Home » LESSON 16

LESSON 16

June 19, 2024

LESSON 16

MODELS AND LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION

Theme: Models and Levels of Communication.

v Models and levels of communication.

v Barriers in communication.

v Styles of communication.

v Testing your communication style.

v Communication Styles of Nurse Practitioners.

Models of communication refers to the conceptual model used to explain the human communication process. The first major model for communication came in 1949 by Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver for Bell Laboratories^[1] Following the basic concept, communication is the process of sending and receiving messages or transferring information from one part (sender) to another (receiver).^[2]

Shannon and Weaver Model

The new model was designed to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone technologies. Their initial model consisted of three primary parts: sender, channel, and receiver. The sender was the part of a telephone a person spoke into, the channel was the telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of the phone where one could hear the other person. Shannon and Weaver also recognized that often there is static that interferes with one listening to a telephone conversation, which they deemed noise. The noise could also mean the absence of signal.^[1]

In a simple model, often referred to as the transmission model or standard view of communication, information or content (e.g. a message in natural language) is sent in some form (as spoken language) from an emisor/ sender/ encoder to a destination/ receiver/ decoder. This common conception of communication views communication as a means of sending and receiving information. The strengths of this model are simplicity, generality, and quantifiability. Social scientists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver structured this model based on the following elements:

An information source, which produces a message.

A transmitter, which encodes the message into signals

A channel, to which signals are adapted for transmission

A receiver, which 'decodes' (reconstructs) the message from the signal.

A destination, where the message arrives.

Shannon and Weaver argued that there were three levels of problems for communication within this theory.

The technical problem: how accurately can the message be transmitted?

The semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning ‘conveyed’?

The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect behavior?

Daniel Chandler critiques the transmission model by stating:^[3]

It assumes communicators are isolated individuals.

No allowance for differing purposes.

No allowance for differing interpretations.

No allowance for unequal power relations.

David Berlo

In 1960, David Berlo expanded Shannon and Weaver’s,Steven Munyao (1949) linear model of communication and created the SMCR Model of Communication.^[4] The Source-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of communication separated the model into clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.

Schramm

Communication is usually described along a few major dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emisor / sender / encoder (by whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium), destination / receiver / target / decoder (to whom), and Receiver. Wilbur Schramm (1954) also indicated that we should also examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the target of the message.^[5] Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and form make messages that are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or being, another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).

Communication can be seen as processes of information transmission governed by three levels of semiotic rules:

1. Syntactic (formal properties of signs and symbols),

2. Pragmatic (concerned with the relations between signs/expressions and their users) and

3. Semantic (study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent).

Therefore, communication is social interaction where at least two interacting agents share a common set of signs and a common set of semiotic rules. This commonly held rule in some sense ignores autocommunication, including intrapersonal communication via diaries or self-talk, both secondary phenomena that followed the primary acquisition of communicative competences within social interactions.

Barnlund

In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (1970) proposed a transactional model of communication.^[6] The basic premise of the transactional model of communication is that individuals are simultaneously engaging in the sending and receiving of messages.

In a slightly more complex form a sender and a receiver are linked reciprocally. This second attitude of communication, referred to as the constitutive model or constructionist view, focuses on how an individual communicates as the determining factor of the way the message will be interpreted. Communication is viewed as a conduit; a passage in which information travels from one individual to another and this information becomes separate from the communication itself. A particular instance of communication is called a speech act. The sender’s personal filters and the receiver’s personal filters may vary depending upon different regional traditions, cultures, or gender; which may alter the intended meaning of message contents. In the presence of “communicatiooise” on the transmission channel (air, in this case), reception and decoding of content may be faulty, and thus the speech act may not achieve the desired effect. One problem with this encode-transmit-receive-decode model is that the processes of encoding and decoding imply that the sender and receiver each possess something that functions as a code-book, and that these two code books are, at the very least, similar if not identical. Although something like code books is implied by the model, they are nowhere represented in the model, which creates many conceptual difficulties.

