Chapter 9: Communicating Between & Among Internal Stakeholders

Learning Objectives

• Differentiate between upward, downward, and lateral communication formal communication.
• Explain the role of informal communication within organizations.
• Analyze informal and formal communication patterns to understand problems with each structure and potential solutions.
• Define terms associated with network analysis and understand how to apply them to the study of organizational communication networks to better understand culture and critical approaches.

Introduction

Since the 1950s, researchers have been very interested in how information is passed around the various levels of an organization’s hierarchy. This passage of information is known as an organization's “communication structure,” and there are three dominant perspectives: channels, perceived networks, and observable networks (Papa, Daniels, & Spiker, 2008). In essence, the channels perspective focuses on how the message moves along the channels of communication and not on the relationship between the sender and the receiver. Under this perspective, the receiver becomes a passive individual in the communication process.

In the network perspective, researchers interview organizational members and ask them who they talk to and how information passes to co-workers. Some feel this gives insights into perceived networks of communication, where employees discuss WHO they SHOULD be reporting and communicating to, rather than how they actually communication during specific situations. In other words, people often believe that they utilize specific channels of communication within the organization, whereas in reality, they are communicating in a completely different way. Observable networks is the concept of watching communication in action. While actually watching how communication occurs within an organization provides the most accurate information, the research process is very time consuming. How would you see talk outside of work, or in inaccessible areas (like bathrooms)? You cannot get all the necessary information in a short period of time, and the information you do get can be missing key perspectives.

Despite the challenges, much work has been done to understand communication in the workplace. Researchers recognize the different role different types of communication make in an organization and thus, separate out two key forms of communication: formal and informal networks.

Formal Communication Networks

The word “formal” describes adherence to a set of conventional requirements of behavior. Formal communication then consists of the rules and norms established by an organization for communicative behavior. A communication rule is a standard or directive governing how communication occurs within an organization.

Communication rules are explicitly stated and may be found in your organization’s policies and procedures manual. For example, maybe your organization has very strict policies established for what happens in case of an emergency. For example, hospitals often have very explicit communication rules if someone is accidentally stuck by a needle. First, the individual must immediately go to the emergency room for testing and the initiation of preventative pharmaceutical measures. Second, the head of the hospital’s risk management office must be contacted. The risk management head would then investigate the matter and submit a formal report of all accidents to the CEO of the hospital on a monthly basis. These steps were not perceived as optional at all and were clearly written in the employee handbook. 

Communication norms, on the other hand, are standards or patterns of communication regarded as typical. Where communication rules are explicitly discussed within an organization, communication norms are only learned through active observation of communicative behavior within the organization. In fact, one of the most common ways to learn a communicative norm in an organization is to accidentally violate the norm. For example, in the previous example, a communication norm may exist where the head of risk management emailed the CEO when incidents occurred to keep them in the know, then expanded upon things in the monthly report. When the head of risk management unexpectedly took a two-month leave of absence, the act of per incident briefings was unknown to the co-worker handling needle accidents, so they only followed the formal communication rules. Thus, they only submitted the monthly report. This created tension with the CEO who became angry when they received the monthly report because they felt they were not being kept up-to-date on incidents. Formal communication rules were followed (monthly reports), but what had become a formal communication norm (emails for every incident) was not.

Obviously, understanding how formal communication functions within an organization is very important, which is why a considerable amount of the early research on organizational communication examined formal communication. To help us further understand formal communication in the organization, we’re going to look at it by examining the three directions communication happens within an organization: downward, upward, horizontal/lateral.

Downward Communication

Downward communication consists of messages that start at the top of the hierarchy and are transmitted down the hierarchy to the lowest rungs of the hierarchy. Downward communication can be considered a top-to-bottom approach for organizational communication. The earliest thinker in the area of downward communication was Max Weber (1930). Weber believed that there were two ways to get employees to follow one’s directives: power and authority. Weber defined power as the ability to force people to obey regardless of their resistance, whereas authority occurs when orders are voluntarily obeyed by those receiving them. Weber argued that individuals in authority-based organizations were more likely to perceive directives as legitimate. While this process sounds simplistic, individuals in management positions have often had to determine how to communicate with employees. In today’s organizations, there are several purposes for downward communication.

Types of Downward Communication

Katz and Kahn’s typology breaks downward communication into five distinct types: job instructions, job rationales, procedures and practices, feedback, and indoctrination.

Job Instructions

The first type of message that management commonly communicates to employees are job instructions, or how management wants an employee to perform their job. Often this type of downward communication occurs through training. Depending on the difficulty of the job, communicating to an employee how to perform their job could take days, months, or years. Some organizations will even send employees outside of the organization for more specialized training.

Job Rationales

The second type are job rationales. A job rationale is a basic statement of the purpose of a specific job and how that job relates to the overarching goal of the organization. Every job should help the organization achieve its goals, so understanding how one’s position fits into the larger scheme of the organization is very important. Furthermore, the job rationale will also illustrate how a single job relates to other jobs within the organizational hierarchy.

Procedures and Practices

The third type are procedures and practices. Procedures and practices typically come in the form of an employee manual or handbook. Procedures are sequences of steps to be followed in a given situation. For example, in an organization, there may be procedures in place for reporting sexual harassment or procedures for hiring new members. Practices, on the other hand, are behaviors people should do habitually. For example, maybe you are required to punch in and out using a time-clock or you are not allowed to wear open toed shoes. There are procedures and practices related to policies (courses of action taken in the organization), rules (standards or directives governing behavior), and benefits (payment and entitlements one receives with the job).

Feedback

The fourth type of message is feedback. Providing feedback to employees is a very important feature of any supervisory position (Redding, 1972). Employees can only grow and become more proficient with their jobs if they are receiving feedback. This feedback needs to contain both positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback occurs when a supervisor explains to an employee what they are doing well, whereas negative feedback occurs when a supervisor explains areas that need improvement. Feedback should not only occur in formal review sessions often referred to as “summative feedback.” Instead, supervisors should utilize formative feedback, or periodic feedback designed to help an employee grow and develop within the organization.

