, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
SECTION A
QUESTION 1
1. The scenario mentions vertical (downward/upward) and horizontal communication problems.
Analyse these problems in detail. For each direction, propose one communication intervention
that would improve flow, justifying your proposal with reference to communication theory (e.g.
transmission vs transactional models).
Analysis of vertical communication problems (downward and upward) at Eskom
Downward communication problems
Downward communication flows from higher levels of authority (e.g., CEO, executives) to lower
levels (e.g., technicians, shift workers). At Eskom, downward communication is described as slow
and bureaucratic: memos from the CEO take days to reach technicians (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p.
51). This reflects a transmission model weakness – information is sent in a linear, one‑way manner
without ensuring timely receipt or understanding (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 4). The use of
technical jargon (“unplanned capability loss factor”) further blocks meaning creation, which is
central to a transactional or meaning‑centred view (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5).
Upward communication problems
Upward communication (from subordinates to management) is discouraged because middle
managers fear blame. This violates the principle of two‑way, symmetrical communication
(COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28) and prevents management from receiving critical feedback – a
function of the aligning role of organisational communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44). In
transactional terms, feedback loops are broken (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5).
Analysis of horizontal communication problems
Horizontal communication flows between peers or across departments on the same hierarchical level.
At Eskom, horizontal communication between power stations (Medupi and Kusile) is weak, causing
duplication of repairs (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 52). This indicates a lack of networked,
decentralised communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 56) and undermines team coordination
and problem‑solving, which are key purposes of horizontal flow (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 52).
, Proposed interventions
For downward communication – Introduce weekly “Safety & System Status” video briefings
by station managers, recorded in plain English and isiZulu/Afrikaans, and shared via
WhatsApp groups.
This shifts from a slow, linear transmission model (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 4) to a transactional
model (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5), enabling immediate feedback via reactions or voice notes. It
also aligns with the energy‑saving role of communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44) by
empowering employees with timely, understandable information.
For upward communication – Implement a monthly anonymous digital “Speak Up” platform
where technicians can report problems without fear of reprisal, with a guarantee of a written
response from management.
This creates a safe two‑way symmetrical channel (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28), embodying the
constituting role of communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 45) and the aligning role through
environmental scanning (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44). It directly addresses the fear culture that
blocks upward flow.
For horizontal communication – Create cross‑station “Communities of Practice” WhatsApp
groups for each repair team (e.g., boiler specialists at Medupi and Kusile), with a rotating
weekly “link engineer” who shares lessons learned and repair logs.
This moves from a weak, centralised network (e.g., wheel or chain) to a decentralised all‑channel
network (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 57), which supports multi‑way, polyphonic communication
(COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28). It reduces duplication and fosters collective problem‑solving, a
core principle of Ubuntu and participatory communication (COM1513, Study Unit 4, p. 5 and Study
Unit 5, p. 17).
SECTION A
QUESTION 1
1. The scenario mentions vertical (downward/upward) and horizontal communication problems.
Analyse these problems in detail. For each direction, propose one communication intervention
that would improve flow, justifying your proposal with reference to communication theory (e.g.
transmission vs transactional models).
Analysis of vertical communication problems (downward and upward) at Eskom
Downward communication problems
Downward communication flows from higher levels of authority (e.g., CEO, executives) to lower
levels (e.g., technicians, shift workers). At Eskom, downward communication is described as slow
and bureaucratic: memos from the CEO take days to reach technicians (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p.
51). This reflects a transmission model weakness – information is sent in a linear, one‑way manner
without ensuring timely receipt or understanding (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 4). The use of
technical jargon (“unplanned capability loss factor”) further blocks meaning creation, which is
central to a transactional or meaning‑centred view (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5).
Upward communication problems
Upward communication (from subordinates to management) is discouraged because middle
managers fear blame. This violates the principle of two‑way, symmetrical communication
(COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28) and prevents management from receiving critical feedback – a
function of the aligning role of organisational communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44). In
transactional terms, feedback loops are broken (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5).
Analysis of horizontal communication problems
Horizontal communication flows between peers or across departments on the same hierarchical level.
At Eskom, horizontal communication between power stations (Medupi and Kusile) is weak, causing
duplication of repairs (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 52). This indicates a lack of networked,
decentralised communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 56) and undermines team coordination
and problem‑solving, which are key purposes of horizontal flow (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 52).
, Proposed interventions
For downward communication – Introduce weekly “Safety & System Status” video briefings
by station managers, recorded in plain English and isiZulu/Afrikaans, and shared via
WhatsApp groups.
This shifts from a slow, linear transmission model (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 4) to a transactional
model (COM1513, Study Unit 1, p. 5), enabling immediate feedback via reactions or voice notes. It
also aligns with the energy‑saving role of communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44) by
empowering employees with timely, understandable information.
For upward communication – Implement a monthly anonymous digital “Speak Up” platform
where technicians can report problems without fear of reprisal, with a guarantee of a written
response from management.
This creates a safe two‑way symmetrical channel (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28), embodying the
constituting role of communication (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 45) and the aligning role through
environmental scanning (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 44). It directly addresses the fear culture that
blocks upward flow.
For horizontal communication – Create cross‑station “Communities of Practice” WhatsApp
groups for each repair team (e.g., boiler specialists at Medupi and Kusile), with a rotating
weekly “link engineer” who shares lessons learned and repair logs.
This moves from a weak, centralised network (e.g., wheel or chain) to a decentralised all‑channel
network (COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 57), which supports multi‑way, polyphonic communication
(COM1513, Study Unit 2, p. 28). It reduces duplication and fosters collective problem‑solving, a
core principle of Ubuntu and participatory communication (COM1513, Study Unit 4, p. 5 and Study
Unit 5, p. 17).
