Organizational Communication

Report
MISS SAIMA

GHOUSIA RASHID | MASS.COMMUNICATION| BS APP.PSY 2 SEMESTER

ABSTRACT
We define organizational communication’ as the sending and receiving of messages among interrelated
individuals within a particular environment or setting to achieve individual and common goals.
Organizational communication is highly contextual and culturally dependent. Individuals in organizations
transmit messages through face-to face, written, and mediated channels. Organizational communication
helps us to:

− accomplish tasks relating to specific roles and responsibilities of sales, services, and production.

− acclimate to changes through individual and organizational creativity

− adaptation.

− complete tasks through the maintenance of policy, procedures, or regulations that support daily and
continuous operations.

− develop relationships where “human messages are directed at people within the organization-their
attitudes, morale, satisfaction, and fulfillment”.

− coordinate, plan, and control the operations of the organization through management.

HOW THE FIELD OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

As early as the fourth century, Chinese scholars concentrated on the “problems of communicating within the
vast government bureaucracy as well as between the government and the people” (Murphy, Hildebrandt &
Thomas 4). Ancient eastern scholars focused on information flow, message fidelity, and quality of
information within their governmental bureaucracy (Krone, Garrett & Chen; Paraboteeah). These still remain
areas of focus for organizational communication that you will learn in your classes today.

Organizational Communication Today

 As communication evolves, research continues to develop, and organizational

communication continues to redefine itself. In the early stages, this area focused
on leaders giving public presentations. More recently emphasis has focused on
all levels of interaction in organizations. Because interpersonal relationships are
a large part of organizational communication, a great deal of research focuses
on how interpersonal relationships are conducted within the framework of
 organizational hierarchies. Modern organizational communication research has
been summarized into eight major traditions:
 Communication channels

 Communication climate
 Superior-subordinate communication
 the information-processing perspective
 the rhetorical perspective
 the cultural perspective
 the political perspective
 Network analysis

