Analysis Of Stanley Deetz’S Critical Theory Of Communication In Organizations

Corporations have influenced the lives of many people in more ways that they can recognize. This is manifested even in minor acts such as using corporate jargons in daily conversations. An example given by Griffin (2011) is the word “bottom line,” which is originally a term used in accounting; however, it is now commonly used as a term which means “an important consideration” for most decision making processes in everyday situations. This illustrates how corporate has extended their control over the people’s lives, without them actually noticing or being conscious about it.

With this, one can conclude how little by little, corporations and organizations have certainly marked their dominance in almost every aspect of the people’s lives. NutriAsia Inc. , Jollibee Food Corporation, and Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT)—These are just some of the huge entities or corporations in the local industry, which had issues regarding their employee and labor practices. This is where the Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations, developed by Stanley Deetz, enters into the picture. This theory draws attention to two important facets of organizational communication: (1) how the use of language within organizations is used to distort the decision making process, and (2) how workplaces can turn into a democratic one through the modification of communication. Taking this into account, this critical theory does not just explain and analyze, but also criticizes. It also seeks to balance both the interests of human and corporations since it is highly evident that in the present day society, corporate interests prevail upon human interests.

Critical scholars have regarded organization as facilitators of oppression or injustice (Daniels, Papa, & Spiker, 1997). This is mainly due to the power differences that are concerned with the social structure—the superior and subordinate or the leader and the followers, which will be discussed more in depth later in this paper. Communication is a crucial element for organizations to thrive. Deetz, a communication professor at the University of Colorado, presents and compares the two models of communication, which are the information model and the communication model. Between these two, he promotes the communication model and challenges the former. As he defined it in the book entitled A First Look at Communication Theory, the information model of Shannon and Weaver is merely the “transmission of information” (2011, p. 274). Deetz disagrees with the notion of it because language does not reflect reality. In addition, it is not just as simple as something that is observed to be passed back and forth. Moreover, the communication model he is advocating for is described as the language where “social reality is created and sustained” (2011, p. 274). This means that communication is an ongoing formation of meaning and in corporate context, this entails how corporations subtly produce implications and ideology through the use of language.

The 2x2 model in the previous page shows the information and communication model side by side. This model emphasizes the issue of power in communication and how decisions can be made, which are strategy, involvement, consent and participation. However, in this paper, the communication model will be mainly discussed further.

For the top portion of the communication model, managerial control is setting the company’s interests as the priority and this involves excluding the people who are affected by the decisions to take part in the process (Griffin, 2011). The managerial control aspect of the model is consent. Consent is when a person participates in own exploitation unawarely. This mostly happens when workers give their loyalty, but do not get or receive what is due to them. A recent issue revolving this is the contractualization of a famous fast food chain, where the workers are only scheduled to work for the company up until a specified period or time. After this, they are just going to be replaced by another set of workers and the cycle will continue. Because of this labor practice, the worker won’t be able to receive the benefits a normal or a regular employee would have, such as the thirteenth month pay and the like, even if they continue to work hard. This shows how workers think that they are accomplishing their own interests, but instead, they are really doing the company a favor.

Systematically distorted communication is how consents are engineered because it restricts the things that can be freely expressed or talked about. According to Daniels, Papa and Spiker (1997), it is when managers deliberately make something appear to be something it is not, which further strengthens the power relationships. This distortion was developed in a way that it can repress or restrain conflicts that may possibly arise, which is called the discursive closure. A more prevalent example that illustrates this is how the workers are prohibited from having a discussion about certain issues or subjects. Some of which are the controversy of pay differences and the job classification based on genders. To summarize the consent in the communication model, workers unconsciously consent the mentality of managerial control and the more that it is overlooked, then the more that it will become severe.

Moving on to the bottom half of the model is the codetermination, which is the collaborative decision making among all stakeholders. It can also be described as the participatory democracy because it invites an open communication for everyone involved in the organization. While the codetermination aspect in the model is participation and it is when all stakeholders have a role or an effect in making the final decision and not just having an opinion on what is happening. Deetz believes that shared decision making is possible and therefore, promotes a process by which everyone negotiates power. To ensure this democracy, Deetz adds that there are six stakeholders to be included in the decision making process, which are the workers, investors, consumers, suppliers, host communities, and the greater society and the world community. He also emphasized that managers must coordinate the opposing interests of all sides, instead of imposing what is convenient (Griffin, 2011). Unlike in consent where conflicts are controlled or constrained, conflicts in participation are addressed though open discussions. This stresses how anyone associated with the organization needs to be involved and have a chance to express ideas and thoughts for the output.

