To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Organizational communication can take on a variety of forms. The most common categories of communication are formal, informal, horizontal and vertical. Each of these types of communication has its own specific qualities, but at the same time, certain factors can overlap from one category to another. In this paper, I discuss each of the four types of communication separately, but I also compare and contrast them with one another to see where they converge and diverge. Formal and Informal Communication Formal communication in an organization consists of both written and oral communications that are directly related to the workplace.
This includes office memos, instructions, brochures, speeches, office meetings and basically any type of sender and/or receiver interaction that is work-related.
Informal communication on the other hand, consists primarily of non-work related communications ranging from water cooler gossip to forwarding emails of cute Panda bears, to ordering lunch. According to Hellweg (1987) "the informal system provides a mechanism for employees to socialize with one another and to express themselves about organizational happenings 'off the record'" (p.
214). Therefore, informal communication can be related to work, but only in the form of “off the record” comments and observations. Formal communication has been described and defined in various ways by people in different schools of thought. For example, according to Ruch (1984) the scientific management school of thought views the purpose of formal communication as “To relay orders and information about work tasks, and to achieve obedience and coordination in carrying out such work” (p. 110).
The human resources school of thought, sees formal communication quite differently, describing its purpose as being “To satisfy workers' needs, to provide for lateral interaction among peers in work groups, and to facilitate the participation of members in organizational decision making” (p. 110).
Finally, the systems school of thought considers the purpose of formal communication in the workplace to be to "control and coordinate, and to provide information to decision makers; and to adjust the organization to changes in its environment" (p.
110). The system view of communication of policy demands, human rights movements, and the economic demands of inexpensive products have resulted in a communication backlog and inconsistencies within the factory system of China. The communication breakdown coupled with inconsistent messages and policy development have resulted in factory closures, technological stagnation, and inexpensive yet unsafe products (Mooney 2008). The values of economic and political policies were not heard through the communication chain (Mooney 2008).
It is clear to see from these various interpretations of the purpose of formal organizational communication that there are not only comparisons to be made between formal and informal communication, but also within the category of formal communication itself. The human resources view differs the most from the other two schools of thought in that it is much more concerned with the outcomes of the communication on workers than the logistics of it.
The scientific management and systems view of the purpose of formal communication are much more similar to one another than they are to the human resources view, because they both focus on the flow of the communication between leaders and subordinates. However, these two schools of thought also differ slightly from each other in the sense that the scientific management perspective seems more concerned with the information that flows from management to the worker, while the systems view focuses on how messages are communicated to the decision makers (LeMay 2008).
Informal communication is an inevitable supplement to formal communication, because in any situation where people interact with one another, personal factors are going to come into play. Most workplaces try to minimize the amount of informal communication that takes place because it can distract people from doing their jobs, and lead to lower production. However, it is not possible to keep all informal communication out of the workplace, nor is it desirable, according to Charles (2007).
Charles asserts that “informal communication is essential for networking and creating bridging and bonding relationships between employees, which, in turn, contribute to knowledge sharing and the accumulation of social capital within the company” (p. 270). Ultimately both formal and informal communication is necessary for a thriving organizational culture. However, it is not only the types of information being communicated that is important to the organization, but the flow of that information as well. This is where horizontal and vertical communication come into play.
Horizontal and Vertical Communication Horizontal communication occurs on a level playing field. In other words, the flow of communication is flat; it does not come from a higher or lower position on the company’s structural hierarchy. In contrast, vertical communication is part of a top-down organizational structure in which leaders are communicating downward to subordinates, and subordinates are communicating upwards to leaders. As such, horizontal communication is usually informal, while vertical communication is usually formal.
Downward (vertical) communication, according to Harris (2002), tends to have one of the following five functions: “(a) giving job instructions; (b) providing job rationale; (c) explaining procedures, policies, and practices; (d) furnishing performance feedback; and (e) transmitting information regarding the organization's mission and goals” (p. 232). Of these five functions, the one that is most likely to extend from one-way communication to two-way communication is performance feedback.
The other four functions are most often merely a matter of a leader communicating something to a subordinate without any expectation of a response, other than to do what he has been instructed to do. Performance feedback, however, often takes place in a formal setting that is specifically designed to allow for two-communication between the manager and the employee. This does not however, turn this function into a form of horizontal communication because the leader is still the one in power, and the employee is usually just defending his actions or asking questions.
Yes, there is two-way communication, but the parties are still not communicating on a level playing field. Downward communication used to be the primary organizational structure model. However in the past few decades, organizational leaders have come to recognize that flatter, less hierarchal communication is more effective. As Harris points out, “the downward communication process is not always successful. One study of 30,000 employees found that only 40% of the respondents felt their organizations did a good or very good job of communicating downward” (p.
234). Having over half of one’s employees unsatisfied with the communication structure is clearly a detriment to any organization. This is not to say that hierarchal structures need to be entirely eliminated; there is definitely a need for someone to be in charge. However, most companies today are looking toward a more horizontal organizational culture in which employees at all levels are encouraged to voice their opinions and get actively involved in the decision-making process. Conclusion
All types of communication have their place in an organization, each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Formal communication is needed to direct employees in the right direction, and informal communication is needed to promote a pleasant working environment that keeps employees motivated to work and to succeed. Horizontal and vertical communication are also necessary components of the workplace, however top-down, vertical communication is gradually being replaced with participatory, horizontal communication.
It is likely that this trend will continue on into the future, considering that organizations are recognizing more every day that a company’s most valuable assets are its employees. WORKS CITED Charles, M. (2007) Language matters in global communication, Journal of Business Communication 44 (3), 260–282. Harris, T. E. (2002) Applied organizational communication: Principles and pragmatics for future practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hellweg, S. A. (1987). Organizational grapevines. In B.
Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds. ), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 213-230). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lemay, M. C. (2006). Public Administration: Clashing Values in the Administration of Public Policy (2 Ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mooney, Paul. (2008). An Industrial Downsizing. U. S. News & World Report 145, no. 3: 36-37. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 11, 2010). Ruch, W. V. (1984) Corporate communications: A comparison of Japanese and American practices, Westport,: Quorum Books.
What Is Vertical Communication?. (2020, Jun 02). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/organizational-communication-new-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
