Barriers to effective organizational communication in global companies

Creating Effective Communications in a global organization

Global organizational communication: Barriers and challenges

In the modern international marketplace environment, organizations are more complex, diffuse and diverse than ever. And yet organizations must also be more responsive to the external environment and to consumer needs. "In today's global business environment, effective organizational communication -- internal and external -- has a significant impact on an organization's success" (Effective organizational communication: a competitive advantage, 2008, HR, p.1). It is also a critical factor in attracting top-level talent to the organization. "SHRM [Society of Human Resource Management]'s 2008 job satisfaction survey report notes that communication between employees and senior management is among the top five very important aspects of employee job satisfaction" (Effective organizational communication: a competitive advantage, 2008, HR, p.1).

What is effective organizational communication?

Organizational communication can be defined in two ways. Organizational communication to members outside of the organization includes "marketing, public relations, investor relations, corporate advertising and environmental communication[s]" disseminated to shareholders and investors (Effective organizational communication: a competitive advantage, 2008, HR, p.1). The second type of organizational communication takes place between organizational actors such as managers and subordinates. It is equally vital that the type of communication that takes place within the firm is effective and clear.

There are two predominant ways of seeing and defining internal communications. While the most common paradigm of organizational communication conceives of the organization as a container in which communication exchanges occur, a newer approach "sees internal communication as a way to describe and explain organizations" and communication as "the central process through which employees share information, create relationships, make meaning and 'construct' organizational culture and values. This process is a combination of people, messages, meaning, practices and purpose" (Berger 2008:1).

The way that organizational communication is viewed has thus undergone a substantial revision. In years past, the Shannon-Weaver Model, often called the S-M-C-R model, dominated. In this paradigm, "an information source [S] encoded a message [M] and delivered it through a selected channel [C] to a designated receiver [R], who decoded it" (Berger 2010:1). Feedback was then transmitted from receiver to sender. An obvious problem with the model of particular relevance to global organizations is that Shannon-Weaver Model assumed that the communication was disseminated accurately by the sender, and interpreted accurately by the recipient. It also assumed that there was little input on the part of the receiver in shaping the message (Berger 2008:1). There was little room for error in the processing of messages,

While later models "emphasized relationships between source and receiver and suggested that the more highly developed the communication knowledge and skills of sources and receivers, the more effectively the message would be encoded and decoded" the introduction of new media has further complicated organizational communication models, as new media can fundamentally impact how even a sophisticated communicator interprets the message (Berger 2008:1). For example, in some contexts email may be accepted as a very informal means of communication, and misspellings and faulty grammar are not frowned upon, while in other organizations even email and text messages may be viewed as formal. The modern etiquette regarding new modes of transmission is still evolving.

Different levels of formality within different business contexts have always been a problem of course. Even between entities of the same national origin, when an enterprise undergoes a merger, employees may be faced with the unpleasant surprise that the new partner has a profoundly different organizational culture. But miscommunications through new communication channels, combined with the obstacles of different cultures and work styles can be particularly difficult to handle. Said one Norwegian manager:

Four years ago, we acquired a German company and its more than 16,000 employees. As a global company with its base in Oslo, Hydro prides itself on taking the best from Norwegian culture -- including its management style. However, we uncovered an important gap in our communication quite quickly in the integration phase. At the time, e-mail was just starting to develop into the monster that it is today, and with an integration project of this size, it emerged as a highly valuable communication tool. However, our more informal Norwegian style of writing, exercised on German colleagues whose company had just been taken over by what was for many an unknown entity, produced many interesting comments (Describe a cultural miscommunication, 2007, Communication World, p.1).

"Interesting" of course, is a polite word for difficulties. The German employees were horrified at the lack of formal names and job titles in online communications. Norwegian business culture, even in comparison to the United States, is known for its lack of hierarchy and formalities. Superiors and subordinates are viewed as equals, effectively. Quality of ideas matters, not job titles. In contrast, in Germany, protocol is rather rigidly observed. As in the case of many organizations, the use of electronic mail has further emphasized a sense of informality and familiarity in Norway -- and the combination of adjusting to new communications technology and a new culture in the integrated organization made the adjustment period after the German merger even more difficult for both parties.

Ways to communicate more effectively

These warnings should not be seen as too dire, however. Communication between different cultural actors is possible, so long as employees are made aware to expect cultural differences and barriers. Even if a hands-on managerial style is not always feasible, communicating with new technology can at least establish an initial connection. Differences in approaching that new technology can be mitigated with sensitivity training. Even if people are not entirely comfortable with the culture of the other members of the organization, awareness at very least can reduce the chance of taking offense to unintended cultural signaling.

When instituting organizational change, emphasizing the need for that change is vital to increase the chance of acceptance of the new alterations in approach. It must be communicated that an organization cannot succeed in a global environment if it is not diverse. Multinational departments and a diversity of employees, with a wide range of skills and knowledge spheres make the organization more flexible and responsive. If employees are aware of this fact, they will be more accepting. Transmitting examples of intercultural success stories is particularly essential as an organization adjusts to its multinational status.

Conclusions: Improvements in the current environment

Diverse organizations are stronger, after the initial adjustment period, and also are able to more effectively communicate to a wide range of consumers, internationally. And common language of virtual communication may eventually be established, reducing the chances of offense in coming eras. The new global era of business has also erased many of what where considered intractable organizational differences between nations, such as the stubbornly corporate culture of Japan, in contrast to the more freewheeling and entrepreneurial environment of America. As organizations become more multinational in nature, the cross-pollination of ideas and attitudes across nations likewise increases.

Take, for example, Domino's pizza, which has entirely changed the culture of Japanese eating. Once upon a time, take-out pizza in Japan was unheard of, but by working with a Japanese entrepreneur, the company was able to effectively market in a culturally astute manner to that nation.

Any successful U.S. product has a better than good chance at being successful in Japan, if it's properly adapted to the market...quality in the fast-food industry in the United States usually is associated with taste and quantity. In Japan, however, the emphasis is on presentation, variety and service: "In the U.S., the saying is 'The Customer is King.' In Japan, it's 'The Customer is God.' God is higher than a king, and the level of service has to be that much better." This, along with other innovations like seasonal menus, upscale marketing and toppings adjusted to local tastes, has grown Domino's business in Japan to over 180 stores and 5,500 employees. It has also spawned an entirely new segment of the economy: In 1985, there were no home-delivery pizza joints in Japan; today, there are over 3,000 and the industry has grown to over $1.4 billion (Frasca 2010:1).

This is an ideal example of intercultural communications: an effective multinational agreement between corporate headquarters and a local innovator, and the willingness to use his information to adapt to the local environment. Communication within the organization leads to better communication with customers.