Employee Indoctrination

The last type of downward communication is employee indoctrination. Indoctrination is the process of instilling an employee with a partisan or ideological point of view. Specifically, organizations use indoctrination messages in order to help new members adopt ideological stances related to the organization’s culture and goals. The ultimate goal of organizational indoctrination is organizational identification, or “the extent to which that person’s self-concept includes the same characteristics he or she perceives to be distinctive, central, and enduring to the organization” (Beyer. Hannah, & Milton, 2000, p. 333).

Takeaways from Downward Communication

Katz and Kahn’s (1966) typology of downward communication is very useful to remember when examining how communication in an organization is conducted. Often, managers may be competent at one or two of the types of downward communication but not as competent in the other three. When this is the case, managers need training in how to become effective downward communicators. Furthermore, managers must also think of the most appropriate communication channels to use when sending downward messages: staff meetings, one-on-one meetings, internal newsletters, employee information sheets, bulletin boards, employee handbooks, and e-mail – all these shape how messages are received. For example, you probably don’t want to chastise an employee’s tardiness in a company newsletter, on a bulletin board, or during a staff meeting, however this form of downward communication could be appropriately sent during a one-on-one meeting, through employee information sheets, or in an e-mail. Ultimately, managers must be competent in how they communicate down the hierarchy to their employees. In addition, managers need to ensure the information they are sharing is accurate and appropriately sized.

Randy Hirokawa (1979) noted that there are two primary problems associated with downward communication: accuracy and adequacy. Accuracy of information refers to how truthful a message is that has been received. Rumors often emerge in organizations. If managers spread those rumors, their credibility will be negatively impacted. Sometimes, the information is inaccurate because it has become distorted during the communication train, or as W. Charles Redding (1966) called it, serial transmission. As we know from playing the telephone game in school, when A communicates to B and B communicates to C and C communicates to D, the chances of the message becoming distorted with each passing person becomes more likely. Even in the case of serial transmission of information (A→ B → C → D) managers who are caught communicating inaccurate information can expect to have employees question their credibility.

A second problem associated with downward communication refers to the adequacy of the information being communicated. Adequacy of information refers to whether the information being communicated is sufficient to satisfy a requirement or need for information in the workplace. For example, communication underload is when workers are not given enough information to complete their jobs. This might be inadequate on-the-job training, limited feedback, or insufficient information on policies and procedures. Often communication underload is accidental, however, supervisors could also be controlling information in an attempt to secure their power base in the organization. Individuals often see information as power, sharing would thus be a loss of power (Huseman, Lahiff, & Wells, 1974). On the flip side is communication overload. Here supervisors fail to function as gatekeepers and pass on only relevant and useful information. Instead, they pass on so much information that employees become overwhelmed and spend much of their workday sifting through the information, which decreases their overall productivity (Anderson & Level, 1980).

To avoid these problems with downward communication, supervisors should:

1. Ensure all transmitted information is accurate and make sure the information being shared is both adequate and useful. Filter out any information that is not necessary for your employees personal or professional lives, and ask employees if they feel they are getting enough information, after all, they are the ones who will know!
2. Send important messages from as high up in the hierarchy as possible to increase their weight and be transmitted as directly as possible to employees
3. Choose the most efficient medium for the message to avoid distortion
4. Mindfully pick the communication medium – how will receiving the message via each medium, impact the tone of the message, and the way it’s received.
5. Check for understanding – remember, the message received, not the one sent, is the one that a receiver will act upon (Redding, 1972) It is always a good idea to follow up with the receiver and ensure they received and interpreted the message in a manner consistent with the sender’s original intent.

Upward Communication

Upward communication consists of messages that start at the bottom of the hierarchy and are transmitted upward. This can be considered a bottom-up approach to organizational communication. Randy Hirokawa (1979) noted that upward communication serves four very important functions in the modern organization. First, upward communication allows management to determine the success of previously relayed downward communication.

Second, it allows individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy to have a voice in policies and procedures. Third, upward communication allows semployees to voice suggestions and opinions to make the working environment better. As Elton Mayo (1933) discovered during the employee interview program as part of the Hawthorne Works Studies, employees have a lot to say about their working conditions and how to make the organization more efficient.

Furthermore, simply asking employees for their suggestions and opinions was found to increase job satisfaction. Lastly, upward communication allows management to test how employees will react to new policies and procedures. Often before radical changes are made to an organization, management will try to use focus groups of employees to gage their reactions to impending changes. These reactions can then be used in the framing of the communicative messages about the impending changes to the entire organization.

Types of Upward Communication

Katz and Kahn’s (1966) typology breaks upward communication into four distinct types: information about the subordinate themself, information about coworkers and their problems, information about organizational policies and procedures, and information about the task at hand. Dennis Tourish and Paul Robson (2006) argue that a fifth form of upward communication needs to be included in this list: critical upward communication.

Information about the Employee

The first form of upward communication involves information about the employee. Information that can be communicated upwardly about oneself typically falls into one of two categories: personal information and professional information. Personal information is more intimate in nature. For example, you can talk to your supervisor about your friends and families, hobbies, psychological/medical problems, etc. This information helps employees establish a more understanding relationship with their supervisors. Professional information involves issues related to job performance or problems related to work. For example, maybe you’re having a great quarter and want to communicate this to your supervisor. On the other hand, maybe you’re really having problem with one specific facet of your job, and you need help or more time. Perhaps you’re supposed to write a report, but the report keeps getting pushed further and further down your priority list as new projects come your way.

