The following research is based on a study done at a restructuring fitness organization. The process included, changing part-time staff to full time, and a new general manager. The research was based on the question; how management should aid their employees in the adaptation, and adjustment to a new structure.
The research consisted of related litterature, a series of employee questionnaires, interviews with management and facility owner. Each were asked questions based on managements communication with their employees.
The results proved that employees were not adequetly prepared by management, and management was unaware that lack of good communication skills were the source of restructuring problems.
The research revealed many areas managers had overlooked preparing employees for restructuring: proper communication methods, problems in communication that develop during restructuring, and techniques managers must take in preparing employees for restructuring.
The object of this study is a particular fitness organization. This fitness environment was chosen because it was undergoing a series of restructuring processes throughout the past year. The reason for the new structure was to accommodate the fitness organization's expansion. The five facilities' enrollment of members had tripled over the past three years, and it had been recently renovated to accommodate such high volume.
The three owners of the facility, along with the general manager, developed a structure consisting of a full time staff that would benefit them in this time of growth. They set two goals: the first was to cut back expenses and the second was to improve customer service. In order to achieve these goals they restructured from within the organization. They changed the existing employee positions from ones that consisted of both full and part-time employees to a format of an all full-time staff. The owners and general manager were hoping that they could cut back expenses through their payroll by decreasing the number of positions available. They also hoped that customer service would improve due to the staff being small but highly qualified.
The idea seemed very good on paper and was even put into effect. The general manager hired a replacement for herself as she was promoted to regional manager. She then left the facility to oversee the four other facilities run by the same owners. The new structure still in its transitional process was now in the hands of a new general manager.
As the transition process continued, part-time employees were let go. Those that were full-time remained as well as those hired to fill the positions of those who left. Many excellent employees were lost during these changes. Some were forced out as their part-time positions were eliminated. Others left on their own because of the poor treatment of former employees and themselves, or disagreements between themselves and the new manager. The employees that remained had a difficult time adjusting to both a new manager and a whole new working environment.
Meanwhile, the other facilities kept prospering as membership enrollment increased and customer service was able to meet the needs of its members. Unfortunately, after only eight months, the fitness organization's new structure began to fail. Membership enrollment was on the decline and employees who were unsure of their stability found employment elsewhere. In a panic, the owners decided that it was the new structure that had caused the organization to fail and they decided to return to the original. New and old employees were now faced with a transition back to an old manager and original structure. Those recently hired to work as full-time staff would go through the restructuring process for the first time, and adapt to a new manager and system. Those who remained braced themselves as they went through the stress and insecurity for a second time.
The fitness organization became an interesting area of study because of the transitions it had gone through, and the effect it had on the communication between the employer and employees. During restructuring it is essential that the manager's communication with their employees be effective, in order to prepare them for, and adapt them to a new structure. The question which this research is based on is: What does a manager need to do to make their communication effective enough to aid their employees in adapting and adjusting to the new structure? In meeting after meeting, the owners, employees and managers have been trying to correct what is wrong with the way they had been communicating with the employees. The particular organization chosen, was studied in hopes of finding a solution to some of the communication problems that managers face when restructuring. Once the problems are pin pointed, they can be corrected and prevented in the future phases of the restructuring process.
Restructuring is the avenue many businesses are following during the post recession era of the 1990's. In order to reduce spending and hopefully save money, most organizations are looking to downsize and create a structure that can better financially accommodate them. Restructuring is such a fresh topic in organizations these days: ". . . . an organization reduces its staff considerably, and they prioritize through strategic thinking, they chose markets, products, services and technologies for which sustainable competitive advantages can be realized. They mold, structure, select and recruit new personnel, train and retrain their survivors to manage, to lead leaner more lithe organizations" (Ginzberg,1988, p98).
