Encouraging two-way communicaТlOn

Аt times I received advice from friends, urging me to give up or curtail visits to troops. They correctly stated that, so far as the mass of men was concerned, I could never speak, personally, to more than a tiny percentage. They argued, therefore, that I was merely wearing myself out, without accomplishing anything significant, so far as the whole Army was concerned. With this I did not agree. In the first place I felt that through constant talking to enlisted men I gained accurate impressions of their state of mind. I talked to them about anything and everything: a favourite question of mine was to inquire whether the particular squad or platoon had figured out any new trick or gadget for use in infantry fighting I would talk about anything so long as I could get the soldier to talk to me in return.

I knew, of course, that news of a visit with even a few men in a division would soon spread throughout the unit. This, I felt, would encourage men to talk to their superiors, and this habit, I believe, promotes efficiency. There is, among the mass of individuals who carry the rifles in war, a great amount of ingenuity and initiative. If men can naturally and without restraint talk to their officers, the products of their resourcefulness becomes available to all. Moreover, out of the habit grows mutual confidence, a feeling of partnership that is the essence of esprit de corps. An army fearful of its officers is never as good as one that trusts and confides in its leaders.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is sometimes difficult to get people together in this way, especially if you are not the chief executive. But you should seize every opportunity of talking - and listening ­to any significant groups of those who report indirectly to you.

There are frequent attempts, some more successful than others, to systematic downward, upward and sideways communication by а series of regular meetings, such as briefing groups, 1iaison committees and works councils. Sometimes legislation directs managers to introduce а particular system, such as works councils.

European works council direcтive

The European Works Council Directive (EWC) will apply, with effect from 22 September 1996, to all companies meeting the criteria within the 14 states (EU 15 minus UK), plus the other ЕЕА states of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The intention of the Directive is that undertakings with over 1000 employees in the above 17 states, of whom 150 work in each of two or more of these Member States, should establish a European Works Coun­cil or procedure to enable them regularly to inform and consult employees via employee representatives.

Despite the fact that the UK has officially opted out, the following UK companies have already announced that they have established Councils: Marks & Spencer, Pilkington, Courtaulds, United Biscuits, ВР Oil and Coats Viyella. GKN, Group 4, ICI, Redland, NatWest Bank, Clarks Shoes and no doubt others, have negotiations under way. These are all UK companies which, within the criteria of the Directive, are obliged to set up a Works Council for their employees in two or more of the 17 states, and which felt it prudent to include their UK employees in the arrangements.

Many UK employers feel that it makes no sense at all to leave British employees out. In fact more companies are setting up voluntary systems to consult employees before the legislation comes into force. This advice is based on Article 13(1) of the Directive which states that the Directive will not apply where 'there is already an agreement, covering the entire workforce, providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees'.

Successful organizations over the years have found it to be good business voluntarily to have sound information and consultation arrangements in place, together with the employee welfare programmes which most of these Direc­tives are emulating.

There is always а temptation to believe that when you have introduced а system - such as briefing groups or works councils - you have solved the communication problem. But systems are subject to the law of atrophy: they tend to waste away. Systems can help, but they are as good as the people operating them. The winning combination is simple but durable systems peopled by committed and skilled communicators.

Three possible aims for such consultative or represent­ative meetings are:

• to give employees а сhаnсе со improve decisions by contributing comments before decisions are made

• to make the fullest possible use of their experience and ideas in the efficient running of the enterprise

• to give management and employees the opportunity to understand each other's views and objectives

Characteristically these are meetings where discussion takes place on any matter influencing the effectiveness or effi­ciency of the enterprise prior to decisions being made. Sometimes the group's views will be passed upwards; sometimes the decision will be made by the manager on the spot and in the presence of those who have contributed to his or her judgement.

When managers do not listen they cease to be business leaders and revert to their former status as hired business administrators. So-called managers of this low calibre hardly listen at all: they ignore, forget, distort or misunderstand much of what they hear.

А large manufacturing company called Portland Power Units Ltd. makers of diesel engines, decide to invest in а large extension covering the adjacent car park Mark Evans, the new manager in charge, drew up on elaborate plan for the change so as to minimize any disruption of production as the walls were knocked down. Не rearranged the schedules and ordered the new machinery from а firm who had supplied them lost time. The result was chaotic The team leaders on the shop floor said they had not been consulted and the building works would certainly hold up an important new order for China. The union said that the shift schedules were unworkable. 'They could also have saved о lot of money and technical problems if they ordered the new German machinery we saw when we toured that plant in Frankfurt,' added one of the team leaders. Evans finally had to agree that he had not listened to those who knew most about the machinery, the layout of the new extension, the shift schedules or the timetable for building works. His poor listening cost Portland Power Units just under two million pounds. Не is now working for another organization - possibly yours.

Consultative meetings may be distinguished from formal management/union discussions on such topics as wage systems, job evaluation, hours of work, holidays and holiday pay. In the last instance elected representatives of work people in trade unions are seeking to reach formal agree­ment on matters relating to the 'individual needs' circle in the trefoil of three circles model. In consul­tations the active working members of an organization are being asked to contribute towards decisions mainly in the field of the common purpose, aims and objectives, and the shape of the structural organization necessary to achieve those short- and long-term ends. As the circles overlap it is not always possible in practice to separate matters of concern for trade unions from those which belong to the individual as а member of а particular organization. But there is а distinction, and it is worth bearing it in mind.

It is usually assumed that а consultative group, formal­ized into а consultative committee, should exist on а factory or plant basis, although in very large organizations there may be а case for regional, national or international coun­cils. Normally one might find one joint consultation committee, consisting of representatives from management and shop floor, in а factory employing perhaps 1000 men and women or more. Thus it would act as а forum of debate, rather than as а cabinet for decision. Except in schemes for industrial democracy, where the committee becomes the governing council, the final decisions and the ultimate accountability will rest with the board of directors.

Remember that part of your skill as а communicator is tо be aware of feedback - the part of your input that bounces back to you. It is useful because it helps you to judge whether or not communication is likely to be effective. Initial feedback - positive or negative - must be distinguished from the effect of the message as а whole. 'It is interesting,' one chief executive told me, 'that in business dealings we expect, and generally get, а response to every communication even though it be only an acknowledgement for а cheque; but in staff matters we are very often content to put а notice on the board and leave it at that.'

One of the advantages of getting out of your office (if you still have one) and going around talking to people is that you can gauge the flow of communication as it courses through the arteries and veins of the network:

• Did that message you asked operational leaders to brief to their team leaders reach this team in another country?

• Why didn't this key suggestion for а new extension of service to existing major customers get communicated to the senior leadership team?

• How come that our Holland branch have cracked this particular production problem six months ago, but when I was in Spain last week they were still struggling with it?

• Why hasn't this young graduate manager in Scotland heard about our new leadership development strategy?

• Don't these rumours and false reports suggest that we are falling down in communication? Is it а systems problem or а people problem?

Like the systems mentioned above, information technology - computers, fах, E-mail, television link-ups, mobile radios and video - will not solve your communication problems, they are only aids. Only by developing leaders at all three levels, and persuading them to work together as а team, will your organization be able to face the challenges of change and growth with confidence.

The major mistake in communication

is to believe it happens.

George Bernard Shaw