Despite the training that is orchestrated to improve communication in companies, 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 company. 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 at the service of professionalism, synergy and the alignment of efforts after the goals, and in others and sometimes, that of alienation 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. (The only time I could hear Tom Peters - it was here in Madrid - he alluded to the lack of sincerity of managers in their public demonstrations, especially when talking about workers).
All of us, in each context, should give a similar meaning to terms such as "human capital", "intelligence", "empowerment", "strategy", "communication", "quality", "customer orientation", "leadership", " teamwork "," excellence "," objectives "," innovation "," process "," value "," competence "," professionalism "," responsibility ", etc., but, if we already disperse when interpreting these buzzwords, to a greater extent, perhaps, by using more specific labels and terms of each corporate culture. In any case, we would all have to be consistent with what we want to say, to achieve the desired effects.
In addition, when we interact, we do not always activate mindfulness to a sufficient extent. We often 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 at each moment, or what we thought while: yes, perhaps we die without having really lived our life… For this reason and in the company, rather than better managing time, perhaps we should better manage attention and awareness, think more and better, to the benefit of effectiveness and professional satisfaction.
On the other hand, every day we interact less in presence and use ICT (information and communication technologies) more, even if we are physically close. I have repeatedly participated in those chats in which several people from the company (collaborative tools?) Intervene, close and distant, and sometimes it is no longer known to whom each 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.
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, junior or senior, can think that he is communicating with his boss, if he 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 emerging 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 or not we reach goals, its existence guides efforts, and it provides us with resolution and psychic harmony. A suitable goal creates 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, unreachable, 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 are organized in companies (such as meetings, leadership, teamwork…), 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 to the reader if you have considered it useful to get here, 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.
