Talk:Organizational communication

message: I am surprised at the level of detail of this article. I think that in an article about something as broad as "organizational communication", the various major lines of thought should be talked about, but I don't believe it is necessary to talk about the "Levels of communication" for example, at least not in so much detail. I am also surprised to see no mention at all of classic organization and management approaches (Frederick Winslow Taylor, Charles Babbage, the Hawthorne effect and human relations, Gareth Morgan, and so on). Media Richness Theory could also be mentioned, along many others. Too much needs to be done, in my humble opinion, to reflect the variety of research and work that is being achieved in this field, to waste space getting into the details of any particular theory. --Niccoben (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too detailed?

message: I tried to keep as much as was feasible of the original article, attempting to transcend the simplistic and positivistic "business communication" feel.
Buridan, does this go far enough to address your concerns, or is there more heavy lifting to do?
Roy 11:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: expanding view to transcend positivism/reductionism

message: going to try to update this page as i get time, reformatting, key issues, etc...i would encourage those out there who know about the discipline to dive in. as if it needs to be stated, these views are mine alone, reflecting my perspective...
:: As Wikipedians work on editing this page, the DEI section could bring in a focus on Difference Matters as an Organizational Communication framing of this from Brenda J. Allen. --OsaRosa (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ongoing work

message: "Humans act rationally. Sane people do not behave in rational ways..." Doesn't this contradict itself? Jhunt47 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting statement 

message: The following section:
:"Humans act rationally. Some people do not behave in rational ways, they generally have no access to all of the information needed to make rational decisions they could articulate, and therefore will make unrational decisions, unless there is some breakdown in the communication process—which is common. Unrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their communication measures whether or not it is rational."
Quite literally makes no sense. Several of the sentences are not valid English sentences at all, and literally no information can be extracted from them. Others are so confusing that they cannot actually say what was intended. I cannot edit it, because I don't know what the actual theoretical grounding is supposed to be here.
70.124.83.204 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rationality" Rambling  

message: Hello,
I really enjoyed this article. I felt that for a basic, quick knowledge of the overview of Organizational Communication, this article achieves that. However, there is a sentence that has some redundancy in it. This has been mentioned previously on the page and I also agree that it could be cleaned up a bit. The point in the "early underlying assumptions" section states:
"Humans act rationally. Some people do not behave in rational ways, they generally have no access to all of the information needed to make rational decisions they could articulate, and therefore will make unrational decisions, unless there is some breakdown in the communication process—which is common. Irrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their communication measures whether or not it is rational."
Regarding this sentence and the need for additional citations, are there plans for editing this page to clarify the sentence above as well as verify the article? I believe this article has potential to be resourceful if verified. Additionally, I think with the growth and focus on communication studies, there are many great resources out there to utilize as additional, more up-to-date references.
Charli
Charlisomers (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant point/references 

message: I am wondering if perhaps the lead should have slightly more information, especially considering the detailed sections below? EthanS52 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concise lead 

message: Could some topics, such as the referenced communication patterns, be presented visually to make the article more robust and also help to break up all the text a bit? Missmj18 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporating Visuals 

message: Hi! This article needs more references. Some areas are only representing one viewpoint or one idea in the field, and a lot of important schools of thought are missing. This is especially prominent in the History section, where very few academics in the field are talked about and ideas about them are not backed with citations. The Perspectives section only contains one perspective, and in the Early underlying assumptions section, the bullet points have no references for the most part and could also be cleaned up for better understanding. I think that finding some more sources and perspectives in the field could really help this article! Alexa Bierstock (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more references 

message: — Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B