I think that the analogy makes the assumption that there is a clarity of communication emerging from a structure "top down." There are many times when communication from top/ down does not take on one direct and clear form. There are times when upper administration sends out multiple messages, sometimes different and contradicting in order to gauge response and determine which path is best. In this light, downward communication is streaming in multiple directions. This divergent in path helps to decrease the overall effectiveness in communication and, in some instances, actually delegitimizes the message being sent and the messenger sending it. Indeed, upward communication does have to battle the force of gravity and this makes it difficult. Yet, there are moments when communication upwards is so clear and so passionate in a voice that it is more like a geyser, spurting with intense voice and zeal so that its presence cannot be denied. For example, if there is a crisis in compensation, or a strong union force that can rally workers to support a central goal, then communication upwards is volcanic in force, compelling upper authority to heed its voice and validate its own experience.