Company Background: International Gadgets Is A Multinational

Company Backgroundinternational Gadgets Ig Is A Multinational Compan

Company Background international Gadgets (IG) is a multinational company of 1,300+ employees and over $4 billion in revenue. Headquartered in Manchester, New Hampshire, the company designs, manufactures, sells, and supports a variety of low- and high-tech business productivity tools. IG has manufacturing facilities in Detroit, Michigan, and Shanghai, China, and sources component parts from suppliers in Vietnam, China, Brazil, and the United States. While IG maintains sales offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Munich, Paris, Moscow, and Brussels, its products are sold throughout the United States and all of Europe and in China through a partner firm. IG employs both a direct sales force targeting its top 1,000 customers as well as selling via its website. Sales offices also include service and support operations, managed separately from the sales teams. The company is considering expanding more directly into China and exploring the possibility of opening a sales office in Beijing. IG’s current top-selling product is the OfficeDrone, designed for workplace monitoring. The OfficeDrone is a small unmanned aerial vehicle for indoor use that includes real-time video monitoring and a targetable built-in water pistol and reservoir. The OfficeDrone is marketed to management and security teams to break up water cooler conversations and other non-productive behaviors among groups of workers. IG has introduced several new products and experienced rapid growth during the past year with many new employees in all departments. The management team has greatly expanded as well, including several first-time managers, and is experiencing difficulties in functioning as effectively as in the past. Communications within and between all parts of the organization, external partners, and suppliers and customers, are at serious risk of completely breaking down. As the new communications manager for International Gadgets, you have come across many examples of ineffective communications, including some older directives that were never carried out, mostly because of their unclear nature. One example included an email stating that the recipient (within the R&D team) was to “create a presentation discussing the new product and send it to interested departments.” Others included a request from Sales to Technical Support for “a list of the biggest problems with our hot products” and a memo from Finance to all departments to “reduce the number of suppliers being used to better control costs.” By following the above case answer this question: Q. In a memo to your team, describe what is wrong with directives such as these and how to improve these messages so that they are delivered to the recipient with clarity and conciseness.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective communication is vital for organizational success, especially in a multinational corporation like International Gadgets (IG). The directives mentioned in the case—such as “create a presentation discussing the new product and send it to interested departments,” “a list of the biggest problems with our hot products,” and “reduce the number of suppliers being used”—lack clarity and conciseness, which can lead to misunderstandings, delays, and unfulfilled tasks. This memo will analyze the issues with these directives and provide recommendations for improving future instructions to ensure they are clear, actionable, and efficient.

One of the primary issues with the directives is their vagueness. For example, the instruction to “create a presentation discussing the new product” does not specify the scope, purpose, or expected content of the presentation. Without details about the target audience, key topics, length, format, or deadline, recipients may be unsure about what is required, leading to incomplete or irrelevant work. Similarly, the request from Sales for “a list of the biggest problems with our hot products” lacks clarity regarding which products are considered “hot,” what constitutes a “problem,” and whether the list should include specific metrics, customer complaints, or technical issues. The ambiguity can cause varied interpretations, reducing the effectiveness of the communication.

Additionally, the directives are not concise. Phrases like “discuss the new product” and “send it to interested departments” are vague and open-ended. Their lack of specificity consumes more time as recipients seek clarification or make assumptions. Also, the phrase “reduce the number of suppliers being used to better control costs” does not specify how many suppliers should be eliminated, the timeline for this reduction, or the criteria for selecting suppliers. Such vague instructions hinder effective planning and decision-making.

To improve these directives, the messages should adhere to the principles of clarity and conciseness. First, they should be specific about what needs to be done. For the presentation, the directive could specify: “Create a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation discussing the upcoming OfficeDrone model, focusing on its features, target market, and benefits, to be delivered to the marketing and security teams by March 15.” Such specificity clarifies expectations, scope, and deadlines, reducing ambiguity. The request for problems with hot products can be refined to: “Compile a list of the top five customer complaints and technical issues related to our OfficeDrone, FireAlert, and SecureCam products, to be submitted to Technical Support by March 10.” This detailed instruction provides clear boundaries and a deadline.

Similarly, the directive from Finance should be more precise: “Identify and eliminate at least three suppliers from our current list of ten, focusing on those with the highest costs and lowest delivery reliability, by the end of Q2, to improve cost control.” This version specifies the number of suppliers, the criteria for selection, and the timeline, resulting in actionable steps.

In addition to clarity, conciseness can be achieved by eliminating unnecessary words or vague phrases and using direct language. Cutting out filler words like “discuss,” “send,” or “consider” and replacing them with action-oriented verbs enhances the clarity of directives. For instance, instead of “create a presentation discussing the new product,” the instruction could be “Develop a report on the new product’s features,” tailoring the action more precisely.

Overall, effective directives should be clear, specific, and concise. Using precise language, defining scope, setting deadlines, and providing relevant details can significantly improve communication within IG. Clear instructions minimize misunderstandings, streamline workflows, and ensure that tasks are completed correctly and promptly. Implementing these principles in everyday communication will foster better coordination, increase productivity, and contribute to the overall success of the organization.

References

• Clampitt, P. G. (2013). Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness. Sage Publications.
• Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2018). Business Communication: Process and Product. Cengage Learning.
• Murphy, H. A., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (2011). Effective Business Communication. McGraw-Hill.
• Roberts, C. (2008). Business Writing: What Works, What Won't. Business Expert Press.
• Cardon, P. W. (2018). Business Communication: Developing Leaders for a Networked World. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hynes, G. E. (2012). Managerial Communication. Business Expert Press.
• Seitel, F. P. (2017). Essentials of Public Relations. Pearson Education.
• Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• McLean, S., & Wilson, T. (2016). Business Writing and Communication. Routledge.
• Gelb, L. (2012). Business Communication: Process & Product. Cengage Learning.