16

Organisational
n .
communication
it o
b u
t r i
i s
r d
fo
ot
N

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 508 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 .
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

n
After studying this chapter you should be able to:
Explain the different types of channels that can be used in organisational

it o
communication
Describe the nature of upward, downward and horizontal communication patterns

Explain how organisational design factors (flat versus tall, centralised versus

decentralised, mechanistic versus organic) affect organisational communication

u
Explain network organisations, network roles and networking strategies

Describe aspects of the informal organisation and communication system

i b
Identify different aspects of organisational culture, including silos and silence

Explain the relationship between knowledge management and organisational

r
communication

i s t
r d
fo
ot
N

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 509 6/15/11 2:32 PM


r
o
A concentric
FIGURE 16.1
f
model of fields of
communication
t
o
N
Alignment strategy:
ensuring that all messages
communicated to audiences
within an organisation are
consistent with messages
communicated to audiences
outside the organisation
Organisation: a group of
people who work together to
achieve a common purpose
510 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 510
Organisations: systems
ofcommunication effectiveness
and communication breakdown
In chapter 1, we saw that different areas of communication could be meaningfully ana-
.
lysed as a series of concentric circles (see figure 16.1). As we shall see, there are numerous
interconnections between this chapter dealing with communication in organisa-
n
tions and nearly every chapter in this book, especially those dealing with interpersonal
communication.
it o
b u
1. Intrapersonal
t r i
2.
i s
In t e
r per son
al
d
3 . Gr o
up / t eam
4 . Or l
ganisa t iona
5 . P u b l ic / m e d i a
6 . I n t e r cu l t u r al
This means that, increasingly, there is no clear line of demarcation between where the
organisation ends and where the outside world begins. Argenti and Haley (2006) point out,
for example, that organisations need to align their communication messages to external
and internal audiences, not only because it is professional and systematic to do so, but
because all audiences, through a variety of formal and informal communication channels
have unprecedented access to what has been said to the other audiences. Communicating
with external audiences or publics, such as customers and/or the community and/or the
media, needs thus to be consistent to be aligned with communication with the audi-
ences or publics internal to the organisation. If there is no alignment strategy if this is not
done the managers of an organisation may be seen at best as inconsistent and at worst
as hypocritical and manipulative.
An organisation consists of a group of people who work together to achieve a common
purpose. It can consist of two people or two million people, and can be structured as a
small business or an army, corporation, government or church. An organisation is bigger
than the individuals and groups that comprise it, but smaller than the society that gives it
its context and environment.
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 What is organisational communication?
Organisational communication is difficult to define. Richmond and McCroskey
(2009) describe it as the process by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds
of other individuals, by means of verbal and nonverbal messages in the context of
a formal organisation. Pace and Faules (1994, p. 20) suggest it is the display and
interpretation of messages among communication units who are part of a particular

.
organisation. An organisation is comprised of communication units in hierarchical
relations to each other and functioning in an environment. Miller (2006, p. 1) has this

n
to say:

it o
Most scholars would agree that an organisation involves a social collectivity (or a group
of people) in which activities are coordinated in order to achieve both individual and
collective goals. By coordinating activities, some degree of organisational structure is cre-
ated to assist individuals in dealing with each other and with others in the larger organi-
sational environment. With regard to communication, most scholars would agree that

u
communication is a process that is transactional (i.e., it involves two or more people inter-
acting within an environment) and symbolic (i.e., communication transactions stand for

b
other things, at various levels of abstraction). To study organisational communication,

i
then, involves understanding how the context of the organisation influences communication
processes and how the symbolic nature of communication differentiates it from other forms

r
of organisational behaviour.

t
In this chapter we will examine what makes communication work within an organ-

s
isation, and what prevents or distorts communication within an organisation. You may

i
note the links to discussions elsewhere in this book on group or team communication,
feedback, intercultural communication, gender communication, leadership, influencing

d
and persuasion, and dealing with conflict. Because the organisation is not sealed off
from the outer world, we may also see overlaps in content and approach between this

r
chapter and the coverage on customer communication, public communication and mass
communication.

o
Here we will consider a number of different aspects of organisational communication,
including structures, channels, culture, roles, and the management of information, data,

f
knowledge and learning.
Choosing the most appropriate channel for your message will help it reach the right

t
audience.

o
Communication channels

N
Numerous pathways, channels or media can be used to convey messages within
organisations.
In chapter 1, for example, we considered the strengths and weaknesses of workplace
communication channels such as memos, email, voicemail, instant messaging, formal and
informal meetings, noticeboards, suggestion boxes, 360 feedback, focus groups, plenary
briefings, supervisor or team leader briefings, closed-circuit telecasts, video recordings,
Synchronous communication: newsletters, charts and posters, management by walking around (MBWA), the grapevine
communication that is sent or rumour mill, position papers, ombudsmen, blogs and websites. We learned how dif-
and received at virtually the
same time ferent channels, pathways or media can offer one-way, two-way or multidirectional com-
Asynchronous munication that may be mediated or nonmediated, synchronous or asynchronous, involving
communication: individuals or groups.
communication that is sent
at one time and received at When we want to send a message within an organisation, we need to consider channel,
another time message type and audience or target. Choosing the right channel to get a certain message

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 511

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 511 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 through to a certain audience can be more difficult than is first apparent. Clampitt (2000,
p. 108), for example, notes:
A memo is a poor choice whereas a small group meeting is a better choice in a situation

where a midsize construction firm wants to announce a new employee benefit program
(because the memo does not offer synchronous two-way or feedback potential to explain
what may be seen as arcane information; some employees may have literacy problems).
The phone is a poor choice whereas email or voicemail is a better choice in a situation

.
where a manager wishes to confirm a meeting time with ten employees (because there is
no need to use a rich and synchronous medium for a simple message).

n
Lewis (1999, p. 75) makes the following observations about channel choice:
Interpersonal channels are more likely to meet specific needs of organisational members

it o
in overcoming risk and complexity associated with a change. When high risk or com-
plexity are not major factors, mediated channels are more effective in providing general
information.
Most mediated communications (e.g. reports, newspapers, videos, posters, chief execu-

tive officers (CEOs) presentations, closed-circuit TV shows) are centred on the CEOs

u
message, which can be counter-productive: much research suggests that employees will
change only if they receive rationales for change from their immediate supervisor rather

b
than others further up the food chain of the organisation.

i
Following from this, not enough organisations take advantage of the credibility that

r
lower-level supervisors have: they are not briefed adequately, possibly because they are

t
not trusted, or because the lower-level details of change programs have been insuffi-
ciently well thought out.

s
Thomas et al. (2006) note in relation to email that:

i
It has become the channel of choice for many people in organisations, irrespective of the

status or position of those people, with messages not being read once and deleted but

d
rather filed and used as work tools.
It threatens many with information overload, because:

r
inherent in the discourse or word patterns used in many emails is the expectation of
immediate response: thus, while email is asynchronous in one sense, in another it is

o
synchronous with a vengeance
when email is often copied to more than one person, duplication of tasks may occur

f
when more than one person drops everything to respond to the request or command
in the text

t
the portability of computers and hand-held devices may entice some to do emailing
while involved in other tasks (e.g. participating in meetings); such multitasking is

o
often futile, dissipating concentration from one task to several
universal access to computers may generate an expectation that people will respond

N
to email anytime, anywhere (weekends, holidays, out-of-work hours).
It has been said that the main cause of problems are solutions. The solution to quick
and widespread communication by email has led to some organisations implementing a
no email Friday policy to partially overcome the overcommunication caused by email
(seechapter 6).
The best channel through which to convey information will depend on the situation.
Effective organisational communicators use a number of channels, taking care to ensure
that messages are repeated and reinforced in different ways.
We also need to take account of our own communication style, to ensure both that we
choose channels we can work with and that we do not reject effective channels with which
we are less comfortable. Practice in the use of new channels should help eliminate any
shortcomings in delivery.
As we saw in chapter 1, using channels effectively therefore depends on four strategies.
These four strategies are outlined in greater detail in figure 16.2.

512 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 512 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 Strategy 1: Match the channel to the message and the audience or target.
Strategy 2: Repeat and vary the message via different channels to reinforce the message.
Strategy 3: Be ready to step outside our comfort zone to use the channels we are not necessarily
FIGURE 16.2Four strategies comfortable with.
for effective organisational Strategy 4: Be aware that the channel chosen may transform the content of the message.
communication

ASSESS YOURSELF

n .
it o
Think of an organisation you are familiar with perhaps a workplace, an educational institution, or
a public transport or recreational facility. What channels of communication does this organisation
use? How effective or ineffective are these channel choices?

u
Structures: organisational design

i b
Organisations, like the buildings in which most of them are housed, have structures.
Organisational design: the Organisational structure is sometimes referred to as organisational design, although some

r
structure of an organisation organisations are not so much designed as evolve in logical or not-so-logical ways over

t
time. In order to understand why communication works or why it breaks down in organ-
isations, we need to review a few basic ideas about organisational design.

Hierarchy: a system of
organisation involving ranks or
levels, with each level having
i s
Most organisations are hierarchies that is, they are structured in ranks or levels, with
each level having power or influence over the level immediately below it.
Most hierarchies resemble pyramids, with a few people at the top and many at

d
power or influence over the
level immediately below it the bottom (figure 16.3). Generally speaking, the people at the top of the pyramid
have more power and are better rewarded than those at the bottom of the pyramid.

r
The process of power and control flowing between the different levels of a hierarchy
Chain of command: the system is sometimes known as the chain of command. The term has a military flavour, and it

o
of power, communication means that each level in a hierarchy is less powerful than the one immediately above

f
and decision making within
hierarchies, with people at it, and that information, decisions and authority or delegation of authority tend to flow
different levels staying in rigid downwards, with accountability flowing upwards. People within the chain of command

t
roles, deferring to those in the
next level above them
usually stay in rigid, protocol-driven hierarchical roles, deferring to those in the next
level above them. The chain of command is violated when someone goes above the

o
bosss head and communicates directly with others at least one level directly above
their immediate superior. Reference to the chain of command can be a conflict resol-
ution strategy.

N Level
Level
1

Level Level
2 2 2

FIGURE 16.3 The pyramid

hierarchy of organisations: Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level
the formal organisation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 513

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 513 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 Formal organisation:the
official structure of an
organisation, usually
represented in an
organisational chart; most
communication occurs
through formally sanctioned
channels, and reflects the
legitimate or sanctioned chain
of command
Informal organisation:
the unofficial structure
of an organisation, rarely
if ever represented on an
organisational chart; most
communication occurs
through unofficial channels,
and can reinforce the norms
and goals of the official
organisation or can work
against the norms and goals of
the official organisation
Vertical communication:
sending and receiving
messages between the levels
or layers of a hierarchy
Horizontal communication:
sending and receiving
messages between individuals
at the same level or layer of a
hierarchy
Downward communication:
sending messages from upper
levels to lower levels of a
hierarchy
o r
t f
N o
FIGURE 16.4 People
operating in different layers
of a hierarchy may have
very different views on the
effectiveness of top-down
communication
Upward communication:
sending messages from lower
levels to upper levels of a
hierarchy
514 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 514
The pyramid or hierarchy, we need to remember, is the image of the formal organisation
what the world thinks the organisation is really shaped like. Before we truly understand
organisational communication, however, we need to consider the informal organisation (see
The informal organisation: I heard it through the grapevine later in this chapter) to see
whether the formal and informal organisations work with each other or against each
other.
.
Communication flows
n
In understanding organisations and the patterns of communication within them, one of
the critical concepts is directionality. Vertical communication refers to sending and receiving
messages between the levels of a hierarchy, whether downward or upward. Horizontal
it o
communication refers to sending and receiving messages between individuals at the same
level of a hierarchy.
Downward communication, used mainly to communicate messages from the more pow-
erful to the less powerful, is perhaps the most common form of communication in organ-
u
isations. Such communication involves instructions, budget approvals or nonapprovals,
policy statements, variations in standard operating procedures and notification of other
b
changes, general announcements, briefings, and expression of goals, objectives and mis-
i
sion statements. These messages may be transmitted via memos, email, notices and other
r
individual-to-group or individual-to-individual channels; or they may be conveyed indi-
rectly, passed on by others in the hierarchy. During the transfer, the original message may
t
be edited, augmented, reduced, explained or distorted.
s
Time and again, however, top-down communication attempts fail, and that failure
i
is often not grasped by those at the top of the hierarchy. Figure 16.4, which presents
responses from two surveys of personnel in US organisations, shows how a top manage-
d
ment perception of getting messages through to lower ranks was wildly at variance with
perceptions held by those in the lower ranks.
100% 100%
50% 50%
0%
Top management
Non-management employees
Management communicates frequently
SURVEY 1
0%
Top management
Non-management employees
Managers understand employees
SURVEY 2
with employees agree responses problems agree responses
Source: Adapted from data cited in Seta, Paulus and Baron Source: Adapted from data cited in Crampton, Hodge and
(2000, p. 149). Mishra (1998, p. 571).
Upward communication may in some circumstances be even more important than down-
ward communication. Upward communication channels convey data about and from cus-
tomers, data about production of goods and services, and the intelligence that is needed in
the day-to-day operation of an organisation.
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 This intelligence can be gathered if those at upper levels of an organisation are skilled
in listening and gathering feedback (see chapter 10), and are committed to strategic
listening to customers and to organisational transparency. If there is no commitment
to such approaches, then a culture of silence and/or a culture of silos will prob-
ably prevail, which may well have serious consequences for the organisation: with no
early warnings of impending disaster, it may even result in large-scale crisis. In such
situations, no news is definitely bad news, and bad news is no news: staff at lower levels

.
will be loath to give bad news which may be vital to the organisations survival. If it
will not be listened to, or worse, will attract criticism a shoot-the-messenger culture

n
or ethos in which those who point out truths are punished for their efforts will develop.
Upward communication can also be a fertile source of new ideas and creative

it o
problem solving, primarily because people in the lower parts of a hierarchy are closer to
specificproblems and may be more aware of practical solutions than people further up the
hierarchy.
Lateral or horizontal communication takes place primarily at one level of the
organisation for example, within teams, among heads of department, among others

u
in coordination and liaison roles, or among virtually everyone at the lower levels of the
pyramid (Adams 2007). As Richmond and McCroskey (2009: 30) point out:

i b
There is much more horizontal communication in organisations on a daily basis than there

r
is vertical. This is a function of two things: (1) there are more employees than managers, and
(2)employees at the same level feel more comfortable talking with each other than with people

t
at different authority levels ... it is through the horizontal channels that you are likely to

s
increase your knowledge, communication skills, and socialization skills. This is often where you
can establish long-lasting interpersonal relationships that can assist you in becoming a better

i
employee with a better chance of survival in the organisation.

d
It is sometimes quicker and more effective for messages to travel horizontally than
upward, downward or across an organisation. Nevertheless, good horizontal communica-

r
tion is often impaired by rivalry, territorial behaviour and over-specialisation of job func-
tions, which erects barriers leading to in-group/out-group exclusion, the use of jargon and

o
other excluding codes, and a reluctance to share information.
Diagonal communication: Diagonal communication cuts across vertical and horizontal dimensions. For example, a

f
communication that cuts junior staff member may go over the head of his or her immediate superior and tele
across existing vertical and
horizontal channels phone, email or visit a senior technical expert in another area to get information (note

t
in particular these interactions in the informal organisation). Wilson (1992) found that
in low-performing organisations, staff used diagonal communication to seek information

o
on the proper application of existing job procedures, while in high-performing organisa-
tions, staff used diagonal communication to seek information needed to solve complex

N
and difficult work-related problems. While diagonal communication may be a sign of
flexibility for example, in organic organisations it will obviously cause problems and
perhaps chaos if taken to extremes.
In chapter 17 we will consider public communication, but here lets note that people
working for an organisation routinely communicate with the outside world, and that these
communications are often part of what is and is not communicated within organ-
isations. Such external communication can be official, such as press releases, letters or
boundary spanning, or unofficial, such as whistle-blowing (making public the details of
unethical practices), industrial espionage or websites run by disaffected ex-employees (see
figure 16.5 overleaf).
Lets now turn to some different aspects of organisational design. As we learn to dis-
tinguish between flat versus tall and centralised versus decentralised structures, remember
that these are not mutually exclusive categories: for example, a flat organisation may also
be decentralised.

