>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Core Issues
        > Organizational Communication - Part 1		 New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
AumBoy
Registered User
(2/18/02 5:19 pm)
Reply 		Organizational Communication - Part 1
Quote:
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7


There are several things that I observed while in the ashram. I took the above statement and endeavor to understand why some of the things occurred the way they did and was lead to researching NASA. I had remembered from a technical writing course I had taken that the problem that lead up to the Challenger incident was due in part to poor communication in NASA between engineers and managers.

In NASA, I also noticed some parallels with SRF, particularly in the area of communication and the effects, both positive and negative, that they have on the organization. In the book, Organizational Communication Imperatives: Lessons of the Space Program, by Philip K. Thompkins, he identified three periods in NASA which I found corresponded to similar periods in SRF. They are

NASA
1. Events up to Apollo and Landing on the Moon
2. Events up to Space Shuttle Challenger
3. Events subsequent to Space Shuttle Challenger

They corresponding SRF events are:

SRF
1. SRF with Master until 1952/55
2. SRF after Master to pre-Spiritual Life Committee
3. SRF with Spiritual Life Committee
4. SRF digressing to Number 2

The first three items of each parallel, somewhat.

Thompkins book is about one organization: NASA, and, in particular, events at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, the second largest field center in NASA. (I’m not going to discuss the “Paperclip 120” or “Operation Paperclip” or whether the people in NASA were the best for their positions considering their history. My focus here is on organizational communication. If you need to know those topics mean, look them up on Google or go to the library.)

What makes Thompkins viewpoint so unique is that he was in and out of NASA studying it over a 25-year period. His early study of NASA (1967) involved organizational identification: “thousands of civil servants who identified with the organization and were committed to the larger space program.” He writes that “organizational processes are often affected by seemingly peripheral events in the environment; at the same time, the social environment is often affected by significant organizations.” Further he states that “organizational communication is a relatively new addition to the larger family of organizational studies, which includes sociology, psychology, economics, management, public administration, and others too numerous to list.” This book looks beneath the outer layer and “discovers how organizations operate as communication systems correlates in a general way with their moments of triumph and tragedy.”

He writes that “organizational success is not self-perpetuating. Even the most successful and confident of organizations are vulnerable to failure. Threats take the form of unperceived changes in the environment, routinized or mechanical complacency, and the institutional forgetting of what contributed to the institution’s success and confidence in the first place.”

What made the Challenger so special was the fact that a teacher was on board. On January 28, 1986, at 11:38am , lift-off occurred. The launch seemed successful. It was not. Moments after lift-off, the shuttle started to break apart and an explosion ensued. This image has been seared into the consciousness of the public and many can remember where they were and what they were doing at the time.

( And [tragedy] particularly concerns the complexities of ethics and psychology because of the close connection between tragedy and purpose. We might almost lay it down as a rule of thumb: Where someone is straining to do something, look for evidence of a tragic mechanism. – Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change – this can even be said for meditation… when you are straining, there may be a problem.)

The Rogers Commission members and journalists alike were finding that NASA had indeed been “straining” to keep its demanding and unrealistic shuttle-flight schedule. Spare parts were cannibalized from other shuttles in order to meet launch dates. Managers and workers were fatigued by constant pressure.

In the investigation following the accident, Thompkins “noticed that descriptions of certain communicative events up to the decision to launch the Challenger did not fit the practices [he] had observed and learned about as a consultant at MSFC n the 1960s.”

A teleconference was held before the launch on Monday, January 17, 1986, between MSFC, Kennedy Space Flight Center in FL (KSFC), and Morton Thiokol (MT), the prime contractor of the two solid-fuel booster rockets. MSFC instead of pressing MT to prove that the Challenger would fly, reversed themselves to prove that it would not fly. MT could not produce enough evidence so the launch proceeded as planned. One MSFC manager was appalled at MT recommendation not to launch unaware of critical nature of temperature considerations. Another MSFC manager asked MT whether to wait until April to launch.

MSFC used the practice of what they called “penetration” encouraging its engineers to gain access to all levels of a contractor’s ranks. Through “penetration,” the government hoped to become a “smart buyer” when the hardware was ready for delivery to NASA. MSFC engineers were assigned to contractor plants, where they monitored the work closely and got to know their counterparts in the private sector as well. As these relationships developed, the contractor’s personnel often found it easier to discuss technical problems with NASA engineers and managers than with their own bosses.

MSFC had discontinued penetration. Why? Organizational forgetting: a gradual process in which successful, proven practices and procedures are not actively promoted or monitored. New people who join the organization may not be actively encouraged to follow these practices, and over time they eventually fall out of use. If MSFC forgot about penetration, did they also forget principles and practices of organizational communication that had served them so well during other periods of success?

