Organisational communication in leadership

All leadership and management functions are performed within the context of organizational communication[1]. Large cooperative networks constitute the environment of organizational communication.

This includes practically all aspects of both interpersonal and group communication. Explaining viewpoints, conflict de-escalation, overcoming barriers in knowledge management, knowledge transfer, motivating, and many other processes are conducted in organizations with the help of communication[2].

Organizations are nothing else but entities that at once create and implicate various discourses. One such discourses is the use of family-related categories to describe relationships within a team: “We’re in this together”, “we’ve built this together”, “We’re all responsible for the decisions taken”. Using such an approach or methodology of conduct is aimed at creating implications that indicate not only an image of individuals acting rationally and their relationships within a group but also an image of an experience arousing great enthusiasm.

It is also worth noting that the nature, or in fact, the way of formulating thoughts, is slightly blurred. Organizations, as entities created intentionally, require certain attributes that make them more coherent or connected, such as family closeness, joint management, and members involved in relationships helping and supporting each other. The metaphor aims to conceal disputable issues in an organization and its accompanying socio-economic structure.

Research into the discourse reveals hidden mental processes underlying such elements as authoritative statements implemented by the management, the ultimate effect of which is supposed to be maintaining stricter control over subordinates. Such assumptions are enhanced by power abuse carried out in the name of the implementation of a broadly understood management process.

“Communication belongs to the type of human activity of which all people are aware but only a few can define it satisfactorily”[3]. Communication process research requires combining numerous scientific disciplines. Psychology, anthropology, and sociology are only some examples. Communication is an extremely complex phenomenon. “Scientists have tried to define communication many times, but the establishment of one definition has proved to be impossible and not very fruitful”[4].

Because communication constitutes a very complex and multifaceted category, its analysis requires making various interdisciplinary theoretical assumptions. T. Goban-Klas notices that “in fact, there is no universal ‘communication science, but various facets and ways of dealing with it”[5].

Organizations can be defined as intentionally created social entities with determined boundaries, operating within constant circumstances with a specific set of goals[6], and following a specific strategy.

Contemporary ways of understanding organizations were shaped in the second half of the 19th century, and they have had an apparent effect on the presently common interpretative and postmodern approaches[7]. For example, Scott[8] attempts to understand, or perhaps in this particular case, draw a conclusion, on how organizations gain sense based on their actual image by examining several basic characteristics of organizations and comparing them with related social groups, such as a family.

There are three main ways of giving sense to organizations[9]:

The rational paradigm: organizations are communities, the aim of which is to pursue specific goals and to build a strictly formalized social structure.

The natural paradigm is that organizations are communities, members of which share the enthusiasm related to the survival imperative of their framework and participate in common efforts aimed at the achievement of the goals set.

The open paradigm: organizations are combinations of interdependent powers that connect groups or communities of their members; these groups are placed in the area they work in (where they are subject to the principles of exchange).

Organizations:

·         Have an explicit goal or a composition of goals.

·         Are intentionally created as coherent,

·         Are entangled in a kind of web of formal assumptions,

·         Are fairly stable structures of power and obligations, free of characteristics of individuals serving specific roles in a given time,

In most cases, they are oriented towards lasting longer than a specific act of cooperation between people in a given time.

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.

Organizational communication in leadership bibliography

[1] Chmielecki M., Factors Influencing Effectiveness of Internal Communication, „Management and Business Administration”, No. 23(2), 2015, pp. 24-38.

[2] Chmielecki M., Komunikacja jako element kultury organizacyjnej, [In] Metody zarzdzania kultur organizacyjn, Sukowski., Sikorski Cz, Difin, 2014.

[3] Fiske J., Wprowadzenie do bada nad komunikowaniem, Astrum Wrocaw 1999, p. 15.

[4] Littlejohn S.W., Foss K.A., Theories of Human Communication, Wadsworth, Publishing Belmont 2004, p. 11.

[5] Goban-Klas T., Media i komunikowanie masowe. Teorie i analizy prasy, radia, telewizji, i Internetu, PWN, Kraków 1999, p. 33.

[6] Robbins S.P., Barnwell N., Organization Theory: Concepts and Cases, Prentice Hall, London, 2002, p. 6.

[7] Hatch M.J., Cunliffe A.L., Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford 2006, p. 15.

[8] Scott W.R., Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1998, p. 24–28.

[9] Scott W.R., Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1998, p. 28.