Tim ThompsonEdinboro University

with contributions from Melissa Gibson, Peggy Fisher, Dave Neumann, and Ron Raymond

Communication, Organization, Adaptation

Mindfulness in Organizing

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 1 10/11/17 1:45 PM

Communication, Organization, Adaptation: Mindfulness in OrganizingTim Thompson, Melissa Gibson

© 2018, August Learning Solutions

Published by August Learning SolutionsCleveland, OH

August Learning Solutions concentrates instructors’ efforts to create products that provide the best learning experience, streamlining your workload and delivering optimal value for the end user, the student.

www.augustlearningsolutions.com

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever, including but not limited to photocopying, scanning, digitizing, or any other electronic storage or transmission, without the express written permission of the publisher.

Cover photo © nsergeyn/iStock

ISBN-13: 978-1-941626-19-1Printed in the United States of America18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 2 10/13/17 11:07 AM

iii

Brief Contents

Acknowledgments ix

About the Authors x

Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems 3

Chapter 2 The History of Organizational Communication 19

Chapter 3 Strategic Planning and Communication 35

Chapter 4 Leadership and Communication 49

Chapter 5 Organizational Culture 63

Chapter 6 Understanding Communication in Groups 75

Chapter 7 Technology in Organizational Communication 87

Chapter 8 Managing Conflict in Organizations 101

Chapter 9 Communication Consulting and Training 117

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 3 10/11/17 1:45 PM

iv Brief Contents

Chapter 10 Public Relations 129

Chapter 11 Integrated Marketing Communication 145

Chapter 12 Career Pathways in Organizational Communication 171

References 182

Index 190

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 4 10/11/17 1:45 PM

v

Acknowledgments ix

About the Authors x

Chapter 1Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems 3

Tim Thompson

Models of Communication 3

Social Systems 5System Levels and Boundaries 6Relationships, Interdependence, and Power 7Homeostasis and Feedback Loops 8

Organizational Evolution 10

Organizational Mindfulness 12

Marketplace Simulation 16Organizational Communication Marketplace Simulation Job Descriptions 16

Chapter 2The History of Organizational Communication 19

Peggy Fisher

Perspectives 20

Classical Management Theory 20Scientific Management Theory 20Administrative Management Theory 21Bureaucratic Management Theory 22

Human Relations Theory 24

Human Resource Theory 25

Systems Theory 26

Quality Programs 29

Chaos Theory and the Learning Organization 30

Organizational Culture 33

Conclusion 33

Chapter 3Strategic Planning and Communication 35

Tim Thompson

Mission, Vision, and Values 36

SWOT Analysis 38

Goals and Objectives 39

Doing Strategic Planning and Writing the Strategic Plan 41

Strategic Planning for Mindful Action 43Moving from SWOT to Goals 46

Chapter 4Leadership and Communication 49

Tim Thompson

The Bases of Power 49

Brief History of Leadership Theories 50Great Man Theory 50Trait Theory 50

Contents

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 5 10/11/17 1:45 PM

vi Contents

Leadership Style and Behavior 51The Managerial Grid 52Contingency Theory 53Leaders and Managers 54Transactional and Transformational Leadership 55

Mindfulness and Leadership 56Vision and Framing 59Empowerment 60

Chapter 5Organizational Culture 63

Tim Thompson

Organizational Culture as Language and Symbols 64

Organizational Culture as Practices and Performances 66

Organizational Culture as Belief System 67

Mindfulness in Organizational Cultures 68

Mindfulness, Culture, and Adapting to Change 71

Mindfulness and Culture 73

Chapter 6Understanding Communication in Groups 75

David Neumann

Definition of Groups 77

Groups Based on Symbolic Convergence 77

Groups as Systems 79

A Model of Small-Group Communication 81

Goals 81Decision Making and Problem Solving 82Leadership 82

Norms 82Roles 83Conflict 83

Communication 84Situation or Context 84Group Development 84Cohesion 84

Conclusion 85

Chapter 7Technology in Organizational Communication 87

Ron Raymond

Existing and Emerging Technologies 88

Benefits of Technology 91Financial Savings 91Expediency 91Efficiency 92Collaboration 92Communication 92

Costs of Technology 92Expense of Purchasing or Upgrading Technology 92Expense of Training and Reorganization 93

Social Media 93

Digital Media 95

Technology and Mindfulness 97

Chapter 8Managing Conflict in Organizations 101

Tim Thompson

Basic Tenets of Conflict 101

What Causes Conflict? 104

Conflict Management Strategies 106Time-outs and Reflection 106Meditation 107

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 6 10/11/17 1:45 PM

Contents vii

Method of Mutual Perceptions 108Negotiation 108Mediation 113Constructive Controversy 115

Chapter 9Communication Consulting and Training 117

Melissa Gibson

Communication Consulting 117Kinds of Consulting 117Consulting Interventions 118

Training and Development 119Why Training and Development Are Important 120Assessing Training Needs 121Adult Learning 121Traditional Versus E-Learning Training 122In-House Versus Outsourced Training 123Training Goals and Objectives 123Training Methods 124Conducting Training 125Evaluating Training 125

Summary 125

Chapter 10Public Relations 129

Tim Thompson

What Is Public Relations? 130

Public Relations Models and Tools 132Writing 134Visualizing 134Planning and Executing Events 137Managing Crises 139

Building, Maintaining, and Enhancing Relationships 142

Chapter 11Integrated Marketing Communication 145

Tim Thompson

Components of the Organization’s Brand 145

Marketing Research 149Demographics 150Psychographics 151

Marketing Planning 155Market Situation 155Goals and Objectives 156Budget, Controls, and Action Plan 156

Advertising 157Advertising as Action and Application 158

Selling Your Brand 165

Chapter 12Career Pathways in Organizational Communication 171

Tim Thompson

Jobs in General 172

Jobs in Sales 173

Jobs in Public Relations 173

Jobs in Advertising 174

Jobs in Human Resources, Training, and Development 176

Jobs in Politics 176

Jobs in the Nonprofit Sector 177

Finding a Job 177Resumes 179Cover Letters 179Interviewing 179

References 182

Index 190

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 7 10/11/17 1:45 PM

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 8 10/11/17 1:45 PM

ix

Thanks to Taylor Birk, Steve White, and Rob Lowther for your review and com-ments on early drafts, and to my coauthors for your wonderful contributions. And thank you to family, friends, colleagues, and students for your support and influ-ence that weaves into these pages.

