51751_ch_4,5

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/51751ch45 1/66

77

CHAPTER 1CHAPTER 4

M a n

a g

e r i a

l E f f e c t i v

e n

e

s s

Communication

Technologies

Performance

Feedback

Boundary

Spanning

Change

Innovation

Data,

Information,Knowledge,

ActionCommunication

Corporate CultureEthics

• A s s e s s

• S t r at egize • I m

p l e m e n

t

Imparting theOrganizational Culture

Culture includes the entire symbolic environment. Culture defines reality:

what is, what should be, what can be. It provides focus and meaning. It

selects out of the myriad of events and interactions in the world those we

pay attention to. Culture tells us what is important; what causes what,

how events beyond our lives relate to us. Culture gives us values and stan-

dards of value. What we may distinguish analytically (and at our peril) as

fact, value, and goal is existentially integrated in culture—in identifica-

tions, expectations, and demands of individual persons.

—Jeane Kirkpatrick

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


78 SECTION 1: FOUNDATION

T

he technical cause of the tragedy was easy enough to figure out. It was a piece

of foam that hit the vehicle at the wrong time and place. But the Accident

Investigation Board believes that the “organizational culture and structure

had as much to do with this accident” as the foam.1

The safety culture, “over time, slowly and uninten-

tionally,” became “reactive, complacent, and domi-

nated by unjustified optimism.”2 The investigators

noted that the following traits were at the core of the

organizational culture:

reliance on past successes as a substitute for sound

engineering practices (such as testing to under-

stand why systems were not performing in accor-

dance with requirements); organizational barriers

that prevented effective communication of critical

safety information and stifled professional differ-

ences of opinion; lack of integrated management

across program elements and decision-making

processes that operated outside the organization’s

rules.3

How could an organizational culture devolve into

this state? How might organizational culture struc-

ture our view of reality in destructive ways? How can

leaders and managers cultivate a more desirable cul-ture? And how can we use organizational culture to

prevent future disasters like the one that destroyed

the space shuttle Columbia and claimed the lives of

seven astronauts? These are the issues discussed in

this chapter.

38%

of employees don’t feel committedto their organization

1 of 4

Corporate culture is 1 of 4 businessfundamentals that high-performing companies must master

39%

of employees are cynical aboutorganizational life

#2

ranked characteristic of top employersin the biotechnology andpharmaceutical industry is “having work and personal values that are aligned”

20%

lower turnover rate is experienced by companies that communicateeffectively versus companies thatdon’t communicate effectively

CHAPT E R 4 : BY T HE N UM BE RS

JULIETTE GORDON LOW

1860–1927

It was 1911, and Juliette Gordon Low had just celebrated her 50th birthday. If Juliette, or Daisy as friends and family called her, looked back on her life at thatpoint, she might have evaluated it in terms of a checklist. In column one, shemight have listed successes:

Become a skilled wood and metal worker. Check . Travel the world. Check . Go on a big game hunt. Check .

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


Chapter 4: Imparting the Organizational Culture 79

In an age when women of her stature were not supposed to do manual labor,travel unescorted, and hunt, she had done them all. She even built a large iron

gate for her Downton Abbey–like estate located in Warwickshire. And Daisy had even shot and killed a tiger on a big game hunt in India. That’s a fairly impres-sive resume for a young woman raised in the ashes of Savannah, Georgia, afterthe Civil War.

In the adjacent column of the checklist, she might have listed the following unchecked entries:

Successfully treat a hearing loss suffered early in life. (In fact, the physiciantreating her probably made her hearing worse by using a wrong concentra-tion of the drug. Years later, her difficulties were compounded by a kernelof rice that became lodged in her ear during her wedding celebration.)

Emulate the loving marriage of my parents. (For 9 years, she endured the gambling, womanizing, and drinking habits of the wealthy English rogueshe had married. Before the final divorce decree, he died, leaving most of his considerable estate to his mistress.)

Raise children in a loving home. (In fact, Daisy was childless, which at thetime carried an onerous social stigma.)

The question facing Daisy at 50 was “What now?” A childless widow withample funds like Daisy clearly could have idled away her remaining years attend-ing social events and hosting tea parties. She chose a decidedly different path.And women like Sally Ride, Condoleezza Rice, Mariah Carey, Sandra Day

O’Connor, and Hillary Clinton are glad she did.In 1911, by chance, Daisy met one of the most famous English generals of the

era, Robert Baden-Powell, who was also the founder of the Boy Scouts. Almostimmediately, Daisy and the general hit it off. He was fascinated by this woman,who was “maddeningly erratic” but “brilliantly eccentric.” And she was equally captivated by this man of military glory and gentlemanly charms. But over time,their common bond became scouting and its female counterpart, the “GirlGuides.”

Returning home to Savannah, Daisy assembled her first troop of Girl Guides(later to become Girl Scouts) on March 12, 1912. The core idea was simple: buildthe girls’ character, confidence, and courage in order to “make the world a better

place.” The girls learned to hike, camp, play basketball, administer first aid, andserve the community.But not all noble dreams result in an enduring, 100-year-old organization with

over 3 million members. How did Daisy grow the Girl Scouts into “the mostimportant organization for girls in the history of the nation”?4 After all, she hadno formal leadership and management training. Yet somehow she learned to cul-tivate values in these young girls that have endured for ages. To be sure, she hadremarkable storytelling and persuasion skills. She also had some simple and sus-tainable precepts cleverly captured in the Girl Scout Promise and Law that shepassionately shared with all who would listen. And, like all great communicators

(Continued)

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



What Is Culture?

The word culture has agricultural overtones, as in the word cultivation . Historically,

culture meant to prepare the ground or to till the soil in order to foster a particular

kind of growth. To the early Christians, culture involved a kind of worship.5

Culture still encompasses both definitions. Organizational cultures foster certain

types of growth, provide fertile ground for particular kinds of enterprises, and

weed out other types of behaviors. Cultivation of the organizational soil

encourages the germination of compatible and beneficial behaviors, practices,

and policies. And in many companies, a kind of religious zeal permeates the

organizational culture. Wal-Mart associates, for instance, may start the day witha ritualistic cheer or chant (“Give me a W, give me an A. . . . What’s that spell?

Wal-Mart. Whose Wal-Mart is it? My Wal-Mart. Who’s number one? The

Customer! Always!”).

Culture can be thought of as both a process and a condition. An organization’s

culture is simultaneously somewhat stable but constantly evolving as new challenges

are encountered. Implicit or explicit decisions are made to encourage some values

and discourage others. A 20th-century Renaissance man, Jacob Bronowski, said,

“For the values rest at bottom on acts of judgment. And every act of judgment is a

division of the field of experience into what matters and what does not.” 6 These

choices or “ways of being” become so thoroughly ingrained that other “ways of

doing things” are precluded.

Organizations, like countries, have styles of action and typical patterns of

thought that evolve. If there is “an American way,” then we can also say there is

the “Google way.” Corporate culture , then, is the underlying belief and value

structure of an organization collectively shared by the employees and symbolically

expressed in a variety of overt and subtle ways . A host of individual practices

morph and interlock to create a distinctive “way-we-do-things-around-here”

predisposition.7 Faced with the frenetic pace of corporate life, few managers take

the time to contemplate what the organization has become and is becoming.

Although they may not be able to clearly articulate the values, they certainly

function by them.

(Continued)

of culture, she knew how to use the scouting values to inspire others through an

ever-widening array of fun activities.Near the end of her life, Daisy might have looked on her checklists and discov-

ered two key insights: Her successes gave her the confidence to gleefully break the social norms of the day, and her disappointments fostered the fortitudeneeded to happily persevere through life’s challenges. Similar insights could guideleaders who seek to craft enduring and ennobling organizational cultures.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Culture for an organization is like music for dancers. To provide perspective, let’s

examine the impact of music on humans. Psychologists tell us that 2-year-old

infants will move toward consonant music and shy away from dissonant sounds. As

we age, music engages multiple parts of our brains and actually alters the neuralstructure, causing us to “react strongly to sounds that become important” to us.8

Over time, music regulates our social behavior, shapes our experiences, and

promotes bonding.9 Organizational culture acts in much the same way, altering the

way we process stimuli, shifting what commands our attention, and subtly

regulating our day-to-day activities. Effective cultures induce us to devote our time

to tasks that our organization values and ignore the rest. They promote bonding to

the values that the organization advocates. Just ask any member of the armed

forces.

The communication practices of leaders shape the harmonies and rhythms of an

organization. Just as music can express discord, confusion, turmoil, or even

randomness, so too can an organization’s culture. Strict adherence to a rhythmic

structure might appeal more to an Arrow manager, whereas a Circuit manager

might focus more on form than on substance. The Dance manager seeks to

harmoniously and creatively blend rhythm and melody.

Does Culture Matter?

Corporate culture influences the organization in a variety of ways. This section

highlights four of the more notable consequences.

Culture Affects the Bottom Line

James Kotter has devoted much of his scholarly life to investigating the habits of

visionary and value-oriented cultures. In a study of 207 companies over an 11-year

period, he found that the companies that lived by their stated values experienced

four times more growth in revenues than did their counterparts.10 Another

groundbreaking study of 160 companies over a 10-year period revealed that culture

was one of four business fundamentals that high-performing companies must

master. As the researchers note,

Our study made it clear that building the right culture is imperative . . . one that

champions high-level performance and ethical behavior. In winning companies,

everyone works at the highest levels. These organizations design and support a

culture that encourages outstanding individual and team contributions, one that

holds employees—not just managers—responsible for success.11

These findings should not be surprising. The right culture coupled with the cor-

rect strategy and structure provides employees with focus, purpose, and motiva-

tion. In a sense, a strong culture allows employees to almost read the minds of

executives, efficiently coordinating actions. The result: less waste, more innovation,

higher productivity, and, ultimately, higher profits.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Culture Influences How an OrganizationAnalyzes and Solves Problems

Few business characteristics have more significance on the profit-and-loss statement

than do the ways in which decisions are made and carried out. Paul Bate, a noted

scholar from the University of Bath, England, wrote in a thought-provoking article,

People in organizations evolve in their daily interactions with one another a sys-

tem of shared perspectives or “collectively held and sanctioned definitions of the

situation” which make up the culture of these organizations. The culture, once

established, prescribes for its creators and inheritors certain ways of believing,

thinking, and acting which in some circumstances can prevent meaningful inter-

action and induce a condition of “learned helplessness”—that is, a psychological

state in which people are unable to conceptualize their problems in such a way

as to be able to resolve them. In short, attempts at problem solving may become

culture-bound.12

Bate’s research confirms that culture deeply influences decision making.

Meaningful alternatives are not explored because “that’s not how things are done

around here.”

For instance, one small but growing company had several problems with how

various departments interrelated. The normal procedure was to forward all such

problems to the president and let him resolve the issues. After all, such procedures

worked well in the past, and the president, a corporate hero, was legendary for his

ability to equitably solve problems. However, as the firm grew, it became increasingly

difficult for the president to know the necessary facts to make appropriate decisions.A simple and obvious solution was to have middle managers meeting to solve many

of the problems and coordinate activities. Strangely, no one in the company had

thought of this idea. Why? Because of the “way-things-are-done-around-here.” In

essence, respecting the chain of command precluded even thinking about such a

solution. The culture blinded the entire management team to such an obvious

solution. The consultant who suggested the change was not constrained by these

blinders and was widely praised for this “revolutionary idea.” Once the meetings

began to take place, many of the problems were quickly and easily resolved.

Culture Influences How the CompanyWill Respond to Change

Culture can actively encourage quick and decisive change when conditions demand

it. Consider Amazon.com, run by the disarmingly understated Jeff Bezos. His goal

is “universal selection, the earth’s biggest river, earth’s biggest selection.” Some of

Amazon.com’s innovations, like one-click ordering, are legendary. Others are

complete failures. No matter. Few traditional companies would take such risky,

costly, and bold steps. Yet this is exactly what the culture demands of employees.

Conversely, the organizational culture can impede necessary change. Universities

are almost legendary for such resistance. If the need arises to develop a program

that crosses departmental boundaries, the budgetary and bureaucratic obstacles are

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



almost overwhelming. Why? In a word, tradition. The entire system conspires to

maintain the traditional departmental structure, and it underscores a belief that

knowledge should be compartmentalized. Hence, most universities develop

barriers to ensure that no one fundamentally challenges this belief. In some ways,such barriers to change may be beneficial, but the benefits should be weighed

against the costs. Then the question becomes “Does the culture foster the necessary

degree of change?” An organization’s long-term survival may hinge on the answer.

Culture Affects Employee Motivationand Customer Satisfaction

There can be no greater motivation for employees than when they believe in what

they are doing, what the company does, and what the company stands for. The

culture of excellent companies motivates because it provides a unique point of

identity and commonality for all employees. It distinguishes employees from those

in other companies; it’s like an exclusive club with all the requisite symbols of

distinction and powers of inspiration. For example, Disney World has a legendary

culture of customer service. Rick Johnson, who has conducted seminars about the

Disney culture, explained,

You can’t force people to smile. Each guest at Disney World sees an average of

73 employees per visit, and we would have to supervise them continually. Of

course, we can’t do that, so instead we try to get employees to buy into the

corporate culture.13

Then employees are expected to behave according to these general principles as

unique situations occur. Employees usually prefer to work with a manager who has

a set of values rather than a set of rules, who challenges others to share values

instead of enforcing regulations, and who believes in people over procedures.

Conversely, when a company espouses one philosophy but practices another,

employees become unmotivated, disheartened, and disillusioned. Who would be

motivated by a company that says that “all employees should be treated with

respect” but does not respond to their inquiries? This kind of disconnect between

word and deed breaks an implicit social contract. Likewise, who would offer a

spirited defense of a company that promises a “fair pricing system” to its customersand then regularly deceives clients as to the actual price of goods and services?

Hypocrisy has its price. George Gilder, in his classic book Wealth and Poverty,

summarized it best:

Matters of management, motivation, and spirit—and their effects on willingness

to innovate and seek new knowledge—dwarf all measurable inputs in accounting

for productive efficiency, both for individuals and groups and for management

and labor. A key difference is always the willingness to transform vague informa-

tion or hypotheses into working knowledge; willingness, in Tolstoy’s terms, trans-

ferred from the martial to the productive arts, “to fight and face danger,” to exert

efforts and take risks.14

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



How Can We Discover the Culture?

Anyone trying to detect cultural values should remember the old adage “Fish were

the last creatures to discover water.” Detecting culture requires a degree of detachment and insight—qualities difficult to master when we are immersed in an

organizational culture. Think, for instance, about how much you learn about your

own national culture when you travel abroad. Another difficulty faces the cultural

detective—namely, distinguishing between the stated and actual cultural values.

The stated culture is what the organization aspires to be, whereas the actual

culture represents the way the organization truly behaves. The cultural detective

needs to understand both to have a firm grasp of potential organizational

difficulties.15 A good place to start is to gather 100 facts about the organization, sort

them into categories, and ask the kind of questions reviewed in Table 4.1. Some of

the more revealing methods are highlighted in this section.

Examine the Corporate Slogans, Philosophies,and Value Statements

Click on the Web sites of almost any of the world’s most admired companies, and

you will find a clear statement of their corporate values and slogans. Wal-Mart, for

instance, routinely ranks in the top 10 on this list. 16 The company website boldly

asserts, “Our success will always be attributed to our culture.” It elaborates by

outlining three basic Wal-Mart beliefs: “1) respect for the individual, 2) service to

our customers, and 3) strive for excellence.”17 Statements like these provide a brief

and concise view of how the organization views itself and its mission—a sort of

corporate self-image. Publicizing the cultural values to both employees and

customers creates internal and external pressures to act in concert with the values.

Their ability to use their core values to guide behaviors and make decisions may

explain why more than 80% of U.S. households purchase something at Wal-Mart

each year.18 Researchers have confirmed that thoughtful mission statements

significantly improve the odds of “practicing what you preach.” In one study of

more than 40 publicly traded financial services firms, researchers found that “the

mission statement of firms recognized for their work-life initiatives were more

likely than those of competitors to emphasize the value of employees and less likely

to stress shareholder value.”19

One note of caution: Creating catchy value statements, of course, does not

guarantee organizational success of the magnitude of Wal-Mart. Just look at a few

story headlines about Toyota during 2010: “The Humbling of Toyota” and “How

Toyota Lost Its Way.”20 The company’s once highly touted “quality” culture took

some big hits during this time, even though no one rewrote the quality value

statement. In short, official organizational rhetoric often provides the cultural

detective with a clear understanding of leaders’ aspirations for the company (the

stated culture), not necessarily the actual cultural values. The cultural detective

looks for other, more subtle clues to discover the actual culture. We discuss two of

the more important ones next.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



TABLE 4.1 Discovering an Organization’s Cultural Values

Signs Potential Questions

Physical design

Buildings Where are they located? Why?

Parking lots Where do customers park? Executives?

Office design What activities are encouraged? Discouraged?

Symbols

Logos What values are highlighted? Where are logos displayed?

Dress codes Whose needs are underscored?

Philosophy

statements

What concepts are emphasized?

Taboos What actions are prohibited? Why?

Totems What objects are revered? Why?

Slogans What actions or thoughts are highlighted?

Heroes/villains Who are the “good guys” and “bad guys”? Why?

Conversations

Jokes/anecdotes What jokes/anecdotes are considered funny? Why?

Stories What stories are repeated? What is the moral of the story?

Naming conventions How are employees routinely referred to? What

nicknames are used? What do titles represent about the

organization?