1. Research On
“EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION AFFECTS
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE, HAPPINESS,
AND JOB SATISFACTION”
Employees are also responsible for
improving their own attitudes and levels of happiness at work
and in their private lives. In this
chapter, the importance of effective organizational
communication, the cultivation of a positive attitude, and the
development of individual happiness in support of improved job
satisfaction and organizational success will be presented.
Motivation Hygiene Factor:
Frederick Herzberg (1987) performed studies to understand the
effect of attitude on employee motivation. The studies included
interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and
 displeased them about their work. Herzberg (1987) found the
factors causing job satisfaction, and presumably motivation, was
different from factors causing job dissatisfaction. He developed
the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these results. He
labelled the satisfiers as motivators and the dissatisfiers as
hygiene factors. HHerzberg (1987) reasoned that because the
factors causing satisfaction are different from
those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be
treated as opposites of one
another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but
rather, no satisfaction. Similarly,
the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction the
motivating factors are achievement, recognition for achievement,
the work itself,
responsibility, and growth or advancement. These factors are
intrinsic to the job itself and to job
satisfaction (Herzberg, 1987). The hygiene factors of company
policy and administration,
supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions,
salary, status, and security are also
intrinsic to the work; but are more likely to cause dissatisfaction
(Herzberg, 1987). Herzberg
(1987) explained that the motivators were the primary cause of
satisfaction, while the hygiene
factors cause dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1987) argued that job
enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation, and that it is a
continuous management process. According to Herzberg (1987),
the job should have
sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the employee.
Employees who demonstrate
increasing levels of ability should be given increasing levels of
responsibility. If a job cannot be
designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm should
consider automating the task or
replacing the employee with one who has a lower level of skill.
If a person cannot be fully
utilized, then there will be a motivation problem.
Happiness in the Workplace:
Shawn Anchor (2009) states that people who put their heads
down and wait for work to
bring happiness are at a huge disadvantage; but those who
capitalize on it come out ahead. If we
learn to be happy and have a positive attitude, we may be more
successful than if we expect
happiness solely as a result of hard work (Anchor, 2009). Of
course, this does not mean that we sit around being happy
without working. It just means that our work will yield more
success if we develop a positive attitude.
Survey:
The goal of this thesis was to determine how bi-directional
communication affects the level of individual, team, and
management job satisfaction, the commitment to a positive
office culture, and how efforts to have a good attitude affect job
satisfaction. A survey was conducted
to gather information about the degree of two-way
communication in the Enrollment
Management Division of Southern Utah University and
individual perceptions of the positive or
negative environment in which he or she works; as well as the
trait effect of the individual, coworkers, and supervisor. The
numbers of participants were small; however, all levels of
employees in the Division were represented. Some part-time,
full-time, and managers chose to disclose their participation if
they felt strongly about some of the questions in the survey or as
they received the emails with tasks. Some disclosures included
 feelings or thoughts about the communication in the Division
and how it impacted their ability to do their jobs and the ultimate
job satisfaction. Full-time and part-time employees in the SUU
Enrolment Management Division participated voluntarily after
receiving an invitation through email and/or in person during
meetings. Employees willing to participate were equally divided
between full-time and part-time staff; with ages ranging from 18
to over 51 years old. The majority (80%) of participants had
been employed less than seven years and 60% were female.
Results/Discussion:
The purpose of this project was to determine if employees in the
SUU Enrolment Management Division feel that communication
is effective and if managerial communication affects attitude,
happiness at work, and job satisfaction. Results of the survey
indicate the majority felt positive at work and with their jobs,
which translates into happiness in the work place. In addition,
respondents reported that they generally enjoy going to work and
felt their co-workers are happy. Questions were not asked about
the nature of the work and the impact it had on job satisfaction,
instead focusing on the individual’s attitude and happiness
levels. Survey responses that were 85% complete were used for
analysis (N = 20); responses that were less than 85% complete
were deleted from the data set. The majority of the surveys were
completed in three or four minutes; however, there were some
that took longer as it appeared the participant was distracted after
opening the survey. Tables with the number of responses by
question and variable, as well as analysis of the variables, are
provided in Appendix C. Pearson’s correlation were done to
determine the effect the variables had on other variables and the
significance of communication on individual attitude, happiness,
and job satisfaction. The questions designed to determine how
socialization affects happiness and job satisfaction resulted in a
broad range of the number of friends at work, from one to more
than thirteen. Socialization outside of work was rare-to-
infrequent.
Data: https://www.suu.edu/hss/comm/masters/capstone/thesis/proctor-c.pdf
2. Research On “Group and Team”
ABSTRACT:
The ways humans communicate in a group situation. Research
in group interaction has shown that, when formed, a group
attains its own identity that exists irrespective of the identities
or personal characteristics of each individual member. A group
has a ‘personality’ of its own, so to speak. At the same time, the
group with which one identifies or is a member of has a great
effect in the individual’s identity and social potential. We first
consider team effectiveness as a dynamic process. We next
review the research base to identify critical team processes and
emergent states that contribute to team effectiveness. Having
established that research foundation, we then consider factors
that can influence, shape, and create appropriate team process.

Conceptual framework and

review focus. The figure illustrates that environmental dynamics and complexity drive team task demands; team
processes and emergent states align team-member resources to resolve task demands and yield team effectiveness;
and team outputs (effectiveness) reciprocally influence the environment, in an ongoing cycle. The focus of this report
is shaded: team processes and emergent states; and the factors that shape, leverage, or align them.

The Nature of Teams and Team Effectiveness

What Is a Team?
− A team can be defined as (a) two or more individuals who
(b) socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually);
(c) possess one or more common goals; (d) are brought
together to perform organizationally relevant tasks; (e)
exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals,
and outcomes; (f) have different roles and responsibilities;
and (g) are together embedded in an encompassing
organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the
broader system context and task environment.
What is Team Effectiveness?
Team effectiveness is the capacity of a group of people,
usually with complementary skills, to work together to
accomplish goals set out by an authority, members, or
leaders of the team. Team effectiveness models help us
understand the best management techniques to get
optimal performance from our teams.
A Dynamic View of Team Processes and Effectiveness:
− We adopt a more contemporary perspective that has
evolved over the last decade, which conceptualizes the
team as embedded in a multilevel system that has
individual, team, and organizational-level aspects; which
focuses centrally on task-relevant processes; which
incorporates temporal dynamics encompassing episodic
tasks and developmental progression; and which views
team processes and effectiveness as emergent
phenomena unfolding in a proximal task- or social context
that teams in part enact while also being embedded in a
larger organization system.
 Normative Model:
− Hackman (1992) presented a normative model of team
design that is useful for highlighting necessary factors to be
considered when teams, and the supporting organizational
system, are configured. Key areas that should receive
attention include ensuring that the organizational context
supports the team, that the team design promotes
competence, and that material resources are sufficient.
− The normative model specifies that the organizational
context needs to provide appropriate rewards, education,
and information. Consider, for example, that organizational
reward systems are typically focused on individual
performance rather than team performance.
Conclusion:
− Collectively, emerging theory and empirical findings
support leaders as a key leverage point for enhancing team
effectiveness. Leadership skills are amenable to training
interventions, and training programs for leader skill building
are available for each of the approaches discussed in this
review. Moreover, organizations have demonstrated
considerable interest in improving leadership through
training, with surveys suggesting that leadership training is
regarded as the most important training need (Human
Technology, 1993) and is among the top three areas in
which firms sponsor training (Lee, 1991). In addition to
direct training of leader skills within the theoretical
approaches, the types of experiences and assignments
 leaders accrue across a career are also a key point of
leadership development. Indeed, research efforts in the
military are attempting to identify key learning outcomes
derived from experience and to create simulations to
provide similar experiences in more compressed time
frames to accelerate leader development
Data: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-
1006.2006.00030.x

