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
sharpen and expand upon past theories and create a broadened understanding of
3

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
command structure (p. 48). However, Sriramesh et al. (1996) noted that these two
4

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.
Organizational structure, resulting barriers, and message distortion
5

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
hypotheses are proposed.
H2: Organizational structure creates communication barriers, which causes message
6

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.
The apparent relationship between feminist characteristics, participative
organizational framework, and potential reduction in messaging barriers is one that
7

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.
Charismatic leadership can “inspire members to move beyond their own self-interests
partly through a vision that members find compelling” (Avolio & Bass, 1987; Bass,
8

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.
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
9

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.
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
10

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
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.
11

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.
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
12

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
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.
13

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

Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations

Similar to Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations (20)

Barriers to Effective Communication in Organizations