—TT

Acknowledgments

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 9 10/11/17 1:45 PM

x

About the Authors

Timothy Neal Thompson (PhD, Bowling Green State University, 1986) is a professor and chair of the Communication, Journalism, and Media Department at Edinboro University; founding director of the Edinboro Highland Games & Scot-tish Festival; and co-coordinator of the Scotland Study Abroad Program. He teaches courses in organizational communication and social influence and has lifelong inter-ests in creativity, independent mind, and enhancing dialogue. Originally from North Royalton, Ohio, Tim and his wife Dee Dee live in Edinboro, where they raised five children.

Melissa K. Gibson is a professor in the Communication, Journalism, and Media Department at Edinboro University. She earned an MA and PhD in organiza-tional communication from Ohio University, as well as a BA in communication at Edinboro University. At Edinboro University she served as the First Year Experience Director and the Community Outreach Director. Melissa has taught more than thirty different courses ranging from bachelor’s to doctoral-level courses, including Orga-nizational Communication, Business and Professional Communication, Communi-cation Training & Development, Leadership, Crisis Management, and Communica-tion Consulting. She has also worked as a leadership and management consultant to profit and non-profit organizations across the country. Melissa has published a textbook, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles; presented forty confer-ence presentations; and secured grants totaling $250,000. She and her daughter Abby reside in Albion, PA.

Peggy Byers Fisher received her BA, MA, and PhD from Bowling Green State University in Ohio and is currently teaching in the Department of Communi-cation Studies at Ball State University in Muncie, IN. Along with teaching her regular courses such as Business and Professional Communication, Nonverbal Communica-tion, Interviewing, Public Speaking, and Organizational Communication both face-to-face and online, she runs the department’s graduate and undergraduate internship programs. She is actively engaged in hands-on learning with students addressing top-ics such as compassion fatigue, poverty awareness, coworking spaces, cancer aware-ness, entrepreneurship, leadership, and training, to mention a few. Along with teach-ing and being involved in professional organizations, she is an active community member and works with several nonprofit organizations. She has presented 48 papers at international, national, and regional conferences; has published over a dozen arti-cles; and is the editor of an organizational communication textbook.

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 10 10/11/17 1:45 PM

About the Authors 1

David R. Neumann is a professor in the School of Communication at Roch-ester Institute of Technology (PhD ’87 Bowling Green State University). He teaches a variety of communication courses, including Persuasion, Small Group Commu-nication, Qualitative Research Methods, and Communication Theory. His lines of research include critical thinking, creating cohesive work groups, plagiarism, visual communication, and persuasion.

Ronald K. Raymond (PhD, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2013) is an assistant professor in the Communication, Journalism, and Media Department at Edinboro University, where he serves as faculty advisor to the campus radio station, assists students at the campus television station, and is business manager for all three of the university’s campus media organizations. He is an award-winning broadcaster with decades of professional experience and also led a nonprofit organization for over ten years. He primarily teaches courses in advertising, audio production, broad-cast management, journalism, and mass media. Additional research interests include intercultural studies, leadership, organizational communication, and popular culture.

tho26191_00_fm_i-1.indd 1 10/11/17 1:45 PM

AntonioGuillem/iStock

Chapter 1

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 2 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Why study communication in organizations? First, much of your life will be spent in organizations. Second, your experience in organizations will be enhanced by a better understanding of communication. Finally,

communication in organizations—from student clubs to career paths—will open opportunities for you.

Organizational communication has many facets, including interpersonal and technological contact, group decision making, intercultural interactions, and so much more. Communication in organizations can range from being very simple and straightforward to extremely complex. Think of a salesperson talking to a customer in a clothing store. The discussion could be described as a simple face-to-face interaction with one person sending and the other person receiving infor-mation. But if we take a wider-angled look at that discussion, it is occurring within more complicated processes of consumer trends, dynamics in the fashion indus-try, marketing psychology, and other variables. Communication in organizations is complex.

Models of CommunicationWhen we talk about and sketch how communication works, we are essentially making models. A model is a small- or large-scale abstract version of the real thing. Our models of communication are also communications themselves because they communicate something. The models help us cut through the complexities and see how things work. We can start with relatively simple models and then compli-cate our perspectives of the organizational communication process.

Typically, communication has been modeled as linear, interactive, and trans-actional. The linear model of communication was developed in the 1940s by Claude Shannon, a Bell Laboratories scientist and professor at MIT, and then revised when he worked with Warren Weaver, a consultant with the Sloan Founda-tion (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Their model depicted the source sending a mes-sage over a channel to a receiver with noise along the way (Figure 1.1). This model was originally about telephone messages and was then applied to human action.

The linear model (communication traveling in a line) was enhanced by add-ing a loop of feedback from the receiver to the source. Norbert Weiner’s (1948) work on cybernetics suggested the need for feedback in communication models,

Organizational Communication as

Evolving Systems

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 3 10/4/17 1:19 PM

4 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

and from that starting point Wilbur Schramm (1954) developed an interactive model of communication (Figure 1.2). This interac-tive model shows feedback: messages and responses flowing between participants.

However, this model does not depict the simultaneous messages being sent and received by each person. Think of a simple conversa-tion between you and another. Each of you exchanges messages and responds to previous messages. But you are also aware of the other’s nonverbal responses even as you speak, so both of you are simulta-neously a source and a receiver of information. The transactional model of communication describes this situation (Figure 1.3). Transactional implies that the source is simultaneously a receiver and more. It also implies that past behaviors and goals for the future feed into the present communication so that the influences in the com-munication process transcend the current situation. As you engage in conversation with a friend, your past interactions affect the meaning of present words and gestures, and you may have an idea of where you’re trying to go with the discussion in the near or distant future; that is, some communication is directed toward goals.

