Like communication, the concept of coordination has almost universal appeal in the abstract. Obviously, a large and complex organization must be minimally coordinated in its activities to achieve consistency in the impacts of those activities. Put another way: If the right hand is ever to know what the left hand is doing, activities need to be coordinated at various points in the process. The need for coordination varies according to the type of service provided and the geographic location of the public agency.

Coordination problems become more serious as organizations undergo growth, increase in complexity, and cope with external threats. Organizational communication can be important and coordination can occur in different ways. Most definitions of coordination emphasize ideas like common goals and interests, compatible objectives, and harmonious collaboration among different groups. Essentially, coordination is the process of bringing together divided labor. Coordination can still be carried out even under less than favorable conditions (such as conflict, hostility, and apathy).

We can consider coordination in light of prerequisites, purposes, obstacles, remedies, and consequences, as we did with communication. At the risk of oversimplification, it may be said that the prerequisites are virtually the same—channels and mechanisms for coordination must be purposefully established and carefully maintained, just as for communication.

As far as purposes are concerned, there is probably less variety in the objectives of those who desire coordination. Whereas communication can serve to mislead or confuse as well as to clarify, coordination is almost always designed to clear away difficulties in organizational activity. It should be noted, however, that many individuals and groups may resist would-be coordinators’ efforts to clear away perceived difficulties. Such behaviors demonstrate the validity of the observation that coordination is rarely neutral.

свернуть