PROPOSWONS 0N \NFORMA’HON
MANAGEMENT OF ‘NNOVATION
PROCESSES ‘N ORGANllATlONS

Thesis for the Degree of ‘ Ph. D.
MlCHlGAN STATE UNNERSHY
MAX H. RHNDL

1970

   
 
 

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State ‘
. Universi:wa

  

Ill!“MlflllzllflfllmlflllflfllfllljlIIJIUHIIIHIHHI

7517

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PROPOSITIONS ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF
INNOVATION PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS

presented by
MAX H. REINDL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

JLL degree in Went

of Communication

Date . [Moan—ab / 4’ I

0-169

    
 
 

_ IIN DING BY
~ "HAS 5 SflflS'
”95.931158! JEE-

 
     

I‘ll“. “_ ab-

 

 

 

 

MSU

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

fig; , .

LIBRARIES
4...:3-uun. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.
6 “c.

 

 

.....

U‘

ABSTRACT

PROPOSITIONS ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF
INNOVATION PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS

BY

Max H. Reindl

It has been repeatedly postulated that communi-
cation, by providing the vehicle for social interaction
in organizational settings, is the main, single deter-
minant of success or failure of an organization. Past
research and literature on the topic of organizational
communication have failed to provide an integrative
perspective for the scientific determination of the
role of communication in organizational effectiveness
or efficiency.

The present undertaking is aimed at providing
such an integrated perspective, by which scientific
research on organizational communication can be per-
formed within the realm of practical implications.

Organizations, social units in which individuals

 

group in search of a specific, predetermined purpose,

are resources-a1location-optimizers. Communication, the

 

transfer of patterns of matter-energy with symbolic ref-

erent, is the very essence of organizational activity.

Max H. Reindl

Coordination, the purposive patterning of communi-

 

cation transactions, as opposed to their random distribu-
tion, is a necessary condition for the survival of any

social unit. Management, or the decision-making approach,

 

is the purposeful monitoring of the communication acti-
vities of an organization in order to achieve stated

goals. We follow a decision-making approach in examining

 

the role of communication in organized settings.
A managerial or decision-making perspective
permits distinguishing three main functions of communi-

cation in organization:- they deal with compliance and

output--production--, with preservation and continuance-- ‘, \)

 

maintenance--and with change and output--innovation. ,

 

 

Organizations, in order to survive, have to
change and adapt to changing environmental conditions.

The innovation-communication function becomes decisive

 

in the organization's perpetuation. Three dimensions
are distinguished within the innovation-communication

function: exploration--the process of scanning the

 

environment in search for new ideas, creation--the

process of fostering creativity, and diffusion, the

 

process of dissemination of new ideas.
Computer technology has contributed to increase
the speed and accuracy with which large amounts of in-

formation can be handled. Since the monitoring of

these technological devices becomes also part of the

Max H. Reindl

responsibilities of the communication manager for inno-
vative processes, his general function is labeled infor-

mation management.

 

Organizational effectiveness is defined as the

 

degree of goal achievement; efficiency is defined as the

 

ratio between effectiveness and cost.

Most past literature and.research has placed
emphasis on effectiveness of the communication processes;
no study has yet been reported in which the measured r
dimension is efficiency.

By imposing a managerial, decision-making ap-
proach on the process of organizational communication,
an integrated perspective is provided. The advantages
of such a view of communication in organizations, are:
(a) a macro-communication analysis allows relating the
practitioners' needs to scientific inquiry, creating
a linkage between them, (b) the general frame of refer-
ence that has been provided permits the study of causal
relationships (communication and its effects on organized
activity), (c) legitimizes the introduction of cost in
the study of communication activities, and hence allows
for the study of efficiency rather than only effective-
ness, and (d) introduces the time dimension, points out
the processual nature of communication, and increases
the possibilities of generalizing from future research

undertaken within the proposed framework.

Max H. Reindl

The synthesis of research findings on organiza-
tional communication was done by stipulating prOpositions
about the relationship of different variables. A typical
example is Proposition 10.0, which states that: The
more restrictions imposed on spontaneous channels of
units devoted to creativity within an organization, the

lower the effectiveness of the specific unit.

PROPOSITIONS ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF

INNOVATION PROCESSES IN ORGANIZATIONS

BY

Max H. Reindl

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1970

,4 1“?

/ h 1?;
U'cx’wj’r—i
_, /O

Copyright by

MAX H. REINDL

1970

ii

AC KNOWLEDGMENT S

The author wishes to express his sincere appre-
ciation to the following individuals for both their help
and their friendship which made difficult times easier
and will make remembrances pleasant:

Dr. Everett M. Rogers, academic advisor and
chairman of the author's Guidance Committee. The author
also thanks Dr. Rogers for his sustained encouragement
and valuable time, which were instrumental in the com-
pletion of this thesis.

Dr. R. Vincent Farace, Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh and
Dr. Donald S. Henley, all of whom served on the author's
Guidance Committee, for their receptiveness to new ideas
and for their willingness to venture along new pathways.

Dr. David K. Berlo, Chairman of the Department
of Communication, for his understanding and for the many
stimulating discussions which greatly influenced the
author's View of the world.

Dr. Luis Ramiro Beltran, Dr. Niels Roling, and
Mr. Donald MacDonald, fellow graduate students, who in
more than one way contributed to make this thesis

possible.

iii

Patricia, Pamela, Paulina and Marianne, the
author's daughters, who provided, with great sacrifice,
the silence needed for meditation.

Elizabeth, the author's wife, who continually
encouraged him with love and understanding and to whom
this thesis is dedicated.

To all of them: Muchas Gracias.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
Chapter
I A SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
A Review of the Literature on
Organizational Communication . . . . 5
The Theoretical Positions . . . . . . . 7
The machine-theory orientation . . . 7
The spontaneous-theory orientation . 9
The Methodological Tools . . . . . . . 14
,,.A Critique
Generalizability of findings . . . . 19
The social bias . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The focus of research and theor on
organizational communication . . . 24
The time dimension . . . . . . . . . 26
The cost dimension . . . . . . . . . 27
II A SYSTEMIC VIEW OF INNOVATION MANAGEMENT. 29
The Managerial Approach . . . . . . . . 30
Information and Communication . . . . . 35
The Functions of Organizational
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Innovation-Communication Function . 46
A Model of Innovation-Communication
Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
The Functions of th Information
Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
III A PROPOSITIONAL APPROACH TO INNOVATION
MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Significance of PrOpositions . . . . . 67
Criteria for the Selection of
Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Listing of Propositions . . . . . . . . 78
Uncertainty and Change . . . . . . . 78
Channel Integration . . . . . . . . . 82
Channel Restrictions . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter Page

Channel Formalization . . . . . . . . 92
Structural Distance . . . . . . . . . 95
Spatial Distance . . . . . . . . . . 97
Written Communication . . . . . . . . 101
Origin of Information . . . . . . . . 102
Communication Integration . . . . . . 105
IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . 109
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Conclusions and Implications . . . . . 113
Organizational communication . . . . 113
The innovation-communication
function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

REFERENC ES 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O l 2 8

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
I Information for decision-making in
organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
II A paradigm of the communication
functions in organizations . . . . . . 47
III A systemic model of communication
and organization - [T ] . . . . . . 52
(n-l)
IV A suggested list of communication
elements that can be monitored
to achieve efficiency . . . . . . . . . 56
V A systemic model of innovation-
communication - [T(n)] . . . . . . . . 57
VI Aninput-output model of innovation-
communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

vii

CHAPTER I
A SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT

This chapter contains a review of literature on
organizational communication, an inspection of the most
pOpular theoretical positions, an overview of the usual
methodological tools that have either been applied or
suggested for application to the field, and a summary of

those aspects omitted in past research efforts.

Introduction

 

Organizations are social units in which indivi—
duals group in search of a specific, predetermined

purpose.1 Communication2 is the linkage that allows

 

 

1The term, "organizations," has been used in many
ways, depending upon the interests and objectives of those
who have studied the different aspects of organizational
life. Etzioni (1964, p. 4) suggested that . . . "we can
safely reserve the term organizations to refer to planned
units, deliberately structured for the purpose of attain-
ing specific goals."

2Berlo GB69,p.1-3) states that . . . "Communication
is a process involving the transfer of patterned matter-
energy that carries symbolic information." He states
(p. 1-1) that . . . "Everything man does involves some
change in state of matter or energy. Given Mr. Einstein's
expression of the relationship between matter and energy
(e = mc ), we can use the two terms interchangeably, and
simply talk about matter-energy units."

 

individuals to achieve specific predetermined objectives
through interaction.

Not only have particular disciplines evolved and
flourished under both labels, but the search for the in-
terrelatedness of the two concepts has captured the
imagination and efforts of a wide variety of behavioral
experts. A stream of related interests has transformed
the study of the posited relationship into a multifaced,
interdisciplinary venture.

Many confluents have added their contributions
of theoretical formulations and empirical research data
to compile an impressive amount of information that con-
stitutes our present stock of knowledge. Executives and
administrators, scientific management scholars, social
psychologists, economists, sociologists, political
scientists and, nowadays, communication scientists3 have
imposed their perspectives on this facet of organizational
activity and incorporated their respective terminologies
and professional biases into the subject.

The reasons for such a cognitive concern cannot
be found exclusively in the intellectual challenge both
concepts (organization and communication) undoubtedly

posit to the initiated. The causes become apparent when

 

3For a summary review of previous theory and re-
search developments in the field, see Thayer (1967, pp.
70-115).

. .—-o--—...........—- .. - - -
-. .

the theoretical implications of developments in both
areas are matched with the practical potentialities of

sound propositions to aid the decision-making necessities

.-—-._¢._....__...__,_.__-—- _ _ _ ,___ __.__...

of those who maneuver social units into success or
_fai1ure.

The reduced conceptual distance that separates
organizations from the communication process that takes
place within those social units, might be best described
by Katz and Kahn's (1966, p. 223) assertion that . . .
"communication . . . is the very essence of a social
system or an organization."

Earlier, Barnard (1938, p. 91) stated that . . .
"the structure, extensiveness, and scope of the organiza-
tion are almost entirely determined by communication
techniques." In recent years, organizations have con-

fronted their members with a different perspective.

They now work under the assumption of what has been

:termed the psychological contract,4 in which mutual ex-

 

1pectations and their fulfillment, rather than unilateral
.decisions are the basis for the interface of organiza-

'tions and their members. As a result, the role of com-

munications becomes even more determinant. Schein

 

4For a detailed explanation of the characteristics

and organizational implications of the psychological con-
tract, see Schein (1965, pp. 10-13 and 63—65).

(1965, p. 104) posited the relevance of communication to
more definite aspects of organizational life by summariz-

ing that . . . "the organization expects its members to

 

be committed, flexible and in good communication with one

“.4

 

another, for the sake of over-all organizational

 

_—__. .-—-'
‘- .-

effectiveness."5

 

.- .— w—‘I _.

wThe promises of social rewards derived from the
study and explication of the role communication plays in
organizations, were envisioned by McDonough (1963, p. 3)
in the following statement: "The connection and conver-
sion of energy in business information systems may require
even more intensive analytical efforts. It is my impres-
sion that success in this field [organizational communica-
tion] will be more valuable to us as a society than that
achieved in the development of atomic energy."

More so than in many areas of human knowledge,
in this particular field independence of thought cannot
be guaranteed anymore; cries-cross influences are per-
ceptible everywhere, impeding clear-cut classification
schemes resulting from the specific, mini-interest seg-
ments into which human beings have artificially divided
systemic reality. But this interdependence of perspec-

tives has also provided the field with ad_hoc terminologies

 

5Italics are the present writer's.

and new outlooks which are contributing to a decrease in

conceptual barriers.6

A Review of the Literature on
Organizational Communication

 

 

A review of the literature on organizational com-
munication shows a growing concern, especially among
scholars, to encompass the multitude of evidence that is
available at the present time. Numerous bibliographies,7
compilations of research findings8 and efforts to deve10p
theoretical positions toward the amount of empirical data
that has been collected9 are but one noticeable result of
this assertion.

An inclusive conceptual framework is, unfortunately,
still missing. As McGrath and Altman (1966, p. 9) pointed

out, referring to the area of small group research . . .

 

6Examples of these new technologies and outlooks
are systems analysis, operational analysis, cybernetics,
etc.

7Voos (1967), Weston and Schwartz (1967), Jain
(1968), Reindl and Rivero (1969), and Correll (1969).

8Redding and Sanborn (1964), Miles (1964), Guetz-
kow (1965), Bass (1965), Shepard (1965), Leavitt (1965)
and Jain (1968); Reindl (1969) suggested a methodology
for integration of research in organizational communica-
tion, based primarily on McGrath and Altman's (1966)
work on synthesis of small group research.

9Katz and Kahn (1966), Thayer (1967) and Berlo
(1969).

"The rate at which empirical results have been adequately
digested and integrated into theoretical formulations has
not kept pace. If we continue to generate studies at

even the present rate without a major leap_forward in

 

terms of integrative theory, we shall drown in our own
data" and this pejorative process might well produce the
anticlimax in the study of organizational communication
unless the search for more encompassing perspectives is
consciously intensified in the near future.

Pointing to the lack of a common, general frame-
work within which to operate, Guetzkow (1965, p. 569)
wrote: "Do we find in communications in organizations
an area of study in which there is a special richness in
contingent, interactive effects? Or is it merely that a
clarifying perspective--which would make the pieces fall
more simply into the whole--remains hidden?"

The ways in which theory and research studies
were confronted in the past,10 has contributed to the
failure to develop a more encompassing, integrative view
of organizational communication. The two most widely
held theoretical views of organizational communication

will be briefly examined.

 

10For a critique of previous research, see
Schwartz (1968, pp. 3-10).

The Theoretical Positions

(a) The machine-theory orientation guided most

 

of the empirical research in ongoing organizations in the
past; it assumed that organizations are composed of essen-

tially 1ndependent parts whose unity is established by

laws acting as rules for composition. As Schwartz (1968,

, Wm...“ _.“

p. 4) suggests, this position sustains that .-. . "an

organization is a social-machine designed to organize

 

My. ._
._ -. _.

relationships between human Iparts in order to efficiently

 

(ww‘fl

vaccompl1sh collective goals."

That particular outlook has a philOSOphical base
which seems to imply that men were made for organizations,
rather than organizations for men. It'can be tied to the
doctrine of the "rational-economic man"11 which provided
management with an excuse to manipulate, motivate, and
control human beings solely on the basis of economic
incentives.

The organizational communication studies done

under this particular theoretical position12 have placed

 

11For a detailed description of the assumptions
underlying this doctrine, see Schein (1965, p. 48-50).
See also McGregor (1960) who posited these assumptions
under what he labeled "Theory X."

12Significant studies undertaken within this ap—
proach are Simpson (1959) and Berkowitz and Bennis (1961)
on communication patterns between hierarchical levels,

undue emphasis on the formalized, hierarchical, pre-

planned communication structure.

 

This approach views the organization as a com-
pilation of compliance-oriented roles, singling out in-
dividual or group communication behavior only during
interaction through formally prescribed channels.

As Schwartz (1968, pp. 5-6) noted,

The result is only a partial analysis which has
restricted theoretic utility . . . . When the
conceptual formulation underlying research is
restricted to a view of communication as a form
of control or a tool with motivational implica-
tions between superior and subordinate the
fundamental role of communication as a functional
information transmission process is obscured in
terms of overall organizational dynamics.

It is difficult to disagree with the previous
statements; the theoretical fallacies under which the
machine-theory tradition operated and their consequen-
tial impact on the study of communication in organiza-
tions were apparently the stimuli that were conducive to

the development of the "spontaneous-theory"13 approach.

 

Read (1962) relating a subordinate's upward mobility as-
pirations to accuracy of upward communication, and Triandis
(l959a,b) on cognitive similarity and effectiveness of
superior-subordinate communication transactions. See also
Dahle (1954), Burns (1954), Mischler and Tropp (1956),
Walton (1959), Goetzinger and Valentine (1962) and Hin-
richs (1964).

l3Spontaneous-theoryyis used in this context to
designate the schooI of thought in communication research
that places the main emphasis on the study of the communi-
cation transactions within the non-official, sometimes
called informal,communication structure. The development
of these structures is spontaneous, as opposed to pre-
planned, official structures. A detailed explanation

 

(b) The spontaneous-theory orientation, which arose

 

in response to the excessive emphasis placed by the machine-
theory tradition on the study of the formal communication
structure. The spontaneous-theory approach devoted its efforts

to the study of the communication transactions that occur

14 15

within the non-official, informal communication network.

Unfortunately, by becoming apologetic about the
role that the spontaneous network plays in organizations,
even with the help of rigorous methodological insights,
this particular approach has still not contributed to
the concrescence of the field, an integration which, as
we have seen, is necessary.

However, the spontaneous-theory approach has
contributed to a more encompassing view of the communi—
cation activities within organizations. The difference

between both approaches might be stated as one of "how

people are supposed to communicate"--the machine-theory--

 

why the author has chosen to change the terms informal
and formal for spontaneous and pre-planned will be pro-
vided in Chapter III.

14Berlo (1969» in conversations with the author,
mentioned frequently the fact that the "informal" com-
munication structure of an organization is "formal" to a
large degree, i.e., it has hierarchical distribution,
rules and procedures under which its members relate to
each other.

15Significant studies in this tradition are, for
example, Jacobson and Seashore (1951), Davis (1953),
Weiss and Jacobson (1955), Weiss (1956) and Schwartz (1968).

10

vs. "how people really communicate"—-the spontaneous-
theory. The latter includes the communication trans-
actions performed through the official, pre-planned
channels of communication.

By placing the highest level of ana1ysis on com-

-___h- .rk._

munication networks (or systems), the spontansous:thepry

 

approach has contributed to the 1dent1f1cat1on of several

components or elements of this system; these components

 

k._*_.a—-v‘-""—-“ '

”have been analyzed in terms of their communication be-
havior within the spontaneous network and their character-
istics have also become part of the overall analysis of
organizational communication. As an example, chains,

cliques, dyads, liaisons, isolates, polarization nucleil6

 

16Reindl (1968) suggested a different approach to
the study of Walton's (1962) magnetic centers concept
which postulated that the organization could be conceived
as a communication network dominated by magnetic centers
which attract messages and furthermore, that the attri-
butes of these magnetic centers were authority, power,
expertise and sociability; all but the last are closely
related to the hierarchiEal position of the individual
in the organization, reason why only the fourth and last
variable yielded the highest and only significant values
in the research undertaken by Walton. Reindl's contention
was that polarization nuclei--individuals with large mes-
sage attraction--should be considered independent of the
hierarchical nodes of the organization and dependent of
the individual communication style, for which variance
two main variables could account: convergency, defined
as the conscious or unconscious attempt to reduce the
heterophily-gap with other organizational members, and
March and Simon's (1958) concept of uncertainty absorption,
defined as the process by which inferences are drawn from
a body of evidence and the inferences, instead of the
evidence itself, are then communicated.

