Introduction
Information is the energy material of society and, within a company, it becomes a strategic instrument to operate on the reality and future of the business.
The new models in internal communication require a revaluation of those agents that produce "unofficial" discourses that inhabit the vast network woven by informal relationships. The acceptance of this network as an integral and necessary part of organizational life will be the first step to take to take advantage of the richness of its channels and transform its communication into a competitive advantage.
Networks and channels
Within an organization we can define the Formal Network (RF) as one that links its members following a hierarchical or predetermined structure. The best example of Red Formal is reflected in the organization chart of any company.
On the contrary, an Informal Network (IR) links its members, obeying only the natural empathy that is generated between them, regardless of the position or position they occupy. In an Informal Network, not only does the organization chart not count, but another hierarchy emerges, in an underhand way, a "parallel" hierarchy.
Of course, not all organizations favor the emergence of Informal Networks in the same way; Consider, for example, an organization of a religious or military type where the weight of the formal is very strong and coercive. But even in these examples, Informal Networks unfold because human interaction necessarily goes beyond the pre-established, and it is well that it should.
Formal and Informal Networks operate with two types of communication channels:
- Formal Communication Channels (CCF) Informal Communication Channels (CCI)
The Formal Communication Channels are limited to the Formal Network and cross (or should cross) the organization chart of the company following four paths: ascending, descending, horizontal and diagonal. Each of these routes favors contact between different levels, departments and areas of the organization, while pursuing the achievement of particular objectives: identity construction, consensus, participation, feed-back, cohesion, teamwork, etc. The achievement of any of these objectives is possible thanks to the fact that the CCFs are designed and administered by the company, thus exercising significant control over the information that circulates through them.
In contrast, Informal Communication Channels respond to an Informal Network and are not planned. Although it is true that Informal Networks are not alien to formal communication (let's not forget that despite their spontaneity they are inserted within a Formal Network and therefore are permeable to its channels), they overflow the structure of the organization and open channels alternative ways to circulate your own information. The Informal Network not only interprets and reinterprets "official" information (when any), but also produces its own "unofficial" information.
Certainly, this faculty is the one that most bothers the management of any organization: How is it possible that the information that is generated in and about the company does not come exclusively from its official sources!
In the continuous and perhaps unconscious process of devaluation of the Informal Networks, the executive cadres have fallen into the error of conditioning the communication to an organization chart of hierarchies where only the higher level has the floor. This one-way monologue prevents them from taking full advantage of the potential and ideas that their employees can bring. Thus, communication ends up focusing on conventional channels (read: formal and top-down), eliminating feed-back and alternative channels.
The curious thing is that, without leaving the organization chart and the Formal Network, ascending, horizontal and transversal paths of communication can be established. But if management does not even dare to open new directions of formal channels… why should it try to work within the "mysterious" territory of the informal?
Formal versus informal?
Formal and Informal Networks and Channels are complementary, they need each other. However, this does not mean that their coexistence is peaceful and that certain precautions should not be taken.
For example, many drawbacks arise when the information circulating through the KICs exceeds that which is issued in an "official" way. Despite what happens when employees systematically find out about the news (mainly negative ones) through rumors or comments: a climate of uncertainty spreads that translates into demotivation and pessimism.
Unfortunately, 'unofficial' communication is accused of causing these situations. It is not uncommon to hear many managers claim that the "radio corridor" is to blame for everything. The truth is that -although it seems a truism to say it- Networks and Channels are neither good nor bad. It is essential to break down prejudices and "convince" management that Informal Networks, CCIs and the information they disseminate are not negative per se. Only if the CCIs acquire a dominant role can we speak of serious internal communication problems.
Herein lies the importance of working from prevention and analyzing the state, magnitude and operation of the networks to develop successful communication policies. Even at the risk of being repetitive: the objective is not to "destroy" the Informal Networks but to pay them the attention they deserve so that their channels (and the information they disseminate) do not become a problem.
Information is a must
Without wishing to set an axiom, it can be guaranteed that informal communication grows when formal communication is insufficient. CCIs increase their influence when official communication is scarce, incoherent, implausible or comes out of time and place.
Why is this inversely proportional relationship true? Because man is an animal that cannot live without certainties, even if they are - worth the oxymoron - uncertain. Then, the "unofficial" information is called to "fill in" the uncertainty that misinformation causes.
If an organization communicated in a timely manner, it would leave it only a secondary place to the KICs. Or better yet: it could promote rich and beneficial informal communication by taking advantage of the enormous resources it provides.
However, despite all expectations, some extraordinary events that go beyond the structures always "explode". Faced with these situations, the mission is to quickly channel all information generated informally into formal communication so that it transcends that level. For example, if it is noticed that a rumor is circulating, go out to deny it or confirm it without loss of time.
Finally, let us bear in mind that while IRs and CCIs are born in the daily and permanent exchange between employees, RF needs to be built since it is an artificial structure. For their part, CCFs must be implemented and sustained, and formal communication must be issued and legitimized.
In short, the formal demands of the organization an active allocation of resources, time, planning and coherence.
conclusion
Communicative ethics (also called dialogic or discursive ethics) was a concept coined by Jürgen Habermas to describe those actions that pursue consensus, cooperation and understanding.
A well-designed internal communication will try to establish in practice a coexistence that respects and integrates the territories of the formal and the informal. Through a receptive and open relationship with the environment, the company will be in a position to take advantage of more than just the "manpower" of its employees: it will be able to add and turn their imagination, intelligence and initiative into a competitive advantage.
But to achieve this, it will be necessary:
- a) Evaluate if the Formal Communication Channels respond to the requirements demanded by the employees. b) Bring out and respect the functioning of the Informal Networks. c) Recover the original meaning of the word «communication».
After all, the wealth that is generated in spontaneous and everyday interaction is too valuable capital to be wasted.
