Studies in Communication Diversity in Organizations

Description
Once we understand that organizational structures are related to communication patterns, it is easier to see that different communication norms could arise in various parts of an organization.

1
Differences in Communication Culture
Chapter Learning Objectives
Recognize the diversity of business communication as an element of diverse
organizational structures.
Understand the conflict and misunderstanding as a consequence of
communication across organizational boundaries.
Understand ethical communication as a function of communication culture.
Communication Diversity in Organizations
Once we understand that organizational structures are related to communication patterns, it is
easier to see that different communication norms could arise in various parts of an organization.
Differences in their “normal” communication might even define the various units of a large
corporation. Very formal, authoritarian boss-subordinate relationships might be the norm in one
sales region of a company, while a more relaxed, “open-door” policy encourages distributed
decision-making in another region. In fact, a salesperson who transfers from one region to the
other might experience considerable difficulty until he or she grows accustomed to the new
environment. Employees of the two regions might even find each other “hard to work with”
because they don’t realize they are making different assumptions about how communication
ought to be done.
Learning about organizational communication is only the first step in effective communication
within an organization. A person must also learn to recognize variations in communication that
can occur, interpret communication differences in productive ways, and make effective choices
about how to communicate “across” the many organizational boundaries that exist within a
business community.
Variations in Organizational Style
Communication in virtually any business will exhibit the common norms of the business culture,
but every organization is also unique in some respects. The new graduate must learn the general
rules of business in order to communicate effectively as a part of the business community, but it
is equally important to learn what is considered appropriate within his or her own company. No
one business organization’s culture is any “better” than another, although some business authors
have argued that the most successful companies seem to exhibit “strong” cultures in which
everyone agrees on a single, clear way to get things done (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters &
Waterman, 1982). Generally, decisions can be made more easily and action taken more quickly
when most of the organization’s citizens “know the rules,” even though it doesn’t seem to matter
as much what those rules are.
It is impossible to say exactly what the communication rules of a particular company will be
before spending quite a bit of time getting acquainted. The major differences among business
organizations follow cultural patterns that are found among all discourse communities, however,
and some principles of “cross-cultural” communication can help an outsider to predict an
organization’s expectations.

2
Relationship Rules across Cultures
The fundamental norms of Western rhetoric place a high value on the linguistic manipulation of
symbols between self-aware, autonomous individuals, to share meaning through the creation of
linear, analytical reasoning chains. Group decisions that are made according to this general
method are considered “better” than decisions made by people who are not self-aware, for
instance, or based on such non-linguistic methods as a ritual dance or prayer.
Within the past century, attention to other cultures and communities in Africa and Asia, and to
subcultures and co-cultures of women, ethnic minorities and economic classes within the Euro-
American West, have led to a realization that rhetorical rules can vary widely. The explicit
symbol manipulation of talk, for instance, is less important in Asian cultures than ineffable modes
of meaning (Liu, 1988). Many African philosophies value paradox and analogy over the linear
logic (Eze, 1993). Collectivist values of distributed decision-making outweigh individual
decisions in many of the West’s subordinated communities (Gaetz, 1995; Gilligan, 1982; Gowen,
1992; Weinstein-Shr, 1993).
A great deal of cross-cultural misunderstanding can be traced to a failure to understand each
others’ basic assumptions about how decisions ought to be made (Brislin, 1993; Hofstede, 1991;
Triandis, 1994). Presumably then, understanding the motives and behaviors of a discourse
community begins with a recognition that its members are functioning according to rhetorical
rules that make sense from within their own community (Condit, 1993).
Although the underlying reasons are not entirely clear , cultures around the world seem to vary
their relationship rules along two key dimensions, striking a balance between individual identity
and power and social allegiance and control.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Every member of a community has both an individual identity and a collective identity as a
member of the group. An important step in human personality development is creating a balance
between the conflicting senses of a “private” self and a “social” self. At the same time, the
community achieves stability by socializing its members into a conventional, “healthy” balance
between individual autonomy and social obligation. The definition of a “healthy” balance varies
from culture to culture, however, and the variation is described in terms of a community’s typical
pattern of individualism versus collectivism (Brislin, 1993; Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1994).
An individualistic culture is one that encourages a high degree of individual, highly differentiated
identity and considers it normal for people to act in ways that will benefit themselves. A
collectivist culture, on the other hand, places more value in a highly developed social identity and
expects its members to act in ways that benefit the whole group. Obviously, people in either kind
of community are always making choices, and there can be wide variations among individuals
within either community. Thus, it is possible to talk about a person having or not having a highly
differentiated personality as well as describe a whole community as having individualist or
collectivist values.
Traditionally agricultural cultures tend toward collectivism while industrialization and
urbanization correlate with more individualistic values (Berry, 1976), but every community finds
a way to accommodate both individual autonomy and social cohesiveness. Collectivist cultures
will typically expect an individual to meet strict obligations to family or the state and abide by

3
limitations on movement, education or occupation, but create elaborate protections of an
individual’s autonomy in the realm of private thoughts, social respect, or personal “face”
(Christian & Christian, 1966; Garcia, 1996; E. C. Stewart, 1985). Conversely, highly
individualistic Americans demand the freedom to live, work and associate as they wish, but
tolerate a high degree of social pressure with respect to moral, psychological and fashion
conformity (Hofstede, 1991; E. C. Stewart, 1985).
Power Distance
A similar balance must be achieved between individual autonomy and group solidarity. Stable
decision-making groups will necessarily create some system that is considered an appropriate
way for the group to control the behavior of individual members. These variations from group to
group are typically described in terms of the degree of power distance that is considered normal
(Brislin, 1993; Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1994).
A community with a high power distance is one in which there is a high degree of deferential
respect between those who are told what to do and those who tell them. Typically these highly
differentiated relationships are maintained with a clearly hierarchical social system that makes it
easy for anyone to know in a give situation whether she is the teller or the one who can be told
what to do. Because the rules are clear, it can be said that one person holds power over the other.
A community with low power distance, on the other hand, encourages widely dispersed and even
overlapping methods for the group to tell individuals what to do. Many people share the power,
and roles can shift quickly with the circumstances.
Perhaps because the climate is harsh and people have to cooperate to survive, countries in the
Northern latitudes tend to have looser rules about who is in charge of making decisions.
Meanwhile, communities in more tropical environments, traditionally facing more challenges
from human than environmental sources, have created larger and more carefully organized
cultures that rely heavily on strict adherence to a chain of command (Hofstede, 1991 45).
Nevertheless, both kinds of cultures are trying to achieve the same purpose: social relationships
that guarantee the most effective and efficient decisions in the typical situations they encounter.
Organizational Differences
Differences in individualism and collectivism can be found in business organizations, although
the terms used to describe organizational cultures are different. Some companies are encourage
“cut-throat” behavior as people compete against each other to climb “over each other” on their
way to the top. Other companies are described as having a “family attitude” such that everyone
worries more about the organization’s success than about their own individual career success.
Similarly, companies range in power distance from the very hierarchical “command and control”
structure to the flat “learning organizations” where decision-making power is widely distributed.
The classical management model was formulated within the highly individualistic, high power
distance culture of the Prussian army, and theorists have only recently begun to see the more
collectivist, low power distance communities as a viable management alternative. As a result, the
contemporary trend appears to be a shift from highly stratified organizations with many layers of
management and strict lines of communication toward lean, flat organizational structures that
boast of open, fluid communication networks (Daft & Marcic, 2004).

