Organizations: тне himalayas of communication

It was just the day for Organizing Something, or for Writing а Notice

signed Rabbit… It was а Captainish sort of day, when everybody said

'Yes, Rabbit' and 'No, Rabbit' ond waited until he had told them

 

А. А. Milne, The House of Pooh Corner (1928)

 

Organizations are the end-results ofthis Rabbit-like faculty in human natureofOrganizing Something. То organize is to arrange systematicallyforа definite purpose. Doubtless Rabbit had something temporary in mind, like organizing а picnic. But organizing can and does produce the more permanent social structures we nowadays call organizations. А. А. Milne hints at two oftheir other characteristics besides permanence: hierarchy and formal communication. Let usconsider each in turn.

Hierarchy

Large human organizations are rarely created at а stroke ofthe pen. They tend to evolve organically fromworking groups or teams, which in turn come about through the leadership ofone or two people.

А team is an organization in microcosm. It is а whole made up ofinterdependent parts, each with its proper function, evolved to achieve а purpose that one person could not attain alone or unaided. The 'parts' in this case are other individuals.

In an organization, the 'parts' are themselves teams or workgroups. Often the transition from working group to larger organization is by а process ofrapid or slow organic growth. At some stage or another, Rabbits are employed to give the Something that has evolved some systematic arrangement or organization. The critical factor here is the identification or creation ofа hierarchy. 'It was а Captainish sort of day…'

Often organizers outto bring order into relative chaos do have some predetermined scheme in mind, such as the military system. But the military system merely reflects а more primitive or natural method ofsocial ordering in large groups, which can be expressed as а simple model:

Here А has overall leadership responsibility. Three team leaders report directly to В and С, who report in turn directly to А. All the elements of hierarchy are here. Wе have some rather cumbersome Latin-based words to describe where people come in the structure or order thus created:

 

Subordinates B and С are subordinate to A; all the others are subordinate to В and

С as well; and the team members in each of the six groups are

subordinate to their leaders, and all above.

 

Coordinates B and C are coordinate with each other, as are D, E, I, F and G.

Team members are also coordinates within teams.

 

Superordinates All the named leaders are superordinates. A being obviously the

ultimate superordinate.

 

Although hierarchy comes from the Greek word for а ruling body of priests organized into orders or ranks, each subor­dinate to the оnе above it, it sounds in English like higher archy, а system where some are higher and some are lower than others. This UP-DOWN metaphor is very strong. It gives us, for example, the idea of several horizontal levels of responsibility, each accompanied (еeventually if not immedi­ately) by rank and status.

Notice that hierarchy (or higherarchy) runs counter to tribal life where people are on the same level as their leader and there are nointerpositions of other levels. The tribal structure looks more like this:

 

 

In а Bedouin tribe, for example, the sheikh pitches his tent in the middle, and keeps аn ореn door to all-comers. Members of the tribe are essentially free and equal, although in larger tribes there were sub-groups of families or kin. Yet all have the right to take complaints or problems to the paramount sheikh for arbitration or solution.

Originally we were all tribal and the tribal tradition has been deeply influential. For example, it is the matrix of modern democracy. When then has the hierarchical organ­ization prevailed? Sheer size as tribes multiply into nations was оnе reason. The other reason was military necessity. Armed tribal hordes turned into disciplined armies only as and when they accepted the principle of hierarchy.

 

ORGANIZING ТНЕ PEOPLE One day, while the tribes of Israel were in the desert, Jethro saw his son-in-law Moses sitting alone with people standing aroundhim from morning till evening, counselling them and solving disputes. 'This is not the best way to do it' said Jethro. 'You will only wear yourself out and wear out all the people who are here. The task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it by youгself. Now listen to me…' Jethro told him that he must remain the people's representative before God and instruct them in the principles of how to behave and what to do. 'But you must yourself search for capable God-fearing menamong all the people, honest and incorruptible men,and appoint them over the people as officers over units of а thousand, of а hundred, of fifty or ten. They shall sit as a permanent court for the people; they must refer difficult cases to you but decide simple cases themselves. In this way your burden will be lightened, and they will share it with you. If you do this, God will give you strength, and you will be able to go on. And, moreover, this whole people will heгe and now regain реaсе and harmony.' Two strands have become confused in this story: the establishment of a court of justice and organization for military purposes.

 

It follows that nations like the Greeks and Romans, who were willing to subject themselves to the discipline of organizations, could conquer tribes or tribal federations in battle. The Roman Armyis still the copybook example or model of а very large organization.

