How organizational culture shapes communication at Walt Disney Company

Walt Disney Company

Organization's culture determines communication

Walt Disney's culture and communication can be described as two sides of the same coin. It is through structured mechanisms and processes that the organization exists. It is through documents, memos, meetings, and conversations that employees coordinate their activities. These communicative behaviors are collectively known as the discourse of the company. Therefore, it is primarily identified as the means by which Walt Disney creates a coherent social reality. In case the ongoing communication practices were absent, employees would never have thought of themselves as an organization. The continuous meetings, telephone calls, corridor conversations, and sales talks are mechanisms that create the Walt Disney organization (Robbins & Judge, 2011).

This viewpoint shows the connection between an organization's culture and communication. Communication is a viable way by which Walt Disney exists because its processes and structures determine the communication model adopted. This will makes employees consider of themselves as part of the organization. Similarly, the group does not accept employees who fail to communicate in ways that others deem normal. This creates a complex relationship between the organization and communication. Effective communication among all employees is the premise of Walt Disney's success. In this case, it expects individuals to communicate in a defined and agreed manner. The practice forms and aligns their behavior characterized with habits and expectations. This has enabled Walt Disney to continue existing, despite some individuals leaving and new members replace (Beebe & Masterson, 2009).

The role of conflict in group communication

A breakdown in the communication process spurs a conflict within a group of an organization. During communication, conflict is a catalyst to get to the source of disagreement. Theorists have developed three schools of thought to demonstrate the role of conflict in group communication.

The traditional perspective: The traditional perspective conquers that conflicts hurts organizations. This view acknowledged conflict as a negative phenomenon and thought of it as synonymous with destruction and violence. In the traditional perspective, conflict is a dysfunctional consequence of components like poor correspondence, absence of trust around the workers, and an inadequacy of the administration to respond to employees' desires and needs. Evidently, conflict causes productivity losses. In extreme cases in the work place, conflict may distract leaders from productively discharging their responsibilities effectively. Along these lines, we see that the traditional perspective acknowledged conflict as an awful thing and lobbies for its total avoidance (Beebe & Masterson, 2009). At some point, this brought an inclination to stifle the conflict and push it away from anyone's vicinity. Some organizations attempt to wish it away by overlooking the existence of conflict. Both the investigative management methodology and the managerial school of administration related vigorously to improving such organizational structures. They are critical in identifying the regulations strategies, rules, tasks, and power relationships. Such inbuilt standards will recognize and revise issues of such conflicts in case they arise. Accordingly, through legitimate management systems and regard for the sources of conflict, it may be mitigated and organizational performance enhanced.

Human Relation perspective: advocates of this view argue that conflict is a natural phenomenon in all organizations and groups. Thus, the management ought to accept conflict within the place of work. According to this theory, conflict can be avoided by designing an environment of trust and good will. However, conflicts may occur because of faulty procedures, policies, differences in opinions, allocation of resources and lack of cooperation. This will result in obstruction and distortion of communication. Therefore, managers must focus on avoiding conflict or resolving it as soon as they can. This must be in the interest of employees and the entire organization (Frey, 2012).

The Interactions perspective: this approach goes a step further from the above approach because it encourages conflicts. This perspective is founded on the belief that conflicts are a positive force in organizations necessary for teams to perform effectively. Therefore, this view has encouraged conflicts because it believes that if there is peace, harmony and cooperation among employees, the company might become non-responsive and static towards the need for innovation and change. It is important for managers to allow some conflict within groups for the company to remain self-critical and viable. However, the conflict must be controlled if dysfunctions are to be managed (Schultz, 2009).