4
In reality, organizations vary, just as national cultures do, as a result of environmental factors that
reward different ways of maintaining the individual/social balance intrinsic to every human
being. The relationship rules in a stratified organization will explicitly support and maintain the
status of those at the top of the organization, but so will the less obvious but equally strong rules
that characterize a flat organization (Barker, 1993; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). In fact, many
people find the subtle and sometimes ambiguous rules of a very flat organization to be more
difficult to learn and use than the clear rules of a hierarchical one.
Regardless of the exact nature of the organization, its rhetorical nature dictates that its discourse
norms will reinforce the power of those who have it, require that individuals indicate respect for
those who outrank others in the social system, and provide ways to smooth over the small
conflicts that might get in the way of good social relationships. The tricky thing is that the
symbols and signals change from one group to the next. Simple things like meeting attendance or
the order of names on a routing slip can mean very little in one organization, but a great deal in
another.
One manager was amazed to learn that several of her employees considered showing up
for meetings “a sign of respect.” She had considered meeting attendance to be “minimal”
behavior for anyone with membership in the group. In fact, she was greatly insulted
when her staff would merely “show up” without having done any preparation for making
a contribution to the agenda. Only when the situation blew up into a major confrontation
did anyone realize they were working with some very different assumptions about what
constituted a “sign” of respect.
Knowledge Rules across Cultures
Differences in the way people define rational or sane thinking are generally described in terms of
cultural differences in problem-solving methods (Cole & Scribner, 1974), meaning
structures(Kaplan, 1976), or epistemology (Whitson & Poulakos, 1993). Normal human
functioning involves both global perceptual processes that apprehend overall patterns and
analytical processes that focus attention on specific details for further examination (Donald,
1991; Edelman, 1992). An individual learns which sensory details deserve focus as part of his or
her cultural upbringing, and the value a rhetorical community places on various kinds of
information reflects its collective preference for global or analytical thinking for collective
decision making.
Analysis versus Pattern Recognition
In the case of knowledge rules, the most relevant issues are generally described in terms of the
differences between Western rationalism and the more holistic thinking of Eastern philosophies.
Human cognition actually involves the continuous balancing of global, implicit cognitive
processes (sometimes called “right brain” or “gestalt” awareness) and conscious, analytical
attention to selected elements of the environment (the “left brain” or “focused” processes) (Crick,
1994; Donald, 1991). All humans are engaged in a constant process of making implicit sense of
the “big picture” while picking out small fragments of the environment to resolve inconsistencies
or problems as they arise. In order to share perception, two human beings need to be paying
attention to the same small fragments, patterns that over time create a cultural epistemology or
cognition.

5
Western culture, in general, and the educated, academic, technological West in particular, has
selected categorical boundaries, sensory stimuli, and visual data as most important for problem
solving, while Eastern and African cultures are more likely to solve problems with a wider range
of fragments, selecting analogical features, emotional stimuli and aural data as equally, if not
more important to problem solving (Berry, 1991; Goody, 1977; E. C. Stewart, 1985; Triandis,
1994). It can be disconcerting to engage in a common task with someone who habitually selects
different types of information as important.
The American engineer might begin to carefully sort data into a spreadsheet, assuming
data will “fall out” into meaningful categories if the sorting is done carefully enough. His
Nigerian counterpart shakes his head in amazement, wondering how the data can even be
understood without attention to where it was gathered and the relationships among those
sources.
High Context versus Low Context
Global versus abstract functioning is sometimes described in terms of field dependence or
independence (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981), with some groups learning to look at data
separately from its surrounding context while others value data as an integrated part of the whole.
People in more individualistic communities also tend to be “low context” as well, paying less
attention to context, emotional or relationship cues, and the “unstated” meanings of a situation.
Attention to the subtleties of the unspoken and implicit elements of situational context is more
characteristic of collectivist cultures where holistic pattern match is a valued way of problem
solving (Triandis, 1994).
Time Perspectives
Closely related issues involve the cognitive use of time and the willingness to spend mental
resources on eliminating uncertainty before taking action. North Americans tend to organize their
work lives around time, prioritizing their problem-solving choices on the basis of tangible,
concrete time-keeping devices like calendars, watches and project software (Hall, 1959).
Other communities are more likely to view timeliness as only one of several problem parameters
to consider, and perhaps less important than emotional harmony, aesthetic design or social utility.
The American engineer is probably willing to jump into the data-sorting task because
“time is money” and “decisions can’t wait.” Both the American and Nigerian team
members will be more willing to begin work without full information or a clear plan,
however, than their Belgian colleague, whose national culture derives from a tightly
controlled Roman empire that valued careful planning and predictable outcomes over
flexible accommodation (Hofstede, 1991 135).
Organizational Differences
J ust as individual thought processes must carefully balance the various needs for holistic
understanding, careful attention, timely decisions, and predictability, an organization can only
survive if its decision-making processes effectively balance those same elements. An important
purpose of organizing is to take advantage of strengths different individuals or businesses might
have in one area over another. In any collaborative work situation, individuals can expect to find

6
themselves negotiating these priorities as they decide among themselves which information to
use, how quickly to make the decisions, and whether complete information is needed to do so.
When individuals approach communication from high or low context perspectives, the event is
sure to involve misunderstandings. While one participant is trying hard to ignore all the
extraneous cues in the room set up, physical behavior, politeness cues, humor, or silent moments,
and pay attention to the words, the other is ignoring the words to pay close attention to the room
set up, physical behavior and so on. The two people might leave the same meeting, one thinking
very little communication has occurred while the other is overwhelmed with the meaning in the
contextual cues. Often, there will be mixed or contradictory information in the linguistic and
physical cues, and one person “listens” to the words and the other to the context.
Decision-making styles are a typical way to describe cognitive and epistemological differences.
Some organizations engage in detailed analysis of statistical information in a step-by-step
examination of data across long periods of time. Other businesses favor the use of strategic teams
to discuss big picture values and set basic goals before anyone gets lost in the details. Some
companies like to collect survey data from large numbers of customers to spot trends before
buyers even realize their own preferences. Others like to schedule in-depth interviews and focus
groups to find out why customers have made their decisions. Sometimes knowledge rules are
interrelated with relationship rules: information obtained by upper management is preferred to
that supplied by the marketing reps, or recent MBA’s are asked for their opinions while the
accounting staff is expected to supply “unbiased” data.
Interaction Rules across Cultures
Although most U.S. businesses function within a democratic culture that values face-to-face
conversation as an “ideal” form of communication (Schudson, 1997), the presumption is not
universal across all rhetorical communities. Differences exist because of assumptions about the
nature of language itself and about the role of other forms of communicative behavior.
Representation versus Reference
Language is an important human capability, but it is not a necessary element of most of what
makes us human: consciousness, self-recognition, coherence, intentionality, aesthetics, morality,
pedagogy, personality or social behavior (Damasio, 1994; Donald, 1991). Most of Western
philosophy is built, however, on a view of language that considers it to be the best form of
communication, allowing the most accurate transfer of meaning from one human mind to another
(Branham, 1980; Liu, 1988; J . Stewart, 1995). Much of Asian and African philosophy, on the
other hand, holds language to be the least trustworthy means of communication, and that truth
revealed without words is “more” truthful (Fernandez, 1980; Hofstadter, 1979; Liu, 1988 8).
Organizational Differences
Business language is, in general, more direct, more formal and more conservative than the
language you will use in social situations or hear on television. In virtually no business situation
are cursing or explicit references to sex acceptable. In most businesses, written forms of
communication are considered more “businesslike” than oral or electronic means and the explicit
verbal message is contractually binding. In many situations, non-verbal gestures, pictures, and
facial expressions are excluded so as to avoid “emotional” aspects of the situation and stick to the
“important” business issues. Even though non-verbal communication carries more meaning

