Archive for the ‘Communication’ Category
Pseudo-communication in organisations
Introduction
Much of what is termed communication in organisations is but a one-way, non-interactive process of information transfer. It doesn’t seem right to call this communication, and other terms such as propaganda carry too much baggage. In view of this, I’ve been searching for an appropriate term for some time. Now – after reading a paper by Terence Moran entitled Propaganda as Pseudocommunication – I think I have found one.
Moran’s paper discusses how propaganda, particularly in the social and political sphere, is packaged and sold as genuine communication even though it isn’t – and hence the term pseudo-communication. In this post,I draw on the paper to show how one can distinguish between communication and pseudo-communication in organisational life.
Background
Moran’s paper was written in 1978, against a backdrop of political scandal and so, quite naturally, many of the instances of pseudo-communication he discusses are drawn from the politics of the time. For example, he writes:
As Watergate should have taught us, the determined and deliberate mass deceptions that are promulgated via the mass media by powerful political figures cannot be detected, much less combated easily.
Such propaganda is not the preserve of politicians alone, though. The wonderful world of advertising illustrates how pseudo-communication works in insidious ways that are not immediately apparent. For example, many car or liquor advertisements attempt to associate the advertised brand with sophistication and style, suggesting that somehow those who consume the product will be transformed into sophisticates.
As Moran states:
It was reported in the Wall Street Journal of August 14, 1978 that the the Federal Trade Commission finally has realized that advertisements carry messages via symbol systems other than language. The problem is in deciding how to recognise, analyse and legislate against deceptive messages…
Indeed! And I would add that the problem has only become worse in the 30 odd years since Mr. Moran wrote those words.
More relevant to those of us who work in organisation-land, however, is the fact that sophisticated pseudo-communication has wormed its way into the corporate world, a prime example being mission/vision statements that seem to be de rigueur for corporations. Such pseudo-communications are rife with platitudes, a point that Paul Culmsee and I explore at length in Chapter 1 of our book.
Due to the increasing sophistication of pseudo-communication it can sometimes be hard to distinguish it from the genuine stuff. Moran offers some tips that can help us do this.
Distinguishing between communication and pseudo-communication
Moran describes several characteristics of pseudo-communication vis-à-vis its authentic cousin. I describe some of these below with particular reference to pseudo-communication in organisations.
1. Control and interpretation
In organisational pseudo-communication the receiver is not free to interpret the message as per his or her own understanding. Instead, the sender determines the meaning of the message and receivers are expected to “interpret” the message as the sender requires them to. An excellent example of this are corporate mission/vision statements – employees are required to understand these as per the officially endorsed interpretation.
Summarising: in communication control is shared between the sender and receiver whereas in pseudo-communication, control rests solely with the sender.
2. Stated and actual purpose
To put it quite bluntly, the aim of most employee-directed corporate pseudo communication is to get employees to behave in ways that the organisation would like them to. Thus, although pseudo-communiques may use words like autonomy and empowerment they are directed towards achieving organisational objectives, not those of employees.
Summarising: in communication the stated and actual goals are the same whereas in pseudo-communication they are different. Specifically, in pseudo-communication actual purposes are hidden and are often contradictory to the stated ones.
3. Thinking and analysis
Following from the above it seems pretty clear that the success of organisational pseudo-communication hinges on employees not analysing messages in an individualistic or critical way. If they did, they would see it for them for the propaganda that they actually are. In fact, it isn’t a stretch to say that most organisational pseudo-communication is generally are aimed at encouraging groupthink at the level of the entire organisation.
A corollary of this is that in communication it is assumed that the receiver will act on the message in ways that he or she deems appropriate whereas in pseudo-communication the receiver is encouraged to act in “organisationally acceptable” ways.
Summarising: in communication it is expected that receivers will analyse the message individually in a critical way so as to reach their own conclusions. In pseudo-communication however, receivers are expected to think about the message in a standard, politically acceptable way.
4. Rational vs. emotional appeal
Since pseudo-communication works best by dulling the critical faculties of recipients, it seems clear that it should aim evoke a emotional response rather than a rational (or carefully considered) one. Genuine communication, on the other hand, makes clear the relationship between elements of the message and supporting evidence so that receivers can evaluate it for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
Summarising: communication makes an appeal to the receivers’ critical/rational side whereas pseudo-communication aims to make an emotional connection with receivers.
5. Means and ends
In organisational pseudo-communication such as mission/vision statements and the strategies that arise from it, the ends are seen as justifying the means. The means are generally assumed to be value-free in that it is OK to do whatever it takes to achieve organisational goals, regardless of the ethical or moral implications. In contrast, in (genuine) communication, means and ends are intimately entwined and are open to evaluation on rational and moral/ethical bases.
Summarising: in pseudo-communication, the ends are seen as justiying the means whereas in communication they are not.
6. World view
In organisational pseudo-communication the the organisation’s world is seen as being inherently simple, so much so that it can be captured using catchy slogans such as “Delivering value” or “Connecting people” or whatever. Communication, on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of intractable problems and alternate worldviews and thus viewing the world as being inherently complex. As Moran puts it, “the pseudo-communicator is always endeavouring to have us accept a simplified view of life.” Most corporate mission and vision statements will attest to the truth of this.
Summarising: pseudo communication over-simplifies or ignore difficult or inconvenient issues whereas communication acknowledges them.
Conclusion
Although Moran wrote his paper over 30 years ago, his message is now more relevant and urgent than ever. Not only is pseudo-communication prevalent in politics and advertising, it has also permeated organisations and even our social relationships. In view of this, it is ever more important that we are able to distinguish pseudo-communication from the genuine stuff. Incidentally, I highly recommend that reading the original paper -it is very readable and even laugh-out-loud funny in parts.
Finally, to indulge in some speculation: I wonder why pseudo-communication is so effective in the organisational world when even a cursory analysis exposes its manipulative nature. I think an answer lies in the fact that modern organisations use powerful, non-obtrusive techniques such as organisational culture initiatives to convince their people of the inherent worth of the organisation and their roles in it. Once this is done, it makes employees less critical and hence more receptive to pseudo-communication. Anyway, that is fodder for another post. For now, I leave you to ponder the points made above and perhaps use them in analysing (pseudo)communication in your own organisation.
Zen and the art of project communication
Introduction
There is a curious disconnect between the theory and practice of project management: the former is epitomized by various BOKs and methodologies which lay out a rational framework for managing projects whereas the latter is the reality that project managers experience when they are immersed in the day-to-day activities associated with managing projects.
Although most organisations would claim that they have implemented a project management methodology of some sort, the actual day to day work of a project often proceeds with a logic of its own. Moreover, the requirements imposed by methodologies may even obstruct the progress of a project: it is not uncommon to hear of situations in which project managers and teams had to bypass their organisation’s processes in order to get things done.
The reason for this is not hard to find: projects – and indeed, organisations – are often faced with unexpected and unforeseen events. Typically, responses to such events have to be improvised, not planned. Although planners are expected to factor in uncertainty, what is not known cannot be foreseen. As we all know from experience, the future always manages to escape our carefully laid plans.
In this post I argue that the traditional (rational) mode of project communication – involving artifacts such as business cases, plans and status reports – is lacking when one has to deal with uncertainty. Instead of communication based on rationality (or arguments based on facts), an alternate mode that focuses on rhetoric (arguments based on values and emotions) may sometimes be more fruitful.
[Aside: in a strict sense of the term, rationality is a form of rhetoric, but in this article I’ll consider the latter term as applying to values and emotions.]
Shortcomings of “rational” project communication
Traditional project communication tends to be more about conveying information rather than encouraging debate. Specifically, project-related communications, be they verbal or written, emphasise facts and numbers rather than emotions and feelings. For example, a status report may convey the status of the project in terms of milestones achieved or figures such as percent complete. Moreover, even though a project manager may highlight qualitative information such as risks, he or she will do so in a way that assures the recipients that the assessments have been made in an objective manner. In short, project communications reflect the scientific-rational basis of project management itself.
In view of the above, it is no surprise that project communications tend to assume that the future can be predicted on the basis of clear cause-effect relationships. For example, project plans describe future deliverables that will be the outcome of certain planned actions. Indeed, that’s the whole rationale behind implementing project management processes – they are supposed to ensure that, if implemented right, the objectives will be achieved “on budget and on time” as envisaged.
That’s great in theory, but theory is good only for the classroom. As most of us know from experience, reality is messy: stuff happens; things turn unexpected in a thousand and one different ways. In short, our projects escape our plans.
How do people deal with this messiness? Closer home: what do you do when your project takes an unexpected turn south?
In such situations it is not unusual to feel that the seemingly rational edifice on which your project is based is not so sound after all. You may therefore be forced to examine the assumptions that you have taken for granted. Consequently, you may ask yourself questions such as:
Is my approach sound?
Am I doing the project right?
Or, even more basic: am I doing the right project?
It is difficult to answer questions with any certainty, particularly when the future events are yet to unfold. You need to make a decision, but to do so you need to get everyone on the same page. This is difficult to do because when facts are few, everyone seems to have a different opinion about what the “true” problem is and how it should be tackled. Some may even believe there is no problem at all.
A role for rhetoric
As we all know from experience, most people are attached to their opinions. It is going to take more than a logical argument to convince them to change their minds. Moreover, in situations of uncertainty and ambiguity, facts and numbers are scarce, and always prone to being contested by some recalcitrant stakeholders. So one has to work with opinions that are based on values and emotions rather than objective facts.
When one is attempting to convince people about something that depends on values rather than facts, the words and language constructs one uses are all important. That’s where rhetoric or the “art of debate” comes into its own. According to Wikipedia:
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.
Of course, glib talkers (expert rhetoricians!) are often wrong, so it would be unwise accept rhetoric uncritically. One has to subject rhetorical arguments to scrutiny just as one would with any argument. The value of rhetoric, however, is that it gets people thinking along lines that they may not have considered otherwise.
In the present day, rhetoric has acquired a negative connotation because it is often used for dubious ends – for example, demagogues use it to whip up emotions and (some) politicians to vilify others. But conversely it might also motivate people to come up with creative ways out of difficult or even impossible situations. Some of the most inspiring and world-changing speeches in history are masterpieces of rhetoric (Martin Luther King’s, I have a dream being one that comes to mind)
…and so, to conclude
Most of us don’t want to change the world, we just want to get on with our jobs. My aim in this essay was to suggest the mode of communication that we have been programmed to use may not always be appropriate There is an alternative that may sometimes be better. Rhetoric isn’t just for lawyers and politicians; it has its place in the day to day work of managing projects. The “complete” project manager– if such a person exists –knows that there is no contradiction in this and, more important, tacitly recognizes when a particular mode of communication is appropriate.
…and in case you are wondering what on earth this has to do with Zen philosophy, the answer is: quite possibly, nothing at all.
On the nature of decision-making in organisations
Introduction
Decision-making is a key activity at all levels in an organisation. All employees make decisions: from the front-line employee who has to decide how to handle a difficult customer to an executive who has to choose between projects that are competing for funding. Given this it is no surprise that a vast body of knowledge – decision theory – has been developed to support the process of decision making.
Decision theory concerns itself with rational decision making– that is, decisions that are based on an objective evaluation of available options and their consequences, leading to a choice that is made on the basis of such an evaluation alone. In reality, though, many decisions are not made this way. In this post I look at the different ways in which decisions are actually made in organisations, drawing on a brilliant essay by James March entitled, How Decisions Happen in Organizations.
Decision making as a rational process
The standard view of decision making is that it is a process of rational choice based on:
- Knowledge of alternatives
- Knowledge of the consequences of each of the alternatives
- Ordered preferences by which consequences can be evaluated
- Rule(s) by which a particular alternative can be selected
In its basic form, decision theory assumes that each of the above is fully known. As March states:
In the most familiar form of the model, we assume that all alternatives, the probability distribution of consequences conditional on each alternative, and the subjective value of each possible consequence are known; we assume a choice is made by selecting the alternative with the highest expected value. This emphasis on expected value may be moderated by a risk preference (i.e.,some value associated with the variability of the outcome distribution).
However, there are a number of challenges to this ideal picture of decision-making. These include:
- Uncertainty about consequences of actions: The standard theory of rational choice assumes that decision-makers have knowledge of all possible outcomes of actions. However, this is not possible because humans are boundedly rational – their ability to seek and process information is limited by their cognitive abilities and available resources. Quite often it happens that consequences reveal themselves only after a decision has been made and implemented. As March mentions, “…management requires tolerance of the idea that the meaning of yesterday’s action will be discovered in the experiences and interpretations of today…”
- Uncertainty about preferences: The standard theory assumes that preferences are stable and consistent. Quite often, it happens that preferences change with time and different preferences can be inconsistent with each other.
- The role of risk: Typically, in theories of rational decision making risk appetite (of an individual or organisation) is treated as a single fixed number. In reality, it varies with situational factors such as level of threat to survival, excess resources available etc. Moreover, it also depends on the (often unarticulated) hopes and fears of individuals who are making the decision.
- Conflict between decision makers: Rational theories of decision making assume that conflict between decision makers can be resolved by (rationally!) evaluating conflicting alternatives and choosing the best one based on an agreed decision rule. The problem is that in such situations it is often impossible to come up with such a decision rule. Negotiations over criteria can go on interminably and conclude without agreement. March suggests that the reasons why decisions get made despite this is that people rely on trust and reputation rather than formal agreements in order to reach a consensus.
