the Organizations Communication Structure

Effective communication is the foundation of every organisation. Basic management tasks such as planning, coordinating, directing, and managing necessitate good coordination within the institution’s system. It is the foundation upon which managers can carry out their duties and obligations, and workers can fulfill the needs of both the organisation and participating stakeholders (Mumby, 2013). Most organizations’ traditional communication techniques is vertical, but with rising demands and industry fragmentation, the need for both vertical and horizontal communication flow has become critical. It is not only a top down approach but rather holistic and integrative to ensure that every stakeholder is engaged and participates in critical processes. Furthermore, the concept of communication has emerged to influence important factors which contribute to the culture and value of the organization as a whole. It acts as a source of information to the decision making wing of the institution, motivates employee performance and dedication, alters individual attitude, helps in socializing, as well as assisting in controlling process. These are some of the essentials of the concept in most institutions. Hence this paper seeks to analyze the importance of good communication strategies, how it interacts with the structure of an organization, the impacts it leads to positive and negative as well as emerging concepts aligning towards it.

Siemens Communication Structure

Siemens is a global conglomerate with a workforce of 65,000 employees in North America alone. The company is attributed to its excellent internal communication strategy which has allowed it to remain productive and competitive over a long period. As the company puts it, they do it in a human way. According to their Head of Internal Communications in North America, Shelley Brown, the goal of their internal communication plan is “to foster engagement while helping employees understand the company’s business objective and how they fit into them.” (Koslowski, & Homann, 2016). The company’s communication structure is driven by employee involvement with the purpose of making the brand ambassadors in everything they participate in. Employees are influenced to resonate not only their corporate strategy but in everything that they do (Mohrman, & Shani, 2011). This persuades a sense of belonging with values of commitment, participation, respect, and ethics among other things.

Factors Leading to Communication Success in Siemens

Channels used for internal communication within Siemens are extensive and varied. Employees can communicate with the company management, investors, stakeholders and with each other through effective channels ranging from online communication, video and blogging, executive communication, and print publications. There is a choice for each employee to access thus enabling the organization to meet a broad audience. The company’s headquarters are situated in Germany, but diversification of communication channels allows the flow of information to be easily realized.

Intranet, which is the company’s leading online internet channel within the enterprise allows for fresh communication content. Social media is an increasingly familiar mode of exchange in the institution to give people a voice and transparency in communications. Employees are empowered through being given the opportunity to comment on every article posted on the site. Additionally, through the development of a social polling system employees can rate content shared and provide feedback. This raises the credibility and commitment of Siemens top hierarchy to engage its employees and listen to their response on what options the organization should take next and what it should change. The fact that such communications are developed in-house and not outsourced from consulting firms depicts the level of competence and commitment the company has with its employees. It elevates values of respect, trust, collaboration, and partnership. Most institutions often practice upward or downward communication strategies, and even though they have their benefits, they limit cross-sectional or departmental information flow. As much as communication is moving upwards and downwards to employees, it also needs to flow horizontally. Information sharing, problem-solving, and conflict resolutions become more efficient in a diversified communication structure as the one in Siemens.

Most organizations fail in disseminating information especially from the executive arm due to strict hierarchy authorities influenced through classical management approaches. At Siemens, this has been overcome by an engaging and willing participating executive arm. The CEO of Siemens is an avid blogger and also applies video tools to deliver corporate messages to employees. Use of diversified communication tools by top leadership creates awareness and creates a relationship with staff to become more active in their roles and responsibilities.

Print publications, on the other hand, create an assuring drive for the company to influence external communication values and links. It acts as an avenue through which investors and stakeholders have the ability to scrutinize the progress and impact of the company in the various field. Siemens mostly majors in fields of energy and medicine technologies which are fundamental to human lives and environment sustainability. Communication processes that are transparent add value and credibility to its projects.

Accessibility is another aspect which has made Siemens communication structure to thrive. Almost 10% of the company’s employees do not have internet access, but this does not hinder the company from developing an offline component to ensure communication flow is sustainable and concurrent with other sectors, regions, and department. For example, factory workers often have bulletins in break rooms to offer insight on information provided by the company online.

Siemens has a strong employee engagement strategy as well which goes hand in hand with effective communication. Development of Siemens Caring Hands is not only a social responsibility but an external communication model that reflects the brand and image of the institution. Such a program is a morale builder for employees. It nurtures a robust and healthy tripartite relationship between management, employees, and stakeholders. Communication is not only the flow of information but how an organization, values, and culture are interpreted in the daily activities of each stakeholder of the company.

Google’s Communication Structure

Google is one of the leading global organization brands with 57,000 employees and a strategy to acquire more than one company per week every year since 2010. The company has 70 offices in more than 40 countries, and its communication structure is more of a classical approach which views employees as nothing more than cogs in a machine. In such a structure, employees are money makers and are valued less. The power structure is hierarchical with a top-down approach where bosses are responsible for making all decisions regarding the company with no exceptions. Those in lower positions have no say in the company’s decisions, and their participation is valued less. Additionally, socialization among peers is hard since the structure limits employees knowing each other and becoming familiar with the roles that each play in the institution.

Factors Leading To Communication Failure in Google

The organizational communication approach is the fundamental reason for such a poor communication flow and employee relations in Google. Fayol’s theory of classic management is based on principles of control, command, coordination, organizing and planning (Ruben, & Gigliotti, 2016). Although these aspects are essential in foreseeing the future and rewarding systems it is one dimensional, regimented and leads to a strict hierarchy. These are virtues which limit the flow of communication flow in an organization. Employees are not given the freedom to participate in decision-making opportunities on matters that ultimately impact their productivity within the company. Their contribution is limited to that which meets the demands of management, and in Google’s case, this has led to employees restricted to providing profits, innovation and nothing else. As a result, employees are continuously involved in competition with each other internally.

Looking at Weber’s theory of Bureaucracy which also falls under the classical approach, rules and regulations, as well as hierarchy of authority, are synonymous in institutions practicing this such as the case in Google. Strict standards and regulations are not particularly morale building to employees. For example, Google expects all its workers to nearly live at work through providing them with the means to do so. All this does is disrespecting the personal lives of its employees, and it does not recognize other aspects of their lives other than work related. The approach through its authoritative hierarchy has led to numerous complain of arbitrary project cancellation. This is done without the knowledge or consultation of employees thus significantly limiting their job promotion applications since it is based on merit and reward system (Erbe, 2014).

Google relates its communication process more through written communication as a channel of communication as oppose to face to face discussions or meetings. Not only does this limit the morale of employees but it creates a barrier between management and staff. Ideas become scant, and employees prefer to focus on meeting the set goals and nothing more. Use of emails to pass communication is taken as impersonal by most employees, and although Google’s has a huge staff footprint, there are better ways to ensure employee satisfaction and value. Furthermore, the organization is vulnerable to misinterpretation of critical information among employees that might disrupt its productivity. Such emailing is also responsible for the various emotional responses from different clients which further hinder the ability of employees to socialize and work as a team. Seven out of ten business professionals prefer face to face meetings instead of technologically enabled channels such as video conferencing and phone calls. It inculcates a culture of togetherness, unity, and sense of respect (May, 2013).

The company’s organizational communication structure is also too formal which hinders the ability to engage the employee fully. This can be seen in its work policies and guidelines where there is little freedom to express personal life within the institution. The structure only recognizes work as the family and not personal lives of its employees. As a result, employees feel distant to the company’s management team and values as a whole and it affects their ability to cooperate with the hierarchy. Additionally, the classic approach views communication content as task based or rather maintenance. This further disintegrates the relationship between management and employees due to its straightforward manner (Laud, Arevalo, & Johnson, 2015).

Recommendations

Continuous learning is a practical principle for any organization willing to have an effective communication structure. For example, in the case of Google’s strict structure, implementing a continuous learning system and integrating it with the management structure will go a long way in remedying the situation. This will be done through collecting relevant information with regards to traits of effective managers and management principles either through feedback mechanism or real life examples and using the information to develop better structures.

Ethics plays a critical role in any communication structure. Organizations need to realize the ethical dilemmas involved in the structure and how it interacts with the culture and values of both the organization and employees (Meisenbach, 2017). Therefore, rather than outsourcing the structure from consultants enabling staff and stakeholders to be active participants in the decision-making process, and structure formulation will harmonize the employees and management ethical dilemmas and reduce friction on principles with touch on either party ethics.

Focusing on listening rather than controlling or exercising managerial power is another important aspect organizations should embrace. Employees are the cogs of most companies, and their take on critical issues that deal with the grievances requires their participation. Their engagement should not be bit parts but rather holistic and integrative to cover all aspects that relate to communication. This includes allowing employees to have considerable say on disclosure policies, information sharing, and dissemination.

Conclusion

Communication is the building block of any given organizations. It is the direct link between management and stakeholders including the employee. The collection and distribution of information need to be on a regular continuous flow and review to allow dynamic organization transformation. Globalization has both influenced and hindered communication structures in most companies as it has been seen in the presented case studies. Clarity, transparency, accountability, courtesy, conciseness and completeness should drive the communication structure of the company both internally and externally. Employees ought to have a helpful and supportive relationship with management, and their views and participation should be respected. Communication is not just about conveying a message especially in an organization but rather building value and a culture guided by firm principles aimed and collective growth.

References

Erbe, N. (2014). Approaches to managing organizational diversity and innovation (1st ed.). Hershey, Pa: Business Science Reference.

Koslowski, P., & Homann, K. (2016). Globalisation and Business Ethics (1st ed., p. 135). New York, NY: Routledge.

Laud, R., Arevalo, J., & Johnson, M. (2015). The changing nature of managerial skills, mindsets and roles: Advancing theory and relevancy for contemporary managers. Journal Of Management & Organization, 22(04), 435-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2015.48

May, S. (2013). Case studies in organizational communication (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Meisenbach, R. (2017). Integrating Ethics and Responsibility Into Organizational Communication Research. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 146-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318916676891

Mohrman, S., & Shani, A. (2011). Organizing for sustainability (1st ed., p. 135). Bingley: Emerald Group Pub.

Mumby, D. (2013). Organizational communication (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Ruben, B., & Gigliotti, R. (2016). Leadership as Social Influence: An Expanded View of Leadership Communication Theory and Practice. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 467-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051816641876