When I read the quotation from Maureen Chiquet at the beginning of the chapter, my first thought was that while it was nice to think that ‘bigwigs’ take the time to gather, read, and consider input from frontline and other employees below them in the chain of command, it wouldn’t matter much because just listening to their input doesn’t give the input that much credence. In other words, taking their comments but not applying them or responding to them is like collecting and saving money in a jar: unless you take the money out, it doesn’t do anybody any good. You have to use the money in order to make collecting it worthwhile.
It was therefore not surprising to read that the weakest link in the communication chain is a lack of feedback or constructive criticism. It seems that most often those in the highest places of power will solicit their ‘underlings’ for information and ideas but either never acknowledge that they’ve received the information or they don’t use it. Of course, nothing says they have to use the information, but it seems like a pointless endeavor to ask for information and then never do anything with it.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Chapter Reflection Internet Age".
I would say that the second weakest link in the communication chain is decoding. In an age of mainly electronic communication – either through email or text – much of the emotional content of information gets lost. We aren’t able to use body language or other nonverbal cues to interpret the message being communicated to us. I wasn’t surprised to read that most employers rated their employees’ communication skills as “only average.” But I would say that it takes two to tango: without sufficient information – such as feedback – employees can only do so much. You can’t give someone three two-by-fours and tell them to “build something” and then expect them to know that you want them to build a whole house. It makes me wonder how many of those employers were actually effective communicators themselves and how many of them were providing their employees with both sufficient information and sufficient feedback.
The issue of coding and decoding is more important in this global age as well, especially since more and more companies have become multinationals. Cultural differences must be given significant consideration or messages may offend colleagues or potential clients. I would argue that there are also generational considerations; baby boomers and millennials don’t communicate in the same way and have different levels of comfort with technology.
The chapter also talked about noise and the way it interferes with effective communication. Misinformation can be a very distracting and frustrating element in the communication process. But it raises the question: what about silence? Silence can also be a big problem. It is the absence of feedback, and I think it can be just as problematic as noise. When upper management doesn’t communicate with middle or lower management, or even with the frontlines, their silence can send a message which is inaccurate and dangerous. When reading the five strategies for communication, this idea of not communicating seemed best expressed in “withhold and uphold” – basically a “need to know” basis. I can see where for security or legal reasons this might have some applications, but when management’s primary strategy is this one, I can’t see where it would encourage trust. “Underscore and explore” and “Identify and reply” seemed like the two most responsible and effective strategies described in the chapter.
Silence also seems like the best way to feed the e-grapevine. By being upfront with the organization and communicating effectively, management can reduce the likelihood of and/or mitigate the impact of rumors and gossip, regardless of medium. Related to this is social networking; I think workplaces have no business monitoring the social media accounts of their employees unless there are legitimate security reasons for doing so, such as national security.
