The Relationship between Organisational Communication and Perception

Abstract

Both researchers and managers search for the most appropriate form of organisational communication. The aim of such an organisational communication is to influence the receivers’ perception to confirm, adapt or change behaviour according to the sender’s intention. This paper argues that to influence the receivers’ perception, a specific form of communication that is embedded in a specific organisational culture is required. It also demands prior knowledge of the existing organisational schemata and the current perception concerning the topic that has to be communicated. The rationale is that three obstacles hinder the objectives of traditional communication strategies to influence perception according to the sender’s objectives. The first challenge is that a receiver of a certain message never garners one single, clearly pronounced message conveyed by one single person. Yet, few studies are based on multiple messages from various sources. This makes most of the communication strategies in use obsolete. The second strain is the dual mode of thinking that forms organisational members’ perceptions: the heuristic and the cogitative (Taleb, 2010). Most organisational communication theories are based on the paradigm in which receivers of information process this information in a rational way, while research in the field of neurobiology (Lehrer, 2009) indicates that rationality is dominated by emotions. The third difficulty is that organisational members constrain to well-established, ingrained schemas (Labianca et al., 2000; Balogun and Johnson, 2004). Based on these existing schemas, the scattered information from multiple sources, and the inability to process that information through cognitive reasoning, organisational members construct perceptions that are not in line with the objectives of the sender’s communication.

This article reviews different communication theories, points out key concepts in the literature on individual and collective perceptions, and suggests directions to further research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

H.M.F. Marynissen

Hugo M. F. Marynissen Executive DBA-cohort 09–13 Cranfield School of Management Cranfield Bedford-MK43 0AL England Tel.: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [email protected] ÜRL: www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/