One future challenge in technology and society

Management - Communicating is not Optional

Good communication is one of the most important features of a successful company. As discussed in "Communicating is not Optional" by Angela Sinickas, President of Sinickas Communications, Inc., communication can mean the difference between profit and loss, between good management/employee relations and bad, and between a business having a positive, or a negative, public image.

Sinickas supports her contentions by citing recent studies on corporate communication. Companies receiving high scores on the way they handled the transmission of information from supervisors to employees and back again tended to perform much better financially than companies that received lower scores. As well, improved communication between management and workers fostered better employee attitudes toward the company, and toward their own work. Having backed up her conclusions, Sinickas commences to list all of the specific areas that corporate communication affects, and how these different facets of corporate communication may be made better. Her overall message is simple: the clearer a company's avenues of communication, the more productive a company will be. The problems of competition and how to successfully combat that competition are large enough in and of themselves that no business should wish to compound these difficulties by inadvertently - or purposely - contributing to the culture of poor communication.

Angela Sinickas' recommendations, taken as a whole, should be seen as a guidebook for the future of business. Globalization is bringing different countries, and companies, in to contact as never before. Over the course of the next three to five years, this process will only accelerate. Firms that are unable to compete will be driven out of business. The issues that face today's businesses are becoming more, not less, complex in comparison to the past. A corporate board that cannot manage to effectively communicate with its own managers and employees cannot hope to successfully interact with peoples of markedly different culture, outlook, and ways of doing business. The mere fact that upper management produces a roster of changes that is meant to deal with these changing conditions, does not mean that every employee of that company is being kept properly informed of these new attitudes and positions. As Ms. Sinickas says, a company must "define its expectations."

Ideas and strategies do not simply "filter down" from a company's policymakers to those who must actually implement, and work with, those ideas. Too often in situations of great change, there is a tendency for workers to be ill-informed. Management does not know how to - or does not want to - communicate with those below them on the corporate hierarchy. The belief is that policies in a state of flux should not be articulated to those "outside of the loop." This is a grave mistake. Plans have a way of leaking out, often very imperfectly. The bosses' secret meetings become the source for wild rumors; rumors that, if unchecked, can be damaging to employee morale, and can even cause public misunderstandings that can do immense damage in the marketplace. Management must listen to workers' concerns, and correct misunderstandings. Lucidity and openness are essential.

Angela Sinickas makes reference to a situation in which Blue Cross of California promoted a new program of guaranteed coverage. All the newspapers carried the story, and customer service workers at Blue Cross were deluged with calls about the new policy. Unfortunately, management forgot to inform customer service of the changes. As a result, Blue Cross's image was seriously damaged. This communications debacle affected only one company, in one state. But, imagine if this had been an international blunder. Imagine if, say, General Motors had advertised a new rebate plan for all new car purchasers. Imagine if - all over the world - potential customers had poured into GM dealerships, only to be told that no such rebate existed. Think of the damage to General Motors international reputation once global media got a hold of the story. One can think of other examples as well. Different nations have different ways of doing business, different methods for communicating with clients, and different methods of appealing to the public. Workers in the global marketplace must understand these differences if they are to do their jobs effectively. Market researchers can describe these variant characteristics, but these non-American manners and mores may not be fully understood by the company rank-and-file. Even within the United States there exist widely differing approaches to company/client relations. For example, a salesman in New York will get right down to business with a potential customer. However in the South, this "direct approach" is considered rude. Southerners expect to engage in a bit of banter first; questions about family and local affairs giving them a sense of camaraderie with the person with whom they are dealing. Jump right in with a Southerner, and you will be seen as excessively forward or, to put it another way... you will lose the sale. Situations such as these are common throughout the world. What is acceptable in one area is wholly unacceptable in another. In matters like these, good communication between all of a company's parts can go a very long way to building rapports - and profits. Communication is not just a matter of sending e-mails, making phone calls, and writing letters. It is the essential foundation for the informed and competent employee. Good communication is the key to success in the global marketplace.