Likert scale questionnaire

Attitude questions adapted for third sector (UK) organisations from Likert’s research,
indicating important determinants of organisational effectiveness.

Strongly Neither Strongly

disagree agree
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Overall I am satisfied working
in this organisation
2 People in senior management
respect my personal rights
3 I am often expected to do
things that are not reasonable
4 I have confidence in the
judgement of senior
management
5 There is a friendly feeling
between management and
staff
6 Management usually keeps
us informed about things we
want to know
7 The organisation tries to take
unfair advantage of its staff
8 This is a good place for
people trying to get ahead in
their career
9 This is a good place for
training and personal
development
10 Management is not very
interested in the feelings of
staff
11 I know exactly what is
expected of me in my job
12 Staff frequently do not know
what they are supposed to do
13 This organisation is a better
place to work than other
organisations in this field
14 The jobs here are well
organised and co-ordinated
15 There is a lot of wasted time
here due to poor planning
16 Our job targets seem to be
confused
17 This is just a place to work
and is separate from my
personal interests
18 The needs of the organisation
are more important than my
own personal interests

Administering the Scale. You're now ready to use your Likert scale. Each respondent is
asked to rate each item on some response scale. For instance, they could rate each item on a
1-to-5 response scale where:

1. = strongly disagree
2. = disagree
3. = undecided
4. = agree
5. = strongly agree

There are a variety possible response scales (1-to-7, 1-to-9, 0-to-4). All of these odd-
numbered scales have a middle value is often labeled Neutral or Undecided. It is also
possible to use a forced-choice response scale with an even number of responses and no
middle neutral or undecided choice. In this situation, the respondent is forced to decide
whether they lean more towards the agree or disagree end of the scale for each item.

The final score for the respondent on the scale is the sum of their ratings for all of the items
(this is why this is sometimes called a "summated" scale). On some scales, you will have
items that are reversed in meaning from the overall direction of the scale. These are called
reversal items. You will need to reverse the response value for each of these items before
summing for the total. That is, if the respondent gave a 1, you make it a 5; if they gave a 2
you make it a 4; 3 = 3; 4 = 2; and, 5 = 1.

Example: The Employment Self Esteem Scale

Here's an example of a ten-item Likert Scale that attempts to estimate the level of self
esteem a person has on the job. Notice that this instrument has no center or neutral point --
the respondent has to declare whether he/she is in agreement or disagreement with the item.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements by placing a check mark in the appropriate box.

Strongly Somewhat
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1. I feel good about my work on the job.
Disagree Disagree

2. On the whole, I get along well with

Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree others at work.
3. I am proud of my ability to cope with
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
 Disagree Disagree difficulties at work.
4. When I feel uncomfortable at work, I
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree know how to handle it.
5. I can tell that other people at work are
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree glad to have me there.
6. I know I'll be able to cope with work
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree for as long as I want.
7. I am proud of my relationship with my
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree supervisor at work.
8. I am confident that I can handle my
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree job without constant assistance.
9. I feel like I make a useful contribution
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree at work.
10. I can tell that my coworkers respect
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree me.

Sample Communication Questionnaire

Name ……………………………………………………………………………………

Date ………………………………………………………………..

Answer yes or no to the following questions

Did the doctor speak in a way that you could understand? _________

Did the doctor make eye contact with you?  _______________

Did the doctor ask you about your background?  ____________

Was the doctor actively listening to you?  _________________

Did the doctor provide relevant answers to your questions?   ____________

Was the doctor attentive as you spoke?  ________________

Did the doctor take time to address your concerns?  _______________

Did the doctor give you details about your condition?  ______________

Did the doctor ask you about your concerns?  ___________________

Did the doctor seem willing to spend time with you?  ________________
Was the doctor patient during the consultation?  _________________

Did the doctor provide you with any written material?  __________________

Did the doctor undermine any of your personal beliefs?  _________________

How comfortable were you during your consultation with the doctor?

