ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMUNICATION -
THEORY, RESEARCH,
AND PRACTICE
Organizational Communication - Theory,
Research, and Practice
This text is disseminated via the Open Education Resource (OER) LibreTexts Project (https://LibreTexts.org) and like the hundreds
of other texts available within this powerful platform, it is freely available for reading, printing and "consuming." Most, but not all,
pages in the library have licenses that may allow individuals to make changes, save, and print this book. Carefully
consult the applicable license(s) before pursuing such effects.
Instructors can adopt existing LibreTexts texts or Remix them to quickly build course-specific resources to meet the needs of their
students. Unlike traditional textbooks, LibreTexts’ web based origins allow powerful integration of advanced features and new
technologies to support learning.

The LibreTexts mission is to unite students, faculty and scholars in a cooperative effort to develop an easy-to-use online platform
for the construction, customization, and dissemination of OER content to reduce the burdens of unreasonable textbook costs to our
students and society. The LibreTexts project is a multi-institutional collaborative venture to develop the next generation of open-
access texts to improve postsecondary education at all levels of higher learning by developing an Open Access Resource
environment. The project currently consists of 14 independently operating and interconnected libraries that are constantly being
optimized by students, faculty, and outside experts to supplant conventional paper-based books. These free textbook alternatives are
organized within a central environment that is both vertically (from advance to basic level) and horizontally (across different fields)
integrated.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXOne and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot
Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1246120,
1525057, and 1413739.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation nor the US Department of Education.
Have questions or comments? For information about adoptions or adaptions contact info@LibreTexts.org. More information on our
activities can be found via Facebook (https://facebook.com/Libretexts), Twitter (https://twitter.com/libretexts), or our blog
(http://Blog.Libretexts.org).
This text was compiled on 02/13/2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Licensing

1: Introduction to Organizational Communication

1.1: Introduction
1.2: What is an Organization?
1.3: What is Communication?
1.4: History of Organizational Communication
1.5: Approaches to Organizational Communication Research
1.6: Chapter Exercises

2: Organizational Communication Ethics

2.1: Introduction
2.2: Nature of Ethics
2.3: Business Ethics
2.4: Communication Ethics
2.5: Organizational Communication Ethics
2.E: Exercises

3: Classical Theories of Organizational Communication

3.1: What is Theory?
3.2: The Classical Perspective
3.3: Human Relations Theories
3.4: Human Resources Theories
3.E: Exercises

4: Modern Theories of Organizational Communication

4.1: Introduction
4.2: Rethinking the Organization
4.3: Rethinking Communication
4.4: Representative Modern Theories
4.E: Exercises

5: Communicating Between and Among Internal Stakeholders

5.1: Introduction
5.2: Formal Communication Networks
5.3: Informal Communication Networks
5.E: Exercises

6: Leader and Follower Behaviors and Perspectives

6.1: Introduction
6.2: Approaches to Leadership
6.3: Followership
6.4: Mentoring and Coaching
6.E: Exercises

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/53960
7: Organizational Identity and Diversity
7.1: Introduction to Organizational Identity and Diversity
7.2: Identity and the Organization
7.3: Identity and the Organization Member
7.4: Diversity and the Organization
7.E: Exercises

8: Teams in the Workplace

8.1: Introduction
8.2: Group
8.3: Types of Teams
8.4: The Downside to Teams
8.5: Group Communication Roles
8.E: Exercises

9: Recruiting, Socializing, and Disengaging

9.1: Introduction
9.2: Recruiting
9.3: Socializing
9.4: Disengaging
9.E: Exercises

Index
Glossary
Detailed Licensing

2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/53960
Licensing
A detailed breakdown of this resource's licensing can be found in Back Matter/Detailed Licensing.

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/166612
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

1: Introduction to Organizational Communication

1.1: Introduction
1.2: What is an Organization?
1.3: What is Communication?
1.4: History of Organizational Communication
1.5: Approaches to Organizational Communication Research
1.6: Chapter Exercises

This page titled 1: Introduction to Organizational Communication is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available
upon request.

1
1.1: Introduction
Welcome to your first book in organizational communication. This book assumes that you have some background in the field of
human communication and probably minimal exposure to the world of organization studies. In the Preface of this book, which we
strongly encourage you to read, we discussed the reasons why studying organizational communication matters in the 21st Century.
Your average employed person working in the United States averages 7.5 hours of work per day (7.9 hours on the week days; 5.5
hours on the weekend). This study from the US Department of LaborThe US Department of Labor. (2010). American time-use
survey—2010 results [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf further noted that these are just
the hours a person spends in a traditional working environment. People further spend about 36 minutes a week interacting with an
educational organization, about 43 minutes shopping, and about 16 minutes attending religious services or volunteering. When
people traditionally hear the word “organization” they most often jump right to the idea of a workplace. However, an organization
is a much broader term and covers a lot more ground than just someone’s workplace. As such, time that is spent in an educational
environment, shopping, attending religious services, and volunteering are also examples of someone interacting with or in an
organization.
This book looks at organizational communication as a broad term that encompasses a wide array of organizational types, which
we’ll explore in more detail elsewhere in this chapter. Even if you just take the average 7.5 hours per day an individual spends
“working” in an organization, you will end up in an organizational environment a little over 111 days per year. If you work for 40
years, you’ll basically spend 12 of those years at work. We don’t tell you this to scare you, but to help you understand the
importance of knowing how to interact and behave in organizations. So, let’s get started!

This page titled 1.1: Introduction is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous via
source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.

1.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14849
1.2: What is an Organization?
 Learning Objectives
Understand the three common components of the various definitions of the term “organization.”
Differentiate among the four types of organizations: mutual benefit, business concerns, service, and commonweal.

As with any academic endeavor, one must understand what one is studying before one can delve into the specifics and intricacies of
the subject matter. For this reason, this section is going to start by defining what is meant by the term “organization” and then
looking at three different ways of categorizing different types of organization.

Defining “Organization”
Many people have attempted to define what is meant by the word “organization.” Instead of following suit and throwing yet
another definition into the mix, we’ve selected a number of definitions from common dictionary definitions to ones used by
business, psychology, economics, and communication scholars. Table 1.1 contains a partial list of the different types of definitions
seen across various academic disciplines.
Table 1.1 Defining “Organization”
Dictionary Definition
(1) the act of organizing or the state of being organized; (2) an organized structure or whole; (3) a business or administrative concern united and
constructed for a particular end (4) a body of administrative officials, as of a political party, a government department, etc (5) order or system;
method.organization. (2009). Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from Dictionary.com
website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organization
General Business Definitions
“a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons.”Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, pg. 73.
“The accomplishment of an objective requires collective effort, men set up an organization designed to coordinate the activities of many persons
and to furnish incentives for others to join them for this purpose.”Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative
approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 5.
“A social unit of people, systematically structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals on a continuing basis. All
organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles,
responsibilities, and authority to carry out defined tasks. Organizations are open systems in that they affect and are affected by the environment
beyond their boundaries.”organization. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2012, from BusinessDictionary.com website:
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html
“a Body of individuals working under a defined system of rules, assignments procedures, and relationships designed to achieve identifiable
objectives and goals.”Greenwald, H. P. (2008). Organizations: Management without control. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pg. 6.
Organizational Behavior Definitions
“a social unit within which people have achieved somewhat stable relations (not necessarily face-to-face) among themselves in order to facilitate
obtaining a set of objectives or goals.”Litterer, J. A. (1963). Organizations: Structured behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pg. 5.
“an organization is a complex system, which includes as subsystems: (1) management, to interrelate and integrate through appropriate linking
processes all the elements of the system in a manner designed to achieve the organizational objectives, and (2) a sufficient number of people so
that constant face-to-face interaction is impossible.”Lundgren, E. F. (1974). Organizational management: Systems and process. San Francisco:
Canfield Press, pg. 7.
Economics Definition
A short hand expression for the integrated aggregation of those persons who are primarily involved in: “(1) the undertaking or managing of risk
and the handling of economic uncertainty; (2) planning and innovation; (3) coordination, administration and control; (4) and routine supervision”
of an enterprise.Harbison, F. (1959). Entrepreneurial organization as a factor in economic development. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70,
364–379, pg. 365.
Industrial/Organizational Psychology Definition
“work consists of patterned human behavior and the ‘equipment’ consists of the human beings.”Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social
psychology of organizations. New York, NY: John Wile & Sons, pg. 55.

