Finally, my last official entry for my COM101 module...
For this entry, I'll bring everyone (well, at least for readers of this blog) back down memory lane, all the way back to my very first entry on this blog with regards to my first week of lesson (for those who didn't read it, do take 5 mins to read it); but this week, I'll give my two-cents worth and go in dept into what Organizational commmunication should be all about for any firms to reach its goal.
Before reading through my final entries, may I request my readers to think through this question while reading through my version,
How and what do you think is the most effective organizational communication method?
Unlike the bird passing shit down the structure that my first entry suggested what most organizational structured communication probably is, I believe that for good and successful organizations to work, there must be synergy running through the organization with a constant flow of communication between the top and the bottom.
My idea of a organization is that there is interdependence between employers, employees, different departments and the outside world. The hierarchal order within any organization should remain, but only for the title so that the outside world knows who to approach for any transactions; otherwise, everyone within a organization should all be of equal status - with the leader working for his/her followers as much as the other way round. This could inject extra motivating factor into employees, to make them feel essential and responsible for the goals of the organization. Yes, I agree that those above still hold superior authority and have control over most things, what I'm suggesting here is that leaders should be humble enough to take in the ideas of those they are in-charged of.
Respect, I believe is what is lacking in a lot of organizational structures, from the jungle of the working world, to even many activities and clubs we join in schools, how many times have we come across leaders who regard only their own ideas as the correct way?
Organizational communication could be a really complex dilemma, or it could be simple, I myself do not have the absolute answer to what really could be the best way. What we could do is come up with many presumptions of what could lead to a successful outcome, and that is why i post this today...
To sum up my points, I believe that as an organization, there should be a hierarchal order but in terms of internal communication, everyone's ideas should be respected and held with esteem. After all, shouldn't we all be running for the same goals? To make the organization successful, so that employees can enjoy greater bonuses while those above count their greater profit?
Do you agree with my view of a successful organizational structure? violent objections or different views? leave your thoughts behind!
P.S.
Thank you for being part of my COM101 blogging experience (assignment), hope you have enjoyed reading through my weekly thoughts and your comments/thoughts have been greatly appreciated!
For this entry, I'll bring everyone (well, at least for readers of this blog) back down memory lane, all the way back to my very first entry on this blog with regards to my first week of lesson (for those who didn't read it, do take 5 mins to read it); but this week, I'll give my two-cents worth and go in dept into what Organizational commmunication should be all about for any firms to reach its goal.
Before reading through my final entries, may I request my readers to think through this question while reading through my version,
How and what do you think is the most effective organizational communication method?
Unlike the bird passing shit down the structure that my first entry suggested what most organizational structured communication probably is, I believe that for good and successful organizations to work, there must be synergy running through the organization with a constant flow of communication between the top and the bottom.
My idea of a organization is that there is interdependence between employers, employees, different departments and the outside world. The hierarchal order within any organization should remain, but only for the title so that the outside world knows who to approach for any transactions; otherwise, everyone within a organization should all be of equal status - with the leader working for his/her followers as much as the other way round. This could inject extra motivating factor into employees, to make them feel essential and responsible for the goals of the organization. Yes, I agree that those above still hold superior authority and have control over most things, what I'm suggesting here is that leaders should be humble enough to take in the ideas of those they are in-charged of.
Respect, I believe is what is lacking in a lot of organizational structures, from the jungle of the working world, to even many activities and clubs we join in schools, how many times have we come across leaders who regard only their own ideas as the correct way?
Organizational communication could be a really complex dilemma, or it could be simple, I myself do not have the absolute answer to what really could be the best way. What we could do is come up with many presumptions of what could lead to a successful outcome, and that is why i post this today...
To sum up my points, I believe that as an organization, there should be a hierarchal order but in terms of internal communication, everyone's ideas should be respected and held with esteem. After all, shouldn't we all be running for the same goals? To make the organization successful, so that employees can enjoy greater bonuses while those above count their greater profit?
Do you agree with my view of a successful organizational structure? violent objections or different views? leave your thoughts behind!
P.S.
Thank you for being part of my COM101 blogging experience (assignment), hope you have enjoyed reading through my weekly thoughts and your comments/thoughts have been greatly appreciated!
Yes, I agree with your views that hierarchical order should remain within an organization. If I did not interpret wrongly, you said that "everyone within a organization should all be of equal status - with the leader working for his/her followers as much as the other way round". I would not agree in this case because firstly, who would lead the company and give instructions? secondly, why are the leaders given more salaries than his/her followers and lastly, why is there a need for a leader anyway? Hmm.. these are my thoughts. haha ^^
i truly agree with that!
hello! (:
well, first of all, i agree with you that for a company to be successful, there must be good communication across the hierarchy. Only with efficient communication can a company function well.
However, i feel that the authority of the diff levels in the hierarchy must still hold; it cannot just be for 'the outside world' to know who to approach. If people in the company start treating everyone the same way, it might get quite chaotic i think! haha. The purpose of a manager/head of the company is to lead, to make final decisions, etc, and that should not change. The respect for a manager must still be there.
I think what we're talking here, that should be 'of equal status' would be the attitude towards one another. No matter who you are, be it the manager, someone of a high position, or a low-ranking worker, everyone should be there to do their best at what they're given. A positive attitude of service, towards colleagues, towards your boss, or your subordinates. A good working attitude makes the working environment a better place, and to me, that's a company on its way to success!
hi shinjiteru, you got down some interesting points there. The higher salary and status in my opinion is for people who are supposed to be deemed more capable then others, that's why they are up there! but I think what i'm trying to say is, how many times have you heard complains from friends or someone about their immediate superiors throwing work at them? or passing really vague or insufficient information for them to carry out good jobs. I think instead of just throwing work at those below you, you should always check if they could manage it and if they understand what is their task role first. too many a times, those below really fear losing their jobs to much to even admit that they can't do the job, thus the problem of sloppy work!
but if my idea of a good organizational communication could be implemented, those below would be as afraid in voicing out their worries and other stuff about perhaps, not being able to a do a competent job?
Hi dorcas,
that is exactly what i'm trying to get across! well well, at least I've been able to pass my thought at least 70% across..:s
its the part about attitude towards each other that matters!
hello!
Equality and respect are perhaps important values that company employees and employers should aim to posses. But i think that trust is also a vital element for the success of organisational communication in companies. When trust is present, people may be more likely to work with one another more easily, since they know that at the end of the day, all will enjoy positive benefits. But when trust is absent,
people tend to doubt. This is where misunderstandings leads to communication breakdown.
I agree that there may not be one best way of organisational communication. Sometimes, to put in all the desired qualities together may not end up in success. It is because of these imperfections that enable such studies to be carried out and hence comments screened for discussion =)
-via
I do not agree on the point you made about everyone's ideas should be valued. Not everyone's ideas can be considered because firstly, in an organisation, different roles render different chances to voice out. Secondly, not all ideas are good. Quality of idea depends on experiences, brains etc. Thirdly, organisations do not have the time and resources to attend to the ideas of everyone. And the list goes on....
Hi upsidedownn,
the problem of the problem you said about my problem..
hmm let me restart, I think the reasons you have stated down about the qualities and other stuff about how ideas are not good, is the reason why perhaps sometimes brilliant ideas could go on unnoticed if leaders don't take time to hear what those they're in-charge of got to say? I mean organizations have people in-charge of people who are also in-charge of people, so those immediate bosses should be able to do some talking within their direct links shouldn't they?
Tommy i do agree with you that a hierarchy should be in placed in any organization. There should be people up there who will make decisions as well as identify problems.
however, with regards to your point about everyone's ideas should be respected, i can see where you're coming from. it seems like ideas from people with higher posts are often being used over the idea of an 'insignificant' employee right? well i guess that is the cruel reality of this world. your credentials sort of give a vague assessment of your ideas. it is natural to assume the idea of someone with more credentials(and most of the time therefore a higher post) to be the better idea. also, talking about common goals, i have realised how people are actually working for themselves rather than the company although their job stability will be decided by the company's profit-making. this post a huge problem in everyone wanting to be recognised and no one will be open to others' ideas.
so ultimately it voices back to the hierarchy. only a fair and just group of leaders will be able to decide on the best idea proposed, and thereafter, convince the rest that it really is. i think an organization will also work well if everyone has mutual trust and respect. they have to believe that their colleagues are doing their parts. lastly, i think recognisation of employees efforts will also help to increase the willingness to work for the company. all the good relations will help make eventual decision-makings a less painful affair.