Information about Coworkers and their Problems

The second form of upward communication discussed by Katz and Kahn (1966) involves information about coworkers and their problems. Managers have their own workloads that must be taken care of in addition to their managerial duties. For this reason, managers are often simply unaware of what is going on with their employees. In order to combat this lack of clarity, managers often rely on employees to report problems. This relates to concertive control seen in the critical approach to organizations. Employees provide peer control and oversight and alert managers to issues or triumphs, allowing managers to engage in discipline or rewards. Sometimes, this can be helpful. Imagine if a co-worker consistently came to work intoxicated. Peer workers are more likely to notice this before managers.

Management could then step in to support the worker or if needed, terminate their employment. This could also be a situation where a worker needs more support to effectively do their job. If management is unaware of this situation, they can’t provide addition training or hire more support staff.

Organizational Procedures and Practices

The third form of upward communication involves information about organizational procedures and practices. As previously discussed in this chapter, procedures are sequence of steps to be followed in a given situation, whereas practices are behaviors people should do habitually. Within any organization there are procedures and practices related to policies (courses of action taken in the organization), rules (standards or directives governing behavior), and benefits (payment and entitlements one receives with the job). Upward communication about procedures and practices can help management see where policies, rules, and benefits can be more influential or stream lined. Often, management creates procedures and practices for how things ought to be accomplished without ever having to implement the procedure or practice themselves. The only way management can know if the procedures and practices are causing unneeded stress or loss of resources is if the people who must enact those procedures and practices explain the problem.

Task at Hand

The last form of upward communication discussed by Katz and Kahn (1966) involves information about the task at hand. This last form of upward communication is specifically directed to communicate information to management that helps an individual complete their job. Types of messages that could fall into this category include asking for more information, asking to have a task clarified, asking for additional resources to complete the task, keeping a supervisor informed of a timetable for completion, explaining the status of a project, etc. While communicating information about oneself is probably most important during the initial stages of relationship development with one’s supervisor, communicating information about tasks to one’s supervisor is the most common form of upward communication.

Critical Upward Communication

In addition to the four forms of upward communication discussed already, Tourish and Robson (2006) argue that a 5th form of upward communication needs to be included in this list: critical upward communication. Critical upward communication is “feedback that is critical of organizational goals and management behavior” (Tourish, & Robson, 2006, p. 711). Critical upward communication has been discussed under many different terms, “employee voice, issue selling, whistle-blowing, championing, dissent and boat rocking” (Tourish, & Robson, 2006, p. 712). Everyday individuals in organizations around the world make decisions about whether to communicate critically about organizational goals and management behavior.

Organizational Dissent

Jeffrey Kassing (1997) proposed a model for what he coined “organizational dissent” as having two basic processes: (1) individual employee feels apart from their organization, and (2) the employee expresses disagreement about some aspect of their organization’s philosophy or behavior. The second of these processes is similar to the notion of critical upward communication. In the organizational realm, employees must carefully decide whether expressing disagreement is worth the possible ramifications of disagreeing. Kassing (2011) argued that there are three primary types of organizational dissent: articulated/upward, latent/lateral, and displaced. 

Articulated/upward dissent “involves expressing dissent within organizations to audiences that can effectively influence organizational adjustment and occurs when employees believe they will be perceived as constructive and that their dissent will not lead to retaliation” (Kassing, 1998, pp. 191-192).  Kassing (2002; 2005) further noted that there are five different types of articulated dissent strategies employees can employ:

1. Direct-factual appeal: when employees bring forth facts from their own work experience or company policy/practice manuals to express disagreement about decisions/processes.
2. Solution presentation: when an employee offers a solution to a workplace problem while raising concerns about the problem itself.
3. Repetition: when an employee keeps raising the same issue over and over again over a period of time. The idea behind repetition is that if the problem is brought up over and over again, the supervisor may be more inclined to eventually do something about the problem.
4. Circumvention: When a worker goes around their immediate supervisor to someone higher up the hierarchy in an attempt to get some kind of action taken. For example, reporting that your supervisor is engaging in sexual harassment.
5. Threatening resignation: This dissent strategy is fairly simple: do what I want or I quit. Of course, this dissent strategy is only effective if the person dissenting is actually ready to resign. Never use threatening resignation as a bluffing tactic because your supervisor may just decide to call your bluff.

The second type of organizational dissent, latent/lateral dissent, consists of communicative behaviors “that involves complaining to coworkers and voicing criticism openly within organizations” (Kassing, 1998, p. 211). This form of organizational dissent is actually a form of horizontal or lateral organizational communication, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

The final type of dissent is referred to as displaced dissent. This occurs when an employee feels that dissent in the workplace could be harmful, so they express dissent to friends and family members. Ultimately, whether an individual decides to express dissent within the organization (upward or lateral) depends on how they view the risks of doing so. If someone fears retaliation, bullying, or ostracism because of dissent, they will be less likely to engage in dissent within the workplace (Waldron & Kassing, 2011).

Takeaways from Upward Communication

Researchers found that 85 percent of individuals had on at least one occasion “felt unable to raise an issue or concern to their bosses even though they felt that the issue was important” (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003, p. 1459).  In essence, employees purposefully do not communicate information to their supervisors, which ultimately distorts the overall picture a supervisor has of what is going on in the workplace. This showcases one of the two main problems associated with upward communication: distortion and filtering (Hirokawa, 1979).

Distortion, often occurs due to trust, influence or mobility (Robers & O’Reilly, 1974). Employees may not trust their supervisors and thus avoid telling them anything other than absolutely necessary information. Employees who perceive a supervisor as having a great influence on their futures could react in two totally different ways. Some employees will be very open with communication in an effort to build a stronger relationship with their supervisor, whereas other employees will actually go along with whatever a supervisor wants even if the employee thinks it’s a bad idea. Either way, you end up with upward distortion. Finally, an individual’s desire to move up within the hierarchy can lead to distortion in the hopes of maintaining a positive image within the company.

