Effective Communication


The Definition of Communication
The Communication Act
Literal and Meta Messages
Sending Clear Messages
Obstacles to Clear Communication

The Definition of Communication

Communication = a symbolic process of creating and sharing meaning in which a sender imparts a message to a receiver

The Communication Act


Every communication involves a sender, a message, and a receiver.

The Sender

Communication begins in the sender's mind as a mental image, either an idea, a wish, or a feeling (or some combination of all three). These thoughts are transformed into symbols that can carry information. Those symbols make up the message. The most common symbols in communication are...

We choose symbols that...

The Receiver

The sender's encoding of her or his mental images into the symbols that make up the message is only half of a communication act. The other half is the inverse process in the receiver: taking in the symbols that make up the message and decoding them into her or his own mental images. Thus, a communication act requires two transformations...
  1. in the sender, the transformation of mental images into symbols
  2. in the receiver, the transformation of symbols into mental images

An Example

It's raining, and Beth doesn't want Ron to get wet, so she uses spoken words as symbols to encode her thoughts. Beth says, "Ron, it's raining." Ron hears Beth's words, and decodes them into a mental image of the weather that day, and he picks up his umbrella.

In this communication act Beth accomplished her goal. But a different outcome could have occurred if the communication had been distorted, weakened or blocked completely. For example, if Beth had said "it's raining" in a language that Ron didn't understand, or if her words had been drowned out by a loud noise, the communication could have been totally blocked.

When your communication breaks down, before getting mad and blaming, check out the meaning you're placing on the words, gestures, postures, glances, touches, tones of voice and such that are being used as symbols.

When in doubt, check things out!

Literal and Meta Messages


Every communication act carries two types of message or potential meaning
  1. The literal message...conveyed by the symbols themselves, as in the words "It's raining."
  2. The metamessage ("meta" is the Greek word for "beyond", "additional", or "transcendent")...carries implicit messages about the reason for the communication, how the message is to be interpreted, and the nature of the relationship of the sender and receiver.

When Beth said to Ron, "It's raining," not only did she send a literal message about the weather, but also she sent several metamessages, including "I care about you" and "An expectation in our relationship is that we help each other out."

After Beth had told Ron that it was raining, if Ron had kissed Beth and said, "Thanks honey for looking out for me," he would have been responding to one of the metamessages. If Ron had interpreted the metamessage as, "Ron, you're such a child. I have to do everything for you" -- even though Beth didn't intend to impart that message -- Ron might have responded angrily with something like, "Beth, I can look out for myself!" Her feelings may then have been hurt and possibly they would have had an argument.

Acknowledging and responding to metamessages can sometimes be much more important than dealing with the literal ones.

Sending Clear Messages

A clear message is one in which the symbols represent as closely as possible the sender's intention. Clear messages are best delivered with I-statements -- sentences that begin with (or have as the subject) the pronoun "I." I-statements identify clearly the sender as the source of a thought, emotion, desire, or act...

You-statements, which begin with (or have as the subject) the pronoun "you", as in "You always...," "You never...", "You are....", or the interrogatives, "Why don't you...?" or "How could you...?" often are put-downs or character assassinations. They imply that the receiver is not-OK. Very often the not-OK message is explicit, as in "You're incompetent" or "You're stupid"...just about any negative adjective will do. People often respond to the metamessage in a You- statement, which is "I think you're no good," by feeling attacked, which can lead to hurt feelings and counterattack or withdrawal.

If you want to hurt someone and invite a counterattack or cause a withdrawal, hurl a You- statement with a negative adjective. Gotcha! Ouch!

Obstacles to Clear Communication


Off Beam

In "off beam" the sender's original intention is never addressed. The conversation consists of a series of unrelated communication acts...

Ron: Beth! Why didn't you answer the phone?
Beth: I'm not your secretary.
Ron: You don't care what happens around here, do you?
Beth: Oh yeah, who pays for the damn phone, anyway?
Ron: Money, money, money. That's all you ever think about. You're as materialistic as your father.
Beth: At least he cared about getting ahead. All you care about is playing golf with your pals.
Ron: I'd play less golf if you were more fun to be around. All you do is work around the house.
Beth: If I don't do it, who will? You're just an irresponsible kid.
Ron: And you're just an old nag.