3. Research On “Scientific Management”

ABSTRACT:
Scientific management is a theory of management that analyzes
and synthesizes workflows. Its main objective is improving
economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of
the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of
processes to management. Scientific management is sometimes
known as Taylorism after its pioneer, Frederick Taylor.
In order to have a more productive organization, Taylor
believed that there were several steps involved. First, one must
examine the job or task. Second, one needs to determine the
best way to complete the job or task. Third, one must choose
the most appropriate person for the task at the same time
properly compensating that person. Lastly, one must be able to
train the person to do the task efficiently. Taylor believed that
by using these scientific steps, then organizations would have
fewer misuses of human effort. Taylor’s idea of scientific
management originated during the time in history when most
training of workers was based on apprenticeship models. In an
apprenticeship, a person would be taught and skilled by a more
experienced person, who would illustrate the task so that the
inexperienced person could model the behaviour. Taylor
believed that this was a very ineffective way of training because
he felt that workers would differ in terms of tasks that were
performed and the effectiveness of the tasks would be
dependent on the type of training received. Taylor argued that
the there should be only one way to explain the job and one
way to execute the task. He did not believe that it should be left
up to the expert to train apprentices on the task. Four Principles
of Scientific Management
Taylor's four principles are as follows:
 Replace working by "rule of thumb," or simple habit and
common sense, and instead use the scientific method to
study work and determine the most efficient way to
perform specific tasks.
 Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, match
workers to their jobs based on capability and motivation,
and train them to work at maximum efficiency.
 Monitor worker performance, and provide instructions and
supervision to ensure that they're using the most efficient
ways of working.
  Allocate the work between managers and workers so that
the managers spend their time planning and training,
allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently.
Critiques of Taylorism:
His idea here is that workers are given as much autonomy as
practically possible, so that they can use the most appropriate
approaches for the situation at hand. (Reflect here on your own
experience – are you happier and more motivated when you're
following tightly controlled procedures, or when you're working
using your own judgment?) What's more, front line workers
need to show this sort of flexibility in a rapidly-changing
environment. Rigid, rules-driven organizations really struggle to
adapt in these situations.
Teamwork is another area where pure Taylorism is in opposition
to current practice. Essentially, Taylorism breaks tasks down
into tiny steps, and focuses on how each person can do his or
her specific series of steps best. Modern methodologies prefer
to examine work systems more holistically in order to evaluate
efficiency and maximize productivity. The extreme
specialization that Taylorism promotes is contrary to modern
ideals of how to provide a motivating and satisfying workplace.
To sum up, scientific management in practice generally tends to
weaken the competitive power of the individual worker and
thwarts the formation of shop groups and weakens group
solidarity; moreover, generally scientific management is lacking
in the arrangements and machinery necessary for the actual
voicing of the workers ideas and complaints and for the
democratic consideration.
Scientific Management # Conclusion:
− Thus, the works of Taylor and those following the scientific
management school led the standardisation of work and
put the concepts of productivity and efficiency into
practice. Labour productivity, no doubt, increased but
scientific management also helped to create boredom,
dissatisfaction and alienation of the workers.
Data:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_Taylor.ht
m
https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/an-introduction-to-
organizational-communication.pdf
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~e105/readings/team/communica
tion.pdf

