workplace communication
...the business decision to eliminate the role of the administrative assistant. Although there is the cost savings of downsizing staff, business leaders are not considering that by removing a person who was trained on the appropriate method to formally communicate the intentions of the company to others (i.e. letters, phone messages) and not reinforcing proper e-mail verbiage and etiquette, management is placing the future successes of the corporation into the hands of employees who haven’t been given the proper tools to be in that position. “By requiring employees to use appropriate businesslike language in all electronic communications, employers can limit their liability risks and improve overall effectiveness of the organizations e-mail and Internet copy in the process.” (http://www.emailreplies.com/) E-mail etiquette is a personal concern of mine. Too many employees feel that e-mail is the forum to air personal differences or “one up” an employee. Countless observers are stuck watching two team members disagree on a relatively unimportant matter, as they copy the entire group from an initial distribution list with each response. Another source of aggravation comes from individuals that think that by including their boss and the next level of management on every minor discussion with anyone in the company, they are reinforcing that they are able and capable of doing a good job. In both examples, the person generating the excess e-mails believes they are building positive reinforcement for themselves and their cause. The true reaction is frustration, especially if one is in upper management and is already dealing with an overwhelming number of important correspondences in a given day. As a result the person’s e-mails are usually deleted without being read and the only feeling left is a negative thought against the sender of the message for filling up their inbox with senseless mail. Some people may not like public speaking and others prefer to talk face to face instead of over a phone or through e-mail. Regardless of the preference, it is important to be able to communicate in a manner that the recipient will understand. Even the simple act of scribbling a note on a sheet of paper can be misconstrued. As was demonstrated in the assignment in class that provided descriptions of accidents from insurance claims, the right words were used, but they were not used correctly. It is easy to send out the wrong message, however innocent it may be. If one were to simplify the rules so as to not feel like each memo, e-mail, or letter will require an attorney’s approval before being sent, the best advice is, “Do not write anything that you would not want to be made public.” Regardless of how close you feel to someone or how private you think a document will stay, there is always the chance it will not stay that way. If you are going to put something in written, make sure you can stand behind your statements, even if they make the news. The textbook provides an interesting distinction between a group and a team, with the concept of a “unified commitment.” With so many companies trying to instill a sense of accountability in their employees by switching to labels such as team, it makes one realize that it takes more than just a title to create a “We” not “They” atmosphere. The dynamics of a group of people who work for a company in the same area will be different then that of a group that is focused on working towards the completion of a mutual project. Clearly a group’s inability to interact will have a lesser impact on productivity then a team. However being a successful team player isn’t just about taken charge or knowing the product or service well. It is more important to understand yourself and how people react to you. Sun Tzu, a Chinese Philosopher, preached this advice years ago with the statement, “Know thyself and you will win all battles.” Yet as old as this concept is, it is still not practiced as actively as it should be. A recent approach in building project teams that has become popular is the idea of a cross-functional team. This allows a company to encapsulate the solution from more than one point of view, as out of box thinking is forced by including people from outside of the department that is being focused on. Although this approach does encourage more open thoughts, there is a greater risk that the team will not work together. The key reason for the failure of such a team is the team make-up. When a manager from an area is asked to send someone for the team, the employee selected is usually chosen because he/she is the most motivated member in the department. Many times this person is also a natural leader and has become recognized for getting the job done amongst his/her peers. However, when you take that person and place them with other individuals with similar qualities, a power struggle can ensue. If a good facilitator or project manager is not involved, the team will self-destruct, merely because everyone wants to be the leader. However, if the individuals involved understand the importance of collaborative effort and are able to squash the natural need to take charge, the end result will be a successful project that is completed on time. The Trapped Underground exercise that was done in class, clearly demonstrates the importance of each member of a team. As the description of the location was read, each person in the group caught a part of it and was able to provide a useful view of what they heard. There wasn’t one person who figured the answer out alone. Each person on the team was able to contribute a key clue that helped determine what the answer was. If less people were allowed to participate, or if only one person’s view was exclusively considered, the correct answer may not have been found. Having been chosen to participate in projects at my company, I believe the most difficult part of working with others is to remove the personal bias that you may have of another team member. Many times that opinion is not established from personal experience, but from the comments overheard or mentioned by others that have worked with that person in the past. As hard as it may be, one should initially give that person the benefit of the doubt and believe that all team players share the same goal for the proj...