Theories of co-regulation describe communication as a creative and dynamic continuous process, rather than a discrete exchange of information. Canadian media scholar Harold Innis had the theory that people use different types of media to communicate and which one they choose to use will offer different possibilities for the shape and durability of society (Wark, McKenzie 1997). His famous example of this is using ancient Egypt and looking at the ways they built themselves out of media with very different properties stone and papyrus. Papyrus is what he called ‘Space Binding’. it made possible the transmission of written orders across space, empires and enables the waging of distant military campaigns and colonial administration. The other is stone and ‘Time Binding’, through the construction of temples and the pyramids can sustain their authority generation to generation, through this media they can change and shape communication in their society (Wark, McKenzie 1997).

Psychology of communication

Bernard Luskin, UCLA, 1970, advanced computer assisted instruction and began to connect media and psychology into what is now the field of media psychology. In 1998, the American Association of Psychology, Media Psychology Division 46 Task Force report on psychology and new technologies combined media and communication as pictures, graphics and sound increasingly dominate modern communication. The Social Psychology of Communication is the first comprehensive introduction to social psychological perspectives on communication. This accessible guide provides an overview of key theoretical approaches from a variety of different disciplines (including cognitive, developmental and evolutionary psychology) as well as practical guidance on how to implement communication interventions in differing contexts.

Divided into three parts covering theoretical perspectives, special topics in communication and applied areas and practice, the book features:

• Navigational tools providing a ‘how to’ guide to using the book most effectively • A list of key words at the beginning of each chapter which are highlighted throughout the chapter for easy reference • A thorough glossary of keywords and definitions • A section on Special Topics in Communication including identity and resistance, rumour and gossip, evolution and communication

This book will be an invaluable resource for students, academics and practitioners in Psychology and Communication. (Sounds like ad for the book?)

Constructionist Model

There is an additional working definition of communication to consider^[^{examples needed}^] that authors like Richard A. Lanham (2003) and as far back as Erving Goffman (1959) have highlighted. This is a progression from Lasswell’s attempt to define human communication through to this century and revolutionized into the constructionist model. Constructionists believe that the process of communication is in itself the only messages that exist. The packaging caot be separated from the social and historical context from which it arose, therefore the substance to look at in communication theory is style for Richard Lanham and the performance of self for Erving Goffman.

Lanham chose to view communication as the rival to the over encompassing use of CBS model (which pursued to further the transmission model). CBS model argues that clarity, brevity, and sincerity are the only purpose to prose discourse, therefore communication. Lanham wrote, “If words matter too, if the whole range of human motive is seen as animating prose discourse, then rhetoric analysis leads us to the essential questions about prose style” (Lanham 10). This is saying that rhetoric and style are fundamentally important; they are not errors to what we actually intend to transmit. The process which we construct and deconstruct meaning deserves analysis.

Erving Goffman sees the performance of self as the most important frame to understand communication. Goffman wrote, “What does seem to be required of the individual is that he learn enough pieces of expression to be able to ‘fill in’ and manage, more or less, any part that he is likely to be given” (Goffman 73) Goffman is highlighting the significance of expression.

The truth in both cases is the articulation of the message and the package as one. The construction of the message from social and historical context is the seed as is the pre-existing message is for the transmission model. Therefore any look into communication theory should include the possibilities drafted by such great scholars as Richard A. Lanham and Erving Goffman that style and performance is the whole process.

Communication stands so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that scholars have difficulty thinking of it while excluding social or behavioral events.^[^{weasel words}^] Because communication theory remains a relatively young field of inquiry and integrates itself with other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, one probably cannot yet expect a consensus conceptualization of communication across disciplines.^[^{weasel words}^]

Communication Model Terms as provided by Rothwell (11-15):

· Noise; interference with effective transmission and reception of a message.

o For example;

§ physical noise or external noise which are environmental distractions such as poorly heated rooms, startling sounds, appearances of things, music playing some where else, and someone talking really loudly near you.

§ physiological noise are biological influences that distract you from communicating competently such as sweaty palms, pounding heart, butterfly in the stomach, induced by speech anxiety, or feeling sick, exhausted at work, the ringing noise in your ear, being really hungry, and if you have a runny nose or a cough.

§ psychological noise are the preconception bias and assumptions such as thinking someone who speaks like a valley girl is dumb, or someone from a foreign country can’t speak English well so you speak loudly and slowly to them.

§ semantic noise are word choices that are confusing and distracting such as using the word tri-syllabic instead of three syllables.

· Sender; the initiator and encoder of a message

· Receiver; the one that receives the message (the listener) and the decoder of a message

· Decode; translates the sender’s spoken idea/message into something the receiver understands by using their knowledge of language from personal experience.

