Organizational communication

Research in this area began after significant progress in the study of business communication , business communication, and the early studies of mass communication published in the 1930s and 1950s. Until that moment, organizational communication as a discipline consisted of several works by communication specialists who were especially interested in the problems of oral and written speech in the conditions of business communication. At the moment, organizational communication has its own theories and empirical problems.

Several original publications stand out as works that expand the scope and recognize the importance of communication in the organizational process and the use of the term “organizational communication”. Herbert A. Simon, a Nobel laureate , wrote in 1947 about “organization communication systems”, saying that communication “is absolutely necessary for organizations” ^[1] . Charles Redding played a significant role in establishing organizational communication as a discipline.

In the 1950s, research on organizational communication focused mainly on the role of communication in improving the organization's performance and achieving its goals. In the 1980s, this industry separated from the business-oriented approach to communication and began to be more inclined to the decisive role of communication in the organization.

Among the basic assumptions underlying most of the early studies of organizational communication, the following can be distinguished.

People act rationally . Some people do not behave rationally, usually they do not have access to all the information necessary for making rational decisions. Therefore, they will make irrational decisions if there is no failure in the communication process, which is a common occurrence. Nevertheless, irrational people try to act rationally in the course of communication, regardless of whether it is rational or not.

Formal logic and empirically verifiable data should be the foundation on which any theory rests. All we really need to understand communication in organizations is (a) observable and reproducible behavior that can be transformed into variables using some form of measurement, and (b) formally reproducible syllogisms that can extend the theory from observable data to other groups and parameters.

Communication is primarily a mechanical process in which a message is created and encoded by the sender, transmitted over the communication channel, then received and decoded by the recipient. Distortion, presented as any difference between the original and received messages, can and should be detected.

Organizations are mechanical elements of the world around them, the components of which (including employees with specific roles) are interchangeable. In accordance with this principle, it is possible to draw the following conclusion: what works in one organization will work in another similar organization. Individual differences can be minimized or even eliminated by careful management methods.

Organizations function as the place where communication takes place. Any differences in the form or function of communication between what is happening in the organization and in other conditions can be identified and studied as factors affecting communicative activity.

Herbert A. Simon introduced the concept of limited rationality, which cast doubt on the assumptions about the ideal rationality of the participants in communication. He argued that decision-makers in organizations rarely have complete information, and that even if more information is available to them, they tend to choose the first acceptable option, rather than looking for further solutions to choose the best solution.

In the early 1990s, Peter Senge developed a new theory of organizational communication. As part of his approach, organizations and systems thinking were studied. They have been well received and are currently the basis of modern beliefs regarding organizational communications.

Bavelas found that communication patterns, or networks, affect groups in several important ways. Communication networks can affect the timely completion of a task by the group, the position of the actual leader in the group, or they can affect the satisfaction of group members from taking certain positions in the network. Although these findings are based on laboratory experiments, they are important for the dynamics of communication in official organizations.

There are several types of communication, such as “chain”, “wheel”, “star” and “circle” ^[2] .

The nomenclature of organizational communication

Abbreviations are used to denote a two-way flow of information or other interactions, for example, B2B is a “business business”. Using these terms, point-to-point systems, computer networks, non-electronic telecommunications, and face-to-face communications are possible. Examples:

Main article: Interpersonal communication Individual or interpersonal communication between people can take several forms - messages can be verbal (that is, expressed words) or nonverbal: gestures, facial expressions and postures (“body language”). Silence can also be a source of non-verbal messages.

Non-verbal content always accompanies the verbal content of messages. Speaking of non-verbal communication, Birdwistell says that "it complements (ie," adds "), and does not repeat verbal behavior." For example, if someone talks about the length of an object, he can put his hands in such a way as to visually evaluate it ^[3] .

Virginia Satir has established that people cannot help communicating symbolically (for example, through clothing or property) or through some form of body language. In messages that are transmitted by telephone, messenger or letter, the situation or context in which the message is sent becomes part of its non-verbal content. For example, in a situation where the company is losing money, the front office, in a letter to the production unit, asks to reorganize the shipping and receipt departments, which can be interpreted in such a way that some people should be fired only if the opposite was not clearly indicated ^{[4 ]} .

Formal and informal communication

Informal and formal communication is also used in the organization. Communication through formal channels takes place down, horizontally and up, while communication through informal channels is usually called a vine.

Informal communication, usually associated with interpersonal, horizontal communication, was primarily considered as a potential obstacle to the effective work of the organization. Informal communication has become more important to ensure the effective conduct of work in modern organizations.

The vine is an informal communication scheme. It is distributed through the organization, receiving a personal interpretation in the form of gossip, rumors and solitary messages. Communication in the vine is quick and usually more direct than official communication. An employee who receives most of the information about the vine but does not pass it on to others is called a “dead end”. An employee who receives less than half of the information on the vine is "isolated." The vine may include a destructive misunderstanding, but it can also be useful for expressing feelings and increasing employee productivity.

A top-down approach also known as top-down communication. This approach is used by higher-level management to communicate with lower levels. It is used to implement policies, guidelines, etc. In this type of organizational communication, distortion of factual information occurs. With this approach, efficiency can be achieved by feedback.

In addition, R. McPhee and P. Zog adhere to a slightly different point of view on communication as a component of the organization, with a large number of nuances ^[5] . They identify four main streams of communication, formal and informal, which become interconnected, constituting an organization as a process and organization as a phenomenon:

• organizational self-structuring;
• membership negotiations;
• coordination of activities;
• institutional positioning.

Sense-Oriented Approach

According to Shockley-Zalabak, a value-oriented approach is "a way of understanding organizational communication by discovering how organizational reality is created through human interaction." This approach is more focused on understanding what communication is, and not why and how it works, and functions and message passing are not considered so carefully ^[6] .

Research Methodologies

Historically, organizational communication has been based mainly on quantitative research methodologies. A study of functional organizational communication includes statistical analyzes (such as surveys, text indexing, network mapping, and behavior modeling). In the early 1980s, a revolution in organizational communication took place. In the 1983 text by Putnam and Pakanovsky, “Communication and Organizations: An Interpretative Approach,” the authors advocated opening a methodological space for qualitative approaches such as narrative analysis, observing participants, interviewing, rhetorical and textual approaches) and philosophical queries.

In addition to qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, there is also a third research approach, called mixed methods. “Mixed methods are a type of procedural approach to research, which includes the collection, analysis and mixing of quantitative and qualitative data within a single training program. His rationale postulates that the use of both qualitative and quantitative research provides a better and deeper understanding of the research problem, which does not provide any of the traditional approaches to research. Complex contextual situations are easier to understand using a mixed research method than using a qualitative or quantitative approach. There are more than fifteen typologies for the development of mixed methods. Because these typologies have many common characteristics and criteria, they have been classified into six different types. Three of these types are sequential, which means that one type of data collection and analysis occurs earlier than the other. The other three projects are simultaneous, that is, qualitative and quantitative data are collected simultaneously ^[7] .

Mixed methods are based on maximizing the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research and minimizing their individual weaknesses by combining data obtained using both methods. Quantitative research is criticized for not taking contexts into account, lacking depth, and preventing participants from speaking out. On the other hand, qualitative research is criticized for its smaller sample size, the possible bias of researchers and the lack of generalization.

During the 1980s and 1990s, critical studies of organizational communication focused on issues of gender, race, class, and power / knowledge. In its current state, the study of organizational communication is open methodologically, regularly published studies of postpositive, interpretive, critical, postmodern and discursive paradigms.

• Business communication