jim.shamlin.com

4 - Communication

Communication involves more than just sending and receiving information - there are many instances in which the people to whom we speak do not get the point we were attempting to convey, and others in which we fail to get the point others were attempting to convey to us. In this sense, a botched communication can be worse than no communication at all, in that one party believes that they have succeeded.

Within the context of a relationship and an organization, communication is essential to collaboration: where one party does not understand what the other wants, they cannot provide the right kind of support to accomplish the goals of the relationship. (EN: If it were that binary, it would be less of a problem. However, partial or imperfect understanding can be problematic in that it leads to a great deal of wasted effort from partial success.)

Managers As Communicators

Managers allegedly spend about two-thirds of their time communicating, and should accept the responsibility of communicating effectively. Unfortunately, studies (Shaw 2004) indicate that only 14% of employees indicated that their managers were "good" or "very good" at communication.

The problem of poor communication may be clear when an employee fails to respond to a command because he did not get a clear understand of what was desired from the words his manager spoke, but it has broader implications. Communication builds trust and confidence in employees, and where there is poor communication, employees do not develop trust and may in fact develop mistrust of their manager and their organization.

One cause of this problem is that little attention is given to the development of these skills. Most communication abilities are learned in childhood, and teaching focuses on speaking and writing rather than reading or listening - which are far more important, and which children are largely left to figure out on their own (Hersey 1988).

The same study suggests that people retain only about half of what was said, which drops to 22% after 48 hours, even when the speaker has communicated well (EN: The numbers seem reasonable, but I do wonder about the methodology, specifically how much information the subjects were expected to recall, how well-crafted the communication was, whether it was germane to the interests of the audience, etc.)

Another significant problem in the workplace is that an employee is blamed and often punished for failing to understand orders whereas the manager who gives unclear orders is seldom held accountable. It is assumed that managers are good communicators, and little training or coaching is ever provided.

The authors identify three instances (EN: and there are likely far more) in which communication can support or undermine motivation:

  1. Direction - The manager attempts to direct employees to take action (whether a smile order or explaining a process).
  2. Information - The manager attempts to explain something to employees (such as the market or internal structures)
  3. Morale - A manager provides encouragement to employees to boost morale and enthusiasm.

These are instances in which clear communication can be highly effective, and unclear communication can be highly dysfunctional.

For example, when clear orders are given, employees know exactly what to do and how they will know when they have done it correctly. When orders are uncertain, employees may be paralyzed by doubt and fail to take action at all. Or worse, they may have to interpret the orders, making guesses (and possibly wrong ones) as to what action they are meant to take - or second-guessing their orders because they guess at what that action is meant to achieve.

A smattering of common communication problems are listed:

It's also suggested that some of the "good" advice given to managers has been counterproductive. The instruction to speak very slowly and distinctly sometimes results in boring the listener or patronizing them, either of which can make a person "tune out" of the conversation.

That considered, managers do not need a quick course in communication that provides tips and tricks - but instead they need to gain perspective on the act of communication itself, focused not on what the speaker does to make himself understood, but the way in which listeners understand.

What is Communication?

Because communication is problematic, there have been scores of attempts to address it, and there are many definitions. The authors proffer some key concepts:

The authors dabble in the notion that non-communication can itself be communicative. Consider a situation at which a manager did not attend a meeting at all - the people who were there, or hear of his absence, feel that he was "making a statement" by choosing not to attend.

There is a paragraph that considers various communication media - verbal, nonverbal, written, etc. with the suggestion that there are two primary qualities related to the medium.

  1. Richness - The richness of a medium pertains to the amount of information the medium can convey. An email provides only words, whereas a phone call adds the tone and pace of the speaker's voice, whereas a face-to-face conversation adds gestures and expressions.
  2. Interactivity - An interactive medium enables the speaker to gain feedback from his listener. The listener can ask questions where clarity is needed, and the speaker can interpret the listener's responses (particularly nonverbal ones) to indicate whether and how his message is being received

That is not to imply that a rich, interactive medium is always preferable. There are instances in which both can be counterproductive: a speaker may be concerned that gesture or tone may distract from his message (so a low-richness channel may be preferable) or he may wish to avoid being interrupted by individual members of a large audience (so a low-interactivity channel may be preferable).