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 515

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 515 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 DOWNWARD COMMUNICATION
Job instructions and descriptions
Policies and procedures manuals
Appraisal and performance feedback
Official briefings
Orders and directives
Meetings (face-to-face, electronic)
UPWARD COMMUNICATION
Meetings (face-to-face, electronic)
Participative decision making (teams, projects)
Captains table lunches executives meet
staff
Upward appraisal/360 feedback
Suggestion systems

New employee induction programs Anonymous graffiti boards/intranets

Memos and emails Email

n
Telephone Telephone
Intercom and public address systems Ombudsman/ombudswoman

it o
Notice boards and intranets Counsellors
Newsletters Grievance procedures
Annual reports Union newsletters
Posters, calendars/planners Training programs
Training programs Grapevine

u
Nonverbal communication of culture (open plan/ Social activities (in-house sports teams,
democratic work space, segregated mahogany exercise programs, water cooler and cafeteria,

b
row; presence of/lack of status indicators end-of-week party)
parking spots, privileges, secretaries etc.) Open-door policies

Social activities (in-house sports teams, Opinion surveys and communication audits

r
exercise programs, water cooler and cafeteria, Exit interviews
end-of-week party)

t
Blogs

s
Podcasts

i
Wikis
HORIZONTAL COMMUNICATION DIAGONAL COMMUNICATION

d
Meetings (face-to-face, electronic) Telephone, email
Grapevine Going over the head of those immediately in

r
Cross-departmental, cross-divisional, cross-site chain of command
projects Social activities (in-house sports teams,
Telephone exercise programs, water cooler and cafeteria,

Email end-of-week party)

f
Social activities (in-house sports teams, Informal organisation personal contacts
exercise programs, water cooler and cafeteria, Staff personnel (legal, IT, training/human

t
end-of-week party) resources) communicating with line
Training programs (mainstream workflow) personnel
Staff personnel (legal, IT, training/human Expertise-to-expertise communication

resources) communicating with line authority of knowledge instead of authority

(mainstream workflow) personnel of position internal networkers, boundary

N
FIGURE 16.5 Organisational
communication networks
and channels
Source: Adapted from Harris
and Nelson (2007); Hodgetts and
Hegar (2008); Goldhaber (1990);
Pace and Faules (1989); Wilson
(1992); Tourish and Robson
(2006): Aamodt (2010).
Messages defining territorial rivalries/silos spanners
Instant messaging
Texting
Blogs
Wikis
EXTERNAL/PUBLIC COMMUNICATION EXTERNAL/PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
(OFFICIAL) (UNOFFICIAL)
Press releases, conferences Whistleblowers, media leaks
Speeches External grapevine
Advertising, marketing Insider trading
Letters, email Industrial espionage/intellectual property theft
Meetings with community and other Blogs, complaints/flaming websites
stakeholders boundary spanning
Blogs

516 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 516 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Span of control: the number of
people who report directly to
the person immediately above
them in the hierarchy
FIGURE 16.6 Wide span
(flat) and narrow span (tall)
organisational designs
r
Flat organisation: an
organisational structure
o
characterised by fewer middle
f
layers, a shift in decision-
making power to groups or
teams, and increased worker
t
empowerment
De-layering: reducing the
number of layers or levels in
o
an organisation, especially the
middle levels
Downsizing: reducing staff
N
numbers in an organisation,
especially in the middle levels
Empowerment: transferring
decision-making power to
others, especially teams
Tall organisation: an
organisational structure
characterised by more layers,
narrower spans of control
and more centralised decision
making
Placid environment: a
situation, society or market
in which the rate of change
is low and the future is fairly
predictable
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 517
Flat versus tall organisations
We have considered directionality of message sending in organisations. Related to this
factor is the concept of span of control. Span of control simply means the number of people
who report directly to the person immediately above them in the hierarchy. If only three
people report to the supervisor immediately above them in the hierarchy, then that super-
visor has a narrow span of control; if 50 people reported to one person immediately above
.
them, he or she could be said to have a wide span of control. Figure 16.6 shows spans
of control of five and 25. Both organisations have 625 staff at the lowest level, but the
n
organisations have different shapes: one is a tall and narrow pyramid, while the other is a
flatter pyramid; one has two layers, while the other has four.
it o
1 1
LAYER 1
25
5
u
LAYER 2
b
625
25
i
LAYER 3
r
125
t
LAYER 4
s
Organisation A: 625
i
span of control = 25
651 people Organisation B:
span of control = 5
d
781 people
The past few years have seen a tendency in some organisations to flatten the pyramid
in order to create a flat organisation (Dive 2003; Daft 2006). This has led to a number of
developments, including:
a reduction in the number of levels or layers within organisations a process some-
times referred to as de-layering
a reduction in staff numbers, especially at the middle levels, driven by the belief that if
the prime task of middle managers was to move information up and down the hierarchy,
and if computerisation could now automate that information flow, then many middle
management positions were redundant and could be dispensed with a process some-
times called downsizing
a real or perceived shift of decision-making power to groups or teams to reduce the deci
sionload on supervisors with wide spans of control a process known as empowerment.
Tall organisations with narrow spans of control are not all bad, of course (see table 16.1
overleaf). If a manager, supervisor or team leader has only a few staff to supervise, those
staff members may benefit from greater personal attention, just as a low studentteacher
ratio may provide a better learning environment for students.
Tall organisational design may also encourage centralisation, which can mean more
control and uniformity over work outputs, rather than less control and more inconsist-
ency. Having a tall organisation may mean that paths of communication, especially up and
down the hierarchy, are more clearly delineated. This also helps decision making. Close
supervision can be particularly helpful where the work being undertaken is nonroutine,
and where subordinates are inexperienced or in training. Always having a boss around can
be useful too, when mistakes are potentially expensive. Organisational scholars sometimes
distinguish between placid and turbulent environments: in a placid environment the rate
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 517
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 Turbulent environment: a
situation, society or market
in which the rate of change is
high and the future is uncertain
TABLE 16.1 Pros and cons of
tall and flat organisations
r
o
f
t
o
N
518 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 518
of change is low and the future is fairly predictable; in a turbulent environment the rate of
change is high and the future is uncertain (see Organic vs mechanistic organisations later
in the chapter).
Tall organisations (narrow span of control) Flat organisations (wide span of control)
For Close supervision can be supportive, Encourages decentralisation
permitting more intimate communication Encourages self-control, autonomy
Encourages centralisation Simplifies vertical communication by
Establishes clear lines of communications, stripping out layers
n
especially vertical communication Allows greater horizontal communication
Decision-making channels clearly Useful where work is routine
it o
understood Useful where subordinates are
Useful where work is nonroutine experienced, needing minimal supervision
Useful where subordinates are Good in turbulent environments: task
inexperienced or in training roles are fluid and specialisation does not
Useful where mistakes will be costly workwell
u
Good in placid environments: clear task
roles, specialisation works well
b
Against Close supervision can be intrusive: back- Encourages decentralisation
i
seat driver bosses can dampen initiative, Difficult when people want/need control
r
autonomy from above
Encourages centralisation Horizontal communication is often more
t
Vertical communication can become inefficient than vertical communication
distorted because messages have to go Greater demands placed on supervisors
through so many levels as more people report to one boss
i
Decision making can become clogged with possibility of increased bottlenecks
a veto at every level Reduced promotion opportunities
d
Promotion can be slow (fewerlevels)
Sources: Adapted from Eunson (1987); Daft (2011).
Tall organisations operate more effectively in placid environments, where clear task
roles and specialisation work well. There are many disadvantages to tall organisations,
however. Close supervision can sometimes be intrusive, discouraging initiative and inde
pendent thought. Tall organisations tend to encourage centralisation, which can sometimes
lead to excessive head office control and an insensitivity about local conditions far from
the centre. Communication and decision making can become bogged down because so
many levels have to be passed through, with an increased chance that the relayed mes-
sages are distorted. With so many levels, promotion may be slow too.
Flat organisations have a number of virtues. Flattening the pyramid or hierarchy
encourages decentralisation, which may mean that local outposts can respond more flex-
ibly to the changing local scene. This means an increase in self-control and autonomy,
which can be very motivating for most people. Flatter organisations, with fewer layers to
contribute to message distortion, may thus encourage quicker and more accurate com-
munication. Better horizontal communication may also result, allowing empowered teams.
Flat organisational design works well where work is routine, and where subordinates are
experienced and can operate with minimal supervision and maximum empowerment. They
also may cope well in turbulent environments, where task roles may need to be fluid and
flexible, and where role specialisation may not be effective.
Although decentralisation can be a virtue, it can also cause difficulties in some
circumstances, leading to inconsistent policy interpretation and product creation. To the
extent that flat organisations lead to decentralisation, this can be a problem. Not every
employee necessarily wants empowerment and freedom to make decisions: some can feel
under-supervised in flat organisations. Flat organisations tend to stimulate horizontal
6/15/11 2:32 PM

The conflict between the
US government and the
AlQaeda terrorist network battle between a tall organisation (the United States) and a flat one (Al Qaeda), and that
has been described as
a battle between a tall
organisation (the United
States) and a flat one
(Al Qaeda), with the flat
organisation having an
advantage.
c ommunication, but horizontal communication is not
always as efficient as vertical communication. Super-
visors, managers and team leaders, with so many
people reporting to them, sometimes experience task
and role overload, and this can lead to decision-
making and communication bottlenecks. Finally,
because there are so many people at each level, and
because the number of levels has been reduced, there
may be reduced opportunities for promotion.
Toffler and Toffler (2004) have argued that current
world conflicts can be partly understood in termsof
flat and tall organisations (see also Friedman 2006).
They suggest that the conflict between the US
government and the Al Qaeda terrorist network is the
in such a conflict, the flatter organisation has the advantage (but see Networking: group
process and interpersonal strategies later in the chapter):
The United States and Al Qaeda are seen as unevenly matched, which is why think-tank experts
and TV pundits call the conflict asymmetric. In fact, Al Qaedas strength derives precisely from
the fact that it is small, fast, flexible and pancake-flat, while the North American government
is huge, slow, sclerotic and pyramidal.
Huge and pyramidal worked for World War II. It worked in the Cold War when the United States
opposed an even more bureaucratic foe. But attempting to fight the deadly, fast-flitting, flea-
sized terrorist enemy with yet another pyramidal bureaucracy, as the White House proposes, is
a blueprint for failure. (Toffler & Toffler 2004)

Centralised versus decentralised organisations

Centralisation/decentralisation is another aspect of organisational design. Extremedecentral-
isation can occur when the organisation becomes virtual. The main advantage of central-
ising an organisations communication, decision making and production is that it becomes
easier to impose uniformity (table 16.2). Close control and coordination become simpler.
Wasteful duplication of resources can be eliminated, and economies of scale become poss-
ible. Some functions of an organisation, such as industrial relations, and financial and
legal matters, benefit from being consolidated at a central point. Centralisation also works
well when a big picture or strategic approach to planning is needed.

