A Multidisciplinary Approach for a New Understanding of Corporate Communication

Purpose: To better understand the concept of communication in organizations through the comparison of definitions given by scholars from different business-related communication disciplines: marketing, public relations, organizational communication
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  A Multidisciplinary Approach for a New Understanding of CorporateCommunicationAlessandra Mazzei IULM University, Institute of Economics and Published as:Mazzei, A. (2014). A multidisciplinary approach or a ne! understandin" o corporate communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal  , #ol. 19 , $. 2, pp. 21%&2'0. http:d.doi.or"10.110*++-&12&2011&00' AbstractPurpose :   To better understand te conce!t of communication in organizations troug tecom!arison of definitions given by scolars from different business"related communicationdisci!lines: marketing, !ublic relations, organizational communication and cor!oratecommunication.  Approach :   # revie$ of !revalent definitions in te four mentioned disci!lines% discussion of communication aims, communication categorizations, teoretical background and innovationsin eac of tese disci!lines% and finally analysis of convergences and differences.  Findings :   #ll te disci!lines considered in tis study converge in looking at te entirecommunication of a business, ado!ting a relational !ers!ective, valuing some intangibleresources as outcomes of communication. Tey igligt also some nuanced differences. Research implications :   &iger value sould be attaced to researc results in tecommunication field tat come from considering multi!le !oints of vie$, because eacdisci!line contributes s!ecific connotations to te com!reension of communication. Originality!alue : Te !a!er com!ares some business"related communication disci!lines andconsiders eac as inde!endent $ile benefiting from cross"fertilization. Te multi!le !oints of vie$ allo$ a multidisci!linary a!!roac and te a$areness of te !olysemic nature of communication. "ntroduction 'at is cor!orate communication( &o$ do te terms cor!orate communication, organizationalcommunication, !ublic relations, integrated communication, olistic communication, businesscommunication and te like, eac of $ic refers to te communication of an organization,differ from eac oter and o$ do tey overla!(Many fields of study ave develo!ed different !oints of vie$ on te conce!t of communication: !olitical science, economics, sociology, !sycology, management science,antro!ology, linguistics, cybernetics, biology, !iloso!y and government )*arey, +-. Telist could be etended furter $it business"related communication field of studies: advertising,cor!orate communication, marketing, organizational communication, !ublic relations, masscommunication and semiotics. Eac of te above"mentioned fields is institutionalized as adisci!line, because tere are field"s!ecific manuals, /ournals, university courses, !rofessionalassociations and academic net$orks.Te contents of /ournals and courses in te different fields overla!, and as aconse0uence it is not clear if it is sim!ly te case tat academics call similar tings by differentnames )1elby, 2334-. Te abundance of terms could create confusion )5ro!! and 6incus, +2:  237-. It is not /ust a matter of $ords, because te conce!t of communication ado!ted is relevant bot for !ractice and researc )*arey, +-. Many scolars ave dealt $it te issue of multi!le disci!lines and terms referring to te communication of organizations because tisissue is linked to teir o$n disci!linary identity and te !ossibility of !roducing a better understanding of te communication !enomenon. Tis study contributes to te understanding of communication of organizations using !ers!ectives from several disci!lines in order to enance its understanding. Te effort !resentedin tis article traces areas of overla! and differences among te various business"relatedcommunication disci!lines in order to reac a better understanding of te meaning of communication in organizations.Te article revie$s !revious studies tat dealt $it te issue of multi!le disci!lines of communication. Ten it discusses a com!arative analysis bet$een four business"relatedcommunication disci!lines: marketing, organizational communication, !ublic relations andcor!orate communication. In conclusion te article re!orts some elements of convergence anddifference and igligts some issues tat call for a multidisci!linary a!!roac, !reserving amore com!reensive understanding. 8inally it !ro!oses suggestions for furter researc and tedevelo!ment of managerial im!lications. #$ Pre!ious studies 6revious studies treat te issue of similarities and differences among multi!le communicationdisci!lines in different $ays. 1ome scolars ave !ro!osed com!arisons bet$een some of tesedisci!lines. 