Positive and Negative Factors Impact Communication - Essay Example

The Author's Name] [The Professor's Name] [The Course Title] [Date] Positive and Negative Factors Impact Communication Introduction In addition to training, communication directly impacts the success - or failure - of an organisation implementation. The technical aspects of a new system solution are complicated, but some of the more difficult issues arise when managers are tasked with communicating changes in business processes and other organisational adjustments. Often, organisations think that the best way to communicate the kickoff of a new project is to have executive sponsors visit various groups and make a prepared speech. But the rank-and-file employee most likely has a higher level of trust in his or her day-to-day manager than in executive management. As a result, it may be more effective to have the local manager deliver information regarding a new project (Phillips 105-108). Executive sponsors should be present to make supporting comments, but the audience must clearly see that the local manager is involved and will be the main contact for all subsequent communications. Even when executives do communicate a project's parameters, they don't often understand the intricacies of such a large effort. Additionally, those involved in various review and steering committees - both of which lie on the periphery of any large implementation - can be very critical of the amount of time, effort, and money required. Many executives express concern and hesitation regarding any large investment that competes with their own information system initiatives (Phillips 105-108). A clear, positive communication plan that explains how a specific project fits into the overall organisation's mission is critical, and the plan must be communicated over and over again. Hold Off on Human Resources. It's true that executives in human resources and corporate communications departments are often tasked with training and communications for companywide efforts (safety, public awareness, blood drives, and community programs). While such initiatives manage certain changes for the company as a whole, they do not translate well into the kind of change management that is required during the implementation of utility engineering and operations organisation projects. These projects require a detailed understanding of how current business processes are altered to take advantage of the new organisation's functionality (Phillips 105-108). This means that those who lead a change management team for a utility project must be well-versed in the actual business processes that are being changed. Another misconception is that an organisational development group can perform the change management for a utility organisation project. Such a group typically performs cultural and behavior modification for an organisation, polling employee satisfaction levels, mediating internal departmental conflicts, and conducting exercises to enhance employee relationships (Sarah 56-88). Those involved in organisational development can serve as a supplement to a project change management team with regard to team building, resolving both executive management and employee personality conflicts and other related project impediments. However, they are not used most effectively when they are tasked to lead training and communicating initiatives for new business processes that result from implementing solutions. Ultimately, individuals who have actually performed the jobs for which business processes are being changed are the best candidates to supply communication and training. This is because they are familiar with the work processes and can communicate how the new organisation will achieve desired benefits. The user community also knows and most likely trusts these people. To maximize the potential for success of a new solution implementation, be sure to tap into the rich resources these front-line people provide. Users are sure to identify with the hands-on, real-world training these individuals can offer, and that can translate to tangible bottom-line benefits, financial or otherwise. (Perrott 118-225) To gain their knowledge workers should communicate with other groups outside their firm’s circle of communication. It is a fact that not all applicable knowledge is established to firm walls. While communicating with people outside the company is dangerous, managers should carefully motivate information and skill allocating that increases new knowledge development. Informal obstacles also present between useful areas within a firm. (Perrott 118-225) Thus, managers require smashing down functional silos and developing communication across company departments. Providing messages channels, abolishing or reform reporting links, and developing cross-functional meeting are three ways to decrease internal and external obstacles. As a supporter of the unwrapped novelty movement, Idea Crossing is a firm that supports clients break down obstacles to imagination by scheming and creating "idea competitions." These cautiously designed, friendly contests leverage the communal knowledge of workers, customers, and external associates. Merck, Sprint, DuPont and others have also operated idea competitions to valve latent originality. Reward Knowledge Sharing Activity An organisation's spirited advantage rests inside the exceptional and original knowledge reserve of its workers. Yet, mostly, workers basically draw upon usually seized knowledge when communicating with others. It seems without saying that workers will perform in a way reliable with their reward constitution. Therefore, it is vital that employee knowledge-promoting activities be not only motivated but also rewarded openly and well exposed. For some knowledge employees, sharing knowledge means getting busy in actions out of their present functional duties; consequently, they require an inducement to contribute. Some firms, such as General Electrie and BP Amoco, involve peer analyses of an workers’ cross-functional teamwork attempts as part of general performance analysis, and even change reporting construction from a customary vertical strategy to a more communicative structure, developing bigger prospects for knowledge teamwork. Many firms reward idea generation or charge lessening ideas shaped by collaborative efforts. Mind The Bottom Line When companies hold the idea of knowledge management and start to encourage it, senior managers are possible to look a mixture of restlessness and thrill amongst knowledge workers. The restlessness received is conquered with education, inducements and even abrasion. Enthusiasm, though, from time to time needs to be raged (Guptill 331-335). While communication and knowledge sharing should clearly be confident, over-zealous workers can become so enchanted with the new knowledge sharing/structure surfaces of their careers that they permit these actions to outshine other shorter-term, revenue-making duties. Because the base line for any capitalistic enterprise is