Konsep Framework Komunikasi

Communication: Core of the Firm

Aruna Kulatunga - BCO Assignment Page 1 of 8

Introduction

A review of recent literature on management, entrepreneurship, and the corporation

suggests that a central concept of good management practise is readiness for change;

and constant change. (Beer and Nohria, 2000, Drucker, 2001, Mintzberg, Ahlstrand

and Lampel, 1998, Pettigrew, 1987, Robbins, 2002, Semler, 1993, 2003, Senge, 1994).

Organisations, Senge suggests, have to be nimble on their feet, constantly scanning

the environment around them to learn and absorb new ideas, innovations, ways,

and methods and must be also be able to diffuse this knowledge throughout the

organisation. A learning organization, Robbins (2002) state quoting Peter Senge, “is

an organization that has developed the continuous capacity to adapt and change.

All organizations learn, whether they consciously choose or not- it is a fundamental

requirement for their sustained existence.”

Mintzberg in his main strategic theorem of the confi guration theory looks at the

same process from a strategic viewpoint; for a strategy to emerge, or to move from

one state to another, there has to be change involved.

“I distrust the incommunicable; it is the source of all violence.” – Jean – Paul Sartre (Sartre and Frechtman,1948)

Why is communications the basis of change?

Beer et.al.(2000), contends that a

central pillar of management of change

is communication. Buchanan and

Boddy (1992), in their matrix of change

includes communications as one of the

fi ve main skills necessary to implement

change. However, a closer study of the

other skills (Setting Goals, Building

Roles, Negotiations and Managing Up)

indicates that the skill to communicate is

interwoven throughout.

Aaltonen and Ikavalko (2002),

states organizations have diffi culties

implementing their strategies specifi cally

when there is a lack of communication,

indicating a lack of commitment

to the strategy, unawareness or

misunderstanding of the strategy,

unaligned organizational systems and

resources, poor coordination and

sharing of responsibilities, inadequate

capabilities, and uncontrollable

environmental factors.

Pettigrew’s (1987) framework for

strategic change also sheds some light on

the analysis of strategy implementation.

Pettigrew distinguishes the content

of the strategy, the outer and inner

contexts of an organization, and the

process in which strategic change is

carried out. Pettigrew contends that the

content, the context, and the processes

are intertwined and affect one another.

This has an important impact on strategy

implementation research. In order to

understand implementation, which

is close to the process in Pettigrew’s

model, the content of strategy and the

context in which it takes place must be

understood. The components of strategy

implementation -- communication,

interpretation, adoption, and action -

are not necessarily successive and they

cannot be detached from one another.

Not a new concept

That communication and conversation

play an important role in the production

of change is not an entirely new

concept. One only has to go back to

Socrates, 2,400 years ago, and his use

of conversation as a method for seeking

deeper understanding; a way of seeking

the rock bottom truth in what was being

discussed. He taught Western Civilisation

the art of asking questions as a tool for

discovering reality. For Socrates, ``the

unexamined life is not worth living’’.

and constant change.





organisation.




Mintzberg in his main strategic theorem of the confi guration theory looks at the

and constant change.





organisation.




“The unexamined

life is not worth living’’

- Socrates



Interestingly, two centuries before

Socrates, Gauthama Buddha, taught his

followers how to be critical thinkers by

questioning every motive, reason and

move. Lord Buddha’s critical dialogues

with his pupil Ananda forms the bedrock

of the Buddhist philosophy, much in the

vein of Plato’s records of his conversations

with Socrates.

In modern organisations, the in-depth

conversation in the Socratic/Buddhist

mode is coming into its own again.

This is fostered through the creation

of continuous learning opportunities,

promotion of inquiry and dialogue,

encouragement of collaboration and

team learning, empowerment of people

towards a collective vision, and the

establishment of systems to capture and

share learning (Watkins and Marsick,

1993).

A defi nition of change and communicating the message:

Change inherently assumes progression

from one state to another and therefore

leads to “negative” comparisons of

the former state, which in turn impact

the stakeholders of that state, who by

nature will react defensively, creating

barriers against the new state. Cushman

and King (1995), posits that effective

communications can change these

barriers.

Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), in

illustrating the importance of creating

a readiness for change argues that the

“discrepancy aspect of the message

“Producing intentional change, then, is a matter of

deliberately creating, through communication and

conversation, a new reality or set of social structures. If this

is the case, then the change process actually occurs within,

and is driven by, conversation and communication, rather

than the reverse. In fact, I would argue that the vocabulary

spoken in organisations can trap us into a particular way

of thinking about our roles and relationships, because

there is a distortion of reality and loss of capacity for

spontaneous action.” (Kurt April 1999)

communicates information about

the need for change and should be

consistent with

the relevant

c o n t e x t u a l

factors”.

