Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations

Running Head: BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION 1

Examining Barriers in Organizational Communication and Culture

Arlo Abrahamson, David Bennett, Shauna Lindsay, Myers Vasquez

San Diego State University

JMS 600B

Dr. Hongmei Shen

Fall 2012

BARRIERS TO COMMUNICATION

I. Study Abstract

Barriers in organizational communication can have serious impact on employee

satisfaction and productivity. Leaders and management of large organizations continue to

be challenged with understanding their internal publics and formulating an open

environment that diminishes barriers, embraces the influence of diverse sub-cultures, and

minimizes distortion in communication. As Athanassiades (1973) suggests, the

implications of poor internal communication are far-reaching and affect every aspect of

an organization’s vitality, success, or failure (p. 48). This study will examine barriers,

influences, and distortions in organizational communication that limit the impact of

effective internal messaging campaigns. This examination will contrast the relationship

between hierarchical and participative organizational cultures to determine if these

environments contribute to limited, enhanced, or even distorted communication patterns.

Content analysis will examine past studies in organizational communication to better

understand why people accept, distort, or reject messages. After such analysis, an online

survey will be administered to individuals serving in management and non-management

positions within corporate and non-profit organizational settings. Participants will be

asked closed-ended questions that explore organizational culture, perceived

communication barriers, message distortion, and the influence of subcultures within their

organization. The desired outcome of the study is to add to the current body of

knowledge regarding the influences and limitations of organizational communication and

offer management and communicators strategies to improve their practices. There are no

risks of harm to human subjects associated with this study and participants can opt out of

the survey at any time of their choosing.

2


II. Statement of Purpose and Background

The purpose of this study is to examine and better understand the complexities of

communication within organizational cultures. Specifically, research referenced

throughout this section suggests a strong correlation between organizational culture and

communication barriers, which creates communication distortion and limits message

acceptance.

Dozier, Grunig, L.A., & Grunig, J.E., (1995) likened core values in organizations

as factors that “unify the social dimensions of organizations” (p. 136). However, research

also suggests that powerful influences of diverse subcultures within an organization are

often incorporated into the larger cultural ethos. These subculture influences also affect

the internal communication practices of top-management, and literature suggests a strong

linkage between organizational subcultures and barriers in communication.

While existing literature and past studies have provided a moderate understanding

of the nature of organizational structure and its potential effects on internal

communication, there is a lack of scholarship in this body of work that explored the

linkage between organizational structure, communication barriers, message distortion,

and the influence of subcultures in an organization. If these varying factors affecting

communication are explored under one umbrella of study, it will significantly enhance

the understanding of the broad complexities and influences of internal communication

practices, which were more limited in scope with past studies. While the theories of

previous scholars contributed to the initial understanding of internal communication that

enabled this study, their inherent limitations invite an unprecedented opportunity to

3


sharpen and expand upon past theories and create a broadened understanding of

organizational communication practices.

Ultimately, the goal is to dig deeper into the cause of internal communication

barriers and enhance the body of work in an area that has far reaching implications for

organizations and presents new horizons for communicators in practice.

Contrasting the hierarchical and participative organizational structure and its effect on

communication barriers

Communication barriers involve organizational structures or climates that either

inhibit or limit the efficiency of how messages move throughout an organization.

Organizational culture, as a concept, entered the lexicon of organizational studies nearly

15 years ago (Sriramesh, Grunig & Dozier, 1996). But what is organizational culture?

Some scholars have defined it as an organization’s core values (Deal & Kennedy, as cited

in Sriramesh et al., 1996), or the “rules of the game for getting along in the organization”

(Sriramesh et al., 1996, p. 232). Wallach and Schein referred to corporate culture as

assumptions, beliefs, or understanding that is shared by an organization’s employees (as

cited in Sriramesh et al., 1996). Peters and Waterman defined organizational culture as

“the set of values that help ‘in unifying the social dimensions of the organization’” (as

cited in Sriramesh et al., 1996, p. 232). Gotsi, Andriopoulos, and Wilson (2008)

described corporate culture as an “organization-wide phenomenon” (p. 48).