Notice that both persons in Figure 1.3 are simultaneously encoding messages (converting ideas into words and gestures—into a code that might be understood by the receiver) and decoding meanings (trans-lating the code, such as words and gestures, into ideas). They are also communicating within a physical context, a social context, and the context of time. In an organizational transaction between a member of the public relations team and a potential donor, it does make a differ-

ence whether the communication is occurring in the donor’s office or at a spon-sors’ party (physical context), whether the donor and PR person know each other (social context), and whether the donor has given money in the past (context of time).

Beyond the transactional context, we should keep in mind that communi-cation is social and psychological, the context is always changing, and people in organizations (like people everywhere) are socially constructing realities. Com-munication has social and psychological aspects. It is social—between persons—and it is psychological—relating to the cognitive, emotional, and other psychic dimensions of a person. We can put these aspects together, as Karl Weick (1979) did, to discuss the social psychology of organizing. Expressed a different way,

FigurE 1.1 Linear Model of Communication

Sender

Signal/Message

ReceiverChannel

Noise

SenderEncodes

Signal/MessageReceiverDecodes

Feedback

Channel

Noise

FigurE 1.2 interactive Model of Communication

Sender/ReceiverEncodes/Decodes

Signal/Message

Receiver/SenderDecodes/Encodes

Noise

Feedback

Channel

Time Past Time Future

CONTEXT

FigurE 1.3 Transactional Model of Communication

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 4 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Social Systems 5

organizations are made up of many minds (the psychological) exchanging ideas and working on problems via symbols and interactions (the social). So each of the senders and receivers of the previous models has psychological dynamics going on, such as attitudes, personality types, emotions, and various functional and dys-functional attributes. These individuals also have varying degrees of mindfulness, a psychological dynamic discussed later in this chapter and stressed throughout this text.

The context and social-psychological dynamics of communication are always changing. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus noted thousands of years ago, change is the only constant. All is in process, flowing and changing, and much of our time in organizations is spent adapting to the changes. A salesperson is trying to overcome objections from a potential client about the price of the product. Competitors are trying to undercut the salesperson’s price, while new products and organizations are coming into the market with claims about how they are bet-ter. The marketplace is changing, and organizations must adapt, mostly through strategic communication. Another example: a quarterback is calling plays on the football field. While he is standing at the line ready to snap the ball, the players on the other side are moving, so he may change the play right there at the line based on what the other team is doing. He is adapting to change in the moment. Still another example: the CEO of a major corporation gets word that its product has malfunctioned, resulting in serious injuries. She calls her executive team immedi-ately to discuss how they will begin addressing the crisis. In each situation, change is a key input into the communication process, and the players use communica-tion to adapt.

Communication is also the process through which we create social reality. Berger and Luckman (1966) used the phrase “social construction of reality” to describe when individuals and groups interact across time and create mental rep-resentations that become “institutionalized.” Some social constructions are obvi-ous. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the two main candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and their organizations used words and images to define themselves and define the other. Some of those words and images became the basis for what people thought of the candidates, part of the mental images of social reality. Social reality is no less real than the physical natural reality, and in many ways, it impacts us even more. The election was won and lost in the realm of social reality because people voted based on the images in their minds created by symbolic interaction. Organization members are also acting within various socially constructed realities and are often consciously, purposefully involved in the social construction process, as when they create an ad campaign or participate in internal politicking.

To summarize, organizational communication is complex and multifaceted. Communication can be mapped as linear, interactional, transactional, and more, accounting for multiple contexts and ubiquitous change. Social and psychological dynamics are at play as members of organizations try to adapt to change while socially constructing the reality in which they act. These initial ideas are helpful for getting started as we begin to make our own maps of the organizational com-munication process.

Social SystemsAll models are simplified abstractions. One way to begin complicating these mod-els is to put them in motion and look at the wider social systems. You were born into a family, hang out with certain friends, have studied in various schools, and listen to various musicians. Each of these groups is a social system, and you have been influenced by your interactions in such systems.

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 5 10/4/17 1:19 PM

6 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

Society is composed of social systems. Each of us helps to shape some systems and in turn is shaped by them. We are a part of peer groups, organizations, and other groups of people. We are part of what makes these groups, and they influ-ence who we are. We make social systems and they make us. The organizations we join or are a part of influence the way we think and behave and shape the arc of the life that we live.

System Levels and BoundariesThe idea of “social” systems derives from General Systems Theory, developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968) and others. Systems theory views the universe as interconnected levels or layers. People operate within several organizational sys-tems, encircled by a subculture and a culture and several environments (e.g., nat-ural, social, business), as shown in Figure 1.4.

You are a subsystem within several organizational systems that exist within wider social environments. Your group of friends, workplace, clubs, and school are subsystems within wider social systems.

Where one draws the line between system and subsystems is arbitrary, but in organization theory, the organization is often considered the “system.” For instance, you are an individual in a college classroom—a subsystem within the classroom system within the college system. But you can also consider the college as a subsystem within the higher education system, and so on. As we zoom in or zoom out, we see that there are systems at all levels of whatever macro or micro perspective we are viewing. People and departments are subsystems of the organi-zational system, which operates within the wider environment of the marketplace (Figure 1.5).

Things get even more complex when we begin considering the boundaries of social systems. You are part of a family, a town, a state, and a nation, and perhaps a school, a religion, a political party, some clubs, and other organizations. You are a part of many social systems. This is the law of partial inclusion: we are partially a member of many social systems simultaneously.

You are a part of many social systems and you interact with others who are also a part of many different systems, each of you crossing boundaries that are more or less apparent. For example, suppose Jack is politically independent and he’s at a party talking to friends, Mariah the Democrat and Juan the Republican. They all identify with different political organizations. While they are each members of separate social systems, in their discussion they now constitute another social system. Each of them crosses boundaries, talking to friends in this context who might be labeled enemies in another context. This discussion could be mapped as shown in Figure 1.6.

Social groupings are full of such boundaries, crossings, and interactions. Their boundaries are more or less open or closed; that is, they are more or less permeable. However, there is not neces-sarily a physical wall to permeate or go through. The “walls” of social systems are defined by talk, dress, gestures, and mannerisms as much as by physical bricks and mortar.

For example, members of a clique have ways of determining who’s “one of us” and ways of keeping people out without walls. Rather than the cell wall of an amoeba, they have the social bound-ary created by talk and other actions. Talk can create walls. How we name people can establish attitudes that guide our actions, and those actions may include a certain aloofness that sends the signal

EnvironmentEnvironment

SystemSystem

SubsystemsSubsystems

Organization

Individuals & Departments

Marketplace

Figure 1.4 Systems Diagram

Figure 1.5 Organization Systems

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 6 10/11/17 3:22 PM

Social Systems 7

“you’re not one of us.” The divisions we feel in our thoughts often grow out of talk, especially the ways we name ourselves and the “others.” Sometimes we feel those divisions through a nonverbal cue—a blank stare or a scowl as opposed to a smile. Sometimes the division is apparent in the language people use, as when jargon is used to exclude others. Language both connects and divides people.

Boundaries are found at the edges of social systems and inside them as well. Inside each group—whether a family or an organization—there are clubs within the club. Let’s say you come into a large amount of money. You decide to join an upscale country club, the Club, an exclusive golf, tennis, and recreational orga-nization that protects its boundaries through high membership fees, review by a membership committee, and rules. You pay the dues, they vote to let you in, and you join. You quickly discover that membership in the Club does not necessarily gain you entry into the inner clubs within the Club. You find there various groups who party hard, the super-rich CEOs, the want-to-be pretenders, the tennis and/or golf set, and other groups. Each social system has subsystems that have ways of protecting their membership: what is called “boundary maintenance.” If you want to gain membership in the clubs within the Club, you must form relationships, a key term in the study of social systems.

Relationships, Interdependence, and PowerSocial systems are made of relationships between people. Relationship refers to the interdependence, power, and history of interactions between people. Orga-nizations are made of multiple sets of relationships, such as coworker, superior- subordinate, and member-customer. These relationships are formed and main-tained through social and psychological interaction. The connection between a person and others in an organization is constructed by talk, gestures, feelings, and ideas; and it develops across time.

You are interconnected with others in various social systems. You affect and are affected by others. In other words, you are interdependent with others. Inter-dependence, an important concept for understanding relational social systems, refers to the fact that people need one another and affect one another. It can also refer to the strength of the bond between people in social systems, which can be loose, tight, or “uptight.” Some people in the organization are loosely connected; they have little impact on one another. Some are more tightly linked, such as a master and an apprentice who depend upon each other in various ways. And some are in “uptight” interdependencies, where they are overly dependent or their actions are frozen in a relationship. For instance, some bosses can actually “lock

DemocratOrganization

DemocratOrganization

RepublicanOrganizationRepublican

Organization

IndependentOrganizationIndependentOrganization

MariahMariah JuanJuan

JackJack

FigurE 1.6 Social System Boundaries and Parties

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 7 10/4/17 1:19 PM

8 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

up” employees’ actions by engaging in hostile interactions or even symbolic vio-lence, such as the use of words to inflict emotional harm.

Across the organization, in the many relationships and various degrees of interdependence, power is operating in different ways. We will discuss power later under leadership, but here we can note that power is operating in one form or another in all relationships and all interactions. Gregory Bateson (1956) stated that all communication has a report aspect and a command aspect. Report refers to the denotative meaning. Command refers to the power move in each message. In other words, all communication has content and control aspects. When the boss says, “Get me those numbers,” she is referring to certain content, whatever the numbers refer to, but she is also insinuating that she has the right to tell an employee what to do. Power is essentially the ability to influence or control a relationship. In a superior-subordinate relationship, for example, we would expect the superior to exercise more power, but that is not always the case. Power can, and usually does, change across time. Organizational and relational power evolves.

Subsystems are interdependent with systems, and they’re all interdependent with the wider environment. In a state-run university, for example, faculty are related to (interdependent with) students, the development department is related to corporate donors and alumni, and the university president is related to state officials. Similarly, within your body, your heart interacts with the lungs, the brain controls various functions, and you take in air, food, and water from the out-side world—interdependencies within the system and between the system and the environment. In organizations, you are not only interdependent with other organizations and systems that are helping you survive, but also interdependent with competing organizations.

Social systems are dynamic, ever-changing, and yet stable. From your physical body to the cosmos, most systems are similar to what they were yesterday. Unlike bodies, though, social systems are structured through the network of relationships and interactions. Rules in relationships are one of the things that help maintain that structure or stability. We’ll talk more about rules under the concept of order.

Homeostasis and Feedback LoopsAlthough, as already stated, organizational action is always in flux, in certain ways it is also stable. Systems can be called stable because they demonstrate dynamic steady states and often show a tendency to balance various forces. Systems main-tain equilibrium. For example, Eisenberg, Goodall, and Trethewey (2014) discuss the overall balancing act between creativity and constraint. Some forces in organi-zations push toward difference or change, while other forces tend toward stability. Something is “governing” what is acceptable change and what is not acceptable; people develop a sense of what is okay and what is not okay. This means that the rules and norms for behavior take shape as relationships grow and change.

Homeostasis is the term used to refer to the normal operating range or the balanced, dynamic steady state for systems. Just as our bodies have a certain nor-mal operating range—pulse, blood pressure, body temperature, and other vital signs—social systems develop normal operating ranges. Organizations have sev-eral aspects in which they demonstrate a normal range of operations, a point at which things are “OK,” or at homeostasis. Homeostasis is seen in the amount of information flow (overload, underload, or just right), the amount of conflict, the degree of employee satisfaction, and other factors.

Your body is a natural system. It tries to achieve and maintain balance with the environment in several ways. Heart rate, body temperature, and other leading indi-cators of life are changed moment to moment as the body regulates itself, adjust-ing to changes in activity and environmental influences, all the while attempting to stay within acceptable limits. In social systems such as organizations, those

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 8 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Social Systems 9

acceptable limits are set by expectations and rules. A job description is one tool for letting employees know what is expected and the rules related to the job. Manag-ers have expectations about how employees should perform based on that descrip-tion. To the extent the employee is staying within the range of acceptable action, homeostasis is maintained. If the employee deviates from those expectations, then the relationship and system are taken outside of homeostasis—all is not OK. Rules and expectations help regulate relationships and thus the system.

