7 traditions in communication theory
There are seven traditions rooted in the theory of communication.
Grant, Hardy, Oswick, and Putnam[1] and Grant, Keenoy, and Oswick[2] highlight literature studies that show how attitudes, behaviors, and an organization’s members’ perceptions of reality are influenced by the discursive practices to which they are exposed and subjected and in which they engage within certain organizations.
Numerous scholars treat communicating and organizing as the same phenomenon, although this is expressed in different ways[3]. Communications, and especially language issues, are increasingly recognized as important effectiveness factors in a range of organizations and professions. C. Stohl[4] believes that communication constitutes organizations. Scholars researching communication have very different views on how it can be defined. There are seven traditions rooted in the theory of communication that help to understand and define it:
· Socio-psychological tradition: as the impact of interpersonal communication,
· Cybernetic tradition: communication as the information flow,
· Rhetorical tradition: communication as elaborate public speaking,
· Semiotic tradition: communication as a process of sharing meaning through signs,
· Socio-cultural tradition: communication as the creation and role of social reality;
Critical tradition: communication as a reflective discourse,
phenomenological tradition: communication as the experience of self and others through dialogue.
The socio-psychological tradition is the personification of the scientific or objective perspective.
Researchers following this tradition believe that thorough and systematic observation enables us to discover the truth regarding communication phenomena. They struggle to find cause-and-effect relationships that allow them to predict which communication behaviors lead to success and which are doomed to failure.
Finding such cause-and-effect relationships enables us to assume that we are getting close to the answer to the ever-repeating question asked by practitioners of the art of persuasion, i.e., ‘What more can be done to make people change their views? “[5]? Socio-psychological fundamentals of management have developed not only about communication processes due to the human relations school, the most important representative of which was Elton Mayo.
The socio-psychological school is widely applied in management sciences. It constitutes the theoretical basis for the majority of human resources management tools. Over the last 50–60 years, numerous theories and models of attitude change have emerged[6]. The achievements of the socio-psychological school are of major importance while analyzing the communication process in the organization, particularly in the context of persuasion and efforts targeted at attitude change[7].
The cybernetics school defines communication as information processing.
C. Shannon developed the mathematical theory of signal transmission. He was neither interested in the meaning of the message nor in the effect, it would have on the receiver. The sense itself is not essential in this model. The model reduces communication-based on dialogue to algorithms of information processing by the individual[8].
According to D. Baecker, Shannon, and Weaver's model, this is characterized by semantic poverty[9]. This theory dealt only with solving technical problems concerning the faithful sound transfer. According to Shannon, the information relates to the reduction of uncertainty. The message's information content can be measured with the help of its efficiency in opposing chaos. Disturbances (interferences) are the enemy of information because they reduce the information capacity of the channel connecting the transmitter with the receiver[10]. This relationship was described by him in the following equation:
Channel capacity = information + disturbances[11].
The achievements of the cybernetic school are of major importance when analyzing the communication process in an organization, particularly in the context of the transfer of information and the reduction of distortions and interferences.
“Rhetoric is an art or discipline dealing with the usage of a written or oral discourse aimed at providing information, persuading, or motivating an audience composed of one person or a group of persons”[12]. Ireco-Roman rhetoric remained the main source of knowledge about communication itself until the 12th century.
The Greco-Roman rhetoric tradition, which was introduced by sophists from the ancient Mediterranean city-states, was and is cultivated by thousands of speakers. Only thanks to Carl Hovland[13] and his Yale Communication Program did rhetoric as art move to the scientific ground of social psychology, and many works concerning persuasion and attitude change psychology were initiated. In recent years, research on rhetoric has moved towards dialogue and the speaker's expectations and needs[14].
Efficient and correct communication plays a fundamental role in contemporary organizations.
Both public institutions and private initiatives, as well as small and large organizations, benefit from the achievements of the rhetorical school, including those related to:
public speeches
business and commercial presentations, etc.
effective application of methods, techniques, and strategies of social impact, persuasion and manipulation in organizational communication
enhancing communication within the organization
rhetoric of motivation
television appearances (media relations)
transferring knowledge and teaching adults, e.g., during training 15].
