INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT: Communication: Is it better today than it used to be?
INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT: Communication: Is it better today than it used to be?
I just recently attended a meeting with the new (as in recently appointed) Canadian deputy minister of agriculture. Also attending was a significant number of Canadian Agri-Food Industry association managers.
I was struck that the common theme amongst all was: How do we more effectively communicate and consult with the agricultural department?
What was reassuring was that it was a common theme. In fairness, this issue isn't only with that single government department, or indeed with the private sector.
It made me think back to 1986 when we still had the old telex machine in our office, and had made the huge technological jump to a fax machine. My chairman of the day sent me a telex with a message. While I was reading it, I received a fax from him asking if I had got the telex. Before I could even reply to the fax, he phoned me to see if I had received the fax which had asked me if I had received the telex. I then asked him what was the basic question he wanted answered. By that time, he couldn't remember the basic question. So many ways of communicating, and yet the message somehow was forgotten or lost.
Fast forward to 2005 for a minute. We still have the fax and of course the phones. We now have the beauty of e-mail and the Blackberry. And we also still use the mail if for no other reason than to remind us of history, when we sent fewer letters but seemed to get more answers - faster.
With today's instantaneous communication, there is no chance your message can possibly be forgotten, and for sure it will be current. And yet, in reality, the situation at times is much worse in terms of communication than when we were only using pen and paper. Perhaps part of the curse is the very technology that was really supposed to improve our efforts but in reality has overloaded human capacity to cope.
However, the overabundance of communication isn't the sole issue. We do get replies from some folks who are really trying, but it seems there are others who seem not to understand that they should reply when a question is asked - if not to answer the specifics but to at least acknowledge receipt. If a question comes into our office, we would. More than that, if we couldn't answer it, we would at least try and provide direction to someone who might.
Unfortunately, this isn't what we always experience with those we need to communicate with. And thus we have the other part of the dilemma in 2005. You can spend thousands on any type of communication, gadgets or whatever, but if the folks at the other end aren't set up to respond, or even feel they have to, then you could be wasting your time.
Adding to the problem is the significant loss in corporate memory that has occurred. Everyone has a difficult time in finding folks who are knowledgeable in the field they are hired for. It's hard to reply if you don't comprehend the situation fully or if you don't know who you are supposed to deal with.
Interestingly, in the case of the meeting with the deputy, the total number of years experience of the association people at the luncheon who had worked with his department (many who were gray-haired and could fit the grumpy old man description) who had once served with the department was significantly greater than the two officials at the head of the table.
The outside knowledge and experience exceeded that of the inside.
A further challenge is the fact that in today's world, you simply have to go through so many people to get the message through to the appropriate body, and equally to have it reverse itself back in a response and hopefully a decision. By the time you get to the end point on the internal review, you could well see a whole turnover in the people who do have to make the ultimate call, and of course, they will want to review it again as it wasn't their decision. So the world goes round and round.
It comes back to what the deputy and the association folks were taking about: how to achieve more effective communication. There is more communication now than ever before and with much faster and far more sophisticated tools. So how come, when I started, it was done with pen and paper, and usually one phone call into a key contact? He or she then took the issue forward, dealt with it, and on we went. Quickly.
We have a far more educated workforce today - and the tools available - and yet why is something that was once so simple now so complex? Sure the issues are many more, and in some ways more challenging, but we have all of the communication tools to do things so quickly.
So we'll keep on communicating and consulting - with the latest and best technology to do it. But if it goes to the wrong person, or the person is overwhelmed with communication, will a new gadget solve the problem?
(Danny Dempster is president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.)
I was struck that the common theme amongst all was: How do we more effectively communicate and consult with the agricultural department?
What was reassuring was that it was a common theme. In fairness, this issue isn't only with that single government department, or indeed with the private sector.
It made me think back to 1986 when we still had the old telex machine in our office, and had made the huge technological jump to a fax machine. My chairman of the day sent me a telex with a message. While I was reading it, I received a fax from him asking if I had got the telex. Before I could even reply to the fax, he phoned me to see if I had received the fax which had asked me if I had received the telex. I then asked him what was the basic question he wanted answered. By that time, he couldn't remember the basic question. So many ways of communicating, and yet the message somehow was forgotten or lost.
Fast forward to 2005 for a minute. We still have the fax and of course the phones. We now have the beauty of e-mail and the Blackberry. And we also still use the mail if for no other reason than to remind us of history, when we sent fewer letters but seemed to get more answers - faster.
With today's instantaneous communication, there is no chance your message can possibly be forgotten, and for sure it will be current. And yet, in reality, the situation at times is much worse in terms of communication than when we were only using pen and paper. Perhaps part of the curse is the very technology that was really supposed to improve our efforts but in reality has overloaded human capacity to cope.
However, the overabundance of communication isn't the sole issue. We do get replies from some folks who are really trying, but it seems there are others who seem not to understand that they should reply when a question is asked - if not to answer the specifics but to at least acknowledge receipt. If a question comes into our office, we would. More than that, if we couldn't answer it, we would at least try and provide direction to someone who might.
Unfortunately, this isn't what we always experience with those we need to communicate with. And thus we have the other part of the dilemma in 2005. You can spend thousands on any type of communication, gadgets or whatever, but if the folks at the other end aren't set up to respond, or even feel they have to, then you could be wasting your time.
Adding to the problem is the significant loss in corporate memory that has occurred. Everyone has a difficult time in finding folks who are knowledgeable in the field they are hired for. It's hard to reply if you don't comprehend the situation fully or if you don't know who you are supposed to deal with.
Interestingly, in the case of the meeting with the deputy, the total number of years experience of the association people at the luncheon who had worked with his department (many who were gray-haired and could fit the grumpy old man description) who had once served with the department was significantly greater than the two officials at the head of the table.
The outside knowledge and experience exceeded that of the inside.
A further challenge is the fact that in today's world, you simply have to go through so many people to get the message through to the appropriate body, and equally to have it reverse itself back in a response and hopefully a decision. By the time you get to the end point on the internal review, you could well see a whole turnover in the people who do have to make the ultimate call, and of course, they will want to review it again as it wasn't their decision. So the world goes round and round.
It comes back to what the deputy and the association folks were taking about: how to achieve more effective communication. There is more communication now than ever before and with much faster and far more sophisticated tools. So how come, when I started, it was done with pen and paper, and usually one phone call into a key contact? He or she then took the issue forward, dealt with it, and on we went. Quickly.
We have a far more educated workforce today - and the tools available - and yet why is something that was once so simple now so complex? Sure the issues are many more, and in some ways more challenging, but we have all of the communication tools to do things so quickly.
So we'll keep on communicating and consulting - with the latest and best technology to do it. But if it goes to the wrong person, or the person is overwhelmed with communication, will a new gadget solve the problem?
(Danny Dempster is president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.)
