A major company proclaims "Employees are our most important asset!" Yet, the same company's culture communicates something much different. It's top-down, command-and-control all the way and employees, like good children, are expected to be seen, not heard.
In cases like these we come face to face with the odd couple of communication: explicit and implicit communication.
Explicit communication refers to the things we say or write, often messages intended to influence the behavior of others. "Do this" and "Don't do that" count as examples of explicit communication. They leave as little room as possible for interpretation or ambiguity.
Implicit communication, on the other hand, refers to the things we do, individually or collectively, usually without regard to the messages others receive. It could be corporate culture or perhaps body language. It might even be a decision not to communicate at all.
Often, we 'give off' these messages rather than send them, but that doesn't reduce their potency. Implicit communication can be just as powerful and effective as explicit communication.
Since such communication is often given off, much depends on the recipient or observer of the message. Each person who gets the message probably has her or his own interpretation, based on the context brought to the message. If you're suspicious of the sender, for example, you may well have a sinister interpretation.
Here's a specific example, one that hits close to home for me. I use a newsletter to promote my book, A Manager's Guide to Newsletters. Should that promotion be explicit or implicit?
This issue of implicit versus explicit communication faces almost all newsletter publishers, all the time. While a blending of editorial and advertising content helps distinguish newsletters from other media, no distinct line distinguishes the two.
And so we draw the lines ourselves, trying to gauge in advance how readers will react to varying proportions. The stakes remain the same: too much of an advertising slant and we chase away our readers, too little and readers don't respond as strongly as we would like.
In summary: Explicit communication refers to specific information conveyed in written or spoken words. On the other hand, implicit communication refers to the messages we 'give off' through our deeds and actions. Explicit communication is intentional, while implicit communication may or may not be intentional.
Applying this idea: We always need to be concerned about the consistency between our words and our actions. Remember that actions do speak as loudly as words, as the old axiom tells us. Newsletter publishers should be especially sensitive to this issue as they determine how explicit they will be in asking for reader responses.
Listed below are more articles related to the above article from the "Management" article category.
People interested in the above article "Implicit and Explicit Communication" are also interested in the related articles listed below:
The following comments are intended to assist users of ISO 9001:2008 in understanding the intent of the general documentation requirements of the International Standard. a) Documented statements of a quality policy and objectives: Requirements for the quality policy are defined in clause 5.3 of ISO 9001:2008. The documented quality policy has to be controlled according to the requirements of clause 4.2.3.
Having more than one channel through which to accrue sales is ideal. But without a system that can handle multiple channels, a business risks making mistakes, missing deadlines and, as a result, losing valued customers. This article looks at why processing both sales and mail orders with speed and efficiency is the key to success.
The daily life of a manager is complex and requires a combination of skills and approaches. The important thing to remember is that action which a manager takes has a direct relationship to the whole system. When a manager plans a project, it impacts how the project will be organized. Who will be asked to lead and participate in the project. How the results will be measured. How all of this will be communicated. The Best manager knows that all actions are connected and have an impact on the people within the system. Improving the system will have a farther reaching effort than trying to change one component or person in the system. For example, imagine morale is low in the organization.
Discipline can sometimes be required. Just like a parent disciplining a child, the punishment for misbehavior in an IT group must match the "crime". I've said before that being an IT manager would be easy if it wasn't for the IT staff! Technology tends to be more predictable than people. And effectively managing technologists, a smart, determined and sometimes freakily focused and opinionated group of individuals is like... well, it's like corralling a gang of kids and focusing their considerable energy in a specific direction. When well done, the results can be amazing. But they don't always behave the way you'd like, and that's the price you pay for all that power than you are harnessing.
Complexity lies in every aspect of strategic planning and it is a concept that needs to be clearly understood in order to anticipate and overcome execution challenges. We live in a highly complex world and - for the most part - we cannot comprehend the intricate concepts needed for strategic planning. With outside management consulting, companies often see that it is easier to understand the complex architecture of cause and effect.
The legendary football coach Vince Lombardi called the notion of a 'born leader' a myth. To Lombardi, success was a matter of passion, commitment, and sacrifice - not genetics. So does this mean that anyone can become a leader? While it is theoretically possible that many people have the capacity to lead, becoming a leader is a little more complicated than simply wanting it. Above all, you want your organization to be one in which leadership can thrive. In order to create a culture of leadership, several important factors have to be considered.
In recent years, managers have been bombarded with hype about one or the other improvement method. But most of these improvements were initiated without any scientific proof that they truly work, so there was a lot of chaff under the wheat, so to speak. Organizations were regularly set on the wrong track and exerted a lot of effort in the area of improvement without a demonstrable, permanent result. Our study of High Performance Organizations (HPOs) marks a dividing line.
