By Vincent-
Wayne Mitchell,
THE NATURE OF
CORPORATE COMMUNICATION
Mother Nature has spent millennia perfecting its communication systems.
How can large complex organisations draw on these lessons?
orporations can learn important lessons from
C Mother Nature about the art of communication.
Here, we examine the idea of the "orqanismic
metaphor", which views organisations as bio-
logical organisms (Morgan, 1998).
Cells are the simplest structures into which an organism
can be divided and still retain the characteristics of life.
Similarly, most corporations begin life as a single-person
operation - a sole trader. Just like the single-celled amoeba,
the sole trader must attempt to carry out all functions of the
organisation. Communication is easy, as the person is in direct
contact with his or her environment.
s In complex organisms, cells are divided into muscle cells, con-
£ nective tissue, brain cells and so on. In organisations, employees
•a
I are divided into various roles, such as shop-floor workers,
% administrative staff and marketing managers. About 200
g 5. Complex organisms have a ready-for-action threat survival
I distinct kinds of cell can be identified, which, coincidentally, is
I similar to the number of roles found in many job classifications.
issue 26, autumn 2006
Cass Business
School, and
Paul Jackson,
Manchester
University
This discussion focuses on communication within large
complex organisations and compares it to communication in
large complex organisms, such as humans, where nature has
perfected the art of effective communication.
Communication can be divided into three categories:
within organisms; between organisms of the same species;
and between organisms from competing species. For the pur-
pose of this article, we will focus on the first category. Our
main insights are as follows:
1. Senses are vital to successfully adapt to the environment.
2. Complex organisms are good at differentiating between long-
term and short-term communication mechanisms and goals.
3. Complex organisms communicate to maintain "homeosta-
sis" - a good internal environment.
4. They have self-regulating communication mechanisms that
turn off when they have communicated too much.
capability (TSC) in place to deal with difficult times.
37
 The nature of corporate communication
Adapting to the environment
Organisms that are
most adaptable to
their competitive
environment will
•*» have the greatest
chance of success.
The same is true for
organisations, with the
caveat that some organisa-
tions can become so big and
powerful that they can control
parts of their environment.
Very few organisations can match
the highly sophisticated five senses of humans.
Many companies do not listen to their environment;
they simply wait to speak. This means that 80 per
cent of information flows outwards from the organ-
isation and only 20 per cent flows inwards. For
humans, these figures are reversed.
Companies should have a team of "information-
Getting the message across
Complex organisms are
good at differentiating
between long-term and
short-term communication
mechanisms and goals. The
nervous system, for example,
deals with short-term adjust-
ments to the organism over
minutes and hours. The sympathetic
nervous system controls responses to
external stimuli, while the parasympa-
thetic nervous system deals with the body's
internal issues. Both systems send messages
to specific locations via the body's "wiring". This is
akin to telephony, a specific email to a limited
number of people or face-to-face communication.
This type of communication can be thought of as
narrowcasting, which links a message from A to B.
38
gathering personnel" who are constantly feeding
information into the highest levels of the organisa-
tion. Mitchell 0991} explores this idea in relation to
marketing information systems. Apart from formal
market research, salespeople and public relations
people can all help to gather information. But to do
this effectively, they need to be clued in to the
internal features of the organisation.
Front-line staff can play a key role, thanks to
their contacts with customers or suppliers. Yet
organisations often fail to realise the value of cus-
tomer relations. Front-line customer contact is often
outsourced and offshored to remote call centres.
Imagine trying to walk a tightrope across Niagara
Falls blindfolded while receiving instructions from
the ground through a megaphone. That can some-
times be the effect of relying on call-centre staff to
deal with a company's biggest asset: its customers.
The essential question for management is: who are
the "eyes and ears" of the organisation?
The hormonal system Is more concerned with
longer-term adjustments over days, months and
years. It involves a much broader dissemination of
information, since hormones are carried by the
blood to all parts of the body. An organisational
example might be a company newsletter broadcast
to everyone. There are several issues with this type
"Even the very fabric of the building
and the layout of offices can affect
communication in the long term"
of messaging. The first is the receptiveness of the
employee. When this is low, the message will not
have its intended impact. Second, in nature, recep-
tors are very specific. Cells know exactly what to do
with the hormonal information. In organisations,
issue 26, autumn ?006 GBF
"Imagine trying to walk a tightrope across Niagara Falls blindfolded while receiving instructions
from the ground through a megaphone. That can be the effect of relying on call-centre staff"
however, that specificity Is sometimes lost and
employees do not know which part of the informa-
tion is relevant to them or what exactly should be
done with it, with the result that they ignore all the
information. This lack of specificity can also mean
that people "hear" a message not intended for
them, leading to unintended side effects and inap-
propriate responses.
The point here is that the nervous and hormo-
nal systems are very different biological pathways
designed for short-term and long-term tasks. Yet
organisations tend to use the same systems for
the two different types of communication.
Organisational long-term communication equiva-
lents to hormones can include team-building
activities, company away-days, monthly newslet-
ters, personnel policies, promotion policies, mass
emails, corporate advertising, CEO speeches to
the company, intranets, e-bulletin boards and staff
appraisals. Even the very fabric of the building
and the layout of offices can affect corporate
communication in the long term.
Adjustment and balance
Happy workers, just like "happy" cells, are willing to
perform at their optimum. Inside humans, the
homeostasis of the cell's working environment is
largely maintained by the hormonal and parasym-
pathetic nervous systems mentioned earlier. In
order to maintain this nourishing internal environ-
ment, the human body has numerous control-and-
effect mechanisms to monitor and alter things
such as temperature, the amount of blood sugar to
feed cells, oxygen levels, toxins from the blood
which are cleaned by the liver and so on. These are
designed to keep cells working effectively.
GBF issue Zb. autumn IWd
Corporate communication has a direct impact on the bottom line.
The study of communication processes within and between
biological organisms offers five key insights for business.
Biological organisms rely on communication methods to adapt
to the external environment, to respond to threats and to regulate
their internal workings.
Managers need to mimic nature's systems by engaging in
a two-way communication process with employees.
These long-term communications platforms
can be difficult to manage, integrate and finance.
Managers often fall into the trap of trying to use
short-term communication mechanisms to effect
long-term change. They don't always recognise
that these short-term communication mechanisms
not only fail to effect long-term change, but they
cah actually be detrimental if used too much.
Organisations therefore need to recognise the
clear distinction between short and long-term com-
munication mechanisms and be consistent in using
these channels for the right type of message.
Internal communication
within organisations is a vital
factor in creating "corpo-
rate homeostasis" - a con-
trolled environment in which
all employees have what they
need to work efficiently (Mitchell,
1992). Keeping employees happy is crucial if humans
are to function well. This is particularly true for serv-
ice organisations. As GM Hostage, president of the
Marriott Corporation, famously once said: "In the
service business, [you] can't make happy customers
39

"Homeostasis translates into a concept far beyond corporate culture. For the nearest
eguivalent, we might look to the jobs-for-life culture prevalent within larger Japanese firms"
with unhappy employees" (Hostage, 1984).
However, the complicated control-and-communi-
cation mechanisms used by complex organisms are
often difficult to replicate in organisations.
Homeostasis translates into a concept far beyond
corporate culture or performance-related pay, as it
is about the entire needs of the worker being met.
For the nearest management equivalent, we might
look to the jobs-for-life culture prevalent within
some larger Japanese firms, or small family busi-
nesses whose goals are to provide for the family's
needs. We can also gain some insights from the work
of Schultz et al (2000) in their analysis of how an
organisation's identity is expressed through the
communications of all employees.
This is probably one of the biggest lessons to
be learned from nature, namely that communica-
Knowing when to switch off
Receptors on cells can be saturated with stimuli.
Once this occurs, further stimulation will have no
effect. Natural communication has its limits.
This is not the case in organisations where
the number of emails, memos and meetings can
be multiplied ad Infinitum. ad nauseum and ad
ineffectum. This is where we meet the principle of
communication saturation: the point where com-
munication with employees will not produce any
further benefit (see EBF Debate, issue 23). How do
humans deal with this? Most receptors usually only
react to changes in circumstances rather than
absolute levels of information. This is because the
brain receives so much information that only
changes in circumstances are registered. Similarly,
if organisations have good internal and external
sensing systems, they should only be responding to
changes in the environment.
The second point to note is that most receptors
on cells have agonists (stimulants which cause
GBF issue Ih. autumn 2006
The nature of corporate communication
tion is about maintaining an optimal environment
for each employee, enabling that employee to
work effectively. To achieve this, management
needs to mimic nature's systems and engage in a
two-way process, in which employees tell manage-
ment when their environment is preventing them
from working properly, and where management
actively monitor their employees' environment
independently through work-place surveys and
other measures to make sure the environment is
conducive to good performance.
Having achieved a nourishing internal office
environment, the job of communicating effectively
with employees by giving clear and unambiguous
instructions will become much easier, and employ-
ees will act upon messages with greater speed,
efficiency and diligence.
them to respond)
and antagonists
(st imulcfnts
which cause ^
them to stop
responding). ^
Rose (2001)
explores these
communication
mechanisms from a
cellular biochemical level
to show how we communicate with the rest of the
world. There are implications here for organisa-
tions. Managers should learn who the agonists and
the antagonists are within an organisation. For
example, an email from the chairman comes round
saying he wants everyone to join in the Christmas
charity event (agonist), and then a disgruntled
colleague sends another message mocking the
message and the sentiment (antagonist).
41
 The nature of corporate communication

Responding to threats

The survival of organisms depends
on how well their communica-
tion systems work in "fight or
flight" situations, during which
organisms prepare themselves for attack,
communicating with every part of the body to
pull up reserves, produce more energy and
^ ^ heighten the senses. Human beings use these
mechanisms not only in attack situations, but also
at work, during exercise and even in love-making.
When we translate this into the organisational
context, we see it is not just a matter of having
proper disaster-response teams and plans in place.
Organisations also need to develop a "threat sur-
vival capability" (TSC), which allows them to
respond to danger, whether this be in the form
of competitive takeovers or threats posed
by governments and regulations.
These systems need to be tested fre-
quently to keep them at full capacity. For exam-
ple, boxers train constantly in order to be prepared
for the moment when they must fight. Organisations
have no equivalent. Apart from emergency plans
such as product-recall procedures, most organisa-
tions do not practise or develop their TSC. This kind
of preparation only tends to happen in smaller, fam-
ily businesses. These do practise their TSC and, as a
result, they build team spirit, loyalty and adaptability
which stand them in good stead when faced with
adversity. But as organisations grow larger, this kind
of preparation becomes more challenging.
Having developed a TSC within the organisation,
it is crucial not to overuse it. As we know, our own
personal "fight or flight" communication systems
can be set off inappropriately. There is a danger in
organisations that "fight or flight" can become a
chronic response mode rather than an acute one,
which leads to an organisation which is in a perma-
nent state of anxiety. Communication, coordination
and consistency are therefore essential.

T
he organismic metaphor offers a powerful insight
into corporate communication. But it does have its
limitations. It fails to recognise that social organisa-
tions exist on a more complex level than organisms.
Organisms cannot alter their structure except in limited ways,
whereas the ability to change is one of the distinct characteris-
tics of social systems (Buckley, 1967). Human beings are closed
systems, whereas organisations are open. These ideas are
summed up by Brown (1994): "Man is not a machine, but neither
are machines organisms." At the heart of Morgan's seminal
book. Images of Organisation (1998), is the notion that one can-
not understand complex organisations in a meaningful way
through a single perspective such as the organismic metaphor.
That said, the metaphor still provides useful lessons. Our
point about homeostasis could be a good mechanism for
self-contained sub-units within an organisation rather than a
blueprint for the whole organisation. Kelly and Allison (1999)
also give a graphic account of creative processes at work
within a complex organisation using the organismic metaphor.
We have drawn five insights into how nature has perfected its
communication systems. The challenge is for organisations to
learn from that experience rather than compete with it.
Vincent-Wayne Mitchell is professor of consumer marketing, Cass Business
School, City University. Paul Jackson is professor of corporate
communications, Manchester Business School, Manchester University.
REFERENCES
• Brown, T (1994) "Man is Not a Machine, but Neither Are Machines
Organisms," Psychological Inquiry, volume 5.
• Buckley, W, (1967) Sociology and Modern Systems Theory, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Hostage, GM (1984) "Quality Control in Service Business," Harvard Business
Review, July.
• Kelly, S and Allison, MA (1999) The Complexity Advantage,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
• March, JG and Simon, H (1958) Organizations, New York: John Wiley.
• Mitchell, V-W (1992) "Organisational Homeostasis: A Role for internal
Marketing," Management Decision, volume 30, number 2.
• Mitchell, V-W (1991) "The Human Face of MKIS," Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, volume 9, number 1.
• Morgan, G (1998) Images of Organisation, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Rose, SRP (2001) "Communication: From Neurons to People; From Present
to Future," Biochemical Society Transactions, volume 31.
• Schultz, M et al (2000) The Expressive Organisation, Open University Press.

42 issue 26, autumn 2006