Description
Organizational communication can be described as a very complex phenomenon affecting the everyday life, the overall activities, the performance, the success and the future of every organization.
Abstract. The present paper aims at
analyzing organizational
communication and focuses on the
aspects of internal and external
communication within cultural
organizations in Romania. Starting
with the description of the general
characteristics of internal and
external communication, the article
sets out to explain these phenomena
in the context of cultural
organizations. For this purpose, the
authors seek to identify the type of
communication, which is more
pronounced in case of cultural
entities. Concerning the methodology,
the study is based on a quantitative
research. Therefore, a questionnaire
was compiled and applied to a
representative sample of 300 cultural
organizations in the Centre
Development Region of Romania. In
accordance with the obtained results,
the first conclusion to be drawn is
that cultural organizations pay a
greater attention to external
communication than to internal
communication. The second
conclusion is that there are no
significant differences between the
cultural entities of the private and the
public sectors, regarding their
external and internal communication
Keywords: organizational communi-
cation, external communication,
internal communication, cultural
organization, public cultural organi-
zation, private cultural organization.
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
COMMUNICATION WITHIN
CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
Kovács RÉKA
Babe?-Bolyai University
1 Mihail Kog?lniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Anca BORZA
Babe?-Bolyai University
1 Mihail Kog?lniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Management & Marketing
Challenges for the Knowledge Society
(2012) Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 613-630
Management & Marketing
614
1. Introduction
Organizational communication can be described as a very complex
phenomenon affecting the everyday life, the overall activities, the performance, the
success and the future of every organization. Organizational communication is
everywhere; it is inside and outside each corporation. It is in the instructions, in the
rules and information shared; it is in the different departments, in the personnel. It is
vital for the understanding of the responsibilities, for the defining of company
objectives, for the achieving of the management functions (Sinha and Reddy, 1991).
At the same time, it is essential in attracting the target groups, in formulating messages
that can be tailored to the customers’ specific needs. Along with these, organizational
communication exists in the strategies, in the mission, in the vision, in the values and
culture of each corporation (Torrington and Hall, 1995).
That is why organizations, irrespective of their field of activity, should be
fully aware of their own communication. Only when organizations learn about their
communication, will they be able to overcome the difficulties when confronted with
the challenges of the outside environment.
2. Conceptual framework
In order to investigate the communication of the cultural organizations, we
should focus primarily on outlining the core notions relevant to this study. Therefore,
in the first part of the literature review we shall lay a special stress on the definition of
“organizational communication” and then of “internal and external communication”.
Following this, in the second part, the paper will try to give an insight into the
characteristics of internal and external communication in the context of cultural
organizations.
Thus, the first topic to be discussed is “organizational communication”, a
many-sided, intricate and highly debated issue, on which a wide-range of different
theories, viewpoints and contributions can be found. Since it is an almost
inexhaustible theme, with diverse meanings to different researchers, in what follows
we will try to briefly point out some of its main interpretations. Therefore, we start
this section with the ideas of Tompkins, P.K. (in Allen et al., 1996, p. 384), who
defines “organizational communication” as “the study of sending and receiving
messages that create and maintain a system of consciously coordinated activities
[…]”. This approach emphasizes not only the dynamic and interactive characteristics
of communication, but also the fact that organizations are like systems, in which
individuals interact, rather than entities, where communication takes place (Allen et.
all, 1996). Other analysts understand by communication the tools by which
organizational activities can be unified. This means that within organizations
communication is the “soul”, pervading all the activities and representing the tool
through which the members can understand their own role (Sinha and Reddy, 1991).
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
615
Hand in hand with all these approaches to organizational communication, we
should also take into account the perspectives, which describe this phenomenon from
the point of view of identity and power relations (Tompkins et al., 2009). In this
respect, Mumby and Clair sustain (Tompkins et al., 2009) that an organization exists
when its members create it through their discourse, this being the means through
which the personnel establishes a coherent social reality, that is, the framework of its
own identity. In other words, an organization is regarded as a social collective,
produced, reproduced and transformed by the communication practices of its members
(Mumby and Clair, 2006). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, organizational
communication is closely linked to power relations (Tompkins et al., 2009). In fact, it
is common knowledge that the adopted methods of communication, as well as the
leader’s interaction with the staff, can highly reflect on the leadership style (Charteris-
Black, 2007) and implicitly on the power relations in an organization.
For the above reasons, communication should be a factor of utmost
importance within organizations. Since work productivity is highly dependent upon
communication, managers should do their best to communicate effectively with their
personnel. To that effect, a good manager should use communication as an important
work tool to achieve the objectives of the company, to guide and motivate the staff, to
solve conflicts, to transmit instructions and decisions, and to evaluate the subordinates
(Lupu and Voicu, 2006). Only when organizations are fully aware of the principles of
effective communication, will they be able to accomplish their goals and enhance their
performance.
Besides the above considerations, in our study we should also touch upon
C. van Riel’s ideas, according to which communication in an organization (with the
author’s own words: corporate communication) is “an instrument of management by
means of which all consciously used forms of internal and external communication are
harmonized as effectively and efficiently as possible, so as to create a favorable basis
for relationships with groups upon which the company is dependent” (Theaker, 2004).
As this interpretation suggests, stemming from their public’s needs, organizations
need both to communicate internally and externally in order to be successful (Krizan
et al., 2011).
Broadly speaking, internal communication represents the communication and
the interactions among the members of an organization, being defined as a way of
describing and explaining a corporation. Internal communication targets the internal
members of an organization, including the superiors, the collaborators and the
subordinates. It is viewed as an essential process, based on which the staff exchanges
information, establishes relationships, forms a system of values, creates an
organizational culture, harmonizes the activities, collaborates for the achievement of
goals and develops formal and informal networks (Berger, 2009). External
communication, on the other hand, is directed to the outside and involves the
communication of an organization with its environment (Juris, 2004). Therefore,
external communication aims at building connections with customers, stakeholders
Management & Marketing
616
(Stuart et al., 2007), with institutions, (government) agencies, administrative offices or
other organizations (Juris, 2004).
As far as the functions of the above types of communication are concerned,
we can note that internal communication is used primarily: to issue and clarify
procedures and policies; to develop new products and services; to convince the
employees and the management to make improvements and changes; to coordinate the
activities; to evaluate and reward the personnel (Guffey et al., 2010) etc. By
comparison, the functions of external communication comprise: requiring information
about products and services; convincing the public to purchase the products and
services; clarifying the suppliers’ duties; establishing relations with government
agencies; promoting the positive image of the organization (Guffey et al., 2010) etc.
As hinted, in the life of organizations, both external and internal
communications are indispensible. Since the external public can highly control and
influence the different resources of an organization, institutions should continually
develop and maintain relationships with the outside environment. Establishing
productive connections to the external public is of considerable importance for every
organization, leading to the achievement of goals in the benefit of both parties (Stuart
et al., 2007). Likewise, internal communication plays a central role within
organizations, becoming the “engine” of all activities. By it, the staff can better
understand what happens within the organization, can become more informed and
motivated, can identify with the objectives of the organizations, all these contributing
to better results (Smith and Mounter, 2008).
In the next stage of this study, when expanding on the characteristics of
internal and external communication in context of cultural organizations, first of all,
we should provide the explanation of the notion in hand. Thus, a cultural organization
may refer, on the one hand, to an organizational unit (e.g. a theater, a museum or an
orchestra), which produces or displays something cultural. On the other hand, the term
hints to all kinds of institutionalized cultural manifestations, which can consist of
cultural associations, societies and federations (Heinrichs, 2006).
In Romania, according to the country’s legislation, cultural organizations may
conduct their activities in two different domains: in the public and the private sectors.
Since the public domain contains “movables and immovables, which are not liable to
be the object of private property […]” (Matei, 2001), the cultural entities belonging to
this category have judicial personality. Consequently, they are organized and function
in accordance with the laws in force and are subordinated to the authorities of public
(central or local) administration (according to the Law no. 504 of 17 November 2004
(the updated version) concerning the public institutions of shows and concerts.
Furthermore, in view of the Law no. 504 of 17 November 2004 (the updated version)
(concerning the public institutions of shows and concerts) and of the Government
Emergency Ordinance no. 189 of 25 November 2008 (the updated version)
(concerning the management of cultural institutions) we can point out that theatres,
cinemas, museums, libraries, orchestras, artistic assemblies fall under the heading of
public cultural organizations.
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
617
By contrast, in the Romanian legislation, the right to private property is “the
right belonging to natural and legal people […]” (Pop and Harosa, 2006). That is, the
cultural entities of the private sector are subordinated either to private legal people or
to natural people. In other words, such organizations have natural or juridical
personality, but function with non-profit purposes (in accordance with the
Government Ordinance no. 26 of 30 January 2000 (the updated version) regarding the
associations and foundations. Taking the aforementioned laws, we can observe that
private cultural organizations encompass associations, foundations and federations.
(According to Article no. 3. Chapter V of the same law, associations and foundations
can form a federation.)
With regard to these ideas, in the final part of this section we shall briefly deal
with the main characteristics of internal and external communication in the case of
cultural organizations. When considering their external public, cultural organizations
may communicate, in general, with the government (and implicitly with the Ministry
of Culture), the local administration (the county council and town halls), the trade
unions, the cultural elite, the mass-media, the civil society (associations, foundations,
non-governmental organizations), with firms, banks, suppliers, sponsors, with the
competition and of course with their own public. With all these entities, a keen
exchange of information, of human resources and of material goods takes place. In
these cases, external communication will serve a variety of purposes: to raise finance;
to attract the public for cultural events; to promote the cultural organization, its image
and services; to exchange experience; to apply for projects (grants); to seek for
sponsorship etc. For these purposes, cultural entities will have to choose the most
appropriate communication media (instruments), which will best meet the
expectations of each interest group (Zecheru, 2002).
Finally, when looking at their internal public, we can notice that, generally
speaking, the staff of a cultural organization can be grouped into three main
categories: a) the culture people (e.g. stage directors, actors, writers, librarians); b) the
administrative personnel (e.g. economists, engineers, accountants); c) the technical
personnel (e.g. drivers, electricians, photographers, scene painters, sound assistants,
lighting assistants) (Zecheru, 2002). In addition, depending on their field of activity or
legal constitution, many organizations can also work together with volunteers (Badelt,
2002). Due to the fact that cultural entities may have a diverse internal public, they
will have to address their members with specific messages, the functions of internal
communication varying in accordance with the characteristics of each target group. In
other words, internal communication is used to inform members (to transmit
instructions, to clarify rules and tasks, to solve problems, to share responsibilities) and
to motivate or reward the staff. Specifically, the motivational function of internal
communication will become a key factor in the context of cultural entities. In order to
facilitate artistic creation, the merits, the talent and values of culture people should
permanently be appreciated and capitalized on (Zecheru, 2002). A staff that is actively
engaged in the creation process can become a main production force in a cultural
organization (Klein, 2008). Last but not least, volunteers’ contribution should also be
Management & Marketing
618
rewarded. In their case, work appreciation, job satisfaction or social contacts offered
can prove to be highly stimulating (Stone, 1995).
As it has been seen, cultural organizations can build up different relationships
with the entities of the outside environment. At the same time, they have to handle a
varied network of internal public. That is why, these entities will have to communicate
both internally and externally in a way that will serve their own interests and
ultimately will lead to success.
3. Objectives and methodology
The objective of this paper is to identify 1) which type of communication, the
external or the internal one, is more pronounced in the context of cultural
organizations. Closely linked to this, the article seeks to investigate 2) in the case of
which type(s) of organizations the external and internal communication is stronger.
With regard to these goals, the research draws up the following hypotheses:
H1: Cultural organizations emphasize external communication more than
internal communication.
H2: The private cultural organizations lay a greater stress on internal and
external communication than the cultural organizations of the public domain.
Concerning the methodology, the present study is based on a quantitative
research. For this purpose, a questionnaire was compiled and applied to a
representative sample of 300 cultural organizations in the Centre Development Region
of Romania. The questionnaire comprised 8 sets of questions and investigated how the
criteria of analyzing internal and external communication within cultural organizations
are met. To that effect, we studied the following issues: a) the collaboration of the
cultural organizations with other entities; b) the promotion of the organization and of
its activities (i.e. the external communication media); c) the promotion of the
corporate identity; d) the communication activities performed within the
organizations; e) internal communication media; f) formal versus informal
communication; g) the internal communication strategies; h) the existence of the
communication plan; i) the existence of the activity plan; j) the existence of the
activity report (see appendix).
The size of the sample was calculated with Taro Yamane’s formula and the
statistical processing of the raw data was performed with the SPSS 11.0 application.
The structure of our sample is presented briefly, as follows: Out of 300
cultural organizations 67.3% belong to the private domain, whereas 32.7% to the
public sector. More precisely, out of 300 cultural organizations 13.3% are state-funded
entities, 19.3% are local-funded organizations, 16.0% are foundations, 46% are
associations, 2.7% are religious organizations and finally, 2.7% are juridical
unregistered entities. Regarding the year of establishment, we can notice that 39.0% of
the studied organizations were set up between the years 1990-2000, 30.7% were
established before 1990, while the rest of 30.3% appeared after 2000. Furthermore,
43.7% of the entities included in our study are from urban areas (with over 50,000
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
619
inhabitants), whereas 29.0% are from smaller urban areas (with less than 50,000
inhabitants). The remaining 27.3% is represented by cultural organizations from rural
areas. Finally, from the point of view of their personnel, the 300 organizations are
distributed as follows: the majorities, namely 35.7%, work with no employees, but
collaborate with 1-10 volunteers. 13% of the cultural organizations have no
employees, but work together with over 10 volunteers. 9% employ between 1-10
people, but do not collaborate with volunteers. 25.3% have between 1-10 employees,
plus volunteers. Lastly, 17% of the total 300 cultural entities included in our sample
employ over 10 people, but do not work together with volunteers.
4. Findings and comments
In the first part of the research we conducted a descriptive analysis of the
external and internal communication of the cultural organizations; then, in view of the
hypotheses, we drew comparisons between the findings.
4.1. The external communication
In the study of the external communication we were concerned with the
following issues: a) the collaboration of the cultural organizations with other entities
and b) the promotion of the organization and of its activities (i.e. the external
communication media). Closely linked to these aspects, we also studied c) the
promotion of the corporate identity and d) the communication activities performed
within the organizations.
In particular, when examining a) the collaboration of the cultural
organizations with other entities, we took into account the following: the public (state-
owned) institutions; the local administration (the county council and town halls); the
organizations from the private sector; the organizations of the public sector; the
companies; the religious organizations; the political organizations; the mass-media
and the organizations from abroad. After that, we calculated the collaboration index in
order to create a single variable, which represents the degree of collaboration. Finally,
according to the intensity of collaboration, we categorized the collaboration index into
quartiles in order to assess the organizations’ distribution from this perspective as well
as to obtain more detailed results.
In this section, in accordance with the data obtained, we could come to the
following conclusion: the public cultural organizations communicated better with the
entities of the external environment than the organizations of the private sector.
When analyzing b) the promotion of the organization and of its activities (i.e.
the external communication media), we took into consideration the following
communication instruments: advertising; advertising in the newspaper; radio spots;
TV commercials; advertising on websites; advertising on Facebook, hi5 etc.; the own
website; banners; fliers; public relations; direct mailing; e-mail marketing;
telemarketing; participation in fairs, exhibitions and forums; press conferences and
Management & Marketing
620
open house presentations. Afterwards, we calculated the promotion index based on the
above-mentioned 15 communication media. Finally, according to the intensity of
promotion, we categorized the promotion index into quartiles in order to view the
organizations’ distribution from this standpoint.
Based on these results, we could briefly summarize that large cultural
organizations from urban areas (with over 50,000 inhabitants) promoted their
activities the best and, consequently, adopted a wide range of communication media.
When studying c) the promotion of the corporate identity, we analyzed the
following communication instruments: their own logo, their own motto and the
mission statement. With regard to these aspects, we could conclude that the private
organizations from big urban areas (with over 50,000 inhabitants) drew attention to
and laid an important stress on the promotion of corporate identity.
Finally, when examining d) the communication activities performed within
the organizations, we attempted to bring to light the following issues: first, whether
there were such activities carried out within the cultural entities; second, we were
interested in investigating whether the communication activities belonged to the
responsibilities of one individual, who on their turn was also involved in other
activities; third, we intended to identify whether there were people in the
organizations, exclusively in charge of communication; last, we aimed at examining if
the cultural organization had a separate communication department.
In the light of the obtained results, we could see that, in general, the cultural
organizations of our study did not pay enough attention to the communication
activities. What is more, only in the case of 20% of the studied population we could
identify a person or a department entirely responsible for communication. At the same
time, our findings revealed that the public organizations laid a greater stress on
communication activities than the entities of the public domain.
4.2. The internal communication
In our analysis of internal communication, we dealt with the following
problems: a) internal communication media, b) formal versus informal communication
and c) the internal communication strategies.
In order to investigate a) the internal communication media, we considered the
following communication means: meetings, discussions and formal gatherings;
spontaneous discussions; face-to-face conversations and oral reports; memos,
newsletters, circular letters and written reports; anniversaries, trips and tournaments;
the internal correspondence list of the active personnel; internal magazines; training
courses; training courses on communication; team-building sessions and suggestion
boxes.
In this respect, we could notice (Table 1) that cultural organizations resorted
primarily to oral communication instruments on a daily as well as permanent basis.
