CRITICAL THEORY OF COMMUNICATION

IN ORGANIZATIONS: A METICULOUS
DISCUSSION






Ameyu Etana
Graduate student of school of Journalism and
Communication, Addis Ababa University
Ameyu Etana, February, 2014 Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: ameyuetana@gmail.com
Abstract

This paper tried to meticulously discuss and analyze the core of critical theory of
communication in organization, a theory developed by Stanley Deetz three decades before. The
theory is introduced to balance corporations and human interest presuming corporations are
political as well as economic institutions that colonizes our life & rules our world. Hence the
issue of corporations are rigorously discussed under this theory, how to fix the problem as
well. The theorist employs advances in communication theory to point out how
communication practices within corporations can distort decision making and outlines how
work places can become more productive and democratic through communication reforms.
Hence it is found, the problem and solution for corporations is communication per see. I n a
nutshell, this paper carefully discussed the background, basic assumptions, strength and
weakness, and the practical application of the theory.
Key Words: Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations, Corporations, Stanley Deetz
Table of contents
Title page
1. Background of Theory Development3

2. Basic assumptions of the theory....4

2.1. Corporations are political and economic institutions....4

2.2 Critical communication theory can be used to diagnose distorted corporate
decision making..5

2.2.1 Strategy: overt managerial moves to extend control..7
2.2.2 Consent: unwitting allegiance to covert control.7
2.2.3 Involvement: free expression of ideas but no voice ..8
2.2.4 Participation: stakeholder democracy in action.....8

2.3 Therefore, workplaces can be made more productive and democratic
through communication reforms...9

3. Strength and Weakness of the theory...10

3.1. Strength.10
3.2. Weakness .10

4. Practical application of the theory ...11
4.1 Conclusion ....13
References


Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations
1. Background of the Theory Development
In order to better explain critical theory of communication in organization it sounds good if we
define those words independently.
What is Communication? As it is defined in http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/49079_ch_1.pdf
Communication is: the dynamic, ongoing process of creating and negotiating meanings through
interactional symbolic (verbal and nonverbal) practices, including conversation, metaphors,
rituals, stories, dress, and space.

Following from the above definition of communication, we can define organizational
communication in the following way: the process of creating and negotiating collective,
coordinated systems of meaning through symbolic practices oriented toward the achievement of
organizational goals.(Ibid: 15) Therefore, we can conclude that organizational communication is
about issues of power in an organization.

Communication is vital for organizations to exist. Goldhaber, 1993 stresses this as follows:
communication is the lifeblood of the organization; the glue that binds the organization; the oil
that smoothes the organization's functions; the thread that ties the sys-tem together; the force that
pervades the organization; and the binding agent that cements all relationships.(cited in Harris
2002:13)
According to Baran and Davis (2010:14), critical theory is a theory seeking emancipation and
change in a dominant social order. Their theories do more than observe, describe, or interpret;
they criticize.
Having the definition lets proceed to the background of critical theory of communication. Many
feature films about corporate managers who make decisions without regard for the negative
consequences to their employees, consumers, or the general public has been produced throughout
America and other countries. I e. Erin Brockovich, The Informant, The Insider, Roger and Me, &
others.
These movies tap a growing concern among Americans that something is wrong with the way
decisions are reached at the highest levels of business. Thereby, communication professor at
university of Colorado, Stanley Deetz, has developed a critical communication theory (a
discourse of suspicion) to balance corporations and human interest.

Deetz does this in 1982 by first demonstrating how corporations have become political as well as
economic institutions. He then employs advances in communication theory to point out how
communication practices within corporations can distort decision making. Finally, he outlines
how workplaces can become more productive and democratic through communication reforms.

Though who developed this theory is a man who brought up in capitalism ideology, Stanley
Deetz, was convinced that corporations are unreasonable. They expect more than a fair days
work for a fair days pay; they want love, respect, and above all loyalty. 15 Even though the
company gets the workers most rested, alert, and chemical-free portion of the day, apparently
thats not enough. The idea of critical theory is the idea of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
which much deal with humanistic approach.

2. What are the Basic Assumptions of Critical Communication
Theory in Organizations?

Corporations are political as well as economic institutions

Deetz Views multinational corporations are the dominant force in a society and more powerful
than church, state & family, - in their ability to influence life of individuals. E.g. GM, IBM,
Microsoft, Disney World and others few. Corporations control & colonize modern life in ways
that no government or public body since the feudal era. This is due to the corporate executive
suite is the place where most decisions are made.
Mainly, just after industrial revolution, capitalists in America follow a philosophy called control.
This is not without problem. It creates a sharp decrease in quality of life for the vast majority of
citizens. The leisure time for citizens decreased, working hours increased and standard of living
& income deteriorated from time to time. However, at the expense of this, within two decades,
compensation for chief executive officers (CEOs) has risen from 24 times to 290 times that of
the average worker as their companies earn more profit than ever.
Deetz scrutinizes the structure of the corporate world. His theory of communication is 'critical'
because he questions the primacy of corporate prosperity. More specifically, he wants to
examine communication practices in organizations that undermine fully representative decision
making and thus reduce the quality, innovation, and fairness of company policy.