This exchange between Beth and Ron covers a variety of topics, most of which are gripes expressed as You-statements. They never address the intent of Ron's original message -- presumably his anger and distress that a phone call was missed.

Because Ron doesn't begin his message with an I-statement, Beth never knows what's really bothering him. She only knows that he's angry and that she's been attacked with the statement "Why didn't you answer the phone?" Ron really doesn't want to know the reason. He's really saying, "I'm mad, Beth, and it's your fault!"

And rather than finding out why Ron's upset, Beth responds to his attack with a counterattack in the form of sarcasm when she says, "I'm not your secretary."

When she heard Ron's attack, Beth had the choice not to counterattack and instead say, "Ron, you seem angry." He's likely to say, "Damn right I am!" And he's also likely to say why he's angry, which will get them on the road to greater understanding.

When she counterattacked, however, Beth played "follow the leader." That's when someone is drawn into a game of attack-counterattack or blame-accuse-blame-accuse.

In communicating, you always have a choice not to follow the leader.


A cycle of attack-counterattack can be stopped by saying "time out," "hold the phone," or "whoa," followed by "I don't want to fight with you. I want to resolve this. Let's talk about it."

If attack-counterattack or blame-accuse-blame-accuse are communication styles in your relationships, suggest to your communication partners before your next round of fighting that whoever first notices that you're in a fight that goes nowhere will say "stop the music!" so you can stop a potentially hurtful exchange and move on to resolving the issue harmoniously.

Kitchen Sinking


Kitchen sinking is an extended off beam. The conversation moves from topic to topic relentlessly and seemingly interminably until every issue in the relationship is brought in "except the kitchen sink."

Mindreading

Mindreading is assuming what another person is thinking or feeling.

Beth: Your mother sure puts a lot of pressure on us to have kids.
Ron: You can't blame her for wanting to be a grandmother.
Beth: I'm going to have a career and that's that!

In this exchange, Beth committed a "mindread" by assuming that Ron's defense of his mother symbolized his wish that she give up her career.

Remember: To assume often makes an ASS out of U and ME

Yes-Butting


"Yes-butting" consists of person B repeatedly responding to person A's messages with "Yes, but..."

Beth: Ron, what about spending equal time with both of our families this Christmas?
Ron: I've thought of that, too, but it seems so mechanical.
Beth: We can't do what we did last year. Spending nearly the entire time with your family just invites war between you and your mother.
Ron: I know. But I just can't ignore the dumb things she says.
Beth: Maybe spending less time around her would help.
Ron: True. But that might hurt her feelings.

In this exchange Ron met each of Beth's suggestion with a "yes, but."

Yes-butting is a form of off beam in that the receiver doesn't address the sender's original message. Instead, the sender and receiver move through a number of fruitless exchanges. Very often, the intent of yes-butting is to avoid actually addressing an issue while pretending the opposite.

Cross-Complaining

"Cross-complaining" is responding to a complaint with a different complaint.

Beth: Holy cow, Ron, you picked up the dinner check for all six of us. I'll bet you spent over $100.
Ron: Come on, Beth. I was just reciprocating. They have us to dinner at their houses a lot. Besides, we can afford it. You worry too much about money.
Beth: It seems to me I need to worry when you insist on treating our friends to expensive dinners.
Ron: What's the point of having money if we don't spend it to have a good time?
Beth: I'm not opposed to being nice to our friends or having a good time. I just don't like that you don't seem to care how much you spend.
Ron: I don't overspend. You seem to think that any amount spent on fun is too much.

This conversation is going nowhere because Ron and Beth are stuck in a back-and-forth of complaints. To get unstuck, they need to move from cross-complaining to deciding how to spend money for recreation. If they continue to cross-complain, one or both might eventually become frustrated and angry, which may lead to a destructive "off beam."