BUSINESS COMMUNICATION | ASSIGNMENT NO. 1

COMPARE AND CONTRAST DIFFERENT MODELS OF COMMUNICATION

Submitted to

Mr. Hamid Nawaz Assistant Professor

NUST Business School National University of Sciences and Technology

Submitted by

Yasir Muhib First Semester

MBA 2K11 Section A

Merit No. 23

NUST Business School [NBS] National University of Sciences and Technology [NUST]

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Communication plays a pivotal role in an organization’s success and effectiveness. It can rightly

be regarded as ‘‘the ‘lifeblood’ of every organization’’ (Murphy, Hildebrandt & Thomas, 1997,

p. 5). Managers spend most of their time communicating and a considerable portion of

organization’s resources is allocated for communication. Moreover, only through effective mass

communication can a business retain and enhance its corporate image; attain customer feedback

and device business strategies accordingly; and stimulate its sales. On the other hand, ineffective

communication can cost an organization in terms of money, goodwill, and customer resentment.

Communication in general and Business communication in specific have long been researched

and theorized. Aristotle (384BC-322BC) is regarded as the pioneer in describing the role of

effective communication in his proposed Orator-Audience communication model. He was a firm

advocate of rhetoric or persuasive speaking. His outclass treatise Rhetoric 1 is still regarded as a

standard scholarly work on rhetoric.

Figure 1: Aristotle’s Rhetoric Model of Communication

Communication theorists who had developed communication models over the span of twentieth

century include: Lasswell (1948); Shannon and Weaver (1949); Shramm (1954); Gerbner

(1956); Westley & MacLean (1957); Berlo (1960); Osgood and Shramm (1961); Dance (1967);

Barnlund (1970); and Kaye (1994). In the sections that follow, pertinent communication models

are described briefly and then a comparative analysis is made among them. Finally, the best

model is selected on the basis of several indicators that give it edge over the other models.

1 George A. Kennedy wrote English Translation of Rhetoric in 1991, entitled The Art of Rhetoric.

Speaker Message

Audience

2

2. COMMUNICATION MODELS

Communication has been a domain of research over centuries. However, the twentieth century

brought about several noteworthy communication theories and models. Pertinent communication

models are described briefly as follows:

2.1 Lasswell’s Model (1948)

Harold Dwight Lasswell (1902-1978) worked on the same lines of communication as proposed

by Aristotle in Rhetoric. His model entails that communication always has an element of

persuasion and that political bodies need persuasive tone to inspire and change the behavior of

masses. In other words, he regards the ‘effect’ of communication to be of central importance

rather than the ‘meaning’ intended (Fiske, 1990). Lasswell’s Model disregards the element of

feedback in communication and assumes it to be a one-way process. Lasswell (1948) describes

his model by putting forth a simple question while communicating: “Who says what in what

channel to whom with what effects?”

Figure 2: Laswell’s Model of Communication

COMMUNICATOR

Who?

MESSAGE

says what?

MEDUIM

in what channel?

AUDIENCE

to whom?

IMPACTwith what effect?

3

2.2 Mathematical Communication Model: Shannon & Weaver (1949)

Shannon & Weaver (1949) devised a linear and transmission model of communication for

making the most efficient use of telephone and radio channels while working for Bell Telephone

Labs in United States. They presented the process of communication to be linear and one-way

process. The constituent elements of the model are; source, transmitter, channel, noise, receiver,

and destination. According to Shannon and Weaver (1949), communication is a flow of

information through transmitter or encoder at the sender’s end to the destination through receiver

or decoder. The flow occurs over a transmission channel which is also susceptible to noise or

interference that may hinder the communication process (See Figure 3). The model is

acknowledged for its linearity and simplicity but the absence of feedback and lack of application

to interpersonal communication are its glaring shortcomings.

Figure 3: Mathematical Communication Model [Shannon & Weaver (1949)]

2.3 Shramm’s Circular Model of Communication (1954)

Dr. Wilbur L. Shramm refined the work of Shannon and Weaver (1949) by incorporating the

element of feedback into their model. Moreover, Shannon and Weaver (1949) proposed a very

INFORMATION SOURCE

(Sender)

TRANSMITTER

(Encoder)

RECEPTION

(Decoding)

DESTINATION

(Receiver) CHANNEL

NOISE

Message

Signal

Received Signal

Message

4

mechanistic communication which lacked human element: Shramm (1954; Osgood & Shramm,

1961) proposed a more generalized model by considering human behavior, attitude, and

experience as essential for communication process. Shramm (1954) and his associates proposed

communication to be a two-way process wherein both—the sender and the receiver—are

encoders as well as decoders of the messages that flow between them. Shramm (1954) says that;

“It is misleading to think of the communication process as starting from somewhere and

ending somewhere…” (Also cited in Wells & Hakanen, 1997: p. 56).

Shramm (1954; Osgood & Shramm, 1961) has proposed two-tier circular model of

communication: Firstly, the feedback loop (See Figure 3) which concerns the flow of

information between the sender and receiver so as to deliver the very intended message to the

receiver and to arrive at a mutual understanding. Both are encoders, decoders, and interpreters of

the information.

Figure 3: Feedback Model of Communication [Osgood & Shramm (1961)]

Secondly, the field of experience model describes that the experience, skills, attitude, culture,

and knowledge background of the communicators are very important elements in

communication. If the above elements overlap between the sender and receiver i.e. have

commonalities, then communication becomes easier. On the other hand, if there is slight overlap

or a complete mismatch, then communication becomes difficult (See Figure 4).

ENCODER

INTERPRETER

DECODER

ENCODER

INTERPRETER

DECODER

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

5

Figure 5: Shramm (1954) Communication Model of Field of Experience

Shramm’s model presents a generalized view of communication process as compared to the

views of other theorists. It takes into account the human element and cross-cultural differences

which were completely absent in all the previous models. Moreover, it also overcomes the

shortcoming of linearity in the previous and presents a more realistic picture of interpersonal

communication which usually follows a two-way or a multi-way channel. The receiver can resort

back to the sender and give feedback which, in turn, will result in a more objective and effective

communication process.

2.4 The SMCR Communication Model: Berlo (1960)

Berlo (1960) suggested a transmission model of communication comprising six elements

previously used by Shannon and Weaver (1949) with the exception of incorporating noise. The

model was named as Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR) Model. Berlo’s model is

Receiver Decoder Sender Encoder Signal

Noise

FEEDBACK

Sender’s Field of Experience Receiver’s Field of Experience

6

different from the traditional transmission models because it has human element and considers

the communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, social system, and cultural background of the

sender and the receiver. The sender drafts the message and the receiver interprets the message

based on the above individual characteristics. Moreover, Berlo (1960 is of the view that

communication is also affected by the strength of relationship between the sender and the

receiver. Berlo (1960) identifies the factors that underlie the four basic elements of

communication in his model: the Source, the message, the channel, and finally the receiver (see

Figure 6).

The code, contents, structure, elements, and treatment constitute the message and the sensory

system (taste, hearing, vision, smell, and touch) acts as communication channels.

Berlo’s model can well be adopted in interpersonal and mass communication (Stead, 1972).

However, the model does not have any provision for feedback and regards the communication

process as linear and static.

Figure 6: The SMCR Communication Model: Berlo (1960)

2.5 Helical Model of Communication: Dance (1967)

Dance (1967) was an advocate of non-linear communication and regarded communication as to

be a dynamic and accumulative process. He presents a flexible view of communication which is

Communication

Skills

Attitudes

Knowledge

Social System

Culture

Elements

Structure

Content

Treatment

Code

Hearing

Tasting

Seeing

Touching

Smelling

Communication

Skills

Attitudes

Knowledge

Social System

Culture

Source Message Channel Receiver

7

affected by the past experiences of communicators. He says that communication moves in a

forward direction and the information communicated at present accumulates and affects the

contents of messages that will be communicated in future (Ozuem, 2004). His model establishes

a relationship of educator-learner between the sender and receiver.

