Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
The researcher is motivated to undertake this study because of the lack of effective management through language communication. This indeed has been a major problem in organizations and a serious cause of concern to researchers, employers of labour and members of staff. Many analysts have identified several reasons for the aforementioned trend.
Robbins is of the view that: “words mean different things to different people†(297). He also notes that though we speak a common language (i.e English), our use of that language is far from uniform. He further states that members in an organization usually do not know how those with whom they interact have modified the language. Senders tend to assume that the words and terms they use mean the same to the receiver as they do to them. This assumption, according to him, is often incorrect (298).
Elaborating on the above view, Koontz and Weihrich opine:
No matter how clear the idea in the mind of the sender of communication, it may still be marked by poorly chosen words, omissions, lack of coherence, poor organization of ideas, awkward sentence structure, platitudes, unnecessary jargon and a failure to clarify the implications of the message (376).
When the above situation occurs, there is bound to be a problem. Elaborating on this, Nduka summarily states: “A message which is not properly communicated can disorganize rather than harmonize activities of workers†(9).
From the aforementioned observations, I am of the opinion that for a message to be effectively communicated, the words used must mean the same thing to the sender and receiver. In other words, effective management through language communication can be seen as an essential tool for the internal functioning of the organization. Stressing on the importance of this, Nduka opines:
... effective communication between management and workers has recently been recognized as an effective management technique. This is because proper interpersonal communication has many purposes to achieve in the work-oriented organization. Information fulfils workers desires for awareness of things that affect them (7).
Akpovi expresses a similar view when he explicitly states:
In any organization, communication is an aid to a successful planning, organizing, staffing, co- ordinating and controlling of the organizational resources … Co-ordinated efforts toward common goals are impossible without effective communication of information and ideas, attitudes and feelings among individuals and groups in the department (92).
From the above, as seen by Koontz and Weihrich, effective management through language communication is needed for the following reasons:
To establish and disseminate goals of an enterprise. Develop plan for their achievement. Organize human and other resources in the most effective and efficient way. Select, develop and appraise members of the organization. To lead, direct, motivate and create a climate in which people will want to contribute (367).
Effective management through language communication therefore is a sine qua non in organizations since it is through it daily organizational activities are carried out. It is of public opinion that the administrative process in any organization will fail, unless there is effective language communication in the system. Notwithstanding the difficulties involved, this study examines the impact of effective management through language communication in an organization.
1.2 Statement of Problem
Delta State Polytechnic, Ogwashi-Uku with three (3) distant campuses had since inception faced the problem of ineffective management. This has promoted the existence of rumour in the Institution.
In my own view, rumour mongering in the Polytechnic is a clear indication that there is ineffective management through language communication. This ugly trend has slowed down the Institution’s growth since nobody seems to be “carried alongâ€.
The researcher has equally noticed that in the Institution, entirely different meanings can be assigned to words depending on the sender and receiver’s respective perceptions. When meanings are not truly reflected, there are bound to be distortions in the messages passed. The Institution tends to have problems in such situations. Stoner et al further illustrate:
Suppose that different departments of a company receive a memo stating that a new product is to be developed in “a short timeâ€. To people in Research and Development, “a short time†might mean two or three years. To people in the Finance Department, “a short time†might be three to six months, whereas the Sales Department might think of “a short time†as a few weeks (555).
From the above, it is observed that different meanings have been assigned to the phrase “a short time†thus making communication ineffective.
In a similar vein is the instance where people who have different backgrounds of knowledge and experience often perceive the same phenomenon from different perspectives. Let us consider a case where the Dean of the School of Business in Delta State Polytechnic, Ogwashi-Uku compliments a Lecturer III in his School for his efficiency and high quality style of lecturing. Actually, the Dean genuinely appreciates the Lecturer’s efforts and at the same time wants to encourage the other Lecturers to emulate his example. His colleagues however, may regard his being singled out for praise as a sign that he has been “buttering up†the Dean. They may even react by teasing or being openly hostile. Thus, individual perceptions of the same communication differ radically.
