114 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION They’ll negotiate; they’re corporate. Johnny in Johnny Mnemonic This chapter looks at interpersonal and group communication, especially as they relate to professional settings. Interpersonal communication refers to one-on-one or small group interactions. Research generally suggests that this type of communication is influential in changing opinions, dealing with resistance and apathy to issues, and generally maintaining harmony in social situations – more so than its opposite, mass communication. The main features of interpersonal media are: 1. They provide a two-way exchange of information. Individual participants can obtain clarification, explanation and negotiation. This characteristic of interpersonal networks often allows them to overcome problems of message distortion caused by excessive noise (as described in chapter two). 2. They generally have a significant effect in persuading an individual to form or to change a strongly held attitude. 3. In many situations, they can help to resolve conflict because they provide a means to air personal feelings and deal with misunderstandings or grudges. Here we discuss interpersonal communication in business and management contexts, by focusing on cultural influence, team interaction, conflict, information management, and project management. 1. CULTURE Individuals interact in networks or groups which carry expectations, rules, norms and ideals. These regulative practices are based on assumptions about the order of things, values, ethical beliefs, and attitudes towards status and authority - all characteristics of the misleadingly transparent concept ‘culture’. Meanings about the world and its objects are constructed in social interactions within or between cultural groups and then serve to identify the group both socially and globally. So what is culture? For the purpose of this discussion, I define it as: a system of activities and discourses, which have been codified and crystallized by usage, and which reflect the conventional practices of a group. All collectivities develop a culture over time – a nation has a culture, as do an organization, a fan club and a gang. Complex societies have a diversity of cultures, including those of minority groups, such as ethnic cultures, gay culture, etc. The more complicated a culture becomes, the greater the chance that groups will break apart to form sub-cultures, which may be alternative (different from the mainstream, but not challenging it), or oppositional (different from the mainstream and attempting to change it in their light) (Williams 1980; de Certeau 2002). As regards the culture of business or government organisations, this is manifest in such factors as the organisation’s objectives and ‘mission’, hierarchy (allocation of roles in115 order of seniority), internal and external patterns of negotiation, and conflict management. The organisation’s public image is also significant in making cultural values apparent and known to others. This is achieved through various community-oriented projects and ecological initiatives, encompassed under the umbrella term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Researchers in business communication have offered several models and taxonomies of features that help to define the culture of an organisation. Robbins and Barnwell (2002), for example, distinguish the following as key elements in analysing business culture: 1. Individual initiative: how much and what kind of responsibility, freedom and independence do individuals have? 2. Risk tolerance: are employees encouraged to take initiatives and engage in risk-taking behaviour? 3. Direction: are the organisation’s objectives and performance expectations clearly communicated and implemented? 4. Integration: is it easy for groups within the organisation to operate in a coordinated manner and are they motivated to do so? 5. Management contact: are managers accessible, supportive and helpful to their subordinates? 6. Control: to what degree and what kind of rules and supervision regulations does the organisation employ to oversee employee performance? 7. Identity: does the organisation encourage employees to identify with the company and the company’s public image? 8. Reward system: how and to what degree are employees rewarded for their performance (i.e. through promotion, salary increases, bonus schemes, etc). 9. Conflict tolerance: is there a mechanism and/or procedure that allows employees to communicate conflicts and criticisms? 10. Communication patterns: are communication channels restricted to the formal hierarchy of command, or are they diverse (i.e. do junior employees have easy access to senior managers; can members of one section cooperate with members of another)? Answers to these questions would come from surveys of company employees, an examination of formal company procedures, and case studies involving particular situations where action and decision making reflect the company’s structure and value system, i.e. its culture. Two influential models in the analysis of organisational culture that we will consider here in some more detail are Geert Hofstede’s (2001) practice dimensions, and House’s (1998; House et al. 2004) GLOBE model. Hofstede’s work spans approximately a 20 year-period (from around late 1960s to late 1980s), and is based on two surveys, one conducted of 116,000 IBM employees scattered over 72 countries, and another conducted of 1150 male and 1150 female students from 23116 countries. From this research, Hofstede distinguished five practice dimensions which he used to classify cultures. These are: 1. Power distance: the different attitudes to inequality between people. High-power distance cultures tend to value the following elements: hierarchy, fixed roles, authoritarian decision-making styles, and conformity. In addition, in such cultures subordinates are not often consulted in decision-making, and, in situations that involve negotiation, individuals tend to prefer to work with high-status negotiators rather than lower-level representatives (exemplified by the ‘I want to talk to your manager’ symptom). Low-power distance cultures, on the other hand, tend to value these elements: low hierarchical structure, independence, individual initiative, freedom (which could manifest in anything from the ability to voice dissent to being allowed to dress eccentrically), and