美国留学生HRM essay：Return of Investment - Effective Employee Communication

美国留学生HRM essay-投资回报-有效的员工沟通。本文是一篇留学美国的人力资源管理专业essay写作范文，主要内容是讲述美国公司通过各种营销渠道与客户沟通花费了数十亿美元，但相比之下，他们在与最重要的受众——员工沟通方面投入很少。本篇美国essay范文指出了组织沟通倡导者坚持认为，不投资于正式有效的沟通工作会导致员工表现低于预期，从而推高成本并蚕食利润。本篇美国essay支持公司在正式员工沟通计划中的投资分配。将提供研究和案例研究，以加强领导者确实认识到结构化、集中化的员工沟通方法的价值。领导者也可以接受，在没有统计证据的情况下，这些计划可能会带来高质量的产品和服务、提高士气和生产力、市场差异、增加利润和降低成本、减轻责任以及可衡量的利益相关者和消费者价值。下面就一起来看一下这篇美国留学生HRM essay范文的具体内容。

Is There Measurable Return When Corporations Invest In Effective Employee Communication?当企业投资于有效的员工沟通时，是否有可衡量的回报？

Abstract 摘要

U.S. corporations spend billions of dollars communicating with their customers through various marketing channels, but comparatively, they invest little on communicating with their most important audience, their employees. Organizational communication advocates insist that not investing in formalized effective communication efforts results in employees performing below expectations thereby driving up costs and cannibalizing profits. This essay supports the allocation of corporate investment in formalized employee communication programs. Research and a case study will be presented to reinforce that leaders do recognize the value of a structured, centralized approach to employee communication. Leaders can also accept, without statistical proof, these programs may result in quality products and services, improved morale and productivity, differential in the market place, increased profits and lower costs, mitigation of liability, and measurable stakeholder and consumer value. 

In Bruce Berger’s (2008) article, Employee / Organizational Communications, he emphasizes the value of effective employee communication in an increasingly demanding global market place.

本篇美国essay引用了Bruce Berger的文章《员工/组织沟通》，他强调了在日益苛刻的全球市场中，有效的员工沟通的价值。

Organizations must process continuous changes and shifting workplace demographics, assimilate new technologies, manage knowledge and learning, adopt new structures, strengthen identity, advance diversity and engage employees-often across cultures and at warp speed. Internal communication lies at the center of successful solutions to these issues, and professional communicators must play key leadership, strategic and tactical roles to help their organizations resolve them. (Four Contemporary Issues section, para. 1).

组织必须处理不断变化和不断变化的工作场所人口结构，吸收新技术，管理知识和学习，采用新结构，加强身份认同，促进多样性，并经常以极快的速度让员工参与进来。内部沟通是成功解决这些问题的核心，专业沟通者必须发挥关键的领导、战略和战术作用，帮助其组织解决这些问题。

U.S. corporations spend billions of dollars communicating with their customers through various marketing channels, but comparatively, they invest little on communicating with their most important audience, their employees. Organizational communication advocates insist that not investing in formalized effective communication efforts results in employees performing below expectations thereby driving up costs and cannibalizing profits. By not investing in effective communication with their employees, customers will likely receive poorly executed products and services resulting in refunds, lost market share, and possible legal fees and regulatory fines. These losses ultimately offset the expected returns from marketing and advertising spend. Where corporations may not immediately see the value of investing hard dollars in organizational communication efforts, they will understand the top and bottom line impact of product and service defects, therefore employee and consumer groups must win the battle from this front.

美国公司通过各种营销渠道与客户沟通花费了数十亿美元，但相比之下，他们在与最重要的受众——员工沟通方面投入很少。组织沟通倡导者坚持认为，不投资于正式有效的沟通工作会导致员工表现低于预期，从而推高成本并蚕食利润。如果不投资于与员工的有效沟通，客户可能会收到执行不力的产品和服务，导致退款、市场份额损失，以及可能的法律费用和监管罚款。这些损失最终抵消了营销和广告支出的预期回报。如果企业可能没有立即看到在组织沟通工作中投入巨资的价值，他们就会理解产品和服务缺陷的最高和最低影响，因此员工和消费者群体必须在这方面赢得战斗。

Prove It: Measuring the Return on Investment in Employee Communication 证明：衡量员工沟通的投资回报

Many attribute the quote “What gets measured gets managed” to business educator and author Peter Drucker, though Drucker may have been paraphrasing words from almost a decade earlier. According to Stellman (1998), William Thomson, the Scottish physicist also known as Lord Kelvin, first discussed the value of measurement for scientific proof in his May 3, 1883, lecture on “Electrical Units of Measurement.”

许多人将“量力而行”这句话归因于商业教育家兼作家彼得·德鲁克，尽管德鲁克可能是在转述近十年前的话。根据Stellman（1998）的说法，苏格兰物理学家威廉·汤姆森，也被称为开尔文勋爵，在1883年5月3日的“电气测量单位”讲座中首次讨论了测量对科学证明的价值

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be. (p. 1992)

我经常说，当你能衡量你在说什么，并用数字表达出来时，你就知道了；但是，当你不能用数字来表达它时，你的知识是贫乏和令人不满意的；这可能是知识的开端，但在你的思想中，无论是什么问题，你都几乎没有进入科学的阶段。

No matter the genesis of the quote, the meaning is not in dispute. The commonly held belief is that proof of performance needs to be evident on the balance sheet. It is easy for corporate leaders to see the return on investment in a new piece of technology that takes manual labor out of a process, hiring additional sales personnel, or bringing a new product to market. Unfortunately, it’s not an easy task to prove investing in effective employee communication results in measurable returns such as growth and customer retention. To prove that investment in formalized programs positively impact the financial health of a corporation, proponents must identify and champion established methods and tools to measure employee communication effectiveness.

不管这句话的起源是什么，其含义都没有争议。人们普遍认为，业绩证明需要在资产负债表上显示出来。企业领导者很容易看到对一项新技术的投资回报，这项技术将体力劳动从流程中去除，雇佣额外的销售人员，或将新产品推向市场。不幸的是，要证明投资于有效的员工沟通能带来可衡量的回报，如增长和客户忠诚度，并不是一件容易的事。为了证明对正式计划的投资对公司的财务健康有积极影响，支持者必须确定并支持衡量员工沟通有效性的既定方法和工具。

Meng and Berger (2010) Findings 研究结果

A white paper by Meng and Berger (2010), evaluated two research projects that reviewed methods to measure internal communication effectiveness. They reviewed the “results of an international survey of 265 experienced business communicators worldwide followed by insights gained through in-depth interviews with 13 diverse and experienced business communicators” (p. 1). In their analysis of the two research studies, Meng and Berger (2010) identified five key findings which are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Meng和Berger的一份白皮书评估了两个研究项目，这些项目回顾了衡量内部沟通有效性的方法。他们回顾了“一项针对全球265名经验丰富的商业传播者的国际调查结果，以及通过对13名不同且经验丰富的企业传播者的深入采访获得的见解”。在对这两项研究的分析中，Meng和Berger确定了五项关键发现，总结如下。

Although it is their final finding, Meng and Berger’s (2010) sixth finding bears mentioning first as they call out the four primary reasons for implementation of communication effectiveness programs: “(1) explaining and promoting new programs and policies; (2) educating employees about organizational culture and values; (3) providing information on organizational performance and financial objectives; and (4) helping employees understand the business” (p. 15). If an organizational communication advocate was going use Meng and Berger’s (2010) research to prove to their leadership the value of measuring employee communication effectiveness as a primary driver of business performance, they should call out these four reasons first. It is imperative that leaders support the importance of engaging employees to understand how they fit into achieving the goals and objectives that drive overall organizational success.

