Com or or Corporate education: imposed or agreed? By: Fre d Pulgarín Alexander and Andrés Suárez Johnnatan
There is a concern that concerns us as communicators: the question of whether corporate communication in the workplace is agreed needs arising from the conditions of the new information age and the new economy [1] or if it is imposed as an arbitrary element in the organizational world.
Currently, the communication goes from a simple human action and beyond to be seen as a field of knowledge by some and as a complex analytic social science by a few others, which brings the words coexist and live together. Even authors such as Costa argue that "the only way to restore the unit back to the company is through communication, as it has emerged as the first strategic force, over other techniques such as management and production "as part of the new paradigm of XXI century .
This article from the rise and recognition that has been in business communication, we present two different positions, we compare two points of view, but analyzed in the same context as part of a reflection in which we hope the reader make your own interpretation and reasoning about the arguments of the same, and answer the question of whether corporate communication is built or if it is correctly state that can match a policy that complies without any discussion and with full accommodation.
The arbitrariness of communication
Designing communication in organizations as an integrated body, with defined objectives and in pursuit of shared interests, allows structural rethink the true meaning of the concepts of image and corporate identity mainly within Corporate Communication. To clarify why we should remember that the task of phenomenology is to study the essence of things and emotions, in this case our object of study is communication, which only guess from our affections as individuals and society, in this way is that we must address this kind of philosophical study to understand communication from their practice and their true meaning from what is actually happening on the business.
The simplest definition of the act of communicating is to make common, and indeed the media as social and human science or field of knowledge (I shall not discuss this category) should come from its meaning to try to be a mutual sense element constructor from any field. However, as neutral and docile instrument, communication can become a tool to resolve conflicts or to encourage fundamentalism, deceit and senseless wars.
The capitalist market, if there is such a marketing, is a clear example. In the new era of services requires the conscientious study of communication processes from any organization, communication should be recognized, we reiterate, as a tool built from purely social elements, which should endeavor to ensure that each individual is builder of his own reality. But like any type of study, our science of communication is two kinds of different realities: one built (our theoretical elements) and one experienced (what actually happens in practice), and it is there in the living, where we admit perception processes communication as something imposed by those who maintain their economic interests over social and directly affect all members of the same instrument that is organization.
Are we clear?, Which is why individuals who now come to organizations only try to adapt to them, or appear to be members of these and not feel left out, no organization can do with what they really think or want as individuals, but must resign themselves to ways of seeing and understanding the culture that exists within the world organization from the Directives. They become the communication processes in a standard to be complied with, but which can not participate in its construction, from an uncontrolled capitalist, which is conceived as administrative processes in Third World societies.
So is a communication mechanism rather than inclusive and intersubjective aspects builder, social and human, a tool that generates arbitrary about special interests? What is the domain?. Consider first our lived reality in the labor market, we recognize how they maintain their hierarchy, economic and political power these groups ever, and look at how communication processes are discussed only for the maintenance of a dominant structure over another, and is consider course this as a misconception of communication, as it seeks to justify from organizations that seem not to understand the intrinsic conditions of humanity itself.
Is it the same manipulation of information to build individual interests and maintain a domain, which makes communication processes in wishful thinking of a construction group, which does not exist as such, but that disguises the identity element and corporate culture?. In other words, this type of process is known only to confuse the perceptions of those who observe the organization? "To generate or prove what is not public opinion, and distract from what is really going on internally?.
When we understand the human being as the only generator of cultural meanings from their relationships with others, we find that necessarily should continue to maintain the same practice inherent in the human condition in all its relations and social constructs, but unfortunately, in order to order such group structures, prefers to accommodate the thought of a few, to allow a prevailing ideologies and crush the other. Communication in this case remains consensual and constructive relational praxis, and becomes a tool and arbitrary tax, those who wish to continue must be adaptar, los demás deben abandonar el sistema.
Comunicar es construir no imponer
La comunicación surge de la necesidad y no de una arbitrariedad, es cuestión de dos polos humanos y por ello se construye y reconstruye.
