Rhetoric and Internal Organizational Communication

Recruit, select, hire, train, retrain, task and direct, align, inculcate, and reinforce identity/identification, change, correct, improve, motivate, control.

whew. Organizational socialization is heavy lifting, a major task. And in most places, it's relatively unexamined — — way less than focused on. 

Before we go into the chapter material, some comments from my incredibly biased point of view. I think there are a couple of key things missing from the chapter.

First, I begin with a question.

How, where, when does the organization tell employees (potential, new, old) the bad news about the company? That is, how where when do employees learn about parts that are covered over rather than revealed?

Generally, of course, companies do not communicate about such matters. They are managed as ideology, via rhetorical strategies. Employees find out about them via experiences (that often strongly challenge/compromise their identification with the organization). 
“It’s all good . . . at least that’s what we tell ourselves, esp. from top down.”

Is this the best approach?

Most companies either (1) force/compel compliance with the organizational identity and mission or (2) Lie, a lot, internally, about the organizational identity and mission (such that deceit is used instead of force).

And you, my dear future organizational communication leaders and operatives, are caught in the middle of this because you will be largely responsible for helping shape the communication that makes meanings within the organization. And largely, you will be pretty helpless, caught between keeping your job, helping others keep theirs, promoting the parts of the organizational mission that you can get behind, trying to keep your distance from the stuff you don't think is right, 

Second, this book doesn't treat/present what might be THE single most important communication behavior on the part of organizational communication professionals: Listening. You may well not be able to "fix" a lot of what I've noted, above. However, you can do the organization a great service by showing members of the organization that (at least) SOMEONE in the outfit is willing to LISTEN TO THEM. You might even be able to move that toward action that will help. 

Now.. back to the text…

It goes without saying that everything we've studied so far . . . organizational identity, approaches to issues, risk management, and crisis, all work in a constant interplay with the various ways internal meaning making works.

Anticipatory stage: As noted, "everything" goes into this. But of course, only some of the people who will be involved in the organization are exposed to much of the "everythings" that have gone on. Many will come from outside the reach of the organization's history and community. Though the chapter doesn't really focus on this, we begin with an "audience" that rests somewhere on a continuum regarding how much they know (and the accuracy and relevance of that knowledge). 

There is also now a wider generational split in the ways that potential employees come to know about organizations. There are still a large number of "traditional" folks companies can treat as they have in the past. However, their numbers are decreasing as the number of digital natives increases. This class isn't the place to argue over whether the changes that young people bring/promise are good or bad. The demographics are clear. 

So, it's estimated that 35-50% of all employers, and 85-90% of all graduate/professional schools "vet" their applicants via a social media search prior to interviews. One can assume that a very high % of applicants vets the organization via electronic resources. And yet, many organizations haven't done much at all, yet, to tailor their online identities to/for different audiences. SOME (few) have a page (or two) dedicated to applicants. Most don't. So the applicant gets the same message as the public from the website(s). That's probably not good enough. So there is space/need for you to get involved on the web side.

have you taken IM 113? It's not enough, but it's a start. Knowing about social media, or being on it, is probably not enough. Better learn some programming and about visual communication strategies, about lean and agile design and project management, and about user experience design and project management. Whew. That’s a lot. In other words: if you aren’t planning to go to graduate school to learn a lot stuff you don’t know, you aren’t planning well enough. MA/MS, MBA, JD, MFA. Too much to know to go out and compete as just an undergraduate. Go learn more. 

p. 212
entry: task and relational functions. How to do the job. How to "fit in." Note the quote: "to persuade newcomers to behave like other members of the organization." Hum. At least these guys don't sugar coat it. I'm not sure that "conformity" is the best way to foster creativity and innovation; and I would not say that every organization is SO focused on fostering conformity. But I suppose I'd have to agree that this IS a major part of what goes on at the start in most places. 

So it's clear: MUCH of the work is rhetorical, via writing (manuals, rules, agreements) orality (information sessions and training sessions), and nonverbal symbols (uniforms, logos, signage, etc.) There is a LOT of communication to manage for newcomers. And generally, they are "thrown in." Very difficult.

[by the way: not in the book either. Be sure that your organization has a protocol to make sure that you/they don’t violate trade secret law with incoming folks/candidates. If they knew trade secrets at their last job, they can’t bring them along. Be sure that you have questions to clarify this and forms to sign].

There's a set of concerns between entry and retention that isn't mentioned here. Unless one is in a one-or-two person shop, there are "divisions" within organizations. Everything that happens then gets filtered through the screens of identification with units in relation to the whole. This is a MAJOR set of issues in almost every organization. Organizations are often NOT at all unitary. A significant aspect of org. com. pros. jobs is working through/with internal divisions and those efforts relate to employee identifications within their units and the org. as a whole. 

OMG: the chapter doesn't even mention the differences between union and non-union shops/workplaces. It's certainly possible that you'll work at a place that has different sets of rules for various factions within the organization, while there some overriding perceptual and actual factors for all. 

Retention: Again, loads less here than needed, esp. in the contemporary environment in which job stability is NOT what it once was. There are zillions of (potential) functions that "bind or loosen" the organization's hold on its people and many of those are represented via symbolic processes that influence the way(s) that members identify with the place and functions. How does the organization communicate to its members about retention? Are the protocols consistent, perceived as fair? 

Change: probably the hottest topic in org. com. and org. theory these days. Everyone now recognizes that almost everything about the American way of life (maybe even globally speaking) is changing, rapidly. How do organizations prepare their people and structures for this? "Change or die" is probably more relevant than ever. And yet, perceived organizational legitimacy requires consistency. Many org. com. specialists are focusing on change as THE key skill to listen for and train and encourage toward. Effective change requires a lot of preparation, training, encouragement, persuasion, motivation, reward. Organizational change doesn't just happen on it's own. And it doesn't go very well if it is merely mandated from above and forced down everyone's throats. 

p. 215.
all of the factors we've talked about managing, identity, issues, risk, crisis, have an internal face. So everything we've looked at to this point, also applies internally (though the calculations about what's needed and how to do it are often different than for external audiences).