Organization? Communication? What does this all mean?

During this weeks post, I plan to mainly write about the usefulness of the definitions of communications, similarly as Professor has in her notes. Also, I will dive into strategic ambiguity and the way I see it versus the way others may.

- Communication as information transfer

Communication as an information transferring system is by far the most simple of the definitions of communication. As they put it in the text, it is considered to be the pipe line style. This is due to its linear path of travel if you will. However, some disadvantages of this approach are that it can sometimes be just too much information at one time. Similarly to a pipe, if there is too much pressure, it will burst. There is no exception here. Ideally, this model is used when the message is to reside in the hands of the sender. However, this leads to the issue of solely relying on the sender to relay the message.

- Communication as transactional-process

Differently from information transfer, the transactional-process model takes a non-linear approach to communication. After talking about how the information transfer model relies on the sender for the information, the transactional-process model is different in that it more focuses on the receiver of the message and how the person receiving the message constructs the meaning to their self. Just as the book states, a good example of this process is with health care providers. However, my own good example of this process is with the academics. In most cases, the professor is “professing” to a group of students are taking notes and listening. There is a sense of give and take when professors confirm that everyone understands and is keeping up with the progression in class.

- Communication as strategic control

In this approach, the tables have turned some. The book states that this process looks at communicators as having multiple goals, rather than just to send and receive messages. This process has communicators choosing strategies that will assist in accomplishing the presented goals. This strategy also allows for communicators to recognize that not everyone will communicate to be most beneficial to others. This concept brings forth the idea that the ultimate goal of communicating should be organized action.

- Communication as a balance of creativity and constraint

This is the definition that the textbook stands behind the most. Communication can be seen as the moment-to-moment working out of tension between individual creativity and organizational constraint. This definition focuses on balancing the satisfaction of individuals as well as holding a cohesive community. The best example of this is websites such as Wix.com and Wordpress.com. The reason why I say that both of these websites are good examples of this concept in practice is that you get to be creative with it. By creative I mean that there is a lot a user can personally work with, making his or her message the best way for them. Then, there is plenty of constraint. Being that there is a host website, there are the obvious constraints. You can only do so much when you do not have complete control of every variable in the picture.

- Strategic Ambiguity

Diving into strategic ambiguity, it can be defined as “the ways in which people may communicate unclearly — or at a more abstract level — but still accomplish their goals” (Eisenberg 35). Specifically, strategic ambiguity accomplishes:

• promoting unified diversity
• preserving privileged positions
• being deniable
• facilitates organizational change

Strategic ambiguity is seen under the strategic control concept. On a broad scale, strategic ambiguity can be observed in corporate policies, mystery games, and fake friends. Yes, fake friends… I say this because they would be the type of person to say something to you that is true, but they would leave off a little bit so that in the end, they can claim different and back-stab you.