Organisational Communication – past, current and future

The World Bank had a 5-year Program between 2006 and 2011 called the CommGAP (Communication for Governance and Accountability Program).  It was aimed at providing government officials the required assistance to enable them to build “public spheres” on the one hand, and to use communication in governance reform programs. Now, what are public spheres, you might ask, and rightly so!. Well, it is the application of communication approaches by amplifying citizen voice, promotion free, independent and plural media systems in a bid to help governments communicate better with their citizens.  Personally, I find that to be a rather tall order, especially when the communication has to be initiated by the authorities. We all know how much political leaders love to hear the sound of their own voice and it only takes enough patience – if you can muster it – to sit through one televised debate session between two or more politicians of different – not necessarily opposed parties – to understand that no matter how much money the UK’s Department for International Development was going to inject into this program, this initiative would not be able to cover more than a fraction of the world’s countries, all of which require such initiatives on an individual level and for those individual initiatives to be monitored, guided and assisted by this one.  In the 37 events which were organised through this program, seven events (19%) were held outside the United States, and 78% were held in Washington. With such close attention being paid to centralising the decision making process, there evidently is a disconnect between the preachings and the practices – even though the silver lining around that cloud could be the fact that the organisations involved were active in other countries – but were mainly headquartered in the USA or the western world – as if to say, “if you want our money to learn to communicate better amongst yourselves, then you either have to be connected with one of us, for reasons of credibility, or have to come and sell yourselves to us on our turf.” Put in simpler words and loosely translated from Luxembourgish: “What a farmer does not know, he shall not eat.” In the unforgettable sagacious words of Hope (n.d.) “A bank is a place that will lend you money if you prove that you don’t need it.” and Frost (n.d.) “A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain.” And this holds true for all financial institutions which fall under the definition of “a bank”.

CommGAP may well have been a commendable initiative which deserved it’s share of applaud for the noble objectives set forth when it all started, but banks being run by humans, they do reflect their mindset and their approach as well as their prerogatives and priorities. The usual excuse is, “we live in a capitalist society” or “in our day and age, there is no such thing as a “free” anything”. My question is: who is to be held responsible for that? There could only be one answer to that: the west – Europe and everywhere the European has gone: to the American continent, the African continent, the Australian continent. In other words, greed has been spread by the greedy, capitalist initiator and spread by the industrial revolution in the name of progress and civilisation.

Part of civilisation is communication: and progress in communication has taken us to the point of preferring to speak to each other face-to-face via devices such as smartphones, tablets and screens of some sort or the other. I do not advocate the abandoning of all progress, but knowing that you can make the best of the presence of the other in the present moment than to try to catch hold of them through trnasparent screen walls of your own making. What is more, these walls are getting thinner and their sound proofing exponentially better with every passing generation! So much so, that the resulting silence is increasingly deafening and people have to resort to “invade your privacy” in order to know more about you.

Mandeya (2015) advocates working “inside-out” in a bid to project a vibrant image of your brand as he submits that “t is the internal audience that gives that unique expression of who you are as an organisation” (Ibid). He even points out that “Communication is the lifeline of an organisation (…) poor communication affects an organisation’s operations and hinders it from achieving its goals.”

It is therefore increasingly important, in our day and age, when communication is the basis of a (physical or moral) person’s existence, and that it is increasingly difficult for smaller organisations and the vast majority amongst us to control, not only is it important to make conscious efforts aimed at projecting our brand in a positive light, but also to prevent giving lieu to any dependency whereby the above-mentioned brand may be in danger of being soiled with an indellible stain of disrepute.

Let’s all resolve to make a conscious effort towards ensuring and maintaining that our own brand and that of those who are closest to us remain as pure, immaculate and clean as the proverbial “driven snow”.  And unlike most other resolutions made in the beginning of previous years, do something tangible everyday to consciously see to it that our brand (name) avoids disrepute like a triple glazed window prevents us from being affected by the bitterness bite of a cold wind.

