SEEU Review vol. 6 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

SEEU Review Volume 6, No. 2, 2010without regard for the well being of the people who constitute theorganization.Going along with the metaphor of the organization as a living system,which is contingent on change, it makes sense that the definition of theorganizational communication in this system is process. In order for thedefinition to be framed, the organizational communication must be ongoing,evolutionary, and culturally dependent. It should also reflect the sharedrealities of the employees. The changes in the external environment (socialnorms for example), whether it is the country itself (USA) or the universitycampus, affect the organizational communication within the system andmake it evolutionary and ongoing. The organizational communication in thissystem is inherently culturally dependent because of the internationalelements (students) in the system, and because of the relations with theinternational world. It reflects the shared realities in terms of the employees’shared international experiences, which result in their belief in the missionand vision statements. Also, the shared reality is reflected in the jargon usedwithin the system, which pertains to laws and issues for internationalstudents. Finally, process is one of the logical frameworks for theperspective and school of thought that best defines the organization.My observations highlight that the organization used a method to diffuseits communication mainly by e-mail and less face to face. The atmosphere inthe organization seemed quiet and employees were focused on getting workdone. When they talked to each other they did that quietly so that they do notdisturb the others or at least to not disturb the overall quiet but workingatmosphere.As far as language modality is concerned, I noticed mostly verbalcommunication, which may be due to the physical layout of the offices orcubicles. In most instances, employees were unable to see outside of theiroffice or cubicle. It is not uncommon for employees in adjoining cubicles tospeak to each other over the “walls.” When this occurred, the intendedreceiver was not the only one to receive the communication even thoughthey tried to talk quietly; co-workers whose desks are within earshot mayjoin in the conversation whether it is formal or informal. Although most ofthe formal communication is directed to intended receivers (i.e. staffmeetings, e-mails, work related face-to-face conversation among twopeople) the instances where communication is intercepted by unintendedreceivers tends to occur when those communicating are in a common area.Additionally, as mentioned above, shared meaning is present in thissystem by adopting a group restricted code, or jargon, which represents,87