If what I understand from your post is correct, you are saying that formal organizational structure should exist. You are also saying that in keeping with the humanistic viewpoint of organization, informal relationships and modes of communication should figure as importantly as that structure laid down on a piece of paper.
In my opinion, running an organization like it is a clan (ie. having shared goals, a sense of community and shared ideas about how to reach those goals) is ideal. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to attain if one of the goals of the organization is efficiency.
Efficient organizations almost always have a very high division of labour. Yet this does not contribute to a sense of community as each person would concentrate on fulfilling his tasks while not caring about others. Conversely, highly undefined job scopes lead to a more committed workforce.
Furthermore, I think clarification is needed as to what the goals of the organization are. Are they pre-defined or are they continuously changing, whether according to the leaders or the population of the organization as a whole?
This leads to the main point of my argument - that the formal and informal structures of the organziation should reflect and be consistent with the goals and technology of the organization.
For example if the organization is a committee on planning an F1 race, then yes, ideas should be shared all around and taken into account. If the organization is a pharmaceutical factory that does not require much input of ideas from the workers, then it would be pointless to have an 'everyone is equal' sort of structure. If the ultimate goal of the organization is profit, would that leave much time dedicated to refining communication and taking ideas from the bottom if decisions have to be made in split seconds?
All in all, what I am saying is that there is no ideal type of organizational structure or form of communication and it depends on the individual organization to come up with something that suits itself.
hello!
agrees that thr shld be some sort o hierachy in order for things to get done. one to make a final say and to lead the organisational, if not, the prganisation wld collapse under no leadership.
there is a need for someone to be in control and more, to resolve any conflicts if there is any. the person, however, need to be open to ideas and suggestions.
though giving out same bonuses to ppl may seem fair, but i dont think so. its abt who have contributed more. the top management may have done more, thus have greater rewards as compared to other which may not have done as much for the company. it's a form o recognition.
ideas and goals shld be brought to the employees b4 they can share a common goal too. or there's this saying "人不为己，天诛地灭". only if they can see the organisation like their own, they wldnt be bothered.
i think not just internal communication is impt, but also the ability to let the people feel "belonged" to the company in order for them to work towards a common goal.
hello tommy,
interesting take on things this week! Folks on the end of stifled under-appreciation in subordination to the rulings and runnings of their employers above will be shouting out in "hurrah".
This overshadowing effect of the people on top, over the people below, doesn't just occur in the business place. It happens everywhere and all the time; with friends, project mates, at home. Its all a matter of influence and confidence, in sharing an idea and making people see things from your perspective. This is one reason why people at the top, get to be at the top, because they are the ones who can choose and make decisions. It is hard for someone and his/her idea to be heard at all (no matter how brilliant), if they do not have the gumption to voice it out in the first place. Under such scenarios, the initiative bring to across an idea falls under the responsibility of the employee as well; instead of waiting for the boss to draw things out. Always takes two hands to clap.
But yes, there are leaders who turn a deaf ear even in the face of ideas comparatively plausible or superior to their own. If they are running their own businesses, the only leg that they are shooting is their own, and the imperative to quit and find greener pastures is always available employee's option. In a larger organisation, with plenty of eyes watching,the red-flagging of such disappointing "non-leadership" behaviour could probably spark a change in a manager's behaviour if someone spoke to him about it. Its like a peer-to-peer censorship thing.
I agree with your point that everyone ought to have the opportunity to be heard, and have their words well considered, yes. But at the same time, the onus should not lie on the bosses alone. Employees should be able carry themselves well, and be able to convey their ideas clearly, concisely and coherently.
I agree that there should be a hierarchal order in an organization as this keeps things running smoothly and in an organized manner. Regarding internal communication, I also agree that everyone’s ideas should be respected and held with esteem. Indeed, leaders who are able to strike the fine balance of making employees feel like their opinions and feelings are important, yet be able to discern and choose the best path for the company without offending anyone whose suggestions were not used, will undoubtedly gain the respect and following of their subordinates.