4.
4. Research On ‘The people power of transformations’

ABSTRACT:
Organizational transformations are hard work, and according to
the latest McKinsey Global Survey on the topic 4, companies are
no more successful at overhauling their performance and
organizational health than they were ten years ago. A particular
blind spot seems to be the failure to involve frontline
employees and their managers in the effort. Transformations
have their truisms. Successful ones, for example, require visibly
engaged C-suite leaders who communicate clearly about the
changes at hand. A vast majority of all respondents report these
characteristics at their companies, whether or not their
transformations have worked. But the results suggest that while
C-level support is necessary, it is not by itself sufficient. A
transformation’s success also requires that people across the
organization have a specific role to play and that everyone
knows how to carry out his or her part.

Survey:
Survey asked about seven specific roles and the actions that
employees in these roles take during a transformation.6 For
each one, and most notably for roles at lower levels of the
organization, respondents at companies with the most
successful transformations report overall greater degrees of
involvement. Respondents at these companies also are likelier
to report other practices that set their transformations apart:
consistent communication around the changes being made,
especially to those on the front line; clear definitions of roles
and responsibilities; and a strategic approach to talent
management. In contrast, responses suggest that without
employees at all levels having a stake in the outcome, the
transformation might well be doomed. Among respondents
whose companies’ transformations failed to engage line
managers and frontline employees, only 3 percent report
success, compared with success rates of 26 and 28 percent,
respectively, when each of these groups is engaged. Among
respondents, there is clear consensus that company leaders are
deeply involved in and committed to transformational change
(Exhibit 1). Even on the front line, 84 percent of respondents
say their CEOs are very or somewhat engaged. So, do a majority
of respondents at companies where the transformation failed,7
suggesting that CEO buy-in is a critical and therefore expected
part of a transformation. Indeed, when asked which role has
had the greatest impact on transformation results, respondents
across the organization cite CEOs most often. What really sets
the more successful transformations apart, according to the
results, is the involvement of frontline employees and their
managers. Many companies seem to miss this: respondents rate
these groups (along with their human-resources leaders) as the
least engaged in transformations.
The difference that good communication makes:
While frontline engagement is so important to a
transformation’s outcome, few respondents report that their
organizations built broad ownership of the change effort. Only
39 percent of all respondents—and 11 percent at companies
with failed transformations—say so. One way to build
ownership is with effective communication, which emerged in
earlier work as a key factor of transformation success.

Looking ahead:
In response to some of the challenges that the survey results
revealed, here are a few steps that companies can take to
support the success of their transformations:

Show—don’t tell—progress to the front line. When large

companies embark on a transformation, there is a risk that
frontline employees will see only the individual pain and not the
aggregate gain. Communicating clearly and creatively in a way
that stimulates dialogue around the transformation’s ambition
and progress further increases the chances of success.
Techniques such as regular surveys taking the organization’s
cultural pulse, and progress parties celebrating a
transformation’s milestones, can help create a foundation for
real dialogue between senior leaders and the front line on the
transformation and the potential changes to be made.
Involve HR as a strategic partner. Transformations have a
significant impact on employees and therefore require active
involvement from human resources. Yet respondents tend to
perceive their HR leaders as less critical than other senior roles
to the transformation’s outcome. For this view to change, the
HR leader must set up his or her function to position itself
strategically at the centre of the transformation, rather than
playing a transactional role. This will allow HR to make full use
of its expertise and contribute to the transformation in
important ways, such as moving people around the organization
—in moderation. One way for HR to add value in a
transformation is by taking a clean-sheet approach to the
organization’s new, post transformation design, then using
strategic workforce-planning tactics (such as recruitment, talent
development, and dismissal) to achieve that vision.
Engage employees through new channels. The survey results
suggest that reaching the front line is a greater-than-average
challenge at larger companies. But companies of all sizes can
benefit from creative, more digital approaches to engaging
employees in a transformation. The use of social media, change-
management apps or games, and live-feedback tools should
support and complement the movement of information from
the top to the rest of the organization, rather than replace
traditional methods. Such approaches can do so by making
communication more tailored and personal to individual
employees (for example, sending personalized push
notifications if a milestone has been reached) and by providing
more regular updates on the state of the transformation.
Employees can also use these tools to explore and engage with
the changes being made, on their own terms and with the
ability to provide feedback. More advanced communication
tools will be especially helpful in large companies that struggle
to engage the front line and in companies with many different
sites or locations.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S):

The contributors to the development and analysis of this survey
include Dana Major, a senior partner in McKinsey’s Tel Aviv
office; Angelika Reich, a partner in the Zurich office; and Lara
Yocarini, an associate partner in the Paris office.

