INTRODUCTION
Understanding communication as an opportunity to meet with the other, raises a wide range of possibilities for interaction in the social field, because it is there where it has its raison d'être, since it is through it that people achieve understanding, coordination and the cooperation that enables the growth and development of organizations.
The relationships that exist between the members of an organization are established thanks to communication; in these exchange processes functions are assigned and delegated, commitments are established, and it is found meaningful to be part of it. How else are behaviors predicted and interpreted, evaluated and planned, individual and group goals proposed in a joint effort, of common benefit, if not through motivated, consensual and effective communication?
For these reasons, any respected institution must prioritize within its organizational structure a communications and information system that streamlines the processes that internally vivify the entity and project it towards its area of influence.
Internal institutional communications promote participation, integration and coexistence within the framework of organizational culture, where the exercise of functions and the recognition of individual and group capacities makes sense.
The lack of communication strategies within the institution, the lack of channels or their underutilization, generates slow processes and actions, delays in responses and misinformation about policies, all of which make true interaction impossible. internally. On the other hand, they are essential so that the coherence between the actions carried out within the institution with the reality of the environment is not lost.
JUSTIFICATION
Internal communications are a daily construction as Daniel Prieto Castillo says: in the meetings, in the daily, permanent exchange, in the spaces for discussion and reflection (seminars, meetings, classes), in the dissemination of messages (notes, memoranda, phone, billboards, posters), in casual encounters, in recognition and respect for the expressions of the other.
The objective of the diagnosis is to detect the failures that are occurring in the information flows, which may be caused by the lack of means, their mismanagement, or the lack of response from the people who are part of the entity.
It can be thought that the fact of handling the same code guarantees a successful communication; This is not enough, since there are many ingredients that in one way or another contribute to bringing people closer and closer ties: living common experiences, sharing meanings, participating in institutional life, being one but at the same time a team.
Ignorance of this reality leads to interpersonal relationships that develop on rumors and assumptions that distort and / or block all attempts at communication; in this way, the group disintegrates and falls into an everlasting monologue, unproductive or useless activism.
Managing communication processes involves considering the areas and levels of processes that occur within the organizational system. If the members of the group have defined responsibilities and roles, this allows them to establish a flexible work scheme, where meeting spaces are given so that there is an efficient flow of communication that draws and provides feedback to the different programs and projects and dynamize projects and persons.
It should not be forgotten that the organization as such has a pre-established professional mission and objectives that respond to the vision, a mission that ultimately is the compass that guides, channels and promotes all actions.
The creation of a communicative environment that stimulates and encourages individual and collective actions, that integrates efforts, that commits wills so that the Company is strengthened, must be the commitment and responsibility of all the members.
Any person committed to the organization interacts cooperatively, wants to be accepted, and hopes that their opinions will be taken into account even by some people in the company.
But the lack of listening, not wanting or not knowing how to read the other, is slowly deteriorating communication and work teams lose strength and are easy prey for destabilizing agents that lead to collapse, since man as a social being, needs the group for their subsistence, defense and development.
Fortunately, human organizations have begun to realize the value of communication and information as a strategic resource to develop and survive in a highly competitive, open world, where closed, isolated mental structures impede decision making, confrontation, frank dialogue, the valuation of individual and collective actions and harmonious relations.
It is about assessing, how information and communication are articulated, how they flow in different areas and levels; if through them, policies relevant to management, structure and organizational culture are dynamized and projected; if information and communication are processed and channeled institutionally, so that they transcend the level of rumor, of opinion, of inadvertent comment and become communication, a strategy that interprets, channels, capitalizes and incorporates the significant value of the information generated in everyday life and take from it what is really important for the productive action of the organization. If elements of judgment are offered for decision-making due to the promptness of management,if resources are optimized for planning and contribute to internal organization and the dispersion, effort, human resources, techniques and technologies decreases.
Communication is one of the fundamental factors in the functioning of social organizations, it is a tool, a key element in the organization and plays a primary role in maintaining the institution.
Its activity is possible thanks to the exchange of information between the different levels and positions of the medium; Between members, typical patterns of communication behavior are established based on social variables; This supposes that each person performs a specific communicative role.