 

 

 

 

 

11

or magnetic centers, and communication leaders have been

studied by organizational communication research and the

1““ --..._-

emphasis has been taken away from the formal, official,

_,_.—...... __..,_'—-n._... .

pre—planned communication structure of organizations.
bfimmfim“-tA-ghg1p_1s defined as the interconnection of n
number of transactional participants, at a given point
in time, by means of patterns of matter-energy which
carry symbolic content--thus, communication--in a com-
munication system.

Cliques have been variously defined; Festinger,
Schachter and Back (1950), stating a minimum-necessary
criterion, viewed them as any subsystem in which at
least three of the members interact mutually. Farace
and Morris (1969, p. 9), in a more inclusive fashion,
extended the previous approach to include . . . "indivi-
duals who interact with each other more frequently than
with others."

The term is intended to designate those informal--
not officially sanctioned by the organization--groups
that arise in any organizational context as Schein (1965,
p. 68) posits . . . "out of the particular combination of
formal factors and human needs." Cliques, hence, are de-
fined for the present purposes as groups of individuals
who engage in patterns of heavier communication among
themselves than with the rest of the organization's mem-
bers. Acknowledging Festinger's gp_§1. proposition, dyads

will be excluded from forming a clique.

12

An interesting view is that suggested by Weiss
and Jacobson (1964, p. 453) when they state that . . .
"Groups should be defined in terms of their separatedness
from each other, rather than in terms of inner-connected-
ness." This is apparently divorced from the view that the
spontaneous theory approach has taken toward the study of
cliques--concerning itself with the interrelatedness of
different cliques in an organization.

Dygds are defined . . . "either as a subsystem
in which two elements are engaged in mutual interaction
(i.e., a <—> b), or a subsystem in which two elements
are connected simply by one-way relations (i.e., a -> b)."
(Guimaraes, 1969, p. 29). The influence of sociometry or
sociometrical measurements is clearly perceptible in the
latter, one-way relationship;17 within a spontaneous EEE7
225k, it seems rather difficult to conceive a one-way re—

lationship as permanent.18

By definition, communication
is the transfer of matter-energy with symbolic content

between at least two participants or participating systems;

 

17It reflects the answers to sociometric-choice
questions such as; "With whom do you communicate most
often?", which does not necessarily mean reciprocal
choice, i.e., the one chosen also chooses the same in-
dividual that choose him. - ‘ ' '

18Birdwhistell (1959, p. 104) posited that . . .
"An individual does not communicate: he engages in or
becomes part of communication . . . ."

13

a unilateral, unidirectional transference could be: (a)
acceptable in the short-run, (b) caused by imposition
of the hierarchical relative position of both partici-
pants--in such a way as to impede any retiral of the
receiver--or, (c) due to the type of sociometrical
question asked. Our present contention is that socio-

metry relies heavily on perceived relationships, which

 

 

might exclude or introduce megs than the effective1y
existing relations.

Isolates, as their name suggests, are those in-
dividuals that "neither seek nor are sought by any
member of the communication system” (Guimaraes, 1969,
p. 29). Here, the sociometric bias becomes apparent
again; aspects like the fragility of human memory, or
the temporary nature of certain communication transac-
tions are implicit in the determination of these elements
of the communication network.

Polarization nuclei or magnetic centers, have

 

already been defined in the preceding pages; some 1pdi-

viduals have the ability to become centers of message

.MI'JH-

vectors, which places them in an advantageous position

“ha.”— --‘

within the organization, if the basic proposition that

information is power, is accepted. They concentrate a

larger amount of message-inputs than the rest of the in-

 

dividuals in an organization.

14

Finally, communication leaders have been detected

 

also in the communication structure of organizations.
Guimaraes (1969, p. 29) defines such an element as one
who . . . "is looked upon by his peers as both, a recip-
ient and a source of communication." We would suggest
that becoming a leader in an organizational setting, re-

quires first becoming a polarization nucleus of informa-

 

tion within any given social system, regardless of the

 

degree of formalization of that system.

 

The Methodological Tools

One way of classifying the numerous research
methodologies that have been used in organizational com-
munication, is, as suggested by Downs (1969, p. 1) ac-
cording to: . . . "(1) the nature of the data collected,
(2) where the information is collected, and (3) the
techniques used in data collection."19

According to the nature of the data collected,

the tendency in the past has been one of emphasizing the

 

19For a classification of research methods in
organizational communication, see Blau and Scott (1962,
pp. 10-11) who divide methods according to (a) the pur-
pose, Tb) the techniques employed and (c) the research
. design used. In the same order, they describe under (a)
3% exploratory, descriptive and hypothesis-testing, under
31(b) observation, interviewing and analysis of documents,
1 and under (c) sample survey, controlled experiments and
‘ field studies.

15

individual behavior in groups, using the group as a

 

manipulable stimulus, rather than group behavior as

 

such, phenomenon posited by Rogers and Bhowmik (1969,
p. l) as one of . . . "ignoring the importance of ppm:
munication relationships as units of analysis."

The reasons for such a misleading approach to
the study of organizational communication, can be found

in the explanation given by Rogers and Bhowmik (1969,
p. 2):

We erroneously have assumed that if individuals
are the unit of res onse, they must also be the
units of analysis. A few recent communication
researchers demonstrate that even when the indi-
vidual provides the response data (as perhaps
must ultimately be the case in the social sci-
ences), the dyadic communication relationship,
the communication chain or network, or a socio-
metricly-determined communication clique within
a larger system, can be the unit of analysis.

According to where the information has been col-

lected, there seem to be two most common ways of gathering

20

information: (a) in the laboratory setting, and (b)

in ongoing organizations.21
Among the many constraints, two appear as major:

financial reasons, and the unwillingness of ongoing

 

20All the studies carried out under the influence
of Lewin (1948), such as those performed by Bales (1950),
Bavelas (1960), Heise (1951), Leavitt (1951), and others.

21For a review of these studies, see Blau and
Scott (1962) and Guetzkow (1965).

16

organizations to submit themselves to a situation in
which, as Crane (1965, p. 275) states, "the executive
suite comes under the scholar's microscope?; the
laboratory method has been used--and abused--to the ex-
tent that it is difficult to recognize presently if the
current generalizations about organizational communica-
tion behavior are trustworthy or not.

The laboratory method, also called small-group
research, necessarily imposes restrictions on its find-
ings, A”... it is. not beenwipflroven passing 4.". exeggpol'ate
régfiit; to ongoing organizations. As Guetzkow (1965,

p. 535) observes . . . "The richness of materials at the

individual and group levels has induced extrapolation of

 

findings perhaps inappropriate for rigorous analysis of

 

communications in organizations."22

The implications of using the laboratory method
have been synthesized by Crane (1965, p. 510) in stipu-
lating that

The laboratory experiment is a source-oriented
communication situation, which gives the re:
searcher a high degree of control. He can intro-
dfiCe and excludeIEEimuli at will and specify the
order in which they will appear. Instead of
asking questions, he can create laboratory analo-
gues of real-life situations, and observe the ways
his subjects respond to them. He can and does
disguise the purpose of his experiments, often

by giving a plausible but false explanation of

 

 

 

22Italics are the present author's.

17

Their purpose. He can use novel tasks and novel
situations, and so eliminate the effects of pre-
vious habits.

The methods used in studying communication cover
quite a range, as Bass (1965, p. 226) shows when he
enumerates those used in the past as, . . . "case analysis,
sociometry, position analysis, discretionary analysis,
analysis of communication, comparative analysis, labora-
tory exercises, business games and mathematical simula-
tion."; in addition, he lists the survey, field and
laboratory-eXperiments.

The techniques used in data collection range
over the whole spectrum of possibilities. Case studies,
in which the observer has limited himself to making ran-
dom notes on certain communication behaviors that seemed

important is one end of the continuum.23 Rigorous statis-

tical analysis, with the help of matrix analysis,24 graph

 

23Sanborn (1962) used the technique of following
executives in an organization for four hours each, making
systematic and unsystematic notations. Davis (1953)
studied communication behavior as participants passed a
certain spot in an organizational context; the latter
technique is called "duty study."

24For a detailed eXplanation of matrix analysis
applied to organizational communication, see Guimaraes
(1968), also Forsyth and Katz (1946), Festinger (1949),
Hohn (1953) and Katz (1947).

l8

theory25 and other topological analytical procedures,26

has also been applied to the study of organizational
communication, reflecting the other end of the spectrum.

Field studies have gained more attention in re-
cent years;27 most of them have taken the form of field
surveys and allow a closer insight into the problems of
communication faced by ongoing organizations.

Computer simulation has become, just recently,
an important tool for examining and understanding organi-
zational communication behavior, on the basis of the
possibilities it offers for varying communication pat-
terns in a short period and relating these changes to
the manipulation of other characteristics of an hypothe-

tical organizational context.28

 

25For a detailed explanation, see Konig (1936),
Berge (1962), Flament (1963) and Ore (1962, 1963).

26For a description of topological analytical
procedures used in communication in organizations, see
Schwartz (1968).

27Two recent studies undertaken by members of the
Department of communication of Michigan State University,
are Farace and Morris (1969) on communication in a Resi-
dential College and D. K. Berlo, R. V. Farace, D. MacDonald,
M. H. Reindl, J. Berley and R. Connelly (1969), a study of
communication patterns related to personnel turnover,
Chase Manhattan Bank, New York.

28For a description of the applications of com-
puter simulation, see Carroll and Farace (1968, pp. 61-
75).

19

A Critique

 

Generalizability of findings

 

The main Btghlemlfageerwatnthe.2£2§sntllexmre:_

search anéwEheorymen.greenizational_CQmBunicatiQp. is

“3"

 

the one that is related to the generalizabi11ty of
fiediegs-

The findings from small group research have been
extrapolated quite liberally to ongoing organizations,

giving as a constant the_environmenta1 conditions and

M

 

the selection of subjects, the last characteristic being

1 “4......
41'- | N... m .1

especially inappropriate to any intent of generalizing.

"m: W“

As Guimaraes (1969, p. 17) points out, most of the ex-
perimenters in this research tradition . . . "prefer to
choose cases (small groups) that they can observe under
special conditions, or that are amenable to experimental
manipulation. Thus, representativeness is sometimes
sacrificed because the researcher's design involves also
the requirements of the analysis."

Maybe the unfortunate truth is that so many
authors, given the limited scope of field research in
the areas of ongoing organizations, have joined the band-
wagon simply by inertia. Guetzkow (1965, p. 535), who
has contributed in many ways to the develOpment of a
theoretically integrated approach to organizational com-

munication, cannot resist the temptation of generalizing

20

findings from the small group research, when stating

that . . . "Yet, with the dearth of studies about organi-
zations, either from the field or laboratory, one can but
join with others in speculation." Bass (1965, pp. 285-
286) joins in by stating that . . . "While it may be 1m:

29

ppssible to translate these experimental findings di-

 

rectly to organizations, the results are suggestive . . . ."
But then, even in known field research studies,
the enthusiasm for generalizing seems unlimited; regard-
less of the sampling procedures used within the organiza-
tional context that has been studied, and assuming
statistical significance of the findings, the question
is still: Are the findings within one organization
generalizable to all organizational contexts? Elementary
sampling procedures suggest that for representativeness, at
least thirty, if possible random, respondents in a sample should
be taken in order to derive acceptable conclusions about
the population studied. Yet, from the pOpulation--all
existing organizations--we are generalizing from one, and
one moreover, which is atypical, since the criteria for
chosing it are based on its availability for study instead
of other, more rigorous considerations. One organization,

or even part of that organization, has been studied and

 

29Italics are the present author's.

21

the conclusions derived from that specific survey have
been extrapolated in a rather precarious fashion30 to
generalize that--in an organization, when this happens,
thap follows. Such a research procedure does not help
when, as March and Simon (1967, p. 5) point out, the
problem we are facing is that of . . . "many assertions,
but little evidence to determine—-by the usual standards
of public testability and reproductibility--whether
these assertions really hold up in the world of faCt."
Etzioni (1964, p. 419) acknowledges that future
break-throughs in this area . . . "require the develop-
ment of methods of data collection which will make pos-
sible the gathering of quantitative materials on organi-
zational variables, and methods of data processing which
will allow us to draw conclusions concerning the state
of organizational variables from information collected

from or about individual respondents."

The social bias

 

A strong social or democratic bias is perceptible
in the social science research tradition when applied to

organizational communication. It is manifest in the

 

30Blau and Scott (1962, p. 111) report only one
study on interorganizational research in which data were
restricted to the influences of formal organizations on
work-group structure; no mention whatsoever of the com-
munication problems involved.

22

literature by implicitly or explicitly favoring the idea
that communication in organizations should be as "free"
as possible; the idea that "more communication is good,"
and, obviously, that restrictions on communication are
"bad," has created a vilified view of any attempt to
monitor or to coordinate communication transactions in
an organizational milieu.31 The main reason appears to
be the interpretation of terms like control and coordina-
tipp, which have been confused in scholastic terminology
with the arbitrary imposition of authority, for human
manipulation, to the detriment of those who are manipu-
lated; it implies frequently a unidirectional event,
from source to receiver and its main objective has been
stated as to achieve compliance.

But men are controlled by their environment and,
at the same time, exercise control over it, via communi-
cation, in a reciprocal relationship; as Ascroft (1969,
p. 11) states, this relationship requires . . . "an in-
teractional view of the process of communication in which
source apd receiver are temporarily bound in mutual de-
pendence, and in which messages convey information about

new ideas as well as providing cues, at a usually subliminal

 

31Katz and Kahn (1966, p. 224) discusses the View
that more communication is good, and call it "a gross
oversimplification."

23

3 level, which allow source and receiver to define rela—

’ c
I

I tionships vis-a-vis each other."

 

Control is simply the process of verifying and
regulating events in order to maintain them within cerr
tain patterns which have been agreed upon previously.
Organizations, like any other social system, require
coordination for success and survival,32 and coordina-
tion without control is impossible. Societal activity
without control is chaos and anarchy, by definition an-
tagonistic to the very concept of organization.33

From the preceding discussion, it seems quite
obvious that, no matter what his personal and intellec-
tual attitude, the scientist who studies processes
which happen to exist within an organization has to
develop an understanding of the main function of or-

ganizations, if the goal of the undertaking is successful

research.

 

32Gardner (1965) examines organizations from the
point of view of specific requirements for survival and
stipulates that coordination is a basic sine-qua-non
requisite for perpetuation.

 

33Olsen (1968, p. 2) states that . . . "social
organization is the process of bringing order and meaning
into human social’life"; March and Simon (1967, p. 4)
posit that . . .wHigh specificity of structure and co-
ordination--as contrasted with the diffuse and variable
relation among organizations and among unorganized indi-
viduals--marks off the individual organization as a
sociological unit. . . ."

 

 

24

The focus of research and theory on
organizational communication

 

 

Words are elusive in themselves; this might be
the reason why many efforts in the realm of scientific
inquiry in organizational communication have failed to
provide a satisfactory answer to the need for theoreti-
cal integration and generalizability mentioned earlier.
An organization has been defined traditionally as an
autonomous whole, as one entity, with a specific pre-
determined goal to achieve.

However, reality seems quite different; if the
basic criterion for the determination of exclusiveness-—
organization or non-organization--is the goal they pursue,
no wonder that the numerous attempts to conceptualize a
typology of organizations have failedtb provide a defi-
nite answer to the study of endogenous processes (within
the organization itself).34

The so-called "organizational goals" are only

the composite of many, frequently antagonistic group

 

34For approaches to typologies of organizations
based on their goals--assumed or stated--see for example
Blau and Scott (1962, pp. 40-45) in which a review of
previous attempts is shown, and Bennis (1962, p. 442) in
which the suggested typology is related to measurements
of organizational effectiveness. See also Katz and Kahn
(1966, p. 147).

25

and/or individual goals;35 but apparently, social sci-
entists seem to assume--as evidenced throughout the
pertinent literature-—that organizations are entities
with singularity of purpose, and little or no attention
has been placed upon the multiplicity of different goal-
seeking behaviors within the given, specific organization.
Commpnication is1a purposive activity in which

Wm

individuals engage in order to achieve some goal, i.e.,

“a...

to change someone else's behavior. When studied in an

—..~»—- . .m... _...— _ r._.. __

 

organizationalmcontext,‘not“relatingithemcommunication
prOCesses to the goals--explicitly statedor implicitly
demonstrated by organizational behavior--it seems that a
large potential in terms of verifying the effectiveness
of communication is wasted. Tc ascertain simply that a
"certain" behavioral change has taken place due to"cer-
tainzwcommunication activities, is an aimless effort if
unrelated to its effects upon the goal-seeking behavior
of the organization itself.

The question then becomes one of finding goals

that are operational;36 given that the repertoire of

 

35Etzioni (1964, pp. 10-16) discusses to a cer-
tain extent the phenomena of goal-multiplicity, goal-
displacement, goal-succession and even the multi-purpose
organization-—the one that simultaneously and legitimately
serves two or more goals.

36Berlo (1967, p. 2) states that in order to ex-
plicate a construct, two linkages should be attained . . .

26

objectives of organizational activity is almost unlimited,
the present suggestion is that the level of analysis
should be lowered to the point where identifiable objec-

tives, operational goals are present.

The time dimension

 

Communication has been described as a process by
which two or more participating systems exchange pat-
terned matter-energy with symbolic content, and by defi-
nition, process is the occurrence of a certain event over
time. Time is the main factor that allows a mode distinc-
tion between state and action, or structure and process,
and as McGrath and Altman (1966, p. 72) state . . . "This
distinction is essentially in the temporal dimension;
structure implies a static temporal referent, process
implies movement or change through time."

But communication research in organizational
settings has never devoted efforts to include the time
dimension as a variable, and that omission, although it
provides an axenic, X-ray picture of the communication
structure of certain organizations, tells very little of

the functioning of the communication process itself.

 

"The first requires the term to be linked to nature, to
physical events. This linkage represents the scientist's
efforts to impose a perceptual structure on nature, and
consists of specifying a set of operations. When these
Operations are performed, the resultant event in nature
is the referent of this term. " and further . . . "Typi-
cally this kind of linking activity is referred to as
operationalization. . . .

27

We would gain a much more comprehensive under-
standing of the role played by communication processes
in organizational milieus if we had answers to questions
such as: Do liaison individuals remain in that role
over time? To what extent are cliques a permanent
phenomenon? What are the variables that account for the
variance in dyadic communication transactions, overtime,

within organizations?

The cost dimension

 

Still another implicit assumption underlying
past research on communication is that availability of
financial resources is a given. They have been disregarded
as a variable in spite of the fact that organizational
decisions are, if not solely, at least primarily deter-

. u“~‘___

mined by the relationship between cost and effectiveness.
(”(WOrganizations are, by definition, resource—
allocation-Optimizers, hence financial constraints impose
a major limitation on communication activities within an
organizational context. Prescribing--simultaneity of
channel usage to increase accuracy of the message--be-
comes a trivial statement in an ongoing organization,
regardless of the validity of the prOposition itself, if
unrelated to the cost—benefit analysis of the channel

strategy.37

 

7Guimaraes (1969, p. 6) is one of the few authors
that ask questions such as . . . "which network involves
the lowest communication cost?"