So as we see, the rational view of decision making has less practical relevance than one might expect. It is part of the story of decision making, but definitely not the whole tale.
Decision making as a rule-based activity
An alternate logic of decision making is that of following rules, obligations and duties; doing what is appropriate rather than what is rational. As March puts it:
Much of the decision-making behavior we observe reflects the routine way in which people do what they are supposed to do. For example, most of the time, the majority of people in organizations follow rules, even when it is not obviously in their self-interest to do so. Much of the behavior in an organization is specified by standard operating procedures, professional standards, cultural norms, and institutional structures. The terminology is one of duties and roles rather than anticipatory, consequential choice.
Within a logic of appropriateness, people make decisions by mapping the aspects of the decision they are required to make to what is appropriate in such situations. In particular, they consider the following:
- Situation: what kind of a situation is this?
- Identity: who am I? What kind of position do I hold in the organisation?
- Determining an appropriate choice: What should a person like me (or in my position) do in this kind of situation?
In such a process the focus is on doing what is right (as per the rules) rather than searching for rationally determined best choice.
The interesting question is how these rules come into existence. March describes three ways in which this happens:
- Rules are developed through experience and are modified by feedback on what worked well and what didn’t. In this view organisations create rules.
- Rules are selected (rather than developed) based on their suitability for a group or organisation. In this view, rules have an existence independent of organisations.
- Rules spread from organisation to organisation – much like “fads or measles.” In this view, rules are created in idiosyncratic ways (through an innovative or quirky choices made by an individual, say) and then, if they are successful, are copied others. Many popular management practices have their roots in such fads.
Summarising: decisions can be based on appropriate choices rather than rational ones.
Decision making as a contingent event
The views of decision making embodied in the logic of rationality and appropriateness assume that the cause-effect relationships between decisions and outcomes are well understood and that organizational rules and hierarchies actually control outcomes. However, in reality things tend to be less straightforward. For example:
- Many things happen at the same time, each competing for the attention of decision makers. The attention a decision maker gives to a problem thus depends on the other things that are on her mind at the time.
- Individual perceptions of situations vary, thus making the formulation of a decision problem difficult (in effect, making it a wicked problem).
In cases such as these, the decisions are contingent on factors that have nothing to do with the decision itself. As examples, an executive who is distracted by personal problems may not give enough attention to a decision problem at hand and a bunch of stakeholders who cannot agree may end up making a decision that cannot be justified via rationality or appropriateness.
Decision making as a byproduct of other factors
The assumption underlying the foregoing discussion is that decisions affect outcomes and hence that decisions matter. However, as March points out:
Descriptions of decision arenas often seem to make little sense in such terms. Information that is ostensibly gathered for decisions is often ignored. Contentiousness of the policies of an organization is often followed by apparent indifference about their implementation. Individuals fight for the right to participate in decision processes, but then do not exercise the right. Studies of managers consistently indicate that very little time is spent making decisions. Rather, managers seem to spend time meeting people and executing managerial performances.
Based on the above, March makes the interesting point decision making is often a ritual activity that has little to do with the actual decision itself. The process of making a choice provides decision makers opportunities to do other things such as:
- Presenting and justifying their viewpoints to their peers.
- Distributing credit or blame for what has occurred.
- Reaffirming loyalties and friendships
- Socialising!
An aspect of decision making made highlighted in the previous section is that there are many competing demands on a decision maker’s attention – for example, family, friends or personal goals. This is true in general: in the course of our lives, we are presented with a steady stream of choices, opportunities and problems. The degree to which each of these hold our attention depends on a host of factors including (but not restricted to) our values, duties and priorities. Because of these concurrent or nearly concurrent issues, the attention we give to a decision problem is closely linked to events that have recently occurred or are anticipated in the near future, and the priorities we assign to these. In such situations, the logic of decision making is temporal (dictated by time) rather than consequential or rule-based. In other words, our decisions depend on recent events and our immediate (or recent) environment.
Conclusion
In this article I have summarised various views of decision making drawing on the work of James March. We have seen that the official line about decision making being a rational process that is concerned with optimizing choices on the basis of consequences and preferences is not the whole story. Our decisions are influenced by a host of other factors, ranging from the rules that govern our work lives to our desires and fears, or even what happened at home yesterday. In short: the choices we make often depend on things we are only dimly aware of.
Eight to Late 