8or eam!le several investigations ave e!lored relationsi!s bet$een !ublicrelations and marketing )5ornelissen, +9% 5ornelissen, &arris, +% ;itcen, +4% &utton,+2% Mc;ie, 'illis, +2+- and among !ublic relations, communication management andorganizational communication )'emeier, +9-. #lso an attem!t as been made to analyse te boundaries and te relationsi!s among organizational, business, management and cor!oratecommunication, focusing in !articular on differences )1elby, 2334-. # very recent study)8randsen, <oansen, +24, in !rinting- igligts some differences bet$een cor!oratecommunication and four related disci!lines )!ublic relations, organizational communication,marketing and business communication- altoug considers !romising te efforts to connecttem.=ters ave discussed an integrative a!!roac. 8or eam!le researcers ave eaminedinterrelationsi!s bet$een organizational communication and !ublic relations )Teis">erglmair,+9-, bet$een !ublic relations and communication management )1zyszka, +9- and bet$eenmarketing communication and general management )*arey, +-. =ne !ro!osal asigligted some intersections bet$een researc in cor!orate communication and organizationalcommunication )5ristensen and 5ornelissen, +22-. =ter scolars ave regarded some of tese disci!lines as s!ecializations of anoter field. 8or eam!le, integrated marketingcommunication as been treated as a s!ecialism of !ublic relations and cor!oratecommunication )Tenc and ?eomans, +3-. =ne study !ro!oses an interdisci!linary definition )erfass et al., +9-. 1trategiccommunication considers all communications in organizations from an integratedmultidisci!linary !ers!ective elaborating on various academic fields: cor!orate communication,marketing, advertising and !ublic relations, business communication skills and organizational beaviour )&allanan et al., +A-. 1ome of tese terms B cor!orate communication, !ublicrelations and organizational communication B ave been considered synonymous because teysare te same body of kno$ledge, skills and !rofessional areas )Invernizzi, +7-. #noter study underlines different a!!roaces in #merican and Euro!ean definitions of cor!orate communication )Coodman, &irsc, +2-. =ter analyses lead to a !reference for maintaining a distinction, in order to !reserve te autonomy of !ublic relations from marketing)Crunig and Crunig, 2339% &utton, +2-. %$ Research design and methodology Te !resent article e!lores a ne$ a!!roac in order to better understand te conce!t of cor!orate communication: it ado!ts te !ers!ectives of several disci!lines in order to enance  its understanding. It avoids systematizations $ic tend to subsume a number of fields $itin ama/or disci!line, and it does not attem!t to reac an all"inclusive definition. Instead, tis studycooses to analyse eac area as a disci!line tat as evolved inde!endently $ile benefitingfrom cross"fertilization. Its aim is to investigate $eter te different disci!lines !resent areasof overla! and s!ecificity, in order to understand $at kind of a!!roac $ould be mosta!!ro!riate for researc and !ractice. Tis study eamines definitions derived from four business"related communicationdisci!lines: marketing, organizational communication, !ublic relations and cor!oratecommunication )#utor, +D% #utor, +2-. Tey ave been cosen among many disci!linesdealing $it communication by and inside organizations and saring a common foundation andlinked to eac oter )Elving, +2+-. It does not offer a com!reensive literature revie$% tat isnot te aim of tis article and it $ould be im!ossible due to te enormous volume of studies. It !resents an analysis based on key articles and tetbooks for eac disci!line, selected amongtose considered to be a !oint of reference for eac disci!line. Te study ado!ts a com!arative a!!roac, in order to identify te eistence and teetent of similarities and differences among !enomena. Like variable"oriented metods,com!arative metods eamine !atterns of relationsi!s among variables )agin, ubison,+3-. Tis study com!ares definitions given by te four disci!lines on te basis of tefollo$ing conce!tual variables: te !ur!ose of communication, te criteria a!!lied for categorizing communication and te teoretical background. Tese variables ave beenidentified analysing te elements tat recur in eac disci!line $en tey !resent teir o$ndefinition. &$ Mar'eting( "ntegrated Mar'eting Communication and )otally "ntegratedCommunication  FIntegrated Marketing 5ommunication )IM5- is te !rocess of develo!ing andim!lementing various forms of !ersuasive communications !rograms $itcustomers and !ros!ects over timeG );itcen, >rignell, Li and <ones, +: ++-. Integrated Marketing 5ommunication )IM5- sees communication as te focal !oint of relationsi!s $it customers because it creates brand value in te form of sales, !rofits and brand e0uity );itcen, >rignell, Li and <ones, +-. IM5 ado!ts an outside"in logic: it starts$it te analysis of te relational needs of customers in order to develo! suitable !roducts andservices and to align communication activities. #ll moments of contact bet$een te com!anyand te clients