Athanassiades (1973) distinguished two distinct types of organizational cultures

or structures, one that is (heteronomous) hierarchical and authoritarian in nature, and

potentially coercive and secretive toward subordinates. The second organization is the

(autonomous) participative organization, which is more open and has a more flat chain of

4


command structure (p. 48). However, Sriramesh et al. (1996) noted that these two

cultures were not mutually exclusive – authoritarian and participative organizations may

hold characteristics of the other culture. As such, these two types of organizational

climates should be evaluated on a sliding scale, as organizations will manifest varied

degrees of hierarchical or participative organizational culture traits. Moreover, the extent

of these organizational traits are strongly linked with communication barriers.

A valuable insight to understanding organizational structure and its links to

communication barriers can be found in Rogers’ (2005) study on authority-innovation

decisions and collective innovation-decisions. In such study, Rogers (2005) posits that

collective-innovation decisions are made through consensus within participative

organizations, where as hierarchical organizations often inhibit authority-innovation

decisions that are made by a small yet dominant group that utilizes “champions” to

implement their innovations among the rank-and-file (p. 403).

Organizational structure provides the foundation for internal communication

effectiveness, based on the susceptibility of barriers resulting from the hierarchical or

participative traits of the organization. Rogers (2005) study makes a clear case for the

open, participative organization in fostering and spreading innovation through open

communication. Such examinations also exposed the potential limitations of both

communication and innovation diffusion in hierarchical and authoritarian organizational

culture, and makes the case for further examination of how such hierarchical structure

plays a role in creating barriers and enhancing, or distorting internal communication.

Based on this background, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1: Authoritarian and hierarchical organizational cultures have more barriers to internal communication than organizations with participative cultures.

5


Organizational structure, resulting barriers, and message distortion

Past scholarship in organizational communication studies has indicated a strong

link between organizational culture, its inherent barriers, and message distortion.

Message distortion is the byproduct of communication barriers created from

organizational structure. Athanassiades (1973) characterized communication distortion in

broad terms, describing the phenomenon as a process of withholding, screening,

manipulating, or even embellishing information as a result of the inherent barriers

existing in organizational structure (p. 43). Moreover, Athanassiades (1973) described the

“vicious cycle of communication distortion” created from organizational climate to be

most prevalent in the hierarchical structure (p. 45). Distortion of upward communication,

Athanassiades (1973) posits, is more prevalent by subordinates in organizations seeking

to ascend through the ranks of the hierarchical organization.

The hierarchical structure, with its system of sanctions and rewards, fosters feelings of insecurity or accentuates his drive to ascend. To that extent, also, may he perceive upward distortion as instrumental to his need-satisfaction (p 47).

While Athanassiades (1973) implied a strong link between upward

communication distortion and hierarchical organizational traits, further examination is

useful to determine the pervasiveness of communication distortion across all levels of

organizational structure; upward and downward in the chain of command, and across

peer groups. This study will expand on Athanassiades’ examination by not only

measuring the mere presence of distortion, but also measuring the degree of distortion

that exists in both hierarchical and participative cultures. Such findings will ultimately

create greater understanding of how the presence of communication barriers in the

organizational structure affects message distortion. With these findings, the following

6


hypotheses are proposed.

H2: Organizational structure creates communication barriers, which causes message distortion.

H3: Hierarchical or authoritarian organizational structure is highly correlated with pervasive communication distortion.

Impact of feminist theory on reducing communication barriers

Researchers have suggested organizations that possess or adopt feminist

characteristics are more participative, and experience increased (internal) communication

excellence. Such descriptive terms as “connectedness, community, and participation

associated with feminist thought,” (Mumby, 1998, p. 624) were used to describe the

(participative) communication culture within an organization. Attributes ascribed to

feminism and inherent in feminist theory are frequently identical to characteristics of

participative organizations (as compared with hierarchical, authoritarian organizations).

According to scholars (Ferguson, 1984; Foss, 1999) feminist characteristics include

openness to all voices, a belief in equity for everyone, and concern for oppression

wherever it is found.

Characteristics of organizations with excellent communications appear, from

research conducted to date, to mirror traits that characterize organizations with feminist

culture.

Feminist values of respect, caring, reciprocity, interconnection, self-

determination, and honesty, are also ascribed to organizations with excellent

communications (Grunig, 1992). In addition, Foss (1999) posited that the feminist values

of collaboration, equity, sensitivity, and justice, as characteristics of feminism, lead to

respect for all voices within an organization.

7


The apparent relationship between feminist characteristics, participative

organizational framework, and potential reduction in messaging barriers is one that

warrants further investigation. The following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Feminist values are correlated with participative organizational cultures and

reduction in internal communication barriers.

Framing and its link to message acceptance

Message acceptance is interpersonal in nature and measures how people accept,

reject, or ignore communication presented to them. Organizational communication is

influenced by how the message is conveyed, and how “framing devices function in the

vision implementation process” (Fairhurst, 1993, p. 332). The leadership’s ability to

frame internal messages has been found by research as a critical contributor to message

acceptance. An organization’s success is contingent on the ability of the leadership to

impart its vision on its constituencies (Fairhurst, 1993).

In a hierarchical organization the message or vision is asymmetrically framed to

convey the top leadership’s expected behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs from its members.

In a participative, more symmetrical organization, Broom (2009) defined effective

framing as having an intimate understanding of the position and problem, and to know

the “needs, interests, and concerns of the target publics” (p. 332). Fairhurst (1993)

explained that a visionary framework was created through a mutual understanding that

took place between the organization’s top leaders and its members. Framing is the “way

people come to understand issues and events” (p. 312).

Management must link its members to a shared view of the organization or

compete with the members’ conflicting values, perceptions, and individual interests.

8


Charismatic leadership can “inspire members to move beyond their own self-interests

partly through a vision that members find compelling” (Avolio & Bass, 1987; Bass,

1985; Burns, 1978; Conger, 1991; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House, 1971; House,

Spangler & Woycke, 1991; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Tichy and Devanna, 1986, as cited

in Fairhurst, 1993, p. 334).

Management must frame the vision in a hierarchical or authoritarian style

organization, so “decisions are made at the top levels of the organization and

implemented at the lower levels” (Broom, 2009, p. 218). As such, the internal

communication campaigns are “planned, organized efforts to mold corporate images,

manage issues, and articulate values” (Fairhurst, 1993, p. 340).

Leadership is instrumental in enacting the framework, through framing of the

message, but the leader’s influence can be “overshadowed by the individuals who

actually manage the culture” (Fairhurst, 1993, p. 348).

An authoritarian organization acknowledges the internal members’ influence in

acceptance of the message, but does little to institute symmetrical communication

practices to allow participation of the members. Grtonstedt (2000) emphasized integrated

communication is a “strategic management process that must permeate through entire

organizations, rather than quick fix crash program or campaign” (as cited in Grunig, L.A.,

Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, 2002, p. 274).

More research can be done to explain how leadership uses framing to overcome

barriers of communication in a hierarchical organization. From these examinations, the

following hypothesis is proposed.

9


H5: In authoritarian and hierarchical organizational cultures, message acceptance by

subordinates is positively correlated with leadership’s ability to frame internal messages.

Perceived corporate culture and subcultures and influence on organizational

communication

Many public relations, communication, and organizational scholars have studied

the role of corporate culture and its impact on internal communication.

Organizational culture, as a concept, was beneficial because it offered its

members a set of behavioral expectations, served as a check against unwanted conduct,

and provided its members with a sense of shared purpose (Martin & Siehl, 1983).

However, Sriramesh et al. (1996) warned of the potential for multiple cultures in

an organization. “Instead of being monolithic phenomena, organizational cultures are

composed of various interlocking, nested, sometimes conflicting subcultures” (Martin &

Siehl, p. 53). Other scholars (Lok, Westwood & Crawford, 2005; Wilkins, 1983) also

questioned the monolithic culture theory and believed that subcultures were likely in

large organizations.

While the concept of organizational culture provided scholars a useful means of

differentiating organizations, it was limited in “trying to explain people’s intra-

organizational behavior” (Lok et al., 2005, p. 491). Wilkins (1983) noted that “people

who associate with each other and share common backgrounds and objectives tend to

develop and share common orientations that may differ from the orientations of other

groups” (p. 29). Lok et al. (2005) found that subcultures could form in an organization

due to a variety of environmental factors like location, job function, and background.