28

Two subdimensions can be distinguished within
the cost aspects of organizational communication (a)

the amount of financial resources necessary for imple-

 

menting a given communication strategy, and (b) the
amount of pimp spent by the transactional participants
in communication. Perhaps the latter aspect, time spent
communicating, should in turn be related to the content
of the transactions and compared with the objectives of
the organizational setting in which the communication
transactions occur.
From the preceding analysis, it is noted that

(a) communication, as a process, can only be studied
over time, (b) that communication cost is an
important yet neglected variable in determining the com-
munication process within organizations, (c) that or-
ganizational goals--taken as an autonomous whole--seem
a too elusive concept to be operational, hence subject
to measurement, and (d) that communication processes in
organizations require some degree of control and coordi-
nation in order to perform a constructive function within;
the organization.

_1These interrelated, interdependent elements sug-
gest1the next step, which is to examine organizational
communication fromaa systemic perspective. This task will

be done in the following chapter.

CHAPTER II

A SYSTEMIC VIEW OF INNOVATION MANAGEMENT1

From the situational assessment of organizational
communication literature and research done in the previous
chapter, it is clear that an integrative perspective
is needed in order to impose some structure on the dis-
array of research and speculation findings now available.

This present chapter is aimed at providing such
an integrative perspective, (a) by means of examining

0 O 2 I O O
organ1zat1onal commun1cat1on as a system of 1nterrelated

 

lInnovation management, from a communication point
of View, is defined as the purposeful monitoring of the
communication activities in an organization, in order to
foster (a) the dissemination of new ideas within that or-
ganizational context, (b) creativity in the organization,
and (c) the exploration or search for new ideas. It will
be used interchangeably with innovation-communication
management, with management of change, and with management
for innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2Organizations, as posited in the previous chapter,
are entities in which social grouping occurs, with the pur-
pose of achieving specific goals. In this and subsequent
chapters, organizations will be understood as formal organ-

 

 

izations, namely those in which . . . "the goals to be
achieved, the rules the members of the organization are
expected to follow, and the status structure that defines
the relations between them (the organizational chart) have
not spontaneously emerged in the course of social inter-
action but have been consciously designed a priori to an-
ticipate and guide interaction and activities." (Blau

and Scott, 1962, p. 5.)

29

30

communication activities, and (b) by imposing on this

systems View, a decision-making approach.

The Managerial Approach

 

If an organization is viewed as a large informa-
tion processing system:} with predetermined goals, which
works under the assumptions of output maximizing and in-
put minimization, a decision-making perspective4 is a
perfectly legitimate way of approaching the problem of
studying organizational communication.

Forrester (1962) and Albaum (1967), suggested
that management is the process of transformation between
information and action; furthermore, that managerial suc-
cess is determined by (a) what information is chosen, and

(b) how the previously-mentioned conversion is done.

 

3Leavitt (1958) proposed such a view of organizations.

4This approach, also called management, is de-
fined as . . . "the accomplishment of desired objectives
by establishing an environment favorable to performance
by people operating in organized groups" (Koontz and
O'Donnell, 1964, p. 1). It is another process of communi-
cation, although at the intrapersonal, organismic level;
informational inputs are received (purposively sought or
obtained by random chance, processed, evaluated and com-
pared with different alternatives). The specific alterna-
tive that possesses the highest pay-off for a given course
of action is selected, and that alternative is made known
or implemented via communication again. For a detailed
explanation of the decision-making process viewed as a
communication event or sequence of events, see Dorsey
(1957/58) and see also the decision-making process con-
ceptualization by Cyert and March (1963).

 

31

Unfortunately, as Katz and Kahn (1966, pp. 282-
283) posited . . . "There are always limitations with re-
spect to knowledge of alternative courses of action, of
the relative utility of these alternatives, and of the
consequences of these alternative courses of action."
These facts made Blau and Scott (1962, pp. 36-37) formu-
late the proposition that . . . "Individuals are not
capable of making complex decisions rationally. The
function of the organization is to limit the scope of
the decisions that each member must make."

/ 1It can be concludedthat decision-making is de-
pendent upon (a) the organizational structure,5 (b) the
task to be performed,6 (c) the type and amount of avail-
able information, and (d) the wayin which the available
information is translated into action by the decision-
maker.

Berlo (1969, p. II-5) stresses the importance of
the decision-making, managerial approach, by stating

that . . . "The management of information systems has

 

5The interdependence of decision-making and or-
ganizational structure has been posited and explained in
detail by Dill (1958). Also, Crane (1965, pp. 268-269)
suggests that decision-making is dependent upon the rules
of the organization, and that these rules . . . "reduce
uncertainty."

6The task to be performed by an organization or
a subsystem of that organization, determines the structure
of the organization, to large extent.

32

become one of the central competencies needed in modern
society. It does little good to generate information if
we cannot develop systems for storage and retrieval, for
dissemination and utilization, and for the discarding of
obsolete information."7

The whole concept of information management has
evolved only in recent years. It is at the stage of de-
velopment that Marketing was--some 20 years ago--when
firms started to concede that attention should be given
to the multiplicity of factors involved in "managing the
sales," as it was called in the early 1950's.

It has been postulated that, to a large extent,
information, the way in which this information is handled,
and the output of the process involving information ex—
change, determine the decision-making process in an
organization. On the other hand, the implicit postulate
of Berlo's call for competencies in managing the infor-

mation system, is coordination, the coordination of pat-

terns of matter-energy. If symbolic content is added,

 

7Berlo's postulate could be misinterpreted if a
definition for information is not provided. He defines
information by stating that there are discriminable units
of matter-energy, on which pattern is imposed; in his
words . . . "Information, then, involves the imposition
of pattern on previously undifferentiated matter-energy."
It can be stated that information is different from com-
munication; in order to become communication, informEEion
must also carry symbolic content. In other words, com-
municat1on is a sub-set of information. For an analysis
of various types of information, see Morris (1968).

 

 

 

33

it becomes the coordination of media, structure, time,
messages, means of storage and retrieval, and cost, in
order to achieve some predetermined objectives. As Katz
"and Kahn (1966, p. 225) posited . . . "To move from an
unorganized state to an organized state, requires the
introduction of constraints and restrictions to reduce
diffuse and random communication to channels appropriate
for the accomplishment of organizational objectives."

1 In sum, the decision-making approach to organi-
zational communication, suggested in the present chapter,
presents several advantages over previous views of the
field by:

(a) providing a context for the determination of

M.‘ w__...—«---‘-—-—-

causal relationships, i.e., a certain decision

 

about communication elements, the cause, can be
measured in terms of the effect produced, which
has been stated as related to the organizational

effectiveness (or efficiency),

 

(b) a11gwing the cost dimension to be introduced,
since the alternative chosen has to be compared
with the cost-benefit analysis of the media used,

(c) permitting the study of effects over time, and

therefore becoming’a Study of thecommunication

 

process, not of the structure, and,

(d) permitting the study of integrated variables,

34

i.e., the study of strategic8 variables, which
might be a composite of several individual vari—
ables, like channel variables, message variables,

structure variables, etc.

By accomplishing the previously described objec-
tives, the decision-making approach permits the study of
communication processes in ongoing organizations and, at
the same time, facilitates the linkage between research
and the practitioners, pointed out in the preceding
chapter.

Compared to the approaches taken in the past,
the present View of organizational communication can be

stated as studying the opgrational aspects of communica-

 

tion in formal organizations; it becomes a matter of
what has to be done to the communication elements in the
organization, in order to achieve certain desired end-
effects, as opposed to the previous approach that can be

stated as one aiming at the question--what happens in the

 

8Organizational strategies are defined as designs
that result from overall planning procedures in an or-
ganization; the planning is done on a large-scale basis
and implies an interdependent View of the different ele-
ments that have to be taken into account in order to
achieve a specified goal. Strategies pertain to the
long-run; meanwhile tactics, defined as the expedient of
seeking the objectives designated by strategies, pertain
more to the short-run in organizational life. For a dis-
cussion of long-run and short-run planning, in organiza-
tions, see Drucker (1959).

 

35

communication system of the organization? It is the
author's contention that the first mentioned approach

is In) less scientific than the second one, since by

no means does science have to be at odds with practical
implications.

The present View is not aiming at replacing, but
rather at complementing,previous approaches--the machine-
theory tradition and the spontaneous-theory view--by
providing a unifying framework in which both approaches

appear to be useful.

Information and Communication

 

Information, as it has been previously defined,

 

consists of patterns of matter-energy which imply changes

in the levels of uncertainty. Communication occurs when

 

symbolic content is superimposed on these patterned
amounts of matter-energy.

Frequently, information has been equated with
changes in the uncertainty levels9 at a given point in
time, thus information will be more valuable if it pro-
vides a correspondingly larger reduction in the relative

amount of uncertainty, which might be expressed in terms

 

9Uncertainty is defined as a low degree of pre-
dictability of events, in a given setting, at a given
point in time. For discussion of uncertainty and its
relation to communication, see Berlo (1969, pp. III-14,15).

 

36

relative to the uncertainty counterpart, perfect infor-
mation.10 Information can then be stated as a degree of
knowledge about uncertain outcomes. Rapoport (1966),
defines information quantitatively as . . . "the improve-
ment of one's chances of making the right guess."

From the point of view of a decision-maker in an
organization, the types of information available seem
important, since they will contribute to the decisions

which have to be made. Figure I illustrates an attempt

 

to provide a classification of information from the de-
cision-making perspective, although, as March and Simon
(1958, p. l) assert . . . "We are dealing with empirical

phenomena, and the world has an uncomfortable way of not

permitting itself to be fitted into clean classifications."
The reasons for calling the process of monitoring

communication activities in an organization information

 

management instead of communication management, will be-

 

come evident after the diagram in Figure I is analyzed.
There is a considerable amount of information at

the disposal of anyone who wants it or is able to use it;

but human beings, who are the principal components of any

organizational system, have a limited, reduced capacity

 

0Perfect information is an unattainable goal. It
is assumed only for conceptualizing uncertainty. Perfect
information would imply total certainty, which is not an
acceptable postulate if one agrees with the proposition
that everything is relative.

37

mCOMUMNflcmoHo as mcwmeIGOHmHoop How coaumEMomcH .H musmwm

mmwumccson
HmGOABBNflcmmuo

Ame :oHumoHasEEou
Amy Acofluwuflawus mum

IflUmEEHV caunuuonm aw
coflumEHomcfi ucm>oamm

Avv Aommuoumv caulmcoH ca
cofiumsuomcfl pcm>maom

Amy ompumomflp
on on coauwfiuomcH

Amy cosumfiuomcfl pommmooum

AHV cowumauomcfl magmawm>4

\ / mmoooum
coflpmamcmua

 

 

 

"—-‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

to handle information. Hayes (1962) studied this parti-
cular aspect of decision-making and concluded that if
more than four alternatives are presented simultaneously

to an individual, his decision-making efficiency decreases

 

in a positive relationship with the number of additional

 

alternatives offered to him. Raymond (1962) went further,

 

by observing that executives can absorb only about 1/100
to 1/1000 of the information that is available and rele-
vant to their decisions. This allows, then, for estab—
lishing a difference between the available information
and the processed information (1) and (2) in the diagram.

Another part of the processed information has to
be discarded because it is (a) obsolete, or (b) inadequate
to the general objectives the organization is pursuing.
This type of information accounts for what has been
shown as (3) in the diagram.

Of the remaining information, some has to be
classified as related to the organizational goals, but
with no immediate application, which means that it will
not be discarded but storedll--either manually or by
means of mechanical or electronic devices--for future use

in the organizational context: No. (4) in the diagram.

 

11For detailed explanations of the process of
storage and retrieval, see Anderson Jr., et al. (1962);
also Evans and Hague (1962), Dearden (1964, 1965), Die-
bold (1965), Roland (1961) and Burlingame (1961). For
the relation between human beings and technological de-
vices, see Bass (1965, p. 266) and Olsen (1968, p. 27).

39

The relevant information, for short-run decisions,
will be used and maintained until the decision is made.
It carries information, the immediate application of
which will decide the tenor of the decision itself, in
addition to previous inputs of information given to the
decision-making unit, (5).

Finally, when symbolic content is superimposed on
this information, it becomes communication. But for this
to occur, a translation process has to take place; infor-
mation--even that which has reached the stage of consti-
tuting useful information in the short~run--has been
received in a fashion that impedes its immediate appli-
cation. It has to be translated into the organizational
code, by imposing a specific symbolic structure on it;
then . . . communication.

Hence, information management is a more encom-

 

passing function than communication management; the
former has to deal also with information that has not
been classified and translated, although its final ob-
jective is the monitoring of the communication system.
The use of computerized means for speeding up certain
steps of the process is recognized as helpful and neces-
sary--given the information explosion of the last
decades--nevertheless, as Thayer (1967, p. 79) points
out . . . "the sheer increase in speed and extent of

data integration across functional boundaries has not

40

solved the basic questions of what?, where?, who?, when?,
how?, and how much? In fact, such problems have actually
been intensified by data hardware and software technology."
The only answer seems to be the degree to which human
beings are able to study, understand and explicate the
role of information management.

Communication, the process of transference of

patterns of matter-energy with symbolic content,12 is,

 

as stated, the final concern of information management.
When analyzing individual components of the system of

communication in an organization, we are arbitrarily

 

dividing a seamless subject matter for the sake of better

 

understanding of its function. The author is well aware
of the fact that definitions given in precedent pages
are not all-encompassing; as Newman (1966, p. 56) sug-
gested . . . "The epistemological notion that a definition
must account completely for that which it defines is im-
practical and should be rejected."

Organizations shape communication and vice-versa;
Thayer (1967, p. 86) pointed to that particularity when

stating that . . . "the emergent organization provides

 

12Berlo (1960, p. 24) points to the processual

nature of communication by stating that . . . "If we ac-
cept the concept of process, we view events and relation-
ships as dynamic, on-going, ever-changing, continuous

. . . . it does not have a beginning, ap end, a fixed
sequence of events."

41

significant constraints of various sorts on the behavioral
systems involved. The communication that occurs is
therefore in large part a function of the overlapping
organization contexts in which it occurs." Blau and

Scott (1962, p. 195) share this View when stating that

. . . "The social environment influences organizations--
their internal structure and their relations with one
another--but there are also feedback processes through
which organizations influence their environment."

Feedback is another elusive concept which deter—
mines in a certain sense the processual nature of com-
munication transactions; Mehrley (1969, p. 4) suggests
that feedback can be understood as . . . "a tool man can
use to evaluate his success in affecting his environment."
In a certain sense, feedback has been considered as an .
"answer" to a communication intent--it has not become a
transaction yet, since only one participating system has
intervened. This conceptualization is at odds with the
idea of communication being a process, since it has been

stated that communication has no beginning and no end.

 

Besides, intent appears to be of paramount im-
portance in the labeling of this part of the process
(feedback); it is possible to distinguish--from the point
of view of the source of communication activity--two
types of subprocess that appear as incidental: the one

by which an answer to a certain communication decision

42

has been provided--spontaneously on the part of the "re-

 

ceiver"l3--and that by which purposively sought answers

 

to a certain communication activity are obtained. The

first one will be called "feedback," and the latter will

be designated as retrocommunication.14

 

Retrocommunication is, in intraorganizational

 

terms, the equivalent of "intelligence" applied to extra-
organizational communication. It is the present author's
contention that feedback--the spontaneous providing of
information about certain previous communication activi-
ties-~cannot be left to chance, and that some built-in
devices in the communication network have to be created
in order to obtain information at the time and in the

way in which it is needed to change tactical communica-

tion decisions.

 

l3 . . . .
The d1fferent1atlon between source and rece1ver
. . . . . . ——-——. .W
15 an arb1trary c1a531f1cat10n, Since commun1cation 1s a
process, without beginning or end.

4Retrocommunication can be equated with the con-
cept in Marketing Management called “marketing intelli-
gence"; for a description of the process itself, see
Brink (1964), and Kelley and Lazer (1967). Katz and Kahn
(1966, pp. 248—249) label a somewhat similar concept,
"operational feedback," but in a more restricted sense;
they state that . . . "It is frequently not informative
about the performance of work groups or of individuals,
and it does not deal with the effectiveness of social-
psychologica1 practices of the organization in carrying
out its mission. . . .

 

 

43

The Functions of Organizational
Communication

As described by Berlo (1969, pp. IV-8,9), com-
.munication performs three specific functions in an
organizational context: production, maintenance and
innovation. He describes these functions in the fol-
lowing terms: . . . "getting a job done (production),
exploring new behavioral alternatives (innovation), and
keeping the system . . . and its components . . . func-
tioning (maintenance)."15
There seems to be a terminological confusion in
current literature on the topic; the terms sub-system
and function are used interchangeably, and when applied
to communication they become almost indistinguishable.
The contention of this paper, though, is that if the
communication process is considered to be the system,

any subdivisions of it can be labeled sub-systems; but

considering the communication process as a functional

 

15Thayer (1967, pp. 94-95) suggests a somewhat
different classification of the communication functions:
(a) Operational, (b) regulatory and (c) maintenance and
development. Berlo's division seems more adequate for
the purposes sought in this paper. Katz and Kahn (1966,
p. 86) suggest the following types of functions in or-
ganizational contexts: production, maintenance, sup—
portive, adaptive and managerial; unfortunately, the
authors do not relate these structures to the communication
activities going on within the organization.

44

process in an organization, it seems more adequate to

talk about functional units, components or functions

 

of that overall whole, which is communication.

16

The production-function of communication can be

 

stated as composed of those communication activities
that are aimed at insuring compliance with the system's
goals. An instructional pattern and a review procedure
can be distinguished within this particular function,

the former aimed at socializing members of the organi-
zation in order to instruct them in the patterns of
accepted social behavior within the organizational
boundaries, and the latter in order to ensure that
compliance with these norms and values has been achieved.

The maintenance-function of communication aims

 

at regulating the organization in such a way as to
achieve permanency and regularity in the functioning of
the system. Its mission is to ensure that no dangerous
deviations from rules and procedures may threaten the
system's survival. Maintenance aims at standardization.
Paradoxical as it may seem, frequently the maintenance

function is working against the survival of the

 

16Production is defined in this context as total
output, not to be confused with physical objects only;
as a matter of fact, ideas or, in general, intangibles,
can also be the unit of output of an organization.
Productivity, defined as units of output per given units
of input, is a concept aiming at measuring the produc-
tion performance.

 

 

45

organization; Gardner (1964) posits the sine qua non

 

requisite for the survival of ongoing organizations,

as one of renewal, of change, of searching for different,

 

new patterns; maintenance communication appears to strive

 

against this stipulated goal. The reason for the exist-
ence of this discrepancy is evident, if simultaneous
activities are conceived; at the same time as an organi-
zation is pursuing the continuance of its operations in
the way it has been done in the past, certain activities
within the organization are aimed precisely at the oppo-
site, namely the development and creation of means for
organizational survival, i.e., innovation.l7

This leads to the third function of communication

in organizations, namely, the innovation—function. Its

 

mission is to search for, identify, select, disseminate,
and foster means of survival for the organization. It
concerns itself with the . . . "search for new ways of
doing things, for new things to do" (Berlo, 1969, p.
IV-9).

The apparent antagonism between the maintenance

and innovation functions is avoided if, within systemic

 

17Innovation has two different connotations as
used in this paper; as Rogers (1962) defines it, inno-
vation is a new idea (or perceived as new by the indi-
vidual). It is also used to designate a function to be
performed in organizational life. Both connotations

imply change.

 

46

reality, maintenance is assumed to be a strategy for the
ongoing organization as a whole, and innovation is re-
stricted to communication strategies aimed at certain
specific pp_i_t_:_s_ of the organization, whose task is, pre-
cisely, to establish vigilance of the environment and

to provide the ongoing systems with means for survival,

or innovations .

Figure II is a paradigm of the three functions

of communication in organizations.

The Innovation-Communication
Function

Innovation, the "survival function" of communi-
cation, is one of the least studied in organizational
contexts.18 Traditionally this function has been seen

as a continuance of the process of diffusion of innova-
19

tion with emphasis on the way in which innovations are
disseminated throughout an organizational setting.

But innovation management, or the purposive moni-
toring of change in organizations, is more than only

diffusion; three dimensions can be distinguished within

this function of communication: (a) the process that

l8Berlo (1969, p. 9) states that . . . "The tech-
niques of effectively perform1ng this function have not
been so well explored . . . .

19See for example, Rogers et al. (1968), Jain

(1968), Rogers and Jain (1968).

47

 

 

FUNCTIONS SUB-FUNCTIONS OBJECTIVES
1. Production a) Instruction Compliance
(Socialization)
(Resocialization)
b) Control Output
2. Maintenance Maintenance of self— a) Preservation
concept
Maintenance of b) Continuance
interpersonal
relationships

Maintenance of inno-
vation and production

 

functions

3. Innovation Diffusion a) Change
Creation b) Output
Exploration

 

Figure II. A paradigm of the communication functions in
organizations. Partially adapted from Berlo
(1969).

48

aims at the dissemination of new ideas into a system,

(b) the process of fostering creativity within the sys-
tem, for endogenous exogenous application,20 and (c)

the process of scanning the environment in search of new
ideas, exploration.

As Kahn ep_a1. (1964, p. 135) point out, "Inno-
vation provides adaptive flexibility for what might
otherwise be a dangerously rigid bureaucratic structure."
Kelley and Lazer (1967, p. 276) go even further by sug-
gesting the following activities to be performed by
innovation managers:

1. Acceptance of the inevitability of change and
innovation by management,

2. programmed perception of new . . . needs and of
dysfunctioning in the system,

3. relating . . . Opportunity to corporate resources,
4. specifying innovistic opportunities of the firm,v
5. identifying practical alternative strategies,-

6. determining the expected profitability of each!
of the major strategies,

7. making a decision on innovative action,-
8. promoting the innovation, and

9. assuring . . . acceptance of the innovation.~

 

0Exogenous application is defined as the imple-
mentation of the new ideas that are aimed at the larger
environment, from the point of view of the organization
itself. Endogenous application is defined as new ideas,
whose ultimate effect will be a change in the internal
procedures, structure or rules of the organization.

 

 

49

Managing for change, or innovation management,is,
as a matter of fact, commonly done in organizational

milieus; furthermore, communication is alreagy used in
21

 

order to foster change in organizations. The difference
between what is actually done and the way it should be
done in the future, is simply a degree of emphasis and
expertise.

In spite of the awareness by the present author
of the problems involved in modelling,22 a parsimonious
model of the innovation communication function is devel-

oped in following pages, in order to provide a visual

referent for the analysis of the function itself.

 

21Koontz and O'Donnell (1964, p. 565) call for
an information manager in formal organizations; further,
they add that . . . "many companies are recognizing that
some sort of information digestion service is necessary
if the expansion of basic data is to result in useful in-
formation." Harper, Jr. (1960) suggested a new profession
of intelligence expert. Anderson, Jr. et a1. (1962, p. 1)
address themselves to the problem of the information
explosion and to the difficulty of (a) locating potential
information sources, and (b) segregation of relevant from
irrelevant material; they add that . . . "More and better
information effectively managed at reasonable cost will
become a competitive edge." Daniel (1961) reports a
study done in an Oil company, detecting information needs
and suggesting concrete steps to overcome the lack of in-
formation that became evident.

 

22 I O I l O I
For a d1scuss1on of modell1ng 1n commun1catlon,

see Thayer (1967, p. 80) and Berlo (1969, pp. III-l-lS).
For a more general view of models, see McGrath and Altman
(1966, p. 76).

50

Systems theory will provide, in turn, the general
framework within which the model will be presented. A
detailed examination of systems theory would go beyond
the purpose of the present undertaking, therefore no
attempt will be made to explain the technical aspects of
systems theory itself.23 However, it should be considered,’
as Carroll and Farace (1968, p. 37) pointed out, that . . .
"Generally the relationships in heuristic models repre-
sent only a rough first approximation to the underlying
mechanisms involved in some real-world system."

Organizations are ppe__r_1__systems,24 that means,

they are characterized by wholeness (interdependence of

 

their parts), self-regulation (monitoring of own, inter-

 

nal behavior for reciprocal adaptation with the environ-

ment), equifinallity (outcomes of change in the system

 

are not primarily due to initial conditions, but to the

 

23For detailed explanations of systems theory
and its application to social science, see, for example,
Buckley (1968), and Carroll and Farace (1968); for more
specific applications, see, for example, Buckley (1967)
for relating systems theory to sociologY; Rapoport and
Horvath (1959) to organization theory; Allport (1960) to
personality theory; Ackoff (1957-58) to communications;
Kelley and Lazer (1967) to marketing management; and
Donald (1967) to information management.

24Systems can be divided into Open and closed
accOrding to their relation with their environment; if
there is no exchange Of energy with the environment,
they are closed systems, and if exchange takes place,
then Open systems.

51

action of the self-regulating processes within the sys-

tem), and negentropy (internal order).25

 

Communication impinges upon all four previously-
mentioned characteristics: (a) it contributes to increas-
ing negentropy by providing the organization with a
relationship to its environment, from where orderliness
is Obtained, (b) it facilitates equifinallity by provid-
ing an interconnective device among the self-regulating
processes within the organization, (c) it contributes to
self-regulation, since it links the organization with its
environment in a reciprocal relationship, necessary for
adaptation, and (d) it creates wholeness by permitting

social interaction among the organizational parts.

A Model of Innovation-Communication
Decisions

 

 

The model presented in Figure III, has been
developed at a level of generality that allows its
application to different levels of systems analysis, i.e.,
it can be applied to the study of the intrapersonal1
processes as well as to the organizational processes,

when the organization is viewed as a whole.

 

25Negentropy is the Opposite of entro ,which is
disorder or, more precisely, disorganizat1on. As
SchrOdinger (1968, p. 146) points out, negentropy is . . .
"the device by which an organism maintains itself sta-
tionary at a fairly high level of orderliness . . . and
. . . really consists in continually sucking orderliness
from its environment."

 

HAHIGVBH mcoaumnwcmmno CH cOHHMOMQsEEOo mo HoooE oasmumhm d .HHH ousmwm

mmHm¢QZDom A482W220MH>ZN

 

52

mmHm¢QZDom AdZOHBdNHZdme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmozmHoa< mezHemamzoo
.....::... .......... .- mmomaom
.EzmmazH mom DI mmmeo 92 n A moozmooxm
mmHomaamsm mmomoommm .
accomHa .-
$529.51 No ..... .v 35333
.mommosm onaaonozzoo -1
mmozmHoO< e _m mgia m
qczmwwxm w-.- mmomDOm
mmHomeamam mm>HeomomO moozmooozm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

Since it has been stated that communication is
a process, the model will be examined in two different
time periods; the first one, corresponding to period
T(n-l)' reflects the process occurring one unit of time
before the second one, which has been characterized by
T(n)°

Dotted lines represent inputs of information

into the decision-making unit of the organization.
Straight, solid lines represent the incidence of con—
straints on the decision-making unit, and solid line'
arrows represent the outputs of the communication
management unit.

Two main sources of incoming patterns of matter-
energy, with or without symbolic content, can be distin-

guished: those exogenous to the organization, whose

contribution is frequently called environmental informa—

 

tion, and those internal to the organization itself,
producing endogenous information.

Controllable and uncontrollable events account
for the informational inputs to the organization; pep:

trollable events are defined as those able to be changed

 

by organizational behavior, and uncontrollable ones as

 

those which act upon the organizational activity as con-
straints, to which the organization has to adapt. They
might be influenced and changed in the long-run, but

not in the short-run.

54

The importance of the previous classification of
innovation-communication management derives from the
possibility of exerting influence over the controllable
factors, and from requiring adaptation to the non-
controllable ones in order to allow for survival of the
organization itself.26

A screening or selection process, by which in-
coming information is classified as (a) unusable, hence
discarded, (b) relevant in the long run, to storage, and
(c) for immediate utilization, has to take place at a
certain vital point in the organization. In the case of
innovation-management, the criteria for selection would
be determined by the goals of the organization with re-

spect to change.

A reconciliation process has to be performed;

 

financial resources and other constraints have to be
matched with different objectives (goals and sub-goals
within the organization). In addition to the previously
received information, previously stored information
might be retrieved in order to complement the new inputs.
Once a decision has been reached, communication

strategies are designed, in order to achieve certain

 

26
For a detailed description of controllable and

non-controllable factors, see Kelly and Lazer (1967),
pp. 30 and 306-308).

55

predetermined Objectives, within the limits set up by the
constraints.

These strategies might be directed to different
audiences; some of these audiences are located within the
same organization, in which case we talk about intraor-

ganizational communication, and some audiences will be

 

located outside the systems boundaries, in which case we

talk about extraorganizational communication.

 

Communication strategies are the combination or
mix of communication elements, for the attainment of
specific objectives. Figure IV provides a non-exhaustive
view of these elements, with an indication of some of the
dimensions which can be monitored within each of them;
some of the most frequent problems in message and media
management are also pointed out in this list.

Figure V shows the process presented in Figure
III, but at a different point in time and from an inno-

vation-communication perspective; endogenous and exogenous

 

 

information is composed by feedback--random new informa-
tion—-and retrocommunication--purposively-sought new in—

formation. Retrocommunication is the report of previously-

 

established positions, either in the organizational

structure or outside the boundaries of the organization,

which act as search mechanisms for the innovation function.
’ In intraorganizational communication, the task

of linking decision-makers with their audiences is usually

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMUNICATION
ELEMENTS DIMENSIONS PROBLEMS
1. Messages Content Distortion
Amount a) Condensation
Frequency b) Accentuation
Code Omission
2. Media Types Overload
Direction Underload
Amount Noise
Rigidity
3. Structure Size Relational
(Social
Elements) Location Individual
Space
Status
4. Means for Speed Adaptation
Storage and
Retrieval Accuracy Synchronization
5. Cost Resources
Time
6. Time: as a process variable, impinges on all the

previous elements.

#

Figure IV. A suggested list of communication elements
that can be monitored to achieve efficiency.

57

Hficv

as I coaumOflanEoolcowum>occw mo Hoooa oafioumwm 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.> ousmfim
mmHmeozoom qaazmzzomH>2m
mmHmeazoom gaonaaqueomo moozmooxm
onmommHo -..zozzooomamm
mszHememzoo "
. oneammo mmmeo oze. n....::....::....:u summommm
onaamoqexm mmomaommm m p-
omaomHn monmHomn -t
qa>mamamm ona<onozsoo
.moamosm w_ -onee>ozzH -n
_ a _ Q m moozmooozm
onmommHa e_ m_ m_ H m"...zozzooomamm
onsammo mm>Haomomo .1
oneamoqum --- mocmommm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

given to a certain number of individuals, such as an
ombudsman in a university or a chaplain in the army.27
In extraorganizational communication, it is usually an
independent agency (consultants, marketing research
firms, etc.) which provides the organization with infor-
mation, but sometimes also endogenous units, i.e., mar—
keting research departments, perform that task.

In possession of the new informational inputs,
the reconciliation process takes place again, and ob—
jectives, resources and constraints are revised in order
to determine the adequacy of the previous strategy. If

minor changes appear necessary, a variation in tactical

communication takes place, i.e., increasing the frequency

 

of the messages, changing from one medium to another,
changing the content of the messages, etc.

If the new information is discrepant, to a large
degree, with previous informational inputs, a revision
or reevaluation of the newly acquired information be-
comes necessary. Major changes pertain to the realm of
strategies, for which probably higher echelons in the
organizational structure have to concede legitimization.

But different strategies or tactics are neces-

sary not only in order to reach different audiences; the

 

27This concept, of purposively-sought feedback,
has been expressed repeatedly by Berlo to the author in
conversations.

59

sub-function of each of the three major functions of
communication (production, maintenance and innovation)
also require different strategic approaches. Within the
innovation function, it might be necessary to establish
different tactics for the three sub—functions that have
been distinguished, namely diffusion, creation and ex-
ploration.

As it can be Observed in Figure VI, the previously
mentioned strategies of communication, then become inputs
into the system or sub-system, whichever level is being
analyzed. As inputs, they can be measured and related
to outputs.

The independent variable then would be stated as
a certain strategy for achieving a certain objective.

The dependent variable is the output of the system.

The independent variable is the communication
mix, or a single element of the strategy, such as message
content, degree of channel usage, etc. and it has a
definite, recognizable effect, which is the dependent
variable, changes in the output of the system. Because
of the existance of recognizable effects, measurement Of
the independent variable should not be difficult.

Exploration communication strategies might be
measured in terms of their consequent variables, the
number of new ideas obtained from (a) the environment,

and/or (b) the organization itself. Creativity strategies

60

GOHumowc58EOOIc0flum>occH mo Hooofi usmuso names as .H> ousmflm

mmHm¢QZDOm AdBZHSZOMH>Zm

 

 

 

mwflmeozoom aaonSNHzmomo

 

mmHm<DZDom QmZOHBUZDm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mamoH smz mo .
onnaszmmmH .
qezmmszH .
mama 52 .m onmommHo. mmHomaéem
BHeeszmmmH . . n. ...... onmsmmHa
qazmmexm . “
onEzOmzoo . ”
fizmmazH momll. . H
mama smz A ” mmHomafiam
iii: -- onaaumo
onemeszooF , 23.2me "
qezmmexm mo . "
mama 3oz . "
mmomDOm . .
msozmooozm ill . " mmHomaamem
some 3229 . .f: --. oneemoqum
.mo mamoH E2 20:. .
azmzzomH>zm «moqumn
some $229 .
nmo mama smz

 

A.l.||l maaeaoo . maomzH Illv

 

 

 

 

61

might be measured in terms of their dependent variables
which are (a) the number of new ideas for internal
consumption--those implemented within the boundaries of
the organization, and/or (b) the number of new ideas for
external consumption--to be consumed outside the bound-
aries of the organization. Diffusion strategies might
be measured by the speed of dissemination of new ideas
within the system, and/or outside the system.

Then it becomes possible to study not only the

effectiveness of communication strategies, but, if re-

 

lated to the cost-benefit analysis of the different
strategies--the independent variables--the study of com-

munication efficiency in the organizational context

 

could be started.

The Functions of the
Information Manager

The era in which we live, combines advanced
technology with massive use of capital, and its most
conspicuous manifestation is the modern large corpora-
tion. Modern life tends toward the development of gi-
gantic organizations. As Galbrait (1967, p. 9) describes,

Nearly all communications, nearly all production
and distribution of electric power, much trans-
portation, most manufacturing and mining, a sub-
stantial share of retail trade, and a considerable
amount of entertainment are conducted or provided
by large firms. The numbers are not great; we may
think without error of most work being done by
five or six hundred firms.

62

The size and complexity of an organization de-
termines the need for task subdivision, or specialization
in order to achieve efficiency. In the realm of execu-
tive action or decision-making, the trend toward
specialization has become also evident in recent years.
Production managers, financial managers, personnel mana-
gers, marketing managers, and many others, have been
emerging in the hierarchical structure of organizations;
the time seems to have come where the monitoring of the
communication activities of large organizations requires
emphasis and expertise.28

In other words, information management appears
to be the next step in this process of subdividing re-
sponsibilities for greater efficiency in organizations.
Up to the present, monitoring communication has been
part of the responsibilities Of each functional manager,
method by which the advantages of expertise have been
lost to a certain degree.

The functions to be performed by an information
manager29 in an organization have been visualized as

follows:

 

28For a similar view of organizational communi-
cation, see Thayer (1967, pp. 92-96).

29The information manager would be responsible
for intraorganizational and extraorganizational communi-
cation activities, although for the purpose of this
paper, only intraorganizational communication management
is analyzed.

63

l. The assessment of situational factors,
2. planning and programming the system,
3. implementation and organization, and

4. control, evaluation and adjustment of the system.

A brief description of these four different
functions will be provided:

1. The assessment of situational factors.

It implies the study of existing conditions of
the communication system; an inventory of available
resources has to be performed in the first place, in-
cluding financial aspects and technological facilities.

A revision of institutional policies and pro-
cedures regarding the expected communication behavior
of the members of the organization should be undertaken
at this point. Also, the organizational objectives--or
perhaps the individual functional goals--should be
Operationalized as clearly as possible. Both existing
policies and organizational or functional objectives
should then be compared in order to establish the degree
to which they coincide.

Mapping the extant communication structure of the
organization is the next step; through sociometric tech-
niques and network analysis, the elements composing the
spontaneous communication structure can be identified.
Determination of cliques, isolates, liaison members,

polarization nuclei or magnetic centers, sub-cliques, etc.

64

will allow a better description of the communication
practices within the organizational boundaries, hence,
would serve the purpose of identifying audience targets
for communication strategies.

It must be remembered that over time the com-
munication structure may change in composition, which

is why a revision procedure must be established.

2. Planning and programming the system.

Once available resources, organizational ob-
jectives and the present functioning of the extant
communication structure are known, communication stra-
tegies for achievement of the specific goals can be
designed.

Mechanisms for retrocommunication have to be
established and programmed in terms of desired frequency
of retrocommunication contacts, type of information that
should be provided to the decision-making center, degree
of accuracy needed and channels which will be used in
order to maintain a regular information flow to the top
echelons of the organization, and all the above men-
tioned decisions have to be related to the budgetary
constraints of the organization.

The frequency of control procedures, by which
changes in the spontaneous network will be detected,

also has to be established. As pointed out previously,

65

a rotating inventory of the communication network is
convenient in order to introduce variations in the tac-
tics by which the overall communication strategies are

carried out.

3. Implementation and organization.

During implementation of the strategies that
have been designed previously, the focus of attention
has to be devoted to the achievement of sub-goals Of
the communication function; several different tactics
might be used, even within the innovation-communication
function in order to attain creation, exploration or
dissemination of information.

Individuals in the organization who will serve
as links for retrocommunication have to be trained and
assigned to their roles in the organizational structure.
Members of the organization must be made aware of the
existence of the different channels and of the integra-
tion of pre-planned and spontaneous networks through

30

formalization of the latter.

4. Control, evaluation and adjustment of the system.
New information received through feedback and

retrocommunication in the decision-making center, will

 

3OFormalization is defined as the degree to which
the spontaneous lines of communication are incorporated
into the organization chart.

 

66

allow comparison and contrast of the stated objectives‘wflfli
degree of achievement of these Objectives. If large
differences appear between them, a revision of communi-
cation strategies might be advisable; if the differences
stay within previously specified limits, only minor
changes in tactical communication might be necessary.

Goals of the organization as a whole or of
certain functions of the organization may have changed
in the meantime, as a response to changes iJl the
environment. A comparison of the strategic design with
the initially stated goals seems advisable.

The system has to be tested permanently in terms
of underload or overload of channels, distortion of
messages, changes in the spontaneous communication net-

31 of pre-planned channels, omission Of

work, flexibility
messages, noise in the channels and degree of synchroni-
zation of the information stored and retrieved by mechani-

cal, manual or electronic means and the needs of the

decision—making unit.

The following chapter will be an attempt to es-
tablish some prOpositions that can be tested by research
in organizational settings, aiming at a better understand-

ing of the innovation-communication function.

 

31Flexibility of pre-planned channels of communi-
<3ation in an organization is defined as the degree to
‘JhiCh these channels are able to carry messages they have
not been designed to carry.

 

CHAPTER III

A PROPOSITIONAL APPROACH TO INNOVATION

MANAGEMENT

The present chapter contains a non-exhaustive
list of about 25 propositions and sub-propositions con-
sidered to be relevant to innovation-communication
management. These propositions are intended to provide
a basis for future research activities in organizational

communication.

Significance of Propositions

A proposition is defined as "a plan or scheme

 

suggested for acceptance."1 As used in the context of

the present undertaking, a proposition is a statement

 

suggested for acceptance, specifying the determinants
of certain phenomena, most frequently in terms of the
relationship between or among variables, on the basis

of research evidence and/or practical experience.

 

1American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (1969, p. 1049).

2For examples of propositional inventories in
current literatures, see (1) Rogers with Schoemaker

67

68

On the continuum of scientific formulation,
propositions are placed between hypotheses and gen-
eralizations; hypotheses are simply "conjectural
statements of the relation between two or more vari-
ables" (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 20), meanwhile proposi-
tions, as Rogers and Jain (1969, p. 8) observed . . .

"are generalizations in that they are backed up by

 

research evidence; . . ." But then, generalizations
usually exhibit a larger amount of empirical evidence
to support their statements than propositions.

Propositions, like hypotheses, have to satisfy
two conditions in order to be of value to scientific
inquiry. First, they must provide a clear statement
about the relationship of two or more variables, and
second, they have to carry implications for testing
the stated relation.

Sometimes, propositions are simple statements
of belief, based on previous experience and/or obser-
vation, suggesting potentials for further scientific

inquiry; these propositions are close to hypotheses.

 

(1970) on diffusion of innovations, (2) Rogers and
Jain (1969) on communication between research and
client systems, (3) Rogers and Bhowmik (1969) on com-
munication and homophily-heterophily, (4) March and
Simon (1958) on organizational activity, (5) McGrath
and Altman (1966) and Collins and Guetzkow (1964)

on small group research, (6) Price (1968) on organiza-
tional effectiveness, Berelson and Steiner (1964) on
human behavior, and Thompson (1967) on social science
applied to organizations.

69

On other occasions, previous research on the topic is
compiled and synthesized and a generic proposition de-
rived then. - . . almost generalizations. But regard-
less of the way in which they are developed, the main
importance of prOpositions in the technical literature
resides in their pivotal role as Solo (1967, p. 116)
describes . . . "to provide for the systematic and
progressive development of these bodies of knowledge."
The interrelation of propositions and gener-
alizations with theory construction, was pointed out
by Blau and Scott (1962, pp. 8-9) when they stated
that
On the one hand the objective of all scientific
behavior is to develOp a body of substantive
theory, that is, a set of interrelated, verifi-
able generalizations that account for and predict
the empirical phenomena that can be observed.
On the other hand, scientific research must be
guided by a theoretical framework, that is, a
system of interrelated concepts that suggest

theoretically fruitful lines of empirical
investigation.

Organizational communication is precisely at
the stage of the chicken-and-egg paradox. Thayer
(1967, p. 74) pointed in this direction when summariz-
ing that . . . "One needs a comprehensive and veridical
theoretical framework by which to perceive and evaluate
relevant empirical data; but one also needs the rele-

vant empirical data by which to construct the theory

70

that determines the relevancy of the empirical
data."

The importance of propositions in providing
a new starting point for inquiry seems rather obvious.
But Olsen (1968, p. 13) throws in a word of caution
about assigning a too definite role to propositions,
when suggesting that . . . "The danger lies in the
temptation to treat empirical generalizations as if
they were theoretical explanations, and to forget that

they are only the building blocks of theories."

 

Concepts are always in need of further testing,
modification, development and broader perspective.
Propositions are aimed at providing a linkage between
past and future research, by means of reducing the
universe of existing empirical data and theoretical
formulations into more manageable dimensions. Further-
more, they provide direction to future efforts, per-
forming a valuable resource-optimizing function.

But the usefulness of propositions goes beyond
the realm of scientific inquiry by providing a linkage
between research and practice. Collins and Guetzkow
(1964, p. 2) recognized this additional attribute of
propositions when pointing out that . . . "As we
built on these [previous] findings, however, we tried
to recognize that they ultimately have implications

for practice."

71

The proliferation of research in most areas
of human knowledge has determined the need for a
linkage between research and practice.3 Rogers and
Jain (1969, p. 1) state that: "The problem of research
dissemination and utilization is both complex and
urgent in nature. There is concern among both sci-
entists and practitioners about improving the research
utilization process"; furthermore, they develop a set
of propositions aimed at closing the existing gap.
Jain and Amend (1969) addressed themselves to the
problem of developing a conceptual framework that

would facilitate such an endeavour.

Criteria for the Selection
of Propositions

 

 

The selection criteria which were used while
developing the propositions presented in subsequent
pages, can be summarized as follows:

(a) First: the substantive interests of the present
writer have guided the over-all approach to this

undertaking. The role of communication in

 

3Herring (1947), Schramm (1954), Guetzkow (1959),
Havelock (1964) and Guba (1968), among others have, in
one way or another expressed their concern with facili-
tating the transfer of research-based information to the
potential users.

72

organizational management, specifically as related
to the management of the innovation-communication
function, has captivated the imagination of the
author, a former business executive, whose profes-
sional biases are confessed and, presumably, promi-
nent throughout the paper.
In this context, Berlo (1967, p. 7) wrote:

I'm suggesting that the scientist can't es-

cape the fact that he is a product of the

data he is observing, and that his own back-

ground and experience, his own values and

beliefs inevitably affect his structuring of

physical reality. That relationship should

be guarded against as a source of blindness

and misperception; however, it should not be
ignored as a source of insight and creativity.

(b) The second criterion is one of focusing on organi-
zational variables whenever posSible--as Opposed
to intrapersonal, organismic variables.4 Although
the importance of intrapersonal processes is rec-
ognized as a determinant of organizational communi-
cation behavior, both as cause and effect, an
examination of those variables would have been
beyond the central purpose of this undertaking,

that is, the examination of the transactional,

 

4For a discussion of the implications for com-
munication research of studying individual behavior in
groups vs. rou behavior (intrapersonai vs interper-
sonal events , see Watzlavick et a1. (1967), Guimaraes
(1969) and Rogers and Jain (1968).

 

73

interactive communication events, taking place in
an organizational setting.

This approach of focusing on integrative
communication transactions, can be equated with a
macro-communication perspective, as Opposed to
micro-communication, which focuses its attention
on individual or, at the most, on dyadic communi-
cation transactions. Macro-communication is com-
munication analysis performed at the aggregate data

level.

(c) The third criterion consists of the precedence

given to existing field studies in ongoing organi-

 

zations, over studies applying the laboratory
method, whose research tradition is usually called
"small group research." The speculative basis of
extrapolation of findings from the latter tradi-
tion5 to an organizational ongoing context is
recognized. In certain cases though, mainly to
the absence of field studies on the t0pic, certain
generalizations appear to be safely guaranteed.

This seems especially to be the case when smaller,

 

5For our present inability to translate find-
ings derived from the small group research into a
superordinate theory of organizational communication,
see Guetzkow (1965, p. 535) and Thayer (1967, p. 75).

74

functional units--as Opposed to the organization

as a whole--are examined, as it frequently will

be in subsequent pages. Carroll and Farace (1968,
p. 46), referring to the controlled laboratory
experiments (small group research being a part of
this methodological tradition), pointed out that

. . . "they Offer considerable promise in instances
where rather precise measurements are needed and
normal £1219 conditions are too complex to be of

help."

(d) The fourth criterion applied in selecting proposi-
tions deals with the selection Of independent and

dependent variables. An independent variable is

 

. . . "The presumed cause of the dependent variable,
the presumed effect. The independent variable is
the antecedent; the dependent variable is the con-
sequent." (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 39).

The initial objective was to state the de-
pendent variable as organizational or functional
effectiveness. Furthermore, the primary intention
should be stated as aiming to stipulate the de-
pendent variable in terms of organizational or

6

functional efficiengy. Unfortunately current

 

 

6Effectiveness is defined as "the degree of goal-
achievement," (Etzioni, 1964, p. 8) and efficiency as the
ratio between effectiveness and cost. Cost is defined as
the amount of time and resources spent in the process of
goal-achievement.

 

75

literature on organizational communication shows
no evidence that the cost factor has ever been con-
sidered as a variable.

The independent variable or variables have

been stated as the communication elements that can

 

be varied in order to achieve a certain effect.

 

During the process, however, of arriving
at logical and supported propositions, it was
found that communication variables also became
dependent. Furthermore, the introduction of asser-
tive statements with disregard for the variables
involved were unavoidable in order to maintain the
logical flow of ideas and to support subsequent
propositions.

A ceteris paribus assumption7 had to be
made in order to simplify the formulation of the
propositions themselves. It should be noted though
that strategic decisions with respect to any given
set of alternatives have also to consider that same

assumption in order to become operational.

 

7A systemic view of any organism is based on
the premise that interrelatedness and interdependence
are but necessary conditions, perhaps even "sine qua
p93" to the rigorous analysis of the function1ng Of
the organism. Ceteris paribus--all other things re-
maining equal--is thus a conceptual license permitted
for analytical purposes only.

76

Three main sources of inspiration will be per-
ceptible during the development of the propositions
themselves; (a) the logic with which the author attempted
to relate and integrate different previously stated
propositions and by means of which a certain structure
was imposed on the disarray of research findings cited
for this purpose, (b) previous research studies which
provided the bulk of knowledge synthesized in subse-
quent pages, and (c) the accumulated knowledge of pre-
vious authors who synthesized findings from studies
available at the time in which they wrote.

Communication in organizations is a multivari-
ate phenomenon; when developing generalizations like
the Ones which will be presented in subsequent pages,
it must be recognized that for analytical purposes, an
oversimplification of real phenomena :is created. Most
Of the propositions suggest relationships between two
or three variables at the most, the implicit assumption
being that these few variables account for a consider-
able amount of the variance in the dependent variable.
But (a), how much Of the variance is explicated by
these variables, and (b) what other variables, in addi-
tion to the ones suggested for research, account for

the total variance, is not known.

77

The propositions are grouped according to the

independent variable, primarily as follows:

PrOpositions 1-4 deal with uncertainty and change.
Propositions 5-6 deal with channel integrationfx\>
Propositions 7-ll deal with channel restrictions. \
Propositions 12-14 deal with channel formalization.
Proposition 15 deals with structural distance.
Proposition 16 deals with spatial distance.
Proposition 17 deals with written communication.

Proposition 18 deals with origin of information.

Propositions 19-20 deal with communication integration.

It should be noted that the number of derived
propositions or sub-propositions under a given sub-set
of the classification is not to be interpreted as re-
flecting a degree of relative importance assigned to
that particular sub-set.

Finally, although the propositions have been
centered on the innovation-communication function pri-
marily, the degree of interdependence of the three main
functions communication performs in an organization,
limits considerably the possibility of claiming exclu-
siveness. Berlo (1969, p. IV-8) posited that . . .

"Any given communication transactions may be used t2

78

. 8 .
serve one or more of these three funct1ons [product1on,

 

innovation and maintenance]; i.e., it is not suggested

that only one function can be served at a time."
Exhaustiveness of the potential lucubrations

on the tOpic is obviously impossible, given the pur-

pose and scope of the present undertaking.

Listing of Propositions

 

Uncertainty and change

 

The first four propositions are aimed at relat-
ing uncertainty and the process of change in an organi-
zational context to the volume or amount of communication

transactions performed within the system.

Proposition 1.0 - The degree of uncertainty within a

 

given organization is positively related to the total

 

volume of communication transactions.

 

Uncertainty is defined as a low degree of pre-

 

dictability of events in a given setting at a given
point in time. Berlo (1969, p. II,10) defines the two
determinants of uncertainty in a system as . . . "(1)
the number of alternatives that exist, and (2) the

relative probabilities of those alternatives."

 

8Italics arethe present writer's.

79

New ideas emanating from a system, either

directed toward the system itself or to its environment,9

 

and new informational inputs from the outside, contri-
bute to increase uncertainty to the extent that they

are incompatible with the past experience of the members
of the system, to the degree that they increase the
perceived number of existing alternatives, and to the
degree that they alter the perceived relative probabili-
ties of those alternatives.

Change, defined as the variation from one state
of a system to another different state, covers the phy-
sical and non-physical dimensions of that system. The
latter deals with the development and/or transfer of
new ideas or innovation.lo

Proposition 1.0 can then be extended to state

that:

Proposition 2.0 - The degree of change within an

 

 

9Environment of a given system is defined as
the set of exogenous constraints that influence and are
influenced by the operations of the system. Olsen
(1968, p. 27) discusses the reciprocal responsiveness
and the interdependence of environment and social
organizations.

 

10Rogers (1962, p. 13) defines innovation as
. . . "an idea perceived as new by the individual."
But innovation is also a function of the communication
management in organizations, as used frequently in the
present context.

 

80

organization is positively related to the total volume

 

of communication transactions.

Downs (1967, pp. 128-129) posited the relation-
ship between environmental change and volume of com-
munication, by suggesting that . . . "The faster the
rate of significant change in the bureau's external
environment, the higher will be the total volume of

messages within the bureau." Thus,

Proposition 3.0 - The rate of environmental change is

 

positively related to the total amount of intraorgani-

 

zational communication transactions.

 

A communication transaction is defined here as

 

the event in which two or more participating systems
interact with the help of a symbolic code.ll
Systems theory allows general principles that
have been found to be applicable to the system as a
whole, to be transferred through different levels of
systematic complexity without losing validity. From

proposition 3.0, if the whole organization is defined

as the environment for a specific functional

 

11Berlo (1969).

 

81

unit12 that operates within the boundaries of the

organization, it may be concluded that:

Proposition 4.0 - The degree of change within a given

 

organization is positively related to the total volume
of intrafunctional communication transactions of a

given functional unit of that organization.

It has been established so far that a positive
relationship seems to exist between the development
and/or transfer of new ideas in an organizational con—
text and the volume of communication transactions
occurring in that particular setting.

The possibility of Operating conceptually back
and forth between the system itself and the particular
sub-system that is examined (organization vs. functional
unit) offers rewarding perspectives. Furthermore, a
bridge has been created between the larger environment
and the organization itself (system and sub-system

respectively).

 

2Functional unit is defined here as any sub-
set of the set constituted by the organization as a
whole. In business organizations, the equivalent would
be a department, who performs a specific function for
organizational purposes.

 

82

Channel integration

 

The following propositions, 5.0 and 6.0, relate
the degree of channel integration to organizational

effectiveness.

Proposition 5.0 - Pre-planned and spontaneous communi-

 

cation networks are complementary and substitutable.

Prejplanned and spontaneous networks are what

 

 

in current literature is known as formal and informal
networks.

Formal communication channels are defined as
those which "substantially coincide with the formal
authority structure" (Downs, 1967, p. 113) and are
used for the transmission of the Official communication
transactions, those which are commonly recorded and
tend_to legitimize the hierarchical subdivision of

power. Informal channels are those which do not coin-

 

cide with the lines Of Officially sanctioned power
structure; as Schwartz (1968, p. 5) noted . . .
"negatively defined as a residual category." Perhaps

a better differentiation could be achieved by stipulat-

ing them in terms of the way in which they evolve: the

 

"formal" channels are preeplanned during organizational

 

life and the "informal" channels are developed from a

83

little known set of circumstances in which personality
traits, convenience, empathy and functionality appear
to contribute to a large degree. In other words, it is

a "spontaneous" development. The previous proposition

 

could then be reworded as follows:

Pre:planned and spontaneous [develpped] communication

networks are complementary and substitutable.

 

Burns (1954, p. 96) stressed the fact, derived
from a field study in the production department of a
British factory, that the informal [spontaneous] com-
munication channels are "essential to the proper func-
tioning of the vertical [formal] system. Habbe (1952,
p. 34) corroborates these findings.

But there is also some empirical evidence which
suggests that the degree of interdependence of both
communication channels might not always be similar
across different organizations. Davis (1953), in his
classical study of the "Jason Company," found that
grapevine did not fill the gap left after restrictions
on the pre-planned communication channels were imposed.

Downs (1967, p. 114) after examining most of
the available evidence at that time, sustains that
. . . "within every organization there is a straining

toward completeness in the overall communication system."

84

It is a contention of the present undertaking
that the cause for such divergencies to exist is that
all previous research was done under the assumption
that a constant volume of communication had to find
its way through the organizational structure. When
stipulating proposition 5.0 it was considered that an
increase of the volume of communicational transactions
would develop on the basis of the amount of uncertainty
introduced into the system due to new ideas.

This analysis allows the following generalization:

Proposition 6.0 - The degree of integration of pre-

 

planned and spontaneous communication channels is

positivelyprelated to the effectiveness of an

 

organization.

 

Berelson and Steiner (1964, p. 370) related the
effectiveness of an organization to the degree of in-
tegration of channels by stating that . . . "The
efficiency13 of a large formal organization is sizably

enhanced when its own chain of command or decision

 

13The authors do not explain their conceptuali-
zation of "efficiency," it is assumed that they are
referring to the concept of "effectiveness," as defined
earlier in this Chapter.

85

or communication14 is tied into the informal network

 

of groups within the organization, so that the network

can be used to support the organization's goals."

Channel restrictions

 

Propositions 7.0 to 11.0 deal with the relation
of channel restrictions to organizational and functional

effectiveness and to organizational change.

Proposition 7.0 - Pre-planned communication channels

 

in an organization are more rigid than spontaneous

 

communication channels.

 

The change of the established, official communi-
cation network requires the development Of policies and
procedures which are time-consuming and require formal-
ized sanctions to be carried out. The spontaneous net-
work, Since it arises from convenience, requires simple
agreement (mainly tacit) of the transactional partici-
pants to become legitimized.

Rigidity of a communication channel is defined

 

l4Italics by the present author. Note the
interchangeability of the terms "decision" and "com-
munication" used by the authors. This corroborates
previous statements in this paper that equate decision-
making with a communication process.

 

86

here as the time and operations required to change

previously established functions.