Reference:

R. Mandeya,(2015),”The Power of Branding the Human Capital”, Zimbabwe Independent, available at http://www.theindependent.co.zw/2015/01/09/power-branding-human-capital/ accessed on 15.1.2015

 

 

 

Regulating employee empowerment … really !?!

Of late, employee empowerment is being used more and more as some sort of a synonym of labour law. The Democrats in USA have introduced a bill to have labour rights constitutionally recognised. On a completely different front, someone once told me, “if you feel that you are losing an argument, start correcting the grammar of your adversary”. One author has added “explaining terminology” to that approach.  Whilst the authors of the articles New Bill Defines Labour Rights as Civil Rights, Congressman Wants to Make Unionisation a Civil Right does inform the reader by reporting political events taking place in a bid to “give labour law additional heft” (Ellison, 2014), the terminology seems to be taking a whole new meaning in it’s political context as compared to the more widely known, albeit rather hazy notions, no thanks to such fads as events of this ilk bring to the forth.

Eidlin (2014) on the other hand, has taken on a more measured approach in his bid to explain the pros and cons of the so-called “Employee Empowerment Bill”. He points out that “the problem is two-fold” in that “legal strategies (…) displace the conflict between workers and employers from an organising context where workers play a leading role and build their own power to a legal one where workers must rely on experts to fight for them.” and goes on to demonstrate “it’s inability to prevent employers’ from interfering with workers’ decision to unionise” but rather “reinforce the very dynamics that have allowed employers to turn labour law in their (own) favour”.

Employee empowerment, in my view, occurs within the organisation and is the result of the management and workforce communicating effectively and working together. This collaboration between the two traditional adversaries unquestionably favours a marked improvement in the efficiency and efficacy of the organisation’s operations, which in turn has a positive impact on the organisation’s ROI and profit.

That said, to improve communication, one has to audit it first to know what is good and should be kept and what is not, and should be improved. Such subtle changes can also bring about a marked improvement in the operations on the one hand, thereby (and almost automatically) weeding out the ineffective processes of the organisation. However, it must also be said that one of the prerequisites of employee empowerment is a mutual goodwill on behalf of both parties: the management and the workforce. The use of force or wielding power or holding the other in contempt is by far the worst manner in which to seek the organisation’s progress. Quite to the contrary, such short-sighted behaviour will very probably lead to it’s downfall by way of falling profits and the resulting “human resource streamlining” that is the management’s usual response.

When Risher (2014) wrote his article It’s Time to Focus on Empowerment and Recognition, he recognises that “engagement and satisfaction are not the same (…) Satisfied is not the same as satisfaction.” The author then explains that each researcher has a different take on what engagement is. Now engagement is directly proportional to empowerment, which entails employees knowing what’s expected, what they can expect, that they are working on something important and related to their employer’s mission, and that their work effort is valued.”

In one of the economic giants of the future and talent and population giants of today, India voted it’s most admired organisations based on “two criteria in particular: corporate governance and social impact.” (Ganesan, 2014)

In communicating with it’s workforce, the management can broadcast these and messages , and from time to time multicast or unicast them by recognising efforts of a site, a department, a team or even an individual.

My years of experience have taught me that communication requires from both all involved stakeholders to talk to each other rather than talking at or about each other. If all efforts have failed, then legal and legislative experts have also to realise that just like communication or financial experts can not come up with the best laws, legal experts cannot be at the source of the best adapted communicational or financial solutions. To get workforce and management communicating with each other; as in most other cases in society, regulating generally leads to people seeking (and often, finding) loopholes. It might do your statistical ego a world of good but may not reflect the whole picture. Employee empowerment, employee engagement, employee satisfaction and employee recognition should be left in the hands of individual organisations to overcome as best they come to terms with each other, whilst recognising that each one of the parties needs the other to exist. And to conclude let me quote the unforgettable words attributed to one of the forefathers of modern America, Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”, which, in my view,  goes hand-in-hand with “We all make choices, but in the end, our choices make us.” (Ken Levine). 

Enough said!

Reference:

B. Eidlin (2014), “Latest Pro-Labour Reform Proposal Might Actually Undermine Labour”, Truthout, available at http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25284-latest-pro-labor-reform-proposal-might-actually-undermine-labor, seen on 6.8.2014

K. Ellison (2014) in B. Vail (2014), “New Bill Defines Labour Rights as Civil rights, In These Times, Institute for Public Affairs, Chicago, USA

S. Ganesan (2014), “ITC, L&T, HUL: India’s most admired companies”,  PTI,  available at http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/companies/itc-landt-hul-indias-most-admired-companies_105568.html viewed on 22.8.2014

K. Levine (n.d.), available from http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/350677.Ken_Levine viewed on 24.8.2014

 

How empowered does an employee feel as an owner?

Can an employee be empowered to the point of acting as the owner of an organisation? Is empowerment all about relinquishing control? If not, how can the leaders of the organisation actually keep the power whilst empowering the subordinates?

Holmes (2013) touches on the subject somewhat squarely by alluding to “training employees to take full advantage of new sales opportunities” So in essence, the investment is manifold in that the employer provides the training, invests in the time of his employees that undergo the training, and what goes without saying, will incentivise any efforts made by sales force to up the sales figures’ and market share ante. All of it, at the very risk of seeing them walk away to the competition and employ his training to his own detriment.

As such, if the employer does make them aware of their responsibilities (empower, I’m told), by treating the company as their own, but fails to make them feel that they are running their own company and has them running to him better job involvement, suggestion to improve or even every operational decision, give-away, then the employee will be right to feel disinherited by his employer who only feigns to adopt the leadership path. At the advent of the first best opportunity beyond the known pastures of the organisation, and into the greener pastures of the outside world, the employee is bound to seize it and run with renewed energy, albeit a more circumspect approach.

So you might well ask, what stops employers and managers from empowering their subordinates? Because most of them have only thought of it without really considering it any more seriously. Bowen and Lawler III (1994:422) point out “Many lessons have been learned in manufacturing about how to best use quality, circles, enriched jobs, and so on. And the added good news is that many service businesses are ideally suited to applying and refining these lessons.”

Let us just hope that current managers, and employers of service businesses, especially multisite ones, will be able to take ownership of the situation and adapt empowering approaches to their specific needs on the one hand, but that there will be studies carried out to get the information out into the world to prove that employee empowerment, employed correctly, will bring unexpected results with itself.

Can empowerment be quantified? If so, how much empowerment is good, how much is satisfactory and how much is insufficient? If, however, it cannot be quantified, how does one then go about getting dependable and objective data from a field of subjective practices amongst others?

Quantifying employee empowerment is best possible within the context of its application to a business, a site or a department. Let me explain: if employee turnover was the issue that triggered the measures, then one can evaluate the reduction of employee turnover. If employee empowerment was introduced to improve sales figures, then either the sales team needed to be empowered with added responsibilities but also the authority to decide what works best for each salesperson. The diversity of approaches will bring not only a better understanding through varied market analyses which are all going to be based on individual analytics. If, on the other hand, the empowerment was introduced to improve communication within the organisation, various tools can allow a very objective evaluation of intra-organisational communication

Reference:

D.E. Bowen and E.E. Lawler III (1994), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how and when”, The training and development Sourcebook, Ed. C. E. Schreiner, Human Resource Development Press Inc. Massachusets, USA, available at http://www.google.lu/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vnyFFWL0loEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA413&dq=employee+empowerment,+profit&ots=ag_EOFicdw&sig=T6MndRsvcdwgsz7ZvbpcCETaan4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=employee%20empowerment%2C%20profit&f=false accessed on 1.4.2014

C. Holmes (2013), “Growth coaching must balance technology with employee empowerment”, the Chet Holmes Method, availabe at http://www.chetholmes.com/tips-and-advice/?p=29#sthash.EvRtCBvq.dpuf accessed on 1.1.2014

Organisational Communication / Corporate Communication – The Five Questions: when? why? what? where? how?

Corporate communication and organisational communication are sometimes interchangeably used, as is the case with van Riel and Fornbrun (2007:14) who stated, “we propose the concept of corporate communication as an integrative communication structure linking stakeholders to the organisation” but also state van Riel and Fornbrun (2007:13), “Not all of the communications in an organisation are work-related, nor are they necessarily relevant to fulfilling organisational objectives.”

Are Corporate Communication and Business Philosophy really only oxymorons? Goodman (1994:4) points out, “organisations of all sorts and sizes which are committed to communicating with their employees have a communicational philosophy.”

Hargie and Tourish (2009:25) also ask a fundamental question in business ethics (another oxymoron?), “what can be gained from a proactive focus on communication, both internally and externally (…) when staff are treated as dispensable liability, customers as little more than a damned nuisance and suppliers as potential industrial spies?”

As with most things in life, when a change has to be brought about within an organisation, one has to be prepared to be confronted with opposition to such change. Lets not forget the adage,”better the devil you know than the one you don’t.”

However, it is also a known fact that if an organisation continues to progress with the above cited facts and sayings, then it is, sooner or later, going to run into troublesome times which are going to be directly

proportional to the size of the company and the amount of time that such beliefs are put to practice.

Barker and Angelopulo (2006:122) point out, “Without exception, changes in the external environment(s) necessarily require changes in the internal environment(s) of an organisation, thus having a direct bearing (positive or negative) on the communication networks with employees.”

So we can safely deduce that as we evolve in time, the outside environment of an organisation evolves too, and the inside of the organisation has to evolve too. The best way for an organisation to keep evolving with the times and to make sure that there won’t be any “black sheep” or “spin off” organisations, the communication has to be up to date and in tune with the times.

Another aspect that affects the communication and can be tantamount to the organisation’s progress is the multicultural aspect of it’s human resources. As more and more multinational companies take over or run out local businesses, locals are in a constant tussle with executives out to preach the multinational’s gospel which originate from the headquarters.

We have also to consider, as Blundel and Ipolito (2008:43) point out, “the danger of relying on shorthand, stereotypical accounts of cultures that ignore local and individual-level factors and the reality that cultures are  dynamic and constantly changing.”

As a result, we now not only have times to evolve with but dynamic cultures to adapt to. This means that communication has to have a common denominator – the message – as the words are adapted to the environment’s times and culture.

“Designing the workplaces have placed more emphasis on the technical systems, the tools, techniques, procedures and devices used by the workforce and have tended to overlook opportunities to redesign technologies to meet the needs of people” argue (Pasmore, Francis, Haldemann and Shani, 1982; Goodman, 1994:45).

In conclusion, we can say that:

– corporate communication and organisational communication as a whole should be proactive, that it has to evolve with the times, the environment and the oirganisation’s dynamic culture as its demographics and human resources evolve, and in continuing with this last point, that technologies should be adapted to the people who use them rather than trying to adapt people and their tools to the organisation’s evolving processes.

Reference

Barker,R and Angelopulo,G.,(2006), Integrated Organisational Communication, Juta & Co, Cape Town, RSA, available at http://goo.gl/0z11n accessed September 2011

Blundel,R and Ipolito,K.,(2008),Effective Organisational Communication:Perspectives, Principles, Practices, 3rd ed, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK, available at http://goo.gl/vKABv accessed September 2011

Goodman, M.B.,(1994), Corporate communication: theory and practice, State University New York Press, available at http://goo.gl/hEs8N accessed October 2011

Hargie,O and Tourish,D,(2009),Auditing Organisational Communication: A Handbook of Research,Theory and Practice, Routledge, Hove, UK available at http://goo.gl/SP9Va accessed October 2011

van Riel, C.B.M., and Fornbrun, C.J.,(2007), Essentials of Corporate Communication: implementing practices for effective reputation management, Business and Economics, Routledge, Hove, UK, available at http://goo.gl/ybf4z accessed September 2011

Employee Empowerment – What does it cause? How does it work?

Employee empowerment has been the main subject of the past two posts on this blog and we will not stop at that – although the next one might well be directed at organisational (and/or) corporate communication.

Lets consider the subject at hand: how employee empowerment works, and what does it cause to happen?

For one, in most cases, if the organisation which considers employee empowerment as a measure to progress, it is bound to bring about change and has to manage it..

Thakkar (2011), states that “successful balancing [in an organisation] requires employee trust [and] employee empowerment. The author goes on to define employee empowerment as “giving the employee a reason to be proud of be doing what s/he does” and goes on to point out that “loading employees with responsibility without empowering them is like making them fly without providing them with oxygen”.

If these practices have been known to exist in an organisation, then employee empowerment is going to lead toa radical change, which will originate amongst the employees and needs to be managed as all resources do. If the HR managers of your organisation are confronted with the above-mentioned mistrust or distrust, then they have to undergo training themselves in order to learn  how to manage such a change prior to making it occur on the one hand, and to adapt the processes to the organisation’s needs rather than vice versa as mentioned in a previous contribution.

Communication plays an important part in handling the change. “Ultimately the success of any change effort depends on how effectively the strategy for and the substance of the change is communicated to those who are the targets of change.” (Witherspoon and Wohlert, 1996 in Frahm and Brown (2003:3)

The authors go on to quote other specialists in the field as they state, “within the implementation phases, communication is often a top down sales pitch” (Okumus and Hemington, 1998) which is “argued to lead to cynicism about change” (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers and Austin, 2000 in Ibid)

Such cynicism has to be overcome in the organisation so as to allow the management with an opportunity to lead by example as they bring about a coherence between that which is ‘broadcast’ to the outside world, that  what is ‘preached’ within the organisation and that what is practised by the ‘preachers’. (Thakkar, 2011). Incoherence is known to be rampant in organisations “where there is a lack of communication between the departments governing the organisation’s internal and external communication policies.” (Motiani, 2010).

Nayab (2011 a) points out that in order “for employees to be given the responsibility, the organisation’s culture  :shares information openly, encourages open communication with regular [constructive] feedback, facilitates leadership by guiding the empowered employee, involve the employees in strategic planning exercises so that  they are aware of the organisation’s vision and objectives, and apply that knowledge to strategic work.”

The other question asked above is, How does employee empowerment work?

Nayah (2011 b) points out that “organisations that engage in providing empowered employees with the means to carry out their work, will gai, thanks to: better employee performance, novel and better adapted ways to overcome operational issues, exploit opportunities and improve products and services.”

As we have seen, employee empowerment requires engagement on behalf of the organisation which wishes to reap its benefits. As in any case, employees only given responsibilities without the necessary resources to carry them out will only end up frustrated and that can only take all persons involved in a downward spiral.

As I  close this section on employee empowerment, I’m reminded of Archimedes Principle which states “an object, immersed in a fluid shall be buoyed by a force equal to that of the fluid displaced by the immersed object.” Similarly, an employee who is empowered and when the organisation is sufficiently flexible to let him act, will reap from the benefit of his work (which can be compared to the buoyancy).

Reference:

Frahm, J. and Brown, K.,(2003), Organisational Change Communication: Lessons from the Public Relations Communication Strategies, ANZCA03 Conference, Brisbane, available at http://www.anzca.net/conferences/anzca03proceedings.html

Motiani, K (2010), A Study of the Correlation between improved Intra- and Inter-Organisational Communication and Operational Efficiency and Efficacy in Luxembourg’s Non-Profit Organisations, University of Liverpool

Nayah, N., (2011 a), Overworked Employees Are not Empowered. Learn Why Here, Bright Hub: Business-Team Building and Empowerment available at http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-resources/articles/123587.aspx

Nayah, N., (2011 b), How Employee Empowerment has pushed Companies Ahead, Bright Hub: Business-Team Building and Empowerment, available at http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-resources/articles/123676.aspx

Thakkar, H., (2011), How to manage change from Employees?, Learning and Development, HR Planning, available at http://www.hrgyaan.com/how-to-manage-change-from-employees/

Resources, what why, which one, and how?

Kumar and Goyal (2011) have stated that “Over the last two decades, the ERP market has grown from strength to strength , and the ERP system has almost become an integral part of any part of any enterprise worth its salt.” The authors then go on to report that “the ERP market is currently about $ 40 billion in total revenue, consistently ranks among the top IT spending priorities for enterprises, and is expected to grow to more than $ 50 billion by 2013.” (Ibid)

With such figures flying around, I, for one, am obviously going to ask some basic questions and share the outcome of my thought-process and research with you in the course of what follows:

– who is spending the money?

– whom is the money being spent on?`

– to what end is the money being spent?

– what exactly is “ERP” (Enterprise Resource Planning) and did it exist previously – in other words, have we not yet realised that this wheel had already been invented and was in use prior to being baptised ERP by some marketing and/or management gurus and/or priests?

– that the ROI is worth the effort seems obvious – I do not see any enterprise “worth its salt” (Ibid) to pick it up from the authors cited above – but then the question is, why has it gained importance today of all other days?

The same authors also quote the Project Management Institute in saying that “70 per cent of all ERP deployment projects fail, are late or go over budget.”

Now, wouldn’t facts such as these not send you raving mad and running amok? I was on the verge of the latter when I was distracted by a more pleasant sight that led me to a rare and brief moment of lucidity in which I asked myself the following question and its subsidiaries as follows::

– why did the ERP deployment fail though?

– is it because the leadership is not qualified enough?

– is it because the ERP deployment was not adapted to the enterprise’s needs?

– is it because, imposed on the resources, they did not understand how, why, when to best use them?

On the other hand, if the enterprises have spent $ 40 billion and are going to increment that spending by a further $ 10 billion, with $ 28 billion being lost thus far, the enterprises are planning a further loss of $ 35 billion by 2013. These facts sent me of my rocker all over again!!!

Another day, another line of thought: if processes as simple as “IDEA Board (Improvement Driven by Employee Action)” (Johnson, 2011) were to be deployed, and the billions of dollars spent on employee empowerment with initiatives of this type, then, not only would the improvements in those organisations’ operational processes be best adapted to themselves, but it would also mean that incoming managers would have to adapt their methods to suit the existing operations rather than twisting the organisation’s operations to suit their needs.

The above reflection would lead anyone worth his/her managerial salt to ask a him/herself a fundamental question: when an organisation employs a manager, is it to manage the resources as it best suits that specific organisation or is the employment based on adapting the organisation to the manager’s modus operandi?

Alleyne (2011) quoted Murray (2011) who shared that, “unless you train your managers and executives, [they] are not going to be able to speak the same language… [or] be able to lead by example… [even] sustain the program.” The author also quoted Beckles (2011) who referred to “the success of the Survey/Feedback/Action program within his company” (Ibid). Through my own experience, I have been able to learn that both of the above are based on efficient measures of communication within the organisation.

Robertson (2011), argues that “When done wrong, it [employee empowerment] can be devastating for both, the business and the workforce.”  In keeping with this train of thought, any financier worth his/her salt will definitely be very hesitant to relinquish any part of his/her control that s/he enjoys. That is the case of most corporate executives who have a lot to lose and not enough in terms of guarantee – as any banker would (re-)act.

As such, we stand confronted with the best interests of the business and it’s operation whilst safeguarding it’s resources versus the stockholders’ interests and the guarantee that they require to get competitive returns on their investment in the organisation.

Barnes (2011), points out “it is (…) fitting to give back to them [employees] what they rightfully deserve, especially those who have become the most loyal to the company.”

Polonsky (2005, 1063-4) defined stakeholders as  individuals or groups thereof who present “three features, namely:

(1) interdependency;

(2) affecting/being affected by the organisation;

(3) the sense of an interest or right in an organisation.”

Therefore, if we group stockholders and employees as stakeholders (as marketers like to label them), then we can deduce that it is in the best interest of the organisation to protect the interests of its investors as well as those of its employees.

While paying dividends to investors is one way of protecting their interests, rightly implemented employee empowerment measures are paramount to protecting the employees’ best interests. Both can be achieved by  means of better communication which will raise the organisation’s credibility amongst its investors and improve its operations carried out by its employees.

