COM4807 Organisational Communication Theory

1. INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the COM4807 module for the integrated organisational communication honours course. This module introduces you to organisational communication theory, which provides an important foundation for your honours degree.

This tutorial letter will guide you in terms of what to expect in this module. This includes the assignments that you will have to answer and submit (including your examination portfolio), the tuition methods, and the reading material that you will have to consult. You will have to study this tutorial letter in conjunction with Tutorial Letter CMNHONE/301/2018, which will provide you with information on referencing, plagiarism and the structure of assignments.

To complete the assignments successfully, you should read as widely as possible on each topic because your discussion has to be structured logically. The insight that is required to answer the assignments successfully is possible only if you fully understand the topics. You can acquire this type of understanding by consulting the diverse study material that we have listed below and, most importantly, by conducting your own research. The answers to the problems considered in the assignments cannot be derived directly from the study material. Therefore, your active involvement in the topics and your interpretation and integration of the study material are essential for the successful completion of the assignments.

The successful completion of your first three assignments serves as vital preparation for the completion of Assignment 07, the portfolio examination, which is an integration of the content of Assignments 01 to 06. The portfolio examination will be discussed later in this tutorial letter.

2. PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this module is for you to gain knowledge and skills relating to organisational communication theory. Organisational communication theory is concerned with the role of communication messages, meanings and information flow through both the traditional media and modern technology; the importance of environmental influences on internal organisational contexts; the traditions and perspectives of communication in organisations; and the role of management in the communication processes in organisations.

2.2 Outcomes

Once you have completed this module, you should have

a theoretical knowledge of organisations and their environments
a critical perspective of communication in organisations
an understanding of the traditions in the study of communication in organisations
a theoretical knowledge of organisational communications theory and an understanding of intra-organisational communication and how it applies to an organisation
a theoretical knowledge of management communication and how to apply it in practice
a theoretical knowledge and understanding of IT/computer-mediated communication
an understanding of the various concepts associated with these fields
an ability to apply advanced theoretical knowledge and complete assignments based on your integration of knowledge in these fields

You are encouraged to apply these assignments to South African organisations (or to organisations in your own country). It is important for you to be able to illustrate your understanding of the various communication theories by applying them in an organisational

context. Although you are not required to undertake real research projects in organisations in this module, you are expected to provide intelligent, well-debated and persuasive discussions when you apply these theories in an organisational context.

Some of you may work in an organisational environment and it would be to your benefit to apply the theories in each assignment to your own organisation, if possible. However, those of you who are full-time students may use a fictitious organisation to illustrate your discussion. We look forward to your contributions to the study of organisational communication theory.

Electronic reserves – list of articles

Agle, BR, Donaldson, T, Freeman, RE, Jensen, MC, Mitchell, RK & Wood, D. 2008. Dialogue: toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2):153–190.

Blaschke, S, Schoeneborn, D & Seidl, D. 2012. Organizations as networks of communication episodes: turning the network perspective inside out. Organizational Studies 33(7):879–906.

Briones, RL, Kuch, B, Fisher Liu, B & Jin, Y. 2010. Keeping up with the digital age: how American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review 37:37– 43.

Brookfield, SD. 2014. Foundations of critical theory. Advances in Developing Human Resources

16(4):417–428.

Caldwell, R. 2012. Leadership and learning: a critical re-examination of Senge’s learning organisation. Systemic Practice and Action Research 25(1):39–55.

Carrim, NMH & Basson, JS. 2013. Creating a learning climate: a South African study. The Learning Organization 20(1):6–19.

Chasi, C & De Wet, G. 2008. Towards an ethics perspective on the rational structure tradition of organisational communication. Communicare 27(1/2):41–60.

Christensen, LT & Cornelissen, J. 2011. Bridging corporate and organizational communication: review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly 25(3):383–414.

Davis, K. 1959. The myth of functional analysis as a special method in sociology and anthropology. American Sociological Review 24:757–772.

Deepika, N. 2013. Management works in the system; leadership works on the system. The interpersonal skills on corporate threshold. Language in India 13(4):22–31.

Freeman, RE, Wicks, AC & Parmar, B. 2004. Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate objective revisited’. Organization Science 15(3):364–369.

Gio, DA & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review 15(4):584–602.

Harvey, M, Palmer, J & Speier, C. 1998. Implementing intra-organizational learning: a phased- model approach supported by intranet technology. European Management Journal 16(3):341– 354

Hillman, AJ, Withers, MC & Collins, BJ. 2009. Resource dependency theory: a review. Journal of Management 35(6):1404–1427.

Jamali, DJ, Khoury, G & Sahyoun, H. 2006. From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations. The Learning Organization 13(1):337–352.

Kelleher, T. 2009. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication 59:172–188.

Kietzmann, JH, Hermkens, K & McCarthy, IP. 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons 54:241–251.

Laplume, AO, Sonpar, K & Litz, RA. 2008. Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management 34(6):1152–1189.

Lawrence, TB, Dyck B, Maitlis, S & Mauws, MK. 2006. The underlying structure of continuous change. MIT Sloan Management Review 47(4): 59-66.

Lee, C. 2010. Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: exploring employees’ preference of effective employee communication channel. International Journal for the Advancement of Science and Arts 1(2):38–48.

Lee, C. 2011. Computer-mediated communication and organisational communication: the use of new communication technology in the workplace. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities 3:1–12.