Pros and cons

TABLE 16.2
of centralised versus
decentralised organisations
Centralisation
For Produces uniformity of message
communication
Produces uniformity of policy, action and
standards
Enables closer control and coordination
Maximises economies of scale:
eliminates duplication
Some functions (financial, legal, labour/
management negotiations on wages/
conditions etc.) better handled from
central point
Best when big picture perceptions and
planning needed
Decentralisation
Shortens lines of intra-unit communication
Increases participation in decision making,
delegation
Increases morale, reduces feelings of
alienation (were just cogs in the machine)
Allows top management to concentrate on
policy issues
Allows flexible, quick response to local issues
Suited to fast change, dynamic growth
Accountability clear
May promote healthy competition among units
Eggs in many baskets creative redundancy
built in
(continued)

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 519

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 519 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 TABLE 16.2 (continued) Centralisation
Against Communication breakdowns may
occur distortion of messages
Upward communication may be impeded
Head office propaganda perception
May increase sense of alienation
(werejust cogs in the machine) among
non-elite
May overstress top management
Central elite may be insensitive to local
conditions
One bomb effect all eggs in one
basket, system vulnerable to improbable
but destructive events
Sources: Adapted from Eunson (1987); Daft (2011).
Decentralisation
Lengthens lines of inter-unit communication
May cause problems of coordination and
quick response
May result in lack of uniformity of policies,
actions, standards
Jurisdictional and priority conflicts may arise
Economies of scale may be lost (e.g. access
to computer, lab, duplication of resources)
Competition between decentralised units may
be harmful
Not good when decentralised workers are not
self-motivated, self-directing, self-controlling

Centralisation has its disadvantages, however. Without alternative channels through

Mechanistic: organisational
design or structure that
depends on tall and
centralised structure, with
mainly downward vertical
communication; flourishes in
placid environments
Organic: organisational design
or structure that depends
on flat and decentralised
structure, with mainly all-
directional communication;
flourishes in turbulent
environments
which to transmit messages, communication breakdowns may occur, with messages being
distorted. Upward communication may become distorted, with those on the periphery, away
from the centre, feeling disempowered and tending to discount even valid messages from
the centre as just more head office propaganda. Top management may have too heavy a
load to bear, and may be insensitive to local conditions. Because so many resources are
concentrated in the one area, with little redundancy built in, the system may be vulnerable
to unlikely but destructive events such as sabotage or the breakdown of a central computer.
Decentralisation shortens lines of communication within units and is more conducive
to increased delegation of tasks and participation in decision making, which may improve
morale. No longer preoccupied by operational details, top management can concentrate
on policy issues. Decentralised organisations can respond more flexibly and quickly to
changing local conditions and adapt more readily to rapid change and dynamic growth.
Accountability can be clearer in decentralised organisations. Healthy competition may
develop among decentralised units. Also, in the event of a disastrous event, all the organ-
isations eggs are not in one basket creative or protective redundancy is built in.
While decentralisation can shorten the lines of intra-unit communication, it may also
lengthen the lines of inter-unit communication. This can lead to problems such as slow
response and lack of coordination in situations that spread over many areas.
Decentralisation may lead to jurisdictional or territorial battles, and may cause conflicts
over priorities. Economies of scale (e.g. general access to one big computer or one big
laboratory) may be lost. Budgets may be squandered on needless duplication of resources.
Competition between different decentralised units can be good, but it can also be wasteful.
Finally, decentralisation creates a work style that most benefits workers who are self-
motivated and desire empowerment, but not all workers share these drives, and such indi-
viduals may feel cast adrift and directionless.
Organic versus mechanistic organisations
Another way of looking at organisations is to classify them into having what Burns and
Stalker (1961) called mechanistic and organic organisational designs or structures. Character
istics of these organisations are shown in figure 16.7. Burns and Stalker argued that mech-
anistic or bureaucratic organisations operated fairly well in placid environments, but that
when the environment became turbulent, another form of organisational design the
organic model became more effective, as it was able to cope more flexibly with such an
environment. The mechanistic/organic model has had a profound impact on thinking about

520 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 520 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 organisations and the experience of the world of work, not least because it seems to
suggest that work environments that do not depend upon fear, control and rigid pro-
cedures are not only pleasant places to be in, but may also be more effective than bureau-
cratic organisations. In reference to the perceived flexibility of organic structures, some
analysts have renamed it the adhocracy (Bennis 1973; Robbins & Barnwell 2007).

Mechanistic Organic
Profile Tall Flat

Control Centralised Decentralised

Rules and procedures Many, specified Few, broad

Communication Mainly vertical, mainly downwards All directions, flows either way

Standards Rigid Flexible

Roles Specific Broad

Delegation Little Much

Leadership style More autocratic; legitimate, More democratic, expert, referent

coercive, reward power bases power bases; team-based

Job specification Stress skills Stress potential

Source of motivation Extrinsic (money, promotion) Intrinsic (the job itself)

FIGURE 16.7 Organic versus Check on performance Frequent Infrequent
mechanistic organisations
Sources: Adapted from Burns Management of risk Not so good; inflexible responses Good; flexible responses
and Stalker (1961); Dessler
(2009); Kimbrough and Optimal environment Placid Turbulent
Componation (2009).

Nevertheless, as we have seen, flat and decentralised organisations are not utopias, and
have problems which seem intrinsic to their very structure, and organic organisations
are flatter and more decentralised. There may also be a problem with terminology here:
mechanistic and bureaucratic have negative connotations for most of us, while organic
sounds wonderfully utopian and problem-free.
Following from this, there may also be a teleology problem here. Teleology means
that final goals or developments proceed and reveal themselves inevitably (see online
chapter 6 Scientific and technical writing), and some discussions of the mechanistic/
organic model may lead us to believe that mechanistic organisations are really the dark,
Satanic mills of the crude and violent past of industrialism, while organic utopias await
all of us in the future.
Yet mechanistic organisations or bureaucracies have not ended up on the scrapheap of
history, and are still very much with us. Not only have they survived, but they may be
flourishing, suggesting that in some circumstances at least bureaucracies may not be
such bad places to be:
Like elephants being able to dance, they may in fact respond flexibly to turbulent

environments (Kanter 1990; Gerstner 2004).

They may be able to bring role clarification, useful formalisation and greater communi-

cation efficiency than is the case in organic organisations (Sine, Mitsuhashi & Kirsch 2006).
They may present a more natural way of structuring workflow and allow clearer

accountability (Jaques 1990).

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 521

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 521 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Small world phenomenon: the
idea that any person on the
globe may be separated from
any other person by no more
than six steps, or six degrees
of separation, and we are
only now becoming aware
that there may be patterns or
networks of interconnection
Virtual organisation: an
organisation comprising a
network of geographically
dispersed workers connected
to one another, and sometimes
to a central workplace, via
computer, phone, video and
other links
Telecommuting: working
from home using computer,
phone, video and other links
to communicate with fellow
workers and/or a central
workplace
522 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 522
They may be more secure places for employees who do not wish to participate in decision
making (Eunson 1987).
There is also the possibility that most organisations start out small and organic, but as
they grow larger, may need to become more mechanistic simply to get things done.
The trick is, perhaps, to try and create workplaces and organisations that are creative
syntheses of the best of the mechanistic and organic models to see the mechanistic
organic distinction not as comprised of polar opposites, but in fact as the extreme points
on a continuum.
Networking: group process
andinterpersonal strategies
We have begun to understand the effects different organisational designs can have on
communication. Again, we need to note that these are not mutually exclusive categories,
and that one organisation may have different mixes of span of control and centralisationat
differing phases of its development. We will now consider what happens when an organ-
isation becomes thoroughly decentralised, so that it resembles a dispersed network rather
than a monolithic hierarchy. We will also consider another network pattern the network
roles played by individuals predominantly at the intra-organisational levels. We will then
consider the concept of networking a set of interpersonal strategies that can benefit the
organisation and the individual who deploys them. All these variations on the theme of
networks touch on the interconnectedness of people, sometimes in the most surprising way.
According to the small world phenomenon, for example, any person on the globe may be
separated from any other person by no more than six degrees of separation (Watts 2004).
Network, boundaryless, telecommuting
andvirtual organisations
An organisation can be described as a network. The demands of technology and global-
isation, and the lifestyle preferences of employees, are driving changes in the structure or
design of many organisations, some of whose employees are increasingly working at a
geographic distance from one another. Employing different mixes of communication chan-
nels, increasing numbers of people now work in virtual teams within a boundaryless or
networked virtual organisation. Such telecommuters work out of their homes, connected to a
central workplace via computer, phone and video links (Clarke & Nichols 2002; Illegams &
Verbeke 2004; Stephenson 1999; Ashkenas et al. 2002). These working patterns can involve
fragmentation in time as well as in space, with employees working across time zones and
in temporary project constellations of individuals, as the following excerpts illustrate:
Virtual teams are an ad hoc collection of geographically dispersed individuals from different
functions, specialties, or even organisations (inter-institutional virtual teams are becomingmore
common) constituted to complete a specific, complex task. Advanced computer and tele-
communication technologies provide the primary media for interaction between and among team
members. Aside from the commonality that organisational culture can provide, these individuals
initially have little in common except a shared purpose or tasking and the interdependencies that
purpose creates. Since these teams are project or task focused, they are transient; they disband
or are significantly modified once the teams job is completed. (Suchan & Hayzak 2001, p. 175)
Virtual organisations and working provide new challenges, not least of which is working
out the optimal mix of human and mediated communication experiences that units or
teams need to function. Thus, virtual teams or telecommuters may rely on email, voicemail,
instant messaging, social media, fax and videoconferencing, but may still crave and need
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 human contact in project commencement meetings, quarterly liaison or update meetings,
and annual retreats (Suchan & Hayzak 2001).
Critical commentators such as Thorne (2005) see nothing new or infallible in virtual
organisations. However, they note that criminal and terrorist organisations, such as the
Mafia and Al Qaeda, use flat organisational structures, communication networks and infor-
mation technology to create toxic and unacceptable outcomes, and that on the other side
of the ledger US intelligence agencies may have failed to detect terrorist activity, culmi-
nating in the 9/11 atrocity, because they are too virtual; too dependent on web and digital
surveillance and simulation technology rather than human intelligence agents in the field,
acting as part of a physical organisation. Thorne also notes that existing business organ-
isations might well use virtual technologies to disempower, rather than empower, virtual
employees working in teams. The central contradiction of virtual teams, he suggests, is
that the ideal of knowledge workers moving from one project to another connected to each
other via cyberspace means that the virtual organisation sees people as both essential and
disposable, and the central norm which binds organisations together, and makes any type
of output possible trust becomes compromised.

Network roles
Lets now look at another variation on the network theme the roles people play within
(and sometimes outside) organisations.
Research has established that basic networks of communication, power and problem
solving can be classified into different types of interaction (figure 16.8) (Bavelas 1950;
Leavitt 1951; Freeman 19781979; Mantei 1981).

1 2 2
2 3
2

1 3 1 3
1 1 2 3 4 5
3

FIGURE 16.8 Types of 5 4 5 4 5 4

4

communication networks
Source: Adapted from Bavelas
5

(1950); Leavitt (1951); Freeman

(19781979). Wheel Chain A Chain B Circle All channel

The wheel or star network has an individual at the hub of the wheel. All individuals
subordinate to that hub person have the role of channelling information and opinions to
the hub. The flow of information and opinion is sometimes one-way and sometimes two-
way. As Mears (1974) points out, however, the wheel could simply be part of the pyramid
of the traditional hierarchy, with the number of spokes in the wheel merely being another
way of viewing span of control.
The chain network can take two forms: a vertical one and a horizontal one. The vertical
chain is in fact the traditional chain of command in a hierarchy, and again, the vertical
chain could simply be the traditional hierarchy, with a very narrow span of control, or
a even a span of control of one. The horizontal chain could be simply a work group in
which the two outer individuals are so introverted that they only speak to the person next
to them, while those in the middle may be prone to interact with each other (Mears 1974).
The circle network is a leaderless group in which each individual only communicates
with the two others immediately adjacent. When all members of a circle network can
communicate with each other, then the circle becomes a free circle or all-channel network.
All-channel networks have the advantage of multiple interactions between all members
of a group, whether actual or virtual: in effect, the all-channel network is a leaderless
group. The potential for brainstorming and maximum interchange of information is

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 523

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 523 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Network analysis: a technique
for mapping communication
roles played by people within
organisations
Clique: a group of individuals
at least half of whose work-
day contacts are with each
other
524 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 524
greatest in this model, but so too are the possibilities of information overload, paralysis by
analysis, and difficulty in reconciling differences by consensus or other decision-making
methods. McAllister, in analysing all-channel dynamics of terrorist groups, points out that
the leaderless nature of this model makes it very hard to destroy. (While conventional
armies become dysfunctional after 30 per cent losses, networks of terrorist cells will need
to sustain losses of 70 per cent.) However, it also makes the network prone to loss of con-
trol and coordination, damage sustained by incompetent cells, and interception of coordi-
nating messages transmitted by various technologies (McAllister 2004). Jones (2007) has
noted the use of asymmetrical warfare, or conflict between two sides with one side having
a massive conventional weaponry advantage and the other needing to improvise, using
command structures that are both acephalous (headless) and polycephalous (multi- or
Hydra-headed). Jones noted Israeli tactics against Palestinian combatants in 2002 led to
the Israelis realising that the only way to fight a network is with another network. This
involved decentralising decision making to junior officers in the field, with the entire
armed force becoming a learning organisation.
Thus, while the wheel network may appear to be unduly restrictive, Nemiro points out
that creativity in teams may in fact simply be an aggregation of creative interactions or
brainstorming between isolated individuals and the hub or manager, and that creativity
may be equal to or superior to all-channel or wheel interaction (Nemiro 2002). Also, new
communication technology using computer networks may also mean that the wheel can be
more effective than the circle (Belanger 1999).
Circle and chain, and sometimes wheel networks, also have the disadvantage of being
prone to message distortion as a message is passed from one individual to another, and
sometimes from one level to another, the message is edited or mangled by the message sender
in each interaction. Free circle or all-channel networks at least have the opportunity to cor-
rect distortions emerging in collective message formation except of course if distorting
mechanisms such as groupthink, conformity and cognitive dissonance are in operation.
There is also sometimes a gap between the official view of what communication net-
works are operating and what networks are actually operating. Thus, when participants in
an experiment were led to believe that participation in decision making would be high, but
in fact were excluded from decision making, their productivity dropped dramatically. They
were, in other words, promised an all-channel network, but were in fact given a wheel
(and performed worse than not only those participants working in an all-channel situation,
but those in a conventional wheel situation) (Boggs et al. 2005).
Network analysis
Network analysis has revealed much about how people within work organisations interact
with others in groups. Sometimes these groups are formally sanctioned; sometimes they
are informal. One type of group is called a clique. A clique is a group of individuals at
least half of whose work-day contacts are with each other. Clique members will probably
work closely with one another, like one another and find these close contacts satisfying
(Pace & Faules 1994).
Within cliques, people tend to play the following roles:
Bridge. Bridges are members of cliques who create connections with other cliques.
Liaison. Liaisons link cliques but are not members of cliques. Liaisons are often greg-
arious and influential, and have been with the organisation for some time (Goldhaber
1993). If a liaison is a bottleneck for data and workflow, however, the whole organ-
isation can suffer (Pace & Faules 1994).
Gatekeeper. Gatekeepers are people who ration access to other members of the clique and
to resources. A typical gatekeeper is an executive secretary who has considerable say
on who sees the executive, when and under what conditions, and who may also control
the flow of communication through certain channels for example, by screening mail.
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 Isolate. Isolates are positioned outside the main interaction of cliques and the wider
organisation. Isolates tend to be younger and less experienced, have less power, are
often dissatisfied with the organisation and tend to withhold information rather than
pass it on (Goldhaber 1993).
Opinion leader. Opinion leaders, or stars, are influential people who interact a lot with

others. They are not necessarily in official leadership positions, but may exercise expert
and referent power bases.
Cosmopolite. Cosmopolites are also known as boundary spanners. They are often the

main link between the organisation and the outside world (see the following boundary
spanners feature).
Power behind the throne. These people often do not interact much with the rest of the

clique, but exert influence over the opinion leaders or stars.