1.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
 “lively sets of interrelated systems [task, structure, technology, people, and the environment] designed to perform complicated tasks.”Levitt, H. J.
(1972). Managerial psychology: An introduction to individuals, pairs, and groups in organizations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pg.
265.
Organizational Communication Definitions
“social collectives in which people develop ritualized patterns of interaction in an attempt to coordinate their activities and efforts in the ongoing
accomplishment of personal and group goals.”Kreps, G. L. (1986). Organizational communication. New York: Longman, pg. 5.
“including five critical features—namely, the existence of a social collectivity, organizational and individual goals, coordinated activity,
organizational structure, and the embedding of the organization with an environment of other organizations.”Miller, K. (2012). Organizational
communication: Approaches and processes (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wasdworth-Cengage, pg. 11.
“Communicative structures of control.”Mumby, D. (in press). Organizational communication. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
“an organized collection of individuals working interdependently within a relatively structured, organized, open system to achieve common
goals.”Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Organizational communication for survival: Making work, work (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon, pg. 1.
“an aggregate of persons, arranged in predetermined patterns of relationships, in order to accomplish stated objectives.”Redding, W. C. (1964).
The organizational communicator. In W. C. Redding & G. A Sanborn (Eds.), Business and industrial communication: A source book (pp. 29–58).
New York: Harper & Row, pg. 33.

After reading this laundry list of different definitions for the word “organization,” you may wonder how you to determine which
one is the best? Well, to be honest—we think they all have something to offer. When you look at the various definitions for the
word “organization,” you will start to see a certain pattern emerge of consistent themes within the definition. Jason WrenchWrench,
J. S. (in press). Communicating within the modern workplace: Challenges and prospects. In J. S. Wrench (Ed.), Workplace
communication for the 21st century: Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line: Vol. 1. Internal workplace communication.
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. examined a similar list of definitions and concluded that there are three primary features that run
through all definitions of the term “organization”: the structure, the goal, and the people.

Organizational Structures
The first major theme commonly seen in the various definitions of the word “organization” has to do with structure: How an
organization functions in terms of what happens both within the organization itself and within its external environment.. When we
talk about how organizations are structured, we are talking primarily about how they function in terms of what happens both within
an organization and how an organizations functions within its external environment. For our purposes, we will look at structure in
terms of four basic processes: external environment, input, throughput, and output (Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1 Organizational Structures

External Environment
The first factor to consider when thinking about an organization is the external environment that an organization exists in. The
external environmentAll of the vendors, competitors, customers, and other stakeholders who can have an impact on the
organization itself but exist outside the boundaries of the organization. consists of all vendors, competitors, customers, and other
stakeholders who can have an impact on the organization itself but exist outside the boundaries of the organization. Changes in the
external environment where an organization exists will have an effect on the organization itself. For example, image that the
government is going to pose new regulations on your industry, these new regulations will have an effect on how the organization
must function. When it comes to how organizations interact with its external environment, we often refer to two different types of

1.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
boundaries. An organization that has open boundariesOrganizations that allow for the free flow of information to the organization
and is more likely able to adapt to changes that occurs within the environment. allows for the free flow of information to the
organization and is more likely able to adapt to changes that occurs within the environment. Closed boundariesWhen an
organization insulates itself from what is occurring within its external environment., on the other hand, occur when an organization
tries to insulate itself from what is occurring within its environment. When an organization has closed boundaries, that organization
ends up being less aware of what is going on within the external environment and sets itself up for major problems or obsolescence.

Input
The next major aspect of an organization’s environment involves inputs. InputsThose resources that an organization brings in from
the external environment in order for the organization to accomplish its goals. are those resources that an organization brings in
from the external environment in order for the organization to accomplish its goals. Typically, resources can be discussed in three
general categories: physical materials, people, and information. First, organizations bring in physical materials that it needs to
accomplish its goals. Whether its computers, desks, light fixtures, or supplies necessary to build silicon microchips, organizations
rely on a variety of vendors in the external environment to provide physical materials.
The second type of input necessary from the external environment involves people. People can either come in the forms of workers,
which are necessary resources for any organization. An organization is reliant on bringing in skilled workers to help the
organization accomplish its goals. One of the biggest complaints many organizations have is a lack of skilled or qualified workers.
Depending on the organization, skills or qualifications can run from specific college or graduate degrees to specific industry
experience to specific technical know-how. According to Julian L. Alssid, executive director of the Workforce Strategy Center in
New York, "Employers seem to be less willing to invest in training in this economy. Again, it is the combination of the right
credential and practical experience they look for."Balderrama, A. (2010, February 22). Available jobs, not enough skilled workers
[online article]. Retrieved from msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...illed-Workers/, Paragraph 7.
The final type of input an organization needs is information. InformationAny data that is necessary for an organization to possess in
an effort to create knowledge. refers to any data that is necessary for an organization to possess in an effort to create
knowledge.Atwood, C. G. (2009). Knowledge management basics: A complete how-to guide. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
According to the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), data is “is raw and without context and can exist in any
form, usable or not.”ASTD. (2006). Managing organizational knowledge. In E. Biech (series Ed.), ASTD Learning System, Vol. 8.
Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, pg. 2. Often organizations end up with piles of data including customer service reports, market
trends, and other material typically in the raw, numerical form. Organizations then turn this data into information by giving the data
meaning through some kind of interpretation. While most people think of data as purely numerical, there are other non-numerical
types of data that can be important to turn into information. For example, if the US congress passes a new law that impacts how
your organization must handle customer records, the law may not specifically say how your organization must comply with the law.
In this case, the new law is data and your organization must turn that law into usable information in the form of its own policies and
procedures. When you combine information with understanding that leads to action, information is transformed from information
to knowledge.
So, how do organizations go about acquiring data that can lead to action? ASTD discusses two types of external environment
scanning processes that organizations can employ: proactive and reactive.ASTD. (2006). Managing organizational knowledge. In
E. Biech (series Ed.), ASTD Learning System, Vol. 8. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. First, proactive scanningWhen an organization
actively looks for data or existing information that could be transformed into useable knowledge. occurs when an organization
actively looks for data or existing information that could be transformed into useable knowledge. For example, doing research on
what your competitors in an effort to stay on top of your market is an example of proactive scanning. The second type of scanning,
reactive scanningWhen an organization faces a specific problem or crisis and then either makes sense of data/information it poses
or searches the external environment for data or information that could be useful. occurs when an organization faces a specific
problem or crisis and then either makes sense of data/information it poses or searches the external environment for data or
information that could be useful. Ideally, if an organization does a good job with proactive scanning, reactive scanning will not be
necessary very often. When an organization is forced to use reactive scanning, time gets wasted as they attempt to find the
data/information and turn it into actionable knowledge.

Throughput
ThroughputWhat an organization does with inputs within the confines of the organization itself. is ultimately what an organization
does with inputs within the confines of the organization itself. Throughput can range from the use physical materials, people, and

1.2.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
information to how organizations structure themselves internally to create goal oriented throughput. While we cannot discuss every
possible way an organization can utilize inputs, we should note that the issue of internal organizational structure is very important
at this level of an organizations. For this reason, we really must discuss two ways that organizations commonly structure
hierarchies.
A hierarchyA categorization system where individuals/departments are ranked over other individuals/departments based on skills,
centrality, and status. is a categorization system where individuals/departments are ranked over other individuals/departments based
on skills, centrality, and status. First, organizations can place people/departments over others because of specific skill sets. For
example, managers are placed over workers because of their skills in managing people. While we know this isn’t always why
people get promoted, the general idea of a management class of people is because managers can help organize employees towards
the organization’s goal(s). Second, people can be ranked over others because of their centrality to the organization’s goals. For
example, if your organization is a tech company, the product developers may be ranged structurally over people in customer
support or marketing because without the product developers there is no need for customer support or marketing. Lastly,
organizations can be organized based on status, an individual’s relative position to others as a result of esteem, privilege, or
responsibility. When someone gets promoted to a higher position, her or his status increases in terms of a formal hierarchy.
Whether that promotion is a result of esteem, privilege, or responsibility doesn’t matter at this point, only the elevation within the
hierarchy.
Now that we’ve discussed what a hierarchy is, let’s talk about the two common ways that organizations are typically patterned: flat
vs. tall hierarchies (Figure 1.2).

1.2.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
 Figure 1.2 Hierarchies
The first image in Figure 1.2 represents tall hierarchiesAny stimuli that could elicit meaning that is not contained in words
themselves., they are called such because they represent many, many hierarchical layers between those at the bottom of the
hierarchy and those at the top of the hierarchy. Two commonly discussed tall hierarchies are the Catholic Church and the US
military. With the Catholic Church, you have the average parishioner at the bottom of the hierarchy the Pope at the top of the
hierarchy. In the US military, you have your average enlisted soldier at the bottom of the hierarchy and the President of the United
States (in her/his commander in chief title) at the top of the hierarchy. In both cases, the people at the bottom have little or no
communication with those at the top of the hierarchy.
The second image in Figure 1.2 represents flat hierarchies where there are only a couple of hierarchical layers between those at the
bottom and those at the top of the hierarchy. Think of these organizations like mom and pop restaurants. In a typical small
restaurant, the owner may also serve as the chef and may only have a handful of waitstaff, table bussers, and dish cleaners as
employees. In these hierarchies, it is very easy for those at the bottom of the hierarchy to communicate with those at the top of the
hierarchy.

Output
The final aspect related to organizational structure is outputThe ultimate product or service that an organization disseminates back
to the external environment., which is the ultimate product or service that an organization disseminates back to the external

1.2.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
environment. Whether one is create the components of a cell phone or sending computer technicians to people’s homes, every
organization is designed to produce some kind of service or product for the external environment. Even nonprofit organizations like
the American Red Cross are producing a range of both products and services for the external environment.

Organizational Goals
Organizations have many goals, but it helps to clarify those goals into a simple typology (classification into ordered categories).
Edward Gross examined the various types of organizational goals and created a simple typology consisting of five distinct goals
that organizations have: output, adaptation, management, motivation, and positional.Gross, E. (1969). The definition of
organizational goals. The British Journal of Sociology, 20, 277–294.

Output
The first type of goal that organizations commonly have are referred to as output goals, or organizational goals that are “reflected,
immediately or in the future, in some product, service, skill or orientation which will affect (and is intended to affect) that
society.”Gross, E. (1969). The definition of organizational goals. The British Journal of Sociology, 20, 277–294, pg. 287. While
Gross was initially discussing goals in terms of educational organizations, the goals also apply to other organizational types as well.
In essence, every organization has some type of output goal that will be released back into the external environment. For a pizza
chain, the output goal could be the pizza it delivers to your house (product); the customer service it gives customers (service); or
the expertise in pizza making it brings to the enterprise (skill).

Adaptation
The second type of organizational goal argued by Edward Gross are adaptation goals, or goals that an organization has in terms of
adapting to the external environment.Gross, E. (1969). The definition of organizational goals. The British Journal of Sociology, 20,
277–294. All organizations exist in environments that change, and successful organizations are going to change and adapt to that
external environment. One of the biggest risks many organizations face if they do not adapt to the external environment is
obsolescence, which “occurs when there is a significant decline in customer desire for an organization’s products or
services.”Wrench, J. S. (2012). Casing organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt, pg. 11. Many organizations
becomes so focused on making a specific product that the product eventually is no longer wanted or needed by customers, which
will lead to the eventual death of an organization.

Management
The next type of organizational goal discussed by Edward Gross are management goals, which involves three types of decisions:
(1) who will manage or run an organization, (2) how to handle conflict management, and (3) output goal prioritization.Gross, E.
(1969). The definition of organizational goals. The British Journal of Sociology, 20, 277–294. First, organizations need to decide on
the formal structure of an organization and who will exist at various rungs of the hierarchy. In addition to determining the formal
structure, these goals also determine what type of and who holds power within the organizational hierarchy. Second, managerial
goals focus on how conflicts within the organization will be handled. Organizations have a vested interest in keeping the
organization running smoothly, so too much conflict can lead to interpersonal or inter-departmental bickering that has negative
consequences for the organization. Lastly, management goals determine the overarching direction of the organization itself. As the
saying goes, someone has to steer the ship. We’ll discuss different types of leaders in Chapter 7, but for now we’ll just note that
having a clear direction and clear prioritization of the products and services an organization has is very important for the health of
an organization. If an organization tries to do too much, the organization may end up scatter-brained and not function as a cohesive
whole. If the organization tries to do one and only one thing, the organization may become obsolescent. Overall, people in
management must place output goal prioritization very high on the to-do-list.

Motivation
The fourth common goal organizations have, as discussed by Edward Gross, are motivational goals or goals set out to ensure that
all employees are satisfied and remain loyal to the organization.Gross, E. (1969). The definition of organizational goals. The British
Journal of Sociology, 20, 277–294. There is a wealth of research that has examined the importance of employee motivation on job
satisfaction and worker productivity.Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE. In a study conducted by Whitman, Van Rooy, and ViswesvaranWhitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., &
Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct
relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41–81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01162.x, the researchers examined the relationship

1.2.6 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
between job satisfaction and employee productivity across 73 different research studies that have examined the subject. Overall, the
researchers concluded that satisfied employees were more productive. Secondly, ensuring that employees are motivated also helps
to ensure that employees remain loyal to an organization. According to Hart and Thompson, employee loyalty is “an individual’s
perception that both parties to a relationship [employee and organization] have fulfilled reciprocal expectations that 1) demote
enduring attachment between two parties, and that 2) involve self-sacrifice in the face of alternatives, and that 3) are laden with
obligations of duty.”Hart, D. W., & Thompson, J. A. (2007). Untangling employee loyalty: A psychological contract perspective.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 297–323, pg. 300. By this definition employees are loyal because they knowingly enter into a
relationship with an organization, sacrifice part of themselves to the organization (and vice versa), and thus feel a sense of
obligation or duty to the organization. Of course, loyalty only works when an employee feels that the organization is standing up to
its end of the reciprocal expectations. If an employee feels that an organization is not meeting its basic obligations, then the
employee will view that organization unkindly and the employees loyalty will diminish over time.Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee
Loyalty: An Examination. Journal Of Business Ethics, 59, 259–280. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3438-4 As such, organizations must
strive to make one of its goals ensuring that it is meeting its basic obligations towards employees in an effort to foster employee
loyalty.

Positional
The final type of organizational goal described by Edward Gross are positional goals, which are goals that attempt to position an
organization within the environment in comparison to other organizations within the same market.Gross, E. (1969). The definition
of organizational goals. The British Journal of Sociology, 20, 277–294. For example, imagine that your organization is an
automotive tool manufacturer. Your organization will attempt to position itself against other automotive tool manufacturers that
exist in the market. There are two common ways to position one’s self within a specific market: 1) higher volume at a lower price
or 2) higher quality at a higher price. The first way to position one’s self within a market is to create more products or faster service
at a cheaper cost. The second way to position one’s self in the market is to create a luxury product/service that costs more. While
the product or service costs more, you provide the appearance of being the luxury brand. In a 2011 article in PCWorld, the authors
mention that 56% of new cellphone users were purchasing an Android device as compared to only 28% that purchased an iOS
(iPhone) device.Kellog, D. (2011, September 26). In U.S. market, new smartphone buyers increasingly embracing Android [Press
release]. Retrieved from blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...acing-android/ Simply put, the Android is cheaper and there are more
versions of the Android available for cellphone subscribers. Only Apple makes iOS compatible cellphones and they are typically
more expensive than Android devices. Apple has historically set itself up as a luxury line in the computing industry while PCs and
now Android cellphones are cheaper and made for the mass market. Interestingly, iPhones actually only account for 4% of the
overall cell phone market in November 2011, but accounted for 52% of industry profits.Hamburger, E. (2011, December 7). These
charts tell the real story of Android vs. Business Insider. iPhone. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/android-vs-
iphone-charts-2011-12 Clearly, the iPhone may not be getting a strong percentage of the market share, but it is still beating out its
competition.

Organizational People
The final characteristic common the various definitions of the word “organization” involves people. In Jason Wrench’s original
discussion of the three common themes related to people, he discussed interdependency, interaction, and leadership.Wrench, J. S.
(in press). Communicating within the modern workplace: Challenges and prospects. In J. S. Wrench (Ed.), Workplace
communication for the 21st century: Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line: Vol. 1. Internal workplace communication.
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. For our purposes, we also pose the notion of control as an important factor related to people as well.

Interdependency
The first term associated with people in organizations is the concept of interdependency. InterdependencyMutual dependence or
depending on one another. is mutual dependence or depending on one another. Interdependency is the notion that people within an
organization are dependent upon one another to achieve the organization’s goals. If one part of the organization stops functioning
properly, it will impact the other parts of the organization. For example, imagine you are a copyeditor for a publisher in New York
City. If you get behind on your job, the graphic designers, marketing professionals, printers, and other groups of people will also
get behind. At the same time, interdependency can also help an organization. If you working with a solid group of colleagues, if
something happens to get you behind others can help pull the slack and keep things moving forward on schedule. Overall, people
impact each other in organizations.

1.2.7 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
Interaction
Our interactions with others help define and create what is an organization. Without the interactions we have with our coworkers,
customers, and other stakeholders, an organization really doesn’t exist. For this reason, you can almost say that the “thing” we call
an organization doesn’t really exist because it’s not a physical structure, but rather an organization is the outcome of our
interactions with others. An organization may have physical things within it (desks, computers, pencils, etc.), but the actual
organization is ultimately the people that make exist.
At the same time, people within an organization also interact with each other in various roles in an effort to accomplish the
organization’s goal(s). People within organizations and people who come in contact with organizations are constantly in a state of
interaction. As we will learn later in this book, organizations have many different stakeholders (an individual or group that has an
interest in the organization), and each different set of stakeholders requires different communication strategies. Ultimately,
communicative interaction is one of the most basic functions of any organization.

Control
As the definition of organization from Dennis Mumby, organizations are inherently entities that must control the behavior of its
members while members generally strive for their own sets of needs.Mumby, D. (in press). Organizational communication. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE. When one group has one set of needs and desires and another has a different set of needs and desires, we
refer to these groups as being in dialectical tensions. Table 1.2 contains many of the dialectical tensions that exist between
organizations and its various members.
Table 1.2 Dialectical Tensions
What the Organization Needs/Wants What Workers Need/Want

Minimize Costs Maximize Salary/Benefit Package

Systemization of Job Duties Autonomy to do one’s job

Ability to Streamline the Organization Job Stability

Agreement Dissent

Transparency Privacy

Conventionality Innovation

Organization-Focused Self-Focused

Permanence Change

Rights of the Organization Rights of the Individual

Work life Social life

As a result of these inherent dialectical tensions, organizations try to stack the deck in its favor to maximize its needs and desires,
and subsequently minimizes the needs and desires of workers in the process. Let’s briefly examine each of these dialectical tensions
in turn.
Minimize Costs vs. Maximize Salary/Benefits. The first dialectical tensions occurs when organizations try to keep their overhead
costs low while workers try to maximize what they earn in terms of both salary and benefits (insurance, stock options, retirement,
etc.).
Systemization vs. Autonomy. Organizations like stability, so they prefer workers who learn how to do a specific task and then
systematize that task in the most efficient manner. As such, organizations (especially in manufacturing contexts) will train in
explicit detail exactly how an employee should accomplish a task. Workers, on the other hand, prefer to have autonomy when
making decisions for how best to accomplish their daily work and do not enjoy being micromanaged.
Streamline vs. Stability. Organizations are fundamentally focused on the bottom line, and therefore often want to have the ability to
streamline the organization in an attempt to maximize profits. If an organization can lay off workers and maintain maximum
productivity, then it’s often in the organization’s best interest to do so. While streamlining is good for an organization, it can create
a chaotic environment for employees who crave job stability. Workers want to know that their work is appreciated and it will keep
them employed.

1.2.8 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
Agreement vs. Dissent. The next dialectical tension listed here is agreement vs. dissent. In this tension, organizations prefer for
workers to blindly follow and do what organizational leaders dictate. Workers, on the other hand, want to have a voice to articulate
when they disagree with the dictates of leaders or the general direction of the organization. We’ll explore the area of organizational
dissent more in Chapter 5.
Conventionality vs. Innovation. Organizations are innately slow moving organisms that do not like change, so it’s very common to
hear “But we’ve always done it that way.” Workers on the other hand want to bring their own creative problem solving skills to the
table and think of new and innovative processes and procedures that could benefit both the organizations and the workers. While
not all worker ideas spot-on, organizations that stick to conventional ways of thinking may end up losing a lot of employees who
prefer more freedom to be innovative.
Transparency vs. Privacy. In our world today organizations are increasingly want to know what workers are doing in the
workplace. As such, organizations expect that employee’s work lives are completely transparent and will do everything from
monitoring e-mail and telephone calls to installing software on workers’ computers that logs and monitors key strokes made on a
keyboard. Workers, on the other hand, are increasingly demanding that there be some privacy especially in their digital lives.
Organization vs. Self-Focused. Organizations innately want workers to be focused on their jobs and improving their productivity.
Workers, on the other hand, want to focus on themselves and improving themselves. Many organizations will support self-
improvement as long as it has a clear benefit for the organization, but workers often want to focus on their own improvement even
if that improvement has no benefits for the organization or may lead the worker to find a new organization.
Permanence vs. Change. When looking at the permanence/change dialectic, organizations strive to maintain knowledge and thus
keep people who are hard workers for the long haul. Often, organizations call this employee loyalty. Workers on the other hand,
desire change and can get very bored doing the same work day-in and day-out. Often workers become pigeonholed in specific jobs
with specific duties, that there is no way to get out besides leaving the organization itself. Overall, organizations in our society have
many more tools at its disposal to get its way than do workers.
Organizational vs. Individual Rights. Ultimately, when it comes to organizations the focus is on the organization and its rights and
less on the individual’s rights. Workers believe that their human rights shouldn’t stop at the front door of the organization. For
example, many workers are shocked when organizations fire them for posts that are made on social networking websites. Workers
believe these posts should be private and organizations looking at these posts is a violation of one’s privacy rights. Organizations,
on the other hand, believe looking at social networking site posts is a completely appropriate behavior and well within its rights as
an organization. While this specific example also overlaps with the transparency/privacy dialectic, the focus here is on whose rights
are more important.
Work vs. Social Life. The last dialectical tension associated with organizational control is the focus on work vs. social life.
Organizations believe that workers should be focused purely on their work life. As a result of digital technology, it has become
increasingly easier for people to be on call 24-7 by their organizations. Workers, on the other hand, believe they are entitled to a
social life that does not involve one’s organization. Furthermore, workers often believe that as long as their private, social life
behavior does not impact their work life, their organization’s should stay out of their personal lives. Many organizations go so far
as to include “morality clauses” into contracts that enable them to fire employees whose person-life behavior is deemed
inappropriate for organizational members.

Leadership
The last term associated with people in organizations is leadership. Any organization must have an individual or clearly discernible
group that guides the organization towards accomplishing its goal(s). Without strong leadership, individual members of an
organization are left to their own ideas of how to accomplish the organization’s goals. Basically, if you have too many people trying
to lead, you’ll end up with an organization that is stretched entirely too thin to accomplish anything.
The opposite of leadership is followership. If an organization is going to thrive, it must have strong leadership and followers who
are willing to follow that leader. In Chapter 7 we’ll examine leadership and followership.

Types of Organizations
The last factor in understanding organizations is to realize that there are numerous types of organizations. For a good overview of
the different taxonomies that have been created trying to categorize these different types of organizations, we recommend reading
Carper and Snizek’s article on the subject.Carper, W. B., & Snizek, W. E. (1980). The nature and types of organizational

1.2.9 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
taxonomies: An overview. Academy of Management Review, 5, 65–75. For our purposes in this book, we are going to use the
classification scheme originally posed by Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott.Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal
organizations: A comparative approach (2004 printing). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Blau and Scott created a
taxonomy of organizations that included four distinct categories: mutual benefit, business concerns, service, and commonweal.

Mutual Benefit Associations

The first type of organization that exists is the mutual benefit organizationOrganization focused on providing for its membership.,
which is focused on providing for its membership. Some examples are “political parties, unions, fraternal associations, clubs,
veterans’ organizations, professional associations, and religious sects.”Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A
comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 45. People generally join these types of organizations because of the benefits
of membership. When these organizations are first being created, organizational members are generally very involved in the
creation of the organization. However, once one of these organizations has been around for a while, the majority of the members
become passive and let the minority run the organization.

Business Concerns
The second type of organization is the business concerns organizationOrganization focused on doing well profitably for the
organization and its stakeholders., which is focused on doing well for the organization itself. According to Blau and Scott, the
“dominant problem of business concerns is that of operating efficiency—the achievement of maximum gain at minimum cost in
order to further survival and growth in competition with other organizations.” Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal
organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 49. Most for-profit organizations will fall into the business
concerns organization. Business concerns organizations are faced with problems associated with “maximizing operating efficiency
in a competitive situation.”Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco:
Chandler, pg. 43. Because of the need to cut costs and maintain a competitive advantage, these organizations are often cold and
calloused in how they treat its members and customers.

Service Organizations
According to Blau and Scott, service organizationsOrganization whose prime concern is providing products or services for a
specific public clientele. are “one whose prime beneficiary is the part of the public in direct contact with the organization, with
whom and on whom its members work—in short, an organization whose basic function is to serve clients.” Blau, P. M., & Scott,
W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 51. Service organizations can include
“social-work agencies, hospitals, schools, legal aid societies, and mental health clinics.” Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal
organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 51. The basic problem service organizations face is “the
problems associated with the conflict between professional service to clients and administrative procedures are characteristic of
service organizations.” Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco:
Chandler, pg. 43. Often service organizations are steeped in organizational hierarchies and procedures that prohibit providing the
easiest and fastest service to potential clients.

Commonweal Organizations
The last type of organization discussed by Blau and Scott are commonweal organizationsOrganization designed to benefit society
at large. “where the prime beneficiary is the public-at-large.”Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A
comparative approach (2004 printing). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pg. 44. Some examples of commonweal
organizations include “the State Department, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, military services, police and fire departments, and
also the research function as distinguished from the teaching function in universities.”Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal
organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler, pg. 54. All of these organizations were created because they
represented areas where the general public needed some level of protection or knowledge or the organization serves administrative
purposes of the government. Overall, the crucial problem posed “by commonweal organizations is the development of democratic
mechanisms whereby they can be externally controlled by the public.” Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A
comparative approach (2004 printing). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pg. 43.

Key Takeaways
When one analyzes a variety of definitions for the term “organization,” three common themes tend to emerge: the structure, the
goal, and the people. Organizational structure examines how an organization functions both internally and with its larger

1.2.10 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
 external environment. The goal is the general purpose a group of people is trying to achieve. Lastly, the people refer to the
various internal and external stakeholders associated with the organization.
There are four common organizational types: mutual benefit, business concerns, service, and commonweal. Mutual benefit
organizations are designed to help the individuals who belong to the group (e.g., fraternities, sororities, clubs, etc…). Business
concerns organizations are primarily concerned with turning a profit for the organization and its shareholders (e.g. anything
from Walmart and Citibank to your local grocery story or restaurant). The third type of organization is the service organization,
which is geared towards providing a specific service to people within society (e.g., hospitals, legal-aid societies, etc…). Lastly,
commonweal organizations are those that are generally run by the government for the greater good of society (e.g., the military,
fire/police departments, department of education, etc…).

Exercises
1. Think of an organization you currently belong to (or have belong to in the past). Looking at Figure 1.1, how has your
organization interacted with its environment with regards to input, throughput, and output.?
2. Of the ten dialectical tensions discussed in Table 1.2, which one do you think has the strongest impact on an organization you
current belong to (or has belong to in the past)? Why do you think this dialectical tension causes the most imbalance of control?
3. From your own organizational interactions, find two different organizations that fit into each of the four types of organizations:
mutual benefit, business concerns, service, and commonweal.

This page titled 1.2: What is an Organization? is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon
request.

1.2.11 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14850
1.3: What is Communication?
 Learning Objectives
Define and explain what is meant by the term “human communication.”
Explain the basic model of communication and how it applies to the organizational context.

First and foremost, there is no agreed upon definition of the word “communication” by various scholars. In fact, various scholars
have attempted to examine the term and generally found that there are a vast array of different approaches to understanding the
term.Dance, F. E. X. (1970). The “concept” of communication. The Journal of Communication, 20, 201–210.,Dance, F. X. (1984).
What is communication?: Nailing Jello to the wall. Association for Communication administration Bulletin, 48, 4–7.,Losee, R. M.
(1999). Communication defined as complementary informative processes. Journal of Information, Communication and Library
Science, 5(3), 1–15.,Nilsen, T. R. (1957). On defining communication. Speech Teacher, 6(1), 10–17. In one of the most exhaustive
examination of the types of definitions created by various academics, Frank Dance examined 95 unique definitions and broke them
down into fifteen different types of definitions.Dance, F. E. X. (1970). The “concept” of communication. The Journal of
Communication, 20, 201–210. While all of these definitions may exist, not all of them are clearly applicable for our purposes as we
study organizational communication. For this reason, we are going to focus on defining the term “human communication.”
The first step in defining the term “human communication” is to acknowledge that the attempt you are making is one in a voice of
many. The definition of “human communication” we will provide here is not necessarily the best or the one most commonly used
in every communicative context, but it is the one we will use to guide this book. In the words of Frank Dance when he wrote about
what makes human communication human, “Human communication is indeed a dappled thing, swift, slow, sweet, sour, adazzle,
dim. The search for its essence and the study of its meaning is a search rich in the doing, not in the done.”Dance, F. E. X. (1980).
Swift, slow, sweet, sour, adazzle, dim: What makes human communication human. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44,
60–63, pg. 63.
For the purposes of this book, we define human communicationThe process whereby one individual (or group of individuals)
attempts to stimulate meaning in the mind of another individual (or group of individuals) through intentional use of verbal,
nonverbal, and/or mediated messages. as the process whereby one individual (or group of individuals) attempts to stimulate
meaning in the mind of another individual (or group of individuals) through intentional use of verbal, nonverbal, and/or mediated
messages.Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and
applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. This definition can be easily broken down into a series of characteristics: source,
message, channel, and receiver. Figure 1.3 provides a general representation of what this model looks like within the public
speaking context, but can easily be applied to other communicative contexts (interpersonal communication, small group/team
communication, mass communication, etc.). Let’s briefly break this definition and model down into four core areas that must be
understood: process, source, message, channel, and receiver.

Figure 1.3 Basic Model of Communication (CC-BY-SA 4.0 Phlaph7 Wikipedia)

Process
First, and foremost, it is important for anyone studying communication to remember that communication is a processThe notion
that there are no distinct beginnings to communication nor ends., which indicates that there are no distinct beginnings to
communication nor ends. By process, we mean that communication is a series of interactions that alter with time and produce
changes in those involved in the interactions. We should also mention that there are many external factors that can influence the
process as well. The success or failure of informative or persuasive attempts can alter how people interact with each other in future

1.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14851
interactions. Additionally, one’s cultural background can affect how people approach the communicative process. In essence, there
are a number of factors that are constantly at play within an interaction that effect the communication process.

Source
The “sourceThe individual (or group of individuals) attempts to stimulate meaning.” is the individual (or group of individuals)
attempts to stimulate meaning. To help us understand the role of the source we will look at the two major components here:
individual/group and message.

Individual vs. Group

We refer to this position in the basic communication model as either an individual or a group because depending on the
communicative context, the source of a message could represent a single person’s ideas or an entire group’s ideas. For example, if
you are providing an employee feedback about her or his job performance, the message you are sending may come from you and
you alone. However, if you are the CEO of a corporation delivering a press conference, your message may be coming out of your
mouth but may represent dozens of individuals involved in the crafting of the message. Often receivers are completely unaware of
the number of people involved in the crafting and filtering of a message before they receive the message itself. Furthermore, in the
position as a CEO, you would also be viewed as the mouthpiece of the organization, so anything you say is also attributed to the
organization, which could represent thousands of people.

Message
The basic goal of the source is to take an idea that is occurring in her or his mind and someone transmit that same idea to another
person (or persons). The “idea” someone is trying to send to a receiver is the messageThe “idea” someone is trying to send to a
receiver.. We refer to this transmission of a message from the source to the receiver as “stimulating meaning” because the source is
attempting to transmit the idea in her or his head and communicate in such a fashion that the receiver will understand the idea in the
same way as the source. One very important caveat to stimulating meaning is ensuring that meaning is actually achieved. One of
the biggest mistakes some novice managers have is assuming that if they tell an employee something, their message has actually
been understood in the way it was intended to be understood. As such, it’s very important to ensure a receiver is understanding the
meaning of a message in the way a source intends for that message to be understood.
One of our coauthors was recently involved in a labor negotiation. The employees in the organization believed that the organization
was financially healthy and thus they deserved better pay. The organization, on the other hand was not financially healthy. The
discrepancy between the two arose because there was a pot-of-money that the employees believed could be tapped to give them
raises. Unfortunately, that specific pot-of-money was untouchable because the organization oversaw the management of the money
but could not actually use the money for its own devices. As a peripheral member of the negotiations, our coauthor recommended
that the organization get its auditing firm to clearly specify in a note to the employee negotiators what the uses of the fund were.
Our coauthor realized that the organization’s negotiators had a problem communicating this message because the receivers viewed
them as biased. By having the outside (and thus impartial) auditing team craft the specific message, the employee negotiators
finally understood the problem backed down on their demands. This example involves both problems sending a message (from the
organization to the employee negotiators) and then a solution to ensure understanding (from the auditing firm to the employee
negotiators). The example also illustrates another common problem with transmissions of messages, receivers must see the source
as credible and trustworthy or the receivers may dismiss the message as inherently biased.

Channel
When a source decides to create a message, he or she can rely on three primary channels to send that message. A channelThe
means by which a message is carried from one person to another. is “the means by which a message is carried from one person to
another [emphasis in original].”Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday
life: Explanations and applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pg. 10. As we are discussing human communication, break these
channels into three distinct types: verbal, nonverbal, and mediated.

Verbal
The verbalSpecific spoken sounds that represent real phenomena or ideas. channel consists of specific spoken sounds that represent
real phenomena or ideas. For example, when we say the word “office,” we know that the letters o-f-f-i-c-e do not represent an
actual physical location but rather the idea of a location where work occurs. Of course, for understanding to occur, the source and

1.3.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14851
the receiver must have the same understanding for how words are intended to be understood. In fact ensuring that people
communicating in an organization are using the same lexicon is such a common problem that there are numerous humor books that
have been written on the subject.Beckwith, L. (2006) The dictionary of corporate bullshit: An A to Z lexicon of empty, enraging,
and just plain stupid office talk. New York, NY: Broadway Books.,Fugere, B., Hardaway, C., Warshawsky, J. (2005). Why business
people speak like idiots: A bullfighter's guide. New York, NY: Free Press.

Nonverbal
The second channel people can transmit a message through is the nonverbalAny stimuli that could elicit meaning that is not
contained in words themselves. channel, which encompasses any stimuli that could elicit meaning that is not contained in words
themselves. Everything from how someone gestures, looks (physical attractiveness, dress, jewelry, etc.), sounds, smells, etc… can
impact how others will view that person. Research has indicated that between 65 to 95% of someone’s understanding of a verbal
message is dependent upon the nonverbal behavior associated with the verbal message.Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., &
Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.For
examine, imagine you walk into a colleague’s office and she’s clearly red-faced and her fists are clenched. You ask her how she’s
doing and she flatly responds, “fine.” If you pay attention to only the verbal message sent, “fine,” you will interpret her message as
she’s excellent (like fine wine). However, when you interpret her nonverbal behavior, you’ll quickly ascertain that she is far from
“excellent” but may not want to talk about what happened at the moment.

Mediated
The last channel a source can send a message through is a mediatedAny message that is sent using some kind of technology (print-
form, auditory, visual, electronic, etc…). channel. A mediated message is any message that is sent using some kind of technology
(print-form, auditory, visual, electronic, etc…). Historically, some of the earliest writings on communicating with employees were
about creating employee newsletters to communicate better. In today’s technologically advanced world, we are increasingly
spending more and more time communicating with each other at work using mediated computer technologies. From e-mail, to
Skype, to Twitter, LinkedIn, to blogs and vlogs, to who knows what comes next, we are increasingly becoming more and more
dependent on mediated forms of communication in the workplace.

Receiver
While we’ve discussed the receiver a message throughout the entire section, we should note that the receiverThe person
interpreting and understanding a source’s message.(s) is ultimately the person interpreting and understanding a source’s message.
When a receiver attends to a source’s message, he or she must interpret that message in light of her or his understanding of the
message. If the source uses unfamiliar words, the receiver may not accurately interpret the message in the intended way. For this
reason, it’s important for a source to consider any feedback the receiver sends about the message to ensure that understanding has
occurred.

A Few Notes About The Basic Model

While this model presents communication in an easily digestible, linear fashion, we also recognize that in many communicative
contexts (like a business meeting) we may be functioning in the roles of source and receiver simultaneously. The definition
presented here (as well as the basic model) are starting points for understanding human communication that have been developed
and expanded upon since the 1940s.Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press.,Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in
everyday life: Explanations and applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pg. 10.

Key Takeaways
Human communication is the process whereby one individual (or group of individuals) attempts to stimulate meaning in the
mind of another individual (or group of individuals) through intentional use of verbal, nonverbal, and/or mediated messages.
The basic model of communication examines four basic components: source, message, channel, and receiver. The source of a
message is the individual or group who is originating an idea and attempting to transmit that idea to another person or persons.
The message is the idea that is attempting to be transmitted. The channel is the specific method of communication an individual
uses to convey a specific message: verbal (the use of words), nonverbal (other communicative characteristics outside of the
words themselves), and mediated (the use of technology to convey a message). Lastly, the receiver is the individual who is
targeted for a message who receives the message and then has to make sense of the message itself.

1.3.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14851
Exercises
1. Look at the definition of human communication provided in this book. Do you think this definition accurately reflects how
humans communicate with one another? Why or why not?
2. Image you’ve been asked to run a meeting consisting of five people. Explain how a meeting consisting of five people would
relate to the basic model of communication.

This page titled 1.3: What is Communication? is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon
request.

1.3.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14851
1.4: History of Organizational Communication
 Learning Objectives
Explain the three different ways the term “organizational communication” can be understood according to Stanley Deetz.
Define the term “organizational communication” as it is used within this book.
Identify some of the major historical events in the creation of the field of “organizational communication.”

Now that we’ve examined what we mean by “human communication” in this book, let’s switch gears and discuss the nature of
“organizational communication.” To help us understand what is meant by the term “organizational communication,” we’ll explore
differing ways of viewing the term and then a basic conceptual definition that we will use in this book.

Ways of Viewing Organizational Communication

Stanley Deetz argues that defining what is meant by the term “organizational communication” is only half the question. “A more
interesting question is, ‘What do we see or what are we able to do if we think of organizational communication in one way versus
another?’ Unlike a definition, the attempt here is not to get it right but to understand our choices.” Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual
Foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pg. 4. Instead, Deetz recommends that we attempt to understand the
three conceptualizations that are available to “organizational communication” scholars and students: the discipline, ways to
describe organizations, and a phenomenon within organizations.

“Organizational Communication” as a Discipline

The first way the term “organizational communication” is commonly used is as a descriptor tool that refers to a specific sub-
division of the communication field. However, organizational communication is not an academic area of study unique to the field
of communication studies. Because organizational communication is a unique discipline there are courses, books, and degrees all
associated with the study of organizational communication. According to Dennis K. Mumby and Cynthia Stohl, “A community of
scholars constitutes a disciplinary matrix when they share a set of paradigmatic assumptions about the stud of a certain
phenomenon.”Mumby, D., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication
Quarterly, 10, 50–72, pg. 52. In essence, organizational communication is a discipline because people who study it share a
common conception of the study of this thing called “organizational communication.” Mumby and Stohl go on to note that “This
does not mean that there is a consensus on every issue, but rather that scholars see objects of study in similar ways, and use the
same language game in describing these phenomena.” Mumby, D., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication
studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50–72, pg. 52. In fact, you may find your teacher or even yourself disagreeing
with our interpretation of certain aspects of organizational communication, which is very much a normal part of any academic
discipline.

“Organizational Communication” as a Descriptor

The second way we can view the term “organizational communication” is as descriptor for what happens within organizations.
Deetz explains, “to think of communication as a way to describe and explain organizations. In the same way that psychology,
sociology, and economics can be thought of as capable of explaining organizations’ processes, communication might also be
thought of as a distinct mode of explanation or way of thinking about organizations.” Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual Foundations. In
F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and
methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pg. 5. As you will quickly see in this book, organizational communication as it has
been studied in the past and continues to be studied today is a hybrid field, which means that people in a variety of different
academic areas conduct research on the topic. People in anthropology, business, psychology, sociology, and other academic areas
conduct research that is fundamentally about organizational communication. Communication scholars differ in how we approach
organizational communication because our training is first, and foremost, in human communication, so we bring a unique history
and set of tools to the stud of organizational communication that other scholars do not possess.

“Organizational Communication” as a Phenomenon

The final way one can view the term “organizational communication” is to view it as a specific phenomenon or set of phenomena
that occurs within an organization. For example, when two employees get into a conflict at work, they are enacting organizational

1.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14852
communication. When the chief financial officer of an organization is delivering a PowerPoint presentation on the latest quarterly
earnings to the organization’s board of directors, he or she is engaging in organizational communication. The latest advertisement
campaign an organization has created for the national media is another example of organizational communication.

A Conceptual Definition of “Organizational Communication”

The definition we will use for organizational communication in this book stems primarily out of the last of Deetz’s three views of
“organizational communication.” Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual Foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new
handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. For
the purposes of this book, we define organizational communicationThe process whereby an organizational stakeholder (or group of
stakeholders) attempts to stimulate meaning in the mind of another an organizational stakeholder (or group of stakeholders)
through intentional use of verbal, nonverbal, and/or mediated messages. as the process whereby an organizational stakeholder (or
group of stakeholders) attempts to stimulate meaning in the mind of another an organizational stakeholder (or group of
stakeholders) through intentional use of verbal, nonverbal, and/or mediated messages. You’ll notice the similarities between this
definition and the one we provided earlier for human communication. Let’s break this definition down by exploring the primary
unique factor in this definition, organizational stakeholders.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of Business Terms, a stakeholderAny individual or group who has an interest
within the organization. is “any party that has an interest in an organization. Stakeholders of a company include stockholders,
bondholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and so forth.”Scott, D. L. (Ed.). (2009). stakeholder. In The American heritage
dictionary of business terms (p. 503). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. As discussed in the Preface of this book, there are a
range of different stakeholders that exist for an organization. Here is just a short list of some of the stakeholders within an
organization: workers, managers, shareholders, etc… Every organization also has to be concerned with stakeholders who exist
within the organization’s external environment: competitors, community members, governmental agencies, etc… Basically, every
organization has a wide range of stakeholders that it must attend to in order to run itself smoothly.

