[Letters] Giving clear work instructionsWe find many workplaces still have not grasped the importance of effective internal communications. Samsung Economic Research Institute posed this survey question recently to both managers and employees: “What improvements are needed when giving and receiving instructions?” The responses point to shortcomings in clarity, explanation and resources needed to complete an assignment.
Better sharing of information and material associated with the instructions was suggested by 34.8 percent of the respondents. Elimination of ambiguity in the final results being sought was selected by 33.6 percent of the managers and employees and 32.1 percent said instructions should be clearer, with employees given a chance to ask questions.
One of the main causes in the communication failure is managers who incorrectly assume employees know what they’re talking about. That is, they give instructions on a “you know what I mean” basis. As such, there is a failure to provide sufficient information, including the background, context and importance of the task at hand, and those who receive the instructions are apt to fall short of successfully fulfilling their duties.
Stanford University conducted an interesting experiment on this very problem. A subject was asked to tap the rhythm of a popular and well-known song. Because the subject had prior knowledge, he or she naturally assumed that others would also easily recognize the song. However, much to everybody’s surprise, a mere 2.5 percent were able to identify the song. The same situation arises when giving orders with the assumption that the receiving person fully understands the context of the instructions.
The second obstacle is the unilateral, top-down form of giving orders. This produces a passive workforce in which critical and creative thinking is not cultivated. In short, employees don’t think outside of the box to achieve that extra result. To break this mold, employees should be asked questions and encouraged to express their opinions. For example, “Is this sufficient for an environmental assessment?” or “Can you think of any other alternatives?” Namely, the door must always be left open for employees to contribute ideas by clearly conveying the specifics of the task.
Taking that one step further, an environment should be created where employees can work autonomously with as much authority as possible. Giving clear instructions should not be mistaken for micro-managing.
The PC firm Lenovo, China’s largest private company, received global recognition after taking over IBM’s PC division in 2004. The firm’s founder and CEO Liu Chuanzhi is an advocate of the “Engine Culture,” in which the CEO is the main engine and the employees are the subsidiary engines of the main engine and not merely its gears. In other words, employees should be allowed to think and act freely in order to do better. For effective communication, managers must learn to ask themselves a series of questions:
1. Is the work necessary?
2. Is the person assuming the task right for the position? Is there a problem in the allocation of the work?
3. Am I clearly explaining what the desired end result is and how and by when it should be completed?
4. Are there specific guidelines on the reporting method and the scale and scope of the task?
5. How can I help?
Clear and precise orders not only ensure that the work gets done but is the first step to enhancing both the employees’ capabilities and the organization.
*Letters and commentaries for publication should be addressed “Letters to the Editor.” E-mailed letters should be sent to email@example.com.
Ye Ji-eun, a research fellow at Samsung Economic Research Institute.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)