· Encode; puts the idea into spoken language while putting their own meaning into the word/message.

· Channel; the medium through which the message travels such as through oral communication (radio, television, phone, in person) or written communication (letters, email, text messages)

· Feedback; the receiver’s verbal and nonverbal responses to a message such as a nod for understanding (nonverbal), a raised eyebrow for being confused (nonverbal), or asking a question to clarify the message (verbal).

· Message; the verbal and nonverbal components of language that is sent to the receiver by the sender which conveys an idea.

Linear Model

It is a one way model to communicate with others. It consists of the sender encoding a message and channeling it to the receiver in the presence of noise.

Interactive Model

It is two linear models stacked on top of each other. The sender channels a message to the receiver and the receiver then becomes the sender and channels a message to the original sender. This model has added feedback, indicates that communication is not a one way but a two way process. It also has “field of experience” which includes our cultural background, ethnicity geographic location, extent of travel, and general personal experiences accumulated over the course of your lifetime. Draw backs – there is feedback but it is not simultaneous.

The Interactive Model.

· For example – instant messaging. The sender sends an IM to the receiver, then the original sender has to wait for the IM from the original receiver to react. Or a question/answer session where you just ask a question then you get an answer.

Transactional Model

It assumes that people are connected through communication; they engage in transaction. First, it recognizes that each of us is a sender-receiver, not merely a sender or a receiver. Secondly, it recognizes that communication affects all parties involved. So communication is fluid/simultaneous. This is what most conversations are like. The transactional model also contains ellipses that symbolize the communication environment (how you interpret the data that you are given). Where the ellipses meet is the most effective communication area because both communicators share the same meaning of the message.

Communication Theory Framework

It is helpful to examine communication and communication theory through one of the following viewpoints^[^{weasel words}^]

· Mechanistic: This view^[^who?^] considers communication as a perfect transaction of a message from the sender to the receiver. (as seen in the diagram above)

· Psychological: This view^[^who?^] considers communication as the act of sending a message to a receiver, and the feelings and thoughts of the receiver upon interpreting the message.

· Social Constructionist (Symbolic Interactionist): This view considers communication to be the product of the interactants sharing and creating meaning. The Constructionist View can also be defined as, how you say something determines what the message is. The Constructionist View assumes that “truth” and “ideas” are constructed or invented through the social process of communication. Robert T. Craig saw the Constructionist View or the constitutive view as it’s called in his article, as “…an ongoing process that symbolically forms and re-forms our personal identities.” (Craig, 125). The other view of communication, the Transmission Model, sees communication as robotic and computer-like. The Transmission Model sees communication as a way of sending or receiving messages and the perfection of that. But, the Constructionist View sees communications as, “…in human life, info does not behave as simply as bits in an electronic stream. In human life, information flow is far more like an electric current running from one landmine to another” (Lanham, 7). The Constructionist View is a more realistic view of communication^[^opinion^] because it involves the interacting of human beings and the free sharing of thoughts and ideas. Daniel Chandler looks to prove that the Transmission Model is a lesser way of communicating by saying “The transmission model is not merely a gross over-simplification but a dangerously misleading representation of the nature of human communication” (Chandler, 2). Humans do not communicate simply as computers or robots so that’s why it’s essential to truly understand the Constructionist View of Communication well. We do not simply send facts and data to one another, but we take facts and data and they acquire meaning through the process of communication, or through interaction with others.

· Systemic: This view^[^who?^] considers communication to be the new messages created via “through-put”, or what happens as the message is being interpreted and re-interpreted as it travels through people.

· Critical: This view considers communication as a source of power and oppression of individuals and social groups.^[7]

Inspection of a particular theory on this level will provide a framework on the nature of communication as seen within the confines of that theory.

Theories can also be studied and organized according to the ontological, epistemological, and axiological framework imposed by the theorist.