They preferred spontaneous discussions (53.3%), face-to-face conversations and oral
reports (32.5%) in their relationship with the active personnel. This result may indicate
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
621
the fact that the above mentioned internal communication media are simple, accessible
and fast, they require a minimum effort by the interlocutors and at the same time allow
faster reaction possibilities and a direct feed-back. From the written communication
instruments, the internal correspondence list ranked first (14.4%), this medium being
probably the easiest to use and observe by the members. Similarly, when looking at
the internal communication means used on a weekly basis, we can remark that a vast
majority (87.8%) of the cultural entities included in our sample preferred oral
communication to written. Furthermore, in the case of written communication, it was
again the internal correspondence list of the employees which seemed to be the most
popular one. As far as the least favored internal communication instruments are
concerned, we could observe that this category comprised internal magazines (90.6%)
and suggestion boxes (89.6%). This result may be explained by the fact that these
communication methods are either not yet widespread in our country or that they are
specific to corporations.
Table 1
Internal communication – internal communication media (%)
Daily /
Permanently
Weekly Monthly Rarely Never
Meetings, discussions and formal
gatherings
14.1 31.7 28.6 21.7 3.8
Spontaneous discussions 53.3 25.8 7.3 10.5 3.1
Face-to-face conversations and oral
reports
32.5 30.3 10.5 20.6 6.1
Memos, newsletters, circular letters and
written reports
4.0 12.0 12.0 40.4 31.6
Anniversaries, trips and tournaments 1.4 8.4 50.9 39.3
The internal correspondence list of the
active personnel
14.4 13.3 3.0 10.7 58.7
Internal magazines 0.4 1.5 4.1 3.4 90.6
Training courses 1.1 1.9 45.0 52.0
Training courses on communication 0.4 22.1 77.5
Team-building sessions 1.5 35.4 63.1
Suggestion boxes 1.5 1.9 6.9 89.6
In the next step of the study, we calculated the internal communication index
based on the above-mentioned 11 communication media. Lastly, according to the intensity
of the internal communication we categorized the internal communication index into
quartiles so as to observe the organizations’ distribution from this point of view.
Management & Marketing
622
In view of the results, we could generally state that there were no significant
differences between the organizations in their internal communication. More exactly,
we could not find major differences between the entities either from the standpoint of
communication media, the intensity of communication or their typology.
When carrying out the research on b) formal versus informal internal
communication, we regarded the following communication means: meetings,
discussions and formal gatherings; memos, newsletters, circular letters and written
reports; internal magazines; training courses; training courses on communication;
spontaneous discussions; anniversaries, trips and tournaments; team-building sessions
and suggestion boxes. Once investigating these issues, we could summarize that cultural
organizations preferred the informal communication means to the formal media.
In the final part of this descriptive section, we focused on c) the internal
communication strategies, examining whether they contributed to the success of the
organization or not. Last but not least, we were keen on finding out to what extent (to
a small degree or to a high degree) the communication strategies engaged led to
success. According to our results, 100% of the organizations, which elaborated and
applied internal communication strategies stated that these strategies had contributed
to the success of the organization. A great majority, 85.5% of the studied entities,
considered that the internal communication strategies had led to a large extent to their
success, whereas only 14.5% sustained that the strategies had played a minor part in
their success.
4.3. Comparative analysis on the external and internal communication
Deriving from the results of the descriptive analysis, we could find the
following correlations.
H1: Cultural organizations emphasize external communication more than
internal communication.
Taking into account the total of the variables defined by us as the indicators of
the external and internal communication (i.e. the collaboration of the cultural
organizations with other entities; the promotion of the organization and of its
activities; the internal communication media), we developed a standardized scale,
which we categorized into four main groups. Here, the standardized variable (z score)
means that these categories reveal objective information and that they are comparable.
On our sample the values “very weak” and “weak” denote a result below the sample
average, while the values “good” and “very good” refer to a result above average
(Figure 1).
According to the comparative study, we could remark that in the first
category, namely the organizations described by very good communication, 15.3% of
the subjects sustained that external communication in their organizations was more
pronounced than internal communication (6.1%). In the second category, the
organizations characterized by good communication, 43.3% of the entities stated that
in their case internal communication was more powerful than external communication.
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
623
Adding the values, the result leads to the conclusion that within cultural organizations
external communication is more pronounced than internal communication, which
validates our first hypothesis.
15.0
33.3
36.3
15.3
12.3
38.2
43.3
6.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
very weak weak good very good
external communication internal communication
Figure 1. External communication and internal communication (%)
H2: The private cultural organizations lay a greater stress on internal and
external communication than the cultural organizations of the public domain.
When examining the results obtained in the descriptive analysis, we came to a
real “conglomerate” of data. Thus, regarding external communication, we could
observe that the public organizations communicated better than the private ones.
Nevertheless, in the promotion of the corporate identity, it was the private entities,
which preceded the public ones. Referring to their internal communication, we could
also note that there were no significant differences between the cultural organizations.
Therefore, based on the above results, we presumed that the intensity of both
internal and external communication was primarily defined by the size of the
organizations. Hence the comparison of internal and external communication in the
case of the private and public organizations would make sense provided it was drawn
between organizations of similar sizes.
For this purpose, taking into consideration the active personnel of the cultural
entities, we developed a new indicator for the size of the organizations. Eventually, we
came to the following classification of the cultural entities: small organizations (with
1-5 active personnel), medium-sized organization (with 6-15 active personnel) and big
organization (with over 15 active personnel) (Table 2):
Management & Marketing
624
Table 2
Size of organization
Size of organization No. %
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 133 44.3
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) 101 33.7
Big organization (over 15 active personnel) 66 22.0
Total 300 100.0
Starting from the above division of the cultural entities, we resorted to the
Crosstab method and observed the association of the variables: public organization
and private organization; external communication and internal communication; and
the size of organization (Table 3 and Table 5).
Table 3
External communication in the case of public versus private organizations
(Crosstab)
External communication (%)
Size of organization
very
weak
weak good
very
good
Total
Public 31.4 42.9 17.1 8.6 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 18.4 40.8 29.6 11.2 100.0
Small organization
(1-5 active personnel)
Total 21.8 41.4 26.3 10.5 100.0
Public 7.4 25.9 51.9 14.8 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 12.2 36.5 39.2 12.2 100.0
Medium-sized
organization (6-15 active
personnel)
Total 10.9 33.7 42.6 12.9 100.0
Public 11.1 8.3 41.7 38.9 100.0 Type of
organization Private 3.3 26.7 53.3 16.7 100.0
Big organization
(over 15 active
personnel)
Total 7.6 16.7 47.0 28.8 100.0
As Table 3 indicates, in the external communication, the small private
organizations preceded the small public institutions by 40.8% (29.6% + 11.2%). In
contrast, in the case of the medium-sized entities, 66.7% of the public organizations
were characterized by good and very good external communication compared to
51.4% of the private entities. Likewise, in the case of big organizations, it was the
public entities, which outranked the private ones (by 80.6%). In a nutshell, we could
see that small private organizations communicated externally better than the public
entities. However, big and medium-sized public institutions had a better external
communication than the private entities of the same size.
Table 4
Spearman’s correlations and significance level
Size of organization R value Significance level (p)
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 0.156 0.072
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) -0.125 0.214
Big organization (over15 active personnel) -0.201 0.106
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
625
Yet if we examine this result based on Spearman’s correlations (Table 4), we
can ascertain that the significance level (“p”) is not less than 0.05 in the case of any of
the organization types. Thus, we can draw the conclusion that statistically the result is
not significant in any of the above organization categories. Therefore, our hypothesis
(from the standpoint of the external communication) is not valid.
Table 5
Internal communication in the case of public versus private organizations
(Crosstab)
Internal Communication (%)
Size of organization
very
weak
weak good
very
good
Total
Public 28.1 53.1 18.8 100.0 Type of
organization Private 10.4 47.9 39.6 2.1 100.0
Small organization (1-5
active personnel)
Total 14.8 49.2 34.4 1.6 100.0
Public 11.1 40.7 40.7 7.4 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 13.7 34.2 45.2 6.8 100.0
Medium-sized organization
(6-15 active personnel)
Total 13.0 36.0 44.0 7.0 100.0
Public 2.8 16.7 66.7 13.9 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 10.3 24.1 51.7 13.8 100.0
Big organization (over 15
active personnel)
Total 6.2 20.0 60.0 13.8 100.0
When studying the internal communication comparatively (Table 5), between
the two types of organizations, we could notice that, in the category of small entities,
the private organizations preceded the public ones by 41.7%. Similarly, in the case of
the medium-sized organizations, it was again the private organizations, which led (by
52.0%) as compared to 48.1% of the public entities. Nevertheless, related to big
organizations, we could note that the public entities (80.6%) had a better internal
communication than the private ones (65.5%).
Briefly, these results lead to the conclusion that small and medium-sized
private organizations are characterized by a better internal communication than the
public entities of the same size. Nonetheless, in the case of big entities, we can witness
the opposite situation: the public organizations communicate internally better than the
private entities.
Table 6
Spearman’s correlations and significance level
Size of organization R value Significance level (p)
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 0.256 0.004
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) 0.013 0.898
Big organization (over 15 active personnel) -0.138 0.273
Still, examining this result based on Spearman’s correlations (Table 6), we
can notice that the significance level (“p”) is less than 0.05 only in the case of small
Management & Marketing
626
organizations. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that statistically the result is
significant only in the case of small organizations with 1-5 active personnel.
All in all, we can remark that hypothesis no. 2 is invalid except for the small
cultural organizations. However, in their case it appears to be valid only in terms of
the internal communication.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have set out to identify the type of communication that is the
most powerful in the context of cultural organizations. In addition, we have attempted
to investigate in the case of which organizations the external and internal
communication is stronger. Based on the obtained results, the research has partially
confirmed our general assumptions. In this respect, the first conclusion to be drawn is
that cultural organizations pay a greater attention to external communication than to
internal communication. The second conclusion is that there are no significant
differences between the cultural organizations of the private and the public sectors,
concerning the intensity of their external and internal communication.
To sum up, we take the view that this study can raise the awareness of the
cultural organizations to lay a more important stress on their communication. Only
when organizations draw attention to their communication, will they be able to better
function in a competitive environment. Communication turns out to be an invaluable
asset for cultural organizations, which – provided it is taken full advantage of – can
lead to higher performance.
References
Allen, B.J., Tompkins, P.K. and Busemeyer, S. (1996), “Organizational Communication”, in:
Salwen, M.B. and Stacks, D.W. (eds.) An Integrated Approach to Communication. Theory
and Research, pp. 383-395, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah
Badelt, Ch. (2002), “Ehrenamtliche Arbeit im Nonprofit Sektor”, in: Badelt, Ch. (ed.)
Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen und Management, pp. 573-604,
Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart
Berger, B. (2009), “Comunicarea organiza?ional? intern?”, available athttp://www.pr-
romania.ro/articole/comunicare-interna/142-comunicarea-organizationala-interna.html?
showall=1 (accessed April 22, 2012)
Charteris-Black, J. (2007), The Communication of Leadership: the Design of Leadership Style,
Routledge, Oxon
Guffey, M.E., Rhodes, K. and Rogin, P. (2010), Business Communication: Process and
Product, Nelson Education, Toronto
Heinrichs, W. (2006), Der Kulturbetrieb. Bildende Kunst / Musik / Literatur / Theater / Film,
Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld
Juris, S. (2004), Erfolgreiche interne Unternehmenskommunikation – Bedeutung,
Zielsetzungen und Maßnahmen, GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt
Klein, A. (2008), Besucherbindung im Kulturbetrieb. Ein Handbuch, VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
627
Krizan, A.C., Merrier, P., Logan, J. and Williams, C. (2011), Business Communication, South
Western Cengage Learning, Mason
Legea 504 din 17 noiembrie 2004 privind institu?iile publice de spectacole ?i concerte,
available at:http://legestart.ro/Legea-504-2004-institutiile-publice-spectacole-concerte-
%28MTMyMjMz%29.htm (accessed April 22, 2012)
Lupu, L. and Voicu, M. (2006), “Impactul comunic?rii manageriale asupra cre?terii
productivit??ii muncii în cadrul unei organiza?ii”, Management & Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 123-142
Matei, L. (2001), Management public, Editura Economic?, Bucure?ti
Mumby, D.K. and Clair, R.P. (2006), “Organizational Discourse”, in Dijk, T. van A. (ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction, pp. 181-205, SAGE Publications Ltd., London
Ordonan?a de urgen?? 189 din 25 noiembrie 2008 privind managementul institu?iilor de
spectacole sau concerte, muzeelor ?i colec?iilor publice, bibliotecilor ?i al a?ez?mintelor
culturale de drept public, available at:http://www.legestart.ro/Ordonanta-de-urgenta-189-
2008-managementul-institutiilor-spectacole-concerte-muzeelor-colectiilor-publice-
bibliotecilor-asezamintelor-culturale-drept-public-%28MzIwODgz%29.htm (accessed April
22, 2012)
Ordonan?a nr. 26 din 30 ianuarie 2000 cu privire la asocia?ii ?i funda?ii, available at:http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=22060 (accessed April 22, 2012)
Pop, L. and Harosa, L.M. (2006), Drept civil. Drepturile reale principale, Universul Juridic,
Bucure?ti
Sinha, B.P. and Reddy, M.N (1991), Organizational Communication. A Structural and
Functional Analysis, Mittal Publications, New Delhi
Smith, L. and Mounter, P. (2008), Effective Internal Communication, Kogan Page, London
Stone, N. (1995), The Management and Practice of Public Relations, Macmillan Business,
London
Stuart, B.E., Sarow, M.S. and Stuart, L. (2007), Integrated Business Communication in a
Global Marketplace, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
Theaker, A. (2004), The Public Relations Handbook, Routledge, Oxfordshire
Tompkins, P.K., Montoya, Y.J. and Candrian, C.B. (2009), “Watch Your Neighbor Watching
You: Applying Concertive Control in Changing Organizational Environments”, in: Stacks,
D.W. and Salwen, M.B. (eds.) An Integrated Approach to Communication. Theory and
Research, pp. 370-386, Routledge, New York
Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1995), Personnel Management. HRM in Action, Prentice Hall,
London
Zecheru, V. (2002), Management în cultur?, Litera Interna?ional, Bucure?ti
About the authors
Kovács RÉKA is an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Economics within
“Babe?-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Her areas of interest include
culture management and organizational communication.
Anca BORZA (PhD) is a professor at the Department of Management,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, “Babe?-Bolyai” University of
Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Holding a PhD in Economics, her main research areas include
strategic management and entrepreneurship. She published books and papers in
national and international journals.
Management & Marketing
628
Appendix
Questionnaire regarding the communication of cultural organizations from the Centre
Development Region of Romania (abbreviated version)
1. Last year did the organization collaborate with the following institutions/organi-
zations? If YES, how would you describe this collaboration?
YES. HOW WOULD YOU
DESCRIBE IT?
NO
Occasional
collaboration
Continuous
collaboration
1. Public (state-owned) institutions 0 1 2
2. Local administration (the county council and town halls) 0 1 2
3. Other organizations from the private sector 0 1 2
4. Other organizations from the public sector 0 1 2
5. Companies 0 1 2
6. Religious organizations 0 1 2
7. Political organizations 0 1 2
8. Mass-media 0 1 2
9. Organizations from abroad 0 1 2
2. What communication instruments do you use in order to promote the organization
and its activities?
NO
YES,
occasionally
YES,
frequently
1. Advertising, advertising in the newspaper 0 1 2
2. Advertising, radio spots 0 1 2
3. Advertising, TV commercials 0 1 2
4. Advertising on websites 0 1 2
5. Advertising on facebook, hi5 etc. 0 1 2
6. Own website 0 1 2
7. Banners 0 1 2
8. Fliers 0 1 2
9. Public relations 0 1 2
10. Direct mailing 0 1 2
11. E-mail marketing 0 1 2
12. Telemarketing 0 1 2
13. Participation in fairs, exhibitions and forums 0 1 2
14. Press conferences 0 1 2
15. Open house presentations 0 1 2
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
629
3. In promoting the corporate identity does the organization have an/a ...?
NO YES
1. Own logo 0 1
2. Own motto 0 1
3. Mission statement 0 1
4. Does the organization have ...?
NO YES
1. An activity plan for this year? 0 1
2. A written communication plan for this year? 0 1
3. An activity report for the year 2010? 0 1
If it has a communication plan ...
5. Do you think that the organization’s internal communication strategy has
contributed to the success of the organization?
No Yes, to a small degree Yes, to a high degree
0 1 2
6. To whose responsibility do the communication activities belong ...?
Communication
department
An individual who is
exclusively in charge of
communication
An individual who
on their turn is also
involved in other
activities
There are no separate
communication
activities identified
4 3 2 1
7. How many people (full-time employees, volunteers) are actively engaged in the
organization of the activities within your institution?
People no.: ...........................................
Management & Marketing
630
8. What types of communication instruments are used in the organization’s
communication with the active personnel? How frequently are these communication
instruments used?
Daily /
Permanently
Weekly Monthly Rarely Never
Meetings, discussions and formal
gatherings
5 4 3 2 1
Spontaneous discussions 5 4 3 2 1
Face-to-face conversations and oral
reports
5 4 3 2 1
Memos, newsletters, circular letters and
written reports
5 4 3 2 1
Anniversaries, trips and tournaments 5 4 3 2 1
The internal correspondence list of the
active personnel
5 4 3 2 1
Internal magazines 5 4 3 2 1
Training courses 5 4 3 2 1
Training courses on communication 5 4 3 2 1
Team-building sessions 5 4 3 2 1
Suggestion boxes 5 4 3 2 1
doc_794315543.pdf
Organizational communication can be described as a very complex phenomenon affecting the everyday life, the overall activities, the performance, the success and the future of every organization.
