Theories of Communication

Communication

Academically defined, communication is an "information-related behavior that is a necessary life process." There are three settings for this art: interpersonal, machine-assisted and mass. While each setting is experienced by we humans daily, each has its own traits.

Interpersonal communication is a meeting, a brainstorm session or an argument (to name a few). It is the communication that started communication. That's a rather broad statement, but I believe it to be true. The face to face interaction between peers and strangers is what makes this world so interesting.

Machine-assisted communication made Alexander Graham Bell a rich man. When I started with my current company, my role was in a sales capacity. Each day was spent making phone calls to customers, both current and potential in order to advertise and promote our services. These days, machine-assisted communication means more than dialing a number and saying "hello." E-mail, text messaging, instant messaging and web-conferencing are all perfect examples of machine-assisted communication.

The third, mass communication, while consistently refined through the ages, has been around at least since Moses led his people through Egypt. Mass communication in the form of propaganda activated a nation during World War II, united a country after 9/11 and today, gives us our daily dose of celebrity gossip. Mass communication speaks to the crowd and elicits emotion and opinion from those it reaches.

The Models

Through the years, a number of influential theorists have formulated their own models of communication. As we have evolved as a species, so to have our means of communication.

Harold Lasswell's Model (1948)







Lasswell's model originated from the aforementioned propaganda in WWII. The model, while basic, defined the communication standards of the day. As a journalism undergrad, the similarities to the Five W's (who, what, when, where, why) were striking. Lasswell's model began with the "who," or in this case, a speaker. The speaker transmitted the "what" (the message) through a channel or medium and the end result was the delivery of the message to the audience, prompting a reaction.

In the case of WWII, the "who" was our government, the "what" was to join the army, the channel was the radio or pamphlets falling from the sky, and the "whom" was the American people. The intended result was the American people taking action to either join the army or support the war by any means necessary.

Shannon & Weaver's Model (1949)










Shannon & Weaver were mathematicians at Bell Laboratories when they developed a new model. This model (linked above) magnified Lasswell's brainchild. Shannon & Weaver believed communication to be "information to reduce uncertainty." The new form incorporated an idea known as "noise," or the internal and external barriers challenging sound communication. The two believed in redundancy to reinforce points when faced with the noise. Also, Shannon & Lasswell were the first to acknowledge information as a key characteristic and the first to introduce communication to academics.

Wilbur Schramm's Model (1954)



model two





Schramm introduced three models of communication in succession, each of which elaborated on the former. His first method involved a source sending a message through an encoder, which would deliver it to a signal, a decoder would take the information and present it to the destination. Utterly confused yet? The information passed from the source is packaged and delivered and then dolled up into lay man's terms before reaching its destination. The second model incorporated overlapping fields of experience. The signal is where the two fields are familiar with one another. The third model was the first to introduce feedback into the equation. The overlapping fields were replaced with two separate entities that would relate back and forth to one another through the use of feedback.

Katz & Lazarsfeld Model (1955)









Katz & Lazarsfeld were political scientists who were the first to include mass communication in a model. At the time, radio and print were emerging as the most effective means of mass media advertising. The message would be delivered through mass media to an "opinion leader," who would present the message to the public. This created an interpersonal addition to the previous models.

Westley-MacLean Model












Westley and MacLean believed that the communication process starts with an advocate. That is, events occur and are taken by an advocate and presented through a channel to the audience. The audience in turn gives feedback to the advocate. Some events are so large in scope that they do not need an advocate.

This model is especially evident in my day to day job functions. My current position involves supporting and training users on a new computer system. When a new feature is added (the event) it is my task to advocate these changes through the appropriate channels in order to reach my audience in the most effective manner. I receive feedback on many levels. Some understand the training while some do not. Others appreciate the benefits of the new system and some resist it. But the inclusion of the interpersonal communication between the advocate and the audience in this model is what makes it so effective.

Kincaid's Convergence Model (1979)













Kincaid's model determined that communication is more than just a model of definite outcomes. His take is that communication is a process that is cyclical and evolving over time. There is no singular event with communication and as information changes, so does the means to communicate.

As I mentioned earlier, my original position with my company was in sales. I had a supervisor, colleauges and clients. Now that I am out of sales, my spot on the organizational hierarchy has changed. I am on the same level in the organization as my old supervisor. Our communication has changed. Where once we worked together to better our department, we now work together on a larger scale to better the company as a whole. As our professional relationship evolves, we will no doubt find new ways to communicate with one another as our experience with our respective temperaments and ideals matures.

In Conclusion

The various communication models discussed show how our methods have changed throughout the years. Not surprisingly, each new model digs a little deeper than its predecessor. The models, just like business, are constantly evolving. An excellent piece by Business Week discusses how blogs are changing the business world. This is a perfect example of the effect of mass communication.