From the very beginning, Deetzs Critical theory is openly political. It assumes that by
reorganizing society, we can give priority to the most important human values. Critical theorists
study inequality and oppression. Their aim is to gain knowledge of that social world so they can
change it. This goal is inherently political because it challenges existing ways of organizing the
social world and the people and institutions that exercise power in it.
To conclude, corporations are political, as they consists of different underlying vested interests,
value control & stress power and they are economic as they give primacy for money than human
interest.
Critical communication theory can be used to diagnose distorted corporate
decision making
Professor Stanley Deetz ignores information model that says communication is merely the
transmission of information, a definition given by a process school of thought. Thereby, he
challenges Shannon and Weaver's theory. He believes that corporate information perpetuates
corporate dominance, colonization, managerialism and discursive closure on our life.
Information is really in formation, constitutive of reality more than it is reflective of reality. The
information approach regards that language as neutral and neutered.
Instead of the above model, Deetz presents a communication model regards language as the
principal medium through which social reality is created & sustained. I.e. companies create
meaning. Focusing on language leads us to consider how meanings are created and whose
meanings are embedded in the use of language.
Communication model emphasizes language's role in shaping social reality. For one thing,
language does not represent things that already exist. I.e. golden hand-shake For another,
corporations subtly produce meanings and values. I.e. down-sizing
Deetz takes a humanistic view of the world. He believes that communication is ongoing, and
rather than reflecting reality, comes from reality. The individual meanings we come up with are
shared, as which employees' level of involvement with an organization is critical.
He contrasts information models that assume language reflects reality with communication
models that assume reality emerges out of a relationship among self, others, language, and the
world. Deetz says its only possible when all stakeholders realize that their communication
creates reality rather than merely describing it. Language is not neutral, it is political.
Deetz considers communication to be the ongoing social construction of meaning, but he
emphasizes the issue of power runs through all language and communication: Managerial control
often takes precedence over representation or long-term company health, Codetermination, on
the other hand, epitomizes participatory democracy and Public decisions can be formed through
strategy, consent, involvement and participation.
Information model Communication Model

Managerial Control



Strategy




Consent




Involvement




Participation
Codetermination

Fig. 1.0 Two Approaches to Organizational Practice

Codetermination- Collaborative decision making; participatory democracy in the workplace.

Managerial Control - corporate decision processes that systematically exclude the voices of
people who are directly affected by the decisions.

2.2.1 Strategy: overt managerial moves to extend control
Managers are not the problem. The real culprit is managerialism- a kind of systematic logic, a set
of routine practices, and ideology that values control above all else.
Because Im the boss.
Because I say so.
If you dont like it, quit.
Its my way or the highway.
There are different and divergent interests in organizations as stake holders seek profit, workers
need freedom, and management stresses control.
Initially, managers may regard efficiency as a means to the end of higher profits. Deetz is
convinced, however, that the desire for control soon becomes a valued end in itself. The desire
for control can even exceed the desire for corporate performance. Talking in terms of money is
often more for control than respect for efficiency or profits.
However, not without a problem. Due to this, Strategic control does not benefit the corporation,
and it alienates employees and causes rebellion. Because of these drawbacks, most managers
prefer to maintain control through voluntary consent.
2.2.2 Consent : unwitting allegiance to covert control
Consent is the variety of situations and processes in which someone actively, though
unknowingly, accomplishes the interests of others in the faulty attempt to fulfill his or her
interests.
Management insists that allegiance to the company should come before family, friends, church,
and community. Through the process Deetz calls consent, most employees willingly give that
loyalty without getting much in return. Most employees willingly give their loyalty without
getting much in return. Mainly, mens are the utmost victims.

Consent is developed through managerial control of elements of corporate culture, workplace,
language, information, forms, symbols, rituals and stories. And these are attempts to produce and
reproduce a culture that is sympathetic to managerial interests.

Managerialism promotes worker consent through a process of systematically distorted
communication. Deetz emphasizes that the workers deceive themselves because they believe
they are interacting freely, while in reality only certain options are available.

2.2.3 Involvement free expression of ideas but no voice
Employees air grievances, state desire, recommend alternative ways of thinking on a meeting or
through suggestion box. Many managers use these sessions as a way to give employees a chance
to let off steam. But free expression is not the same as having a 'voice' in corporate decisions,
and knowledge of this difference creates worker cynicism. I.e. committees

As Deetz surveys, present day corporate communication practices concludes that the right of
expression appears more central than the right to be informed or to have an effect. But this is
mean real participation rather speaking for nothing. Deetz says its only possible when all
stakeholders realize that their communication creates reality rather than merely describing it.