They wish to thank Claire Barnett, Surbhi Sikka, and Lukas Wall
rich for their contributions to this work.

Data: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-
and-organizational-performance/our-insights/successful-
transformations
5. Research On “Organizational learning during COVID-19”
Aabstract:
Aim:
The aim of this study is to test the validity of the Organizational
Learning in Hospitals model in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic.

Background:
Organizational learning is especially crucial in circumstances of
intense, complex, enduring change, as with the COVID-19
pandemic. Nurse managers need additional guidance for
fostering organizational learning under such circumstances. The
Organizational Learning in Hospitals model may be a helpful
resource but requires additional validation.
METHODS:
This study was conducted using a deductive, qualitative
descriptive approach. Qualitative, descriptive studies are
commonly used in nursing and health care research to explore
phenomena that are not well understood. When using a
deductive approach, researchers purposefully select a theory or
framework to guide the study. The analysis is, in part, focused
on determining whether the data collected supports the chosen
theory as is, indicates the theory should be modified or reveals
something entirely unique (Kim et al., 2017). In this case, the
Organizational Learning in Hospitals model (Lyman, Jacobs, et
al., 2019) guided the study's design and analysis, allowing the
researchers to explore the model's validity in the context of a
global pandemic. The model, generated through a realist review
(Lyman, Jacobs, et al., 2019) and subsequently validated
qualitatively (Lyman et al., 2020), depicts how the convergence
of six contextual factors and five mechanisms leads to
organizational learning in hospitals. Ethical approval for this
study was obtained through the researchers first invited several
of their professional colleagues to participate and then asked
those participants to refer their professional colleagues to
participate as well. The final sample included 19 participants,
who worked in a total of 16 different facilities, located in eight
different states across the United States (Table 1), allowing the
results to reflect a breadth of experiences. the researchers'
university Institutional Review Board.
Data collection:
Semi-structured interviews were used to gather information
about the participants' experienced changes in the workplace
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors developed an
interview guide based on the Organizational Learning in
Hospitals model (Lyman, Hammond, et al., 2019). Participants
were asked to describe how their organization prepared for the
pandemic, how COVID-19 related practice changes occurred in
their organization and the mechanisms and contextual factors
present in those change processes. Interviews lasted up to 45 
min.
Data analysis:
This study involved a deductive approach to thematic analysis,
guided by the Organizational Learning in Hospitals model. The
researchers independently familiarized themselves with the
data and considered the participants' words in relation to the
model. Individual findings were then discussed collectively until
consensus was reached. These collective interpretations were
then compared with the transcripts, to ensure they were truly
grounded in the data. Member checking was then used to
clarify information shared during the interviews and to enhance
the trustworthiness of the analysis. Five participants
participated in the member checking process. Using Walker and
Avant's (2011) guidelines for concept analyses, two nurses'
experiences were selected as model and contrary cases of
organizational learning.

RESULTS:
COVID-19's spread to the United States amplified complexity,
accelerated change and increased uncertainty for healthcare
organizations, thus challenging their capacity for organizational
learning. To test the validity of the Organizational Learning in
Hospitals model (Lyman, Jacobs, et al., 2019) in this unique
context, we examined how well the model's proposed tenets
aligned with actual experiences of organizational learning. We
first identified which contextual factors and mechanisms were
present in the organizations where nurses experienced
organizational learning (Table 1). Tables 2 and 3 illustrate
various examples of the contextual factors and mechanisms
described by the nurses. As anticipated, nearly all of the factors
were present in most of the organizations, indicating good
alignment between the model and nurses' experiences. Angela's
experience is an example of successful organizational learning in
preparation for and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In
her experience, all of the contextual factors and mechanisms
associated with organizational learning were present, before
and during the pandemic. Jocelyn's experience is an example of
difficult organizational learning. In the residential treatment
facility where Jocelyn had her experience, nearly all of the
contextual factors and mechanisms associated with
organizational learning were absent, before and during the
pandemic.
Organizational learning in acute and long-term care;
Although nurses' experiences in acute care facilities were not
directly compared to those in long-term care and residential
facilities, Table 1 suggests the contextual factors and
mechanisms associated with organizational learning were more
prevalent in acute care facilities. Regardless of which type of
facility they worked in, all the nurses' experiences included both
successes and challenges related to organizational learning. For
example, one nurse's experience in an acute care facility
included all of the mechanisms of organizational learning, but
navigating change was still challenging because the team lacked
motivation, critical infrastructure and shared experience.
Another nurse's experience in a long-term care facility was
successful, even though motivation and opportunities for
collective reflection were lacking. She shared that these deficits
were overcome through strong leadership, effective
communication throughout the organization, clear
expectations, adequate infrastructure and ample opportunities
for deliberate learning, which allowed their team to respond
effectively to COVID-19.

