Monday, September 22, 2008

Messages: from another dimension

Just as physical and organizational relationships can set the agenda for the communication that does take place, the absence of communication can be equally meaningful. One of the things I've observed after working at various companies is that you can usually figure out whether an executive quit, or was fired, by the communication , or lack of, that follows. If the executive gets a catered sendoff, complete with the obligatory fluff piece in the company news letter, it means he/she left on good terms (for more money). On the other hand if you only find out that a department head is gone when their name is no longer in the email directory, you know they were probably "escorted" out. Corporate etiquette gets tricky in the case of terminated executives too high on the organizational ladder, not to be acknowledged. In those cases, you get the email that says: XYZ has resigned their position "to pursue other opportunities."

1 comment:

PinkLady said...

You are right. Often the absence of communication can be more powerful. This absence of communication is a way of communicating in itself. By not saying anything, the organization is still sending a message and communicating with everyone. In this way, it seems like they could just say something. When an organization does not tell its employees what's going on, we are left to guess and make assumptions which are sometimes wrong. So while from the organization's point of view, they feel that lack of communication means that they are sending no message and remaining neutral, the opposite occurs. The message is even more powerful and in your example we assume that the employee left on bad terms or was escorted out, etc.