Talk:Organizational communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahhenderson, Hurmuny5, Vllhoward (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Serrekunda62.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Too detailed?

I admit that the original version of this was "positivistic" because I'm a social scientist. When I originally had my students start editing the Org Comm portion of Wikipedia, there was little to nothing about the subject on the site. I can argue now that the Org Comm site clearly represents only one biased perspective (in the opposite direction now). The reality is there are two drastically different branches in organizational communication that still exist today. Although I see the benefit of making sure both sides are represented, I have issues completely taking the social scientific side of organizational communication out of the picture. Unlike many who are participating in this project, I think more is actually better. I think the laundry list of links to other topics related to organizational communication is probably the best way forward to ensure individuals interested in the subject can view our page and then look for further information on various related topics. I have no problem working with my colleagues across the field of organizational communication, but to completely dismiss the current (and historic) contributions of social scientists within the field does disservice to field itself. Even in the most recent analysis of published research in organizational communication, quantitative research still accounts for almost 50% of the published research.

Too detailed?

I am surprised at the level of detail of this article. I think that in an article about something as broad as "organizational communication", the various major lines of thought should be talked about, but I don't believe it is necessary to talk about the "Levels of communication" for example, at least not in so much detail. I am also surprised to see no mention at all of classic organization and management approaches (Frederick Winslow Taylor, Charles Babbage, the Hawthorne effect and human relations, Gareth Morgan, and so on). Media Richness Theory could also be mentioned, along many others. Too much needs to be done, in my humble opinion, to reflect the variety of research and work that is being achieved in this field, to waste space getting into the details of any particular theory. --Niccoben (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Niccoben, the information detailed does not include organizational structures and communication models. i mean you could include work from the PMBOK (Project management book of knowledge) which will also illustrate graphically how the communication model flows from top management down to employees or upwards form employees to management which is crucial in project that are exercuted with a project leader. [M.Mzamo:CUT Free State] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.39.10 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

postivism

this article seems to be loaded with the non-neutral position of scientific positivism. While I assume there is little interest in having me edit this to repair that, i'm likely going to make some minor edits that admits to the broader understanding of the field. Buridan

Removal of "The Memo" blog from the External Links

Mr. Roche: I noticed you removed the "The Memo" blog from the organizational communication list. I am an org comm major and also work in the field of corporate communications. The only idea that the blog is attempting to "promote" is the concept of infusing the discipline of the classical, systems, network and symbolic/cultural theories into the "real" world of organizations. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. Brad Bellaver

expanding view to transcend positivism/reductionism

I tried to keep as much as was feasible of the original article, attempting to transcend the simplistic and positivistic "business communication" feel.

Buridan, does this go far enough to address your concerns, or is there more heavy lifting to do?

Roy 11:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

ongoing work

going to try to update this page as i get time, reformatting, key issues, etc...i would encourage those out there who know about the discipline to dive in. as if it needs to be stated, these views are mine alone, reflecting my perspective...

As Wikipedians work on editing this page, the DEI section could bring in a focus on Difference Matters as an Organizational Communication framing of this from Brenda J. Allen. --OsaRosa (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting statement

"Humans act rationally. Sane people do not behave in rational ways..." Doesn't this contradict itself? Jhunt47 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"rationality" Rambling

The following section:

"Humans act rationally. Some 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."

Quite literally makes no sense. Several of the sentences are not valid English sentences at all, and literally no information can be extracted from them. Others are so confusing that they cannot actually say what was intended. I cannot edit it, because I don't know what the actual theoretical grounding is supposed to be here. 70.124.83.204 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundant point/references

Hello, I really enjoyed this article. I felt that for a basic, quick knowledge of the overview of Organizational Communication, this article achieves that. However, there is a sentence that has some redundancy in it. This has been mentioned previously on the page and I also agree that it could be cleaned up a bit. The point in the "early underlying assumptions" section states: "Humans act rationally. Some 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. Irrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their communication measures whether or not it is rational."

Regarding this sentence and the need for additional citations, are there plans for editing this page to clarify the sentence above as well as verify the article? I believe this article has potential to be resourceful if verified. Additionally, I think with the growth and focus on communication studies, there are many great resources out there to utilize as additional, more up-to-date references.

Charli Charlisomers (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Concise lead

I am wondering if perhaps the lead should have slightly more information, especially considering the detailed sections below? EthanS52 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC) EthanS52

Incorporating Visuals

Could some topics, such as the referenced communication patterns, be presented visually to make the article more robust and also help to break up all the text a bit? Missmj18 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs more references

Hi! This article needs more references. Some areas are only representing one viewpoint or one idea in the field, and a lot of important schools of thought are missing. This is especially prominent in the History section, where very few academics in the field are talked about and ideas about them are not backed with citations. The Perspectives section only contains one perspective, and in the Early underlying assumptions section, the bullet points have no references for the most part and could also be cleaned up for better understanding. I think that finding some more sources and perspectives in the field could really help this article! Alexa Bierstock (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexa Bierstock (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)