Solange des Vignes
Royal Roads University
Communication is generally thought to be a verbal way of delivering and receiving a message. By studying and developing new theories, it is clear that communication is much deeper than just the spoken word. In this paper I will be discussing three personal ideas on how to effectively communicate.
Law #1: How you phrase something indicates how effective it will be. It is ingrained in each and every one of us what communication method works for our personality. There are four different ways that I believe one can speak to effectively communicate.
The first way that I believe is the most effective for myself is saying something in a direct way. For example, if you want to find out something you will say: “Tell me why you did not wash the dishes today.” This direct approach assumes that the person already knows why they didn’t and all you need to do is hear what it is. You are not giving them the option to sit and think about it.
The second way is giving the person that option to think about it. You phrase your statement as a question. For example: “Why did you not want to wash the dishes today? Was there something going on today that made you not want to do it?” This approach is giving the person the opportunity to put some thought into their answer because you are assuming that they are somewhat indecisive about how they feel. Your phrasing gives the person you are asking the feeling that you have not assumed anything about their situation and you respect them enough to ask and find out.
The third way is making a statement of fact. This way seems to be most effective for teachers when they are trying to teach something. It is not effective when you are trying to communicate a message to your peers because it comes across that you are speaking in a lofty manner. You are assuming that the person you are speaking to does not know and without your input will probably never know. You are not giving them the option to think or tell you how they feel. For example: “Washing the dishes is unsanitary and unhygienic. If you don’t wash the dishes you are inviting unnecessary germs into the household.” You are telling the person not what you think about the issue but what you know. You expect that they will listen to what you have to say and not question it.
The fourth way is challenging someone to prove something otherwise. You may have a certain opinion but you are open to the fact that they might have another point of view. This is an approach that teachers can use as well to prove that their point is in fact correct. Some people may not respond well to this because regardless of who is wrong or right, they do not want to prove anything. They come to the conclusion that you have your point of view and I have mine; there is no point in trying to come to an agreement. For example: “I bet if you don’t wash the dishes we will have roaches in the house by next week.” Some may think that this is true and wash the dishes just to be sure. However, some may think that they want to prove that roaches will not be in the house if they don’t wash the dishes; so they will not wash the dishes.
Individually, each of these four ways may work more for one person than for another. It is important that if you want to be an effective communicator that you take the time to notice which approach works best for the person or group that you are trying to communicate with. Because each approach works differently for every person, when working in a group you may have conflicting approaches so you will have to be aware of the approach that works best for the group as a whole. You would be making use of codetermination. “Codetermination is the collaborative decision making; participatory democracy in the work place” (Griffin, 2009, p. 264).
You will have to listen to everyone involved in the group to see and then decide which approach will work best. You will be hoping that there are individuals in the group that are open to discursive closure. This would involve the “suppression of conflict without employees realizing that they are complicit in their own censorship” (Griffin, 2009, p. 268). The approach chosen for the group may not be as effective for some but it somewhat works and somehow you find a way to get them to work with it.
Law #2: Depending on what we’ve heard or know about someone, may affect how well we listen to what they have to say. This may mean that we can hear the same message from 2 different people and interpret them in two completely different ways.
Judee Burgoon’s Expectancy Violations Theory is not only about maintaining that comfortable personal space between you and someone else; it is “facial expression, eye contact, touch and body lean”(Griffin, 2009, p. 88). Expectancy is “what people will predict will happen, rather than what they desire” (Griffin, 2009, p. 89). It is my belief that someone’s predictions of what someone says and how they say can affect their perception of that person and further messages from them for an indefinite period of time.
For example, there may be a student that just does not learn from a particular professor, no matter how factual or interesting their lesson is for that day. The professor may have offended the student by not taking notice of a specific speech code. Gerry Philipsen’s Speech Codes Theory “refers to a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct“(Griffin, 2009, p. 414). The professor may have said something unknowingly in his or her lecture or may have made a joke to the student that goes against one a speech code that is specific to their culture or family.
The student will then impose a negative violation valence on the professor. Violation valence is “the perceived positive or negative value assigned to a breach of expectations, regardless of who the violator is” (Griffin, 2009, p. 90). The student knows that the professor is someone who she should respect and is of a higher authority to her but because he has showed her a lack of respect she has prescribed a negative value to his character.
The best solution to this type of problem comes in two parts. The person that is offended will have to consciously realize that they have taken one statement or action and ran up their ladder of inference. The ladder of inference refers to hearing, seeing or thinking something and subconsciously coming to our own conclusions without having any solid facts or input from the source.
The student should then approach the professor and calmly and directly address the issue. The professor should acknowledge that he or she has said something that has broken that professional trust and make a concerted effort not to cross that line again.
If they come to an amicable agreement, they have made use of the interaction adaptation theory (IAT). IAT is “a systematic analysis of how people adjust their approach when another’s behaviour doesn’t mesh with what’s needed, anticipated, or preferred” (Griffin, 2009, p. 93).
The professor now knows that he or she has to be more careful with regards to sensitivity in his students and the student has to understand that he or she cannot take every little thing that someone says too personally.
Law #3: Women tend to be trusted more than men because of men’s physical dominance . Because of this we think women are not as threatening physically so we automatically assume they’re not threatening when communicating. Our mind assumes they are trust worthy so sometimes we may ignore the non-verbal signs of distrust and just go with what we’re hearing. Adversely , women, because of constant over analysis, tend to not trust as easily. Women need constant reassurance when dealing with a situation because of this ingrained lack of trust. The term used for this is genderlects. It suggests, “masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects” (Griffin, 2009, p. 430).
For women to bond with someone or get close enough that they believe something that someone is telling them is to get to know them. If a woman does not know who someone is and where he or she are coming from she might immediately think they are not to be trusted. They engage in rapport talk that is “the typical conversational style of women, which seeks to establish connection with others” (Griffin, 2009, p. 432). Men however do not need a lot of disclosure from someone to listen to what they have to say. They are able to decide for themselves what they believe and what they trust. This falls into place with what is said to be report talk that is “the typical monologic style of men, which seeks to command attention, convey information, and win arguments” (Griffin, 2009, p. 433).
Men tend not to get as emotionally involved because they have never asked and most times are not interested to find out the life story of the person they are listening to. They are able to listen to someone that is well informed, well educated, knowledgeable, confident and articulate. Women will need additional reinforcements. They would need someone that has all the qualities that a communicator would need from men as well as a story or characteristic that makes them seem vulnerable yet open and friendly.
It is obvious now that communication is not just about having a message and wanting to relay it to a specific person, group, organization or culture. There is a lot more research and analysis that needs to be invested before the communicating even begins. You have to be prepared for who you are communicating to be it male or female, how you are going to relay this important message and finally take into consideration that you may have some unexpected hurdles based on your subject’s past experiences. A sure way to be an effective communicator is to remember the researched theories of communication as well as remembering it is just as important to observe and listen to your audience as it is speaking to them.
