INVE S T IC E DO ROZVOJ E VZDE LÁVÁNÍ
Charles University in Prague
Institute of Information Studies and Librarianship
Modul No. 5
Communication of Information
Petra Zia Sluková
For the project:
Title: Studies of Information and Knowledge Management in he European
Context
Reg. No: CZ.1.07/2.2.00/07.0284
OP: Education for Competitiveness
Support area. 2.2 University Education
Realization: VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, Faculty of Economics,
separate unit: Business Academy and HPS Valašské Mezirící
Content:
1 Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 3
2 Information – Communication Models ............................................................... 5
2.1 Modelling.................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 The Advantages of Models ............................................................................ 6
2.1.2 The Limitations of Models ............................................................................ 6
2.2 Communication Models .......................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) ........................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Harold Dwight Lasswell (1948) .................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Claude Shannon (1948) ............................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Wilbur Schramm (1954) ............................................................................... 11
2.2.5 David Berlo (1960) ........................................................................................ 12
2.2.6 Theodore M. Newcomb (1953) ................................................................... 14
2.2.7 The Conceptual Model of Westley and MacLean (1957) ................... 16
3 Shannon-Weaver´s Information Theory ............................................................. 17
3.1 Communication Systems ...................................................................................... 18
3.2 Shannon-Weaver´s Mathematical Theory of Communication .................. 19
3.3 Shannon-Weaver´s Model .................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 The Basic Characteristics of the Model .................................................. 19
3.3.2 The strong points of the model .................................................................. 20
3.3.3 The Weak Points of the Model ................................................................... 20
4 The Information-Communication Channels ................................................... 24
4.1 The Communication Channels ............................................................................ 24
4.2 The Formal Information Flows .......................................................................... 25
4.2.1 The Formal Vertical Communication ....................................................... 25
4.2.2 The Formal Horizontal Communication .................................................. 28
4.3 Sharing Information .............................................................................................. 29
4.4 Informal Communication ..................................................................................... 30
5 The Information and The Communication Climate in an Organization 33
5.1 The Information and the Organization Environment .................................. 33
5.2 The Information and an Open Climate ............................................................ 34
5.2.1 An Open Communication Climate ............................................................. 34
5.2.2 A Closed Communication Climate............................................................. 36
5.3 A Model of a Communication Climate ............................................................ 36
5.3.1 Information Openness ................................................................................... 38
5.4 The Communication Audit .................................................................................. 39
5.4.1 The ICA Audit.................................................................................................. 40
5.4.2 The OCD Organisational Communication Development Audit
Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 41
6 Communication Barriers in an Organization.................................................. 43
6.1 Personality/individual barriers .......................................................................... 44
6.1.1 The Communicator’s Side ............................................................................ 44
6.1.2 The Receiver´ s Side ..................................................................................... 46
6.2 Outer Barriers ........................................................................................................ 46
6.3 Barriers in Communication Channels .............................................................. 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 48
1 Foreword
„The two words 'information' and 'communication' are often used
interchangeably, but they signify quite different things. Information is giving
out; communication is getting through.“
Sydney J. Harris
The issue of the mingling of the terms of information and communication has
been going through the historical development of both the fields –
information theory and theory of communication. On both sides, the tendency
to comply to the description of the characteristic features of those terms to
the paradigms requirements defining the mother discipline can be traced.
The mingling of the terms of information and communication is happening not
only in the semantic historical development of both the words which points at
their similarity but sometimes almost on the edge of one being mistaken for
the other.
In spite of the fact that information and communication have their own “home
disciplines“ and scientist from both the fields, communication and also
information studies, tend to define both terms as two different phenomena,
many similar features can be observed.
Nowadays we seem to reach the boundaries where they are taken for
synonyms, one being mistaken for the other. The semantic historical
development of both the words is also showing their similarity. Still at the
end of 19th century, the official definition of both the terms was
undistinguishable from their everyday usage, from their meaning given to
them by the general public.
In the beginning of the 20th century, scientist and engineers contributing to
technical magazines started to use both terms in connection with the new
technological progress in the field of electronics. The definition of
communication as a transfer of electronic signals and information as
quantity comes from just this period of time. Claude Shannon, Norbert
Wiener, Robert Hayes, and their other contemporaries considered
information and communication to be general concepts applicable in various
situations. A similar way was the way the economists John Hirschleifer,
Donald Lamberton or Fritz Machlup, brought information into economy
defining it as something reducing vagueness in the decision making process.
For its capability to be captured in material objects such as books, discs,
letters or clay tablets, information creates the impression of being material,
perceiving information as matter. The dramatic development of technology of
storing, finding and manipulating data contributed to it in the 20th century.
And as information is tightly connected to human society, a process of
transfer of this substance is bound to appear there. This act is very similar to
what many scientist call communication. Here lies the basis for the general
assumption that information equals matter, communication equals
transfer. This perspective became popular in the communication disciplines
community especially, where communication is the process of motion and
information is what is being moved. This definition also fits into the
technical perspective of Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver; unfortunately it
lures to certain simplification, especially in the area of human behaviour
diversity.
Even though information is often connected to a state order only, it can also
be a process, and it is then part of the act of becoming informed. Machlup
works with this view, accepting to look at information as matter, “something
is told“, but also including the vision of the process of “the telling of
something“. If we identify information to the expression of “the telling of
something“, it becomes communication.
Wilbur Schramm emphasises the concept of “communication-as-sharing“,
and this point of view inspired a whole new generation of scientists. This
theory has its support in the linguistic roots of the word, the Latin expression
communicare means to share. Brent Ruben develops this thought further on
and characterises “human communication as a process of interactiveness”:
“a process through which individuals in relationships, groups, organizations
create, transfer and use information in relation to their environment and in
relation to themselves.“
And here we get to the basic question: “What all is communication an
interaction of?“ Symbols, ideas, skills, words, images, graphs, messages,
gestures and information. Information is used as a covering term here and
again confirming the assumption that to be able to define communication the
term information has to be characterized.
2 Information – Communication Models
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other
because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they
can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
After having studies this material I should be able to
· Characterize modelling
· Name the advantages and disadvantages of models
· Talk about each of the communication models /Aristotle, Lasswell,
Berlo, Shannon, Schramm, Westley and MacLeans, … /
Key words:
Information models, communication models, modelling, feedback, channel,
message, coder, decoder, transmitter, receiver, field of expertise, Aristotle,
Lasswell, Berlo, Schramm, Newcomb, Shannon, Westley, MacLean
2.1 Modelling
What is modelling?
The main goal of informational activity is to communicate knowledge. Each
knowledge can become a piece of information only provided that it is
communicated, if it goes through any act or process of communication
(KONIGOVÁ. 1981). Via modelling, such acts of communication can be
expressed graphically.
Modelling is one of the main methods of studying the complicated phenomena
of the real world, where all phenomena are inter-connected and it is basically
impossible to offer a complete and exact description. Therefore, a model
allows to depict objective reality in a simplified way and to capture only
those parts of the given phenomenon that we consider important, which
means those that are near the purpose the model is supposed to fulfil.
Inevitably, a certain idealization of the specific phenomenon is happening and
its abstraction which should not be mistaken for creating a copy of the object
or phenomenon being modelled or its logical tautology (BERKA, 1967).
Doc.RNDr. Milan Berka, CSc. calls the art of modelling and creating models
an art of searching for the compromise between simplicity and exactness.
We can define a model as a consciously simplified description of a part of
reality presented in graphical form, depicting the main parts of a certain
structure or a process and the relationships between their single parts.
2.1.1 The Advantages of Models
CONCISENES AND ACCURACY
As it has been already mentioned, the model allows for explaining or
rather clarifying complicated phenomena, processes and events.
GENERALITY
Allows for interpreting some theories and creates space for further
questions. C. D. Mortensen cites: “the more complicated the given object –
the more chaotic and unrecoverable is its natural interface – and the more
the possible benefit of the model being created ”( MORTENSEN, 1972)
THE POSSIBILITY OF A FURTHER EXPANDING OF THE
THEORY
The given theory can be easily quantified through the model.
EASY VERIFIABILITY OF THE HYPOTHESES ADOPTED
Especially with mathematical models, various mathematically exact
methods can be used according to the character of the assumed
relationships
FUTURE PROGNOSIS
Predicting possible results or directions of events.
THE I SEE / AHA EFFECT
On a certain level, the models also have a heuristic value, thus providing
new insights by creating new hypothetical thoughts and relationships.
Some scientists attach the highest significance to this function – offering a
non-common original perspective. A good model can help us leave old
patterns of thoughts.
2.1.2 The Limitations of Models
THE DANGER OF EXCESSIVE SIMPLIFICATION
Even though simplification being an inseparable part of abstraction, the
basic changeable, periodical relationships and main competence of the
given subject should not be forgotten while creating the model.
PREMATURE CONCLUSION
Models limit our awareness of unexplored possibilities. We occupy
ourselves with the model even though it would be more reasonable to
spend time and energy with the actual object of our interest. Most of our
ideas are conditioned by a certain slow maturing, creating conditions for a
calm growth, which can not be hurried up. By creating the model in a
phase in which our thoughts still are in the state of being crystallized we
may prevent the development and new ideas from their “settling down“ in
a healthy way.
MISTAKING THE MODEL FOR REALITY
The model functions as a substitute of reality which ultimately means that
one form of multiple meaning is replaced by vagueness the model was
supposed to minimize. E.g. perceiving Norway as being “up there“,
because on the map of Europe it is placed near the North pole.
