The bureaucratic tradition of the organisation transcends the difference between public and private institutions: in Romania, where the bureaucratic direction was structural in the inter-war and during the “really existing socialism”, the style of directives, non transparency and non deliberation is still common to both types of institutions even after more than 17 years of the “new era”. There are social and institutional causes of the bureaucratic leadership, which do transpose into the communication models for inside and outside the institutions. Thus the communication models reflect and follow the leadership models and the paper is focusing just on some characteristics of institutionalised communication inside the university world (for example: a. the secrecy of information concerning the conditions of promotion, b. specific information for preferential circles, c. the configuration of a pyramidal transfer of information from the anonymous top “leadership” to the ordinary members of chairs, d. the last word of “the leadership” irrespective of the opposite opinions of even the biggest part of the academics, e. the passing over in silence the phenomena of corruption.)
Even if the author is not a fan of the deliberative democracy theory, she has to join those who emphasise the role of deliberations for minimise misunderstandings, oppositions, conflicts, and raise the efficiency of the organisation. At the same time, the analysis of the internal communication in the chairs of university seems to credit Habermas’ conception about the fictitious nature of the concept of public opinion: in our case, of a collective opinion, the more so the sociological conditions and motivations of the members of the chairs.
Results of the bureaucratic communication are the low level social capital and the deepening of the harmful aspects/consequences of the bureaucratic leadership. At the same time, communication itself cannot transform the specific of bureaucratic interpersonal relationships, but be a mean of change within the general social modernisation.

Key words: internal communication, bureaucratic organisation, university chairs, psychology of leaders, psychology of non leaders.

Preliminary specific bibliography:

Kathleen K. Ahearn, Gerald R. Ferris, Wayne A. Hochwarter, Ceasar Douglas, Anthony P. Ammeter, “Leader Political Skill and Team Performance”, Journal of Management, volume 30, no. 3, 2004
Susan J. Ashford, Ruth Blatt, Don VandeWalle, “Reflections on the Looking Glass: A Review of Research on Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Organizations”, Journal of Management, volume 29, no. 6, 2003
Donald E. Conlon, Christopher O.L.H. Porter, Judi McLean Parks, “The fairness of Decision Rules”, Journal of Management, volume 30, no. 3, 2004
Paul Dekker, Political cynicism: A hard feeling or an easy way to maintain distance? Paper presented at the ECPR general conference in Budapest, 8-11 September 2005
Jürgen Habermas, Structurwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen gesellschaft (mit einem Vorwort zur Neuaflage 1990), 1962, 1990, Romanian translation, Bucureşti, comunicare.ro, 2005
Jason Kosnoski, “Artful discussion. John Dewey’s Classroom as a Model of Deliberative Association”, Political Theory, vol. 33, No. 5, October 2005
Pierre Moscovici (coord.), Psychologie sociale des relations à autrui, 1994, Romanian translation, Iaşi, Polirom, 1998
Gabriel Mugny, Juan Antonio Pérez, ‘Social influence and persuasion strategies: the theory of the elaboration of conflict’, (coord. Adrian Neculau), Psihologia socială. Aspecte contemporane, Iaşi, Polirom, 1996
Jon L. Pierce, Donald G. Gardner, “Self-Esteem Within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature”, Journal of Management, volume 30, no. 5, 2004
Jeffrey T. Polzer, “How Subgroup Interests and Reputations Moderate the Effect of Organizational Identification on Cooperation”, Journal of Management, volume 30, no. 1, 2004