7
about people’s relationships and what they are “really” communicating, business contracts are
based on just what the language says.
Within this fairly narrow range of appropriate communication, however, there will nevertheless
be some variations. Many organizations expect letters to be formally worded, using phrases and
words that have been chosen by the legal and financial department so as to avoid any contractual
or promotional misunderstanding. In other companies it is the custom to email chatty, humorous
responses to customers and vendors, referring correspondents to the company website for “the
fine print.” Context and relationship will generally be closely interrelated with communication
choices, and in most companies the communication channels and language used for customers,
vendors, colleagues, bosses and regulatory agencies will be quite different.
Of course, changes also occur within any organization as individuals join or leave the company
over the years. Each individual has a unique personality and communication style, as well as
simultaneous membership in the cultures of his or her own neighborhood, town, church or
profession. The people who work for a company never become totally homogeneous or totally
consistent, any more than every single citizen in a town communicates in exactly the same way
(Louis, 1985). Organizational cultures are not static sets of rules, but a living, breathing
composite of all the ways in which individual members communicate, perform their expected
roles, and try unexpected things in the face of new developments (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-
Trujillo, 1983; Putnam, 1983).
Although misunderstandings can often be prevented by simply asking about an organization’s
values and expectations, full information is not always available. Making a guess about the
probable expectations of an organization might not yield the perfect answer, but some
organizational characteristics are common.
Differences between companies are very often the result of different
management philosophies at the very top levels. Because business
organizations are typically hierarchically organized, the ways in which the
top level communicates will sooner or later become the way everyone
communicates (Morley & Shockley-Zalabak, 1991; Edgar H. Schein, 1991;
Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1989).
Size is another factor in organizational climate. Very large companies, or
companies whose operations are spread out over a large geographical area
must often create careful procedures and insist that everyone act consistently
in order to keep the complex operation running smoothly. Employees come
to value carefully controlled and consistent communication. On the other
hand, a small company with just a few employees might come to value
flexibility and open communication patterns so that just a few people can
handle a large number of diverse tasks.
The age of the organization also influences the degree to which values are
internalized as normal behavior, or understood as the commonly held
vision—perhaps of the future, or of a charismatic leader (E. H. Schein,
1985). At its “midlife” an organization spawns subcultures, while
organizational maturity brings cultural constraint on innovation with an
emphasis on preservation of the past.
There are also some consistent patterns of corporate behavior across
industries or geographical area. Manufacturing, technology and
communications companies tend to have more relaxed dress codes than

8
financial and insurance firms (Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1999). A few
Southern California businesses really do shut down when the surf is up, but
in Manhattan a serious business stays open regardless of something so
inconsequential as weather. Internet based “e-companies” exhibit faster
decision-making processes and more tolerance for incomplete information
than traditional businesses (Neuhauser, Bender, & Stromberg, 2000).
Communication across Boundaries
Even within a single organizational culture, communication is not a simple task, but most
employees also engage in transactions that cross organizational boundaries and even national and
cultural borders. Good business communication is always sensitive to the cultural differences
across organizational, social, or national boundaries. Individuals from one business culture must
be able to interact comfortably with a wide range of customers, business associates and
community leaders from other business organizations, as well as with co-workers, managers and
subordinates from different departments and functions within their own company.
George Muller, and insurance claims adjuster, comments on the complexity of
dealing with various regulatory agencies; “Even though insurance procedures
might be governed by a single federal law, the companies are operating in
different states with different administrative rules. Even the local applications
can differ from office to office. To appeal a particular decision, we can choose to
go to either local or regional levels within the HMO organization, or directly to
Medicare. In fact, in the middle of a case, Congress has even changed the laws,
as it did with prescription coverage in 2005. A letter of appeal might include
different information, different evidence and a completely different tone,
depending on where it goes.”
Those who change jobs quickly realize that organizational assumptions are different from each
other, but there are also issues that arise when communication occurs between different
departments or units. Even when the communication rules for group members are quite similar,
communication with non-members usually requires some special care.
Across Status Lines
Even within a single organization, communication expectations will usually vary across different
levels of the organization. Instructional communication or a request for information from one
organizational level to another will include presumptions about the value of information, or on
the utility of forms of communication, which might not be shared among all participants.
Production workers have no supervisory responsibilities and at this level communication will
vary considerably depending on the industry or department function. A clerical or “white collar”
worker might be expected to do a great deal of written or mathematical work, while a “blue
collar” worker might be responsible for more physical or technical tasks. Hierarchical social
relationships are generally comfortable for most workers at this level of an organization, and
there is a general preference for concrete, sensory sources of information. At this level in most
In general, production workers are expected to have basic communication skills (spelling,
grammar, English pronunciation), but actual usage can accommodate relatively low skills .
Listening, speaking and interpersonal are usually more important than writing or presentation

9
skills , and the audience for ones message is generally a co-worker or immediate supervisor
within the same organizational unit.
First line supervisors must be able to provide instructions and directions, often in written form.
Many individuals at this level of an organization feel themselves to be members of multiple
communities, and sometimes find there various audiences are making different assumptions about
proper social relationships or knowledge sources. The ability to create coherent memos, letters
and emails becomes crucial, and required interpersonal skills include an ability to handle difficult
employees, situations, and to motivate and monitor a diverse group of people. Communication is
with direct reports, peers in the organization, and probably middle management in several
departments outside ones own.
Middle management must be fluent in typical communication forms, and be able to correct, edit,
and supervise the communication of others. Most members of management will have had some
academic background, learning to value the democratic social relationships and analytical
decision making styles of Western elites. Team skills, negotiation and office politics become
crucial for success as the manager is heavily involved in communication among many different
departments and levels of a large corporation, often playing the role of tomato. Social skills take
on additional importance as interactions are not always within the workday and workplace.
Upper management takes on ‘ceremonial’ and boundary crossing functions (Mintzberg, 1975),
and the ability to make presentations to internal (other departments, labor representatives, formal
publications like newsletters) and external (service clubs, the press, financial statements).
Someone at the highest level might actually have less direct written communication
responsibilities, but is ultimately responsible for important legal, financial and public documents.
Top management must often play the role of corporate ambassador, not merely skilled but
eloquent with large groups, the media, a compelling writer and/or speaker, engaging in
negotiations with other corporate entities, financial markets, banking and government
representatives.
The classic misunderstanding across these various levels is that the amount of detailed,
concrete information to be communicated decreases as communicators move up the
organizational hierarchy, while the focus on the more abstract topics involved in planning
and strategic decision-making increases.
Partnering Across Boundaries
Business is becoming a truly global enterprise and the traditional notion of a trading territory
between communities is no longer sufficient. As people in different countries go beyond buying
and selling from each other and begin to create business partnerships, they cannot merely abide
by the communication norms of the general business environment. The communication cultures
of two different countries must be combined somehow, to create a new organization that has a
unique culture of its own. In spite of international differences, “business values can, on occasion,
override cultural norms and expectations” [Bargiela 1999 26].
Large differences exist in the way companies work cross-culturally. Sometimes a parent
company from one country creates or purchases as subsidiary in another. While the parent will
often have a strong corporate culture that negates some of the traditional cultural characteristics
of a subsidiary country (Varner, 2000 46), most will find themselves adjusting their own values,
beliefs and procedures to accommodate the facts of doing business in another country. In other

10
situations a partnership of equals is formed, and the resulting organization must create a new set
of rhetorical rules to govern its relationships, information use and discourse. As with
organizations in general, there is no one set of rules that is any better than another, but the most
significant influence on managerial style in multinational business settings is the nationality of
the manager (Laurent, 1986), and there are some points at which political and social history have
made cross-cultural differences particularly obvious.
Key features of business, such as hiring practices, promotion policies, decision making, financial
regulations, business law and governmental regulations, vary widely from country to country,
reflecting the historical, social and political roots of business in each community. Not only must
an international business communicator understand the principles of cross-cultural
communication, he or she must also understand the different ways in which business is done
across cultures. “The channels, levels of formality, use of technology, content and style of
delivery are influenced by culture and business considerations….A communication strategy that
does not take the specific business context into consideration will not be effective” (Varner, 2000
49).
Business as Trans-Cultural Communication
In a very real sense, business is the most fundamental type of cross-cultural communication.
Ever since the grain growing villages began trading with the potters’ village for jugs in which to
market the beer they brewed, business has required communication between different
communities. When isolated communities begin to trade with one another, they must somehow
set aside their own values, assumptions and communication habits and create a common set of
communication norms. They can agree to disagree on many things, but a successful business
relationship requires that the trading partners have a common rhetoric to clarify relationships
(who can make the trade?), knowledge (how will we value the traded goods?), and language (how
will the trade be negotiated?). A history of international business practices can be framed in terms
of the evolving structures of rules that governed how people ought to communicate to make
decisions, trades and partnerships [Preston, 1992 #4300].
For those who come together from several different countries to do business, a shared
professional culture prevents the disintegration of a group that might not share any other
assumptions, values or characteristics (Chevrier, 1999). In fact, in some international settings,
individuals find that their adaptation to the new work culture is easier than adjusting to the
changes required in personal and family settings (Alkhazraji, W. L. Gardner III, Martin, &
Paolillo, 1997). Whatever nationalities are involved, good cross-cultural communication involves
being willing to talk about the circumstances of a given situation rather than justify a home
culture’s traditional assumptions about who should make decisions. Relative positions within the
business organizations might have a far stronger effect than either person’s cultural background
(Varner, 2000 48). It is thus useful to think of creating a “transcultural” space of business
communication, rather than trying to resolve the differences inherent in “cross” cultural
communication.
A focus on individuals Successful multi-cultural groups tend to look at their communication
differences in terms of specific traits and preferences of individuals, rather than broadly
generalized categories of how people from the original cultures or organizations act. Some
differences can be predicted from the national, ethnic or industry cultures of those with whom
you are working. It is said, for instance, that British businesspeople tend to be more straight-
laced than U.S, workers, or that workers in the entertainment industry have more relaxed

11
standards about lifestyle choices. These broad categorizations can help businesspeople to
anticipate and avoid a social faux pas in a new country, but they are less useful in day-to-day
communication.
Presume competence and positive intent Whether the situation involves the international
department of a global business or a Chamber of Commerce team that includes representatives
from several different industries, successful communication across organizations depends on a
willingness to set aside differences and focus on the task at hand. Cultural differences are less
likely to become barriers when people expect to work together successfully. By focusing on
those things that you have in common—the task, shared economic goals, a business orientation—
you can reframe your differences as solvable complexities.
Appreciate differences The sharing of a professional culture does not mean that individual or
business differences are ignored or submerged (Laurent, 1986) but that participants “have many
interests and reference points in common, and thus they converse easily among themselves” .
Successful groups minimize their cultural differences by focusing on their work, but at the same
time they recognize that cultural differences play a significant role in their interpersonal dynamics
(Chevrier, 1999).
Language differences
English is often considered the international business language, although its use is not universal.
In fact, the exclusive use of English creates communication difficulties with clients and
customers, difficult relationships with foreign business partners, and significant operational
difficulties in translation and use of business documents (Breda & Haaris, 1999). Citizens of
other nations are often insulted by an assumption that English will be used rather than their own
languages, or that American usage is presumed when doing business in Britain, India or
Singapore. Obviously, the jargon and slang of one nation will not translate easily to another
community, but even ostensibly culture free ideas like mathematics or computer science are
expressed differently. Furthermore, whenever the business partners do not speak a common
language, the entire intercultural business communication approach can be influenced by the
dynamics of the interpreters (Varner, 2000 48).
Language itself might seem to be the most obvious obstacle to communication between people
from different countries, although the translation from one language to another is a relatively
minor problem, compared to the large differences between the uses of language to communicate
as compared with low or high reliance on the context of the situation to create meaning. As
problematic as language choice, translation and verbal misunderstanding can be, more difficulty
arises in the realm of physical and visual communication.
A 2001 Gallup poll demonstrates that more Americans are growing increasingly bilingual
and “foreign-language proficiency is increasingly a money-making attribute at work”
(J ohnson, 2005)
Ethical Workplace Communication
For the young person deciding on a business career, a commitment to a large organization is
rather a move to a new country. New organizational members are expected to do new things they
wouldn’t have done if they hadn’t traveled, and some of the new activities are likely to be

12
uncomfortable and even distasteful. On the other hand, traveling to a new country does not mean
a person gives up all sense of moral behavior. Success within a decision-making community
depends on abiding by its communication rules, but ethical action sometimes requires balancing
the contradictory rules of two different cultures.
Individuals hold personal values, beliefs and assumptions about ideal organizational life that are
continually contrasted with their perceptions of organizational reality. The goals of the business
might be at odds with an employee’s own church teachings or the goals of the neighborhood in
which he lives. These differences can lead to situations in which the “ethical” communication
choice might not seem obvious or easy. The closer the fit between a person’s previous values and
the organization’s culture, the more satisfied the person (Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1994 341),
although no one can expect to find any organization that consists of people who completely and
consistently agree on everything.

An Ethical Approach to Rhetorical Relationships
Because there is so much cultural diversity, ethical communication in the business world cannot
be defined solely in terms of just one community’s understanding of moral, sane and decent
communication. Instead, ethical communication involves an ongoing effort to understand and
accommodate the various ways in which people can create a rhetorical community of decision
makers.
The Social-Work Contradiction
A particular kind of communication conflict arises in business organizations because their
members are simultaneously members of both a social culture of family, town and church
community and the business culture of their work organization. Much of the discomfort with
“businesslike” communication involves the very different ways that decision-making is typically
done in different spheres of community life. Churches make decisions in one way, groups of
family and friends do things quite differently, and business uses still another way of going about
the process.
Some management theorists have begun to wonder whether many problems of business ethics can
be traced to the way our culture divides up political, business and social ways of doing things
[Freeman, 1992 #3315][Saiia, 2003 #3326]. Certainly definitions of ethical communication are
based on how a group understands the purpose of communication within moral social
relationships.
Social relationships of the U.S.
middle class
Work relationships in the
typical U.S. corporate
organization
Organizational Purpose The fundamental purpose of
communication is to create and
sustain relationships, and
communication practices must
further healthy interpersonal
relationships.
Business organizations are
purposeful, and they have
developed norms of
communication practice that have
been proven to make task
performance more productive.
Communication Goals People communicate in order to
form and maintain
People communicate in order to
make a decision, perform a task

13
relationships. If you think about
why you communicate with your
friends and acquaintances at
school or at church, you’ll
probably answer with something
along the lines of, “so, we can get
better acquainted.” In fact, you
probably would decide whether
someone is a potential friend on
the basis of whether you are “able
to communicate well.” From a
purely social perspective, you
communicate in order to have a
relationship, if you don’t
communicate easily, you assume
that a good relationship is
unlikely, and finally, if you don’t
communicate with one another
fairly often, any relationship you
might have had is likely to fall
apart.

or solve a problem.
Communication that is not
relevant to some sort of task is
assumed to be taking up time that
could be spent on “real” work.
Business conversations are
expected to stay “on task” and
focus on the expected outcome.
The subject matter should be
limited to the “facts and figures”
that are needed to get the job
done.
Assumptions of Good
Communication
People who communicate more
and more intimately have a
“better” relationship. As an
important corollary, we also
judge the relationships we have
on the basis of the
communication that occurs within
them. The best friend is the one
with whom we talk about the
most topics at the most intimate
levels; the topic and
“purposefulness” of
communication are secondary. In
fact, if two people’s
communication was always about
the task at hand, they would
probably consider themselves to
be “just acquaintances” because
real friends would talk to each
other whether or not they had
anything to talk “about.”
The best communication is the
quickest and shortest needed to
get the job done. The corollary
to a task oriented purpose of
communication is that the best
communication is the most
efficient. The person who can
send the required information in
one email instead of three is a
better communicator.

Not only are social and business “rules” of good conversation different, they are diametrically
opposed. The characteristics of communication that make a business conversation efficient,
productive and appropriate would be taken as signals of dislike, distrust or dysfunction in a social
conversation. A fundamental problem with defining “good” communication in a business
environment is that the ethics of building social relationships and the ethics of doing tasks in the
most efficient way create two different definitions of “ethical” communication.

14
Ethical communication in a business context requires the application of business norms while
simultaneously negotiating social relationships and achieving a dynamic balance between the
two. In a large organization where people spend a great deal of time together, their “social”
assumptions will govern some of their communication, while the “business rules” govern other
conversations.
• Business relationships are both social and administrative. The primary purpose of
interpersonal communication in the workplace is both to build relationships and accomplish a
task. Tom Peters once noted that great businesses exhibit “simultaneous loose-tight
properties” [, 1982 #1994] In effect, people treat each other as both close friends AND as task
partners.
• People are kind to each other as they would be to friends, accepting each other’s faults and
idiosyncrasies without complaint—but at the same time they expect each other to carry out
their jobs without fail.
• People go along with each other’s desires and preferences—but at the same time they give
each other criticism when something is not going well with their tasks.
• People are tolerant, forgiving and loving with each other—but at the same time they keep a
close eye on each other.
The constant balance between social and business relationships is not simple, but neither is it
impossible. A healthy family does it every day. Imagine a large farming family somewhere in
the Midwest. The family members engage in social communication: the purpose of the
communication is simply to share being family. Family members show each other unconditional
love, going along with each other’s desires and accommodating each others differences, using
talk just to make each other feel comfortable. But when the crops are ready to come in, the family
finds itself engaged in administrative communication too, passing information and making
decisions to do a task. The family members depend on each other to do all the necessary jobs
well and on time, to speak up if a problem is found, and to use communication to get the job
done.
Of course, if a business is just one big happy family, loving each other and getting a job done at
the same time, the organization must be managed like a healthy family, not a dysfunctional one.
You might find yourself working for a company that has no “authority figure” to provide a clear
mission, define each person’s responsibilities and administer discipline fairly. Or, there might be
no “nurturing figure” to soothe fears, provide comfort, and figure out ways to get around the rules
when special situations arise. In such a case, the demands on every individual are greater and
balancing the ethical behavior is more difficult.
The Objectivity-Connection Contradiction
Many statements about ethical workplace communication applaud “open” and “honest”
communication and condemn practices that breed mistrust or deceit. The conflicts become
apparent when workers charge that their bosses withhold information, or when co-workers
complain that others ignore or disparage their feelings or perceptions. The underlying
disagreement is often over what kinds of information ought to be included in the communication,
with violations framed as unkind communication, at the very least, and potentially unethical when
bad decisions result from using incomplete or inappropriate information.

15
Some have argued that business’ attention to the “bottom line” reflects an over-reliance on
objective, numerical data at the expense of other information—emotional reactions,
environmental relationships, aesthetic values—that would lead to better decision-making
(Freeman & Liedtka, 1991; Mumby & Putnam, 1992). The ethical issues stem from an
underlying set of assumptions about the relative value of various kinds of information.
Values implied by aesthetic and
emotional information sources
Values implied in objective,
rationalistic information
sources
Organizational Purpose Information is maximized,
although data might be
contradictory, ambiguous or
useless. The aim is to develop a
widely shared understanding of
each others’ perceptions with the
aim of maximizing the amount
and diversity of information that
can be used for problem solving
on an on-going basis.
Collective action is enhanced by
seeking the highest quality
information on which to base
decisions. The aim is to make a
decision that can guide collective
action with a minimum of
misunderstanding, conflict, or
change. Any decision must be
implemented in a timely manner
and with an efficient allocation of
resources.
Communication Goals Information is shared in order
to compare and validate
personal perceptions against
those of others. Exchange seeks
to explore, validate and
disseminate information from as
many sources as possible,
insuring that all participants have
access to information even when
they are personally unable to
perceive or understand.
Perceptions are shared in order
to discover which data is used
identically by all participants.
Exchange aims to winnow out
information that cannot be
perceived or replicated by all
participants, especially that from
sources that might be considered
subjective, transitory, or
ambiguous.
Assumptions of Good
Communication
Communication should be
diverse and open ended.
Redundant and continuous
methods of interaction will insure
that all sources of information are
included. No source of
information can be assumed to be
better than any other.
Inconsistency and contradiction
in perceptions are expected.
Communication includes only
information that all parties can
perceive as identical. The best
communication sets aside all
sources of information that cannot
be accessed by all participants
and translates all data into forms
that can be replicated in the
future. Inconsistency and
contradiction are evidence that
information is unacceptable for
use.

The efficient use of communication to achieve a goal is an accepted value in most business
organizations, but that position rests on underlying assumptions about efficiently limiting
information that are sometimes in conflict with equally important assumptions about the intrinsic
value of all information.
Once common conflict arises when some people feel they should selectively “use” information to
make a point or gain consensus about a course of action, while others feel abused by the
implication that the speaker’s information is somehow “better” than their own. The goal driven
use of information can be thought of as persuasion, while simply sharing information with others

16
can be framed as an invitation to consider it. Even persuaders who want to maintain ethical
practices are sometimes perceived as unethical by those who find their selective use of
information has crossed the line. The communicators who finds his or her goal to be completely
ethical might find it hard to see any problem with carefully selecting information to make the
supporting argument, but “we may do an enthusiastic sales pitch and promise things our company
isn’t quite ready to deliver, or we might highlight the positive aspects of our products and
downplay the negative ones. We might formulate financial projections to favor the outcome we
advocate. We might overstep the boundaries when advertising to children or go overboard when
we use personal data to target customers” (Woo, 2003 24).
Similarly, the value of freely shared information frequently collides with a concern that
information sources not be made available to those outside an organizational boundary.
Democracy is a fundamental value in Western political systems, and equality is highly valued in
Western social relationships. It is not surprising then, that U.S. employees report themselves
more satisfied when they are allowed to participate in the decision-making and management
activities of the company (Seeger, 1997 81). Management philosophers champion the
democratization of corporate life, and nearly any communication expert will advocate open,
honest and compassionate communication as not only the most effective model for organizational
practices.
On the other hand, some business information is sensitive or confidential, some decisions must be
made quickly or confidentially, and some employees are unable or unwilling to expend effort in
managerial processes. Businesses typically place more limits on who participates in the decision
making process then does the U.S. political process, and an individual is not granted full
information or access to the decision-making process until he or she has demonstrated both
competence and loyalty to the organizational community.
The Productivity-Privacy Contradiction
Every rhetorical community must balance the needs and desires of individuals against the good of
the group. The rules of large corporate bureaucracies make it possible for people to “bracket”
their personal ethics and set them aside while they are at work, allowing themselves to follow the
prevailing morality of the group, whether or not they privately agree with the behavior (J ackall,
1988). Whether or not this is a good thing depends on an ethical assessment of how the group or
the individual would act otherwise. There are many cases where the good of the corporations has
been at odds with the good of society or the environment, and we wish the individuals have been
able to assert their own values. Other times, a corporation requires an employee to act
responsibly, even though he or she would prefer to cut corners or lie to a customer in order to
make a little extra commission or avoid doing some extra work.
Many theorists have argued that ethical issues arise because individuals within an organization
can’t see how their decisions effect others, so they stop trying to do the right thing (Conrad &
Poole, 1998 413; Seeger, 1997 39). Even if they and the corporation both have the same ethical
goal, the task specialization and complexity of an organization make it difficult to know what the
outcome of a specific small action might be (Redding, 1996 27). Keeping corporate and personal
goals coordinated and making sure that the day-to-day practices of the organization are not
causing harm by accident require a special communication effort. It is not enough to do what you
think is the right thing; it’s also important to talk to your co-workers and supervisors and
customers and family to make sure that you haven’t miscalculated an effect or forgotten to
consider an outcome.

