An introduction to Strategic Communication

What is a social intranet? Part I

Bild

On 25 September, Skåne University Hospital (SUS) went over to the same intranet as the entire County Council of Skåne as an organization now gathers under. All pages and news can be commented on, and opening day started with a live chat for SUS’s employees (Mattiasson, 2013). This is an example of what is called a ”social intranet”, which somewhat simplified terms is an internal organizational forum with information document and the opportunity for interactivity. The term ”social” stems from the term ”social media” which from a communication perspective can be understood as that new communication technologies are seen as social with active participants in relation to older media as having passive spectators as an audience. This is a blind historical glance since every time has had a similar discussion and each media form their social function and significance, such as the invention of the printing press, the velocipede, amusement parks, and cinema visits (Andersson, 1993; Ekström, 2010; Sjöholm, 2003). But an organization requires media to communicate internally. Cornelissen (2011) argues that organizations have to communicate with their employees in order to push morale and identification with the organization, and ensure that employees can perform their own specialized tasks. He sees it as a balancing act both to coordinate employee activities to achieve organizational goals, and also meet the individual needs. Larsson (2005) has a broader societal perspective and can explain social intranet as part of the trends of the time, that information should be disseminated by mass communication means, as well as a scholar perspective about two-way communication with active citizens.

 Bild

But in contrast argues Christensen, Morsing and Cheney (2008 referenced in Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011) that research and practice in organizational communication seems to promote a kind of regulation of employee who is opposed to participation and empowerment, despite a contemporary image of promoting commitment among employees. This can be linked to the transmission view of communication (see among others Axley, 1984; Jansson, 2009; Varey, 2000; Botan & Taylor, 2004) and the traditional approach (Whittington, 2001), where rational planning from leadership direction leads to profit maximization which is seen as the organization’s objectives. Christensen and Cornelissen (2011) argues that the attraction seems to lie in the packaging of stability, order and predictability in an uncertain and segmented world. Coreen, Kuhn, Cornelissen and Clark (2011) is on the same track when they describe the conventionality in that communication itself organizes that stems from a sociological tradition of striving for social order. Here we see reflections in line with Jansson’s (2009) thoughts whether communication is inherently desirable and good.

Annonser
Standard
An introduction to Strategic Communication

Can an organization be open and transparent?

Bild

A current theme when discussing organizations and their communication, in general as in the academic field, is the importance of being open and transparent (see among others Falkheimer & Heide, 2011; Fombrun & Van Riel referenced in Cornelissen, 2011; Berg, 2011; Werntoft, 2013). Political institutions describe their activities as striving for transparency as seen with everything from the Swedish State Bank (Riksbanken) to the NGO Sida, making general gambit regarding the importance of transparency (Svensson, 2008; Sida, 2012). One reason lies in how technological developments are perceived to have expedited communication processes, such as how the media can quickly spread negative news about a company or authority, and that both the organization and stakeholders quickly need access to information and expertise to handle the situation. Falkheimer and Heide (2011) argue that the opportunities available to store and access a wealth of information has created expectations on organizations to be transparent. It can stem from for example to prevent corruption which could jeopardize an organization’s entire raison d’être, such as the United Nations which should reflect international law (United Nations, 2013).

 Bild

Openness and transparency is in line with the prevailing academic perspective on communication, namely the mutual creation of meaning or ”ritual” model, where communication is seen as a circular process where individuals and groups together and continuously creates meaning (see for example Jansson, 2009). Varey (2000), Axley (1984) and Botan and Taylor (2004) highlight this perspective as the modern and ideal, in contrast to the transmission model where communication is seen as linear transfer. The authors seem to be missing a power aspect of communication, where even a perspective based on shared meaning making can be used to control and exert control over others. Deetz and Mumbay (1990 referenced in McPhee & Zaug, 2000) points out ”All communication necessarily involves the use of power […].” An organization’s communication will thus always involve a production and reproduction of power. Moreover both perspectives should be needed to understand how organizations communicate and why, as this is based on cultural norms and traditions, despite Varey’s (2000) argument that the transmission perspective is out of date.

 Bild

That an organization is transparent seems to be based on the idea that the organization is more democratic as everyone can get access to information. Falkheimer & Heide ( 2011) writes : ”[…] strategic communication is justified based on the argument that it promotes openness and transparency between members of the organization and between the organization and the environment. The argument is based on a non-authoritarian and democratic view of organizations and society based on secrecy, hierarchy and the withholding of information being valued negatively.”. We find this standard in the Swedish principle of public access where the government and other agencies are required by law to keep a great deal of information open and where transparency is considered positive (Regeringen, 2013). But the principle of openness has exceptions, e.g. documents relating to national security or protection of individuals. This in itself points out therefore, the risks associated with organizations’ openness, while it raises the question: if transparency is limited, is it really transparent? Is transparency something that an organization can strive for, but never totally achieve? The issue is likely normative. From an organizational communicative perspective the question evolves around the specific organization’s approach to leadership and strategy. If the leader is based on a ”top-down” perspective found in classical approach school (Whittington, 2002), the organization can hardly act with transparency since focus on is on individual leaders’ thought instead of communication processes. The corporate culture is therefore fundamental to whether transparency is possible.

Two settings can be found in the literature that may be linked to the two dominant communication perspective, where the pursuit of transparency and openness is seen as positive, which is based in ritual model of communication ideals, and one who sees transparency as impossible and more as a strategy for the conductors which is based on the transmission model. But if a modern organization should strive to be open and transparent, how is such a corporate culture created?

Standard