 

Formal communication

Lyndall Р. Urwick concluded in Orgaпizatioп that this concept means: 'the arrangements for formal communi­cation in any purposive system of human co-operation in which unity ofaction cannot be secured by personal contact, custom or social sentiment'.

Now with а small group or team as а leader youcan communicate by informal personal contact. But organiz­ation implies that youcommunicate through formal chan­nels, such as а military chain of command. А corollary, is that if youwork in organizations youhave to respect these formal channels.

That doesn't mean to say that informal communication is totally absent from organizations - that is far from the case. There is plenty of information discussion, conversation and networking in most organizations. But they should be essentially supplementary. If informal communication dominates it is probably because the formal communi­cation system - the core of the organization - isn't working well.

The size and geographical spread always put а strain on an organiz­ation's power to communicate effectively. If rapid change is thrown into the equation the situation can be worse. For conditions of change call for better communication, whereas size, geographical spread and much of change itself is working against you.

То overcome the potential problems youneed a practical philosophy of communication which embraces the content of communication, the directions it must take, and your personal responsibility.

CONТENT

If youhave accepted the three-circles model or general theory of teams and organizations youhave а ready-made definition of what people need or want as far as communication is concerned. Let me briefly remind you of the model.

 

 

According to the theory, there are three areas of need present in working groups and organizations:

 

- to achieve the соmmоn task

- to be held together or to maintain themselves as cohesive unities

- the needs which individuals bring with thеm into the group

 

The main content of communication - information, ideas and knowledge, etc. - in your organization should tie in with these three overlapping areas. Here I am concentrating on communication Inside the Egg. Of course, members of any organization will be communicating Outside the Egg as well, to customers, clients, suppliers and the public in some shape or form. The internal communication needs are as follows:

 

CONTENT OF COMMUNICATION
AREA	NOTES
1. Purpose, aim and objectives	The core purpose, the key and the more tangible objectives are central in communication. Purpose answers Why.
2. Plans and policies	Planning answers the questions What, When, How, Where and Who.
3. Progress and prospects.	Progress motivates – prospects motivate even more, e.g. new products, other innovations and positive changes in the pipeline.
4. Changes in structure and development	Any organization changes or alterations in the organization’s development.
5. Ways to improve teamwork	Anything that results in better teamworking, so that the various parts work in an integrated, harmonious whole.
6. Ethos and values	The particular stars the organization steers by in the form of its corporate values; its spirit as opposed to its form
7. Pay and conditions	Anything that affects the remuneration, conditions of work, or personal prospects for employment of individuals.
8. Safety, health and welfare	Information that affects safety or security.
9. Education and training	Whatever may contribute to the personal development – present competence and future capability – of each individual member.

 

The above list is not exhaustive, but it covers the guts ofwhat people working in organizations both need to know and expect to know. People look out for а vision to inspire their work, а sense of belonging toan interdependent and high-performance team, and for information that improves their sense ofvalue as individuals in this large organization.

 

SHARE YOUR INFORMATION Poor leaders hold on to information as а source of power and control. Jan Carlson of Scandinavian Airlines says 'An individual without information cannottake responsibility. An individual with information cannot help but take responsibility.' Good leaders see the value in sharing information to improve decision making.

DIRECТIONS OR FLOWS

Communication is more than words: it is the imparting of meaning - voluntarily or involuntarily - and it flows.

The most obvious direction of flow is DOWNWARDS from the top to the bottom, or, if you prefer it, from the CENTRE to the PERIPHERY. Imagine а military command post, for example, where the general briefs his commanders, who in turn brief their captains. There are levels of leadership at work here: strategic, operational and teaт.

You see that there is а formal communication structure in place to transmit and translate the general's battle plan into action.

 

 

In the past, however, the above system has not been so good for UPWARD communication. What, you mау ask, does а соmmоn soldier have to say to а general anyway? The answer was not much. Better armies and navies did intro­duce constitutional systems for the upward transmission of grievances - never easy because your immediate superior was often the source of your grievance and had no interest in passing your complaints upwards! In Nelson's enlight­ened navy, for example, every sailor had the right to approach an admiral directly and make а verbal or written complaint or grievance.

What has changed out of all recognition is the nature of operations. Now everyone has the responsibility of passing upwards any relevant information about, for instance, product performance or quality, customer needs or the responses of competitors. Communication has become а two-way traffic.

The same competitive pressures have put а premium on teamwork. That in turn sorts out the organizations which have gone SIDEWAYS, or lateral communications from those who still have brick walls instead of chalk lines, dividing them like bulkheads into а series of watertight departments or businesses.