to make capital, knowledge partnership should ever be focused and within the firm’s business task. As the competitive setting raises increasingly unsure and impulsive, the classic business strategy of tapering controls and confining resources become less successful. Enhance the cognitive ability of individual knowledge personnel creates an organisational impression where even organically detached individuals are rationally linked in a way that makes them a network of knowledge developers. Such an organisational system binds each individual's excitement, pledge and wish to learn; thereby making an organisational group that can manage and innovate quickly (Hassard 331-335). Adopt a capability mindset. At the basic level, HR must clearly cuddle individual employee knowledge as a vital organisational component. Company training behaviors should include objects and experiences that will increase the creative ability of every knowledge employee. For example, Hewlett-Packard knowledge workers went through a premeditated change from within alert, goal leaning R&D strategy to their more new capability oriented strategy (Guptill, 201-105). Today, HP knowledge workers aggressively communicate with clients, associates and a host of interior stakeholders in an attempt to develop the subsequent generation of yields and services. They are probable to look for the knowledge of others while at the same time being obvious in developing their own knowledge reserve. Achieving an ability mindset needs managers to help their theoretical strategy with realistic actions. Particularly, knowledge-boosting actions should be explicitly appreciated and recognized, while stoppage to contribute in knowledge sharing should be depressed and in few examples, detained. Cutting tour and conference supporting for knowledge workers when finances get rigid is an all-too-common performance that propels an alluring note to people about the factual role of knowledge and imagination in the firm. A Common Problem These beliefs about communication exist widely in business, government and academia. Those which embrace the traditional "business as usual" attitudes still have these thoughts buried deep within their culture (Miller 228-235). Yet, these traditional thoughts concerning communication cannot continue in a world where employee participation and community partnering with business are critical elements to future success. Changes in our communication must occur to support this emerging world. What are the results of this traditional way of thinking about communication? There are three major ones. First, this attitude drives communication underground. Communication becomes covert instead of overt (Miller 228-235). The rumor mill and the "grape vine" become the methods of communication. And because they are not always accurate, management wastes time chasing shadows or correcting misconceptions, after the fact, in a highly suspicious environment. Second, this way of thinking creates work force polarization. This polarization is highly dependent upon the way we communicate to (not with) workers, and the way management views workers' need and ability to know and understand. If these barriers are high in an organisation, there is great polarization between management and labor. If these barriers are lower, the polarization is less. The third result is that it retards or poisons team and individual participation. Knowing that participation is a key to tomorrow's organisation, this result alone will poison any attempt to implement change. Safety and health professionals are not exempt from this communication disconnect. In fact, safety and health people have many issues that notably confound their ability to communicate. They often are set adrift, even buried, in a staff structure. This is a lot like being at the bottom of a well. To be heard, you have to yell a lot and the sounds tend to have a lot of echoes, most of which only you hear. Safety and health professionals aren't "schooled" in management language. Many observers have concluded that this means that we don't talk in economic terms. This is an over-simplification (Phillips 105-108). Management talks in bullets, of options and choices, of benefits and impacts, of time constraints and milestones. Historically, most of us don't communicate to management well either. Safety-types seem to talk better to the workers and industrial hygiene-types to scientists and engineers. Whereas these are important groups to be communicating with, we need to develop the ability and ease of talking with management. Communication Must Be Done Well In today's and tomorrow's workplace, communication cannot be forgotten. In fact, it must be done well. To work, our emerging organisations and safety and health programs depend on a high level of employee and management participation and involvement. Participation and involvement are impossible without giving management and workers all the knowledge and information they need (Sarah 56-88). This should be common sense and automatic. Unfortunately, if you look at how we have managed our businesses, it isn't. For successful organisations, communication must become a strength, from the top to the bottom and across all functions. Safety and health is not isolated or set aside from this fact. We must be continually aware of the importance of communication to our success and the success of our programs. And, just as important, we must be active participants in our organisation's communication process. Works Cited Miller M., "The relationship of communication reticence and negative expectations," (Communication Education 36 1987: 228-235). Phillips G., "On apples and onions: A reply to Page," (Communication Education 29 1984: 105-108). 30 M. Miller, "The relationship of communication reticence and negative expectations." Sarah, King. Sanderson and Donald Peter Cushman, eds. High-Speed Management and Organisational Communication: A Reader. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2004. Gloet, M. (2002). Knowledge management audit: The role of managers in articulating and integrating quality practices. Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(6), 310–316. Gloet, M., & Berrell, M. (2003). The dual paradigm nature of knowledge management: Implications for achieving quality outcomes in human resource management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 78–89. Guptill J. (2005), `Knowledge Management in Health Care', Journal of Health Care Finance, Spring, Vol. 31, Iss. 3, New York, pp. 10±15. Hassard, J. and Kelemen, M. (2002), `Production and Consumption in Organisational Knowledge: The Case of the `Paradigms Debate', Organisation, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 331-355. Jashapara A. (2004), Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach, Harlow: Pearson Education. Perrott, B. E. (2006), Knowledge Management in Health: An Evolution? Proceedings of the conference; Knowledge Management: The Key to Innovative Health Programs, March 8th and 9th, Sydney. Read More