I would be remiss to not mention the current financial crisis. In closing, here is a clip of Bill Clinton on NBC's Today acting as an advocate to present the crisis and its meaning to a mass audience.

Changing Environment of Business

To trust or not to trust?

Times are changing. Have changed. Will change. The influx of technology in the past twenty years has changed the scope of the world. International communication is a click away. Information flows like the Nile. The public is inundated with media. The slightest slip up by an organization can cause a public outcry rivaling a bad call by a referee during a Steelers' game.

Companies have evolved through the years, there is nothing to dispute that. Not evolving, however, is the public's opinion of these companies. From the "robber barons" of early industry to the present day white-collar to orange jumpsuit clad executives from Enron, WorldCom and the like, public perception of these corporate titans is filled with resentment and bitterness.

Our text, Corporate Communication, by Paul Argenti sites a decades-old survey that asks the question, "Does business balance profit and public interest?" In 1968, the majority of the population (70%) answered yes to the question (Argenti). By 1999, only 28% of respondents felt companies balanced profit and public interest (Argenti).

It is of utmost importance to these organizations that they keep a pulse on the effect their company has on the public and the community.

Breaking down the walls

A wise organization keeps an open line of communication to their constituents. In this case, the word "constituents" could mean employees, customers, shareholders, competitors, the government and/or any other person or institution that is affected by an organization.

As previously mentioned, technology has created a new brand of business that companies and their managers must recognize. In order to manage and incorporate this change in day to day operations, organizations should adhere to a basic framework of topics to ensure they are "Keeping up with the Jones'".

Recognize the Changing Environment

The text mentions McDonald's realization that their customers were put off by the use of non-recyclable materials in their packaging. At first, the fast food giant resisted change. But as time went on, their desire to avoid alienating customers came to the forefront and McDonald's changed. This decision helped ease the consumers and McDonald's was applauded for their efforts.

My company recently debuted a new computer program aimed to enhance our presence in the very profitable value-added sector of the steel industry. Incidentally, part of my job function is to train colleagues to use this program. The ultimate goal is to have our employees and customers work in partnership on this system.

There have been restraints. Many employees are old hat in the sense they see no need for such an initiative. They have sold steel for twenty plus years and have always been successful, so why change now? Part of my training process is to explain the pros - and cons - of our new system. At times it is hard to sell our people on the need for change. They feel as if I am trying to sell the sizzle and not the steak. My objective is to help them recognize the benefits of the change and help them implement our plans. After all, if the users are not fully on board, how can they effectively present this new program to our customers?

Adapt to the Environment without Compromising Principles

To remain successful for an extended length of time, an organization needs to embrace a set of ethical standards and principles. These principles need to be adjusted and cultivated over time to ensure a positive reputation is maintained.

A few years ago, China began producing steel that was much less expensive than steel produced domestically. While resistant to do business with the Chinese, my company relented and began buying offshore. The decision was made for competitive reasons. Our management did not like it, but to remain a player in the industry it was necessary.

Eventually, the fears of our management were realized: A large shipment of poor quality material had been purchased by us and sold to our customers. Above all things, quality for our customers is the number one requirement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit were issued to our valued customers. We adapted as necessary but did not lose focus on what remains most important.

Don't Assume Problems Will Magically Disappear

In short, remain diligent and stay focused. This is especially relevant today. Many times each day emails circulate that have three, four or more people "cc'd". Sometimes these emails involve problems or situations that require action. I always make sure to follow up on the topic at hand, even if the question or issue was not directly pointed towards me. Resolution happens when all parties communicate and work together to achieve a goal.

Keep Corporate Communication Connected to Strategy

Each morning when I get to the office I have three objectives: 1) Get coffee. 2) Check e-mail. 3) Log in to the "Strategic Plan" database and review objectives and goals I set for myself days or weeks prior. Many days are spent completing said objectives. Each employee of the marketing department is expected to keep their strategic plan up to date. Even though many of us are scattered in different offices across the country, we are able to catch up on each others' projects within minutes - simply by accessing the site.

If one colleague in Denver sees a similar objective from Boston, he/she is able to communicate this. Had the database not been available, the left hand would have been working and the right hand may have stayed idle.

Moving Forward

The dynamics of business are changing every day. Actions never before seen are in the forefront as I type this entry. While a cliche, we never truly know what will happen. Let us hope that during this massive financial crisis, the top managers of our nation's financial institutions adhere to the communication principles we have discussed thus far. Digging from the bottom up will not be easy, but sound communication will alleviate some of the pain.