Wernher von Braun, responsible for defining and promoting the previously successful philosophy of organizational communication at MSFC had left MSFC to become associate deputy director for future planning in Washington DC in 1970. In 1972 he retired from government service and passed away in 1977.

Several anecdotes on organizational communications:

1. This captured the way organizational communication worked at MSFC under von Braun. While visiting Washington, DC, someone asked von Braun about the reliability for a particular rocket stage. von Braun said he did not know but would find out. von Braun called several close colleagues then phoned DC and said 5 nines was the answer. It was assumed to be “0.99999.” When asked how von Braun arrived at the figure, he stated that he asked 5 people if they would have any trouble with that stage. “Nein” (No in German) was the answer.

This illustrates upward directed communication. Effective organizations need this. This examples also illustrates a distinction between formal and informal systems of communications. Formal systems are rigid represented by an organizational tree of superiors and subordinates specifying who talks to whom and with what authority. Informal systems are partly accidental: friends talk to friends and develop networks. The German “family,” transferred as a group from the US Army and were not at odds with the formal, so both formal and informal worked; both systems at MSFC were congruent.

2. Organizational communication is like growing mushrooms. A common problem. You put them down in the basement and keep them completely in the dark. Every once in a while you open the door and throw some horseshit on them.

This story illustrates downward directed communication: too often, top managers keep contributors at a lower level in the organization “in the dark” whether by design or oversight, concerning important matters. And when messages do come down the line from those at the bottom and in the middle of the organization, they often contain bad news. The folk wisdom of organizational communication holds that “good news goes up the line, bad news comes down” (horseshit).

3. One of the best informed members of the UN with regard to Middle East matters was Ireland. Why? Because of how they were seated: Iran, Iraq, Irish Republic, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait.

This concept of communication illustrates the value of the network.

4. “Command and control” system described here is that of a military operation. This organizational communication system leaves little room for independent decisions by the people closest to the problems of production and distribution. The major issue here is how much centralization and decentralization of decision making is allowed. Most organizations function better with a degree of decentralization: autonomous action by those closest to the problem can lead to innovation and improved efficiency.

Thompkins defines organizational communication as “the study of sending and receiving messages that create and maintain a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons.” Messages placed on bulletin boards and in-house company newsletters would fit this definition.

Maintaining an organization is a complex process. How do messages maintain an organization? Most important is the exercise of authority. One person exercises authority over others through messages of one form or another: essentially superior over subordinate. The organization is maintained when authoritative messages gain compliance.

C. Barnard (1938, The functions of the executive) observed authority resides to a great extent in whether the receiver accepts or rejects the sender’s message. His three elements of organization are:

1. Communication: must be a system of communication that reaches every member of, or contributor to, the organization.
2. Common purpose: an organization at which people work at cross purposes will not be an organization for very long. Organizational purpose must be encoded in messages that are transmitted to and received by the members of the organization. Also, organizational purpose may change from time to time. The second responsibility of managers and executives is to communicate purpose, values, goals, objectives, a sense of “mission.”
3. Willingness to serve: to provide those services the organization requires. People with the necessary skills and training must be recruited, which requires messages in both directions.

W. Charles Redding (1972) describes the “Ideal Managerial Climate” as follows:

1. Supportiveness: furnishing support or aid. A supportive manager communicates with subordinates in a friendly, considerate, and helpful manner, recognizing in the deed of communicating the integrity of the other individual. Hierarchical differences are minimized by not “talking down” to the subordinate. The message received by the subordinate is that he or she has personal worth and importance.

2. Participative Decision Making. This concept denotes that people ought to be involved in the decisions that have importance for their work. Hirschman’s (1970) concept of “voice” is relevant as well. A person with “voice” in an organization is one who is at least consulted, or listened to, about important decisions. She or he is encouraged to express opinions, even dissenting ones. This obviously implies that conflict is expected and desired. In its extreme manifestation, workers are given the authority to make collective decisions. Thus, organizational communication is not just a downward-directed process.

3. Trust, Confidence, and Credibility. Redding treats these concepts as “close cousins” for good reason. Some models consider credibility to be a dimension of interpersonal trust in the communication process; others treat trust as a dimension of credibility. What should be stressed is that these factors are important in both the sending and receiving of messages. The receiver is more likely to be persuaded by a source perceived to be credible than by one who is not. On the other hand, subordinates are more likely to talk about their problems with a boss they trust than with one they don’t—one, for example, who might use their problems against them in the future.

4. Openness and Candor. Redding means more than self-disclosure by this concept. Certainly it is beneficial to communication when the source is open and candid. It can even increase his or her credibility, as discussed above. It is equally important for receivers, particularly superiors, to be open to dissent and criticism. If not, the messengers bringing the bad news may be “killed.” When this kill-the-messenger attitude is present, “whistle-blowing” is the only alternative for a member of an organization who observes something, illicit, illegal, or immoral. Whistle-blowing is a courageous act, because it almost always, even if undeservedly, brings retribution.