Proposition 8.0 - Given a higher volume of communication

 

in an organization, restrictions imposed on the pre-

planned channels are positively related to the volume

 

of communication transactions in the spontaneous

 

channels.

From propositions 5.0 and 7.0

Restrictions on pre-planned communication
channels can be implemented, as stated by Downs (1967,
p. 114) by . . . "ordering subordinates not to communi-
cate with each other, by physically separating people,
by requiring prior clearance for any communication out-
side a certain bureau section, or by hiring only

reticent subordinates."

Proposition 9.0 - The innovation-communication process

 

increases the volume of communication transactions in

 

the spontaneous channels.

 

It has been stipulated previously that change
appears to be positively related to a general increase
in the volume of communication transactions in an

organization. Further, it has been stipulated that

87

both pre-planned and spontaneous communication channels
are complementary and substitutable.

Field studies and experimental research support
the previous prOposition. Brookes (1963) discusses the
communication behavior of scientists in organized set-
tings and concludes that there is a strong tendency to
use spontaneous channels (visits with colleagues,
meetings, conferences, etc.) to exchange information.
Creative thinking seems to be hindered with the use of
pre-planned, as postulated, more rigid channels. The
exchange of new ideas, in search for creativity, ap-
pears to be motivated by what Gibson (1962, p. 35)
defined as . . . "an uneasy feeling that a discrepancy
exists between preconceived ideas and our observations
of natural phenomena." "Uneasiness" might be called

uncertainty.

 

One of the characteristics of pre-planned
channels is the official recording of communication
events, and spontaneous channels appear to have the . . .
"great advantage of not being official; hence they
[messages] can be withdrawn, altered, adjusted, magni-
fied, or canceled without any official record being
made" . . . and further . . . "almost all new ideas

are first proposed and tested as subformal15

 

15The terminology used by Downs is based on a
classification elaborated by Jones (1964); subformal

88

communications." (Downs, 1967, p. 114)
Several sub-propositions can be derived from

the ones previously stated:

Sub-proposition 9.1 — The increase over the usual or

 

normal amount of communication transactions in an

 

organization, if due to the exchange of new ideas,

 

will be absorbed by the spontaneous channels.

 

Sub-prOposition 9.2 - When functional units of an

 

organization are devoted to creativity, spontaneous

9

 

channels will be preferred over the preiplanned ones

 

to test the feasibility of new ideas.

 

Sub-prOposition 9.3 - When functional units of an

 

organization, are devoted to creativity, spontaneous

 

channels will be used to reduce uncertainty.

 

Shepard (1954) stipulated that the free flow

of information among scientists--spontaneous channel

 

communications is used here in the sense of "the com-
munication that takes place in an organization in ac-
cordance with the non-written rules and procedures
about what to communicate to whom." It can take place
along pre-planned channels but also along Spontaneous
channels. Downs tends to equate it with horizontal
(among peers) flow of information, since "the informal-
ity of the messages exchange plays down variations in
status," when it involves superior-subordinates
transactions.

89

openness--stimu1ated ideas and provided additional in-
centives for further conceptual developments. This
was achieved through the emotional rewards obtained
from what could be called "knowledge demonstration"16
to peers.

The preceding analysis suggests another propo-

sition:

Proposition 10.0 - The more restrictions imposed on

 

spontaneous channels of units devoted to creativity

 

within an organization, the lower the effectiveness of

 

that specific unit.

 

The process mentioned in proposition 8.0 does
not seem to hold true when the inverse situation is
presented, namely, the imposition of restrictions on
spontaneous channels. Perhaps proposition 5.0 should
be qualified by adding that pre-planned channels of
communication appear to lack the capacity to absorb
additional amounts of communication transactions when

these additional volumes of communication are due to

 

uncertainty-reduction-seeking behaviors.

 

 

16"Knowledge demonstration" is used in this
context to signal out a behavior that consists of com-
munication transactions aimed at registering technical
knowledge and intellectual proficiency.

90

Considering the organization as a whole, and
superimposing the concept of organizational change on

the system, it can be stated that:

Proposition 11.0 - The degree to which restrictions

 

are imposed on the spontaneous communication channels

 

of an organization, are negatively related to the rate

 

of organizational change.

 

As synthesized by Crane (1965, p. 275) . . .
"In addition to serving the ends of the individual
employees, informal [spontaneous] communications . . .
may help the firm itself, by providing flexibility for
situations not covered by the rules. Going from one
department up to the top and then down again, to an-
other part of the same firm, or to another organization,
is the time-consuming process."

It was stated in proposition 9.0 that the
innovation-communication function tends to rely more
heavily on spontaneous channels than on official pre-
planned channels. It could be argued that in order
to become legitimized, any innovation has to be incor-
porated into the pre-planned circuit of organizational
communication. The contention here is, however, that

the process of development and/or transfer of innovations

91

in organizational settings causes heavier amounts of
communication transactions in the spontaneous channels,
which is a postulate that does not deny the possibility
of final legitimation through the pre-planned channels
of communication.

Rewording proposition 11.0,

Sub-proposition 11.1 - The degree of openness of spon-
taneous channels of communication is positively related

to the rate of change implementation in an organization.

There is also some evidence in the literature,
although not conclusive, that a high volume of intra-
functional communication transactions is positively
related to the time-pressure under which a functional
unit devoted to creativity Operates. This appears to
be related to an increase in uncertainty (since time-
pressure might alter the perceived relative probabili-
ties of task-completion), hence, it would corroborate
proposition 1.0.

Proposition 11.0 and sub-proposition 11.1
should, though, be qualified further. As Bass (1965,
p. 310) points out . . . "it was concluded that too
much horizontal communication was taking place in this
factory and too little between the different echelons

for optimum operations. It may be that we find it

92

most comfortable to talk at length with our peers,
rather than with our superiors or our subordinates."
Further, he stresses the importance of horizontal
lines of communication being incorporated into the
organization chart. This process will be called
"formalization."

This view, which is in accordance with previously
postulated proposition 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, permits some

generalizations on channel formalization.

Channel formalization

The following three propositions, and the sub-
propositions derived from them, relate channel formali-

zation to organizational effectiveness and change.

Proposition 12.0 - The degree of formalization of
spontaneous communication channels is_positively related

to the effectiveness of an organization.

In support of this statement, Bass (1965, p.
310) reports that research organizations (NASA,17 for
example) have found that formalizing the spontaneous

communication channels has become necessary for the

organization to achieve a convenient degree of

 

17NASA, The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

93

flexibility in the system, and that this flexibility
has proven to increase the effectiveness of the entire
organization.

If the stated goal is innovation (creativity
and/or dissemination of new ideas), it can be concluded

that:

Proposition 13.0 - The degree of formalization of spon-

 

taneous communication channels is positively related to

the effectiveness of change implementation in an

 

organization.

 

and, consequently,

Sub-prOposition 13.1 - The degree of formalization of

 

spontaneous communication channels in functional units

 

devoted to creativity is positively related to the ef-

 

fectiveness of that specific unit.

 

Group behavior seems to acquire special rele-
vance if the problem is confronted from the point of
view of a specific functional unit of an organization,
and it is especially worthwhile examining when the task
the group is expected to accomplish is defined as
creativity, the development of new ideas.

Blau and Scott (1962, p. 119) relate group

problem-solving success to the volume of communication

94

that is performed within the group, when stating that
. . . "social communication in a group working on a
common task provides a battleground of ideas, which
stimulates thinking and particularly facilitates de-

tecting false leads, but which simultaneously inter-
18

 

feres with coordination."

 

There is, however, some indication as to the
relationship between coordination of communication and
accuracy of the developed solutions to certain problems.
McGrath and Altman (1966, p. 140) after an examination
of several studies relating performance to problem-
solving behavior19 determined that coordination appeared
to be significantly related to accuracy.

It seems then that some degree of social control
is necessary to maintain the proper balance between the
volume of communication transactions and the effective-
ness of a given functional unit of an organization. It
has been stated previously that creativity and/or dis-
semination of new ideas is positively related to the

degree of irrestricted communication transactions.

 

18Italics are the present author's. Coordina-
tion is defined as purposive patterning of communication
transactions, as opposed to random distribution of them.

 

19Experimental studies performed within the
Bales (1951) tradition of small group research.

95

Furthermore, it has been stated that the innovation
communication function tends to be positively related
to the spontaneous channels of communication within

an organization.' The following conditional proposition

can then be derived:

Proposition 14.0 - Given coordination--the degree of

 

openness of formalized spontaneous channels of communi-

cation in a functional unit devoted to creativity in

 

an organization is positively related to the effective-

ness of that particular unit,

 

which subsumes several previous stipulations. A cer-
tain amount of centralization and structure seems im-
portant even for the adequate functioning of the

spontaneous communication network.

Structural distance

 

Another apparent dysfunctional phenomenon in
group performance is the degree of status differential
within the members of a group.20 Blau and Scott (1962,

pp. 116-128) distinguish three main dysfunctionalities

 

20See for example studies performed by Torrance
(1955), Wessen (1958) and Hurwitz et a1. (1953).

96

of status differences21 in group problem-solving.
"First: . . . explicit status distinctions tend to
reduce social interaction and social support . . .
Second: . . . formally instituted status differences
tend to undermine the process of competition for re-
spect . . . and Third: . . . status differences distort
the error-correcting function of social interaction."
Rogers and Bhowmik (1969, pp. 9-11) discuss
also the functionality of low status differences in
general communication effectiveness; the phenomenon of
status collation as determining higher likelihood of
communication interaction is posited by the authors
under the name of "homophilis," and a reciprocal
causal relationship is suggested when stating that
. . . "homophily may be (1) the result of previous in-
teraction, or (2) the basis of choice of those with
whom interacts."

The preceding discussion leads to the following:

 

21In this context, status is defined as the re-
lative position of organizational members in either
one or both, the official hierarchical structure of
the organization and/or in the non-official, sometimes
called informal hierarchical structure that develops
in the organizational context. For a detailed analy-
sis, see Kahn et a1. (1964, pp. 137-149.)

97

Proposition 15.0 - The degree of homophily existing

 

among the members of a functional creative unit of an

 

organization, is positively related with (a) the total
volume of intrafunctional communication transactions

and (b), the effectiveness of that particular unit,

which coincides with Blau and Scott's (1962, p. 123)
conclusion that . . . "the more pronounced the hierar-
chical differences in a group, the less effective it
will perform."

The previous analysis leads also to some sub-

propositions:

Sub-proposition 15.1 - Status similarity (homophily)

 

is positively related to the use of spontaneous

 

channels of communication.

 

This assertion is also supported by several

findings from field studies and experimental research.22

Spacial Distance

 

Another determinant of communication transac-
tions occurring in an organizational context is the

spatial distance separating participants in the

 

22For example, see Burns (1954) and Donald
(1959), and the summary of findings in Guetzkow (1965)
In connection with the topic, see also Krech, Crutch-
field, and Ballachey (1962).

98

. . 23
communication network.

Bfirolandschaft is a word coined by Eberhard and

 

WOlfgang Schnelle, German management consultants known
as the "Quickborner Team." Literally translated,

Bfirolandschaft is office landscape, a new technique of

 

 

designing organizationl buildings in a highly unconven-
tional and controversial way, in order to facilitate
human interaction, and hence work relationships. The
starting point of office design is the extant communi-
cation structure, which is mapped and lines of communi-
cation density drawn among the members of the organiza-
tion on a chart of communication density.

A matrix chart is develOped showing numerical
values for communication density, and computers are
used to test different alternatives for minimizing the
length of high density communication lines. The real
work patterns--as distinguished from those supposed to
exist--determine the internal spatial arrangements among
members of the organization. Removable furniture and
moveable partitions, called "action furniture," provide

but the minimum necessary separation.

 

23For further references, see Pile (1970). The
Krupp Building in Reinhausen, Germany, the new offices
of the Rhode Island Research and Design Institute, the
offices of the Citizens and Southern Bank of Atlanta,
and the new building of S.A.S. (Scandinavian Airlines
System) in Copenhagen are but a few examples of the
landscape tecniques in application.

99

Barnlund and Harland (1963, p. 468) determined
that the physical (spatial) distance among individuals
is inversely related to the amount of communication
transactions in which these individuals will engage
. . . . "unless there are physical barriers that inter-

24 which

vene, such as filing cases, walls, or desks,"
supports the conceptual basis for the office landscape
techniques.

It can be concluded that:

Proposition 16.0 - The degree of spatial distance

 

separating members of a functional creative unit in an

 

organization is negatively related to the effectiveness

 

of that particular unit,

 

since the relationship between amount of communication

transactions and the effectiveness of a certain group

has already been established in previous propositions.
There is, however, some evidence that suggests

that the type of task performed25 is also positively

 

24Reviewing studies done by Blake et a1. (1956),
Caplow and Forman (1950, Festinger, Schachter and Back
(1963), etc.

25For a summary of the relationship between in-
terpersonal relations and task obstacles, see Collins
and Guetzkow (1964, pp. 56-68).

’\_

100

related to the impact of communication transactions on
effectiveness. In the present context it is assumed
that the creative functional unit of an organization

26 rather than for indivi-

is striving for group effort
dual, isolated performance.
Based on previously mentioned studies, a sub-

proposition can be derived, to state that:

Sub-prOposition 16.1 - The number of physical barriers

 

(walls, desks, filing cases, etc.) in a creative func-

 

tional unit of an organization is negatively related to

 

the degree of effectiveness of that particular unit.

 

Communication technological devices introduce
another dimension into the problem. Simon (1962),
stated that spatial propinquity becomes less determi-
nant of volume of communication interactions, as the
amount of communication technological devices increases

the possibility of reaching other individuals through

 

26Whether group performance is superior or in-
ferior to individual performance is discussed to some
length in, for example, Blau and Scott (1962, pp. 116-
121). Type of task seems to be the single most impor-
tant variable in determining it.

 

101

interposed27 communication. Proposition 16.0 still
holds true, if not the amount but the typg of techno-
logical devices is taken into consideration. It is our
contention that, to the degree that these technological
devices allow for simultaneous multiple exchange of
ideas, spatial propinquity becomes less important; but
that the available media in organizations is not de-
signed for this specific purpose, i.e. to replace face-

to-face, group communication transactions.

Written communication

 

The type of channel used imposes additional
restrictions on the effectiveness of a given functional
unit. Farmer (1963) discusses the incidence of written

communication by the speed with which certain activities

 

in an organization are carried out. His conclusion is
that written communication introduces a delay factor

in decision and implementation. Perhaps a further
qualification should be added, namely the type of func-
tion to be performed by a certain functional unit of

the organization.

 

27Interposed communication is defined as the
transfer of matter-energy with symbolic content in any
situation different from face-to-face communication,
normally through mechanical or electronic devices.

 

102

However, from previous propositions and from

the precedent discussion, it could be stated that:

Proposition 17.0 - The amount of intrafunctional

 

written communication in an organizational functional

 

unit devoted to creativity, is negatively related to

 

the effectiveness of that particular unit.

 

Furthermore, Downs (1967, p. 129) stipulates
that . . . "situations that must be described in quali-
tative terms will tend to generate more message volume
for a given degree of precision than those that can be

described primarily in quantitative terms."

Origin of information

 

Up to the present point of the present chapter,
it was assumed that endogenous generation of new
ideas is the pattern followed by creative functional
units of an organization. This "closed—system" view of
a creative unit is inadequate. To a large extent, in-
formational inputs from the environment (either the
organization as a whole or sources external to the or-
ganization) also determine the effectiveness of the

unit. The following propositions are derived:

Proposition 18.0 - The amount of exogenous information

 

received by a creative functional unit of an

 

103

organization is positively related to the effectiveness

of that unit.

 

It is assumed that in discussing exogenous in-

formation, relevant information from the point of view

 

of the functional unit is examined, since the quality-
dimension of informational inputs into a system is
more determinant than quantity.

Amount (volume) of exogenous information is
but one contributor to functional effectiveness. Trans:
lation (the coding or recoding of the information for
the purpose of adaptation to the operating code of the

unit), interpretation (as related to present and poten-

 

tial needs of the unit), selection (in terms of classi-

 

fying into immediately useful, delayed--storage--or

rejected--discarded--information) and dissemination

 

(diffusion within the unit) are also confluents to the
over-all effectiveness of the creative functional unit.
The following sub-propositions attempts to

clarify the problem:

Sub-proposition 18.1 — The quality and speed of the

 

translation activity is positively related to the ef-

 

fectiveness of the creative unit.

 

104

Sub-proposition 18.2 - The quality and speed of the

 

interpretation activity is positively related to the

 

effectiveness of the creative unit.

 

Sub-proposition 18.3 - The quality and speed of the

 

selection activity is positively related to the effec-

 

tiveness of the creative unit, and

 

Sub-proposition 18.4 - The quality and speed of the

dissemination activity is positively related to the

 

effectiveness of the creative unit.

 

It is not implied that these activities have to
be performed necessarily within the functional creative
unit. As a matter of fact, it might be more efficient
to perform these activities in a centralized node of
communication in the organization. Several qualifica-
tions should, though, be considered: (a) the degree of

code-homogeneityz8 between the creative unit and the

 

creative unit and the organization as a whole, (b) the

degree of homophily existing between the members of

 

the central node and the members of the creative unit,

 

28Code homogeneity_is defined as the degree to
which systems andisubsystems use similar symbolic
structures imposed on the patterns of matter-energy
transmitted within each of them.

 

105

(c) the degree of uncertainty introduced in the system

 

by the exogenous information itself and (d) the degree
to which the pre-planned communication network is cap~

able of transferring information without distortion,
29

 

omission and/or overload.

Communication integration

 

Communication integration is defined as the

 

degree to which all members of an organization
relate to each other and to the larger environ-
ment through the exchange of information with symbolic
content.

Two dimensions of communication integration

become evident, the external integration, which refers

 

to the degree to which exogenous input channels avail-
able to the system members are interconnected or com-

bined, and the internal integration, defined as the

 

degree to which the intraorganizational communication

 

29Distortion is the degree to which a message
changes between source and receiver. Overload is de-
fined as the amount or volume of communication inputs
into a system as related to the capacity of the system
to process that particular volume: if the system's
capacity is lower than the volume of inputs, we talk
about overload, and when the capacity of the system
exceeds the volume of inputs, then underload. For a
model of distortion, see Tullock (1965). For a detailed
analysis of distortion, see Correll (1969); also
Guetzkow (1965).

 

 

106

30 The degree of communica-

structure is interconnected.
tion integration in an organization and between the
organization and the larger environment are closely
associated with the uninterrupted flow of information.
For that reason, communication integration is also re-
lated to various concepts stated in previous proposi—

tions, such as change, effectiveness and creativity.

The following propositions can be derived:

Proposition 19.0 - The degree of external integration

 

of the organizational communication network is posi-

 

tively related to the rate of change implementation in

 

the organization,

 

and, consequently,

Sub-prOposition 19.1 - The degree of external integra-

 

tion of the organizational communication network is

 

positively related to the effectiveness of a creative

 

functional unit of the organization.

 

Since it has been stipulated in preceding pages that

the amount of exogenous information, given certain

 

30For a discussion of communication integration,
see Guimaraes (1970, pp. 70-80) and Yadav (1967, pp.