How well did the doctor communicate with you?

Do you think the doctor should improve his communication skills?

Sample Management Assessment Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions carefully and in detail.

What qualifications does the individual have?

xHas the individually implemented and actively participated in commercial projects?

Who does the individual directly report to?

Has the individual demonstrated sufficient knowledge of duties and responsibilities?

Has the individual convened meetings before?

What is your assessment of how these meetings were conducted?

Does the individual manage people efficiently?

What is the general attitude of staff members towards this individual?

What means of communication does this individual utilize?

Would you describe this individual as an approachable person?

Does the individual presently mentor anyone?

To the best of your knowledge, does this individual make sound managerial decisions?

Does the individual have the capacity to manage a large team?

What contribution has this individual made to the fostering of teamwork?

Does this individual interact with other staff members?

What training policies has this individual put in place?

How would you rate this individual as a public speaker?

Is this individual adequately experienced?

Has this individual brought about any significant changes in the organizational structure?

Sample Employee Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire

Department _______________________

Position _________________________

Name ___________________________

1. How long have you worked with the organization?

One – two years

Three – five years

More than five years

2. Would you describe your role in the organization as satisfactory?

Yes _____________ No _________________

If No, explain why

3. List three of the top reasons why you like working for this organization

4. Your salary matches up your job responsibilities

5. Communication within the organization is sufficient

6. The relationship between employees and supervisors is professional

7. The boss treats all employees equally

8. What aspect of the organization would you like to be changed? (Explain in detail)

Sample Performance Management Questionnaire

Company Name ……………………………………….

Industry ………………………………………………….

Number of employees ………………………………….

Company position ………………………………………….

Rate the following using this key:

* Unsatisfactory

*Average

*Good

*Excellent

Efficiency in the use of resources ………………………

Assurance of quality performance …………………..

Employee satisfaction ……………………..

Employee training and development ……………………………..

Customer service …………………….

Quality of products ………………..

Quality standards …………………

Safety standards ……………………..

Rate of product delivery ………………..

Staff punctuality ……………………….

Corporate social responsibility ……………………….

Environment conservation …………………………..

Management quality by managers ………………..

Evaluation and discussion of my performance by my supervisor ……………

I know how my work contributes to overall company objective …………….

Personal objectives are different from organizational objectives ……………

Target dates are clearly communicated to employees …………………..

Missed target dates are not addressed until the end of the company year

Feedback is received on good performance ……………………………….

Feedback is received on poor performance ……………………….

Personal development plans are highlighted to staff ………………..

Personal support is accorded to staff …………………………….

Exceptional performance is recognized by the company ………………….

Staff morale ……………………..

How often are performance assessments carried out? ………………….

Please give a detailed description of how performance goals are structured

Who is responsible for quantifying performance goals?

At what level are performance goals assessed?

Sample Employee Feedback Questionnaire

What is your job title?

How long have you served this company?

What progressive changes have you experienced since you joined this company?

Answer Yes or No to the following questions

Remuneration is fair and acceptable ___

There is always someone available to hear our grievances ___

We are adequately informed about company benefits ___

Do you feel that management listens to you? ___

Do you feel free enough to approach management at any time? __

Do you feel that you have any impact on work policies? ___

I am satisfied with the insurance coverage that the company provides ___

Have you ever received a promotion? ___

Do you feel that employees grow and develop in this company?

Are the working hours acceptable? ___

Does management meet with employees regularly? ___

Do you feel that employees are trained sufficiently? ___

Have you experienced any kind of harassment from senior staff members? ___
How would you describe the working environment?

Relaxed

Tense

Normal

What changes do you feel are necessary for your department to achieve its goals and
objectives?

Do you feel the current working conditions need to be improved on?

Any other opinions you might have ………………………………………………

Sample Business Questionnaire Questions

Name…………………………………

Telephone
Number…………………………………………………………………………………..

What type of business do you operate? 

Has the business been officially registered? 

What is the nature of your business activities? 

What is the location of your business? 

What are the reasons behind operating your business from the specified location? 

Are you planning to employ other people?  X

How many people would you be willing to employ?  x

What kind of area does the business operate in? 

For how many hours a day will the business run? 

Will a sign be placed at the business premises? 

Is the size of the property sufficient for business operations? 

Is the location of the business in close proximity to the target customers? 

Do you require additional funding for your business? 

Are you able to maintain low operational costs as you conduct your business? 
History of Organizational Communication

(This entire page contains gender bias language, i.e. "he, him, his," etc. Please edit)

The field traces its lineage through business information, business communication, and
early mass communication studies published in the 1930s through the 1950s. Until then,
organizational communication as a discipline consisted of a few professors within speech
departments who had a particular interest in speaking and writing in business settings. The
current field is well established with its own theories and empirical concerns distinct from
other communication subfields and other approaches to organizations.

Several seminal publications stand out as works broadening the scope and recognizing the
importance of communication in the organizing process, and in using the term
"organizational communication". Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon wrote in 1947 about
"organization communications systems", saying communication is "absolutely essential to
organizations".[1]

In the 1950s, organizational communication focused largely on the role of communication

in improving organizational life and organizational output. In the 1980s, the field turned
away from a business-oriented approach to communication and became concerned more
with the constitutive role of communication in organizing. In the 1990s, critical theory
influence on the field was felt as organizational communication scholars focused more on
communication's possibilities to oppress and liberate organizational members.

[edit] Assumptions underlying early organizational communication

Some of the main assumptions underlying much of the early organizational communication
research were:

 Humans act rationally. Sane people do not behave in rational ways, they
generally have no access to all of the information needed to make rational
decisions they could articulate, and therefore will make unrational decisions,
unless there is some breakdown in the communication process-- which is
common. Unrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their
communication measures whether or not it is rational.

 Formal logic and empirically verifiable data ought to be the foundation upon
which any theory should rest. All we really need to understand
communication in organizations is (a) observable and replicable behaviors
that can be transformed into variables by some form of measurement, and
(b) formally replicable syllogisms that can extend theory from observed data
to other groups and settings

 Communication is primarily a mechanical process, in which a message is

constructed and encoded by a sender, transmitted through some channel,
then received and decoded by a receiver. Distortion, represented as any
differences between the original and the received messages, can and ought
to be identified and reduced or eliminated.
  Organizations are mechanical things, in which the parts (including
employees functioning in defined roles) are interchangeable. What works in
one organization will work in another similar organization. Individual
differences can be minimized or even eliminated with careful management
techniques.

 Organizations function as a container within which communication takes

place. Any differences in form or function of communication between that
occurring in an organization and in another setting can be identified and
studied as factors affecting the communicative activity.

Herbert Simon introduced the concept of bounded rationality which challenged

assumptions about the perfect rationality of communication participants. He maintained that
people making decisions in organizations seldom had complete information, and that even
if more information was available, they tended to pick the first acceptable option, rather
than exploring further to pick the optimal solution.

Through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the field expanded greatly in parallel with several
other academic disciplines, looking at communication as more than an intentional act
designed to transfer an idea. Research expanded beyond the issue of "how to make people
understand what I am saying" to tackle questions such as "how does the act of
communicating change, or even define, who I am?", "why do organizations that seem to be
saying similar things achieve very different results?" and "to what extent are my
relationships with others affected by our various organizational contexts?"

In the early 1990s Peter Senge developed new theories on Organizational Communication.
These theories were learning organization and systems thinking. These have been well
received and are now a mainstay in current beliefs toward organizational communications.

[edit] Communications networks

Networks are another aspect of direction and flow of communication. Bavelas has shown
that communication patterns, or networks, influence groups in several important ways.
Communication networks may affect the group's completion of the assigned task on time,
the position of the de facto leader in the group, or they may affect the group members'
satisfaction from occupying certain positions in the network. Although these findings are
based on laboratory experiments, they have important implications for the dynamics of
communication in formal organizations.

