Re-Making Communication at Work

J. Sostrin

• Éditeur: Palgrave Macmillan
• Année: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137332769
• Sujet: Computer Science
• Sous-sujet: Computer Science General

Almost 400 years ago philosophers John Locke and David Hume implicitly defined communication as a tool for the transmission of pure ideas, stating that the ideas themselves are what matter, not the way in which they are expressed and exchanged. Now known as the transmission model, this form of communication is still the foundation for academic courses in communication theory and practice, and is embedded in most business literature and education that address subjects related to workplace communication, organization behavior and culture, leadership, and conflict resolution. But what if this accepted model of communication was incomplete? Re-Making Communication at Work argues that the transmission model of communication needs to be replaced by a new approach to communication. Sostrin challenges the status quo by exposing the most common myths that inaccurately define successful communication at work. These misperceptions are replaced by a set of core principles that deliver a clear mandate for re-making communication at work. Sostrin not only provides the theoretical foundation for this new approach, but he uses a straightforward model and exercises that demonstrate how managers, students, and consultants can powerfully improve relationships, decision-making, and collaboration with a few lines and circles.

Part I

A New Approach to Communication at Work

1

Old Myths and New Principles for Re-Making Communication at Work

The introduction to this book made the case that the epicenter of the knowledge and skill that defines success for today’s employees and leaders is communication. The challenge is that most of what we have learned about successful communication at work is incomplete.

Attempts to illuminate the challenges of workplace communication often result in the same superficial list of ground rules that do little more than prepare people for scripted conversations and muddled strategies for negotiating perspectives. The reason so many of these popular remedies to ineffective communication fall short is that the underlying premise about what successful communication is has been built on a series of myths. Re-Making Communication at Work challenges the status quo by exposing the most common myths that inaccurately define successful communication at work.

The conventional wisdom of what works with communication at work needs a reboot. The reason for this overdue refresh is based on those misunderstandings about effective communication at work that have dominated popular business literature, education and training programs, and common practice. Beginning with table 1.1, this chapter explains these dominant myths and offers a new set of principles to replace them for a more effective approach to communication at work.

Forgetting Myth #1

Communication is just an exchange of information and ideas. To get it right, you have to listen well and speak clearly . . .

This first myth is the most significant because it reflects the lineage of thinking that produces many of the other myths. It turns out that communication is not just an exchange of information and ideas. And “getting communication right” requires more than simply listening well and speaking clearly.

Table 1.1 Old myths and new principles of communication

---

Communication is made by complex patterns of interaction. To get the results you want, you have to learn the chemistry, physics, and design elements needed to re-make unwanted patterns. It is not about listening and speaking as much as it is about intentionally making the communication patterns that shape our working lives.

---

The roots of this myth go back 400 years to the philosophical ideas of John Locke and David Hume. Although our understanding of human communication has evolved considerably over the last 75 years, including recognition of just how dynamic organizational communication is, many present-day communication practices still reflect these old ideas. Despite the theoretical advance of more effective communication concepts and tools, it was this dominant lineage of theory and practice that stuck as the primary driver and influence of how organizational communication is perceived and addressed.

The prevalence of this one-dimensional way of defining communication, referred to as the transmission model, does beg a very serious question: If the transmission model of communication was effective, then, after all of this time, why are damaging communication problems still among the most widely recognized issues in organizational life? Wouldn’t those problems have eased a bit with so much awareness, knowledge, and practice of the related recommendations and prescriptions for getting communication at work right? After all, our technology has improved and the means through which we disseminate information across channels has increased dramatically with new software and hardware devices that deliver a 24/7 world of constant communication and information sharing.

It turns out that there is more to communication than meets the eye and to understand it a more dynamic model than transmission is required. For example, we know now that different people can interpret the same message differently. And we know that even the same person can interpret the same message differently at different times depending on factors such as context, prior experience, and assumptions. As individuals we hold onto our own private thoughts and feelings, at times we can confuse and mislead others, and we can be ambiguous—even deceptive—in our communication and interactions in certain circumstances.¹ Above all of this, we know that our life experience and the given context in which we communicate have a significant impact on how we make meaning from our communication with others.

Forgetting Myth #2

Effective communication is inevitable with well-designed conversations.

Conversations generally refer to the face-to-face interactions that people have when they intend to communicate with each other about specific topics in the workplace. Over the last 25 years an entire cottage industry has arisen with numerous approaches to the art and practice of having effective conversations, each one subtly emphasizing a different value or aspect of the process. Whether the lead adjective for these conversations is difficult, crucial, fierce, inclusive, or some other important word, these approaches have suggested that well-designed conversations will result in effective communication. The ideas have been written about in books and taught in seminars around the world and much of the conventional wisdom used by today’s managers reflects the pivotal importance of these conversations. However, it is a myth.

---

Effective patterns of communication and interaction are not the result of a good conversation. They are formed by coordinating episodes of interaction and making desired choices at the critical turns that come together to shape the pattern.

---

The very structure of a conversation is based on the transmission model of communication, which fails to include the many complexities of communication that make the success of well-designed conversations anything but inevitable. Typical conversations that reflect the transmission model usually include five general stages, including: the opening, feedforward, business, feedback, and closing.² The flow of these conversations—from the first greeting that opens the discussion, to the feedforward statement that gives the person a clue regarding what you want to talk about, to the business or substance of the conversation itself, to the feedback where you signal to the other person that you feel the conversation is complete, to the closing where you transition and say goodbye—involves give-and-take where people share turns speaking and listening. This is pure transmission.

Effective patterns of communication and interaction are not the result of a good conversation, although they can help. They are formed by carefully coordinating ongoing episodes of interaction and making desired choices at the critical turns that shape the pattern.

Forgetting Myth #3

You have to know what you want to communicate and have clear goals for every interaction.

This myth, which is securely bound-up in the transmission model’s emphasis on the clarity of the message from sender to receiver, is quite often included in most of the generic advice about effective communication at work. Have a clear message that is tailored to your target audience, know your intended outcome and what you want to happen before you start the difficult conversation, use your goals to guide you when things get off track, and so on. Words of wisdom like this that are inspired by this myth are just not consistent with the average workplace experience.

---

How people communicate is not as important as why they do so. It helps to know what you want to say and what messages you need to deliver, but those things alone do not shape our experience or produce the outcomes we get in communication.

---

If you want a specific experience or outcome (i.e., a clear decision by the end of a conversation, a greater degree of confidence in the potential for collaboration with a prospective partner, a helpful exchange of feedback with a supervisor, etc.), then you have to know what kind of pattern of communication and interaction will make that experience. The emphasis on the words that you speak, the messages you send, and the tone you communicate with your nonverbal cues are relevant, but they have far less to do with what is actually achieved as a result of the communication.

Forgetting Myth #4

Communication only occurs when others are present. The active periods of communication take place when people are together (i.e., at meetings, etc.) and it goes dormant when people are not in direct conversation.

Patterns of communication and interaction are ongoing, and while much of the action occurs when people are present with each other at meetings, presentations, or other face-to-face encounters, the process of making meaning and coordinating action does not stop when direct conversation ends.

---

Communication is in constant motion at all times and we continuously enact our patterns when we make meaning and coordinate actions with others—before, during, and after face-to-face interactions.

---

At the end of a long day you find yourself unable to sleep. You are restless because you are replaying a difficult interaction over and over again in your mind. What did your boss mean when she casually said, “Things may need to change around here”—was it a threat about your job security, was it supposed to motivate you to solve some lingering problem, was she just frustrated about the latest financial report? You spend your sleepless night interpreting that exchange, attempting to make meaning from the interaction, and carefully thinking about your next turn in what is now a potentially serious episode of communication. Will you find her in the morning to try to clarify and set your mind at ease? Will you wait to see what she says or does next? The myriad choices about “next steps” you consider in this episode occurs while you are alone, wishing you could sleep.

Forgetting Myth #5

The more you know about other people’s preferences and types, the better you’ll be able to communicate with them.

Understanding the unique personalities of our colleagues, including their communication tendencies and habits, is helpful at work. Not only does it allow us to notice potential issues to be aware of, but it positions us to work well with people by complementing their weaknesses with our strengths and vice versa. For example, if I know that one of my peers likes to share ideas freely in meetings and switch topics rapidly as the conversation unfolds, then I can use this knowledge to adjust my approach to the interaction. Perhaps I will be more patient, offer more structured comments to retain a consistent train of thought, or perhaps I will share my perspectives more quickly to be sure they are not lost in transition.

---

Assessments that measure style and type explain part of the picture, but can distract from seeing the powerful stories that give structure to our patterns.

---

Some people are sensitive to group dynamics and others are like a bull in a china shop when it comes to etiquette at team meetings. Some people carefully choose their words, while others shoot from the hip and let their opinions rip. One person may actively seek feedback for improvement, at the same time someone else may fear feedback and be disinclined to seek out the opinions of others. Some people are reluctant to confront authority, while others challenge the status quo and question accepted practices openly and often. Whatever the contrast between these kinds of styles, preferences, and behaviors, the usefulness of this kind of information, about ourselves and others, is limited because “how” people communicate is not as important as “why.”

Many of the modern assessments that measure style and type are directly descended from the transmission model of communication. They place a significant emphasis on how people send and receive messages, including the ways that distorti...