Tompkins and Cheney’s Organizational Identification
J. Monroe Spring 2002
Organizational communication is a part of everyone’s life. Most children are raised and educated in some form of an organization, and then go on to spend their adult life as member of or working for different organizations (Littlejohn, 2002, p.281). Many scholars have critiqued the communication that occurs in organizations. Several theories have been formulated in regards to how an organization is ran effectively, using the medium of communication as an integral part of the analysis. Phillip K. Tompkins and George Cheney produced a theory of organizational identification, which explains how identities develop in and effect an organization.
The research of the communication patterns and networks in organizations has shown how the structure and function of an organization is largely contributed to by the interaction of its members (Littlejohn, 2002, p.300). Scholars have compared organizations metaphorically to many other things. Some of these comparisons are made to items such as machines, organisms, brains, political systems, cultures, and networks (Littlejohn, 2002, p.283). The network metaphor is the most effective in the analysis of Tompkins and Cheney’s Theory. By looking at an organization as a network we are able to see how individual interactions come together to build an organization (Littlejohn, 2002, p.300).
Tompkins and Cheney’s theory emphasizes that identification is an integral part of the decision-making process of an organization (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.191). They state that, “A person identifies with a unit when, in making a decision, the person in one or more of his/ her organizational roles perceives that unit’s values or interests as relevant in evaluating the alternatives of choices” (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.193). Each person identifies with the targets within the organization that they feel promote the interests of the organization most effectively. At many times these interests are similar to those of the organization, yet that does not necessarily mean that they identify with the organization. Even so, the interaction that takes place in the organization allows for those in powerful positions to have an unobtrusive control over its members and makes room for change to occur (Littlejohn, 2002, p.298). Employees feel that they are controlling what happens by being allowed to make the premises in the organization, yet because they identify with the organization those premises are agreeable to those of management. Furthermore, if the organization wants to see change they can create a new identity for the members to identify with and in doing so allow them to make the change without feeling as if they are forced into it (Littlejohn, 2002, p.298). Since identification occurs organizations are able to control what happens within in more subtle ways, leading to less resistance by the members.
There are a few key elements that are prevalent in the theory, which has been concisely summarized above. They are control, power and discipline, identification (which is explained above) and organizational enthymemes. Enthymemes are defined by Littlejohn (2002) as “a rhetorical device used to involve audiences in the advocate’s reasoning process” (p.297). When using an enthymeme one or more of the premises in an argument will be left out, allowing the audience to formulate them and come to a conclusion based on their premises (Littlejohn, 2002, p.297). The researchers point out that there are two different organizational enthymemes in which the members of an organization identify with the organization (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.194). The first is that of a member who, prior to employment, has the desire to identify with the organization and therefore actively seeks its major premises in the stages leading to employment (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.195). The second is those who do not originally identify with or aim to gain identification with the organization, but once they are part of it they begin to identify through their socialization (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.195). However, in both cases the member conclusively decides on an opinion or premise that is in agreement with that of the organization.
In an organization power and control are closely related and work together to achieve a goal. Tompkins and Cheney state that, “organizational power [is] the ability or capacity of a person to control the contributions of others toward a goal” (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.180). Power cannot always be directly observed—with the exception of authoritarian roles—whereas control can usually be directly observed. The theorists are explaining how identification in organizations allows for unobtrusive control that is not as easily observed. The theory states that through interactions and common understanding “explicit rules and regulations [are replaced by] implicit but highly motivating core values” (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.184). Although the members of an organization feel more included in the power of the organization and less controlled, there is an increase in the amount of control in the organization (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.184). The interaction that takes place allows the roles of manager and employee to work together in controlling one another and over seeing the operation of the organization. In this theory Tompkins and Cheney explain how identification makes strengthened power and control possible without upsetting or discouraging the members of the organization.
In the network-like scheme of organizational communication there are three traditions—positional, relational, and cultural. The positional tradition looks at the structure and roles of an organization, which is seen as a set of positions with designated roles (Littlejohn, 2002, p.283). An example of this is clear in the educational environment, the teacher and the student have clearly distinct roles that each has specific functions. The relational tradition shows how relationships naturally develop, and are constantly changing through the interactions of those involved in the organization (Littlejohn, 2002, p.283). The relational tradition seems to be apparent in all organizations where interaction between the members is allowed to occur. The cultural tradition is where the structure is formed through the stories and rituals of the members that are informally displayed in their work (Littlejohn, 2002, p.283). Cultural traditions are in organizations where previous knowledge and beliefs are displayed in the regular tasks of the organization. Both the relational and positional traditions are an important part of the Organizational Identification Theory, however, the theory seems to be more in the relational than the positional tradition.
In the critique of a theory one must have a basis on which to judge the theory, Littlejohn (2002) provides a list of criteria on which to evaluate a theory (p.30). The first thing to look at is the theoretical scope, “or the idea that a theory’s explanation must be sufficiently general to cover a range of events beyond a single observation” (Littlejohn, 2002, p.30). Theories should generalize, and therefore cover a wide range of behaviors that are related to communication. The theory does not have to be huge to accomplish this task; it just needs to make sure that all relevant information is included. Next, a theory should be appropriate, Littlejohn (2002) asks if the “theory’s epistemological, ontological, and axiological assumptions are appropriate for the theoretical questions addressed and the research methods used (p.31)?” Basically, this means that the researcher’s claims should be consistent with the assumptions of their theory at all times. Theories should also be presented logically. In addition, a theory should have heuristic value, “generat[ing] new ideas for research and additional theory (Littlejohn, 2002, p.31). When evaluating a theory it should be interesting, making the critic want to learn more about it and do further research of it. In some cases it may encourage the evaluator of the theory to pursue the information so in depth they develop another theory that branches off the evaluated theory. Another criterion for a theory to be judged by is that of validity or the truth in what is being presented (Littlejohn, 2002, p.31).
Validity can be found if a theory has value or importance, and when the theory has connections that one would expect with the real world. Furthermore, parsimony, which “involves logical simplicity,” (Littlejohn, 2002, p.32) is an important evaluating point. This is the belief that a theory is best when it is in the simplest terms possible without the validity being affected. Finally, can evaluate a theory based on its openness. When a theory is open to other possibilities of the truth it appears to be more realistic. Not only will the theory be judged as being more realistic, but as more complete because it is inviting diversity and other perspectives (Littlejohn, 2002, p.32).
Through evaluating the theory on the criteria Littlejohn (2002) explained I have found that this theory is an acceptable one (pp.30-2). It has a wide theoretical scope covering just about every possible topic that could be brought up in relation to identification in organizational communication. The claims made by Tompkins and Cheney are consistent and logically flow from one idea or explanation to the next. For this reason I deem this theory appropriate. I felt that there is heuristic value to the theory because as I became to understand it better through my research, I also became more interested. I would not go as far as to create my own theory based on my knowledge by researching further, but I may do more in depth exploration the theory. In regards to validity I feel that the theory is very important in the way that organizations are ran and in that the points that are made by the theorists are related to the real world and seem to be truthful. This paper is parsimonious, in my first reading of the theory I did not find it to be logically simplistic. However, after reading it repeatedly I gained an understanding of the theory and realized that it was simple and logical. The theorists appear to be open to the ideas of others, as they included examples of other theories and the ideas of other theorists in their own theory. This theory is realistic and includes the diversity of different perspectives. This is a strong, well-supported theory and meets all of Littlejohn’s (2002) criteria for evaluation (pp.30-2).
This theory being a reliable source of information in organizational communication can be helpful in running a successful organization or corporation. The example is given in the theory of a study of Fortune 500 companies use organizational identification, that shows the practical use of the theory (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.198). In each organization Tompkins and Cheney were able to observe the member’s effort to either identify with or refrain from identifying with the organization. Through these observations they were also able to “further elaborate with [their] notions of unobtrusive control” (McPhee & Tompkins, 1985, p.205). They were able to support their theory that the “loose coupling” of the organization allowed for the organization to stay together and make decisions that achieved a common goal. Through the examples of practical use Tompkins and Cheney not only supported their theory, but gave definite proof of the existence of their theory in organizations.
Overall, the theory of Organizational Identification presented by Tompkins and Cheney is effective and agreeable to the criteria of a communication theory. The theory helps not only in the evaluation of an organization, but in the explanation of how communication occurs in the organization. It is effective in helping management to better their communication in their organization to make sure that the members of the organization are satisfied with their working conditions.
References
Littlejohn, Stephen W. (2002). Theories of Human Communication, Seventh Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McPhee, R., & Tompkins, P. (1985). Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.