However, Dance’s Helical model is criticized for its structure as the does not have any elements

and variables that would make it a formal model. The model describes its viewpoint in much

abstract notion.

Figure 7: Helical Model of Communication: Dance (1967)

2.6 The Transactional Model of Communication: Barnlund (1970)

Burnlund (1970) devised a non-linear model of communication which described communication

to be dynamic and continuous process and it cannot be reversed. This model attributes every

event of communication to be unique which cannot be repeated. Moreover, communication is

regarded as a complex process due to the involvement of culture, language, knowledge, and the

nature of relationship between the sender and the receiver.

2.7 The Adult Communication Management Model: Kaye (1994)

Keye (1994) presented a four-tier communication model demonstrated. The first layer—

intrapersonal—represents the self-assessment of the communicator as essential element for

effective communication. The second layer—interpersonal—concerns with the relationships and

communication between people. The third layer—system—represents the environment or

context in which one communicates; it may be the organization, the workgroup, and the team

members. The final layer—competence—deals with the ability of communicator to analyze all

the above three aspects and influence others.

8

3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION MODELS

In this section a comparative analysis of the models described above is done on the basis of

characteristics such as generalizability, feedback, channel, human element, nonverbal impact,

focus, and the complexity of models. The table below summarizes the analysis:

Lasswell (1948)

Shannon & Weaver (1949)

Shramm (1954)

Berlo (1960)

Dance (1967)

Barnlund (1970)

Kaye (1994)

Feedback Feedback is absent as the speaker disregards the concerns of audience.

Feedback is absent as a definite start and end of communication are there.

Feedback is Present and is of greater concern. The sender and receiver establish relationship of educator-learner until they reach a common understanding of what was intended to communicate

Feedback is absent as the model is linear and static.

The sender and receiver establish relationship of educator-learner just as Shramm (1954) described in his model.

Feedback is there as the model regards communication to be continuous and dynamic.

The model takes into account the concept of personal feedback i.e. the communicator makes assessment of one’s self while communicating.

Channel Speaker-audience; direct channel

Transmission and broadcasting media

Mass media; direct channel; interpersonal communication

sensory system (taste, hearing, vision, smell, and touch)

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Human

Element /

Relevance

Impact on behavior and attitudes of the audience.

The model is mechanistic and lack human element. The model can hardly be generalized.

The model is humanistic as it considers the sender and receiver, their experience, and their knowledge background as essential factors in communication. The model is fairly generalizable.

The model can well be generalized in interpersonal communication.

The model can be generalized in groups and interpersonal communication

As far as the model advocates that communication is irreversible and unrepeatable, it can be applied to written and oral communication.

The model can serve as a tool of analyzing one’s competence and skill of communication at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and at organizational level.

Nonverbal Impact

The tone and charisma of the speaker is of great importance

Absent The non-verbal impact is dormant in the model. However, since the sender and receiver interact a lot in the model, there can be nonverbal impact as well.

As the channel of communication is sensory system, there can be non-verbal impact present in the model.

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Focus Focus is on effect of communication rather than the

The model is channel focused and message

The focus is on the feedback, experiences, and knowledge

The model is focused on characteristics of

The focus is on the relationship between

Continuity and dynamism of communication

The model focuses on the scope of communication

9

Lasswell (1948)

Shannon & Weaver (1949)

Shramm (1954)

Berlo (1960)

Dance (1967)

Barnlund (1970)

Kaye (1994)

meaning communicated

transmission focused

background of sender and receiver

communicators i.e. communication skills, attitude, knowledge, social system, culture

sender and receiver; past contents and structure of communication

at different levels; starting from self-assessment of the communicator

Complexity The model is very simple as it describes a simple speaker-audience relationship. It was developed in an era of political propaganda