2.2 Communication Models
There are tens of communication models to distinguish, each of them focusing
on various situations of communication, bearing different parts of
communication into consideration, e.g. with Shannon it is the channel,
Osgood-Schramm work with communication participants, Belo points at the
massage as being a phenomenon.
2.2.1 Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)
The origins of the systematic approach can be found in Greek culture. The
Ancient Greeks had a democratic form of government and in all fields of
business, public administration, law or education, the emphasis was given on
oral expression. The civilians had to be their own lawyers – the defendant
showed their case officially in front of the commission consisting of a few
hundreds of people that had to be convinced of something.
From this state, Aristotle’s understanding of communication as verbal
activity, in which the speaker (the one who is speaking) tries to convince
the listener, thus reaching their own goal, and this via using a tactical
construct of an argument and presentation of the speech.
Aristotle describes communication in the terms of orator, the speaker is
composing the argument that is to be presented in the speech to the
listeners, hearers, thus the audience. The orator is seen as the initiator of
the whole communication, his speech and the recipient show in every next
communication theory, but the understanding of the fourth element, that is the
form, is changing. The form is a result of the influence of mutual
combination of the previous three elements, but the retrograde influence
does not apply here – the form only works unidirectional and does not
influence other parts.
In his work Retorica, Aristotle described his communication model (see pict.1
Aristotle’s model), which is considered to be “the first social communication
model“ and the basis of all following theories of communication, Even
though he was the first to exclude and name the individual parts of the
process of communication, the model still does not bear the other
circumstances of a communication process (e.g. circumstances, implications,
influences, etc.) in mind.
So the goal of the initiator is to crate a positive impression about themselves
on the listener and to gain bigger understanding consecutively, and to create
agreement with initiator´s point of view. Aristotle defined rhetoric as an
ability to notice, register reachable means of persuasion in any kind of
situation.
Aristotle, same as his teacher Plato, considered communication to be an art
or a skill that has to be practised and also one that needs exploring. So even
though the earliest interest focused on public speech, the fact that it is needed
to expand the view of other theories was acknowledged. Plato,e.g.,
emphasised the necessity to focus on the human behaviour area.
The following two scholars went into this direction - Cicero and Quintilian,
who, same as Aristotle and Plato, saw communication as practical and
academic matter. Cicero’s view on communication was so complex that it
included everything that is today considered the field of expertise of social
studies.
Speaker
(Iniciátor)
Listener
Message
FORM
Picture.1 Ar i s tot le´s model
2.2.2 Harold Dwight Lasswell (1948)
Another of the famous characteristic is the verbally descriptive model of the
American sociologist, political scientist and communication theoretician
Harold Lasswell, where the influence of the propaganda field, which he was
theoretically interested in, can be traced. We consider it to be one of the
first simple models of mass media communication (see pic.2 of Lasswell´s
model).
He himself said that the communication process can be best explained in a
simple statement:
“Who says what to whom in what channel with what effect.“
Who
Says What
To whom
In what Channel
With what Effect?
Same as Aristotle, Lassell focuses on the oral message emphasising the terms
such as speaker, message and audience, even though he uses different
terminology and sees also communication as a unidirectional process in which
the individual influences the others with his or her message.
What distinguishes Lasswell from Aristotle?
· He offers a wider definition of the channel, through including mass
media also
· He expands the view of the target or effect of the process of
communication in general
· He suggests diverse results or effects of communication
· He expands the function of “convincing“ by adding “informing,
entertaining, rousing, irritating“
His work is considered to be the first small step to the area of explaining the
transfer and receiving of the message.
Information
source
Transmitter
Encoder Channel
Receiver -
Decoder
Destination
Noise source
Message Signal Signal
Received
Message
Picture 2 Las swel l ´s model
2.2.3 Claude Shannon (1948)
About a year after Laswell´s presentation of his point of view, Claude
Shannon put out the results of his research in the area of signal transfer.
In 1948, Claude Shannon published his “Mathematical Theory of
Communication”, in Bell Systems Technical Journal and this work spread
very quickly into other areas of science, not only technical, but also into
social-humanitarian disciplines. Shannon´s concept of information measured
by the entropy pattern is one of his most important contributions to the theory
of information. This probably also is the main reason why his theory is called
“information theory”, while Shannon preferred the term “communication
theory”.
According to Shannon, any communication system can be divided into single
components that can be treated as different mathematical models. So it is
possible to separate the source amendment from the channel amendment.
In their model, the authors distinguished the single components of the
communication act (see picture 3 Shannon and Weaver´s model): signal from
message, information source from transmitter, and receiver from
destination.
Picture 3 Shannon and Weaver ´s model
Who?
(speaker)
What?
(message)
Channel?
(medium)
To whom?
(listener)
Effect
(effect)
2.2.4 Wilbur Schramm (1954)
In his work, Wilbur Schramm broke the rule of linearity when he, as one of
the first, modified the model of Shannon and Weaver, and created a circular
model, emphasising the cyclic naturalness of communication (see picture 4
Schramm´s model). Schramm himself says:
"It is misleading to think of a communication process as of something that
has a beginning and end. It is truly endless… „ (SCHRAMM, 1979).
In his model, Wilbur Schramm not only changed Schannon´s “transmitter“
and “receiver“ to “coder“ and “decoder“, but he also converts the “source“
of the information or feeling he wants to share into a shape that can be
transmitted. He indicates that the images in our head can not be transmitted
unless they are coded. As soon as the message is coded and sent, it is no
longer depended on the source. And in this moment the relevant questions
are if the receiver is going to be tuned in the same way the transmitter is, if
the message is going to be interpreted without being distorted and deformed,
if the picture in the head of the receiver is going to have some kind of
similarity to the one the transmitting subject had in their head.
Among other things, Wilbur Schramm is also concerned by the importance
of feedback, which he sees as an effective means to solve the disturbance
problem. The experienced communicator is cautious of the feedback from
their audience and they constantly modify their message according to what
they observe or hear from the other part. In the model, the idea of the
receiver providing feedback is expressed (either direct, slightly direct, or
indirect), automatically becoming the transmitter, and thus Shramm
eliminated the differentiation of those two roles. In this model, the function
of the transmitter and the receiver are not differentiated. Coding, evaluation
and decoding messages is provided by both the subjects.
Also the idea of Schramm that receiving the message is not a matter of
decoding but also interpreting the message, is revolutionary. Adding the
element of an interpreter into the model is an effort of looking at the problem
of the content of the message; so a possible different meaning of the
individual messages is taken into consideration.
Schramm also presents the concept of field of experience, which presumes
that it is inseparable for determining if the message is going to be received at
its destination in the way the transmitting subject intended. He claims that
without the field of experience – a common language, common
background, common culture, etc. – it is almost impossible to interpret
the message correctly. Schramm is thus aware of the fact, that a
communication process functions with cultural rules and expectations
limitations, and for a satisfactory communication it is necessary to share at
least some social cultural elements.
Message
Message
Coder
Decoder Coder
Decoder
Interpretor Interpretor
This model is criticized for the wrong assumption of mutual equableness of
all those who are acting in the communication. It is the act of communication
that is often unbalanced when it comes down to elements of sources, power or
time. This model does not bear collective communication among more sources
into consideration.
Picture 4 Schramm´s model
2.2.5 David Berlo (1960)
Wilbur Schramm´s classmate - David Berlo – defined parts of a
communication process more in detail – with “the source” he considered
important to point out the terms of communication skills, approach,
knowledge, culture and social system. In his model, (see picture 5 of
Berlo´s model) Berlo emphasized all 5 senses of the characteristics of the
information channel and hinted, that the same factors influencing the source
also influence the receiver of the message. Berlo claimed that for a successful
communication, an equal level of skills and common values is a condition, on
the side of the transmitter and the receiver.
David Berlo perceives communication as a regulated process, where the
relationship of both the communication partners is significant same as the
amount of their communication skills. The higher they are the more
effective and successful communication is happening. Communication skills
are divided into 5 kinds:
Talking and writing (connected to the process of coding, transforming
thoughts into symbols), listening and reading (decoding) and thinking.
The ability to think is of key importance – in its significance to get the
essence of the communication situation rightly and perceive the context and
connections. If this last quality is weakened, the previous four are
automatically also weakened.
Factors influencing the course of a communication process:
· Communication skills of the participants
· Awareness of the participants level
· Social system
· Cultural system
· A set of attitudes of all the participants
The model is placed in the group of linear models and the interaction of the
individual parts is not explicitly expressed.
David Berlo mainly emphasised the fact that communication is a process and
that meanings are in people, not in words, in other words – interpretation of
a message depends mainly on the meaning of the words or gestures for the
transmitter and the receiver – more than on the basic parts of the message.
And insisting on this fact changes the view of communication from
transferring the message to interpreting information.
Picture 5 Ber lo´s Model of Communicat ion
2.2.6 Theodore M. Newcomb (1953)
In the model of interpersonal communication of Newcomb (see picture 5 of
Newcomb´s model), the emphasis is given on the psyche and the relationship
of the participants, which are influenced by the communication process.
Terms such as message, channel etc. do not appear in the model. The model
explores the implication of the communication process on the psyche of an
individual, it emphasizes the bidirectionality of the communication,
addresses the relationship between the participants and the relationship
to the subject of the communication. On the other hand, it is still forgetting
about factors such as communication process environment and other
influences working on the participants of the communication.
A and B are communicating and X is the situation or the social context in
which the communication is taking place. Both the individuals are directed
both to each other and also to X. The balance between those three subjects is
maintained by a constant information transmission. The communication
process is perceived as the work of interdependent factors maintaining
equilibrium.
Theodore M. Newcomb based his work on the work of Heider, a psychologist,
who was interested in the amount of consistence or inconsistency which can
exist between two persons in relation to a third person or object. Where there
is equilibrium (positive attitude among them or to the object), each
participant is resistant do change. In situations where there is imbalance,
efforts to gain balance occur. So a discrepancy between A and B and their
orientation towards X actually stimulates their mutual communication.
Newcomb came out of this presupposition also, claiming, that communication
is “a learnt answer in tension“ and we are probably able to find more
communication activities in conditions of insecurity and imbalance than in
any other situation.
Picture 5 Newcomb´s model
2.2.7 The Conceptual Model of Westley and MacLean (1957)
This circular model is based on the model of interpersonal communication
according to Theodor Newcomb; as in the original, the basis for the whole
concept is the triplet A (communicator), B (recipient) and X (the subject of
the communication), but it is applied on mass, intentional communication
area (see picture 6 Westley and MacLean´s model). He introduces a new role
of the mediator (also controlling subject) and tries to describe the mutual
relationships between the main agents of mass communication. One of the
positive sides of it is that it pins down the changeability of the message in
the course of mass communication. On the other hand, the influence of an
outer context is not caught and the influence of the source on the medium and
vice versa is not elaborated.
To Newcomb’s model and his A, B (the communicating ones) and to X (any
matter or event in the surrounding of A, B which is the subject of
communication), the authors added C, representing the publishing function –
the process determining what and how to communicate.
Each person responds to their sensual experience by choosing only certain
objects they respond to, those are illustrated as X. In the model, A is the
reporter, B is the public and C stands for the controlling subject or channel,
e.g. chief editor. f represents the feedback.
Wesley and MacLean indicate that the balance of Newcomb model is
disturbed by A and C being close together. C functions partly as a channel
and also as a mediator of transfer of X from A to B, so X is further away from
B than in the previous model, and thus the dependence of element B (the
public) on A and C is indicated.
In the model, the idea that communication is started by receiving the
message rather than sending it is illustrated. Communication is not started
in the moment when the person starts talking but only when he or she
selectively responds to their actual environment. This is emphasised by the
fact that many signals that are important for a communication process did not
have to be sent deliberately.
Another thing the authors are pointing out is the width of changes the
message goes through while being transferred from one subject to the other.
Picture. 6 The model of Wes t ley and MacLean
Topics for discussion:
· What can you see as the weak point of David Berlo´s model?
· In Westley and MacLean´s model, the illustration of further sources and
influences working on B and balancing the influence of A and C are
missing. Which are they?
Independent work:
Mark the communication act in the model graphically: Knowledge
management studies at secondary school.
Recommended reading:
NARULA, Uma. Communication models. Atlantic, 2006. 136 s. ISBN
8126906766.
HEATH, Robert. Human Communication Theory and Research. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Lea's Communication Series. 464 s. ISBN
0805830081.
3 Shannon-Weaver´s Information Theory
„If you don't give people information, they'll make up something to fill the
void.“
Carla O'Dell
After having studied this material I should be able to:
· Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the models in general
· Describe Shannon-Weaver´s model with its basic characteristics
· Illustrate Shannon-Weaver´s model schematically (graphically)
· Analyse the strong and weak points of the model
· Talk about the main contribution of the work of Shannon from the
communication perspective
Key words:
Communication systems, linear model, Shannon, Weaver, deFleur, signal,
message, source, transmitter, receiver, message, bit, channel, disturbance,
entropy, feedback, disturbance, medium
3.1 Communication Systems
The system approach allows for understanding the system as a set of agents
mutually influencing each other and purposefully coordinated, entering
into relationships with their surroundings at the same time. (KONIGOVÁ.
1981). To describe a communication system thus means to describe its
structure and functioning in detail in its various inner and outer parts. It is a
state of interdependency and collaboration between the single parts and the
environment which those parts are connected to.
In technical disciplines, the communication systems in most cases take care
of the area of information transfer; in social systems, quite on the contrary,
it is about charting the effect of the communication process on human
behaviour. In information science, the description of the signs conditioning
the course and result of the communication was described in detail by Prof.
Marie Konigová.
3.2 Shannon-Weaver´s Mathematical Theory of Communication
In 1948, in the Bell Systems Technical Journal, Claude Shannon published
his work “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, which quickly
expanded into other areas of science, not only technical, but also social
humanitarian disciplines. Shannon´s concept of information measured by the
entropy pattern is one of his most significant contributions to the theory of
information. This is probably the main reason why his theory was called
“information theory”, while Shannon preferred the term “communication
theory”.
In the area of formal architecture of communication systems, Shannon was
one of the first to realize that any communication system can be divided into
single components, that can be treated as different mathematical models. It is
then possible to separate the source modification from the channel
modification thoroughly.
The authors distinguished the individual components of a communication act:
signal from message, information source from transmitter and receiver from
destination.
3.3 Shannon-Weaver´s Model
Even though Shannon devoted himself to mathematical and crypto
graphical research in the Bell Telephone Laboratory, and his work is of
highly technical character, the influence of his work was tremendous. The
technical problems are different in their character from human problems, but
we can see the influence of a mathematical model in work an models created
by many scientist of social disciplines (see picture 3 and 7 of Shannon and
Weaver´s model).
.
3.3.1 The Basic Characteristics of the Model:
The linear model (there is a sequence of communication activities,
communication is based as unidirectional)
Transmitting model (puts more emphasis on space than on time)
The general model (applicable to different kinds of communication, not
bearing in mind the semantic side of the communication process)
“Information model” of communication (puts emphasis on the
transmission and receiving of information, the original intent leading to
creating the model was to differentiate the disturbance from signals
carrying information)
Information
source
Transmitter
– En coder Channel
Receiver -
decoder
Destination
Noise source
Message Signal Received
signal
Message
Picture 7 Shannon and Weaver ´s model
The information source creates the message or selects it from a group of
possible messages. The transmitter (the encoder) transfers the message into a
signal, which is being sent via a communication channel to the decoder
(receiver). The function of the decoder is reverse to the function of the coder,
that is to decode, renew the message from the signal. Then the received
message reaches the destination.
3.3.2 The strong points of the model
simplicity
general validity
quantifiability
the most often used simple communication model in communication
theory
model, which by dividing the communication process into individual
units gave stimulus to creating communication models providing a
thorough elaboration of their process
intellectual inspiration for communication theoreticians leading to
further theories and research – nowadays it is necessary to bring this
scientific community back to life
3.3.3 The Weak Points of the Model
does not bear the content and meaning of the message in mind
The model illustrates the mathematical theory applying to signal transfer
and it is not the intention of the model to focus on the semantic meaning
of the message or its effect on the audience. As Claude Shannon says
himself (1948):
“The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one
point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point.
Frequently the messages have meaning, that is they refer to or are
correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual
entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the
engineering problem.”
The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must
not be confused with its ordinary usage. Shannon himself noted to this
topic when meeting the major scientists:
“I think perhaps the word ‘information’ is causing more trouble . . .
than it is worth, except that it is difficult to find another word that is
anywhere near right. It should be kept solidly in mind that [information]
is only a measure of the difficulty in transmitting the sequences produced
by some information source.”
The fact that “information“ in the context of Shannon´s mathematical
theory has nothing to do with the meaning of the message leads to the fact
that it is not possible to pay attention to the meaning (importance) of the
message. There is no mechanism to hierarchically separate an important
message from a less important one. By the term “information“ anything
that may be coded and transmitted via a channel connected the source of
information with the receiver is meant. Warren Weaver (1949):
… the strange way in which, in this theory, the word -information- is used…
It is surprising but true that, from the present viewpoint, two messages, one
heavily loaded with meaning and the other pure nonsence, can be equivalent
as regards information…”
linearity and lack of feedback
Communication is marked as unidirectional only, so the information source
lacks the very important feedback necessary for modifying the
performance, the way of communication according to the needs and
reactions of the receiver of the message. The information source is placed
into the role of an active leading subject here, and the receiver is looked at
as a passive goal absorbing information only.
In 1970, the model was expanded by the feedback by the theoretician
DeFleur (see picture 8 of DeFleur´s model), adding further parts and
introducing the term “meaning“. This is transformed by the source into
“information“, sent by the transmitter through the channel and again
changed by the receiver into “meaning“, delivered to the destination. The
feedback rises the possibility of reaching izoformism, the concord between
Source T ransmitter Channel Receiver Destination
Disturbanc
Destination Receiver Channel Transmitter Source
“meanings“. It is the feedback that plays a significant role in checking the
quality of information services.
Picture 8 DeFleur ´s model
the relationships and intentions of the participants of the
communication are not taken into account
The basis of communication itself, its original meaning in the sense of
“sharing“ indicates, that the participants of a communication process are
never isolated individuals. Also their intentions and intents influence the
character of their exchange significantly.
The concepts of this theory are in fact mathematical and their intents were
to apply them on technical problems in clearly defined conditions. That is
why it seems at first sight that the information theory in social
communication ignores the human factor.
excessive stationariness of the model
The model suits illustrating a communication in space rather than in time,
it does not take the change of the surrounding conditions, relationships
and participants roles into account, neither the purpose of the given
process.
the character of the given medium (channel) is not taken into
account
People have various attitudes to single kinds of media, they differ in their
technological qualities and the amount of suitability to various kinds of
communication purposes. The choice of medium can influence the form
and also the content of the message, some allow for a direct feedback more
than others…The medium is not a neutral agent in the process of
communication.
other connections are not taken into account
The meaning, the sense of the message is never fully isolated from its
environment in a communication act, it is always under the influence of
social, political, cultural, historical and organizational or situational
phenomena.
Topics for discussion:
· How would I personally graphically illustrate a communication
process? Would there be a difference in expressing it e.g. by a scheme
of interpersonal or mass communication?
· How to indicate in an effective and lucid way the existence of time
factor, environment influence, barriers or other variables influencing
the shape and flow of our communication?
Independent work:
Choose from the personal or working life of both the scientists (Claude E.
Shannon and Warren Weaver) events/facts/opinions, you were personally
interested in.
Recommended reading:
Shannon-Weaver Model : Introductory models & basic concepts [online].
c2003 [cit. 2006-09-09]. The Communication, Cultural and Media Studies
Infobase. Dostupný z WWW: <
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html>.
SHANNON, Claude. A Mathematical Theory of Communication [online]. [cit.
2006-09-09]. Dostupný z WWW: < http://cm.belllabs.
com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf >.
4 The Information-Communication Channels
"The less people know, the more they yell."
— Seth Godin
After having studies this material I should be able to:
· Distinguish formal communication from informal communication and
their advantages and disadvantages
· Characterize horizontal and vertical channels in an organization
· Name the factors active during the process of message transfer in an
organization
· Describe the features of the information transmitted by informal
information channels
Key words:
organization, channel, information flows, vertical communication, horizontal
communication, formal communication, informal communication, sharing
information, analyses of ECCO flows
4.1 The Communication Channels
Communication among communicating partners happens through
communication channels. Kunczik distinguishes six of them (KUNCZIK,
1995):
· the auditive or vocal channel (speaking, verbal and paralinqual
communication);
· the visual channel (facial expression, look exchange, gestures and
movement of the body, the general appearance, interpersonal distance
and/or using space for communicating in distance or closeness);
· the touch or tactile channel (e.g. touching, pushing);
· the smell or olfactory channel (perceiving the smell of the body);
· the temperature or thermal channel (feeling the physical warmth of
another person);
· the taste or gustatory channel (perceiving taste).
We can see the communication structure in an organization as a system of
channels, through which the messages flow, or patterns of interaction
between the transmitter and the receiver, thus the network, a pattern of
interaction among people forming an organization. The flow of information is
provided by the system of information channels and networks in an
organization(GOLDHABER, 1990). It should be considered that we basically
talk about those two concepts – the information flow of the formal and
informal character where the kind of information is on of the significant
factors determining what kinds of information channels will be used in the
course of the communication. Understanding the role of the networks and
channels is necessary to obtaining an objective and real perspective of the
flow of information in an organization.
4.2 The Formal Information Flows
Formal communication is official, planned and it has its specific goals and
is passed on by way of communication paths resulting out of the company’s
organizational structure. With informal communication, we distinguish
between horizontal and vertical information channels. Horizontal
communication is sharing information between single functional units on
the same level of the company’s hierarchy. It often corresponds to channels
and elements of the informal communication system, which bypasses formal
organizational structure and hierarchy. It is very often the case that more
departments or national units are working on the same issue and it is just this
horizontal communication, if flowing freely, that can provide sharing new
experience, solutions and information throughout the organization (Kanter,
1988).
4.2.1 The Formal Vertical Communication
Vertical communication is a bidirectional communication between
superiors and subordinates and relates to lightness with which individuals
can communicate up and down the organizational hierarchy. As new ideas and
those who are trying to bring them about to life need strong support from the
side of the executives, it is expected that the environment that has a positive
relationship to vertical communication also has suitable conditions to
generating and mainly presenting new ideas and their realising in practice.
I am going to focus on formal communication first and the main
characteristics of vertical information channels:
a) it is a unidirectional (with no feedback) or bidirectional
communication
In situations, where working duties and tasks are delegated, or where the
employees are introduced to the organization’s visions, and its goals, the
information flow tends to be unidirectional. We perceive feedback with
wholeness, hierarchy and openness as a basic concept of system theory and
we distinguish between positive and negative, where as negative we consider
the one identifying the deviation from the conditions assumed and the system
customizes by repairing the deviations (the maintaining processes are
depended on the feedback) and a positive one that stresses the deviations
rather than signalizing the need for repairing. The positive feedback is used
for creating new conditions in the system rather than maintaining the old ones
and it is the basis for the process of change and adaptation.
b) Information channels function as the organization´s memory
How, why and by what is the content of a message transmitter in the
information channel of an organization formed has a high testing value
regarding the organization itself, and even though the main function is
emphasised as the information transmitting that is necessary for coordination,
understanding and performing tasks, another function mentioned the
opportunity for using power, where the information channels are used as
means for influencing and manipulating or as means for interpreting
philosophy, visions and the organization’s culture generally.
c) Information channels have several variables which significantly
interfere into the process of message transmission
-
Active factors during the process of message transmission
During the process of message transmission within an organization, there are
several active factors - channelling, timing, editing and abstracting.
Factors relevant in the area of channelling:
The probability that a member of an organization accepts
the information transmitted by any channel is influenced by
the perceived quality of the information source
The probability that the information will be transmitted via
the information channel to an organization member is
influenced by the price of communication technologies
The probability that a member of an organization will
participate in the information transmission is depended on
the way they perceive the amount of their working duties
The possibility that the message will be directed to a
member of an organization is influenced by the way they
perceive the relevance of the message for them personally
Factors relevant to the are of timing:
The transmitter postpones transmitting the message until
they start perceiving that the receiver is ready to pay
attention to the message
The transmitter postpones transmitting the message in case
they are busy with other tasks of a higher subjective
priority
Factors relevant to the area of editing:
the extend of editing the message is influenced by the
feeling of the transmitter to what extend will editing the
message lead to reaching the goal
The level of editing of the message is influenced by the
ability to chose a format of the message
The tendency to edit the message is in direct relationship
with the perceived data ambiguity on the basis of which the
information is built
Factors relevant to the area of abstraction:
the amount of information abstraction is influenced by the
costs of storing and sending information
the extend of information abstraction is influenced by the
amount of tasks perceived by the receiver
d) the information channels are influenced by various
views/perspectives of those receiving the message
Information needs of the individual users differ and this fact influences the
state and course of the communication within the organization.
Formal communication of vertical information channels distinguishes two
directions of the flow – down and up:
1/ Formal vertical communication downwards, as communication including
the transfer of information from higher positions of the organization
hierarchy to the lower ones.
In the historical context, the most information of formal communication
flowed downwards. In spite of the attention that is devoted to this kind of
information flow from the side of the superiors especially, this dimension of
formal communication is effective in many organizations. In this context, the
paradox often occurs regarding the accuracy of the information, where on the
basis of one downward information a state is created in the organization,
where there is too much information, and on the other hand the employees of
the organization repeatedly claim that they do not get important information
regarding the issues that are important for them.
2/ Formal vertical communication upwards, as communication
transmitting information from lower levels of the organization to the higher
one.
The most important factor influencing the accuracy of the information
flowing upwards is trust.
This statement is confirmed by the work of Read, Maier and Hoffman, who
also worked with the issue of promotion motivation in an organization
structure, which negatively influenced the very accuracy of information going
upwards. (MAIER, HOFFMAN, READ, 2006).
In relation to formal communication, several results of research have been
obtained connected to this area (GOLDHABER, 1990), e.g.
a) Employees mostly prefer to get information rather than give it to the
others.
b) In the upwards communication, the leaders tend to be more perceptive
to positive information from their subordinate and they tend to suppress
the negative messages.
c) The subordinates have a strong tendency to say to their superiors what
they think they want to hear or what they want that their superiors hear.
4.2.2 The Formal Horizontal Communication
Formal horizontal communication relating to the flow of messages
happening through individual functional departments of a certain level of
an organization.
Horizontal information flow represents the flexibility in the organization
structure, allows for an easier solution of problems, helps to coordinate tasks
and sharing information between individual departments or working teams.
4.3 Sharing Information
There are a few factors influencing a successful sharing of information:
a) The relationship between the transmitter and the receiver of the
information
b) The form and source of information
c) Presuppositions “to get to know“ on the side of the receiver
d) The transmitter ’s abilities to share
e) The context of wider environment
The high level of sharing information is connected to good working
performance; on the basis of extensive theoretical research, we know that:
a/ scientist and engineers with good working results tend to have higher
frequency in contacts with the purpose of sharing information with their
colleagues in the organization
b/ structure of the organization has high influence on communication and
it was the formal structure of communication channels that was marked as the
main decisive agent in the flow of technical information between scientists in
laboratories.
c/ it is this very kind of information determining if a formal or informal
communication channel will be used. Individuals tend to use only informal
communication channels for certain kind of information because they consider
those channels natural for the given situation.
The climate of the organization supporting sharing information through
informal information channels is dubbed as “strong standard of information
sharing“. On the other hand, the climate that makes the formal information
channels accessible and financially advantageous, is called “weak standard of
information sharing“.
The process of sharing information can be perceived as providing,
donating information, that means communicating ones personal
intellectual capital to the others and collecting information, that is
addressing the colleagues in the matter of sharing their intellectual
capital.
It is of a logical conclusion, that the following communication areas are part
of a satisfactory way of sharing of information:
a) Communicating work related information
b) Communicating personal information
c) Communication information of an operational character
d) Communicating strategic information
e) General upward information communication
In this area, a rise of new specific terminology is happening, where e.g.
Weggeman (2000) distinguishes between the term “knowledge source“ and
“knowledge receiver”, Oldenkamp (2001) introduces the term “knowledge
carrier“ and “knowledge requestor“.
The research regarding factors influencing this topic identified a number of
variables from relative areas. From the “heavy“ topics it is the informationcommunication
technology, and tools (Hlupic a kol. 2002), from the “light“
ones motivation (Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003), organization culture (Hlupic a kol.
2002) and communication climate (Van den Hoff and de Ridder, 2003).
4.4 Informal Communication
Informal communication includes interactions that are not included into
official information channels and in their graphic expression, they are
associated with a wine grape shape. The influence of information flowing
through informal information channels not only has significant impact on the
expectations and value system of the members of the organization, but also
on the general performance of the organization. The research of
communication theoreticians proves that information in its unofficial
communication channels is a substitute for a non-functional formal
communication and it origins under the presupposition that the information
transmitted via official communication channels is ether insufficient or
ambivalent. Information in unofficial communication channels is considered
to be an inevitable part of communication in an organization. Attempts to
control these information channels also appear on the side of the executives
of the organization.
Information transmitted in unofficial communication channels has the
following features:
a) The information transmitted is more often accurate than not
b) Generally, it shows the sign of incompletion
c) It is fast
d) Informal communication as a source of a certain information
disappears as time passes
e) This information is treated more freely and with more liberty than in
the official information channels
f) The information is often considered a news in those channels
g) People treat the information they decide to transmit in this
information channel selectively and discriminatively
To describe the flow of information in communication channels of an
organization, the analytical tool ECCO anal yses (Episodic communication
channels in organizations) can be used.
As it was mentioned in the beginning, we can look at communication in an
organization also as a pattern of interactions between the transmitter and
the receiver within the network of the relationships of their members,
where we can use the relationship network for collecting information
from various levels of the organization hierarchy, to spread information
inside the organization, to exchange information and knowledge. The
transmitter same as the receiver can have different role characteristics, e.g. :
a) Star – always having high level of interaction with the other
members, frequently transmitting and receiving messages
b) Liaison – connecting two or more members who would otherwise
be not connected to the others by any information channel
c) Bridge – connected by a multiple link with many members of the
system
d) Gatekeeper – regulating the information flow going from one
member to the other
e) Isolate – having no bond to another member of the system with
the tendency to avoid the information flow
Topics for discussion:
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of the information
flow with no feedback? Illustrate the possible scenarios of
negative consequences unfavourable for the organization and also
for the individual.
Independent work:
Chart the outer informal communication of your municipal library (so from
the inside out, from the library to their users).
Recommended reading:
GOLDHABER, G. ; BARNETT, G. Handbook of organizational communication.
Norwood, N.J. : Ablex Pub. Corp., 1990.
BOUWMAN, H. Informat ion and communicat ion technology in organizat ions :
adopt ion, implementation, use and effects. London ; Thousand Oaks, Cal if . : SAGE,
2005.
5 The Information and The Communication
Climate in an Organization
" http://www.grantland.net/communication.htm "
After having studied the materials I should be able to:
· Define the term “communication climate“ in an organization
· Characterize the features of an open an closed communication climate
· Theoretically describe and graphically illustrate the model of a
communication climate by Robertson
· Talk about sharing information
· Explain the term “communication audit" and name the individual kinds
of communication audits
Key words:
Information, organization, communication climate, sharing information,
Robertson, models, information flows, openness, adequacy, communication
unit, ICA audit, OCD audit
5.1 The Information and the Organization Environment
Recently, the word information appears more than before in research and in
theoretical work of communication scientists in an organization. Information
appears united in messages and in this mechanistic conception it moves from
one point to the other within an organization. It has several shapes, differs in
quality, can be part of a message that is vague or ambivalent, influences the
amount of insecurity people face in the organization, can be edited by
individual employees, does not need to reach its destination in time or is
received in such amount that it can not be used in an effective way.
In a united association, terms like network, vagueness, message, dosage
appear, mainly in the years of 1985-1995 of the origins of technology. Even
though various information and communication technologies play a
significant role in forming and influencing the term “information flow“, the
essence of information itself stays constant, not bearing in mind the shapes of
the channels, elements and bonds of the system.
Every organization can be perceived as a communication network, where
the main part is information (message – content - meaning) and its flows
(channels - bonds). In this communication-information concept 6 major
aspects are emphasised: source, message, channels, receiver, effect and
feedback (Corley, 1975). Communication in an organization thus responds
to the flow of messages in the network of interdependent human factors
and the way the information (message) is spread within the formal
structure of the organization.
5.2 The Information and an Open Climate
When using the term “communication climate“ we first have to be aware that
in the context of the organization environment it is often mistaken for the
term “organization culture“. The character of this term was clearly depicted
by Martin Bower, the founder of the McKinsey &Co. company, by his famous
statement: “the way we do it here“. In his self-confident briefness he talks
about the individual parts of this concept, which are organization norms,
values, rituals, myths, language and other specialities in the environment
of the organization that characterize it in a specific way and thus
distinguish from others. The climate is thus understood as only one aspect of
the organization culture –the belief patterns and expectations shared by the
members of the organization – that is how contented the employees are with
certain activities of the organization.
Recently, the communication climate has been differentiated from the wider
context of the organization climate, as it pays attention to communication
phenomena exclusively, as e.g. opinions regarding how the employees are
perceived by the executives of the organization or the exactness of the
information spread in an organization, etc. The communication climate can be
defined as the inner environment of information exchange between the
members of the organization with the help of formal and informal networks. It
mostly consist of “how” the members of the organization communicate as
opposed to “what“ they communicate.
5.2.1 An Open Communication Climate
Communication climate is often characterized with the help of the indicator
of quality and flow of information. Generally speaking, each communication
process starts with providing good information. Communication climate is
open if the information is flowing freely, it is closed if its flow is blocked
in some of its phase. In an open communication climate, the employees feel
free to express their opinion and discontentment towards their superiors, but
also suggestions of new solutions or improvements. They speak freely among
themselves about important tactical decisions but also their personal or
working interests. The information flows without distortion and deformation
in the rising, falling and horizontal direction.
Research has shown, that open communication climate has the following
characteristics:
1) it is supporting
2) it is rich in participation and activity of their members
3) it is based on trust
Supporting environment
In the so called “supporting“ environment, the employees pass the
information on to their superiors with no hesitation, with trust that the
superior will accept it willingly whatever colouring it has for them
(favourable or non-favourable). If the members of the organization feel
vulnerable or unsupported, emotions like fear, shame or pride discourage
them from sharing information.
In a supporting environment, the members communicate more willingly from
more reasons:
1) the stating mechanism does not take away their respect and dignity
2) they have no reason to be afraid of revenge for sharing unpopular
information
3) they are rewarded for their directness and openness
4) they are appreciated as important sources of information critical for
fulfilling the success of the organization
Environment rich in participation/activity/joining in
In this environment, the employees feel heard and they have the feeling that
their word has its significance. The key to encouraging the employees into
participation into communication, activities of the organization is taking
steps, negotiating from the side of the executives. Those for whom the
message is meant, have to act according to the character of the information
they obtain. The key performers, directors and leading employees should
listen to complains, discontentment or suggestions of the members of the
organization, and answer in words and deeds.
Environment based on trust
All the parties of the information exchange transmit the information in the
shape they obtained it in. The members of the organization have to trust their
information sources. People often banish those information sources that have
shown to be unreliable or not true.
5.2.2 A Closed Communication Climate
Such a climate is characterised by the high frequency of occurrence of
communicational barriers. As a communication barrier we will consider any
kind of obstacle in the process of communication caused by the phenomena
disturbing its natural course. The information barrier is listed as specific
communication barrier.
A phenomenon often occurs, where the individual “exposes“ a certain kind of
communication barrier due to protection from attack and thus reaching a
certain kind of psychological safety. An executive member, e.g. someone who
is bad at taking criticism, does not share the kind of information that would
expose them to criticism from the side of the colleagues or superiors. If such
people happen to end up in leading positions their style is usually
characterised by giving orders without any possibility to discuss them
(feedback by Shannon-Weaver), they tend to work in a routine style and in
perfectly controlled situations.
In an open communication climate, this kind of people use protective barriers
and mechanisms to make sure the environment is more predictable and safer
for them. They stay silent during meetings, don’t talk, because opening up
makes them vulnerable. They could be asked to express themselves to a topic
or have a perspective to it and they do not have the facts ready in their hand.
They could end up being pushed to defend a non-popular solutions. In a busy
discussion with the others they could give the impression of being
incompetent by making a mistake in terminology or applying logical skills
wrongly. Or they feel fear of being caught making a mistake or they will be
disrespected for asking a silly question or making a nonsense comment.
Unfortunately, such psychological barriers result in disturbance of the flow of
information and knowledge and their natural sharing.
Buchholz (2001) discovered that if during the course of communicational
exchange defensive barriers occur and the flow of information is limited, a
closed communication climate is created, which then is a cause of losing
profit, leads to general dissatisfaction and is damaging the name of the
organization. On the other hand, an open communication climate improves
human relationships and employees feel freer in expressing their comments,
complaints and opinions regarding the rules and regulations of the
organization.
5.3 A Model of a Communication Climate
Ed Robertson is the author of the basic model of a communication climate
(see picture 10 of the model of a communication climate of Ed Robertson).
Information
adequacy
Sharing Flow of information
This model creates a communication climate that is highly open in the
area of information flow and highly supporting mutual human
interaction, so it is a system with a high number of mutual connections.
Those two main dimensions of effective communication are based on two
most common, but evidently different ways of how people see
communication. From the perspective of “Information openness“,
communication is perceived as a mechanical process of sending and resending
information from point A to point B. The verbal expressions often used in this
concept are “hand over a message“ or “share information“.
From the other perspective of “mutual support“, communication is perceived
as a human process, where there is more attention paid to how people
communicate rather than what they communicate. This theory is based on
psychological and sociological disciplines focusing on communication as an
act, deed or form of treatment influencing the way people feel with each
other.
Some of the interpersonal skills of a leader which positively influence the
communication climate in an organization are: active listening, emphatic
listening, exactness check-up, making clear of the meaning of the message
received, offering and demanding constructive feedback, etc.
Communication
climate
. Information Mutual support
openness
Picture 10 model of Communicat ion cl imate by Ed Rober tson
5.3.1 Information Openness
Information openness, sometimes called communication openness, is the level
of the willingness of the organization members to send and receive
messages. There are 3 parts of information communication openness, and
these are:
1/ Information adequacy = the level of split/imbalance between information
that the organization members wished to obtain and which they in reality
obtained. Individuals need to get an adequate number of information to their
relevant topics if they are expected to perform well.
In their research, Zimmermann, Sypber and Haas (1996) suggested a
hypothesis rebutting the information-communication myth regarding the
amount of the information provided. According to the results of their work it
does not matter what amount of information people get they still keep
announcing that they want more. In this case, the myth is based on the
supposition that by providing more information this “hunger for information”
disappears or at lease diminishes. Another research in this field (Hargie,
Tourish, Wilson, 2002) rebutted this hypothesis and enriched it by the factor
of the theory of indefiniteness reduction. It was based on the fundaments of
theoreticians Sias and Wyerse (2001) and their knowledge, that if there is a
state of higher insecurity, the information needs of the persons concerned will
also rise.
The term information adequacy was explored also in connection with
responsibility, devotion and commitment of the employee in the organization.
The existence of a direct relationship between those two variables is proved
(Montgomery, 1991).
2/ Information flow.
Obstacles need to be removed from an open information flow, in both vertical
and horizontal direction, so a free exchange of opinion, thoughts and ideas
can happen within an organization. The ideal state is when the information
flows flowingly from above downwards (superior – subordinate), from bellow
upwards….and that it flows horizontally between the working groups and
teams. For most employees, their direct supervisor is a generally preferred
source of information. (Curley, 2000).
3/ Sharing information.
Communication climate of an organization is the critical factor in determining
if and how knowledge will be passed on (Albrecht and Hall, 1991). The macro
communication climate is then as open and supportive as the individual
communication micro climates in the organization.
The key characteristics of a communicational climate are the horizontal flow
of information, openness, vertical flow of information and information
reliability.
To the topic of communication openness, devotees of two different opinions
express themselves. Total openness can be of harm to the organization – this
opinion is based on the worry that it is better not to share some strategic
information due to loss of competition position (Elsenberg and Witten, 1987).
Or the opposed argument regarding the necessity of a more open
communication and especially the need for sharing ideas and opinions; with
the purpose of generating new ideas and solutions (Kanter, 1988).
Information reliability is the level on which the individuals obtain the
information in time, and how correct and exact it is. If we perceive the
information to be correct and exact we trust it more and then we use it in a
more productive way. As opposed to the information which we perceive as not
being so exact, we show a higher level of indifference, with no regard to the
information actually being right or not.
Larsen and Folgero (1993) distinguish between a supportive and a defensive
communication climate, where the supportive climate is characterized by
open exchange of information, accessibility of colleagues, cooperating and
confirming interaction links and a general culture of sharing knowledge. Ali
and co. (2002) came to the conclusion that it is this very communication
climate that is the basis for creating, distributing and continuing existence of
organization’s knowledge that is being shared. It is proved (Hooff a Ridder,
2004), that constructive communication climate positively influences the
extend into which the organisation members provide and collect knowledge.
The communication climate was found to be the decisive variable in the
process of sharing knowledge.
5.4 The Communication Audit
Not only does information as one of the main elements of communication
occur in the relationship with the term communication climate, but also in the
area of communication audit. The communication audit is characterized as
an objective message about the state of internal communication in an
organization (Frank and Brownell, 1989) and to the executives, it offers an
independent picture about what is really going on as opposed to what the
executives think or what they were told. The executives need to know who
they are communicating with, via what channels and with what effect, what
content they should communicate, what topics are being talked about in the
organization, from what sources most employees get their information and via
what channels they reach it (communication face to face or mediated), and the
implication of this all on the relationships at work. Certain responsibility for
the flow of information in the organization should be appropriate. On the
practical level it means, that if a necessary information does not reach its
receiver, the blocks in information channels have to be identified.
5.4.1 The ICA Audit
The ICA Audit (International Communication Association) is a tool by the
implementation of which the main topics, sources and channels of
communication can be described, the quality and functionality of the
information is taken into account and it determines the negative and
positive experiences of the members of the communicating system.
Goldhaber and Rogers (1979) identified the key targets of a communication
audit:
· To set the amount of information (excessive overload or on the
contrary, lack of information), connected to the main topics, sources
and channels of communication
· To evaluate the quality of information communicated from the source
or, to the receiver of the information
· To evaluate the quality of communication relationships, first of all the
amount of interpersonal trust, supporting togetherness and general
contentment with work
· To identify informal communication networks and compare them to the
flows planned or to the formal flows
· To identify the people who function as potential bottlenecks or their
gatekeepers by comparing the real communication roles of key
employees to their official roles
· To identify the category and set examples of commonly occurring
positive and negative communication experience and events
· To describe individual, group and organization patterns of a real
communication behaviour when it comes to information sources,
channels, topics, length or the quality of interaction
· To provide general recommendation requiring change or improvement
in the attitude, behaviour or skills of the participating communicator
This diagnostic tool officially called the ICA Audit Survey, consists of 122
questions that can be further divided into 8 main sections:
· The amount of information received regarding a certain issue versus the
amount of information required
· The amount of information actually sent versus the amount of
information we wish to send regarding a certain issue
· The amount of information we provide as reaction or feedback to a
piece of information that had been sent to us (a follow-up) versus the
amount we wish to give or from the other perspective – the amount of
information we get as response or feedback to the information sent by
us versus the amount we wish to get
· The amount of information received from various sources versus the
amount we wish to receive from those sources
· The amount of information received through various channels versus
the amount we wish to receive via those channels
· The timing of the information from key sources
· The quality of relationships in an organization
· Contentment with the organization output
5.4.2 The OCD Organisational Communication Development Audit
Questionnaire
Another instrument that can be used to analyse the task and functioning of
information in communication of the organization is the Organisational
Communication Development audit questionnaire (OCD). The intent of
Finnish theoreticians under the leadership of Osmo Wiio was “to find out how
well the communication system helps the organization with pursuing its goals
in desired results“.
This questionnaire built on previous LTT research tested in 23 Finnish
organizations ( more than 6000 employees took part in this) and it consists of
76 items united in 12 areas:
· General communication contentment
· The amount of information received from various sources - now
· The amount of information received from various sources – ideal state
· The amount of information received regarding certain work topics -
now
· The amount of information received regarding certain work topic –
ideal state
· The areas of communication that need improvement
· Contentment at work
· Accessibility of the information system
· Time organization during the working day
· General communication behaviour of the respondents
· Specific questions regarding the organization
· Patters of searching information
Topics for discussion:
· If I wanted to perform a questionnaire solution for examining the
role/function/effectiveness/etc. of information in communication of an
organization, how would the individual questions given to the
respondents sound?
· What problems during creating, setting, evaluating and implementing
the results of a communication audit would I expect?
Independent work:
Elaborate a form of a communication audit of your class/department on the
theme: Identification of informal communication network and comparing it to
formal flows that is supposed to discover if information is communicated
more in the formal or informal way? What channels are used? For what kind
of information? Are the formal and informal networks mutually substitutable?
Recommended reading:
GOLDHABER, R.; ROGERS, D. Auditing organizational communication
system : The ICA communication audit. Dubuque : Kendall/Hunt, 1979.
HOGARD, E.; ELLIS, R. Evaluation and Communication : Using a
Communication Audit to Evaluate Organizational Communication. Evaluation
Review. Roc. 30, c. 2. 2006. s. 171 – 187.
6 Communication Barriers in an Organization
“God don´t make no mistakes. Thats how He got to be God.”
Archie Bunker
After having studied the material I should be able to:
· Distinguish and talk about personality communication barriers on the
side of the communicator and the receiver
· Be aware of the outer and non-verbal barriers we create ourselves
· See and be able to define barriers in communication channels, use
examples to illustrate
Key words:
Communication barrier, information barrier, non-verbal communication,
paralinguistic, verbal performance, language style, vocabulary, listening,
outer barriers, communication channels
A communication barrier is considered to be any kind of obstacle in the
process of communication caused by the phenomena disturbing its successful
flow. An information barrier is a specific type of communication barrier. To
the typology of communication barriers the illustrative Shannon-Weaver´s
model is used, often quoted in the theory of communication and information
studies, where specific kinds of barriers are linked to the individual
components of a communicative act:
a) signal
b) message
c) information source
d) transmitter
e) receiver
6.1 Personality/individual barriers
6.1.1. The Communicator’s Side
Verbal Communication Barriers
1/ Language style – language style does not only differ on the individual
level, from one person to another, but also one person uses more different
styles depending on the language environment, e.g. women use more
expressive language, descriptive, using feelings, they use less slang, it is
easier for them to enrich their logical reasoning by emotional components.
Dialect – language used by a certain community that is isolated to a certain
degree. Dialect has a unique grammatical structure and specific way of
pronunciation. Dialect lowers credibility – a study undertaken in the English
territory of Canada – the content of the dialogue was identical in both cases –
English Canadians were considered more credible and more qualified than
French Canadians.
Slang/jargon/professional slang/the way a certain generation speaks – they
have a significant psychological function in the study of Mr Kr ivohlavý –
delimiting the members of one group form another group, strengthening the
feeling of belonging even at the cost of communication barriers. The
notorious slang of computer and internet users ( e.g. ego surf, geek, uptime)
2/ Vocabulary – the extent of vocabulary has to be accustomed to the level
of the listener. A low level of emphatic perception is connected to this.
3/ Incomprehensible thought, opinion and message expression. With
technical scientists – lack of communication skills.
4/ Inadequacy of the information and its distortion. Wordiness – Keep it
simple!
5/ Not being prepared – from the point of view of the language and
knowledge
6/ Inadequacy in paralinguistic aspects of verbal performance. Para
linguistics studies extra creating the denotation meaning of the language by
features of connotation, that is, what the speaker is strengthening or
weakening, challenging or confirming in the content of the performance,
shows his or her attitude.
The features of a paralinguistic performance:
· Loudness of the verbal performance (intensity)
· High or low pitch – each of us have a different voice pitch, its colour.
It is proved that lower voice is more convincing and trustworthy than
higher voice
· The speed of the verbal performance - fast speech is difficult to
perceive and it easily leads to tiredness as the preceptor has to
concentrated with higher effort to get everything which leads to faster
attention oscillation. Each person has their own individual pace.
· The content of the speech - the amount of words production differs.
Statistically, women produce much more words than men, more than
twice as many. The verbal activity of the participants ration is
important. Often, intrusion (interrupting the speech) happens between
the participants. If the intrusion between two people happens in a
length of time it is called a dueto.
· The flow of the speech, pauses – monotonous flow is characteristic for
schizophrenia, for instance. But a mentally healthy person can also
have a higher rate of extreme continuousness speech that does not make
a good impression, it is uncomfortable to listen to.
· Empty phrases – words often unconsciously used as a stereotypical
filling between words and sentences. („like“, „you know what I mean“,
„actually“, etc.)
· Mistakes in speech – articulation, incorrect pronunciation, mumbling,
stuttering, swallowing ends of words up…
7/ Inner Barriers of the Communicator
The most common inner barrier is fear of failure, which gives a feeling of
tightness. The capability to respect lower communication level of the partner.
It is possible to respect the higher level of communication of the partner, but
is hard to adjust to his or her level of verbal performance. It is a problem for
us to express that there is something we do not understand. The emotional
state – e.g. anger in conflicts with the partner. Barriers in the attitude in the
form of xenophobia, stereotyping – putting the partner into the category
through which we match them with all other qualities this category involves,
disrespect, resistance or dislike towards the partner.
Barriers of Non-verbal Communication
· Speed of movements – slow/fast/. Unusual movements -
shaky/obsessive.
· Staring at people x avoiding eye contact
· Proxemic barriers of distance. Each person has their own personal
space.
· Crossed arms, legs + physical barriers as table, water bottle in between
the communicators.
· Gestures. Anger. Intercultural difference.
· „Doodling“ . Rearranging materials.
6.1.2 The Receiver´ s Side
Barriers in Listening
One of the most important skills in the process of listening is to be ready to
listen. If we listen and think what we would say to the other or if we even
prepare our answer beforehand, we are not listening.
· Physical obstacles (trouble hearing, tiredness, sitting position)
· Distorted perception where the receiver chooses only some aspects from
the message and on their basis evaluates the intent and content of the
communication
· Different life experience/different opinion/absence of some life
experience
· Disinterest in the content
· Evaluating the communicator (mistrust, aversion, prejudice to their
culture)
· Problems with language, slang, level of technical knowledge
· Making own conclusions, thinking “ahead“ of the speaker
· Psychological barriers: state of stress, fear as a strong learning
motivator but too strong becomes a barrier. Impatience. Listening under
pressure (work, financial, we “have to participate“) shyness. Resistance
to learn (reason:“been there, done that 1000times”, “I’m too old for
this“)
· The mind is preoccupied by something else – worries, duties,
daydreaming“, „detouring“
6.2 Outer Barriers
Unusual environment
Being disturbed by somebody or something (does not even need to
interrupt the speech, only their presence is enough and the feeling that
they are listening)
Noise/temperature/lighting
Space limitations (not enough space for storing things, not enough
space for moving)
Time limitation
6.3 Barriers in Communication Channels
The function of the channels is to give the massage as accurate as possible.
The choice of the channel itself helps the receiver understand the importance
of the message. Take into account the abilities and knowledge of the receiver
of the message.
· limited scale of technical devices, their faultiness
· twisting the message in the course of the flow through the
communication channel
· filtering the message and its purposeful editing
· overestimating the meaning of particular communication means (written
communication)
If, during the course of communicational exchange, defensive barriers occur
and the flow of information is limited, a closed communisation climate is
created, which is then the cause of losing profit, general discontentment and
damaging the organizations reputation.
Topics for discussion:
· What time of communication barriers do you most often encounter? In
what areas? Which do you I dislike most and why?
· What types of communication barriers do I create consciously and what
is their function in my life?
Independent work:
Write down the possible barriers in listening that may disturb the course of
interpersonal communication.
Recommended reading:
Handbook of communication competence / edited by Gert Rickheit, Hans
Strohner. - Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. 538 s. (Handbooks of applied
linguistics ; 1)
LARSEN, S.; FOLGERO, I. Supportive and defensive communication.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management. Roc. 5, c. 3,
1993. s. 22 – 25.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
ALI, M.; PASCOE, C.; WARNE, L. Interactions of organizational culture and
collaboration in working and learning. Educational Technology & Society,
Roc. 5, c. 2, 2002. s. 60 – 68.
BAUGH, S. C. Organizational climate and communication climate in schools
: dissertation thesis. Brigham Young University. 1978. 300 s.
BERKA, Karel. Teorie modelu a modelování / Výber sest. a red. Karel Berka
a Ladislav Tondl ; Z angl. a jiných originálu prel. kol. - 1. vyd. - Praha
: Svoboda, 1967. 302s.
BOUWMAN, H. Information and communication technology in organizations
: adoption, implementation, use and effects. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif. :
SAGE, 2005.
BROWN, S. A. Knowledge, communication and progressive use of
information technology : dissertation thesis. University of Minnesota. 1997.
215 s.
BUCHHOLZ, W. Open Communication Climate. Journal of Communication
Management. Roc. 21, c. 1, 2007. s. 54 – 78.
CEJPEK, Jirí. Informace, komunikace a myšlení. Praha : Univerzita Karlova
v Praze. Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2005. 233 s.
CHARVÁTOVÁ, Dagmar. Vliv formy a kvality komunikace na efektivnost
komunikace [on-line]. [cit. 2009-08-26]. Dostupné na internetu:
<www.agris.cz/etc/textforwarder.php?iType=2&iId=152687&PHPSESSID=3e
>.
Ikaros, redakce. Reportáž z neviditelné univerzity. Ikaros [online]. 2006, roc.
10, c. 5 [cit. 2010-07-09]. Dostupné na internetu:
<http://www.ikaros.cz/node/3359>. ISSN 1212-5075.
CONAWAY, R. N. The Communication Audit as a Class project. Bulletin of
the Association for Business Communication. Roc. 57, c. 2 Cerven 1994. s. 39
– 43.
CORLEY, H. The superintendents responsibility to provide information to
internal audience in a school district. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the American Association of School Administrators. Dalas,
Texas, February 21 – 24, 1975.
CURLEY, A. Creating a world-class communication function at SC Johnson.
Internal Communication. Roc. 54, 2000. s. 11 – 15.
DANIELS, T.; SPIKER, B. Perspectives on organizational communication.
Dubuque, Iowa : W.C. Brown, 1987.
ELVING, W.; BENNEBROEK, G. Information, Communication, and
Uncertainty During Organizational Change : The role of Commitment and
Trust. Conference Papers. Annual meeting. International Communication
Association. 2005. New York. 23s.
FULTON, D. High school students´ locus of control orientation and their
perceptions of the communication climate : dissertation thesis. South Carolina
State University. 2004. 88 s.
GOLDHABER, G.; BARNETT, G. Handbook of organizational
communication. Norwood, N.J. : Ablex Pub. Corp., 1990.
GOLDHABER, R.; ROGERS, D. Auditing organizational communication
system : The ICA communication audit. Dubuque : Kendall/Hunt, 1979.
HARGIE, Owen; TOURISH, Dennis; WILSON, Noel. Communication Audits
and the Effects of Increased Automation : A follow up study. Journal of
Business Communication. Roc. 39, c. 4. Ríjen 2002. s. 414 – 436.
Handbook of communication competence / edited by Gert Rickheit, Hans
Strohner. - Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. 538 s. (Handbooks of applied
linguistics ; 1)
HARRIS, T. Applied organizational communication : perspectives, principles,
and pragmatics.Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
HEATH, Robert. Human Communication Theory and Research. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Lea's Communication Series. 464 s. ISBN
0805830081.
HINDS, P. ; PFEFFER, J. Why organizations don´t know what they know :
cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In
Ackerman, M. ; Piqek, V. ; Wulf, V. Beyond Knowledge Management :
Sharing expertise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
HLOUŠKOVÁ, Ivana. Vnitrofiremní komunikace. 1. vydání. Praha : Grada,
1998. 103 s. ISBN 80-7169-550-5.
HLUPIC, V. ; POULOUDI, A.; RZEVSKI, G. Towards an integrated approach
to knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management. Roc. 9, c. 2.
2002. s. 90 – 102.
HOGARD, E.; ELLIS, R. Evaluation and Communication : Using a
Communication Audit to Evaluate Organizational Communication. Evaluation
Review. Roc. 30, c. 2. 2006. s. 171 – 187.
HOLÁ, Jana. Interní komunikace ve firme. 1. vydání. Brno : Computer Press,
2006. 176 s. ISBN 80-251-1250-0.
JONÁK, Zdenek. Pojem „informace“ ve svete sdíleného pojetí skutecnosti.
Ikaros [online]. 2000, roc. 4, c.2. Dostupný na World Wide Web:
http://www.ikaros.cz/.
KANTER, R. M. When a thousand flowers bloom : Structural, collective, and
social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. Staw& L. Cummings
(editors). Roc. 10. S. 169 – 211. Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.
KELBL, Jir í. Prínosy modelu sociální/lidské komunikace pro informacní
studia. Praha 2002. 97 s. Diplomová práce. Univerzita Karlova v Praze,
Filozofická fakulta, ÚISK.
Komunikace v organizaci [online]. [cit. 2009-09-25]. Dostupné na internetu:
<lide.uhk.cz/fim/ucitel/franema1/data/Prednaska%2013.ppt>.
KONIGOVÁ, Marie. Informacní systémy / Marie Königová, Jarmila
Machonová. - 1. vyd. -Praha : SPN, 1981. - 155 s.
KOONTZ, Harold; WEIHRICH, Heinz. Management. Preložil Václav
Dolanský.
1. vydání. Praha : Victoria Publishing, 1993. 659 s. ISBN 80-85605-45-7.
KRAUT, Robert E.; FISH, Robert S.; ROOT, Robert W. et al. Informal
Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology. Informal
Communicattion [online]. 2002, vol. 20, no. 2 [cit. 2009-10-02]. Dostupné na
internetu:
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.59.9721&rep=rep1
&type=pdf>.
KUNCZIK, Michael. Základy masové komunikace / Michael Kunczik ; [z
anglických a nemeckých originálu preložili Štepánka Kudrnácová a Milan
Šmíd]. - Vyd. 1.. - Praha : Karolinum, 1995. - 307 s.
LAMSER, Václav. Komunikace a spolecnost. Praha : Academia, 1969. 298s.
LARSEN, S.; FOLGERO, I. Supportive and defensive communication.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management. Roc. 5, c. 3,
1993. s. 22 – 25.
LECHTA, Viktor. Diagnostika narušené komunikacní schopnosti / Viktor
Lechta a kol. ; [ze slovenského originálu ... preložila Jana Krížová]. - Vyd. 1.
- Praha : Portál, 2003. - 359 s.
MAIER, N. R. F, HOFFMAN, L. R., READ, W. H. Superior-subordinate
communication : The relative effectiveness of managers who held their
subordinates´positions. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 16, Issue 1, 2006. p. 1-11.
McQUAIL, Denis. Preklad JIRÁK, Jan, KABÁT Marcel. Úvod do teorie
masové komunikace. Portál, 1999. 448 s.
MODROVÁ, Simona. Informace plynoucí v neformálních komunikacních
kanálech organizace. Praha 2010. 92 s. Diplomová práce. Univerzita Karlova
v Praze, Filozofická fakulta, ÚISK.
MONTGOMERY, K. Communication climate and organizational commitment
in local congregations. The effects of information adequacy, communication
relationships, and small group involvement on organizational commitment :
dissertation thesis. Bowling Green State University. 1991. 191 s.
MORTENSEN, David. Communication : The Study of Human Communication.
New York : McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972. 475 s.
NARULA, Uma. Communication models. Atlantic, 2006. 136 s. ISBN
8126906766.
OLDENKAMP, J. H. Successful Knowledge Transfer. Lemma BV. Utrecht.
2001.
PATOCKA, JAN. Filosofie a spolecenský problém informace. In Acta
Bibliothecalia et informatica. Opava : Slezská univerzita, 1996.
PATOCKA, JAN. Filosofie a spolecenský problém informace. In Acta
Bibliothecalia et informatica. Opava : Slezská univerzita, 1996.
PAVITT, CH. The philosophy of science and communication theory.
Huntington, N.Y. : Nova Science Publishers, 2001.
ROBERTSON, Ed. How to use a communication climate model : A case for
leaders to improve the communication climate in organizations. SCM. Roc. 7,
c. 2. Leden/brezen 2003.
ROBERTSON, Ed. Placing leaders at the heart of organizational
communication : A model to improve the internal communication climate.
SCM. Roc. 9, c. 5. Srpen/zárí 2005.
RUŽICKA, Michal. Informace a dobro. Praha : Ježek, 1993. 82s.
SCHEMENT, J.; RUBEN, B.D. Information and Behavior : Volume 4.
Between Communication and Information. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction,
1993. 537 s.
SCHRAMM, Wilbur. The coming Age of Information. Chinese University
Press, 1979.
Shannon-Weaver Model : Introductory models & basic concepts [online].
c2003 [cit. 2006-09-09]. The Communication, Cultural and Media Studies
Infobase. Dostupný z WWW: <
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html>.
SHANNON, Claude. A Mathematical Theory of Communication [online]. [cit.
2006-09-09]. Dostupný z WWW: < http://cm.belllabs.
com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf >.
SIAS, P.; WYERS, T. Employee uncertainty and information-seeking in newly
formel expansion orgazations. Management Communication Quarterly. C. 14,
2001. s. 549-573.
SKENDERIJA, S. Teorie stárnou - informace prežívají. Ikaros, 1997, roc. 1,
c. 8. Dostupný z URL: http://www.ikaros.cz/Clanek.asp?ID=200201116.
SLOUKOVÁ, D. Souhrnná charakteristika informace a sémiotická role
subjektu. E-LOGOS [online]. Electronic Journal for Philosophy. 2003. ISSN
1121-0442.
SLOUKOVÁ, D. Znalost z pohledu sémiotiky a hermeneutiky, a orientace
znalostního managementu. E-LOGOS [online]. Electronic Journal for
Philosophy. 2004. ISSN 1121-0442.
STODOLA, Jir í. Hodnota informace : príspevek k etice, ontologii a estetice.
Inflow [online]. 2008, vol. 1, no. 6 [cit. 2010-03-10]. Dostupné na internetu:
<http://www.inflow.cz/hodnota-informace-0>. ISSN 1802-9736.
STRÍŽOVÁ, Vlasta. Organizace, informace, management. 1. vydání.
Praha : Oeconomica, 2005. 168 s. ISBN 80-245-0924-5.
ŠVARCOVÁ, Iva; KÖNIGOVÁ, Marie; SMETÁCEK, Vladimír. Informacní
systém VTEI a uživatel. 1. vyd. Praha : Státní pedagogické nakladatelství,
1983. 271 s.
THAYER, L. Communication and communication systems : in organization,
management, and interpersonal relations. Lanham, MD : University Press of
America, 1986.
TROMBETTA, J.; ROGERS, D. Communication climate, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment : The Effects of Information Adequacy,
Communication Openness, and Decision Participation. Management
Communication Quarterly. Roc. 1, c. 4, 1988. s. 494 – 515.
VACULKA, Tomáš. Formální organizacní struktury [on-line]. 20.05.2002
[cit. 2010-07-12]. Dostupné na internetu:
<http://www.maturita.cz/referaty/referat.asp?id=4557>.
VÁGNER, Ivan; KLESTIL, Jirí; KRAVÁCEK, Ivo. Vybrané kapitoly z teorie
rízení a teorie organizace. 1. vydání. Brno : Masarykova univerzita, 1991.
106 s.
ISBN 80-210-0216-6.
Van den HOOFF, B. ; de RIDDER, Jan A. Knowledge sharing in context : the
influence of organizational commitment, communication climate, and CMC
use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management. Roc. 8, c. 6.
2004. s. 117.
Van den HOOFF, B. ; de RIDDER, J. The context of knowledge sharing. Paper
presented at the annual Konference of the ICA, Organisational
Communication Division, San Diego, CA, May 2003.
VLASÁK, R. Informacní politika: základní východiska a soucasnost ve
vyspelých demokraciích. In: Informacní studia a knihovnictví
v elektronických textech I. 1. vyd. Praha: ÚISK FF UK 2001, s. 1-194.
WEGGEMAN, M. Knowledge Management Practice. Skriptum Management,
Schledam. 2000.
WINKLER, Jir í. Komunikace v organizacích. 1. vydání. Brno : Masarykova
univerzita, 1998. 107 s. ISBN 80-210-1892-5.
ZIMMERMAN, S.; SYPHER, B., HAAS, J. A communication metamyth in the
workplace : The assumption that more is better. Journal of Business
Communication. C. 33, 1996. s. 185 – 204.