Open communication climates derive from the nature of the people participating in the information transactions. Barriers to open communication ultimately spring from an individual's unfavorable past experiences. Our nature and background shape our values, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and expectations. Because our sense of self-worth and dignity evolve from these, we often erect barriers to defend them from attack. Some people have deep-seated psychological needs for these defenses; others have short-term tactical needs.
People may hide behind defensive barriers because of deep-seated feelings of inadequacy. Employees, for example, whose egos cannot tolerate criticism simply will not share information that exposes them to personal critique. Unable to assert themselves, they refuse to voice opinions, make suggestions for improvement, take the initiative in forming tasks, lead project teams, cold-call customers, correct wayward employees, or perform any of the myriad chores that could oust them from their silent withdrawal into psychological safety.
If such people somehow rise to supervisory or management levels, they are usually comfortable only in giving unquestioned orders and directives, in tending to routine, and in operating within thoroughly controlled, self-protective, situations. In an open communication climate, these people withdraw by erecting defensive barriers that establish a safer and more predictable environment.
For people without deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, defensiveness may be marked by the need to close down communication because information-sharing poses some kind of short-term, tactical disadvantage or discomfort. In a meeting, for example, employees may remain silent because speaking out will make them vulnerable. They may be asked to elaborate and not have the facts at hand. They may be forced to defend an unpopular decision. They may lack confidence in their vocabulary or logical skills to engage others in the give-and-take of robust debate. Or perhaps they fear they will be caught in error or that someone will belittle them for asking a stupid question or making a silly comment. Rather than say anything and appear the fool, they choose to say nothing. Unfortunately, such defensiveness can have serious ramifications for the organization. In protecting themselves, employees may put everyone at risk by withholding information crucial to a sound decision.
A person truly open in communicating with others must continually guard against erecting these defensive barriers, whatever the cause, for self-defense ultimately inhibits honest exchange of information. Such honesty, however, does not come easily for any of us. How courageous, for example, the supervisor who sits in a staff meeting and listens to blisteringly honest criticism of the working conditions, salary, operational dysfunctions, amenities, safety issues, procedures, and level of management support. Few people actually enjoy such forthright discussion of shortcomings.
But lowering defenses, and encouraging honest information exchange, is the only way to guarantee a climate in which truth can thrive. And, while the risks in an open communication climate can be high, the rewards can be great. Typically, these rewards include increased worker morale; prompt notification of, and solutions to, problems; a sense of collaboration, as all work together to articulate operations and policies; and an increased empowerment of employees, who come to see themselves as central to the success of the corporate enterprise.
People may hide behind defensive barriers because of deep-seated feelings of inadequacy. Employees, for example, whose egos cannot tolerate criticism simply will not share information that exposes them to personal critique. Unable to assert themselves, they refuse to voice opinions, make suggestions for improvement, take the initiative in forming tasks, lead project teams, cold-call customers, correct wayward employees, or perform any of the myriad chores that could oust them from their silent withdrawal into psychological safety.
If such people somehow rise to supervisory or management levels, they are usually comfortable only in giving unquestioned orders and directives, in tending to routine, and in operating within thoroughly controlled, self-protective, situations. In an open communication climate, these people withdraw by erecting defensive barriers that establish a safer and more predictable environment.
For people without deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, defensiveness may be marked by the need to close down communication because information-sharing poses some kind of short-term, tactical disadvantage or discomfort. In a meeting, for example, employees may remain silent because speaking out will make them vulnerable. They may be asked to elaborate and not have the facts at hand. They may be forced to defend an unpopular decision. They may lack confidence in their vocabulary or logical skills to engage others in the give-and-take of robust debate. Or perhaps they fear they will be caught in error or that someone will belittle them for asking a stupid question or making a silly comment. Rather than say anything and appear the fool, they choose to say nothing. Unfortunately, such defensiveness can have serious ramifications for the organization. In protecting themselves, employees may put everyone at risk by withholding information crucial to a sound decision.
A person truly open in communicating with others must continually guard against erecting these defensive barriers, whatever the cause, for self-defense ultimately inhibits honest exchange of information. Such honesty, however, does not come easily for any of us. How courageous, for example, the supervisor who sits in a staff meeting and listens to blisteringly honest criticism of the working conditions, salary, operational dysfunctions, amenities, safety issues, procedures, and level of management support. Few people actually enjoy such forthright discussion of shortcomings.
But lowering defenses, and encouraging honest information exchange, is the only way to guarantee a climate in which truth can thrive. And, while the risks in an open communication climate can be high, the rewards can be great. Typically, these rewards include increased worker morale; prompt notification of, and solutions to, problems; a sense of collaboration, as all work together to articulate operations and policies; and an increased empowerment of employees, who come to see themselves as central to the success of the corporate enterprise.
Thank you for the informative blog. Where else may I am getting that type of information written in such an ideal manner? http://www.doortraining.co.in/solutions/training/leadership-management/communication-skills
ReplyDelete