As a conclusion of the Web blog, it can be said that the importance of organizational communication has increased a lot over the last decades. In the 21st century, the function of communication is critical to every organization. Throughout the Web blog, several reasons for this trend are explained. The most important reasons are summarized in this posting.
First of all, we live in a more sophisticated era in terms of communication. As a result of technological development, information gets with high speed from one side of the world to the other.
Second, the general public is more sophisticated and demanding in its approach to communication than it was in the past. People tend to be more educated and therefore tend to be more sceptical of organization’s intentions. Furthermore, they expect information to be conveniently accessible and beautifully designed.
Finally, organizations themselves have become more complex, meaning that the exchange of organizational information has become more challenging, too. Therefore, it is much more complicated to develop and implement coherent communication strategies.
These points explain why it is critical to organizations to effectively manage its communication function. Companies that recognize the importance of communication and act accordingly are one step ahead of the competition.
Links:
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/importance-of-communication-in-an-organization-97064.html
http://www.accaglobal.com/students/publications/student_accountant/archive/2003/35/907747
http://www.negotiations.com/case/business-relationship/
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Concept of Consensus
The concept of consensus describes a group decision-making process which takes the opinion of all group members into consideration and results in a general agreement. A consensus cannot be reached by voting according to the majority rule but by an open minded discussion in which all members participate. All group members should confidently voice their opinion and listen to the opinion of others. Therefore, there should be no person who inappropriately controls the decision-making process to make sure that every opinion is considered equally important. The concept of consensus requires patience and a systematic approach to avoid confusion. All parties should be willing to compromise. Nevertheless, group discussions can cause conflict. But note that conflicts can be good to initiate additional thinking and develop new ideas and problem resolution opportunities. Therefore, different views should be considered helpful rather than hindering.
Advantages of the Concept Consensus
An advantage of decision-making by consensus is that it promotes open communication. Therefore, all members are more likely to support to the decision. This requires members to listen and understand all sides of an issue. At the end a decision is made, with which all members can live. Thus, decision-making by consensus provides a win-win situation.
Disadvantages of the concept of consensus
The concept of consensus requires trust among the members to encourage sharing of information and opinion.
Moreover, it takes more time to reach a consensus than it does to make a decision by voting. This is especially true in larger groups. Therefore, the concept of consensus is most efficient in smaller groups.
Finally, decision-making by consensus requires that no member dominates the group.
In Class (04/10/08)
In class, we did a group assignment that showed us how the decision-making process by consensus works. We imagined we flew through South America when the pilot of our plane had to make an emergency landing. Landing in the jungle, nearly 100 miles away from the next city, there were only a few items left we could carry with us. We were supposed to evaluate the items in terms of their importance to our survival and to rank them accordingly. First of all, we ranked the items individually without communicating with anyone else. Afterwards, we formed groups of 4 persons to reach a consensus. My experiences in this consensus-reaching process are described in personal experiences/examples.
Personal Experience/ Examples
Referring to the group assignment described above, I experienced that decision-making by consensus is a useful approach. In our group, we had an open-minded decision, in which every group member participated. First of all, we structured our decision-making plan. Afterwards, each of us explained his general idea to solve the problem. This provided the basis for discussing the importance of each single item. In this discussion, everyone’s opinion was considered. Explaining the items’ purpose, we had much fun and laughed a lot. At the end we got a ranking which satisfied each of us.
Not all consensus-reaching processes are that successful. Actually, I experienced that it can be very stressful to reach a consensus. Sometimes, I just did not like other members of my group, which made it hard to be willing to compromise. Often, points of view were too different to find a common solution. In these situations, a compromise would have led to a result that I would not have liked at all. In those cases, it was virtually impossible to reach a consensus.
Links:
http://garywinters.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/how-to-achieve-consensus-without-beating-a-dead-horse/
http://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/org/consensus.html
http://homepages.luc.edu/~hweiman/ComingToConsensus.html
Advantages of the Concept Consensus
An advantage of decision-making by consensus is that it promotes open communication. Therefore, all members are more likely to support to the decision. This requires members to listen and understand all sides of an issue. At the end a decision is made, with which all members can live. Thus, decision-making by consensus provides a win-win situation.
Disadvantages of the concept of consensus
The concept of consensus requires trust among the members to encourage sharing of information and opinion.
Moreover, it takes more time to reach a consensus than it does to make a decision by voting. This is especially true in larger groups. Therefore, the concept of consensus is most efficient in smaller groups.
Finally, decision-making by consensus requires that no member dominates the group.
In Class (04/10/08)
In class, we did a group assignment that showed us how the decision-making process by consensus works. We imagined we flew through South America when the pilot of our plane had to make an emergency landing. Landing in the jungle, nearly 100 miles away from the next city, there were only a few items left we could carry with us. We were supposed to evaluate the items in terms of their importance to our survival and to rank them accordingly. First of all, we ranked the items individually without communicating with anyone else. Afterwards, we formed groups of 4 persons to reach a consensus. My experiences in this consensus-reaching process are described in personal experiences/examples.
Personal Experience/ Examples
Referring to the group assignment described above, I experienced that decision-making by consensus is a useful approach. In our group, we had an open-minded decision, in which every group member participated. First of all, we structured our decision-making plan. Afterwards, each of us explained his general idea to solve the problem. This provided the basis for discussing the importance of each single item. In this discussion, everyone’s opinion was considered. Explaining the items’ purpose, we had much fun and laughed a lot. At the end we got a ranking which satisfied each of us.
Not all consensus-reaching processes are that successful. Actually, I experienced that it can be very stressful to reach a consensus. Sometimes, I just did not like other members of my group, which made it hard to be willing to compromise. Often, points of view were too different to find a common solution. In these situations, a compromise would have led to a result that I would not have liked at all. In those cases, it was virtually impossible to reach a consensus.
Links:
http://garywinters.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/how-to-achieve-consensus-without-beating-a-dead-horse/
http://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/org/consensus.html
http://homepages.luc.edu/~hweiman/ComingToConsensus.html
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Crisis Communication
This posting provides the definition of a crisis, a discussion of how organizations can prepare for crisis events, and an approach for organizations to follow when crisis occur. Furthermore, it gives a description of our class discussion about this issue and personal experiences and examples.
What is a crisis?
Our textbook “Corporate Communication” (Argenti, 2007, p. 213) states the following definition of a crisis: “A crisis is a major catastrophe that may occur either naturally or as a result of human error, intervention or even malicious intent. It can include tangible devastation, such as the destruction of lives or assets, or intangible devastation, such as the loss of an organization’s credibility or other reputational damage. The latter outcomes may be the result of management’s response to tangible devastation or the result of human error”. The characteristics of crises are among others: (1) the element of surprise, (2) insufficient information, (3) the quick pace of events, and (4) intense scrutiny. These characteristics make it difficult for executives to maintain control. In crisis situation, the executives often adopt a short-term focus and forget to consider long-term objectives. Attention shifts from the business as a whole to the crisis alone. This bad crisis management can be avoided if a company’s management is prepared for crises.
How to prepare for crises
Managers should be aware of the fact that crises can happen to every company at any time and that they often occur when they are least expected. History of crises shows that each industry can be affected by a crisis. Therefore, it is crucial that company’s set up and maintain crisis plans which determine what to do in a crisis situation.
There are several steps that need to be taken in order to thoroughly prepare for a crisis. First of all, an organization should assess its individual risk. Concerning this risk evaluation, managers should take into account that some industries are more prone to crises than others. They can conduct a brainstorming to list possible crisis situations. Afterwards, probabilities should be assigned to the listed situations. This makes it possible to focus on the more probable evens although less likely events should not be completely ignored. After the probability assignment is done, management should quantify the risk exposure by determining potential crises effects on constituencies.
Secondly, setting communication objectives for potential crises is important because a company should well know what it wants to say to whom in the case of crisis. In a crisis, events usually happen very rapidly. Companies that have not determined communication objectives before a crisis starts usually do not have the time to define them during a crisis. This leads to bad communication.
The third step is to analyze the channel choice and to determine which channels are most appropriate to the crisis communication to certain constituencies. It is obvious that a sensitive communication to employees requires other channels than a trust rebuilding communication to customers does. This has to be considered when a crisis plan is developed.
Another important necessity of planning for communicating in a crisis is deciding in advance who will be member of what team for each crisis. These teams should vary according to the differing nature of each crisis. In some cases, senior managers should lead a crisis communication team; in other cases, it might make more sense to assign employees who are closest to the crisis event to be spokespersons of their teams.
The fifth point that needs to be considered is that effective crisis communication is centralized. In the event of a crisis, it is important to act rapidly. Responsibilities have to be clearly defined so that everybody knows what he or she has to do. This especially is a challenge for companies that usually apply a decentralized communication approach. Therefore, a crisis preparation should include a plan for centralization.
At the end of the planning process, a formal plan should be formulated and communicated to all relevant constituencies. It is crucial that the formal crisis plan is well-known among the workforce.
A formal plan crisis plan should include following points (Argenti, 2007, p.231):
- A list of whom to notify in an emergency
- An approach to media relations
- A strategy for notifying employees
- A location to serve as crisis headquarters
- A description of the plan
Communication during the crisis
Although setting up and communicating crisis communications plans help to prepare for a crisis, all the planning does not mean that acting in an actual crisis situation is easy. I already mentioned that every mentioned that every crisis is different. Nevertheless, there are some general steps which help companies to handle a crisis.
The first is getting control of the situation as soon as possible which involved defining the real problem. Then (step 2), management should gather as much information as possible in order to develop an appropriate understanding of the problem. If it takes long to collect the information, the organization should communicate this. In step 3, a centralized crisis center needs to be set up to be able to centrally manage the crisis (see previous section). After this has been done, the crises team should start communicating early and often (Step 4). At this stage silence and delayed responses should be avoided. It is necessary to collaborate with the media in crisis situations. Therefore, crisis management should ensure that they understand the media’s mission in a crisis (Step 5). This understanding can be used to take the 6th step: communicate directly with affected constituents. Throughout the whole crisis, management should not panic and remember that business must continue (Step 7). Finally, after the crisis is survived management should immediately make plans to avoid further crises.
Class Discussion (28/03/08)
In class, we talked about the difference between natural and manmade crises. While the occurrence of natural crises is not initiated by humans, manmade crises are the result of malicious, negligent, inaccurate, or flawed human behavior. Some examples of natural crises, which were mentioned by the class, are earthquakes, tsunamis (South East Asia on Christmas 2004), or hurricanes and tornados (Katrina). Big manmade crises were the attacks on the World Trade Center, the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez (the captain was drunk), the Perrier crisis, or the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal. After we had established a better understanding of the term crisis, we turned to the question how company should handle crises. We concluded that companies should prepare themselves for crises by developing plans how to act in a crisis situation. Dr. Szul pointed out that although preparation for crises is so crucial; there are only a few companies which set up accurate crises plans. This can lead to a costly loss of reputation.
A special crisis we focused on was the Coca Cola India Crisis. In the crisis, a non governmental organization accused Coca Cola India to use water that contains morbid germs. As a consequence of these accusations, many Indians stopped drinking Coca Cola. We analyzed the Coca Cola India’s crisis communication approach and identified the mistakes they made. We came to the conclusion that Coca Cola India should have been better prepared. This kind of crisis was not the first incident in India. Therefore, the company should have known that NGOs would try to attack them. This had given Coca Cola India the opportunity to act more proactively and handle the crisis more successfully.