Liao, S, Chang, W & Wu, C. 2009. An integrated model for learning organization with strategic view: benchmarking in the knowledge-intensive industry. Expert Systems with Applications 37(5):3792–3798.

Lumby, J. 2012. Leading organizational culture: issues of power and equity. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40(5):576–591.

Marsick, VJ & Watkins, KE. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5:132–151.

Murphy, P. 1996. Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises. Public Relations Review 22(2):95–113.

Nothhaft, H. 2010. Communication management as a second-order management function: roles and functions of the communication executive – results from a shadowing study. Journal of Communication Management 14(2):127–140.

Politis, JD. 2001. The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22(8):354–364.

Riaz, S. 2009. The global financial crisis: an institutional theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on International Business 5(1/2):26–35.

Seo, M-G, Taylor, MS, Hill, NS, Zhang, X, Tesluk, PE & Lorinkova, NM. 2012. The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology 65:121–165.

Shin, W, Pang, A & Kim, HJ. 2015. Building relationships through integrated online media: global organizations’ use of brand websites, Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 29(2):184–220.

Singh, SK. 2008. Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study. Journal of Knowledge Management 12(4):3–15.

Srivastava, S. 2000. Concepts of culture and organisational analysis: a perspective. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 4:32–42.

Stevens, GR & McElhill, J. 2000. A qualitative study and model of the use of e-mail in organisations. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 10(4):271–283.

Stewart, D. 2001. Reinterpreting the learning organisation. The Learning Organization 8(4):141– 152.

Ströh, U & Jaatinen, M. 2001. New approaches to communication management for transformation and change in organisations. Journal of Communication Management 6(2):148– 165.

Thiétart, RA & Forgues, B. 1995. Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science 6(1):19– 31.

Van Woerkum, CMJ & Aarts, MNC. 2008. The orientation of organizations to their environments: functions of the unconscious mind. Journal of Public Relations Research 20:180– 206.

Verwey, S. 2015. Self-expression and collaborative “pro-sumption” in the digital brandscape.

Communicatio 41(3): 320-339.

Wittenbaum, GM, Hollingshead, AB, Paulus, PB, Hirokawa, RY, Ancona, DG, Peterson, RS, Jehn, KA & Yoon, K. 2004. The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research 35(1):17–43.

Wright, C. 1960. Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly

24:605–620.

Wright, CS. 2013. Developing ethical leaders: is there inconsistency between theory and practice? Journal of Human Values 19(1):29–38.

Yen, DC & Chou, DC. 2001. Intranets for organisational innovation. Information Management & Computer Security 9(2):80–87.

ASSIGNMENT 01: ORGANISATIONA AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS

The current organisational environment is characterised by “emerging markets that are fraught with uncertainty, diverse global players, rapid technological change, widespread price wars, and seemingly endless reorganization” (Sharma & Sahoo 2014:174).

Based on the above contextualisation, study the resource dependency and contingency theories to elaborate on the openness and closeness of micro, meso and macro environments in an organisation of your choice. Your answer should be specifically applied to a situation in your selected organisation which necessitated the organisation to adapt to change(s) that occurred in the organisational environment.

Recommended study material

Burton, RM, Eriksen, BH, Håkonsson, DD, Knudsen, T & Snow, CC. 2008. Designing organizations: 21st century approaches. New York: Springer.

Cummings, TG & Worley, CG. 2015. Organization development and change. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. California: Sage Publications.

Hillman, AJ, Withers, MC & Collins, BJ. 2009. Resource dependency theory: a review. Journal of Management 35(6):1404–1427.

Ivanceivich, JM. 2014. Organizational behavior and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lawrence, TB, Dyck B, Maitlis, S & Mauws, MK. 2006. The underlying structure of continuous change. MIT Sloan Management Review 47(4):59–66.

Liao, S, Chang, W & Wu, C. 2009. An integrated model for a learning organization with strategic view: benchmarking in the knowledge-intensive industry. Expert Systems with Applications 37(5):3792–3798.

Martins, EC. & Terblanche, F. 2003 Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 6(1):64–74.

Miller, K. 2002. Communication theories: perspectives, processes and contexts. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Mumby, DK. 2013. Organizations as communication systems, in Organizational communication: a critical approach, edited by DK Mumby. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications:15–132.

Pieters, GR & Young, DW. 2000. The ever-changing organization: creating the capacity for continuous change, learning and improvement. London: St Lucie.

Riaz, S. 2009. The global financial crisis: an institutional theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on International Business 5(1/2):26–35.

Schwandt, DR & Marquardt, MJ. 2000. Organizational learning: from world-classNametheories to global best practices. London: St Lucie.

Smit, PJ, Cronjé, GJ de J, Brevis, T & Vrba, MJ. 2007. Management principles: a contemporary edition for Africa. 4th edition. Cape Town: Juta.

Van Tonder, CL. 2004. Organizational change: theory and practice. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Van Woerkum, CMJ & Aarts, MNC. 2008. The orientation of organizations to their environments: functions of the unconscious mind. Journal of Public Relations Research 20:180– 206.

Woodman, RW. 2014. The science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 50(4): 463–477.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 01

The organisational environment refers to “all conditions and forces that affect the organization’s strategic options but are beyond the organization’s control” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2002:206).

An understanding of the composition of the organisational environment is critical for dealing with environmental threats and exploiting opportunities optimally. The organisational environment can be divided into the micro or internal environment, the market, task or meso environment and the macro environment (Smit, Cronjé, Brevis & Vrba 2007:63).

Organisations are not independent; they exchange resources with and are dependent upon the environment in which they operate (Smit et al 2007:58). To facilitate this interaction between the organisation and an ever-changing environment and thus to ensure organisational survival, an open organisational system is required. Neher (1997:116) distinguishes between open and

closed systems by referring to them as organic and mechanistic systems. According to Neher (1997), an organic system is open and therefore better suited to changing conditions. In contrast, mechanistic or closed systems are best for stable and simplistic environments where more programmed decision-making takes place.

Echoing this, Van der Walt (2003:58) states that the company mirrors itself, so to speak, because it not only reflects the actual environment, but also the one in which it thinks it is operating. Similarly, Smit et al (2007:75) argue that the environment of one organisation differs from another, depending on the nature of the business conducted by the organisation. Arnold and Feldman (1986:285–287) differentiate between hostile and favourable environments, arguing that a hostile environment is better suited to an open, organic organisational system, whereas a more stable, favourable environment corresponds with a closed or mechanistic system. Similarly, Smit et al (2007:75–76) distinguish between stable or simple environments and complex and dynamic environments.

The resource dependency theory highlights the organisation’s interdependence on other organisations for resources and the role of management to lower this uncertainty and dependence (Hillman, Withers & Collins 2009:1405). Resource dependency theory therefore focuses on the influence of external factors on the behaviour of the organisation (Hillman et al 2009:1404). Contingency theory holds that “any organisation tends to adopt the structure that fits its level of contingency, which implies that a change in contingency leads to a change in structure, so that contingency determines structure” (Donaldson 2001:8).

Learning outcomes

After completing this assignment, you should be able to

define and discuss organisational environments with reference to the micro, meso and macro environments
discuss the organisational structure (open or closed) which will result in the most favourable consequences for an organisation to ensure survival in an ever changing environment (for this part of the discussion, you can also make reference to organic and bureaucratic mechanistic organisations)
define and discuss the resource dependency theory and contingency theory and apply them to a change scenario in an organisation of your choice

ASSIGNMENT 02: PERSPECTIVES OF COMMUNICATION IN THE ORGANISATION

Organisational communication, as reflective of its partial roots in the social sciences, acknowledges that the way in which individuals experience and understand reality is based on a specific individual orientation or perspective. This perspective, which influences the way in which individuals construct meaning and knowledge, can be divided into two main aspects: ontology and epistemology.

In an organisational setting, three predominant ontological and epistemological perspectives guide and gauge all organisational endeavours – including communication and its management. These three perspectives are the functionalist, interpretivist and critical perspectives. These perspectives focus on inherently different, and sometimes differing, aspects of organisational communication; in the study and the execution of communication in reality, that is, the organisational setting, some are regarded as more important than others.

Differentiate between the functionalist, interpretivist and critical perspectives of organisational communication, highlighting the manner in which each of these perspectives manifests with regard to ontology and epistemology. Conclude your assignment with a discussion, using practical examples from an organisation of your choice, on the ontological and epistemological focus that each of these perspectives would employ.

Recommended study material:

Atonis, N. 2005. Communication audit as an integrated communication measurement instrument: a case study. MA thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Flick, U, Von Kardorff, E & Steinke, I. 2004. A companion to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Gioia, DA & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review 15(4):584–602.

Guba, E. 1990. The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Mumby, DK. 2013. Organizational communication: a critical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schultz, M. 1995. On studying organizational cultures: diagnosis and understanding. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Van der Walt, EA. 2006. A descriptive and exploratory study towards a spiritual intelligent transactional model of organisational communication. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Van Dyk, LI, Greeff, WJ & Barker, R. 2015. Key concepts in organisational communication. Cape Town: Juta.

Yanow, D & Ybema, S. 2009. Interpretivism in organizational research: on elephants and blind researchers, in The Sage handbook of organizational research methods, edited by DA Buchanan & A Bryman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications:39–60.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 02

A perspective reflects the basic assumptions a person has towards an object, event or situation. It is argued by researchers such as Viola (1977), Arnold and Feldman (1986), Lewis (1987), Neher (1997), and Van der Walt (2006) that many modern organisations still function in accordance with either classical (or mechanistic), or humanistic (interactional) principles. In line with this, Angelopulo and Schoonraad (2006:5–6) divide the perspectives that are most applicable to the context of organisations into two streams, namely, the mechanistic perspective and the interactional perspective. Similar to Angelopulo and Schoonraad’s distinction between the mechanistic and interactional perspectives (2006), Neher (1997) and Van der Walt (2006) refer to the functionalist perspective, identified by Angelopulo and Schoonraad (2006) as the mechanistic perspective and to the interpretivist perspective, identified by Angelopulo and Schoonraad (2006) as the interactional perspective to gain an understanding of organisational communication. Although these authors may use different terminology to refer to these perspectives, their arguments regarding each perspective are indeed similar in all respects. A third perspective, namely, the critical perspective mentioned by Neher (1997) and Van der Walt (2002) and discussed in detail by Mumby (2013), also needs to be prioritised in this assignment.

