UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 8.9 Free with a free account
Organizational Communication Dynamics
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 8: Communication ModuleSection 8.9 · lesson 56 of 9011 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Meeting Management: Principles and Practice →← Verbal, Non-Verbal and Vocal CommunicationNext lesson: Meeting Management: Principles and Practice →
In this lesson
Direction, network, and the two human tendencies that decide what actually arrives.
- Distinguish the four directions of formal communication
- Explain the mum effect and why silence is not reassurance
- Summarise Leavitt's network experiments and their trade-offs
- Recognise information overload as the opposite failure
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,541 words). Read along, or search it.
Communication Module
Organizational Communication Dynamics
Before any message reaches its audience, it has to travel through a structure. A direction of flow. A network of relationships. And a set of predictable human tendencies that shape what survives the trip. A message sent downward by a director behaves nothing like a concern raised upward. This section covers the four directions, the two networks every organisation runs. Leavitt's classic experiments on network shape. And two dynamics that quietly determine how much of what is sent is actually received.
Four Directions
A Message Has to Travel Somewhere
Formal communication is conventionally described as moving in four directions. Downward communication flows from higher levels of the hierarchy to lower ones. Policies, instructions, goals, and performance feedback. Upward communication flows the other way. Reports, concerns, suggestions and requests, moving from subordinates toward superiors. Horizontal communication, sometimes called lateral, moves between peers or departments. It coordinates work that no single authority line covers. Diagonal communication cuts across both level and department at once. A project coordinator speaking directly with a specialist two levels down in another division. None of the four is inherently superior. Each exists because a particular coordination problem cannot be solved efficiently any other way.
Barriers
Each Direction Has Its Own Enemy
Downward communication loses detail and nuance as messages pass through successive levels. Each direction carries its own barrier. Upward runs into the mum effect. Bad news gets softened, delayed, or withheld entirely. Horizontal communication runs into turf protection. And into the absence of any formal channel, which encourages silo behaviour. Diagonal communication runs into ambiguous authority. And bypassed managers who feel excluded from decisions about their own areas. Which means over-relying on any single direction has a specific cost. An organisation running almost entirely downward accumulates blind spots. One running too heavily on diagonal channels leaves managers uninformed about their own patch.
The Mum Effect
Why Bad News Arrives Late
Upward communication carries a hazard the other three do not share to the same degree. It is called the mum effect. The systematic tendency of subordinates to soften or omit bad news to superiors. It is rarely a matter of dishonesty in the ordinary sense. It is better understood as a rational response to a predictable social risk. Messengers of bad news are, however unfairly, often associated with the news itself. And a subordinate who has watched a colleague be blamed for surfacing an inconvenient truth. Learns very quickly which version of events is safer to report. In cultures where mistakes are punished visibly and personally. And weakest where raising a concern early is treated as a contribution, not a confession. Rather than as a confession.
The Consequence
Deciding on a Picture That Is Already Out of Date
The consequence for a leader is more serious than it first appears. A manager receiving only filtered upward communication is deciding on incomplete information. While believing the picture is current. Problems that could have been addressed while small compound in silence, until too large to soften. At which point they surface all at once, usually later than the leader would have wished. And there is a corollary that leaders consistently get wrong. In an environment prone to the mum effect, no news is rarely good news. Leaders read silence as an absence of problems. It is at least as likely to be an absence of psychological safety. The more reliable interpretation is that the absence of reporting is itself the signal. Treat unusually smooth upward reporting with the same curiosity you would apply. To an unusually smooth set of quarterly numbers.
Networks
The Chart Is Not the Network
A communication network is who exchanges substantive information with whom. That is a different thing from the organizational chart. The chart shows reporting lines and authority. It does not show who actually calls whom to check a fact. Every organisation runs two networks at once. The formal network, which follows the authorized reporting structure. And the informal network, commonly called the grapevine. That one follows relationships, proximity and trust rather than hierarchy. The grapevine is frequently faster, since reporting lines do not constrain it. And research finds it reasonably accurate on straightforward factual matters. It distorts far more on ambiguous or emotionally charged topics. Where each retelling tends to sharpen the story rather than preserve it. A small number of well-connected people, sometimes called liaisons, carry a disproportionate share. Identifying who they are is usually more useful than trying to suppress the grapevine.
The Experiment
Leavitt's Four Shapes
The social psychologist Harold Leavitt tested what network shape actually does. In laboratory studies in the early nineteen fifties, he assigned small groups simple tasks. While restricting who was allowed to pass messages to whom. That restriction is the whole design. It isolates the effect of shape alone. The chain, in which each member connects only to the next in a line. The wheel, in which one central member connects to everyone else. While the others do not connect to each other at all. The circle, in which each member connects to two neighbours, with no central position. And the all-channel network, where everyone can communicate directly with everyone.
The Trade-Off
Speed Against Satisfaction
Plot those four shapes against two things and the trade-off becomes obvious. Speed on simple tasks, against member satisfaction. The wheel is fast and its members are largely unhappy. The chain is moderate on speed, and low on satisfaction except at the central links. The circle is slow, with satisfaction that is moderate and fairly evenly spread. And the all-channel network is moderate on speed, with high satisfaction. Notice that nothing sits in the top right corner. There is no shape that is fastest and most satisfying at once. Which is why this is a design decision rather than a best practice.
The Finding
Match the Network to the Task
Leavitt's findings have proven durable, and they point in a specific direction. Centralised networks such as the wheel solve simple, well-defined tasks quickly and accurately. But satisfaction among the peripheral members is consistently low. They experience the network only as isolated spokes. Decentralised networks such as the circle and the all-channel pattern are slower on simple tasks. But they outperform centralised networks on complex or ambiguous problems. Where multiple perspectives genuinely improve the outcome. And they produce markedly higher member satisfaction. So the practical implication is not that decentralisation is better. It is to match the network to the task. Centralise routine, well-defined coordination. Decentralise genuinely complex problem-solving. The failure is using one shape for both kinds of work, and most teams do.
The Opposite
Information Overload
The mum effect describes too little communication reaching the right person. Information overload is the opposite failure, arriving by a different route. It is a condition where critical messages are lost amid traffic nobody can fully process. Not because too little was said. Because so much was said, across so many channels. That the message which actually mattered received no more attention than the one that did not. Modern organisations are structurally prone to this. The marginal cost of sending one more message is close to zero. And a channel created for one purpose quietly accumulates unrelated traffic over time. The problem is not that important information is never sent. It is that it arrives indistinguishable from everything else. And the receiver, lacking any signal for what deserves full attention. Applies a uniform and necessarily shallow level of processing to all of it. So the remedy is rarely to communicate less. It is clearer signals of priority. Fewer channels, and deliberate flagging of the urgent. And a norm that not every message requires the same audience.
Case
The Delay Everyone Already Knew About
A mid-sized product team fell three weeks behind its delivery date. By the time the delay reached senior leadership through the formal reporting line. The company had already lost its ability to negotiate a softer deadline with the client. A manager later reviewed the timeline and found something uncomfortable. The delay had been common knowledge on the floor for almost two weeks. Shared over lunch, and mentioned in passing between teams. Known to almost everyone except the people who most needed to know it. And no single person had lied. Each individual report up the chain had simply been softened a little. Slightly behind, rather than seriously behind. Repeat that softening at each level and the picture at the top is unrecognisable. Meanwhile the informal network, unconstrained by that caution, carried the accurate picture. The case shows both halves of this section's argument at once. The grapevine is often faster and more accurate than the formal channel gets credit for. And the mum effect can quietly neutralize even a well-designed reporting structure.
Consolidate
Three Things at Once
Direction, network and dynamics are not independent concerns. They interact. A purely downward-and-upward structure, with no horizontal or diagonal channels. Pushes more traffic through the upward line than it can safely carry. Which worsens the mum effect, by raising the stakes of every individual report. A leader who ignores the informal network is not eliminating it. They are only losing visibility into what it is carrying. And a leader who corrects under-communication by simply sending more. Risks trading one failure for the other. Replacing silence with noise. So the competent communicator manages three things at once. Which direction the message needs to travel, and whether the structure supports it. Which network is better suited to carrying it, given Leavitt's trade-offs. And which dynamic is most likely to distort it along the way. Attending to all three is what separates a leader who merely sends messages. From one who can be reasonably confident about what the organisation actually knows.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Organizational Communication Dynamics
What are the four directions of communication in an organization?
What is the mum effect?
What did Leavitt's communication network experiments show?
What is information overload in organizations, and how can it be reduced?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →