Achieving better communication is a goal to which many ascribe, so it may be useful to consider the potential and the pitfalls. We will briefly examine the prerequisites, purposes, obstacles (and their remedies), and consequences associated with better communication. There are several kinds of prerequisites, including the transmitter of a message, the message itself, the medium through which it is sent, and a receiver mechanism of some sort.

Considerable research has been done on how the medium and especially the receiver influence the understanding of messages sent. The late Marshall McLuhan’s work is a leading example of this kind of research on mechanistic communication models. Other prerequisites are equally important, including the individual desire to communicate clearly, a shared interest in achieving common understanding, and organizational arrangements that facilitate message transmittal. In short, simply wanting to improve communication is not enough.

This is especially true in a diverse work environment where those involved may lack common definitions of the terms employed or shared understanding of the concepts and assumptions underlying the information transmitted. The purposes of communication may seem obvious, yet they can be as varied as the people communicating. Some use communications for purposes less constructive than achieving understanding, organizational effectiveness or promoting public interest. Sometimes communications are calculated by those employing them; the more they confuse potential opposition, the more they may be able to defuse it.

On the other hand, a crisp memo is a weapon of considerable potency in bureaucratic politics. In large organizations, you can be influential through carefully conceived, well-written, and brief memos to key decision makers. How clear the meanings of communications are depends on how clear senders intended them to be—and why.

свернуть