According to Van Dyk, Greeff and Barker (2015), “simplistically, ontology is seen as the nature of the reality that the individual is confronted with, and what can be known about it, [where] epistemology focuses on how we come to know the things that we believe can be known from this reality”. Clearly evident in this assertion is that an individual’s and/or organisation’s ontological and epistemological stance is diametrically associated with the perspective that is predominantly employed.

Underlying the ontological and epistemological intention of all three approaches is the pursuit of understanding and interpreting the role and place of communication in the organisation (the contextual “reality”). In this way, each perspective would take the aspects of communication that it deems important or suitable, and explicate the role of communication through these communication aspects, as manifested in the organisation. Functionalists, for example, would focus on isolating the different elements of communication in a reductionistic manner, while interpretivists would focus on the organisational context, and those aligned to the critical approach would focus on the structure of the organisation.

In this way, Neher (1997:25) argues that the perspective one has often determines which aspects of the communication process in the organisation are emphasised or de-emphasised. Since it can be derived from Neher (1997), Van der Walt (2002), and Angelopulo and Schoonraad (2006) that the functionalist, interpretivist and critical perspectives maintain different assumptions regarding organisational communication, these perspectives need to be explored to determine their different emphases on aspects of communication.

In this assignment, a clear distinction and explication of these different areas of focus should be made, by marrying each to an applicable ontological and epistemological approach and perspective on communication in the organisation.

Learning outcomes After completing this assignment, you should be able to

differentiate between the functionalist, interpretivist and critical perspectives of communication in organisations
differentiate between ontology and epistemology
explain, discuss and align the different perspectives on organisational communication to ontology and epistemology in germane discussions
provide examples, from an organisation of your choice, of the communication aspects or elements that would enjoy prominence through each perspective as it relates to each ontological and epistemological stance

ASSIGNMENT 03: TRADITIONS IN THE STUDY OF COMMUNICATION IN ORGANISATIONS

At the turn of the 20th century, and as galvanised by the Industrial Revolution (and the capitalist mindset it heralded), various traditions in the study of communication in organisational settings emerged. At the outset, these traditions focused more on optimal management and “de- humanising” the study of communication, although this soon proved to be impossible if not injudicious.

Notwithstanding this fact, remnants of these traditions can be found in the study of communication in organisations today. Three traditions specifically dominate in literature; namely, the positional, relational and cultural traditions. Inherent in these traditions are a modernist (the understanding of organisational communication as an empirical object) or postmodernist (recognising the possibility of socially constructed and multiple realities) orientation.

Against this background, discuss, in detail, the positional, relational and cultural traditions by comparing and contrasting the communication activities, roles and relations in an organisation using practical examples. Your discussion should also place each of these traditions within either a modernist or postmodernist perspective.

Recommended study material

Alvesson, M & Deetz, SA. 2006. Critical theory and postmodernism approaches, in The Sage handbook of organization studies, edited by SR Clegg, C Hardy, TB Lawrence & WR Nord. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Angelopulo, GC & Schoonraad N. 2006. Communication and the organisation, in Integrated organisational communication, edited by R Barker & G Angelopulo. Cape Town: Juta:3–38.

Barker R. 2006. Dynamics of organisational communication, in Integrated organisational communication, edited by R Barker & G Angelopulo. Cape Town: Juta:73–106.

Chasi, C & De Wet. G. 2008. Towards an ethics perspective on the rational structure tradition of organisational communication. Communicare 27(1/2):41–60.

Christensen, LT & Cornelissen, J. 2011. Bridging corporate and organizational communication: review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly 25(3):383–414.

Littlejohn, SW. 2008. Theories of human communication. 9th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Mumby, DK. 2013. Organizational communication: a critical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schultz, H. 2003. Communication in the information age, in Organisational behaviour: a contemporary South African perspective, edited by H Schultz. Pretoria: Van Schaik:118–138.

Srivastava, S. 2000. Concepts of culture and organisational analysis: a perspective. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 4:32–42.

Van der Walt, EA. 2006. A descriptive and exploratory study towards a spiritual intelligent transactional model of organisational communication. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 03

Littlejohn (1996:303) argues that organisational communication should be described from a network of theoretical perspectives that integrate the three traditions of organisational studies, and which in turn relate to the process of communication in the organisation. These three traditions are identified as the positional tradition, the relationship tradition and the cultural tradition.

Littlejohn (1996:307) states that the positional tradition consists of formal communication networks in the organisation. Van der Walt (2006) states that the term “communication network” is used to denote the existence of specific patterns of communication channels through which messages are transmitted between organisational members. Van der Walt (2006) continues by indicating that a number of networks exist in every organisation, and that the shape of the network usually affects the process of communication, the behaviour of individuals in the network, as well as individuals’ job satisfaction. Formal networks are characterised by a vertically oriented or centralised chain of command where messages, from one point of the

network to another, are transmitted through one individual at a time, whereas an informal network develops through friendships or contacts outside the organisation and through proximity within the organisation, such as sharing facilities like the tea room (Neher 1997:171).

Littlejohn (1996) argues that the positional tradition reflects the organisation as a system of purposeful interpersonal activity, designed to coordinate tasks through the use of formal networks. These formal networks are used to achieve managerial objectives which are typically related to power, which is described by Littlejohn (1996) as the ability to influence others and overcome resistance. Littlejohn (1996) continues by arguing that whether communication will be accepted in the organisation hinges on the degree of authority and power that stems from the organisation’s rules and regulations. These rules and regulations often determine the communication in the organisation, which in turn characterises the nature of communication networks in the organisation.