Personal Experiences/ Examples
I experienced what bad crisis communication looks like when I played soccer for a club in Germany. After we lost several games in a row, our coach was heavily criticized. The local media reported that he was thinking about resigning as consequence of the bad results. No club official spoke to the team to explain what the clubs plans were. The lack of information led to even greater uncertainty within the team. Under these circumstances, the team’s performance was unlikely to get better. So we lost the next game, too, and everybody was talking about a new coach. Without informing the team, the club officials announced on a local soccer webpage that they wanted to hire a new coach. I was very disappointed that our club officials did not spoke to us before they made a decision. A lot of trust between the team and the players of the team (the club’s internal constituencies) was lost. I learned from this crisis that it is important for leaders to talk to internal constituencies before they make decisions that affect those persons within an organization. I think if our officials had been honest to us, the crisis would have been much easier to handle. Furthermore, the relationship between leaders (officials) and internal constituencies (team) would have been much better after the crises, than it was in the described case. This incidence showed me the importance of a good crisis communication.
Another example of bad crisis communication is the behavior of the Soviet Union’s government when the nuclear power plant busted in Chernobyl. I cannot remember the disaster myself but my parents told me much about it. At the end of April 1986, Swedish scientists measured unusual high radioactive radiation throughout whole Middle and Western Europe. Based on an analysis of the wind over the last days the scientists concluded that an accident must have happened in the Soviet Union. The scientist informed European government and the media which reported the scientist’s findings. The media reports caused many Europeans to be afraid. Among these people were my parents. When European governments and the media asked the Soviet Union what happened in their country, they did not get the true answer. The Soviet Union’s government stated that they experienced some problems which they handled easily. A few days later, when the truth could not been hidden any longer and the problems became so serious that the Soviet Union needed help from other countries, they told the true story. Now the direct victims in Chernobyl were helped by the world community. This help would have been available much earlier, if the Soviet Union’s government had communicated honestly. The described communication mistakes caused a huge loss of reputation and credibility.
To draw a conclusion, I can say that I learned from these crisis situations that most effective crisis communications is quick, proactive, and honest communication. Organizations which do not obey this rule will be cursed with a loss of trust of their constituencies.
Links:
http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/crisis.html
http://www.globalprblogweek.com/archives/7_musthave_elements_.php
http://www.lsu.edu/pa/crisis.html
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitsprivacy/privacycommunication/crisiscommunication/crisiscommunication.cfm
http://www.101publicrelations.com/crisis-communication.html
http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/crisiscomm.htm
What is a crisis?
Our textbook “Corporate Communication” (Argenti, 2007, p. 213) states the following definition of a crisis: “A crisis is a major catastrophe that may occur either naturally or as a result of human error, intervention or even malicious intent. It can include tangible devastation, such as the destruction of lives or assets, or intangible devastation, such as the loss of an organization’s credibility or other reputational damage. The latter outcomes may be the result of management’s response to tangible devastation or the result of human error”. The characteristics of crises are among others: (1) the element of surprise, (2) insufficient information, (3) the quick pace of events, and (4) intense scrutiny. These characteristics make it difficult for executives to maintain control. In crisis situation, the executives often adopt a short-term focus and forget to consider long-term objectives. Attention shifts from the business as a whole to the crisis alone. This bad crisis management can be avoided if a company’s management is prepared for crises.
How to prepare for crises
Managers should be aware of the fact that crises can happen to every company at any time and that they often occur when they are least expected. History of crises shows that each industry can be affected by a crisis. Therefore, it is crucial that company’s set up and maintain crisis plans which determine what to do in a crisis situation.
There are several steps that need to be taken in order to thoroughly prepare for a crisis. First of all, an organization should assess its individual risk. Concerning this risk evaluation, managers should take into account that some industries are more prone to crises than others. They can conduct a brainstorming to list possible crisis situations. Afterwards, probabilities should be assigned to the listed situations. This makes it possible to focus on the more probable evens although less likely events should not be completely ignored. After the probability assignment is done, management should quantify the risk exposure by determining potential crises effects on constituencies.
