What Good Leadership Communication in organization need
Good communication for leadership in a medium and small company needs knowing how to share all information in the company with managers, employees, investors and customers. In organizational management, the managers and employees need to communicate with each other to achieve coordination. As a manager should not only communicate with employees and also do a good job of coordination between employers and employees. It is positive for leader to encourage employees and then point out insufficient ways (Millar 2014). Traditionally, communication in management theory usually is thought to be downward, one-way transfer of information from employer to staff (Heizmann 2012). Individuals in this circumstance are negative and reluctant to feedback. What the employers say to employees is an order more than a two-way dialogue. Employees tend to passively receive massage from the sender and disengage in it, which may cause inefficient in work and plenty of waste of energy of study and resources of company. When changed into modern equal, two-way communication, employee engaged in the communication willing to take the employer’ advice or requirement and change their work method. Human capital is important for prosperity of every company in modern era. It may exaggerate to conclude that human capital determine company’s destiny and future, but it proper to say that human capital is vital important for company’s development. In this essay, It will explore what traditional communication like, what influence the traditional communication, what modern communication should be, what the new style of communication require and how to improve modern communication in management.
According to Heizmann (2012), traditional communication equals to a tool which facilitates the flow of information from sender to receiver. Such communication is one-way and emphasizes the sender who can make the best use of the information.  Meanwhile, receiver tends to a passive recipient whose opinions give to nowhere. The process of communication is: transmitter get message from information source, next transmitter send signal to receiver, then receiver get signal from transmitter, which receiver need to overlook noise source, finally the message go to its destination.
How can the sender communicate as clear as possible so that the receiver ‘gets it’. Receiver in this circumstance has great possibility to be confused by noise signal which may lead to wrong behavior of receiver. Sender should control his feelings and expression in the communication just like a machine, only in this way receiver will not confused by irrelevant things (Miller 2012). The ‘information transfer’ model has weaknesses if applied to organizational practice. First, downward, one-way communication cannot change people’s attitudes and behaviors just because they ‘understand’ what is being said. Everyone has his own standpoint which cannot easily be changed just be told message. Second, people have different mental models which shapes the way interpret a message. After receiving a message from the sender, the receiver try to make him understood in his own thinking style isolating from other people’s influence. It may cause different understanding from information sources. Third, audiences need to engage in the communication process. Their non-verbal and verbal feedback has little value to sender (Heizmann 2012).
People who consider communication as strategic control use communication as a tool to influence others and control their actions. People do not always seek to inform and promote clarity, which may cause strategic ambiguity opposite the goal of strategic control. People have multiple goals, such as: maintaining relationship and avoiding conflict, avoiding commitment, concealing information, presenting themselves in a positive light. Based on above perspective, effective communicators are able to strategically manage their multiple goals. But problem is that not every sender is effective communicator. What are potential issues with the ‘communication as strategic control model? Sender who is interested in audience, but only as means to be able to influence and persuade them to accept a predetermined meaning – no interest in jointly solving problems, generating ideas, etc.
Everyone may go to hospital to see doctor when he is sick. The communication you have with doctor usually is that doctor enquires, and then you answer. After the enquiry and examination of you body, doctor tends to give you a basket of advice. What you need to do is just listening with no need to ideas. Patients are asked to obey the judgment of doctor. This is a typical symbol of downward, one-way communication with characteristic of compulsory.
With the development of society, traditional communication in organization should make change to suit with the demand of equal, two-way communication. Downward, one-way communication change into a dialogic communication will be the best choice (Isaacs, 1999). Dialogic communication can balance creativity and organizational constraints. It is not difficult to give dialogic communication a definition that promotes shared understanding, learning and collective problem solving. In order to understand what dialogic communication like, we should first learn some knowledge that what dialogue is. No one is winner or loser with no intention of being so in a dialogue featured by equality, respect and discussion. What is true about the dialogue is everyone involved in it wins when a mistake is spotted and pointed out. Dialogues can be compared to games where no one fights against each other, but rather, they cooperate with the others and achieve win-win.
There is distinction between forcing people via manipulation or coercion and persuading them to solve problems together through creation of a shared understanding. A group of people discuss together to work out possible situations and make a plan to deal with it. It will be more effective than leader in organization make decisions alone. Bohm (2013) defines dialogue as an inquiry, a way of pondering and reflection which is shared among the speakers and which cannot be done alone or be done to one side of the speakers. Dialogue entails the awareness of one’s beliefs which are expressed openly. In a dialogue, the speakers should be able to abandon pre-existing perceptions and form new ones and solutions. With the possibility of inspiring solutions to tricky problems, dialogue can help the learning of a larger picture. Evans (2006) states that a false dialogue is driven by quarrels, disputes with each other in it holding prejudices on the others, and playing blind to the opinions of the other party.
Australia：What Good Leadership Communication in organization need代写
Respect for the other side is needed in dialogues which are a distinction in relationship rather than in technique. The participants should recognize the legitimate interests of all the people in the conversation, respect the others’ beliefs and experiences and understand the values of each other. As Dixon (1998, p. 64) puts it, ““I seriously question whether more technique is necessary. There is already a great deal of technique that relates to clear feedback, supportive and clarifying statements, air time, paraphrasing to check out what is understood, and so on”, the essence of dialogue is the respect for the speakers who have made some comments and air their opinions, no other technique for conversation needed.
If people use dialogic communication in organisation, there is great possibility to receive positive outcomes. The people involved in such communication will share deeper understanding, be more involved as stakeholders, and make more sustainable decisions (Bortree & Seltzer 2009).
What makes for good leadership communication in organization? Except smart leader take dialogic communication, there is several quality leader should have. Leaders should have individualized consideration: supportive, sensitive to members concerns and high EQ (Herzig & Chasin 2006). Leaders should have a plan of intellectual stimulation: encourages innovative thinking and questioning of old ways of doing things. Leaders should be able in considering others, putting themselves in the shoes of the others, actively listen to others so as to encourage free conversation, listen with concentration, and promote detailed, conductive feedbacks frequently; for instance, a good coach should listen 80% of the time and speak the rest in dialogues.(Dubrin 2005). Leaders should also boast motives inspirationally such as change projection and vision articulation. Hopes and aspirations do good to the leaders who should exert positive influence. Ideal leaders should be seen as optimistic, vigorous and willing to take advice. Successful communication is characterized by strong metaphors, symbols and rhetoric. Authentic leaders should be aware of themselves, balance dialogues, promote transparency, be open to the employees and self-disciplined. Leaders should encourage upward feedback. Leaders who do not solicit critical feedback from staff are prone to poor decision-making.
Australia：What Good Leadership Communication in organization need代写

Reference
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317-319.
Bohm, D. (2013). On dialogue. Routledge.
Evans, R. G. (2006). The Blind Men, the Elephant and the CT Scanner. Healthcare Policy, 1(3), 12.
Dixon, N. M. (1998). Dialogue at Work. Making Talk Developmental for People and Organizations, Center for Creative Leadership, London.
Dubrin, A. J. (2005). Coaching and Mentoring Skills, Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bohm, D. 2004, On Dialogue, Routledge, New York.
Heizmann, H. (2012). Workplace information practices among human resources professionals: discursive boundaries in action. Information Research, 17(3).
Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fostering dialogue across divides: A nuts and bolts guide from the Public Conversations Project. Public Conversations Project.
Isaacs, W. N. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life, Currency, New York.
Miller, K. (2012). Organizational Communication. Approaches and Processes, 6th edn, Cengage Learning, Boston.