Organizational Communication

for proper Human Resources utilization.

By Dr. A.Sreekumar Menon

Psychologist, H.R.M Expert and Author of Award winning books

Communication is the interchange of meanings and experiences between the parties with a view to mutually influence. It is not merely a verbal process occurring between any sender of the messages and any potential recipient. Popular literature often overemphasizes verbal aspects of communication such as the fluency of speech, organization of message to be transmitted, physical display of material, audio-visual aids etc .These verbal aspects of communication are important and should be given their due.

photo credit: Peter Hellberg

The success of organizational communication depends upon many other factors such as clarity of role, pattern of using authority, the context of the social system in which it occurs and so on. Effective communication is central to the achievement of organizational objectives namely, optimum utilization of human resources, productivity, quality, motivation and morale and healthy industrial relations. When we conceive an enterprise as an ever changing field of interpersonal and intergroup interaction, we clearly see that the communication serves purpose of linking people, groups and goal in the context of goal directed relationship. Information exchange leads to influence and exchange of energy in the organization .For the sake of clarity, we can group organizational communication into four types: (a) Interpersonal i.e. between two persons (b)Intra-group, i.e. between  members  with in a group, (c) Inter-group, between two or more groups and  (d) Institutional . Interpersonal communication i.e.  Communication from person to person and face to face which is an ongoing communication in an organization. Origin of trust-distrust, cooperation, collaboration and competition, win-lose power struggle, information withholding and distortion, hostility and apathy lie in interpersonal communication. Intergroup communication includes Union–management communication, line-line communication across functional departments, line- staff, top-middle management, middle management–supervisor, supervisor- worker and worker-union. Interpersonal, intra-group and intergroup communication can be upward, down ward, horizontal and diagonal. Institutional communication occurs through formally structured forums such as Grievance procedure, House Journal, Committee network, Suggestion System, Information Bulletin and public address system.

There are many communication situations in an organization.  An attempt is made to examine empirically the following three communication situations existing in an Indian enterprise and to assess their effectiveness and this information is reported in this paper. The communication situations are (1) Middle Managers’ communication problems with top Management, (2) Supervisors’ communication problems with Middle Management, and (3) communication problems in regard to Managerial and Supervisory performance evaluation.

Middle Managers’ communication problems with Top Management

photo credit: Robert Higgins

Middle Management’s upward communication role in an enterprise would consist of (1) assisting in policy formulation, decision making and  framing rules and procedures,(2)giving Top Management feedback on achievement of performance targets and operational and personal problems and difficulties and (3) receive guidelines regarding  constrains , resources and modes of problem resolution. The Middle Managers experience several problems and constrains in meeting the above communication requirements. Those are (1) delayed transmission of downward messages, (2) inconsistency of messages, (3) absence of requisite authority and support from Top Management in resolving personal and union problems, (4) a general lack of supportive/helpful relationships across the two levels, (5) absence of timely feedback regarding messages transmitted upward and (6) absence of a common frame of reference over many issues facing the organization. The amount of task related interaction with the top over policy strategy and problems does not meet Middle Managers’ expectations and role requirements. This is so because there are no joint forums for the two managerial levels to discuss common problems, issues and constrains facing the organization. Interaction that occurs is piecemeal, problem centered and often one way from top to middle level. Social interaction between these groups is also not adequate and equalitarian. Social living is highly stratified and hierarchy based not only among Managers themselves but also among their families resulting in social distance. When Top Management levels do not share information voluntarily upward information sharing by Middle Managers inevitably decreases. It is even distorted. The participation of the Middle Management in organizational decision making is inadequate,inspite of the fact that  most Top Management decisions impinch on operational management .Often Top Management persuades Middle Management over predetermined decisions , because the very basis of participation  namely power sharing is absent in the Top Management attitudes.

