It is observed in many organizations that there has been the problem
of ineffective language communication. This has adversely affected the
management and subsequent performance level of these organizations.
Opinions expressed by several scholars revealed that effective language
communication played a very important role in the efficient management of
an organization. This fact laid the basic foundation for this research. This
study therefore, investigated the impact of effective management through
language communication using Delta State Polytechnic, Ogwashi-Uku as a
study. The data analyzed revealed that among other barriers to effective
language communication in an organization, semantic distortion was the most
prevalent. Poor communication adversely affected job performance while
effective language communication facilitated the prevention and resolution of
conflict(s) if any arose. Rumour mongering was inimical to good
organizational management and filtering official information created a lot of
problems. Differences in staff members background and orientation affected
effective language communication amidst others. Finally, the researcher
made eight (8) recommendations to help improve the management of Delta
State Polytechnic, Ogwashi-Uku and other organizations at large.
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
| 1 - 5 of 96 Reviews |