Littlejohn (1996:314–315) argues that the second tradition, the relationship tradition, deals with the ways relationships develop naturally among participants in the organisation, as well as the manner in which networks emerge from these relationships. According to Littlejohn (1996), the relationship tradition views the organisation as a living, changing system that is constantly shaped and explained by the interactions among members.

This tradition is concerned with the processes of organisation, rather than the structure of the organisation, which are accomplished through interactions between individuals. Littlejohn (1996:314–315) also states that the relational tradition is less concerned with the formal lines of communication in the organisation, and more concerned with how employees accomplish objectives together. Littlejohn (1996) and Neher (1997) further argue respectively that communication in this tradition is perceived as a basis for human organisation and that it provides a rationale for understanding how people organise. Littlejohn (1996:315, 317) maintains that it is more proper to refer to the process of organising rather than structural organisation, since the structural nature of an organisation is essentially accomplished through a continuing process of communication, actions and reactions. Therefore, it is argued that the relationship tradition is more related to an informal network, which is developed through decentralised and informal relationships.

Thirdly, Littlejohn (1996:303) identifies a tradition of organisational studies that affects communication in the organisation, which he terms “cultural”, and which focuses on symbols and meaning. This tradition states that the organisation is created by the members in stories, rituals and task work. The real structure of the organisation is therefore not predesigned, but emerges from the informal actions of the organisational members in their daily work. Littlejohn (1996:320) states that this tradition emphasises the ways people construct an organisational reality. It perceives the meanings and values of members, and it examines the ways in which individuals use stories, rituals, symbols and other types of activity to produce and reproduce a set of understandings.

Each one of these traditions aligns itself to either modernistic, or postmodernistic principles. Modernists promote the idea of a single, observable reality, which is opposed by postmodernists – such as the philosophers Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida – who state that there is no one single truth or observable reality that all organisations will share. The underlying modernist or postmodernist principles to each approach will inherently influence the way that communication activities, roles and relations are seen in the organisational setting.

Learning outcomes After completing this assignment, you should be able to

explain the three traditions of communication in organisations
frame the three traditions of communication in organisations as either modernist or postmodernist in nature
relate your discussion to an organisation of your choice in order to display your understanding of this assignment

ASSIGNMENT 04: INTRAORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Mumby (2013:137) explains that organisational culture provides insights into the communication processes in the organisation and therefore underwrites the systems of beliefs, values and norms that manifest in an organisation. Therefore, views on the value and contribution of organisational culture and intraorganisational communication will differ in each organisation, depending on the managerial approach followed. Organisations are considered to be, among

other things, bureaucratic, learning or “new” postmodern organisations. Such organisations are structured, according to Mumby (2013:181), around concepts such as constant change, instability, flexibility and empowerment.

Critically discuss and explain the nature of bureaucratic, learning and postmodern organisations by emphasising the value and contribution of organisational culture and the different intraorganisational views of communication. In addition, identify an organisation that you are familiar with and provide a theoretically founded argument as to whether this organisation is a bureaucratic, learning or postmodern organisation. Also explain the nature of the organisational culture and intraorganisational views of communication that are evident in this particular organisation. Base your discussion of bureaucratic organisations on Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and your evaluation of organisational culture on a specific model or theory of organisational culture.

Recommended study material

Barker, R. 2003. Connecting to culture, in Strategic organisational communication: paradigms and paradoxes, edited by S Verwey & F du Plooy-Cilliers. Johannesburg: Heinemann:129–153.

Carrim, NMH & Basson, JS. 2013. Creating a learning climate: a South African study. The Learning Organization 20(1):6–19.

Casey, C. 2002. Critical analysis of organizations: theory, practice, revitalization. London: Sage Publications.

Farrell, MA. 2000. Developing a market-oriented learning organisation. Australian Journal of Management 25(2):201–222.

Griffin, E. 2003. Communication: a first look at communication theory. 5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jamali, DJ, Khoury, G & Sahyoun, H. 2006. From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations. The Learning Organization 13(1):337–352.

Littlejohn, SW. 2008. Theories of human communication. 9th edition. Boston: Wadsworth.

Lumby, J. 2012. Leading organizational culture: issues of power and equity. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 40(5):576–591.

Martins, EC. & Terblanche, F. 2003 Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 6(1):64-74.

May, S & Mumby, DK. (eds.) 2005. Engaging organizational communication theory & research: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, K. 2012. Organizational communication: approaches and processes. 6th edition. New York: Wadsworth.

Mumby, DK. 2013. Organizational communication: a critical approach. California: Sage Publications.

Senge, PM. 2006. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Steinberg, S. 1999. Communication studies: an introduction. Cape Town: Juta.

Stewart, D. 2001. Reinterpreting the learning organisation. The Learning Organization 8(4):141– 152.