No se puede concebir la comunicación como una imposición porque sería prohibir la esencia de la misma. Decir que la comunicación es una coacción, es usurpar y robar su retroalimentación [2] . Sería ignorar el perceptor que debe recibir, decodificar, interpretar y retroalimentar el mensaje, es decir, la parte más importante del proceso comunicativo: el fortalecimiento del mismo.
La comunicación emerged in prehistoric man, as one of the requirements that allowed him to initiate a system of survival and development. It was never imposed, hence the human being is social by nature. In this sense, the idea of \u200b\u200bimprovement and development, only accepted the possibility of better and more efficient return to action on specific topics, from mistakes and preconceptions, implying a continuing concern communication that allows for renewal. Which means that communication is reflexive.
In a business context but some organizations address the Corporate Communications forgetting the reflexive, sooner or later understand the need communication that is grounded in a consensual way (including all its components: identity, culture, image ...) for their members, otherwise the actions of the company will eventually collapse due to the various barriers that affect organizational processes, and works around the well-being.
To understand why, one must understand that one of the many benefits of a well managed communication is that it allows to mediate conflicts, to mitigate and relocate to a sensitive procedure and more rational. Thus, the communication should be understood from the agreement to build processes that encourage optimal social commitment within the organization acknowledging disagreements. Motivation means to move, drive and encourage action.
However, the motivation is complex, because it is achieved through the implementation of the work aimed at achieving the objectives in line with standards or expected patterns to achieve a jointly participated. It can not be only speech but must be accompanied by action. Therefore, to achieve real and internalized motivation in organizing the implementation of all elements of corporate communication (not necessarily understand the term) is assumed (not overlapping) the communication as a factor that gives value itself and therefore all other actions.
In this context, the Communication is the tool to motivate, change and give importance to the action, if it can establish good communication, the action is established and maintained successfully. Communication helps to adapt to new social and cultural reality as it is the only way to achieve this connection, necessary for effective progress, in addition to promoting the linkages between the different parts of the organization.
the same line of thought the work of the corporate communicator makes sense to the extent that manages the communication processes in an appropriate manner by proactive strategies that allow the organization to a constant improvement is there, where the communicator difference in the ability of analysis that address information in each situation and any action that derives report [3] . It's a matter of opinion.
Also, another main point to understand why communication is not arbitrary is to understand the communicator's role as director of communications and not as a dictator of the same. To illustrate this latter function has one of the vectors of Corporate Communication, Identity. According
Munera and Smith "The set of objects and signs objectively represent the organization, at least for a while, and facilitate the distinction, recognition and remembrance of the same, ie that allow their identification " [4] is what is known as identity. Emphasize the annotation of the authors because communication is constructed and reconstructed, as I said earlier, according to the needs of organizations, therefore, communication is not an imposition, but an action inherent in the business. That according to its reflective quality can change.
also about identity, the fact implies a government direct, so that as each one chooses whether to govern their own life or allowed to govern by it, just as happens in corporate communication, the identity of the organization or rules governing the organization identity.
terms as may be distorted identity and culture. In fact, it actually looks a culture is to collect individual expression of its members and collectivize, indicted on common objectives that contribute to development in this case the organization. However, it reiterates that it is a matter of government, not to confuse means with ends and subjects with objects. Corporate communication well exercised in organizations is built from an ethical stance.
communication but not for all this
etymology of the communication states, then "make common", "pooling" or "sharing" takes all its meaning if it sees only as an imposition, when in fact come together in the communication elements such as feedback, continuous renewal, the motivation, connectivity and management of shared meanings defendants to generate directions.
[1] The new paradigm, the new four pillars of the entrepreneurial mindset:
Identity, Culture, Communication and Image given by Joan Costa.
[2] discussed this term as its root mean retro to reverse. That is, if feedback, the message is returned to the sender and does not reach the recipient. A better term would be feedback: Return of the output of a circuit or system at the input.
[3] Communication is action and action is communication.
approach set out by Costa in the book: Communication in Action.
[4] MÚNERA Uribe, Pablo Antonio. Sánchez Zuluaga, Uriel; Communication Business
corporate look. Medellín: Zuluaga. 2003 p.267
0 comments:
Post a Comment