Another brief paragraph considers interpretation: a speaker has control over the words that he speaks, but not the way they are interpreted by his listener. He can make informed choices about the way they might be misinterpreted and adjust his presentation in hope it will be correctly understood - but this is "hope" and not certainty. Ultimately, the way in which the audience interprets what was said determines what was communicated.

Five Key Assumptions

The authors present five assumptions about communications from another source (Harris 1979):

  1. You cannot avoid communicating. Everything you do (and even the things you don't do) communicates something to someone.
  2. Communication is an ongoing process. There is no beginning or end to communication, but it is a constant cycle the begins before and extends after any discrete message.
  3. Communication is interpreted by the audience. Regardless of what you said or intended to say, the information that the audience chooses to hear is the true and total information communicated.
  4. Communication cannot be undone. Once you have said something, it has been said and cannot be taken back. You can ask others to ignore something you said, but they cannot forget it.
  5. Communication occurs in the context of its receipt. A message is received by certain people, through a given medium, at a given time, in a given environment, in a given situation, in a given culture, etc. Again, the context in which it is received is more significant than that in which it is sent.

These assumptions create a foundation for models of communication, and a good model of communication will account for each of them. Not all do so.

Communication Cycle Model

Communication occurs between a sender and a receiver following this process:

  1. The sender initiates, translating his thoughts into a message that is intended through a given channel. His translation is imperfect, given his internal filters and the unknown facts he may also be communicating.
  2. The message is transmitted through a channel that may cross the boundaries of space and time, and may itself distort or obliterate the intended message.
  3. The receiver may receive the message, and then translate it into thoughts. His translation is also imperfect for the same reasons as the sender, but also his assumptions about the sender's intent.
  4. The receiver may react to the message by taking an action, or he may transmit feedback to the sender indicating the need for additional detail. When responding, the receiver acts as a sender as his reaction is itself a message back to the sender.
  5. The exchange of information between the sender and the receiver may repeat itself several times before the communication is completed.

(EN: This is very high-level and rather facile. Given the importance of communication, it is highly advisable to refer to a more detailed and well-considered model.)

Nonverbal and Unintentional Communication

The message that the sender intends to convey is augmented and sometimes muddled by nonverbal and unintentional communication. Particularly in rich channels such as face-to-face communication, your choice of words, tone of voice, facial expressions, posture, gesture, and other peripheral matters are also received by the audience, and they will use this information to interpret the message.

As to the magnitude and diversity of this peripheral information, one researcher (Axtell 1991) has identified 250,000 different facial impressions and over 1,000 different body postures. There are an even wider array of gestures, and they can mean different things in different cultures. For example, the American gesture for "OK" (thumb and index finger forming a circle, the other three fingers extended) is a gesture that indicates "money" in some cultures and "you are a homosexual" in others.

Nonverbal gestures can interfere with or contradict the interpretation of a message. For example, if you smile and nod when you say "yes" it matches your message, but if you frown and shake your head, there is a mismatch and the receiver may misinterpret your message, believing that you really mean "no" in spite of the verbal element of the message.

Given that many people are dime-store psychologists, there is heightened attentiveness to nonverbal communication and the tendency to believe that when there is a mismatch between the intended message and unintentional gestures or postures, it is increasingly likely that your words will be ignored in favor of your actions.

For that reason it is a good practice to call attention to discrepancies when appropriate: when a person sends mixed messages, call attention to this and tell them that their nonverbal "seem to indicate" a different response than what they are telling you.

(EN: This sounds like excellent advice, because too often people go on their own dodgy and half-witted interpretations rather than asking. However, there are situations in which asking outright can be problematic - when you do not wish to disclose the discrepancy to the speaker or others who may be present. In that case, follow up privately.)

Sidebar: Improving Awareness of Non-Verbal Behaviors

The authors present a sidebar that lists a number of nonverbal behaviors, suggesting that the primary issue with conflict in messages is that speakers may not be aware of the nonverbal messages they are sending. A good way for improvement is simply to be attentive so that you are aware, as this is a prerequisite to being able to control nonverbal communication to ensure it is used effectively rather than accidentally.

Some examples are:

These behaviors vary according to the relationship with the other person, according to the subject matter of the conversation, and according to emotional states. A person has a default setting as he begins a conversation and changes as the conversation progresses.

The Role of Communication in Influencing Others

Communication is a social behavior, that is necessary when interacting with others. To get things done, people must influence others and will at the same time be influenced by others. In particular, people must ask others to serve their needs and be willing to serve the needs of those who ask.

Achieving a proper balance is difficult: some people are too timid and are taken advantage of by others, while others are too aggressive and take advantage of others. Taken to either extreme, these behaviors harm our ability to operate, as those who feel taken advantage of are reluctant to interact with those who have taken advantage of them.

(EN: This is largely cultural and psychological, and particularly problematic for Americans who value independence and integrity. Our notion is that a person of strong character gets what he wants and isn't pushed around. But at the same time we praise a person who helps others without personal reward and trust those who act without a personal agenda. It's a very weird conflict that has never been resolved, and the balance point seems to float quite a lot given the situation and cultural atmosphere.)

Managers have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Specifically, the authority of their position makes them feel entitled to be served by employees without the necessity of serving them - which becomes problematic because employees have certain expectations of their employers, and will be resentful when the terms of the unwritten contract are violated.

Assertive Communication

The term "assertive" is used to indicate a balance point between aggression and submission in social interactions. Ideally, a person strikes a fair bargain between what he gives to others and what he gets in return. Much of this depends of effective communication.

Being assertive entails communicating your expectations to the other party, listening to their expectations, and negotiating a deal in which both are served. It requires openness, honesty, and clarity on the part of both parties. Assertiveness is based on mutual respect - our willingness to respect others while ensuring that we are expected in return.

Because it is a balance, being assertive requires elements of both aggressive and passive communication - to do something "too much" or "not enough" shifts us out of the middle and toward one of the extremes. And because it is a balancing act, it requires care and constant attention to achieve and maintain.

Loose Tips for Assertiveness

(EN: As usual, the authors are clear on what they think should be achieved and vague on how to go about achieving it, so I'm distilling their random chatter into bullet points.)

(EN: These are all good points, though my sense is many are omitted. IT would likely be better to consult other sources that deal more specifically with the topic of communication for a more coherent, cohesive, and comprehensive methodology.)

Barriers To Communication And How To Overcome Them

The authors intend to discuss "some common barriers" to communication, which is by no means comprehensive. Being aware of the barriers provides us with some ability to overcome them to improve the effectiveness of communication.

Noise

Noise is anything external that interferes with or distorts a message. Consider it in a literal sense of attempting to have a conversation on a factory floor, where the noise of machinery makes it difficult to hear what the other person is saying. This category can also be extended to other things that obstruct the message: a bad telephone connection or illegible handwriting.

(EN: the authors then talk about "internal noise" such as the speaker or listener's understanding of a word, or one party being too fatigued to pay attention. My sense is that this muddies the category, and noise is best limited to external factors that impact the message. Internal factors that impact the encoding/decoding process should be relegated to their own category.)

A speaker can mitigate the interference by arranging a time and place for the conversation. Primarily, he can arrange a venue that minimizes external distractions, or he can take action to reduce the noise (e.g., close the door to the conference room). Where noise cannot be avoided, it's best to reschedule the conversation rather than attempt to proceed in an environment that is detrimental to communication.

Cultural Differences

People from different cultures have difficulty communicating because they have different perceptions - and as such the words that the speaker intended to convey a specific message are interpreted differently by a listener.