are valuable since every communication tat emanates from te com!anycontributes to develo!ing customer loyalty and organizational re!utation );itcen and 1cultz,+4-.Marketing communication as been divided into four areas )Cuatri, *icari and 8iocca,2333-: marketing communication addressed to customers% institutional communication dealing$it all stakeolders including customers, o!inion leaders, !oliticians, citizens, activist grou!sand so on% management communication targeted to all roles tat contribute to te value cain of te com!any including em!loyees, su!!liers, industrial !artners and retailers% and financialcommunication addressed to investors including sareolders, stockolders and banks. Eacarea as s!ecific targets, content and aims. Heverteless, some targets, content and aimsoverla!, creating an area in common tat te autors suggest calling Fintegrated businesscommunicationG tat sould armonize targets, content and aims in order to seek synergy andavoid contradictions. Integration at a strategic level of all communications is crucial in order to build andreinforce brands and to establis loyalty and long"term relationsi!s )uncan and Moriarty,2339-. Messages sould be non"contradictory and com!lementary )Moriarty, 233-. Integratedmessages stem from te sender, namely te com!any, but te receiving !rocess involves makingsense of messages and is greatly influenced by customers and stakeolders. 5onse0uentlyeffective integrated communication re0uires a culture of !artnersi! )5ristensen et al  ., +3-.In order to avoid integrated communication becoming marketing controlled communication, teFfleible integration a!!roacG focuses on bot consistency and inclusion of variety  )5ristensen et al.,  +3-. Tis broad inter!retation of integrated communication encom!asseste sending and inter!reting !rocesses and also te internal integration of te organizationalculture )Tor!, +3-.  Ho$adays marketing is becoming more oriented to creating and maintaining !ositiverelationsi!s $it all stakeolders in order to balance te com!anyJs need to make a !rofit $itcustomer satisfaction and te !ublic interest );itcen and 1cultz, +4-. In addition, marketingstudies stress tat te cor!orate brand transfers its values from te cor!orate identity to tesingle !roduct brands, reinforcing tem. 8or tis reason, bot !roduct and cor!oratecommunication activities are im!ortant in acieving marketing ob/ectives. Terefore, teconce!ts of totally integrated communication );itcen and 1cultz, +4- and totalcommunications )#berg, 233- are emerging. Tey refer to te integration of communication at bot single brand and com!any level and encom!ass all communication initiatives carried out by te com!any directed to$ard its stakeolders, from a coordinated and synergeticmanagement !ers!ective. *$ Organizational Communication F=rganizational communication is te !rocess of creating and ecangingmessages $itin a net$ork of interde!endent relationsi!s to co!e $itenvironmental uncertaintyG )Coldaber, 2334:27-. Te very large number of teories and volume of researc in organizational communication)<ablin, 6utnam, +2- ave been syntesized into si meta!or clusters )6utnam et al. 233D, in5legg, &ardy and Hord, 233D-. Te conduit meta!or vie$s organizations as containers or cannels, and communication is a tool for information transmission. Te lens meta!or vie$ste organization as an eye tat scans te environment seeking information and relayinginformation. 5ommunication is a filtering, rece!tion and !erce!tion !rocess. Te linkage meta!or defines te organization as a relationsi! net$ork, andcommunication is e0uated $it connections. It vie$s te organization as coordinated actionstat enact teir o$n rules, structures and environment troug social interactions.5ommunication is social interaction and sense"making. Te symbol meta!or considers te organization as a literary tet and a symbolicmilieu. 5ommunication is inter!retation troug meaning creation and saring. Te voicemeta!or vie$s te organization as a corus. 5ommunication is te e!ression and distortion of te voices of organizational members. Te discourse meta!or considers te organization astets and !atterns of interaction. 5ommunication is e0uated $it conversation tat intert$inesaction and meaning. esearc studies in te field of organizational communication assume, im!licitly or e!licitly, a !eculiar vie$ of uman communication syntetized into four !ers!ectives );rone etal. 239A-. Te mecanistic !ers!ective sees communication as te transmission of messagesacross s!ace, via a cannel from one sender to a receiver. It is a causal and linear model of communication and !rimarily focuses on te cannels. Te !sycological !ers!ective !rimarilyconcentrates on o$ te caracteristics of individuals, suc as cognition, attitudes andconce!tual filters, affect te communication !rocess. Te inter!retive"symbolic !ers!ectiveado!ts te ideas of te !rocess of organizing )'eick, 23A3- and states tat organizationalcommunication consists of coordinated beaviours tat build te socially constructed reality.Te focus is on congruence bet$een te meanings given to events and on culture tat im!actste inter!retive !rocess. Te system interaction !ers!ective focuses on se0uences of !atterned beaviours. Te communication !rocess is greater tan te sum of its !arts. =rganizational communication studies so$, firstly, tat communication andorganization are t$o e0uivalent conce!ts )Tom!kins and 'anca"Tibault, +2-. 1econdly, ita!!ears tat communication is not contained in te organization, nor does it mirror or reflectreality. =n te contrary, communication is formative and creates te organization )Mc6ee and1cott 6oole, +2-: F5ommunication and organization are e0uivalent )K-% it is te !aint and tecanvas, te figure and te groundG )Tom!kins and 'anca"Tibault, +2: i-.  Tere is a gro$ing tendency to focus organizational communication researc on teFcommunication teory of organizationG )eetz, +2: 7-. =rganization is Fa tet !roduced by aset of autors, troug conversationG )Taylor, 2334: 3D-. In oter $ords, $at emerges is teidea tat te organization is communicative by nature. Tis conce!t is syntesized in te idea of te Fe!ressive organizationG )1cultz, &atc and Larsen, +-.More recently, te notion as emerged in te field of organizational communication of F5ommunication 5onstitutive of =rganizingG )#scraft, ;un and 5ooren, +3% 6utnam and Hicotera, +3-. Tis conce!t derives from 'eickJs notion of F!rocess of organizingG )'eick,23A3-, $ic contrasts $it te conce!t of a static organization. It !oints out te relevance of language and collective sense"making communication !rocesses to create te organization. Tecommunicative constitution of organization relies on four kinds of interaction !rocesses:membersi! negotiation, selfstructuring, activity coordination, and institutional !ositioning)Mc6ee and uag, +-. +$ Public Relations 1colars in te field of !ublic relations ado!t several !aradigms )Ed$ards, +2+- generatingmany terms associated $it it )5ro!! and 6incus, +2-. Te conce!t of !ublic relations canassume tree meanings. Te first is to communicate $it te !ublics of an organization in order to !ersuade tem. 8or eam!le: FTe goal of 6 is to influence te beaviours of grou!s of !eo!le in relation toeac oterG )'ite, Mazur, 233D:22 in Tenc, ?eomans, +3-. Tis meaning includes te F!ress agency"!ublicityG, te F!ublic informationG and teFt$o"$ay asymmetricG models of !ublic relations )Crunig and &unt, 239-. Troug ascientific a!!roac based on !ersuasion tecni0ues and audience analysis, !ublic relationss!ecialists ave oned teir abilities to construct and disseminate !ersuasive messages. Te second meaning refers to !ublic relations as relationsi! management. It $asintroduced by 8erguson )239- and ten su!!orted by many scolars, including 5utli!, 5enter and >room )+D-, >room and ozier )233-, Crunig et al. )233+-, and &utton )2333-. Tis ty!e of definition refers e!licitly to systems teory by defining !ublic relations asa subsystem tat connects te organizational system to te environmental system )Crunig and&unt, 239-. Ledingam and >runing )+- develo!ed tis model and a!!lied it to s!ecializedareas of !ublic relations. ;ent and Taylor )++- e!anded te conce!t to te one of dialogic !ublic relations. Te most recent and !romising trend in !ublic relations is te transition fromfunctionalism to te co"creation !ers!ective )>otan and Taylor, +-. Te tird meaning refers to !ublic relations as a mean for !ositioning te organization)5ro!! and 6incus, +2- and its re!utation )&utton, 2333-. 5rucial to tis ste! is te maturingof te role of !ublic relations !rofessional from tecnical to managerial )Crunig and &unt,239% Crunig, Crunig and ozier, ++% >room and 1mit, 23A3% ozier, 239-. Tecommunication tecnicianJs $ork focuses on message creation, its s!reading at a tactical leveland im!lementing decisions taken by oter !eo!le in te com!any. Te communicationmanager develo!s communication strategies and !olicies $it a long"term orizon )ozier,239-. Te managerial role im!lies etending te skills of !ublic relations !ractitioners tofinancial and economic analysis, decision"making and !ro/ect management. Masteringmanagerial skills can legitimize !ublic relations !rofessionals $itin te eecutive management board of te com!any. Te various conce!ts of !ublic relations are !art of a continuum and tey overla!. Teydo not disregard eac oter but rater integrate eac oter )5ro!! and 6incus, +2-.8urtermore, scolars in te field ado!t assum!tions tat are connected, so$ing tat !ublicrelations cannot be com!artmentalized )Ed$ards, +2+-. 6ublic relations as been divided into s!ecialist areas suc as media relations, internalcommunications, community relations, issue management, crisis management, !ublic affairs,financial relations and s!onsorsi! )Crunig and &unt, 239% ;itcen, +4% 5utli!, 5enter and>room, +D% Tenc and ?eomans, +3-. Tis kind of categorization im!licitly refers to te
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks