Strategically Communicating

One of the most useful things I took away from the readings this week was that in-person communication is still the most effective method. Every other method requires the person delivering the message to make up for the fact that they are not delivering it in person.

It is quick to email or text. However, if it is more effective to speak in person, it may be more efficient to avoid email/text have a live conversation. Other options are Skype, or the telephone, if you are not in the same area. But both require that the person actually be there to have the conversation. And that gets back to one reason people rely on email and text so much: because the person can pick up the message when it is convenient.

A new startup, Tango, has an answer to this that I found interesting. Video messaging.

This leads me another reality we confront daily: the sheer number of channels available for communication, and the developments that occur daily in those channels. It is our responsibility to keep abreast of new developments and develop an understanding of the benefits of each channel and when each should be employed.

When would you choose blogs over text over v-logs over social media over teleconferencing over the telephone over in-person over video messaging over…….?

Of course, it really depends on your audience, and your message, but how does one evaluate blogs v. social media v. in-person interactions v. print?

Toward the end of the article “How Does Organizational Identification Form,” the authors address the all-important question of outliers.  These outliers, whom they characterize as “dark outcomes,” comprise employees who failed to identify with their organizations’ values and felt themselves marginalized as a result.  It’s a small group, but is important nonetheless, in that it highlights the pitfalls that having a strong organizational identity create.

 The issues spring from the homogeneity these organizations engender.  There’s no denying the benefits uniformity offers: according to the article, most of the employees at BLAM love their jobs and embrace the culture of the company.  They do, however, seem to be marching in lockstep with each other, as the prevalence of the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” suggests.  More like-minded individuals mean a smaller plurality of opinions, which may do wonders for efficiency but, I would argue, is not conducive to the health of the firm in the long run.

This sameness also serves to ostracize those employees who don’t share the same values.  While it is unrealistic to suppose that any company can completely satisfy all its employees, I think it is also doing itself a gross disservice if it relegates potentially valuable employees to the periphery based on the idea of instituting a “rock’n’roll” atmosphere.

These points beg the question: how do we balance the initiatives of developing a focused, driven culture, yet remain open to a difference of opinions?  How do we create a culture of values, yet simultaneously encourage diversity?