Policies and activities

Financial rewards What activities get rewarded? Ignored?

Personnel policies What kinds of people succeed? Fail? Why?

Rituals What routine activities take place in the organization?Why?

Ceremonies What events get commemorated? Why?

Reflect on the Type of People in the Organization

Employees, particularly those at the highest levels, are at once creators, carriers, and

consequences of culture. The people hired, and their backgrounds, biases,

prejudices, and styles, shape the corporate culture. In turn, these employees carry

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



and embody the culture. The daily rituals, the inside jokes, and the taken-for-

granteds are all reflections of the values. The entire past, present, and future of the

company are reflected in the employees, just as a broken corner of a hologram

reflects the imagery of the entire picture.21

Employees are also consequences of theculture because even as they are shaping the culture, they are being shaped by it.

To be more specific, by questioning, probing, and observing the behavior of

others, the cultural detective can discern the hidden cultural values. Why are certain

individuals hired, fired, or promoted? What makes a person successful in the

organization? Unsuccessful? What does top management value in an employee?

How are decisions made? Why?

The “why” questions are the most difficult and revealing because the answers

disclose the underlying thought patterns, beliefs, and values of the organization.

More often than not, the “whys” are unstated and unconscious. For instance, why

do most organizations go through the ritual of asking for more information than

they can possibly use? The practice often reflects an underlying commitment to

“making informed decisions.” Or why would a company take the time to interview

a number of people it has little likelihood of hiring? A silly practice? Perhaps. But it

may reflect a corporate value of giving everyone “a fair chance.”

Study Symbols and Heroes

Organizational heroes frequently provide a rich source of information on

organizational values. For example, during one seminar with bank employees, the

discussion turned to some typical difficulties tellers had in dealing with

“uncooperative” customers. In the middle of the discussion, the bank presidentstood up and told a story. In a rather lengthy soliloquy, he told how he had handled

a similar situation when he was a teller and went on to explain with great relish how

he had become president from his modest beginnings. Even though I was a bit

surprised, the employees were not. Later, I found out that such an event was not

without precedent. Edward, as the president liked to be called, was one of the

corporate heroes, and those stories were common knowledge among the employees.

What purpose did Edward’s story serve? Fundamentally, the message reiterated

the value that top management was “employee centered” and that anyone can

“make it.” The president, whom they all knew on a first-name basis, was a coworker

who understood their difficulties and troubles. Most of all, he cared. Hecommunicated, consciously or unconsciously, the secret of this organization’s

success. Many employees, no doubt, shrugged off the incident. After all, it was

common knowledge. Yet the wise leader understands the deeper meaning of the

commonplace and finds significance in everyday events.

Symbolic clues provide numerous insights into corporate values. Some are more

explicit, such as corporate heroes, slogans, and philosophies. Others are more

implicit, such as parking lots, graphic designs, and company newsletters (see Table

4.1). But culture does not exist in the symbols themselves; they are really the

manifestations of culture. Culture evolves as employees come to understand, react,

and relate to the symbols. Note that this fluid process implies that organizations

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



often have various subcultures that compete to create the dominant culture.

Through this dynamic interplay, a culture emerges that may or may not be appro-

priate. We now turn to this difficult issue.

How Can We Evaluate the Culture?

Wise leaders often find the roots of fundamental problems buried deep within the

culture. The following three tests can reveal the underlying concerns with culture.

Does the Organization Seek to Close the GapBetween the Stated Culture and Actual Culture?

No one, not even ministers, can entirely practice what they preach. The stated

culture always differs from the unstated one. The important question revolvesaround the nature of the gap between the two. Large gaps promote cynicism,

discouragement, and poor performance. Consider the following situation. A small

university prided itself on its commitment to teaching. Prospective students were

told about the stellar teaching qualities of the faculty. Even new faculty recruits were

indoctrinated into the importance of quality teaching. Then one day, a new dean

became enamored with seeking a special certification for one of the largest

departments on campus. This particular certification required that the department’s

professors have the highest degrees. The only problem was that some of the best

and most experienced teachers in the program had master’s degrees, not PhDs.

What to do? Here was a real test of values. If teaching really mattered, then theleadership would either seek a way around the certification requirements or

abandon the quest. But that did not happen. The dean decided to terminate the

contracts of those with master’s degrees, one by one, as their contracts expired. He

also terminated any pretense that teaching really mattered. Image was all that

counted. Even that was tarnished, as it became clear years later that the certification

would never materialize. As many predicted, the initiative failed for lack of

resources and commitment. Student complaints about the quality of teaching

increased dramatically for a while but abated when they realized they just had to

“jump through the hoops” to get the degree. Cynicism, apathy, and pretense

prevailed because the chasm between the stated and actual culture was too wide to

bridge.

Is the Actual Culture Suited forthe Organizational Challenges?

A strong culture can actually be a bad thing for an organization because it can create

resistance to other ways of doing things. The culture needs to be consistent with

organizational strategy and the demands of the marketplace.22 Consider, for

example, the scandal ostensibly precipitated by the notorious Jayson Blair at the The

New York Times . One of the world’s greatest newspapers was forced to admit that it

published dozens of Mr. Blair’s stories that were either fabricated or plagiarized.23

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



On the surface, it may appear that Mr. Blair was solely responsible for these

misdeeds. But Warren Bennis, an esteemed management theorist at the University of

Southern California, argues that the problem really resides in the culture:

For all of Raines’s [NYT executive editor] liberal politics and Southern gentility, he

was an ego-driven autocrat who ruled by fear, played favorites, had an idiosyn-

cratic news judgment . . . and loathed hearing unwanted truths. Again and

again, he gave Blair plum assignments despite warnings from other editors that

the hyperactive, erratic rookie reporter was a disaster in the making.24

In essence, the executive editor failed to produce a culture of candor, which is

vital to maintaining and augmenting the credibility of a newspaper. In short, the

newsroom culture was not in sync with the demands of the business for accurate

and honest reporting. The subsequent firing of Mr. Blair and resignations of senior

editors helped readjust the culture.

Does the Actual Culture Fit the Employees’Beliefs and Values?

Most company mergers and acquisitions fail to live up to their promise. In fact,

researchers have consistently found a 50% to 60% failure rate.25 This makes perfect

sense because employees from one company often do not share the values of the

other company. After all, they were hired, trained, and assimilated by only one of

the organizations. In one instance, a large regional financial firm acquired a local

banking chain that prided itself on its unique culture. The local chain offered highly personalized customer service, even serving tea to customers as they entered the

bank. When the regional firm took over, the tea parties stopped. So did the person-

alized service. They were replaced by standardized procedures and formalized

relationships. The result: Employee turnover soared, while customer satisfaction

plummeted. No wonder mergers rarely live up to their promise. Few employees

quickly or gleefully assimilate a new culture.

How Can Leaders EffectivelyImpart the Culture?

The effective leader teaches employees (1) what the corporation values, (2) why it

is valued, and (3) how to transform values into action. Employees, like students, do

not always see the value of what they are doing until after they have done it. They

may tire, get discouraged, or even resist. Yet thoughtful leaders overcome these

hindrances while deepening commitment to organizational values and inspiring

employees to enact them. They view the values as DNA that should be replicated

throughout the organization. Ultimately, the values must move from objective

statements to subjective realities. In other words, employees must transform

corporate rhetoric into personal commitments and experiences. How can managers

facilitate this process? In a word, through communication.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Most organizations construct their culture through an unplanned and haphazard

trial-and-error process. Effective organizations with healthy cultures contemplate,

plan, and manage their corporate values. Still, as John Kotter notes, culture is “not

like Silly Putty in the wrong shape and you have to make it in the right shape.”26

Therefore, thoughtful leaders consciously but subtly construct cultural cues for their

employees. This section reviews 10 useful strategies for communicating values.

Craft Actionable Cultural Statements

Organizational value, mission, and purpose statements are inherently ambiguous,

and with good reason. A bit of equivocation can inspire innovative yet focused

behaviors, procedures, and decision making. Effective leaders fashion statements in

the actionable zone —ones that are neither overly ambiguous nor overly narrow. If

the statements are too ambiguous, they unleash employees, inspiring the disruptive

elements. If the cultural statements are too narrow, they straitjacket employees,

inspiring only the automatons. Consider the following statements:

• We are in the business of serving customers.

• Our employees are our number one resource.

• Our mission is to make the best damn product we can.

They may sound nice, but a proper employee discussion would quickly expose

their banality and insipidness. For example, how well should customers be served?

Resources can be bought, sold, and bartered. What about employees? And what if

customers do not want the “best damn product” the company makes because of thecost? In short, the statements do not motivate, inspire, or compel the right action.

Overly ambiguous statements dominate the organizational landscape. Why?

Probably because writing purposeful, value-based mission statements, no doubt,

has become fashionable. Companies can even purchase fill-in-the-blanks, “tailor-

made” mission statements—guaranteed to inspire even the indolent. Such practices

boggle the mind, conveying the authenticity of a plagiarized speech.

Cultural statements should be carefully contemplated. Ideally, get as many

people as feasible involved in crafting and even wordsmithing the statements.

Indeed, neuroscientists confirm what behavioral economists have known for years:

We respond quite differently to similar choices depending on the word choices.

Which package of ground beef will most consumers select: one labeled 80% lean or

one labeled 20% fat? It’s no contest; most people will pick up the one labeled “lean,”

even though the numbers reflect the same information.27 (Note: This is known as

the framing effect.) Debating and crafting the actual words provides a robust, beefy

understanding of the nuances and implications. A group of consultants specializing

in these issues expressed it this way:

It pays to spend more time in the planning and gathering and discussing of the

analysis, mission and vision, because the buy-in will be substantially stronger and

the implementation phase will just be a continuation of the process, rather than

a disjointed hand-off from planners to doers.28

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Consider the experience of our consulting team with one dairy plant. We spent

hours discussing the implications of one value statement, Purpose-Directed Energy.

We discussed what it meant and, more important, what it did not mean. We also

developed a secondary list of statements designed to clarify the value (see Figure 4.1).Milking the statement for all it was worth, we even created a PDE index for meet-

ings directly linking the cultural value to a measure (e.g., “On a 0–10 scale, how

much of our energy in the meeting was ‘purpose directed?’”).

FIGURE 4.1 Actionable Value Statement

Appropriately Socialize Employees

From the moment new employees enter the organization, they start snapping

mental pictures of the corporate values.29 The manner in which they are treated, the

way employees talk to one another, the office design, and even the hiring process

are all part of the mosaic. After being hired, the training procedures, daily rituals,

and practices further reinforce “what this company is all about.” So the socialization

occurs as the employees piece together images to form a more complete picture of

the organization’s value structure.

Through this process, managers can actively encourage the appropriate values.

Who does the hiring and interviewing, for example, can send equally powerful

messages. Admiral Hyman Rickover, the founder of the nuclear Navy, was notorious

for his rigorous interviews of all cadets who wished to serve on the submarines. In

fact, the title of President Jimmy Carter’s book Why Not the Best? came from a

comment by Rickover during one of those interviews.30 Here was one of the most

powerful men in the world interviewing a cadet and asking him if he always did his

best. Rickover, thus, set in motion the standard of excellence he expected from all

those in his charge. In fact, his legendary commitment to quality was so great that

his programs were usually considered “untouchable” during defense budget–

cutting days.31

Research indicates that the initial weeks of employment are a critical period for

the manager to exert influence.32 Supervisors, to some extent, lose their power to

shape the values, beliefs, and behaviors of employees after the first month or so.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



This makes the initial training period extremely important, for managers are

teaching not only specific skills but also the corporate philosophy. Detailed

discussions of corporate history, successes, and failures help instill corporate values

in employees. Some companies, like IBM, go through extensive discussions of corporate values—not just the “whats” but also the “whys” of policy. One IBM

employee remarked, “After you’re done with their training, you know what they

believe, why they believe it, and you end up believing it.”

Employees need not only to think about values but also to feel them. It is silly to

recite over and over again a fact such as “The speed of light is 186,000 miles per

second.” Once is enough. Yet repeating a slogan or value statement can act as an

organizational mantra, reiterating words that weave a magic incantation.33 We do,

in fact, listen to the same music over and over again. It replenishes our strength,

focuses our spirit, and energizes us, just as “Why not the best?” did for a former U.S.

president.

Develop Symbolic Reminders of the Core Values

Employees should live in a symbolic environment dominated by the organization’s

core stated values, reinforcing and reminding everyone what the organization

stands for. The creative energy of many managers would be well spent in thinking

of simple and novel methods to symbolize critical corporate values. Consider the

ideas of the following organizations:

• Appleton: This producer of specialty-coated paper does more than paper the

walls with its core value of CFQ, which stands for Customer-Focused Quality.Customers park in specifically designated CFQ spots close to the office buildings

and plants. The company compensated employees for purchasing designer license

plates that contain the CFQ acronym. On the streets in town, you cannot help but

notice CFQ license plates with gems like “IM4 CFQ” and “FORE CFQ.” One almost

senses a religious sect casting a magic spell. In fact, one citizen wrote to the local

newspaper inquiring about the “CFQ cult.” Appleton’s prayers were certainly

answered with publicity like that.

• Imperial LLC: This national distributor of quality maintenance supplies used

an intriguing rhetorical device to reinforce the value of “customer service.” As seen

in Figure 4.2, the company organizational chart is “upside down,” with the cus-

tomer at the top as the “chairman of the board.”

• A church: The minister believed that church members should volunteer for

church responsibilities instead of the usual practice in which various members are

“begged” to serve. Not only did he preach that “God calls people to serve” from the

pulpit, but he also signaled the value through a simple rhetorical device. Instead of

a “nominating committee” that sought volunteers for various church functions, he

reversed the spelling to coin the term “ETANIMON Committee,” to which mem-

bers applied to serve the church. Here, in this deceptively simple act, he reversed the

nominating process in both spelling and deed.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Slogans and other symbolic acts may appear to be simpleminded and trivial. Yet

the farsighted manager never underestimates the power and elegance of the simple.

These symbolic acts provide meaning, purpose, and a unique point of identity and

commonality for employees in these organizations.

Link Values With Specific Behaviors

Values are necessarily abstract concepts. Hence, there are countless specific

behaviors that could spring from one value. Wise managers not only encourage

certain behaviors but also link those behaviors to a specific value. Thus, the

value becomes the focal point, which in turn encourages other novel behaviors

that also express the value. One classic example occurred during the 1984

Olympic trials for the U.S. basketball team. Leon Wood, a standout offensive

player at Cal State Fullerton, was a leader in scoring and assists but was not

known for his defense. That was bound to change when Mr. Wood met Coach

Bobby Knight, who was known for producing tenacious defenders. Not one to

disappoint, Coach Knight gave Mr. Wood a lot of “personalized” instruction on

how to play defense. At one point, Leon reported, “Coach Knight came over to

me and said, ‘Leon, you took a charge, didn’t you? That’s your first one in camp,

isn’t it?’ I said it was, and so he told me to go to the spot on the floor where I

took the charge and sign the court.”34 The coach linked the person (Wood) to

FIGURE 4.2 Imperial LLC: Organizational Chart

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



the value (defense) to a specific action (taking a charge). There must have been

times when Leon was racing down the court that he looked over to that place

on the floor and remembered the incident, which was indelibly etched in his

mind.Moving from the hardwood to the office floor, we can find other compelling

examples:

• Home Depot: The company enacts its value of “giving back to the commu-

nity” by giving millions of dollars in grants to local charities and setting up teams

of volunteers to complete community projects. For example, they have helped

finance and organize projects to build affordable housing and playgrounds in

numerous communities.35

• Wal-Mart: Associates are encouraged to abide by the “10-foot rule” to better

serve customers. Sam Walton asked employees to pledge “to promise that whenever

you come within 10 feet of a customer, you will look him in the eye, greet him, and

ask him if you can help him.”36

Simple in design but powerful in effect, these acts symbolize and reinforce the

core values of the organizations.

Filter Information Through the Values

Employees can pay attention to an infinite array of information, ranging from

listening to the latest rumors to reading an ever-expanding stream of electroniccommunication. Effective organizations use the values to structure information to

provide a focused reminder. Focus emerges by highlighting the most critical

information while de-emphasizing less salient issues. Structuring information this

way also provides a reminder to employees that the values permeate everything the

organization does.

Consider how one task force restructured a plant’s monthly production report.

The original version of the 30-plus page report (organized by departments)

consisted of a mass of statistics wrapped in a morass of tangled and jumbled

commentary. All too often, employees read only about their own unit. The

committee sliced through this thicket of information by reorganizing the report

around the core values, disposing of pages of data, and slashing the report by 20

pages. For instance, all the safety data from various departments were grouped

together in an easy to read chart designed to highlight the progress from month to

month on the safety value. Below the statistical data was a summary of the month’s

safety incidents and issues.

Focus groups revealed that employees liked the new format and were more

inclined to read the entire report. Executives were particularly pleased by the

emphasis on plantwide issues. For example, when an employee sustained a peculiar

injury in one department, employees in other departments would learn about the

incident in the report. This kind of cross-departmental learning rarely happened

with the old report format.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Tell the Right Stories and CreateOpportunities to Originate Stories

As the insightful scholar George Gerbner said, “The control of any culture is

dependent on those who control the stories that are told.”37 In fact, psychologists

discovered a very strong correlation between the stories we tell about ourselves and

the type of life we lead. Repeat stories about your luck to others. Bingo! Even when

faced with a setback, you tend to lead a lucky life.38 The wise leader seizes the power

of the story and uses it as a tool to regularly communicate the core values. What

happens if a manager cannot think of a good story that illustrates a critical

organizational value? Nothing at all. Employees will not understand the values,

much less try to abide by them.

Roger Schank leads a team of scholars trying to teach computers to “tell the right

stories.” This daunting task goes to the very core of human experience: “We are the

stories we tell. We not only express our vision of the world, we also shape ourmemory by the stories we tell.”39 The storyteller’s simple tale diverts our attention

from their power and complexity. As Roger Schank put it, “If we all share the same

stories, we feel part of a common group. Moreover, when we believe that our most

intimate stories are shared by our listeners, communication feels most intense.” 40

Good stories have a moral that we remember and act on. In fact, in a wonderfully

titled book, Managing by Storying Around , David Armstrong describes how his

company uses stories:

We have found stories to be so effective; they’ve replaced our policy manual.

. . . Storytelling is a much simpler and more effective way to manage. I don’t

have to make thousands of individual decisions—Is it okay to have a drink dur-

ing (a company) dinner? How about charging an in-room movie to the hotel

room (during a company trip)? . . . The story gives people our guidelines, and

then it is up to them. Storytelling promotes self-management.41

The stories provide the mechanism to move the values from stale statements

written on a piece of paper to a fresh testament written in the hearts and minds of

employees. As the esteemed screenwriter Robert McKee put it, stories “fulfill a pro-

found human need to grasp patterns of living—not merely as an intellectual exer-

cise, but within a very personal, emotional experience.”42

Shrewd leaders are more than storytellers; they also create opportunities for

others to develop meaningful stories. Ginger Graham, a group chairman for a

medical technology firm, held a mock funeral to mark the demise of her old firm

and the birth of a new one. The tale continued:

Someone dressed up as the Grim Reaper. Tombstone-shaped nameplates, with an

executive’s name on each, graced every place at the table. We each wrote our

own epitaphs describing our roles in the demise of the company. Mine was slow

decision-making. . . . The funeral experience reinforced a sense of immediacy

that made the epitaph exercises stick in our minds long afterward.43

Clearly, vivid memories can mark the point where values started to change and

provide us a sense of future direction. One thoughtful writer may have summed it

up best:

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



“We all bend our lives to fit the templates with which myths and archetypes

provide us. We all tell ourselves stories and bring our futures into line with those

stories, however much we cherish the sense of newness, of originality, about our

lives.”44

Use Rewards as Powerful Reminders

If you want to know what an organization really values, watch how it invests its

resources. There are a variety of ways, large and small, to use rewards to reinforce

values:

• Institute employee stock ownership plans.

• Link pay to performance on key value indicators.

• Provide special rewards (monetary and nonmonetary) to individuals and

teams who practice values in action.

Investing resources in the values usually pays off. As Carol Bernick, former

president of Alberto-Culver North America, wrote, “If you want something to grow,

pour champagne on it.”45

Manage Conflict Through the Values,Not the Hierarchy

Groucho Marx once quipped, “Those are my principles; if you don’t like them I

have others.” Managers in a healthy culture may chuckle at this wisecrack, but they would never alter their values to deal with a difficult situation. Consider this

incident that occurred at Appleton, Inc. An hourly employee was arguing with a

midlevel manager about how to pack a semitrailer with a paper product. The

hourly worker invoked CFQ: “This is the way the customer wants us to pack it. I

thought we believed in focusing on the customer.” Result: That was all the employee

had to say; the trailer was loaded the way the customer wanted.

The story quickly spread throughout the plant. On the surface, the story

circulated by the employee may appear to highlight the “victory” of the union

worker over one of the “suits.” After all, in many companies, the hourly worker

would quickly acquiesce to those in authority. But on a deeper level, it signals thatAppleton “walks the talk.” Incidents like this more powerfully communicate the

values than a thousand pep talks.

Unfortunately, all organizational conflicts are not resolved as easily. Organizational

conflicts often arise because of clashes between competing values. There are

innumerable practical manifestations of one simple value. Practices that are

congruent with one value may be incongruent with another one. Wise managers

learn to reconcile the inevitable conflicts between values and seek a balance. Taken

to the extreme, an employee might believe that “customer service” means providing

an excessively costly service to clients. Of course, such practices need to be balanced

with the profit motive. The employee might retort, “I was only trying to serve the

customer’s needs. After all, that is what our company stands for. Is it wrong to serve

the customer?” The effective manager then has a unique opportunity to guide the

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



employee into an understanding of how the values balance one another. Indeed,

values that seem to be at odds philosophically may, in practice, actually augment

and strengthen one another. This discussion may sound something like the

incantations of a Zen master, but successful managers artfully reconcile thesetensions.

Routinely Evaluate Progress onthe Core Values

Employee focus groups and surveys can provide insight into progress on core

values. One medical clinic uses this process to reinvigorate a commitment, clarify

the meaning of the core values, and develop specific action plans. Once a year, they

close the clinic for an afternoon to ponder the clinic value statements. All the

employees and physicians rate the clinic on its seven core values using a 0 (low) to

10 (high) scale. After the ratings are compiled, everyone starts to discuss the reasons

for their ratings. Sometimes the physicians’ ratings differ greatly from the staff’s.

Sharing perceptions, for instance, on what “convenient patient care” actually means

often proves revealing. In one instance, a physician who was notoriously late in

completing follow-up reports learned that his patients often complained about not

getting back test results in a timely manner. One month later, after getting rid of the

backlog, the problem was resolved. The collective scrutiny of the group was just the

right prescription. The yearly meeting ends with a decision about the projects most

likely to improve the ratings for the following year. This organizational ritual

provides a safe haven for conflict resolution while symbolizing the importance of

the clinic’s values. After all, the clinic never closes for any other reason. In short, aroutine checkup on the culture provides an assessment of the organization as well

as a source of renewal.

Assist in the Evolution ofthe Meaning of the Values

A temporary clash between the stated values and the practiced ones can be healthy.

Not practicing what one preaches becomes unhealthy if there is not some

movement toward greater congruity. Many corporations espouse the “wellness”

value, which embraces advice such as “Eat right,” “Exercise,” et cetera. The et cetera is the tough part. How far should a company go? How fast? For example, in the late

1970s, J&J initiated the “Live for Life” program, in which employees completed a

comprehensive questionnaire about health risks. On the basis of the results, each

employee was counseled by a nurse practitioner about appropriate lifestyle changes.

Employees were encouraged to eat right, quit smoking, and exercise in the

company-provided gym. But it was only in 1990 that the corporate headquarters

became totally smoke-free. In other words, it took almost 15 years to fully integrate

policies compatible with the wellness values. The wise manager recognizes the

inevitable struggle between word and deed while searching for specific ways to

bridge the chasm.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Anticipating and shaping cultural changes can be beneficial in building

employee commitment to the values. Typically, the corporate culture changes

slowly, as it takes time for employees to fully embrace the values. But there are

benefits in incrementally increasing employee commitment to organizationalvalues. For example, programs like J&J’s, which have grown out of a commitment

to the “wellness” value, have greatly reduced the health care costs of many

organizations.46 Indeed, a culture that fails to adapt and continually renew its values

can become stagnant and unhealthy. That’s why the thoughtful manager encourages

resonant restatements of the cultural values. It’s all about mindful reverberations,

not mindless repetition. The great economist and philosopher F. A. Hayek summed

it up best:

If old truths are to retain their hold on men’s minds, they must be restated in the

language and concepts of successive generations. What at one time are their

most effective expressions gradually become so worn with use that they cease to

carry any definite meaning. The underlying ideas may be as valid as ever, but the

words, even when they refer to problems that are still with us, no longer convey

the same conviction; the arguments do not move in a context familiar to us; and

they rarely give us direct answers to the questions we are asking. This may be

inevitable because no statement of an ideal that is likely to sway men’s minds can

be complete; it must be adapted to a given climate of opinion. 47

CONCLUSION

I remember, as a youngster, watching an old black-and-white movie about a World

War II naval battle. An American ship was dropping depth charges on a German

submarine. Inside the sub, the results were devastating. Water was flooding one

chamber after another, equipment was failing, and the crew faced what they

thought was certain death. To make matters worse, the German crew had been

instructed to maintain strict silence so that the American ships could not pinpoint

their location. Morale was steadily eroding, which prevented the necessary repairs

from being made and the appropriate offensive tactics from being engaged in. The

crew was demoralized, exhausted, and terrified. Then, in a flash of brilliant insight

and in direct violation of military procedure, the captain ordered that the German

national anthem be played over the speaker system. Because of the silence code, thecaptain’s officers were stunned. At first, they refused. Then, with some gentle

urging, one weary sailor placed the old, scratch-laden record on the record player.

At first, one by one, then two by two, and finally the whole crew joined in the

singing. And with each measure, the strength, the determination, and even the

courage of the crew returned, as if resurrecting a corpse. They still faced the grim

task at hand, but they were emboldened by their anthem, their music. And in the

end, they triumphed over their peril.

Likewise, many managers need to know when employee morale trumps

procedure, how values can provide inspiration, and why courage triumphs over all.

They need to know when to play the music.48

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



KEY CONCEPTS

Actual culture 84 Framing effect 89

Core values 84 Stated culture 84

Corporate culture 80 Stories 86

“DRILL DOWN” EXERCISES

1. Select a particular organization that you are familiar with. Identify three

specific signs that point to core values deeply held by the organization (recall

Table 4.1).

2. Select two companies that produce the same products or provide a similar

service. How do their cultures vary? What difference does it make?

3. Think about two companies considering a merger. They want to know the

degree of compatibility between the cultures. Develop a short, 10-item test

that could help make that judgment. Provide your rationale.

ANCILLARIES

Visit the student study site at www.sagepub.com/clampitt5e to access these addi-

tional study materials:

• Video Resources

• Web Resources

• eFlashcards

• Web Quizzes

• Study Questions

NOTES

1. Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Columbia Accident Investigation Report Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2003, 77.

2. Ibid., 180.

3. Ibid., 9.

4. S. Cordery, Juilette Gordon Low: The Remarkable Founder of the Girl Scouts . New York:

Penguin, 2012, 16 (e-book).

5. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner, Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK:

Clarendon, 1989.

6. J. Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1978, 132.

7. T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate

Life . Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2000, 4.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



8. N. Weinberger, “Music and the Brain.” Scientific American, November (2004): 89–95;

see especially p. 95.

9. J. Glausiusz, “The Genetic Mystery of Music.” Discover, August 2001, 70–75. See also

S. E. Trehub, “The Developmental Origins of Musicality.” Nature Neuroscience 6 (2003):669–73; R. Kotulak, “Rhythm, Melody, Life: Human Hearts Have Always Warmed to the

Rhythm of Music.” Chicago Tribune, September 21, 2003 (sec. 2), 1, 3.

10. J. P. Kotter and J. L. Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance . New York: Free

Press, 1992. See also J. Collins and J. Porras, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary

Companies . New York: Harper Business, 1994, 87.

11. N. Nohria, W. Joyce, and B. Roberson, “What Really Works.”Harvard Business Review

81, no. 7 (2003): 42–52; see especially p. 4.

12. P. Bate, “The Impact of Organizational Culture on Approaches to Organizational

Problem-Solving.” Organization Studies 5 (1984): 43–66; see especially p. 44.

13. D. C. McGill, “A ‘Mickey Mouse’ Class—For Real.” New York Times, August 27,

1989, 4f.

14. G. Gilder, Wealth and Poverty . New York: Basic Books, 1981, 26.

15. See the following for an excellent resource about all the methods the cultural detec-

tive could use to gather data: G. Driskill and A. Brenton, Organizational Culture in Action: A

Cultural Analysis Workbook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011.

16. P. Hjelt, “The World’s Most Admired Companies.” Fortune, March 3, 2003, 82.

17. http://www.walmartstores.com. Accessed October 5, 2003.

18. A. Bianco and W. Zellner, “Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?” Business Week, October 6,

2003, 101–10; see especially p. 102.

19. M. Blair-Loy, A. Wharton, and J. Goodstein, “Exploring the Relationship between

Mission Statements and Work-Life Practices in Organizations.” Organizational Studies 32,

no. 3 (2011): 427–50; see especially p. 427.

20. A. Ohnsman, J. Green, and K. Inoue, “The Humbling of Toyota.” Bloomberg Businessweek, March 22 and 29, 2010, 33–35; A. Taylor, “How Toyota Lost Its Way.” Fortune,

July 26, 2010, 108–18.

21. K. K. Smith and V. M. Simmons, “A Rumpelstiltskin Organization: Metaphors on

Metaphors in Field Research.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 377–92.

22. T. Richman, “The Culture Wars.” Inc., May 15, 1999, 107–8; see especially p. 108.

23. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003–09–10-blair.book_x.htm. Accessed

September 18, 2003.

24. W. Bennis, “News Analysis: It’s the Culture.” Fast Company, August 2003, 34–35; see

especially p. 34.

25. S. Cartwright and C. L. Cooper, “The Role of Culture Compatibility in Successful

Organizational Marriage.” Academy of Management Executive 7, no. 2 (1993): 57–70;see especially p. 57. See also J. Reed, “Reflections on a Culture Clash.” Fortune, March 20,

2000, 28.

26. J. Kotter, “Hearts and Minds.” CIO Insight , March 2004, 26.

27. B. Martino, D. Kumaran, B. Seymour, and R. Dolan, “Frames, Biases, and Rational

Decision-Making in the Human Brain.” Science, August 4, 2006, 684–87.

28. C. Scott, D. Jaffe, and G. Tobe, Organizational Vision, Values, and Mission . Menlo

Park, CA: Crisp Publications, 1993, 13.

29. F. M. Jablin, “Organizational Entry, Assimilation, and Exit,” in Handbook of

Organizational Communication, ed. F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, and L. W.

Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987, 679–725.

30. J. Carter, Why Not the Best? New York: Bantam, 1976.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



31. N. Polmar and T. B. Allen, Rickover: Controversy and Genius . New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1982.

32. P. G. Clampitt and C. Downs, “Employee Perceptions of the Relationship between

Communication and Productivity.” Journal of Business Communication 30 (1993): 5–28. Seealso F. M. Jablin, “Organizational Entry, Assimilation, and Disengagement/Exit,” in The New

Handbook of Organizational Communication, ed. F. M. Jablin and L. L. Putman. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, 732–818.

33. H. Broms and H. Gahmberg, “Communication to Self in Organizations and

Cultures.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 482–95.

34. “Wood Shows Signs of Defensive Ability.” USA Today, August 1, 1984, 2C.

35. W. Joyce, N. Nohria, and B. Roberson, What Really Works . New York: HarperCollins,

2003.

36. http://www.walmartstores.com. Accessed November 1, 2003.

37. G. Gerbner, personal communication, 1990.

38. B. Carey, “This Is Your Life and How You Tell It.” New York Times, May 23, 2007, D1,

D6.

39. R. Schank, Tell Me a Story: A New Look at Real and Artificial Memory . Menlo Park,

CA: Crisp Publications, 1990, 170.

40. Ibid., 194.

41. D. Armstrong, Managing by Storying Around: A New Method of Leadership . New York:

Doubleday/Currency, 1992, 11.

42. R. McKee, “Storytelling That Moves People: A Conversation with Screenwriting

Coach Robert McKee.” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 6 (2003): 51–55; see especially p. 52.

See also R. McKee, Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting . New

York: HarperCollins, 1997.

43. G. L. Graham, “If You Want Honesty, Break Some Rules.” Harvard Business Review

80, no. 4 (2002): 42–46; see especially p. 45.44. R. Macfarlane, Mountains of the Mind . New York: Pantheon, 2003, 271.

45. C. L. Bernick, “When Your Culture Needs a Makeover.” Harvard Business Review 79,


46. S. Simpson, “Good for Employees, Good for Business.” Occupational Health and

Safety, September 30, 2003.

47. F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011;


48. An interesting sidelight to this story is that the U.S. Army had for years lost interna-

tional military contests that simulated small-scale skirmishes. In 1987, they won two of the

most prestigious contests, and in part, they cited the use of rock-and-roll music in the train-

ing sessions. The songs played included the theme music for the movie Top Gun and “Bornin the USA” by Bruce Springsteen. See, for example, J. J. Fialka, “U.S. Army Units Win Battle

Contests for the First Time.” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 1987, 24.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


SECTION 2

CommunicationChallenges

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


103

CHAPTER 1

Selecting and UsingCommunication

Technologies

CHAPTER 5

M a n

a g

e r i a

l E f f e c t i v

e n

e

s s

Performance

Feedback

Boundary

Spanning

Change

Innovation

Data,

Information,Knowledge,

Action

CommunicationTechnologies

Communication

Corporate Culture

Ethics

• A s s e s s

• S t r at egize • I m

p l e m e

n t

Organizations have swallowed technology, but now they have heartburn.

—Harold J. Leavitt

Media choice is not the simple, intuitively obvious process it may appear

to be at first glance. Appropriate media choice can make the difference

between effective and ineffective communication. And media choice mis-

takes can seriously impede successful communication—in some cases with

disastrous consequences.

—Linda Klebe Trevino, Richard L. Daft,and Robert H. Lengel

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


104 SECTION 2: COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES

• Why is a virtually unknown person, Ts’ai Lun, considered one of the most

influential people in history?

• What caused grandma to suddenly discover the joy of text?

• How did a powerful U.S. congressman lose his job with the mere tap of hisfinger?

