Improved Communication Skills

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.

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 cou...

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...

Employees have to feel that what they say counts for something. The best suggestions for improving production processes, for example, come from employees who work everyday on the assembly line. Sales people know what the customers want because they are in daily contact. Customer service representatives are acquainted first­hand with the technical and functional problems that can spell future marketing disasters. All these employees have valuable information that must be shared with the organization's decision makers. The information will be shared if employees feel management regards them as legitimate participants in the enterprise. Employees know they are valued participants when their suggestions are implemented, their questions answered, and their concerns recognized. Sometimes, however, employee participation is not actively deterred by management but rather by the corporate structure, the competitive business environment, or environmental regulatory agencies. Highly formalize...

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 jeopa...

Communication, through both formal and informal channels, is the lifeblood of any organization. In reading about communication environments, channels, processes, systems, and hierarchies, we sometimes lose sight of the essence of the communication act: it is profoundly human. At the center of every organization are people held together by slender threads of cooperation. These threads are maintained by people sharing information with each other. The result is a delicate network of human relationships linked through communication. In these networks, information is a commodity. It has value, can be exchanged, and is crucial to the success of launching a project, selling a product, or marketing a service. Unfortunately, people sometimes refuse to exchange this crucial information. They often erect barriers to shut out others in situations they consider hostile. Most communication mishaps in organizations can be traced to these barriers. They impede information exchange and thereby disrupt ...