Figure 16.9 shows how these roles can be mapped to help us better understand the pat-
terns of organisational communication.

Bridge
CLIQUE C
Bridge
Gatekeeper
Cosmopolite/
boundary
spanner
CLIQUE B
Liaison

Star
Gatekeeper/ Power
bridge behind
throne
Bridges Gatekeeper/
bridge

ORGANISATIONAL
BOUNDARY

Isolated dyad
Star

CLIQUE A
Network roles
FIGURE 16.9
played in organisational Isolate
communication

Are such roles permanent? Not necessarily. For example, anyone can become a gate-
keeper by choosing to pass on or not to pass on information. An opinion leader or star
in one set of circumstances, dealing with one set of work processes, may be an isolate
in another set of circumstances, dealing with another set of work processes. Gatekeepers,
liaisons or bridges may restrict information merely to demonstrate their power, or perhaps
through incompetence, and may be challenged and either replaced or persuaded to perform
more effectively.
The applications of network analysis are many. For example, Ennett et al. (2006) used
network analysis to determine whether group pressure would be likely to induce members of
a network or group to engage in substance abuse. They found that isolates were the group
members most likely to abuse substances, and that group embeddedness was more rather
than less likely to lead to individuals abusing (see also Norms in chapter 18). Wilson (1997)

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 525

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 525 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Boundary spanner: an
employee of the organisation
who routinely moves between
the organisation and the
external environment
Networking: deliberately
cultivating contact with others
in your own organisation and
in other organisations in order
to create an informal system
of relationships and to develop
your career
526 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 526
found that many African Americans found it hard to find employment because the culture
of ghettoes lacked the informal network connections that transmit information about job
availability beyond the boundary of the ghettoes.
BOUNDARY SPANNERS
A boundary spanner or cosmopolite is someone who operates at the interface of the organisation
and the society or environment of stakeholders surrounding it (Manev & Stevenson 2001; Miller 2008).
Boundary spanners tend to comprise:
salespeople, public relations people
customer support staff
people who have ongoing and close liaison with stakeholders, and who often leave the internal
territory of the organisation to travel to the external territory of stakeholders and the wider
environment
people who liaise on an ongoing basis with peers in the same profession outside the organisation
people who have a specific brief, caseload or job role that places them in contact with clients and
others; they sometimes spend more time with people outside the organisation than those within it
people who are the public face of multinational organisations working in other cultures.
Boundary spanners fulfill the following specific functions:
They gather strategic information about inputs and outputs of the organisation they are its
eyes and ears, or strategic listeners.
They gather managerial and technical information.
They control the flow of information back to the organisation.
They absorb some of the uncertainty of the external environment.
They protect people inside the organisation by acting as a buffer from forces that might influence
the behaviour of the organisation.
They represent the organisation and influence how the organisation is perceived in the external
environment.
They act as a reality check when the organisation is tending to become too internally focused.
Boundary spanners can also operate inside an organisation by working for much of the time
out of their home base with others in different parts of the organisation. They thus tend to be
cosmopolitans rather than locals.
Boundary spanners are ideally situated to be the eyes and ears of the organisation because they
are able to plug into external grapevines and networks. Much of the information they bring back is
anecdotal, however, and may not be acted on by organisational managers.
In order to maximise the quality and quantity of information provided by boundary spanners,
effective organisations tend to formalise this process, asking their boundary spanners to document
their findings, or at least to report orally. In effect, boundary spanners fall somewhere between
reporters and spies, although without the negative and manipulative sense that the latter role implies.
Boundary spanners tend to have a different set of experiences from other staff in an organisation.
For example, they often experience divided loyalties or role conflict; do they completely identify with
the organisation, or do they identify with others? This conflict can take several forms, such as:
spanners taking on an advocacy role for clients, even when the best interests of the organisation
may be compromised
spanners being pirated by other organisations, who view their talents as eminently transferable
clients moving with spanners to another organisation; a clients loyalty, in other words, often lies
with the spanner as a person rather than with the organisation.
Networkers
Networking has become something of a buzz word in the past few years (Fisher 2001; Kahn
2002; Cope 2003; Crainer & Dearlove 2002; Warner 2004; Bjorseth 2009). The term com-
monly refers to people communicating with others outside the organisation in order to
cultivate contacts and tap into information sources that would otherwise not be available
to them.
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 Networking can take many forms, including:
establishing communication links with other people at formally structured social gather-
ings at which shoptalk is the primary focus
relationship-building behaviour at formal gatherings such as conferences, professional

association meetings, and social activities associated with lectures and presentations and
similar gatherings
relationship-building behaviour within organisations such as service clubs, religious

groups and lodges that often bind members together with rituals for the purpose of
fellowship and, sometimes, creating systems of reciprocal preference for professional
opportunities or the sharing of confidential information
relationship-building at social occasions such as luncheons, dinner parties and golf

matches that provide circumstances for professional payoffs

loose coalitions of organisation representatives that meet on an ongoing basis to

exchange information and work towards unofficial, and sometimes official, cooperation.
The idea of such networks has been around for a long time. People sometimes speak
derisively of old boys networks, referring to informal networks whose members attended
the same private school or association, and who, in the view of some, use such affiliations
to give unfair preference, access, opportunities and information to fellow members of that
in-crowd or clique. Some groups, such as women and ethnic minority groups, have delib-
erately set out to create their own networks to counter the influence of such exclusionist
associations (Fraser 2004; Tung 2002; Huffman & Torres 2002; Whitely, Duckworth &
Elliott 2004).
Effective networking involves a mix of communication skills such as assertiveness,
listening, feedback and questioning. Would-be networkers who see networking solely in
terms of personal gain without reciprocation that is, as all take and no give will be
seen (correctly) as self-serving manipulators who fail to grasp the cooperative dynamic of
networking. Warner (2004) suggests that effective networkers are notable for:
being able to initiate conversations with complete strangers

being able to listen attentively and empathically

thanking others when they offer support

offering support to others

maintaining a manual or computerised database of all contacts

thinking carefully about who could assist them when they are faced with a major task

demonstrating complete integrity in personal interactions.

Anand and Conger (2007) identify four capabilities or skills of consummate networkers.
These are:
1. Seeking out the kingpin. This entails finding a person who seems to be in charge. This
person is, or these persons are, not necessarily officially in charge, like the CEO (chief
executive officer) in a corporation. They may well be a person who is particularly
well informed and is respected and trusted within informal networks of friendship and
solidarity.
2. Matchmaking people to get the right things done. People who are good at this are like
marital matchmakers or gifted dinner party hosts they seek to build synergy in the
wider organisation by acting as a bridge between different areas, introducing people to
each other and acting as a facilitator of communication and internal boundary spanners.
3. Proactively enhancing network access. People who are good at this work tirelessly to
cultivate connections that will give them maximum flow of information. This may mean
not only talking to immediate subordinates but also drivers and catering staff, taking the
dog for a walk so that a mobile phone call can be made to another time zone, playing
golf with others, and building friendships with colleagues on one board of management
to make it easier to get nominated to other boards of management. People who are good
at this are often fairly extroverted and like social situations and social media.

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 527

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 527 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 4. Interacting amiably with others to build positive relationships. People who are good at
this work hard at conveying positive emotions and interpersonal support. They are astute
at soft, or communication, skills such as reading nonverbal communication or body
language, and resist pressures (work deadlines, temperamental inclinations to be unap-
proachable, arrogant or haughty) to be anything less.
The role demands and intended outcomes of each of these capabilities are shown in
figure 16.10.

NETWORKING
CAPABILITY ROLE DEMANDS
Seeking the Gather information in uncertain
kingpin situations
Obtain multiple interpretations of
ambiguous events
Generate accurate knowledge of
how power is distributed
Recognise pivotal decision makers
and understand their perspectives,
concerns and needs
Matchmaking Build deeper relationships between
departments or business units, or
between vendors, suppliers and
customers
Explore the possibility of mutual
interests, benefits and common
ground between unfamiliar parties
Spark creative joint outcomes from
two parties that normally do not
interact with each other
Increasing access Connect with a large and diverse
audience
Spend time in the field or engaging
in face time
Model trustworthiness, candor and
openness to all forms of information
Amiability Focus on relationship building
Ability to read body language
Comfort with discussing personal
Networking
FIGURE 16.10 issues
role demands and intended Need to be plugged into the informal
outcomes or gossip network
Source: Anand and Conger Need to obtain social support from
(2007, p. 13). Reproduced with friends and well-wishers
permission.
INTENDED OUTCOMES
Greater influence across and
upwards in your organisation
More favorable decisions
Getting your tasks done more
effectively and efficiently
Achieving better coordination of
cross-organisational tasks and
cross-departmental activity
Obtaining access to information,
ideas, resources and talent that
are not accessible through normal
channels
Creating synergy between
individuals and groups
Deepening connections within
andacross your business
community
Strengthening decision quality
with more up-to-date and accurate
information
Accessing information from the
frontlines and social media
Enhancing your public reputation as
a leader
Fostering the sharing of sensitive and
personal information
Strengthening the morale of a team
or organisation
Increasing the number of individuals
that can turn to you for support
during stressful or sensitive times

Networking, at least in its more reputable forms, benefits networkers in two ways. At
the organisational level, it is a legitimate way to develop contacts in the world outside the
organisation, and a source of valuable information that can be useful to the organisation.
At the personal or individual level, it can open up connections and career opportunities.

528 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 528 6/15/11 2:32 PM


FIGURE 16.11 The informal
organisation
The grapevine: informal
communication system;
flourishes in a knowledge
vacuum
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 529
These areas are not always in harmony with each other: a person networking on behalf
of an organisation may be offered an alternative career path that would lead to severing
ties with the organisation.
The informal organisation: Iheard
it through the grapevine
We have seen that the formal organisational structure, most clearly seen on an organ-
isation chart (figure 16.3), helps to give us a framework for understanding just how com-
munication works or breaks down in organisations.
Now, after having considered networks, lets go further, and consider the unofficial
organisation the informal organisation.
Organisation charts and diagrams such as those we have looked at so far show us the
official structures, but often conceal as much as they reveal (Mintzberg & Van Der Heyden
1999; Rosner 2001; Rummler & Brache 1995). For example, they do not show customers
or other stakeholders, the patterns of power and influence, or the pathways of unofficial
communication. Figure 16.11, for example, gives us another view of figure 16.3, showing
what are almost certainly only several of the unofficial pathways of communication that
deviate from the top-down chain-of-command model of information and power implicit
in the official structure. The informal organisation can in fact be a shadow organisation,
a site of countervailing power and resistance a shadow with a lot of substance, an
anti-empire within an empire (see also the discussion of organisational silence to follow)
(Gossett & Kilker 2006; Thomas & Davies 2005; De Maria 2006; Brown & Coupland 2005;
Groat, 1997; Katzenbach & Khan, 2010).
See each other Play golf on Follow same
at childcare complex Saturdays football team
Level 1
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3
Used to work in Old school Go to
Having affair
same department have friends same church
lunch together
The informal organisation differs in a number of different ways from the formal organ-
isation. Formal and information organisations are compared in table 16.3.
The major part of the informal organisation is the informal communication system,
sometimes called the grapevine or the rumour mill. Its interesting to look at the derivation
of some of the words that describe informal communication channels.
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 529
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 Formal and
TABLE 16.3
Formal organisation Informal organisation
informal organisations
compared Communication pace Slow Fast
Communication focus Deliberate Spontaneous
Communication channel Mainly written Mainly oral
Communication status On the record Off the record
Communication orientation Towards things Towards people
Control of communication By management By employees
Power bases used in Legitimate, coercive, reward, Expert, referent, informational,
communication expert connectional
Norms present Formal Informal
Source: Adapted from Hodgetts and Hegar (2008); Andrews and Baird (2005).

Grapevine. This term is said to have been first used for the temporary telegraph wires,
often strung from trees, used during the North American Civil War. The information
carried via this system was not always accurate.
Scuttlebutt. The scuttlebutt is a drinking-water barrel on board sailing ships where
sailors would congregate and pass on information and rumour.
Furphy. The water cart (first produced by Victorian, John Furphy) was a centre of gossip
for Australian soldiers in World War I. The term came to be used to describe an unreliable
rumour.
The three situations embodied in these terms capture the context for so much of gossip
and rumour high-stress situations, with little in the way of accurate downward com-
munication. The lack of downward communication creates a knowledge vacuum, and the
grapevine is the only plant known to flourish in a vacuum.
Hodgetts and Hegar (2008) define rumour thus:
Rumour = interest ambiguity
In other words, people will engage in rumour-mongering when they have an interest in
the topic and when information about that topic is inadequate or ambiguous. Michelson
and Mouly (2004) argue that the functions of rumour and gossip are to inform, to influ-
ence and to entertain.
Hellweg (1987) notes the following about grapevines or informal organisational networks:
Five out of every six messages in the organisation are transmitted by the grapevine.

Secretaries play a key role in grapevine communication.

Liaisons play a key role in grapevine communication.

As the size of the organisation increases, grapevine activity increases.

Grapevine communication is fast.

Grapevine information generally is incomplete.

Rumours are more prevalent in organisations that foster secrecy.

Once a rumour is assigned credibility, other events in the organisation are altered to fit

in with and support the rumour.

Employee gender is not a predictor of participation in grapevine communication.

Gossip, or the exchange of anecdotal information, appears to be a deeply ingrained

human behaviour that fulfils the needs of reinforcing group solidarity, extending influence,
and managing anxiety and uncertainty (Bordia et al. 2006; Dunbar 1997; DiFonzo & Bordia
2002; Michelson & Mouly 2002; Greengard 2001). Some of the different types of rumours
or gossip are shown in figure 16.12.

530 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 530 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 Rumour/gossip type Background Example
Bogey/anxiety Primarily driven by fear create Move towards privatisation of
unease among recipients sanitation services in a local
borough or council and the
prospect of layoffs

Anticipatory Often precipitated by situations of Will a new chief executive

ambiguity officercome from within the
organisation or be appointed
fromelsewhere?