Many researchers have come to the conclusion that organizations find it necessary to restructure in order to be able to survive in today's economy. They are looking to meet the needs of their stockholders and customers. In so doing, many demands must be met. These demands are the primary cause of restructuring and along with the process comes many changes. In order for a company to survive such changes, effective communication between management and employee is required ( Caywood & Ewing, 1988,p. 123). There are many books on good communication between manager and employee. The title of some of the books are; Management and Communication During Restructuring, Effective Communication, and Corporate Transformation. They explain and ease the confusion, frustration and misery that often accompanies the restructuring process.
The most essential part of communication between management and employee during restructuring is for the manager to inform the employee before hand, to give the employee time to adapt to the changes. In most cases, the employee is not properly informed of the changes about to take place. "In far too many of these restructuring episodes employees were victims of the mushroom factor: they were kept in the dark while liberal amounts of fertilizer were spread over them. In effect, the corporation's second most vital constituency was cut off from meaningful information" (Caywood & Ewing, 1992, p.180). The Gatekeeper's Theory can be associated with the Mushroom Factor. The Gatekeeper informs the other employees of change, decide what is going to be said and when. In some cases, too many employees disperse information and multiple Gatekeepers result. Caywood and Ewing (1992) suggest that there be a single Gatekeeper to avoid confusion.
Another means of communication a manager may use to pass information along is the "chain of command." As with the Gatekeeper, miscommunications may result using this method. Potts (1993) agrees by stating, "the problem with relying exclusively on the chain of command, is that much of the information will be filtered as it passes upward." Potts continues his statement, "There will be a tendency to pass along only those opinions the boss wants to hear" (p. 46).
It is vital in restructuring to inform employees of the changes about to take place. If they too are not properly informed, they will not adapt properly. Donaldson (1994) states: "Hence resistance to change often preserves the status quo beyond its period of relevance so when change comes the pent up forces like an earthquake capture in one violent moment a decade of gradual change" (p. 56). The pent up forces that the author mentions refers to the mixed emotions of the employees created by the frustrations of the adjusting process."
Open communication with employees plays an essential role in management communication. Lewis (1980) discusses how management must create the necessary environment for providing open communication. Management must be empathetic to the needs of the employees in order to keep the morale up. When the employees feel their thoughts and ideas are neglected, their morale is lowered.
Open communication will also decrease the fear of being embarrassed or penalized by management. As a result of such fears, people may distort or conceal their feelings and thoughts. They may deny that problems exist, shift the blame to someone else, or turn against themselves or others. They may be negative influences on those around them or they may spread gossip or rumors (Kern,1986, p.57 ). Communication is improved when the people involved respect each other and are sincerely interested in one another. Such respect, interest, and concern are more likely to exist when people are honest, positive, pleasant, and friendly with one another. Good work relationships are more likely to occur when people cooperate with one another, and work together for the benefit of the group as a whole. Such behaviors and work atmospheres create an environment in which good communication is discovered (Kern, 1986, P.18).
Restructuring, in whatever guise is traumatic and painful. Much too frequently, it reverses the order of importance of the companie's vital constituencies: employees coming "dead last", and dead is a reasoned choice of words (Caywood & Ewing,1988,p.179). As employees undergo these changes, they begin to question their job security and it is up to management to reassure them of the stability of their job. Ginzberg (1988) elaborates by stating, "Wide distrust by employees to managers develops when they are unsure if their employment is going to be long term" (p. 45).
Good communication between manager and employee is vital. Management should inform employees, and should not assume how the employee feels about the change. Because the pace of restructuring is often a whirlwind of events, corporate managers often rely on what they think employees are thinking, rather than on the more useful knowledge of what employees really think (Chew, Stern & Stewart, 1989, P. 56). Caywood and Ewing go into further detail by saying, "Moreover, restructuring is not the time to curtail employee communication. If anything, restructuring requires more communication not less. Due to the lack of effective communication, mixed messages result and misunderstandings occur throughout restructuring. This can cause many unnecessary problems, especially if what is said is taken out of context. These messages may complicate rather than simplify, confuse rather than clarify" (Stohl,1995, p.49).