There are several patterns of communication:

 "Chain",
 "Wheel",
 "Star",
 "All-Channel" network,
 "Circle".[2]

The Chain can readily be seen to represent the hierarchical pattern that characterizes strictly
formal information flow, "from the top down," in military and some types of business
organizations. The Wheel can be compared with a typical autocratic organization, meaning
one-man rule and limited employee participation. The Star is similar to the basic formal
structure of many organizations. The All-Channel network, which is an elaboration of
Bavelas's Circle used by Guetzkow, is analogous to the free-flow of communication in a
group that encourages all of its members to become involved in group decision processes.
The All-Channel network may also be compared to some of the informal communication
networks.

If it's assumed that messages may move in both directions between stations in the networks,
it is easy to see that some individuals occupy key positions with regard to the number of
messages they handle and the degree to which they exercise control over the flow of
information. For example, the person represented by the central dot in the "Star" handles all
messages in the group. In contrast, individuals who occupy stations at the edges of the
pattern handle fewer messages and have little or no control over the flow of
information.These "peripheral" individuals can communicate with only one or two other
persons and must depend entirely on others to relay their messages if they wish to extend
their range.

In reporting the results of experiments involving the Circle, Wheel, and Star configurations,
Bavelas came to the following tentative conclusions. In patterns with positions located
centrally, such as the Wheel and the Star, an organization quickly develops around the
people occupying these central positions. In such patterns, the organization is more stable
and errors in performance are lower than in patterns having a lower degree of centrality,
such as the Circle. However, he also found that the morale of members in high centrality
patterns is relatively low. Bavelas speculated that this lower morale could, in the long run,
lower the accuracy and speed of such networks.

In problem solving requiring the pooling of data and judgments, or "insight," Bavelas
suggested that the ability to evaluate partial results, to look at alternatives, and to
restructure problems fell off rapidly when one person was able to assume a more central
(that is, more controlling) position in the information flow. For example, insight into a
problem requiring change would be less in the Wheel and the Star than in the Circle or the
Chain because of the "bottlenecking" effect of data control by central members.

It may be concluded from these laboratory results that the structure of communications
within an organization will have a significant influence on the accuracy of decisions, the
speed with which they can be reached, and the satisfaction of the people involved.
Consequently, in networks in which the responsibility for initiating and passing along
messages is shared more evenly among the members, the better the group's morale in the
long run.

[edit] Direction of communication

If it's considered formal communications as they occur in traditional military organizations,

messages have a "one-way" directional characteristic. In the military organization, the
formal communication proceeds from superior to subordinate, and its content is presumably
clear because it originates at a higher level of expertise and experience. Military
communications also carry the additional assumption that the superior is responsible for
making his communication clear and understandable to his subordinates. This type of
organization assumes that there is little need for two-way exchanges between organizational
levels except as they are initiated by a higher level. Because messages from superiors are
considered to be more important than those from subordinates, the implicit rule is that
communication channels, except for prescribed information flows, should not be cluttered
by messages from subordinates but should remain open and free for messages moving
down the chain of command. "Juniors should be seen and not heard," is still an unwritten, if
not explicit, law of military protocol.

Vestiges of one-way flows of communication still exist in many formal organizations

outside the military, and for many of the same reasons as described above. Although
management recognizes that prescribed information must flow both downward and upward,
managers may not always be convinced that two-wayness should be encouraged. For
example, to what extent is a subordinate free to communicate to his superior that he
understands or does not understand a message? Is it possible for him to question the
superior, ask for clarification, suggest modifications to instructions he has received, or
transmit unsolicited messages to his superior, which are not prescribed by the rules? To
what extent does the one-way rule of direction affect the efficiency of communication in
the organization, in addition to the morale and motivation of subordinates?