17
For many employees, the most disturbing aspect of corporate communication is that it ignores
many face-saving, privacy protecting rituals that are typically used to smooth personal
relationships. Workplace communication tends to be brutally direct and comprehensive and there
is no legal “right to privacy” within the normal course of business. Business organizations collect
information about their employees in ways that violate some basic tenets of proper social
communication and employee privacy has thus become one of the most divisive issues of
workplace ethics (Seeger, 1997 65).
Health and lifestyle information In a social organization, even an intimate one like a family,
each member is allowed to decide how much information to reveal to others; in a business
organization, the presumption is the opposite. Information that is needed for the organization to
guarantee safe working conditions, appropriate work assignments, or reasonable health care costs
is simply collected from everyone. Many businesses regularly require drug and alcohol testing of
employees. Some conduct psychological profiling and others monitor health-related activities
such as smoking and exercise habits. Typically, such information is well beyond the limits of
what one would share in polite social conversation, and because they don’t “know” the employer
very well, many employees feel that their privacy has been violated.
Businesses are subject to various rules regarding the use of health information
they collect. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires most companies to
accommodate a disabled employee, and the Family & Medical Leave Act
requires an employer to hold an equivalent job for someone requiring time off
due to illness. On the other hand, the federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits employers from releasing any health
information about a person without his or her explicit permission. Employees
must thus decide how much information to communicate to the employer, and
when to do so. Employers and co-workers are prevented from discriminating
against someone on the basis of health issues, but at the same time an employer
isn’t obligated to accommodate a problem he or she doesn’t know about. Nor
can colleagues offer support if they don’t know about a co-worker’s medical
condition (Cropper, 2005).
Work performance Most businesses collect information about how well or how quickly various
tasks are performed, including the time a worker spends communicating with others during the
course of the workday. Computer monitoring of breaks, minutes between tasks, daily work goals,
and service behaviors is increasingly common (Gilchrist & Gilchrist, 1996), and many workers
find the possibility of constant observation upsetting and stressful. The most recent issue for
office workers is the monitoring of computer usage. Based in part on a recent productivity
survey, WebSense, one of the bigger makers of the software, estimated the total annual cost of
employees goofing around online at $138 billion for some 53 million employees (Sandberg,
2005) As a result, most employers now monitor the Internet use and many consider misuse a
reason to dismiss an employee ("Workers Face Sack over E-mail and Internet Misuse," 2002).
Generally, the courts have held that an employer owns the equipment, pays people to do specific
things with it, and has the legal right to see that the work is done as specified. The law does
prohibit employers from “egregious surveillance schemes” but are generally allowed to keep tabs
on everything that is going on within the workplace and need not notify their employees of any
monitoring that will take place (Cohen, 2001). According to one survey, 63% of companies
monitor employees’ on-line activity, and 15% use hidden cameras to watch workers .

18
Rule compliance Companies spend a substantial amount of time and effort to see that employees
comply with the various financial, legal and safety rules that govern their behavior within the
workplace. Adult autonomy in Western society includes the right to make decisions without
being told what to do—to be able to act independently, free from the surveillance and controls
that we put on children, criminals and the mentally incompetent. Many people find it offensive to
have their personal belongings examined at the door, their expenditures reviewed, or their emails
monitored because it signifies both a lack of trust and a lack of respect. Nevertheless, business
organizations feel they must take steps to protect themselves, their customers and the general
public by insuring that controls are in place to insure legal behavior at all times.
Communication Perhaps most alarming for many people is the monitoring of communication
(Cohen, 2001; Piller, 1993), which nearly 80% of major U.S. companies now do (Koretz, 2001).
Further, virtually any large company has some kind of electronic communication policy (Conlin,
2002), Freedom of expression is a fundamental value in Western society, but the business
presumption is that employees who are hired to communicate in a particular way can expect to be
held accountable for doing so in the timeframe and manner set by the company.
Abuse of telephone privileges has long been a problem in the U.S. workplace, where
agreement on the appropriate amount of time spent on personal calls or long distance
calls seems to elude everyone. One survey found 6% of employers had terminated
employees for misusing office phones (Sandberg, 2005), but if worker complaints are any
indication, there are many more organizations where the subject is a source of conflict.
The privacy of electronic communication, in particular, remains a challenge for many businesses.
Breach of contract, trade secret and defamation lawsuits and the dangers of creating a hostile
work environment get most of the attention (Armstrong, 2000) To comply with financial
disclosure laws passed in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, companies must store email, instant messages,
and blog postings. Companies use filtering mechanisms to prevent some problem emails, such as
pornography or pirated music files, from ever entering the company’s system (Palmer, 2000), but
employees need to be careful, both to protect their own privacy and the reputation of their
companies. Emails are legally considered company documents, required to be stored on backup
tapes for years and subject to subpoena (Seglin, 2001).
In the past few years, incriminating emails led to the prosecution of banker Frank
Quattrone at Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lunch analyst Henry M. Blodgett, and
senior executives from Enron Corp. One employment discrimination lawyer estimates
that 70% of the evidence in a case is in the form of electronic communications that have
been saved (Baker & Grow, 2005). The best advice for many workers is “If you
wouldn’t want to post it on your office door, you shouldn’t put it in an email”
(Armstrong, 2000).
Although the courts have held that employers have the right to place rules on the use of the
computers they own, some employees have sought (and found) relief under rules of the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which “protects the rights of employees to communicate freely
with one another about work terms and conditions” as a part of their right to organize themselves
(McCarthy, 2000). The right to freedom of communication remains a social and cultural value of
great importance, but the NLRB has held that an employee does not have the right to disrupt a
company’s computer system in order to communicate,

19
Two thirds of companies in one survey have disciplined their workers for some kind of
improper internet use (Conlin, 2000), and a2005 survey found that over a quarter of
organizations had had to fire employees for email abuse (Sandberg, 2005)
Recognizing and Responding to Ethical Dilemmas
Learning the communication rules of a business organization can be difficult and is sure to take
some time. Even knowing and following the rules will not guarantee completely ethical behavior.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone within an organization will behave in a fully ethical
way. Sometimes people will violate the organization’s rules, as when a supervisor engages in
sexual harassment or condones racist comments in his crew. In other instances, people take
advantage of the rules, interpreting or manipulating them to gain advantage. A purchasing agent,
for example, might “innocently” tell a vendor that she really likes basketball, knowing that the
vendor has season tickets available for “friends.” There is a rule against taking bribes, of course,
but that word never came out of the purchasing agent’s mouth.
Most business people will be asked, at some time, to act in a way that is not acceptable to their
“personal” code of ethics (Conrad & Poole, 1998 406), and the general public assumes that
business people are routinely expected to compromise their personal standards against lying,
cheating or polluting the environment in order to maximize corporate profit or personal gain
(Golan, Powers, & Titkemeyer, 1985) The key question is how to communicate an objection to
behavior that others seem to think is acceptable.
Learn the rules and expectations.
Ethical challenges are most stressful when they are wrapped in uncertainty. A vague sense of
unease can’t be addressed easily, but knowing a behavior is clearly against the rules puts the
organizational resources on the side of changing that behavior. Many companies have a formal
code of ethical conduct, which typically focuses on those behaviors that victimize the company in
some way (Conrad & Poole, 1998 407), as well as rules against illegal communication behaviors
such as sexual harassment, racist language or inappropriate financial disclosure.
Communicate about goals and values.
The person who is worried about a particular situation should begin by asking others to help sort
through the best way to handle it. Everyone is shy about bringing up ethical issues. People worry
that criticizing others’ behavior will make them seem weak or narrow-minded. The also worry
that they’ll look like a crook if they voice support for something others might think is wrong. The
result can be a lack of any communication at all and a lost opportunity for the group to clarify its
own ethical standards. One way to break the silence is to simply ask about the company’s goals
or the expected outcomes. A salesperson who isn’t sure whether she should disclose potential
liability issues in a new product might simply ask a co-worker or supervisor whether there is a
way to make sure that the customer is making an informed decision. Once the topic is out in the
open, the work group is usually able to make a much better ethical choice than an individual can
do alone.
Find a safe person to talk to