Not only is effective communication essential in preparing and carrying out tasks, it is essential in developing relationships. "The most fundamental purpose of communication is to develop and maintain social relationships among individuals. Only through communication can people share information and coordinate their activities" (Haslett,1987, P.19). Killman and Covin (1988) agree with Haslett and state, "Changing structures and systems is a powerful intervention because it alters the information that employees are exposed to, the roles they play, the relationships they form, the interactions they must manage, and the responsibility and accountability they must feel" (p. 45). They add that attitude change follows a change in structure and reinforces negative employee behavior change. This behavior is brought about by the new organizational arrangements.
The importance of good communication in a relationship is reemphasized as Stohl (1995) explains that individuals who resent and feel threatened by difference are often fearful of losing power under these circumstances. They can sabotage organizational relationships assuring that outsiders fail. Ginzberg (1988) agrees that poor relationships can create negative situations, and he goes on to discuss how competition can damper the relationship between a manager and an employee. "Employees may be in competition for their manager's position and thus willing to sit by and let the manager stumble blindly into an organizational abyss." (Ginzberg, 1988, p.50).
As managers develop relationships and communication with employees, they should realize that talking alone does not mean they have reached a state of communication. As further explained, just because information has been exchanged does not mean that feelings have been shared (Millar, 1976, p.15). Assuming that the other understands the information exchanged because it was sppoken to them, does not necessarily mean that they have understood what is being said. Such a situation only leads to more confusion.
Messages that are passed between two people are not as complicated as those that keep getting passed from one person to the next. When a message is passed between no more than two people, the speaker and the listener are the primary causes in the distortion of messages. Not only are distorted messages a factor in miscommunicaton but the systematic distortion of messages is likely to occur when the distortion is due to the mere number of people the messages must pass through (serial transmissions) or the inability of the sender or receiver to reproduce the identical message (Stohl,1994, p.124).
Attitude conflicts are another cause of miscommunications. An important point that should be focused on in communicating during restructuring is determining where possible attitude conflicts come from. Lewis (1980) came up with six attitude types that are most commonly found at the work place: first type, superiority or talking down to, makes others feel inferior, and underestimates another's intelligence; second type, authoritative, or laying down the law occurs when an employee will not admit to their mistakes; the third is indifference, or lacking enthusiasm, showing preoccupation with other matters and boredom; the fourth, lack of cooperation, or not listening to other persons, shows inaccessability; the fifth, personality clash occurs when employees do not see eye to eye; the sixth, interpretation differences shows,poorly defined or vague statements of the problem, not talking about the same thing, or not saying what you mean.
Cushman & Kozminski (1993) mention that almost all problems in employee relations are people problems and communication has a very profound effect upon people. Interaction and encounters play a role in determining behavior during communication. A bad encounter could alter the behavior and attitude of future communication. According to Ginzberg (1988), "The recasting of particular encounters and their outcomes itself serves as the context for future interactions" (p. 69). To further explain this the author gave the example: If one experiences an unpleasant encounter with a particular person, one may have a negative attitude toward any future interaction with that individual (Haslett,1987,p.87). A manager may have a conflict with an employee and based on the lack of communication skills they carry, try to converse again with the same employee that day only to find that the employee has resumed where he has left off and no communication is accomplished.
A key point essential to managers in communication is that they need to communicate differently with each employee. Interaction skills refer to the participant's ability to appropriately adapt their communication to different participants and to satisfy different communicative demands across a diverse set of social situations (Haslett,1987,p.123). The following are examples of common mistakes made by managers in communicating: managers use communication as a corrective process rather than a preventative process; managers take a solution orientation to communicate problems rather than casual orientation; managers mistake information processing for communication; management does not have accurate self concepts of their role in the communication process; managers do not recognize organizational communication as a functional area subject to improvement and sophistication (Lewis, 1980, p.89). The old cliché of "knowing how to read people" comes into play. Managers need to be able to differentiate between the passive employees and the go getters, in order to create the rapport that is appropriate. Throughout the restructuring there will be things that both managers and employees do not agree on and knowing how to approach employees effectively can only be a benefit. Lewis (1980) also remarks by saying, "Talented members of an organization must learn quickly from their failures and press on to new projects" (Lewis, 1980, p.81).
Communication can be defined as the process which enables humans to cooperate, to coordinate actions and to come into conflict with one another (Dean,1953, p64). Prior to any interaction participants develop culturally determined expectations concerning communication and how to appropriately interact with others in varied settings (Haslett, 1987, p.46). What needs to be taken into account when communicating in business is, it's assumed that a person's conversational goals are relevant to their personal goals (Haslett, 1987, p.29). The definition of communication ties into the statement that attitude change follows and reinforces behavior change, which is brought about by the new organizational arrangements (Covin & Killman,1988,p.35). The most important factor that managers overlook is that a period of restructuring is not the time to start communication with employees. The time to start is well before the crisis makes it imperative (Caywood & Ewing, 1992, p.182). Often managers meet to discuss everything except how to overcome their biggest headache: communication. Lewis (1980) explains that the rate of change in organizations and in communication just in our lifetime has increased so much that our imaginations can't keep up. This tremendous increase in rate and in volume of change has the potential to be the most important cause of a manager's communication problems. (Lewis, 1980, p.86)
The following are guidelines for communication that are to be considered before the restructuring process: commit to active, comprehensive employee communications immediately, not just when it is necessary; develop a designated time to communicate with employees; seek to communicate with employees outside the workplace; learn to confront, deal with and use the company grapevine; be forthright, open and honest in talking with employees; provide feedback mechanisms so that employee communications are as efficient and effective up through the organization as they are top down; give incentives to employee communications, making every manager responsible and accountable for employee communications; commit the talent and resources necessary to get the employee communications job done, not just in good times, but also when it is difficult and uncomfortable (Caywood & Ewing,1992,p.181).
In the collection of data, three different types of surveys were distributed to various employees of the fitness organization, and three interviews were conducted in person. The questions were formed based on the communication events that occurred throughout the restructuring process such as: the preparation, adjustment and treatment of employees. The setting of the fitness organization is very condensed and contains no more than thirty employees, in which only fifteen of those work together on a rotating basis. The employees selected for the surveys and interviews were from the following positions: fitness consultant, membership sales, advertising personnel, accounts payable, front desk receptionist, assistant manager, general manager, regional manager and owner. These employees were chosen because each interacted with and relied on management for different problems in various areas. The information gathered from these various people would be used to indicate if there was one general area of employees that lacked communication with management, or if it had been the facility as a whole.
Prior to the distribution of the survey, permission was asked of the general manager. The study was explained as research that would benefit the organization, and determine the cause of miscommunication in the work place, as well as low employee morale. During the periods of transition, the manager agreed to let the employees participate in the surveys which were distributed at the organization's team meeting. A copy of each survey can be found in the appendix of the research paper.
The first survey was distributed during the first phase of restructuring at a time when the organization was in the transition process of going from a part-time staff to an all full-time staff. The survey was distributed to those full-time employees that had remained. The survey consisted of ten questions which the employees answered using their own thoughts and opinions. The questions were based on the employee's thoughts and attitudes concerning their manager's communication in the preparation for restructuring, and the quality of communication post restructuring.
The second and third surveys were distributed during the transformation back to the original structure. In this process the organization was returning to a part-time staff. The survey was distributed to the new full-time employees and those who were about to enter the new structure for the first time. The employees who had participated in the first survey were given a revised survey, which asked questions focusing on the preparation they had received from their new manager in the transformation back to both the original structure and manager, along with the changes in communication that occurred since they last filled out the survey. These questions were formed to, determine what caused the changes in employee's attitudes towards management under restructuring, and to determine whether or not communication had improved.