From an employee’s perspective, is upward distortion ever an ethical communicative practice? Often supervisors will want information from a employee that could harm the employee or their coworkers, so determining whether one should distort information or not can be a hard thing to decide. For example, what if your supervisor asks you about one of your coworker’s recent performance and your coworker’s performance was subpar? Do you tell your supervisor the truth knowing that the coworker could be reprimanded or fired, or do you distort the facts in an effort to “save” your coworker? People in organizations often distort information to help themselves or their peers, but is it ever ethical?

On the other hand, what if your supervisor asked you about their own performance, which has been problematic; do you tell them the truth? Obviously, saying that communication distortion is always unethical would be easy to say, but is that really the case? Can communication distortion be ethical?

The second problem Hirokawa (1979) noted with upward communication relates to filtering. Organizations today often suffer from what they termed info-glut or data smog, which is to say that organizations have a problem with communication overload (Edmunds & Morris, 2000). Just as we discussed earlier in this chapter that downward communication can lead to communication overload, so can receiving too much information from one’s employees. Ultimately, there is a fine line between the necessity of ensuring honest upward communication and receiving too much upward communication. Supervisors must learn how to filter out information from all directions that isn’t necessary, but this is a skill that takes time and energy to learn. At the same time, employees also need to learn what information is necessary for their supervisors to have and what information is not necessary.

To avoid these problems with upward communication, supervisors should:

1. Establish trust: When employees trust their supervisors they are more likely to engage in two-way communication that is honest and productive.
2. Use Multiple Mediums: Supervisors should use a variety of strategies for increasing upward communication: routine discussion meetings, supervisor’s appraisals of individual employees, manager’s appraisals of individual supervisors, attitude surveys, employee suggestion programs, grievance procedures, open-door policies, and exit interviews
3. Show Utility: clearly show that employee input is taken seriously. Too often people become discouraged when their feedback is never acknowledge. Establish a method for responding to all ideas. For example, if you have an employee suggestion program, you may also want to implement a response to employee suggestions section in the organization newsletter showing what is being done and what cannot be done. When employee suggestions cannot be implemented for legitimate reasons, simply explaining why the suggestions cannot be done is the best way to make employees feel that their ideas were taken seriously.
4. Decrease Barriers: Management should establish trusting relationships with employees by having consistent face-to-face interactions. During this time, managers should be prepared to receive honest feedback, ask about potential problems, find out what employees are doing, encourage conversations about non-work topics, and refrain from critiquing. The goal is to help employees open up. If managers begin critiquing, people will start to dread seeing the manager in their workspace and will be more likely to engage in upward distortion.

Horizontal/Lateral Communication

Horizontal or lateral communication consists of messages that are transmitted to other individuals on the same rung of the organizational hierarchy. In essence, horizontal or lateral communication occurs when individuals who have roughly the same status interact with one another in an organization. Occasionally, these lines of communication are firmly established within the organizational hierarchy chart, but typically these lines of communication are not part of the traditional hierarchical chart.

According to Randy Hirokawa (1979) there are four functions to horizontal communication: task coordination, problem solving, sharing of information, and conflict resolution.

• Task coordination: The function of horizontal/lateral communication is to help organizational members coordinate tasks to help the system achieve its goals. Often people in different departments are completely unaware of how their department impacts another department’s ability to function. When different departments are brought together and shown how each department helps the organization strive for its goals, departments are able to ascertain how they can actually help each other more effectively.
• Problem solving: The basic process of “brain storming” is always more effective when you have numerous departments thinking about how to solve specific problems. For example, if your entire organization is having problems with recycling, it wouldn’t be beneficial if only members from one department got together to talk about the problem. When there are system-wide problems facing an organization, the organization needs system wide solutions.
• Sharing of Information: There are numerous reasons why individuals may be reluctant to share information, but when people hoard information the overall organization suffers.
• Conflict Resolution: When individuals are in conflict with each other, the easiest way to solve the conflict is through direct interaction. Often simple conflicts are a result of misunderstandings that can become exacerbated if not handled quickly and efficiently. As always, the more direct the path of communication is the more likely the message will remain uncorrupted.

Takeaways from Lateral Communication

As with both vertical types of communication, horizontal/lateral communication is not without its own share of problems. In fact, Valerie McClelland and Richard Wilmot (1990) reported “more than 60% of employees in a variety of organizations say that lateral communication is ineffective. More specifically, about 45% say communication between peers within departments is inadequate, and 70% claim that communication between departments must improve” (McClelland & Wimot, 1990, p. 32). There are four basic issues that negatively effect on horizontal/lateral communication within an organization: lack of rewards, competition, intra-organizational conflicts, and lack of lateral understanding.

1. No Reward Structure: Classical theories of organizational communication didn’t even recognize horizontal/lateral communication as an important function yet alone something that should be openly encouraged (Hirokawa, 1979). People who work in organizations are often given numerous tasks, and behaviors that are not rewarded by the organization are simply ignored and seen as nonessential. For this reason, many organizations have a serious lack in both quantity and quality of horizontal/lateral communication.
2. Inter-Departmental Competition: Hirokawa (1979) and McClelland & Wilmot (1990) noted that many organizations purposefully pit different departments against each other. When departments are forced to compete with each other, there should be no surprise that hoarding information becomes a common phenomenon. Hirokawa (1981) noted that this desire for interdepartmental competition is a uniquely American concept. In his analysis comparing American versus Japanese organizations, this sense of competition often “causes [organizational members] to hoard information, rather than sharing it with their collegues [sic] (Hirokawa, 1981, p. 90). Japanese organizations, on the other hand, foster a sense of collaboration, which actually leads to an increase in both the quality and quantity of horizontal/lateral communication.
3. Inadequate Lateral Understanding: Lateral understanding is the degree to which individuals within an organization understand the purpose and functions of what individuals do in various departments throughout the organization. Employees often struggle trying to figure out who does what in an organization when a problem arises. This leads to a waste of time, work overlapping, and poor decision making. First, People ultimately waste a lot of time attempting to determine who they should be contacting in the first place. Second, you may end up with two employees in two departments basically performing the exact same task without realizing that someone else is completing the task. Lastly, managers will often make decisions that negatively impact other departments without even knowing this has occurred.

In an attempt to help organizations communicative more effectively, McClelland and Wilmot (1990) devised a series of seven best practices that organizations should adopt to improve horizontal/lateral communication:

1. Develop lateral understanding: When people don’t understand what other parts of the organization are doing, you end up with people wasting time and resources, duplicating work, and/or making decisions that negatively impact other departments. Only when people start learning about the opportunities, challenges, goals, and structures of other departments can they see how to improve horizontal/lateral communication.
2. Flexible chain of command: When organizational members are forced to adhere to rigid lines of communication, the likelihood of productive horizontal/lateral communication is decreased. Only when top administrators realize that Fayol’s scalar chain isn’t effective will they stop feeling the need to micromanage information flow at all levels of the organization.
3. Share clear and consistent direction: When all of the supervisors are on the same page, the chance of mixed or conflicting messages is greatly reduced. Furthermore, when all employees receive the message simultaneously, supervisors prevent the appearance of favoring one department over another.
4. Set the example: When people on the lower rungs of the hierarchy witness effective horizontal/lateral communication among those individuals above them in the hierarchy, they are more likely to participate in horizontal/lateral communication as well.
5. Institute lateral teams & ensure accountability to departments and organization: The establishment of teams that include individuals from various departments, who have the individual autonomy to make decisions, can help initiate contact and understanding between various members of the organization (McClelland & Wilmot, 1990). When teams are allowed to participate in the decision-making process and follow through with those decisions, team members end up taking a considerable amount of ownership of their decisions.
6. Make training available in effective horizontal/lateral communication, decision-making, and teamwork: For many individuals, the thought of actually interacting with individuals in other departments is a completely new concept, so training becomes very important.
7. Develop dialogue between shifts and locations: Increasing communication between members of different shifts is extremely important because it allows people to get a greater grasp of what is occurring and what needs to be accomplished during their shift. In addition, in today’s global environment, many people interact across time zones and countries with co-workers and stakeholderrs. These multinational corporations have additional criteria to improve horizontal/laternal communication strategies (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002):
8. Conducting a linguistic audit (helps the organization know where potential language problems are)
9. Making specific comprehension proficiency a priority (often the ability to understand a language is more important in business than being able to speak or write in that language)
10. Encouraging staff to understand and negotiate Global Englishes (English may be the general language of modern business, but there are multiple variations people should be aware of)
11. Include native English speakers in communication training (native English speakers need to be trained to limit their vocabularies and grammatical structures, speak slowly and clearly
12. Avoid cultural idioms when interacting with non-native English speakers) and making language and communication a corporate level function (letting individual subsidiaries decide language and communication training can backfire, so they should be seen as part of the corporate level).

In this section we have examined the world of formal communication networks in organizations. Specifically, we have examined the roles, problems, and best practices for downward, upward, and horizontal/lateral communication. In the next section, we are going to shift our attention to informal communication networks.

Informal Communication Networks

While formal communication networks are very important for the day-to-day functioning of any organization, informal communication networks, or communication networks that do not exist within the structure of the organizational hierarchy, also greatly impact organizations. Often informal communication networks have been referred to as “grapevine communication” or “water cooler communication.”

The term “grapevine” was originally coined during the Civil War because the telegraph lines used by Army intelligence were strung through trees and the wires often resembled grapevines. According to Mishra (1990), “The messages that came over these lines were often so confusing or inaccurate that soon any rumor was said to come from the grapevine” (p. 214).  Today organizational grapevines are a standard part of anyone’s organizational life. In fact, researchers estimate that 70 percent of all communication that occurs within an organization occurs in informal communication networks (DeMare, 1989).

In essence, the bulk of actual communicative behavior within an organization does not go according to the prescribed lines of communication desired by upper management. Furthermore, researchers found that many managers were surprisingly unaware of the informal communication networks that existed within their organizations (Crampton, Hodge, & Mishra, 1998). Only 70 percent of top-level managers, 81 percent of middle level managers, and 92 percent of lower-level managers were even aware that a grapevine existed within their organizations. We should also note that research has found that informal communication networks are just as likely to exist among management as among workers. In fact, “Bosses who chose not to pay attention to the grapevine have 50% less credible information than those who do” (Mishra, 1990, p. 215). There are eight reasons why grapevine communication exists in organizations:

• Grapevines are faster than formal communication networks and can easily bypass individuals without restraint.
• Grapevines carry useful information quickly throughout an organization.
• Grapevines supplement information being disseminated through formal communication networks.
• Grapevines provide outlets for individual’s imaginations and apprehensions.
• Grapevines satisfy individuals’ need to know what is actually going on within an organization.
• Grapevines help people feel a sense of belonging within the organization.
• Grapevines serve as early warning systems for organizational crises and to think through what they will do if the crises actually occur.
• Grapevines help to build teamwork, motivate people, and create corporate identity. (Mishra, 1990, p. 215).

While grapevines are clearly beneficial to organizations and their members, there are obvious problems with informal communication networks. The biggest problem stems out of the unreliability of information being transmitted in informal communication networks. Information transmitted through informal communication networks tends to be 75 to 95 percent accurate (Davis, 1969).  Unfortunately, the 5 to 25 percent of the time the informal communication network contains false information is highly problematic for organizations.

Types of Informal Communication Networks

Keith Davis (1969) found four basic types of informal communication networks: single strand, gossip, probability, and cluster. Message flow can be either strategic and planned, or informal and impromptu. The more strategic, the easier to trace who has received which messages.

Analyzing Communication Networks

Understanding the types of messages and informal networks can assist communication researchers and organizational stakeholders in understanding culture, processes, and workflows. Communication networks can range in size from interpersonal interactions to global networks (Harris & Nelson, 2008) making it important to have an idea of what you are looking for and why, before studying informal and formal networks.

When attempting to study communication networks within organizations, researchers often complete what is called a network analysis. In essence, network analysis is a process whereby researchers attempt to determine both the formal and informal communication networks that exist within an organization and between the organization and its external environment. Ultimately, there are four types of communicative activities that occur within networks: exchange of affect (liking, friendship), exchange of influence and power, exchange of information, and exchange of goods and services (Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979).

In recent years, there has been a resurgence in the analysis of organizational communication networks as a result of sociological construct social capital. Coleman (1988)  defined “social capital” as “a variety of entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain action of actors—whether persons or corporate actors —within the structure” (p. S98).  In essence, social capital as a concept is innately about the creation and utilization of communication networks to obtain specific goals. Social networking websites are often designed to help people organize their social networks in a much faster way. Business oriented social networking sites (SNSs) like LinkedIn help people gain and manage their social networks, and thus their social capital, more efficiently. Understanding the three categories created by Daniel J. Brass (1995) for analyzing communication networks: measurement of ties, measures assigned to individual actors, and measures assigned to networks is a great starting place for understanding informal/formal communication patterns in organizations and the social capital created by those networks.

Measurement of Ties

The first category involves the typical communication network measures of ties. The word “ties” here refers to the linkages between people. When we talk about “links” in network analysis we are talking about the communicative relationship between two people. Specifically, Brass notes that there are seven commonly utilized measures of ties: indirect links, frequency, stability, multiplexity, strength, direction, and symmetry.

Indirect Links

If we reexamine Davis’ (1969) models of informal communication networks, the last two (probability and cluster) contain indirect links. In the case of probability communication networks, we see A only communicating with E and C, and all of the people in the network receive the message from someone else. While A does not communicate with D directly, there is an indirect link that goes from D → I → E → A. The same is also true in the cluster sample where A only communicates to B and F, but everyone else in the network then receives the message from B or F.

Frequency

The second measure of ties examines the existence of the frequency of communication between individuals within a network, which is a numerical indicator of the quantity of communication that exists between two individuals. In most organizations, there are some people you communicate with multiple times a day and others you see only once a year.

Stability

When researchers examine the stability of communication networks, they are interested in how long a specific link has existed. Some links may exist for decades, while other may exist for only a few hours. For example, maybe you have colleagues around the country that you are constantly in contact with, but then you have other colleagues you only meet for a few minutes one time in a meeting. While you may have established a link with the person in the meeting, this link was quick and not considered stable.

Multiplexity

The concept of multiplexity refers to the number of links individuals have to one another. In essence, people within an organization can have multiple links to each other as a result of different relationships both within the organization and within the environment. For example, maybe you have a colleague you work with, you go to the same church, and your kids go to school together. In this case, you are linked through multiple relationships.

Strength

The strength of a link refers to the “amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, or reciprocal services (frequency or multiplexity often used as measure of strength of tie)” (Brass, 1995, p. 44). Some links within a communication network are just bound to be stronger than other links. Maybe you and a colleague are good friends and go shopping together, go to the theatre together, and take trips together. Obviously, if you are spending more time with and establishing multiple links with an individual, that link is going to be stronger than one you have with someone you never see outside of work.

Direction

The concept of direction is very similar to the process of vertical communication. In essence, does communication flow one-way? For example, maybe the CEO of your organization is allowed to communicate with you, but you are not allowed to communicate directly with the CEO.

Symmetry

The opposite of direction is symmetry, which examines whether or not communication links are open and messages are able to go bi-directionally. In essence, symmetry inspects whether communication is one-sided or whether both parties are actively involved in the communication.

Measures Assigned to Individual Actors

The second category involves the typical social network measures assigned to individual actors. The term “actor” here is not meant in the theatre sense of the word. Instead, “actor” is used to represent an individual participating in a communication network. Brass identified seven different types of measures commonly assigned to individual actors in communication networks: degree, range, closeness, betweenness, centrality, prestige, and roles.

Degree

The topic of degree in network analysis refers to the “number of direct links with other actors” (Brass, 1995, p. 45). Some individuals will have many links and others will have very few links. Typically, links are discussed by examining the number of in-degree links and the number of out-degree links. In-degree links examine the number of links directed towards an actor from other actors. In other words, in-degree links are “incoming links” and can help researchers ascertain the number of sources of information an actor has. Out-degree links, on the other hand, involve the number of links where a specific actor communicates information to other actors. These are also referred to as “out-going links” because information is flowing away from the actor to other actors in their network.

Range

Range refers to the diversity of links an individual has within their communication network. This diversity can refer to dissimilar groups of individuals or individuals on different levels of the hierarchy. In a multinational firm, developing links around the globe can be very beneficial for an individual. In fact, having diverse links in one’s communication network can help one receive the best possible information because the more homogenous one’s links are, the greater likelihood that the information one receives will be identical.

Closeness

The term closeness refers to the number of links within a communication network it takes for an individual to communicate with their entire network. In essence, how easily can an individual actor reach everyone in their network? Brass (1995) explains how closeness is analyzed by network analysts, “Usually [closeness is] measured by averaging the path distances (direct and indirect links) to all others. A direct link is counted as 1, indirect links receive proportionately less weight” (p. 45). For example, the gossip network is much closer than the single strand network. In the gossip network, Person A can communicate directly with everyone in their network, whereas in the single strand network, communication from Person A to Person D takes two extra steps (through Person B and Person C).

Betweenness

Betweenness is the “extent to which an actor mediates, or falls between any other two actors on the shortest path between those two actors” (Brass, 1995, p. 45).  In essence, is the shortest path between two individuals directly through you? For example, maybe you’re the administrative assistant for a CEO. Everyone knows that the only way to get to the CEO is to go through you. In this case, by being in the position of administrative assistant, you function as the between point between the CEO and other people in the organization.

Centrality

Centrality refers to the extent to which an individual is at the core of one’s communication network. In each of the forms of informal communication networks, Person A is clearly the central figure. However, Person A is clearly more centrally located in the gossip communication network than the other three because in the gossip network all of the links are out-degree from Person A.

Prestige

The concept of “prestige” in network analysis is a little ambiguous and harder to map because it refers to the reasons people want to be a part of an actor’s communication network. In essence, the more people want to be part of your communication network, the higher your prestige is within the network itself.

Roles

Within any communication network, there are a number of roles that people may exhibit within the network. Roles in this sense refer to specific behaviors people exhibit within a communication network. Research in network analysis has found a number of different types of role that are common within organizations: stars, liaisons, bridges, gatekeepers, and isolates.

• Stars. Some individuals just standout and have more communication links than other people. One of the primary functions of stars is the ability to cross organizational boundaries in their links, called boundary spanning. There are two types of stars in communication networks: internal stars and external stars. Internal stars are individuals who develop competence in a specific internal unit and are able to gain and disseminate information within their communication network. Internal stars are also referred to as opinion leaders, because they are seen as the go-to people for information and problem solving. External stars, on the other hand, develop competence in an area external to the organization and are able to receive and disseminate information within their communication network outside of the organization itself (Tushman and Scanlan, 1981a; 1981b).
• Liaisons. According to Everett M. Rogers (1995), a liaison is “an individual who links two or more cliques in a system, but who is not a member of any clique” (p. 111). Rogers (1995) uses the word “clique” to refer to communication networks in this definition. In essence, a liaison is an individual who does not belong to two communication networks but is the between person in the middle of the two networks.
• Bridges. Bridges, on the other hand, are individuals who link two or more communication networks together and is a member of the two communication networks. In essence, a bridge is someone who belongs to two groups and is able to send and receive information along between those two groups.
• Gatekeepers. A gatekeeper is an individual who has the ability to filter information from the external environment to internal communication networks or filter information that is passed from one communication network to another communication network (Tushman, 1977). Because gatekeepers have the task of determining what information is delivered within the organization, they play a very important role in the day-to-day functioning of the organization. If gatekeepers let in too much information, the organization will suffer from communication overload. On the other hand, if the gatekeepers filter out too much information, the organization will suffer from communication underload.
• Isolates. The last role that people exhibit in communication networks are isolates. Isolates are individuals who have withdrawn themselves from the communication networks (Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979) or who have been forced to the outside. These are individuals who typically have very few links if any at all. This is more common in situations with high levels of conflict and allegiance to a specific central member, where opposers can become isolates if they do not engage in communal dissent, or in less extreme cases, when individuals are hired but rarely engage with members of the organization. Imagine contract work or temporary work.

Measures Assigned to Networks

The final category discussed by Brass (1995) involves the typical social network measures used to describe networks. The previous two classifications of measures looked at more microlevel aspects of communication networks, whereas this section is going to examine nine measures used to describe networks on a macro-level: size, inclusiveness, component, reachability, connectedness, density, centralization, symmetry, and transitivity.

Size

The size of a communication network relates to the total number of actors within a network. Some communication networks are small involving only a handful of actors, whereas other networks are very large containing hundreds of actors.

Inclusiveness

The issue of inclusiveness is related to the total number of possible actors within a communication network minus the number of isolates. The more isolates a communication network has, the less inclusive the network is.

Component

A component within a communication network is the largest subset of actors or groups of actors who contain multiple links. In essence, is there one group of actors within the communication network that are clearly more linked to each other than any other actors or subsets of the larger communication network? Sometimes people refer to components as the “in-crowd” because the people within the “in-crowd” typically do not allow outsiders access to the component clearly establishing who is and who is not within the group. When referring to groups of individuals who are highly linked within an organization, we call these groups “nodes.” An organization’s total communication network will consist of a variety of nodes.

Reachability

Reachability refers to the average number of links it takes to link any two individuals within a communication network. Reachability is measured by examining both direct and indirect ties.

Connectedness

Connectedness is similar to reachability, but instead of evaluating individual actors we are evaluating groups of actors or nodes. Connectedness, then, is the degree to which all of the nodes in a communication network are reachable, and is usually determined by comparing the number of nodes that are clearly reachable with the number of nodes that are not.

Density

Within any communication network, most people are linked (either in or out-degree) to others within the network but are not linked to every possible person within the communication network. Density refers to the number of links that exists within a communication network as compared to the total number of links possible within a communication network.

Centralization

The idea of centrality starts with realizing that most organizational communication networks have one star who is the most linked person within the organization. Centralization then is comparing that individual star to the rest of the people within the communication network. In highly centralized communication networks, the average person and the star’s number of links will be very similar. In highly decentralized communication networks, most people contain only a few links and no one comes close to the number of links that the central star has.

Symmetry

Earlier we discussed the notions of “symmetry” and “direction” in conjunction with looking at the typical social network measures of ties. Symmetry on the network level compares the number of symmetry ties with the number of direction ties. The more bidirectional or symmetrical ties that exist within a communication network, the more symmetrical the communication network is. On the other hand, the more uni-directional or direction ties that exist within a communication network, the less symmetrical the communication network is.

Transitivity

The concept of transitivity in communication networks refers to indirect relationships between three people. For example, if A communicates a message to B and then B communicates the message to C, the three individuals are considered transitive. In essence, A and B are directly linked, B and C are directly linked, and A and C are indirectly linked through B. The concept of transitivity then “is the number of transitive triples divided by the number of potential transitive triples” within a communication network (Brass, 1995, p. 44).

What can we learn from all these concepts. Is it just a bunch of vocabulary? No, these concepts become useful in understanding the communicative culture of an organization as well as evaluating how communication creates power in organizations. We could study organizational dissent by understanding the structure of informal networks. Was the dissent effective did change occur? How do those networks compare to a dissent that did not gain traction? For example, organizations with less centralization in networks and more reachability tend to have a greater chance of employee led initiatives gaining traction. How else might understanding network connections help researchers guide organizational employees on more inclusive communication practices?