A simple equation can answer questions such as these. It’s an equation that helps us

understand the channel choices we make on a daily basis. It’s an equation that explains

how organizations should make their communication technology choices.1 Yet it is an

equation that befuddles the minds of the most brilliant technocrat. And it’s an equa-

tion that entices with its simplicity even as it challenges us with its implications.

What is this illuminating, almost magical, equation? Answer:

B - C = V

Benefits - Costs = Value

Let’s consider the first question: Who is Ts’ai Lun? And why does one expert con-

sider him more influential than Aristotle, Marx, da

Vinci, Einstein, Moses, Luther, and even Adolf Hitler?

Michael H. Hart, a physicist and astronomer, reveals

the answer in a fascinating book titled The 100: A

Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.2

Hart ranks Ts’ai Lun, the seventh most influential

person in history. Few Westerners have even heard thename before. Ts’ai Lun, an official in the Chinese

imperial court around 105 CE, developed the basic

process for creating paper, which is still in use today.

Before the advent of paper, communication was con-

strained by space and time. Communication typically

occurred when two individuals occupied the same

physical space and interacted in synchronous time

periods. Paper changed all that and, along with

Gutenberg’s press (ranked the eighth most influen-

tial), profoundly altered the course of history.

Think about the benefits and costs of paper. In 105CE the benefits of easily creating, storing, transporting,

and disseminating important records, laws, and words

of wisdom were almost beyond calculation. Moses, no

doubt, would have been grateful for some paper and a

printing press. Instead, he had to lug the stone tablets of

the Ten Commandments down the mountain—twice.

The benefits of paper far exceeded the costs, creating a

value far exceeding the existing stone tablets, clay tab-

lets, animal parchments, and other items used to record

written communications. In short, Ts’ai Lun’s invention

74%

of business technology professionalsconsider “improving employeecollaboration” as the #1 goal of unifying communication technologies

45%

of BlackBerry users check their e-mailbefore getting dressed

59%

of meeting planners reported thatteleconferencing was substituting forsome meetings

62%

of highly effective companies have adocumented intranet/Internetcommunication strategy

40%

of computer conferencing users donot know the gender of the otherparticipant(s)

CHAPT E R 5 : BY T HE N UM BE RS

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5


Chapter 5: Selecting and Using Communication Technologies 105

created a product valued by almost everyone down through the ages. And despite pre-

dictions of the imminent demise of this communication channel, there are still 10,000

sheets of paper used by the average worker every year.3

So much for the first question. Answering the other questions requires a deeperlook into the B–C equation. And that’s exactly what we will discuss next.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

1706–1790

If the Nobel Committee gave prizes for physics, peace, self-help, and entrepre-neurship in the 1700s, Ben Franklin could have won all four. 4 He is most famous for

“snatching lightning from the sky” and revealing to the world one of the many mysteries of electricity. That discovery, along with his writings on the subject,would have impressed the Nobel committee deciding on a laureate for the phys-ics prize. His deft touch in working with the French and British governments onbehalf of the American colonies and, eventually, the young republic, would havecertainly merited consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize. While the NobelCommittee doesn’t award prizes in the category of “self-help” and entrepre-neurship, Ben Franklin would have been a shoo-in for the prizes. After all, hisquips and aphorisms in Poor Richard’s Almanac —like “A penny saved is a penny earned,” “A place for everything, everything in its place,” and “A learned block-head is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one”— are still used by self-help

gurus like Stephen Covey.5

Finally, his inventions, such as bifocals, the lightning rod, and the Franklin stove, would place him in the upper tier of any list of suc-cessful entrepreneurs. Ben Franklin’s achievements in any one of these areaswould be noteworthy, but coming to grips with the entire scope of his recordsimply boggles the mind.

Almost everyone can look back in amazement at Ben Franklin’s life and career.It’s far more difficult, of course, to glean any secrets to his success from his bio-

graphical details. We might, however, just catch a glimpse of the forces shaping his career by noting several key life events and a few revealing musings. Franklin

grew up in a working-class family with a father who thought Ben should go intothe ministry. But young Ben had other ideas and eventually wound up in

Philadelphia as a newspaper editor and printer. He became enormously success-ful in the newspaper business and used the funds as a springboard to support hiscutting-edge scientific and civic pursuits. Ben, for instance, established the firstlibrary in Philadelphia as well as America’s first volunteer fire department. He wasa voracious reader, “taking to books as some men take to drink.”6 As a young man,he wrestled with the “How shall I live my life?” question that every young personfaces. His answer? Try to live a life governed by 13 virtues: temperance, silence,order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness,tranquility, chastity, and humility.7 While young Ben was more successful withsome virtues than with others, he at least cultivated sensibilities that served him

(Continued)

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



The B–C Model: A Deeper Look

Let’s start with the ABC’s, where “A” represents attributes; “B,” benefits; and “C,”

costs.

Attributes

All technologies or channels have certain attributes or distinguishing qualities, char-

acteristics, or features. Table 5.1 categorizes attributes that could be associated with a

particular channel or technology. The list is illustrative but not exhaustive. While the

basic categories remain relatively stable over time, the list of channel attributes may

change. New functionalities, for example, emerge over time that may never have been

envisioned by the creators, or even futurists. Ts’ai Lun probably never thought that his

invention would lead to paper airplane contests (physical attribute: “foldability”). The

creators of social media probably never thought that tweets and postings could

launch political or social revolutions. But they have.10

Significant implications flow from specific channel attributes. Consider the first

category, physical attributes. The first mobile phones using cell technology weighed

about the same as a large brick and had a similar feel and aesthetic appeal. Not a big

seller. Zoom forward a decade, and the mobile phone is almost ubiquitous; we cal-

culate its weight in ounces not pounds, and we follow styling trends as closely as the

latest fashion news. The changes in the physical attributes profoundly shifted the

perceived value of the technology. On the other hand, a cultural attribute of a tech-

nology might dramatically alter its acceptance. Google’s search tool fits well with

Western values of individual freedom but not so well with Eastern values of central-

ized control. The result: the widespread acceptance of Google technology in the

(Continued)

well. At the core, Ben Franklin taught himself to be a shrewd judge of value. “I

conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon themby false estimates they have made of the value of things” was how he put it.8 Hewas particularly attuned to the relative values of speech and silence as he notedin the following aphorism: “Remember not only to say the right thing in the rightplace but, far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”9 Likewise, he cultivated a sensitivity to the inherent costs and bene-fits of the dominant communication channels of the day. He intuitively sensed,for instance, when to deal with matters face-to-face and when an anonymousletter to the editor of his own newspaper might better serve his purposes. Whilemost of Ben Franklin’s biographers stand in awe of his persona, few underscore hisextraordinary ability to make the right judgments about the underlying value of

a scientific observation, political alliance, new invention, or communicationchannel. Perhaps if we more fully understood this dimension of Benjamin Franklin,we could all live a more virtuous life and occasionally be struck by a bolt of genius.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



West and the pushback from China.11 In short, we need to be mindful of how chan-

nel attributes translate into benefits, costs, and value.

Benefits

The attributes of communication channels generate benefits or advantages in a

wide variety of ways. The mobile phone, for example, allows people to commu-

nicate while on the go. Facebook lets people more easily stay in touch with a wide

array of friends and even “unfriend” someone quicker than the queen could say,

“Off with his head!” Social media allow people to easily establish, strengthen, and

even terminate relationships.12 And even a taken-for-granted communication

tool like the pencil offers some “powerful and indispensible” advantages, such as

the capability to erase, doodle, sketch, and visualize.13 No wonder a deeply

thoughtful writer who inspired generations of naturalists, environmentalists, and

civil dissenters devoted much of his career to the manufacturing of a better pen-

cil. Countless engineers, scholars, and even toddlers owe a debt of gratitude to

Henry David Thoreau for far more than his reflections on Walden Pond.14

TABLE 5.1 Channel Attributes

Attributes Examples

Physical • Size

• Weight

• Appearance

Functional • Micromessaging capability (e.g., texting)

• Real-time interactive capacity (e.g., phone)

• Visual display capability (e.g., iPad)

Financial • Costs of buying, maintaining, and upgrading the product/

service

• Expense of training users

• Charges for disposing of product/service

Psychological • Anonymity protection (e.g., virtual worlds)

• Memory augmentation (e.g., paper and pen)

• Capacity to correctly read emotional cues (e.g., face-to-face)

Social • Accessibility to select groups (e.g., LinkedIn)

• Capacity to signal status differences (e.g., latest of a phone)

• Ability to quickly inform large groups (e.g., Twitter)

Cultural • Compatibility with existing customs (e.g., government

censorship)

• Adaptability to other technologies in system (e.g., Apple EcoSystem)

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



While there are many ways to categorize benefits, classifying them in terms of

short-term and long-term benefits can be helpful in producing a broader under-

standing of the impact of technology. Short-term benefits are usually hyped by the

information technology creators. For example, the use of instant replay for sportingevents was originally introduced to enhance entertainment value by highlighting

stunning athletic feats and failures. From a long-term perspective, instant replay has

been integrated into the officiating process and has actually improved the quality

of the calls on the playing field.15

Costs

Costs are losses incurred in securing the benefits. The losses can take many forms,

some obvious, others not so much. When you buy a new smartphone, you

obviously must purchase the phone and service. What’s not so obvious is that

you also buy a learning curve , or the expenditure of time and effort to learn how

to use the smartphone. The phone may be smart, but it’s not clever enough to

inject the instruction manual directly into your neural network. Learning costs

can be so prohibitive that they act as barriers to purchase. That’s why some

people want a mobile phone that “doesn’t do too much ”; the learning costs are

simply too high.

Another less obvious category involves opportunity costs, or costs incurred

because making one choice eliminates another choice. Choosing to sustain rela-

tionships via Facebook reduces your ability to maintain relationships through

phone calls, gatherings, and so on. One commentator worries about the impact of

a personal life stitched together by Facebook: “What sort of loyalty is there in theage of Facebook, when friendship is [an almost] costless transaction, a business of

flip reciprocity (I’ll go on your list of friends if you’ll go on my list )?”16 Even if you

think this commentator goes a bit far, he does encourage us to ponder the oppor-

tunities missed by allowing one channel to dominate.

Too often, leaders only look at the financial costs, failing to think of costs in

a broader sense. Table 5.2 provides a partial list of costs often overlooked. For

instance, in face-to-face channels we unconsciously transmit chemical signals

to one another, indicating our moods and stress levels.17 Such visceral informa-

tion may prove critical when making difficult decisions, such as selecting when

to roll out a new initiative. Mediated communications block these signals andconsequently represent opportunity costs. Likewise, we often ignore the coordi-

nation costs engendered by all our electronic gizmos. To be sure, e-mail, tex-

ting, and microblogging help us establish and maintain our personal networks.

But at what cost? One thoughtful scholar put it this way:

Maintaining a personal network requires significant effort when compared to

hierarchical or formal organizational relationships, which are pre-determined and

role-based . . . While the use of electronic communication makes it easier to

engage in communication regardless of location, the complexity of work relation-

ships and communication practices is increasing.18

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Switching costs present another concern experienced by anyone who has

ever switched mobile phone carriers; it takes energy and effort to do so. Such costs

tempt everyone to prematurely lock in to a communication technology that may

not be serving the intended purpose. Bottom line: Calculating the actual costs of

channel choices may not be as straightforward as some other “bottom line” fiscal

computations.

Value

Value represents the benefits minus the costs. More benefits and fewer costs results

in greater value. Fewer benefits and more costs results in less value. A simple,

straightforward calculation. Right? Wrong.

The gremlin lurking in the formula, ramping up the complexity at Internet

speed, is that a benefit can be transformed into a cost with a tap of a finger (and vice

versa). Just ask former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who was forced to resign his

position because of a sexting scandal. By mistake, he sent thousands of Twitter fol-

lowers a photo of dubious propriety that he intended to send to a female college

student.19 Being a skillful debater, he could have easily denied an illicit phone con-

versation with a woman, but not with thousands of Twitter followers. If it was anallegation made on a talk show, he could have dismissed it with one of his patented

sharp rhetorical flourishes, cleverly bundling indignation and aggression into caus-

tic retort. In the old days, you could literally or figuratively “kill the messenger.”

Weiner didn’t have that option. Unfortunately, there was a permanent and widely

shared record of his indiscretion. And his political fortunes came crashing down

because of a channel he adroitly used one moment and clumsily touched the next.

That’s the reason for inserting the arrow between B and C in Figure 5.1. This unfor-

tunate event also provides a natural transition to our discussion about the role of

perspective in evaluating value.

Type Explanation

Learning costs Time and energy invested in learning how to effectively and

efficiently use the channel

Opportunity costs Potential benefits that could have been received by selecting

an alternate channel

Coordination

costs

Time and energy spent synchronizing people and systems

using the channel

Switching costs Energy and effort required when moving from one

communication technology to another

TABLE 5.2 Channel Costs

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



How Perspective Affects Value

Your perspective greatly influences whether an attribute will be deemed a benefit or acost and when it might switch roles. A perspective is a particular viewpoint that shapes

what we consider to be an important technology attribute, molding our perceptions of

cost and benefits. For example, the texting capability (physical attribute) of a

smartphone may be very important to one user, but another person may prefer the joys

of snapping pictures of gourmet meals and sending them to fellow foodies. The user

perspective represents just one of several important viewpoints discussed below.

User Perspective

Clearly, different users may value channel attributes differently. For most people,

the financial costs of a personal website far outweigh the benefits. Others, like

Oprah, create and maintain dynamic websites because it is part of their branding

strategy (ditto for politicians, actors, musicians, and thought leaders). In short,

some people use this channel to transmit information; others choose not to do so.

On the other hand, different users may place similar value on certain channel

attributes, resulting in a community of users. Millions of Facebook users, for

example, eagerly update their every thought and experience on their Wall, giving

little thought to the privacy forfeited and time devoted to such an enterprise. Many

people willingly absorb these costs in a swap for the benefits of easily connecting

with friends and meeting new ones, particularly of the opposite sex.20

This insight sheds even more light on why the theme of audience analysis assumessuch a central role in this book. Wise communicators learn about the channels valued

and used by their audiences. Ignoring the user dynamics of channels undermines

FIGURE 5.1 The Emergence of Channel Benefits and Costs

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



communication effectiveness. For instance, some managers assume that written com-

munication is compatible with their receivers’ abilities and preferences. It may not be

so. In one case, a man who was recently promoted to a job as shipping foreman had

to shelve special orders until he could discreetly ask for help reading the instruc-tions.21 The social stigma attached to his illiteracy often made it difficult to ask for

help. On the other hand, Jen Bilik, founder of Knock Knock, an edgy stationery and

gift company, prefers e-mail and hates the phone. She explains, “Why would you ever

call me when you could e-mail me? Why would you subject us both to phone tag?

God invented e-mail. Go away.”22 Bottom line: Any guidelines about channel use, even

the ones in Table 5.3, need to be tempered by audience analysis.

TABLE 5.3 Effective Use of Channels

Channel Most Effective Use Examples

Telephone Sending short, simple messages

Sending confidential messages

Providing feedback

Providing quick “turn-around” time

Negotiating a meeting time and

place

Discussing a work problem

Fax Sending informal messages

Seeing visual display of information

Providing a hard copy

Viewing a copy of a brochure

Providing directions to a meeting

E-mail Sending impersonal, brief messages

Keeping employees updated on routine matters

Efficiently gathering routine information

Conducting an in-house survey

Confirming a meeting time

Voicemail Sending short, simple messages

Sharing routine information

Informing others when feedback isn’t needed

Responding to an information

request

One-on-one

(face-to-face)

Sharing potentially emotional, complex

information

Persuading, negotiating, and managing conflict

Providing feedback

Reading nonverbal communication

Sharing knowledge

Holding a performance

appraisal

Promoting/firing an employee

Memo Sending short, simple messagesDistributing to numerous receivers

Informing others when feedback isn’t needed

Providing scannable information

Communicating a routineupdate

Confirming a policy change

Letter Sending a message needing a personal touch

Conveying formality

Providing detailed information

Providing a written record

Expressing appreciation,

condolences

Writing a complaint letter

Webpage Communicating noncontroversial,

nonconfidential, general information

Efficiently sharing routine information with

large audiences

Summarizing company’s

expertise, career opportunities

Responding to “frequently

asked questions”

(Continued)

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Time Perspective

Because costs and benefits often shift over time, so does value. That’s how we canexplain grandma’s surprising discovery of the “joy of text.” Let’s assume that your

widowed grandmother never had much use for the so-called smartphones. Why?

Because she preferred the “real phones,” the ones with a landline, keypad, and

“mobility,” since she didn’t need a cord attached to the receiver. What could sud-

denly change her mind? A new man: one who in short order morphed from “some-

body in the neighborhood” to a “gentlemen friend,” to a “buddy,” to “my new

boyfriend.” It so happened that as the relationship matured, she discovered the joy

of texting because her new boyfriend loved to text updates and “sweet nothings” to

special people. She was missing out. Now she had a reason to buy a smartphone and

someone to teach her about the joy of text. Over time, her perspective on the costs

and benefits of smartphones dramatically shifted because she saw enhanced per-

sonal benefits and decreased costs, particularly the learning costs.

Such a metamorphosis can also explain why some organizations abandon old

communication tools and adopt new ones. Years ago, elaborately designed multi-

colored annual and quarterly reports were a staple of Fortune 500 companies.

Today, many have chosen other tools such as jump drives or websites to deliver

much the same information. While these new channels often cost less than their

predecessors, they also offer new benefits, such as providing investors with more

timely information, video interviews with the CEO, and video clips of new prod-

ucts or services. Moreover, these new channels may be more compatible with the

information consumption habits of a new generation of investors. Amazingly, eventhe U.S. Congress scrapped a 200-year old communication channel when it elimi-

nated the House Page Program, saving taxpayers more than $5 million a year.23

Using human pages to deliver notes to members of Congress might have made

sense prior to e-mail and text messages. But no longer. And so these human pages

have been sent to the channel graveyard. Are the pages made of wood pulp far

behind? The executives at Encyclopedia Britannica certainly think so. In 2012, they

decided to focus on digitized versions and end the print edition of the intellectual

heavyweight, which tipped the scales at 129 pounds in 32 volumes. New technolo-

gies significantly shifted the B–C calculations of even the most erudite reader; it was

clearly time to end the glorious 244-year history of the print edition, which was astaple in households across the globe (mine included).24

Channel Most Effective Use Examples

Videoconference Connecting emotionally with large audiences

Sending noncomplex, unambiguous messages

Updating company

performance

Outlining a major

organizational initiative

Wikis Collaborating with experts separated in space

and time

Sharing information and knowledge

Refining plans, ideas, and

proposals

TABLE 5.3 (Continued)

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Micro/Macro Perspectives

Economics 101 tells us there “is no such thing as a free lunch.” But what about free

TV, e-mail accounts, video posts, social networking? On the surface, users appear to

pay next to nothing to use these “free” services, other than willingly offering up their

time to master a simple learning curve. But a prominent weblogger, Andrew Lewis,

perceptively noted, “If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the

product being sold.”25 Translation: Free TV is paid for by advertisers, who are paying

for your eyeballs to watch a sales pitch, which you, in turn, pay for should you decide

to purchase that product. Easy enough. From your perspective, or microlevel, the

entertainment benefits are great, while the costs are minimal. From the advertisers’

perspective, or macrolevel, the costs can be fairly high (a 60-second spot during the

Super Bowl costs more than it did to build the original Los Angeles Coliseum), but

the benefits of millions of eyeballs watching the sales pitch may be well worth it.

What about free e-mail accounts, video postings, and social networking?Clearly, advertising is part of the equation, but not all of it. In addition, when you

e-mail or microblog, you generate a stream of data points. A single data point

may not be worth much, but when combined with lots of other data points, a

dynamic database emerges. So what? This database can be used to detect trends

that have enormous value, such as deciding where to invest money for a hedge

fund or designing the messaging for a political campaign. An individual tweet

(microlevel) may not mean much, but if it garners enough attention quickly

enough to create a trend (macrolevel), it could prove decisive. Tweet spikes, for

instance, have warned of impending earthquake shock waves more quickly than

the U.S. Geological Survey’s seismometers.26

This means that the value gleaned at one level often dramatically differs from the

value gleaned at another. From the users’ perspective, free TV entertains us, free

e-mail links us, and free social networking connects us. From the providers’ per-

spective, not-so-free TV garners lots of eyeballs, not-so-free e-mail hooks us into a

network, and not-so-free social networking generates overflowing cascades of data

to exploit. The same principle holds when looking at different levels of an organiza-

tion. That is one of the strategic implications explored in the next section.

What to Do?

Consider all the ways a typical employee can communicate today: memo, fax, pager,

e-mail, blogs, phone call, microblog, text message, bulletin board, websites, voice

mail, and PowerPoint, to name the most familiar. With this bewildering array of

options, many managers are tempted to just spin the wheel and select a channel. In

fact, the sender’s personal convenience guides most channel selections. Further

compounding the challenge is the fact that as a communication technology’s ease

of use increases (e.g., lower costs), so does the likelihood of use, enticing us into

making thoughtless choices. Few employees consider how their channel selections

generate unique benefits and costs.

The channel or technology necessarily alters the messages, just as the composi-

tion of an electrical wire affects the flow of electricity. Some scholars, for example,

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



claim that the phonograph changed classical musicians’ technique and that MP3

players have ruined pop music.27 French intellectuals grouse that text messaging has

corrupted their language.28 In short, channels accentuate certain attributes of the

message, while de-emphasizing others. Channels shape, contort, and distort mes-sages even as they imperceptibly transform senders and receivers. Of course, recog-

nizing that channels alter messages in important ways does not equate with know-

ing how to select the right strategies to achieve organizational goals. The strategies

discussed next bridge that gap.

Promote a Robust Mind-Set ofthe Benefits and Costs of CommunicationChannels and Technologies

Most people look at costs and benefits too narrowly. Consider PowerPoint, which

has become the technology of choice for many business presentations. EdwardTufte, whom The New York Times dubbed the “Leonardo da Vinci of data,” argues

that PowerPoint templates have “reduced the analytical quality of presentations”

and “usually weaken verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always corrupt statis-

tical analysis.”29 He concludes his indictment by noting, “PowerPoint templates may

improve 10% to 20% of all presentations by organizing inept, extremely disorga-

nized speakers, at a cost of detectable intellectual damage to 80%. For statistical

data, the damage levels approach dementia.”30

In fact, the British Medical Journal notes that “the number of slides you can show in

your allotted time is inversely proportional to the number of awkward (e.g., tough )

questions that can be asked at the end.”31

So PowerPoint may not be as powerful as thename might suggest.32 Few business leaders acknowledge the costs associated with the

diminished quality of organizational thinking and analytical insight. One exception:

Lou Gerstner, the former CEO of IBM, who essentially eliminated formal PowerPoint

presentations as part of his successful effort to turn around the company. 33

Every channel or technology has limitations or costs that may compromise the

communicators’ objective. Note that these costs are not necessarily inherent to the

physical attributes of the channel; many emerge from the cultural conventions of

the organization. In fact, the creators of PowerPoint are a bit befuddled by the

abuses because that was not their intention (see Table 5.4). The tactics below pro-

vide action items to build a more robust viewpoint of our channel choices.

Sync the sender’s needs, message attributes, and receiver attributes with the channel

choices. Table 5.5 presents a variation of the traditional sender (S), message (M),

channel/technology (C), receiver (R) communication model (SMCR model).

Selecting the appropriate channel resembles hitting a row of cherries on a Las Vegas

slot machine. The goal should be to align four elements:

• The objectives of the sender

• The attributes of the message

• The attributes of the channel

• The characteristics of the receivers

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Sender Message Receiver

Benefits Eases content

dissemination

Organizes thoughts

Shifts focus away from the

speaker to the slides

Inhibits debates

Organizes content

Eliminates messy

handwriting

Integrates multiple sources

of information

Provides documentation of

oral remarks

Facilitates note taking

Allows review and later

reference point

Costs Creates illusion of clarity

and formality

Decreases spontaneous

addition of information

Increases the temptation to

overload slides with

content

Implies false sense of

linearity and hierarchy

Discourages idea

development

Encourages “data dumps”

Highlights style over

content

Inhibits debate

Extends meetings longer

than necessary

Discourages question

asking

Truncates explanations

TABLE 5.4 Potential Benefits and Costs of PowerPoint

TABLE 5.5 SMCR Model

Sender Objectives Message Choices

Channel/Technology

Options Receiver Characteristics

• Educate

• Get attention

• Motivate

• Flatter

• Persuade

• Compliment

• Confuse

• Equivocate

•

Ridicule • Deceive

• Inform

• Express empathy

• Deny

• Impress

• Ingratiate

• Honor

• Entertain

• Shift focus

• Terminology

• Theme

• Metaphor

• Nonverbals

• Stories

• Facts and figures

• Arguments

• Evidence

•

Tone • Emotionality

• Length

• Complexity

• Professionalism

• Formality

• Timing

• Sequencing

• Fax

• E-mail

• Phone

• Face-to-face

• Computer

• Conference

• Bulletin boards

• Group meetings

•

Formal presentations • Webpage

• Hotlines

• Audio- and videotapes

• Voice mail

• Videoconference

• Teleconference

• Pager

• PowerPoint

• Blogs

• Text messages

• Podcast

• Channel access

• Personality profile

• Beliefs

• Values

• Age

• Gender

• Education level

• Socioeconomic

background • Occupation

• Religious orientation

• Interest level

• Location

• Race

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Unlike a one-armed bandit, the alignment of these four communication variables

should be a product of skill and insight rather than chance. To provide some perspec-

tive on the enormity of the task, suppose that for each of these four variables, there

were only five possible alternatives. Senders could have one of five possible purposesfor communicating a message (e.g., entertain, inform, educate, persuade, or moti-

vate). Likewise, they could choose among five possible channels: e-mail, computer

conference, group meeting, telephone, or face-to-face. There are many more, but if we

limited each variable to only five, then there would be 625 different combinations!

This illustrates the wide range of choice facing communicators. The randomized

odds of correctly aligning each variable are exceedingly small.

Yet prudent managers, unlike gamblers, improve the odds of “winning” by using

this model to intuitively guide their technology choices. They seek to align the col-

umns by identifying congruencies between the sender’s objectives, message charac-

teristics, channel attributes, and receiver’s sensibilities. In other chapters, we have

implicitly reviewed how senders can align their intentions with their messages (S-M

test) and why audience analysis helps align messages with receivers’ characteristics

(M-R test). The examples that follow highlight the challenges of aligning the S, M,

and R elements with the channels.

S-C Congruency Test. A young entrepreneur who owned a successful limousine

business took this S-C test to heart in an unusual way. He used the telephone

almost exclusively as his communication tool. Why? Because many people he met

face-to-face—clients as well as employees—did not take this teenaged entrepreneur

seriously. With the telephone, the problems disappeared.34 The lack of visual cues

produced a major benefit; the channel was congruent with his purpose.

C-R Test. Written messages typically imbue a sense of certainty, finality, and

formality to receivers. That’s why most brides and grooms prefer written wedding

invitations.

M-C Test. Should a political candidate attempt to explain his or her economic

plan in a 30-second spot when pressed by a reporter on a cable news show? When

William F. Buckley Jr. was running for mayor of New York City, he refused. He

told the host that his plan was too complex to be explained in a cursory fashion

within the time constraints. In essence, Buckley deemed the message ill-suited for

the channel (M-C test).

Abiding by the congruency tests above may seem simple on the surface. Not

always. Why? Because senders and receivers often evaluate the benefits and costs of

channel choices in different ways. For example, what channel should managers use

to discuss an employee’s performance problem? That depends on whose perspec-

tive you adopt and how you evaluate effectiveness. Usually, employees prefer face-

to-face meetings, allowing them to ask timely questions, discuss details, and more

accurately judge the severity of the issue (C-R test). They want a dynamic and rich

channel. Managers may not prefer face-to-face meetings for the very same reasons

(S-C test). They don’t want to answer questions, provide further details, or create apotentially emotional scene.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



I interviewed several managers about this issue. One manager, known by his

employees as “Stealth,” never left his office during the day. He bombarded his

employees with e-mails. I asked him, face-to-face, about his peculiar interface with

his employees. With a quiver in his voice he anxiously whispered, “They get tooemotional and I can’t handle it. I get my point across another way.” His employees

got a point, as well—that “he doesn’t care about us.” They rarely got the point he

intended. Stealth would have rarely communicated without e-mail. In fact, these

less dynamic channels may be the only way some managers feel comfortable con-

fronting conflict. Understandable? Perhaps. Justifiable? Probably not. As Swiss

playwright Max Frisch sadly observed, some people have “the knack of so arranging

the world that [they] need not experience it.”35

Stealth will never be an effective manager (although he thinks he is), but at least his

channel choice allows issues to surface that he would normally avoid. Ideally, managers

would use the guidelines outlined in Table 5.3. But it may not always be possible to

sync the channel with the needs of senders and receivers. Stealth’s story illustrates a

clash between an S-C congruency and C-R congruency. In this case, the manager made

a trade-off and only focused on the S-C congruency, reaping both the benefits (no

emotional employee moments) and the costs (little employee commitment).

So what? As senders, we should recognize when our personal needs may com-

promise the efficacy of our communication. And as receivers, we should be aware

of how our colleagues’ limitations alter their communications. An effective com-

municator, like a composer, seeks to choose the proper instrument to convey a

particular theme or mood. To wisely select the proper instrument requires a

complete knowledge of the possibilities and the complexities of the entire pro-

cess. Then, the message becomes something more than mere notes on a scoresheet.

Search for hidden benefits and costs. Advertisers, along with their willing accomplices

in the tech press, hype the benefits of new channels or technologies in glowing terms

designed more to entice than to educate.36 Nevertheless, the hype, at least some of it,

may lead to real benefits for users and society. The inventors of the telegraph, for

instance, believed it could be used to transmit stock prices, send orders to troops to

quell disturbances, and quickly bring distant relatives to the bedside of a sick loved

one. And it did! But the telegraph never “united humanity,” as some hoped. In fact, it

cultivated an entirely new breed of deceivers, swindlers, and thieves. These are thelatent and unanticipated costs of a revolutionary technology, an eerie echo of today’s

Internet. Tom Standage signaled the wisdom we need to evaluate any new technology

in his wonderful little book about the telegraph, the Victorian Internet:

The hype, skepticism, and bewilderment associated with the Internet—concerns

about new forms of crime, adjustments in social mores, and redefinition of busi-

ness practices—mirror the hopes, fears, and misunderstandings inspired by the

telegraph. Indeed, they are only to be expected. They are a direct consequence

of human nature, rather than technology.37

Teasing out the latent costs and benefits of a channel opens a floodgate of debatesoverflowing with differences driven by the clashing perspectives identified above. The

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



costs and benefits vary with different users, fluctuate over time, and shift from the

micro- to the macro-perspective. For example, in a provocatively titled collection of

essays Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think? , one commentator noted,

The medium does matter. It matters greatly. The experience of reading words on

a networked computer, whether it’s a PC, an iPhone, or a Kindle, is very different

from the experience of reading those same words in a book. As a technology, a

book focuses our attention, isolates us from the myriad distractions that fill our

everyday lives. A networked computer does precisely the opposite. It is designed

to scatter our attention. It doesn’t shield us from environmental distractions; it

adds to them . . . Even as I’ve become more adept at navigating the rapids of the

Net, I have experienced a steady decay in my ability to sustain attention . . . con-

centration and . . . contemplation.38

Another commentator worries about The Death of Friendship : “If we have 768‘friends,’ (on Facebook) in what sense do we have any? . . . the new social-networking

sites have falsified our understanding of intimacy itself, and with it, our under-

standing of ourselves.”39 Other thought leaders disagree, arguing that

with perhaps the exception of teens, we are seeing that online interactions tend

to support rather than replace offline rapport, strengthening relationships you

already have and laying the groundwork for future relationships you might not

otherwise have enough context and capacity to pursue.40

Researchers have also entered the fray and gone beyond personal speculation. In

a cleverly designed study, researchers found that “people are using the Internet as apersonal memory bank: the so-called Google effect.”41 Long ago, Plato argued that

writing itself erodes the human capacity to memorize. (Ironically, we know this

because his musings were recorded in a written form.42) Today, most thought lead-

ers believe we are more efficiently remembering things by off-loading some mem-

ory tasks to tablets, books, and electronic devices. In short, the debate about the

latent costs and benefits of technology has been going on for a very long time.

This clash of opinions, personal experiences, and research studies is healthy. It builds

a more vigorous understanding of how to effectively use certain communication chan-

nels. Just ask Judy Wall, who has over 1,500 Twitter followers. Yet “when she really wants

to connect with one of them, she picks out a piece of stationery and picks up her pen.”43

Writing out notes longhand wasn’t really part of her communicative repertoire until she

realized the connective power of old-fashioned paper and pen. In fact, some stationery

makers have created an entire line of cards for digitally active bloggers and social media

fans, featuring quips like “You’re more awesome than inbox zero.”44

Identify benefits and costs at different organizational levels (e.g., employee, workgroup,

and organization). Employees and organizations usually assess the value of

technology in different ways because benefits and costs are unequally distributed

across levels. Consider someone we will call DW, who is a member of the Stupid

Forever Hall of Fame. DW routinely updated her Facebook friends about her

frustrations about working at ACME, often berating the company in vivid and

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



caustic specificity. Who were the friends? Fellow workers, ACME customers,

competitors, and even the boss. One “friend” responded to a particularly vicious

posting about ACME by writing, “If you are so unhappy, why don’t you work

somewhere else?” DW’s response: “I don’t want the pay cut.”Examine this situation from DW’s and ACME’s perspective. DW benefits by

cathartically expressing her views to “friends” in relatively short emotional out-

bursts, with apparently little concern about engaging in any serious discussion

about the concerns. DW’s costs are minimal because ACME, unlike other busi-

nesses, doesn’t fire people for such outbursts, even when they occur at work.

Does ACME benefit from DW’s “free expression of thought”? Hardly. In fact, the

costs to ACME’s brand and reputation might be quite significant. Who wants to buy a

product or service from a company of disgruntled employees? Moreover, ACME faces

the potential cost of opinion amplification, which occurs when like-minded people

interact with one another. Instead of moderating each other’s opinions, interaction may

actually sharpen and intensify those opinions, augmenting biases and minimizing

counterevidence.45 ACME risks everyone jumping on the bandwagon of negativity.

