Organizations have required communications for as long as they have existed, not only externally but also between different roles, levels, and functions. Due to this fact people in organizations take for granted the process of communications. The strategic planning process of first identifying your objectives and audiences is often overlooked and the final product is jumped into. The planning process is an important step in the success of any communications but especially in an organization where often times there is information overload. If a communication objective is not clearly thought through it is highly likely that the message will be missed.
In Chapter 1 there is a section called “Making the Invisible Visible” that states that taken-for-granted ideas cause us to overlook the origins of ideas. Communications has become one of those taken-for-granted ideas in organizations. It is such a common practice in the workplace that it has lost its ability to do what it was meant to do. We are all inundated with communications from corporate, from our managers, from our colleagues that they all just get lost in the shuffle. The goal now is to make communication that has become invisible visible again. When an organization wide announcement is sent out with a call to action in it we will know that it is being received, not just in an inbox but actual action is being taken by the intended audience. How do we do this? How do we make invisible communications visible again? I believe the first step to achieving such a task is by getting everyone back to the bare bone basics of communications that requires a plan from start to finish, clearly identifying and putting objectives into writing, identifying audiences and possible risks. I believe that this requires both the sender and receiver to be more aware and conscious of communications and to really see it rather than pass it over.
Streaning Star Trek: Insurrection Full Movie
-
[D'movies *HD*] Streaming Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Full Movie. Star
Trek: Insurrection can be watch for free registering. Watch Star Trek:
Insurrecti...
6 years ago
4 comments:
I think part of the problem is that many "assume" that the person they are communicating with will understand the message. We often take for granted that this person does not have the same information, background, etc. to interpret the message exactly as intended. Often I will be assigned a project and only briefly explained to what the output should be. Sometimes I have no idea why I am doing this project or how it is important. I realize that this is not very efficient and perhaps a few extra minutes spent communicating details could make a big difference.
During staff meetings many find themselves wondering what is being talked about and how this is relevant to them. Sometimes the assumption is made that everyone understands the "big picture," but this is of course not the case. For example a junior accountant may not be equipped with the necessary information to understand what is being communicated in a meeting that discusses overall firm strategy. So I do agree that communication in this way is being taken for granted.
I'm curious about your use of the word "communications." In Communication Studies we often differentiate between interpersonal communication and mass communications, where both communication methods have different implications on the business environment.
Although mass communication has a larger impact on the organization and affects the structure of the organization, interpersonal communication creates smaller pockets of interaction that could alter the company from the ground up. I would be interested in hearing which type of communication, you believe, has a larger bearing on the corporate environment. Is mass comm more influential than interpersonal comm? Does having a larger audience mean it produces a bigger impact? Of course, both mass comm and interpersonal comm have their roles within the organization, but I would be curious to know which you find more important to affecting corporate structure and goals.
You have an interesting point. I also noticed that in many corporations that communication is often lost in the jumble of hierarchies. In most large companies, it would be extremely difficult for an employee to meet with the president or CEO of the firm. In fact, you would be rather lucky if the CEO is even within your same state or even country. An example of this would be the Google company. They have campuses scattered throughout the world but how many of their workers can just walk up to Eric Schmidt’s office door and talk to him directly? They would almost have to play “Operator” and transfer the message through a series of managers, supervisors, and directors first and then maybe the CEO will hear of it.
Some organizational communication scholars argue that organizing is communicating. That is, organizations cannot exist without humans communicating with each other. Kristie makes a good point between communication and communications. Generally the "s" refers to mediated communication, although with the internet, even that distinction is changing. You can also think of all communication as mediated, since we never encounter our world directly but always through cognitive structures--which mediate our experiences. Whatever your perspective, this class should motivate you to question that which you've taken for granted in and about organizations.
Post a Comment