| Formal structure as a system of constraints on organizational discourse |
| | Duimering, P. Robert | Wilfrid Laurier U. | rduimeri@wlu.ca | (519)-884-0710 x2674 |
| | In this paper we present the outline of a theory of language use in the
context of formal hierarchical communication and provide empirical
evidence in support of the theory, drawn from a qualitative study
conducted within a high technology manufacturing organization. The theory
argues that an organization's formal structure defines a system of
constraints on organizational language use and formal communication.
Rather than representing what is going on within an organization, we
suggest that the formal structure is better viewed as an elaborate
abstraction heuristic, that predefines how "what is going on" will be
represented by organizational members in their formal communications.
The case study provides evidence of the influence of structural
constraints on formal language use and communication at several different
levels of analysis within the organization studied. |
| | Keywords: Hierarchical communication; Organizational discourse; Formal structure |
| Executive Leadership: The Case Against Impartiality |
| | Peterson, Randall S. | Cornell U. | randall.peterson@cornell.edu | (607) 255-2997 |
| | This paper tests Janis' (1982, 1989) recommendation that leaders of top policy making groups should withhold communicating policy preferences to be effective. Two studies question the veracity of this recommendation. First, a survey of executives revealed that they rank impartiality below a number of other important leader characteristics including openness to new ideas and visionary leadership. The second study used the organizational group dynamics q-sort to investigate the top management teams of nine large companies. Each company was examinied at two historical juntures -- one when the company was successful (i.e., satisfying strategic constituencies) and one when the company was unsuccessful. Results support Janis' hypothesis that leader openness is essential for success in policy-making teams, but do not support his tactical recommendation for impartial leadership. Results were opposite of what Janis recommended. Successful CEOs were more likely to convey a strong direction for the company than their unsuccessful counterparts. |
| | Keywords: Top Management Teams; Leadership; Impartiality |
| The Impact of Threat Sensitivity and Face Giving on Information Transfer in Organizational Hierarchies |
| | Tynan, Renee | U. of Notre Dame | Renee.o.tynan.2@nd.edu | (219) 631-6764 |
| | The failure to transfer face threatening information (e.g., disagreement,
criticism, pointing out errors, admission of lack of knowledge) upward in
a hierarchy is a major obstacle to effective decision making, performance,
and learning in organizations, and can lead to spectacularly negative
outcomes, including policy fiascoes, failures in medical error reporting,
plane crashes, and failure to report critical information for financial
planning and risk assessment. In a more mundane fashion, on a daily basis
the management of face and face threatening communication is a core issue
in working relationships and affect information transfer necessary for
individual and group learning and performance.
One factor which emerged from field studies as having a significant impact
on the transfer of face threatening information was the threat sensitivity
level and the face giving behavior of the potential recipient of the
communication. This paper experimentally tests the field-generated
hypothesis, with male and female professional actors enacting the role of
the leader of a newly formed task group in four threat sensitivity/face
giving conditions. Leader threat sensitivity and face giving behavior are
shown to significantly affect the likelihood that subordinates will
transfer task-relevant information to the leader. Measures of individual
differences in face giving and threat sensitivity are also developed and
are shown to predict subordinate threat impressions of leader efficacy as
well as the likelihood that subordinates would raise disagreements, give
alternative points of view, request help or feedback, or admit mistakes to
their supervisor. |
| | Keywords: Face; Hierarchical; Communication |