Beer et.al.

(2000), also

argues that

shared change,

centred around

the language of

opportunities,

(as opposed to

the language

of change - a concept espoused by

Wruck and Eastley(1998)- rather

than that of change, whilst slower,

spreads commitment through-out the

organization and incrementally re-

enforced, leads to long-term sustainment

of change. Collective leaderships where

members play complementary rules

appear critical in achieving change.

“When people share a vision, they are

connected, bound together by a common

aspiration. In the absence of the great

dream, pettiness prevails.”(Box, Todd,

Watts and Whisman, 1999)

Lewin’s (1951) unfreezing model

for creating readiness for changes is

inherent in Box et.al. (1999) and Senge’s

(1990) contentions of creating a shared

vision. Communication takes place

across boundaries (the author, however,

contends there are no boundaries) and

takes the form of discourse amongst the

members of the organization, seeking

ways and means of fitting into an overall vision

or Senge’s “great dream”.(Senge, 1990)

Armenakis et.al. (1999) quotes Katz &

Kahn to argue that to create a belief that

change is needed requires a comparison

of the current state of the organization

to a desired end-state. Nadler and Nadler

(1998) illustrates the positive aspect of

comparing one state to another through

the vignette of Eli Lilly CEO Randy Tobias,

talking to the employees about the old

and the new “lilies”.

The author contends that this

comparison of states has an implicit

weakness in that it assumes a debility

of the former state, therefore leading to

resistance from the former stakeholders.

A contrastive view would assume a state-

less mode; that of non-comparison.

The author will attempt to build on this

concept in the preceeding chapters.

The priori of Communication

Academic treatments of corporate

strategy, states Quirke (1998), “often omit



any reference to communication as a vital organizational

function. There is an implicit assumption that communication

is simply a rational process of sender and receiver, and it

barely receives mention” Yet communication is the fundamental

means by which strategy is enacted.

Clearly, an argument exists that without effective employee

communication, change is impossible and change management

fails. However, the literature review also suggests that

corporations or fi rms do not apply the same analytical rigor to

employee communications that they give to the fi nancial and

operational components of the Human Resources Development

continuum and its value chain. However, the author suggests

that further empirical study is necessary to establish this

contention, given the paucity of information generally available

on the role of communication in strategy, management and

human resources development.

In his article, ‘’Leading change: why

transformation efforts fail,’’ Kotter (1996) lists

‘’under-communication’’ as one of the major

reasons change efforts do not succeed. Hence,

there is a clear argument that management needs

to recognize communication as strategic and learn

to lever its strategic capabilities. Communication

must play a strategic role in an organization

to work effectively. That strategic role means

that communication must be integrated into

the company’s strategy and recognized for its

strategic implications and effects.

Implementation of Theory; an empirical model

Barrett’s (2002) Strategic Communication model (Figure 1)

takes cognizance of this through its inter-related approach

to strategy, management, processes, and communication.

Communication is either everything in the organization (vision,

strategy, business planning, management meetings, information

fl ow, knowledge management, etc.) or it is nothing more than

publications intended to keep the communication staff busy

and the employees informed of the company news. (Barrett,

2002)

Barrett (2002) believes that organizing the ‘’everything’’

approach and dispelling the ‘’publication only’’ focus are fi rst

steps in structuring a strategical communication program.

If management can be coached into realizing that employee

communication is a key ingredient in becoming a high-

performing company, they will more likely give it the time and

energy it needs and deserves.

Katzenbach (1995), in his book, The Real Change Leaders:

believes that for an organisation to become a knowledge

economy, it needs a committed leadership group; clear

performance goals; well-designed playing fi eld; right people in

the right places; and meaningful communications. (Quoted in

Barrett, 2002)

Barret defi nes Meaningful communications as communication

that accomplishes two primary objectives:

Aruna Kulatunga - BCO Assignment

energy it needs and deserves.

Katzenbach (1995), in his book, The Real Change Leaders:

believes that for an organisation to become a knowledge

economy, it needs a committed leadership group; clear

performance goals; well-designed playing fi eld; right people in

the right places; and meaningful communications.

