You may remember the old army story used in training new recruits in the skills of signaling and communications. The commanding officer at brigade headquarters turned a dangerous shade of puce when he received a signal from a unit in the field of action which read, 'Send three and four pence. We are going to a dance'. The message which had actually been sent from the field was send reinforcements. We are going to advance. The meaning (if not the wish) had been lost somewhere along the numerous lines of communication.
There are obvious sources of interference to communication when there are various physical and technological barriers between sender and receiver, including audibility, legibility, technical and human error in transcription or translation. Some of these may be outside our direct control. But it is too easy to blame the medium or the recipient for not understanding what we mean.
The basis of good communication is to thing ourselves into the position of the person receiving the message, and thereby accept our share of responsibility for their understanding.
A middle manager in the public sector complained that in one area of his work he could not improve his performance because other people did not co-operate. The work included a series of consultations which had to take place with various organizations and member of the public before the next stage of a predetermined process could be achieved. Work was always behind schedule and complaints were made that everything took too long. The consultation had to be carried out in writing, and the manager said that he got letters out quickly but some people did not bother to reply and there was therefore nothing he could do about it. When we examined these letters, I was surprised he got any replies at all. They were written in the kind of 'gobbledygook' that only public officials seem able to invent. There was little indication of urgency or any incentive identified as to why the recipient should reply. After a little 'soul searching' the manager realized that his unit did have some responsibility for ensuring that its letters were understood as well as being out on time. He also instituted a chase-up system by correspondence and telephone, which broadened the role of his clerical staff and gave them a new challenge.
When what we want out of the Indonesia communication is more important to us than to the person we are dealing with, it is essential to make sure they understand our intentions, and not just to assume they have the same interest in our goals that we have. When an English tourist was driving through Indonesia, he became confused at a crossroads where the signpost indicated the road to Forfar in two opposite directions. He saw a local inhabitant thinning turnips in a field and called out to him, 'Does it matter which road I take to Forfar?' The reply he got was, 'Not take me it dense!'
These barriers affect communication between the various parts of an Indonesia’s organization as well as externally to customers and suppliers, but you may think that in face to face contact with your own team this is not a problem. Anyway, Indonesia communication is one of those things we like to feel we are rather good at - it all sounds pretty lucid from our side of the conversation. If the other chap is too thick or doesn't listen, it’s hardly our fault - or is it?
There are obvious sources of interference to communication when there are various physical and technological barriers between sender and receiver, including audibility, legibility, technical and human error in transcription or translation. Some of these may be outside our direct control. But it is too easy to blame the medium or the recipient for not understanding what we mean.
The basis of good communication is to thing ourselves into the position of the person receiving the message, and thereby accept our share of responsibility for their understanding.
A middle manager in the public sector complained that in one area of his work he could not improve his performance because other people did not co-operate. The work included a series of consultations which had to take place with various organizations and member of the public before the next stage of a predetermined process could be achieved. Work was always behind schedule and complaints were made that everything took too long. The consultation had to be carried out in writing, and the manager said that he got letters out quickly but some people did not bother to reply and there was therefore nothing he could do about it. When we examined these letters, I was surprised he got any replies at all. They were written in the kind of 'gobbledygook' that only public officials seem able to invent. There was little indication of urgency or any incentive identified as to why the recipient should reply. After a little 'soul searching' the manager realized that his unit did have some responsibility for ensuring that its letters were understood as well as being out on time. He also instituted a chase-up system by correspondence and telephone, which broadened the role of his clerical staff and gave them a new challenge.
When what we want out of the Indonesia communication is more important to us than to the person we are dealing with, it is essential to make sure they understand our intentions, and not just to assume they have the same interest in our goals that we have. When an English tourist was driving through Indonesia, he became confused at a crossroads where the signpost indicated the road to Forfar in two opposite directions. He saw a local inhabitant thinning turnips in a field and called out to him, 'Does it matter which road I take to Forfar?' The reply he got was, 'Not take me it dense!'
These barriers affect communication between the various parts of an Indonesia’s organization as well as externally to customers and suppliers, but you may think that in face to face contact with your own team this is not a problem. Anyway, Indonesia communication is one of those things we like to feel we are rather good at - it all sounds pretty lucid from our side of the conversation. If the other chap is too thick or doesn't listen, it’s hardly our fault - or is it?