Abstract. The present paper aims at
analyzing organizational
communication and focuses on the
aspects of internal and external
communication within cultural
organizations in Romania. Starting
with the description of the general
characteristics of internal and
external communication, the article
sets out to explain these phenomena
in the context of cultural
organizations. For this purpose, the
authors seek to identify the type of
communication, which is more
pronounced in case of cultural
entities. Concerning the methodology,
the study is based on a quantitative
research. Therefore, a questionnaire
was compiled and applied to a
representative sample of 300 cultural
organizations in the Centre
Development Region of Romania. In
accordance with the obtained results,
the first conclusion to be drawn is
that cultural organizations pay a
greater attention to external
communication than to internal
communication. The second
conclusion is that there are no
significant differences between the
cultural entities of the private and the
public sectors, regarding their
external and internal communication
Keywords: organizational communi-
cation, external communication,
internal communication, cultural
organization, public cultural organi-
zation, private cultural organization.
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
COMMUNICATION WITHIN
CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
Kovács RÉKA
Babe?-Bolyai University
1 Mihail Kog?lniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Anca BORZA
Babe?-Bolyai University
1 Mihail Kog?lniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Management & Marketing
Challenges for the Knowledge Society
(2012) Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 613-630
Management & Marketing
614
1. Introduction
Organizational communication can be described as a very complex
phenomenon affecting the everyday life, the overall activities, the performance, the
success and the future of every organization. Organizational communication is
everywhere; it is inside and outside each corporation. It is in the instructions, in the
rules and information shared; it is in the different departments, in the personnel. It is
vital for the understanding of the responsibilities, for the defining of company
objectives, for the achieving of the management functions (Sinha and Reddy, 1991).
At the same time, it is essential in attracting the target groups, in formulating messages
that can be tailored to the customers’ specific needs. Along with these, organizational
communication exists in the strategies, in the mission, in the vision, in the values and
culture of each corporation (Torrington and Hall, 1995).
That is why organizations, irrespective of their field of activity, should be
fully aware of their own communication. Only when organizations learn about their
communication, will they be able to overcome the difficulties when confronted with
the challenges of the outside environment.
2. Conceptual framework
In order to investigate the communication of the cultural organizations, we
should focus primarily on outlining the core notions relevant to this study. Therefore,
in the first part of the literature review we shall lay a special stress on the definition of
“organizational communication” and then of “internal and external communication”.
Following this, in the second part, the paper will try to give an insight into the
characteristics of internal and external communication in the context of cultural
organizations.
Thus, the first topic to be discussed is “organizational communication”, a
many-sided, intricate and highly debated issue, on which a wide-range of different
theories, viewpoints and contributions can be found. Since it is an almost
inexhaustible theme, with diverse meanings to different researchers, in what follows
we will try to briefly point out some of its main interpretations. Therefore, we start
this section with the ideas of Tompkins, P.K. (in Allen et al., 1996, p. 384), who
defines “organizational communication” as “the study of sending and receiving
messages that create and maintain a system of consciously coordinated activities
[…]”. This approach emphasizes not only the dynamic and interactive characteristics
of communication, but also the fact that organizations are like systems, in which
individuals interact, rather than entities, where communication takes place (Allen et.
all, 1996). Other analysts understand by communication the tools by which
organizational activities can be unified. This means that within organizations
communication is the “soul”, pervading all the activities and representing the tool
through which the members can understand their own role (Sinha and Reddy, 1991).
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
615
Hand in hand with all these approaches to organizational communication, we
should also take into account the perspectives, which describe this phenomenon from
the point of view of identity and power relations (Tompkins et al., 2009). In this
respect, Mumby and Clair sustain (Tompkins et al., 2009) that an organization exists
when its members create it through their discourse, this being the means through
which the personnel establishes a coherent social reality, that is, the framework of its
own identity. In other words, an organization is regarded as a social collective,
produced, reproduced and transformed by the communication practices of its members
(Mumby and Clair, 2006). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, organizational
communication is closely linked to power relations (Tompkins et al., 2009). In fact, it
is common knowledge that the adopted methods of communication, as well as the
leader’s interaction with the staff, can highly reflect on the leadership style (Charteris-
Black, 2007) and implicitly on the power relations in an organization.
For the above reasons, communication should be a factor of utmost
importance within organizations. Since work productivity is highly dependent upon
communication, managers should do their best to communicate effectively with their
personnel. To that effect, a good manager should use communication as an important
work tool to achieve the objectives of the company, to guide and motivate the staff, to
solve conflicts, to transmit instructions and decisions, and to evaluate the subordinates
(Lupu and Voicu, 2006). Only when organizations are fully aware of the principles of
effective communication, will they be able to accomplish their goals and enhance their
performance.
Besides the above considerations, in our study we should also touch upon
C. van Riel’s ideas, according to which communication in an organization (with the
author’s own words: corporate communication) is “an instrument of management by
means of which all consciously used forms of internal and external communication are
harmonized as effectively and efficiently as possible, so as to create a favorable basis
for relationships with groups upon which the company is dependent” (Theaker, 2004).
As this interpretation suggests, stemming from their public’s needs, organizations
need both to communicate internally and externally in order to be successful (Krizan
et al., 2011).
Broadly speaking, internal communication represents the communication and
the interactions among the members of an organization, being defined as a way of
describing and explaining a corporation. Internal communication targets the internal
members of an organization, including the superiors, the collaborators and the
subordinates. It is viewed as an essential process, based on which the staff exchanges
information, establishes relationships, forms a system of values, creates an
organizational culture, harmonizes the activities, collaborates for the achievement of
goals and develops formal and informal networks (Berger, 2009). External
communication, on the other hand, is directed to the outside and involves the
communication of an organization with its environment (Juris, 2004). Therefore,
external communication aims at building connections with customers, stakeholders
Management & Marketing
616
(Stuart et al., 2007), with institutions, (government) agencies, administrative offices or
other organizations (Juris, 2004).
As far as the functions of the above types of communication are concerned,
we can note that internal communication is used primarily: to issue and clarify
procedures and policies; to develop new products and services; to convince the
employees and the management to make improvements and changes; to coordinate the
activities; to evaluate and reward the personnel (Guffey et al., 2010) etc. By
comparison, the functions of external communication comprise: requiring information
about products and services; convincing the public to purchase the products and
services; clarifying the suppliers’ duties; establishing relations with government
agencies; promoting the positive image of the organization (Guffey et al., 2010) etc.
As hinted, in the life of organizations, both external and internal
communications are indispensible. Since the external public can highly control and
influence the different resources of an organization, institutions should continually
develop and maintain relationships with the outside environment. Establishing
productive connections to the external public is of considerable importance for every
organization, leading to the achievement of goals in the benefit of both parties (Stuart
et al., 2007). Likewise, internal communication plays a central role within
organizations, becoming the “engine” of all activities. By it, the staff can better
understand what happens within the organization, can become more informed and
motivated, can identify with the objectives of the organizations, all these contributing
to better results (Smith and Mounter, 2008).
In the next stage of this study, when expanding on the characteristics of
internal and external communication in context of cultural organizations, first of all,
we should provide the explanation of the notion in hand. Thus, a cultural organization
may refer, on the one hand, to an organizational unit (e.g. a theater, a museum or an
orchestra), which produces or displays something cultural. On the other hand, the term
hints to all kinds of institutionalized cultural manifestations, which can consist of
cultural associations, societies and federations (Heinrichs, 2006).
In Romania, according to the country’s legislation, cultural organizations may
conduct their activities in two different domains: in the public and the private sectors.
Since the public domain contains “movables and immovables, which are not liable to
be the object of private property […]” (Matei, 2001), the cultural entities belonging to
this category have judicial personality. Consequently, they are organized and function
in accordance with the laws in force and are subordinated to the authorities of public
(central or local) administration (according to the Law no. 504 of 17 November 2004
(the updated version) concerning the public institutions of shows and concerts.
Furthermore, in view of the Law no. 504 of 17 November 2004 (the updated version)
(concerning the public institutions of shows and concerts) and of the Government
Emergency Ordinance no. 189 of 25 November 2008 (the updated version)
(concerning the management of cultural institutions) we can point out that theatres,
cinemas, museums, libraries, orchestras, artistic assemblies fall under the heading of
public cultural organizations.
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
617
By contrast, in the Romanian legislation, the right to private property is “the
right belonging to natural and legal people […]” (Pop and Harosa, 2006). That is, the
cultural entities of the private sector are subordinated either to private legal people or
to natural people. In other words, such organizations have natural or juridical
personality, but function with non-profit purposes (in accordance with the
Government Ordinance no. 26 of 30 January 2000 (the updated version) regarding the
associations and foundations. Taking the aforementioned laws, we can observe that
private cultural organizations encompass associations, foundations and federations.
(According to Article no. 3. Chapter V of the same law, associations and foundations
can form a federation.)