Ontology

Ontology essentially poses the question of what, exactly, it is the theorist is examining. One must consider the very nature of reality. The answer usually falls in one of three realms depending on whether the theorist sees the phenomena through the lens of a realist, nominalist, or social constructionist. Realist perspective views the world objectively, believing that there is a world outside of our own experience and cognitions. Nominalists see the world subjectively, claiming that everything outside of one’s cognitions is simply names and labels. Social constructionists straddle the fence between objective and subjective reality, claiming that reality is what we create together.^[^{unbalanced opinion}^][^neutrality^is^disputed^]

Epistemology

Epistemology is an examination of how the theorist studies the chosen phenomena. In studying epistemology, particularly from a positivist perspective, objective knowledge is said^[^who?^] to be the result of a systematic look at the causal relationships of phenomena. This knowledge is usually attained through use of the scientific method^[^neutrality^is^disputed^]. Scholars often think^[^{weasel words}^] that empirical evidence collected in an objective manner is most likely to reflect truth in the findings. Theories of this ilk are usually created to predict a phenomenon. Subjective theory holds that understanding is based on situated knowledge, typically found using interpretative methodology such as ethnography and also interviews. Subjective theories are typically developed to explain or understand phenomena in the social world.^[^{citation needed}^]

Axiology

Axiology is concerned with how values inform research and theory development.^[8] Most communication theory is guided by one of three axiological approaches.^[^{citation needed}^] The first approach recognizes that values will influence theorists’ interests but suggests that those values must be set aside once actual research begins. Outside replication of research findings is particularly important in this approach to prevent individual researchers’ values from contaminating their findings and interpretations.^[9] The second approach rejects the idea that values can be eliminated from any stage of theory development. Within this approach, theorists do not try to divorce their values from inquiry. Instead, they remain mindful of their values so that they understand how those values contextualize, influence or skew their findings.^[10] The third approach not only rejects the idea that values can be separated from research and theory, but rejects the idea that they should be separated. This approach is often adopted by critical theorists who believe that the role of communication theory is to identify oppression and produce social change. In this axiological approach, theorists embrace their values and work to reproduce those values in their research and theory development.^[11]

Mapping the theoretical landscape

A discipline gets defined in large part by its theoretical structure.^[^{weasel words}^] Communication studies often borrow theories from other social sciences^[^neutrality^is^disputed^]. This theoretical variation makes it difficult to come to terms with the field as a whole^[^neutrality^is^disputed^]. That said, some common taxonomies exist that serve to divide up the range of communication research. Two common mappings involve contexts and assumptions.

Contexts

Many authors and researchers^[^who?^] divide communication by what they sometimes called “contexts” or “levels”, but which more often represent institutional histories^[^neutrality^is^disputed^]. The study of communication in the US, while occurring within departments of psychology, sociology, linguistics, and anthropology (among others), generally developed from schools of rhetoric and from schools of journalism.^[^{citation needed}^] While many of these have become “departments of communication”, they often retain their historical roots, adhering largely to theories from speech communication in the former case, and from mass media in the latter. The great divide between speech communication and mass communication becomes complicated by a number of smaller sub-areas of communication research, including intercultural and international communication, small group communication, communication technology, policy and legal studies of communication, telecommunication, and work done under a variety of other labels. Some of these departments take a largely social-scientific perspective, others tend more heavily toward the humanities, and still others gear themselves more toward production and professional preparation.

These “levels” of communication provide some way of grouping communication theories, but inevitably, some theories and concepts leak from one area to another, or fail to find a home at all.

The Constitutive Metamodel

Another way of dividing up the communication field emphasizes the assumptions that undergird particular theories, models, and approaches. Robert T. Craig suggests that the field of communication as a whole can be understood as several different traditions who have a specific view on communication. By showing the similarities and differences between these traditions, Craig argues that the different traditions will be able to engage each other in dialogue rather than ignore each other.^[12] Craig proposes seven different traditions which are:

1. Rhetorical: views communication as the practical art of discourse.^[13]

2. Semiotic: views communication as the mediation by signs.^[14]

3. Phenomenological: communication is the experience of dialogue with others.^[15]

4. Cybernetic: communication is the flow of information.^[16]

5. Socio-psychological: communication is the interaction of individuals.^[17]

6. Socio-cultural: communication is the production and reproduction of the social order.^[18]

7. Critical: communication is the process in which all assumptions can be challenged.^[19]

Craig finds each of these clearly defined against the others, and remaining cohesive approaches to describing communicative behavior. As a taxonomic aid, these labels help to organize theory by its assumptions, and help researchers to understand why some theories may seem incommensurable.

