Organization


 * Definition**

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online, the concept organization originated in the second half of the 14th century chiefly in biology. It referred to the following:
 * 1) “the development or coordination of parts (of the body, a body system, cell, etc.) in order to carry out vital functions"
 * 2) "the condition of being or process of becoming organized”
 * 3) “the way in which a living thing is organized; the structure of (any part of) an organism”

The most common meaning of the concept organization in the social sciences originated in the later part of the 18th century (OED). This was around the same time as the beginning of the industrial revolution, the American revolution, and the French revolution. The concept came to refer to an “organized body of people with a particular purpose, as a business, government department, charity, etc.” (OED). This is also the meaning that was reflected in early communication scholarship as most communication researchers interested in organizations at the time were mostly concerned with employee superior-subordinate communication, emergent communication networks, and communication environments in business organizations (Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001).

**Miller's Definition of Organization**

A definition provided by Miller (1995) states that organizations are comprised of five critical features, namely:
 * 1) the existence of a social collectivity
 * 2) organizational and individual goals
 * 3) coordinating activities
 * 4) organizational structure
 * 5) the embedding of the organization within an environment of other organizations

While these critical defining features still reflect much of the thinking about what an organization is in organizational communication literature, Miller (2009) argues that it is necessary to complicate our thinking about organizations to account for contemporary political, technological and socio-economic developments. For instance, according to her, it is critical to stretch our thinking to understand that “the features of an ‘organization’ are also relevant for the consideration of social organizations such as fraternities and sororities, or even families or groups of friend who are coordinating around valued goals and tasks” (p. 11).


 * Classical Approaches to Organizations**

Early organizational communication theorists viewed organizations as “machines” or mechanical things in which the parts are interchangeable, including employees functioning in defined roles (Miller, 2009). Based on such a view, known as the classical approach to organizations (also Classical Management style), defining characteristics of organizations included the following:
 * //specialization// - like machines, every part of the organization has a specific function),
 * //standardization// - closely related to notion of //replaceability//, like machines, every part of the organization (e.g, workers) are the same and easily interchangeable
 * //predictability// - like machines, there are rational rules and standards that govern how organizations are operated (Miller, 2009).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the field of organizational communication was expanding in parallel to several other disciplines, it became heavily influenced by human relations/human resources approaches, critical theory, systems thinking, and cultural approaches (Miller, 2009). These influences led to new ways of understanding or thinking about organization.


 * Human Relations and Human Resources Approach**

In contrast to the classical approach that valued physical labor and viewed organizations as "machines," the human relations approach views the organization as a "family." Human relation theorists assumes that individuals are not just motivated by financial gain, but by the desire to fulfill higher order needs, such as self-actualization or interpersonal relationships (refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; Maslow, 1943, 1954). Therefore, like the members in a family, the organization will be most productive when the needs and satisfaction of its employees are met (Miller, 2009).

The human resources approach combines both the classical and human relations approaches by recognizing that while individuals have feelings that need to be considered, individual labor is also necessary for accomplishing organizational goals (Miller, 2009). Furthermore, this approach emphasizes the benefits that individual thoughts, ideas, and discussions can have for the organization. This approach strives to maximize "both organizational productivity and individual need satisfaction," and "emphasizes the [cognitive] contributions that employees can make to organizational functioning" (Miller, 2009, p. 49).


 * Systems Approach**

The systems approach views organizations “not as self-contained and self-sufficient machines, but as complex organisms that must interact with their environment to survive” (Miller, 2009, p. 57). As Morgan (1986) notes: “the problems of mechanistic visions of organizations have led many organizational theorists away from mechanical science and toward biology as a source of ideas for thinking about organization” (pp. 40-41). Unlike other approaches to organizations, a systems approach does not focus on the management and behavioral aspects of people within the organization, but rather how one can study and understand them. At a basic level, a system is comprised of three components:
 * 1) Hierarchical ordering - subsystems and supersystems are arranged in a complex order
 * 2) Interdependence - each component in the system relies on others in order to function
 * 3) Permeability - to some degree, systems are open or closed, allowing or restricting access to information (Miller, 2009)


 * Cultural Approach**

Cultural approaches to organizations, derived from the field of anthropology, view organizations as cultures (Miller, 2009). Within this approach, are two primary perspectives: one that view culture as something that the organization has, while the second views culture as something that an organization is. Miller (2009) outlines the defining characteristics of organizational culture:
 * 1) values,
 * 2) traditions,
 * 3) belief systems,
 * 4) rites,
 * 5) rituals,
 * 6) metaphors,
 * 7) practices,
 * 8) ceremonies,
 * 9) communication rules,
 * 10) narratives,
 * 11) and other artifacts that make every organization unique (Miller, 2009).


 * Critical Approach**

Critical approaches to organizations, rooted in the works of Karl Marx, take a radical frame of reference in examining organizations (Miller, 2009). In this framework the organization is viewed “as a battleground where rival forces (e.g., management and unions) strive for the achievement of largely incompatible ends” (Morgan, 1997, p. 202). In other words, critical approaches to organizational communication adopt a radical frame of reference by considering organizations as sites of domination (Miller, 2009).


 * Organizations and Communication**

Additionally, according to the classical approach, organizations function as a container within which communication takes place (Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001). As the field of communication studies evolved, the classical view of organizations, its positivistic bend, its managerial bias, and its narrow conceptualization of the role of communication in organization were heavily criticized (Miller, 2009; Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001). Thus, the problems inherent in the classical view of organizations led communication researchers to look for new ways to think about organizations (Morgan, 1986).

In the 1980s, the field turned away from a business-oriented approach to communication and became concerned more with the constitutive role of communication in organizing. In 1984, Tompkins, in his survey of the field of organizational communication, challenged the classical views of organizations in communication research. Central to Tompkins’s (1984) critique was the idea that organizations are entities where communication is **situated** (Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001). Instead, Tompkins (1984) viewed communication as constitutive of organization. He thus suggested that organizations might be viewed as “systems of interacting individuals, who through communication are actively involved in the process of creating and recreating their unique social order” (Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001, p. xxi).


 * Metaphors of Organizations**

Based on the review of the various approaches to or definitions of organization in the field of communication studies outlined above, it is important to acknowledge the central place that metaphors have in how organizations are conceptualized. The use of metaphors in organizational theorizing provides a "partial view" of an organization that is helpful for revealing and hiding imoprtant qualities of organizational functioning (Miller, 2009, p. 17). In their review of organizational communication research, Putnam, Phillips, and Chapman (1996) identified perspectives, in the form of metaphor clusters, that characterize what an organization is like (Morgan, 1997). These metaphors are summarized in table 1 below.

//Table 1: Metaphors of organizational communication research// Source: Adapted from Putnam, Phillips, and Chapman (1996); see also Tompkins and Wanca-Thibault, 2001, p. xxvii.
 * Metaphor Cluster || Orientation to Organization ||
 * Conduit || Organization viewed as containers or channels of information flow ||
 * Lens || Organization viewed as an eye that scans and relays information ||
 * Linkage || Organization viewed as networks of multiple, overlapping relationships ||
 * Performance || Organizations viewed as coordinated actions that enact their own rules ||
 * Symbol || Organization viewed as novel or literary text, a symbolic milieu in which organizing is accomplished ||
 * Voice || Organization viewed as a chorus of diverse voices ||
 * Discourse || Organization viewed as texts, ritualized patterns of interaction that transcend immediate conversations ||

Moderate revisions by Stacy Kim (August, 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Organization" limit="10"


 * References**

Miller, K. (1995). //Organizational communication: Approaches and processes//. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage learning.

Miller, K. (2009). //Organizational communication: Approaches and processes// (5th ed). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage learning.

Morgan, G. (1986). //Images of organization//. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (1997). //Images of organization//, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Organization in Oxford dictionary online. Retrieved August 4, 2010 from: []

Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), //Handbook of organization studies// (pp. 372-408). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tompkins, P. K. (1984). The functions of communication in organizations. In C. Arnold & J. Bowers (Eds.), //Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory// (pp. 659-719). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Tompkins, P. K., & Wanca-Thibault, M. (2001). Organizational communication: prelude and prospects. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), //The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory, research, and methods// (pp. xvii-xxxi). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.