It's Not Nagging: Why Persistent, Redundant Communication Works Article Review Sample

Persistent and redundant communication in the workplace has been a nuisance in most organizations and was often considered a sign of inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the managers. However, the author of the article “It's Not Nagging: Why Persistent, Redundant Communication Works” Kim Girard presents the readers a different perspective on the issue of inundating communication, claiming that it may actually be an effective strategy in managing relationships with subordinates and in getting the work done.
The first steps in the research related to redundant communication were made by the team of Professor Tsedal B. Neeley. The research related the use of IT with the success rate of the projects and the time it takes for managers to complete their work. The data collected during the investigation revealed that managers, who send multiple messages related to the same issue are usually more successful in achieving their objectives. These results were surprising considering the fact that repeated communication is likely to irritate employees and engage managers, whose time is precious and the attention span is limited. However, such outcome could be explained by considering the situations, when repeated communication is used. Moreover, the cost-benefit analysis of the repeated communication should take into account the whole cost of completed projects or the opportunity cost of relying on one-time communication rather than just to consider the cost of the communication itself.
In his research Neeley discovered that the use of redundant communication is usually inversely related to the power that managers have in their groups. Thus, the more authority leaders have, the fewer communications related to the same topic they deem appropriate. Contemporary environment is characterized by the fact that fewer people work in the same groups for a long time. The formation of ad-hoc teams that usually operate across functions and geographical areas makes it hard to establish clear hierarchical ties among members. Therefore, formal authority mechanisms are largely weakened in such teams and managers have to search for alternative solutions to get the job done. Repeated communication via several communication channels proved to be an effective tool to make sure that the message is communicated to the recipient. The variety of communication channels allowed to make sure that the message is sufficiently clear, as emails are usually less ambiguous than verbal instructions. It is especially important in international teams, where language and cultural barriers could become and obstacle and make communication less clear. Moreover, they could be always referred to by the employees at a later time in order to recap the details of the assignment and the expected deadlines for its completion.
The effectiveness of redundant communication should be also considered in the light of the opportunity cost of relying on one-time communication only. Managers, who assume that it is sufficient to communicate objectives just once, may face problems as project deadlines approach. Late realization that some tasks have not been completed or that the level of execution falls short of the expectations forces managers to initiate “damage control”, which may turn to be much more costly and time-consuming than damage prevention by repeated communication.
In the end of the article Kim Girard quotes Neeley suggesting that repeated communication gradually seizes to be a nuisance, but becomes a legitimate strategy for managers to complete their projects. The development of technology is further facilitating redundant communication and increases the options available for the managers by expanding the number of communication channels. Therefore, it is highly likely that the work by professor Neeley could lay a foundation for a new step in understanding the dynamics of organizational behaviour.