Download The Basics of Formal Communication

The Basics of Formal Communication
Part One: Transmitters and Receivers
Communication involves two parties: a transmitter and a receiver. Although
this seems straightforward it’s certainly not a simple process. Breaking the
process down, there are a number of key ingredients, or decisions, which we
shall now look at one by one.
The first decision the transmitter makes concerns the 'channel' of
communication. Our choice will depend upon the whereabouts of the
receiver, the nature of the message, the availability of different channels and
the ability of the channel to accurately convey the message. Emails, face to
face meetings, telephone conversations - all of these are channels and we
need to be careful that we choose the right one to convey our message.
Next, the we have to choose what to say, we have to 'encode' the message.
We use codes all the time, without giving it a second thought. Speech is a
code. The language we use to describe an object or feeling is a code. All we
need to do is to 'code' our message in such a way that it can be 'decoded' the
other end. How simple, yet how often we get it wrong. The problem is that
we tend to express ourselves using language and content, that make sense
from our perspective - life as we see it from our 'hill top'.
However, to be 'decoded' correctly the message must make sense from the
receiver's 'hill top'. Therefore, before composing what we want to say, we first
need to put ourselves in the shoes of the receiver. After-all...
... communication is what 'B' receives, not what 'A' sends!
Even when we have tried hard to express our message in a way which will
make sense to the receiver, other factors may have modified the message or,
as the information theorists say, 'diminished the integrity of the signal'. This
we can call 'noise'. There are three types.
Channel Noise. This is static on the line, physical interference. A hoarse
voice, a radio next door, too much illumination, poor bandwidth etc.
Psychological Noise. A message which intimidates or an act of superiority
which irritates the 'receiver' when it should inform. These are examples of
psychological noise. The nature of the message is affected by the feelings of
the recipient.
Body language, of course, is psychological noise when it counteracts the
message. On the other hand it may reinforce the message. In which case it
is 'sound' rather than ‘noise’. We can't hear it. We simply accept it, intuitively
interpreting a non-verbal code. Communication experts tell us that 'the
spoken word is never neutral'. It is always affected by the nature of our
delivery.
Language Noise. Language noise is the result of a mismatch of code
between transmitter and receiver. A's signals may not be understood by B.
For instance, the sign in an American car park which reads 'FINE FOR
PARKING'. Is it an encouragement or a warning?
Another element of language noise is redundancy. Redundancy is an overkill
of information. But redundancy sometimes aids accurate decoding and helps
to overcome 'channel noise'. We can decipher bad handwriting because
sufficient information remains in the words and characters we can recognise
to enable us to decipher the words and characters we cannot read.
What is now missing from our communication model is Feedback.
Feedback is evidence of communication. Or, to be more exact, evidence that
the signal has been received. The decoding of the feedback, in turn, tells us
whether the signal has been correctly interpreted (always assuming that we,
for our part, have correctly interpreted the feedback signal). The possibilities
for misunderstanding are endless.
Without feedback there is no communication.
Feedback is the
contribution of the receiver but this has to be earned, or if necessary, invited.
Having a conversation with someone who gives no indication that they are
following what you are saying - no words or grunts or looks - can kill the
communication. Looks, especially, since we all tend to look more at people
we like, it can be very disconcerting not to be looked at.
The fact that feedback is evidence of effective communication cannot be
over-stated. However, this is also not straightforward as people are different
and therefore how we perceive and interpret each other will also alter.
Part Two: Perception
The efficacy of communication can be affected by a person’s perception; the
way in which a person may perceive a situation. Each of us has a particular
way of perceiving and making sense of the world around us. Whilst the
surrounding environment will contain the same quota of stimuli our own
differences will interpret what we do with it. Perception can also serve as a
filter so that we are not overwhelmed by the stimuli that surround us.
Our perceptual processes improve our decision making efficiency by aiding
our organisation of information and preventing information overload. However
we must be aware that perceptual bias may prevent us from considering all
the information available, therefore limiting our interpretation.
Perception and personality will differ amongst people. Each of us will have a
life experience, value set, interest, emotion, attitude or motive that will be
distinct to us and wholly unique. Perception is the process by which we
select, organise and interpret external stimuli and information into terms and
categories which are meaningful and consistent with our own frames of
reference, whilst personality is the result of personal traits interacting with the
environment.
The distinguishing characteristics of people can be assessed through self
report inventories such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This
helps us to explore individual attributes of personality in a non-judgmental way
– creating a greater understanding of the differences between us as people.
By seeking to understand how we perceive or how we are perceived by
others, whilst at the same time understanding how our personality may
influence these concepts, we are able to take a step towards a more
enlightened self perception.