The third survey was distributed to those employees that were hired after the first phase of restructuring and were in the process of going through the transition for the first time as the organization returned to a part time staff. Their positions in the organization varied from assistant manager, fitness consultants, and receptionists. The questions they were asked focused their thoughts on the communication between manager and employee and the preparation they received to undergo a whole new structure for the first time. The method in completing the survey was the same as the previous ones, they were to answer the questions in full using their own opinions and ideas. The questions were used to distinguish the type of preparation and communication they had received in the transition process.
The three interviews that took place consisted of two managers and an owner of the health organization. The managers consisted of the original manager of the facility, who prepared the employees in the first transition, and was also promoted to a regional manager as part of the new structure. The manager taking her place as general manager, who was in charge of the transition back to the old structure was also interviewed. Both managers were asked their opinions about the restructuring, and communication at the fitness organization. They were also asked what they did to prepare their employees for the transitions, and how they used communication to help their staff adjust to the new structure. The questions were designed to determine what the cause of poor communication was.
The third person interviewed was one of the owners of the health organization. He was chosen as an onlooker of the restructuring process, someone who had been through the two processes but was not directly involved when it came time for the management to prepare its staff. His was an objective opinion that aided in the determination of miscommunication. The owner was asked questions concerning his feelings on both the manager's communication, and preparation of employees in the transitional processes. The questions were based on the first structure phase, and the return back to the original.
There were two methods used in recording the data from the surveys and interviews. The first method used to record the information from the surveys was a two-page questionnaire in which all answers were documented on paper. The data were then organized according to each answer. The answers for each question were then broken down into categories: for example if, the employees all agreed that communication was poor, a check mark was placed in the category of poor communication, with each check mark representing one employee. Other categories consisted of low morale, improvements needed for communication, lack of preparation, failures due to lack of communication. Causes of miscommunication were listed in this category as well as opinions or statements made towards overall communication by management from employees in both structures.
The categories were then reviewed and a general consensus was determined from each; as far as who thought communication needed improvement, where the improvement needed to take place, what caused the miscommunications, and how the employees could have been prepared better for this transition.
The method of recording and organizing the data from the interviews differed slightly from the ones used in the recording of the surveys. The interviewer documented the answers to the questions on a separate piece of paper. After all three interviews were conducted the information was reviewed and each opinion and statement was compared and contrasted with the others that were interviewed. Their opinions were then placed in the categories of those from the survey, they were highlighted to note that these ideas and opinions came from those doing the communicating.
The results of the surveys were as follows: out of the six surveys returned from those who underwent the restructuring process twice, all were fearful of losing their jobs through each transition. One out of the six employees agreed that they were not properly informed by management of the new structure. Five out of six of them agreed that their new manager did not communicate with them, instead they had to communicate with their manager. All six said that the communication between manager and employee was below average. All six agreed that communication was excellent in the original structure with the original manager, and changed to terrible with the new manager. All six agreed that there should be more meetings, allowing interaction between manager and employee. Six out of six agreed that lack of communication, has affected their productivity levels. Out of six employees, all six said the cause of misunderstandings was from the lack of communication with management. In the return back to the old structure, two out of the six replied to the updated survey. Both agreed that communication had not improved in the second transition process.
In the surveys asked of four of those going through the process for the first time, only two replied. Both agreed that they were properly informed by their manager in a team meeting of the transformation process back to the old structure. They also agreed on the fact that it was necessary for them to replace their current manager with the one from the original structure. The two employees also agreed that there needed to be more interaction between employees and management.
The results of the interview went as follows. The original manager did not feel that things were running as smoothly, and communication was lacking with the new management. The current manager did not see any existing problem with current standards of communication. The owner knew that there was a problem and was unsure of where it was coming from. The original manager agreed that the only way to correct the problem was by going back to the original structure where these problems did not exist. The owner and new manager did not agree that the old structure would be the proper solution. The original manager and owner agreed that miscommunications had been the cause of low morale amongst employees, whereas the new manager disagreed. The new manager and owner agreed that the original manager was the cause of many of the communication problems, whereas the original manager believed that it was the new manager.
The research leads to the conclusion that both managers did not adequately aid their employees in the adaptation and adjustment of each transition into a new structure.
The managers should have been informing their employees of the daily changes taking place, at a debriefing period before their shift. Employees would know exactly who had been informed, what they had been told, and could record the changes as they occurred.
It is very important to keep the flow of information open and organized. The mistake that the managers made was that they would be informed of a change by the owners, and then inform employees as they saw them that day. Those that were present did benefit from the information first hand, and those who were not present at the time relied on their fellow employees to repeat the information as accurately as they had been told. This creates more confusion, after a while it was almost impossible to find out who knew what. This in turn lowered the morale of the employees. The ones who had been left to fend for themselves felt unimportant because the manager could not take the time to inform them as well. They became confused about their duties and the way they should be carried out. They felt as though they should do nothing rather than do something and have it be wrong.
The employees had to rely on communicating with their managers, rather than their managers communicating with them. If they wanted to know about any procedural changes, had complaints or questions, managers had to inform employees. The managers were so busy trying to keep up with the fast pace of change themselves that the needs of their employees went unnoticed. Issues brought to them were put aside as the manager was too busy to deal with them. Considering the staff consisted of fifteen people, all of which needed to communicate with the management, during this unstable time, management became overloaded and were not able to hear each and every employee, and those that were heard were never answered. As one employee had said, "If employees do not take the initiative to ask questions, they will be left in the dark." Those that remained in the dark felt that they were not being heard, or understood by management, and left the organization. One employee stated, " I feel like an outsider, like I don't belong here, when before we (staff) felt li ke a team of employees as well as friends." Others that stuck with it were becoming tired and discouraged with the management; not only were they working twice as much under the new structure, their stress was doubled when their needs were not met by the management.
According to one employee things were out of control. The morale was lowered because management chose not to communicate with employees on an individual basis, and they felt unimportant. Another employee said, stress had increased and morale had decreased. They felt that their jobs were being threatened because the manager did not inform them of what positions, if any, were being eliminated. This brought productivity levels down, as employees did not think that the management cared hence why should they. An employee stated that he did not even feel like coming to work anymore because of the lack of consideration and notification of management to their employees. As one employee stated when he first was made aware of the restructuring he was scared of losing his position. They were frustrated due to their complaints that were going nowhere because they were left out of open forum meetings with management. Some employees threatened to leave their jobs because of the unprofessional way in which they were communicated with by management. An example, according to one survey said, "I feel like I am in school, with a teacher with an attitude walking around." When asked what they thought about the communication between boss and employee, there were such responses as, "There isn't any, and "It is ridiculous." They all agreed that communication has not improved with the new structure and that it would return to its good state in the return to the old structure. These examples relate back to the mushroom factor, mentioned by Caywood and Ewing. In this situation the managers did not inform their employees, and left them in the dark.
Reverting back to the original structure seemed like a plausible answer to the circumstances at hand, but in actuality it was not the structure that had failed: it was the communication. The return back to an old structure will bring some familiarity back to those that have remained, but they are now the minority and those that are new have to readjust and get used to a whole new system and boss. The problems concerning communication have not been addressed. The owners are relying on the talent of the original manager to save the organization.
In all organizations there are going to be gaps in communication that already exist. Managers need to know that throughout the transition stages gaps get bigger. They should properly research the process of restructuring beforehand. There are many valuable steps and guidelines that need to be followed in informing the employees. In this situation management had no knowledge of what the restructuring entailed, other than the instructions given to them by the owners. They believed that the problems they were faced with were caused by the new structure. They felt this way because these problems did not exist before the restructuring had taken place. Rather than evaluating where these complications may have come from origionally. Management kept looking into the organizational system in search for the cause of failure.
Effective communication is the key to good employee relations; without it an organization can not run properly. It is unfortunate that management overlooks its importance and focuses on what work needs to be done. In this study the organization suffered because no one took the time to look into the real cause of problems in the preparation stages and throughout restructuring.
The interaction between employer, and employee is what keeps a business running. If there is a miscommunication in the process daily business can not be carried out effectively, and in turn more work is needed to correct these miscommunications. In return, the employer, employee and organization suffer from these complications; business is lost and morale is lowered. If there had been effective communication from the start, time would not be lost and bussiness would prosper.
In conclusion the most important item to address is, the importance of good comunication skills. In gathering results, it may have been a benefit to the researcher to attend a meeting where, the organization met as a whole, and more personal interviews could have been conducted, in place of the survey. Both methods would have offered an open means of communication, where the researcher would have been given an opportunity to respond to the employee, and ask more questions.
The topic of restructuring deserves more research because it has become the trend of many businesses in the1990's. The more businesses that are faced with restructuring, their management will also be faced with similiar problems as found in this study. Management needs to know the importance of good communication, and if negelected it can slowly destroy the foundation of a good organization.
Alkhafaji, A., (1990). Restructuring American corporations: Causes, effects and implications. Connecticut: Quorum Press.
Altman, E. , (1993). Bankruptcy and distressed restructurings. Illinois: Homewood.
Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B., (1988). The great u- turn : Corporate restructuring and managing the polarized of America. New York: Basic Books.
Bowbrick, P., (1988). Effective communication for professionals and executives. Massachussettes: Graham and Trotman Publishers.
Carswell, E.A., (1971). Social contexts of messages. New York: Academic Press.
Caywood, C., & Ewing, P., (1992). The handbook of communication in corporate restructuring and takeovers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cushman, D., & Kozminski, A., (1993). Organizational communication and management: A global perspective. New York: Sate University of New York Press.
Dean, H., (1953). Effective communication. New York: Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, G., (1994). Corporate restructuring. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Dittman, A., ( 1983). Interpersonal messages of emotion. New York: Sage Publications.
Ginzberg, E., (1988). Executive talent: Developing and keeping the best people. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Harrigan, K., (1988). Managing maturing businesses. Lexington: Heath and Company.
Haslett, B., (1987). Communication: Strategy action in context. New Jersey: Erlbaum Assosciates.
Kern, B., (1986). Effective communication. Texas: The University of Texas at Austin Press.
Kilman, R., & Covin, T., (1988). Corporate transformation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Kochan, T., (1992). Transforming Organizations. New York: Oxford Press.
Lewis, P., (1980). Organizational communication: The essence of effective management. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Mehrabian, A., (1981). Silent messages: implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. California: Wadworth.
Millar, D., (1976). Messages and myths. New York: Alfred Publishing Company.
Potts, T., & Sykes, A., (1993). Executive talent: How to identify and develop and keep the best. Illionois: Irwin.
Stern, J., (1989). Corporate restructuring and exectutive compensation. Massachusetts: Baringer Publishing Company.
Stohl, C., (1995). Organizational communication: Connectednes in action. London: Sage Publications.
Torbert, W., & Jones, D., (1987). Managing the corporate dream: Restructuring for long term success. Illionois: Homwood.
Management Communication Survey
1. What is your opinion of the overall communication at your work place?
2. What improvements need to be made in the communication between employee and manager?
3. How were you informed about going back to the old structure (going from a all full time staff to a full and part time staff)?
4. Do you feel that you have been misinformed at times because matters communicated to you directly, either by manager to employee or employee to employee?
5. What would be your suggestions for improving the communication at your work place?
6. In which ways did communication or the lack there of effect your productivity and motivational levels?
7. What has been the significant cause of the misunderstandings?
8. Do you feel that the simple misunderstandings and lack of communication between you and management, is the most significant cause of all problems in your workplace?
9. Has going back to the old structure improved the between you and your manager?
10. What would you do to improve the communication with your manager and vise versa?