Barrett, 2002)

Barret defi nes Meaningful communications as communication

that accomplishes two primary objectives:

“Transformation is impossible unless hundreds or

thousands of people are willing to help, often to the

point of making short-term sacrifi ces. Employees will not

make sacrifi ces, even if they are unhappy with the status

quo, unless they believe that useful change is possible.

Without credible communication, and a lot of it, the

hearts and minds of the troops are never captured.” -

(J.P. Kotter 1996)

Figure 1



° Informs and educates employees at

all levels in the company’s strategy;

and

° Motivates and positions employees

to support the strategy and the

performance goals.

If communication accomplishes both of

these objectives, it is ‘’meaningful,’’ that is,

it contributes to the company’s fi nancial

success and helps the company be high

performing. Barret breaks her defi nition

down more specifi cally, resulting in fi ve

primary goals for effective employee

communication; thus, communication

must:

° Ensure clear and consistent

messages to educate employees

in the company vision, strategic

goals, and what the change means

to them;

° Motivate employee support for the

company’s new direction;

° Encourage higher performance

and discretionary effort;

° Limit misunderstandings and

rumours that may damage

productivity; and

° Align employees behind the

company’s strategic and overall

performance improvement goals.

Communications at the Core

The following model (fi gure 2) is

a re-adaptation of Barret’s Strategic

Communications Model interweaving

the understanding gained from the

author’s efforts to combine the academic

learnings with some practical experience

as a communicator.

The organisation membrane is a

porous, fl exible boundary that is capable

of both expanding and imploding at the

same time to meet both external and

internal contingencies. The porosity of

the membrane governs its interaction

with the environment. The boundary

is reached only when it encompasses

the organisation’s end-customers and

includes many stakeholders - at times

even competitors. On the other hand,

the membrane can also be termed the

organisation’s coalface, where critical

interactions with its external stakeholders

occur. In a practical sense, the author

contend, given the exogenous infl uences

on the coalface, and the manner in

which organisations employ endogenous

strategies to match or leverage changes

at the coalface, the boundary does not

exist. Shorn of jargon, this simply means

that the boundaries of a fi rm are not fi xed

and will change contextually.

Therefore, innovation occurs at the

coalface and drives the strategy that in

turn constructs the structure in which

management processes take over to spur

individuals / teams to be productive.

Conversely, by adopting the same logic,

it can also be argued that the central core

of the organisation, for it to be productive,

has to rely on effective communications,

both internally within its organisation

membrane and externally, through the

membrane.

As illustrated in Figure 2,

communications taken as the central

core of the organisation allows strategies

to emerge, links the different players and

extends these linkages outside of the

porous membrane of the fi rm’s coalface.

The membrane also divides two essential

process, one internal, and the other

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��Figure 2

Communications at the Core



external, of the firm’s efforts to innovate

and stay ahead of the competition.

The internal process, that of change,

and becoming a learning organisation,

was described in the previous chapters of

this study.

The external process, that of integrating

the firm with its external stakeholders

and a rational process of developing a

unified approach to both processes will

be discussed in the proceeding chapters.

External perceptions:

Anderson, Hakansson, and Johanson

(1994) have discussed the concept of

network identity, which they define

as the perceived attractiveness (or

repulsiveness) of a firm as an exchange

partner due to its unique set of connected

relations with other firms, links to their

activities, and ties with their resources.

In other words, the firm must possess

something that makes it warrant inclusion

in the network. Network identity, then, is

similar to a firm’s expertise or competence

in a particular area. It is logical that this

identity stems from the perception that a

firm is attractive in some way, and that it

has something to offer. A firm’s inclusion

in the network places itself in a “web of

trust” with other players in the market.

An essential component of the structure

of a message is the embodiment of trust

in that message. If the recipient of

the message does not trust either the

originator or the messenger, the message

will have no value - i.e., the message is

not believed.

This can be illustrated by using the secure

modes of communicating in the Internet.

Verisign, a company that marketed a

method of confirming the identity of the

messenger (or the originating website) in

fact sold the concept that if the recipient

of the message can trust a third-party ( in

this case Verisign) who in turn vouches

for the originator of the message, then

a transaction can occur between the

originator and the recipient. Verisign,

through its own credibility, provides the

element of trust that enables other to

transact in confidence.

However, Communication is an

antecedent of trust. To be metaphorical

in prose, to weave the web of trust, a

cocoon of communication has to be

used. Within the firm, when trust is

high, communication is more effective

because dialogue is more open and

credibility is built up. On the other hand,

when it is low, there is an increasing

tendency to resort to imposing authority

by management on employees.

