Skip to main content

Supportive Environments

In supportive environments, employees convey information to superiors without hesitation, confident that superiors will readily accept it, whether good or bad, favorable or unfavorable. A worker, for example, who reports an EPA violation in the company's disposing of hazardous waste must be assured of management's support. If employees think that reporting regulatory violations to their superiors will brand them as whistle­blowers, thereby endangering their jobs, they will probably say nothing. But because supportive superiors are seen as non-threatening, perhaps even nurturing, employees will usually open up to them and share unpleasant or dangerous information.
Fear, shame, and pride encourage people to keep their mouths shut if they feel vulnerable or unsupported. In a meeting, for example, an individual may not tell the group that product delivery will be late because the receiving agents were not notified in time. A late delivery date puts the whole marketing plan in jeopardy, resulting in millions dollars lost and in eroded market share. With so much at stake, the employee's self-protective reaction to say nothing, in a non-supportive climate, is a rational choice to safeguard employment.
Communication closes down in non-supportive environments because information poses a threat. In supportive environments, employees communicate more readily for a number of reasons: The reporting mechanism accords them dignity and respect. They have no need to fear reprisals for sharing bad news. They are rewarded for being forthright. And they are appreciated as vital sources of information crucial to the organization's success.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Characteristics of Mass Communication

Five characteristics of mass communication have been identified by Cambridge University's John Thompson. Firstly, it "comprises both technical and institutional methods of production and distribution". This is evident throughout the history of the media, from print to the Internet, each suitable for commercial utility. Secondly, it involves the "commodification of symbolic forms",as the production of materials relies on its ability to manufacture and sell large quantities of the work. Just as radio stations rely on its time sold to advertisements, newspapers rely for the same reasons on its space. Mass communication's third characteristic is the "separate contexts between the production and reception of information", while the fourth is in its "reach to those 'far removed' in time and space, in comparison to the producers". Mass communication, which involves "information distribution". This is a "one to many" f...
2 comments
Read more

Conclusion

Open communication climates encourage employees through supporting them, through allowing them to participate in decision making, and, through trusting them, which assures the integrity of information channels. Ultimately, the openness of any communication climate depends upon the character of the participants. Openness often demands courage because the communicator operates with lowered or eliminated defensive barriers, even when standing up to verbal assault. Because open communicators have to articulate their positions in meetings, public arenas, and in print, they must be secure individuals, confident in their own positions, ability, and authority. Yet, while open communication climate may make formidable personal demands, such openness ultimately rewards both the individual and the organization in providing an environment where people thrive and enterprise flourishes.
4 comments
Read more

Trusting Environments

All parties in information exchange must tell the truth as they perceive it. They must also ensure that information is correct. Credibility is any employee's greatest asset. A reputation for carelessness, lying, deceit, or manipulation undercuts all future messages. The result of credibility is trust; it underpins all human relationships. Employees have to believe their information sources. If, for example, at weekly meetings, the staff hears contradictory information about project plans, decisions, or salary, they will dis­miss all information because they cannot confidently choose which to believe. If one week they are told the start-up date is November 14, the next week November 20, and following week November 7, they will understandably dismiss all the information as not credible. Repeated instances of passing such contradictory information will corrupt the integrity of the communication channel. People quickly dismiss information sources that prove to be wrong or untrustworthy...
Post a Comment
Read more