2.2.4 Participation : stakeholder democracy in action
Deetz theory of communication is critical, but not just negative. Deetz is convinced that
meaningful democratic participation creates better citizens and better social choices, and
provides important economic benefits. One of the goals of his theory is to reclaim the
possibility of open negotiations of power. He calls it stakeholder democracy; the process by
which all stakeholders in an organization negotiate power and openly reaches collaborative
decisions. This means not involvement but having a voice in decision.

Besides managers he states at least six stake holders whom he thinks have a say in how a
corporation is run. I.e. investors, workers, consumers, suppliers, host communities and greater
society. Deetz says there is no legitimate basis for privileging one group of stake holders over
another. He reminds that the rights and responsibilities of people are not given by nature but are
negotiated through interaction. This means not nature but us that make corporations.
Some stakeholders have taken greater risks and made longer-term investments than have
stockholders and top-level managers. Managers should mediate, rather than persuade,
coordinating the conflicting interests of all parties.
Other than these, Stanley Deetz developed politically attentive relational constructivism (PARC
model); a collaborative view of communication based in conflict. Since he regards all
information as political, Deetz believes an organizations stakeholders need to recover conflict
that was repressed in order to get all interests on the table. Only in this way can beneficial and
fair negotiations take place.

Therefore, workplaces can be made more productive and democratic through
communication reforms.
If more organizations took a critical approach there would be greater likelihood of job
satisfaction. There will always be dissenters, but the goal seems to be to make the work place
more cohesive, and to develop mutual understanding about an organization's goals. Rather than
having a traditional bureaucracy, the organization should seek to improve its relations with the
individuals that actually do the work. Like Japanese Management styles, critical theory's goal is
to increase the feeling among employees that they have a stake in the company. This humanistic
approach is a beginning to re-conceptualize the world of work.
The ideas of Consent and Participation, gleaned from the Communication Model Deetz puts
forth help to define our role in the organization in which we work. There is a multiple reality
created when more than one human being brings their ideas to the table. This phenomenological
perspective comes from a belief that we mutually shape our reality. Deetz impresses upon us
that involvement and participation help to shape our work world.
Employees have the right to participate in every decision that affects them. This renders loyalty
and respect of employees in organizations as it is about humanistic approach.

3. Strength and Weakness of the Theory
3.1 Strength
1. The critical approach can enable us to navigate the complexities of organizational life.
2. The critical approach highlights the goal of making organizations more participatory and
democratic structures that are more responsive to the needs of their multiple stakeholders
3. Deetz approach to corporate decision making is inherently attractive because it is built on
commonly agreed and shared values in the field of communication. By reserving a seat at the
decision-making table for every class of stakeholders, he affirms the importance of
democratic participation, fairness, equality, diversity, and cooperation. Without question,
Deetz insistence on the constitutive nature of all communication can help us understand
consent practices in the workplace.
4. One of Deetz communication models, the politically attentive relational constructionism
(PARC) model moves critical theory to a higher level of conceptual sophistication. As for
stakeholder participation in practice, Deetz finds that businesses increasingly recognize they
must work with others.
5. He cites cases where resources are scarceriver basin governance, mineral extraction,
environmental choices, as well as social and economic development. Stakeholders at the
table often include governmental agencies, businesses, nongovernmental organizations,
special-interest groups, and community members.
6. Critical theories work to increase equality by surfacing unnecessary and harmful control
mechanisms, showing the importance of different forms of knowledge and values, and
building interaction processes that make this greater equality meaningful and productive.

3.2 Weakness/Short comings

1. Deetz' advocacy of stakeholder rights and participatory democracy isnt necessarily
furthered by his constructionist view of communication. If, contrary to the U.S. Declaration
of Independence, there are no self-evident truths on which to stand, everything is in play
and it doesnt make much sense to assume that we have a right to participate in decisions
that affect us.
2. As applied to corporate life, Deetz theory is a critique of managerialism. But he admits that
a positive alternative to managerialism is difficult to work out in conception and in practice.

