Avoiding Cargo-Culting and Communication Silos in Digital Media Systems

  1. Manish Kumar Verma

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

<p>This research analyses how&nbsp;<span>cargo-culting practices and communication silos</span>&nbsp;shape digital media content management workflows within already under practiced contemporary organisational contexts. Drawing on organisational communication theory, platform studies, and sociomaterial perspectives, the study reframes persistent digital media management challenges as&nbsp;<span>structural and communicative conditions rather than technical or skills-based failures.</span></p> <p><span>Cargo-culting is conceptualised</span>&nbsp;as the uncritical replication of tools, workflows, and performance indicators based on perceived external success, without contextual understanding of their underlying logic. on the other side, Communication silos are analysed as organisational conditions in which visibility, authority, and interpretation are unevenly distributed across roles, platforms, and workflow stages. The research demonstrates that these two phenomena are mutually reinforcing within platform-mediated digital media systems.</p> <p><span>Using an exploratory qualitative research design, the study integrates open-ended practitioner surveys, practice-informed inputs, and workflow and process mapping across agency-based, multi-client, and platform-dependent digital media environments.</span>The Empirical findings reveal consistent fragmentation between planning, execution, and evaluation stages; asymmetric access to platform data and metrics; dominance of platform-defined performance indicators; and widespread reliance on replicative “industry standard” practices under conditions of time pressure and evaluative risk.</p> <p>Rather than treating digital platforms as neutral tools, the analysis positions them as communicative infrastructures that stabilise siloed visibility and encourage cargo-cult adoption of workflows and metrics. The study argues that platform architectures, role-based access configurations, and metric-centred evaluation systems collectively obscure deeper organisational communication problems, limiting reflexive learning and shared sense-making.</p> <p>By reframing digital media workflows as communicative systems,<span>&nbsp;this research contributes a research-led, non-prescriptive analysis of why cargo-culting and communication silos persist despite widespread professional expertise and technological sophistication.</span>&nbsp;The study offers an analytically grounded foundation for future research on platform dependency, organisational communication, and digital media governance, without proposing solutionist frameworks or optimisation templates</p>

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/20027673.

    Name: Archana Sharma

    Background: Business Operations & Export–Import Management (10+ years experience)

    (Review)

    I went through this preprint with interest, mainly from an operational and workflow perspective rather than a purely academic one.

    The core idea—that cargo-culting practices and communication silos reinforce each other in digital media workflows—is something I find quite relatable. Even outside digital media, in structured business environments, similar patterns appear when teams rely heavily on templates, standard processes, and performance indicators without fully aligning on purpose or interpretation.

    What I appreciated most is that the paper does not treat these issues as individual mistakes or lack of skill. Instead, it explains them as outcomes of how work is structured—especially how roles are separated, how data is shared, and how decisions are evaluated.

    The discussion around metrics stood out to me. In many organisations, metrics become the default language for communication. They help in reporting, but at the same time, they can reduce deeper discussion. The paper captures this balance well without overstating the problem.

    I also found the methodological clarity useful. The author is careful about not over-claiming results and clearly explains the exploratory nature of the research. From a practical point of view, this makes the work more trustworthy.

    That said, I see a couple of areas where the paper could be strengthened:

    * The concepts discussed are highly relevant beyond digital media. A slightly clearer connection to general business operations or cross-functional coordination could make the insights more widely applicable.

    * While the non-prescriptive approach is understandable, a brief indication of how organisations might interpret or reflect on these findings could make it more useful for practitioners.

    Overall, I see this as a well-thought-out and realistic piece of work. It reflects actual organisational behaviour rather than idealised models, which is not very common.

    I would consider it a meaningful contribution, especially for those working in environments where workflows, metrics, and coordination across teams are central to daily operations.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. Version published to 10.2139/ssrn.6237358