Office Communication

It can be said with truth that nothing can be done without communi­cation: orders, instructions, information, requests all have to be commu­nicated in order that action may be taken on them. Communication is a vital service that the office provides to the organisation. The efficiency with which this function is carried out has a very great bearing on the efficiency of the organisation as a whole and on its continued success.

It is necessary, therefore, to examine the factors that create an effective communication system in an organisation. It is not possible to devise a system that will have universal application because no two organisations are the same. The needs of a large manufacturing en­terprise employing 40 000 people spread over six or seven different locations are very different from those of the local departmental store employing 150 workers under one roof. Similarly, the communication requirements of a large local government authority differ radically from those of a small organisation raising funds for charitable purposes. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of common ground and we can therefore examine the general factors necessary for effective communi­cation to exist whatever the circumstances.

These factors have an important bearing on the success or failure of an organisation to communicate, in whatever field it operates and whatever its size. They may be defined as follows:

  1. Language: The recipient of a communication must be able to under­stand the words used, especially if technical jargon is employed. It must also be recognised that different levels in the organisation may use different language and even think differently. An appropriate example is the use of accountancy terminology by top management to explain to workers on the shop floor why their pay cannot be increased.
  2. Timing: A badly timed communication will receive less than the full attention it deserves; this includes both time by the clock and time by opportunity. A telephone call will not normally be welcome at 4 o’clock in the morning: neither will a communication be fully consi­dered if the other party is just off to catch a flight for which he or she is already late.
  3. The medium: This must be appropriate to the purpose and the circumstances. For instance, it would not be appropriate to discuss pay negotiations over the telephone.
  4. Attitude: There must be trust and mutual respect between the parties to a communication for it to achieve full and unbiased understanding. Mistrust, acrimony or prejudice between them can result in uninten­tional or deliberate misunderstanding. This can be seen quite clearly in many industrial disputes.
  5. Willingness to participate: Both parties must be willing to communi­cate or effective understanding will not flow. Often unwillingness comes about because of unfortunate attitudes that have become established in the mind of one party or the other because of past experience or because of the influence of prejudiced colleagues.

1. Communication between Management and Worker

Over the past two or three decades there has been a change in workers’ attitudes to their employers. In present management/worker relations there has been a move away from the old notion that management could dictate to staff and workers and expect unquestioning obedience to the idea that the cooperation of the workforce must be sought by persuasion.

The reasons for this are many and include the growth of the trade unions and with it their greater power, the increasing complexity of large undertakings in which personal relationships between employers and employed are so very difficult to establish, and the changed attitude to discipline current in modern society. It is probably true to say that present-day Jack considers he is as good as his master (and this certainly also applies to Jill). The worker is not willing just to take orders but often demands to know how management instructions will affect earnings and future job prospects. The outcome of this change has been for manage­ment to appreciate the need for communicating with its employees in a very real sense. In some areas of industry this has gone even further and workers demand not only information about management decisions but participation in their formulation.

Managers, including the office administrator, have an important duty to communicate clearly with their subordinates in such a manner that these workers can understand the facts being conveyed and be able to interpret them within the context of their normal working environment. There is also a duty on managers to instruct their subordinates both to carry out their everyday duties and to instruct them in new skills. How the latter is done is of extreme importance as future work efficiency will depend upon the excellence of the communication between the parties.

It has been said that telling is not teaching. This also applies to managers giving instruction.

Instruction, particularly in respect of new kinds of work, requires a sensitive appreciation of how to pass on practical knowledge: patience and tact are required and the process might be summarised by the expression ‘say, do, know’. In other words, a trainee should be told in detail what to do, should be shown how to do it and then should be asked to do it. On the successful conclusion of these exercises the trainee should ‘know’. During this operation managers or instructors would be well-advised not to give orders but to invite cooperation, as must be done when giving instructions to carry out day-to-day jobs already within the normal duties.