107

conditions, is positively related to functional

effectiveness.

Proposition 20.0 - The degree of internal integration

 

of the organizational communication network is posi-

 

tively related to the effectiveness of a creative

 

functional unit of that organization.

 

Sub-proposition 20.1 - The degree of internal integra-

 

tion of the organizational communication netWork is

 

positively related to the rate of change implementation

 

in a creative functional unit.

 

Communication integration can be equated to a
certain extent with the concept called previously chan-
nel openness; high integration presupposes exchange of
information through the spontaneous and/or pre-planned
communication channels. It can then be stated, on the

(basis of proposition 11.0, that

Proposition 21.0 - The degree of internal integration

 

of the organizational communication network is posi-

 

tively related to the rate of change implementation in

 

the organization.

 

The preceding discussion and the consequently

derived propositions presented in this chapter, have

108

been develOped as an example of the way in which macro-
communication variables at the aggregate level can be
analyzed for the purpose of suggesting directions and
pointing out potentially rewarding targets for future

research efforts on organizational communication.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The present chapter contains a synthesis of the
main aspects that have been discussed in preceding pages,
the conclusions to which the foregoing analysis has led,
and the implications for research and practice that

have become apparent throughout the present paper.

Summary

It has been repeatedly postulated that communi-
cation, by providing the vehicle for social interaction
in organizational settings, is the main single determi-
nant of success or failure of an organization. Past
research and literature on the topic of organizational
communication has failed to provide an integrative
theoretical and practical perspective for a scientific
determination of the role of communication in organiza-
tional effectiveness.

The present undertaking is aimed at providing
such an integrated perspective, by which scientific
research on organizational communication can be performed

within the realm of practical application.

109

110

Organizations, social units in which individuals

 

group in search of a specific, predetermined purpose,

are resources-allocation-optimizers. Communication, the

 

transfer of patterns of matter-energy with symbolic con—
tent, is the very essence of organizational activity.

Coordination, the purposive patterning of com-

 

munication transactions, as opposed to their random
distribution, is a necessary condition for the survival
of any social unit. Organizations, given their purpo-
sive orientation, require structure imposed on the
communication activities performed within the organiza-
tion and on those by which the organizations relate to
the larger environment, in order to accomplish their
predetermined objectives.

Management, or the decision-making approach,

 

is the purposeful monitoring of the communication activi-
ties of an organization in order to achieve the stated
goals. The degree of goal achievement is called effec-
tiveness, and the ratio between effectiveness and cost,

is efficiency. Managerial activity can thus be defined

 

as the search for efficiency through the monitoring of
communication activities, in an organized setting.

By analyzing organizational communication from
a managerial perspective, three main functions of the

communication process in organizations become apparent:

111

they deal with compliance and output--production--with

 

preservation and continuance--maintenance--and with

 

change and output--innovation.

 

Innovation is called the "survival function"

 

of communication in organizations. In order to survive,
organizations have to innovate and adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Innovation—communication
management, the use of the communication process to
foster change, becomes decisive in the organization's
perpetuation.

Innovation-management operates on three dif-
ferent dimensions of the organizational system. The
process that aims at the dissemination of new ideas--

diffusion—-, the process of fostering creativity--

 

creation--and the process of scanning the environment

in search for new ideas--exploration.

 

The monitoring of communication processes in
organization is done by combining the different elements
of the communication system, i.e., messages, channels,
structural or social elements, cost and time. When
these elements are combined to produce results or ef-

fects in the long-run, communication strategies have

 

been devised. When the decisions pertain to the short-

run, tactical communication is being used.

 

The information explosion that has occurred in

recent years, introduces two additional constraints

112

into the managerial activities related to communication:
(a) the need to discriminate between relevant and non-
relevant information, and (b) the need for storage and
retrieval of larger quantities of information.

Computer technology has contributed to increase
the speed and accuracy with which large amounts of in-
formation can be handled. The monitoring of these
technological devices become also part of the functional
responsibility of the communication manager. When this
is the case, it is more proper to label the function

information management.

 

The functions to be performed by the information
manager (or innovation manager if the specific focus of
emphasis is the innovation-communication function) have
been stipulated as: (a) assessment of the situation,

(b) planning and programming the system, (c) implementa-
tion and organization, and (d) control, evaluation and
adjustment of the system. A description of each was
provided.

A systemic perspective has been superimposed
on the decision-making approach suggested in the present
study. By doing so, the possibility of operating at
various levels of systems complexity in a simulaneous
fashion has made the development of models of organiza-

tional communication feasible. The systems approach

 

113

used in the present undertaking also allowed the indi-
vidual components or elements of the communication
process in organizations, which were presented by means

of paradigms, to be further elaborated.

Conclusions and Implications

 

The main conclusions at which the present study
arrived can be divided into two specific areas: one
dealing with organizational communication as a whole,
and the other dealing with the specific innovation-
communication function in organized settings.

From the analysis in preceding chapters, EEEQEI

mation management consists of the monitoring of the

 

levels of uncertainty in a system. Uncertainty is de-

 

fined as low degree of predictability of events at a
given point in time, in a given system. Via communica-
tion, the levels of uncertainty can be changed, causing
changes in behavior of the members or components of the
system, behavior which in turn can be related to the

input-output ratio <mf the system itself.

Organizational communication

 

Organizations are resources-allocation optimi-
zers, so the ratio between inputs and outputs seems of
primordial importance to the continuance and survival

of the organization.

114

The previous statement implies recognition of
the pivotal role of resource-availability on decision—
making. Strategic and/or tactical decisions are a
function of the availability of resources.

Given definitions of effectiveness--the degree

 

of goal achievement--and efficiency--the ratio between

 

effectiveness and cost--it becomes evident that past
literature and research on organizational communication
placed heavy emphasis on effectiveness, but not on
efficiency.

Communication effectiveness has been the main

H— 7 -‘l_n.._ _# g-‘.~-l_._i-— .— ._—.—---

dependent variable in communication research. It is of

mom—-

 

paramount importance when the knowledge of the effect

1...._..‘..‘-...,_ ‘.
-'_" ah...» —-—-*" H“... m

 

——-..,_-—-a-——~'—"

of certain stimuli on human behavior is the core of a

.H- _..._..... . «m— m...
0—.——"" .m .1...» A-

research undertaking. Of interest is the final outcome
of the process in terms of the individual receiver.

The contention of the present study, however,
is that the primary unit of analysis is the organization.
The question posited is: What can be done to help
organizations to achieve success in their goal-seeking
behavior?

If communication research enters the realm of
organizational activity, the present undertaking con-

cludes that the scientist necessarily has to take into

account the organizational constraints imposed on the

115

individuals who drive the organization to success or
failure. Organizational communication occurs in a pre-
determined and structured environment and not in a
vacuum.

Cost of communication activities, then, becomes

 

an important variable to be studied and related to the

 

degree of goal-achievement--effectiveness--in order to

 

facilitate the study of communication efficiency in the

 

future.
As an example, Sub-proposition 13.1 states that:

The degree of formalization of spontaneous communication

 

channels in functional units devoted to creativity is

 

positively related to the effectiveness of that speci-

 

fic unit.

Formalization is the incorporation of horizontal

 

lines of communication into the hierarchical, official
organizational chart.

The fact that an increase in effectiveness of

 

the particular creative unit has been achieved, is of
little help to the decision-maker who asks the question:
How many resources have to be devoted to achieve this
effectiveness? It might even be possible that the cost
exceeds by far the advantages of formalizing the spon-
taneous channels, measured in terms of effectiveness.

In the present example, cost is represented by

the amount of time involved in carrying out the process

116

of formalization (studying the spontaneous communication

structure, defining corporate policies in terms of degree

of formalization, etc.). In many other cases, the cost

of the type and amount of channel usage, the time of

frequency of channel usage, the time spent designing an

adequate strategy, etc., may be prohibitive as com-

pared with the potential benefits derived from the

implementation of a certain specific strategy or tactic.
In sum, until research takes into account the

cost dimension of particular communication decisions,

and relates cost to achieved effects, from the point of view

of the practitioners, little help has been provided.
Another aspect that has been overlooked in past

research is the time-dimension of communication trans-

actions. These transactions have been studied under

the implicit assumption that certain communication pat-

terns and/or behaviors are not of a temporary nature,

but are permanent.

.Communication is a process, without end or
beginning; as such, changes over time acquire relevance.
By studying organizational communication transactions
in an X-ray fashion, only the interaction arrangements

at a certain point in time are described.

 

Replicating studies pertaining to a certain

 

specific aspect of organizational communication can

 

provide a better description of the evolutionary

117

aspects of the communication process, which should be

 

the focus of scientific inquiry.

 

Strategic and/or tactical communication appears
to determine the effectiveness (or efficiency) of com-
munication activities in the organizational millieu.
For this reason, the analysis of combinations of com-

munication elements—-variables--appears to be more re-

 

warding for the understanding of the process of

 

organizational communication than the analysis of single,

 

unrelated variables.

 

The difficulty of operationalizing organizational
goals suggests the determination of more concrete,
manageable concepts for comparison with the communication

activities. The suggestion is to concentrate future

 

research on units of high code-similarity, like similar

 

functional units across organizations, i.e., the market-

 

ing departments of several different organizations,

rather than approaching the problem in an interfunctional

 

way in which comparisons are elusive, i.e., across dif-

 

ferent functions in the same organization, whose codes
and objectives frequently are dissimilar.

The degree of generalizability of organizational
communication findings in the past has been questioned
on the basis of the lack of representativeness of one-

unit samples. Furthermore, studies which have been

118

carried out in different code-contextual arrangements
(interfunctional studies), lack a design to account for
the variability introduced by code-dissimilarity.

The innovation-communication
function

 

It has been stipulated that innovation-

 

management in organizations is the "survival function"

 

since change is the main element that permits an organi-
zation to adapt to its environment in the long-run, and
hence to survive.

From a communication point of view, there
appear to be three sub-functions of innovation-

communication management: exploration--the search for

 

existing new ideas--creation--the impulse to the birth

of new ideas-—and diffusion--the dissemination of new

 

ideas.

Innovation-communication is by no means re-
stricted to the intraorganizational realm, but the
present discussion is. Furthermore, the interdependence
of the three sub-functions defies a clean-cut taxonomy.
Frequently, communication strategies aimed at one of
the posited objectives foster developments in one or
both of the other sub-functions, as some sort of un-
planned by-product.

Uncertainty, defined as a low degree of pre-

 

dictability of events at a given point in time, in a

119

given social situation, appears to be positively related
to the degree of effectiveness of the innovation-
communication function, although as a result rather than
as cause. And the degree of uncertainty in a system
(the organization in the present case) determines the
volume of communication transactions within the system
and also the speed at which change can be disseminated
in that particular setting (Propositions 1.0 to 4.0).

Written regulations in an organization are means
by which the predictability of events in the system can
be raised and uncertainty reduced. Times of crisis in
an organization, it can be hypothesized, tend to in-
crease uncertainty and raise the total amount of intra-
organizational communication transactions; this is the
defensive mechanism by which the system tries to cope
with change, by preparing itself for immediate response
to the challenge.

In organizational life, replacement of decision-
makers in the system is one noticeable feature that
raises uncertainty among organizational members, due to
an alteration of the probabilities of predicting con-
sequent events.

Not only do intraorganizational events increase
uncertainty; drastic changes in the environmental con-

ditions lead also to increased communication interaction

120

among the members of the organization. The system
develops receptiveness to change by this process.

The degree to which spontaneous and pre-planned
channels are integrated (interdependent), appears to be
positively related to the effectiveness of (a) the
organization as a whole, and (b) the functional units of
the organization which carry the responsibility for
creation, i.e., research and development departments,
scientists in a university, etc. (Propositions 5.0 and
6.0).

Liaison individuals, those performing the role

 

of interconnecting different groups and sub-groups in
an organization, contribute to achieve channel-inter-
dependence, if placed within the official decision-making
structure. It would be interesting to confirm the
extent to which liaison members maintain their role
when their hierarchical position within the organization
changes.

Personal experiences of the author indicate
that liaison roles appear to change over time, as does
clique composition. It would seem that time, and not
change in the hierarchical position, determines the
continuance or discontinuance of communication role
performance.

The innovation-communication function seems to

rely more heavily on the spontaneous channels of

121

communication of an organization than on pre-planned
ones, due to the higher rigidity (resistance to change)
of the latter channels.

The innovation-communication function tends to
increase the total amount of communication transactions
in the spontaneous network of the organization, since
these will be used by members of the organization to
(a) test the feasibility of new ideas, and (b) to reduce
uncertainty (Sub-propositions 9.2 and 9.3).

As a consequence of the assertions made in the
preceding paragraph, restrictions imposed on the spon-
taneous channels of communication in an organization
lower the effectiveness of functional units devoted to
creation, and decrease the speed at which the organiza-
tion is able to implement change (Propositions 7.0 to
11.0).

Restrictions can be imposed by means of physi-
cally separating members of the organization. The
spontaneous channels of communication within an organi-
zation cannot be blocked by establishing regulations or
prohibiting exchange of information among members of
the organization. Personal experiences of the author
indicate that when such measures are attempted, infor-
mation will continue to flow through the spontaneous

channels, although in a less visible manner, and the

122

only effect may be a decrease in effectiveness of the
organization or functional unit in which the restrictions
are imposed.

One way of avoiding the previous problems is
the formalization of the spontaneous channels of com-
munication in the organization.

The extent to which the Spontaneous channels
of communication are incorporated into the organization
chart (formalization) is positively related to the ef-
fectiveness of (a) the organization as a whole, and (b)
the functional unit (or units) devoted to creation.

In the same fashion, formalization is related to the
speed of change implementation in the organization
(Propositions 12.0 to 14.0).

By legitimizing the use of spontaneous channels,
an increase in efficiency can also be obtained. Pre-
planned channels, due to the need for recording most
of the information that passes through the network, are
frequently more expensive than the use of the sponta—
neous channels.

For example, oral channels are used more fre-
quently than written channels if the spontaneous net-
work has been legitimized, with an obvious cost advantage
in terms of time and need for storage and retrieval
systems. The disadvantage of not permitting easy access

to the exchanged information, over time, is also involved.

123

Status collation or similarity (homophily)
appears to be positively related to preference for the
use of spontaneous channels of communication and to
organizational and/or functional effectiveness, es-
pecially when the objective of the functional unit is
creation (PrOposition 15.0).

The previous assertion indicates the convenience
of not introducing heterophily-gaps in organizations,
and especially in functional units devoted to creati-
vity, except for the minimum necessary status differ-
ences needed in order to obtain coordination of
activities.

For example, research and development units
of formal organizations should aim at reducing hetero-
phily within the unit. This goal can be achieved by
hiring only individuals of similar professional status,
age and social background, since such elements appear
to be major determinants of heterophily.

Spatial distance among members of a certain
organization is also related to effectiveness of
innovation-communication, when the creation taSk relies
on group rather than on individual effort (Proposition
16.0).

Recent techniques of office landscaping

(Bfirolandschaft) are precisely aimed at reducing the

 

124

barriers to interpersonal communication derived from
location and spatial distance. The degree of effective-
ness achieved by the implementation of these new
techniques has apparently not yet been tested by re-
search done over time.

Research efforts are needed to establish the
degree to which interaction patterns change over time
in organizational settings. Sooner or later, the re-
arrangement of furniture and office partitions in
organizations applying landscape techniques has to be
done on the basis of research.

Written communication appears to be a deter-
rent of change and effectiveness in organizations,
except when the messages are of a quantitative nature
(Proposition 17.0).

Most organizations still operate on the basis
of written communication as the main intraorganizational
communication medium. It has been suggested that a
change in degree and type of sensorial involvement is
taking place among the new generations, i.e., they
tend to become more multi-sense oriented, probably in
detriment of the mainly visual involvement traditionally
fostered through print media.

Any examination of the emphasis placed by

organizations on the types of channels that are

125

recommended for intraorganizational communication,
shows that written channels are still considered and
accepted as the only channel for transmission of
messages of certain importance.

If the previous postulate that the younger
generations are more multi-sense oriented is accepted,
organizations should venture along new pathways in
order to achieve efficiency of intraorganizational
activities. For example, technological devices are
now available which permit a larger degree of sen-
sorial involvement, such as closed circuit TV, TV
telephones, audio-visual equipment, etc. It may well
be that by using such technologies, not only organiza-
tional efficiency but also individual contentment of
the members of the organization, can be achieved.

Exogenous sources of information appear to
contribute to organizational and functional effective-
ness, given certain degrees of quality and speed in
the process of adapting that information to intraorga-
nizational and/or intrafunctional needs (Proposition
18.0).

The relationship between the organization and
its environment in terms of informational inputs, is
the major factor in placing organizations in the cate-
gory of Open systems, dynamic, receptive to change

entities.

126

The process, however, by which information
inputs are translated into the operating code of an
organization, interpreted in terms of present and
potential needs of the organization's functioning,
selected into useful, delayed or rejected information,
and disseminated throughout the organizational system,
have not been studied to the extent that would appear
desirable.

Finally, it has been suggested that the degree
of integration of the communication network (the in-
terrelatedness of the patterns of communication trans-
actions performed by the members of the organization)
is related to the speed of change dissemination within
the system, and of organizational and/or functional
effectiveness (Propositions 19.0 to 21.0).

In sum, by imposing a managerial, decision-
making perspective on the study of organizational
communication, which answers the stipulated objective
of the present undertaking, several advantages occur:

(a) macro-communication analysis becomes meaningful

 

and allows relating practitioners' needs to new

 

paths for research.

 

(b) by providing a general frame of reference, the

decision-making approach presents a context for

 

the study of causal relationships between communi—

cation and organizational effectiveness.

127

(c) by legitimizing the introduction of the cost dimen-
sion, cost-benefit analysis of communication activi-

ties can be performed and communication activities

 

studied in terms of efficiency rather than only as

effectiveness; furthermore, by introducing the time

 

dimension as a variable, communication as a process

 

can be studied.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1957/58) "Towards a Behavioral Theory
of Communication," Management Science, 4,

 

Albaum, G. (1967) "Information Flow and Decentralized
Decision-Making in Marketing," California
Management Review, Division of Economic and
Business Research. The University of Arizona.
Vol. IX.

 

 

Allport, G. W. (1968) "The Open System in Personality
Theory," in W. Buckley (ed) Modern Systems
Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Chicago,
Aldine Publishing Co.

 

 

Anderson, K. 0., Jr. et a1. (1962) Information Manage-
ment, Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard University.

 

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lan ua e
(1969) New York, American Heritage Puinsging
Co., Inc.

 

Ascroft, Joseph R. (1969) "Modernization and Communica-
tion: Controlling Environmental Change? unpub-
lished PhD. dissertation, Department of
Communication, Michigan State University.

Bales, Robert F. (1950) Interaction Progess Analysis:
A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Cam-
bridge, AddiSon-Wesley PubliShers Co.

 

 

Bales, R. F. et al.(l951) "Channels of Communication in
Small Groups," American Sociological Review, 16

 

Barnlund, D. C. and C. Harland (1963) "Propinquity and
Prestige as Determinants of Communication Net-
works," Sociometry, 26, pp. 467-479.

 

128

129

Bass, Bernard M. (1965) Organizational Psychology,
Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

 

Bavelas, A. (1960) "Communication patterns in task—
oriented groups," in D. Cartwright and A.
Zander (eds), Group Dynamics, New York, Harper
and Row.

 

Bennis, W. G., K. D. Benne and R. Chin (1962) The
Planning of Change, New York, Holt, Rinehart
and7Winston.

 

Berelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner (1964) Human
Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Find-
ings, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World,
Inc.

 

Berge, C. (1962) The Theorypof Graphs and its Applica-
. tion, New York, John Wiley and Sons.

 

Berkowitz, N. H. and W. G. Bennis (1961) "Interaction
Patterns in a Formal Service-oriented Organiza-
tion," Administrative Science Quarterly, 6,
1961, pp. 25-50.

Berlo, David K. (1967) "The Process of Social Research,"
Department of Communication, Michigan State
University (Mimeo).

v/Berlo, David K. (1969) "The Uses Humans Make of Com-

munication," Department of Communication,”
Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Berlo, David K. (1969) "Human Communication: The Basic
Proposition," Department of Communication,
Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Birdwhistle, R. (1959) Kinesis and Context, University
of Toronto Press.

Blake, R. et a1. (1956) "Housing Architecture and Social
Interaction," Sociometry, 19, pp. 133-139.

 

Blau, Peter M. and W. Richard Scott (1962) Formal Or-
ganizations, Chandler Publishing Company.

 

 

Brink, E. L. (1964) Marketing Information Intelligence
and Long-Range Planning, Proceedings of the 47th
National Conference of’the American Marketing
Association, pp. 154-158.

 

 

130

Brookes, B. C. (1963) "Communication between Scientists,"
Advancement of Science, 19, pp. 559-563.

 

Buckley, W. (1967) Sociolggy and Modern§ystems Theory,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Buckley, W. (ed) (1968) Modern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, Aldine Pfibliéfiing
Co.

 

 

Burlingame, J. F. (1961) "Information Technology and
Decentralization," Harvard Business Review,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 121-126.

 

Burns, T. (1954) "The Directions of Activity and Com-
munication in a Departmental Executive Group:
A Quantitative Study in a British Engineering
Factory with a Self—Recoding Activity," Human
Relations, 7, pp. 73-97.

 

Caplow, T. and R. Forman (1950) "Neighborhood Inter-
action in a Homogenous Community," American
Sociological Review, 15, pp. 357—366.

 

Carrol, Tom W. and R. Vincent Farace (1968) "Systems
Analysis, Computer Simulation, and Survey Re-
search: Applications to Social Research in
Developing Countries," Research Report, Com-
puter Institute for Social Science Research and
Department of Communication, Michigan State
University, also in Gerald D. Hursh (ed), Survey
Research Methods in Developing Countries (in
process).

 

Collins, Barry E. and Harols Guetzkow (1964) A Social
Psychologyof Group Processesifor DeciSion-
Making, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

 

Correll, John (1969) "An Annotated Bibliography on
Organizational Communication," Department of
Communication, Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Crane, Edgar (1965) Marketing Communications, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

 

Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1963) A Behavioral
Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

 

 

Vt

131

Dahle, T. L. (1954) "An Objective and Comparative
Study of Five Methods of Transmitting Informa-
tion to Business and Industrial Employers,"
Speech Monographs, 21, pp. 21-28.

 

Daniel, D. R. (1961) "Management Crisis," Harvard
Business Review, Sept.-Oct., pp. llI-I2I.

 

 

Davis, K. (1953) "Management Communication and the
Grapevine," Harvard Business Review, 31,
pp. 43-49.

Davis, K. A. (1953) "A Method of Studying Communication
Patterns in Organizations," Personnel Psychology,
6, pp. 301-312.

 

Dearden, John (1964) "Can Management Information be
Automated?" Harvard Business Review, March-
April, pp. 128-135.

 

 

Dearden, John (1965) "How to Organize Information
Systems," Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 65-73.

Diebold, J. (1965) "What's Ahead in Information Tech-
nology?" Harvard Business Review, Sept. Oct.,
pp. 76-82.

 

Dill, W. R. (1958) "Environment as an influence on
managerial autonomy," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 2, pp. 409-443.

 

 

’Donald, A. C. (1967) Management Information and Systems,

 

Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Donald, Marjorie N. (1959) 'Some Concomitants of Varying
Patterns of Communication in a large Organiza-
tion," Unpublished PhD. dissertation, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dorsey, J. R., Jr. (1957/58) "A Communication Model for
Administration," Administrative Science Quarterly,
2, pp. 307-324.

 

Downs, Anthony (1967) Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little
Brown and Company.

 

Downs, Calvin W. (1969) "Research Methods in Organiza-
tional Communication: A Review in Proposals,"
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
Speech Association of America, December.

132

Drucker, P. (1959) "Planning the Marketing Program,"
Management Science, 5, April, pp. 238-249.

 

Etzioni, Amitai (1964) Modern Organizations, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Bali) Inc.

 

Evans, M. K. and Lou Hague (1962) "Master Plan for
Information Systems," Harvard Business Review,
Jan.-Febr., pp. 92-103.

 

Farace, R. V. and C. D. Morris (1969) "Communication
Systems and Higher Education: A Pilot Study in
a Residential College," paper presented to the
National Society for the Study of Communication,
Cleveland, Ohio, April.

Farmer, James (1963) "Management Control Systems,"
(Santa Monica, The Rand Corporation, P-2758.
AD-409862.)

Festinger, L. (1949) "The Analysis of Sociograms using
Matrix Algebra," Human Relations, 2, pp. 153-158.

 

Festinger, L., S. Schachter and K. Back (1963) Social
Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human
Factors in Housing, StafifBrd, California, Stan-
ford University Press.

 

 

Flament, C. (1963) Application of Graph Theory to Group
Structure, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

 

Forrester, J. W. (1962) "Managing Decision-Making," in
M. Greenberg (ed), Computers and the WOrld of
the Future, M.I.T. Press.

 

 

Forsyth, E. and L. Katz (1946) "A Matrix Approach to
the Analysis of Sociometric Data: Preliminary
Report," Sociometry, 9, pp. 340-347.

 

Gardner, John W. (1964) Self-Renewal, New York, Harper
and Row, Publishers.

 

Gibson, R. E. (1962) "A Systems Approach to Research
Management," Research Management, Vol. V, pp. 215-
423; also condensed—in James R. Bright (1964),
Research, Development and Technological Innova-
tion, Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

 

 

\

\

133

Goetzinger, C. and M. Valentine (1962) "Communication
Channels Media, Directional Flow and Attitudes
in an Academic Community," Journal of Communica-
tion, 12, pp. 23-26.

 

Guba, Egon G. (1968) "Development, Diffusion and Evalua-
tion," in Terry L. Eidell and Joanne M. Kitchel
(eds) Knowledge Production and Utilization in
Educational Administration, Eugene, University
of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educa-
tional Administration.

 

 

Guetzkow, H. (1959) "Conversion Barriers in Using the
Social Sciences," Admin. Sci. Quart., 4, 68-81.

 

Guetzkow, H. (1965) "Communications in Organizations,"
in James G. March (ed), Handbook of Organizations,
Chicago, Rand McNally and Co., pp. 534-573.

 

Guimaraes, Lytton (1968) "Matrix Multiplication in the
Study of Interpersonal Communication," unpublished
Master's Thesis, Department of Communication,
Michigan State University.

\Guimaraes, Lytton L. (1969) "Network Analysis: An

Approach to the Study of Communication Systems,"
Department of Communication, Michigan State
University (Mimeo).

Guimaraes, Lytton L. (1970) "Network Analysis: An Ap-
proach to the Study of Communicati on Systems,"
Technical Report 12. Project on the Diffusion
of Innovations in Rural Societies. AID and De-
partment of Communication, Michigan State Uni-
versity (Mimeo).

Habbe, S. (1952) "Communicating with Employees," Stud.
Personnel Policy, No. 129, New York, National
Industrial Conference Board.

 

Harper, M., Jr. (1960) "A New Profession to Aid Manage-
ment," Charles Coolidge Parlin Memorial Lecture,
American Marketing Association.

Havelock, Ronald G. (1964) "Research Utilization Report:
Analysis of Seminar Sessions," Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan, Institute for Social Research, University
of Michigan (Mimeo).

134

Hayes, J. R. (1962) Human Data Processing Limits for
Decision Making, Air Force Systems Command,
Electronic Systems Division. July, ESD-TDR-62—
48. AD 283384.

 

 

Heise, G. A. and G. A. Miller (1951) "Problem Solving
by Small Groups using Various Communication
Nets," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyohology,
46, pp. 327-335.

Herring, P. (1947) "The Social Sciences in Modern
Society," Social Science Research Council Items,
March.

 

Hinrichs, J. R. (1964) "Communication Activity of In-
dustrial Research Personnel," Personnel
Psychology, 17, pp. 193-204.

 

 

Hohn, F. E. (1953) "Some Methods of Comparing Sociometric
Matrices," Bureau of Res. and Serv. Techn. Report
No. 5, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois.

Hurwitz, Jacob I. et al. (1953) "Some Effects of Power
and Relations among Group Members," in Dorwin
Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds), Group Dyna-
mics, Evanston, Illinois, Row, Peterson, pp.

483-492.

Jacobson, E. and S. E. Seashore (1951) "Communication
Practices in Complex Organizations," Journal of
Social Issues, 7, pp. 28—40.

 

 

Jain, Nemi C. (1968) "Communication in Organizations,"
Prelim Paper, Department of Communication,
Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Jain, Nemi C. (1968) "Innovation Diffusion and Change
in Formal Organizations," Department of Com-
munication, Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Jain, Nemi C. (1968) "Organizational Communication:
An Annotated Bibliography," Department of Com-
munication, Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Jain, Nemi C. and Edwin H. Amend (1969) "A Conceptual
Framework for Studying Communication Patterns
in Research Dissemination and Utilization,"
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference
of the National Society for the Study of Com-
munication, Cleveland, Ohio, April 24-26 (Mimeo).

135

Jones, William M. (1964) "On Decision-Making in Large
Organizations," Santa Monica, The Rand Corpora-

Kahn, Robert L. et a1. (1964) Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiquity, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

 

 

Katz, L. (1947) "On the Matrix Analysis of Sociometric
'Data," Sociometry, 10, pp. 233-241.

 

Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn (1966) The Social
Psychology of Organizations, New York, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.

 

 

Kelley, E. J. and W. Lazer (1967) Managerial Marketing,
Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. (1964) Foundations of Behavioral
Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.

 

K5nig, D. (1936) "Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen
Graphen," Leipzig, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft,
M.B.H.

Koontz, H. and C. O'Donnell (1964) Principles of Manage-
ment, New York, McGraw-Hill Co.

 

Krech, D., R. S. Crutchfield and E. L. Ballachey (1962)
Individual in Society, New York, McGraw-Hill.

 

Leavitt, H. J. (1951) "Some Effects of Certain Communi-
cation Patterns on Group Performance," Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 30-
50.

 

Leavitt, H. J. (1958) Managerial Psychology, The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

 

Leavitt, Harold J. (1965) "Applied Organizational Change
in Industry: Structural, Technological and
Humanistic Approaches," in James G. March (ed),
Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, Rand McNally
and Co.

 

Lewin, Kurt (1948) Field Theory in Social Science:
Selected Theoretical Papers, DOrwifi Cartwright
(ed), London, TaviStock.

 

 

\

136

March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon (1958) Orgeniza-
tions, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

 

McDonough, Adrian M. (1963) Information Economics and
Management Systems, McGraw Hill, Inc.

 

 

McGrath, Joseph E. and Irwin Altman (1966) Small Group
Research: A Synthesis and Critique of the
Field, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

 

 

McGregor, D. M. (1969) The Human Side of the Enterprise,
New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Mehrley, S. (1970) "Feedback: A Conceptual Framework,"
Department of Communication, Michigan State
University (Mimeo).

Miles, Mathew B. (1964) Innovation in Education, New
York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University.

 

Mischler, E. G. and A. Tropp (1956) "Status and Inter-
action in a Psychiatric Hospital," Human Rela-
tions, 9, pp. 187-205.

Morris, C. D. (1968) 'Information as a Construct in
Human Communication Systems," unpublished PhD.
dissertation, Department of Communication,
Michigan State University.

Newman, J. B. (1966) "A Rationale for a Definition of
Communication," in A. G. Smith (ed) Communication
and Culture, New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., pp. 56-63.

 

 

Olson, Marvin E. (1968) The Process of Social Organiza-
tion, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Ore, O. (1962) "Theory of Graphs," Providence, Amer.
Math. Soc. Coll. Publ., Vol. 38.

 

Ore, O. (1963) Graphs and their Uses, New York, Random
House.

 

Pile, John (1970) ‘Interiors' Second Book of Offices,
Whitney Library of Design (in process).

Price, James L. (1968) Organizational Effectiveness:
An Inventory of Propositions, Richard D. Irwin,
Inc.

 

137

Rapoport, A. (1966) "What is Information?" in A. G.
Smith (ed), Communication and Culture, New York,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 41-54.

 

' Rapoport, A. and W. J. Horvath (1959) "Thought on Or-
ganization Theory," General Systems, 4, pp.
87-91.

 

Raymond, R. C. (1962) "Betting on New Technologies,"
in J. R. Bright (ed) Technological Planning on
the Corporate Level, Boston, Division of Re-
search, Harvard Business School.

 

 

Read, W. H. (1962) "Upward Communication in Industrial
Hierarchies," Human Relations, 15, pp. 3-16.

 

Redding, W. C. and G. A. Sanborn (1964) Business and
Industrial Communication: A Source Book, New
York: Harper ahd Row, PubliShers.

 

 

Reindl, Max (1968) "The Concept of Polarization Nuclei
of Communication in Formal Organizations," De-
partment of Communication, Michigan State Uni-
versity (Mimeo).

Reindl, Max (1969) "The Need for Integration of
Existing Knowledge on Communication in Formal
Organizations," Department of Communication,
Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Reindl, Max and Gonzalo Rivero (1969) "Organizational
Communication: A Bibliography," Department of
Communication, Michigan State University (Mimeo).

Rogers, Everett M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, The
Free Press of Glencoe.

 

Rogers, Everett M. and Nemi C. Jain (1968) "Needed
Research on Diffusion Within Educational Or—
ganizations," Paper presented at the National
Conference on the Diffusion of Educational Ideas,
East Lansing, Michigan, March 26-28 (Mimeo).

Rogers, Everett M. et a1. (1968) "The Diffusion of
Educational Innovations in the Government
Secondary Schools of Thailand," Institute for
International Studies in Education and Depart-
ment of Communication, Michigan State University
(Mimeo).

138

A Rogers, Everett M. and Nemi C. Jain (1969) "Research
Utilization: Bridging the Communication Gap
Between Science and Practice." Paper presented
at the Joint Session of the Information Systems
Division of the International Communication
Association and the Behavioral Sciences Interest
Group of the Speech Association of America,
New York, December 27-30 (Mimeo).

Rogers, Everett M. and Dilip K. Bhowmik (1969) "Homo-
phily-Heterophily: Relational Concepts for
Communication Research." Paper presented at
the Association for Education in Journalism,
Berkeley, California, August 24-27 (Mimeo).

Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker (1970) Com-
munication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
A roaéh, New York, Free Press of Glencow
(in process).

 

Sanborn, George Allen (1962) "An Analytical Study of
Oral Communication Practices in a Nationwide
Retail Sales Organization," unpublished PhD.
dissertation, Purdue University.

Schein, Edgar H. (1965) Organizational Psychology,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Schramm, W. (1953) "Utilization of Behavioral Sciences,"
Report of a Planning Review for the Behavioral
Sciences Division, New York.

Schr6dinger, E. (1968) "Order, Disorder, and Entropy,"
in W. Buckley (ed) Modern Systems Research for
the Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, Aldine Pub-
liShing Co.

 

Schwartz, Donald F. (1968) "Liaison Communication Roles
in a Formal Organization, unpublished PhD.
Thesis, Department of Communication, Michigan
State University; also Communimetrics Research
Report No. 1, Department of Communication, North
Dakota State University.

Shepard, Herbert A. (1954) "The Value System of a Uni-
versity Research Group," American Sociological
Review, 19, pp. 456-463.

139

Shepard, Herbert A. (1965) "Changing Interpersonal and
Intergroup Relationships in Organizations," in
James G. March (ed), Handbook of Organizations,
Chicago, Rand McNally and Co.

Simpson, R. L. (1959) "Vertical and Horizontal Com-
munication in Formal Organizations," Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 4, pp. 188-196.

Solo, Robert A. (1967) Economic Organizations and Social
Systems, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Thayer, Lee (1967) "Communication and Organization
Theory," in Frank E. X. Dance (ed), Human Com-
munication Theory, New York, Holt, Rinehart
and'Winston, Inc., pp. 70-115.

 

Thompson, James (1967) Organizations in Action, New
York, McGraw-Hill.

Torrance, Paul E. (1955) "Some Consequences of Power
Differences on Decision-Making in Permanent
and Temporary Three-Man Groups," in A. Paul Hare
et al.(eds) Small Groups, New York, Knpf, pp.
482-492.

Triandis, H. C. (1959a) "Cognitive Similarity and In-
terpersonal Communication in Industry," Journal
of Applied Psychology, 43, pp. 321-326.

Triandis, H. C. (l959b) "Similarity in Thought Processes
and Boss-Employee Communication," in Communica-
tion in Organizations: New Research Findings,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, Foundation for Research on
Human Behavior.

Tullock, Gordon (1965) The Politics of Bnreaucracy,
Washington, D.C., Public Affairs Press.

~ Voos, Henry (1967) Organizational Communication: A
Bibliography, Rutgers University Press.

 

Walton, E. (1962) A Magnetic Theory of Organizational
Communication, China Lake, California, U. S.
Naval Ordinance Test Station.

 

Watzlawick, Paul, Janet H. Beavin and Don D. Jackson
(1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication, New
York, W. W. Norton.

140

Weiss, R. S. (1956) Processes of Organization, Ann Arbor,

Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Weiss, R. S. and E. Jacobson (1955) "A Method for the

Wessen,

Weston,

Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organiza-
tions," American Sociological Review, 20, pp.
661-668.

 

Albert F. (1958) "Beobachtungen zur Sozialen
Struktur des Krankenhauses (Observations on the
Social Structure of the Hospital)," K61ner
Zeitschrift ffir Soziologie und SoziaIpsychologie,
3, pp. 156-184.

 

J. R. and Donald F. Schwartz (1967) "Communi-
cation in Organizations: A Preliminary Biblio-
graphy," Wichita State University and North
Dakota State University (Mimeo).

Yadav, D. P. (1967) "Communication Structure and Inno-

vation Diffusion in two Indian Villages," Technical
Report 2. Project on the Diffusion of Innovations
in Rural Societies. AID and Department of
Communication, Michigan State University.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIaRnRIEs
1|WWII1"llll1|||||||“HIMIINHHHIII”WHHINHI
31293102517517