Communicating in the Work Environment - Assignment Example

?Running Head: COMMUNICATION FAILURES Communicating in Communicating in the Work Environment Communicating in the work environment Introduction One of the most difficult environments in which to communicate is one of the most important places that the exchange of information should take place. Management style will often influence the way in which workers can communicate with managers. Workers are often intimidated in the work place and do not end up clearly expressing what needs to be communicated to those who are above them in the management chain. An example of this type of problem can be seen when a worker discovers that a piece of equipment is not working up to standard even though expectations have been clearly outlined that are need of that piece of equipment working at its optimum. Effective communication can be lost as the worker tries to explain the problem and the manager is only hearing excuses as to why expectations cannot be met. Failures in communications can result in strained relationships between managers and workers as information is not given or processed correctly. Management Style The way in which workers and managers communicate with one another is often defined by the management style that a manager will adopt. The type of leadership that is established will have an effect on how a worker responds and is able to communicate to the manager. As well, the way in which an individual has experienced speaking with leadership will also have an effect on how they can communicate to a manager. Communications styles develop long before an individual enters the workforce, but they can be trained in order to provide for more effective communications (Young, 2009). Often times it is a lack of communications training that will position a worker so that are unable to give information to an employer. There are four basic types of management that will affect the way in which communication develops between a manager and an employee. The four types are autocratic, paternalistic, democratic, and laissez-faire. In an autocratic type of management, information is proprietary and all decisions are made by the manager. A paternalistic manager will make decisions upon the basis of what is best for the employees. Through good relationships with employees, this type of manager acts as a guardian for their interests. In a democratic style of management the manager will allow employees a voice in the decision making process with discussions and a fairly free flow of information allowing for some equality within the groups and teams of the organization. In the laissez-faire form of management, the manager avoids his responsibilities and the employees end up picking up duties without any form of true organization (PM4DEV, 2007). An autocratic leader is one which leads through closing off his position from those under them so that it is difficult to communicate. In this type of leadership fear often develops because of the proprietary nature through which information is withheld. Employees will not be sure that the information that they are trying to communicate fits into the situation where little top down communication as occurred. A paternalistic manager might also see the same kind of reluctance from employees as they do not want to cause friction or issues with a leader who has become a friend or has been seen to be acting in the employees’ best interests. The democratic style of management allows for the best potential for good communications as the leader has formed relationships with the employees but is still actively managing the business. Teamwork allows for a free flow of information so that employees understand the relevance of the information that they may choose to impart. Laissez-faire styles of management usually accompany a complete breakdown as the manager has specifically shown that they are not interested in the work and goals that need to be accomplished. It is clear that communication is best developed through management that includes building a relationship. Information Access to information is a form of power within a company. The level of information that an individual has reflects the position that they have within the organization. Sometimes individuals or management teams will horde information, leaving others with less power and sometimes having a negative effect on the overall outcomes of situations. This will leave some members of the organization feeling as if they are stranded and outside of the work flow towards goals. This can also be due to the pressure that higher level management will feel about the decisions that they make, thus holding in the information so that other members do not have the advantages that knowledge might give them, but are also not responsible for what it might mean (Young, 2009). Failures to communicate information about a company can occur on a variety of levels. Information that is ‘dressed up’ may fail to impart important facts as it is trying to place a positive spin on what is communicated. This type of information will often fail to impart the importance of the subject that is being related. Information that has too many details that are outside of the understanding of the general population of employees is lost in efforts to communicate to them. A good example of this can be seen in a company where the director gave a ‘holiday party’ each January in which the details of the financial health of the corporation were outlined to the attendees. As a hotel company, the party was attended by housekeepers, desk clerks, and administrative personnel. While the intention was to keep everyone in the company as an insider, the result was that most of those in lower level positions tuned the details of the information out without understanding the thrust of the information. Information must not only be important and well communicated within a company, but it must relate to the efforts of an employee for it to have meaning. A housekeeper would have little control over the efforts of the sales staff or the local regulations that concerned the business, therefore that information would have no relevance to their work. Guerin and DelPo (2011) suggest that “Employees don’t need to be bogged down by every little detail of how things are done in your company. If you throw too much information at employees at once – some of it irrelevant to their day-to-day work – they might feel overwhelmed” (p. 4). Information is best served where it is relevant and when it can enhance and improve what is already known without complicating the knowledge outside of what is relevant. Situational Discussion A specific event that has occurred between a worker and a manager revolves around the performance of machinery that is involved in a production line. The worker noticed that the machine he was assigned to was not performing at the speed that it had been performing in previous weeks. The leader was an autocratic leader, tending to take information in without giving much in return. In addition, the manager did not always remember this employees name and the employee would catch him glancing at his name tag before addressing him. This type of non-verbal communication made it clear that the manager was not interested in the employee through anything more than his performance. As the machinery continued to perform poorly, the employee was procrastinating in telling his manager about the problems, unsure how it would be received or if his input would have any meaning to the manager. The manager did not seem to have noticed the problems with the machinery, but was clearly upset with the slower production that was not meeting expectations. As the employee finally decided to approach the manager, pressure created a situation where he failed to meet eye contact with the manager and he was continually looking down, which is a negative non-verbal sign (Schermerhorn, 2011). Failing to meet eye contact would indicate that some deception was taking place, although fear is the true reason that the employee was not able to meet the eyes of his manager. The reluctance that the worker showed to discuss the issue with the manager created a situation where the manager was not being receptive to what the worker was saying verbally. In this case, one could quote Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that “I can’t hear what you say because who you are speaks so loudly” (Schermerhorn, 2011, p. 245). Because of the way he presented himself, the manager was already in a mood to not hear him. The manager was also not acting receptive to the information that the employee was attempting to give. As the employee approached the manager, he crossed his arms and stood squarely, looking down on him as he was a taller man with his shoulders squared. He tilted his head and indicated that he was already not willing to believe what the employee had to say. In response to being told that the machine was not working properly, he asked why the employee was not operating it at capacity, even though the information that the employee gave him was intending to inform him of the machine not working properly. The exchange was uncomfortable and the manager was almost combative as he attempted to turn the fault around onto the employee. The initial failure in this communication was that the manager and the employee had no trust or relationship on which to base the discussion. The employee was acting deceptive because he did not trust the manager to accept what he was saying. The manager was judging the employee and failing to listen to what was being said rather than how it was being delivered. While the employee needed some training on how to have more effective communication, the manager had already closed the flow of communication by judging the non-verbal cues. Because the management style of leadership was closed off, information was not getting through so that solutions could be created for problems of which management was not aware. Conclusion Failures to communicate start well before two people engage in a conversation. Children begin to understand how to relate to authority figures through different types of leadership that is then reflected in business management leadership styles during their employment. Although education can teach someone how to effectively communicate, a natural inclination is to respond in ways that were learned in childhood (Young, 2009). As the quote by Emerson indicates, people begin communicating with each other long before they actually speak which will frame how they receive information from one another. The manager seemed to have already made up his mind before the employee spoke that whatever was being said was intended to be deceptive. The worker was clear that the manager would not be receptive to what he intended to tell him. As an autocratic leader, the manager did not give any information to the employee that was outside of his need to know, thus any maintenance or repair information was lost between them. Although the worker eventually convinced him to look at the machine, the communication that the manager took from the experience was that the worker was not being honest. The worker was clear that the manager was not in his corner and would not support his work experience. It is unfortunate, but the harm that the two did to their working relationship was placed on both their shoulders, leaving them without good communication tools between them. As the manager was not receptive, the worker was also not effective, thus the communication failed. References Guerin, L., & DelPo, A. (2011). Create your own employee handbook: A legal & practical guide for employers. Berkeley, Calif: Nolo. PM4DEV (2007). Fundamentals of Project Managing. New York: PM4DEV. Schermerhorn, J. R. (2011). Organizational behavior. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Young, S. T. (2009). Essentials of operations management. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Read More