A distinguishing feature of traditional bureaucracies is formal communication. Progressive organizations, on the other hand, advocate informal communication. Since police departments generally follow the bureaucratic model, they tend to rely on formal communication and are reluctant to make use of informal communication.
 

Nevertheless, no bureaucratic organization can survive using only formal communication (just as a progressive agency cannot rely solely upon informal communication). As groupings of social beings, traditional organizations necessarily have a certain amount of informal and personal communication within their ranks. The key, therefore, is to seek and promote a balanced mixture of formal and informal communication.
 

1. Formal Communication: Formal communication was designed primarily as a means of controlling agency activities and personnel through the circulation of authoritative policies and procedures stating what was to be done when, where, how, and by whom. Formal communication has always been considered the "regular" system (or "channels") of communication within organizations. It is impersonal (station to station), official, and, in most cases, written.
 

a. Purposes: The purposes of formal communication are to command, to instruct, and to finalize matters through the application of regulations.
 

b. Advantages of formal communication: Proponents of formal communication argue that:

(1) Because formal communication is official, it is more binding and thus more likely to be obeyed.
(2) Because formal communication is written, it is more precise and thus less likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Because formal communication is written, it is traceable at all times and can be preserved (with numerous copies available for distribution).
(4) Because it is official, formal communication establishes responsibility of the sender and receiver beyond any doubt.
(5) Formal communication saves time and effort that would otherwise be consumed in informal talks, in discussions, and perhaps in arguments.
(6) Formal communication avoids the embarrassment of face-to-face contact between the parties when the subject of communication is sensitive or painful.
 

c. Disadvantages of formal communication: Formal communication has also been widely criticized on the following bases:
(1) It is too rigid, in that it limits information within the department to that sanctioned by the chief or supervisor.

(2) It follows a classic format commonly referred to as "bureaucratic jargon," the cautious phraseology of which is not conducive to true understanding and often serves to obscure the real meaning of a communication.

(3) It fails, in most cases, to identify the reasons behind the message; and this lack of explanation can be very frustrating to the recipient.

(4) It is costly in terms of secretarial effort, reproduction costs, and delivery time.

(5) It smacks of authoritarianism, since orders descend to a much greater extent than reports and feedback ascend to leadership positions (and since social matters are seldom mentioned).

(6) It fails to motivate employ, since it is usually impersonal and fnal.

(7) It often underestimates the intelligence of recipients by focusing on elementary or trivial matters.

(8) It can be divisive, separating personnel into "recipients" and "nonrecipients."
 

2. Informal Communication: Informal communication is based on the realization that an agency cannot be effective without personal interaction among workers and their voluntary support of organization goals. Informal communication is personal, unofficial, and mostly verbal.
 

a. Purposes: The purposes of informal communication are to educate through information sharing, to motivate through personal contacts, and to resolve conflicts through participation and friendship. It seeks to involve workers in organizational matters as a means of maintaining their enthusiasm, loyalty, and commitment.
 

b. Advantages of informal communication: Proponents of informal communication advocate its use for the following reasons:

(1) Informal communication is less official and less intimidating. It can therefore enhance the flow of new ideas and plans without the fear of ridicule or punishment.

(2) Informal communication is personal, which imbues it with the enthusiasm and zeal of the participants rather than dry, bureaucratic logic.

(3) Since it is usually verbal, informal communication allows both parties to discuss and explore the hidden dimensions of organizational matters in a two-way communication pattern.

(4) Informal communication can be a convenient way of explaining to workers why the department operates as it does. It promotes disclosure of underlying motives and pressures through an atmosphere of free, yet discreet, discussion.(5) Informal communication can refute rumors and put an end to gossip that can otherwise sprout up in a formal environment filled with unanswered questions.

(6) Informal communication can unite workers and foster a spirit of camaraderie based on the discovery of shared concerns and interests.

(7) Informal communication can pave the way for a harmonious relationship between officers and their superiors, and can thus promote cooperation based on mutual understanding and concern.
 

c. Disadvantages of informal communication: On the other hand, informal communication is not a panacea for all organizational ills. Opponents of informal communication make the following arguments against its use:
 

(1) It is too loose and therefore difficult to define or apply systematically.

(2) It can result in the spread of inaccurate information and half-truths. If carried to an extreme, it can result in second- and third-hand information being presented as original, factual, and trustworthy.

(3) It can lead to the indiscriminate disclosure of classified information.

(4) It is too often emotional or laden with sentiments which can distort or change its meaning.

(5) Because it is verbal, it is hard to trace when an inquiry becomes necessary.

(6) Its social advantages are questionable, since it is only as constructive as the participants make it.
 

3. The Right Mixture: The most useful method of communication is one based on an appropriate mixture of formal and informal communications. While there is no magic formula for arriving at this mixture, a proper blend can be achieved by intelligent leaders intimately familiar with the environment of the department and the needs of its personnel. For instance, formal communication could be limited to official business and presented in meaningful, trustworthy language. Informal communication could then be used as a supplement to the formal method, for the purpose of reassuring workers, maintaining their interest, improving their attitudes, and deepening their commitment to the department.
 

Directional Systems of Communication

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Bellows, R and Gibson, T. Q. Executive Skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1962.
Bittner, Egon. The Functions of the Police in Modem Society. New York: Jason Aronson, 1975.
Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.
Iannore, N. F. Supervision of Police Personnel. Englewood Cliffs, N .J.: Prentice Hall, 1975.
Massaie, Joseph L. Essentials of Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964.
Keller, Helen. The Story ofMy Life. New York Doubleday, 1954.
Pell, Arthur. Police Leadership. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1967.
Rogers, Carl and Roethlisberger, F. J. "Barriers and Gateways to Communication," Harvard Business Review. JulyAugust , '1952.
Whisenand, Paul and Ferguson, Fred. The Managing of Police Organization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972.
Williams, J. D. Public Administration: The People's Business. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980.