MGMT20001 · Organisational Behaviour
Communication
The unit teaches communication through two contrasting lenses, and the contrast is the exam hinge. The functional view treats communication as the transmission of information: a sender encodes a message, sends it down a channel, the receiver decodes it, feedback closes the loop — with noise the enemy at every stage. Its value is diagnostic: find where understanding broke and fix it, choosing channel by media richness (rich for ambiguous/emotional, lean for routine). The meaning-centred view says communication does far more — it constitutes the organisation, building the shared meanings and metaphors through which members understand reality (Marshak 1993: the metaphor you choose for change frames what action seems possible). High-mark answers hold both lenses. The unit runs it on the Uber case (Kalanick → Khosrowshahi).
What this chapter covers
- 01The functional approach — the communication-process model
- 02Noise and where the pipeline breaks
- 03Channels & media richness; fit the channel to the message
- 04Barriers, communication direction (down/up/horizontal) & the grapevine
- 05The meaning-centred approach — communication constitutes the organisation
- 06Marshak (1993): metaphors of change frame possible action
- 07Functional vs meaning-centred — the exam hinge; the Uber case
Worked example: critique a channel, then switch lenses
- +1Functional — channel mismatch: a high-stakes, emotional apology needs the richest channel (face-to-face/all-hands), not a lean email broadcast.
- +1Functional — no feedback loop: broadcasting 'I'll do better' without a mechanism for staff voice means no confirmation it was understood or believed ('sent' ≠ 'understood').
- +1Meaning-centred — the metaphors are intact: if the firm's shared meanings (e.g. 'win at all costs') are untouched, the apology is decoded inside the very meaning-system that produced the behaviour.
- +1Recommend: a rich channel + credible messenger, and a deliberate swap of the metaphor (Marshak), backed by changed practices — not just polished words.
Key terms
- Functional approach
- Communication as transmission: sender → encode → channel → decode → receiver → feedback, with noise distorting it at every stage. Its strength is diagnostic — find where understanding failed and repair it.
- Media richness
- How much information a channel carries (feedback speed, cues, personal focus). Rich channels (face-to-face) suit ambiguous, emotional messages; lean channels (memo) suit clear, routine ones. Oral is not universally best — it depends on the message.
- Meaning-centred approach
- Communication constitutes the organisation: it creates the shared meanings, identity and culture through which members understand reality. The claim is ontological, not a soft-skills tip — changing the dominant metaphor changes what the organisation is.
- Marshak (1993) metaphors of change
- The metaphor a leader uses for change frames what action seems sensible: machine ('fix-and-maintain'), organism ('build-and-develop'), journey ('move/transition'), or reinvention ('liberate/re-create'). Same situation, different metaphor, different action.
- The grapevine
- The informal rumour network that fills any vacuum management leaves, running alongside the formal down/up/horizontal channels. In a crisis, silence upward and a busy grapevine are themselves diagnostic signals.
Communication FAQ
What is the functional-vs-meaning-centred contrast?
The functional view treats communication as transmitting information — diagnose where it broke and fix it. The meaning-centred view says communication constitutes the organisation, building the shared meanings and metaphors through which members understand reality. The contrast is the exam hinge, and high-mark answers hold both.
Is oral communication always the most effective channel?
No — that's a myth the unit overturns. Media-richness theory says it depends on the message: rich channels (face-to-face, video) suit ambiguous, emotional or high-stakes messages; lean channels (memo, bulletin) suit clear, routine ones. The error is firing someone by text or sending a sincere apology by lean broadcast.
What does Marshak (1993) add?
That the metaphor leaders use for change frames what action feels possible. Call change 'fix-and-maintain' (machine) and you reach for repairs; call it a 'journey' and you plan stages; call it 'reinvention' and you go radical. It's a meaning-centred idea — same situation, different metaphor, different action.
Why isn't meaning-centred just 'be a good communicator'?
Because the claim is ontological: communication constitutes the organisation. A leader changing the org's dominant metaphor is changing what the organisation is, not just polishing a message. Reducing it to a soft-skills tip misses the critical-OB point.
Exam move
The whole chapter turns on one hinge: be able to run the functional model to diagnose a breakdown and switch to the meaning-centred lens to read the shared meanings, then explain what each reveals that the other hides. Keep media richness ready (rich for ambiguous/emotional, lean for routine; 'sent' ≠ 'understood'), and memorise Marshak's metaphors of change. Rehearse the define → apply-with-evidence → recommend spine on Uber — critique Kalanick's apology, read the meanings, draft Khosrowshahi's message — because that's exactly how a comms case is marked.
