What do you call a communication that flows to a higher level in an organization?
Show CC0 Public Domain A communication network refers to how information flows within the organization. Information within an organization generally flows through a system, rather than being a free flow. Communication networks are regular patterns of person-to-person relationships through which information flows in an organization. This means that the flow of information is managed, regulated. and structured. Communication networks may be formal or informal. Formal Communication Network – A formal communication network is one which is created by management and described with the help of an organizational chart. An organizational chart specifies the hierarchy and the reporting system in the organization. Therefore, in a formal network, information is passed on only through official channels such as memos, bulletins and intranet (email within the organization). The organizational chart implies that information can flow in any of three directions – vertically, i.e., upward or downward, and horizontally.
This type of communication has both benefits and disadvantages. One of the biggest benefits is problem-solving. Once a subordinate has brought a problem to his superior’s notice, chances are that the problem will not recur, since the subordinate learns from his superior how to tackle it the next time. Thus, his ability to solve new problems and therefore his managerial ability, improves. Another benefit that could arise from upward communication is that valuable ideas and suggestions may sometimes come from lower level employees. Therefore organizations should encourage this kind of communication. A third benefit is that employees learn to accept the decisions of management and thereby work as a team. The biggest problem associated with this type of communication is that it may lead to “handing down” of decisions by superiors. When subordinates frequently seek the superior’s guidance, the latter may adopt
an authoritarian approach and merely give instructions, disregarding the subordinate’s opinion completely.
The problems with this type of communication are the danger of doing destructive reviews, as mentioned, and that of “message overload.” This means that superiors many sometimes burden their subordinates with too many instructions, leading to confusion.
The biggest potential benefit of horizontal communication is the sense of teamwork that is created. Regular communication of this type ensures that all co-workers work together towards achieving a common goal in the overall interest of the organization. The biggest potential problem is that conflicts such as ego clashes are bound to arise, when co-workers at the same level communicate on a regular basis. In spite of these problems, horizontal or lateral communication has become more important in today’s business scenario than upward or downward communication. This is because the “organizational pyramid” indicating the different hierarchies or levels in an organization has flattened. This is illustrated by the diagrams given below. Informal Communication Network – Another name for informal networks is the “grapevine”. In this type of network, information does not flow in a particular direction, as we have seen with formal networks. The information is also not passed on through official channels such as memos, notices or bulletin boards. The information need not be circulated within the organization, but could be passed on outside the work environment, wherever co-workers or colleagues meet socially. Thus, informal networks are based more on friendship, shared personal or career interests. Example – Co-workers may meet outside the work environment at a company picnic, party or a car pool and discuss areas of common interest that may or may not be work related. Information may then be passed on to each other about happenings in the company, such as layoffs, the company’s plans for acquisitions and so on. This type of informal network is not just for idle rumors and may be useful in many ways. First of all, it sometimes fills in the “transparency gaps” left by formal networks. Such gaps usually occur during times of crisis such as strikes or layoffs. The strikes and layoffs may not be officially announced. Secondly, it may help to confirm important information, such as the fact that the company is going in for a major acquisition. Thirdly, the grapevine can be used for a constructive purpose by the organization. Example – The government could get the press to publish news in the local paper that there is going to be a petrol price hike soon, just to test the reactions of the general public. If the reaction is negative, then the news may be withdrawn on the basis that it is just a rumor. Similarly, organizations could deliberately plant proposals in the minds of their employees, just to test their reactions. Given that informal communication networks have their advantages, they should not be suppressed as rumors. On the contrary, competent managers should accept the informal network. At the same time, they should make efforts to counter false rumors and to ensure transparency through the formal network. This means making all types of information – both positive and negative, available to everyone in the organization through official channels. Greenbaum, H. H. (1974). The Audit of Organizational Communication. Academy Of Management Journal, 17(4), 739-754. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=bsu&AN=4297575&site=ehost-live&custid=lifelong&authtype=sso Simon Sinek: Why Good Leaders Make you Feel Safe To conclude, it should be remembered that both formal and informal networks should be cultivated and allowed to co-exist, so that information of all types flows freely to all levels in the organization. References Fine, G.A., and S. Kleinman. 1979. Rethinking subculture: an interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology 85( 1): 1-20. Forsythe, G. B. (1992). The preparation of strategic leaders. Parameters (Spring): 38-49. Jacobs, T. O., and E. Jaques. 