20
Generally, any ethical questions should be taken first to one’s supervisor or team members.
When individuals feel they can’t discuss an issue comfortably within their own workgroups, the
next step is to find someone else to confide in. A long term employee in another department is
often a good mentor for many problems that come up. The human resources department should
be able to set up a confidential meeting with a discrimination or benefits counselor. Even if the
problem doesn’t have anything to do with discrimination or benefits, these are the people who are
trained to deal with sensitive issues and they often act as a company’s first line of defense against
unethical behavior of all kinds.
Responding to the misconduct of others
After the rules are clarified and the ethical choice is clear, individuals will still chose to act in
unethical ways. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of ethical communication is stopping someone
else’s misconduct. We face strong social pressures against making an ethics complaint. Children
are taught not to be tattle tales. Friendships are based on keeping each others’ secrets.
Democratic citizenship requires that we tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree
with their views or values. In the face of these lessons, accusing a co-worker of wrongdoing can
take an act of great courage.
Such communication will never be easy, but following a step by step process designed to reduce
conflict can make it most productive:
1. Express concern one on one. Ideally, the first communication should be directly with the co-
worker involved in the unethical behavior. Without blaming or judging, first clarify with the
other person that a rule has been violated or that an ethical choice is involved. Sometimes errors
are made or situations are misunderstood. The first step should also be to insure that a simple
error or misunderstanding does not lead to unwarranted consequences. There are situations in
which any illegal or dangerous behavior must be reported in mandatory ways. Health care
workers, for instance, are obligated to report patent abuse and many companies issue a mandatory
drug use reporting policy.
2. Report misbehavior. If the first communication does not stop a person’s misbehavior, the next
step is to report the incident to ones own supervisor. Going “over another person’s head” to his
or her supervisor breaks organizational lines of authority and is perceived as “tattling” on another.
Disciplinary communication should follow formal lines of accountability, and any reporting of
misbehavior outside that chain of command should be handled discretely.
Francis and Sarah frequently work the back-to-back shifts at a customer service
desk. Francis had protested when Sarah put a clearance item behind the
counter to purchase later, and Sarah admitted that she knew it violated store
policy. Francis has since come into work several times to find merchandise
tucked into the service desk. Francis realizes that she can’t simply “tattle” on
Sarah and expect JoAnn, their supervisor, to take action. Instead, she simply
tells JoAnn that Sarah continues to stash merchandise, even though she realizes
it is against store policy. JoAnn will now be responsible for doing her own
investigation, and might even chose not to take any disciplinary action. Francis,
in the meantime, has communicated ethically without taking on any
inappropriate responsibility for stopping Sarah’s actions.

21
When reporting misbehavior, be sure to communicate the facts of the situation, without judgment
or any attempt to gain status from the effort. Supervisors are wary of such behavior, seeing it as a
sign of poor team skills rather than of managerial talent, and needless to say, fellow workers
carefully avoid those who cannot be trusted with their confidences (Waddell, 1997).
3. Create a safety net. Understandably, most employees are less likely to report misbehavior if
they are new to the company or if they fear some retaliation from co-workers or supervisors
(King & Hermodson, 2000). Further, not every supervisor has the interpersonal skills [Pettit,
1990 #2535] or organizational status needed to deal with a violation. The person who finds a
supervisor unwilling or unable to handle a situation should begin to document the problem,
anticipating that a problem that is not being dealt with is probably going to result in a more
serious condition later. At that time, communication is held to higher standards of disciplinary
documentation or even legal evidence.
A week or two after reporting the situation to JoAnn, Francis realizes that Sarah
continues to stash merchandise. She continues to clean out the service desk
carefully each time she comes to work, but now she begins to enter a description
of the merchandise she finds in her PDA.
4. Blow the whistle. Certainly the most distressing situation is to discover that a supervisor
condones or even participates in the unethical behavior. “Whistle blowing” is the communication
of information about illegal or illegitimate business practices to someone who can act to stop the
behavior [Barnett 1992]. Such communication circumvents the chain of command and channels
information directly to someone higher in the organization, or especially to legal, regulatory or
media agencies outside the organization.
For the communicator, “whistle blowing” is virtually guaranteed to have negative consequences
(Seeger, 1997). The individual is, in effect, removing him or herself as a player on the team and
taking on the outsider role of referee—the one who “blows the whistle” (J ensen, 1987). Whistle
blowing usually violates important ethical values of loyalty to the organization. The obligation to
hold company information confidential is not merely reasonable in the business context, but
might be crucial for the continued livelihood of organizational colleagues, the economic health of
the whole community, or to provide necessary service to customers (J ensen, 1987). Once an
outsider, the individual will probably never be allowed to reenter the game, so this is a sensitive
type of communication that must be handled carefully.
As one of the more senior customer service reps, Francis usually works shifts
alone, but one Saturday JoAnn fills an emergency absence. Francis is amazed
when JoAnn warns her that the hot toy robot is on sale, but the store has
received only three of them—as she places the three boxes under her sweater in
the service desk. Francis is relieved when JoAnn takes the toys to another
cashier to make the purchase, but she realizes now why Sarah has been getting
away with stashing items all this time. She is also relieved that her company’s
ethics committee has a “hot line” that allows anonymous reports.
Challenging the System
Perhaps there is no one in the organization who considers an activity unethical. The issues of
gender discrimination and environmental responsibility remind activities considered “business as

22
usual” just twenty or thirty years ago are now deemed unethical and even illegal. These changes
have come about because individuals took a leadership role in changing the ethical rules of their
organizations.
The first stage of change communication involves “going through channels” to file a grievance or
challenge a decision. Most companies will have some formal system for requesting changes in its
own processes. This might be a suggestion box, a union challenge, a grievance procedure, or a
request to have an issue included on the agenda for the weekly staff meeting. In many companies
the appropriate person to communicate with works in the Human Resources department.
Whatever the formal procedure, it is important that you follow it first, before undertaking any
other informal kind of action. Informal complaining and whining is generally ineffective
anyway, and is guaranteed to mark you as someone who is “not a team player” even if everyone
agrees that the team’s rules need to be revised. Instead, learn and follow the formal
communication channels until you receive
A clear explanation for the current procedures—You need to understand the
company’s position before you can make an honest appraisal of its ethical
validity. If the rule is arbitrary or outdated and the company cannot provide
a good reason for it, you have established a basis from which to ask that it be
changed. OR
A legitimate decision against your position—As long as the issue is being
bumped up the chain of command, you haven’t exhausted your formal
channels of communication. Until someone is willing to take responsibility
for the rule and its enforcement, you have a basis for questioning its
existence.
Only when the formal channels of communication are exhausted is it appropriate to begin to
advocate change outside those channels. Before taking on that challenge, many people at least
consider whether they wish to continue as a part of the community and live according to its
ethical rules. Deciding “no” does not imply that a person must quit the company, but often
change will require that he or she achieve a position with sufficient power to change the rules.
Chapter Notes
Alkhazraji, K. M., W. L. Gardner III, Martin, J . S., & Paolillo, J . G. (1997). The Acculturation of Immigrants to U.S.
Organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 217-265.
Armstrong, L. (2000, 10 J ul). Someone to Watch Over You. BusinessWeek, 189-190.
Baker, S., & Grow, B. (2005, 21 March). A Painful Lesson: E-mail is Forever. BusinessWeek, 36.
Barker, J . R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managed Teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437.
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human Ecology and Cognitive Style. New York: Sage Publications, Halsted Press Division, J ohn
Wiley & Sons.
Berry, J. W. (1991). Cultural Variations in Field Dependence-Independence. In S. Wapner & J . Demick (Eds.), Field
Dependence-Independence: Cognitive Style Across the Lifespan (pp. 289-308). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Branham, R. J . (1980). Ineffability, Creativity, and Communication Competence. Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 11-
21.
Breda, K., & Haaris, S. (1999). Foreign Languages Use and Training: A Study of US firms Operating in the Mid-West
Region of Ireland. The Newsletter of the Association for Business Language Education(March), 1-2.
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding Culture's Influence on Behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Chevrier, S. (1999). The Subculture of International work Teams: Toward International Professional Cultures? In R.
A. Goodman (Ed.), Modern Organizations and Emerging Conundrums: Exploring the Postindustrial
Subculture of the Third Millennium (pp. 34-42). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

23
Christian, J . M., & Christian, C. C., J r. (1966). Spanish Language and Culture in the Southwest. In J . A. Fishman, V. C.
Nahirny, J. E. Hofman & R. G. Hayden (Eds.), Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and
Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups (pp. 280-317).
London: Mouton & Co.
Cohen, A. (2001, Summer). Worker Watchers. Fortune/CNET Technology Review, 70-80.
Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Condit, C. M. (1993). The Critic As Empath: Moving Away fromTotalizing Theory. Western Journal of
Communication, 57(2), 178-190.
Conlin, M. (2000, 12 J un). Workers, Surf at Your Own Risk. BusinessWeek, 105-106.
Conlin, M. (2002, 30 Sep). Watch What You Put in that Office E-mail. BusinessWeek, 114-115.
Conrad, C., & Poole, M. S. (1998). Strategic Organizational Communication: Into the Twenty-first Century (4th ed.).
Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Crick, F. H. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, Macmillan.
Cropper, C. M. (2005, 17 J an). Keeping Your J ob When You're Ill. BusinessWeek, 80-81.
Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2004). Understanding Management (4th ed.). Columbus: South-Western.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Avon Books, The
Hearst Corporation.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rite and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. n.c.: BasicBooks, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers.
Eze, E. (1993). Rationality and the Debates About African Philosophy. Unpublished Dissertation, Fordham University.
Fernandez, J . (1980). Edification by Puzzlement. In I. Karp & C. S. Bird (Eds.), Explorations in African Systems of
Thought (pp. 44-59). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J . (1991). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach. Business Horizons, 34(4),
92-98.
Gaetz, S. (1995). 'Youth-Development'--Conflict and Negotiations in an Urban Irish Youth Club. In P. Caplan (Ed.),
Understanding Disputes: The Politics of Argument (pp. 181-201). Oxford: Berg.
Garcia, W. (1996). Respeto: A Mexican Base for Interpersonal Relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey &
T. Nichida (Eds.), Communication in Personal Relationships Across Cultures (pp. 137-155). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Gilchrist, J . A., & Gilchrist, P. S. (1996). Communication Ethics and Computer Technology: The Case of Computer
Monitoring. In J . A. J aksa & M. S. Pritchard (Eds.), Responsible Communication: Ethical Issues in Business,
Industry, and the Professions (pp. 107-131). Cresskill, NJ : Hapton Press, Inc.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Woman's Development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Golan, S., Powers, C., & Titkemeyer, M. A. (1985). How to Teach Ethics in a Basic Business Communication Class
(1983....? Journal of Business Communication, 22(1), 75-83.
Goody, J . (1977). The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gowen, S. G. (1992). The Politics of Workplace Literacy: A Case Study. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Fawcett World Library.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Vintage Books.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Europe.
J ackall, R. (1988). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
J ensen, J . V. (1987). Ethical Tension Points in Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics.
J ohnson, G. (2005, 25 J uly). Grads find second language can be big hiring boost. Des Moines Register, p. 3.
Kaplan, R. B. (1976). A Further Note on Contrastive Rhetoric. Communication Quarterly, 24(Spring), 12-19.
King, G. I., & Hermodson, A. (2000). Peer Reporting of Coworker Wrongdoing: A Qualitative Analysis of Observer
Attitudes in the Decision to Report versus Not Report Unethical Behavior. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 28(4), 309-329.
Knight Ridder Newspapers. (1999, 27 J une). Business Casualties. Courier, p. 6.
Koretz, G. (2001, 4 J un). Big Bro is Eyeing Your E-mail. Business Week, 30.
Laurent, A. (1986). The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management,
25(1), 91-102.
Liu, J . J . Y. (1988). Language--Paradox--Poetics: A Chinese Perspective (Edited by Richard J ohn Lynn ed.).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Louis, M. R. (1985). An Investigator's Guide to Workplace Culture. In P. J . Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.
Lundberg & J . Martin (Eds.), Organizational Culture (pp. 73-93). Beverly Hills: Sage.

24
McCarthy, M. J. (2000, 25 Apr). Your Manager's Policy on Employees' E-Mail May Have a Weak Spot. The Wall
Street Journal, p. 1.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The Manager's J ob: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49-61.
Morley, D. D., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1991). Setting the Rules: An Examination of Organizational Founders' Values.
Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 422-449.
Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. (1992). The Politics of Emotion: A Feminist Reading of Bounded Rationality. Academy
of Management Review, 17, 465-486.
Neuhauser, P. C., Bender, R., & Stromberg, K. L. (2000). Culture.com: Building Corporate Culture in the Connected
Workplace. Toronto: Wiley.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational Communication as Cultural Performance.
Communication Monographs, 50(2), 126-117.
Palmer, A. T. (2000, 12 J un). Workers, Surf at Your Own Risk. Business Week, 14.
Peters, T. J ., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Piller, C. (1993). Bosses with X-ray Eyes. MacWorld, 10, 118-125.
Putnam, L. L. (1983). The Interpretive Perspective: An Alternative to Functionalism. In L. L. Putnam & M. E.
Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Redding, W. C. (1996). Ethics and the Study of Organizational Communication: When Will We Wake Up? In J . A.
J aksa & M. S. Pritcard (Eds.), Responsible Communication: Ethical Issues in Business, Industry, and the
Professions (pp. 17-40). Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press, Inc.
Sandberg, J. (2005, 18 May). Monitoring of Workers Is Boss's Right but Why Not Include Top Brass? The Wall Street
Journal, p. 1.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Franciso: J ossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1991). The Role of the Founder in the Creation of Organizational Culture. In F. e. al (Ed.), (pp. 14-25).
Schudson, M. (1997). Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 17,
297-309.
Seeger, M. W. (1997). Ethics and Organizational Communication. Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press.
Seglin, J . (2001, 14 May). Attention, E-Mail Snoops. Fortune, 254.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D. D. (1989). Adhering to Culture. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 483-450.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D. D. (1994). Creating a Culture: A Longitudinal Examination of the Influence of
Management and Employee Values on Communication Rule Stability and Emergence. Human
Communication Research, 20(3), 334-355.
Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and Decision-Making. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),
Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes (Vol. IX, pp. 177-211). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Stewart, J . (1995). Language as Articulate Contact: Toward a Post-Semiotic Philosophy of Communication. Albany:
State University of New York.
Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and Unobtrusive Control in Contemporary Organizations. In
R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New
Directions (Vol. 13, pp. 179-210). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Varner, I. I. (2000). The Theoretical Foundation for Intercultural Business Communication: A Conceptual Model. The
Journal of Business Communication, 37(1), 39-57.
Waddell, J . R. (1997). The Tattletale. Supervision, 58(8), 12-.
Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). Literacy and Social Process: A Community in Transistion. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Cross-
cultural Approaches to Literacy (Vol. 23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitson, S., & Poulakos, J. (1993). Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Rhetoric. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70,
131-145.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. New York: International
Universities Press.
Woo, C. Y. (2003, May/Jun). Personal Responsibility. BizEd, 11, 22-27.
Workers Face Sack over E-mail and Internet Misuse. (2002, 15 Oct). Personnel Today, 4.

doc_673011090.pdf