4. A case study on Critical Theory of Communication in
Organization

The following case study or practical application of the theory was found from a website named
The Journal of Idiocracy posted by Dave.
The research work with the title Critical Theory and Organizational Communications An
overview of Topics and Suggestions for Foundational Study defends the advantageous impact a
critical or activist approach to organizational communication has on employee productivity. To
this effect, the paper presents its arguments by dividing into two headings and eight sections. In
the first heading- the organizational workplace and its four sections, namely, the general
constitution of large-scale organizations, what motivates and transforms employees, what gives
rise to hegemonic process and addressing barriers which stand in the way of employee
motivation and transformation are presented. Under the heading studying and transforming the
organizational workplace, methods increasing employee job/organizational satisfaction, critical
theory and its uses, why critical theory has been chosen and suggestions for a foundational neo-
ethnographic study are discussed.
The paper cites (McPhee & Pool 2000) for choosing large-scale organizations for their perceived
inclination to become more mechanistic in operation and formation as size increases. In this
situation, the paper puts an assumption that sources of domination will increase by virtue of
limiting communication in order to avoid communication overload which might otherwise
adversely affects the organization. Although organizations have different ways of doing things,
they all have one thing in common- a single unifying principle of profitability.
The other assumption involves the conception that a system can be evil not because it wanted to
be one but it is a case of mere tradition. In order to motivate and satisfy employees, supervisors
need to be master communicators and psychologists. Objectivity of organizations and social
consent and conditioning are perceived to be causes of the rise of domination. By trading our
democratic ideals for a paycheck, we perpetuate, encourage and develop a system, which we
control, that becomes the ways and means by which we dominate ourselves. Traditional belief
about life/work, the myth of apathy and fixed-pie relations and communication breakdown are
supposed to be causes of barriers to progress.
To transform the organizational workplace, different ways that increase employee motivation
need to be employed. Among them Quality Circles, Quality of Work Life Programs and
Employee Stock Ownership Plans are just a few to mention. To increase employees motivation
from low to high, they need to be allowed to assist in the decision making process and not
simply act as consultant to management.
According to (Kincheloe and McLaren 2002) as cited in the paper, Critical theory was born out
of the social/historical approach to proper economic functioning with startling distaste for
capitalism. One must be careful in choosing exactly how critical theory shall be put to work by
the virtue of covering so much ground. For the purpose of this research, it has been narrowed to
oppressive power and its ability to produce inequalities and human suffering (Ibid.) Further the
author states that critical theory should be seen in light of an activist approach that is
concerned with engaging the issue of concern, evaluating its effectiveness, critiquing it and then
demonstrating how change is mutually advantageous.
The author also quotes Deetz (2000) presenting normative, interpretive, critical and dialogic
approaches to organizational communication. The normative approachs primary hope is
progressive emancipation by avoiding or resolving disorder. An interpretive approach, on the
other hand, is concerned primarily with discovering or creating a unified culture where
employees can be seen as family.
Since the critical approach has been defined earlier, lets see the dialogic one. Like the other
approaches, there is a great deal of concern for improving inter/intra personal relations within
organizations, but the process focuses not simply on issues of domination but also upon the issue
of resistance - a position largely neglected by critical theorists (ibid.). Here organizations are not
viewed as highly organized, reasoning entities which consciously attempt to dominate
workforces but rather cause domination through sheer difficulty in organizing.
As critical theory is set apart from other methods in its capacity for agency, the author of the
research proposes a critical neo-ethnographic approach which not only organizations but
researchers could benefit. According to the author, change cannot and will not occur by studying
the results of some research study supervisors and subordinates must take an active role in
producing the change they wish to see. This requires increasing the width and depth of
communication between organizational members; encouraging them to challenge the status quo
and frame change in terms of an investment to organizations; helping organizations to
understand and see the interdependence of work/life; and most importantly applying research
findings across disciplines and evaluating the outcomes. Even though the process takes time,
dedication and a great deal of work, it facilitates and guides change.
4.1 Conclusion
Though valuable, a purely rhetorical approach to hegemony does very little to help organizations
and people work integratively and recognize interdependence. Since the mistakes of an
organization are mistakes of men, not machines, scholars in this field need to become more
active. In spite of the complex, multifaceted and technical nature of the topic, there is no excuse
for delay.
As a result, critical theorists should bring knowledge to the group of people it concerns by going
out into the field, speaking with workers, providing them with answers, suggesting alternatives
and demonstrating how change can be effective. In addition to lifting the veil from their eyes, we
must also learn to be great salesmen and people of exceeding patience, as organizations will
resist change insofar as there is concern for decreased profitability. If research findings are
actively applied, there is little doubt that much of what has been discussed here will remain the
same for a long time to come.




References
Davis, D.K. & Baran, S.J. (2010). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and
Future (6th ed), Wadsworth, Boston, USA.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.) McGraw-Hill, New York,
America.
Harris, Thomas E. (2002) Applied Organizational Communication : Principles and
pragmatics for Future Practice (2
nd
ed) Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Mahwah, New
Jersey
http://www.afirstlook.com.
http://www.Colorado.edu
http://www.journalofidiocracy.blogspot.com/2010/ accessed on Dec 26, 2013
http://www.sagepub.com/mumbyorg
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/49079_ch_1.pdf/ accessed on Dec 13, 2013
Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.