Every business or organization has something that drives them or there is a reason for the organizations existence. For example, the reason for the existence of the company Amazon.com is to sell things. However, Barnard would say, and studies have supported this view on things, the actual primary responsibility of an organization is a function of communication. A business should primarily be concerned with communicating to its internal and external publics. Without this concern there is a possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that the lack of a communication plan will lead to problems for the organization. Because of this the leaders in an organization must form a communication structure within the organization that encourages openness and fosters the ability for every person in an organization to feel as though communication is not wasted.
In a TED talk, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that, "leaders can allow you to fail without allowing you to be a failure." This is a good rule for an organization that wishes to succeed to live by. We are now seeing the results of a new brand of leadership that is moving away from an authoritarian structure to a more relational form of leadership. The interesting thing about the desire for this new way of leadership is that it is not really that new. At least not in the way of one on one teaching and allowing for possible failures. There once was something that was called an apprentice that many tradesmen used in order to pass down the knowledge of their craft. There are still a few jobs that use apprentices such as an electrician or a plumber (or even a Donald Trump but I do not believe that he was using it in the same way). These masters would teach their students the basics of the trade and allow the apprentice to work for them. The difference between that time and what I would suggest to be a good way of leadership is that these apprenticeships tended to be authoritarian by nature.
In another TED talk, Drew Dudley spoke about everyday leadership. He asserted that everyone can be a leader. He said that we need to have what he called the lollipop moment and not focus on earth changing aspect of leadership so that we stop making excuses to not lead. By this he meant that leaders should focus on enabling others to try out their steps in leadership. The way to do this is with open communication. He used humor to comfort a girl who must have been visibly shaken and nervous but companies should do this by focusing on open communication.
He starts his talk by asking the crowd how many are comfortable calling themselves leaders. So, if an organization is trying to have open communication to foster new leaders so that it affects growth of that organization in a positive way, many people would question where they should start. To a company, communication should be the primary focus. Focus is a good word to start with because the first thing a company should do is to clarify its goal for both the employees and stakeholders. When I was in High School, I was a member of my choir. Our choir director always stated how winning whatever competitions we went to. His goal was that we were a positive influence to the other choirs that were at the competition. This was adopted by the choir and whenever we went to a competition, we would win awards for being the most spirited, friendly choir at the show. We also did well at the competition but that was a side effect of a clear goal.
The second consideration that an organization must make is how much red tape is involved in the communication process. Every business must have certain organizational processes that are in place but it is better for two way communication (which is what communication really is anyways) if red tape is lessened as much as possible. That way an organization can focus on interpersonal communication. This does not mean that a company has to ask every employee intimate questions but it is important that members of an organization feel as though they are a vital part of the organization. They must take ownership in the organization. Jack Dorsey, founder of Twitter, had a good way to encourage open communication and cut out red tape with organizational communication. Meetings at Twitter were all stand up meetings (no one sat in seats) and in an open area. He said this helped the serendipitous nature of the business. Twitter is one of the fastest growing businesses in the world.
The third consideration is the size of a business. The larger an organization, the harder it is to make sure that everyone gets the message. Something that was pointed out in an article on organizational performance is that while large organizations have a difficulty due to size they have an advantage over smaller organizations because they tend to have resources that smaller organizations do not. Because of this, my suggestion if there is a large organization is to break down the larger organization into smaller parts. This helps communication. Andy Stanley is the pastor at North Point Community Church which is one of the largest churches in the Atlanta area. He attributed their growth and the continued connection that people were able to find at the church to their small groups. He stated that the church was "small group crazy." Breaking a larger organization down into smaller groups helps to combat the weakness of both large and small organizations. It does this because Stanley, instead of having to rely on communicating with the whole congregation (which he still does) he is able to give his vision to a smaller group of people who then take it to the larger group. It allows mass communication with a face to face feel.
If an organization takes these three things into consideration when planning its communication style, it should help to cut down on a lot of unnecessary issues that would have come up otherwise. It is important to have a plan with your communication because communication should be the first consideration of an organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment