Axley’s (1984) views that, “…effective communication refers to those messages that are clearly transmitted and understood,” seems too simplified to be applicable in an organization that encompasses many different cultures and styles of communication. I agree with the lecturer that to become over confident in communicating within an organization can lead to mixed and missed messaged which may be detrimental to the achievement of the organization’s goals. Simply discarding a problematic employee is not cost beneficial and thus not an easy answer to communication issues.
2 comments:
I have to agree, while effective transmission and comprehension of any given message is important, communication is much more. The conduit metaphor is oversimplified and doesn’t take into account the human factor in communication. For example, the lecture highlights the importance of ambiguity in any study of organizations. Personally, I believe that ambiguity is a critical component of any organization. We cannot expect a conduit type of communication if we work in environment were saving face or steering clear of defamation is essential. Thus, reading between the lines is essential in many organization, in order to stay out of trouble.
I think Axley's view may be flawed. With the growing popularity of phones that are capable of email and other forms of communication, I think the ultimate cost is a communication breakdown. I have received numerous emails that were initial panic attacks because someone wanted to put a period so the next letter would be capitalized, completely changing the meaning of the sentence. With people in and out of meetings all day, they have little time to check email or voicemail skipping over long messages or even deleting them. The belief that one can merely click send and think that the message has gone through just because email is assumed to be instant is flawed.
Post a Comment