The tradition stemming, in its contemporary form, from Locke is the semiotic tradition dealing with the sign. In a broad sense, semiotics deals with analyzing the creation and exchange of meanings based on sign systems. One of the most extensive definitions of semiotics was proposed by U. Eco, who claimed that “semiotics deals with anything that could be regarded as a sign”[16]. In the semiotic sense, signs take the form of words, images, objects, gestures, and sounds[17].
“The semiotic theory creates the notion of communication as a process relying on signs asignsign systeto to mediate between breaks in subjective views”[18]. A sign is any element that can represent something else.
Words are a special type of sign—a symbol.
In the semiotic tradition, communication problems are connected with misunderstandings, which concern differences between symbols and their implied meanings.
Signs and codes are necessary for communication. “Signs are artifacts or actions relating to something other than themselves. They are indicating constructs. Codes are systems within which arranged and organized signs are located. Codes determine mutual relations between signs included in them. [...] Signs and codes are passed and become accessible to other people. Transmission or receipt of signs and codes is one of the social relations activity forms. [...] Communication is the central activity within our culture. Any culture must die without communication. Research on communication entails research on the culture to which a given communication belongs”[19]. Thus, the application of the achievements of this tradition in research on organizational culture seems obvious.
Communication is an unusual phenomenon and a superior process, with the help of which human life can be experienced at any time. Communication establishes reality. Within their theory of coordinated management of meaning, Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen claim that persons participating in a conversation co-construct their social reality, simultaneously being shaped by the worlds they create. They suggest that the process of communication is not only a tool or an action aimed at reaching an objective but also shapes such individuals and their relationships, which leads to the conclusion that they create organizational reality.
The socio-cultural tradition originates from the sociological and anthropological thoughts of the 20th century.
This tradition sees communication as a symbolic process that produces and reproduces shared meanings, rituals, and social structures.
Most people assume that words reflect things that really exist. However, theoreticians representing this theory assume that this process works oppositely. Thus, the vision of reality is shaped by the language a given individual has been using since childhood. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf were precursors of the socio-cultural tradition.
According to them, the “real world” is, to a large extent, unintentionally built on the language habits of the group[20]. While learning to speak, children learn what to look for in their environment. Thus, some elements remain unnoticed because nothing can be said about them. Contemporary theoreticians of socio-cultural research claim that “reality is created, maintained, repaired, or reshaped”[21] through the communication process. This tradition, in particular deliberations on language and the issue of interrelations between the mind, perception, and functioning in the world versus verbal communication, is essential for considerations of organizational culture[22].
Socio-cultural tradition is founded on the premise that by communicating, people create and recreate culture, thus creating and recreating organizations. Most people assume that the words reflect what exists. Meanwhile, theorists of socio-cultural tradition have suggested that this process is just the opposite. The vision of reality to a high degree shapes the language people use. E. Sapir and B. L. Whorf were precursors to socio-cultural traditions.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativism) states that the structure of the language of a culture determines the shape of human thoughts and actions. Thus, the organizational world is, to a large extent, unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. Stohl conceptualizes organizations as “identifiable social systems of interacting individuals pursuing multiple objectives through coordinated acts and relationships”[23]. The use of metaphors characterizes our way of searching for meaning and influences our way of thinking and acting[24].
“In most cases, what is at issue is not the truth or falsity of a metaphor but the perceptions and inferences that follow from it and the actions that are sanctioned by it. In all aspects of life, not just politics or love, we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act based on those metaphors. We draw inferences, set goals, make commitments, and execute plans, all based on how we in part structure our experience, consciously and unconsciously, using the metaphor”[25].
Metaphors can influence people’s perceptions and actions and, in turn, become self-fulfilling prophecies for how people ascribe the functioning of reality[26]. Metaphors “guide our perceptions and interpretations... and help us formulate our visions and goals”[27], thus potentially allowing members of organizations to connect their experiences with their imaginations and vice versa[28].
Metaphors are central to social constructionism, which has emerged as an important perspective within social science.
Generally, it can be said that for social constructionism, in contrast to positivism, reality is socially constructed. Positivism states that reality exists independently of the mind seeking to know it and that reality can be known and understood through objective and rational appraisal. “Social constructs or social constructions define meanings, notions, or connotations that are assigned to objects and events in the environment and to people’s notions of their relationships to and interactions with these objects”[29]. Even the word itself emphasizes the socially created nature of social life. “Social constructionism is viewed as a set of dialogues and commentaries rather than a truth or a theory. It lodges our perceptions of reality and all the moral and ethical imperatives that accompany that reality in communal relationships. Nothing exists until it is interpreted by a community of people”[30].
In his book The Social Psychology of Organizing K. Weick focused his attention on the process of organizing as opposed to its product, the “organization”. He claimed that organizational reality is socially constructed and that language plays a major role in the social construction of organizations. Everyday conversations and meetings constitute the organization, and without these various interchanges, an organization would not exist[31].
The critical tradition defines communication as a reflexive, dialectical discourse, associated mainly with cultural and ideological aspects of power, oppression and emancipation.
The term critical theory term originates from the publication of the German researchers known as the Frankfurt School. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, representatives of this school, believed that “the whole earlier history was characterized by an unfair distribution of suffering”[32]. Social players need to be free from ideological influences so that real, authentic communication can occur. Communication is systematically distorted by power imbalances. The achievements of this tradition equally translate into application capacity in the organizational context[33].
The phenomenological tradition creates the notion of communication as experiencing ourselves and others through dialogue.
Martin Buber, Hans-George Gadamer, Emanuel Levinas, or Carl Rogers can be identified with this tradition. Coexistence and the world shared by us constitute the basis for communication. An authentic dialogue requires openness and acceptance of differences while searching for understanding. Dialogue does not necessarily mean sharing already-existing meanings; it is understood as joining the process of negotiating meanings. It allows one to reconstruct oneself[34]. And through access to new experiences, provides the individual with new meanings and the ability to understand these meanings[35].
Contrary to the semiotic tradition, in which interpretation is separated from reality, in the phenomenological tradition, interpretation determines reality for a given individual within the organization. In the phenomenological tradition, culture becomes a preference for some interactive forms of behavior, shaping perception from an expressive and impressive perspective. Table 1 presents, in the form of a list, a summary of traditions and areas of their usage in research on organizational culture[36].
Transform Your Leadership and Unlock Your Full Potential with Executive Coaching
Are you eager to take your leadership skills to the next level? Do you aspire to become an exceptional executive who drives meaningful change and achieves extraordinary results? Look no further than our transformative leadership coaching and executive coaching programs.
[1] Grant D., Hardy C., Oswick C., Putnam L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse, Sage, London 2004.
[2] Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996.
[3] Putnam L., Phillips N., Chapman P., Metaphors of communication and organization, [In] Clegg S.R., HardyC., Nord W.R. (Eds.), The handbook of organization studies, Sage, London 1996, pp. 375-408.
[4] Stohl C., Organizational communication: Connectedness in action, Sage, Thousand Oaks 1995.
[5] Griffin E., Podstawy komunikacji społecznej, GWP, Gdańsk 2003, p. 55.
[6] See Eagly A.H., Chaiken S., The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich 1993; Petty R.E., Wegener D.T., Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Correcting for Context-induced Contrast, “Journal of Experimental Social Psychology”, No. 29, 1993, pp. 137–65; McGuire W.K., Attitudes and Attitude Change, [In] Lindzey G., Aronson E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Random House, New York 1985, p. 233–346.
[7] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.
[8] See Craig R.T., Communication Theory as a Field, “Communication Theory”, No. 9, 1999, pp. 119–161.
[9] Baecker D., Organisation als System, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main 1999; Baecker D., Kommunikation im Medium der Information, [In] Maresch R., Werber N. (eds.), Kommunikation Medien Macht, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main 1999.