Communication fulfills a series of functions within the institution such as: providing information on internal processes, enabling command functions, decision making, problem solving, diagnosis of reality. The term function refers to the contribution of a respective activity, in order to maintain stability or balance. In this case, the term function refers to what an organization does or achieves through communication.
Within organizations you hear comments about communication problems that are proof of the preponderance in the institution's working life, it is very common to walk the corridors of an institution and listen to different languages characterized, in the non-verbal by gestures, looks, clothing and even the manifestation of strong emotions, different from those normally expressed, this reality has had important cultural impacts that are usually called communication problems, a claim that is treated superficially without analyzing that behind it there are important cultural barriers that not being treated strategically will become new threats to the organization.
“If we conceive the role of communication in the company as a determining factor in maintaining good interpersonal relationships, we must take a position against administrative practices that promote the existence of a single form of communication. This is how the value and importance of good communications in the organization can be appreciated in critical or conflict situations ».
Failures in communication schemes
Despite the training that is orchestrated to improve communication in institutions, this is still a pending subject in many cases. Undoubtedly, communication with the outside and the inside could be improved, but perhaps the difficulties become more visible in hierarchical relationships; relationships that are also embedded in the corporate culture, the management style of the institution. Communicating better would contribute, as we know, to effectiveness and professional satisfaction; but we certainly face entrenched cultural barriers.
Although everything is much more complex, we could accept that two people communicate when, with generative purpose, they transmit information that they perceive with attention, accompanying keys to interpret it properly. Without a doubt, along with cognitive attunement, we can also expect a dose of emotional empathy, so that those who have really communicated have left a certain mark on each other… Of course, when there is no trust, common interests or goals, etc., no Good communication can be expected, and this happens in more than a few interpersonal relationships, including hierarchical ones in companies.
Perhaps, more than one reader will communicate better with his dog or cat, than with his boss or one of his subordinates and colleagues, and it will be thought that affection and trust intervene more than verbal language. Of course, is communication the consequence of affection, or vice versa? In the company, a greater dose of affection, or at least empathy, of smiles would be welcome… There are, we know well, different factors that affect communication, beyond the necessary language. Human beings do indeed have a rich language, but we do not always use it properly: apart from a deficit of ability, there may be a real will to communicate.
Confucius already stressed the importance of language in organizations and, indeed, executives and managers seem to want to endow themselves with a language of their own, for good or for various purposes. In some companies a specific language is orchestrated in the service of professionalism, synergy and the alignment of efforts after the goals, and in others and sometimes, that of alignment or manipulation, perhaps linked to ad hoc doctrines and liturgies.
There are, of course, sincere managers, but it is true that some others, speaking in public or private, sometimes show that they do not believe what they are saying, without perhaps being aware of it. All of us, in each context, should give a similar meaning to terms such as "human capital", "intelligence", "strategy", "communication", "quality", "customer orientation", "leadership", "teamwork", "Excellence", "objectives", "innovation", "process", "value", "competence", "professionalism", "responsibility", etc., which does not happen in the vast majority of current companies, appreciating an open distortion when interpreting, evaluating and enhancing each of these elements, based on the improvement of processes in the Company, the increase in customer satisfaction,the motivation of workers and the achievement of much more effective, comprehensive and systematized internal control mechanisms.
Furthermore, when we interact, we do not always activate attention to a sufficient extent. Often we have our heads in a different place or matter than what we appear to be, and in the end we will not know if our life has been what happened to us in each moment, or what we thought while. For this reason and in the company, rather than better managing time, we should better manage attention and awareness, think more and better, to the benefit of effectiveness and professional satisfaction.
Incidence of ICTs in business communication
Every day we are less related to each other in presence and we use more ICT (information and communication technologies), even though we are physically close. I have repeatedly participated in those chats in which several people from the institution (collaborative tools?), Close and distant, intervene and sometimes it is no longer known to whom each one responds; It may be helpful, but I never felt like I was communicating. Companies may continue to lack fluency in information and knowledge, even though ICTs have arrived; but above all, communication fails, because technology does not transmit communication, but information generated by sources. Indeed, for the moment, technology supports and processes information, but leaves knowledge, such as communication, to users.
A special category of communication channels is electronic media. Administrators use computers not only to collect and distribute quantitative data, but also to "talk" to others through electronic mail (email).