These are just two aspects in which better communication can help in improving an organisation’s reputation amongst a more or less random cross-section of its stakeholders..

Reference:

Alleyne, R., (2011), Top Employers share Pearls of Knowledge, The Barbados Advocate, available at http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=business&NewsID=19543

Barnes, W., (2011), “Encourage Employee Empowerment Through Corporate Gifts”, Management, available at http://articlesbeacon.com/business/management/encourage-employee-empowerment-through-corporate-gifts

Johnson, M., (2011), Lean Leadership and Employee Empowerment, Michigan Tech – Continuous Improvement Blog, available at http://blogs.mtu.edu/improvement/2011/08/08/78/

Kumar, K., and Goyal, A., (2011), Best Practices for Successful ERP System Deployments, Supply Demand Chain Exevutive, available at http://www.sdcexec.com/article/10282391/best-practices-for-successful-erp-system-deployments

Polonsky, M. J.,(2005), Stakeholder thinking in marketing, Business & Economics, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Number 9/10, Emerald Group Publishing, available at http://goo.gl/pXjnw

Robertson, T., (2011), Negative Effects of Employee Empowerment, Chron: Small Business, Demand Media, available at http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-employee-empowerment-18691.html

Questions about job satisfaction, employee empowerment and communication

Mani (2010, 136) writes that “People are the most important asset of any organisation.” The author then goes on to state that “It is found that factors like stress, job climate, training, supervisor-relationship, employee benefits, job, compensation, employee empowerment, communication and company are the major contributors of employee satisfaction.” (2010, 137) What one usually wonders about when one is at the bottom of the chain in some organisations, especially international ones, is that where do these studies really get carried out? And who participates in them?

I am not questioning the truth in these studies, but just want to underline the fact that there are many more organisations in this world which not only believe in nothing more than financial gain and incrementing dividends for shareholders than the benefit of one and all stakeholders involved in the organisation’s operations.

One cannot deny the fact that politics plays an important role in all multinational organisations in view of the impact they have on a given economy’s unemployment rate, foreign trade balance, currency, stock exchange, and the number of millionaires that it counts over a financial exercise. Now whether politics plays a role in the organisation or is it the other way round hardly makes a difference to the wage-earner of an organisation because one way or the other s/he will invariably  end up paying more taxes over the next financial exercise – lest s/he gets married, procreates and/or pays through his/her nose to charity or stashes money away into a hidden, numbered account in one of the numerous fiscal havens of the world.

Marrelli (2010,9) writes, “A strong sense of the value of one’s daily work facilitates engagements and creates a foundation of high performance.” But how is it inculcated, if not indoctrinated into the employees? In my opinion, it is the reputation of the organisation on the one hand, but also the image of the work that the employees do, which guarantees such feelings. The fact of the mater is that in today’s overly media dependent world, most jobs are linked to an image which leads them to prejudged in the public eye.

According to the author (2010,19), “Non-supervisory employees’ perception of managers and executives are much less positive. They do not believe that their senior leaders are communicating openly and sincerely with them.”

So, if an organisation’s most important resource are the humans who work there, then why the discrepancies so often observed in so many of them? Why do shareholders still have the upper hand even if all management specialists have said and learned and preached that considering stakeholders in a holistic approach as more important than the only group of investors who expect ever-increasing dividends at the end of every financial exercise? Considering that the human resource of an organisation is included amongst the stakeholders, why do they have to continue to “fight for their rights” rather than just be given them – as naturally as investors get their dividends? These and so many more questions need to be answered in today’s society. Satisfactory answers to be found which will be applicable to all organisations of all shapes and sizes, in all fields of business, anywhere in the world.

Reference:

Mani, V., (2010), “Development of Employee Satisfaction Index Scorecard”,European Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 15, Number 1, pp 129 – 139 available at http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_15_1_12.pdf

Marelli, A., (2010),”Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage”, Diane Publishing, available athttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RgPtJXTBQzkC&dq=marrelli+2010+employee+empowerment&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s