My previous post
revealed a huge conflict generated by misused words on a national scale. I now
would like to discuss conflict and tensions that arise from the absence of
words, on a much smaller scale. In May 2011, I did a three-week work placement
in Paris, at the French market leading tourism-marketing agency. You would
think that such professionals would handle internal communication like masters?
Nope.
On my first day,
as I was familiarising myself with the task I was asked to do, me and the girls
in my department watched four men in black followed by the CEO doing what
looked like an office viewing. As they left, I understood that nobody knew what
was going on, and apparently it was not the first time something like this had occurred.
Then, very predictably, it escalated. At lunch, rumours started to appear, from
somebody who might have heard something from somebody. Conclusions arose from
complete speculations. But what was blindingly obvious was the frustration of
all the employees who were left in the dark. And it went on like that for a
week, only aggravating the anger of my colleagues.
At the very end
of my work placement, I learnt that the CEO sent a brief email explaining that
the organisation would be moving at the end of the month into open cubicles. Cheers
for that! I have to say I am quite happy that I left before all of that
happened because I know that these news, instead of relieving the employees,
upset them even more.
What should he
have done? A meeting to tell the employees that he was planning on moving to
new offices. Regular emails to keep them in the know. Maybe even ask them for
their opinions or at least let them express themselves. In one word, be a bit
more diplomatic!
Too many words
(and especially when misused) can cause damage. But the absence of words in a
world of transparency can be as dangerous if not more to an organisation. A
month after I left, my work placement tutor quit. No wonder.