Morgan and Hunt (1994) proposed the

link between communication and trust

in a business-to-business relationship-

marketing context. The linkages

between these constructs should be

present in a network environment as

well. In fact, communication becomes

even more essential in relationships

involving more than two parties; it is

the key to coordinating each firm’s

unique skills and resources. In addition,

effective communication leads to the

benefit of organizations being able to

learn from their exchange partners’ core

competencies. Networks exist because of

their capacity to generate, integrate, and

leverage knowledge and relationships

that extend considerably beyond the

resources of a sole firm. If communication

is present, then each individual firm in

a network can learn from the others in

order to properly integrate and leverage

unique assets and resources.

In most of the modern theories of

business, competition is seen as one of

the key forces that keep firms lean and

drive innovation. That emphasis has

been challenged by Adam Brandenburger

of the Harvard Business School and

Barry Nalebuff of the Yale School of

Management. In part using some of the

ideas of game theory, they suggest that

businesses can gain advantage by means

of a judicious mixture of competition and

cooperation.

Cooperation with suppliers, customers

and firms producing complementary or

related products can lead to expansion

of the market and the formation of new

business relationships, perhaps even

the creation of new forms of enterprise.

Specifically, when companies work

together, they can create a much larger

and more valuable market than they

ever could by working individually.

Companies then compete with each

other to determine who gets the largest

share of that market. Brandenburger and

Nalebuff chose the word “coopetition“

for this concept (a blend of cooperation

and competition), which they used as the

title of their 1996 book explaining their

theories. (Brandenburger and Nalebuff.



1996) However, it seems that they did

not coin the word: it was Ray Noorda, the

founder of Novell, who did that.

Co-opetition allows for the real-world

business situation where there can be

multiple winners in the marketplace.

Business, unlike war, is not a winner

takes all proposition. The objective is

to maximize your return on investment

- regardless of how well or how poorly

other people or other companies

perform.

To win trust,

acceptance; to become

a member of the

“network” and to weave

the “web of trust”, the

fi rm needs to employ

specifi c tools. Building

on the preceding

chapters of this study,

the author suggests

that one specifi c tool

that can be used is a

somewhat nebulous,

yet achievable, concept

termed the Language

of Opportunities. The

original model for this concept was

developed from a leadership perspective,

i.e., from the concept of change being

led. However, the model can be adopted

directly to the current discussion by

looking at Leadership as part of change

and change being central to the Firm.

The Division of Change

As illustrated in fi gure 3, leading

change can be divided into two distinct

dimensions where each component has its

own different characteristics. Leadership

for example devolves ownership to the

process level, (i.e. individuals involved

in the process takes on leadership roles

even though there may not be a direct

economic or business ownership at that

level) while most instances of change

infl uences the economic or business

ownership where the benefi ts of change

accrues more directly to those who own

the corporation. Leadership (whether it

is in change, management, command or

control) is multi-hued, varied, and open

for different interpretations. As much as

concepts of leadership follow different

threads, in the contemporary business

environment, the canvas on which we

paint our picture, the key considerations

of leadership are chameleonic.

In the two areas of infl uence in leading

change, a distinct demarcation can be

made in the quality and direction of the

communication processes that take place.

As illustrated in fi gure 3, leadership and

the processes that involve leadership

is enveloped in what can be termed

“Language of opportunities”, a concept

originating from the work of Werner

Erhard, former head of est (note: est is

not capitalized). (Wruck et al.,1998).

Heracleous (2002)contends the

language of opportunities involve a

discourse amongst the members of the

organization, seeking ways and means

of fi tting into an overall vision or the

“great dream”(Senge,1994) as opposed

to the simple notion of communication,

i.e. a linear fl ow of information from

one direction to another, or even bi-

directional within the management and

the workforce, employed in the concept

of language of change. Discourse is a

collection of communicative actions

related to the way of thinking and

acting of members of a particular system

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 3

Language of Opportunity



(Heracleous,2002). Organizations that

employ this language of opportunities

are inherently learning organizations,

which have strong shared visions.

A learning organization continuously

tests experiences, transferring that

into knowledge and that knowledge

is then made accessible to the entire

organization. (Box et.al., 1999, Senge,

1990) Learning organizations that are

constantly searching for opportunities

have a better chance of succeeding.

The author agrees with Senge and Box

that opportunity should be constant

quest and not a search for change in a

distressed state.

More work has to be done to establish

the relevance of the author’s model

in both academic and practical sense.

The author’s experiences in negotiating

political terms at times of distress

in his country’s embattled political

landscape suggests that employment of

this model can be diffused further into

general negotiating practises. A firm is a

microcosm organisation which inherently

reflects the context and configuration of

the general environment, or society, it

operates in. By extension then, methods

successfully employed in the Firm could

also be applied, in the same context,

across a wider population.

Conclusions

Business communications is a process,

not an end product. It has been said that if

there were just three truly “golden rules”

of modern business they would be, in

this order: communicate, communicate,

and communicate.

As more and more leaders shift towards

participation and empowerment, they

are beginning to learn the Socratic/

Buddhist way of processing information

through asking the right questions,

instead of making pronouncements and

giving orders. What we constantly learn

is that the more people practise the art of

orchestrating conversations and dialogue

and for better or worse, discourse, the

more opportunities they find for it:

processing office conflicts, reviewing and

reflecting on the past, for evaluations, for

making group decisions, even for office

celebrations.

If one agrees with the author in his

contention that communication is the

bed-rock of a modern Firm, then the next

logical step would be to explore the ways

and means of applying best practises

in communication in an endeavour to

successfully leverage any competitive

advantage the firm may gain from it. The

concept espoused in this study, that of

language of opportunities, the author

suggests, would be just one of the many

tools Firms can employ in seeking the

Holy Grail of Discourse!



References

Aaltonen, P. and Ikavalko, H. (2002), Communications – Core of the Organisation Message, Climate and Structure: Implementing Strategies

Successfully, Integrated Manufacturing Systems Bradford: 13 (6), pp 415.

Anderson, J. C., Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1994), Dyadic Business Relationships within a Business Network Context, Journal of

Marketing, 58 (1), pp 15.

April, K. A. (1999), Leading through Communication, Conversation and Dialogue, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20

(5), pp 231-41.

Armenakis, A. A. and Bedeian, A. G. (1999), Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s, Journal of Management,

25, pp 293-315.

Barrett, D. J. (2002), Change Communication, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7 (4), pp 219-31.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp 133-41.

Box, T. M., Todd, A. W., Watts, C. R. and Whisman, M. L. (1999), Learning Organisations, Panacea or Practical Answer, Academy of Strategic

and organisational leadership, 3 (2), pp 54.

Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1998), Coo petition (1st Currency paperback), Doubleday, New York

Buchanan, D. and Boddy, D. (1992), The Expertise of Change Agent: Public Performance and Backstage Activity, Prentice Hall International

Series.

Cushman, D. P. and King, S. S. (1995), Communicating Organizational Change: A Management Perspective State University of New York

Press, Albany. Viii, 334 p.;

Drucker, P. F. (2001), The Essential Drucker: Selections from the Management Works of Peter F. Drucker (1st), Harper Business, New York.

X, 358

Heracleous, L. (2002), The Contribution of a Discursive View to Understanding and Managing Organisation Change, Strategic Change, Aug,

pp 253-61.

Kotter, J. P., and Netlibrary Inc. (1996), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science Harper & Row, New York

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management Prentice

Hall, London. X, 406

Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), pp 20-38.

Nadler, D. A. and Nadler, M. B. (1998), Champions of Change Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Pettigrew, A. M. (1987), The Management of Strategic Change Basil Blackwell, Oxford. [300]

Quirke, B. (Fall / Winter 1998), Communicating Corporate Change, Human Resource Management, 37 (3 & 4), pp 319–20.

Robbins, S. (2002), Organisational Behaviour, 10th Edition Prentice Hall International, Inc., New Jersey.

Sartre, J. P. and Frechtman, B. (1948), The Emotions: Outline of a Theory Philosophical Library, New York. 94

Semler, R. (1993), Maverick! - The Success Story behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace Century - Random House, London

Semler, R. (2003), The Seven-Day Weekend - Finding the Work/Life Balance Century - Random House, London

Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1st), Doubleday/Currency, New York. Viii,

[424] p.

Senge, P. M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization Currency, New York. Xiii,

593 p.

Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change Jossey-Bass

Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Wruck, K. H. and Eastley, M. F. (1998), Landmark Education Corporation - Selling a Paradigm Shift, Harvard Business School Case Studies,

9-898-081

Figure 1: - Strategic Communications Model. Barrett, D. J. (2002)

Figures 2 & 3: Kulatunga A, 2004.


Aruna Kulatunga - Business CommunicationsPrepared for Dr. Lynne Bennington

11 June 2004

Documents

Konsep Framework Komunikasi