Part Three: Filters and Stereotypes
So how can we start to identify our differences in order to enhance our
perceptions? Effective understanding of other people depends very much on
interacting and communicating with them, 'getting to know' them.
C
A
B
Figure 1
In figure 1, A's and B's perceptions and impression of C are different, simply
because A and B have different values, beliefs and experiences - different
filters - even though the information passed from C to A and B is the same.
C
A
B
Figure 2
When, as in Figure 2, A and B communicate to each other their perceptions of
C, and a process of disclosure and feedback occurs, A and B are more likely
to understand each other's perception of C.
C
A
B
Figure 3
Greater common understanding develops when A, B and C share and
feedback perceptions of each other.
C
A
B
Figure 4
And even greater empathy and understanding occurs when, as in Figure 4, A,
B and C share some common values, beliefs, attitudes and remembered
experiences.
Too often, however, in organisations, we have to make judgments of other
people based on limited information. In these situations we face the conflict of
needing to be as accurate as possible in our perceptions while needing also
to make-up our minds as quickly as possible. In these cases where time or
information is short, we often tend to stereotype people into categories which
fit the aggregation of the limited information available, within the parameters
of our past experiences. Prejudice occurs by simply categorising people on
incomplete information, or by simply refusing to accept evidence about
individuals which conflicts with previous experience.
However, we often have to rely on 'first impressions' in such situations as
selection interviews, or in making a sale to an unknown customer. This brings
in the third factor which influences perception - the situation - together with
the other two - the perceiver, and the perceived.
Dealing first with the 'perceived'. Our perception and categorisation of, and
our behaviour towards other people, are influenced to a certain extent by their
apparent characteristics.
Some of these which affect our interactions with them are:
(a)
Physical appearance
There are many ingrained beliefs that link personality characteristics to
physical appearance. We may infer characteristics of strong selfdiscipline from the ramrod figure of a Sergeant Major, while feeling that a
person who is unkempt and mooches around is lazy and unmotivated. A
scowl makes us unhappy, while a smile makes us want to smile back.
(b) Verbal and Social Cues
One of the most influential factors in our perception of other people is
their verbal behaviour - how people speak, and what they say. We all
have our own pictures of someone who speaks with a broad ‘local’
accent, or ‘public school’ accent, or a Scots, Cockney or American
accent. People's education and status are often categorised by their
manner of speech.
(c)
Motor Behaviour
Certain personality traits are often inferred from people's motor
behaviour. We might say; 'people who won't look you in the eye are
shifty and unreliable', or 'strong handshake equals strong character'.
These various cues - physical appearance, verbal, social and motor behaviour
- help us to form impressions of other people in a first social interaction.
Some may be valid, often they’re not.
There appears, however, to be a low correlation between most of these
factors and personality traits. How, and which, cues are selected, depends on
the values, attitudes and beliefs of our particular culture and society, as well
as on those of ourselves, the perceivers.
Some of the factors specific to us, the perceiver, which affect our perception
of other people are:
(a)
Our own values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices and remembered
experiences.
(b)
Our level of awareness and knowledge of, and confidence in, ourselves.
People with accurate perceptions of themselves are likely to be more
accurate in their perceptions of others. Positive attributes are also more
likely to be given to people perceived to be like ‘us’, and vice versa. If
we, the perceiver, are loyal and committed to our organisation, then we
are more likely to discount people who are not.
(c)
Our current needs, feelings and state of mind. People's perceptions are
likely to be affected by immediate past and current events - those events
which are currently influencing their feelings and behaviour. A person
seriously worried about his finances is not likely to take kindly to
someone who is trying to sell him an expensive continental holiday.
(d)
Our expectations about other people. If told someone is brilliant, we
tend to see brilliance - at first. If told that someone is a cold fish, we
expect to see someone who meets this description, and this influences
our initial perception of, and behaviour towards that person. People
seem to see what they expect to see, and often the conflicting evidence
needs to be overwhelming before it is accepted.
Situational factors can be very influential when forming first impressions of
people. Since we have few behavioural cues to help us, the context (a board
meeting or a car accident), the environment (a police station or a football
match), and the perceived value of the other person to ourselves (the
Managing Director or a disliked neighbour) all affect our perception.
When meeting new people we have to rely on inadequate information to form
impressions about them. This information may be reliable or not, but on this
slender basis we tend to predict their future behaviour. First impressions, of
course, don't last. As we interact more with other people we are collecting,
selecting, categorising and interpreting more information about them, and we
can more easily understand their behaviour and predict it more accurately.
But we can improve our ability to understand other people and their behaviour
by being aware of these three influencing factors - the perceived, the
perceiver, and the situation. Of these three we have most control over
ourselves, the perceivers.
The more we understand and have confidence in ourselves, the more likely
we are to understand others.