A History of Organizational Communication

Instead of providing a long, drawn out history of the field of organizational communication as we know it today, we’ve provided
you a brief timeline dating back to the 1750s when the Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom. The introduction of
steam-powered machinery forever changed the way businesses operated and led to the eventual creation of the modern corporation.
Table 1.3 is a summary of the major events in the history of organizational communication. This table is not meant to be an
exhaustive list, but only a representative list of some of the major key-moments in the study of organizational communication.
Table 1.3 Major Events in Organizational Communication
Industrial Revolution starts in the United Kingdom and quickly
1750
transforms the nature of business.
A. E. Phillips publishes the first public speaking book specifically
aimed at business men, Effectively Speaking.
1908
Harvard Business School becomes the first academic program to focus
on the scholarship of business.
The first meeting of the Eastern Public Speaking Conference is held.
The association changed itself to the Speech Association of the Eastern
1910, April
States in 1950 and then to the Eastern Communication Association in
1973.
The National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking is
formed and holds is first convention the following the year. This
association changed its names four times over the next hundred years:
1914
National Association of Teachers of Speech, 1923; Speech Association
of America, 1946; Speech Communication Association, 1970; and
National Communication Association, 1997.
Edward L. Bernays and Doris Fleishman open the first public relations
1919
firm.

1.4.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14852
 William Phillips Sandford and Willard Hayes Yeager are the first speech
1929 scholars to publish a public speaking book aimed at business
professionals titled Business and Professional Speaking.
W. Charles Redding publishes an article titled “Speech and Human
1937 Relations” in the academic journal The Speaker. Redding is widely
considered the father of organizational communication.
Chester Barnard publishes The Functions of the Executive and argues
1938 that “The first function of the executive is to develop and maintain a
system of communication” (p. 226).
Paul F. Lazarsfeld publishes the first review of the discipline of
communication based on his and others’ research at the Bureau of
1941 Applied Social Research and determines that communication could be
broken into four categories: 1) who, 2) said what, 3) to whom, and 4)
with what effect.
Alexander R. Heron argues that successful communication with one’s
1942 employees is necessary for good business in his book Sharing
Information with Employees.
University of Denver holds the first graduate-level seminar in industrial
1945
communication.
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver publish The Mathematical Theory
1949 of Communication, which provides the first major model of human
communication (source, message, receiver, noise).
The first dissertation specifically in industrial communication was
completed by Keith Davis in the department of business at Ohio State
1952
University. The title of the manuscript was “Channels of Personnel
Communication within the Management Setting.”
Ohio State University and the University of Nebraska offer the first
1953 Ph.D. degrees conferred by speech departments in industrial
communication.
Lee Thayer, a speech professor with an interest in communication in
1961 businesses, publishes Administrative Communication which is the first
true textbook in organizational communication.
The Journal of Business Communication is started by the American
1963
Business Communication Association.
W. Charles Redding and George A. Sanborn publish Business and
Industrial Communication: A Source Book, which compiled copies of
1964 previously published articles on a wide range of organizational
communication topics. The publication of this book is generally seen as
the true start of the field of organizational communication.
The first “Conference on Organizational Communication” is held at
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. At the
conference, Philip K. Tompkins reviews the state of organizational
communication and divides the types of research into two categories:
1967 (1) informal and formal channels of communication and (2) superior-
subordinate relationships. Tompkins’ presentation marks the official
acceptance of the term “organizational communication.”
Henry Voos publishes Organizational Communication: A Bibliography
sponsored by the Office of Naval Research.
Division IV, organizational communication, becomes an officially
1968 recognized group by NSCC, which became the International
Communication Association in 1970.

1.4.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14852
 W. Charles Redding publishes his book Communication with the
Organization: An Interpretive Review of Theory and Research. In this
1972
monograph he poses 10 basic postulates of organizational
communication.
The Academy of Management authorizes a new division within its
1973
association titled Organizational Communication.
The Western Journal of Communication publishes a series of articles
based out of a conference held in Alta, Utah, “The Summer Conference
on Interpretive Approaches to the Study of Organization
1982
Communication.” This series of articles argues for the importance of
incorporating interpretive methods in the study of organizational
communication.
Linda Putnam and Michael E. Pacanowsky publish Communication and
Organizations: An Interpretive Approach. This edited book further
1983
solidifies the importance of interpretive research methods in
organizational communication.
Fredric M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W.
1987 Porter publish the Handbook of Organizational Communication: An
Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Wert-Gray, Center, Brashers, and Meyers publish an article titled
“Research Topics and Methodological Orientations in Organizational
1991 Communication: A Decade in Review.” The authors find that of the 289
articles published in the 1980s, 57.8% were social scientific, 25.9%
were qualitative, 2.1% were critical, 14.2% were categorized as other.
Dennis Mumby puts for a research agenda for critical organizational
communication research in an article titled “Critical Organizational
1993
Communication Studies: The Next 10 Years” in Communication
Monographs.
Fredric M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam publish The New Handbook of
2001 Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and
Methods.
Elizabeth Jones, Bernadette Watson, John Gardner, and Cindy Gallois
publish an article titled “Organizational Communication: Challenges for
the New Century” in the Journal of Communication. In the article they
identify six challenges organizational communication scholars face in
2004 the 21st Century: (1) innovate in theory and methodology, (2)
acknowledge the role of ethics, (3) move from the microlevel to
macrolevel issues, (4) examine new organizational structures, (5)
understand the communication of organizational change, and (6)
examine diversity and intergroup communication.

Key Takeaways
Stanley Deetz articulated three different ways the term “organizational communication” can be understood: the discipline, ways
to describe/explain organizations, and a phenomenon within organizations. His first perspective describes organizational
communication as an academic discipline that consists of an intellectual history, textbooks, courses, degrees, etc… The second
way to describe organizational communication as a way of describing organizations. Under this perspective, organizational
communication is used to describe and/or explain how organizations functions. Lastly, organizational communication is a
specific set of behaviors that is exhibited within an organization itself. People talk and interact with one another, which is a
form of organizational communication, and through these interactions we actually create the phenomenon that is an
organization.
In this book, the authors define “organizational communication” as the process whereby an organizational stakeholder (or group
of stakeholders) attempts to stimulate meaning in the mind of another an organizational stakeholder (or group of stakeholders)
through intentional use of verbal, nonverbal, and/or mediated messages.

1.4.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14852
 The history of organizational communication is a complicated one. Starting with the industrial revolution and the evolution of
the modern corporation, the idea of organizational communication was ultimately crystalized in the 1950s and 1960s. During
the early years, most of the research conducted examining communication within an organization was conducted from a social
scientific perspective, but starting in the 1980s with the work of Linda Putman, organizational communication research has
become more diversified to include both interpretive and critical perspectives.

Exercises
1. Find two examples of how you could use the term “organizational communication” for each Stanley Deetz’s three
conceptualizations of the term. Did you find this process easy or difficult? Why?
2. Look at the definition of organizational communication provided in this book. Do you think this definition accurately reflects
the nature of organizational communication? Why or why not?
3. Since the 1960s, which decade do you think has been the most important in the transformation of the field of organizational
communication? Why?

This page titled 1.4: History of Organizational Communication is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available
upon request.

1.4.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/14852