Controlling communications

Controlling the effectiveness of communications requires some understanding of the communications environment. This is beyond the interests of most people or organisations - isn't it easier if people simply appreciate what we say? As organisations grow in functional complexity, so the backgrounds of staff become more diverse (particularly due to technical attitudes, job history, local language, aspirations etc.); and, as an office grows in size, so it is no longer possible for even the most inclusive manager to juggle the needs of staff (the limit is about 200).

So either an organisation and its management undertaken to understand the communications needs of staff ... or they manage the environment so that only people likely to appreciate the existing communications structures will thrive.

I have seen a number of organisations around the world where the communications environment is fixed and the staff have to fit in, so that only certain types of people succeed. This leads to a self-perpetuating cult of management, without the essential criticism of its communications, without the obvious conflicts that would indicate its own short-comings, and with a simplistic satisfaction at the perceived efficacy of its actions.

Is that so bad? Yes, it is. If the environment is not understood, then the organisation does not know what threats it faces, nor what ideas exist within the organisation to counter or exploit those changes. Control of the communications environment can only last so long before reality chomps through. If the objective remains control rather than understanding, then the organisational management fight their corner like a cult, claiming to be misunderstood, shouting their message ever louder ...