Organizational Communication Strategy… make it simple…
Communication is always scored low in any organization. People have different perceptions about communication. Few companies are not open and transparent and less communicative. The culture is closed and everything is confidential and secret in the organization. Assistants, secretaries and cheerleaders are powerful without title. There is lot of scope for ambiguity. The gossiping is common and water cooler discussions are hot. There are another few organizations who are very communicative. They are open and transparent. Everything they do, they communicate. Their intranet is always updated. Top management takes interest in their people. They communicate vision, mission, numbers, projects, programmes and regular updates. Still there is gossiping and water cooler discussions. Employees still think that they are not communicated properly.
What may be the reasons for this? Why always employees see the disconnect about the information companies share? I see the basic fundamental issues and i.e. do your company have the internal communication strategy? Oh, again strategy! You may ask the question, communication should be simple so why to go in strategy, another corporate buzz word? Answer is how you look it. You still can make it simple by using the simple information gathering tool, yes, i.e. 5W & 1H.
You can design your strategy for each communication… before doing any communication just ask following questions…
What you want to communicate?
Why you want to communicate?
Who are the audience in communication? What is the level of people?
Where you want to communicate?
When you want to communicate?
And most importantly How you want to communicate? What is the mode of communication?
Sometimes, I always see people communicating something, but the connection is missing. If you are speaking about numbers, I see, people seating, in the room are blank. They even forget what they heard when they come out of the room. I see the reason behind this. People don’t see, “what is in it for me” factor. This can be avoided, when you are critical about the particular communication you are doing.
Once you do the proper questioning on your communication, go further by asking,
What exactly does this mean to the audience?
How does this relate to the audience (connect) what you are communicating about?
What is the nature of impact you want to see after the communication?
I think sometimes we forget the basics and try to find out the solution from elsewhere by making whole system complex. Less communication and over communication is always bad and may have the adverse impact on the culture and people in the organization. Question is about right communication at right moment at right place for right people.
Are you ready?
You can also read this article on Vinod Bidwaik: Organizational Communication Strategy… make it simple…
Regards,
Vinod Bidwaik
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
124Communication is always scored low in any organization. People have different perceptions about communication. Few companies are not open and transparent and less communicative. The culture is closed and everything is confidential and secret in the organization. Assistants, secretaries and cheerleaders are powerful without title. There is lot of scope for ambiguity. The gossiping is common and water cooler discussions are hot. There are another few organizations who are very communicative. They are open and transparent. Everything they do, they communicate. Their intranet is always updated. Top management takes interest in their people. They communicate vision, mission, numbers, projects, programmes and regular updates. Still there is gossiping and water cooler discussions. Employees still think that they are not communicated properly.
What may be the reasons for this? Why always employees see the disconnect about the information companies share? I see the basic fundamental issues and i.e. do your company have the internal communication strategy? Oh, again strategy! You may ask the question, communication should be simple so why to go in strategy, another corporate buzz word? Answer is how you look it. You still can make it simple by using the simple information gathering tool, yes, i.e. 5W & 1H.
You can design your strategy for each communication… before doing any communication just ask following questions…
What you want to communicate?
Why you want to communicate?
Who are the audience in communication? What is the level of people?
Where you want to communicate?
When you want to communicate?
And most importantly How you want to communicate? What is the mode of communication?
Sometimes, I always see people communicating something, but the connection is missing. If you are speaking about numbers, I see, people seating, in the room are blank. They even forget what they heard when they come out of the room. I see the reason behind this. People don’t see, “what is in it for me” factor. This can be avoided, when you are critical about the particular communication you are doing.
Once you do the proper questioning on your communication, go further by asking,
What exactly does this mean to the audience?
How does this relate to the audience (connect) what you are communicating about?
What is the nature of impact you want to see after the communication?
I think sometimes we forget the basics and try to find out the solution from elsewhere by making whole system complex. Less communication and over communication is always bad and may have the adverse impact on the culture and people in the organization. Question is about right communication at right moment at right place for right people.
Are you ready?
You can also read this article on Vinod Bidwaik: Organizational Communication Strategy… make it simple…
Regards,
Vinod Bidwaik
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Vinod Bidwaik,
Following are my observations on the article:
a) While the heading of the post is about "Organizational Communication Strategy," the text is more about personal communication. Though you have written about "organizational communication" in the second and third paragraphs, in the next paragraph, you have provided a solution for personal communication.
b) For communication, you do not require any "strategy" as such. The word "strategy" catches the fancy of every management professional. Just as humankind has misunderstood "religion" or "god," management professionals have similarly misunderstood the concept of 'strategy.'
c) An appropriate heading and focus of the article could have been "How to Create a Culture of Communication." Yes, a culture of communication is important. To do this, one of the means is 5W + 1H.
d) At the beginning of your post, you have written that "People have different perceptions about communication." In fact, perceptions are also based on communication. Therefore, it is imperative for HR or management to ensure "formal" communication happens as much as possible. Communication is a powerful tool to shape the employees' attitudes.
e) Management actions are powerful means of communication. Actions speak far louder than words. Their actions send a signal to one and all, indicating what they stand for and "what is important here?" You have not mentioned anything on this. HR plays a vital role in ensuring that the management's decisions or actions are not misinterpreted.
