would probably expect to have a language problem since everyone knows that
apparently identical words can have very different meanings to people
living in different countries. If, on the other hand, the group comprised
his own countrymen he would assume a shared vocabulary. And terms of
ordinary words he would be right. The problem is that management includes
many complicated issues which require the use of specialised words. If both
parties don't share the same sense of what these words mean, the scope for
misunderstanding is considerable. As a result the manager's intentions are
often not fulfilled. This in turn causes him frustration and the employee
confusion, and perhaps a sense of Injustice.
It is only technical or abstruse language which causes the problems; It can
just easily happen with what would otherwise seem commonplace words. Any
new manager has to take particular care to explain his meaning since his
predecessor might well have used words in different nay. Some examples
serve to illustrate the point. The interpretations are not meant to be
typical-only what can happen.
|What the |What he means |What the |
|manager says | |employee may |
| | |think he means |
|If you have the|I want you to |You have the |
|time |do it right |choice |
| |away | |
|Finish it this |Even if you |You have until |
|evening |have stay late |5.30 |
|I'm |You've got to |This is |
|disappointed |improve or |friendly hint |
|with your work |you're fired | |
|We shall |You're in the |You've got the |
|certainly bear |running |job |
|in | | |
|mind | | |
|We shall have |You're fired |Take you time |
|to let you go | |to look around |
The list of opportunities for misunderstandly becomes immeasurably longer
when meetings are involved. Managers addressing a group of staff mixed by
seniority, age and sex have no tiptoe through a potential minefield of
confusion. If the issues are ones of personnel management, for example,
organisation, pay scales, working practices or whatever, they should take
great care the words they use.
Imagine such a meeting. The manager says: "I think we could be more
efficient if we combined order checking with computer logging so I've
decided to transfer Stan and Susan to Michael's section. I've asked Mike to
join the executive committee and he'll take responsibility for liaison with
the factory...
By saying, "we could more efficient", does he really mean that it's a
shambles at the moment? If so the staff presently involved may well find it
less than gratifying. The manager's decision to transfer Stan and Susan
sounds like a directive which doesn't involve any sort of consultation.
This may or may not be true, but the opportunity for misunderstanding is
there. Mike's joining the executive sounds like good news. The likely hood
is that the staff are either unsure about what its powers are or who is on
it anyway. What does liaison with the factory entail? Was someone already
doing the gob who has been given the elbow? And soon and so forth.
Things often get worse when question are asked the questioner may use
"insider" language which underlines his relationship with the manager. For
example, "Isn't the same trouble we had with Frank Barnes? No one else has
a clue who he was and the Manager has either to ask the questioner to
explain what be means or pass on quickly leaving an air of mystery in his
wake. Quest oners often use meetings to make implicit political points
about the organisation
and their own position within it. Some use the opportunity to score points
off the manager, if he allows it.
Whether the meeting is face to face or in a group .the manager has to bear
three principles in mind:
• he should always be prepared to explain what he means if he has any
reason to suspect that he's being misunderstood ;
• He should always be in control of the communications process when dealing
with subordinates and determine the vocabulary to be used ;
• he should strive to make his own use of language as clear and
unequivocal as possible. Telephone calls. .These too can hold pitfalls
because;
• you don't know what the other person is doing (or who he is with);
• you can't see his facial expression;
• it's very easy to mishear what he has said. There are few things worse
than giving instructions on a conference phone. Not only is the voice
disembodied, but the person receiving the call will suspect that is being
overhead. This discourages open response and mumbled ascent is often the
only reaction the caller receives. Obviously, a good deal of man management
is conducted on the telephone. Here are some simple rules which is sound
for a manager to follow :
• Be friendly-the recipient doesn't know if you're pleased or angry with
him at his ease straight way;
• Be dear-explain the purpose of your call including your Instructions (if
there are any) before asking for comment. This gives the recipient, time to
assimilate the whole message end not waste time by disgracing.
• Confirm that the message is understood-this la essential because words
become garbled very easily. "Offer them 15 per cent discount" can easily
become "offer them 50 per cent discount".
33
• Listen carefully to the recipient's comments-ask for them to be repeated
if you haven't wholly understood them.
• Close cheerfully-however miserable you say feel your instructions are
more likely to be implemented it you are cheerful and encouraging...
Written communication
Communication in writing should have the advantage of clarity since the
writer has the opportunity to marshal his facts, present the case and make
a clear recommendation. Also several people can be communicated with
simultaneously, particularly in this age of electronic mailboxes and the
fax machine.
In the context of man management, however, there are pitfalls which should
be avoided.
Instructions can often be given more clearly in writing then orally.
Remember that the recipient lacks the opportunity to question the manager
directly and it is very easy for a feeling of authoritarianism to creep in,
"Give me an analysis of the Sales figures for May, broken down by product
and customer type," may be unequivocal, but it can sound like a military
order and the employee receiving the memorandum might be forgiven for
assuming a crispness that was unintended. Small organisations use fewer
internal memoranda to give instructions than large companies, and everyone
probably benefits from the smaller amount of paperwork and the greater
informality involved. It instructions are given at a meeting, it is always
good practice to confirm the main points in writing afterwards, whatever
the size of the organisation. Personnel Issues are also better dealt with
orally with subsequent accurate confirmation in writing. Pay rises,
promotions, changes in job specifications and the like, should not be
communicated initially in writing, however good the news for the employee.
Face-to-face meetings reinforce the relationship with the employee and
should always be used.
Disciplinary matters are sometimes dealt with in writings because the
manager is reluctant to confront the employee. This practice is always
wrong and will breed misunderstanding and resentment. It is even worse when
the memorandum is copied to others not directly concerned with the
employee's welfare. If, for example, someone another part of the
organisation, complains about an employee's efficiency or behaviour it is
tempting for the manager to kill two birds with one stone. A memo of
apology copied to the employee may placate the complainant, but will,
almost certainly infuriate the employee. If the manager needs to respond to
the complaint in writing he must see the employee first and ideally show
him the draft memorandum before sending if off. Notice boards offer a
valuable means of keeping a team up to date will relevant personnel
developments. The language used should, however, always be chosen with
care. For example, a notice which simply says, "Joe Smith is leaving us
after for years service," is doubtless factually correct, but offers
endless scope for different interpretations. Did he fall or was he pushed?
Are they glad to see the back of him or is he grieved over? The addition of
the world "valuable" before "service" and phrase "and we wish him well in
his future career" could resolve all doubt. Copies of memos and letters
should only be sent to those who have a relevant interest in the matter in
hand. Sending a copy of a memo to recipient's superior "for information" is
usually flagrant politicking and should be discouraged. Ease of copy-making
unfortunately encouraging widening the audience for memos well beyond the
bounds of common sense. Since recipients often feel honour bound to keep
the copies they receive, the real cost to the organisation can be enormous.
Letters written to employee should always conform to the style normally
used by his manager. Thus if the employee is "John" to him letters
addressing him as "Dear Mr. Smith", "Dear Smith", or "Dear Sir" should
always be avoided. It is part of the good manager's task to make sure that
all of the good manager's task to make sure that all communications with
employee reinforce the organisations normal style, whether formal or
informal...
Getting the beat out of communication. The key component in all
communication is the trust and understanding which is built up through face-
to face conversations. Telephone conversations are necessary but less
effective, and written communications have many pitfalls for the unwary.