The model is very simple and linear. It was developed for telephonic communication and radio broadcast

Complexity is intermediate as it takes into account the experience and knowledge background of communicators

Complexity is low as the model is fairly linear and systematic

The complexity of the model is higher as it is unsystematic and does not follow the pattern of a typical model

It can be regarded as the most complex model as it takes into account to the involvement of culture, language, knowledge, and the nature of relationship between the sender and the receiver

The complexity is higher as considers social, organizational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions of communicators

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Different Models of Communication

4. THE BEST COMMUNICATION MODEL

From the comparative analysis on the basis of various characteristics, it can be inferred that the

best communication model is the one proposed by Shramm (1954; Osgood & Shramm, 1961).

The following reasons make the model the best one:

The model presents a more realistic and practicable view of communication as compared

to others that portray rather abstract and theoretical picture of the same.

Shramm (1954) presented a very humanistic viewpoint of communication as opposed to

earlier theorists who were inclined to a more mechanistic perspective of communication.

Shramm (1954) also took into account the field of experience and knowledge

backgrounds of the sender and receiver. Moreover, the strength of relationship between

the communicators was also regarded to be very important for effective communication.

Shramm’s model was the first one to consider feedback as essential element in

communication. The model regarded it to be a two-way process as opposed to the

10

advocates of linear and static models of communication. Feedback is regarded as

essential for effective communication in Shramm’s communication model of Feedback

and model of Field of Experience.

The model presented by Shramm (1954) is simple and systematic. It has no such

complexities as present in the models of Dance (1967), Bernlund (1970), and Kaye

(1994).

Dr. Wilbur L. Shramm is regarded an authority in Communication theory. He possessed

the relevant knowledge of the field. On the other hand, the earlier theorists were mostly

from engineering background. This also makes his theories more reliable and relevant.

Shramm’s model accommodates the provision of nonverbal communication as well.

5. CONCLUSION

Communication theory has come a long way in its development. The roots of communication

theory can be traced back to Aristotle. The more recent theories were developed in twentieth

century. Pertinent communication models are Lasswell (1948); Shannon and Weaver (1949);

Shramm (1954); Gerbner (1956); Westley & MacLean (1957); Berlo (1960); Osgood and

Shramm (1961); Dance (1967); Barnlund (1970); and Kaye (1994).

The communication model that best describes the process and incorporates human element was

presented by Shramm (1954). Shramm’s model was the first one to consider feedback as

essential element in communication. The model regarded it to be a two-way process as opposed

to the advocates of linear and static models of communication. Feedback is regarded as essential

for effective communication in Shramm’s communication model of Feedback and model of Field

of Experience.

6. REFERENCES

Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A Transactional Model of Communication. In K. K. Sereno & C. D.

Mortensen (eds.), Foundations of communication theory. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 83–

102.

11

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,

Inc.

Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Routledge

Kaye, M. (1994). Communication Management. Sydney: Prentice Hall

Kaye, M. & Gilpin, A. (1998). Successful organizational Teams: Theory and Practice from an

Adult Communication Management Perspective. Journal of Communication Management, Vol.

2, No. 4, pp. 305-319

Lasswell, H. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In L. Bryson

(Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper.

Murphy, H. A., Hildebrandt, H. W., & Thomas, J. P. (1997). Effective Business Communication.

New York: McGraw Hill.

Ozuem, W. (2004). Conceptualizing Marketing Communication in the New Marketing

Paradigm: A Postmodern Perspective. Florida: Universal Publishers.

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Illinois:

University of Illinois Press.

Schramm, W. (1954). How Communication Works. In W. Schramm (Ed.). The Process and

Effects of Mass Communication. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Stead, B. A. (1972). Berlo's Communication Process Model as Applied to the Behavioral

Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, and McGregor. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15,

No. 3, pp. 389-394

Wells, A & Hakanen, E. (1997). Mass Media & Society (Ablex Communication, Culture &

Information Studies). Ablex Publishing Corporation.