尽管这是他们的最终发现，Meng和Berger的第六个发现首先值得一提，因为他们指出了实施沟通有效性计划的四个主要原因：“（1）解释和推广新的计划和政策；（2）教育员工有关组织文化和价值观；（3）提供有关组织绩效和财务目标的信息；以及（4）帮助员工了解业务”。如果一位组织沟通倡导者要利用Meng和Berger的研究向他们的领导层证明衡量员工沟通有效性作为业务绩效主要驱动因素的价值，他们应该首先指出这四个原因。领导者必须支持让员工参与进来的重要性，以了解他们如何适应实现推动组织整体成功的目标和目的。

In their first finding, Meng and Berger (2010) asserted that while leadership agreed that effectively communicating with their employees was important, they did not see the value in measuring it as a key driver that would positively or negatively impact performance metrics within their organizations (p. 6). The first finding is a significant challenge to overcome. If leadership does not recognize that their employees having clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities is a key driver of operational performance success, how will supporters fund formalized employee communication effectiveness programs and measurements to prove the value?

在他们的第一个发现中，Meng和Berger断言，虽然领导层一致认为与员工有效沟通很重要，但他们并不认为衡量沟通的价值是对组织内绩效指标产生积极或消极影响的关键驱动因素。第一个发现是一个需要克服的重大挑战。如果领导层没有认识到，他们的员工对自己的角色和责任有着清晰的理解，是运营绩效成功的关键驱动力，那么支持者将如何资助正式的员工沟通有效性计划和衡量标准，以证明其价值？

Meng and Berger’s (2010) second finding found that organizations at different performance levels had different perspectives on why measuring communication effectiveness was important. In short, organizations showing positive performance in employee communication effectiveness chose to report it as a key performance indicator on a “balanced scorecard” of metrics. Unfortunately, the organizations that were most in need of a formalized employee communication strategy saw little value in the investment and measurement unless it was a means to gain additional resources or to satisfy a personal interest. “In low-effectiveness organizations measurement of communication effectiveness has been used as an approach to acquire additional budget and/or staff, or it is a result of personal interest” (Meng & Berger, 2010, p.8).

Meng和Berger的第二项发现发现，不同绩效水平的组织对衡量沟通有效性的重要性有不同的看法。简言之，在员工沟通有效性方面表现积极的组织选择将其作为衡量标准“平衡记分卡”上的关键绩效指标进行报告。不幸的是，最需要正式员工沟通战略的组织认为，除非这是获得额外资源或满足个人利益的手段，否则投资和衡量几乎没有价值。“在效率低下的组织中，衡量沟通效率被用作获得额外预算和/或员工的一种方法，或者是个人利益的结果”。

While Meng and Berger’s (2010) first two findings looked at leadership’s perceived value in measuring employee communication effectiveness, the next three findings looked at the metrics, measurement methods, and challenges in capturing unassailable data proving organizational communication programs were positive drivers of growth and client retention and worthy of significant investment.

虽然Meng和Berger的前两项研究结果着眼于领导层在衡量员工沟通有效性方面的感知价值，但接下来的三项研究结果则着眼于指标、衡量方法和在获取无懈可击的数据方面的挑战，这些数据证明组织沟通计划是增长和留住客户的积极驱动因素，值得进行重大投资。

In the third finding, Meng and Berger (2010) identified five primary metrics in use to measure communication effectiveness: “1) increased awareness or understanding, 2) concentrated engagement among employees, 3) improved job performance, 4) changed employee behaviors, and 5) improved business performance at the organizational level” (p. 9).

在第三个发现中，Meng和Berger确定了用于衡量沟通有效性的五个主要指标：“1）提高意识或理解，2）员工集中参与，3）改善工作绩效，4）改变员工行为，5）改善组织层面的业务绩效”。

The fourth finding followed with the challenges to implement these metrics. Those were “1) insufficient resources (e.g., money and staff), 2) difficulties determining a specific cause and-effect relationship between communication initiatives and business results, and 3) time constraints” (Meng & Berger, 2010, p.11).

第四个发现随之而来的是实现这些指标的挑战。这些是“1）资源（如资金和员工）不足，2）难以确定沟通举措和业务成果之间的具体因果关系，以及3）时间限制”。

Meng and Berger (2010) identified in their fifth finding the primary tools that the communication leaders used to assess internal communication effectiveness: “(1) employee feedback gathered by surveys, (2) employee participation in related communication initiatives, and (3) managerial feedback collected via surveys” (p.11).

Meng和Berger在他们的第五项发现中确定了沟通领导者用来评估内部沟通有效性的主要工具：“（1）通过调查收集的员工反馈，（2）员工参与相关沟通举措，以及（3）通过调查收集的管理反馈”。

Although Meng and Berger’s (2010) review of the research was intensive, their conclusion was disappointing.

尽管Meng和Berger对这项研究进行了深入的综述，但他们的结论令人失望。

Perhaps the most important finding is that there is a long way to go. Virtually all communicators in the study emphasized the importance of linking internal communication to business performance. However, the effectiveness of many employee communication programs is not assessed, whether due to lack of resources, research knowledge or time. This is discouraging if not surprising. (Meng & Berger, 2010, p. 17)

也许最重要的发现是，还有很长的路要走。研究中几乎所有的沟通者都强调了将内部沟通与业务绩效联系起来的重要性。然而，许多员工沟通计划的有效性没有得到评估，无论是由于缺乏资源、研究知识还是时间。这即使不令人惊讶，也令人沮丧。

Although Meng and Berger’s conclusion was not a clear endorsement supporting measurable return on investment in employee communication effectiveness programs, their findings provide the organizational communication advocate a place to start. The research provides five primary metrics to measure communication effectiveness, a clear understanding of the primary challenges with measuring these metrics so they can develop methods that overcome the obstacles, and utilization of surveys to collect data on programs and performance.

尽管孟和伯格的结论并没有明确支持员工沟通有效性项目的可衡量投资回报，但他们的发现为组织沟通倡导者提供了一个起点。该研究提供了衡量沟通有效性的五个主要指标，明确了解衡量这些指标的主要挑战，以便他们能够制定克服障碍的方法，并利用调查收集项目和绩效数据。

Case Study: Aramark Uniform Services Field Communication Strategy 案例研究：Aramark Uniform Services现场沟通策略

There is no question, from researchers or business leaders, that effectively communicating with employees will improve business results. The Meng and Berger research did not, however, clearly answer if there is measurable return when corporations invest in effective employee communication, but it did provide several key pieces of information that can help the organizational communications advocate being making their case for the investment.

毫无疑问，无论是研究人员还是商业领袖，与员工的有效沟通都会提高商业成果。然而，孟和伯格的研究并没有明确回答当企业投资于有效的员工沟通时是否有可衡量的回报，但它确实提供了一些关键信息，可以帮助组织沟通倡导者为投资辩护。

In October of 2014, after semi-annual meetings showcased less than favorable results, the President of Aramark Uniform Services commissioned a survey to the field service leadership – the General Managers. The General Managers are responsible for overseeing the day to day activities of the front line plant operations and the route service teams. They are responsible for driving the front line performance that rolls up to overall company results where challenges were being seen in the three key performance metrics: base business growth, new sales growth, and customer retention. Given the concerning results in these key performance indicators, Mr. Fadden’s survey asked the following: “How well do you understand how your role in Aramark? What keeps you from producing top results or being a top performer? If you could change one thing about your job or working for Aramark, what would that be?” (Aramark Uniform Services General Manager Survey, 2014). The survey had a 100% response rate and the General Manager’s answers fell into three categories:

2014年10月，在半年一度的会议显示出不太好的结果后，Aramark制服服务公司总裁委托对外勤服务领导层——总经理进行了一项调查。总经理负责监督一线工厂运营和路线服务团队的日常活动。他们负责推动一线业绩，最终达到公司的整体业绩，其中三个关键业绩指标面临挑战：基本业务增长、新销售增长和客户保留率。考虑到这些关键绩效指标的令人担忧的结果，法登先生的调查提出了以下问题：“你对自己在Aramark的角色了解多少？是什么让你无法取得最佳成绩或成为最佳表现？如果你能改变你的工作或为Aramark工作的一件事，那会是什么？”。调查的回复率为100%，总经理的回答分为三类：

they had too many priorities and what’s important today may not be what’s important tomorrow;他们有太多的优先事项，今天重要的可能不是明天重要的；

the amount of project work – new technology, new processes, new initiatives, new products and promotions – hitting the field all at once reduced the likelihood of success;大量的项目工作——新技术、新流程、新举措、新产品和促销活动——同时进入现场降低了成功的可能性；

they had so many meetings and conference calls they struggled to find time to grow and retain business and coach and develop their people;他们有太多的会议和电话会议，他们很难找到时间来发展和留住业务，指导和发展员工；

and if they could change one thing, they’d take away the hours they spend, often late into the night and on personal time – trying to catch up on e-mail (Aramark Uniform Services General Manager Survey, 2014).如果他们能改变一件事，他们就会抽出时间，通常是深夜和私人时间——试图赶上电子邮件。

After reviewing the results of the survey with the leadership team, Mr. Fadden commissioned another survey to the functional leaders from plant operations, supply chain, customer service, finance, sales and marketing, and IT to understand what, how, and how often they were communicating with the field service leadership and their teams. The results were reviewed by Mr. Fadden and his direct reports in December, 2014.

在与领导团队审查了调查结果后，Fadden先生委托工厂运营、供应链、客户服务、财务、销售和营销以及IT部门的职能领导进行了另一项调查，以了解他们与现场服务领导及其团队沟通的内容、方式和频率。法登先生及其直接下属于2014年12月对结果进行了审查。

On average, a General Manager received 300 e-mails a day from the functional support teams.一名总经理平均每天收到300封来自职能支持团队的电子邮件。

Sixty percent of the e-mails were not asking the General Manager to take action, but simply copying the General Manager on something he or she might need to know.60%的电子邮件并不是要求总经理采取行动，而是简单地复制总经理可能需要知道的内容。

Forty percent of the e-mails required the General Manager to take some sort of action. In most cases, these e-mails contained critical service issues that needed to be addressed immediately. All functional support personnel stated that due to delays in responding, they escalated with calls to the General Manager’s cell phone and if he didn’t answer, they e-mailed and called his or her Regional Vice President.

40%的电子邮件要求总经理采取某种行动。在大多数情况下，这些电子邮件包含需要立即解决的关键服务问题。所有职能支持人员都表示，由于反应迟缓，他们会打电话给总经理的手机，如果总经理不接，他们会给他或她的区域副总裁发电子邮件和打电话。

In several instances, it was discovered that incorrect, conflicting, or duplicate information was being conveyed to the General Manager’s and their teams.在一些情况下，发现向总经理及其团队传达了不正确、冲突或重复的信息。

The functional teams were unaware that other teams had projects that were going live in the field at the same time as their project.职能团队不知道其他团队的项目与他们的项目同时在现场进行。

Several scheduled conference calls were during times General Managers were required to keep reserved for meeting with customers and employees. The General Managers did not decline these meetings because they were concerned they’d get in trouble for missing something scheduled by corporate. (Aramark Support Staff Communication Survey, 2014)

几次预定的电话会议都是在总经理被要求保留与客户和员工会面的时间。总经理们并没有因为担心错过公司安排的会议而拒绝这些会议。

Mr. Fadden was shocked at the volume of communication and the errant information not in alignment with organizational strategy bombarding the field service leadership and their teams on a daily basis. Although there was no empirical data to prove that this alone was the contributing factor to the less than expected results, they surmised that the lack of an employee communication strategy was not helping the performance of their field service organization.

Fadden先生对每天轰炸外勤事务领导层及其团队的大量沟通和不符合组织战略的错误信息感到震惊。尽管没有实证数据证明这一点本身就是导致结果低于预期的因素，但他们推测，缺乏员工沟通策略对其外勤服务组织的业绩没有帮助。

In January of 2015, Mr. Fadden took two steps to improve organizational communication for the field service team. He felt the primary issue was related to e-mail and that for his organization, it had become an abused crutch used for everything and anything. Cowan (2015) supports that assumption.