DISCUSSION:
The primary purpose of this study was to test the Organizational
Learning in Hospitals model's validity in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The model indicates the convergence of
certain contextual factors and mechanisms of organizational
learning results in organizational learning (Lyman, Jacobs, et al.,
2019). Our findings offer support for this claim. Although all of
the contextual factors and mechanisms were present in the
majority of nurses' experiences of organizational learning, there
were stark differences across the nurses' experiences. These
differences made it possible to consider how experiences of
organizational learning differ based on the presence (or
absence) of the factors and mechanisms specified in the
Organizational Learning in Hospitals model.

Angela's and Jocelyn's experiences clearly illustrate such

differences. In Angela's experience, all the mechanisms and
contextual factors converged to yield positive changes in what
the organization knew, how it thought and how it functioned.
For example, employees in Angela's hospital shared a common
purpose, deliberately learned effective strategies for treating
and mitigating the spread of COVID-19 and felt psychologically
safe enough to discuss, question and refine their COVID-19
response. In contrast, those contextual factors and mechanisms
were largely absent from Jocelyn's experience. For example,
employees in Jocelyn's organization lacked a cohesive purpose,
effective leadership and critical infrastructure (e.g., staff,
supplies and an efficient communication platform). As a result,
there was substantial resistance to implementing fundamental
safety practices.

Although Angela and Jocelyn's experiences were starkly

different, other nurses' experiences reflected similar patterns.
The convergence of the contextual factors and mechanisms
specified in the Organizational Learning in Hospitals model
appeared to be associated with organizational learning. Further,
the absence of one or more contextual factors and/or
mechanisms seemed to significantly impede the organizations'
ability to learn. As a whole, these findings further validate the
Organizational Learning in Hospitals model (Lyman, Jacobs, et
al., 2019), both generally and in the context of a pandemic.
Data: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jonm.13452
CONCLUSION ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION:

Communicating with them on a regular basis helps you know

whether they are really happy with their jobs or not. If they are
enjoying their work, you are doing a good work and if they are
not, you really should look into the matter on an urgent basis if
you really want to retain your employee. No one doubts the
importance of team building in an organization, but the
necessity to maintain the team and continually foster an
environment where it can grow is sometimes overlooked. Just
like any engine in a car, in order for all the pieces to function
perfectly and reliably, the integral parts must be serviced
regularly. Effective coaching for your team may mean the
difference between significant long-term productivity and a
slow decline into obsoletes. The scientific management
approach raised an awareness of the worker in
relation to the organization. Taylor posited “the development of
each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity” as his
philosophy. Making a transformation’s goals tangible for all
employees takes more than just one-way communication. We
see from the survey that the most successful organizations are
more likely to involve employees and engage them in face-to-
face communication: specifically, using line-manager briefings
(cited by 65 percent of respondents whose transformations
were successful), leadership town halls, and a cascade of
information throughout the business (for more on employee
communication and engagement, see sidebar “The power of
influencers”). The pandemic has made organizations learn new
ways of conducting their business. The companies in this 2020
study had to implement strategies that had an effect on the way
people perceived the organization’s central ideology. At
present, organizations are busy in a turbulent environment
where economic and job issues must be carefully addressed if
they are to remain sustainable. New organizational practices to
prevent the spread of COVID-19 raise a cultural
challenge that people need to adjust to fast. High
administration faces, surely for years to come, new challenges
in work environments, such as working with new information
and communication technologies, social distancing, adapting to
new processes, integrating new supply chains, etc.
Thank u