While communication theorists very commonly use these two approaches, theorists decentralize the place of language and machines as communicative technologies. The idea (as argued by Vygotsky) of communication as the primary tool of a species defined by its tools remains on the outskirts of communication theory. It finds some representation in the Toronto School of communication theory (alternatively sometimes called medium theory) as represented by the work of Innis, McLuhan, and others. It seems that the ways in which individuals and groups use the technologies of communication — and in some cases are used by them — remain central to what communication researchers do. The ideas that surround this, and in particular the place of persuasion, remain constants across both the “traditions” and “levels” of communication theory.

Every individual needs to communicate in one or the other way. It takes many forms such as writing, speaking and listening. Communication is the life blood of every organization and its effective use helps build a proper chain of authority and improve relationships in the organization.

Communication is a process of transferring information from one entity to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules. Communication is commonly defined as “the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs”. Although there is such a thing as one-way communication, communication can be perceived better as a two-way process in which there is an exchange and progression of thoughts, feelings or ideas (energy) towards a mutually accepted goal or direction (information).

Communication is a process whereby information is enclosed in a package and is channeled and imparted by a sender to a receiver via some medium. The receiver then decodes the message and gives the sender a feedback. All forms of communication require a sender, a message, and a receiver. Communication requires that all parties have an area of communicative commonality. There are auditory means, such as speech, song, and tone of voice, and there are nonverbal means, such as body language, sign language, paralanguage, touch, eye contact, and writing.

A New Model of the Communication Process

Existing models of the communication process don’t provide a reasonable basis for understanding such effects. Indeed, there are many things that we routinely teach undergraduates in introductory communication courses that are missing from, or outright inconsistent with, these models. Consider that:

we now routinely teach students that “receivers” of messages really “consume” messages. People usually have a rich menu of potential messages to choose from and they select the messages they want to hear in much the same way that diners select entrees from a restaurant menu. We teach students that most “noise” is generated within the listener, that we engage messages through “selective attention”, that one of the most important things we can do to improve our communication is to learn how to listen, that mass media audiences have choices, and that we need to be “literate” in our media choices, even in (and perhaps especially in) our choice of television messages. Yet all of these models suggest an “injection model” in which message reception is automatic.

we spend a large portion of our introductory courses teaching students about language, including written, verbal, and non-verbal languages, yet language is all but ignored in these models (the use of the term in Figure 5 is not the usual practice in depictions of the transactive model).

we spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the importance of perception, attribution, and relationships to our interpretation of messages; of the importance of communication to the perceptions that others have of us, the perceptions we have of ourselves, and the creation and maintenence of the relationships we have with others. These models say nothing about the role of perception and relationshp to the way we interpret messages or our willingness to consume messages from different people.

We spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the socially constructed aspects of languages, messages, and media use. Intercultural communication presumes both social construction and the presumption that people schooled in one set of conventions will almost certainly violate the expectations of people schooled in a different set of expectations. Discussions of the effects of media on culture presume that communication within the same medium may be very different in different cultures, but that the effects of the medium on various cultures will be more uniform. Existing general models provide little in the way of a platform from which these effects can be discussed.

When we use these models in teaching courses in both interpersonal and mass communication; in teaching students about very different kinds of media. With the exception of the Shannon model, we tend to use these models selectively in describing those media, and without any strong indication of where the medium begins or ends; without any indication of how media interrelate with languages, messages, or the people who create and consume messages.without addressing the ways in which they are while these media describe, in a generalized way, media.

The ecological model of communication, shown in Figure 6, attempts to provide a platform on which these issues can be explored. It asserts that communication occurs in the intersection of four fundamental constructs: communication between people (creators and consumers) is mediated by messages which are created using language within media; consumed from media and interpreted using language. This model is, in many ways, a more detailed elaboration of Lasswell’s (1948) classic outline of the study of communication: “Who … says what … in which channel … to whom … with what effect”. In the ecological model, the “who” are the creators of messages, the “says what” are the messages, the “in which channel” is elaborated into languages (which are the content of channels) and media (which channels are a component of), the “to whom” are the consumers of messages, and the effects are found in various relationships between the primitives, including relationships, perspectives, attributions, interpretations, and the continuing evolution of languages and media.