10


Martin and Siehl (1983) identified three types of subcultures: enhancing,

orthogonal, and countercultural. Enhancing and orthogonal subcultures supported, to

varying degrees, the dominant culture’s core values (Martin & Siehl, 1983).

Countercultures, on the other hand, espouse core values that challenge the dominant

culture’s core values (Martin & Siehl, 1983).

Sriramesh et al. (1996) observed the importance in understanding corporate

culture as it pertains to organizational effectiveness. The authors found that “corporate

culture [was] an important variable that may help explain the communication and public

relations activities of organizations” (Sriramesh et al., 1996). Moreover, the authors noted

the potential influence of subcultures in internal messaging campaigns. While an

organization’s CEO or members of its dominant coalition may propose a new corporate

“vision”, it is the lower ranking members of the organization who influence the

acceptance of that vision “because they are the purveyors of the vision” (Sriramesh et al.,

1996, p. 237). Likewise, Gotsi et al. (2008) noted that organizational core values could be

undermined by conflicting values of a subculture. In this case, consensus may arise in

“the boundaries of subcultures rather than on an organization-wide level” (Gotsi et al.,

2008, p. 48). Martin and Siehl (1983) believed that corporate culture could “underline as

well as support the objectives of the firm’s top management” (p. 53).

As previous research found, organizational communication is influenced by the

organization’s culture and various internal subcultures. However, what are the barriers to

message acceptance during internal messaging campaigns in hierarchical organizations?

Martin and Siehl (1983) noted that countercultures are likely to emerge in hierarchical

organizations. With this in mind, how do countercultures within hierarchical

11


organizations prevent or influence the acceptance or rejection of messages from top

management? From the background presented, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: The number of countercultures within an organization is positively correlated with

more barriers to internal communication.

Rationale and relevance of proposed research

Broom (2009) suggested that organizational communication is one of the least

understood aspects of public relations scholarship by both researchers and practitioners

alike. Moreover, organizational communication is often deeply misunderstood by the

dominant coalition or leadership within organizations, who are the essential people to

carry out such tasks. Broom (2009) and other communication scholars attributed this lack

of understanding in organizational communication practices to a cause for declining job

satisfaction and productivity.

Consequently, this study is relevant in adding to a body of work for an area of

communication scholarship that is moderately understood, and further, an area where

scholars themselves admit there is room for deeper understanding. Existing theory will

guide this study, but new discovery and enhanced understanding of communication

barriers will not only help add to the existing knowledge in organizational

communication, but also make suggestions to improve practices. The impact of such

scholarship is limitless, considering that organizations continue to diversify and the

challenges of organizational communication will only intensify as society moves

progressively into the post-modern world.

12


III. References

Athanassiades, J. C. (1973). The sounds and silences of employee communication.

Journal of Business Communication, 10(4), 43-50.

Broom, G. M. (2009). Cutlip and Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L.A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in

public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision when the rest of the organization talks total

quality. Management Communication Quarterly 6(4), 331-371. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/232857217

Ferguson, M.A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations:

Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of

the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,

Gainesville, FL.

Foss, K.A., Foss, S.K., & Griffin, C.L. (1999). Feminist rhetorical theories. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Wilson, A. (2008). Corporate re-branding: Is cultural

alignment the weakest link? Management Decision, 46(1), 46-57. doi:

10.1108/00251740810846734

Grunig, J.E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal communication. In J.E. Grunig

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 531-

576). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D.M. (2002). Organization of the communication

13

http://search.proquest.com/docview/232857217


function, relationship to other management functions, and use of consulting firms.

In Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D. M. Excellent public relations and

effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries

(pp. 262-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lok, P., Westwood, R., & Crawford, J. (2005). Perceptions of organizational subculture

and their significance for organizational commitment. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 54(4), 490-514. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00222.x

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy

symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 52-64.

Mumby, D.K., & Stohl, C. (1998). Commentary feminist perspectives on

organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(4),

622-634.

Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (1996). Observation and measurement of

two dimensions of organizational culture and their relationship to public

relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 229-261.

14

Documents

Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations