Journal: Organizational Communication, Article Critique Example

A common, but tragically misinformed, recommendation some consultants give to organizational leaders is: “You need to communicate more!” Drawing on the readings, especially Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, and Gully (2003), explain why this recommendation needs revision.

The key to productive and satisfied employees is not more communication by leaders but instead communication that builds trust and strengthen working relationship between the leaders and the subordinates. The communication style that strengthens work relationships tends to be informal in nature and doesn’t exhibit the sense of authority usually reflected in formal communication. Leaders whose communication style is confrontational and dominating will only further alienate their subordinates by communicating more. On the other hand, pleasant and productive interactions increase job satisfaction for subordinates and motivate them to further improve their work performance.

Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, and Gully (2003) research findings support the fact that higher levels of communication are only desirable when they are pleasant and positive otherwise they may negatively hurt employees’ performance. At low levels of leader-member exchange (LMX), workers that reported infrequent communication with their supervisors received more favorable job-performance ratings than those who reported frequent communication with their supervisors (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003). It may be that employees at high levels of LMX are those who have earned the respect of their supervisors by performing at high levels on a consistent basis. Thus, they consistently receive praise and encouragement from their supervisors which further motivates them. Similarly, those at low levels of LMX are low performers, thus, most of their communication with their supervisors is hardly pleasant. A better strategy for leaders in such a situation is to lower the frequency of communication which is mostly bad news and attempt to discover factors that may be holding back low performing employees. Negative and unconstructive feedback will not address the problems of low performing employees but it will hurt their self-esteem and further alienate them from their work.

The leaders may have formal authority over their subordinates but the success of the organization depends upon the ability of the leaders to get things effectively done through their subordinates. Leaders can force the subordinates to carry out orders through compliance but subordinates perform at their best when they are personally committed to the goals of their leaders. Thus, leaders should focus more on inspiring their followers instead of formal authority and orders. Studies have found that effective leaders use personal and position power in a careful manner so as not to emphasize status differentials as well as threatening target person’s self esteem (Yukl).

Yukl and Tracey (1992) found that a tactic used by a leader to influence his subordinates will be more effective if subordinates perceive the tactic to be socially acceptable form of influence behavior, if the tactic can change subordinates attitude towards the request, if the tactic is used in a skillful way, and if the request is consistent with subordinates values and needs (Yukl). Thus, authoritative leadership style coupled with negative communication will fail to motivate the employees at the low levels of LMX. More communication is better when it is aimed at motivating the employees or discovering and addressing their problems. Communication that focuses on blame and negative news solely doesn’t address the problem and at the same time, further creates distance between the leadership and the subordinates. A better strategy may be to encourage employees to speak about their problems and what can be done to improve their work performance. Employees who believe that their leaders care about their well being are more committed to the goals and visions of their leaders.

Is Graham (2002) recommending leaders and managers create communication cultures via the lack of framing? Why the (apparent) disagreement? Does a “truth culture” mean the absence of framing?

Graham mentions that even though Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS) seemed to be doing well on the surface, the company’s operational performance was on the decline because everyone was looking at the problems through his own lens and blaming others for the problems. The management was hesitant to admit mistakes and didn’t seek feedback from the subordinates for fear of appearing weak and incompetent. The departments didn’t take any initiative to sort out their problems because they knew the ultimate responsibility for performance disappointments always fall on the management. The employees didn’t feel responsible for the lagging performance of the company because they blamed the out-of-touch management for that (Graham, 2002).

Graham got enthusiastic response from her subordinates even though she broke all conventional norms because she came out as honest and practical leader. She accepted the mistakes made by the management and took steps to remedy past problems as well as inviting her subordinates to do the same. The results turned out to be better than expectations and the working relationship between the management and the employees greatly improved. Convinced by her own experiences, Graham recommends that leaders and managers create communication cultures that emphasize truthfulness and honestly instead of subscribing to management theories and other implicit organizational norms.

Prevalent frames have self-serving biases which discourage the individuals to look at their own weaknesses as well as hold themselves accountable. Admitting mistakes is considered a sign of weakness and blaming others is the key to escape sense of accountability. Graham wants a corporate culture that sees things as they are and encourages everyone to formulate solutions to the problem. The only way this can happen is if management and the employees work together and engage in open communication with each other. Management should accept its limitations instead of pretending to know everything and employees should identify their own weaknesses as well as address them instead of remaining in self-denial. The prevalent corporate cultures as Graham sees them, promote pride and competition instead of cooperation.

In Graham’s opinion, accepting facts as they are is the reason Guidant has prospered and not only its profits are higher but its employees are also more satisfied. Graham looks at prevalent organizational characteristics that lead to avoidance of facts by both management and the employees. Lack of communication between the management and the employees result in uncertainty and misunderstanding because everyone forms his own versions of facts to understand things. This is why departments get in conflict with each other and fail to understand each other’s problems.

Truth culture means the absence of framing because for honesty and truth to become hallmarks of the organization, the management and the employees have to let go of their prevalent bias and look at everything with a fresh look. They need to engage in open communication with each other and not be afraid to address their own weaknesses. They should also be open to criticism and self-improvement. Truth culture is a pragmatic culture that emphasizes understanding the facts as they are and finding practical solutions. Graham mentions how the management took steps to improve themselves on the basis of employees’ feedback so that they can address their own shortcomings. Similarly, getting rid of the bias allowed the production and the research departments to better understand as well as work with each other.

References

Graham, G. L. (2002, April). If You Want Honesty, Break Some Rules. Harvard Business Review , pp. 42-47.

Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The Interactive Effect of Leader–Member Exchange and Communication Frequency on Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology , pp. 764-772.

Yukl, G. Power and The Interpersonal Infuence of Leaders. In Power and Interdependence in Organizations. Cambridge University Press.