Journal Entry: Organizational Communication, Article Critique Example

Question: Monge & Contractor (2003) wrote that a major rationale for the study of emergent network structures is the lack of conclusive results linking formal organizational structure to specific organizational behavior. Using this unit’s readings, but especially Rahim, Antonioni, and Pseniska (2001), explain how the study of emergent networks may lead to insights about organizational behavior.

Organizations are complex entities in which individuals and small groups interact in a wide variety of complex ways.  The interactions and discourse that flow over the interaction connections can both reflect the organizational structure and can generate the structure  (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).  One way this can happen is via emergent networks of complex structures.  Emergent networks arise spontaneously in complex systems as a result of a large variety of possibilities constrained by limitations that control the possibilities to a smaller subset.  In the brain, this appears in the spontaneous development and restructuring in the cerebral cortex in neural networks.  In organizations, spontaneous organizational flows arise within the organizations that provide mechanisms of discourse and structure. (Monge & Contractor, 2003).

Emergent properties provide a mechanism for self-organization via feedback mechanisms, external and internal stimuli, and constraints  in a broad spectrum of applications and contexts.  The complex set of intercourse pathways, often as part of a hierarchical structure, also contributes to the emergence of new structures.  (Monge & Contractor, 2003).  For example, in the cerebral cortex of the brain, neurons are arranged in a few layers (typically, fewer than 10); in essence the cerebral cortex is a crumpled thin sheet of neural cells.  These cells have a rich set of interconnections with neurons in the layers on either side of them, and a limited set of interconnections with neurons on their same layer.  The connections both provide transmission of information to flow among the neurons, but they also provide both constraints that can either deter communications or facilitate them.  The feedback along those communication pathways further enables the network to change its physical structure, revise communication pathways, and alter its behavior and responsiveness in the face of changing external stimuli.

Although the above description used a neural network as an exemplar, the same fundamental description applies to emergent networks across a broad spectrum of applications, including those within organizations.  For example, using an intra-organizational communications network as a replacement example, the number of layers of a neural network correlates to the number of management layers in an organization.  The intra-cellular connections correlate to the communications pathways among organizational members. (The correlations isn’t exact; in a neural network in the brain, a typical neuron connects to 100,000 or more other neurons!)  The rich interconnection pathways can exhibit any of a variety of linkages. As noted in Rahim Antonioni, & Psenicka (2001), organizational linkages can reflect multiple types of power:

• Coercive power, in which communications are constrained because subordinates perceive that those above them can punish them;
• Reward power, in which communications are facilitated because subordinates perceive that those above them can reward them;
• Legitimate power, in which communications are facilitated because subordinates perceive that those above them are entitled to tell them what to do;
• Expert power, in which communications are facilitated because subordinates perceive that those above them have expertise; and
• Referent power, in which communications are facilitated because subordinates personally like and respect those above them (Rahim, Antonioni & Psenicka, 2001).

In addition to these forms of power, the authors report five different forms of conflict dimensions  that can apply at any level of the organization, based on the individual’s concern both for themselves and for others.  These conflict coping strategies are noted as

• Integrating, with high concern for both self and others, and which producing problem-solving behavior and creativity;
• Obliging, in which there is low concern for self and high concern for others, and which tends to emphasize commonalities;
• Dominating, in which there is high concern for self and low concern for others, and which is associated with polarizing attitudes and win/lose positions;
• Avoiding, in which there is low concern for both self and others, and which tends to generate a refusal to deal with situations; and
• Compromising, in which there is intermediate concern for self and others, and which leads to mutually acceptable solutions (Rahim, Antonioni & Psenicka, 2001).

In essence, the study of emergent networks such as these provides a mechanism for understanding the operation and structure of organizations.  As Monge & Contractor (2003, p. 16) point out, the key aspect of emergent systems of all sorts is their holistic nature and the totality with which the organization as a complete entity participates in the development of the overall structure of the system.  The richness of mechanisms by which emergent systems can develop correspond to the multiplicity of organizational structures that can develop as a result of the overall self-organizing elements of emergent systems.

References

Fairhurst, G. & Putnam, L.  (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14 (1), 5-26.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00301.x

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N.  (2003). Theories of Communication Network. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rahim, M., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates’styles of handling conflict, and job performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12 (3), 191-211.