Description: Description: Description: http://davis.foulger.info/papers/images/UnifiedModelOfCommunication2.gif

Figure 6: A Ecological Model of the Communication Process

A number of relationships are described in this model:

Messages are created and consumed using language

Language occurs within the context of media

Messages are constructed and consumed within the context of media

The roles of consumer and creator are reflexive. People become creators when they reply or supply feedback to other people. Creators become consumers when they make use of feedback to adapt their messages to message consumers. People learn how to create messages through the act of consuming other peoples messages.

The roles of consumer and creator are introspective. Creators of messages create messages within the context of their perspectives of and relationships with anticipated consumers of messages. Creators optimize their messages to their target audiences. Consumers of messages interpret those messages within the context of their perspectives of, and relationships with, creators of messages. Consumers make attributions of meaning based on their opinion of the message creator. People form these perspectives and relationships as a function of their communication.

The messages creators of messages construct are necessarily imperfect representations of the meaning they imagine. Messages are created within the expressive limitations of the medium selected and the meaning representation space provided by the language used. The message created is almost always a partial and imperfect representation of what the creator would like to say.

A consumer interpretation of a messages necessarily attributes meaning imperfectly. Consumers intepret messages within the limits of the languages used and the media those languages are used in. A consumers interpretation of a message may be very different than what the creator of a message imagined.

People learn language by through the experience of encountering language being used within media. The languages they learn will almost always be the languages when communicating with people who already know and use those languages. That communication always occurs within a medium that enables those languages.

People learn media by using media. The media they learn will necessarilly be the media used by the people they communicate with.

People invent and evolve languages. While some behavior expressions (a baby’s cry) occur naturally and some aspects of language structure may mirror the ways in which the brain structures ideas, language does not occur naturally. People invent new language when there is no language that they can be socialized into. People evolve language when they need to communicate ideas that existing language is not sufficient to.

People invent and evolve media While some of the modalities and channels associated with communication are naturally occurring, the media we use to communicate are not.

A medium of communication is, in short, the product of a set of complex interactions between its primary consituents: messages, people (acting as creators of messages, consumers of messages, and in other roles), languages, and media. Three of these consituents are themselves complex systems and the subject of entire fields of study, including psychology, sociology, anthropology (all three of which study people), linguistics (language), media ecology (media), and communication (messages, language, and media). Even messages can be regarded as complex entities, but its complexities can be described entirely within the scope of languages, media, and the people who use them. This ecological model of communication is, in its most fundamental reading, a compact theory of messages and the systems that enable them. Messages are the central feature of the model and the most fundamental product of the interaction of people, language, and media. But there are other products of the model that build up from that base of messages, including (in a rough ordering to increased complexity) observation, learning interpretation, socialization, attribution, perspectives, and relationships.

6. Barriers in communication

Breakdowns of communication channels, is a frequent challenge that managers face. Communication problems signify more deep-rooted problems than those that appear prima facie. The barriers may exist either at the transmission stage or at the feedback stage. It may so happen that the sender is unable to properly channelise the message, or it may also be wrongly received. The important point is to understand the barriers that a manager faces at various stages so that they can be properly dealt with.

1. Faulty Planning:

The prerequisite of effective communication is accurate planning. The message should be properly planned and then delivered. Which channel links are to be adopted needs to be planned out in advance. The contents of the message should be drawn after considering all the aspects. A poorly designed message looses all its worthiness. Besides, the purpose of the message also needs to be clearly stated. Hence, faulty planning leads to breaking up of communication lines.

2. Vague Presumptions:

The non-communicated assumptions that underline the message are extremely dangerous. The sender presumes a certain part and accordingly forwards the message. It is not necessary that the receiver shall also presume things in the same manner. This may lead to confusion and chaos. Unclarified and vague presumptions lead to greater dangers. For example, a senior officer gives a call to the junior stating that on certain days he will be out of town assuming that the junior shall make necessary staying arrangements for him. The junior receives this message assuming that senior manager is simply informing him of his absence so that he can take over the responsibility and that all staying arrangements were already taken care of by the senior.

Semantic Distortion:

A single word conveys lots of different meanings. Each word is understood in reference to the context of the sentence as well as place and situation it is used at. Semantic Distortion can be deliberate or accidental. When it is deliberate, it is intended so but the one that is accidental hinders the progress of communication. It renders ambiguity to the message and every different individual may come to his own conclusion in the end.

Status Effect:

This occurs when one person is considerably higher in the hierarchy than another. The person at the top gives the message. People at the bottom take it literally and follow it as an order. The top people may not have intended to pass it on literally. This leads to confusion.

