Improving Organizational Performance: Moving from Communication simple to
Communication Complex
By
John Parrish-Sprowl
Co-Director, Global Health Communication Center
Communication Studies
Indiana University School of Liberal Arts
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis USA
Twenty first century pressures continue to press leaders of organizations
everywhere to develop ever improving ways of increasing the effectiveness of their
processes. This is the case no matter where an organization is attempting to
function, be it Minneapolis, Munich, or Minsk (Parrish-Sprowl, 2000). When
searching for ways to improve an organization as a leader, or to assist an
organization as a consultant, it is important to find methods and mechanisms that
take into account culture and context. Because each organization functions within
its own unique circumstance, at the intersection of country, culture, community, and
industry as well as within the larger global context, they must engage leadership
and consultancies that can work with them to develop greater effectiveness at all
levels.
Belarusian organizations, of course, must find their way to improved
performance within the context of the markets of the country and culture in which
they operate. While the managerial and consulting literature offer a large number of
possibilities, such as six sigma, one of the most accessible and adaptable approaches
to improving performance rest with shifting from traditional notions of
communication to what we call a communication perspective. In brief, most
managers and consultants treat communication as a transmission model, one where
one person conveys a message to another or an audience and hopes for fidelity of
understanding. While this is useful, it is also rather limited and blinds the manager
or consultant to many possibilities for process improvement (Parrish-Sprowl, 2000,
2006).
Communication simple is a term I use to signify this transmission model of
communication. The idea that communication is only about conveyance (hence the
use of the term for public transportation) often prevents us from exploring fairly
inexpensive and simple solutions to what otherwise might seem to be a difficult
problem. Many of the issues facing organizations, such as speed of throughput,
worker motivation, teamwork, collective decision making, leadership, strategic
planning, customer service, sales and marketing can be productively thought of as
communication issues, but generally we only do so if we take a different approach to
communication.
Communication complex refers to an approach that rests on a premise that
most problems are created by how we interact with each other thus most of our
solutions arise from the same process. A growing body of theory and research
about communication tells us that we live in communication, that it reflexively
creates us as we create it. Recent research in neuroscience finds that
communication literally plays a role in the construction of our brains as we talk with
each other. While space does not permit me to fully explain communication
complex, I can offer some basic guidelines for organizational leaders and
consultants that may assist them in improving organizational performance. These
suggestions are a product of my drawing together much theory and research,
including my own, as well as two decades of organizational work in Poland, Russia,
and Macedonia (Parrish-Sprowl, 1994, 2002). Although I have been to Belarus a
number of times to lecture at and work with universities, I have not worked with
other organizations. My observations are that there are some similarities in the
Post-Soviet experience, but some country and cultural specific issues as well.
Communication complex takes such issues into account when engaged to as a means
to improve performance.
Process, Patterns, Perturbations
First, we should consider communication not to be an activity, but as a
process. Consider the difference between conversation and conversational
episodes. Conversations are topics discussed across time, space, and people. For
example, people have been talking about worker motivation for at least since the
beginnings of the industrial revolution. When we talk about it we bring forward
ideas and pieces of ideas from authors, managers, mentors, teachers, and others to
formulate are thoughts and discussions at the moment. This conversation has gone
on for a long time and will continue to do so. A conversational episode, takes place
among specific people at a specific time. It is but one part of the whole conversation.
Too often, when we think of communication simple we only focus on the episode
and our analysis does not take into account that it is but one small part of a larger
conversation. This can skew our assessment and lead to unproductive solution to
organizational issues.
Second, although humans are fully capable of inventing anew each time they
talk, mostly we interact in patterns. Simple tends to lead us to focus on individuals,
analyzing what each person says. Communication complex shits our attention to the
pattern that is created when people talk. The pattern offers a much richer unit of
analysis for improving organizational functioning. We become more interested in
what people are creating together than in what each person is doing. For example,
conflict tends to unfold in discernable patterns and when we alter these patterns the
conflict can often dissipate. This can lead to a smoother functioning organization.
A perturbation refers to how we choose to intervene in a process, to alter
undesirable patterns to promote greater productivity and performance. Whenever
we endeavor to change an organization (for better or worse) ultimately what we are
doing is perturbing the way people engage each other. This is true whether we are
trying to develop improved customer service, increase employee motivation,
decrease errors in product or service, or improving the poser of our strategic
planning. If we want change we must do something differently. Often people are
viewed as resistant to change. While this could be the case, we can think of it in a
different way that is more likely to produce the change we want and need. No
matter how ineffective a pattern might be, it is familiar. Doing what we are already
doing is something we understand and have developed a competence in performing
that is comfortable. Perturbing a pattern leads people to do something that at first
can be uncomfortable and leave people feeling incompetent. Almost nobody likes to
feel incompetent. Thus, we see resistance to change.
In communication complex I refer to this as putting people’s resources at
risk. Resources are those basic ideas and actions that enable us to do anything, such
as make a part, cook a meal, or manage a department. If we directly challenge a
person’s resources then we can expect pushback. It is better, to work with them
first, to develop a sense that the resources are obsolete or by comparison not as
effective as a different set of resources. Once convinced of that people are not
resistant but motivated to change. This can entail the use of demonstrations,
discussion with the workers, presentation of data, and coaching. We must then
work with them to insure that the new resources, contributing to a new pattern, are
mastered. This builds effective change.
Moving from communication simple to communication complex requires
some learning, both in the area of theory and that of practice. But it can yield better
performance. At a fundamental level, the process can begin by the consultant or
manager choosing to do two things. First, consider process, patterns, and
perturbations. Second, lead your analysis with some key questions like the
following:





When people talk in this organization what are they making? (Productive
patterns, unproductive conflict? Good customer service, etc.)
When people disagree are they more interested in being right, or being
effective? (Do they argue to win or do they move to make the organization
better?)
What are our goals? (IF we change, what do we hope to achieve?)
Who benefits and how from the changes? (Do people get something for their
efforts? If so, what?)
How might the process of change work? (Can we envision the transformation
process as opposed to just thinking about what the change will look like
when we are done?)
Communication complex requires inquire and introspection. It also works best
when change is based on data rather than supposition.
People already know how to communicate. What they need to do is learn to
communicate differently to create change. It is not to say that they are poor
communicators, but rather new patterns, new ways of doing things, can create
benefits. Actually, it is because people already know how to communicate that we
can create effective change. Sometimes the change is easy, sometimes not. It
depends in part on how different the pattern needs to be and how prepared people
are to do things differently. This is the role of managers and consultants as it is their
job to not just run things but to make things better to meet the demands of an everchanging world.
Many Belarusian organizations have been created in the Post-Soviet period.
Others have survived from that time. All of them, however, must work to develop in
the circumstances that exist now and can be anticipated in the future. Changes in
markets, technology, transportation as well as other areas mean that all managers
and consultants must be come expert in the art of creating meaningful and
productive change. One if the best sources for facilitating the insight and skill need
to be effective is to learn more about and how to engage communication complex as
a frame for understanding and creating change in the organization. This article
provides a brief glimpse into practices that can improve change management. The
suggestions are useful, but never stop learning, to be good at change we must
change as well.
References
Parrish-Sprowl, J. (2006). Team facilitation in organizational change: A case study from
a bona fide group perspective. In L. Frey, Ed. Facilitating group communication in
context: Innovations and applications with natural groups. Cresskill, New Jersey:
Hampton Press. p. 203-224.
Parrish-Sprowl, J. (2002). A model of communication intervention for improved
performance. Proceedings of the Communication Theory and Application
Conference, Moscow State Linguistics University, Moscow, Russia. p. 7-8.
Parrish-Sprowl, J. (2000). Organizational communication: Linking key processes to
effective development. In A. Moemeka (Ed.) Development communication in action:
Building understanding and creating participation. New York, London: University
Press of America. p. 179-202.
Parrish-Sprowl, J. (1994). Organizational issues in Poland’s economic transformation: A
communication perspective. In Malkiewicz, A., Parrish-Sprowl, J., and
Waszkiewicz, J. (Eds.) Komunikacja spoleczna w procesach transformacyjnych
(Social communication in the transformation process). Wroclaw, Poland: Instytutu
Nauk Ekonomiczno-spolecznych Politechniki Wroclawskiej. 77-83.