This is self-evident when there are broad differences in culture: an American speaking to a Japanese, an educated person speaking to a layman, etc. But even between two people who seem culturally similar in many regards, there are subtle differences that can be insidious. That is, they have a high level of confidence the other person will understand, so they are not careful in communicating to them.

The problems that exist with the literal interpretation of the message are further compounded by other communication differences - gestures, expressions, tone of voice, and all the other nonverbal cues that convey meaning and may cause the literal message to be modified or discarded also differ greatly among cultures.

The authors provide a list of random suggestions, all based on one theme: information. Educate yourself about the culture of those with whom you communicate, and share information with them about your own culture. The goal is to define common ground in which there is some degree of tolerance and understanding for one another.

Differing Perceptions

The authors refer obliquely to cognitive filters that people employ to encode and decode messages. Such filters are the reason that two people can hear the same message and leave with completely different impressions of what was said, or the reason that one person interprets a message differently than the speaker intended.

There are many factors that create differences in interpretation, chiefly related to a person's experience and their emotional state. This causes a person to be more attentive to some things than to others, and this skews their interpretation of the message's meaning.

The less information that is provided in a message, the more that these filters can distort it, as the receiver is attempting to fill in the gaps in the meaning. (EN: However, it's also true that more information isn't a cure, because at some point the listener becomes overwhelmed or bored, stops listening, and uses his filters to reconstruct the parts that did not get through - but this is a matter of attention rather than interpretation.)

Ambiguity in messages also causes the filters to reinterpret a message: the human mind seeks structure in chaos, and once it has a notion of a given structure, additional details are added to that framework - such that contradictory information may be ignored, or contradiction may cause the framework to collapse, leaving them in a state of confusion.

Filters and frameworks are also not limited to the context of a single message, but are often associated with situations and people and are preserved over time. When a person who is considered to be dishonest from previous experiences speaks, the listener does not evaluate whether they are telling the truth this time - but is inclined by past experience to assume dishonesty.

(EN: This is also true when topic change - such that a person may still be thinking about a pervious topic in a conversation, or a previous conversation with the same person, and misinterpret what is being said later, when the topic has changed.)

There's a brief mention of self-fulfilling misperceptions that has more to do with relationships than communication, though one impacts the other. If an employee thinks that a coworker is a hostile person, they may treat them accordingly, and the other person takes offense at their behavior and becomes hostile.

Then, switch to the notion of perception as posturing - a person who wishes to control what other people think of them will intentionally manipulate and distort information in hopes of creating a desired perception. People are not as good at doing this as they hope, and they end up creating a different perception or, at least, the perception that they are disingenuous - but more importantly the desire to create a perception can hamper their ability to communicate effectively because the posturing interferes with the present message.

The problem with differing perceptions and interpretations is that the speaker believes that the listener received his message and interpreted it exactly as he intended. Summarizing and confirmation can be helpful in confirming this - specifically, the listener repeats back to the speaker what he has heard and confirms that this is what the speaker intended to convey. The authors also suggest that a speaker can prompt the listener to provide this kind of feedback (EN: which should be approached more cautiously because it is a manipulation tactic to insist that others merely rephrase your position, which prevents them from having input of their own.)

Strong Emotions

The way in which a person interprets a message depends on their emotional state. People tend to focus upon and emphasize parts of a message and ignore or minimize others - whether this is to enhance or mitigate a given emotional state prior to receipt or one that arises during the course of interpretation. Generally, there is a correspondence between the intensity of emotion and the degree of distortion of the message.

(EN: The authors attempt to explain this further, but their consideration is superficial and a bit misinformed. For now, accept the general principle, but seek more authoritative sources to understand the mechanism.)

To mitigate the interference of emotions, consider the emotional state of the listener at the onset of the conversation as well as the emotional reaction they may have to the message itself. The authors vaguely assert that it is possible to tailor your message to accommodate assumed emotional states and reactions - which requires adapting the message itself as well as the nonverbal communication that accompanies the message.

In instances in which you have long-term relationships with others, it may also help to be observant of their coping mechanisms: people react to things differently, and their reaction can further convolute the message. Accommodating peoples' emotional states is a critical part of building and maintaining relationships.

Poor Listening

Most people do not know how to listen to another person, and even those who recognize that they have communication problems often seek help with their speaking skills when it is often their listening skills that are deficient.

Consider what it means to read effectively - it is not merely enough to see the words on the page, but you must comprehend the message and remember it. An effective reader recognizes the theme of a written message, can pick up on the subtle cues of the writer's choice of words and the way his sentences are structured, to be able to fully understand.

Likewise, listening effectively means more than hearing the words - you must comprehend the message, decipher the hidden cues, and recall what was said. While writing contains merely the words, spoken communications also provide cues in the speaker's voice and nonverbal communication.

As an aside: when we read, we absorb information at our own pace, and can easily re-read a passage we did not understand. When we speak with a person we must receive information at their pace (which can cause anxiety and impatience because we can think faster than they can speak) and cannot often ask a speaker to repeat himself without giving offense. (EN: Or prompting him to rephrase or even change his statement.)

People also listen through their own filters - they decide very early what the other person intends to say and focus on making the rest of the message fit their preconceptions, emphasizing or ignoring certain elements of the literal message and nonverbal cues.

Listening attentively to someone requires mental focus - if you are listening while doing something else, or are absorbed in your own thoughts about the subject while someone else is speaking, you are not really listening to the other person.

A smattering of random tips are tossed at the reader:

In general, active listening focus attention on the person who is speaking, and the listener attempts to understand what is being said. The active listener is not preoccupied with his own thoughts and feelings. This does not mean he concedes the argument to the speaker, but merely doesn't see the conversation as an argument - though in instances where there are contention, the active listener attempts to understand the opposing position before making his counterpoint.

Some people avoid active listening because they find it boring and time-consuming to listen to others. But the point of conversation is not to be brief (the briefest conversation is none at all), but to exchange ideas. Effective communication is not merely getting your own point across to others, but understanding what others are attempting to say to you.

Active listening makes communication more effective, and in doing so makes it more efficient: if you understand the other person's point of view, you have a better idea of how to express yourself to them so that they might be receptive to your ideas. You can say things once, and succeed in getting your point across, without having to repeat yourself, and a single conversation gets the point across clearly.

Moreover, active listening helps to build and sustain relationships: people do not wish to interact with an egomaniac, who speaks without listening to others and seems to be indifferent to anything but his own opinions. By contrast, they warm to those who will listen and be nonjudgmental and who seem to care enough about them to listen to their point of view. Listening attentively demonstrates genuine concern about others, which is one of the foundational requirements of trust.

The authors end the chapter with a facile "listening skills" quiz, which is somewhat disappointing and potentially misleading because it combines the attitudes of a person who is actively listening ("I recognize my emotions hinder my ability to listen") with behaviors that people effect when they are only pretending to listening ("I give nonverbal signs when I am listening, such as nodding and smiling"). (EN: The latter is a serious problem, because pretending to listen while not listening is more damaging than giving the appropriate don't-care signals.)

Inability to Give Useful and Truthful Feedback

Even if you develop superior listening skills and can extract information from others and fully understand their interests, you are not communicating successfully: communication is an exchange of ideas, and it is equally important to represent your own interests in the conversation so the end result isn't capitulation or domination, but a mutually beneficial agreement.

The authors opt for the passive approach to representing your own interests: asking questions that lead the other person to provide information that will lead them to considering your interests, as opposed to making statements and demands of others.

(EN: I don't agree with this entirely - as the "questioning" method can be passive-aggressive and the other person will perceive they are being manipulated. So rather than going with one or the other, choose the approach that is appropriate to a given moment in the conversation.)

Some random tips for feedback are:

A few of the tips are about formal feedback given to employees, rather than feedback in the context of a conversation

Closing Remarks

The authors stray into some general closing remarks that seem worth preserving, though they are a bit repetitive.

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT