War in the training room

One of our colleagues was invited by the head of a training department to run a workshop
on effective communication for his staff. The head was very insistent that the staff had
requested this event and so our colleague was happy to oblige. When he arrived at the
training room for the evening session, his first impression was a sense of unease and tension.
Although he delivered a session which usually received very positive feedback, he was unable
to achieve any real dialogue with the staff who attended.
After winding up, he managed to start a conversation with one of the participants and
eventually discovered what was going on. The staff had definitely not requested the event!
In fact, they were involved in a long-standing and bitter dispute with the head over staffing
and workload. This training was seen as another opportunity by the head to assert his
authority. He was seen by staff as dogmatic, authoritarian and insensitive. We later discovered
that the head felt that the staff were lazy and incompetent. As the ‘emissary’ of the
head, our colleague had inadvertently put himself in the firing line. The training session was
a complete waste of time and only intensified the conflict. In this case it was not possible
to negotiate an acceptable definition of the event, and our colleague retired hurt.
In both these cases, we are looking at communication which depended upon a complicated
history of events. As a result of that history, people had developed shared meanings
over time which meant that communication was based on very different assumptions and
expectations. Potential consequences in both situations were further misunderstanding and
possible conflict.

If we look at the way people develop shared meanings, then we can also look at the way
people express those meanings. In the past decade, organizational researchers have become
very interested in the way people in organizations tell stories, tell jokes and use metaphors
to describe what is going on in their organization (Fineman and Gabriel, 1996). These stories
and metaphors can provide very useful insights into the way people typically behave and
communicate in that organization.
For an example of the power of these metaphors, and how they can influence communication,
consider the case of the Disney Corporation. Disney is often used as an example
by US textbooks of organizations which ‘make communication a top priority’ by sophisticated
and systematic corporate message systems, and by encouraging employee feedback
(Bovee and Thrill, 1995, p. 3). The powerful external image of an organization that provides
quality family entertainment is certainly promoted vigorously within the company.

Smith and Eisenberg (1987) analysed the metaphors used by Disney employees and found
two very strong metaphors in place: drama and family. Employees saw themselves as ‘actors’
using costumes to play out stories which would entertain the customers. They also used
the concept of family not only to describe their relationship with customers, but also to
characterize the relationship between management and employees. The strength of these
feelings led to difficulties at Disneyland in the 1980s. Faced by increasing competition from
newer parks and other economic pressures, management cut the various costs and benefits
in a way which for some employees destroyed the metaphor. The depth and strength of
feeling led to union action and conflict. Smith and Eisenberg argued that the way for management
to rescue this situation was by reconsidering these metaphors.
In other words, the management communication about cuts and economies had undermined
the widely-held values which were summarized in the family metaphor. If
management had recognized and discussed these values more openly rather than focusing
on the economics, they might have developed solutions which were not so threatening.

EXERCISE
Consider a group or organization with which you are familiar. What are the typical stories,
jokes and metaphors used in that group? What do these stories imply about the values of
that group? And how are these values expressed in communication in that group?