5. Emphasis on High Performance Goals. At first glance, this factor seems out of place, even irrelevant to the communication process. Upon reflection, however, it does have a place in the ideal organizational communication climate. Redding, by adding this criterion, avoided the trap of describing a “country-club” atmosphere in which people communicate with trust, credibility, candor, openness, equality---and nothing gets done. Some might find such an ideal desirable, but others, concerned with the realities of the new, competitive, international economic order, will accept Redding’s final criterion. Redding also suggested that the realization of the first four factors will make the fifth or “bottom-line” criterion more attainable.

The Psychoanalytic Approaches

In 1990 Thompkins was invited to speak in Finland at several universities. He contemplated discussing the concept of transference, which occurs when an individual treats a current relationship as if it were one from the past. An example would be a client who begins to relate to a therapist as a parent. He saw transference as a possible explanation for the development of certain patterns of organizational identification. We speak, for example, of “paternalistic” organizations. We used to speak of “Ma” Bell. (“Mother” Center.)

While in Finland, Thompkins met with several people. At one such meeting he asked a psychoanalyst if he could accept the notion that a person, identifying with an organization, could be experiencing a form of transference, acting out a previous relationship with one’s parents. The reply was ‘yes.’

Thompkins then related a story told by Roland Barthes. It seems that Guy de Maupassant, the French writer, often ate lunch at one of the restaurants in the Eiffel Tower. He did not particularly like the food there, but it was the only place in Paris from where he could not see the tower. Thomkins hosts laughed at the anecdote. The moral of the story was negation by identification. For de Maupassant to negate the tower, he had to identify with it. Thompkins extended the analysis by explaining that it would not be necessary to slay one’s father, according to Freud’s master plot, if one could displace or negate him. One could displace the father, Thompkin stated, by becoming the father. (Kill the Guru.) Or one could identify positively with an organization if one transferred favorable parental attitudes to it. Interesting, huh? Many identify with SRF as the perfect parents in a family most never had growing up. Only the positive points are focussed on with the negative points ignored or suppressed. They see no difference between the Guru and SRF, for to them, they are both the same. Identification is a process, I believe, where the ego becomes attached to something outside of, and away from, the soul.

One of the hosts described the case of a woman who came for analysis. “Paula” spoke of the firm where she worked in idealistic terms, idolizing its owner. The host was familiar with the firm which was reputed to exploit its workers to some extent. The woman then revealed that her father was an entrepreneur, whom she idolized. In fact, her entire family so adored and respected the man that they never referred to him by anything other than “Mr. Virtanen.” In short, said one of the host, we have a case of overidentification. Thompkins asked what symptoms lead her to seek help. The host replied, “She couldn’t eat,” meaning, she couldn’t swallow it any longer.

The Neurotic Organization

Manfred F. R. de Vries and Danny Miller (1981) wrote The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Revitalizing Unhealthy Companies, which Thompkins summarized as follows:

The authors briefly sketch five dysfunctional types of organizations from the psychoanalytic perspective:

1. The paranoid organization: in which “managerial suspicions translate into primary emphasis on organizational intelligence and controls. Management information systems are very sophisticated in their methods of scanning the environment and controlling internal processes.”
2. The compulsive organization: that is “wed to ritual.” Every last detail of operation is planned out in advance and carried on in a routinized and pre-programmed fashion.”
3. The dramatic firm: “Dramatic firms live up to their name in many respects: they are hyperactive, impulsive, ventursome, and dangerously uninhabited. Their decision makers live in a world of hunches and impressions rather than facts as they address a broad array of widely disparate project, products, and markets in a desultory fashion”
4. The depressive organization: characterized by “inactivity, lack of confidence, extreme conservatism, and a bureaucratically motivated insularity … There is an atmosphere of extreme passivity and purposelessness.
5. The schizoid organization: “like the depressive one, is characterized by a leadership vacuum. Its top executive discourages interaction because of fear of involvement. Schizoid leaders experience the world as an unhappy place, populated by frustrating individuals.”

Transference

In the book above, in the chapter “Confused Interpersonal Relationships”, Thompkins noted that the authors revised, on a pragmatic basis, Freud’s two categories of positive and negative transference into three categories: Idealizing transference, mirror transference, and persecutory transference.

1. Idealizing transference: This is illustrated by the case of “Paula” above.
2. Mirror transference: is a narcissistic transference in which organizational executives have a “grandiose sense of self-importance and uniqueness and are desperately in search of praise.”
3. Persecutory transference: splits into hostility and moral masochism, the former associated with destructive attitudes and the latter with feelings of persecution coupled with guilt over the desire to become the persecutor.