Of course, to say we reach agreements and make rules that help regulate rela-tionships (help maintain homeostasis) is not to say that people in a relationship think alike. Each person is a subsystem within the system of the relationship. Dif-ferent actors in the relationship are interpreting the rules differently, and a large amount of communication goes into coming to an agreement about rules. Still, we usually manage meanings between us without having the exact same interpre-tations. Rules and expectations give social systems structure and stability amidst the constant change.

Part of the change going on in systems, social and otherwise, is constant dis-integration. That is the concept of entropy: systems are constantly coming apart. Systems also demonstrate negentropy, a process of reintegration or putting back together. Like our bodies, heading back to dust, social systems tend to break apart. All organizations and systems disintegrate, and there are fixes also going on, rein-tegrating forces, or negentropy. For instance, you may be part of a club, and some members of that club are suggesting that “this club is worthless—let’s split and form our own club, the cool club.” That tendency for members to go away, to disintegrate, is entropy, and any move you make to try to keep it together is negen-tropy. All organizations face these disintegrative forces. At the university, adminis-trators are constantly trying to correct problems related to retention—how to keep students attending year to year—again, the problem of entropy.

Social systems have hierarchical levels (subsystem, system, and environment), interdependencies, homeostasis, and disintegrating and reintegrating processes (entropy-negentropy). Relationships, the glue of social systems, depend on rules and expectations to maintain stability and structure amid change. Those balanc-ing acts are accomplished through feedback loops. To look at how systems work their way toward homeostasis, toward “everything’s okay,” we look at positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. You may think of positive feed-back as “good boy” or “nice job” and negative feedback as “you’re hopeless,” but in systems theory, feedback doesn’t necessarily refer to such judgments. In systems theory, positive feedback refers to loops of interaction that move the system away from homeostasis. Negative feedback refers to loops of interaction that move the system back toward homeostasis, that “correct” the system.

Positive feedback loops are sometimes called “deviation-amplifying” loops because they carry the system away from normal. If two employees are in the cafeteria and they start to argue, the surrounding employees may see this as a deviation away from normal. The back-and-forth argument represents positive feedback, or deviation-amplifying loops that are taking the employees away from their state of OK. And if some of the other members make moves to try to resolve the conflict, those moves would represent negative, correcting feedback. In this case the positive feedback loops could be construed as “bad” and the negative loops “good.”

Not all organizations have similar points of homeostasis. In some organiza-tions conflict and argument are an art form; members see it as normal and perhaps even encourage it. A legal firm that specializes in criminal defense or personal injury might thrive on conflict and argument, and so its point of homeostasis would be at a more combative level than the homeostasis system of, say, a funeral parlor, which prefers calm. Homeostasis—when the various “vital signs” of a sys-tem are in the normal range—is different for each system.

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 9 10/4/17 1:19 PM

10 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

Each system establishes its expectations of normality, equilibrium, or homeo-stasis over time, and each operates according to those expectations. In systems theory, the monitoring and adjustment that continually occur as people check to see if they are on course, and then correct toward a better course, is called calibra-tion. Your brain performs a calibrating function for the body when it checks to see if the right amount of certain hormones is being secreted within the endocrine system (a subsystem of the total body). If the levels of activity in the pituitary or thyroid are not OK, the brain sends a message to adjust the levels. In the process of social evolution as well, many different calibrations are occurring as a system attempts to stay on course or adapt to constant change.

Organizational EvolutionVarious authors have used the term evolution to describe how organisms or sys-tems change to achieve a fit within a changing environment or ecological sys-tem. Darwin (1859) explained the evolution of species. Donald T. Campbell (1965) applied the term to changes in knowledge and sociocultural factors. Karl Weick (1979) applied the evolutionary model to organizational action: organizational evolution.

Like natural evolution, social evolution includes variation, selection, and retention. Variation refers to something new: a new idea, a new technology, a new fashion, or a new way of behaving. Selection refers to choosing and using those variations. As we become aware of variations, we try some of them and not others. Those new things, ideas, or behaviors have a chance of becoming part of our routines. Retention refers to what gets held on to, what gets retained or made routine and becomes part of the system. Retention is related to memory and the habits a system adopts.

Consider your social evolution as you lived through your teen years. You came across many variations—new ideas and things to do, new technologies, new fash-ions and friends, many new potential paths for doing and thinking. From that array of new things in your life, you acted on some; that is, you chose or selected some variations (new things to do, think, and say) but not others. And some of those choices (selections) led you to acquire your habitual ways of doing and thinking (retention). Likewise, organizations select and retain variations as they evolve in the ecology of their marketplace.

Weick (1979) revised the evolutionary model to consider enactment, selec-tion, and retention in organizing. He uses the term organizing rather than orga-nization to capture the dynamic, flowing, verb-like movement of organizational action. Organizational communication is not stable or stagnant, like an organiza-tional chart, but rather always in flux. Also, a key to Weick’s perspective is the idea that organizations are involved in sense making, which is the decision making they use to process information. As information is transformed by organizations in the sense-making process, the organization itself is transformed.

Suppose a tobacco industry organization just got word that a governmental organization is considering outlawing the use of tobacco. That “news” represents an information input into the organization’s sense-making system. Its members will talk about and make plans for how they will proceed, given the news. Their decision making, or sense making, and the moves they later make might enhance their chances of survival. In other words, their sense making will affect their evolution.

The sense-making process includes enactment, selection, and retention, much the same as organizational evolution. Enactment creates variations. Enactment is “acting that sets the stage for sense-making. [We have seen] exhibits of enactment

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 10 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Organizational Evolution 11

in the activities of saying, doing, spinning webs of significance, adapting, and produc-ing variations. In each case enactment served to bracket and construct portions of the flow of experience” (Weick, 1979, p. 147). Enactment is the way we frame an event (or any portion of our reality) by naming and thinking about only certain aspects out of the infinite pool of aspects to be considered.

For example, if you’re at a club meet-ing and your club is considering ways to do fundraising, perhaps you consider doing a bake sale or selling merchandise, but you are not considering a car wash. That is the way your group is talking and thinking about fundraising—the way you are enacting that domain. There are many more ways of thinking about enactment, but from Weick’s perspective, enactment is the way organization members begin to socially con-struct their reality and the ways they pay attention to, think about, and commu-nicate about their domain. These social constructions produce what Weick (1979, p. 131) calls the “enacted environment.”

Within that enacted environment—what members are attending to—mem-bers choose and use interpretations, and they select and try out variations. This is the selection process in organizational evolution. If your organization is trying to decide what new technologies to purchase to enhance video presentations and teleconferencing between members, you start researching some possible technolo-gies and talking about what you’ve found. That is the enacted environment. Then the group members arrive at five different companies they wish to invite to give a sales presentation about their technologies. Those five companies or technol-ogy systems represent variations in the process, and in narrowing the decision to those five the members have selected some and not others. Thus selection involves choosing and using variations and interpretations. Your group might start leaning toward one or two of the companies more than others. This is selection: some interpretations become favored over others, and are selected, in the sense-making process. It is important to note that in this process organization members and groups are choosing meanings. The marketplace does not provide meanings so much as members select them. Meaning is chosen and socially constructed.

Of those variations and interpretations that are selected, some will be retained by the organizational system. What we attend to (enact) and what meaning we give it (select) are largely directed by the retention system. Retention refers to mem-ory, maps developed in the past that are used in making sense of the present. It is memory in action, as individual members and the group as a whole (institutional memory) refer to their maps as they make sense of the enacted environments. Weick (1979, p. 221) speaks of “cause maps” because members often apply their logical assumptions in decision making. For example, across political organiza-tions, we might find differences in the way people discuss the poor and how they came to be poor. Some will argue that the poor are victims of history and circum-stances, and so we should use government funds to help change their situation. Others might argue that the poor are in their position due to decisions and actions they themselves have made, and so the government should not be responsible. The two groups are applying different cause maps to the situation, and those cause maps are part of the retention or memory processes that guide sense making.

Beyond memory, retention can also be seen as the habits a system falls into, just as individuals can develop habits. These habits are the habituated patterns

Organizational adaptation is enhanced by team flow, in-the-moment awareness as members make sense of their situation in the market. UberImages/iStock

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 11 10/4/17 1:19 PM

12 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

of ideas and things that become institutionalized over time. Perhaps a university began in the 1850s as a teachers’ college. Over the years it considered many differ-ent major programs that it might add (enactment), and from those considerations it chose some new majors to implement (selection). Once chosen and imple-mented, those academic majors have been retained over the years, and they have become a habit for the university organization. Similarly, all of the buildings on the university campus were once an idea (enactment) selected from among many other ideas (selection), and once they were built into the permanent infrastructure they became a “habit” that is very difficult and expensive to break. The evolution of the university includes variations or enactments, selections, and retentions of majors, buildings, marketing materials such as logos, and more.

We will explore ideas about evolution throughout this book. Within that pro-cess of variation, selection, and retention, sometimes the parts are working at odds with the whole. Most notably, retention (the habits of the system, the “way things are done”) works at odds with variation, the system’s ability to recognize new things and ideas. The habits a system gets into can inhibit exploration and cre-ativity. Communication patterns, our key focus here, can become habituated too. The way an organization communicates, its sense-making apparatus, can become habitual in both functional and dysfunctional ways.

Organizational MindfulnessThe central theme of this text is that mindfulness, both individual and organiza-tional, can enhance the sense-making and adaptation processes to help an organi-zation not only survive but survive in style. Mindfulness makes for more relaxed thinking and communication. In their continuous quest for a better way of orga-nizing, organization members are trying to become aware of and apply good ideas in their sense-making process. Mindfulness can help with that quest.

Mindfulness has several meanings that can be based on both a Western perspective and an Eastern perspective. Ellen Langer’s (1989) work has defined mindfulness with and without meditation as a key ingredient. Langer (quoted in Feinberg, 2010) defines mindfulness as “the process of actively notic-ing new things, relinquishing preconceived mindsets, and then acting on the new observations.” She claims that many people mindlessly follow routines, automatic behaviors, and habitual thinking. They may see the world according to precon-ceived and faulty cognitive maps.

Mindfulness encourages using fresh perspectives, reflecting, and actively thinking in the present moment. The opposite of mindfulness is mindlessness (Langer, 2013), “where you’re on auto-pilot”: (1) the past overdetermines the pres-ent, (2) you are trapped in a single perspective, (3) you are insensitive to context, and (4) you are governed by rules and routines. When practicing mindfulness, on the other hand, “an active state of mind characterized by distinctions,” (1) your thinking is situated in the present, (2) you are sensitive to context and perspec-tive, (3) you are guided, but not governed, by rules and routines, and (4) you are engaged—you are enlivened by noticing new things. Mindfulness is the practice of being actively engaged in the moment, whether it is a conversation, an obser-vation, art, or organizational decision making.

Langer cautions that mindfully noticing novelty reveals uncertainty, whereas mindlessly applying past maps to present circumstances gives us an imposed sense of certainty. In fact, our evolving systems are full of uncertainties, and much orga-nizing is dedicated to reducing uncertainty. According to the perspective of Weick (1979) and Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (1999), the uncertainty is inherent in

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 12 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Organizational Mindfulness 13

equivocality, the notion that all organizational questions have multiple possible interpretations, and that is what triggers sense making. In other words, the prac-tice of mindfulness will reveal uncertainties that create the need for organizational communication.

The Eastern, meditative perspective on mindfulness as developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn (1994/2005) and Eckhart Tolle (1999), and by Zen Buddhists for millennia before that, shares many qualities with Langer’s view. Kabat-Zinn says, “Mind-fulness means paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally. This kind of attention nurtures greater awareness, clarity, and acceptance of present-moment reality” (1994/2005, p. 4). Mindfulness encourages nonconformity to habitual patterns of thinking, doing, and being.

Weick and Putnam (2006) distinguish between Eastern and Western mean-ings of mindfulness, noting that traditionally Eastern ways are more focused on inward, meditative awareness, and Western ways tend to be more outward-focused and not necessarily based on meditation, as with Langer’s model. They also claim that Eastern and Western practices share similarities and that all mindfulness aims at a relaxed mind, calmness, concentration, focus, and insight. Practicing mind-fulness makes one less vulnerable to cognitive distractions or mental wobbling.

Weick et al. (1999) say that organizational mindfulness considers how awareness is a between-person phenomenon; it results when organization mem-bers’ minds operate effectively together to induce a “rich awareness of discrimina-tory detail and a capacity for action.” According to the authors, mindfulness makes members better able to differentiate between various inputs and thus recognize a wider variety of meanings in their environment; create new categories out of the continuous stream of events and thus incorporate variety into their actions; and have a more nuanced appreciation of context and alternative ways to deal with it. Much of mindfulness involves maintaining variety in the system (especially the system of mind, or the totality of interacting thoughts and images) in order to rec-ognize and deal with variety in the environment. Mindfulness thus battles organi-zational mindlessness, which results when fewer cognitive processes are activated less often, when members rely mostly on past categories (such as past definitions of “the way it is” in their field), or when they are fixated on a single perspective, unaware that things could be otherwise. Having variety in the system of organi-zational mind and actions helps monitor and match variety in the environment.

Weick et al. (1999, p. 38), and later Vogus and Sutcliffe (2012, p. 723), sum-marize five factors of organizational mindfulness in high-reliability organizations:

1. Preoccupation with failure—regularly and robustly discussing potential threats to reliability

2. Reluctance to simplify interpretations—developing a nuanced and current understanding of the context by frequently questioning the ade-quacy of existing assumptions and considering reliable alternatives

3. Sensitivity to operations, not just strategy—integrating their understand-ing into an up-to-date big picture

4. Commitment to resilience—recognizing the inevitability of setbacks and thoroughly analyzing, coping with, and learning from them

5. Deference to expertise—deferring to expertise rather than authority when making important decisions (the right wisdom for the situation is more important than the habitual hierarchy)

Ray, Baker, and Plowman (2011) make a distinction between “organizational mindfulness” and “mindful organizing.” Organizational mindfulness is more stra-tegic and top-down, whereas mindful organizing is operational and from the bot-tom up.

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 13 10/4/17 1:19 PM

14 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

However, for mindfulness to produce strategic and operational reliability, it needs to operate across organizational levels. That is, both organiza-tional mindfulness and mindful organizing are necessary. In other words, it is not enough to focus on senior managers, middle managers, or front-line employees in isolation. Organizational mindfulness must be created by top administrators, synchronized across levels by middle managers, and translated into action on the front line. (p. 726)

Roe and Schulman (2008, p. 64) note that middle-level managers play an especially important role in balancing the need for anticipation and careful causal analysis with the need for flexibility and improvisation in response to unexpected change.

It may prove fruitful to distinguish between mindful organizing and organi-zational mindfulness, but ultimately they are both part of the same game. It may also be helpful to develop and validate organizational mindfulness scales (e.g., Ray et al., 2011), keeping in mind that organizational mindfulness is a dynamic, relational, collective phenomenon that may not be effectively counted or cap-tured through survey data. As a collective, between-person concept, it should be understood through relational language, and the “fix” for mindfulness in orga-nizations should include this emphasis on relationship along with a focus on individuals.

A language for conceptualizing human action as relational has been evolving for some time. Early pioneers like Martin Buber (1937/1970) and Harry Stack Sul-livan (1953) were followed by Bateson (1972), Weick (1979), and Gergen (2009). Buber (1937/1970, p. 69) said, “In the beginning is the relation,” and he based much of his philosophy on the premise that all action plays out with humans inseparably in relation to natural, human, and spiritual realms. We are born, are socialized, and exist in relation to others. Buber promoted a philosophy of “I and Thou” in which people realize the human qualities of other people; we find mean-ing in relationships, and we are all part of a grander relationship.

Gergen discusses a relational consciousness, noting that “it is through coor-dinated action—not individual minds—that meaning originates. . . . On closer inspection, we find that virtually all faculties traditionally attributed to the internal world of the agent—reason, emotion, motivation, memory, experience, and the like—are essentially performances within relationship” (2009, p. 397). Whether we are a member, leader, or consultant, we benefit from attending to relational dynamics in the organization. Are the players, from members to man-agers, working as a team? Which conflicts in the relational structure threaten the mindfulness of the system? Do members and managers appear to interact with authenticity, with minimum pretense and hidden psychodramas?

All systems, social and otherwise, are built on relationship and interaction. As a seed pushes through the soil searching for the sun, the magic is in the relation-ship; likewise, social networks come to life in the ties that bind. These mindful loose couplings in organizational relationships are akin to creative flow in groups. The “flow state” for individuals in the creative process feels like energized moti-vation, intense focus, and boundlessness. Members of groups can experience the flow as well, as when teams are “in the zone.”

Weick (1979) also discussed organizing relationally with the concepts of “loose coupling” (p. 236) and of understanding the organization as “interlocked behavior cycles” (pp. 89–118). He says that evolutionary sense making is occurring in many different places and levels of the organization at once:

The picture of organizing that emerges from the formulation is one in which there are numerous enactment-selection-retention (ESR) sequences underway at any moment in time scattered throughout the organization. There is loose coupling among the ESR sequences, and they are most likely to be coupled at the retention process. (p. 236)

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 14 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Organizational Mindfulness 15

Organization members are engaged in shared, interactive meaning making. A rela-tional view finds mindfulness in the interlocked symbolic actions (meaningful and meaning-producing behaviors) of people in and outside of organizations, as they con-tinue to correct systems toward some preferred ideal while the action unfolds and the systems evolve. People are coupled through past and present patterns of interaction, patterns incorporated into an individual mind and woven into a collective mind. In this way, we approach Gregory Bateson’s idea of mind as the “pattern that connects.”

