Breaking Barriers to Effective Communication in the Workplace

By Linda Eroke

Communication barriers are frequent occurrences in any organisation, no matter the size of the organisation. Communication barriers can be defined as any breakdown or impediment that concerns relaying information and such barriers in communication may occur between workers or within a structural system.

However, lack of effective communication is said to hinder organisations from successfully conducting their operations and building relationships with clients. Often time, management is seen to be actively engaged in suppressing the flow of information within the ranks and this inhibits the open relaying of information, thereby creating the potential for misunderstandings and internal conflicts. Thus, a significant barrier in communication occurs when there is conflict between the administration and its employees thereby preventing staff members from expressing their ideas or listening to others with whom they have personal issues.

Dianne Heath in an article ‘Barriers to Effective Communication in an Organisation’ opined that removing the barriers to effective communication plays a vital role in establishing a solid organisation.

According to her, humans often filter out what they don't wish to hear, eliminating the unpleasant information and/or disregarding information that clashes with their beliefs. This, she said can create some conflicts and even split an organisation.

“Staff members who are afraid of delivering negative messages, don't want to listen to harsh criticism or are not confident in ideas, may hesitate to articulate honestly. If staff members are anxious about the reaction of management or influential staff members, he may lower his efforts to disclosure important details. Too much information or too many insignificant messages can encourage anxiety and cause him to block out the communication to maintain order. A hostile environment and abusive coworkers may push employees to withdraw or communicate a negative manner,” she said.

In the same vein, Christina Bielaszka-DuVernay, the editor of Harvard Management Update, submitted that most organisations are engaged in the suppression of flow of information especially within the ranks.

“All organisations grapple with these issues at some time. To lead effectively, managers need information. When this information does not reach them, for whatever reason--their own resistance to hearing it, reluctance of the rank and file to speak up and voice concerns, employees covering up missteps and mistakes, organisational structures that stymie information exchange--their effectiveness and that of their organisation are diminished,” she said. In some cases, she said the consequences can even be deadly.
Meanwhile, human resource experts have continued to express the opinion that removing the barriers to effective communication plays a vital role in establishing a solid organisation.
According to these experts, overcoming communication barriers requires the management team to hold company-wide meetings, infuse employee orientations with the group's mission and welcome feedback at all levels of the organisational chart.

Catherine Capozz believes strongly that working through communication issues will improve the likelihood that employees will be satisfied with the company's goals. She said: “Employees disinterested in the overall success of the company because of poor communication are more inclined to pursue other work opportunities and will probably take little interest in improving their skill sets”.

Also, Bielaszka-DuVernay emphasised that if there are no policies and processes in place to encourage employees to relay bad news or voice dissent, organisations are in effect encouraging their employees to keep vital information under wraps.
She listed four strategies that managers and organisations can employ to break down common barriers to the vital flow of information to those who need it.

Promise not to Shoot the Messenger
She explained that “as commonsense as taking a "Don't shoot the messenger" approach sounds, it can be surprisingly difficult to do. After all, it's only natural for a manager who receives bad news that reflects on his unit's performance to become angry and upset”.
However, Bielaszka-DuVernay maintained that “giving in to these emotions is a surface way to block off communication channels.

Connellan said “Managers need to be aware of how their responses to bad news shape subordinates' behaviour”. He advised managers who do become visibly upset when told bad news to explain that their anger is directed at the situation, not at the person who conveyed it. “And even if you're upset at both, still you should thank her for bringing the matter to your attention.”
Thus, Bielaszka-DuVernay submitted that: “Not only do you need to show respect to employees, you need to demonstrate trust in them.” “If you want employees to trust you enough to bring you bad news, you must be willing to trust them,” said Johnson. “Do you share the performance and financial numbers with them? Do you empower them to make decisions? Do you let them know when you or the organisation has made a mistake? Are you willing to share strategic plans with them?”

Bridge Hierarchical Gaps
Bielaszka-DuVernay observed that in any situation defined by power imbalance those with less power are continually going to assess how much they can safely say without compromising their relationships with higher-ups.

According to her, the threat of embarrassment, humiliation or career damage is a potent silencer. “Members of Columbia's debris-assessment team--the engineers whose requests for images of the outside of the craft were countermanded-- told investigators that they believed that raising safety issues with managers would have resulted in their being “singled out for possible ridicule.” Despite their deep knowledge and expertise, these engineers “were separated from the decision-making process by distance and rank,” the report concluded.

Significant status differences also contributed to the communication problems that led to the shoot-down of the two Black Hawk helicopters after the first Gulf War by two F-15 fighter jets, resulting in the deaths of 26 peacekeepers. “Air Force culture told the AWACS traffic controllers that when dealing with fighter pilots, they were to shut up and listen. As a result, they were very reluctant to confront the pilots.”

She argued that if everyone is given licence to be contrarian, to point out problems, and to suggest improvements, the fear of embarrassment or exposure is significantly lessened.
“Instituting a mandatory after-action review at the completion of every major project is a positive step, but depending on the time frame and the complexity of the project, a "midaction review" may be helpful as well,” she emphasised

Fight Communication Drift
She warned that even the best policies don't help if they are not followed. For example, she said the “NASA requires that the mission management team meet daily during a shuttle expedition, yet Columbia's team met only five times during the 16-day mission”.

“You start with a system of rules and regulations, but over time, strong subcultures and parochialism cause everybody to slowly drift away from them, said Snook. Citing the incident central to his book, he said, “You've got helicopters drifting in one direction, F-15s drifting in another, and AWACS drifting in yet another. All of a sudden, you've got different groups of people for whom the same words mean different things.”

This phenomenon often occurs in cross-functional teams, Snook says. Each member is steeped in the language and culture of her particular department and views the project from her department's perspective. To guard against the distortions and misunderstandings this can cause, team members should relentlessly seek clarification by asking, "What does this mean to you? What are the implications here?" It's also critical that lower-ranked team members feel free to challenge higher-ups in their own units and in other units as well.

Watch the Customer
According to her, one way to improve companywide communication is to frame it around creating value for the customer
Therefore the bottom line, she said, is: “The clarity of mission and the ease of collaboration that strong internal communication fosters increase the value an organisation delivers and enhance its ability to communicate that value to outside stakeholders”.