Communication credibility of the Top Managers appears to be low to Middle Managers on both criteria of competence and trust .The co-ordination/integration function of the Top Management is not fulfilled

adequately due to

• laissez-faire attitudes on the part of Top Management and
• lack of required skills. The culture of confrontation based on permissiveness seems largely absent even between Top and Middle Managements.

Open expression of views, feelings and emotions, particularly the latter is not seen by Middle Managers as behaviors likely to be rewarded. Guarded communication is the rule, often accompanied by social and political modes of influencing superiors. Top Managers do not actively strive to promote reciprocal and supportive relationships with Middle Managers. For instance, when a shop superintendent charge sheeted a Foreman (who was earlier a union leader) for negligence of duties, Top Management intervened in the conflict directly and arbitrated a compromise solution without examining the conflict and the underlying reasons by overstepping the authority and without letting the parties to sort out the differences and thereby giving chance to Middle Managers in developing interpersonal skills. In addition there is erosion of legitimate authority at the middle managerial levels. Top Management instead of fostering reciprocity between organizational positions actually weakened it. Such instances of Top management intervention which impairs the legitimate authority of middle management on the shop floor are reported to be customary rather than exception.

Top Management does not act on the upward feedback satisfactorily about operational and personal problems on the shop floor and about the unfavorable effects of latter’s policies and decisions, even when it seeks feedback .Middle Managers interpret this lack of response to feedback to mean that

1. Top Management is resistant to change,
2. they are not authentic in feedback seeking behavior and
3. they do not strive to create a problem solving and supportive culture.

Whether or not these experiences  correspond to reality is not relevant .What is relevant  is that  that the above type of Top Management behavior can not promote effective two way communication between Top Management and Middle Management and cannot promote  interdependency with in management group  .In the process  team work with in management is liable to be absent.

Supervisor’s communication problems with Middle Management.

photo credit: cmi_managers

Supervisors communicate with Middle Management to

1. Receive policy , task and administrative targets and guidelines
2. Give  feedback on operational problems and constrains including  the feasibility of production norms and targets
3. Inform Management about personal problems
4. Give upward feedback about the practicality of organizational policies and procedures
5. Inform Top and Middle Management about shop floor performance on various criteria and (6) co-ordinate with line and staff departments.

Motivation to give, receive and mediate information as member of the management group is found to be low.  Both in upward and horizontal communication i.e. in relation to the top and middle management and supervisory personnel in the other line departments. Supervisory behavior is symptomatic of avoidance, information withholding and distortion and lack of motivation for acting upon the message. These problems of communication affect the speed and the quality of decision making and implementation and morale and sharing of common perspectives between managers and supervisors. Supervisors face many problems of communication with the Middle Management.

Some of those are

1. lack of participation in taking decisions on operational matters,
2. erosion of legitimate authority,
3. role ambiguity
4. lack of horizontal co-ordination and absence of mechanism for redressing grievances.

The boundaries of the supervisory role are so extensive that practically all management policies, practices, and procedures impact as well as depend upon it. Characteristics of technology / workflow in the enterprise  studied is such that the total organization is dependent on Supervisors for the discharge  of output functions including machine maintenance , productivity ,cost ,and quality ,conflict resolution , interdepartmental co-ordination and redressal  of worker grievances. The supervisors realize this and this organizational dependency on them and their dependency on organizational policies and practices and management support.

In the process  they expect a measure of participation at least in making those decisions which affect them and their task performance directly .This expectation is not fulfilled , because on the one hand there exists job related  distance between them and Middle Management and on the other because  they do not have direct access to top levels vis-à-vis participatory forums. No systematic attempts have been made to involve the supervisors in organizational decision making .As a result symptoms of alienation are evident in their attitudes and behavior including of powerlessness.

