Question

Information to read: Communications (Intro to Business course)

Before we leave the topic of management, we must consider one of the important skills a manager can have, namely, the ability to communicate. Communication - the ability to successfully transmit and receive messages, whether in spoken or written form - is critical to the overall performance of any enterprise.
On the surface the communication model is deceptively simple. We have a sender who transmits a message to a receiver and receives feedback. Since we have all been communicating since we were born, we should presumably be adept at it.
Unfortunately, things are not always as they seem, and the communication model has a number of complications that impede success. Messages are sent in code to a receiver who must decode them. Feedback is similarly encoded and must be decoded by the original sender. We must also choose a channel, or method, of delivering communications. These methods, called channels, can distort the meaning of the message.
Choice of channel is an important decision that is made every day in the workplace. Consider the basic issue of if a message should be sent orally or in writing. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and either may be appropriate depending on the type of message we wish to convey.
Oral communication involves speaking, whether in one-to-one conversation, group meetings, or, in the modern office, voice mail and videoconferencing. The advantages of oral communication are many.
Fast. Speed is perhaps the number one advantage. I have a message to convey and simply say it to the intended receiver. This can be critical when time is of the essence. There would be little point in writing a memo if the information it contained would arrive too late to be of any benefit.
Immediate Feedback. If I am speaking to someone, there is an opportunity for feedback right away. The listener can ask questions, and, the speaker can elicit a response. This can be a clarifying feature of oral communication.
Non-Verbal Cues. If messages are given face-to-face, the meaning can be clarified by non-verbal messages that may accompany the message. Non-verbal communication, by definition, is communication using something other than words. This includes body language, gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice and pacing of speech. I also includes things like how close we stand to the person we are speaking to.
Non-verbal language has the potential to enhance the message. For example, a greeting accompanied by a smile conveys warmth. However, we must also be aware that non-verbal communications can confuse the message as well. If he non-verbal and verbal messages conflict, the recipient may become confused and misinterpret the message. People instinctively react more to the non-verbal cues and may disregard the words in such situations.
Personal. Oral communication is by nature more personal. It can be off-the-record and therefore conveys an intimacy that a written document would not.
All of these are important benefits in some cases, but, at other times, written communication, using memos, reports or e-mails, is more appropriate. Benefits of written communication include the following.
More Thoughtful. By writing the message down, we have the opportunity to edit our choice of language. We can review it before sending to ensure that our meaning is clear. It also allows us to remove any destructive emotional content and present the message objectively.
Better for Details. Generally speaking, the more details are included in a message, the more likely it is that it should be written down. Human beings have a limited absorptive capacity for oral messages, so complex instructions are not likely to be remembered. Aspects of the communication are likely to be forgotten or mistaken.
Verifiable. One characteristic of written communication is that we can refer back to it to determine exactly what the message said. This eliminates disputes over the content of the message.
Efficient. There may be times when written communication is simply more efficient. If a sender needs to get the same message to multiple receivers, it may be impractical to have individual conversations with all of them and the logistics of setting up large group meetings may be daunting. A memo may be the answer in such cases.
If communication is complicated within our own culture, it is even more complex if we interact with other cultures. It is not simply a matter of a different verbal language. Non-verbal cues are also different across cultures. Gestures are a good example. The American gesture, meaning to come here, of a closed upward thrust hand with a finger motioning toward the gesturer is very impolite in the Middle East. There, the gesture for come here is a downward open hand with all fingers moving toward the gesturer. Use of space is also culture bound. What an American might consider too close would be normal somewhere else.
It eve goes beyond non-verbal language. Experts consider cultures to fall into two broad communication categories. There are low-context cultures and high-context cultures. Low-context cultures are those in which most of the meaning in a communication is in the words. Yes means yes and no means no. American culture is in this group although German and Scandinavian cultures are even more extreme examples. High-context cultures are those in which the words, though still having meaning, must be read in terms of the overall context of the communication. Who is saying it and what their relationship may be to the receiver, how it is said, when it is said and so on, all can modify the sense of the words spoken. Many Asian cultures and Middle Eastern cultures are good examples of this communication type.

The case:

A RELUCTANT MESSENGER

Hari Das was eager to do an outstanding job. He had originally come to the United States as an exchange student from India and had ultimately graduated with an MBA from a prestigious American university. He had recently been hired at a major manufacturing company on the staff of its president, Roland Stone.

Stone was a tough ex-military man who ran the operation as if he was still commanding a unit in the service. He made all major decisions and was almost always correct in his judgment. He had the knack for asking the penetrating question and was used to carrying the day in most corporate meetings. The only executive who contested the president, usually at meetings where the president was not present, was vice president Jack Dubin, who was almost always wrong.

Stone believed in "seeing what the troops were doing" and spent a good portion of his time visiting the many departments of the company. During these visits, whenever the president wanted to inform someone not present of a decision, request some information, or at times deliver a reprimand, he would turn to a member of his traveling party and give him or her an oral message to deliver to the appropriate person. Routinely, the selected messenger was a newly hired member of his staff, and this duty evolved on Hari Das.

One day, the president turned to Das and said, "You tell Jack Dubin to get this problem corrected before it blows up in his face." Das obediently went to Dubin's office and relayed the information. Dubin, in turn, became extremely agitated and gave Das a verbal thrashing. The astonished Das said nothing, and waited for his chance to leave the room.

The president continued to give Das messages to relay around the company. Hari Das did as he was told with one exception: he did not deliver any subsequent messages to Jack Dubin. The situation went on for several months, without Das telling anyone either that he was not delivering the president's messages to Dubin or why. During that time, the president was heard to grumble about Dubin not reacting very quickly to various situations.

Finally, one Friday afternoon, Stone asked Hari Das to get Dubin to prepare a report over the weekend that he wanted on his desk first thing Monday morning. Das again did not relay the message. Monday morning came and the report was not on the president's desk. After learning from his secretary that Dubin had left no messages concerning the report, Stone muttered "Well, that's it." He then called personnel on the phone and said "Fire Dubin. Give him whatever severance benefits are appropriate, but get him out of here. And, I don't want him coming up to see me."

As in most corporations, the situation became common knowledge on the grapevine, and many - but not the president - learned the true story behind Dubin's firing. As for Hari Das, he was frequently kidded by his colleagues and asked if he had any messages for them from the president.

Comment on the issues of this case. Who was to blame for Dubin's unfortunate firing? Why? How would you categorize the method of communication in this company? Did the grapevine have a positive or negative impact on this case? How might Hari Das' cultural background have contributed to his behavior?

The answer needs to be specific and detailed with a great explanation using the information to read above. It also has to be thoughtful :)

Thank you!!!!

Answer 1

This case involves oral communication of a message which is face to face . this methoad of communication is more personal in case of scarcity of time and message being of utmost importance. in this case when mr. das went to infom the message to mr dubin it was wrongly understood by the later as one of the drawbacks of using an oral communication is it tends to be less detailed and more subject to misunderstandings and at times even a strong verbal skills fails to convey the message .

grapevine had a negative impact in this case as message throughout the organisation in an undocumented manner and was open to ones own understanding and changed as per individuals perception

mr das was responsible for dubin's firing as he was reluctant in communicating the messages and so it never reached mr dubin.

the communication is highly affected by persons cultural background as message sender has to translate his ideas , feelings into words , gestures otherwise he will not understand his message.the message is always dependent on perception and understanding of persons behaviour.

like in this case also dubin hd misunderstood the message of mr das which could be possibly because it was wrongly evaluated by mr dubin .cultural differences leads to misperception and misinterpreatation as well