Van der Walt, EA. 2006. A descriptive and exploratory study towards a spiritual intelligent transactional model of organisational communication. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 04

Although the learning organisation has been proposed as a solution to the rigid forms and methods of bureaucratic organisations, in that it allows organisations to “learn, adapt and change” (Jamali et al 2006:337), bureaucratic principles are still evident in modern organisations. Max Weber predicted that because of their “technical superiority”, bureaucratic organisations would survive the movement towards modern learning organisations (Miller 2012:24). Weber believed that organisations should be “closed systems” and organised around “clearly defined hierarchies, divisions of labour, centralisation, rules and authority” (Miller 2012:24). Mumby (2013:11) augments this view by highlighting that bureaucratic principles are still evident in most modern organisations. In the presence of strict bureaucratic principles, an organisation may prove to be more coordinated and effective in terms of controlling organisational activity.

In contrast to these views, modern organisations face various changes that require their business and communication orientations to be re-evaluated. “Rapidly changing technology, globalization, uncertainty, unpredictability, volatility, surprise, turbulence, and discontinuity” are believed to be the major challenges affecting the environment in which organisations function (Jamali et al 2006:337).

Therefore, Mumby (2013:181) suggests that postmodern organisations “reject the principle of the modernist, bureaucratic organization” and that constant change, instability, flexibility and empowerment are central to these organisations. These “new” organisations further focus on information technology and are flexible in that they should be able to respond instantly to changes in the environment.

Barker (2003:130) believes that organisational culture is an important concept in understanding the functioning of an organisation in the 21st century, as organisations aim to improve their wellbeing by emphasising their culture. Moreover, organisational culture is regarded as an important contributor to corporate learning, which may affect creativity and the sharing of knowledge (Carrim & Basson 2013:8). Organisational culture can further be described as a group phenomenon, a pattern of basic assumptions and an emergent and developmental process (Miller 2012:88). These concepts are based on Schein’s (1992) model of organisational culture which emphasises different elements on different levels. On the first level, the most visible elements are artefacts, and the second level is composed of individual and composed

values. Basic individual assumptions are found on the third level of organisational culture (Miller 2012:88–92).

Griffin (2003) and Miller (2002) argue that a person’s view of communication will determine which elements of the communication process they perceive to be more important. As such, the different views of intraorganisational communication will then determine how communication takes place in the organisation.

According to Littlejohn (1996), Neher (1997), Van der Walt (2006) and Griffin (2003), the transmissional view of communication theory relates to a classical communication model that considers only the basic elements of the communication process, such as the sender of a message, the message itself, the channel through which the message passes, and the receiver of the message. Miller (2005:6) similarly states that a communication model from a transmissional point of view indicates only the basic elements of communication within the organisational context, thus implying one-way communication, without recognising the possible relationships between these elements.

Littlejohn (1996:106) and Neher (1997:46–47) indicate that, in contrast to the transmissional view, the psychological view emphasises the cognitive structures involved in communication. According to these authors, the important events in communication do not occur merely in the visible elements of the communication process, but also in the minds of participating individuals.

Littlejohn (1996:159) states that, according to the interactional view, communication and meaning are interrelatedly social, which implies that meaning is created and sustained by the interaction between the sender and the receiver in the social group.

Steinberg (1999:5–6) argues that communication is not only an interactive process of exchanging meaningful messages, but also a transaction between participants during which a relationship develops between them. In terms of this view, communication is defined as a transactional process of exchanging messages and negotiating meaning to establish and maintain relationships.

Learning outcomes After completing this assignment, you should be able to

differentiate between a bureaucratic learning organisation and a postmodern organisation, focusing specifically on communication
explain Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy
explain organisational culture and evaluate the value and contribution of organisational culture to a bureaucratic learning organisation and a postmodern organisation
explain a model or theory of organisational culture
differentiate between the transmissional, psychological, interactional and transactional views of intraorganisational communication
explain whether the organisation you have chosen is a bureaucratic learning or a postmodern organisation and explain the value and contribution of organisational culture, as well as the pertinent intraorganisational view of communication evident in this organisation

ASSIGNMENT 05: MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION

Managerial approaches in organisational communication have evolved from the classical management approaches into the critical and knowledge-centric approaches that emphasise managerial and communication processes. Because Mumby (2013:257) identifies leadership as a “communication phenomenon” that focuses on the communication processes involved, it can be argued that leadership communication has evolved with the managerial approaches.

Provide a critical communication perspective on the organisational leadership role by indicating the manner in which leadership communication has evolved concurrently with managerial approaches to organisational communication.

Recommended study material

Bass, BM. 2000. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 7(3):18–40.

Brookfield, SD. 2014. Foundations of critical theory. Advances in Developing Human Resources

16(4):417–428.

Caldwell, R. 2012. Leadership and learning: a critical re-examination of Senge’s learning organisation. Systemic Practice and Action Research 25(1): 39-55.

Casey, C. 2002. Critical analysis of organizations: theory, practice, revitalization. London: Sage Publications.

Goleman, D, Boyatzis, R & Mckee, A. 2002. The new leaders: transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Little Brown.

Kotter, JP. 1998. What leaders really do, in Harvard Business Review on Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press:37–60.

Kuczmarski, SS & Kuczmarski, TD. 1995. Value-based leadership. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

May, S & Mumby, DK. (eds.) 2005. Engaging organizational communication theory & research: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, K. 2012. Organizational communication: approaches and processes. 6th edition. New York: Wadsworth.

Mumby, DK. 2013. Organizational communication: a critical approach. California: Sage Publications.

Neher, WW. 1997. Organizational communication: challenges of change, diversity and continuity. London: Allyn & Bacon.

