1038 3551 1 PB 1 
ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)
Effective Organizational Communication: in Search of a System
Aukse Blazenaite
Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.74.4.1038 brings stability and order in a company but also to empower vital organizational processes which enable adaptation, change, and innovation in its life. A theoretical and practical problem arises – how to develop a thorough communication system at an organization which would allow open and effective interaction with optimal input and would grant enhanced performance to empower any company to reach its major goals?
In spite of the fact that organizational communication research, in general, has been a flourishing field, the examination of a cohesion between the systems view and organizational communication research has been rather limited (Papa et al., 2008). Lee and Jablin (1995, as cited in Papa et al., 2008) used basic system theory concepts to examine maintenance communication in superiorsubordinate relationships and Konopaske, Robie and
Ivancevich (2005, as cited in Papa et al., 2008) studied the influence of family system dynamics on managers’ willingness to relocate. Eisenberg, Goodall and Trethewey
(2009) call the research ‘disappointing’, since scholars have had difficulty to create dynamic systems of communication and often lack the methodological tools needed to analyze complex systems of communication
(Eisenberg, Goodall and Trethewey, 2009). It seems relevant to note that though a number of communication scholars, such as Ference (1970), Hickson (1973), Kreps
(1990), Schmidt and Gardner (1995), Bovee and Thill
(1999), Zaremba (2003), Miller (2006), Harris and Nelson
(2008), etc., as specified later in this article, have been involved in the system approach or an open system theory with regard to organizational communication, the majority of works do not aim at producing a structural and
comprehensive
Effective Organizational Communication: in Search of a System
Aukse Blazenaite
Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.74.4.1038 brings stability and order in a company but also to empower vital organizational processes which enable adaptation, change, and innovation in its life. A theoretical and practical problem arises – how to develop a thorough communication system at an organization which would allow open and effective interaction with optimal input and would grant enhanced performance to empower any company to reach its major goals?
In spite of the fact that organizational communication research, in general, has been a flourishing field, the examination of a cohesion between the systems view and organizational communication research has been rather limited (Papa et al., 2008). Lee and Jablin (1995, as cited in Papa et al., 2008) used basic system theory concepts to examine maintenance communication in superiorsubordinate relationships and Konopaske, Robie and
Ivancevich (2005, as cited in Papa et al., 2008) studied the influence of family system dynamics on managers’ willingness to relocate. Eisenberg, Goodall and Trethewey
(2009) call the research ‘disappointing’, since scholars have had difficulty to create dynamic systems of communication and often lack the methodological tools needed to analyze complex systems of communication
(Eisenberg, Goodall and Trethewey, 2009). It seems relevant to note that though a number of communication scholars, such as Ference (1970), Hickson (1973), Kreps
(1990), Schmidt and Gardner (1995), Bovee and Thill
(1999), Zaremba (2003), Miller (2006), Harris and Nelson
(2008), etc., as specified later in this article, have been involved in the system approach or an open system theory with regard to organizational communication, the majority of works do not aim at producing a structural and
comprehensive
References: 20. Hickson III, M. (1973). The Open Systems Model: Auditing the Effectiveness of Organizational Communication 82, 1011-1022. 42. Usunier, J.-C., & Lee, J.A. (2001). Marketing Across Cultures. 21. Hofstede, G. (1984). National cultures and corporate cultures. In L.A 43. Wellman, B. (1997). Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance 22. Ince, M., & Gull, H. (2011). The Role of the Organizational Communication on Employees’ Perception of Justice: a Sample of 44. Wood, J. (1999). Establishing Internal Communication Channels that Work komunikacijos sistemos tobulinimas. (Magistro tezės, Kauno technologijos universitetas, 2008). 45. Zakarevičius, P. (2002). Vadyba: genezė, dabartis, tendencijos. 24. Johnson, R.A. (1973). The Theory and Management of Systems (3rd ed.) 46. Zaremba, A.J. (2003). Organizational Communication. Canada: Thomson South-Western College Publishing. 25. Kreps, G.L. (1990). Organizational Communication. Theory and Practice 47. Žostautienė, D. (2010). Marketingo kultūra. Kaunas: Technologija. 26. Locker, K.O., & Kaczmarek, S.K. (2001). Business Communication: Building Critical Skills 28. Papa, M.J., Daniels, T.D., & Spiker, B.K. (2008). Organizational Communication (Szukala, 2001; Zaremba, 2003; Tourish ir Hargie, 2004; Eisenberg et al., 2009) kintančia organizacija (Gibson ir Hodgetts, 1986; Schmidt ir Gardner, 1995; Conrad ir Poole, 2005; Miller, 2006; Stoner et al., 2006; Harris ir Nelson, 2008; Papa et al., 2008; kt.). Straipsnyje akcentuojama teorinė bei praktinė problema: kaip sukurti organizacijoje visapusiškai tinkamą Straipsnio pradžioje pateikiama teoretikų Ference (1970), Hickson (1973), Kreps (1990), Schmidt ir Gardner (1995), Bovee ir Thill (1999), Zaremba (2003), Miller (2006), Harris ir Nelson (2008), kt. darbų apžvalga, apibendrinta lentelėje ir pagrindžianti prielaidą, jog