Neurotic Superior-Subordinate Communication

De Vries and Miller describe three neurotic modes of communicating through which bosses complicate the lives of their subordinates.

1. Binding mode: A clique of favored underlings is assiduously cultivated. The aim of the superior, conscious or unconscious, is to create a condition of dependence in his or her subordinates; in fact independence on the part of subordinates is actively discouraged. Control of subordinates is paramount.
2. Proxy mode: The subordinate is, at one level, expected to be independent and autonomous. At a deeper, more implicit and important level, however, he or she is expected to be an extension of the boss, even to support the superior in the continuous political battles in which the superior becomes involved. These contradictory expectations can create confusion and anger among subordinates.
3. Expelling mode: There is an either/or expectation inherent here. “Expellers either love and bind the loyal employee or ruthlessly reject him forever because of a small slight. Dramatic changes in attitude may terminate earlier binding and proxy interactions as the offending subordinate is castigated and rejected.”


Ok. This is enough of an introduction. Most of the above are directly quotes from the book with little commentary by me. I will however, over the course of the next few weeks (or longer), delve into a comparison of SRF and NASA, and how NASA rectified things, too. Much is what I have quoted above has been written in other forums on this board. More to come. I will endeavor to cross reference existing postings that show examples of the above in action within SRF.

Vulcan
Unregistered User
(2/18/02 7:00 pm)
Reply 		Bravo!
Bravo, AumBoy, Bravo! Go to the head of the class. No--sit down at the teacher's desk and let us pay attention. I look forward with relish to your continuing analysis.

AumBoy
Registered User
(2/20/02 8:43 pm)
Reply 		Re: Bravo!
Thanks, Vulcan. I'm still doing some more research on this issue. The above behavior patterns can happen in any organization, so the topic may be of value to those in SRF (if they are still monitoring this board) and those working within other organizations. I'm deciding on how to proceed from here. There will be at least 3 more threads (which I will post separately as Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4) which correspond to the 3 periods I outlined above in NASA. Also, I will probably have an additional thread discussing the organizational structure of SRF, which IMO, is quite unique. This may help others understand some of the issues SRF faces internally and why it is so difficult for the organization to deal with the "outside world" (wherever that is!)

One for all
Unregistered User
(2/23/02 8:44 am)
Reply 		You've done it again!
I've long thought that communication (or lack of it) was a major contributor to SRF's demise. Good points also about organizational memory! Also Aumboy I want to thank you for compiling the page on links!

I seldom contribute to this board, but I keep up with it regularly.

I am VERY grateful for your insight and service!

Thanks!

Daya Yama
Registered User
(6/20/02 11:34 am)
Reply 		Re: Organizational Communication - Part 1
Hi AumBoy,

I too want to congratulate you with the article.

I have tried to bring myself somewhat in tune with your up-to-date topics about Organizational Communication - Part 1 - founding information for inspecting SRF as organization - that perspective.

If I am not mistaken, an important topic is 'control processes', and next some questions pop up:

1. What to do about these things?
2. Going to the core, what 'things' and dynamisms can help the most in your opinion?
3. How is one to implement things that can help and that matter?
4. What is the 'best training' to go for then - in order to build a nice environment, for example?

If the right sort of training doesn't dispense with good values found in SRF, "paranoid patterns" or similar symptoms of failing may not arise.

If we go ahead by STUDY of similar sorts, what may happen or evolve next? Is there any cue? My suggestions: a) A sort of mediated prudence must go into it. b) It may be hoped that member griefs will be used to cultivate thrift.

It remains to be seen.

With the best wishes,

AumBoy
Registered User
(7/5/02 11:44 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
 To Daya Yama,
Your input is appreciated. Control Processes in an organization are important. Originally, when I wrote the first draft of this 'article', I lived in the ashram and did it primarily for my edification and understanding. It would have only taken a little effort on my part to update/complete it. (I actually have the information for the other parts in front of me.) I have not finished it because I have access (not living in an ashram) to more information. I'd like to include information on Organizational Learning - which is fascinating, too. In time.

My investigation of SRF's behavior and other world events have lead me to start writing a book. (No - it is not about SRF.) This is where my time is at this point and why I have not been on the board as frequently as in the past.

I hope to, when I finish this topic, provide some suggestions that SRF (or any organization) may find helpful. Even answering some of the questions you listed and others have written about in this forum.

Daya Yama
Registered User
(7/6/02 3:30 am)
Reply 		Re: To Daya Yama,
Hi AumBoy,

Good to hear from you this way.
What you write sounds nice.
Wishing you well in your projects,

Daya Yama

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.