There are many factors which affect the communication in organizations and one of them, which strongly becomes a factor in it, is the kind of leader who manages the group. Barnes and Mabry (1980) described leaders as the agents of reinforcement, which means that they heavily influence the members and their output. The consent and participation, discussed in the previous paragraphs, are strongly affected by the leadership styles incorporated, mainly the autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Collectively, they are called the Three Styles Model of Kurt Lewin, a psychologist, and is the oldest leadership behavior model, which was developed in 1939 (Seethalekshmi, 2014).

First, autocratic leadership, also called the authoritative, is when its leader has an absolute power over the members (Engleberg & Wynn, 1988). This means that it is someone who regulates a stern authority or command and controls the direction of the group. Under an autocratic leadership, members are expected to follow the order of the leader and its primary goal is to achieve the given task. With this, the leader does majority of the decisions for the group, thus, autocratic leadership style is very low in participation because little opportunity is given to the members. However, even if they are given that little opportunity, they are still expected to follow and conform so the members would have very little to no participation, but high in consent since they accomplish the goals of the group while thinking of own.

Second is the democratic or participative leadership style where its leader promotes the interests of the members and exercises equality (Engleberg & Wynn, 1988). Making decisions is not just the leader’s job, but also of the members. Unlike in autocratic, a democratic leader focuses on the disposition of the members while helping them to achieve the task because for these type of leaders, it is just as important as their work or responsibility. With a high level of participatory management, the members’ roles or positions will not be distinctly clear or determined from one another (Barnes & Mabry, 1980). This has a moderate level of both consent and participation because this leadership promotes members to take part in making the final decision. They all have an active involvement while still maintaining order or organization.

Lastly, laissez-faire is when the leaders let the group command or supervise of the decisions and actions they are going to take. It is a French word that means “to let people do as they choose” (Engleberg & Wynn, 1997, p. 61). Laissez-faire can be described as laid-back leadership that promotes and encourages a very open communication. Because of this, a leader with this kind of leadership may do little or nothing to assist the group or its members, especially when it needs a conclusive leader to lead. This implies how the outcome of the task completely depends on the members. Instead of the members having little participation, like in autocratic, it is the laissez-faire leader himself who has very little participation. As illustrated by the continuum above, autocratic can be described as the most controlling leadership style, while laissez-faire as the least controlling, and democratic being the average. These three all differ in terms of their level of authority as described in the previous paragraphs. Out of all the three leadership styles, the democratic leadership is the most advantageous in the long-run because workers have the right balance of consent and participation, which means them becoming more productive and efficient. Through the research of Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy (2014), they found that to have an effective outcome on the part of employees, especially being in an ever-changing corporate environment, the leader must have a good relationship with the workers. And the democratic leadership does this because it focuses on achieving the task while still fostering the members’ needs. This was further supported by Curphy, Ginnett, and Hughes (1993) in their book, as they mentioned how pursuing rational approach in decision making may enhance leader effectiveness, but through an emotional approach one, both leader and members will achieve effectivity and productivity.

This was also backed up by the academic journal written by Basit, Hassan and Sebastian (2017). It was emphasized there how leaders play a significant role in the performance of an organization and its employees. They conducted a survey in a private organization in Malaysia and a total of 100 respondents were used as a sample size. The questionnaire was designed to cater the autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire leadership styles and were handed out to the different departments of the company. The results showed that democratic leadership has a positive effect on employee performance because it produced more driven and encouraged employees, which lead to that. While the laissez-faire also yielded a positive impact, like democratic, because of having less authorization and influence from the leader, it did not produce as much positive attributions as the democratic had. Lastly is the autocratic leadership which had a negative impact, as opposed to the other two, since it restricts the members, which would mean that it would set a limit on their expression. Based on these findings, they concluded how democratic leadership style is the most beneficial among the three. Laissez-faire can be classified as a moderate leadership because it can only be applied effectively in certain situations, such as when the members understand their responsibilities. Thus the order of the most effective leadership style starts from democratic to laissez-faire, then autocratic as the last one.

To conclude, Deetz offers the communication model as the solution or the mediator in the distorted decision-making that transpires in the corporate world. The purpose of the Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations is to raise consciousness and to emancipate the workers from the injustice or iniquity that the organizations produce. Workplace democracy is what Deetz is aiming for through the communication model. Considering that fact, the democratic leadership style best complements it to further involve the stakeholders for a meaningful participation. However, one must bear in mind how workplace democracy does not necessarily mean that employees have participation, but it is where it truly gives importance to the individual and their sentiments.