International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 5 (May 2024), Pages: 193-199

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Enhancing organizational and interpersonal communication in multinational companies: The effectiveness of the onion model

 Author(s): 

 John Chaidir 1, Haerofiatna Haerofiatna 1, Henny Setiani 1, Yayat Ruhiat 2, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Management, Universitas Primagraha, Serang, Indonesia
 2Department of Physics Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7589-0103

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.05.021

 Abstract

As we moved into the 21st century, it became clear that the success of any organization depends on more than just the technical skills of its managers, who lead the business. It also relies on the active participation of every employee and the quality of communication and interactions within the company. This study focuses on the development of onion models and how effective they are in improving interpersonal communication. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data through reviews of existing literature (secondary data) and direct fieldwork, including interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) for primary data. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. The participants in this study included 50 individuals ranging from owners and directors to managers, regular employees, and office assistants. The findings indicate that the onion model demonstrates a pattern of organizational communication that a) happens between individual members or across the whole organization, b) is formal and hierarchical, c) includes both verbal and non-verbal forms, d) can be direct or indirect, and e) serves the purpose of interaction and detailed discussion related to the company's internal operations. The study concludes that the onion model is effective for use in large and multinational companies.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Organizational communication, Interpersonal communication, Onion model, Mixed-method research, Multinational companies

 Article history

 Received 29 November 2023, Received in revised form 10 April 2024, Accepted 11 May 2024

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study adhered to ethical standards throughout its execution. All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study. They were fully informed about the study's aims, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing the data and securely storing all records. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any point without any repercussions.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Chaidir J, Haerofiatna H, Setiani H, and Ruhiat Y (2024). Enhancing organizational and interpersonal communication in multinational companies: The effectiveness of the onion model. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(5): 193-199

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

 Tables

 No Table

----------------------------------------------   

 References (29)

  1. Bacq S and Alt E (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3): 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.01.004   [Google Scholar]
  2. Braun S, Hernandez Bark A, Kirchner A, Stegmann S, and Van Dick R (2019). Emails from the boss—Curse or blessing? Relations between communication channels, leader evaluation, and employees’ attitudes. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1): 50–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415597516   [Google Scholar]
  3. Byrd GA, Zhang YB, and Gist-Mackey AN (2019). Interability contact and the reduction of interability prejudice: Communication accommodation, intergroup anxiety, and relational solidarity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4): 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19865578   [Google Scholar]
  4. Chigbu UE, Atiku SO, and Du Plessis CC (2023). The science of literature reviews: Searching, identifying, selecting, and synthesising. Publications, 11(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010002   [Google Scholar]
  5. Cletus HE, Mahmood NA, Umar A, and Ibrahim AD (2018). Prospects and challenges of workplace diversity in modern day organizations: A critical review. HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9(2): 35–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/hjbpa-2018-0011   [Google Scholar]
  6. Enke N and Borchers NS (2021). Social media influencers in strategic communication: A conceptual framework for strategic social media influencer communication. In: Borchers NS (Ed.), Social media influencers in strategic communication: 7–23. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003181286-2   [Google Scholar]
  7. Fineman MA (2019). The limits of equality: Vulnerability and inevitable inequality. In: West R and Bowman CG (Eds.), Research handbook on feminist jurisprudence: 73–90. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Gaspar R, Domingos S, Brito D, Leiras G, Filipe J, Raposo B, and de Arriaga M (2021). Striving for crisis resolution or crisis resilience? The crisis layers and thresholds model and information and communication technology-mediated social sensing for evidence-based crisis management and communication. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1): 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.241   [Google Scholar]
  9. Guinan PJ, Parise S, and Langowitz N (2019). Creating an innovative digital project team: Levers to enable digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(6): 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.005   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hopkinson P, Zils M, Hawkins P, and Roper S (2018). Managing a complex global circular economy business model: Opportunities and challenges. California Management Review, 60(3): 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618764692   [Google Scholar]
  11. Jung SH, Jin MJ, Lee JK, Kim HS, Ji HK, Kim KP, Hyun MH, and Hong HG (2020). Improving the quality of sexual history disclosure on sex offenders: Emphasis on a polygraph examination. PLOS ONE, 15(9): e0239046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239046   [Google Scholar] PMid:32941496 PMCid:PMC7498054
  12. Kurowska-Pysz J, Castanho RA, and Naranjo Gómez JM (2018). Cross-border cooperation: The barriers analysis and the recommendations. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 17(2): 134-147. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2018.17.2.12   [Google Scholar]
  13. Larrán Jorge M, Andrades Peña FJ, and Herrera Madueño J (2019). An analysis of university sustainability reports from the GRI database: An examination of influential variables. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(6): 1019–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1457952   [Google Scholar]
  14. Leavy P (2022). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Lomazzi V, Israel S, and Crespi I (2018). Gender equality in Europe and the effect of work-family balance policies on gender-role attitudes. Social Sciences, 8(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010005   [Google Scholar]
  16. Lundgren RE and McMakin AH (2018). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Mangus SM, Bock DE, Jones E, and Folse JAG (2020). Examining the effects of mutual information sharing and relationship empathy: A social penetration theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 109: 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.019   [Google Scholar]
  18. Masroor N and Asim M (2019). SMEs in the contemporary era of global competition. Procedia Computer Science, 158: 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.097   [Google Scholar]
  19. Miguel C (2018). Personal relationships and intimacy in the age of social media. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02062-0   [Google Scholar]
  20. Morrison-Smith S and Ruiz J (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5   [Google Scholar]
  21. Namhata R and Patnaik P (2019). The ‘verticals’, ‘horizontals’, and ‘diagonals’ in organisational communication: Developing models to mitigate communication barriers through social media applications. In: Patnaik S, Yang XS, Tavana M, Popentiu-Vlădicescu F, and Qiao F (Eds.), Digital business: Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies: 343–373. Volume 21, Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93940-7_14   [Google Scholar]
  22. Naradda Gamage SK, Ekanayake EM, Abeyrathne GA, Prasanna RP, Jayasundara JM, and Rajapakshe PS (2020). A review of global challenges and survival strategies of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Economies, 8(4): 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8040079   [Google Scholar]
  23. Perloff RM (2018). Mass communication research at the crossroads: Definitional issues and theoretical directions for mass and political communication scholarship in an age of online media. In: Wei R (Ed.), Advances in foundational mass communication theories: 273–298. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315164441-15   [Google Scholar]
  24. Piechurska-Kuciel E (2020). The big five traits and their ramifications. In: Piechurska-Kuciel E (Ed.), The big five in SLA: 27–94. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59324-7_2   [Google Scholar]
  25. Subarkah A (2018). Analysis of interpersonal communication in sports. In 2nd Yogyakarta International Seminar on Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science (YISHPESS’18) and 1st Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports (CoIS’18), Atlantis Press, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 288-291.   [Google Scholar]
  26. VanDyke MS and Lee NM (2020). Science public relations: The parallel, interwoven, and contrasting trajectories of public relations and science communication theory and practice. Public Relations Review, 46(4): 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101953   [Google Scholar]
  27. Venkataraman S (2019). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In: Katz JA and Corbett AC (Eds.), Seminal ideas for the next twenty-five years of advances: 5–20. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1074-754020190000021009   [Google Scholar]
  28. Winarso W (2018). Organizational communication; a conceptual framework. A Conceptual Framework. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171979   [Google Scholar]
  29. Xie F and Derakhshan A (2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 708490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490   [Google Scholar] PMid:34335424 PMCid:PMC8319622