Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations

To begin this post, I would like to reflect on some personal experiences of communication in organizations. I have worked in jobs with varying styles of how the organization is run. My best experience has been my most recent. I have a female boss (very inspirational woman), the environment is moderately loud and humorous, 10 personalities all get along great, there are open lines of communication, yet there are distinct roles of authority. I feel this office environment works so well because of my boss. She treats everyone the same, laughs a lot (in a way that makes uncomfortable situations feel very comfortable), but she is also firm and tells one how it really is. I have never been in such a joyful, yet productive office in my life (granted I am in still in college, but I have been around an office environment my entire life due to my mother). Some of my worst experiences within organizations included those where the communication was greatly lacking, and there was too much ego and power in combination with each other. An example that comes to mind is a summer job that I once had. The owner seemed nice, and the managers (husband and wife) seemed okay. The owner was only there once or twice a week, and the managers were only doing their jobs once or twice a week. When the owner wasn't there, the managers weren't so nice. It was a bit of a sour experience that I was more than grateful to get away from. To tie these two organizations into Stanley Deetz's "Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations," I will say, in my experience, when my opinion is valued (even if I am the entry level employee being paid minimum wage, or nothing), I am a significantly more productive employee. Furthermore, I become a great asset to the company because I am motivated, engaged, and striving to truly help in anyway that I can. However, if I do not feel my opinion is valued in anyway, I feel discouraged and replaceable. 

To further exemplify what I am trying to describe, I have provided a clip from the movie "The Devil Wears Prada," below. In this clip, Miranda (the boss), pays no attention to the opinions of her employees. This creates an uncomfortable, and discouraging atmosphere. Thus, there is also a lot of deep rooted anger and frustration as well that incurs.

So what it Deetz's theory all about anyway?

Stanley Deetz decided to take a critical look at how organizations within the United States are run, how they effect our lives, and how they compare to other cultures. This is described as critical because he is critiquing and examining communication practices in organizations. Basically, he found that corporations are influencing us in nearly every aspect of our lives to the way we talk, schedule our time, and describe ourselves. This essentially describes the term, corporate colonization, which is the encroachment of modern corporations into every area of life outside of the workplace.

Undermining decision-making

With the current communication trends in organizations, like I explained in my personal experiences, people who could help with decision making, are often not in the process of decision making. Not to say that everyone should be involved at all times, but often times those people that are not at the very top, having nothing or very little to do with decisions that are being made (possibly big decisions about their personal working environments). If a CEO is making a decision about a job that, that CEO knows nothing about, they probably shouldn't be the person making the decision. It would be wise of that CEO to ask the people who know very well, what is happening, and how that decision can be best solved. If a CEO fails to do this, they fail the people of their company. This is because they are the people effected by the consequences of poor knowledge, which leads to poor decision making practices. Sometimes this means families end up with no or little healthcare, retirement, or extremely low wages.

Deetz and managerial control

Deetz sees managerial control as just that, control. He believes that this system is simply put in place to control others, even though, workers are seeking freedom. The real issue with this is that the control of others often times becomes more important than even things like financial gains. Furthermore, Deetz explains that managers are often praised for "putting out fires." This is brought up because if you are simply "putting out fires," there was no discussion to be had about the initial issue. Thus, no problem really gets solved. If anything, it becomes worse because grudges and deep emotional issues are formed this way.

Terms and their meanings

The following terms are connected through managerial control of organizations. 

• Consent: The process by which employees actively, though unknowingly, accomplish managerial interests in a faulty attempt to fulfill their own. 
• Systematically Distorted Communication: Operating outside of employees' awareness, a form of discourse that restricts what can be said or even considered.
• Discursive Closure: Suppression of conflict without employees realizing that they are complicit in their own censorship

The first, consent, I feel is affluent because of our "need" to work and gain the likeness of our boss. If we do this, then we succeed. The second, systematically distorted communication, seems almost like trickery within the system of communication. Employees are "tricked" into believing they are acting freely, when in reality they are not. The third, discursive closure, seems like more of a mentality. Thus, each kind of builds itself on the other, and can all be prevalent within an organization. It is also possible for "bits and pieces" to be true within the communication of an organization.

Solutions from Deetz!

Although Deetz doesn't have any solutions to which he truly believes in himself (because at this point they are a bit idealistic), he has good ideas on where to begin the process of establishing a new system of organizational communication. Thus, the following:

• Involvement, with free expression of ideas that may or may not affect managerial decision making.
• Participation, where stakeholders negotiate power and openly reach collaborative decisions.
• Politically Attentive Relational Constructionism, is based off of conflict communication, looked at in a collaborative way.

In conclusion, the United States is deeply flawed in its systems of communication, especially in that of organizations. However, with great thought, there is possibility for a great future where there is a more collaborative effort, and the rule of control is extinguished.