Poorly Expressed Contents:

The sender of the message may be clear about the thought in his mind but poorly chosen words or omission of important links, leads to misunderstandings in the group. The message that is simple and straightforward tends to be easily accepted and interpreted in the team. But the simplicity should not be achieved at the cost of misrepresentation of the crux.

Loss during transmission and poor retention:

When the message moves from one person to the other, it becomes less accurate. Different individuals tend to add their perception to it. Besides, the message may not be retained thoroughly in the memory. Hence it is advisable to repeat the message and also use more than one channel to communicate the same message.

Poor listening and instant interpretations:

Listening requires patience. It demands full attention and self-discipline. It also requires that the listener avoid premature evaluation of what another person has to say. Usually, people have a tendency to judge what is said, whether they agree to it or disagree. This is a common notion. There are hardly few people who are good listeners. Besides, when the message is long, after a while people start-loosing interest and hence stop listening. Due to this tendency, the message transmission gets hindered. Hence, listening with empathy should be practiced in the organization to have effective communication.

Threat, fear and distrust:

In an environment of threat, fear and distrust, effective communication cannot be expected. People become defensive and close-minded. They remain always on their guard, which hinders the movement of communication. People acting under threat or fear, do not take the decisions rationally but rather, the decisions are made under pressure. Moreover, they do not actually care about the consequence of a faulty message as they are always under the grip of some fear. For making communication effective, a climate of trust, honesty and integrity is needed.

Insufficient time period:

Whenever the communication is made, sufficient time period, to understand and digest the message needs to be given. Moreover, communication may bring in changes. These changes affect different people in different manner. Besides, realization of the whole implication of the message is time consuming. However, managers are usually pressed for time. This leads to breakage in the communication channel.

Physical distractions:

In the organization that is filled with people all around, a lot of noise, improper lighting, frequent physical movements of people, the messages that come-get distracted. People are not relaxed in such climate and tend to receive the communication haphazardly.

Improper feedback

Though one way communication is quick, two way communication is more accurate. It is always advisable to have some interactions between the receiver and the sender. This clears the doubts and misconceptions of both the parties. If a proper feedback system is not installed, then in such a case two way communication becomes difficult.

Other barriers:

People tend to have selective percetion as far as information is concerned. They hear that part of the information, which they like best and tend to ignore other parts. This does not allow the whole message to get through.

Attitude and reactions to different situations, by individuals as unit and by individuals collectively or in group vary. Hence, different individuals react differently to the same message.

7. Communication Styles

Every time we speak, we choose and use one of four basic communication styles: assertive, aggressive, passive and passive-aggressive.

Assertive Communication

The most effective and healthiest form of communication is the assertive style. It’s how we naturally express ourselves when our self-esteem is intact, giving us the confidence to communicate without games and manipulation.

When we are being assertive, we work hard to create mutually satisfying solutions. We communicate our needs clearly and forthrightly. We care about the relationship and strive for a win/win situation. We know our limits and refuse to be pushed beyond them just because someone else wants or needs something from us. Surprisingly, assertive is the style most people use least.

Aggressive Communication

Aggressive communication always involves manipulation. We may attempt to make people do what we want by inducing guilt (hurt) or by using intimidation and control tactics (anger). Covert or overt, we simply want our needs met – and right now! Although there are a few arenas where aggressive behavior is called for (i.e., sports or war), it will never work in a relationship. Ironically, the more aggressive sports rely heavily on team members and rational coaching strategies. Even war might be avoided if we could learn to be more assertive and negotiate to solve our problems.

Passive Communication

Passive communication is based on compliance and hopes to avoid confrontation at all costs. In this mode we don’t talk much, question even less, and actually do very little. We just don’t want to rock the boat. Passives have learned that it is safer not to react and better to disappear than to stand up and be noticed.

Passive-Aggressive Communication

A combination of styles, passive-aggressive avoids direct confrontation (passive), but attempts to get even through manipulation (aggressive). If you’ve ever thought about making that certain someone who needs to be “taught a thing or two” suffer (even just a teeny bit), you’ve stepped pretty close to (if not on into) the devious and sneaky world of the passive-aggressive. This style of communication often leads to office politics and rumour-mongering.

Communication Styles by Christopher L. Heffner, M.S.