Key Takeaways & Summary

Now that you’ve read the chapter, write a summative conclusion with your key takeaways. What information do you want to remember? How does it all tie together, and why does this information matter? You will thank yourself when it’s time for the exam.

Authors & Attribution

The content in this chapter was remixed, adapted and/or authored by Seroka, L. (2025) from:

• Chapter 4: Negotiating Power in Groups found within Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams by Jasmine Linabary on Pressbooks licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International license
• Chapter 2: The Critical Approach found within Organizational Communication by Julie Zink and Kathy DesRoches published by the University of New Hampshire licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license

References

Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 12–19.

Anderson, J., & Level, D. A. (1980). The impact of certain types of downward communication on job performance. The Journal of Business Communication, 17, 51–59.

Beyer, J. M., Hannah, D. R., & Milton, L. P. (2000). Ties that bind: Culture and attachments in organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate (pp. 323–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pg. 333.

Blalack, R. O. (1986). The impact of trust and perceived superior influence on upward communication: A further test. American Business Review, 3, 62–66.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social: Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Socials, 31, 2–3.

Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (vol. 13, pp. 39– 79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 9–29.

Child, J. (2005). Organization: Contemporary principles and practice. London: Blackwell.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(supplement), S95–S120.

Corman, S. R., & Scott, C. R. (1994). Perceived networks, activity foci, and observable communication in social collectives. Communication Theory, 4, 171–190.

Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J. W., & Mishra, J. M. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27, 569–584.

Davis, K. (1969). Grapevine communication among lower and middle managers. Personnel Journal, 48, 269–272.

DeMare, G. (1989). Communicating: The key to establishing good working relationships. Price Waterhouse Review, 33, 30–37.

Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., & Harrison, D. A. (2010). Debunking four myths about employee silence. Harvard Business Review, 88, 26.

Dover, C. J. (1959). The three eras of management communication. Journal of Communication, 9, 168–172.

Downward communications. (2004, August). Management Report, 27(8), 6–7.

Edmunds, A., & Morris, A. (2000). The problem of information overload in business organizations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management, 20, 17–28.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.). London: Pitman. (Reprinted from Administration industrielle et générale, 1916)

Gerth, H. H., Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge.

Harris, T. E., & Nelson, M. D. (2008). Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hilmer, F. G., & Donaldson, L. (1996). Management redeemed: Debunking the fads that undermine our corporations. New York: Free Press.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1979). Communication and the managerial function: Some suggestions for improving organizational communication. Communication, 8, 83–95.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1981). Improving intra-organizational communication: A lesson from Japanese management. Communication Quarterly, 30, 35–40.

Hornik, R. (2004). Some reflections on diffusion theory and the role of Everett Rogers. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 143–148.

Huseman, R., Lahiff, J., & Wells, R. (1974). Communication thermoclines: Toward a process of identification. Personnel Journal, 53, 124–135.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201–1222.

Johannesen, R. L. (1974). The functions of silence: A plea for communication research. Western Speech, 38, 25–35.

Johnson, M. (Producer). (2008, March 17). Employee silence on critical work issues: Interview with Subra Tangirala [Audio podcast].

Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Research, 48, 311–332.

Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229, pg. 211.

Kassing, J. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58–70.

Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187–209.

Kassing, J. W. (2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison of perceived competence in upward dissent strategies. Communication Research Reports, 22, 227–234, pg. 233.

Kassing, J. W. (2011). Key Themes in Organizational Communication Series: Dissent in organizations. Malden, MA: Polity.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Koehler, J. W., Anatol, K. W. E., & Applbaum, R. L. (1981). Organizational communication: Behavioral perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Massie, J. L. (1960). Automatic horizontal communication in management. Journal of the Academy of Management, 3, 87–91, pg. 88

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McClelland, V. A., & Wimot, R. E. (1990). Improve lateral communication. Personnel Journal, 69, 32–38.

Mellinger, G. D. (1956). Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 304–309.

Miller, D. C., & Form, W. H. (1951). Industrial sociology. New York: Harper.

Milliken, F., Morrison, E., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.

Mishra, J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management, 19, 213–228, pg. 214.

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy Of Management Review, 25, 706–725. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3707697

Pace, A. (2008, August). Leaving the corner office. Training + Development, 62(8).

Papa, M. J., Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B. K. (2008). Organizational communication: Perspectives and trends. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Papa, W. H., & Papa, M. J. (1992). Communication network patterns and the reinvention of new technology. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 41–61.

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Redding, W. C. (1966). The empirical study of human communication in business and industry. In P. E. Reid (Ed.), The frontiers in experimental speech-communication research (pp. 47–81). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication with the organization: An interpretive review of theory and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council, Inc.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2005). Organizational communication for survival: Making work, work (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205–215.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.

Simpson, R. L. (1959). Vertical and horizontal communication in formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 188–196.

Smith, W. (2004). Ev Rogers: Helping to build a modern synthesis of social change. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 139–142.

Susskind, A. M., Schwartz, D. F., Richards, W. D., & Johnson, J. D. (2005). Evolution and diffusion of the Michigan State University tradition of organizational communication network research. Communication Studies, 56, 397–418.

Stewart, L. P., Stewart, A. D., Friedley, S. A., & Cooper, P. J. (1996). Communication between the sexes: Sex differences and sex-role stereotypes (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37–68.

Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 507–519.

Tourish, D., & Robson, P. (2006). Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward communication in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 711–730.

Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.

Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981a). Characteristics and external orientations of boundary spanning individuals. The Academy of Management Journal, 24, 83– 89.

Upward communication. (2004, October). Management Report, 27(10), 2–4.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.

Waldron, V. R., & Kassing, J. W. (2011). Managing risk in communication encounters: Strategies for the workplace. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Wrench, J. S. (2012). The effect of office politics on employee silence and dissent. Manuscript in Preparation.