2015年1月，Fadden先生采取了两个步骤来改善外勤服务团队的组织沟通。他认为主要问题与电子邮件有关，对他的组织来说，电子邮件已经成为一种被滥用的拐杖，用于任何事情。Cowan支持这一假设。

Want to share a document with someone? Email it. Want to invite an employee to an event? Email them. Need to ask a question? Email it. Need to send a one word response to something? Email it. Want to send meeting notes to your team? Sure, just type them up in your email and blast it out to everyone. (Used for Everything and Anything section, para. 1)

想与某人共享文档吗？通过电子邮件发送。想邀请员工参加活动吗？给他们发电子邮件。需要问一个问题吗？通过电子邮件发送。需要发送一个单词的回复吗？通过电子邮件发送。要将会议记录发送给您的团队吗？当然，只要在你的电子邮件中键入它们，然后向每个人发送。

In an attempt to slow the tide of e-mail that was keeping the General Manager’s from their core duties, Mr. Fadden implemented Growth Wednesday where no one can send e-mail, nor have calls with, the field service teams allowing them to focus on growth and retention activities with no disruption. Mr. Fadden also implemented a secure General Manager e-mail distribution. Now, no one other than Mr. Fadden could e-mail the entire General Manager group and if they needed to, it would require Mr. Fadden’s approval.

为了减缓让总经理无法履行核心职责的电子邮件潮，法登先生在周三实施了增长计划，没有人可以向现场服务团队发送电子邮件，也没有人可以与他们通话，使他们能够在不中断的情况下专注于增长和保留活动。法登先生还实施了安全的总经理电子邮件分发。现在，除了法登先生，没有人可以给整个总经理小组发电子邮件，如果他们需要，需要法登先生的批准。

The assumption was that these actions would improve the key performance metrics that were suffering. Unfortunately, one of Meng and Berger’s (2010), findings applied here for the Aramark Uniform Service team where there were “difficulties determining a specific cause and-effect relationship between communication initiatives and business results” (Meng & Berger, 2010, p.11). The metrics did not improve and at the semi-annual meeting in January of 2016, the General Managers all conveyed that nothing was better and in fact, Thursday’s were now their worst day of the week. It appeared that the mass of communication that didn’t happen on Wednesday was now pushed to Thursday morning.

当时的假设是，这些行动将改善受到影响的关键绩效指标。不幸的是，Meng和Berger的一项研究结果适用于Aramark统一服务团队，该团队“很难确定沟通举措和业务成果之间的具体因果关系”。这些指标没有改善，在2016年1月的半年度会议上，总经理们都表示没有什么比这更好的了，事实上，周四是他们一周中最糟糕的一天。周三没有发生的大规模沟通现在似乎被推到了周四上午。

In April of 2016, Mr. Fadden met with members of the human resources organization to discuss the issue. One of the directors recounted her experience at a previous employer where they had an employee communications team. The team had a director and three employees who acted as the gatekeepers and scribes for all communications going out to the organization. The following were the core responsibilities of this team:

2016年4月，法登先生会见了人力资源组织的成员，讨论了这个问题。其中一位董事讲述了她在前一家雇主的经历，那里有一个员工沟通团队。该团队有一名主管和三名员工，他们负责组织所有沟通的把关人和抄写员。以下是该团队的核心职责：

evaluate and prioritize message requests that came in from the functional support teams;评估来自职能支持团队的消息请求并确定其优先级；

identify the best communication channel for the message;识别消息的最佳通信信道；

edit the messages to be clear, concise, and grammatically accurate;编辑信息，使其清晰、简洁、语法准确；

ensure the employee was receiving a message that pertained to them;确保员工收到与他们相关的信息；

evaluate the voice and content of the message to ensure it supports the Aramark Uniform Services organizational strategy. (J. Raia, personal communication, June 23, 2016)评估消息的语音和内容，以确保其支持Aramark统一服务组织战略。

The human resources director also commented that this team sat in the operations excellence group which also had a project management organization that had similar controls over all projects within the organization. Mr. Fadden was interested in hearing more so he commissioned a report from the human resources team on a suggested organizational communication strategy specifically for the field service team.

