Albrecht, T.L. & Hall, B.J.. (1991). Communication Monographs, 58, pp.273-288
Bullet Express MIM Study Group (Pennie, Helen, Vijay, Torrance, Ian).
Audience: Academics, Managers.
Theme:
Innovation is frequently cited in academic literature as being critical if organizations are to avoid stagnation, develop/retain competitive advantage, and grow. An often neglected influencer on innovation in organizations (particularly in the knowledge management literature), is the important role that interpersonal communication processes play. It is the influence of these processes on organizational innovation that forms the theme of this paper.
Summary.
The authors open by describing the role of interpersonal relationships in the context of employees discussing potential innovative ways of doing things. This is highlighted further they say, when one considers the fact that innovative processes within an organizational setting tend to rely on give-and-take collaboration, simply because of the reality of organizational politics and economics, and the resultant need to establish a base of support for the novel idea. While this paper precedes many of the course references related to innovation and intrapreneurs (organizational entrepreneurs), it ties in nicely with some of the concepts discussed in the later papers.
The authors go on to highlight that there is a risk with talking about innovation, in that it exposes the originator to evaluation by other members of the organization, at a time when the innovator’s ideas are possibly questioning some of the beliefs they have regarding familiar routines, relationships, power balance, etc. The authors also describe how it is difficult from a pragmatic sense to separate evaluating an innovative concept from evaluating the individual who proposed the concept. This evaluation can threaten the personal standing and reputation of the originator within the organization (i.e. their face). Fear of such evaluation can stymie the conversations about innovation, and so potentially, innovation itself.
The authors tie this fear of evaluation into the Theory of Politeness and describe that as the threat to an individual’s personal face increases, the likelihood of engaging in talk about innovative ideas diminishes. The authors also describe the concepts of relationship multiplexity (i.e. having a relationship with someone who is both a work colleague and a friend) and content multiplexity (conversations that relate to both work and personal life), and how increased levels of multiplexity are associated with greater degrees of trust and certainty (in the relationship). The authors then propose that the type of relationship that exists between various work colleagues can influence whether or not innovative ideas are discussed.
Two experimental studies were described, based upon the assumption that the degree of multiplexity in conversation and relationship type (and hence related trust levels between individuals) would influence the level of innovation related employee discussions. The findings of the studies indicated that multiplex workplace relationships (especially ones involving friendship) fostered discussion of new ideas, and ultimately had a positive influence on organizational innovation. The key attributes of such relationships were that they were identified as being important, credible, supportive, trustworthy, and work-compatible. It was also important that discussion content was also multiplex, containing both work related and personal communication.
The authors discussed the implications of their findings, and pointed out that the willingness of employees to discuss new ideas will be hindered by factors such as power differences, degree of social distance, and an organisational climate that magnifies the personal risk involved in failed innovation attempts. They also point out that while conversation regarding innovation is important, it was found to be a relatively low frequency event. They quickly pointed out however, that talk about innovation was relationally complex, and isn’t a process that can be successfully imposed on people.
Review:
Bullet Express MIM Study Group (Pennie, Helen, Vijay, Torrance, Ian).
Audience: Academics, Managers.
Theme:
Innovation is frequently cited in academic literature as being critical if organizations are to avoid stagnation, develop/retain competitive advantage, and grow. An often neglected influencer on innovation in organizations (particularly in the knowledge management literature), is the important role that interpersonal communication processes play. It is the influence of these processes on organizational innovation that forms the theme of this paper.
Summary.
The authors open by describing the role of interpersonal relationships in the context of employees discussing potential innovative ways of doing things. This is highlighted further they say, when one considers the fact that innovative processes within an organizational setting tend to rely on give-and-take collaboration, simply because of the reality of organizational politics and economics, and the resultant need to establish a base of support for the novel idea. While this paper precedes many of the course references related to innovation and intrapreneurs (organizational entrepreneurs), it ties in nicely with some of the concepts discussed in the later papers.
The authors go on to highlight that there is a risk with talking about innovation, in that it exposes the originator to evaluation by other members of the organization, at a time when the innovator’s ideas are possibly questioning some of the beliefs they have regarding familiar routines, relationships, power balance, etc. The authors also describe how it is difficult from a pragmatic sense to separate evaluating an innovative concept from evaluating the individual who proposed the concept. This evaluation can threaten the personal standing and reputation of the originator within the organization (i.e. their face). Fear of such evaluation can stymie the conversations about innovation, and so potentially, innovation itself.
The authors tie this fear of evaluation into the Theory of Politeness and describe that as the threat to an individual’s personal face increases, the likelihood of engaging in talk about innovative ideas diminishes. The authors also describe the concepts of relationship multiplexity (i.e. having a relationship with someone who is both a work colleague and a friend) and content multiplexity (conversations that relate to both work and personal life), and how increased levels of multiplexity are associated with greater degrees of trust and certainty (in the relationship). The authors then propose that the type of relationship that exists between various work colleagues can influence whether or not innovative ideas are discussed.
Two experimental studies were described, based upon the assumption that the degree of multiplexity in conversation and relationship type (and hence related trust levels between individuals) would influence the level of innovation related employee discussions. The findings of the studies indicated that multiplex workplace relationships (especially ones involving friendship) fostered discussion of new ideas, and ultimately had a positive influence on organizational innovation. The key attributes of such relationships were that they were identified as being important, credible, supportive, trustworthy, and work-compatible. It was also important that discussion content was also multiplex, containing both work related and personal communication.
The authors discussed the implications of their findings, and pointed out that the willingness of employees to discuss new ideas will be hindered by factors such as power differences, degree of social distance, and an organisational climate that magnifies the personal risk involved in failed innovation attempts. They also point out that while conversation regarding innovation is important, it was found to be a relatively low frequency event. They quickly pointed out however, that talk about innovation was relationally complex, and isn’t a process that can be successfully imposed on people.
Review:
I enjoyed this article. It was well written, flowed nicely, and I wasn’t expected to make any conceptual leaps to follow their arguments. Even though the article is quite old, it still resonates true (to me at least), and had an air of timelessness about it. I also liked how it tied back to established social science theory.
The key thing I took away from it was that interpersonal behaviour is an important contributor to organisational innovation, which makes sense, but is not something I automatically think about when viewing things through a KM lens. It would also be interesting to see that if face to face conversation was replaced / augmented with technology that was not available in 1991 (i.e. introduce communication channel multiplexity), if similar results would be obtained.