Supervisors hold the view that for being effective on the shop floor they need a measure of legitimate reward – punishment authority both in operational and personnel /administrative matters. They experience a steady erosion of authority not only due to union and environmental pressures, but also due to middle and top management attitudes. In the later point Supervisors experience absence of management support particularly in dispute and disciplinary situations, and absence of timely sharing of information particularly regarding personnel and industrial Relations matters. More often, Supervisors receive information regarding employment policy and conditions and outcome of on-going negotiations from workers / union leaders. Several Supervisors commented as follows: “we have no say in CR’S of our subordinates. This year a batch of artisans was promoted. Non-promotees ask me when they will be promoted. We have no answer for we do not know management policy. we do merit rating and make recommendations. After that we do not know what happens? The results could be quite opposite. Apparently there is no clear cut promotion policy.  The practices are also not transparent. when there is pressure from union side management just fills a quota and promotes people irrespective of what we write in CR’s. Writing CR is nothing but a ritual we attend every year”. Whether these perceptions are real or not, the point to be remembered is that it is these perceptions and ignorance thereof leads the Supervisors to laissez faire behavior on the shop floor.

Role ambiguity or lack of sufficient information about their jobs is a problem which supervisors consistently refer to as a barrier to their functioning as members of management group. Inconsistent management policies , postures and practices , inconsistent and often conflicting role pressures from various  sources in management , lack of proper production and maintenance planning and changes in production schedules for meeting changing market conditions and due to problems in the supply of raw materials and erratic power supply and failure to communicate changes in work schedules resulting from these external conditions to the supervisors are some of the reasons for role ambiguity.

Job clarity cannot be achieved by simply developing Job and position descriptions, Manuals, organizational charts and the like. Appropriate perceptions should occur through actual role transactions vertically and horizontally both in the interpersonal and intergroup settings. Adequate information should be shared both in respect of role context (i.e. performance feedback from the superior, rewards and punishment systems etc) and role clarity.  Lengthy and comprehensive position descriptions may be available in an organization and yet, the middle managers and supervisors may function under conditions of uncertainty, because the requisite interaction is absent. To cope with the role ambiguity and conflict the incumbents may develop coping mechanisms such as information withholding and distortion, abdication of legitimate authority etc. Supervisory motivation to give, receive, and mediate information may tend to be low. It affects job motivation, task performance and team work. Purposive interaction among Managers and Supervisors for developing role definitions is too infrequent. Even when it occurs , the supportive  group climate is absent , which only makes the incumbents defensive rather than developing clarity in roles.

Management including Middle Managers are generally closed to negative feedback from Supervisors regarding policies and practices .There is a tendency on the part of superiors to avoid problems rather than face and solve them , as far as organizational constrains would permit. As response to feedback is not satisfactory, supervisory feedback decreases. Even generally the upward information flow is restricted and distorted.

Supervisory communication across functional departments necessary for horizontal coordination suffers from the fowling drawbacks. (1) Cooperation and independent behaviors are not encouraged (2) there is the practice of third party intervention which interferes sorting out of differences and solve problems rationally and building mutually supportive relationships. Either the Middle Management or the Top Management or both assumes the role of arbitrator or conciliator.

Supervisors feel that their problems and grievances as individuals and groups do not concern management until individuals or groups resort to collective action. The concern to redress grievances is absent both in the context of superior – subordinate relationships and also when Top Management deals with the supervisors directly.

There is absence of confrontation between Middle Management and Supervisors as a mode of problem solving. Confrontation demands that differences and conflicts between individuals and groups should only be taken as symptoms of incomplete understanding and also as indication of the desire on the part of the people to contribute ideas and improve quality of decision making rather than considering it as a mark of disrespect towards superiors. Tolerance of differences and some degree of ambiguity coupled with freedom for subordinates for expressions of their feelings and emotions are central to confrontation. The confrontation style is based on the assumption that working through yields more creative and acceptable resolution of problems between people and groups. Hidden agendas have no place in it, those are made open and effectively dealt with. Over time the strategy generates a climate of trust among individuals and groups and lays the ground work for more objective and open appraisal of issues and their significance.