Bateson’s “ecology of mind” serves well in understanding organizational mindfulness. Mind, like nature, has an ecology—a collective informational energy, continually interacting. In nature, ecology is about the totality of patterns of rela-tionships between organism and environment (Nora Bateson, 2010, paraphrasing her father). So it is with the ecology of mind, which is not just about thought or the cognitive realm, but more about relationships between people, ideas, sym-bols, and patterns of interaction. Mind is a collective enactment, a script eternally being rewritten as we learn. Ecology of mind is all about a consciousness that interweaves and evolves between and among us. Part of what concerns us here is the nature of that collective consciousness; the ecology of mind is the patterns of thought and action that build organizational culture.

Although organizational mindfulness is awareness, as Weick and others have noted, it entails a certain quality of awareness. Individual practice in mindfulness attempts to achieve a certain mental calmness, a relaxed awareness of the context and situation, and a focus on the moment that rises above distractions. Likewise, organizational mindfulness can enhance relaxed decision making and thus aware-ness of the factors impacting a situation within a creative flow environment. In sum, the following are key attributes of organizational mindfulness:

1. A quality of thoughtfulness and nonjudgmental reflection practiced by individuals in relation to others

2. Commitment to communication: appreciation of and desire for ongoing cycles of sense making and continuous dialogue as uncertainties arise

3. Commitment to learning and learning to learn: overriding faulty cause maps, stale preconceptions, and the tendency for the past to overdeter-mine the present

4. Balance of redundant patterns and creative action: negotiating regulative (e.g., negative feedback) and generative (e.g., positive feedback) forms, and realizing the need for structure and flexibility

5. Coordinated action within stable-fluid relationships: working and thinking about the world together, linked within purpose-driven social networks and ability to change

6. Empathy: awareness of the human dimension, the I-Thou, while man-aging strategically within the marketplace or ecology of the particular organization

7. Firm connection to values amid loosely coupled relations, which is sim-ilar to Peters and Waterman’s (1982) “simultaneous loose-tight proper-ties” and to Weick’s ideas on loosely coupled systems

8. Awareness of the socially constructed nature of conflict: the necessity of managing contrasting visions, ego needs, power differences, and inequalities through dialogue, preferably without allowing relations to grow more uptight or blow up

9. Complication of the retention-selection process: learning and incorpo-rating richer retained images into interactive pattern recognition and being reluctant to simplify interpretations

10. Strength with softness, or resilience: being able to absorb and respond to perturbations through adjustments of thought and action in the given moment

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 15 10/4/17 1:19 PM

16 Chapter 1 Organizational Communication as Evolving Systems

As you go through the text and participate in the marketplace simulation, reflect on what it means to engage in organizational mindfulness, where members are in the here and now together, not controlled by habitual patterns of thought or behavior, and open to the creative potential in each moment. In the best scenario, it is an ideal team flow—beyond petty drama, doing what needs to be done based on the demands of the situation, reflective and ever in the process of learning.

Marketplace SimulationThe Marketplace Simulation presents an opportunity for you to apply the course material in a semester-long team project. You will be a member of a five-person “organization” that will create a company, a star product, and various promotional and informational materials. The products created can be possible or impossible, realistic or imaginary, given current science and understanding. You could end up marketing anything from a resort experience to a disappearing spray.

Each member will perform a role on the team and provide an individual pre-sentation with a written report based on that role. The different roles (jobs) are executive officer, information officer, human resources officer, public relations officer, and sales officer.

The product/service and company will develop and evolve over the course of the semester toward the culminating event, the Trade Show, in which each company sells and everyone is a consumer. The team will set up a creative, information-packed booth (table), where consumers (classmates, friends, family, and general public) will be able to purchase your product.

Each team will have a “corporate portfolio” on the table at the Trade Show. It will be the polished version of all members’ reports, combined and uniform in format, font, and style. Sample reports will be provided at the conclusion of each applicable chapter. Other items and decorations that enhance the sales pitch will also be a part of your team’s table or display or trade show booth.

Organizational Communication Marketplace Simulation Job DescriptionsChief Executive Officer

Your job is to coordinate the overall performance of the team and lead your orga-nization to success. You will be first to present your organization to the public. The presentation and written report will include the following:

1. Initial logo design 2. Organization name, product(s) or services, and place of operation 3. Members’ names, brief (fictional) bios, and positions 4. Brief business strategy: mission, vision, consumer profile, goals in the

marketplace

Chief Information Officer

You coordinate communication within the organization and with the outside world. Your primary responsibility is synthesizing the final report of the organiza-tion that will be available on Sales Day. The presentation and written report will include the following:

1. Map of organization’s networks 2. Company’s webpage (design or actual)

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 16 10/4/17 1:19 PM

Marketplace Simulation 17

3. Social media/communication technologies used to connect with various publics

4. Strategy statement on how information is converted to wisdom

Chief Human Resources Officer

You manage the development of employees through training programs. Your pri-mary job is to create various training programs that help realize the human poten-tial of people. The presentation and written report will include the following:

1. Revised logo and succinct mission and vision statements 2. Training and development programs at your company 3. Full outline of one key training program that focuses on communication 4. Hiring statement: “The kind of person we hire . . .”

Chief Public Relations Officer

You maintain and enhance the relationships between your organization and var-ious publics. You tell the story of your organization, discuss the many charitable actions, and do some damage control. The presentation and written report will include the following:

1. Company brochure with story, philanthropies, revised logo, and image-building material

2. Organization’s main publics and how you maintain and enhance those relationships

3. Press release about what makes the company great 4. Press release and statement addressing negative news that just came out

Chief Sales Officer

Your job is to coordinate the marketing, advertising, and sales of your product or service. You develop the features, advantages, and benefits of your product/service and encourage people to purchase on Sales Day. The presentation and written report will include the following:

1. Features, advantages, and benefits of product/service fully described 2. Video and print advertisements 3. Product price and promotions 4. Pitch with incentive to stop by on Sales Day

Each written report (submitted before your presentation) should be 2 to 5 pages, typed, and very professional and appealing.

Presentations should run 5 minutes and be information-packed with ample visuals to help build the image of your company.

tho26191_01_ch01_002-017.indd 17 10/4/17 1:19 PM