With regard to these ideas, in the final part of this section we shall briefly deal
with the main characteristics of internal and external communication in the case of
cultural organizations. When considering their external public, cultural organizations
may communicate, in general, with the government (and implicitly with the Ministry
of Culture), the local administration (the county council and town halls), the trade
unions, the cultural elite, the mass-media, the civil society (associations, foundations,
non-governmental organizations), with firms, banks, suppliers, sponsors, with the
competition and of course with their own public. With all these entities, a keen
exchange of information, of human resources and of material goods takes place. In
these cases, external communication will serve a variety of purposes: to raise finance;
to attract the public for cultural events; to promote the cultural organization, its image
and services; to exchange experience; to apply for projects (grants); to seek for
sponsorship etc. For these purposes, cultural entities will have to choose the most
appropriate communication media (instruments), which will best meet the
expectations of each interest group (Zecheru, 2002).
Finally, when looking at their internal public, we can notice that, generally
speaking, the staff of a cultural organization can be grouped into three main
categories: a) the culture people (e.g. stage directors, actors, writers, librarians); b) the
administrative personnel (e.g. economists, engineers, accountants); c) the technical
personnel (e.g. drivers, electricians, photographers, scene painters, sound assistants,
lighting assistants) (Zecheru, 2002). In addition, depending on their field of activity or
legal constitution, many organizations can also work together with volunteers (Badelt,
2002). Due to the fact that cultural entities may have a diverse internal public, they
will have to address their members with specific messages, the functions of internal
communication varying in accordance with the characteristics of each target group. In
other words, internal communication is used to inform members (to transmit
instructions, to clarify rules and tasks, to solve problems, to share responsibilities) and
to motivate or reward the staff. Specifically, the motivational function of internal
communication will become a key factor in the context of cultural entities. In order to
facilitate artistic creation, the merits, the talent and values of culture people should
permanently be appreciated and capitalized on (Zecheru, 2002). A staff that is actively
engaged in the creation process can become a main production force in a cultural
organization (Klein, 2008). Last but not least, volunteers’ contribution should also be
Management & Marketing
618
rewarded. In their case, work appreciation, job satisfaction or social contacts offered
can prove to be highly stimulating (Stone, 1995).
As it has been seen, cultural organizations can build up different relationships
with the entities of the outside environment. At the same time, they have to handle a
varied network of internal public. That is why, these entities will have to communicate
both internally and externally in a way that will serve their own interests and
ultimately will lead to success.
3. Objectives and methodology
The objective of this paper is to identify 1) which type of communication, the
external or the internal one, is more pronounced in the context of cultural
organizations. Closely linked to this, the article seeks to investigate 2) in the case of
which type(s) of organizations the external and internal communication is stronger.
With regard to these goals, the research draws up the following hypotheses:
H1: Cultural organizations emphasize external communication more than
internal communication.
H2: The private cultural organizations lay a greater stress on internal and
external communication than the cultural organizations of the public domain.
Concerning the methodology, the present study is based on a quantitative
research. For this purpose, a questionnaire was compiled and applied to a
representative sample of 300 cultural organizations in the Centre Development Region
of Romania. The questionnaire comprised 8 sets of questions and investigated how the
criteria of analyzing internal and external communication within cultural organizations
are met. To that effect, we studied the following issues: a) the collaboration of the
cultural organizations with other entities; b) the promotion of the organization and of
its activities (i.e. the external communication media); c) the promotion of the
corporate identity; d) the communication activities performed within the
organizations; e) internal communication media; f) formal versus informal
communication; g) the internal communication strategies; h) the existence of the
communication plan; i) the existence of the activity plan; j) the existence of the
activity report (see appendix).
The size of the sample was calculated with Taro Yamane’s formula and the
statistical processing of the raw data was performed with the SPSS 11.0 application.
The structure of our sample is presented briefly, as follows: Out of 300
cultural organizations 67.3% belong to the private domain, whereas 32.7% to the
public sector. More precisely, out of 300 cultural organizations 13.3% are state-funded
entities, 19.3% are local-funded organizations, 16.0% are foundations, 46% are
associations, 2.7% are religious organizations and finally, 2.7% are juridical
unregistered entities. Regarding the year of establishment, we can notice that 39.0% of
the studied organizations were set up between the years 1990-2000, 30.7% were
established before 1990, while the rest of 30.3% appeared after 2000. Furthermore,
43.7% of the entities included in our study are from urban areas (with over 50,000
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
619
inhabitants), whereas 29.0% are from smaller urban areas (with less than 50,000
inhabitants). The remaining 27.3% is represented by cultural organizations from rural
areas. Finally, from the point of view of their personnel, the 300 organizations are
distributed as follows: the majorities, namely 35.7%, work with no employees, but
collaborate with 1-10 volunteers. 13% of the cultural organizations have no
employees, but work together with over 10 volunteers. 9% employ between 1-10
people, but do not collaborate with volunteers. 25.3% have between 1-10 employees,
plus volunteers. Lastly, 17% of the total 300 cultural entities included in our sample
employ over 10 people, but do not work together with volunteers.
4. Findings and comments
In the first part of the research we conducted a descriptive analysis of the
external and internal communication of the cultural organizations; then, in view of the
hypotheses, we drew comparisons between the findings.
4.1. The external communication
In the study of the external communication we were concerned with the
following issues: a) the collaboration of the cultural organizations with other entities
and b) the promotion of the organization and of its activities (i.e. the external
communication media). Closely linked to these aspects, we also studied c) the
promotion of the corporate identity and d) the communication activities performed
within the organizations.
In particular, when examining a) the collaboration of the cultural
organizations with other entities, we took into account the following: the public (state-
owned) institutions; the local administration (the county council and town halls); the
organizations from the private sector; the organizations of the public sector; the
companies; the religious organizations; the political organizations; the mass-media
and the organizations from abroad. After that, we calculated the collaboration index in
order to create a single variable, which represents the degree of collaboration. Finally,
according to the intensity of collaboration, we categorized the collaboration index into
quartiles in order to assess the organizations’ distribution from this perspective as well
as to obtain more detailed results.
In this section, in accordance with the data obtained, we could come to the
following conclusion: the public cultural organizations communicated better with the
entities of the external environment than the organizations of the private sector.
When analyzing b) the promotion of the organization and of its activities (i.e.
the external communication media), we took into consideration the following
communication instruments: advertising; advertising in the newspaper; radio spots;
TV commercials; advertising on websites; advertising on Facebook, hi5 etc.; the own
website; banners; fliers; public relations; direct mailing; e-mail marketing;
telemarketing; participation in fairs, exhibitions and forums; press conferences and
Management & Marketing
620
open house presentations. Afterwards, we calculated the promotion index based on the
above-mentioned 15 communication media. Finally, according to the intensity of
promotion, we categorized the promotion index into quartiles in order to view the
organizations’ distribution from this standpoint.
Based on these results, we could briefly summarize that large cultural
organizations from urban areas (with over 50,000 inhabitants) promoted their
activities the best and, consequently, adopted a wide range of communication media.
When studying c) the promotion of the corporate identity, we analyzed the
following communication instruments: their own logo, their own motto and the
mission statement. With regard to these aspects, we could conclude that the private
organizations from big urban areas (with over 50,000 inhabitants) drew attention to
and laid an important stress on the promotion of corporate identity.
Finally, when examining d) the communication activities performed within
the organizations, we attempted to bring to light the following issues: first, whether
there were such activities carried out within the cultural entities; second, we were
interested in investigating whether the communication activities belonged to the
responsibilities of one individual, who on their turn was also involved in other
activities; third, we intended to identify whether there were people in the
organizations, exclusively in charge of communication; last, we aimed at examining if
the cultural organization had a separate communication department.
In the light of the obtained results, we could see that, in general, the cultural
organizations of our study did not pay enough attention to the communication
activities. What is more, only in the case of 20% of the studied population we could
identify a person or a department entirely responsible for communication. At the same
time, our findings revealed that the public organizations laid a greater stress on
communication activities than the entities of the public domain.
4.2. The internal communication
In our analysis of internal communication, we dealt with the following
problems: a) internal communication media, b) formal versus informal communication
and c) the internal communication strategies.
In order to investigate a) the internal communication media, we considered the
following communication means: meetings, discussions and formal gatherings;
spontaneous discussions; face-to-face conversations and oral reports; memos,
newsletters, circular letters and written reports; anniversaries, trips and tournaments;
the internal correspondence list of the active personnel; internal magazines; training
courses; training courses on communication; team-building sessions and suggestion
boxes.
In this respect, we could notice (Table 1) that cultural organizations resorted
primarily to oral communication instruments on a daily as well as permanent basis.
They preferred spontaneous discussions (53.3%), face-to-face conversations and oral
reports (32.5%) in their relationship with the active personnel. This result may indicate
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
621
the fact that the above mentioned internal communication media are simple, accessible
and fast, they require a minimum effort by the interlocutors and at the same time allow
faster reaction possibilities and a direct feed-back. From the written communication
instruments, the internal correspondence list ranked first (14.4%), this medium being
probably the easiest to use and observe by the members. Similarly, when looking at
the internal communication means used on a weekly basis, we can remark that a vast
majority (87.8%) of the cultural entities included in our sample preferred oral
communication to written. Furthermore, in the case of written communication, it was
again the internal correspondence list of the employees which seemed to be the most
popular one. As far as the least favored internal communication instruments are
concerned, we could observe that this category comprised internal magazines (90.6%)
and suggestion boxes (89.6%). This result may be explained by the fact that these
communication methods are either not yet widespread in our country or that they are
specific to corporations.
Table 1
Internal communication – internal communication media (%)
Daily /
Permanently
Weekly Monthly Rarely Never
Meetings, discussions and formal
gatherings
14.1 31.7 28.6 21.7 3.8
Spontaneous discussions 53.3 25.8 7.3 10.5 3.1
Face-to-face conversations and oral
reports
32.5 30.3 10.5 20.6 6.1
Memos, newsletters, circular letters and
written reports
4.0 12.0 12.0 40.4 31.6
Anniversaries, trips and tournaments 1.4 8.4 50.9 39.3
The internal correspondence list of the
active personnel
14.4 13.3 3.0 10.7 58.7
Internal magazines 0.4 1.5 4.1 3.4 90.6
Training courses 1.1 1.9 45.0 52.0
Training courses on communication 0.4 22.1 77.5
Team-building sessions 1.5 35.4 63.1
Suggestion boxes 1.5 1.9 6.9 89.6
In the next step of the study, we calculated the internal communication index
based on the above-mentioned 11 communication media. Lastly, according to the intensity
of the internal communication we categorized the internal communication index into
quartiles so as to observe the organizations’ distribution from this point of view.
Management & Marketing
622
In view of the results, we could generally state that there were no significant
differences between the organizations in their internal communication. More exactly,
we could not find major differences between the entities either from the standpoint of
communication media, the intensity of communication or their typology.
When carrying out the research on b) formal versus informal internal
communication, we regarded the following communication means: meetings,
discussions and formal gatherings; memos, newsletters, circular letters and written
reports; internal magazines; training courses; training courses on communication;
spontaneous discussions; anniversaries, trips and tournaments; team-building sessions
and suggestion boxes. Once investigating these issues, we could summarize that cultural
organizations preferred the informal communication means to the formal media.
In the final part of this descriptive section, we focused on c) the internal
communication strategies, examining whether they contributed to the success of the
organization or not. Last but not least, we were keen on finding out to what extent (to
a small degree or to a high degree) the communication strategies engaged led to
success. According to our results, 100% of the organizations, which elaborated and
applied internal communication strategies stated that these strategies had contributed
to the success of the organization. A great majority, 85.5% of the studied entities,
considered that the internal communication strategies had led to a large extent to their
success, whereas only 14.5% sustained that the strategies had played a minor part in
their success.
4.3. Comparative analysis on the external and internal communication
Deriving from the results of the descriptive analysis, we could find the
following correlations.
H1: Cultural organizations emphasize external communication more than
internal communication.
Taking into account the total of the variables defined by us as the indicators of
the external and internal communication (i.e. the collaboration of the cultural
organizations with other entities; the promotion of the organization and of its
activities; the internal communication media), we developed a standardized scale,
which we categorized into four main groups. Here, the standardized variable (z score)
means that these categories reveal objective information and that they are comparable.
On our sample the values “very weak” and “weak” denote a result below the sample
average, while the values “good” and “very good” refer to a result above average
(Figure 1).
According to the comparative study, we could remark that in the first
category, namely the organizations described by very good communication, 15.3% of
the subjects sustained that external communication in their organizations was more
pronounced than internal communication (6.1%). In the second category, the
organizations characterized by good communication, 43.3% of the entities stated that
in their case internal communication was more powerful than external communication.
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
623
Adding the values, the result leads to the conclusion that within cultural organizations
external communication is more pronounced than internal communication, which
validates our first hypothesis.
15.0
33.3
36.3
15.3
12.3
38.2
43.3
6.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
very weak weak good very good
external communication internal communication
Figure 1. External communication and internal communication (%)
H2: The private cultural organizations lay a greater stress on internal and
external communication than the cultural organizations of the public domain.
When examining the results obtained in the descriptive analysis, we came to a
real “conglomerate” of data. Thus, regarding external communication, we could
observe that the public organizations communicated better than the private ones.
Nevertheless, in the promotion of the corporate identity, it was the private entities,
which preceded the public ones. Referring to their internal communication, we could
also note that there were no significant differences between the cultural organizations.
Therefore, based on the above results, we presumed that the intensity of both
internal and external communication was primarily defined by the size of the
organizations. Hence the comparison of internal and external communication in the
case of the private and public organizations would make sense provided it was drawn
between organizations of similar sizes.
For this purpose, taking into consideration the active personnel of the cultural
entities, we developed a new indicator for the size of the organizations. Eventually, we
came to the following classification of the cultural entities: small organizations (with
1-5 active personnel), medium-sized organization (with 6-15 active personnel) and big
organization (with over 15 active personnel) (Table 2):
Management & Marketing
624
Table 2
Size of organization
Size of organization No. %
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 133 44.3
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) 101 33.7
Big organization (over 15 active personnel) 66 22.0
Total 300 100.0
Starting from the above division of the cultural entities, we resorted to the
Crosstab method and observed the association of the variables: public organization
and private organization; external communication and internal communication; and
the size of organization (Table 3 and Table 5).
Table 3
External communication in the case of public versus private organizations
(Crosstab)
External communication (%)
Size of organization
very
weak
weak good
very
good
Total
Public 31.4 42.9 17.1 8.6 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 18.4 40.8 29.6 11.2 100.0
Small organization
(1-5 active personnel)
Total 21.8 41.4 26.3 10.5 100.0
Public 7.4 25.9 51.9 14.8 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 12.2 36.5 39.2 12.2 100.0
Medium-sized
organization (6-15 active
personnel)
Total 10.9 33.7 42.6 12.9 100.0
Public 11.1 8.3 41.7 38.9 100.0 Type of
organization Private 3.3 26.7 53.3 16.7 100.0
Big organization
(over 15 active
personnel)
Total 7.6 16.7 47.0 28.8 100.0
As Table 3 indicates, in the external communication, the small private
organizations preceded the small public institutions by 40.8% (29.6% + 11.2%). In
contrast, in the case of the medium-sized entities, 66.7% of the public organizations
were characterized by good and very good external communication compared to
51.4% of the private entities. Likewise, in the case of big organizations, it was the
public entities, which outranked the private ones (by 80.6%). In a nutshell, we could
see that small private organizations communicated externally better than the public
entities. However, big and medium-sized public institutions had a better external
communication than the private entities of the same size.
Table 4
Spearman’s correlations and significance level
Size of organization R value Significance level (p)
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 0.156 0.072
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) -0.125 0.214
Big organization (over15 active personnel) -0.201 0.106
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
625
Yet if we examine this result based on Spearman’s correlations (Table 4), we
can ascertain that the significance level (“p”) is not less than 0.05 in the case of any of
the organization types. Thus, we can draw the conclusion that statistically the result is
not significant in any of the above organization categories. Therefore, our hypothesis
(from the standpoint of the external communication) is not valid.
Table 5
Internal communication in the case of public versus private organizations
(Crosstab)
Internal Communication (%)
Size of organization
very
weak
weak good
very
good
Total
Public 28.1 53.1 18.8 100.0 Type of
organization Private 10.4 47.9 39.6 2.1 100.0
Small organization (1-5
active personnel)
Total 14.8 49.2 34.4 1.6 100.0
Public 11.1 40.7 40.7 7.4 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 13.7 34.2 45.2 6.8 100.0
Medium-sized organization
(6-15 active personnel)
Total 13.0 36.0 44.0 7.0 100.0
Public 2.8 16.7 66.7 13.9 100.0 Type of
organization
Private 10.3 24.1 51.7 13.8 100.0
Big organization (over 15
active personnel)
Total 6.2 20.0 60.0 13.8 100.0
When studying the internal communication comparatively (Table 5), between
the two types of organizations, we could notice that, in the category of small entities,
the private organizations preceded the public ones by 41.7%. Similarly, in the case of
the medium-sized organizations, it was again the private organizations, which led (by
52.0%) as compared to 48.1% of the public entities. Nevertheless, related to big
organizations, we could note that the public entities (80.6%) had a better internal
communication than the private ones (65.5%).
Briefly, these results lead to the conclusion that small and medium-sized
private organizations are characterized by a better internal communication than the
public entities of the same size. Nonetheless, in the case of big entities, we can witness
the opposite situation: the public organizations communicate internally better than the
private entities.
Table 6
Spearman’s correlations and significance level
Size of organization R value Significance level (p)
Small organization (1-5 active personnel) 0.256 0.004
Medium-sized organization (6-15 active personnel) 0.013 0.898
Big organization (over 15 active personnel) -0.138 0.273
Still, examining this result based on Spearman’s correlations (Table 6), we
can notice that the significance level (“p”) is less than 0.05 only in the case of small
Management & Marketing
626
organizations. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that statistically the result is
significant only in the case of small organizations with 1-5 active personnel.
All in all, we can remark that hypothesis no. 2 is invalid except for the small
cultural organizations. However, in their case it appears to be valid only in terms of
the internal communication.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have set out to identify the type of communication that is the
most powerful in the context of cultural organizations. In addition, we have attempted
to investigate in the case of which organizations the external and internal
communication is stronger. Based on the obtained results, the research has partially
confirmed our general assumptions. In this respect, the first conclusion to be drawn is
that cultural organizations pay a greater attention to external communication than to
internal communication. The second conclusion is that there are no significant
differences between the cultural organizations of the private and the public sectors,
concerning the intensity of their external and internal communication.
To sum up, we take the view that this study can raise the awareness of the
cultural organizations to lay a more important stress on their communication. Only
when organizations draw attention to their communication, will they be able to better
function in a competitive environment. Communication turns out to be an invaluable
asset for cultural organizations, which – provided it is taken full advantage of – can
lead to higher performance.
References
Allen, B.J., Tompkins, P.K. and Busemeyer, S. (1996), “Organizational Communication”, in:
Salwen, M.B. and Stacks, D.W. (eds.) An Integrated Approach to Communication. Theory
and Research, pp. 383-395, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah
Badelt, Ch. (2002), “Ehrenamtliche Arbeit im Nonprofit Sektor”, in: Badelt, Ch. (ed.)
Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen und Management, pp. 573-604,
Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart
Berger, B. (2009), “Comunicarea organiza?ional? intern?”, available athttp://www.pr-
romania.ro/articole/comunicare-interna/142-comunicarea-organizationala-interna.html?
showall=1 (accessed April 22, 2012)
Charteris-Black, J. (2007), The Communication of Leadership: the Design of Leadership Style,
Routledge, Oxon
Guffey, M.E., Rhodes, K. and Rogin, P. (2010), Business Communication: Process and
Product, Nelson Education, Toronto
Heinrichs, W. (2006), Der Kulturbetrieb. Bildende Kunst / Musik / Literatur / Theater / Film,
Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld
Juris, S. (2004), Erfolgreiche interne Unternehmenskommunikation – Bedeutung,
Zielsetzungen und Maßnahmen, GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt
Klein, A. (2008), Besucherbindung im Kulturbetrieb. Ein Handbuch, VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
627
Krizan, A.C., Merrier, P., Logan, J. and Williams, C. (2011), Business Communication, South
Western Cengage Learning, Mason
Legea 504 din 17 noiembrie 2004 privind institu?iile publice de spectacole ?i concerte,
available at:http://legestart.ro/Legea-504-2004-institutiile-publice-spectacole-concerte-
%28MTMyMjMz%29.htm (accessed April 22, 2012)
Lupu, L. and Voicu, M. (2006), “Impactul comunic?rii manageriale asupra cre?terii
productivit??ii muncii în cadrul unei organiza?ii”, Management & Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 123-142
Matei, L. (2001), Management public, Editura Economic?, Bucure?ti
Mumby, D.K. and Clair, R.P. (2006), “Organizational Discourse”, in Dijk, T. van A. (ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction, pp. 181-205, SAGE Publications Ltd., London
Ordonan?a de urgen?? 189 din 25 noiembrie 2008 privind managementul institu?iilor de
spectacole sau concerte, muzeelor ?i colec?iilor publice, bibliotecilor ?i al a?ez?mintelor
culturale de drept public, available at:http://www.legestart.ro/Ordonanta-de-urgenta-189-
2008-managementul-institutiilor-spectacole-concerte-muzeelor-colectiilor-publice-
bibliotecilor-asezamintelor-culturale-drept-public-%28MzIwODgz%29.htm (accessed April
22, 2012)
Ordonan?a nr. 26 din 30 ianuarie 2000 cu privire la asocia?ii ?i funda?ii, available at:http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=22060 (accessed April 22, 2012)
Pop, L. and Harosa, L.M. (2006), Drept civil. Drepturile reale principale, Universul Juridic,
Bucure?ti
Sinha, B.P. and Reddy, M.N (1991), Organizational Communication. A Structural and
Functional Analysis, Mittal Publications, New Delhi
Smith, L. and Mounter, P. (2008), Effective Internal Communication, Kogan Page, London
Stone, N. (1995), The Management and Practice of Public Relations, Macmillan Business,
London
Stuart, B.E., Sarow, M.S. and Stuart, L. (2007), Integrated Business Communication in a
Global Marketplace, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
Theaker, A. (2004), The Public Relations Handbook, Routledge, Oxfordshire
Tompkins, P.K., Montoya, Y.J. and Candrian, C.B. (2009), “Watch Your Neighbor Watching
You: Applying Concertive Control in Changing Organizational Environments”, in: Stacks,
D.W. and Salwen, M.B. (eds.) An Integrated Approach to Communication. Theory and
Research, pp. 370-386, Routledge, New York
Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1995), Personnel Management. HRM in Action, Prentice Hall,
London
Zecheru, V. (2002), Management în cultur?, Litera Interna?ional, Bucure?ti
About the authors
Kovács RÉKA is an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Economics within
“Babe?-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Her areas of interest include
culture management and organizational communication.
Anca BORZA (PhD) is a professor at the Department of Management,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, “Babe?-Bolyai” University of
Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Holding a PhD in Economics, her main research areas include
strategic management and entrepreneurship. She published books and papers in
national and international journals.
Management & Marketing
628
Appendix
Questionnaire regarding the communication of cultural organizations from the Centre
Development Region of Romania (abbreviated version)
1. Last year did the organization collaborate with the following institutions/organi-
zations? If YES, how would you describe this collaboration?
YES. HOW WOULD YOU
DESCRIBE IT?
NO
Occasional
collaboration
Continuous
collaboration
1. Public (state-owned) institutions 0 1 2
2. Local administration (the county council and town halls) 0 1 2
3. Other organizations from the private sector 0 1 2
4. Other organizations from the public sector 0 1 2
5. Companies 0 1 2
6. Religious organizations 0 1 2
7. Political organizations 0 1 2
8. Mass-media 0 1 2
9. Organizations from abroad 0 1 2
2. What communication instruments do you use in order to promote the organization
and its activities?
NO
YES,
occasionally
YES,
frequently
1. Advertising, advertising in the newspaper 0 1 2
2. Advertising, radio spots 0 1 2
3. Advertising, TV commercials 0 1 2
4. Advertising on websites 0 1 2
5. Advertising on facebook, hi5 etc. 0 1 2
6. Own website 0 1 2
7. Banners 0 1 2
8. Fliers 0 1 2
9. Public relations 0 1 2
10. Direct mailing 0 1 2
11. E-mail marketing 0 1 2
12. Telemarketing 0 1 2
13. Participation in fairs, exhibitions and forums 0 1 2
14. Press conferences 0 1 2
15. Open house presentations 0 1 2
Internal and external communication within cultural organizations
629
3. In promoting the corporate identity does the organization have an/a ...?
NO YES
1. Own logo 0 1
2. Own motto 0 1
3. Mission statement 0 1
4. Does the organization have ...?
NO YES
1. An activity plan for this year? 0 1
2. A written communication plan for this year? 0 1
3. An activity report for the year 2010? 0 1
If it has a communication plan ...
5. Do you think that the organization’s internal communication strategy has
contributed to the success of the organization?
No Yes, to a small degree Yes, to a high degree
0 1 2
6. To whose responsibility do the communication activities belong ...?
Communication
department
An individual who is
exclusively in charge of
communication
An individual who
on their turn is also
involved in other
activities
There are no separate
communication
activities identified
4 3 2 1
7. How many people (full-time employees, volunteers) are actively engaged in the
organization of the activities within your institution?
People no.: ...........................................
Management & Marketing
630
8. What types of communication instruments are used in the organization’s
communication with the active personnel? How frequently are these communication
instruments used?
Daily /
Permanently
Weekly Monthly Rarely Never
Meetings, discussions and formal
gatherings
5 4 3 2 1
Spontaneous discussions 5 4 3 2 1
Face-to-face conversations and oral
reports
5 4 3 2 1
Memos, newsletters, circular letters and
written reports
5 4 3 2 1
Anniversaries, trips and tournaments 5 4 3 2 1
The internal correspondence list of the
active personnel
5 4 3 2 1
Internal magazines 5 4 3 2 1
Training courses 5 4 3 2 1
Training courses on communication 5 4 3 2 1
Team-building sessions 5 4 3 2 1
Suggestion boxes 5 4 3 2 1
doc_794315543.pdf