In regard to middle managerial behavior with the supervisors, confrontation is not the characteristic mode of resolving differences and conflicts. In some instances win – lose power struggles are seen. Winning is seen as status and competence and the threat of losing is seen as tantamount to loss of status, incompetence and weakness. This results in the parties sticking  to one’s own positions to the virtual  exclusion of others , with the result communication is blocked, quality of relationships suffer, so also relationships .Aggressive and inflexible approaches often characterize managerial behavior especially in downward interaction. In other cases opportunistic compromise appears to characterize. In other words each party concedes the advantages to themselves at the cost of achieving organizational goals. some people also take to lose – lose style that is careful avoidance of conflicts, resulting in minimum work motivation. These unhealthy modes of behavior are also manifesting themselves in the working of the committees or joint forums. Persuasion and manipulation are evident in committees leading to latent hostility and lack of faith in the functioning of the committees.

Managerial and Supervisory Performance Evaluation.

photo credit: billso

Performance evaluation situation provides a typical communication situation in an enterprise.  Communication attempts in the context of performance evaluation are successful if they help to assess performance of managers and supervisors in meeting the work norms , identify training and development needs and job constrains , develop perception of equity in compensation, develop trust in interpersonal and intergroup relations, acceptance of feedback and correction and promotes  interpersonal relations , team work and collaboration .Performance evaluation at higher levels affects that at lower levels. We cannot expect performance evaluation to be meaningful at the worker’s level, if it is ritualistic at managerial and supervisory levels.

Performance evaluation is grossly inefficient at middle managerial and Supervisory levels in the enterprise which the Author investigated. ,in terms of information  shared , its motivational value, use of data , perception of equity  in the administration of rewards for good performance , career planning , joint exploration of performance problems, identification of work related constrains and correction, counseling and training and development of assessees.The amount of superior-subordinate communication that takes place over performance evaluation is scanty .Both the Assessors and  the Assessees avoid information sharing during performance evaluation . The information shared by the Appraiser with the Appraisee is generally non-committal and safe. The ratees hardly bring to notice of their superiors who report on them  the job constrains they are confronted with and the ways to overcome them .In other words the superior-subordinate communication is often inadequate and largely one way from superior to subordinates

Regarding the contents of appraisal, they are trait- centered rather than performance-centred.which means they are non-operational, conflicting and unobservable. General and vague information exchange takes place, not communication in terms of tasks , targets , results achieved and so on .Even when the Appraiser gives negative comments , they are not based on performance data , nor  the two work together to identify the reasons – personnel and work related constrains underlying poor performance and adopt an action programme to improve the performance . Positive side of the ratees’ performance is not communicated to them as open recognition of their good performance .Counseling is absent in the performance evaluation situation, both before and after in the on-going relations.

The ratings /appraisal technique used is unreliable inducing problems of leniency, excessive average ratings, halo, recency, etc which make ratings unreliable.

The communication is also not continuous. The time plan for evaluation is excessively long – yearly evaluation. Trust is generally absent in superior – subordinate relationship. Anxiety and defensive behavior characterize both rater and the ratee .The administrative decisions following performance appraisal are generally perceived as iniquitous and the employee perception that their efforts would lead to proportionate rewards appears to be conspicuous by its absence.

As a result of these and other unsolved problems, apathy and indifference prevail among managers.  Lack of performance evaluation communication hampers work / task motivation and employee commitment to work, apart from the fact that it typically terminates without any results being achieved.

To summarize, in this paper, an attempt is made to analyze the nature, causes and effects of communication problems faced by an enterprise and remedial actions to overcome those problems are suggested. Only three typical communication situations existing in an enterprise namely:

1. Middle Managers’ communication problems with Top Management,
2. Supervisors’ communication problems with Middle Management and
3. Managerial and Supervisory performance evaluation are chosen for examination and diagnosis.

Effective communication in regard to these three and other organizational situations contributes to proper utilization of human resources. It is hoped that this paper apart from being a theoretical contribution, would help practioners to diagnose similar problems in their enterprises, which eat up vitality of their organizations and take appropriate action.