Secondly, setting communication objectives for potential crises is important because a company should well know what it wants to say to whom in the case of crisis. In a crisis, events usually happen very rapidly. Companies that have not determined communication objectives before a crisis starts usually do not have the time to define them during a crisis. This leads to bad communication.
The third step is to analyze the channel choice and to determine which channels are most appropriate to the crisis communication to certain constituencies. It is obvious that a sensitive communication to employees requires other channels than a trust rebuilding communication to customers does. This has to be considered when a crisis plan is developed.
Another important necessity of planning for communicating in a crisis is deciding in advance who will be member of what team for each crisis. These teams should vary according to the differing nature of each crisis. In some cases, senior managers should lead a crisis communication team; in other cases, it might make more sense to assign employees who are closest to the crisis event to be spokespersons of their teams.
The fifth point that needs to be considered is that effective crisis communication is centralized. In the event of a crisis, it is important to act rapidly. Responsibilities have to be clearly defined so that everybody knows what he or she has to do. This especially is a challenge for companies that usually apply a decentralized communication approach. Therefore, a crisis preparation should include a plan for centralization.
At the end of the planning process, a formal plan should be formulated and communicated to all relevant constituencies. It is crucial that the formal crisis plan is well-known among the workforce.
A formal plan crisis plan should include following points (Argenti, 2007, p.231):
- A list of whom to notify in an emergency
- An approach to media relations
- A strategy for notifying employees
- A location to serve as crisis headquarters
- A description of the plan
Communication during the crisis
Although setting up and communicating crisis communications plans help to prepare for a crisis, all the planning does not mean that acting in an actual crisis situation is easy. I already mentioned that every mentioned that every crisis is different. Nevertheless, there are some general steps which help companies to handle a crisis.
The first is getting control of the situation as soon as possible which involved defining the real problem. Then (step 2), management should gather as much information as possible in order to develop an appropriate understanding of the problem. If it takes long to collect the information, the organization should communicate this. In step 3, a centralized crisis center needs to be set up to be able to centrally manage the crisis (see previous section). After this has been done, the crises team should start communicating early and often (Step 4). At this stage silence and delayed responses should be avoided. It is necessary to collaborate with the media in crisis situations. Therefore, crisis management should ensure that they understand the media’s mission in a crisis (Step 5). This understanding can be used to take the 6th step: communicate directly with affected constituents. Throughout the whole crisis, management should not panic and remember that business must continue (Step 7). Finally, after the crisis is survived management should immediately make plans to avoid further crises.
Class Discussion (28/03/08)
In class, we talked about the difference between natural and manmade crises. While the occurrence of natural crises is not initiated by humans, manmade crises are the result of malicious, negligent, inaccurate, or flawed human behavior. Some examples of natural crises, which were mentioned by the class, are earthquakes, tsunamis (South East Asia on Christmas 2004), or hurricanes and tornados (Katrina). Big manmade crises were the attacks on the World Trade Center, the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez (the captain was drunk), the Perrier crisis, or the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal. After we had established a better understanding of the term crisis, we turned to the question how company should handle crises. We concluded that companies should prepare themselves for crises by developing plans how to act in a crisis situation. Dr. Szul pointed out that although preparation for crises is so crucial; there are only a few companies which set up accurate crises plans. This can lead to a costly loss of reputation.
A special crisis we focused on was the Coca Cola India Crisis. In the crisis, a non governmental organization accused Coca Cola India to use water that contains morbid germs. As a consequence of these accusations, many Indians stopped drinking Coca Cola. We analyzed the Coca Cola India’s crisis communication approach and identified the mistakes they made. We came to the conclusion that Coca Cola India should have been better prepared. This kind of crisis was not the first incident in India. Therefore, the company should have known that NGOs would try to attack them. This had given Coca Cola India the opportunity to act more proactively and handle the crisis more successfully.
Personal Experiences/ Examples
I experienced what bad crisis communication looks like when I played soccer for a club in Germany. After we lost several games in a row, our coach was heavily criticized. The local media reported that he was thinking about resigning as consequence of the bad results. No club official spoke to the team to explain what the clubs plans were. The lack of information led to even greater uncertainty within the team. Under these circumstances, the team’s performance was unlikely to get better. So we lost the next game, too, and everybody was talking about a new coach. Without informing the team, the club officials announced on a local soccer webpage that they wanted to hire a new coach. I was very disappointed that our club officials did not spoke to us before they made a decision. A lot of trust between the team and the players of the team (the club’s internal constituencies) was lost. I learned from this crisis that it is important for leaders to talk to internal constituencies before they make decisions that affect those persons within an organization. I think if our officials had been honest to us, the crisis would have been much easier to handle. Furthermore, the relationship between leaders (officials) and internal constituencies (team) would have been much better after the crises, than it was in the described case. This incidence showed me the importance of a good crisis communication.
Another example of bad crisis communication is the behavior of the Soviet Union’s government when the nuclear power plant busted in Chernobyl. I cannot remember the disaster myself but my parents told me much about it. At the end of April 1986, Swedish scientists measured unusual high radioactive radiation throughout whole Middle and Western Europe. Based on an analysis of the wind over the last days the scientists concluded that an accident must have happened in the Soviet Union. The scientist informed European government and the media which reported the scientist’s findings. The media reports caused many Europeans to be afraid. Among these people were my parents. When European governments and the media asked the Soviet Union what happened in their country, they did not get the true answer. The Soviet Union’s government stated that they experienced some problems which they handled easily. A few days later, when the truth could not been hidden any longer and the problems became so serious that the Soviet Union needed help from other countries, they told the true story. Now the direct victims in Chernobyl were helped by the world community. This help would have been available much earlier, if the Soviet Union’s government had communicated honestly. The described communication mistakes caused a huge loss of reputation and credibility.
To draw a conclusion, I can say that I learned from these crisis situations that most effective crisis communications is quick, proactive, and honest communication. Organizations which do not obey this rule will be cursed with a loss of trust of their constituencies.
Links:
http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/crisis.html
http://www.globalprblogweek.com/archives/7_musthave_elements_.php
http://www.lsu.edu/pa/crisis.html
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitsprivacy/privacycommunication/crisiscommunication/crisiscommunication.cfm
http://www.101publicrelations.com/crisis-communication.html
http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/crisiscomm.htm
Moving from Tactical to Strategic Communication
Last week, our class watched a video that dealt with the issue of moving from tactical to strategic communication. Afterwards, we had an online discussion about the video in our Webct bulletin board.
Are Communication Professionals More Valued Than in the Past?
First of all, we addressed the question whether today’s communication professionals are more valued than they were in the past. All of us were of the opinion that they are more valued. Organizations have developed an understanding of how important effective internal and external communication really is. In today’s fast changing business environment, the quick but also accurate exchange of information becomes increasingly important. Communication professionals are experts in managing the effective and efficient exchange of information. This information management can help to improve a company’s bottom line results and increase its productivity. Thus, good organizational communication has gotten an important tool to improves a corporation’s competitiveness in the though, rapidly changing business environment. Another significant reason why communication professional are more valued than in the past is that today’s organizations are capable of measuring the positive effect of good communication on significant business results. These measurement opportunities help to strengthen the awareness of the value that can be added by professional communication.
The Changing Role of Communication in the Workplace
After having answered the first question, we discussed the changing role of communication in the workplace. In the past, workplace communication was linear and top-down. Managers made decisions what their subordinates should do to add value to the company. Today, communication has become a circular process. Feedback is valued because companies understand that employees are closest to a company’s operation process and therefore are able to develop good ideas how to improve these processes. Thus, the former “subordinates” are now active participants in a company’s planning process. The upper management creates systems and mechanisms to initiate dialogs with their employees and to encourage them to articulate their valuable ideas.
Major Differences Between Tactical and Strategic Communication
Afterwards, we addressed the major differences between tactical and strategic communication and came to the conclusion that a significant difference is that strategic communication is related to a company’s long term goals while tactical communication refers to the execution of a company’s strategy. In the area of tactical communication, the focus is on short-term goals which are derived from the given long-term goals. Strategic communication is much more effective to improve business results than tactical communication. Therefore, it is profitable for an organization to focus on improvements of the corporate strategic communication. However, an important point to keep in mind is that tactical communication cannot be replaced by strategic communication. Both are necessary and important. Tactical work means executing strategic goals.
How to Improve Strategic Communication?
I already mentioned that it is profitable for an organization to improve its strategic communication skills. But, how it is possible to improve this area of communication? One answer is that it is important to thoroughly develop communication strategies to achieve business objectives. These communication (media or PR) strategies should be proactive rather than reactive. To be capable of creating successful communication strategies, employees should have a clear idea of business objectives. A company’s management should ensure that the employees are aligned with the business strategy. After business and communication objectives have been determined and communicated to internal constituencies, managers can collect data to evaluate where the company is against the desired state. The analysis of this data provides information about what processes need to be improved to align the role of communications more strategically. Because this analysis should be repeated regularly, it is helpful to develop metrics to measure the impact of the communication department’s work on the company’s objectives. These metrics can give information about the value that the communication department creates. Another significant tool to establish a more strategic communication is training. Consulting with and coaching executives and managers will improve strategic communication skills of these employees.
Crossfunctional, Upward, and Downward Communication
Another measure that supports the concept of strategic communication is to increase crossfunctional, upward, and downward communication. In order to achieve this, a company’s management should design an appropriate communication infrastructure. Certain mechanism and systems should be created to support effective communication across the organization. In addition, the management should develop formal systems to ensure that the voice of the employee is heard. Because employees work close to a company’s operation processes, they often have good ideas how to improve them. Formal systems that encourage employees to articulate their ideas help to make a company’s operations more efficient and effective. It is important that employees can rely on the mentioned formal systems and mechanisms because otherwise they will not use them. Therefore, these systems should be consistent. Leaders are especially important to improve crossfunctional, upward, and downward communication because their behavior has an impact on the whole organization. Therefore, a special training on the importance of two-way communication could be helpful, to improve the crossfunctional communication skills of a company’s leaders.
My opinion about bulletin board communication
Although our online discussion was interesting and brought up some really good ideas, I think that the communication via the bulletin board was quite cumbersome. It was very time-consuming to write answers to all questions and to read the responses of my classmates. I think a lot of text in the bulletin board was duplicative because a class cannot provide more than 20 substantially different answers to all questions.
Examples
Examples of tactical communication include Tactical among others writing memos, having meetings, and communicating with the media. Examples of strategic communication are the creation of organizational communication systems, mechanisms, and action plans to achieve long-term goals.
I already mentioned the importance of creating systems that initiate dialogs with employees and foster crossfuntional, upward and downward communication. An example of such a system is an internal website on which each employee can easily ask his questions and can quickly get answers. A company discussed in the video implemented such a Web site. The Web site was a great success because it helped to start a dialog between management and employees.
Links:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue16/sparks.html
http://www.rasky.com/pdfs/RaskyBaerlein.pdf
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/07autumn/halloran.pdf
Are Communication Professionals More Valued Than in the Past?
First of all, we addressed the question whether today’s communication professionals are more valued than they were in the past. All of us were of the opinion that they are more valued. Organizations have developed an understanding of how important effective internal and external communication really is. In today’s fast changing business environment, the quick but also accurate exchange of information becomes increasingly important. Communication professionals are experts in managing the effective and efficient exchange of information. This information management can help to improve a company’s bottom line results and increase its productivity. Thus, good organizational communication has gotten an important tool to improves a corporation’s competitiveness in the though, rapidly changing business environment. Another significant reason why communication professional are more valued than in the past is that today’s organizations are capable of measuring the positive effect of good communication on significant business results. These measurement opportunities help to strengthen the awareness of the value that can be added by professional communication.
The Changing Role of Communication in the Workplace
After having answered the first question, we discussed the changing role of communication in the workplace. In the past, workplace communication was linear and top-down. Managers made decisions what their subordinates should do to add value to the company. Today, communication has become a circular process. Feedback is valued because companies understand that employees are closest to a company’s operation process and therefore are able to develop good ideas how to improve these processes. Thus, the former “subordinates” are now active participants in a company’s planning process. The upper management creates systems and mechanisms to initiate dialogs with their employees and to encourage them to articulate their valuable ideas.
Major Differences Between Tactical and Strategic Communication
Afterwards, we addressed the major differences between tactical and strategic communication and came to the conclusion that a significant difference is that strategic communication is related to a company’s long term goals while tactical communication refers to the execution of a company’s strategy. In the area of tactical communication, the focus is on short-term goals which are derived from the given long-term goals. Strategic communication is much more effective to improve business results than tactical communication. Therefore, it is profitable for an organization to focus on improvements of the corporate strategic communication. However, an important point to keep in mind is that tactical communication cannot be replaced by strategic communication. Both are necessary and important. Tactical work means executing strategic goals.
How to Improve Strategic Communication?
I already mentioned that it is profitable for an organization to improve its strategic communication skills. But, how it is possible to improve this area of communication? One answer is that it is important to thoroughly develop communication strategies to achieve business objectives. These communication (media or PR) strategies should be proactive rather than reactive. To be capable of creating successful communication strategies, employees should have a clear idea of business objectives. A company’s management should ensure that the employees are aligned with the business strategy. After business and communication objectives have been determined and communicated to internal constituencies, managers can collect data to evaluate where the company is against the desired state. The analysis of this data provides information about what processes need to be improved to align the role of communications more strategically. Because this analysis should be repeated regularly, it is helpful to develop metrics to measure the impact of the communication department’s work on the company’s objectives. These metrics can give information about the value that the communication department creates. Another significant tool to establish a more strategic communication is training. Consulting with and coaching executives and managers will improve strategic communication skills of these employees.
Crossfunctional, Upward, and Downward Communication
Another measure that supports the concept of strategic communication is to increase crossfunctional, upward, and downward communication. In order to achieve this, a company’s management should design an appropriate communication infrastructure. Certain mechanism and systems should be created to support effective communication across the organization. In addition, the management should develop formal systems to ensure that the voice of the employee is heard. Because employees work close to a company’s operation processes, they often have good ideas how to improve them. Formal systems that encourage employees to articulate their ideas help to make a company’s operations more efficient and effective. It is important that employees can rely on the mentioned formal systems and mechanisms because otherwise they will not use them. Therefore, these systems should be consistent. Leaders are especially important to improve crossfunctional, upward, and downward communication because their behavior has an impact on the whole organization. Therefore, a special training on the importance of two-way communication could be helpful, to improve the crossfunctional communication skills of a company’s leaders.
My opinion about bulletin board communication
Although our online discussion was interesting and brought up some really good ideas, I think that the communication via the bulletin board was quite cumbersome. It was very time-consuming to write answers to all questions and to read the responses of my classmates. I think a lot of text in the bulletin board was duplicative because a class cannot provide more than 20 substantially different answers to all questions.
Examples
Examples of tactical communication include Tactical among others writing memos, having meetings, and communicating with the media. Examples of strategic communication are the creation of organizational communication systems, mechanisms, and action plans to achieve long-term goals.
I already mentioned the importance of creating systems that initiate dialogs with employees and foster crossfuntional, upward and downward communication. An example of such a system is an internal website on which each employee can easily ask his questions and can quickly get answers. A company discussed in the video implemented such a Web site. The Web site was a great success because it helped to start a dialog between management and employees.
Links:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue16/sparks.html
http://www.rasky.com/pdfs/RaskyBaerlein.pdf
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/07autumn/halloran.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)