f) What is the use of "strategy" or "culture" of communication if management has a clique around them or they have a pull towards one particular department? The undercurrents will always be there.
g) Call it strategy or culture; the real test of communication lies in finding out how much the office boy has understood the vision and mission statement of the company. Unfortunately, my experience is that even managers do not know much about the company's vision and mission, despite working for years together in the company. Can there be a better failure of communication "strategy" than this?
h) Recently, there was a news item in the press ("NR Narayana Murthy to Infosys' fat cat laggards: Vows action against top-salary drawing execs"). Now, when a person of his stature criticizes the internal affairs of the company in public, what kind of "communication strategy" is this? Was his criticism aimed at actual under-performers or those who allowed these under-performers to grow in the company?
Final comments: My objective was to critically review the article. There is nothing personal as such.
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Following are my observations on the article:
a) While the heading of the post is about "Organizational Communication Strategy," the text is more about personal communication. Though you have written about "organizational communication" in the second and third paragraphs, in the next paragraph, you have provided a solution for personal communication.
b) For communication, you do not require any "strategy" as such. The word "strategy" catches the fancy of every management professional. Just as humankind has misunderstood "religion" or "god," management professionals have similarly misunderstood the concept of 'strategy.'
c) An appropriate heading and focus of the article could have been "How to Create a Culture of Communication." Yes, a culture of communication is important. To do this, one of the means is 5W + 1H.
d) At the beginning of your post, you have written that "People have different perceptions about communication." In fact, perceptions are also based on communication. Therefore, it is imperative for HR or management to ensure "formal" communication happens as much as possible. Communication is a powerful tool to shape the employees' attitudes.
e) Management actions are powerful means of communication. Actions speak far louder than words. Their actions send a signal to one and all, indicating what they stand for and "what is important here?" You have not mentioned anything on this. HR plays a vital role in ensuring that the management's decisions or actions are not misinterpreted.
f) What is the use of "strategy" or "culture" of communication if management has a clique around them or they have a pull towards one particular department? The undercurrents will always be there.
g) Call it strategy or culture; the real test of communication lies in finding out how much the office boy has understood the vision and mission statement of the company. Unfortunately, my experience is that even managers do not know much about the company's vision and mission, despite working for years together in the company. Can there be a better failure of communication "strategy" than this?
h) Recently, there was a news item in the press ("NR Narayana Murthy to Infosys' fat cat laggards: Vows action against top-salary drawing execs"). Now, when a person of his stature criticizes the internal affairs of the company in public, what kind of "communication strategy" is this? Was his criticism aimed at actual under-performers or those who allowed these under-performers to grow in the company?
Final comments: My objective was to critically review the article. There is nothing personal as such.
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friends,
Two vital things I missed out in my previous post regarding "Organisational Communication" are two major tools for shaping an organization's culture through organizational communication: induction training and standardization.
Induction training allows newly joined employees to understand the company's vision and mission. It also clarifies who receives rewards and the reasons behind those rewards. The higher the quality of induction training, the greater the motivation levels.
Standardization is another method for achieving uniformity in communication. Organizations can develop standardized communication forms and templates on various subjects. Standardizing how juniors communicate with seniors, how seniors communicate with juniors, communication between managers or senior managers, and interactions with vendors, service providers, or consultants can bring consistency. Incorporating the 5W + 1H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How) in templates or standardized communication is beneficial.
By examining ISO 9000, one can observe the emphasis on standardized practices and communication. Standardization has helped to minimize confusion.
Thanks,
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Two vital things I missed out in my previous post regarding "Organisational Communication" are two major tools for shaping an organization's culture through organizational communication: induction training and standardization.
Induction training allows newly joined employees to understand the company's vision and mission. It also clarifies who receives rewards and the reasons behind those rewards. The higher the quality of induction training, the greater the motivation levels.
Standardization is another method for achieving uniformity in communication. Organizations can develop standardized communication forms and templates on various subjects. Standardizing how juniors communicate with seniors, how seniors communicate with juniors, communication between managers or senior managers, and interactions with vendors, service providers, or consultants can bring consistency. Incorporating the 5W + 1H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How) in templates or standardized communication is beneficial.
By examining ISO 9000, one can observe the emphasis on standardized practices and communication. Standardization has helped to minimize confusion.
Thanks,
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The requirement, culture, and history of each organization are different. There cannot be a "Fits-All" answer to the questions you have raised.
Some companies have started with a culture steeped in the federal system, autocratic owner-driven management that is not answerable to anyone else. These companies will rarely communicate in detail. So, grapevine is an important source of information for the employees. All new employees swiftly adopt this culture and make their own fit into it. But such companies will suffer from a lack of ownership at the lower levels (or even mid-level management). The reason - they never felt they own anything and that everything they do is on instruction from the owners.
For such companies to change overnight is not possible or even advisable. The change will happen if the new generation of owners takes over, creates their own layers, and slowly absorbs more of the organization into it. Social Media, modern communication tools, even services like WhatsApp, are helping in that direction. Have you seen the new HR module for SAP? The collaboration tools actually look like you are on FB!
Collaboration is also a word that is rarely spoken of in these organizations. It's not collaboration that the managers are looking for. They are looking for the subordinates to just do their work. They don't expect to share their insights, knowledge on an equal basis. They are looking at the subordinates to follow instructions, get the data (maybe analyze and create information), and then they will take it up.
What will happen if such a company suddenly starts to communicate freely? Believe me, it will be complete chaos :)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Some companies have started with a culture steeped in the federal system, autocratic owner-driven management that is not answerable to anyone else. These companies will rarely communicate in detail. So, grapevine is an important source of information for the employees. All new employees swiftly adopt this culture and make their own fit into it. But such companies will suffer from a lack of ownership at the lower levels (or even mid-level management). The reason - they never felt they own anything and that everything they do is on instruction from the owners.
For such companies to change overnight is not possible or even advisable. The change will happen if the new generation of owners takes over, creates their own layers, and slowly absorbs more of the organization into it. Social Media, modern communication tools, even services like WhatsApp, are helping in that direction. Have you seen the new HR module for SAP? The collaboration tools actually look like you are on FB!
Collaboration is also a word that is rarely spoken of in these organizations. It's not collaboration that the managers are looking for. They are looking for the subordinates to just do their work. They don't expect to share their insights, knowledge on an equal basis. They are looking at the subordinates to follow instructions, get the data (maybe analyze and create information), and then they will take it up.
What will happen if such a company suddenly starts to communicate freely? Believe me, it will be complete chaos :)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
An interesting analysis would be on the impact if modern communication strategy is used in induction in a "closed culture" company and the new joiners get an impression that they are entering a modern work culture. Of course, most smart employees would know the company's history. But for many others, it would result in serious heartburn, frustration, and an early exit.
I remember a friend who left an MNC at VP level and joined as president in Garware Group in the mid-90s. I was shocked to see him in that company. It was surely a complete mismatch. He claimed that he would manage. And that the company wanted to move to an MNC type of working, etc. To cut to the chase, he left after a year. Incidentally, he joined a new venture of one of the big Indian industrialist groups, where he succeeded, but I think it is because being new, the culture was molded by those who joined, which was modern managers.
If you are looking for a success story in change in an organization, especially around communication strategy and collaboration, you need to see what Aditya Birla Group did once Kumar Mangalam took over. I would say it succeeded greatly in some areas (but again, in the older parts of the group, some things went back to old ways).
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I remember a friend who left an MNC at VP level and joined as president in Garware Group in the mid-90s. I was shocked to see him in that company. It was surely a complete mismatch. He claimed that he would manage. And that the company wanted to move to an MNC type of working, etc. To cut to the chase, he left after a year. Incidentally, he joined a new venture of one of the big Indian industrialist groups, where he succeeded, but I think it is because being new, the culture was molded by those who joined, which was modern managers.
If you are looking for a success story in change in an organization, especially around communication strategy and collaboration, you need to see what Aditya Birla Group did once Kumar Mangalam took over. I would say it succeeded greatly in some areas (but again, in the older parts of the group, some things went back to old ways).
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswata,
Thank you for sharing the examples. However, both examples focus on cultural alignment or misalignment rather than strictly on "communication." Why confuse the concepts of "culture" and "communication"?
Additionally, both examples involve senior-level positions. The last example pertains to the MD of the company. If the MD introduces a policy or issues a letter, who would dare to challenge it? Implementing change from the top down is usually more straightforward.
The discussion began with the disparity in understanding between "tools of communication" and "communication strategy." 5H + 1H is undeniably a tool of communication and should not be disregarded as a strategy. I would argue that communication is not directly linked to strategy. Strategy involves choosing a direction, while communication ensures that decisions reach the appropriate individuals.
In his renowned speech on strategy, Michael Porter eloquently explains "What is Strategy?" in a concise 1:48-minute video. You can watch the video by clicking [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibrxIP0H84M).
Thank you,
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for sharing the examples. However, both examples focus on cultural alignment or misalignment rather than strictly on "communication." Why confuse the concepts of "culture" and "communication"?
Additionally, both examples involve senior-level positions. The last example pertains to the MD of the company. If the MD introduces a policy or issues a letter, who would dare to challenge it? Implementing change from the top down is usually more straightforward.
The discussion began with the disparity in understanding between "tools of communication" and "communication strategy." 5H + 1H is undeniably a tool of communication and should not be disregarded as a strategy. I would argue that communication is not directly linked to strategy. Strategy involves choosing a direction, while communication ensures that decisions reach the appropriate individuals.
In his renowned speech on strategy, Michael Porter eloquently explains "What is Strategy?" in a concise 1:48-minute video. You can watch the video by clicking [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibrxIP0H84M).
Thank you,
DVD
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I liked the responses, especially the reference to Mr. Murthy's harsh remarks in public. It sounded more of a vindictive outburst rather than a communication on the company's action plans. I also appreciate the relevant link to the video clip. It is indeed awesome and enlightening at the same time to watch the Guru of strategic management in action. The word 'strategy' is indeed misused to mean any action plan or process initiative.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.