Literature review
2.3 The communication process
2.3.8 The role of communication systems in building relations
2.3.8.3 Communication networks and relationships within organisations According to Koehler (1981:81-82), the term 'communication network' is used to
denote the existence of specific patterns by which messages are transmitted among three or more individuals. A number of networks exist in all organisations.
The shape of the network usually affects the process of communication and the behaviour of individuals in the network, as well as job satisfaction.
Communication networks are patterns of communication channels within formal and informal communication systems as they occur in an organisation (Van der Walt and Scriven, 1999:12). These networks will also be characterised and determined by the communication system involved in the organisation. The various communication channels, such as newsletters and Internet meetings, are all integrated into the existing communication networks, and the effectiveness of any organisation is indeed dependent upon the management of formal and
informal communication channels. Apart from the vertical and lateral flow of communication, it takes place through these networks. One way of identifying a net is by establishing who communicates with whom, and who the central figures are in the communication process.
Van der Walt and Scriven (1999:13) identify five different kinds of networks or patterns of communication. Those are: the chain, the y, the circle, the wheel network and all channels network. All of them function within the formal and informal communication systems. In an organisation like MUT, it is always important to make decisions with regard to who needs to know what, when and how. From a student development point of view, it is important to transmit clear and complete messages. It is therefore imperative for the student services officials to be aware of the existence of different communication networks at the University, as well as of the role that they play.
The circle network
Figure 3
In this system every member has equal communication opportunities. Each can communicate with the person to the right and left. Members have restrictions, but the circle is a less restricted condition. At MUT, a typical example is a situation where someone in a management position needs to communicate with members of particular student structures. He first has to approach the SRC, which consults the executive of that organisation before the matter reaches the ordinary members of that student organisation. To solve problems in the circle network, members typically pass information around to all members who act as their own decision-making centres. According to Lewis, P.V. (1987:42), groups following the network often experience frustration as communication is slow and it is difficult to move messages from one part of the line to another. Each member has to communicate any ideas and opinions to only two other members who have to distribute this information to two more members who in turn will take it further.
The Y network
The centralised person ( c ) serves as a bridge between members, and therefore, he/she connects two groups in the network by being a member of both. The communication style is formal, and communication takes place via the bridge.
Members can communicate with one another only through the person serving as the bridge, not directly with each other. A typical situation at the University, which resembles this kind of network, is the role of the Dean of Student Affairs, who serves as a bridge between different student formations and the
management of the institution.
The chain network
Figure 5
In this pattern, no pair of individuals can exchange messages, though in reality this could be difficult to stop. It therefore makes coordination of thought or action virtually impossible. Next to the wheel network, it ranks highest in centrality. For example, the operations of the bus company that transports Mangosuthu
University of Technology students from the campus to external residences is centrally controlled by a dispatcher who ensures that he is the only one who regulates the number of trips to be undertaken. In this network, two people serve as end persons, having only one other person with whom they can communicate directly. They typically send information to this other individual who serves as relay person, sending their messages along with those of their end people to the fifth person who collects the information (Lewis, 1987:43). This central person then formulates an answer and sends it back to the relay person who then sends it on to their respective end persons.
The wheel network Figure 6
This pattern occurs within the formal communication system. In this pattern no pair of individuals can exchange messages except through the central figure. It therefore makes coordination of thought or action virtually impossible. Problems are solved by the members' sending messages to the top or central member who makes the decisions and sends the information back.
The way the intranet is applied at MUT serves as an example of the network of communication. There is one webmaster through whom all messages to all staff members have to be sent for editing before they are disseminated. If there is something that is deemed to be 'unacceptable', the message is not sent through. Like all organisations that follow the wheel network, control is very centralised and members can communicate with one another only through one member located at the centre.
Figure 7
In a completely connected network, no communication restrictions are placed on any members. Each person communicates information to others directly. All members formulate their own answers in a problem-solving format. The Student Affairs Department resembles this kind of network. The people attached to different units within Student Affairs are encouraged to communicate freely with one another. This all-channels system maximises opportunities for feedback and results in greater accuracy because messages do not have to be distributed through various levels, but are presented directly.
The mentioned networks of communication do exist at Mangosuthu University of Technology. The significant factor that has a bearing on a successful
communication programme is whether the management of the University is committed to the notion that communication with staff members and students is essential to the achievements of the organisation's goals. If the management of
the University is committed to communication through words and actions, that will trickle down to the rest of the organisation. That includes taking advantage of the existing networks to talk with the staff members, respond to questions, listen to their concerns and convey the vision of the University.
2.3.8.4 How crisis communication can contribute to the management of