6
CC0 Public Domain
A communication network refers to how information flows within the organization. Information within an organization generally flows through a system, rather than being a free flow. Communication networks are regular patterns of person-to-person relationships through which information flows in an organization. This means that the flow of information is managed, regulated. and structured. Communication networks may be formal or informal.
Formal Communication Network – A formal communication network is one which is created by management and described with the help of an organizational chart. An organizational chart specifies the hierarchy and the reporting system in the organization. Therefore, in a formal network, information is passed on only through official channels such as memos, bulletins and intranet (email within the organization).
The organizational chart implies that information can flow in any of three directions – vertically, i.e., upward or downward, and horizontally.
- Upward Communication – This may be defined as information that flows from subordinates to superiors. Some of the reasons for upward communication include discussing work related problems, giving suggestions for improvement and sharing feelings about the job and co-workers.
This type of communication has both benefits and disadvantages. One of the biggest benefits is problem-solving. Once a subordinate has brought a problem to his superior’s notice, chances are that the problem will not recur, since the subordinate learns from his superior how to tackle it the next time. Thus, his ability to solve new problems and therefore his managerial ability, improves. Another benefit that could arise from upward communication is that valuable ideas and suggestions may sometimes come from lower level employees. Therefore organizations should encourage this kind of communication. A third benefit is that employees learn to accept the decisions of management and thereby work as a team.
The biggest problem associated with this type of communication is that it may lead to “handing down” of decisions by superiors. When subordinates frequently seek the superior’s guidance, the latter may adopt an authoritarian approach and merely give instructions, disregarding the subordinate’s opinion completely.
Jim Hemerling: 5 ways to Lead in an Era of Constant Change
- Downward Communication – This may be defined as information that flows from superiors to subordinates. The most common reasons for downward communication are for giving job instructions, explaining company rules, policies and procedures and giving feedback regarding job performance. A number of studies have indicated that regular downward communication in the form of feedback given to employees is the most important factor affecting job satisfaction. Therefore organizations today are trying to encourage more of this type of communication.
There are both benefits and disadvantages associated with this type of communication. Downward communication that provides regular feedback will be beneficial if the feedback or review of performance is constructive. A constructive review is one where a manager “counsels” an employee, or advises him on how to improve his performance. On the other hand, a destructive review can destroy employee morale and confidence. Regular downward communication also creates a climate of transparency or openness, where information is passed on through official channels, rather than through rumors.Thirdly, downward communication boosts employee morale, since it indicates that management is involved in their progress.
The problems with this type of communication are the danger of doing destructive reviews, as mentioned, and that of “message overload.” This means that superiors many sometimes burden their subordinates with too many instructions, leading to confusion.
- Horizontal Communication – This type of communication is also known as “lateral” communication. It may be defined as communication that takes place between co-workers in the same department, or in different departments, with different areas of responsibility. For example, Sales Managers and Advertising Managers in the Marketing department, or Marketing Managers and Finance Managers. The reasons for this type of communication are for coordination of tasks, sharing of information regarding goals of the organization, resolving interpersonal or work related problems and building rapport.
The biggest potential benefit of horizontal communication is the sense of teamwork that is created. Regular communication of this type ensures that all co-workers work together towards achieving a common goal in the overall interest of the organization. The biggest potential problem is that conflicts such as ego clashes are bound to arise, when co-workers at the same level communicate on a regular basis.
In spite of these problems, horizontal or lateral communication has become more important in today’s business scenario than upward or downward communication. This is because the “organizational pyramid” indicating the different hierarchies or levels in an organization has flattened. This is illustrated by the diagrams given below.
Informal Communication Network – Another name for informal networks is the “grapevine”. In this type of network, information does not flow in a particular direction, as we have seen with formal networks. The information is also not passed on through official channels such as memos, notices or bulletin boards. The information need not be circulated within the organization, but could be passed on outside the work environment, wherever co-workers or colleagues meet socially. Thus, informal networks are based more on friendship, shared personal or career interests.
Example – Co-workers may meet outside the work environment at a company picnic, party or a car pool and discuss areas of common interest that may or may not be work related. Information may then be passed on to each other about happenings in the company, such as layoffs, the company’s plans for acquisitions and so on.
This type of informal network is not just for idle rumors and may be useful in many ways. First of all, it sometimes fills in the “transparency gaps” left by formal networks. Such gaps usually occur during times of crisis such as strikes or layoffs. The strikes and layoffs may not be officially announced. Secondly, it may help to confirm important information, such as the fact that the company is going in for a major acquisition. Thirdly, the grapevine can be used for a constructive purpose by the organization.
Example – The government could get the press to publish news in the local paper that there is going to be a petrol price hike soon, just to test the reactions of the general public. If the reaction is negative, then the news may be withdrawn on the basis that it is just a rumor. Similarly, organizations could deliberately plant proposals in the minds of their employees, just to test their reactions.
Given that informal communication networks have their advantages, they should not be suppressed as rumors. On the contrary, competent managers should accept the informal network. At the same time, they should make efforts to counter false rumors and to ensure transparency through the formal network. This means making all types of information – both positive and negative, available to everyone in the organization through official channels.
GSC Library Article:
Greenbaum, H. H. (1974). The Audit of Organizational Communication. Academy Of Management Journal, 17(4), 739-754.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4297575&site=eds-live
Simon Sinek: Why Good Leaders Make you Feel Safe
To conclude, it should be remembered that both formal and informal networks should be cultivated and allowed to co-exist, so that information of all types flows freely to all levels in the organization.
References
Fine, G.A., and S. Kleinman. 1979. Rethinking subculture: an interactionist analysis. American
Journal of Sociology 85( 1): 1-20.
Forsythe, G. B. (1992). The preparation of strategic leaders. Parameters (Spring): 38-49.
Jacobs, T. O., and E. Jaques. 1991. Executive leadership. In Handbook of military psychology.
Edited by R. Gal and A. D. Manglesdorff. Chichester, England: Wiley.