Aggressive May damage reputation of Are nurses in an acute hospital

individuals ward romantically involved with
doctors so that they can advance
careers?
Some types
FIGURE 16.12
of rumour/gossip in Pipe dream/wish Express the hopes of those who Possible solution to a work
organisations fulfillment circulate them problem that an employee wants
Source: Adapted from Michelson changed
and Mouly (2004).

Nevertheless, the grapevine can do much harm if not controlled or at least influenced in
some ways. There are no certain ways to manage the grapevine, because it has a life of its
own, but Crampton, Hodge and Mishra (1998) suggest the following approaches can work:
Increase the levels of participation in decision making, so that an information vacuum

will be less likely to form. Likert (1976) suggests that in truly participatory organisations
the informal organisation will simply wither or merge with the formal one.
Reduce or eliminate secretive communication, and abolish information vacuums.

Be aware of unclear communication (vague words) that may lead to misinterpretation;

encourage two-way communication and ensure that information exchanged is accurate.

Send out messages using more than one channel.

Resist the temptation to hide bad news from employees. Dont censor reality and thus

sacrifice credibility.
The informal organisation goes beyond the grapevine, however, to:
work as a sounding board, allowing staff to let off steam and reduce stress

create a socialisation milieu in which new staff learn about informal group norms

give a sense of belonging to staff who may feel alienated in a bureaucratic environment

process information not handled by formal channels

help to get work done, when official channels and chains of command are too bureau-

cratic and slow, by using connections, influence and quick and dirty methods and other
types of knowledge
demonstrate that staff are actually interested in their jobs and shoptalk

act as a countervailing restraint on management, who may take extra pains in plan-

ning for fear the informal organisation would passively resist ill-considered initiatives
(Hodgetts & Hegar 2008; Davis & Newstrom 1989).
We earlier considered the idea of alignment, or the notion of ensuring that all messages
communicated to audiences within an organisation are consistent with messages commu-
nicated to audiences outside the organisation. Chan (2002), in looking at means of aligning
information technology and business strategies, quotes Nadler and Gerstein (1992) on an
approach that may help both such types of alignment: We engineer and build the
formal organisation; we plant and cultivate the informal organisation.

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 531

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 531 6/15/11 2:44 PM


Macro-culture: all the arts,
beliefs, social institutions, etc.
characteristic of a community,
race, etc.
Micro-culture: the
predominating attitudes and
behaviour that characterise
the functioning of a group or
organisation
532 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 532
Blackboard/whiteboard jungle: the classroom as an informal organisation
McFarland (2001), in analysing school classroom dynamics, notes the presence of formal and
informal norms or rules in fact, of an informal organisational structure. The official view of what
takes place in the classroom is that there is the quiet and professional transfer of information from
an authority figure a teacher to a body of receptive students, with the power of the teacher to
do just this being unquestioned. McFarland, in contrast, sees that many classrooms are in fact sites
of conflict and struggles for control, in which students set up a parallel, countervailing informal
organisational structure of networks and cliques to challenge the authority of the teacher.
Students with dense friendship networks, rebellious friends and prominence in the classroom
friendship network were more likely to disrupt work activities, and these tendencies were largely
unconnected to variables such as race or socioeconomic class. Disruption tended to occur more
often when work was student-centred rather than teacher-centred, and when the relevance of
class work to the outside world was not immediately apparent (McFarland suggests that teachers
exert counter-counter-control by making tasks more teacher-centred [which, he concedes, is not
always a good learning strategy] and by rotating students through task groups to break up existing
affiliations and create new ones).
ASSESS YOURSELF
Think of a current or past learning situation you have been in. What formal and informal norms were
present in the classroom? How were informal norms and behaviour used to challenge the formal
norms of the classroom? How successful or unsuccessful were these tactics of challenge?
Organisational cultureand
communication
In chapter 15, a distinction was drawn between macro-cultures and micro-cultures.
Macro-culture was defined as the all the arts, beliefs and social institutions of a community
or race, while micro-culture was defined as the predominating attitudes and behaviour that
characterise the functioning of a group or organisation.
Lets now explore the idea of organisations having cultures, and what impact this might
have upon communication within those organisations, and indeed in the communication
of organisation to organisation.
In the past few decades researchers have suggested that organisations do indeed have
their own cultures, and that these have a dramatic effect on communication patterns and
practices. An organisations culture is its personality, its feel, what distinguishes it from
other organisations, a coding of the way things get done around here. An organisations
culture is most apparent to an outsider interacting with the organisation for the first time,
or when two organisations merge or experience a takeover.
Robbins and Barnwell (2007) suggest that the following are key characteristics of
organisational culture:
1. Individual initiative. The degree of responsibility, freedom and independence that
individuals have
2. Risk tolerance. The degree to which employees are encouraged to be aggressive, inno-
vative and risk seeking
3. Direction. The degree to which the organisation creates clear objectives and performance
expectations
4. Integration. The degree to which units within the organisation are encouraged to operate
in a coordinated manner
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 5. Management contact. The degree to which managers provide clear communication,
assistance and support to their subordinates
6. Control. The degree to which rules and regulations, and direct supervision, are used to
oversee and control employee behaviour
7. Identity. The degree to which members identify with the organisation as a whole, rather
than with their particular work group or field of professional expertise
8. Reward system. The degree to which reward allocations (i.e. salary increases, promo-
tions) are based on employee performance criteria
9. Conflict tolerance. The degree to which employees are encouraged to air conflicts and
criticisms openly
10. Communication patterns. The degree to which organisational communications are
restricted to the formal line hierarchy of command.
Culture is also transmitted in other ways, such as:
rituals: recognition and reward ceremonies, Friday afternoon or after-hours socialising,

annual company picnics, contests, initiations

stories: myths, gossip, jokes, anecdotes, narratives about people, events and things

material symbols: the nonverbal communication of clothing, grooming, furniture,

vehicles, parking, perks

language: specialised language, jargon, nicknames and so on.

Some of these expressions are initiated and maintained by the formal organisational
system, while some are also initiated and maintained by the informal organisational
system.
Artefacts, or tangible and manufactured objects, and espoused values convey culture; all
have basic underlying assumptions. Some examples of these assumptions are outlined in
table 16.4.

Expressions of
TABLE 16.4
Artefact/espoused value Basic underlying assumption
culture and basic underlying
assumptions All the cars in the parking lot are oriented exactly Conformity and order are important, extending
the same way. even to the parking lot.
No visitor parking is available in the parking lot. No special effort is made to take care of customers
and suppliers.
The reception office is closed in, at the end of a Visitors and customers are not welcome.
long, dirty hallway, and is also unfriendly.
If only those production people werent so lazy. A we/they mentality prevails on production floor.
Source: Adapted from Buch and Wetzel (2001).

Culture can also be expressed in other ways, such as:

status/formality rituals, such as the use of first names or of formal titles (Morand 1996)
the structure of buildings and the nature of workspace layout (Parker & Hildebrand

1996; Adams 2002; Baldry 1999)

casual or formal dress codes (Wood & Benitez 2003)

values and conformity pressures that repress individuality and diversity and act to dis-

empower rather than empower (Ogbor 2001).

attitudes and mindsets (blokey: dominated by male interests such as sport and male

banter; hubris: proud and dismissive of other organisations; complacent, sluggish and
inward-looking: uncaring of the organisations environment and not prepared to change)
(Robbins & Barnwell 2007).
Culture in itself is neither good nor bad; there can be negative as well as positive
expressions of culture. Aspects of an organisations culture may indeed be its biggest
problem, causing enormous damage, and even becoming the main cause of that organisa-
tions demise. Equally, the culture of an organisation may be the glue that holds it

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 533

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 533 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Dress codes, such as a
uniform, are an expression
of workplace culture. The
characteristic white hat
worn by chefs, known as
a toque blanche (French
for white hat), has been
around for hundreds of
years. In addition to keeping
hair away from food, the
hat is a traditional indicator
of status, with the number
of pleats showing a chefs
experience level.
Cameron and
FIGURE 16.13
Quinns culture model
Sources: Adapted from Cameron
and Quinn (2006); Igo and
Skitmore (2006); Dani, Burns,
Backhouse and Kochhar (2006).
Quinn asks respondents to analyse the culture of their organisation according to a number of
variables, and according to the way it is now as perhaps distinct from the way respondents
would like it to be. Igo and Skitmore (2006) surveyed 113 staff in an Australian engineering
consultancy using the OCAI model, with some of the data being shown in figure 16.14.
534 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 534
together, the secret of the organisations success and
what makes it an enjoyable place to work. Thus, a
mismatch between the culture of an organisation
and the values and work styles of an individual (Del-
Campo 2006) may lead to the individual leaving
because I just feel I dont belong here. On the other
hand, it may well be that a person who does not
share the dominant paradigms and worldviews of the
organisations culture may just be the very person
that that organisation needs to shake it out of its
complacency and its over-homogeneous culture.
Cameron and Quinn (2006; see also Yu & Wu
2009) have developed a model of culture based on
competing values, in which they distinguish four
different micro-cultures clans, adhocracies, hier-
archies and markets (see figure 16.13).
External focus Flexibility
and differentiation and discre-
(EFD)/internal tion (FD)/
Culture focus and stability and
type Features differentiation (IFI) control (SC)
Clan emphasis on loyalty, mutual trust, IFI FD
commitment
like an extended family
leaders are mentors, parent figures
flexible operating procedures
Adhocracy emphasis on innovation and EFD FD
development
risk-taking valued
leaders are visionary and innovative
focus on unique and new products or
services
Hierarchy emphasis on formal rules and policies IFI SC
focus on smooth scheduling, low cost
leaders need to be good coordinators
and toe the party line
focus on economy, formality,
rationality, order
Market emphasis on achievement, goal EFD SD
accomplishment
focus on market share and penetration
leaders are hard drivers, competitors
aggressiveness, personal initiative
favoured
The OCAI (Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument) developed by Cameron and
6/15/11 2:32 PM

Internal focus and integration
Overall now
FIGURE 16.14
and preferred culture
profile
Source: Igo and Skitmore
(2006, p. 130).
Silo culture: a culture of
noncommunication between
separate parts of one
organisation
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 535
Flexibility and discretion
Clan Adhocracy
External focus and differentiation
N = 113
Hierarchy Market
Stability and control
Now Preferred
Such data shows, in this instance, that while the organisation is currently perceived to
have hard-driving market culture, staff would prefer the culture to be more that of a clan.
Cultures are sometimes determined or affected by the nature of the industry the organ-
isation is in. In this case, that of engineering/construction, the nature of that work is
project-driven and ad hoc. In these circumstances, the clan model might be better than the
other three, or at least better than the market model, where the adversarial and competi-
tive dynamics might not suit project teams that might benefit more from cooperation and
consensus (Ito & Skitmore 2006). The alignment or misalignment of an organisations
culture with, on the one hand, its external environment, and on the other hand, the values
and perceptions of its employees, will give us clues as to whether the organisations cul-
ture is functional or dysfunctional.
Lets now see how cultures can be dysfunctional when looked at from the perspective
of organisational communication. We will look at two bad cultures the culture of silos
and the culture of silence that have much in common with each other and are both bad
news for organisations that suffer from one or both.
Bad culture 1: silos
In World War II, posters in allied countries advised people that Loose Lips Sink Ships that
is, talk about sensitive military intelligence could be overheard by enemy spies. In todays
world, the opposite tight lips sink ships, or kill or injure people could also become
a motto for those dysfunctional organisations with what is sometimes called silo culture
(Lencioni 2006; Bundred 2006; Hopkins 2005, 2006; Segal, Dalziel & Mortimer 2009). The
term is a metaphor for over-compartmentalised and over-territorial organisations whose
sections, departments or divisions stand aloof and apart from other sections, departments
or divisions, like monolithic grain silos. The us versus them climate means that communi-
cation between areas that should be communicating is minimal, or does not take place at
all. Nobody talks, nobody listens and everybody pays.
Silo cultures are characterised by communication breakdowns, turf-war territorial
behaviour and energy-sapping politicking between areas that should be cooperating rather
than competing. Thus, in the UK, two schoolgirls were murdered by a man who had a
previous history of sex offences, and a girl was tortured and abused (and subsequently
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 535
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 died), because different parts of the UK public sector (police, local government, hospi-
tals, social services, and even the managers of a specific child protection database) failed
to communicate with each other (Bundred 2006). In the United States in 2001, different
intelligence agencies had gathered data which could well have prevented the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, but inter-service rivalry prevented information sharing (Gottschalk 2006).
Hopkins (2005, 2006) analysed several incidents where there were serious injuries or
deaths caused by the conflict between safety concerns and organisational culture.
For example, in one situation, more than 400 maintenance personnel in the Royal
Australian Air Force became ill or injured from chemical exposure after working on and
in the fuel tanks of fighter-bomber aircraft from the late 1970s to 2000. Investigation
revealed that workers were exposed to toxic chemicals that is, normal safety routines
were ignored because of a series of attitudes or mindsets; that is, culture. These included:
placing priority on flying operations rather than support logistics

a can-do attitude that was the product of resource shortages and pride in the pro-

fessional technical ability to bend rules and take short cuts to make things happen
placing priority of platforms (war-fighting hardware) over people

military command and discipline, which meant that workers might face disciplinary

action if objectives were not reached (despite resources and safety procedures being
inadequate) (Hopkins 2005, 2006).
Hopkins also examined the dynamics of the Glenbrook train crash of 1999, in which a
New South Wales commuter train smashed into the Indian Pacific interstate train, resulting
in the loss of seven lives. Hopkins found that a silo culture was prevalent within the system.
This silo culture was characterised by:
Public pressures to make trains run on time, even at the expense of safety considerations

(the culture of OTR, or on-time running). Train drivers would face direct pressure from
supervisors if a train ran late, and this predisposed drivers to perhaps take risks that they
would otherwise not have taken a risk-blind culture (similar dynamics prevailed in the
Ladbroke Grove rail crash in London in 1999).
A culture of disempowerment and overly-restrictive rules, wherein drivers were discour-

aged from taking initiative, in a manner similar to the way in which the US space shuttles
Challenger and Columbia sustained catastrophe because engineers close to the problems
were overridden by rule-bound NASA administrators. This is a contrast to the culture
of other organisations, such as the stop and think and take time, take charge proto-
cols prevailing in the Western Mining Corporation or even on board US nuclear aircraft
carriers, where routine tasks are controlled centrally but in emergency situations lower-
level personnel are allowed to make decisions. The disempowerment leads to a sense of
fatalism, a psychological defence mechanism developed by some occupations, such as
miners, to deal with a culture of danger in which accidents are seen as unavoidable.
Evolution of a communication style among workers that was notable for carelessness

and informality a style completely in contrast to that of other professions, such as air-
traffic control. The use of buddy and mate in radio transactions between drivers and
signal controllers may have led them to believe that: Its a code for saying, we know
that sometimes this doesnt mean what it says ... that we are sharing the same sort of
understanding about the ambiguity of the sign (Thomas 2000).
A culture of blame, based on inadequate documentation making rules difficult to apply

(a critical rule, Rule 245 passing an automatic signal at stop was four pages long),
combined with a tendency of inspectors to turn a blind eye to violations, leading to
the suspicion of some staff that some rules were set up primarily to allocate blame and
punishment.
Absence or failure of communication systems and on-board control systems.

Organisational restructuring and disaggregation of rail bureaucracies, resulting in a silo

culture of noncommunication between different groups of transport managers.

536 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 536 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 Hopkins argues that for cultures of organisations whose operations involve risk, new
practices need to be put in place, such as:
a culture of reporting, in which all staff feel confident and competent to document

problems, near-misses and other issues

a just culture, in which people are not punished for reporting problems (see shoot-the-

messenger ethos)
a learning culture, in which reports are taken seriously

a flexible culture, in which lower-level personnel are empowered to respond rapidly to

problems.

Bad culture 2: the culture of silence

Shoot-the-messenger ethos:
the tendency to punish people
for communicating bad news
about the organisation
Organisational silence: the
tendency of lower levels
of staff not to speak out on
significant issues
It is vital that there is sufficient trust and transparency within the organisation to allow
the upward communication of bad news, for example about customers or production. If the
organisation has a shoot-the-messenger ethos or culture or climate, punishing individuals
who point out bad news, then logically enough little or no bad news will move up
through the hierarchy, and rather than an organisational voice, there will be a culture or
climate of organisational silence (Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin 2003; Perlow & Williams
2003; Tourish & Robson 2006; Gergen & Thatchenkery 1996; Edmonson & Munchus 2007)
or a spiral of silence (Bowen & Blackmon 2003). These concepts have much in common
with the groupthink phenomenon and organisational transparency.
Morrison and Milliken have developed a model of organisational silence (figure 16.15).

Top management Organisational and Factors affecting employee

team characteristics environmental interaction
Proportion of members characteristics Similarity among employees
with a finance or Low-cost strategy Workforce stability
economics background Low-munificence Workflow interdependence
Average tenure environment Network strength and density
Cultural background Mature or stable industry
Demographic Vertical differentiation
dissimilarity with External hiring of senior
respect to employees managers
Reliance on contingent
workers Collective
sensemaking via
interaction and
communication

Implicit managerial beliefs Organisational structures

Belief that employees are and policies
self-interested Centralisation of decision
Belief that management knows best making
Belief that unity is good and dissent is Lack of formal upward
bad feedback mechanisms

Climate of Organisational
silence silence
Managerial practices
Managers fear of Tendency to reject or
negative feedback respond negatively to
dissent or negative feedback Degree of
Lack of informal solicitation demographic
FIGURE 16.15Dynamics of negative feedback dissimilarity
giving rise to organisational between
silence employees and
Source: Morrison and Milliken top managers
(2000, p. 709).

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 537

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 537 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 Morrison and Milliken suggest that a culture of silence is more, rather than less, likely to
prevail in a given organisation if certain background conditions exist, such as:
dominance of the senior management team by individuals with economic or financial

backgrounds (who may be more prone to believe in Theory X rather than Theory Y, and
therefore may be prone to distrust subordinates)
members of senior management having been together for a long time, and thus perhaps

having evolved a homogeneous set of beliefs (compare the groupthink phenomenon)

staff at all levels coming from high power distance and collectivist cultures (compare

Hofstedes model of cultural communication)

top management and lower-level employees being dissimilar in terms of gender, race,

ethnicity and age

a commitment to cutting costs, and the presence of a reduced resource base (low munif-

icence), which may exert pressures on senior managers, making them less likely to tol-
erate dissent and consider new ideas welling up from lower levels
a mature and stable industry setting, which may make the need for innovative ideas less

pressing
tall organisational structures, the tendency to bring in top managers from outside rather

than hiring from within, and the tendency to hire contingent or temporary workers, who
may have less loyalty, commitment and self-interest than longer-term employees
the tendency of upper-level staff not to seek feedback from lower-level staff

lower-level staff who are similar to each other, who work in stable work roles, who are

interdependent with each other, and who have strong network connections, all of which
may predispose them to reach a consensus that it does not do much good to have and to
use organisational voices to give upward communication or feedback.
The end products of organisational silence will therefore include a lack of critical
analysis of ideas and alternatives, less effective organisational decision making, poor error
detection and correction, low motivation and satisfaction, withdrawal, turnover, sabotage
and deviance (Morrison & Milliken 2000).

ASSESS YOURSELF

Think of an organisation you are familiar with perhaps a workplace, an educational institution,
or a public transport or recreational facility. Is a silo culture present there? If so, what would be an
example of this? Is there a culture of silence there? If so, what would be an example of this?

Communication andknowledge
management
Communication within organisations is also related to ideas about organisational learning
and knowledge management. All organisations have physical assets, such as buildings,
furniture, equipment, information technology and other things that can be touched, but
they also have intangible assets. Intangible assets include (Rumizen 2002, p. 242):
Human competence. The people within an organisation and their capacity for action to

generate value. This capacity includes assets such as values, experience, social skills and
educational background. No organisation owns human competence it can walk out
the door any time.
External structure. How the organisation is regarded externally, including trademarks,

brand names, image, relationships with customers, suppliers and partners. Owned by the
organisation.

538 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 538 6/15/11 2:32 PM


Knowledge management:
tapping into an organisations
intangible assets to
systematically organise
the knowledge of all its
members so that it can be
more effectively used for the
organisations benefit
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 539
Internal structure. What is left at work when the people go home, including databases,
processes, models, documentation, patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property.
Owned by the organisation.
In knowledge-based economies, it is becoming increasingly apparent that intangible
assets are the key drivers of organisational success. This comes as a surprise to many man-
agers, who in the past tended to concentrate on tangible assets. While lip service is usually
paid to clichs such as our people are our most important asset, in practice such sentiments
are rarely acted on. It seems much easier to manage tangible assets than intangible ones.
Organisations strive to create new products and improve old ones, to reach old and new
customers, and to manage processes. Enormous resources are invested in finding out why
things are or are not running well. When things go wrong, enormous resources are put
into undoing the damage and ensuring it doesnt happen again. Time and again, however,
employees observing such efforts will remark:
We could have told them that, but no-one ever bothered to ask.
Whats the point in trying to tell them? Nobody ever listens anyway.
Theres an easier way of doing that, but I doubt theyd consider that.
I could tell you how to do it in half the time at a quarter of the cost, but if we made
that public theyd probably just lay ten good people off.
We predicted that would happen, but the report was ignored.
Joe showed them how to do that, and they made millions from it. And what did Joe get
out of it? A few measly bucks.
Nobody told us.
Most employees within organisations already know how to do things better than they
are currently being done, but for a variety of reasons that experience is not tapped into.
As Lew Platt, former chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard put it, If H-P knew what it
knows, wed be three times as profitable (quoted in Dearlove 2000, p. 152).
Knowledge management is concerned with reversing this trend and tapping into the vast
intangible assets of the organisation to systematically collect, categorise, fuse and dissemi-
nate the pool of perceptions, insights, experiences and skills of the people who are already
there in other words, to avoid the need to reinvent the wheel (unnecessarily repeating
ourselves) by determining just what knowledge about wheels already exists (Asllani &
Luthans 2003). An organisation may be awash with data, but unless that data can be
organised into information, and unless human minds can synthesise and learn from that
information to create knowledge, then very little advantage is made of it. An example of
this is captured in technology analyst Bill Frenchs observation, email is where knowledge
goes to die (quoted in Venolia 2005, in her analysis of silos). See chapter 3 for a dis-
cussion on the distinction between data, information, knowledge and wisdom.
Following are some examples of knowledge management strategies that appear to be
paying off for organisations:
Xerox has a database known as Eureka to which all service technicians can contri-
bute. When technicians discover a problem or situation that has not been anticipated
in product design and recorded in documentation such as manuals and instructions,
they enter a description and analysis of the problem or situation into the database via
laptop computer. The knowledge-sharing system has more than 25000 items, which
are tapped into by 25000 representatives worldwide. As a result of Eureka, Xerox now
saves between 5 per cent and 10 per cent on labour and parts costs (Kermally 2002,
pp. 1623).
Information technology company EMC is using social media technologies to share
knowledge: recently it had 10 000 wiki-based documents and 3000 blogs across 150
topical communities (Parise 2009).
Over three days in May 2001, IBM held WorldJam, a global in-house brainstorming ses-
sion. About 52000 of a total of 320000 employees contributed more than 6000 ideas,
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 539
6/15/11 2:32 PM
 which went into an online archive that has since been tapped into by many staff (Figallo
& Rhine 2002, pp. 567).
An Australian employee of Accenture, a consulting and technology firm, trained in the

Malaysian branch to acquire technology consulting skills, and then went on to create a blog
upon returning, sharing learning by posting a summary of the skills. The information was
widely shared and other employees began to contribute to the blog, giving examples of solu-
tions to problems they had encountered with clients. As the employee sees it, blogging (is)
a positive cycle of learning that goes on and on (Zhang, Zhu & Hildebrandt 2009, p. 117).
A British company set up a whats hot and whats not interactive voicemail system.

Sales representatives dropped in hot news in the form of micro stories about cus-
tomers, technology and products. Each story was less than one minute long, and rep-
resentatives tapped into it via mobile phones (Cook 1999, p. 103).
A small printing company consisted of three founding partners and four managers,

who work with many associates and contract staff. Because the central decision-making
group was so close-knit, there seemed no need to document anything about processes
and products. Then one manager with a key client base died, and another left hurriedly.
Knowledge was walking out the door, and the remaining group members found it dif-
ficult to conduct effective induction for two new staff members. The company is now
documenting its key processes and achievements at the end of each project to build up
a knowledge databank (Kermally 2002, p. 55).
Knowledge management thus understood has much in common with the idea of the
learning organisation developed by Argyris (1999) and Senge et al. (1999), in which
intellectual capital is the key driver of growth, and the ability to learn from the past is the
main predictor of how it will fare in the future (Frahm & Brown 2006).
How does knowledge management work, and what relationship does it have to organ-
isational communication? Lets consider two models of knowledge management and see
what relationships there might be.

Knowledge management model 1:

theknowledgespiral
Takeuchi and Nonaka (2004) have developed a spiral model of knowledge acquisition,
which moves through a SECI (SocialisationExternalisationCombinationInternalisation)
sequence (figure 16.16). The sequence draws a distinction between explicit knowledge
knowledge in the public domain that everyone knows and tacit knowledge, or knowl-
edge that has become second nature to those who hold it, but that they initially might find
hard to explain to others (Nezafati, Afrazeh & Jalali 2009).

Tacit Tacit
Dialogue
Externalisation
Socialisation
Tacit

Explicit

Linking
Field
explicit
building
knowledge
Explicit
Tacit

Internalisation Combination
Learning by
The SECI
FIGURE 16.16
doing
knowledge spiral Explicit Explicit
Source: Rumizen (2002, p. 21).

540 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 540 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 In this system the first phase of knowledge acquisition is socialisation. Here knowl-
edge transfer is tacit-to-tacit. An example is Matsushitas efforts to create an automatic
bread-making machine. The software engineers at the company were not expert bread
makers, but the head baker at a hotel was, so the engineers worked with the baker to see
how he stretched and twisted dough to achieve success. The engineers were then able to
transfer this knowledge into the design of the bread-making machine. In the socialisation
phase, tacit-to-tacit transfer of knowledge can be made systematic through brainstorming,
informal meetings, discussions, dialogues, observation, on-the-job training, customer inter-
action, coaching, mentoring and learning groups (Kermally 2002, p. 61).
In the second phase, externalisation, the transfer process is tacit-to-explicit. For example,
Canon engineers were trying to work out how to reduce costs on a new mini-copier. Engin-
eers were discussing the issue over some beers, when peripheral data the beer cans in
their hands became their central data: they thought of a way to use aluminium to pro-
duce disposable copier drums, and thus solved the problem. In the externalisation phase,
tacit-to-external knowledge transfer can be put on a systematic basis through meetings,
building hypotheses and models, cartoons to communicate, after-action reviews, work-
shops, master classes, assignment databases and best practice exchange.
In the third phase, combination, the transfer process is explicit-to-explicit. For example,
Kraft Foods uses data from supermarket electronic point-of-sale transactions not only to
find out what sells well but also to plan new ways of marketing products to customers. In
the combination phase, explicit-to-explicit knowledge transfer can be put on a systematic
basis by exploiting virtual libraries, publications and conferences.
In the final phase of the SECI sequence, internalisation, the circle is completed (and the
cycle is set up for another iteration) by explicit-to-tacit transfer of knowledge. General
Electric compiled a database of customer complaints, which design engineers were ableto
tap when creating the next generation of products (for a discussion of complaints, feedback
and strategic listening). In the internalisation phase, explicit-to-tacit knowledge transfer
can be put on a systematic basis by exploiting the potentials of facilitation skills, client
customer feedback reviews and development counselling (Kermally 2002, p. 61). While it
has not always proven to be universally applicable (see Tong and Mitra 2009), the SECI
model remains a powerful concept when discussing and applying knowledge management
concepts.

Knowledge management model 2: the knowledge

management technology stage model
Gottschalk (2006; 2009) suggests that knowledge management can best be understood in
terms of four different stages or phases, namely:
1. Person-to-technology stage. In this stage, tools for end users are made available to knowl-
edge workers in the simplest form. This means a capable networked PC on every desk
or in every briefcase, with standardised personal productivity tools such as word pro-
cessing, spreadsheets, legal databases, presentation software and scheduling programs.
The dominating strategy is a tool strategy, while the predominant attitude towards the
value of information technology in knowledge management processes is that of scepti-
cism.
2. Person-to-person stage. In this stage, information about who knows what is made avail-
able to all people in the organisation and to selected outside partners. What people
know in any given organisation is mapped into a directory or Yellow Pages, which
might live on an intranet. This is metadata, or knowledge about knowledge, allowing
individuals to contact other individuals to tap into their knowledge, which might just as
easily be tacit knowledge as explicit knowledge. The dominating strategy at this stage is
a flow strategy, while the skeptics of stage 1 might become conservatives.