人力资源总监还评论说，该团队属于卓越运营小组，该小组还有一个项目管理组织，对该组织内的所有项目都有类似的控制。Fadden先生有兴趣听取更多的意见，因此他委托人力资源小组编写了一份报告，介绍专门为外勤事务小组提出的组织沟通战略建议。

In May of 2016, Mr. Fadden reviewed the findings of the human resources team with his leadership group and made the decision to invest in an operations excellence team which would include a director, manager, and teams supporting operational excellence in the following areas: process, communications, projects, value / analytics, and change management. In an email to his leadership team, Mr. Fadden described the rationale for investing in a complete employee communication effectiveness strategy:

2016年5月，Fadden先生与他的领导团队一起审查了人力资源团队的调查结果，并决定投资一个卓越运营团队，该团队将包括一名董事、经理和支持以下领域卓越运营的团队：流程、沟通、项目、价值/分析和变革管理。在给领导团队的一封电子邮件中，法登描述了投资于完整的员工沟通有效性战略的理由：

I mentioned a new process to slow the traffic, both email and launches, to the GMs. Basically, the process will be, this executive team will have a call once a month, to decide what gets launched / communicated to the GMs. We will be significantly slowing the pace, so a lot of prioritization will be necessary, and a lot of things just won’t make the cut. There will also be a lot change management necessary, because a lot of your folks are not going to like this, and it will require them to operate in a much different manner Susan Shiposh will be the keeper of this this is going to be a big deal and I want you all to have a full understanding. (M. Fadden, personal communication, June 8, 2016)

本篇美国essay提到了一个新的流程来减缓对总经理的流量，包括电子邮件和发布。基本上，这个过程是，这个执行团队将每月打一次电话，决定向总经理发布/传达什么。我们将大幅放缓步伐，因此有必要进行大量的优先排序，而很多事情都无法实现。还有很多变革管理是必要的，因为你们的很多人都不会喜欢这样，这将要求他们以一种截然不同的方式运作。苏珊·希波什将是这件事的负责人，这将是一件大事，我希望你们都能充分理解。

Mr. Fadden made the decision to invest in an organization that will support more effective employee communication in his 1.4B operation. Although Mr. Fadden did not clearly call out any specific reason for this decision, Yekutiel (2015) may provide insight into the mind of a leader when he says, “When looking to make improvements to their businesses CEOs should focus their attention on the satisfaction of their employees.” He goes on to provide ten things a CEO should do and one of them is improve communication.

法登决定投资一家组织，该组织将在其14亿美元的运营中支持更有效的员工沟通。尽管Fadden先生没有明确指出做出这一决定的任何具体原因，但Yekutiel可能会让人们深入了解领导者的想法，他说：“在寻求改善业务时，首席执行官应该把注意力集中在员工的满意度上。”。

Relying on email as the sole means of communication is ineffective and does little to build working relationships. Among professionals surveyed by AtTask, 43 percent felt that email takes away from their productivity. Instead, encourage face-to-face interaction when possible and invest in other communication tools such as a social video portal, internal webcasts, enterprise social networking tools and an internal blog. (Improve communication section, para. 1)

依靠电子邮件作为唯一的沟通方式是无效的，对建立工作关系也没有什么帮助。在接受AtTask调查的专业人士中，43%的人认为电子邮件会降低他们的工作效率。相反，尽可能鼓励面对面的互动，并投资于其他沟通工具，如社交视频门户网站、内部网络广播、企业社交网络工具和内部博客。

While the research showed that quantifying return on investment in effective employee communication programs is challenging, the organizational communication advocate can look to examples like the Aramark case study and literature directed at those occupying the C-suite. Leadership may not be aware of the science of organizational communication, but they understand that controlling internal communication can improve employee engagement, performance, and overall productivity. Those are three key metrics that business leaders do recognize and effective employee communication is most certainly a measureable driver for those, therefore it warrants organizational attention and investment.

虽然通过本篇美国essay研究表明，量化有效的员工沟通计划的投资回报率具有挑战性，但组织沟通倡导者可以参考Aramark案例研究和针对高管的文献等例子。领导层可能不知道组织沟通的科学性，但他们知道控制内部沟通可以提高员工的敬业度、绩效和整体生产力。这是商业领袖确实认识到的三个关键指标，有效的员工沟通无疑是这些指标的一个可衡量的驱动因素，因此值得组织关注和投资。本站提供美国留学生essay范文，美国essay写作指导，如有需要可咨询本平台。