In my blog post Two Vistas in Organizational Communication, I talked about the two opposing perspectives in looking at organizational communication as a discipline. One perspective gives more importance in understanding organizational dynamics over communication. The other perspective sees communication as fundamental in any organizational situation. I would try to contribute to this debate by taking a stand.
I believe that there is one superior perspective: understanding the science behind and of organizations is more important than having knowledge on different communication strategies. As organizational communication scholars, we should recognize ourselves as scientists of organizations who solve problems, formulate policies, and implement changes based on methodical and precise investigation of the organization, its stakeholders, and the environment. Having this perspective does not mean that we should limit our way of looking at communication and consider it as a mere tool. We still see communication as the pivotal process that shapes the structure of an organization. We take full advantage of this in achieving the desired situation.
In creating a communication plan, for example, an orgscientist would first look at the organization’s need, its culture, its people, its resources, its identity, and the overall organizational makeup. Then, he analyzes the problem backed with his practical knowledge in the social sciences. With a good grasp on the problem or opportunity, the orgscientist sets a goal with well-defined objectives and then creates strategies and tactics parallel to and addressing the problem or opportunity.
Here, we see the edge of OrCom as compared with other communication courses. We are not just trained on how to use the different communication tools. We are also very proficient in understanding the cultural, social, economic, and political landscapes of an organization. This proficiency allows us to manage any brand in any given situation.
With social and digital media coming into sight as recent trends in communication, another tool is introduced to the orgscientists. Now, the challenge for the scientist is to predict how resilient his organization is in dealing and coping with this new landscape. The orgscientist should be able to maximize this new platform in order to ensure growth and longevity for his organization. Not being able to cope with these changes brought by the modern world would mean stagnation or death of an organization, considering the palpable competition in the business world. At the end of the day, one of the orgscientist’s tasks is to “invent” new ways in annihilating competition and making his organization the best among the rest.
The Orgscientist 