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 541

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 541 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 3. Person-to-information stage. In this stage, information created by knowledge workers is
stored and made available in the form of documents to those inside and some outside
the organisation. Such documents might be contracts and agreements, reports, manuals
and handbooks, business forms, letters, memos, articles, drawings, blueprints, photo-
graphs, email and voicemail messages, video clips, script and visuals from presentations,
policy statements, computer printouts, and transcripts from meetings. Lawyers in a law
firm might write up case notes in databases, while police forces might use relational
databases for crime-specific cases (the Tucson Police Department keeps approximately
1.5 million incident record sets, which can be used to track approximately 1200 indi-
viduals suspected of being responsible for a majority of major crimes). The dominating
strategy at this stage is a stock strategy, while the conservatives of stage 2 might now
become early adopters of information technology in knowledge management.
4. Person-to-system stage. At this final stage, information systems solving knowledge prob-
lems are made available to knowledge workers and solution seekers. Artificial intelligence
approaches such as neural networks, data mining, expert systems and business intelli-
gence now come into play. The knowledge that was codified in stage 3 is now explicated
and formalised (although tacit knowledge is difficult to codify). The dominating strategy
at this stage is a growth strategy, while the early adopters of stage 3 might now become
innovators in information technology in knowledge management.
The application of this model to police investigations is shown in figure 16.17.

Level of IT-supported
knowledge management
in the organisation STAGE IV
Use of a specific IT system
Person-to-system
designed to solve a
How-they-think
knowledge problem,
systems
e.g. expert system,
business/criminal-security
intelligence
STAGE III
Person-to-information
What-they-know
Use of IT to provide access to
systems
stored documents, e.g.
databases, emails, contracts,
articles, photographs, reports
STAGE II
Person-to-person
Who-knows-what
systems Use of IT to find other
knowledge workers, e.g.
intranets, yellow-pages
STAGE I systems, staff profiles
Person-to-technology
Stage of
FIGURE 16.17
End-user-tool Use of IT tools that provide
growth model for police systems personal efficiency, e.g. word
investigations processing, spreadsheets,
Source: Gottschalk (2006, presentation software Time in years
p.626).

Knowledge management: the new and the old

Knowledge management thus conceived has enormous potential to facilitate development
of any organisation, and creates exciting new perspectives. Expert power becomes the
primary power base, and mentoring and coaching are vital. Listening and feedback skills
are central to tapping the knowledge pool that already exists before any new knowledge
is created. But knowledge management is not an entirely new concept; rather, it revives

542 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 542 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 the decades-old debate about motivation, compensation, job security and natural justice
in the workplace, along with the idea of an organisational culture in which the soft skills
of listening to people may be more important than the hard skills involved in setting up
a technology network to capture this knowledge. These dilemmas are crystallised in the
following viewpoints:
Companies install email or collaborative software and expect knowledge to flow freely

through the electronic pipeline. When it doesnt happen, they are more likely to blame
the software or inadequate training than to face a fact of life: people rarely give away
valuable possessions (including knowledge) without expecting something in return
(Davenport & Prusak 2000, p. 26).
While technology can facilitate the exchange of ideas, sometimes it can block such

exchanges. Many people prefer face-to-face interaction, but this may be ignored if there
is too much emphasis on technological systems (Tong & Mitra 2009).
Modern technology makes transmitting information easy, but companies have to create

the right environment and incentives to persuade individuals to share what they know.
The trouble is that knowledge, as the old adage tells us, is power. One of the greatest
barriers to effective knowledge management lies in the basic insecurity and fear that
prevails in many companies.
The real issue for companies is: how do you persuade individuals to hand over their

know-how when it is the source of their power and the only guarantee of their con-
tinuing employment? Until companies address this, for most, knowledge management
will remain a pipe dream (Dearlove 2000, p. 155).
The inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the knowledge management idea is that

it is, in large part, a management fad, promulgated mainly by certain consultancy com-
panies, and the probability is that it will fade away like previous fads. Whatever busi-
nesses claim about people being their most important resource, they are never reluctant
to rid themselves of that resource (and the knowledge it possesses) when market con-
ditions decline. We have to ask, If getting promotion, or holding your job, or finding a
new one is based on the knowledge you possess what incentive is there to reveal that
knowledge and share it? (Wilson 2002; see also p. 628).
In other words, the problem is not the human-to-machine or machine-to-machine com-
munication systems, but rather the human-to-human communication systems. Unless these
are properly addressed, then the promise of knowledge management will remain unfulfilled.

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 543

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 543 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 STUDENT STUDY GUIDE
SUMMARY
In this chapter we considered how communication channels can help or impede the
flow of messages through organisations. We looked at the strengths and weaknesses
of, and the interconnections between, upward, downward and horizontal communi-
cation. We examined organisational design factors such as flatness and tallness, cen-
tralisation and decentralisation, and mechanistic versus organic, and speculated on how
these factors affect communication patterns and behaviour. We looked at networkorgan-
isations, network roles and networking strategies, and assessed the importance of the
informal organisation and the grapevine. We considered the idea of organisational cul-
ture and its impact on communication, noting the concepts of organisational silence
and organisational silos. Finally, we focused on the idea of knowledge management and
its dependence on the soft or interpersonal skills involved in effective organisational
communication.

KEY TERMS
alignment strategy p.510
asynchronous
communication p.511
boundary spanner p.526
chain of command p.513
clique p.524
de-layering p.517
diagonal communication
p.515
downsizing p.517
downward communication
p.514
empowerment p.517
flat organisation p.517
formal organisation
p.514
hierarchy p.513
horizontal
communication p.514
informal organisation p.514
knowledge management
p.539
macro-culture p.532
mechanistic p.520
micro-culture p.532
network analysis p.524
networking p.526
organic p.520
organisation p.510
organisational design p.513
organisational silence p.537
placid environment p.517
shoot-the-messenger
ethos p.537
silo culture p.535
small world
phenomenon p.522
span of control p.517
synchronous
communication p.511
tall organisation p.517
telecommuting p.522
the grapevine p.529
turbulent environment
p.518
upward
communication p.514
vertical
communication p.514
virtual
organisation p.522

REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Name at least five organisational communication channels.
2. Horizontal communication is always more effective than vertical communication.
Discuss.
3. What is the relationship between span of control and the height of an organisation?
4. Is it possible to have a flat and centralised organisation?
5. Organic organisations are the future; mechanistic organisations are the past. Discuss.
6. Name at least two functions performed by a boundary spanner.
7. The informal organisation is just another term for the grapevine. True or false?
8. What is the relationship between organisational silence and organisational silos?
9. How do artefacts give insights into an organisations culture?
10. What are the four phases of the knowledge spiral?
11. What are the four stages of the knowledge management technology stage model?

544 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 544 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 APPLIED ACTIVITIES
1. Draw a formal organisation chart for an organisation you are familiar with. How would
you classify it in terms of flat/tall and centralised/decentralised? What impact does this
organisational design have on communication within the organisation?
2. Re-draw the formal chart to show informal relationships that you are aware of. If
possible, get at least one other person to do the same. Compare results.
3. Consider an organisation, part of an organisation or a friendship group you are
familiar with. Analyse communication patterns in terms of cliques and roles
(gatekeepers, liaisons, bridges, isolates, opinion leaders/stars, cosmopolites/boundary
spanners, powers behind the throne). Create a diagram of the communication system,
and discuss it with others. (Such an exercise can elicit strong reactions from those
being analysed, so approach the task with foresight, sensitivity and tact.) Allow those
analysed to return the favour.
4. Compare two organisations you are familiar with. How do their cultures differ, and in
what ways are their cultures similar?
5. Using the knowledge management spiral model, analyse how you gained (or did not
gain) certain aspects of knowledge in your personal or private life, and how you then
passed on (or did not pass on) that knowledge.
6. Using print and online resources, research the topic of communication audits.
What value might such an audit have in analysing communication patterns in an
organisation?
7. Using print and online resources, research the topics of departmental, divisional, matrix
and staff/line organisational structuring. What impact might these structures have on
analysing communication patterns in an organisation?

W H AT W O U L D YO U D O ?
You run the information technology section of your organisation.
Your previous boss, John, asked you six months ago to set up
The Grapevine, a chat-room section on the organisation intranet
where employees can post anonymous comments. Anyone could
enter anything they liked on the site, on a completely anony-
mous basis. Some of the material was nonsense, and some of it
was offensive, but a number of things emerged that were more
positive: industrial action was averted when chatters started com-
plaining about the air quality down in the basement, andaction
was taken to clean it up; some of the best salespeople were kept
on after complaints about commission rates were noted; inter-
vention by government health officers was averted when gossip
about the caf food was acted on; the loss of one of your biggest
customers was avoided when a number of its complaints were
identified by chatters (complaints that were quickly attended to);
and improvements in twoproductlines were made after faults in
design were discussed by chatters.
John left two weeks ago, and his replacement, Jane, has just
walked in. She has a cold expression on her face, and is visibly
irate. Have you seen the quality of the information that is being
put up on the site? I could sue over a number of the things
theyve said about me, and about the C-600 I designed that
myself. And its all wasting too much time they need to get
off this site and back to work! I want you to set up a program

Chapter 16 Organisational communication 545

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 545 6/15/11 2:32 PM

 that will identify all chatters, and get it to me by the end of the week. If people want
tocommunicate with each other, they can just reacquaint themselves with the phone.
And if they want to whine, they can do that with the others down at the employment
agency!
What will you say to Jane?

SUGGESTED READING
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca 2009, The handbook of business discourse, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh, SCO.
DiFonzo, Nicholas & Bordia, Prashant 2007, Rumor psychology: social and organizational approaches,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Hargie, Owen D and Tourish, Dennis (eds) 2009, Auditing organizational communication: a handbook
of research, theory and practice, 2nd edn, Routlede, London/New York.
Keyton, Joann & Shockley-Zalabek, Pamela 2009, Case studies for organisational communication:
understanding communication processes, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Mann, Monroe & Levinson, Jay Conrad 2008, Guerilla networking: a proven battle plan to attract the
very people you want to meet, Morgan James Publishing, Garden City, NY.
Marlow, Eugene 1997, The breakdown of hierarchy: communicating in the evolving workplace,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Modaff, Daniel P, Butler, Jennifer A & Dewine, Sue 2011, Organizational communication: foundations,
challenges and misunderstandings, 3rd edn, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Schein, Edgar H 2009, The corporate culture survival guide, revised new edn., Jossey-Bass,
SanFrancisco, CA.

REFERENCES
Aamodt, Michael G 2010, Industrial/organizational psychology: an
applied approach, 6th edn, Wadsworth/Cengage, Belmont,CA.
Adams, Scott 2002, Another day in cubicle paradise: a Dilbert
book, Andrews McMeel Publishing, Kansas City, MO.
Adams, Terry 2007, Producers, directors, and horizontal
communication in television news, Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, vol. 51, no. 2, pp 33754.
Anand, N & Conger, Jay A 2007, Capabilities of the consummate
networker, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp.1327.
Andrews, Patricia H & Baird, John E Jr 2005, Communication
forbusiness and the professions, Waveland Press, Long
Grove,ILL.
Argenti, Paul A & Haley, Thea S 2006, Get your act together,
Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 10, p. 26.
Argyris, Chris 1999, On organisational learning, 2nd edn,
Blackwell Business, Malden, MA.
Ashkenas, Ron, Ulrich, Dave, Jick, Todd & Kerr, Steve 2002, The
boundaryless organisation: breaking the chains of organisation
structure, rev. and updated edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Asllani, Arben & Luthans, Fred 2003, What knowledge managers
really do: an empirical and comparative analysis, Journal of
Knowledge Management, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 5366.
Baldry, Chris 1999, Space the final frontier, Sociology: The
Journal of the British Sociological Association, vol. 33, no. 3,
pp. 53549.
Bavelas, Alex 1950, Communication patterns in task-oriented
groups, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
vol.22, no. 6, pp. 72530.
Belanger, France 1999, Communication patterns in distributed
work groups: a network analysis, IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 26175.
Bennis, Warren G 1973, Beyond bureaucracy: essays on
thedevelopment and evolution of human organisation,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bjorseth, Lillian 2009, Breakthrough networking: building
relationships that last, 3rd edn, Duoforce Enterprises, Lisle IL.
Boggs, Leanne, Carr, Stuart C, Fletcher, Richard B
&Clarke,DavidE 2005, Pseudoparticipation in
communicationnetworks: the social psychology of broken
promises,The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 145, no. 5,
pp.6214.
Bordia, Prashant, Jones, Elizabeth, Gallois, Cindy, Callan, VictorJ
& Di Fonzo, Nicholas 2006, Management are aliens! Rumors
and stress during organizational change, Group & Organization
Management, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 60121.
Bowen, Frances & Blackmon, Kate 2003, Spirals of silence:
thedynamic effects of diversity on organisational
voice,Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 6,
pp.13931417.
Brown, Andrew D & Coupland, Christine 2005, Sounds of silence:
graduate trainees, hegemony and resistance, Organisation
Studies, vol. 26, pp. 104969.
Buch, Kimberly & Wetzel, David K 2001, Analyzing and
realigning organisational culture, Leadership and Organisation
Development Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 403.
Bundred, Steve 2006, Solutions to silos: joining up knowledge,
Public Money & Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 12530.
Burns, T & Stalker, GM 1961, The management of innovation,
Tavistock, London.
Cameron, KS & Quinn, RE 2006, Diagnosing and changing
organisational culture: based on the competing values
framework, rev.edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

