What is Organizational Communication? 2.0

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

PROFESSOR: So what is
organizational communication?

And what are we doing
when we study and practice

organizational communication?

We can approach these questions
from two different perspectives.

First, we can think of
organizational communication

as the communication that
happens within organizations,

all the communication
activity you'll

see if you go to
any organization

today-- writing memos, sending
emails, talking on the phone,

having meetings
and more meetings,

video conferencing,
presentations, and so on.

I think this is
usually what comes

to mind when most
people initially

think about organizational
communication.

But let's go deeper.

Let's explore an alternative,
more sophisticated approach

of seeing organizations
as communication.

This can drastically
change how we understand

interaction and
organizational life,

and it opens exciting
possibilities

for research and practice.

First, let's say
a bit more about

the conventional
approach-- communication

within organizations.

This perspective sees
organizations like containers,

and communication flows
within the containers.

If we extend the
metaphor, we can

see how communication
is then influenced

by the shape of
the organizations,

like how liquids take the shape
of their physical containers.

And shape can mean the physical
shape of the organization,

like if you have to take
the elevator up 10 floors

to deliver a report
to your boss, or more

of a symbolic shape,
like where you

are in the
organizational hierarchy.

The key here is that
communication exists separately

from the organization.

Communication is
thus organizational

when it happens within
these separate structures

we call organizations.

This relates to what scholars
call the transmission

model of communication
because communication

is all about
transmitting information

throughout the container
of the organization.

And this is important stuff.

From small businesses and
multinational corporations

to nonprofit organizations
and government agencies,

if people don't transmit
the right information

to the right people, at the
right times, in the right ways,

things fall apart.

We certainly need
effective communication

within organizations.

So the transmission model of
communication isn't wrong,

but it's also not enough.

It doesn't fully
capture the complexities

of organizing and communicating
for our modern society.

After all, why is it that quote
unquote "communication problems"

are continually mentioned as
one of the main difficulties

for most organizations?

Is it just that people aren't
getting the right information?

Well, if so, this is
mainly a technical problem

that should improve as
we develop better ways

to get information to
more people efficiently.

But it seems like
almost the opposite

is happening-- that
the more advanced

our communication
technologies get,

the more communication
problems we have.

Now, why is that?

Perhaps there is more
going on with communication

than merely transmitting
information.

Turns out people interpret
the exact same message

very differently,
that people can

be deceptive in
their communication,

and their motives are incredibly
difficult to figure out.

That the meaning
of language changes

depending upon the
context, or that what

you say is often much less
important than how you say it,

and that people
often communicate

for many more reasons
than merely just

to transmit information.

And these are not exceptions.

This is the normal
state of affairs

for most of our interactions.

To account for all
this, let's explore

an alternative, more
sophisticated approach

to organizational communication.

Organizations as communication.

But this means we have
to think very differently

about communication,
organizations,

and the relationship
between them.

Instead of viewing communication
as merely the transmission

of information,
this second approach

goes deeper and
sees communication

as the fundamental process that
shapes our social realities.

It's how we socially construct
the meanings and interpretations

that shape our lives.

Scholars call this
a constitutive model

of communication
because communication

literally constitutes or
establishes or makes up

our social worlds.

Why is this important?

Well, the conventional
approach of communication

within organizations assumes
there is this thing called

the organization
that just exists,

and we simply focus
on the communication

that happens inside.

But what exactly is the
organization in the first place?

Where did it come from?

And how did it get here?

Organizations aren't natural.

They don't just exist
in nature like trees

and mountains and rivers.

They are social realities
created by people

and their interactions.

And people have different
values, motivations,

backgrounds, abilities,
and resources.

So organizations are never just
neutral structures or containers

that exist apart
from human activity.

They are the visible
manifestations

of our collective
activity of communication.

And so at their core,
organizations are communicative.

Think about it.

An organization is basically
an ongoing collection

of interactions, decisions,
messages, interpretations,

negotiations, contracts,
relationships, and so forth.

There's nothing else there that
exists apart from communication.

Well, let me qualify
that just a bit.

Certainly, there are material
or physical things there,

like buildings, cubicles,
tables, and other equipment,

but these things have
no inherent meaning

apart from our interactions
with each other.

Plus, all the
communication practices

that constitute
organizations always

have to be materialized
in some way

if they're going to show up and
make a difference in our lives.

I'm not suggesting
that organizations

exist in an imaginary
land of perceptions

and wishful thinking, where the
material world doesn't matter.

It's all in your mind.

No, no.

This approach of
organizations as communication

is very much rooted in the
material world of things

and stuff that matter.

But what I am saying is
that these material things

come together and have
meaning as organizations only

through communication.

And I think this is
a better perspective

to guide our study and practice
of organizational communication.

But why complicate things with
a more sophisticated approach?

What do we gain?

After all, the
container metaphor

and the idea of communication
within organizations

seemed to describe
how most of us

actually experience
organizational communication

much of the time.

And the physical
realities of organizations

seem to reinforce this
conventional view.

So what's wrong here?

Well, the main shortcoming
of the conventional approach

is that it forces us to
accept the organization

as given, relegating
communication

as a separate phenomenon.

Leaving us only to examine how
people transmit information

within the system but
with limited capacity

to understand and explain
the nature of organizations

in the first place.

Plus, it treats communication as
a neutral conduit of information

without recognizing that our
interactions with each other

actually create or change
many of the very things

we are communicating about.

But if we expand our
thinking of communication,

it opens a whole new world
of insight and understanding,

plus new possibilities
for practice and action.

We'll start to see that so many
organizational realities we

often take for granted are
actually created and sustained

through our communication,
and things could be otherwise.

Communication is not just
a thing to be explained,

but rather a way of
explaining other things,

other social phenomena,
especially organizations,

like how certain
patterns of interaction

give rise to norms of
conflict resolution,

or how the values of a
particular industry or sector

shape the practice
of leadership,

or how interpersonal
dynamics affect

the success of an organizational
change initiative.

We can examine how certain
views on race and gender

emerge and are sustained through
our communication practices,

or how our professional
identities are

created and sustained through
organizational communication.

We can uncover hidden
forms of power and control

that are embedded within
communication processes.

We can explore ways
to make organizations

more equitable and inclusive by
surfacing alternative voices.

We can figure out how
to develop organizations

that are more productive,
adaptive, and responsive

through communication practices
that encourage innovation

and collaboration.

Whatever the case,
a constitutive view

of organizations
as communication

provides a better way to
understand and explain

the complexities of
organizing and communicating.

What I'm advocating, therefore,
is a communicative approach

to our understanding
of organizations,

or to put it another way,
taking a communication

perspective to the study of
organizations and organizing.

Not simply treating
communication

as just another
variable to be managed,

but rather seeing communication
as an explanatory framework

from which to
understand and explain

all the complexities
of organizational life.

So what is organizational
communication?

Communication is
organizational not

just because it happens
within organizations,

but because it constitutes
organizations and gives

organizations their
existence, their way of being.

To study organizational
communication,

therefore, means to
examine and improve

the fundamental social
processes of organizing

that create and sustain the
main systems and institutions

of our society.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]