Let's imagine that you set your mind to the task of improving communication not only between engineers and managers but also between and among all employees: how would you go about it? The FelPro Corporation, one of the world's largest manufacturers of automotive and industrial gaskets, is a privately (family)-owned corporation with its headquarters in Skokie, Illinois. I had written to this company that I wanted information and/or articles related to problems of communication. I received a "by return mail" invitation from Mr. Kessler to come out for a visit, stating that he would like to speak his article rather than to write it. (I think too that he wanted me to see the operation at the plant in Skokie, which also "speaks!")

During the nearly two hour interview, I became increasingly aware that the Fel-Pro management has from the start taken adequacy and effectiveness of communication as absolutely central to their design and planning. What they have done is to focus on those matters which demonstrably or probably impede effective communication. In the course of implementing this `focus,' they have put in place a whole series of maneuvers which embody simple wisdom about 'how not to make communication difficult' and 'how to try to make what IS communicated effective as well as said.'

In the enterprise of not making communication difficult, they have abolished physical separation between employees and management. There is ONE cafeteria and ONE parking lot and ONE bank of washrooms, etc. There are no interior space-dividers calculated to provide secret chats, either, and there are no executive suites. Additionally there ARE many many 'messages' of comfort and approval (one cannot freely speak or criticize without them!): benefits, holidays, birthday celebrations, company-owned ranch vacation space, doctors, day-care and so on. All employees feel basically secure, which is not only "nice" but a predictor of feeling able to speak out and to have your speech heard.

However another enterprise which has been long established and which yet grows and becomes increasingly well-articulated is that of specific MEANS of communicating questions and suggestions and grievances. Hasn't every one of you been annoyed and somehow insulted by that entity called the "suggestion box"? It is a kind of tokenism, isn't it? I had not concentrated my mind on how many things were wrong with the "suggestion box" until my visit with Mr. Kessler, for what they have done there is to make "suggesting" a regular, institutionalized, followed-up-on part of the work experience. Just in case one assumes that this or that category of one's employees DOES very likely have important thingsto say about on-going activities, what then is the likeliest means of getting these things really said and heeded? Fel-Pro has developed 'two or three systems of meetings (regular and weekly, so that they need not be called for "special" issues!) to one or more of which every one comes as part of the job. These are "complaint and suggest" sessions and at each of them there is a log kept of what was raised and to whom it was assigned and when (and how well) it was solved. This log is distributed, along with the minutes, to every employee!

One category of regularly scheduled meetings which is especially germane to this issue of PERSPECTIVES is that between the "R and D" group of engineers (the theoreticians, so to speak) and the Applications Group (which is, of necessity, in closer touch not only with how much an R and D theory or invention might cost to institute but also with the Sales Division, etc.). These two groups were perceived to have some hostility, some "turf" disputes. Inasmuch as each had a great deal to say that needed saying and tended to withdraw from each other when rivalries intensified, the Management wisely decided that regular meetings between them must also be scheduled.

This company even went so far as to hire consultants (from Social Psychology) to help them develop detailed systems for making sure that every one of the employees really felt able and encouraged to think about work as an improvable organism and to bring the results of his/her thoughts to management. Consultants also offered advice on how best to make certain that suggestions did not turn into mere emotional ventilations with no effective results other than, at best, catharsis.

In summary: here was an example of an industry heavily oriented around engineering technology and science, which made concrete and specific efforts to implement its noble principle of being a "family."

They identified some items which are known to make communication difficult and eliminated them. They studied other instruments which are known to enhance communication and to make it useful and effective and put them in place. And after all of that they retained the wise and "Socratic" humility to recognize that they might still have more to learn about how to do this and consulted professionals. Practical wisdom combined with the modesty to learn more: even Aristotle would commend them.