546 Communicating in the 21st Century

5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 546 18/06/11 9:33 AM

 Chan, Yolande E 2002, Why havent we mastered alignment?The
importance of the informal organisation structure, MIS
Quarterly Executive, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 97112.
Clampitt, Phillip G 2000, Communicating for managerial
effectiveness, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Clarke, Jane & Nichols, Laura 2002, Wired working: thriving in a
connected world, Spiro Press, London.
Cook, Peter 1999, I heard it through the grapevine: making
knowledge management work by learning to share knowledge,
skills and experience, Industrial and Commercial Training,
vol.31, no. 3, pp. 1015.
Cope, Mick 2003, Personal networking: how to make your
connections count, Financial Times, London.
Crainer, Stuart & Dearlove, Des 2002, For new old boys only, Gergen, Kenneth J & Thatchenkery, Tojo Joseph 1996,
Across the Board, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 2936.
Crampton, Suzanne M, Hodge, John W & Mishra, JitendraM
1998, The informal communication network: factors
influencing grapevine activity, Public Personnel Management,
vol.27, no. 4, pp. 56984.
Daft, Richard L 2011, Organisation theory and design, 10th edn,
South-Western Publishing, Mason, OH.
Dani, SS, Burns, ND, Backhouse, CJ & Kochhar, AK 2006, The
implications of organisational culture and trust in the workings
of virtual teams, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, June, pp. 9519.
Davenport, Thomas H & Prusak, Laurence 2000, Working
knowledge: how organisations manage what they know,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davis, Keith & Newstrom, John W 1989, Human behavior
at work: organisational behavior, 8th edn, McGraw-Hill,
NewYork.
Dearlove, Des 2000, The ultimate book of business thinking,
Capstone, Oxford, UK.
DelCampo, Robert G 2006, The influence of culture strength on
personorganisation fit and turnover, International Journal of
Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 46570.
De Maria, William 2006, Brother secret, sister silence: sibling
conspiracies against managerial integrity, Journal of Business
Ethics, vol. 65, pp. 21934.
Dessler, Gary 2009, Framework for Human Resource Management,
5th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
DiFonzo, Nicholas & Bordia, Prashant 2002, Corporate rumour,
belief and accuracy, Public Relations Review, vol. 28, no. 1,
pp. 119.
Dive, Brian 2003, When is an organisation too flat?, Across the
Board, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 223.
Dunbar, Robin 1997, Gossip, grooming and the evolution of
language, Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA.
Edmondson, Vicki Cox & Munchus, George 2007, Managing
theunwanted truth: a framework for dissent strategy,
Journalof Organizational Change Management, vol. 20, no. 6,
pp.74760.
Ennett, Susan T, Bauman, Karl E, Hussong, Andrea, Faris, Robert,
Foshee, Vangie A, Cai, Li & DuRant, Robert H 2006, The peer
context of adolescent substance use: findings from social
network analysis, Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 16,
no.2, pp. 159351.
Eunson, Baden 1987, Behaving: managing yourself and others,
McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
Figallo, Cliff & Rhine, Nancy 2002, Building the knowledge
management network, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 547
Fisher, Donna 2001, Professional networking for dummies,
JohnWiley & Sons, New York.
Frahm, Jennifer & Brown, Kerry 2006, Developing communicative
competencies for a learning organization, Journal of
Management Development, vol. 25, no. 3, pp.20112.
Fraser, George C 2004, Success runs in our race: the complete
guide to networking in the black community, Amistad Press,
New York.
Freeman, Linton C 19781979, Centrality in social networks:
conceptual clarification, Social Networks, vol. 1, pp. 21539.
Friedman, Thomas L 2006. The world is flat: a brief history of the
twenty-first century, updated and expanded edn, Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, New York.
Organisation science as social construction: postmodern
potentials, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 32,
no. 4, pp.35677.
Gerster, Lou 2004, Who says elephants cant dance? Leading a
great enterprise through dramatic change, Collins, New York.
Goldhaber, Gerald M 1990, Organizational communication,
5thedn, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
1993, Organisational communication, 6thedn, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Gossett, Loril M & Kilker, Julian 2006, My job sucks: examining
counter institutional web sites as locations for organisational
member voice, dissent and resistance, Management
Communication Quarterly, vol. 20. no. 1, pp. 6390.
Gottschalk, Petter 2006, Expert systems at stage IV of the
Knowledge Management Technology Stage Model: the case
of police investigations, Expert Systems with Applications,
vol.31, pp.61728.
2009, Maturity levels for interoperability in digital
government, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 26,
pp.7581.
Greengard, Samuel 2001, Gossip poisons business: HR can stop
it, Workforce, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 248.
Groat, Malcolm 1997, The informal organisation, Management
Accounting, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 402.
Harris, Thomas E 2002, Applied organisational communication:
principles and pragmatics for future practice, 2nd edn,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Harris, Thomas E & Nelson, Mark D 2007, Applied organizational
communication, 3rd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Hellweg, Susan 1987, Organisational grapevines: a state of
theart review, in Brenda Dervin and Melvyn J Voight
(eds), Progress in the communication sciences, vol. 8, Ablex,
Norwood, NJ.
Hodgetts, Richard M & Hegar, Kathryn M 2008, Modern Human
Relations at work, 10th edn, Cengage/South-Western College
Publishing, Cincinnatti, OH.
Hopkins, Andrew 2005, Safety, culture and risk: the
organisational cause of disasters, CCH, Sydney.
2006, Studying organisational cultures and their effects on
safety, Safety Science, vol. 44, issue 10, pp.87589.
Huffman, Matt L & Torres, Lisa 2002, Its not only who you know
that matters, Gender & Society, vol. 16, no. 6, pp.793813.
Igo, Tony & Skitmore, Martin 2006, Diagnosing the
organisational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy
using the Competing Values Framework, Construction
Innovation, vol. 6, pp. 12139.
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 547
18/06/11 9:33 AM
 Illegams, Viviane & Verbeke, Alain 2004, Moving towards the
virtual workplace: managerial and societal perspectives on
telework, Edward Elgar Publishing, London.
Jaques, Elliott 1990, In praise of hierarchy, Harvard Business
Review, JanuaryFebruary, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 12733.
Jones, Seth G 2007, Fighting networked terrorist groups: lessons
from Israel, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 30, no. 3,
pp.281302.
Kahn, Gabriel 2002, Schmooze fest, Far Eastern Economic
Review, vol. 165, no. 24, pp. 402.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss 1990, When giants learn to dance:
mastering the challenges of strategy, management, and careers
in the 1990s, Random House, New York.
Katzenbach, Jon R & Khan, Zhia 2010, Leading outside the lines:
how to mobilize the informal organisation, energise your team,
and get better results, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kermally, Sultan 2002, Effective knowledge management: a best
practice blueprint, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Kimbrough, RL & Componation, PJ 2009, The relationship
between organizational culture and enterprise risk
management, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 21,
no.2,pp.1827.
Leavitt, HJ 1951, Some effects of communication patterns
on group performance, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 3850.
Lencioni, Patrick 2006, Silos, politics and turf wars: a leadership
fable about destroying the barriers that turn colleagues into
competitors, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Lewis, Laurie K 1999, Disseminating information and soliciting
input during planned organisational change: implementers
targets, sources, and channels for communicating, Management
Communication Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 4376.
Likert, Rensis 1976, New ways of managing conflict, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
McAllister, Brad 2004, Al Qaeda and the innovative firm:
demythologizing the network, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism,
vol.27, pp. 297319.
McFarland, Daniel A. 2001, Student resistance: how the formal
and informal organisation of classrooms facilitate everyday
forms of student defiance, American Journal of Sociology,
vol.107, no. 3, pp. 61278.
Manev, Ivan F & Stevenson, William B 2001, Balancing ties:
boundary spanning and influence in the organisations network
of communication, Journal of Business Communication,
vol.38, no. 2, pp. 183205.
Mantei, Marilyn 1981, The effect of programming teamstructures
on programming tasks, Communications of the ACM
(Association for Computing Machinery), vol. 24, no. 3,
pp.10613.
Mears, Peter 1974, Structuring communication in a
workinggroup, Journal of Communication, vol. 24, no. 1,
pp.7180.
Michelson, Grant & Mouly, V Suchitra 2002, You didnt hear
it from us, but ...: towards an understanding of rumour and
gossip in organisations, Australian Journal of Management,
vol. 27, pp. 5765.
2004, Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents
and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations,
Corporate Communications, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 189201.
Miller, Katherine 2009, Organisational communication: approaches
and processes, 5th edn, Cengage/Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
548 Communicating in the 21st Century
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 548
Miller, Peter Michael 2008, Examining the work of boundary
spanning leaders in community contexts, International Journal
of Leadership in Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 35377.
Milliken, Frances J, Morrison, Elizabeth W & Hewlin, Patricia
2003, An exploratory study of employee silence: issues that
employees dont communicate upward and why, Journal of
Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 145377.
Mintzberg, Henry & Van Der Heyden, Ludo 1999, Organigraphs:
drawing how companies really work, Harvard Business Review,
vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 8795.
Morand, David A 1996, Whats in a name? An exploration of
the social dynamics of forms of address in organisations,
Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.42251.
Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe & Milliken, Frances J 2000,
Organisational silence: a barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world, The Academy of Management Review,
vol.25, no. 4, pp. 70625.
Nadler, D & Gerstein, M 1992, Designing high-performance
work systems: organizing people, work, technology, and
information, in D Nadler and M Gerstein (eds), Organisational
architecture: designs for changing organisations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Nemiro, Jill E 2002, The creative process in virtual teams,
Creativity Research Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 6983.
Nezafati, Navid, Afrazeh, Abbas & Jalali, S. MohammedJ.2009,
A dynamic model for measuring knowledge level of
organizations based on Nonaka and Takeuchi Model (SECI),
Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 53142.
Ogbor, John O 2001, Critical theory and the hegemony
of corporate culture, Journal of Organisational Change
Management, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 590609.
Pace, R Wayne & Faules, Don F 1989, Organizational
communication, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
1994, Organisational communication, 3rd edn, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Parise, Salvatore 2009, Social media networks: what do they
mean for knowledge management? Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research, vol. 11, no, 2,
pp.111.
Parker, Rodney D & Hildebrandt, Herbert W 1996, Business
communication and architecture: is there parallel?, Management
Communication Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.22742.
Perlow, Leslie & Williams, Stephanie 2003, Is silence killing your
company?, Harvard Business Review, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 5262.
Richmond, Virginia Peck, and McCroskey, James C, 2009,
Organizational communication for survival: making work, work,
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Robbins, Stephen P & Barnwell, Neil 2007, Organisation theory:
concepts and cases, 5th edn, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Frenchs
Forest, NSW.
Rosner, Bob 2001, Studying the world beneath the org chart,
Workforce, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 646.
Rumizen, Melissie Clemmons 2002, The complete idiots guide to
knowledge management, Alpha Books, Indianapolis, IN.
Rummler, Geary A & Brache, Alan P 1995, Improving
performance: how to manage the white space in the
organisation chart, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Segal, Leonie, Dalziel, Kim & Mortimer, Duncan 2009, Fixing the
game: are between-silo differences in funding arrangements
handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start?
Health Economics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 44965.
18/06/11 9:33 AM
 Senge, Peter M, Kleiner, Art, Roberts, Charlotte, Roth, George,
Ross, Rick & Smith, Bryan 1999, The dance of change: the
challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organisations,
Doubleday, New York.
Seta, Catherine E, Paulus, Paul B & Baron, Robert A 2000,
Effective human relations: a guide to people at work, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA.
Sine, Wesley D, Mitsuhashi, Hitoshi & Kirsch, David 2006,
Revisiting Burns and Stalker: formal structure and new venture
performance in emerging economic sectors, Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 12132.
Stephenson, Karen 1999, Networks: the deep structure of
organisation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Suchan, Jim & Hayzak, Greg 2001, The communication
characteristics of virtual teams: a case study, IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, vol. 44, no. 3, pp.17486.
Takeuchi, Hirotaka & Nonaka, Ikujiro 2004, Hitotsubashi on
knowledge management, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Thomas, Gail Fann, King, Cynthia L with Baroni, Brian, Cook,
Linda, Keitelman, Marian, Miller, Steve & Wardle, Adelia 2006,
Reconceptualizing e-mail overload, Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 25287.
Thomas, R 2000, Getting the safety message, OHS Alert, vol. 1,
no. 7, p. 2.
Thomas, Robyn & Davies, Annette 2005, Theorizing the
micro-politics of resistance: new public management and
managerial identities in the UK public service, Organisation
Studies, vol.26, pp. 683706.
Thorne, Kym 2005, Designing virtual organisations? Themes
and trends in political and organisational discourses,
TheJournalof Management Development, vol. 24, nos 7/8,
pp.580607.
Toffler, Alvin & Toffler, Heidi 2004, The war of pyramid vs.
pancakes and how it will shape the future, Toffler Associates
Publications: Alvin Toffler Articles, www.toffler.com.
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch16.indd 549
Tong, Jin & Mitra, Amit 2009, Chinese cultural influences
on knowledge management practice, Journal of Knowledge
Management, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 4962.
Tourish, Dennis & Robson, Paul 2006, Sensemaking and the
distortion of critical upward communication in organisations,
Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 71130.
Tung, Rosalie 2002, Building effective networks, Journal of
Management Enquiry, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 94103.
Venolia, Gina 2005, Bridges between silos: a Microsoft
researchproject, Microsoft Research, January,
http://research.microsoft.com
Warner, Jon 2004, The networking pocketbook, Stylus, London.
Warner, Malcolm & Witzel, Morgen 2003, The virtual
organisation, International Thomson Publishing, London.
Watts, Duncan J 2004, Six degrees: the science of a connected
age, W.W. Norton, New York.
Whitely, Sharon, Duckworth, Connie & Elliott, Kathy 2004, The
old girls network: insider advice for women building businesses
in a mans world, Perseus Books, Boulder, CO.
Wilson, Donald O 1992, Diagonal communication links within
organizations, Journal of Business Communication, vol. 29,
no.2, pp. 12943.
Wilson, TD 2002, The nonsense of knowledge management,
Information Research, vol. 18, no. 1, http://informationr.net.
Wilson, William J 1997, When work disappears: the world of the
new urban poor, Vintage, New York.
Wood, Nora & Benitez, Tina 2003, Does the suit fit?, Incentive,
vol. 177, no. 4, pp. 314.
Yu, Tianyuan & Wu, Nengquan 2009, A review of study on the
competing values framework, International Journal of Business
and Management, vol. 4, no. 7, pp 3742.
Zhang, M. Allee, Zhu, Yunxia & Hildebrandt, Herbert 2009,
Enterprise networking websites and organizational
communication in Australia, Business Communication
Quarterly, vol.72, pp. 11419.
Chapter 16 Organisational communication 549
18/06/11 9:33 AM