Politis, JD. 2001. The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22(8):354–364.

Puth, G. 2002. The communicating leader. 2nd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Singh, SK. 2008. Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study. Journal of Knowledge Management 12(4):3–15.

Seo, M-G., Taylor, MS., Hill, NS. Zhang, X., Tesluk, PE. & Lorinkova, NM. 2012. The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology 65:121–165.

Ströh, U & Jaatinen, M. 2001. New approaches to communication management for transformation and change in organisations. Journal of Communication Management 6(2):148– 165.

Van der Walt, EA. 2006 A descriptive and exploratory study towards a spiritual intelligent transactional model of organisational communication. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Wright, CS. 2013. Developing ethical leaders: is there inconsistency between theory and practice? Journal of Human Values 19(1):29–38.

Zaleznik, A. 1992. Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business Review,

March/April:126–235.

Zaleznik, A. 1998. Managers and leaders: Are they different? in Harvard Business Review on Leadership. Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press: 61–88.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 05

The classical approaches to organisational communication include, among others, Henri Fayol’s theory of classical management and Frederick Taylor’s theory of scientific management (Miller 2012:17–28). With reference to the nature of communication, it should be emphasised that the communication process takes on a specific character in terms of content, direction, channel and style (Miller 2012:28–31).

The human relations and human resources approaches to organisational communication include, among others, the Hawthorne studies, McGregor’s theory X and theory Y, and the human resources approach (Miller 2012:37–50). With reference to the nature of communication in the human relations and human resources theories/approaches, communication emphasises the importance of the quality of human relationships within the organisation (Miller 2012:50).

The critical approaches to organisational communication emphasise the importance of power, which – according to these approaches – is an important feature of organisational structure (Miller 2012:99). Hence, this central concept of power is related to the principles of the classical theories of organisational communication. Miller (2012:99) emphasises three main approaches to the concept of power, including the traditional approach, the symbological approach and the radical-critical approach. Another emphasis of the critical approach is the sources of power, which could, according to Miller (2012:101), include control of the modes and means of production and control of organisational discourse.

With reference to the nature of communication in the knowledge-centric managerial paradigm, some important aspects include that leadership is based on humanistic and knowledge-enabling approaches which imply that the organisation is an open system that involves itself in proactive changes. The structure of this organisation supports flexibility, since it encourages growth, development and innovation.

When organisations move from a classical approach to a more recent approach to organisational communication, such as the knowledge-centric approach, the role of communication in the leadership process that takes place in organisational transformation should be emphasised. The role of communication in this case is underpinned by various theories of leadership, such as trait theories, style theories, contingency theories and the transformational leadership model (Miller 2012:182–184). It is also important to evaluate the role of communication in the leadership process in terms of different aspects, such as content and the manner in which communication is practised (Miller 2012:185).

Goleman et al (2002) emphasise that employees at the workplace today look to a leader for empathy, which is defined as supportive and emotional connections or resonance. They maintain that resonant leaders drive emotions positively and bring out the best in employees, whereas managers who drive emotions negatively spawn dissonance and undermine the emotional foundations that motivate employees.

Learning outcomes After completing this assignment, you should be able to

discuss the classical approaches to organisational communication by focusing on Henri Fayol’s theory of classical management and Frederick Taylor’s theory of scientific management
discuss the human resources and human relations approaches to organisational communication by focusing on the Hawthorne studies, McGregor’s theory X and theory Y, and the human resources approach
discuss the critical approaches to organisational communication by emphasising the focus on power
discuss the knowledge-centric approaches to organisational communication
explain and critically discuss the role of communication in the leadership process
explain how leadership communication has evolved together with the managerial approaches to organisational communication

ASSIGNMENT 06: IT/COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Interactive communication technologies have brought about a “collaborative turn” that allows two-way conversations, opportunities to listen to stakeholders, and innovative and engaging opportunities to obtain valuable information from stakeholders (Verwey 2015:324).

With the above statement in mind, critically discuss the impact of social media, as an example of interactive digital media, on external organisational communication. In your discussion, make reference to the following:

Discuss the way social media could assist the organisation to build external stakeholder relationships, making reference to the social exchange theory.
Indicate whether interactive digital media such as social media have replaced and/or improved traditional forms of external
To substantiate your arguments apply your discussion to an organisation of your

Recommended study material

Breakenridge, DK. 2012. Social media and public relations: eight new practices for the PR professional. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Brier, S. 2000. Trans-scientific frameworks of knowing: complementary views of the different types of human knowledge. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 17:433–458.

Briones, RL, Kuch, B, Fisher Liu, B & Jin, Y. 2010. Keeping up with the digital age: how American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review 37:37– 43.

Cropanzano, R & Mitchell, MS. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management December:874-900.

Devlin, K. 2001. Infosense: turning information into knowledge. New York: Freeman.

Durkin, M, McGowan, P & Murray, L. 2014. Perspectives on the potential for social media to improve communication in small business–bank relationships. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 15(4):251-264.

Feather, J. 2000. The information society: a study of continuity and change. London: Library Association.

Hume, P. 2001. Online PR: emerging organisational practice. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6(2):71–75.

Kent, ML & Taylor, M. 1998. Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review 24(3):321–334.

Kelleher, T. 2009. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication 59:172–188.

Kietzmann, JH, Hermkens, K & McCarthy, IP. 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons 54:241–251.

Murthy, D, Hastings, CM & Mawrie, SA. 2016. The use of social media to foster trust, mentorship and collaboration in scientific organizations. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 34(5/6): 170-182

Rifkin, J. 2000. The age of access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life. London: Penguin.

Shin, W, Pang, A & Kim, HJ. 2015. Building relationships through integrated online media: global organizations’ use of brand web sites, Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 29(2):184–220.

Sriramesh, K, Rivera-Sanchez, M & Soriano, C. 2011. Websites for stakeholder relations by corporations and non-profits. Journal of Communication Management 17(2):122–139.

Verwey, S. 2015. Self-expression and collaborative ‘pro-sumption’ in the digital brandscape.

Communicatio 41(3):320–339.

Waters, RD, Burnett, E, Lamm, A & Lucas, J. 2009. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How non-profit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 35(2):102-106.

Yen, DC & Chou, DC. 2001. Intranets for organisational innovation. Information Management & Computer Security 9(2):80–87.

INTRODUCTION TO ASSIGNMENT 06

Learning outcomes After completing this assignment, you should be able to

provide a discussion on interactive digital media, with specific reference to social media, in comparison with traditional organisational communication
define and discuss the principles of social exchange theory in explaining how social media could assist organisations in building external stakeholder relationships
further substantiate your argument as to whether interactive digital media (with specific reference to social media) has replaced traditional organisational communication, apply your discussion to an organisation of your choice where you indicate how communication professionals could effectively utilise social media to build stakeholder relationships.

According to Du Plessis (2004), there is no doubt that the world has shifted, first from an agricultural to an industrial society, and now to an information society; this is often referred to as the post-industrial equation. An information society is also referred to as a knowledge society.

The argument is that it is not information, but knowledge, that is changing and shaping the world. Innovations in communication and computer technology, such as social media, have accelerated the time it takes for a message to reach the receiver, making communication immediate in real time. Most importantly, the core competencies of the communication professional have expanded in this age of new media and public conversations (Breakenridge 2012).

The pace of technological change in modern organisations poses various communication challenges for the organisation. New technologies have affected all aspects of organisational communication, including management communication, marketing communication, corporate communication, interdepartmental and intraorganisational communication (Du Plessis 2004). Not only has technology differentiated these forms of organisational communication in terms of boundless opportunities for reaching the organisation’s internal and external publics much faster, but also in terms of the means by which communication is practised today, for instance through public relations, advertising and marketing communication. In particular, the introduction of new technologies such as the internet and its applications pose new communication challenges for the communication practitioner. In addition, electronic media such as interactive videoconferencing, multimedia, satellites and teleconferencing, computers, local area networks, electronic mail and online information services have also affected both internal and external organisational communication (Du Plessis 2004). The new media landscape specifically challenges the communication professional to continuously “discover new research methods, develop specific policies to guide employee and public participation, experiment with content through a variety of social media channels, and learn to connect and build relationships with stakeholders through new technologies” (Breakenridge 2012:1).

Despite some beliefs that the internet has stagnated and will eventually disappear, there are those who believe that this medium will continue to grow as more advanced application technologies and infrastructure become available and as more consumers become educated to use this medium to enhance the quality of life. The impact of IT/computer-mediated communication on contemporary society and on the mass communication disciplines has mainly become a function of the speed with which the technologies involved are assimilated into society. Interactive channels of communication have already made considerable progress in this regard (Du Plessis 2004). Driven by new technologies, new media and new audiences, the primary focus of organisational communication has gradually been shifting from perception to reality. Rather than merely persuading people about the value of a product or service, communication practitioners are increasingly reshaping communication messages to elicit support.

The social exchange theory, often associated with conceptual paradigms in organisational behaviour, involves a series of interdependent interactions that are contingent on the actions of another person (Cropanzano & Mitchell 2005:874). The concept of ‘social exchange’ refers to a “trust-based reciprocal exchange of material and nonmaterial resources between two parties” (Bordia, Restubog, Bordia & Tang 2014:16).

ASSIGNMENT 07: EXAMINATION PORTFOLIO

Select an organisation of your choice and answer the following questions:

7.1 Provide a brief overview on the nature of your selected organisation, and elaborate on the industry and the key focus areas of your selected organisation. [10]

7.2 Provide a theoretical discussion on the evolution of managerial approaches to organisational communication, with specific reference to leadership communication. On the basis of this discussion, indicate which managerial approach to organisational communication is evident in your organisation. Clearly substantiate your arguments with examples from your selected organisation. [20]

7.3 Explain, on the basis of the chaos theory, how your selected organisation adapts to challenges in the external environment. As a starting point, refer to the various micro, meso and macro environments of your selected organisation and the ideal organisational structure to facilitate change and survival. [20]

7.4 Provide a discussion on the difference between modernist and postmodernist perspectives in an organisational context and indicate which traditions in terms of communication activities, roles and relations in an organisation could be associated with which perspective. Make use of examples from your selected organisation to substantiate your discussion. [20]

7.5 Provide a critical discussion about whether interactive digital media, such as social media, have replaced and/or improved traditional forms of external communication. Discuss how social media are/may be applied in your organisation to build external stakeholder relationships by referring to the principles of the dialogic communication theory. [20]

Not the Exact Question you were looking for? Post your question for instant answers.