1991. Executive leadership. In Handbook of military psychology. Edited by R. Gal and A. D. Manglesdorff. Chichester, England: Wiley. CC0 Public Domain A crisis is the ultimate unplanned activity and the ultimate test for managers. In a time of crisis, conventional management practices are inadequate and ways of responding usually insufficient. This author, a communications practitioner with global experience, details a well-managed crisis response that will leave stakeholders with a favorable impression and renewed confidence in the affected company. GSC Library Article: Kim, Y. (2015). Toward an Ethical Model of Effective Crisis Communication. Business & Society Review (00453609), 120(1), 57-81. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=bsu&AN=101349429&site=ehost-live&custid=lifelong&authtype=sso Few circumstances test a company’s reputation or competency as severely as a crisis. Whether the impact is immediate or sustained over months and years, a crisis affects stakeholders within and outside of a company. Customers cancel orders. Employees raise questions. Directors are questioned. Shareholders get antsy. Competitors sense opportunity. Governments and regulators come knocking. Interest groups smell blood. Lawyers are not far behind. As the ultimate unplanned activity, a crisis does not lend itself to conventional “command and control” management practices. In fact, some of the techniques for managing a crisis may fly in the face of conventional notions of planning, testing and execution. Preparation and sound judgment are critical for survival. Since the Tylenol crisis of the 1980s (unknown parties tampered with bottles of the product), the concept of crisis management has become a specialized activity in the domains of communications and public relations. Companies have come to recognize crisis communications capabilities as a vital part of their risk management and business continuity strategies. National Public Relations has been on the front lines of some of the highest-profile crises in Canada and beyond, for more than 30 years. We have devoted many more hours to helping companies avoid, manage and recover from a crisis. This information encapsulates our strategy for survival.
The first task is to identify crisis risks or to recognize a crisis when it breaks out. From a communications standpoint, a crisis is a business or organizational problem that is exposed to public attention, and that threatens a company’s reputation and its ability to conduct business. A crisis can take on many forms, including natural or man-made disasters, environmental spills, product tampering or recalls, labor disruptions or criminal acts, to name a few. What makes them a crisis is the fact that they are the focus of intense media scrutiny. Although some risks are beyond a company’s control, others can be foreseen. Research shows that the vast majority of crises arise when companies fail to identify a potentially contentious issue at an earlier, more benign, stage, and to develop a plan of action to manage the issue before the issue manages them. An issue can fester for months, maybe years, until events and circumstances intersect and propel it to centre stage on the public agenda. In some cases, an issue may have been badly handled, and as a result, has escalated to the brink of becoming a crisis. Examples include:
A coordinated approach to issues management can help an organization effectively identify and anticipate potential issues, prevent crises from developing, and influence their evolution and outcome. The first step is to conduct an issues audit- an inventory of a company’s vulnerabilities and the critical issues it is likely to confront. The task for companies in highly regulated sectors, like energy or pharmaceuticals, is more obvious than for other, less visible enterprises. Within the company, a series of interviews with senior management is conducted. Business plans, processes, relationships and previous experience are analyzed. Key contacts in the industry, media and oversight functions are identified, and existing communications plans inspected for relevance. Outside the company, media analysis, legislative tracking, industry reports, polls and surveys all help to bring potential threats to the surface. Once a framework is established, the critical issues should be identified and prioritized in order of magnitude and likelihood of occurrence. After the communications audit is complete, an issues manual is developed. This document details critical issues, the history and context of company involvement with them, and the company’s position on each one. If the issues have seeped into the public domain at any point, the level of visibility should be described, and allies and adversaries identified. Some examples of issues that faced companies in recent years and escalated into crises include:
Creating a crisis communications plan The issues audit becomes the front end of a company’s crisis communications plan, and arguably, the most important document in the plan. As a complement to a company’s emergency procedures, the crisis plan should contain detailed communications response procedures in the event that any of the potential crises identified in the communications audit, or unforeseen external events, come to pass. The following is a checklist of the contents of a good crisis communications plan:
Access to the crisis plan is essential. Many companies now maintain both print and electronic versions for ease of access and remote retrieval. Testing the plan In order to ensure that the messages contained in the crisis plan are delivered effectively and with credibility, and that the plan can be carried out, it needs to be tested. This is where crisis training and simulations come in, as well as media training. Crisis training is best delivered by outside trainers who take participants through crisis theory and its practical applications to their industry or company. The crisis plan is reviewed and implemented in a simulated crisis to assess the organization’s preparedness, and to identify areas that need improvement. Did the crisis response, when played out, escalate or solve the crisis?
