The success of any organization hinges on effective communications (Roebuck, 2006). Of 267 U.S. companies surveyed by Watson Wyatt those with effective communications provided an eleven-percent greater return to shareholders than those without effective communications. Additionally, those companies with effective communications also had lower turnover rates (Business & Legal Resources, 2010). This correlation between business success and effective communication demonstrates the requirement for good communications analysis. By analyzing business communications, organizations can improve their communications thereby ensuring greater returns. By analyzing the business communications at Metasoft Systems Incorporated a determination regarding the effectiveness of their communications can be done. Three messages have been sampled and will be studied. Analysis of the sender, receiver, message content, environment, noise and feedback will be done as well as a look at the technology used to deliver the messages. Message #1
Starting with message number one (Appendix A) we see that the message’s primary audience was Todd Sherman, Metasoft’s General Sales Manager. All sales managers were included as courtesy copy recipients. The sender, Rusty Jones, is sales manager for the Northeast United States territory. The message is a plea for the organization to develop policies and procedures that will enable management to more effectively lead their sales teams. This message is persuasive in nature but it falls short because it does not have a defined call to action. While requesting that measures be taken, no definition of when or how these measures should be taken are included in the message. It takes an action oriented message to motivate receivers to do a task (Roebuck, 2006). The environment in which this communication occurred was one where a subordinate was communication with his superior, in a workplace setting. There is some noise associated with this message in as much as the sender does not believe the receiver will act upon his request for these policies. That is why the sender included the courtesy copies to additional manager, looking for support that may help sway the receiver into action. Feedback to this message was late in coming, almost 10 days after the message was originally sent, and was ambiguous at best. With the exception of a more solid call to action, this message seems sound. It outlines the purpose of the message, it provides supporting evidence and is directed at appropriate receivers through an accepted technology in a favorable environment. Had there been a more direct call to action this would have been a good communication. Message #2
Message two (Appendix B) is sent from Todd Sherman, Metasoft’s General Sales Manager, to his sales management staff. The purpose of the message is to instruct management not to offer exclusions in relation to the money back guarantee. The message was transmitted via email which is the accepted technology at Metasoft and the environment is from supervisor to subordinates in a workplace setting. Noise associated with this message include spelling errors, and some confusion about a policy that does not exist in writing but is a spoken policy only. Message #2 Feedback
Feedback provided by Rusty Jones (Appendix C) is properly addressed only to the General Sales Manager as he does not wish to point out shortcomings in front of Todd’s other subordinates. The technology is acceptable as email is the main form of comunications among employees at Metasoft. The environment was chosen to be private, between subordinate and supervisor, instead of including all managers, because Rusty wished to not cause any embarrassment or ill feelings by pointing out that if Metasoft already had policies in place, this message would have been unnecessary in front of Todd’s other subordinates. People are often embarrassed...