Advantages: The advantages of electronic communication technology are many and impressive. Within companies, the benefits of electronic communication include distributing more information, speed, and efficiency in delivering routine messages to large numbers of people across vast geographic areas.
Disadvantages: Among the disadvantages of electronic communication are the difficulty in solving complex problems, which require broader, face-to-face interaction, and the inability to grasp subtle, non-verbal, or inflectional clues about what the communicator is thinking or transmitting.
In not a few companies, there is still a lot of effort to separate the "we" from the "they" (they also speak of leaders and followers) and maintain the relational status quo; But this has contributed to making internal communication a pending subject, and without overcoming it, the activation of psychic energy and, therefore, of available human capital cannot be counted on. If someone must follow detailed instructions, they will limit themselves to it and little else. No worker can think that he is communicating with his boss, if the boss dictates and he obeys. Communication, properly understood, implies mutual respect and activation of the respective intelligences: we know it.
Without communication there is no alignment of efforts behind the goals, and this not only puts the achievement of results at risk: it also generates professional and personal frustration, and also puts the mental health of the incommunicado at risk. An individual, for example, would have to be very psychically strong to resist a period of solitary confinement opened by his boss, for different reasons and for different purposes; but sometimes it is a matter of corporate communication, deliberate or unconscious, of the entire Management with all the workers. Then, the attention is dispersed, the confusion and mistrust spread…
All this is very complex and, after this prolonged isagoge, we should focus on the reflection. Let us think, yes, of a boss and a subordinate, in the scenario of the economy of knowledge and innovation. They can communicate effectively for the benefit of both themselves and the organization, but they can also do the opposite. There are cognitive, emotional and volitional reasons that explain communication deficits, including concerns, interests, unreasons… We can, in short, make an attempt at synthesis: what is happening, on one side or the other, in hierarchical communication, so necessary for effectiveness and professional satisfaction ?.
Around the goals
In the case of effective communication, the subordinate must know the goals pursued and feel that it contributes to their achievement. As Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi tells us, it is necessary to set goals or objectives, because otherwise we would not know how to interpret each step taken, each task carried out.
Whether we achieve goals or not, their existence guides efforts, and provides us with resolution and psychic harmony. A suitable goal generates harmony in communication, encourages our confidence in success and deploys our precise competencies.
Of course, if the boss has some goals and the subordinate others, not only communication will fail, but perhaps the achievement of both. The content of the goals themselves can predict failure (mistaken, imprecise, unattainable, contradictory…) as José Antonio Marina reminds us in one of his books; but success seems to go as much through their suitability as through sharing them, that is, taking them on emotionally. This favors desirable communication and synergy.
If, for example, managers pursue some goals and proclaim others, many things will fail, but also communication and synergy. By proclaiming false goals or values (because you want to hide the real ones), some workers perceive realities and put themselves at your service, and others stick to what has been proclaimed, perhaps with certain doubts. If, for example, the Management wants to sell the company but does not make it explicit, the workers will see, perhaps with amazement, that more effort is put into appearing than being. Communication, if one more obvious thing fits, cannot be alien to the goals pursued or the means deployed: they would be two vain monologues, and not a generative dialogue.
Around the relational model
There are bosses who, protected in power, ignore their subordinates and discredit them, who try to deny them any merit and attribute to them the errors in the decisions made, which seem to demand total surrender…; but it is not the general case, but perhaps points above all to situations of excessive stress in highly entropic organizations. Likewise, there are not exemplary subordinates who, perhaps also disturbed in their personality, hinder communication and the progress of the activity itself; but it is not the general case either. Let's talk about two basic and elementary models that more extensively characterize the hierarchical relationship.
I mean distinguishing whether the boss expects his obedience, or especially his intelligence, from the subordinate; perhaps it would mean, carrying out tasks with instructions, or achieving agreed results. In practice, it may be a combination of both, but the first is more related to dictation and the exchange of information, and the second is more related to the desirable communication to which we refer, a catalyst for the best expression of human capital..
Here I would open a digression to remember that John S. Rydz, prestigious American executive expert in innovation, made two great suggestions to us long ago: first, cultivate (and not so much "manage") innovation in the company, seen as a process and not as event; and second, to catalyze (and not so much “manage”) people, after their best professional expression, that is, after the deployment of their capacities, including creativity. Both of Rydz's formulations are the result of corporate culture, and, when speaking of the catalysis of people, he especially aimed to replace the mere formulation of orders or instructions, with authentic two-way communication; to substitute, yes, monologues for generative dialogue.
We continue. Another way of describing the relational model would point to the conceptual distance, very sensitive or more moderate, between both levels of the hierarchy; that is, to conceive the manager as a producer of collective results, or to conceive him as a facilitator for the collectives to achieve their results. There is a definition of manager-leader that I hear frequently (last time at a book presentation at a business school) and that I'm afraid I won't share. More or less it is said: "a good leader is one who makes subordinates want to do what they have to do." It reminds me more of McGregor's Theory X, than his Theory Y; to the industrial age, than to that of knowledge.
It would turn out that if the professional were produced with desire and dedication, it would be because his boss-leader would have succeeded; I would say, however, that the professionalism of the worker is often manifested… despite the boss. I believe, yes, that communication depends more on management style than on following a communication course, and I say this from my own experience. For example, I remember that more than 20 years ago, we complained to the Management of our department about the lack of internal communication, and their response was to orchestrate communication courses (transactional analysis) for all workers.
The situation did not change, but we did not complain any more: it did not seem useful to do so. (At that time we were preparing a spin off).
I would add something about leadership of managers. In reality, I would simply remember what Drucker already told us: leadership is a means and what matters are the goals that are set for us and the resources that are deployed.
On the other hand, if the supposed followers did not see the supposed boss-leader as a leader, but rather as being responsible for the "fold" (anagram), then perhaps it would be best to simply speak of a professional and effective exercise of people management. It does not seem, in the emerging economy, to contribute to communication the effort to see workers as mere subordinates, resources, followers, employees, collaborators, coachees…, and not as much as technical professionals in their respective fields.
The intelligence of skilled workers should not be perceived as a threat by their bosses, but as an asset whose expression is to be catalyzed. No, this full professional expression should not be exploited by the boss as his own merit, but as the value of the individual; otherwise, it would end up inhibiting part of its human capital, to the detriment of communication and results.
Around mental models
The reader knows it well: each one of us has his beliefs, his values, his moral convictions, his way of seeing things. This hinders, for example, negotiations between political parties, but also our daily understanding in the company. Firms of a certain size tend to make corporate pronouncements in favor of, and in pursuit of, the desirable attunement of ways of thinking, but this does not always go beyond that; not always much is achieved.
There are workers who do not rest until things are done well, and they do not do it to shine, but to be satisfied; But there are bosses who do not tolerate that their subordinates shine more than they, whatever their virtuous side: they seem to see it, yes, as a threat. Other bosses, even without being seen as leaders, celebrate the talent of their subordinates and take advantage of it for collective benefit: this does seem to contribute more to desirable communication. A common position on quality is in effect a catalyst for communication; as, likewise, a common position regarding professionalism, lifelong learning, the goals to be pursued, the means and resources to be used, customer satisfaction…
Of the communication we can say that it benefits from attuned mentalities, and that, at the same time, it contributes to attune or align mental models; but this is only possible when, skilled in conversation, flexibility allows us to adjust those without prejudice to the principles and values of the company. However, the values can be reviewed for various reasons, and here I recall a small anecdote. A large company proclaimed "pride of belonging" until, because of corruption, the chief executive had to leave the organization; then there was simply talk of "spirit of belonging."
But, beyond anecdotes, the company culture, beliefs and values must sometimes be changed, to the benefit of collective synergy and energy, and perhaps after a greater contribution to society. Something like this had to be done by Haruo Naito in Eisai, a Japanese pharmaceutical laboratory, at the end of the 80s. Taking command and to combat a sensitive identity crisis, he orchestrated a solid cascade training program that renewed the mentality and fed the energy of managers and workers. Having previously met with the directors, and aware of the restlessness and discouragement in the organization, he decided to take a strategic turn: he would stop focusing on his clients (doctors and pharmacists),to familiarize the organization with the expectations and needs of users (patients and even their families).
He introduced the cultural concept hhc (human health care) in memory of Florence Nightingale, mother of modern nursing, because the activity had to be given meaning; Without a meaning of social contribution, the emotional adherence of the staff and the consequent activation of human capital could not be counted on. As stated by Robert K. Cooper in Executive EQ, Naito seemed convinced: “It is not enough to tell employees that if they do such a thing, their salary will increase: it is not enough as an incentive. We must show them that what they do is connected to society, and, in our case, how exactly it benefits the patient. ”
Some entrepreneurs see their activity more autotelically, and their benefits as a consequence, and others, more exotelic, see profits as an end and activity as a means. They are ways of living the company, which do not escape the workers. Obviously, communication is easier between personalities of the same type. Incidentally, if we were to expand on how disorders (beyond personality differences) hinder communication, this would be another article. A pity, but a reality: work upsets us too much, and it is not surprising that we value more and more the quality of life in the company.
Around non-verbal language and intuition
The goals pursued, the relational model and the respective mentalities -without ruling out other elements- configure the framework of hierarchical communication; But let us now focus on the act of communicating, and specifically the so-called non-verbal language. Non-verbal language has to be interpreted intuitively: we should not consider gestures as a new mechanical or automatic code, of unequivocal meaning, nor should we allow ourselves to be led by false intuitions (suspicions, prejudices, etc.).
We could distinguish the usual facial or manual gestures with which we express ourselves to others, from those other gestures that are not so conscious that they seem to betray our thoughts or feelings, and that they do not always mean the same thing. Among the first and most conscious, rubbing hands, shaking them, turning palms, raising eyebrows, etc.; between the second and less conscious, some like touching an ear, crossing arms or legs, or looking away, which we should not automatically interpret, nor does yawning always mean boredom, nor anger is always against us.
It is, if we cultivate it properly, the powerful intuitive faculty that helps us interpret these gestures, beyond rational thought and more or less established codes. Arguably, there is no communication without intuition, both non-verbally and verbally. In other words, there is no communication without assigning the correct meanings to the visible and underlying signifiers that intervene, and it is here that we need genuine intuition, which is a valuable plus for intelligence, when we distinguish that - intuition - from conjectures, prejudices, fears, wishes, suspicions, presumptions, etc.
Perhaps, more than a sixth sense, intuition is a revealing reinforcement for the conventional senses; a valuable complement to the rest of our intellectual resources. We can speak of rapid cognition, of insight, of sudden messages from the unconscious…, but in communication we must read between the lines, both with the eyes and the ears. Full communication points to an intuitive attunement with the thoughts and feelings of the person with whom we communicate, beyond what is said; to a connection of the minds; what we sometimes call "chemistry".
With the latter it would seem that we are defining empathy, which is effectively inseparable from intuition and communication. Ickes, a psychologist at the University of Texas who has investigated the subject, defines empathic rigor as "complex psychological inference in which observation, memory, knowledge and reasoning are combined to generate intuition about the thoughts and feelings of the rest".
Ultimately, perhaps we should rid the genuine intuition of the semi-clandestinity in which it is found in the company, as happened long ago with emotional intelligence, to which we associate empathy. Actually, perhaps we could talk about cognitive empathy and emotional empathy, as well as cognitive intuition and emotional intuition. Well, probably we can all cultivate these resources or faculties a little more, for the benefit of communication and, therefore, of collective alignment and business results.
Final messages
Certainly, communication courses (such as meetings, leadership, teamwork…) are orchestrated in the institutions, without things significantly improving. Sometimes it seems that it is not intended either, but rather that training is deployed after other purposes… The fact is that we can all be more effective, and even happier, in daily professional performance, and that training, well focused, from a systemic perspective, it would have an important role to this end.
If a company were to be properly organized (excellent, smart organizations, etc.), that is, to cultivate a suitable functional model / style and value human capital, then it would improve almost everything at once, most likely: communication, meetings, teamwork, decision making, quality, innovation, productivity, competitiveness…; We know this from the example of the best companies, which even avoid complacency and are attentive to possible deviations or oversights.
Thank you very sincerely if you have found it useful to get this far, but reflect and come to your own conclusions, after agreeing or disagreeing with the formulations that I have submitted to you. Yes, I believe that there are some deep-rooted obstacles to the desirable improvement of communication in the company, and that the desirable hierarchical understanding cannot be replaced by collective liturgical acts. Heads and subordinates, mentally healthy and full, we would have to improve the harmony for the benefit of effectiveness and professional satisfaction, in the setting of an ad hoc corporate culture, typical of this era of knowledge and lifelong learning.