These are not merely procedural matters but include questions about the organizational
climate, or psychological atmosphere in which communication takes place. Harold Leavitt
has suggested a simple experiment that helps answer some of these questions.[3] А group is
assigned the task of re-creating on paper a set of rectangular figures, first as they are
described by the leader under one-way conditions, and second as they are described by the
leader under two-way conditions.(A different configuration of rectangles is used in the
second trial.) In the one-way trial, the leader's back is turned to the group. He describes the
rectangles as he sees them. No one in the group is allowed to ask questions and no one may
indicate by any audible or visible sign his understanding or his frustration as he attempts to
follow the leader's directions. In the two-way trial, the leader faces the group. In this case,
the group may ask for clarifications on his description of the rectangles and he can not only
see but also can feel and respond to the emotional reactions of group members as they try to
re-create his instructions on paper.

On the basis of a number of experimental trials similar to the one described above, Leavitt
formed these conclusions:

1. One-way communication is faster than two-way communication.

2. Two-way communication is more accurate than one-way communication.
3. Receivers are more sure of themselves and make more correct judgments
of how right or wrong they are in the two-way system.
4. The sender feels psychologically under attack in the two-way system,
because his receivers pick up his mistakes and oversights and point them
out to him.
5. The two-way method is relatively noisier and looks more disorderly. The
one-way method, on the other hand, appears neat and efficient to an
outside observer.[3]

Thus, if speed is necessary, if a businesslike appearance is important, if a manager does not

want his mistakes recognized, and if he wants to protect his power, then one-way
communication seems preferable. In contrast, if the manager wants to get his message
across, or if he is concerned about his receivers' feeling that they are participating and are
making a contribution, the two-way system is better.
Interpersonal comm.

Another facet of communication in the organization is the process of face-to-face,

interpersonal communication, between individuals. Such communication may take
several forms. Messages may be verbal (that is, expressed in words), or they may not
involve words at all but consist of gestures, facial expressions, and certain postures ("body
language"). Nonverbal messages may even stem from silence.[4]

Managers do not need answers to operate a successful business; they need questions.
Answers can come from anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world thanks to the benefits of
all the electronic communication tools at our disposal. This has turned the real job of
management into determining what it is the business needs to know, along with the
who/what/where/when and how of learning it. To effectively solve problems, seize
opportunities, and achieve objectives, questions need to be asked by managers—these are
the people responsible for the operation of the enterprise as a whole.[5]

Ideally, the meanings sent are the meanings received. This is most often the case when the
messages concern something that can be verified objectively. For example, "This piece of
pipe fits the threads on the coupling." In this case, the receiver of the message can check the
sender's words by actual trial, if necessary. However, when the sender's words describe a
feeling or an opinion about something that cannot be checked objectively, meanings can be
very unclear. "This work is too hard" or "Watergate was politically justified" are examples
of opinions or feelings that cannot be verified. Thus they are subject to interpretation and
hence to distorted meanings. The receiver's background of experience and learning may
differ enough from that of the sender to cause significantly different perceptions and
evaluations of the topic under discussion. As we shall see later, such differences form a
basic barrier to communication.[4]

Nonverbal content always accompanies the verbal content of messages. This is reasonably
clear in the case of face-to-face communication. As Virginia Satir has pointed out, people
cannot help but communicate symbolically (for example, through their clothing or
possessions) or through some form of body language. In messages that are conveyed by the
telephone, a messenger, or a letter, the situation or context in which the message is sent
becomes part of its non-verbal content. For example, if the company has been losing
money, and in a letter to the production division, the front office orders a reorganization of
the shipping and receiving departments, this could be construed to mean that some people
were going to lose their jobs — unless it were made explicitly clear that this would not
occur.[6]

A number of variables influence the effectiveness of communication. Some are found in the
environment in which communication takes place, some in the personalities of the sender
and the receiver, and some in the relationship that exists between sender and receiver.
These different variables suggest some of the difficulties of communicating with
understanding between two people. The sender wants to formulate an idea and
communicate it to the receiver. This desire to communicate may arise from his thoughts or
feelings or it may have been triggered by something in the environment. The
communication may also be influenced or distorted by the relationship between the sender
and the receiver, such as status differences, a staff-line relationship, or a learner-teacher
relationship.[6]
Whatever its origin, information travels through a series of filters, both in the sender and in
the receiver, before the idea can be transmitted and re-created in the receiver's mind.
Physical capacities to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch vary between people, so that the
image of reality may be distorted even before the mind goes to work. In addition to physical
or sense filters, cognitive filters, or the way in which an individual's mind interprets the
world around him, will influence his assumptions and feelings. These filters will determine
what the sender of a message says, how he says it, and with what purpose. Filters are
present also in the receiver, creating a double complexity that once led Robert Louis
Stevenson to say that human communication is "doubly relative". It takes one person to say
something and another to decide what he said.[7]

Physical and cognitive, including semantic filters (which decide the meaning of words)
combine to form a part of our memory system that helps us respond to reality. In this sense,
March and Simon compare a person to a data processing system. Behavior results from an
interaction between a person's internal state and environmental stimuli. What we have
learned through past experience becomes an inventory, or data bank, consisting of values or
goals, sets of expectations and preconceptions about the consequences of acting one way or
another, and a variety of possible ways of responding to the situation. This memory system
determines what things we will notice and respond to in the environment. At the same time,
stimuli in the environment help to determine what parts of the memory system will be
activated. Hence, the memory and the environment form an interactive system that causes
our behavior. As this interactive system responds to new experiences, new learnings occur
which feed back into memory and gradually change its content. This process is how people
adapt to a changing world.[7]

[edit] Communication Approaches in an Organization

Informal and Formal Communication are used in an organization.

Informal communication, generally associated with interpersonal, horizontal

communication, was primarily seen as a potential hindrance to effective organizational
performance. This is no longer the case. Informal communication has become more
important to ensuring the effective conduct of work in modern organizations.

Top-down approach: This is also known as downward communication. This approach is

used by the Top Level Management to communicate to the lower levels. This is used to
implement policies, gudelines, etc. In this type of organizational communication, distortion
of the actual information occurs. This could be made effective by feedbacks.

[edit] Research in organizational communication

[edit] Research methodologies

Historically, organizational communication was driven primarily by quantitative research

methodologies. Included in functional organizational communication research are statistical
analyses (such as surveys, text indexing, network mapping and behavior modeling). In the
early 1980s, the interpretive revolution took place in organizational communication. In
Putnam and Pacanowsky's 1983 text Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive
Approach. they argued for opening up methodological space for qualitative approaches
such as narrative analyses, participant-observation, interviewing, rhetoric and textual
approaches readings) and philosophic inquiries.

During the 1980s and 1990s critical organizational scholarship began to gain prominence
with a focus on issues of gender, race, class, and power/knowledge. In its current state, the
study of organizational communication is open methodologically, with research from post-
positive, interpretive, critical, postmodern, and discursive paradigms being published
regularly.

Organizational communication scholarship appears in a number of communication journals

including but not limited to Management Communication Quarterly, Journal of Applied
Communication Research, Communication Monographs, Academy of Management
Journal, Communication Studies, and Southern Communication Journal.

New ways for scholars to communicating within an organization by bring in a

postcolonial perspective.

In recent years, Other voices are beginning to be recorded in organizational

communication, especially in areas such as gender (e.g., see Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004;
Mumby, 1993), race (e.g., see Ashcraft & Allen, 2003), and globalization (e.g., see Stohl,
2001). In fact, in a deeply reflexive article, “Thinking Differently About Organizational
Communication,”George Cheney (2000) says that “taking difference seriously means not
only allowing the Other to speak but also being open to the possibility that the Other’s
perspective may come to influence or even supplant your own” (p. 140). Yet,despite such
interventions, one key aspect in the dynamics of identity has not received much attention in
organizational communication—postcolonial subjectivity and the mestiza consciousness
born of being in the borderlands. Anzaldúa’s concept of mestiza consciousness transcends
the nature of black-and-white theorizing and looks at issues of identity as multiple
coexisting levels of subjectivities. The complex intersections between multiple
subjectivities of issues of race, gender, class, ethnicity, and language remain
underhighlighted in much of organizational communication scholarship and, yet, these are
central to becoming sensitive to a postcolonial vision of our disciplinary future.

In terms of imagining a postcolonial rationality, Harvard-based, Nobel Prize-winning

economist Amartya Sen draws on his multiple subjectivities to turn traditional utility theory
economics on its head and argue instead for a more humane welfare economics—a body of
scholarship that has grown from his own subjective experiences of famines caused by
colonial policies in pre-independence India (Sen, 1981, 1987). For Sen (1992), it is not
enough to talk about achieving equality in income distribution, for such a rhetoric of
equality conceals the “substantive inequalities in, say, wellbeing and freedom arising out of
such a distribution given the disparate personal and social circumstances of each
individual” (p. 30).

At this point, it would be easy to think that concerns with postcolonial subjectivity,
organizing, voice, and rationality rest fully within the empirical domain of our disciplinary
partners of sociology, anthropology, literature,political science, economics, and history, to
name a few. Banerjee and Linstead (2004), in fact, note that explicit political agendas, such
as that of postcolonial thought, have never rested easily in organization studies. Few studies
using a postcolonial frame exist and many are included in an edited volume by Anshuman
Prasad (2003) entitled Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis.
As Prasad (2003) makes clear, a postcolonial perspective can be productive in exposing
neocolonial assumptions underlying management disciplines, describing neocolonialism as
a continuationof Western colonialism through political, economic, and cultural
control(Banerjee & Linstead, 2004).

When we as scholars unthinkingly adopt the discourse and knowledge of mainstream Euro-
American organizational communication scholarship,we potentially absorb, without
reflection, a particular way of understanding the world. In conclusion, what we are trying to
imagine here and what can be seen in the exemplars above is a form of “writing back to the
center,”where scholars from the disciplinary and epistemic margins of organizational
communication write about their own cultured forms of organizing practices,using their
experiences and ways of knowing to talk back to, reframe, contextualize,and perhaps even
reinterpret commonly used theories and concepts within our field. For those scholars, living
and working in Asia, Africa,South America, or the Asia-Pacific region, for example, this
means learning from and supporting the multiple forms of cultural knowledge around
organizing and communicating that are native to their region.

Disseminating work by native scholars of their contexts using native forms of knowing
diversifies the field of organizational communication as well as the knowledge produced
and consumed there, providing all members of our scholarly community with a richer array
of concepts, methods, forms, and perspectives from which to understand our increasingly
complex and globalized reality. In engaging in such an enterprise, we begin to reimagine
the scholarly community of organizational communication as a transdisciplinary and
transgeographical entity capable of disrupting contemporary hierarchies of knowledge and
making sense of our flattening world. With this goal in mind, we request and look forward
to lively conversations with scholars from within the traditionally defined discipline of
organizational communication as well as those outside, as we work together to recognize,
support, and engage diverse voices and contexts as well as multiple ways of organizing and
communicating.

References: Ashcraft, K. (2006). Falling from a humble perch? Rereading organizational

communication studies with an attitude of alliance. Management Communication
Quarterly, 19(4), 645–652. Ashcraft, K., & Allen, B. (2003). Cheney, G. (2000). Thinking
differently about organizational communication: Why, how, and where? Management
Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 132–141. Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay
on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and
economics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation. Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2004). Masking subversion:
Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human
Relations, 57(2), 221–247.

[edit] Current Research Topics in Organizational Communication

The field of organizational communication has moved from acceptance of mechanistic

models (e.g., information moving from a sender to a receiver) to a study of the persistent,
hegemonic and taken-for-granted ways in which we not only use communication to
accomplish certain tasks within organizational settings (e.g., public speaking) but also how
the organizations in which we participate affect us.
These approaches include "postmodern", "critical", "participatory", "feminist",
"power/political", "organic", etc. and adds to disciplines as wide-ranging as sociology,
philosophy, theology, psychology, business, business administration, institutional
management, medicine (health communication), neurology (neural nets), semiotics,
anthropology, international relations, and music.

Currently, some topics of research and theory in the field are:

Constitution, e.g.,

 how communicative behaviors construct or modify organizing processes or

products
 how the organizations within which we interact affect our communicative
behaviors, and through these, our own identities
 structures other than organizations which might be constituted through our
communicative activity (e.g., markets, cooperatives, tribes, political parties,
social movements)
 when does something "become" an organization? When does an
organization become (an)other thing(s)? Can one organization "house"
another? Is the organization still a useful entity/thing/concept, or has the
social/political environment changed so much that what we now call
"organization" is so different from the organization of even a few decades
ago that it cannot be usefully tagged with the same word – "organization"?

Narrative, e.g.,

 how do group members employ narrative to acculturate/initiate/indoctrinate

new members?
 do organizational stories act on different levels? Are different narratives
purposively invoked to achieve specific outcomes, or are there specific roles
of "organizational storyteller"? If so, are stories told by the storyteller
received differently than those told by others in the organization?
 in what ways does the organization attempt to influence storytelling about
the organization? under what conditions does the organization appear to be
more or less effective in obtaining a desired outcome?
 when these stories conflict with one another or with official rules/policies,
how are the conflicts worked out? in situations in which alternative accounts
are available, who or how or why are some accepted and others rejected?

Identity, e.g.,

 who do we see ourselves to be, in terms of our organizational affiliations?

 do communicative behaviors or occurrences in one or more of the
organizations in which we participate effect changes in us? To what extent
do we consist of the organizations to which we belong?
 is it possible for individuals to successfully resist organizational identity?
what would that look like?
 do people who define themselves by their work-organizational membership
communicate differently within the organizational setting than people who
 define themselves more by an avocational (non-vocational) set of
relationships?
 for example, researchers have studied how human service workers and
firefighters use humor at their jobs as a way to affirm their identity in the face
of various challenges Tracy, S.J.; K. K. Myers; C. W. Scott (2006). "Cracking
Jokes and Crafting Selves: Sensemaking and Identity Management Among
Human Service Workers". Communication Monographs 73: 283–308.
doi:10.1080/03637750600889500.. Others have examined the identities of
police organizations, prison guards, and professional women workers.

Interrelatedness of organizational experiences, e.g.,

 how do our communicative interactions in one organizational setting affect

our communicative actions in other organizational settings?
 how do the phenomenological experiences of participants in a particular
organizational setting effect changes in other areas of their lives?
 when the organizational status of a member is significantly changed (e.g., by
promotion or expulsion) how are their other organizational memberships
affected?
 what kind of future relationship between business and society does
organizational communication seem to predict?

Power e.g.,

 how does the use of particular communicative practices within an

organizational setting reinforce or alter the various interrelated power
relationships within the setting? Are the potential responses of those within
or around these organizational settings constrained by factors or processes
either within or outside of the organization – (assuming there is an
"outside"?
 do taken-for-granted organizational practices work to fortify the dominant
hegemonic narrative? Do individuals resist/confront these practices, through
what actions/agencies, and to what effects?
 do status changes in an organization (e.g., promotions, demotions,
restructuring, financial/social strata changes) change communicative
behavior? Are there criteria employed by organizational members to
differentiate between "legitimate" (i.e., endorsed by the formal organizational
structure) and "illegitimate" (i.e., opposed by or unknown to the formal power
structure)? Are behaviors? When are they successful, and what do we even
there "pretenders" or "usurpers" who employ these communicativemean by
"successful?"