S. Ring and Andrew H. Van de Ven, "Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships," Academy of Management Review 19.1 (1994): 110.

106 Ibid., pp. 90-118. 107 Ibid., for a review of this research. 108 Smen Skafte Overgaard, "Uvilje til videndeling," Bersen Informatik (Apr. 24 2001): 7. 109 Joseph Galaskiewicz, "Interorganizational Relations," Annual Review of Sociology 11 (1985): 281-304. no Ha.kansson and Snehota, "No Business Is an Island," pp. 187-200. 111 Eisenberg et al., pp. 231-258. 112 W. Graham Astley and Richard A Brahm, "Organizational Designs for Post-Industrial Strategies: The

Role of Interorganizational Collaboration," in Strategy, Organization Design, and Human Resource Manage­ ment, ed. Charles C. Snow (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1989) p. 253.

113 Snow, Miles, and Coleman, Jr., "Managing 21st Century Network Organizations," pp. 5-20. 114 S. Tarrow, "The Dualities of Transnational Contention: 'Two Activist Solitudes' or 'A New World Alto­

gether,"' Mobilization: An International Journal lO.l (2005):53-76. 115 D . McAdam, S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly, "Methods for Measuring Mechanisms of Contention," Qualitative

Sociology 31 (2008):307-331. 116 S. Tarrow, The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).