Despite the best planning and foresight, organizations inevitably find themselves in a crisis from time to time.
Research has discovered common internal reactions when the issue first breaks. The first casualty of a crisis is perspective. Characteristically, the pattern is one of escalation, with the initial response being surprise, itself the result of a lack of information. Before the company knows about the incident, cameras are on the scene. In the absence of real information, an organization cannot respond meaningfully. However, that doesn’t stop media from reporting on it live, minute by minute. As events escalate, management senses a loss of control over the issue. Intense scrutiny by the media, regulators, stakeholders and competitors breeds a siege mentality, tempting a company to batten down the hatches and say nothing at the very time the media is pounding at their door. Panic sets in. Business planning horizons change from years into hours. Management attention is focused entirely on getting through the next interview. External reactions mirror these internal dynamics. Initially, an incident may attract the interest of only a small constituency.
As the hours and days pass, media reports breed a wider concern as other stakeholders become aware of the impact of the situation on them. Curiosity turns into concern and anxiety. The absence of an adequate response by the players involved breeds anger and fear and invites a desire in others to retaliate for what is seen as wrongdoing. Stakeholders begin demanding answers. They want to strike back, with the view that someone has to “pay” for the consequences. Sooner rather than later, an organization loses the public trust and goodwill upon which its business has been built. Market share begins to erode. Stock prices drop. Government orders an inquiry. Assessing a crisis One of the most vital skills a company can possess is the ability to determine if, when and at what level of importance a crisis has struck:
TED TALK: Melissa Agnes: The Secret to Successful Crisis Management in the 21st Century So what’s to be done? Ten rules for crisis management
Be as forthright as possible; tell what you know and when you became aware of it; explain who is involved and what is being done to fix the situation. Be sure to correct misinformation promptly when it emerges.
Remaining silent or appearing removed, perhaps on the advice of legal counsel, tends to enrage the public and other stakeholders. A balanced communications strategy must be developed that protects corporate liability while satisfying the demands of today’s information and media dynamic. As demanding as the public may be, they are usually inclined to give an organization the benefit of the doubt in the early hours of a crisis. They judge a company and its leaders not by the incident itself — which they recognize is often beyond the control of those individuals — but by their response.
As the crisis comes under control, a company should examine the impact the incident has had on its brand(s) and reputation. If the brand has taken a hit, a company may need to give consumers a reason to trust them again. Companies should consider a broad range of potential communication initiatives to restore trust and loyalty.
An entire arsenal of public relations techniques can be called upon, from media relations, internal communications, and thought-leadership initiatives to comprehensive corporate social responsibility programs. Public opinion surveys can track changes in attitudes towards a company in the weeks and months after reputation-focused programs are launched. Weathering a crisis: The last word Most lectures on crisis management point out that the Chinese expression for crisis, wei ji, is a combination of two words: danger and opportunity. While no company would willingly submit itself to the dangers inherent in a crisis, the company that weathers a crisis well understands that opportunity can come out of adversity. A well-managed crisis response, coupled with an effective recovery program, will leave stakeholders with a favorable impression and renewed confidence in the affected company. References Pauchant, T. C., & Mitroff, I.I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Soeder, J. (1993). Anatomy of an avoidable tragedy. Restaurant Hospitality, 77, 34. What type of organizational communication flows from a higher level?Upward Communication Flows
Information moving from lower-level employees to high-level employees is upward communication (also sometimes called vertical communication). For example, upward communication occurs when workers report to a supervisor or when team leaders report to a department manager.
What is the flow of communication in an organization?Communication within a business can involve different types of employees and different functional parts of an organization. These patterns of communication are called flows, and they are commonly classified according to the direction of interaction: downward, upward, horizontal, diagonal, external.
What is organizational level of communication?Answer: Organizational communication is defined as the channels and forms of communication in which organizations such as corporations, non-profits, and governmental bodies engage, including both the internal communications that occur within an organization, and external-facing communications between an organization ...
Which type of communication flows from lower organizational levels to higher organizational levels?Upward communication. flows from lower to higher organizational levels. Lateral (or horizontal) communication. flows across the organization, among personnel on the same level.
|