Chapter 38 Management of Information
Exchange Four basic principles of information exchange: 1. Information exchange is perception. 2 . Information exchange is expected. 3. Request for information exchange. 4. Information exchange and information are different, and in fact largely antithetical - yet interdependent.
1. Information exchange is perception.
People can only perceive things that they can perceive. For example, the sound wave range of hearing is 20HZ-20000HZ. People have to speak to each other from their own experiences. People can only communicate with the recipient in the recipient's language or terminology. Perceptions and concepts are not separate for the learner. If we do not form concepts, we cannot perceive, but if we do not perceive, we cannot form concepts. A concept cannot be communicated if the recipient cannot perceive it. Regardless of the medium, the first question of information exchange should be, "Is this information within the recipient's perception range? Will he accept it?" When we talk about information exchange, the most important constraints on perception Often it's cultural and emotional, not physical. We have known for thousands of years that fanatics cannot be persuaded by rational arguments. Now we are beginning to realize that this is not due to a lack of "arguments," but to an exchange of information that the fanatic is unaware of, which is beyond the bounds of his feelings. Follett points out that the disagreement is likely not about answers, but due to perceptual inconsistencies.
Second, the exchange of information is expected
Generally speaking, what we perceive is what we expect to perceive. We choose to receive the content we wish to receive. Therefore, before we can exchange information, we must know what the recipient expects to see and hear. Only after this is known can we know whether it is possible to use his expectations for the exchange of information or whether there needs to be a "different shock", an "awakening" in order to break the recipient's expectations and force him to admit that it happened something he didn't expect.
3. Request for information exchange
The exchange of information necessarily requires that the recipient of the information be a certain person, do a certain thing, and believe in a certain thing. It always resorts to motivation. In other words, an information exchange is powerful if it matches the recipient's wishes; if it doesn't, it probably won't be accepted at all. Of course, the most powerful exchanges of information can be "transforming," that is, changing people's personalities, values, beliefs, and aspirations. But it's extremely rare, and everyone's psychology is extremely strong against it. Therefore, in general, there can be no information exchange unless the information is adapted to the recipient's own values, at least to some extent, to their values
4. Information exchange and information are different, and in fact to a large extent are opposites - but interdependent(??)
Information exchange is perception and information is logic. Therefore, the information is purely formal and has little meaning. It is impersonal, not interpersonal. The more free the information is from the human element (perceptions, expectations, values), the more certain and reliable it is. In fact, it is more informative. The problems we have now are the exact opposite of what humanity has been trying to solve. Our problem now is to deal with the information itself, the information without any communication content. The requirements for effective information are the exact opposite of those for effective information exchange. For example, information is always specific. We perceive an overall picture in the communication of information, but we convey specific, individual data in the information process. In fact, information is first and foremost subject to economic principles. The less data required, the better the information. If there is too much information, it will lead to information flooding. At the same time, information presupposes the exchange of information. Information is always encoded. In order to receive information, the recipient of the information must know and understand its code. This requires prior agreement; at least the recipient of the information needs to know what the information is about. Do the numbers on the computer tape represent the height of the mountain, or the cash balance at the Federal Reserve Bank? In both cases, the recipient of the information must know what mountain or what bank is in order to get any information out of the data.
The prototype of the information system may be in military German. The Austrian army was multilingual at the time, and there was often no common language among commanders, officers without command assignments, and soldiers. But it employs no more than two hundred special words—“shoot,” “rest,” etc., each of which has only one very definite meaning—well managed; the meaning of a word is always an action, And its learning is carried out in and through the action, that is, in what behavioral scientists now call "operational conditioning." Tensions are high in the Austrian army after decades of nationalist unrest. Social interaction between people of different nationalities serving in the same military unit has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible. But, until the end, this information system in the Austrian army was still functional. It is completely formal, rigid, logical, each word can have only one meaning, and is based on a completely predetermined exchange of information, with only one specific response to a specific sound wave. However, this example also shows that the effectiveness of an information system depends on the willingness and ability to carefully consider who and for what information is needed, and on the systematic establishment of an A system of meaning for a particular input and output. In other words, the effectiveness of an information system depends on a pre-established exchange of information.
The more layers of meaning an exchange of information expresses, the more difficult it is to quantify.
In other words, the exchange of information may not depend on information. In fact, the most complete exchange of information may be purely "shared experience" without any logical content. Mainly Perception Not Information
The purpose of this chapter is not to explore these broad areas, not to explore learning or perception, but to explore the exchange of information in organizations.
Why Downward Communication Doesn't Work?
We have all tried to communicate "downwards" and have failed because it assumes that the sender is communicating. Only after we know what to say can we talk about how to say it. If the author of the "Notice to the Workers" doesn't know what the workers can perceive, what they expect to perceive, and what they want to do, then, no matter how well written, it is just a waste. If such "letters" are not based on the perception of the recipient, they are a waste. But "listening" doesn't work either. Managers should not start with "what we" have to say, but with what subordinates need to know; what they are interested in, that is, what they are ready to accept.
Of course, listening is a prerequisite for the exchange of information. But it is not enough. Listening assumes the superior can understand what he is hearing. In other words, there is no reason to think that listening will cause less misunderstanding and miscommunication than telling. It is reasonable and important that the exchange of information must start from the recipient and not from the sender.
First, the more formalized the information process, the more it depends on pre-agreeds about meaning and application, that is, on the exchange of information. Second, the more efficient the information process, the more formalized it is, and thus the more dissociative it is. But it also requires much greater efforts to rebuild interpersonal, information-exchange relationships. It can be said that the effective character of the information process increasingly depends on our ability to exchange information, and in the absence of effective information exchange. The information revolution does not provide information, but only data.
The information explosion is the most urgent impetus to improve our information exchange.
What can managers do?
Just listening is not enough. Bottom-up information exchange must focus on what is perceived by both parties, on what the recipient already has motivation. The intended recipient's values, beliefs and aspirations must be understood from the outset.
Therefore, management by objectives is a prerequisite for functioning information exchange . Management by objectives requires a subordinate to carefully consider what major contributions he can make to the organization and what responsibilities he has. The subordinates should also tell the superiors the conclusions they have considered. The conclusions reached by subordinates are rarely what the superiors expected. In fact, the primary goal of implementing management by objectives is to show the difference in perception between superiors and subordinates. Recognizing that they have different views of the same reality is itself an exchange of information.
Management by objectives enables the recipient of information to gain experience that will inform him. Makes it possible for him to be exposed to the practical, prioritization of decision-making, the choice between what one wants to do and what the situation demands, and especially the question of responsibility for decision-making. He may not see the situation in the same way as his superiors. But he can thus understand the complexity of the superior's situation, and that this complexity is caused by the situation itself. This exchange of information, even if it ultimately leads to a "no" conclusion from subordinates, is thoroughly centered on the desires, values, and motivations of the intended recipient. In fact, this exchange of information starts with "What do you need me to do?" and ends with "This is what I want you to do." It forces the superior at least to realize that he has surpassed the subordinate's wishes; it forces at least an explanation to the subordinate. At least he knew there was a problem here - and the subordinates knew it too.
An evaluation of job performance based on what a person can do and has done well, or a discussion of a person's direction of development, are also fundamental to the exchange of information. They start with the subordinate's concerns, express his perceptions, and focus on his expectations. They make the exchange of information a tool of the subordinate rather than an order to him. The exchange of information in an organization should not be a means of the organization, but the style of the organization (note: the upper level is the server, not the traditional controller)
Conclusion: Information exchange requires shared experience.
Chapter 39 Verification, Control and Management
Verification is about method, control is about purpose.
Verification speaks of facts, i.e. past events.
Control is about anticipation, that is, about the future.
Verification is analytical and involves past and present situations. Controls are descriptive and refer to what should be the situation.
What does the ability to analyze large amounts of data mean for control ?
How can these vastly improved verifications be managed to improve control? Because, from the job of managers, verification is only a means to an end, and the end is control.
Ordinary language and its use is a sufficient indication that there is a problem. Auditors who are responsible for verification in an enterprise will think that if the auditor uses his verification method to control the enterprise, it will be an abuse of verification power. They will say that this actually makes the business completely "out of control".
The reason for this contradiction lies in the complexity of both human and social tasks.
If people in social institutions are involved, verification must be an incentive to control individuals. In the human-society situation, the control system is not a mechanical system, but a system of will. We know very little about the human will, and it's not even the point of the question. Before the information provided can be verified as the basis for action, there must be a process of translation—translation from one information to another, which we call perception.
There is also a second complexity in social institutions, the second "uncertainty principle". It is almost impossible to describe the corresponding response to an event in a social situation.
In machinery, gear friction indicates the need to add lubricating oil. But "profits are falling" doesn't mean "raising prices."
In a social environment, decisions are required to be based on various assumptions. Expectations are not based on chance, but can only be judged by what seems likely. Therefore, there are no "facts" on which to base the future.
Check Features
1. Verification may be neither objective nor neutral
When measuring the whereabouts of a stone, we are outside the event. Measurement does not change the event, and the measurement of that event does not change us as observers. The measurement of physical phenomena is both objective and neutral.
However, in the perceptual context, the social context of the enterprise we deal with, the measured behavior is neither objective nor neutral, but subjective. It changes both the event and the observer. For it alters the perception of the observer, if not entirely. Events in social situations gain value by being singled out for observation and negotiation. No matter how "scientific" we are, the fact that this or that phenomenon has been singled out to be "controlled" signals that we think it is more important.
Everyone who observes the introduction of a budget system will find the above. Budget figures have long been considered more important than the economic performance measured by the budget. Managers who are implementing budgeting for the first time often deliberately push down sales and profit projections so as not to "miss the budget." It will take years of experience and the work of a very sensible budget director to restore balance. There are many good research directors who think that it is better to have no research and spend the full budget than to have research that falls short of the budget figure.
In business, verification is about setting goals and setting values. They are not "objective", but necessarily spiritual. The only way to avoid this is to overwhelm managers with so much checking that the checking system becomes meaningless and just a "noise".
Verification creates foresight. They change both the event being measured and the observer. They not only give meaning to events, but also value. This means that the fundamental question is not "how do we control?" but "what do we measure in our control system?
2. Verification must focus on results. The results of a business exist only externally—in the economy, society, and customers. Only customers create "profits". Everything within an enterprise—manufacturing, sales, research, etc.—is only a cost, a “cost center.” In other words, the management area is only about costs. And the results belong to the enterprise. We've been analyzing data within companies for hundreds of years. But there is no comparable analysis and research on tasks outside the enterprise. The areas outside the business where it manifests its results are far more difficult to reach than those within the business. The central problem with the manager in a large organization is that he is necessarily isolated from the outside world. Therefore, what the current organization needs is an organ for the outside world, and the verification should focus on the contribution (profit) to the outside world. 3. Both measurable events and unmeasurable events need to be checked Some important achievements of enterprises are not measurable, but they are not "intangible" and may take ten years to show. Businesses also have quantifiable results that can be expressed in monetary terms, which does not mean these are "tangible". From this, it can be seen that the measurable outcome is what has happened . The second thing that emerges from this is that the measurable events are primarily events within the business rather than outside the business .
Balancing what is measurable and what is not is therefore a central issue for management and a real area of decision-making. Therefore, measurements that do not include reports on unmeasurable events lead astray. They actually give the wrong message. But the more we can quantify what is really measurable, the more we want to put all our strength on it, and the greater the danger is that a business appears to be in better control , but in reality it is worse, if not out of control. Specifications for Verification
In order for managers to exercise control,
- they must be economical;
- They must be meaningful;
verification must conform to the seven norms.
- they must be appropriate to the phenomenon being measured;
- they must be proportionate to the event being measured;
- they must be timely;
- they must be simple;
- they must be usable. 1. Verification must conform to the principle of economy. The less effort is required to achieve the purpose of control, the better the control design is. The less verification required, the better the verification. The first question is, "What is the minimum information I must know for control purposes?" Second, the verification must be meaningful. It is the manager's responsibility to consider carefully what the measure is commensurate with the phenomenon being measured. He must know when an "approximation" is more exact than a detailed number that seems exact, and when a certain magnitude is more exact than an approximation. He must know that "greater" and "lesser", "earlier" and "later", "increase" and "decrease" are also quantitative terms, and often more precise than any specific number or magnitude of number, Actually more rigorous. 5. Verification must be timely When a new product is first introduced to the market, product managers may need daily reports. Six months later, when he had developed a marketing strategy for the new product, the daily report could only lead him to "uproot and see if it had grown." At that point, he must think carefully about what he must achieve in which areas and during which time to reach his goals. Then, he must be very careful to measure the results in a timely manner at the critical moment. However, if he is concerned only with daily "real time" measurements, he will almost certainly put himself and his colleagues in a state of confusion and destroy the best strategies. Likewise, regularly measuring research progress may affect research outcomes. The time horizon of a normal study is quite long. The progress of research work and research results should be critically evaluated every two or three years. In addition, an experienced research manager did not interfere with the research. He was simply watching for signs of major unexpected difficulties, or further signs of unexpected breakthroughs. But to monitor research work "in real time", as some labs have tried to do, it would be uprooting the radish. But there is also the opposite danger—not being measured often enough. This danger is particularly acute for the development of: (1) those that take a considerable amount of time to achieve results; (2) those that must be brought together at some point in the future to produce the desired final product. 6. Verification must be simple and complex verification regimes are uncomfortable and only create confusion. It makes people's attention not focus on the object to be verified, but on the verification mechanism and method.