Organisation Network

Organizational communication, broadly speaking, comes in existence when the people working together communicate to achieve individual or collective goals.

Further, communication can be defined as “the transfer of meanings between persons and groups.” The purpose of communication may range from completing a task or mission to creating and maintaining satisfying relationships. “Transfer of meanings” implies more than the simple process of “packaging” an idea as conceived by a sender and transporting it to the mind of a receiver, where it is “unpackaged.” It implies the creation of meaning in the mind of a sender followed by a re-creation of the same meaning in the mind of a receiver. If something occurs along the way to change the sender’s original meaning, the communication has failed in its intent. The survival of an organization depends on individuals and groups who are able to maintain among themselves effective and continuing relationships. Practicing ethical leadership will benefit relationships between organizational members. One component of practising effective communication is fairness. In order to maintain fairness an organization must avoid discrimination based on gender, race, religion etc… One theory related to discrimination and prevention of workers advancing in their organization is called the Glass ceiling. Communications training will assist in developing and maintaining relations in an organization.

Communication may be considered a functional part of an organizational system, and it may be considered in an interpersonal context. The structure of an organization is determined in part by the network of channels or paths along which information must flow between members or sub-units.

 

History

Before 1930s, the term organisational communication was just restricted to the speaking and writings in business settings. No one knew what is organisational communication. Moreover, there was no a need at all at that very time. It was started between 1930s and 1950s when business information an early mass communication studies were published. Apart from this, several other publications have p the importance of communication in the organising process. Furthermore, in 1947 Nobel LaureateHerbert Simon stressed upon “the absolute essentiality of communication to the organisations” in his work Organisation Communications Systems.

In 1951 Bavelas and Barrett wrote An Experimental Approach to Organizational Communication I which they stated that communication “is the essence of organized activity”.

In 1953 the economist Kenneth Boulding wrote The Organizational Revolution: A Study in the Ethics of Economic Organization. This work directly addressed the economic issues facing organizations, and questioned the ethical and moral issues underlying their power, and maintained that an “organization consists of a system of communication.”

In 1954, Chris Argyris published “Personality and Organization” diverting attention towards organizational communication”. Argyris made the case that what passed for organizational communication at the time was based on unstated and indefensible propositions such as “management knows best” and “workers are inherently stupid and lazy.” He accused the emerging field of relying on untested gimmicks designed to trick employees into doing management’s will.

This way, the publications and views of the writers have proved the unseen importance of the communication in the organisations and the word organisational communication came into existence.

Through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the concept of organisational communication developed greatly in parallel with several other academic disciplines, looking at communication as more than an intentional act designed to transfer an idea. Research expanded beyond the issue of “how to make people understand what I am saying” to tackle questions such as “how does the act of communicating change, or even define, who I am?”, “why do organizations that seem to be saying similar things achieve very different results?” and “to what extent are my relationships with others affected by our various organizational contexts?”

In the early 1990’s, Peter Senge developed new theories on Organizational Communication. These theories were learning organization and systems thinking. These have been well received and are now a mainstay in current beliefs toward organizational communication.

 

Assumptions underlying early organizational communication

Some of the main assumptions underlying much of the early organizational communication research are:

1. Humans act rationally: People behave in rational ways, they generally have access to all of the information needed to make rational decisions, unless there is some breakdown in the communication process.

Herbert Simon introduced the concept of bounded rationality which challenged assumptions about the perfect rationality of communication participants. He maintained that people making decisions in organizations seldom had complete information, and that even if more information was available, they tended to pick the first acceptable option, than exploring further to pick the optimal solution.

2. Communication is a Mechanical Process: Communication is primarily a mechanical process, in which a message is constructed and encoded by a sender, transmitted through some channel, then received and decoded by a receiver. Distortion and noise, represent as any differences between the original and the received messages, should be identified and reduced or eliminated.

3. Formal Logic and Verifiable Data:Formal logic and empirically verifiable data must be placed as the foundation to base any theory upon. All really need to understand communication in organizations . (a) observable and replicable behaviours that can be transformed into variables by some form of measurement. (b) formally replicable syllogisms that can extend theory from observed data to other groups and settings.

4. Organizations are mechanical things: In an organisation the employees functioning in define roles are interchangeable along with other parts of organisation. What works in one organization may work or may not work in another similar organization. Individual differences can be minimized or even eliminated with careful management techniques.

5. You in communication can be identified and studied: Organizations function as a container within which communication takes place. Any differences in form or function of communication between that occurring in an organization and in another setting can be identified and studied as factors affecting the communicative activity.

 

Communication Networks

Networks are another aspect of direction and flow of communication. Bavelas has shown that communication patterns, or networks, influence groups in several important ways. Communication networks may affect the group’s completion of the assigned task on time, the position of the de facto leader in the group, or they may affect the group members’ satisfaction from occupying certain positions in the network. Although these findings are based on laboratory experiments, they have important implications for the dynamics of communication in formal organizations.

There are several patterns of communication:

1. “Chain”,

2. “Wheel”,

3. “Star”,

4. “All-Channel” network,

5. “Circle”.

 

1. Chain can readily be seen to represent the hierarchical pattern that characterizes strictly formal information flow, “from the top down,” in military and some types of business organizations.

2. The Wheel can be compared with a typical autocratic organization, meaning one-man rule and limited employee participation.

3. The Star is similar to the basic formal structure of many organizations.

4. The All-Channel network, which is an elaboration of Bavelas’s Circle used by Guetzkow, is analogous to the free-flow of communication in a group that encourages all of its members to become involved in group decision processes. The All-Channel network may also be compared to some of the informal communication networks.

If it’s assumed that messages may move in both directions between stations in the networks, it is easy to see that some individuals occupy key positions with regard to the number of messages they handle and the degree to which they exercise control over the flow of information. For example, the person represented the central dot in the “Star” handles all messages in the group. In contrast, individuals who occupy stations at the edges of the pattern handle fewer messages and have little or no control over the flow of information. These “peripheral” individuals can communicate with only one or two other persons and must depend entirely on others to relay their messages if they wish to extend their range.

In reporting the results of experiments involving the Circle, Wheel, and Star configurations, Bavelas came to the following tentative conclusions. In patterns with positions located centrally, such as the Wheel and the Star, an organization quickly develops around the people occupying these central positions. In such patterns, the organization is more stable and errors in performance are lower than in patterns having a lower degree of centrality, such as the Circle. However, he also found that the morale of members in high centrality patterns is relatively low. Bavelas speculated that this lower morale could, in the long run, lower the accuracy and speed of such networks

In problem solving requiring the pooling of data and judgments, or “insight,” Bavelas suggested that the ability to evaluate partial results, to look at alternatives, and to restructure problems fell off rapidly when one person was able to assume a more central (that is, more controlling) position in the information flow. For example, insight into a problem requiring change would be less in the Wheel and the Star than in the Circle or the Chain because of the “bottlenecking” effect of data control by central members.

It may be concluded from these laboratory results that the structure of communication within an organization will have a significant influence on the accuracy of decisions, the speed with which they can be reached, and the satisfaction of the people involved. Consequently, in networks in which the responsibility for initiating and passing along messages is shared more evenly among the members, it betters the group’s morale in the long run.

1. Formal Communication: Formal Communication is the official communication among different employees of an organisation due to predetermined relationships in an organisation in the course of performing their duties and responsibilities. Formal communication is also referred to as “communication through the chain of command”. The pattern of this communication is determined as per the determined processes in the structure of organization. Formal communication takes place when every employee is on a pre-defined position or status. This communication is between two positions and not between persons. Thus, the scalar chain of authority established by the organisation provides the channels for all official communication. Usually formal communication is in written form, such as notes, memos, letters, reports and statements.

 

Formal Communication Network

The formal channels are the systems that are deliberately created and officially prescribed path for flow of communication between various communications in the organization. All downwards, upwards and horizontal communication flow through this network. This network is created to regulate the flow of communication so as to avoid any confusion and to make it more orderly, timely and smooth. The officially prescribed network can be designed on the bases of single channel or multiple channels.

1. Single Chain: Single chain communication network exists between superior and subordinate. Communication flows downward and upward through each successive level. There is a better control in this type. And it is usually found in bureaucratic organization.

2. Wheel: In this network all subordinates are under one superior; they communicate through him only as he is the hub of the wheel. In this network problem of coordination is the main drawback.

3. Circular: In this type, communication moves in a circle, each person can communicate with adjoining two persons. In this network, communication flow is slow.

4. Free Flow: In this network, each person can communicate freely with others but the problem of coordination exists.

5. Inverted V: In this type, individual is allowed to communicate with his immediate superiors as well as superior’s superior. In this network communication travels faster.

 

Grapevine Network

The grapevine operates fast in almost all working organizations. It flows to all the places where people get together in groups. Grapevine follows different types of networks.

Usually there are four types of patterns through which grapevine travels:

1. Single strand: In this individual communicates with other individual through intervening patterns. In this a person A tells something to person B, he tells to person C, he communicates that to other persons down the line.

2. Gossip chain: In this individual communicates to everyone information that he has obtained.

3. Probability chain: In this individual are indifferent about whom they offer information to, they tell others at random, and those people in turn tell others at random.

4. Cluster chain: In this pattern person A conveys the information to a few selected individuals. Some of those individuals then inform a few selected others. Individuals communicate with whom they trust. Out of all the informal networks, the cluster is most popular.