2. Creation of Staff Attitudes

In the matter of all communications between manager and staff, but particularly in this matter of giving instructions, a cooperative attitude must be cultivated in the worker. Nowadays this is perhaps the manager’s most important skill. No precise guidelines can be given to develop a harmonious management/worker relationship: so much depends upon the organisation’s past history in management/staff relations and the basic attitudes of top management. However, in general terms it may be said that satisfactory relations cannot be established unless there is respect and trust on both sides. These are most likely to be created if management is seen to be absolutely frank in its dealings, furnishes reasonable and adequate information about its policies and programmes and is ready to listen to representatives of its workforce. Communication is more likely to be effective under these conditions than if there is an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust between the two sides and, possibly, an autocratic attitude by the management.

Perhaps one of the most common omissions by managers is that of not expressing appreciation for work well done. The idea that a worker is paid to do a good job and that no more should be expected is still prevalent. However, an appreciative word is likely to be repaid by a better worker attitude to the job which, in turn, makes management communication more acceptable.

Problems can also be encountered when reprimands have to be given. At these times the manager is likely to be particularly critical and the worker emotional so communication between them should be as calm and rational as possible. If management/staff relations and morale are bad then this particular area of communication can be explosive. One thing is very important: all reprimands, however slight, should be given in private. It is also helpful to the situation if the manager remembers the amount of satisfactory work that has been done.

In the area of communication within an organisation, particularly between those managing and those being managed, human relations are very important. How and when to communicate depend to a very large extent on morale and attitude. Human relations are a study in them­selves, however, and here we can only draw attention to their place in achieving effective communication.

3. Internal Lines of Communication

It is usual to divide lines of internal communication into vertical and horizontal.

3.1. Vertical communication

This is the line of communication down and up the organisation structure. In the past vertical communication was almost wholly down­ward. The board of directors or their representatives made the decisions and these were passed down through the various levels of management and supervision to whatever level had to implement them. This was the traditional authoritarian approach to communication within an en­terprise. It was considered that those who were managed had no right of question or of information: orders were to be carried out not questioned or explained.

However, as has already been pointed out, modern industrial relations demand more than a mere giving and blind acceptance of instructions and orders. Workers at all levels are now aware of the effects that management decisions may have on their livelihoods and working conditions and they feel they have a right to be heard before any significant decisions are implemented. Inevitably, most of the concern is with pay and working conditions, but there have been many cases where management intentions have been thwarted, at least for a time, by a determined workforce, even to the extent of delaying the closure of a business.

The modern concept of two-way vertical communication has, there­fore, developed. Not only must an organisation now provide a channel for the downward flow of communication, it must also make formal provision for a flow upwards from the shop floor to the higher levels of management. In fact, if this upward flow is not provided for management may well be making decisions in a vacuum. It will then have great difficulty in persuading those lower down the management line to accept and act upon these decisions.

The two-way flow obtains not only through the organisation as a whole but also within each individual department, with the result that there exists a main vertical channel and also as many secondary channels as there are departments. These secondary channels carry communication between different levels within departments – from ledger clerk to chief accountant, for example.

Nevertheless, it remains true that the main vertical flow is downwards because this is the way that instructions and directives have to be given. However, suggestions, comments and objectives are now part of the accepted upwards flow.

3.2. ‘Quasi-vertical’ communication

There is a further complication in vertical communication in many industries and in organisations in other spheres of activity. This is a channel which runs parallel to the one we have been discussing and which has, or can have, considerable influence on the internal vertical channel. It might be called a ‘quasi-vertical’ communication channel and is brought about by the existence in the organisation of trade unions, staff associations and professional bodies. These bodies are intimately con­cerned with the personal and professional aspects of the work of their members within the organisation.

Trade unions and staff associations usually have, or take upon themselves, the right to speak for or negotiate on behalf of their members on all aspects of pay and working conditions and often deal directly with the higher levels of management, by-passing the middle managers and supervisors. Similarly, professional societies lay down standards of practice and ethics which are communicated to their members without recourse to management. In these circumstances, unlike those of true internal vertical communication, the upward flow carries as much weight of authority, or nearly so, as the downward flow. This effect is, of course, derived from the strength of numbers in the outside bodies.

3.3. Difficulties in vertical communication

Vertical communication can be susceptible to failure and it is important that there is an adequate system for conveying instructions, directives, information, suggestions and grievances between management at all levels and the workforce, ensuring that communications reach those they are intended to reach. Equally, some method of obtaining feedback, where required, must be provided. Some practical methods that may be used are discussed later in this chapter. For the moment we will look at the generally experienced difficulties found in vertical communication.

Perhaps the most common difficulty encountered is that of lengthy chains of command. This occurs where there is a multi-level management structure and almost inevitably leads to ineffective communication. At each level through which a communication passes some distortion may occur so that the final message is sometimes quite different from the original. This is particularly so if the transmission is verbal.

Another particular difficulty in vertical communication, particularly upwards, can be attributed to geographical location. Many organisations have branches and depots located considerable distances from the decision-making centres and this leads to delays and frustrations within the communication system. This is more especially so where one of the locations is constantly changing. Imagine the difficulty a long-distance lorry driver, perhaps on a Continental route, may have in communicating even with his immediate line manager.

We have already considered the effects of attitude on communication and it has a particularly profound influence on vertical communication. At any level of management an authoritarian attitude to those down the line will result in reluctant acceptance of communications and an unwillingness to cooperate fully, even though outright rejection of authority is unlikely. Similarly, uncooperative attitudes may already exist at the lower levels leading to a grudging response to management’s communications. Bad industrial relations in the past may have resulted in frustrated staff who have set up emotional barriers to the acceptance and understanding of management communications.

Again, barriers may be set up by managers at various levels, but particularly at middle management level, with the attitude that the manager sees no reason for subordinates to be made aware of the organisation’s affairs, or objectives, even where these have an important influence on workers’ jobs. In such cases the communication may come to a stop on a particular manager’s desk. This lack of cooperation breeds resentment in the workforce, making normal communication either up or down more difficult.

Equally, at almost any level a manager may be overburdened with a very heavy work-load and this may cause a slowing down of the vertical communication flow, or even cause it to stop. Horizontal communication must go on to keep the organisation functioning but, to a large extent, vertical communication is not so urgent and pressure of other work leads to its neglect. Unfortunately, though the formal flow may have stopped at a particular level for whatever reason, nevertheless it often continues to descend by rumour or hearsay. When this happens not only is the communication ineffective but it may be positively harmful because of distortion, which is the normal accompaniment of rumour.

In the main the difficulties discussed so far have related to communi­cations flowing downwards. However, difficulties also abound in the upward flow. Although it is widely accepted that an upward flow of communication from shop-floor level is highly desirable, provision for such a flow is often lacking. Where no such flow exists management is making decisions without proper knowledge of workers’ attitudes and feelings. There is then the danger that such decisions may not be readily acceptable to those lower down the organisation.

Even where provision exists, however, difficulties still present them­selves and these are similar to those already discussed. Thus an unco­operative attitude by a supervisor or a manager through whose hands the communication must pass may lead to distortion or even stoppage. Higher up the management hierarchy there may be a lack of response which leads to the eventual discouragement of lower-level employees even to attempt to communicate.

Language has already been mentioned. In vertical communication upwards it is necessary for management to make itself familiar with the language of its subordinates; unwillingness to do this results in misun­derstandings and unnecessary problems.

4. Horizontal Communication

In order that the day-to-day business of an organisation may proceed smoothly there must be effective and unimpeded communication across departments between persons at about the same level of authority. Thus, the production manager may have to communicate with the sales manager or with the purchasing manager, the sales manager with the transport manager and so on. Similarly, interchanges will take place between the bought ledger clerk and the purchasing clerk, a sales representative and a sales ledger clerk. This form of communication is termed ‘horizontal communication’ and is a very important part of an organisation’s communication system. Without it the day-to-day business of the concern could not carry on and if it is inefficient the running of the organisation is impaired.

Contact takes place mainly through the internal telephone system or by memoranda, but frequently face-to-face consultation is preferred and may prove necessary.

Horizontal communication works best when morale is high and a cooperative attitude exists between departments. It is most difficult when there is a sense of competition between departments which generate suspicion, sometimes leading departments to work as watertight com­partments. In such a situation great difficulties arise and at times horizontal communication can become blocked altogether if ill-feeling exists between two different departments, particularly at supervisory level. Communication is only a tool that helps an enterprise to function, but when that tool is rendered ineffective then the enterprise functions less than efficiently, or ceases to function altogether, Good horizontal communication is, therefore, essential.

Difficulties in horizontal communication

The problems and difficulties arising in horizontal communication should be fewer than those in vertical communication and should be more easily corrected.

A great deal depends upon the attitudes prevailing between depart­ments and particularly between departmental heads. There must be an atmosphere of complete cooperation throughout the organisation. If even only one department is uncooperative it can have a very real influence on the effectiveness of horizontal communication and on the functional procedures which depend on efficient communication.

A great deal of publicity is given to demarcation lines in inter-union disputes. Such demarcation lines, however, are also present between departments within an organisation and a determined attitude by a department about preserving these can result in difficulties. For example, a salesman may discuss a customer’s account with that customer: however, the accounts department may take exception to this communication on the grounds that accounts matters are the exclusive province of their department. This could lead to the accounts department refusing to communicate to the sales staff any information regarding customers’ accounts.

So-called ‘empire-building’ can also interfere with free horizontal communication. If a departmental head is anxious for departmental growth this may lead to a reluctance to pass on certain departmental information to other departments when they need it. Such a head of department may even require requests for information rather than providing it in the normal information flow, thus slowing up interdepart­mental communication.

As with vertical communication, horizontal communication can suffer from distortion. Here, because so much communication is verbal, the danger is greater. This is particularly so where most contact is by internal telephone: the danger is less where face-to-face discussion takes place.

Finally, the problem of language arises again, especially between a specialist department and a line department. A typical example is communication between the computer staff and the staff of a user department. The world of computers is bedevilled by jargon which ordinary line staff do not understand and this is a fruitful source of misunderstanding. Equally, the majority of computer staff are quite ignorant of the problems encountered by line staff in the running of the organisation and this lack of understanding may result in computer systems or programs not altogether suited to the purpose for which they were supposed to be designed. Fundamentally the problem is one of language.

5. Creating an Internal Communication System

It follows from what has been discussed that the creation of an internal communication system requires much care and thought. When we design a formal internal system we have to consider not only what means and methods to use but also who may use the system and with whom each user may communicate direct. The lines of communication must be clear, precise and known. For example, may the assistant sales manager approach the general manager direct, or must contact be through the sales manager? May the transport manager communicate with the sales representatives personally or have the services of the sales office hierarchy to be used?

Precise understanding on this point is even more significant where the communication of instructions and orders is concerned. For instance, should a sales representative be allowed to instruct a sales ledger clerk or a credit control clerk, not an uncommon occurrence when the sales representative is endeavouring to extract an order from a client who is over-running the agreed credit limit?

It is not possible to set down rigid general rules on these matters; the criteria will be determined by the size of the undertaking, the working relationships already established and the organisation pattern.

6. Communication and the Organisation Pattern

How a concern is organised has a decided bearing on the way lines of internal communication operate. If there is a tightly-knit line organis­ation in being then there will be very obvious communication channels indicated by the very nature of the organisation plan. The hierarchy from top to bottom and from bottom to top within each department, and for the establishment as a whole, will be quite clear-cut and the vertical channels for communication will follow these. Horizontal channels will also be quite precise.

Where, however, the organisation plan is more functional or is designed on the line and staff pattern, then formal lines of communi­cation will not be so clearly defined and the flow patterns must be formally laid down. If this is not done confusion is apt to follow when conflicting views or suggestions are made by line managers and by the functional officers. Hence, for example, it must be clearly understood whether the personnel officer may give firm instructions to a member of staff or whether such orders must proceed through the worker’s own line supervisor.

7. Achieving Staff Cooperation

Positive steps are required from management to generate a receptive attitude in staff at all levels: trust and cooperation must be created and having been established must be nurtured in order to endure. The study of this area properly belongs to the realms of industrial psychology and sociology: nevertheles, its importance is such that it cannot be ignored in any discussion on communication.

Workers are people and people like to feel that they matter: therefore, staff must be made aware that management has concern for them and their welfare. This should start at the very beginning when they are engaged. It is important for the new employee to be made aware exactly how his or her job fits in with the rest of the organisation and of its importance to the system as a whole. This is often done by a short induction programme.

Again, workers have a right to know about general policy, projected changes in the organisation’s objectives and activities and how these will affect the jobs and career prospects of the workpeople. An open policy in these matters is one way of creating goodwill within the workforce and a responsive attitude to management communication.

Worker participation is another way to encourage a responsive staff attitude. They can, for instance, be involved in the decision-making process by being consulted about pertinent matters. In many organis­ations formal machinery is set up to provide the necessary apparatus for consultation and joint consultative committees are becoming common within larger enterprises. Often these committees are formed of repre­sentatives of management and trade union shop stewards from the factory floor. The danger here lies in the fact that such committees cut across the normal, formal, internal lines of communication and in particular can by-pass middle managers and line supervisors. When this happens there is a possibility that the authority of these supervisory staff will be undermined to some extent, which can lead to difficulties in staff discipline.

Committee meetings are rather formal affairs, however, and much staff consultation and involvement is achieved by the holding of more or less informal meetings. Usually these consist of members of staff, supervisors and managers interested in one particular aspect of the organisation’s activities – for instance, to discuss an accounting pro­cedure. More often than not such meetings are completely unstructured and frequently no formal agenda or minutes are taken. Some are even held at a moment’s notice. Their sheer informality tends to make them a valuable sounding-board for opinions and suggestions.

7.1. Joint consultative committees

The question of joint consultative committees is worthy of special examination. Such committees can be set up to cover a range of activities from simple grievances, when they are generally termed grievance committees, to full-scale joint consultative committees which can discuss a very wide range of topics of concern to everyone. These committees provide a formal structure of communication between workers’ represen­tatives and management and as such must have properly constructed terms of reference and formal constitutions. Who may serve on these committees is of paramount importance and must be properly agreed between all parties and written into the constitution. Similarly, the topics they may deal with must be properly understood and set down, as must the question of the amount of executive power they should have. At all times both the organisation and the workers must honour their obli­gations as to the conduct of the committees.

No joint consultative committee of any kind must try, or be allowed, to usurp the responsibilities and authority of management. Such com­mittees can, however, assist management in its decision-making pro­blems and can undoubtedly help to create a responsive and cooperative attitude in the staff. All employees must be made aware of them and of how to communicate with them. They must be supported actively by management: if it becomes apparent that management is paying only lip service to the committee then its relations with its staff can very soon turn sour, with all the consequences that can stem from that.

7.2. Suggestion schemes

Another way in which worker involvement is encouraged is by the institution of suggestion schemes. These take many forms.Where the whole of the workforce is to be involved a common method is to have suggestion boxes placed at various strategic points throughout the premises into which workers can place their suggestions written on slips of paper. In the case of office staff, whilst this method may be employed, suggestions are often made verbally to supervisors or other senior staff. Any idea is required that could lead to some improvement in perfor­mance or cost reduction and usually, if accepted, a prize is awarded according to the value of the suggestion. Even if the suggestion is not acted upon a word of appreciation for the effort is never out of place and increases goodwill. As with any scheme to encourage worker participa­tion, management must take this seriously or it can backfire and cause a rift in relationships. The employer must be seen to take an interest in the suggestions put forward even where they are not adopted.

It is obvious from what has been written that staff need to feel that their organisation has some concern for them. Most large employers, therefore, publish and circulate a house magazine or staff paper. This gives a great deal of information about the organisation, its progress, successes and so on, but also contains items of personal interest to members of the workforce, such as successes in sport by staff, pro­motions, engagements, marriages and similar matters. Such journals also give the opportunity for staff to air views and make suggestions: not infrequently competitions are set which may produce useful ideas for the organisation’s benefit.

A contented and satisfied employee is willing to respond to communi­cations from higher up the line and identifies with the organisation. The employee who is dissatisfied is less receptive and less responsive to management communication. The proper handling of authority and the overt acceptance of responsibility by management go a long way to gaining the confidence of the workforce. However, the use of the methods discussed here to achieve staff cooperation are unlikely to be successful unless authority and responsibility on the part of management are seen to be properly used.

Source: Eyre E. C. (1989), Office Administration, Palgrave Macmillan.

2 thoughts on “Office Communication

  1. Lola Hevey says:

    I was recommended this web site by way of my cousin. I am not sure whether this put up is written by way of him as no one else realize such certain about my problem. You are amazing! Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *