Within the realm of communication studies, organizational communication is a field of study surrounding all areas of communication and information flow that contribute to the functioning of an organization . Organizational communication is constantly evolving and as a result, the scope of organizations included in this field of research have also shifted over time. Now both traditionally profitable companies, as well as NGO's and non-profit organizations, are points of interest for scholars focused on the field of organizational communication. Organizations are formed and sustained through continuous communication between members of the organization and both internal and external sub-groups who possess shared objectives for the organization. The flow of communication encompasses internal and external stakeholders and can be formal or informal.
History The field traces its lineage through business information, business communication, and early mass communication studies published in the 1930s through the 1950s. Until then, organizational communication as a discipline consisted of a few professors within speech departments who had a particular interest in speaking and writing in business settings. The current field is established with its own theories and empirical concerns distinct from other fields.
Several seminal publications stand out as works broadening the scope and recognizing the importance of communication in the organizing process, and in using the term "organizational communication". Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1947 about "organization communications systems", saying communication is "absolutely essential to organizations". W. Charles Redding played a prominent role in the establishment of organizational communication as a discipline.
In the 1950s, organizational communication focused largely on the role of communication in improving organizational life and organizational output. In the 1980s, the field turned away from a business-oriented approach to communication and became concerned more with the constitutive role of communication in organizing. In the 1990s, the rise of critical theory garnered influence within the field as organizational communication scholars focused more on communication's ability to both oppress and liberate organizational members. This shift in thought arose from the French postulations brought about by theorist Michel Foucault. Foucault is often revered as the father of Post-modern thought and has been described as a “radical relativist” by contemporaries such as Camille Paglia.
From the 2000s onward, organizational communications experienced a “discursive turn”. This turn started in the 1980s with the rise of globalization and explains the changed relationship between organizations and governments. After 1980, interpretive and critical organizational communication research expanded rapidly and combined with functionalist research, creating a much more varied and complex landscape. Governments around the world became increasingly interested in multilateral organizations and began supporting their goals and interests; this factor increased the profits for investors who were able to capitalize on the changes occurring. In the early 2000s, organizational communications saw discoveries of illegality and corruption, which led to the bankruptcies of extremely large organizations (Ex. Arthur Anderson). As a result, it changed how people see ethics and corporate social responsibility in organizational communications. Organizational communication became richer and more fragmented as structural-functional perspectives waned. For the future of this field, it is inevitable that diversity will lead to intellectual competition, and that hierarchy will be established among perspectives.
In the most recent history of the last five years, organizational communications have seen huge differences in how public opinion sees mass media. This shift has led to began to move away from traditional news sources like the newspaper and rely more on social media like Twitter for their news sources. With this change, communication is more vulnerable to things like “fake news”; however, it gives all members of the public the capability of sharing their stories. With the rapid advancement of technology, there is no telling how far the field of organizational communications will advance in years to come.
Early underlying assumptions
Some of the main assumptions underlying much of the early organizational communication research were:
Humans act rationally. Some people do not behave in rational ways, they generally don't have access to all of the information needed to make rational decisions they could articulate, and therefore will make irrational decisions, unless there is some breakdown in the communication process—which is common. Irrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their communication measures whether or not it is rational. Formal logic and empirically verifiable data ought to be the foundation upon which any theory should rest. All we really need to understand communication in organizations is (a) observable and replicable behaviors that can be transformed into variables by some form of measurement, and (b) formally replicable syllogisms that can extend theory from observed data to other groups and settings 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, represented as any differences between the original and the received messages, can and ought to be identified and reduced or eliminated. Organizations are mechanical things, in which the parts (including employees functioning in defined roles) are interchangeable. What works in one organization will work in another similar organization. Individual differences can be minimized or even eliminated with careful management techniques. 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.
Herbert A. 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, rather than exploring further to pick the optimal solution.
In the early 1990s 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 communications.
Robert Craig suggested that there were seven components of communication theory, seven different ways of thinking about how communication works in the world. The seven different domains are rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychological, sociocultural and critical. The rhetorical approach can be theorized as the practical art of discourse and the semiotic approach theorized as intersubjective mediation by signs. The phenomenological approach can be theorized as experiences of otherness; dialogue, and the cybernetic approach as information processing. The socialpsychological approach can be theorized as expression, interaction and influence. The sociocultural approach is theorized as (Re)production of social order and the critical approach theorized as discursive reflection.
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, such as "chain", "wheel", "star", "all-channel" network, and "circle".Summarized from concepts developed by Alex Bavelas, "Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups," pp. 503–11; Harold Guetzkow, "Differentiation of Roles in Task-Oriented Groups," pp. 512–26, in Cartwright and Zander, Group Dynamics; H.J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology vol.
Interorganization communication
Flow nomenclature Abbreviations are used to indicate the two-way flow of information or other transactions, e.g. B2B is "business to business". Duplex point-to-point communication systems, computer networks, non-electronic telecommunications, and meetings in person are all possible with the use of these terms. Examples: In Business B2B (business-to-business) B2C (business-to-consumers) B2E (business-to-employees) B2G (business-to-government) In Governance G2G (government-to-government) G2C (government-to-citizens) G2E (government-to-employees) G2B (government-to-business) In Society C2B (consumer-to-business) C2C (consumer-to-consumer) or (customer-to-customer) or (citizen-to-citizen)
Interpersonal communication
Interpersonal communication amongst individuals can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, such as through the use of gestures, facial expressions, and overall body language.
Managers do not need answers to operate a successful business; they need questions. Answers can come from anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world due to the plethora of electronic communication tools at our disposal. This has turned the real job of management into determining what business specifically needs to know, along with the who/what/where/when and how of learning it. To effectively solve problems, seize opportunities, and achieve objectives, questions need to be asked by managers—these are the people responsible for the operation of the enterprise as a whole.Terry, J. F. (2008). The Art of Asking: Ask Better Questions, Get Better Answers. FT Press.
Ideally, the meanings sent are the meanings received. This is most often the case when the messages concern something that can be verified objectively. For example, "This piece of pipe fits the threads on the coupling." In this case, the receiver of the message can check the sender's words by actual trial, if necessary. However, when the sender's words describe a feeling or an opinion about something that cannot be checked objectively, meanings can be very unclear. "This work is too hard" or "Watergate was politically justified" are examples of opinions or feelings that cannot be verified. Thus, they are subject to interpretation and hence to distorted meanings. The receiver's background of experience and learning may differ enough from that of the sender to cause significantly different perceptions and evaluations of the topic under discussion. As we shall see later, such differences form a basic barrier to communication.