[10] See Shannon C.E., Wyner A.D., Sloane N.J.A, Collected Papers, IEEE Press, New York 1993, p. 7.
[11] Shannon C., Weaver W., The mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Illinois 1949, p. 66.
[12] Corbett E.P.J., Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, Oxford University Press, New York 1999, p. 1.
[13] See Hovland C.I. (ed.), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven 1957; Hovland C.I., Janis I.L., Kelley H.H., Communications and Persuasion: Psychological Studies in Opinion Change, Yale University Press, New Haven 1953; Hovland C.I., Lumsdaine A.A., Sheffield F.D., Experiments in Mass Communication: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 3., Princeton University Press, Princeton 1949.
[14] See Murray J.W., The face in dialogue, Part II: Invitational rhetoric, direct moral suasion, and the
asymmetry of dialogue, “The Southern Communication Journal”, No. 69(4), 2004, pp. 333-346; Foss S.K., Griffin C.L., Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric, “Communication Monographs”, No. 62, 1995, pp. 2-18.
[15] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.
[16] Eco U., A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, Macmillan, Indian University Press, London 1976, p. 7.
[17]See Chandler D., Semiotics: The Basics, Routledge, London 2002, p. 2.
[18] Department of Communication, Colorado University, 20 January 2007. <http://spot.colorado.edu/~craigr/Communication.htm>.
[19] Fiske J., Wprowadzenie do badań nad komunikowaniem, Astrum, Wrocław 1999, p. 16.
[20] Sapir E., The status of linguistics as a science, [In] Mandelbau D. (ed.), Selected Writings, University of California Press, Berkeley1951, p.160.
[21] Carey J., Communication as Culture, Unwin Hyman, Boston 1988, p. 23.
[22] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.
[23] Sapir, E. (1921), Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, Harcourt, Brace; Whorf, B. (1956), Carroll, John B., ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT Press
[24] Grant D., Oswick C. (eds), Metaphor and organizations, Sage, London 1996.
[25] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980, p. 158.
[26] For example see: Cornelissen J.P., On the organizational identity metaphor, „British Journal of Management”, No. 13, 2002; Cornelissen J.P., What are we playing at? Theatre, organization, and the use of metaphor, „Organization Studies”, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2004, pp. 705–726; Cornelissen J.P., Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory, „Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 30, 2005, pp. 751-764.; Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980; Lakoff G., Turner M., More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1987; Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991; Tsoukas H., Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization, „Theory Organization Studies”, 14(3), 1993.
[27] Cornelissen J., Oswick C., Christensen L.T., Phillips N., Metaphor in organizational research: Context, modalities and implications for research introduction, „Organization Studies”, No. 29(1), 2008, p. 8.
[28] Cornelissen J., Oswick C., Christensen L.T., Phillips N., Metaphor in organizational research: Context, modalities and implications for research introduction, „Organization Studies”, No. 29(1), 2008; Inns D., Metaphor in the literature of organizational analysis: A preliminary taxonomy and a glimpse at a humanities-based perspective, „Organization”, No. 9, 2002.
[29] Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences <http://www.encyclopedia.com/>.
[30] Gerritsen L., Metaphors of the organization:discourse in public and private worlds, Doctoral dissertation, p. 19.
[31] Weick K.E., Cognitive processes in organization, [In] Staw B.M. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 41-74, JAI Press, Greenwich 1979; Weick K.E., The social psychology of organizing, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading 1979.
[32] Tropey J., Ethics and critical theory: From Horkheimer to Habermas, Sage Publications, Telos 1983, p. 19.
[33] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.
[34]See Deetz S., Transforming communication transforming business, Hampton, Cresskill 1995.
[35] Arthos J., Who are we and who am I? Gadamer’s communal ontology as palimpsest, “Communication Studies”, No. 51, 2000, pp. 15-34.
[36] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.
We invite you to explore our leadership blog and tune in to our insightful leadership podcast to elevate your leadership skills and achieve your professional goals. Stay tuned for regular updates and enriching content that will empower you to lead with confidence and excellence.