In this situation, the benefits enjoyed at this employee’s level are extracted at a

cost at the organizational level. The reverse can be true as well. Consider the prac-

tice of requiring salaried employees to attend meetings that some have no need to

attend. They won’t learn anything new, reconcile conflicting views, or influence the

decision making (all reasonable goals for a meeting). Most of the costs are borne by

the employees, who are still required to meet their performance goals regardless of

how much time they waste in meetings.46 What benefits does the organization get

out of such foolishness? The leaders can claim that “everyone was fully informed”

or had a chance to voice their opinion. It’s a ruse, of course, but a valuable one tothose at a higher level, because they created a facade of “buy-in.” In reality, they

often want to include people in the decision-making process without letting them

affect it. Remember, benefits can be ephemeral as well as real.

Consciously Decide on the AppropriateCost–Benefit Trade-Offs

We all have a tendency to overuse channels that best suit our skills and comfort

levels. This may not always be a wise choice. Why? Two major reasons. First, it may

do a disservice to others less attuned to our channel choices. Extroverts may bemost comfortable with face-to-face channels, but that choice often minimizes the

contributions of introverts. Those with introvert tendencies prefer to have time to

think about their responses and shy away from more spontaneous channels with

rapid give-and-take. Therefore, they are less likely to offer their often thoughtful

ideas through such channels. Second, the overuse of one channel may do a disser-

vice to the organization. An excessive use of channels that encourage rapid give-

and-take may not provide the kind of thoughtfulness required to properly assess

complex situations, solve a vexing problem, or develop a deep insight.

In contrast, writing facilitates clear thinking. Sometimes ideas that make perfect

sense in conversation turn to mush when you try to write them down. Why?

Writing forces us to think in a more linear fashion. The rigors of writing often

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



demand a greater precision of thought than speech. The insightful author Annie

Dillard elaborated on the special quality of the written word:

When you write, you lay out a line of words. The line of words is a miner’s pick,a woodcarver’s gouge, a surgeon’s probe. You wield it, and it digs a path you

follow. Soon you find yourself deep in new territory . . . The writing has changed,

in your hands, and in a twinkling, from an expression of your notions to an epis-

temological tool.47

This, of course, does not mean writing is the only tool that organizations should

employ. Rather, it is one that should be an important part of the channel mix. The

following guidelines can help you fine-tune the channel mix and select the appro-

priate channel for particular messages.

Diversify your portfolio of channels. Any competent financial planner advisesfamilies to diversify their investment portfolio. Translation: Don’t put all your eggs

in one basket. Why? Something might happen to your basket. By spreading the risks

to various investment baskets, you will be able to protect your portfolio as the

market gyrates through the inevitable ups and downs. It’s a way to effectively

manage costs and benefits as they vary over time.

A similar philosophy should guide a manager’s selection of channels. Why? Two

reasons. First, channels filter and shape the messages that managers send. For

instance, communicative nuances get lost in e-mails and text messages. In particu-

lar, receivers often misinterpret the emotional cues carried in the messages.

Sarcasm, for instance, may be misinterpreted as a personal insult. Effective leadersconnect with employees through a variety of channels because of a simple fact of

organizational life: Using an array of channel choices increases the probability

of tapping into the full potential of employees who have an exceedingly wide range

of technical, communication, and intellectual abilities.

Second, from the receiver’s point of view, overreliance on one channel tends to

distort the view of organizational events. A young child taught this lesson to his

mother in a charmingly profound way. While driving home from a family outing,

she told her son that when she was growing up, television only transmitted black-

and-white images. The puzzled child inquired, “Was everything just black or white

back then?” We may chuckle at the child’s query, but it should remind us that tech-

nologies filter and shape our view of the “world out there.” Leaders cannot expect

that one channel—no matter how colorless or colorful—accurately reflects the

state of the “world out there.”

Wise managers compensate for these potential cost and benefits just like a good

financial planner. Using multiple channels helps managers hedge their bets and

compensate for the deficiencies of one channel with another. For example, when

professors assign a paper, they routinely distribute the assignment in written form

and then verbally discuss the document with their students. The documentation

provides a concrete and formal point of reference. The discussion emphasizes key

points and clarifies potential misunderstandings. That’s how wise managers make

use of multiple channels when in the sending mode.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



In the receiving mode, wise managers gather information from an array of channels.

Doing so usually provides a more robust, realistic, and complex view of the actual situ-

ation. Consider, for example, how Best Buy taps into frontline employee knowledge.

First, some background: Many organizations rely on chain-of-command type of reportsto assess employee reactions to plans, programs, and initiatives. The problem is that the

reports sent through this channel often filter out bad news. Best Buy still uses chain-of-

command reports but augments those with other channels, such as monitoring the

company’s internal electronic bulletin board, where employees can post reactions to

company policies and pose questions to one another. When the company decided to

reduce the employee discount, the board lit up with vehement complaints. Executives

monitoring the board reversed the policy within days.48 Any leader who taps into chan-

nels beyond the traditional ones develops a more nuanced, complex—and usually more

accurate—view of the organizational landscape.

Advocating a diverse portfolio of channels does not equate with recommending

that leaders roll the dice when selecting channels. Indeed, the next three recom-

mendations focus on properly matching up the sender’s objectives, message char-

acteristics, and channel choices.

Use rich channels for persuading others, analyzing ambiguous information, managing

conflict, and resolving complex issues. Rich channels provide rapid feedback,

establish a personal focus, and communicate multiple information cues. For

instance, communicating face-to-face provides us with instant access to a wide

variety of personal cues, such as vocal tone, body movements, and even smell.

Almost unrestricted access to these signals can allow us to sense the subtle

distinctions necessary to understand complex issues. Moreover, the communicators,not a cameraperson, determine what cues to attend to. Lean media lack one or more

of these features. One can think of rich and lean channels on a continuum, with

rich media—such as face-to-face discussions—on one end and lean media—such

as impersonal flyers or computer “pop-up ads”—on the other end. In between fall

the telephone, e-mail, videoconferences, texting, and others.

The scholars who developed these notions in the Media Richness Model made

this argument:

Face-to-face (communication) conveys emotion and strength of feeling through

facial expressions, gestures, and eye contact. It is as important for a manager toknow that participants are satisfied, angry, cooperative, or resistant, as it is to

have accurate production data. . . . Memos and other written directives convey a

predefined, literal description that can hide important issues and convey a false

sense that everyone understands and agrees.49

No wonder teaching, training, managing conflict, and analyzing difficult problems

are best handled in a face-to-face channel. No other channel permits communica-

tors to send and receive messages of such an interpersonal nature, on the one hand,

and cognitive complexity, on the other. Leaner media such as e-mails, text messages,

and webpages are effective tools for sharing information, but they are poorly suited

for sharing knowledge (see Table 5.6).

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Even a teleconference does not effectively simulate the richness of a face-to-face

meeting. One company holds a teleconference every Friday morning with up to 100

employees in five different locations to keep everyone informed of upcoming events.

Although this provides a useful tool for information sharing, it limits knowledge

sharing. Why? Employees tend to avoid secondary conversations because a singlephone line transmits the communication (see Figure 5.2).50 They rarely ask questions

Situation 1

A midsize construction firm wants to announce a new employee benefit program.

Poor choice: Memo Better choice: Small-group meetings

Rationale: The memo does not offer the feedback potential necessary to explain what may be seen

as arcane information. Moreover, some employees might have a literacy problem. A group meeting

will provide an oral explanation and will allow participants to easily ask questions about any of the

complex material.

Situation 2

A manager wishes to confirm a meeting time with 10 employees.

Poor choice: Phone Better choice: E-mail, voice mail, or text message

Rationale: For a simple message like this, there is no need to use rich and synchronous (sender and

receiver simultaneously communicating) media when a lean and asynchronous one will do the job.

Situation 3

A midsize insurance company wants to garner support for a program that encourages employees

from different departments to work on the same project teams.

Poor choice: E-mail, voice mail Better choice: Face-to-face, telephone

Rationale: Persuasive situations demand that the sender be able to quickly adapt the message to the

receiver in order to counter objections. This is not a feature of either e-mail or voice mail. Face-to-

face communication offers the sender the greatest flexibility. The phone is the next best alternative.

Situation 4

A group of geographically dispersed engineers want to exchange design ideas with one another.

Poor choice: Teleconference Better choice: Wiki, computer conference

Rationale: A teleconference may overly accentuate the status and personality differences between

the engineers. Wiki or computer conferencing would allow the quality of the ideas to be the central

focus of interaction. Moreover, quick feedback is still possible in these media.

Situation 5

A company needs to describe a straightforward, but somewhat detailed, updated version of a sales

promotion campaign to 1,000 geographically dispersed employees.

Poor choice: Newsletter Better choice: Videoconference

Rationale: Face-to-face would underscore the importance of the promotional campaign, but a

videoconference provides enough richness to be motivational while saving the company time and

money. A newsletter does not shine the light brightly enough on the event and may not provide the

appropriate level of detail.

TABLE 5.6 Sample Situations of Media Choice

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



that they might ask in a face-to-face meeting.51 Moreover, the lack of visual commu-

nication filters out many subtle cues necessary for conflict management and knowl-

edge sharing. Because knowledge is more complex and subtle than information, it

requires a richer channel. In short, a teleconference offers an efficient alternative to

many face-to-face group conferences, but it cannot completely simulate one.

Select “who” channels to highlight the relationship, “what” channels to highlight the task.

The Rich–Lean Model provides one way to classify channels, but the Who–What

Model can also help in selecting the proper channel. What channels focus attention

on the message, whereas who channels focus attention on the communicators.

What channels, such as e-mail, webpages, electronic bulletin boards, and com-

puter conferencing, tend to emphasize information and idea sharing.52 What chan-

nels allow the who to fade into the background. For example, one study of com-

puter conference participants indicated that 40% of the users did not know the

gender of the senders and 32% had no idea of the sender’s position in the hierar-chy.53 Some employees who feel physically unattractive report being more confident

FIGURE 5.2 Comparison of Teleconference and Face-to-Face Meetings

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



and participative in a computer conference than in a face-to-face interaction. The

playing field differs in a chat room or computer conference; employees engage in a

battle of wits and not of power. Because of the channel characteristics, the group

processes less person-centered information. These channels muffle many cues, suchas frowns, verbal hesitations, and seating arrangements that signal status and role

differences.54 This may sound desirable, but the lack of social cues may actually lead

to a false sense of consensus and inhibit implementation of decisions.55 Note that

signaling status, an attribute, may be a cost or benefit depending on your goals.

Who channels underscore the relational elements inherent in any communica-

tive event, often accentuating status and hierarchical differences. They are high in

“social presence,” increasing the likelihood of forming personal relationships.

Group meetings, formal presentations, social networking, and videoconferences

tend to highlight person-centered messages. Consider one expert’s counsel about

conducting videoconferences:

Video teleconferencing is a . . . medium where, in a sense, you become the visual

aid. And just as you are not born with the ability to communicate brilliantly, so

you are not born knowing how best to utilize video communicating. You must

learn to make the medium work for you rather than the other way around.56

The expert’s liberal use of the you pronoun signals the importance of personal pres-

ence. Television often tests one’s ability at verbal ping-pong and imagery rather

than the mental rigor of deep thought. The benefit? Who channels clarify relational

ambiguities. The cost? Who channels might actually inhibit certain employees from

voicing concerns or sharing better ideas.A gentle reminder: Rich media can be a wise choice or a poor one. Ditto for lean

media, “who” and “what.” The strategic objectives should guide all channel trade-offs.

For example, an executive team was deciding how best to distribute communica-

tions to its unionized employees during a bitter contract negotiation. The execu-

tives determined that a key strategic communication goal was to encourage

thoughtful discussion of the issues, while discouraging the displays of raw emo-

tions; “engage minds, not passions.” The team recognized the utility of using a

feedback channel to respond to questions and clarify misunderstandings. The ques-

tion arose about what was the proper channel for the feedback. Considerable debate

ensued about the relative benefits and costs associated with telephone hotlines,

blogs, and e-mail. One person made a strong pitch for a telephone hotline because

“we have it in the budget” and “have used it in the past.” True, but totally irrelevant.

The key issue: Which channel would do the best job of encouraging respondents to

carefully consider how they express their thoughts (engage minds)? In fact, a tele-

phone hotline would subtly promote ranting not thinking. So any channel that

forced the users to write down their thoughts would offer the most benefits to the

executive team. People, of course, can rant on paper, but the probabilities are

skewed toward asking more thoughtful questions. So the team decided to encour-

age employees to e-mail their questions to either their union representatives or the

HR director. This decision supported the strategic communication plan and was

one reason why the contract was ratified even in a highly contentious atmosphere.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Amplify your message by selecting channels that send the proper symbolic cues. Several

years ago, a tale circulated about a “techie” who broke up with his girlfriend. He decided

to e-mail her the news because he thought faxing was too impersonal. Ugh! Well, at least

he had the right sentiments. The moral of the story: Our choice of channels also sendsa message by shaping the tone and quality of our message. For example, memos and

letters imbue a sense of formality and credibility, allowing recipients a document as a

reference point. In general, written communication signifies authority, legitimacy, and

finality. After all, judges issue a written, not an oral, court decision.

Face-to-face conversations often lack these qualities. Several researchers found

that managers use face-to-face communication “to signal a desire for teamwork;

build trust and goodwill; or to convey informality.”57 Miss Manners, no doubt,

intuitively knew what scholars discovered when she wrote this useful rule-of-

thumb: “The more emotional the content, the more cumbersome should be the

means of conveying it. Highly emotional communications are best made in per-

son, where the effect can be assessed and the message tempered to the reaction.” 58

In short, the symbolic overtones of the communication technology influence social

relationships.

Even the frequency of channel use sends powerful symbolic messages that

greatly influence how messages are interpreted. Some organizations rarely use cer-

tain channels, such as all-division meetings. When the company does use this chan-

nel, it signals that something “big” is going to happen. One executive aptly described

the consequences of such symbolic messages:

Employees know that the organization only gathers for “weddings” and “funer-

als.” So once “the big meeting” is announced, everyone starts speculating aboutwho “died.” In other words, the rumor mill starts cranking out stories about

which division will be downsized.59

In essence, the symbolic significance of the meeting may unintentionally override

the actual messages shared in the meeting.

Detect and Respond to Patterns ThatDevelop With Technology Usage

Who would embrace a new technology that promises to bring exotic viruses into

your home, annoy you with unsolicited advertisements, and expose your confiden-

tial information to potential criminals? Nevertheless, millions of Internet users

willingly accept these potential costs every day.60 As we use technologies, unex-

pected problems, conventions, and norms emerge. For instance, many mobile

phone users were originally sold on the technology because it provided them

greater safety and security. Few people immediately went home and disconnected

their landline phones. But as their comfort grew, they realized that the technology

could be used in more ways, some of which were originally unintended. So we see

this step-by-step progression from “use only in emergencies” to “use for business

travel” to “use all the time, any place, regardless of whether you have something

important to say.”

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



New technologies, like fads, come and go. So wise leaders experiment and

thoughtfully analyze the investment before fully embracing a new technology. They

do so by using the tactics discussed below.

Estimate how the cost/benefit ratio will shift over time. Many thought leaders believe

that the book The Diffusion of Innovations by Everett Rogers is one of the most impor-

tant books ever written about the role of communication in our culture. I agree.

Before we plunge into Roger’s core argument, we need a little context. Empirical stud-

ies suggest that a “just the facts” approach only marginally influences the adoption

rates of new technologies.61 To be sure, facts related to the relative advantages, lower

complexity, and trailability of the technology coupled with logical arguments about

the compatibility of the technology with existing systems and observability of the

benefits may prove helpful.62 They are not, however, determinative. Rather, social and

network factors trump the facts: “who” outpaces “what” when it comes to new chan-

nel adoption. As Rogers states “The rate of adoption is relative to the speed with

which an innovation is adopted by members of the social system.”63 It all starts with

the innovators, who represent 2.5% of the population in a particular community of

users (see Figure 5.3). They tend to be venturesome, seeking out opportunities to

experience something new. Consequently, they willingly pay the financial, learning,

and aggravation costs associated with any new technology to experience the joys of

being a pioneer. If the innovators give it the thumbs up, then the early adopters pick

it up (13.5%), who may in turn pass it on to the early majority (34%). Then, we near

FIGURE 5.3 Diffusion of Technology in Organizations

SOURCE: E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



the tipping point, and the technology will eventually be embraced by the late major-

ity (34%) and perhaps the laggards (16%).64

Each group perceives the costs and benefits in fundamentally different ways. The

innovators tolerate high costs and technical glitches to benefit from “being first.”The late majority, on the other hand, clearly enjoys substantially lower financial

costs; just ask the innovators about how much they paid for their first flat screen

TV! Members of the late majority also experience much lower learning costs

because they can ask for assistance from their friends in the early adopter or major-

ity categories, who are the main arbiters of their technology choices.

Organizational technology architects should take this curve into account. First, it

suggests that if the innovators and early adopters in the organization fail to get on

board with a new technology, the likelihood of successful deployment throughout the

organization is almost nil. Second, it suggests that architects can reasonably assume

that many costs will decrease (particularly learning costs) over time as others jump

on board to enjoy the benefits. Third, it shows how direct experiences with the tech-

nology or channel can dramatically shift the cost–benefit calculation. It takes time to

build confidence in the technology, adapt to the new possibilities, and exploit the

advantages.65 Certain technologies and the related competencies need to be in place

before taking the next step.66 Consumers, for example, did not recognize the need for

high-speed Internet service until they experienced the limitations of dial-up service

and fantasized about the possibilities of enhanced service. Without these experiences,

there cannot be a critical mass of users to ignite further interest and sustain the tech-

nology. Wise managers provide these critical learning experiences and build on them.

To be more specific, take a long, hard look at incentives created by the technol-

ogy. Pondering incentives can help estimate shifts in the cost–benefit ratio overtime. Economist Thomas Sowell put it this way:

While critics of various programs [technologies] often point out “unintended

consequences” that did more harm than good, many of these consequences

were predictable from the outset if people had looked at the incentives created,

rather than the goals proclaimed.67

Consider e-mail, often hailed as a way to improve the quality and efficiency of

communication within the organization. Partially true, but e-mail also spawned

numerous challenges from spies, spammers, and hackers. Lowering the cost of lean

communication incentivized certain people to interact who were not able to do so

before. We shouldn’t be surprised then that scholars have determined that the wide-

spread use of e-mail has increased lateral communication (coworker-to-coworker).68

Indeed, one study reported that 60% of the messages sent via e-mail would never

have been sent through another channel.69

Or consider how a speedy tool like text messaging changes the communicative

incentives. We asked 60 heavy users, “At what communicative tasks does text messag-

ing excel?” The word cloud in Figure 5.4 provides a revealing glimpse into the subtle

impact of pace-enhancing communicative tools. The larger the word, the more fre-

quently it was mentioned. On the positive side, such tools help people update and

coordinate. No surprise there. On the other side of the coin, the respondents reported

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



that text messaging also excels at allowing users to confuse and lie. We don’t see any

advertisements touting these qualities of text messages. And that’s exactly why we

need to study the impact of incentives and not merely rely on vendor reports.

FIGURE 5.4 At What Tasks Does Text Messaging Excel?

Prescient managers take note of emerging technology patterns while soberly

gauging the intended and unintended consequences of the trends. Television, for

instance, enriches the lives of millions. But there is a cost. George F. Kennan, a

recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and former U.S. ambassador to the

Soviet Union, warned about the danger of a society dominated by television, noting

that “a mental world dominated by fragmentary images . . . can hardly be a

thoughtful one.”70 Likewise, the mobile phone, the Swiss Army knife of personal

technology, brings blessings as well as curses.71 The mobility means you can work

for hours at your local bistro while sipping on your favorite latte. It also means a

disintegration of traditional work–life boundaries. So effective managers neitherfully embrace new technology nor push it aside. Instead, they observe, assess, and

only act when the odds favor successful introduction of a new technology.

Reshape expectations about power relationships. Many people squirm with discomfort

when the conversation turns to power. Yet power is one of the perks—or perhaps

burdens—of those in leadership roles. Leaders who have attained a level of power

have expectations—often unrecognized—about how they should be treated by

others. But technology choices may unintentionally alter those power relationships,

incurring a hidden cost that few people forthrightly discuss. One commentator put

it this way: “Hyperconnectivity exaggerates some of the most destabilizing trends in

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



the modern workplace: the decline of certainty (as organizations abandon

bureaucracy in favor of adhocracy), the rise of global supply chains, and the general

cult of flexibility.”72 The former chairman of Citicorp, Walter Wriston, once

commented, “The most basic fact about the world we live and work in is this:Information is a virus that carries freedom.”73 He might have added that

communication technologies provide the delivery system. Compared to years ago,

a far wider range of people now gather, filter, and distribute news, information, and

opinions.74 This fundamentally changes the job of leadership. Leaders can no longer

control the flow of information through their organizations; instead, they must

learn to shape the employees’ interpretations of news, rumors, and opinions.

Executives and managers often find this state of affairs challenging. Why? First,

their traditional bureaucratic levers of power no longer exist. For instance, issuing

orders and edicts may no longer produce the desired results. Second, they don’t

know how to exert influence under the new rules of the game. In one organization,

the computer conferencing system led to such internal revolts and lack of concern

with traditional power/status issues that top management felt threatened and dis-

mantled the entire system.75 That’s an extreme but instructive example. Yet the

former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, claims that because of the Internet,

information no longer constitutes power since everyone has it.76 Clearly, employees’

power to shape the communication climate has been enhanced in recent years. In

fact, some commentators forcefully argue that Internet-based technology will

“democratize the workplace.”77 Maybe they took the argument too far. After all, the

rise of adhocracies preserves the power of those who design the business strategies,

protocols, and standards. Power and status differences still prevail, but they are

tempered by information technologies.78 Some executives may feel threatened by new technology; successful ones shift their expectations, alter their messages, and

learn new methods of influencing others.

Match the tempo of communication with the needs of the organization. Leaders

committed to effective communication often feel tugged in two different directions.

Information technology yanks the manager toward increasing the speed of

communication, but a desire to fully explain events pulls the manager toward a

slower, more deliberate form of communication. Indeed, many formal

communication systems make frequent use of channels designed more for

thoroughness than for speed. For example, some companies make extensive use of quarterly employee meetings designed to provide thorough briefings on the “big-

picture” items. Unfortunately, in our era, the big picture often changes more quickly

than every quarter. The problem: The responsiveness of the communication system

often does not match the pace of organizational events.

What should a manager do? Some reason, “Why not wait until all our ‘ducks

are in a row’ before informing employees?” However, because managers exercise

little control over grapevines, the “ducks” start quacking long before managers

can line them up. An employee may hear something from a vendor or a com-

petitor and pass it along. Arthur Shulman, an international consultant and

researcher, put it this way:

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



There is little evidence that information technology can act as a substitute for

human communication, let alone do it better . . . the major consequence of the

introduction of new information technologies within organizations has not been

better communication, only faster misunderstandings.79

As a result, employees’ misconceptions, apprehensions, and resistance points

often surface prior to any formal announcement. Consequently, building support

and consensus proves more difficult. Increasing the tempo of information sharing

helps mitigate these problems. Yet increased speed exacts a cost because it sacrifices

the completeness of the story. Consequently, executives must acknowledge uncer-

tainties, contingencies, and knowledge gaps—all of which may appear to under-

mine their credibility.80

Yet we do not expect the meteorologist to predict next month’s weather, except

in the most general of terms. We do, however, watch the daily forecast. It provides

timely, but necessarily partial, information. Meteorologists allow the big picture toemerge over time by constantly focusing on well-understood metrics such as tem-

perature and humidity. Their credibility emerges from their speed more than from

long-range accuracy. The environment imposes this constraint on both meteorolo-

gists and organizational communicators. The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt,

put it this way: “The fastest learner always wins.”81 By routinely reporting on a

limited number of key indicators, leaders can create a deep understanding of the

performance drivers. They create a “no data dump zone” by providing an opportu-

nity for everyone to analyze a few critical results and address the concerns.

Some companies, such as the Progressive Corporation, have taken the idea to a

new level by providing their investors with a monthly—as opposed to quarterly—report on key problems and the metrics used in managing the company. Instead of

increasing stock volatility (as many expected), it has dampened it. Instead of

decreasing company credibility, the frequent and revealing report actually enhances

it.82 In days past, a more deliberate communication system (channel) may have met

receivers’ needs (the C-R test). But no longer; the costs of more deliberative com-

munications may well exceed the benefits. Bottom line: Effective managers, like

musical maestros, are predisposed toward using speed to shape employee under-

standing of certain issues but slow the tempo for others. For example, The Boldt

Company makes use of social media and other speed-sensitive channels, but once

a year, the executives slow down the pace to encourage long-term, big-picture

thinking at a 3-day, off-site strategic planning session.

Embrace the Promise of Social MediaWhile Managing Its Risks

Social media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and LinkedIn are rapidly reshap-

ing relationships, branding, and the cognitive landscape. Consequently, this chapter

concludes with a special discussion about the promise and risks of this game-

changing communication technology. For instance, over 120 million people have

logged into and created professional profiles about their careers and areas of exper-

tise on LinkedIn (Facebook for Grownups). Fortune magazine notes that

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



A cadre of happily employed people use (LinkedIn) to research clients before sales

calls, ask their connections for advice, and read up on where former colleagues

are landing gigs. In this environment, job seekers can do their networking with-

out looking as if they’re shopping themselves around.83

Clearly, this tool shifts the ways companies recruit and retain quality employees.

Such channels may prove to be promising or perilous depending on how leaders

respond.

Likewise, branding becomes more challenging. A single YouTube posting of

Domino’s Pizza employees contaminating a pizza by placing cheese strips in their nasal

passages instantly sent the company into damage control and the stock plummeting by

10%.84 The company took days to respond to the image threat because they never seri-

ously thought about the possibility of social media being used in this way. The brand

suffered immediate damage among core customers who make heavy use of YouTube.

At an even deeper level, social media shift the way people think about issues. Forexample, heavy users of social media often value speed of communication over the

quality of communication. Does the speed inhibit thoughtful decisions? Does

the speed place too much emphasis on the here-and-now versus the future? Does

the speed inhibit identification of longer-term patterns? Formal studies have not

yet answered those questions, but these are clearly possible unintended negative

consequences of these technologies resulting from an entirely new set of commu-

nicative incentives for employees, employers, and customers. The tactics below

suggest specific ways to appropriately balance the costs and benefits in order to

increase the odds of extracting the most value from social media.

Develop a policy statement about how social media will be integrated into the business

strategy. The policy statement should guide the process and answer questions such

as the following:

• Why do we make use of social media?

• How do we select social media to use? Not use?

• What criteria will be used to judge the success or failure of socially

mediated communications?

An organization’s business strategy should drive the policy statement. That

means grappling with tough questions about likely outcomes. For example, one

study found that about 50% of knowledge management projects (e.g., sharing best

practices with coworkers) fail or simply dwindle into disuse.85 Will social media

improve the odds?

Another policy issue involves jointly developing a “social media use policy” for

employees. Experts suggest that the policy should (a) underscore the importance of

protecting proprietary information, (b) support the brand, and (c) remind employ-

ees that “their electronic communications may be intercepted, analyzed, and

archived by the company.”86 Since most policies prove to have limited utility with-

out the support of key employees, they should be heavily involved in the development

and deployment of such policies.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Determine the role of social media. Old channels rarely die; they often find a new

niche. AM radio did not die when FM came along, although many predicted it

would. Talk radio thrives on AM stations. As technologies compete for employee

and consumer attention, they take on specific functions. We don’t expect thatcompany websites will disappear anytime soon because a company has a Facebook

wall. However, websites will probably assume a different role. They will probably

become the repository or library for company information, while new media such

as Twitter will direct people to information on the company website.

Social media might be used to replace—or at least augment—certain commu-

nication tools currently employed by organizations. That’s exactly what Laura

Hollingsworth, the president and publisher of the Des Moines Register , decided to

do when challenged with “re-inventing local journalism” in her newspaper. She

envisions a mix of channels, each answering different user questions and serving

different functions:

• What’s happening now? (Smartphone and social media delivery)

• What does the news mean? (Web delivery)

• Why does the news matter? (Print delivery)87

Likewise, the various communication channels in the organization should relate

to one another in strategic and meaningful ways. Some will have a predominant

role. For example, the CEO’s annual company address may become the kickoff

for other niche-type communications via YouTube excerpts or other web-based

highlights.

Identify experts within the organization to teach others about social media conventions

and protocols. Social media reached the tipping point by shifting the way people

used their free time. In these nonwork hours, a great number of people built up

their expertise in various social media. They have assimilated tacit knowledge that

may prove quite valuable. In particular, these early users intrinsically know the

unique conventions that govern a particular technology. They recognize the upside

and downside of a particular social media that could help their businesses avoid

rookie mistakes and seize unique opportunities. Using their skills could help the

organization quickly establish credibility within a particular channel and answer

these questions:

• Is it concept driven? (e.g., Wikipedia)

• Is it speed driven? (e.g., Twitter)

• Is it interaction driven? (e.g., Facebook)

As these questions are answered, it will become clear how to use different social

media. For instance, recent surveys show that most businesses use Facebook and

Twitter to connect externally with customers, while they use Wikis for internal

audiences.88

Experienced users within the organization should also help identify the unstated

success rules and develop related protocols for the organization. For example, they

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



should confirm what researchers have discovered that “Twitter may be better for

building brands than for building markets for new offerings.”89 The experts should

also confirm the corresponding communication conventions, such as recognizing

that Tweets that pose questions or contain hashtags don’t improve the odds of going viral. However, tweeting shorter messages (70 characters or less), offering

deals, and providing “news you can use” does improve the odds of retweeting.90 In

short, the home-grown experts should recognize that importing strategies from

other digital environments (e.g., webpages) by “broadcasting commercial messages

or seeking customer feedback” rarely works in the social media ecosystem. 91 Why?

“Customers reject such overtures because their main goal on the (social media)

platforms is to connect with other people, not with companies.”92

Actively assess the utility of your social media strategy. Social media companies often

provide seemingly revealing metrics describing the number of users, unique hits, and

so on. These numbers supply helpful but not definitive data to make judgments about

the utility of the strategy. The data are helpful because we can make judgments about

the potential reach of a particular social media. For example, moments before a Green

Bay Packer game began at Lambeau Field, Ashton Kutcher tweeted that he was at the

game. Given the size of his Twitter audience, it should come as no surprise that this

tidbit of information almost instantaneously circulated around the stadium. Nice to

know, but how does this tweet or any other actually translate into business? (Ashton’s

business manager probably wants to know if the tweets result in more movie sales.)

And that’s where some standard measurements fall short.

To make a more definitive judgment, we need more robust methods that may

include targeted surveys and focus groups. Consider, for example, that Dunkin’Donuts “has 80% fewer Facebook and Twitter followers than Starbucks.” Yet, these

donut fans are “35% more likely to recommend the brand.” 93 Such findings point

out the importance of thoughtfully exploring social media strategy. Bottom line:

The most easily gathered data may not be all that informative.

A more robust assessment should take into consideration the entire customer or

employee experience. For example, we need to consider how direct competitors make

use of social media. It is useful, for instance, to know that Starbucks “spends its (social

media) energy telegraphing its superiority,” while Dunkin’ Donuts fuels its social

media with fun and entertaining events.94 That does not mean that all social media

strategies must be fun and entertaining. After all, the business-to-consumer (B2C)market differs in significant ways from the business-to-business (B2B) market. The

critical point, though, is that part of the assessment should involve examining the

social media strategy in light of the user’s frame of reference and subsequent behav-

iors. For instance, social media strategists might ponder recent studies indicating that

66% of small-business owners believe social media are “important to their business”

but only 7.5% of Facebook fans read the company status updates on a daily basis. 95

Analyze the potential costs of social media. Regardless of the strategy employed,

social media pose unique potential costs or threats to organizations; threats that

often get lost amidst the hullabaloo surrounding the possibilities. A more sober

analysis of social media suggests five major issues worthy of further scrutiny.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Misappropriation.Misappropriation occurs when someone makes use of a channel

in a way not intended or sanctioned. We asked a group of 60 heavy social media

users to identify the three greatest concerns organizations should have about using

social media. The word cloud in Figure 5.5 provides their answer. The predominanceof words like privacy, confidentially, and security reflect a fundamental concern

about the release of confidential or private information. Clearly, if certain

information was misappropriated and fell into the hands of competitors or the

press, it could damage the organization’s reputation or undermine its

competitiveness. Just ask famed conductor Leonard Slatkin. He learned a powerful

lesson about blabbering and blogging. After a particularly frustrating practice

session, he blogged about his relative inexperience with the score. Music reviews

used those very comments to bolster their damning reviews of the orchestra’s

subsequent performance. If the conductor had kept his frustrations private, he

might not have suffered at the hands of the critics.96

FIGURE 5.5 Concerns Organizations Should Have About Social Media

Tools exist to monitor social media communications sanctioned by the organi-

zation. For example, FaceTime USG 530 is a “unified security gateway that moni-

tors, logs and blocks web use, social networking and IM.”97 It provides an option to

control content posted on blogs and social media sites. Yet such technological fixes

only provide protection from content shared by employees on company-controlled

social media sites. In fact, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, sent shivers

up the spine of many executives when he asserted that “the age of privacy is over.”98

One observer noted,

It is very easy to be frustrated at work and hop on Twitter to complain. An excited

salesperson has a good meeting with a prospect and tweets about it, and the

competition reads the tweet and moves in to undersell. Or maybe an employee

leaves a meeting with hot insider news and can’t wait to update his Facebook

status with it.99

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



The list of scenarios could go on and on. But the issue of misappropriation,

whether through the inadvertent release of confidential information or inevitable

engagement in time-wasting activity, looms large in a social-mediated world.100

Misinformation . Misappropriation problems are compounded because of ease of

retransmission of the message through retweeting, for instance. On the plus side,

this can create positive buzz. On the flip side, unsubstantiated rumors can quickly

take on a life of their own. As one commentator put it, “Part of the problem is that

people who conceal their names seem to feel free to say things they never would if

their identities were known.”101 In short, misinformation travels at the speed of light

and may well undermine legitimate communications.

Misunderstanding . Statistician Persi Diaconis noted, “If you look at a big enough

population long enough, then almost any damn thing will happen.” 102

Mathematicians refer to this phenomenon as the “law of large numbers.”Communication scholars have applied the law to messages sent over mass or social

media.103 More specifically, any message sent to enough people could be interpreted

in almost any conceivable way. In fact, we should expect wacky interpretations from

at least a few people. The word cloud in Figure 5.5 reaffirms this theoretical threat

by giving prominence to words like misinterpretation .

Memory . Most people would not expect to find the word memory in a list of social

media threats. In fact, we often hear about the benefits of easily saving data, images,

and correspondence. But there is a downside as well. In a fascinating book, Delete:

The Virtue of Forgetting the Digital Age , Professor Mayer-Schönberger notes that

since the beginning of time, for us humans, forgetting has been the norm and

remembering the exception . . . Today with the help of widespread technology,

forgetting has become the exception, and remembering the default . . . [yet]

forgetting is not an annoying flaw but a life-saving advantage. As we forget, we

regain freedom to generalize, conceptualize, and most importantly, to act.104

Are these fears about the persistence of cyber memory merely the thoughtful

musings of a former Harvard University professor? Or are they a real potential busi-

ness threat?

To answer these queries, consider the issue on two levels. First, do individual

employees feel compelled to save every e-mail, image, and document that crosses

the desk? If so, what are the costs associated with that enterprise? Think about the

costs of the mental energy spent on sorting, filing, retrieving, synthesizing, and

even recollecting the context of e-mail exchanges years ago. Second, what costs are

associated with the rising expectation that organizations save every scrap of data

and correspondence? The Economist speculated that

regulators could require large companies to undergo an annual information secu-

rity audit by an accredited third party, similar to financial audits for listed compa-

nies . . . In [the] future it is more likely that companies will be required to retain

all digital files, and ensure their accuracy, than to delete them.105

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



Given these personal management and government trends, it would be wise to

think about the direct as well as subtle costs of the improved memory gleaned from

social media.

Manipulation . Mischievous social media mavens can also manipulate opinions and

perceptions. Consider one rather benign example aptly titled the “Revenge of the

Nerds.” It started with Mattel asking “young girls who visited the Barbie.com

website to vote on the doll’s next career” move. Within weeks, this novel idea reaped

pleasing, if predictable, results: more than 600,000 votes and a strong preference for

Barbie to move into the anchorwoman position. So far so good. But as the voting

continued, the voting trend dramatically shifted toward “computer engineer.” Why?

It seems that a self-identified geek posted news of the vote on her blog and

encouraged her readers to help “Barbie get her geek on.” She did. Happily, Mattel

embraced this rather gentle type of manipulation and decided to release two new

career paths for Barbie. While this story may amuse us, it also points out the ease

of manipulation in our cyber world. In fact, some people might have a vested

interest in undermining a product, brand, or organization. On the flip side, some

people might have a vested interested in singing the praises of a product or brand.

Consider, for example, that the average rating for “things online is about 4.3 stars

out of five.”106 We might well wonder how many of those ratings are driven by a

desire to manipulate the poll. In short, whether the news is positive or negative, we

need to carefully scrutinize information gleaned in any mediated sites.

Clearly, the 5Ms existed long before social media came on the scene (see Figure

5.6). The difference is that over time, organizations have developed robust ways to

manage these problems. Most organizations are still playing catch-up when it comesto managing these conventional problems in the ever-changing world of social media.

FIGURE 5.6 Social Media Threats

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



CONCLUSION

Communication channels and technologies shape how we gather news, conductcommerce, form communities, think about problems, communicate with one

another, and even alter our physical landscape. As one commentator noted, “Without

the telephone, buildings would have had wider stairways and fewer floors in order to

accommodate the large number of runners needed to convey messages between

departments.”107 We ignore the influences of communication technology at our

peril. Learning to effectively manage communication technologies presents a major

intellectual challenge. But that does not mean all our energy should be spent on

managing the ever-increasing array of channel choices. Former presidential speech-

writer Peggy Noonan observed that “this is the problem of the world now: Big mic,

no message. If you have nothing to say, does it matter that you have endless venues

in which to say it?”108 The B-C model helps us avoid this trap by efficiently and

effectively structuring our thinking in ways that will maximize value, whether we are

pondering the latest technical gizmo or something as old as Ts’ai Lun’s paper.

KEY CONCEPTS

B−C model = V model 106 Misappropriation 134

Channel attributes 106 Opinion amplification 119

Coordination costs 108 Opportunity costs 108

Costs 104 Rich channel 121

C-R test 116 SMCR model 114

Early adopters 126 S-M test 115

Early majority 126 Social media 106

Innovators 126 Social media threats (5-Ms) 135

Laggards 126 Switching costs 109

Late majority 126 Value 104

Lean channel 121 What channel 122

Learning costs 108 Who channel 123

M-C test 116 Wikis 132

M-R test 115

“DRILL DOWN” EXERCISES

1. Describe two situations in which a manager selected the (a) proper channel(s)

to communicate an important message and (b) improper channel(s) to com-

municate an important message. How does the B-C model help explain both

situations?

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



2. Describe three unintended consequences of introducing a new communica-

tion technology into an organization.

3. Construct a chart with two columns. In Column 1, indicate three major rea-

sons why a manager’s channel portfolio would be composed almost entirely

of lean channels. In Column 2, provide counterarguments to each reason.

Construct a similar two-column chart focused on a managerial portfolio

composed almost entirely of rich channels.

ANCILLARIES

Visit the student study site at www.sagepub.com/clampitt5e to access these addi-

tional study materials:

• Video Resources

• Web Resources

• eFlashcards

• Web Quizzes

• Study Questions

NOTES

1. In this chapter, I am broadly defining communication technology and using it inter-changeably with the term channel.

2. M. H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. New York:

A & W Visual Library, 1978.

3. A. Shafer, “Crunching the Numbers.” Inc., September 2011, 34.

4. The first Nobel Prize was awarded on December 10, 1901.

5. http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_franklin.html. Accessed May 1, 2012.

6. R. Clark, Ben Franklin: A Biograph y. New York: Random House, 1983, 15.

7. W. Isaacson, Ben Franklin: An American Life . New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003,

89–90.

8. http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/289513.Benjamin_Franklin?page=2.

Accessed May 1, 2012.9. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/difficult.html. Accesssed May 1,

2012.

10. J. Bartholet, “Young, Angry, and Wired.” National Geographic, July 2011, 102–7.

11. Banyan, “Against the Tide.” The Economist, August 27, 2011, 38.

12. M. Piskorksi, “Social Strategies That Work.” Harvard Business Review, November

2011, 117–22.

13. H. Petroski, The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance. New York: Knopf,

1992, 339.

14. Ibid.

15. Personal interview with Mark Murphy, Green Bay Packers President and CEO,

March 10, 2010.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



16. E. Felten, Loyalty: The Vexing Virtue. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011, 2D–3D.

17. D. Blum, “The Scent of Your Thoughts.”Scientific American, October 2011, 54–57.

18. M. Watson-Manheim, “Exploring the Use of Social Network Sites in the Workplace,”

in A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed.Z. Papacharissi. New York: Routledge, 2011, 169–82; see especially p. 173.

19. D. Barrett, “Democrats Push Weiner to Go.” Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2011, A4.

20. B. Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex,

Money, Genius, and Betrayal. New York: Doubleday, 2009.

21. L. Mikulecky, “Basic Skill Impediments to Communication between Management

and Hourly Employees.” Management Communication Quarterly 3 (1990): 452–73.

22. J. Bilik, as quoted in L. Welch, “The Way I Work: Jen Bilik of Knock Knock.” Inc.,

October, 2011, 114–16, see especially p. 116.

23. “House Page Program Scrapped after 200 Years.” USA Today, August 10, 2011, 7A.

24. S. Ramchandran, “Death of the Salesman.” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012, B9.

25. A. Lewis, http://www.metafilter.com/user/15556. Accessed November 15, 2011.

26. R. Hotz, “Decoding Our Chatter.”Wall Street Journal, October 1–2, 2011, C1, C2.

27. A. Ross, “The Record Effect.” New Yorker, June 6, 2005, 94–100; L. Gomes, “Are

Technology Limits in MP3s and iPods Ruining Pop Music?” Wall Street Journal, September

12, 2007, B1.

28. “Txt msgng in Frnc: Parlez-vous SMS?” The Economist, May 24, 2008, 70.

29. E. R. Tufte, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2003, 3.

30. Ibid., 23.

31. D. Isaacs, S. Isaacs, and D. Fitzgerald, “A Day in the Life of a Doctor: The PowerPoint

Presentation.” British Medical Journal 335 (2007): 1292.

32. For a further discussion on the limited power of PowerPoint, see P. Clampitt and

R. J. DeKoch, Embracing Uncertainty: The Essence of Leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,

2001.33. C. Arnst, “An Exclusive Account of Lou Gerstner’s First Six Months.” Business Week,

October 4, 1993, 87–94.

34. M. Robichaux, “Teens in Business Discover Credibility Is Hard to Earn.”Wall Street

Journal, June 9, 1989, B1–B2.

35. Frisch, P. as quoted in O’Kane, O. Hargie, and D. Tourish, “Communication without

Frontiers: The Impact of Technology upon Organizations,” in Key Issues in Organizational

Communication, ed. D. Tourish and O. Hargie. London: Routledge, 2004, 74–95; see espe-

cially p. 89.

36. J. Fenn and M. Raskino, Mastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right

Innovation at the Right Time. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008.

37. T. Standage, The Victorian Internet. New York: Berkley Books, 1999, 212.38. N. Carr, “The Bookless Library,” in Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think? ed.

J. Brockman. New York: Harper, 2011, 2–3.

39. W. Deresiewicz, The Death of Friendship . Boston: New Word City, 2011, 7, 31

(e-book). (I read this book in its entirety on my iPad, flipping to other distractions about

every 15 minutes.)

40. C. Shih, The Facebook Era. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2009, 51.

41. J. Bohannon, “Searching for the Google Effect on People’s Memory.” Science, July

15, 2011, 277.

42. Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, trans. Harold Fowler. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1925, 274e–275a.

43. K. Rosman, “P.S. Fancy Stationary Returns.” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2011, D1.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



44. Ibid.

45. The concept of “opinion amplification” in the technology arena emerged from

studies about political biases known as “ideological amplification.” See N. Carr, The Big

Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.46. For some excellent ideas on how to run a meeting, see J. Tropman, Making Meetings

Work: Achieving High Quality Group Decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.

47. A. Dillard, The Writing Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1989, 3.

48. P. Dvorak, “Best Buy Taps ‘Prediction Market.’” Wall Street Journal, September 16,

2008, B1, B8.

49. L. K. Trevino, R. L. Daft, and R. H. Lengel, “Understanding Managers’ Media

Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective,” in Organizations and Communication

Technology, ed. J. Fulk and C. Steinfield. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1990, 71–94; see especially

p. 88.

50. F. Williams, Technology and Communication Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

1987.

51. Researchers have determined that dyadic exchanges constitute close to 50% of the

conversation in six-person, face-to-face decision-making groups, and many occur simulta-

neously. Many of these side conversations simply do not occur in a teleconference or video-

conference. See G. Stasser and L. A. Taylor, “Speaking Turns in Face-to-Face Discussions.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1991): 675–84.

52. J. Short, E. Williams, and B. Christie, The Social Psychology of Telecommunications.

London: John Wiley, 1976. See also P. O’Kane, O. Hargie, and D. Tourish, “Communication

without Frontiers: The Impact of Technology upon Organizations,” in Key Issues in

Organizational Communication, ed. D. Tourish and O. Hargie. London: Routledge, 2004,

74–95.

53. L. Sproull and S. Kiesler, “Reducing Social Context Cues: The Case of Electronic

Mail.” Management Science 32 (1986): 1492–512.54. L. Garton and B. S. Wellman, “Social Impacts of Electronic Mail in Organizations:

A Review of the Research Literature,” in Communication Yearbook 18, ed. B. Burleson,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, 434–53; see especially p. 442.

55. C. Cornelius and M. Boos, “Enhancing Mutual Understanding in Synchronous

Computer-Mediated Communication by Training.” Communication Research 30 (2003):

147–76. See also S. Craig and J. C. Fontenot, “Multiple Identifications during Team Meetings:

A Comparison of Conventional and Computer-Supported Interactions.” Communication

Reports 12, no. 2 (1999): 91–97; see especially p. 88, p. 96.

56. M. O. Frank, How to Run a Successful Meeting in Half the Time. New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1989, 142.

57. Trevino et al., “Understanding Managers’ Media Choices,” 86.58. J. Martin, Miss Manners’ Basic Training: Communication. New York: Crown,

1997, 22.

59. B. Journey, personal communication, March 5, 2002.

60. M. Specter, “Damn Spam.” New Yorker, August 6, 2007, 36–41.

61. J. Druckman and T. Bolsen, “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about

Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication 61 (2011): 659–88; P. Leonardi, “Why Do

People Reject New Technologies and Stymie Organizational Changes of Which They Are in

Favor?” Human Communication Research, 35, no. 3 (2009): 407–41.

62. I’ve highlighted the key attributes of innovations according to E. Rogers, Diffusion

of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1995.

63. Ibid., 22.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



64. Ibid., 262.

65. J. Gourville, “Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of

New-Product Adoption.” Harvard Business Review 84, no. 6 (2006): 98–107.

66. D. Farrell, “The Real New Economy.” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 10 (2003):104–12.

67. T. Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy. New York: Basic Books,

2000, 345.

68. C. Conrad and M. S. Poole, Strategic Organizational Communication: Into the

Twenty-first Century. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998.

69. R. E. Rice and U. E. Gattiker, “New Media and Organizational Structuring,” in The

New Handbook of Organizational Communication, ed. F. M. Jablin and L. L. Putman.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, 544–81; see especially p. 565.

70. G. Kennan, Around the Cragged Hill. New York: W. W. Norton, 1993, 177.

71. S. Kleinman, “Anytime, Anyplace,” in Displacing Place: Mobile Communication in

the Twenty-first Century, ed. S. Kleinman. New York: Peter Lang, 2007, 225–34.

72. J. Schumpeter, “Slaves to the Smartphone.” The Economist, March 10, 2012, 80.

73. W. B. Wriston, “The State of American Management.” Harvard Business Review 68,


74. “Bulletins from the Future: Special Report the News Industry.” The Economist, July

9, 2011.

75. S. Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

76. C. Fiorina, “Speech to the National Governor’s Association,” Washington, DC,

February 27, 2000.

77. J. Brown and P. Duguid, The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press, 2000.

78. Garton and Wellman, “Social Impacts,” 440–1.

79. Shulman, “Putting Group Information,” 367.80. P. Clampitt and R. DeKoch, Embracing Uncertainty: The Essence of Leadership. New

York: M. E. Sharpe, 2001; P. Clampitt and R. DeKoch, Transforming Leaders into Progress

Makers: Leadership in the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011.

81. E. Schmidt, “Speech to the National Governor’s Association,” Washington, DC,

February 27, 2000.

82. J. S. Lublin, “The Naked Truth: To Counter Investor Skepticism, Some CEOs Are

Making Public What Was Once Considered Private.” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2003,

R12.

83. J. Hempel, “How LinkedIn Will Fire Up Your Career.” Fortune, April 12, 2010,

74–82; see especially p. 76.

84. D. Kirkpatrick, “Techonomy: Social Power and the Coming Corporate Revolution.”Forbes, September 26, 2011, 72–81; see especially p. 76.

85. T. Griffith, “Tapping into Social-Media Smarts.” Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2011,

R6.

86. K. Simonson, “Four Ways to Manage the Risks of Social Media.”Baseline, December

2009, 11.

87. L. Hollingsworth, Speech at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, March 13,

2012.

88. “Social Media Aren’t All the Same.” Oracle Magazine, May/June 2012, 14.

89. A. Malhotra, C. Malhotra, and A. See, “How to Get Your Message Retweeted.” Sloan

Management Review, Winter 2012, 61–66; see especially p. 62.

90. Ibid.

7/28/2019 51751_ch_4,5



91. M. Piskorski, “Social Strategies That Work.” Harvard Business Review, November

2011, 117–22; see especially p. 118.

92. Ibid.

93. B. Payner, “Five Steps to Social Currency.” Fast Company, May 2010, 44–47; seeespecially p. 45.

94. Ibid.

95. A. Shafer, “Crunching the Numbers.” Inc., October 2011, 26.

96. E. Felton, “A Blog Too Far: How the Maestro Made Them Mad.” Wall Street Journal,

April 9, 2010, W11.

97. M. Sarrel, “Managing Employee Communications.” eWeek, March 15, 2010, 39–40;


98. M. Zuckerberg, as quoted in M. Sarrel, “Stay Safe, Productive on Social Networks.”

eWeek, April 5, 2010, 12–16; see especially p. 12.

99. M. Sarrel, “Stay Safe, Productive on Social Networks.” eWeek, April 5, 2010, 12–16;


100. S. Baker, “Beware Social Media Snake Oil.” Business Week, December 14, 2009,

48–51.

101. G. Crovitz, “Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?” Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2010,

A17.

102. Persi Diaconis, as quoted in J. A. Paulos, Once Upon a Number: The Hidden

Mathematical Logic of Stories. New York: Basic Books, 1998, p. 162.

103. See Chapter 1.

104. V. Mayer-Schönberger, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, 2, 118.

105. M. Giles, “Data, Data Everywhere: A Special Report on Managing Information.”The

Economist, February 27, 2010, 1–18; see especially p. 16.

106. G. Fowler and J. DeAvila, “On the Internet, Everyone’s a Critic but They’re Not Very Critical.” Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2009, A1, A6; see especially p. A1.

107. A. D. Shulman, “Putting Group Information Technology in Its Place: Communication

and Good Work Group Performance,” in Handbook of Organizational Studies, ed. S. R. Clegg,

C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord. London: Sage, 2001, 357–74; see especially p. 362.

108. P. Noonan, “A Bush League President.” Wall Street Journal, April 28–29, 2012, A15.

51751_ch_4,5

Documents

Transcript of 51751_ch_4,5