When communications professionals communicate

Let us take on the role of a fly on the wall in a medium sized company. In the documentation department, a slightly edgy, female voice is heard saying: “Now I need to go and ask that tongue-tied Müller from the Engineering department for the specifications, for the third time.” Shortly afterwards, Mr. Müller, seated two floors below, sees on the display of his telephone the picture of his caller. “Oh no. Now what does this fussy Schneider-Kroll from the documentation department want?” he wonders, under his breath.

You can well imagine how the subsequent telephone conversation between these two fictitious persons might have proceeded. Perhaps you do not need to imagine anything at all, and can recall from your own experience, for you have gone through these scenes, or similar scenes already?

Now we can speculate a lot on what might have gone wrong. Did Ms. Schneider-Kroll fail in doing a proper research? Was she not emphatic enough in communicating with her colleague? Is Mr. Müller unreliable or forgetful? Does he want to annoy his colleague deliberately, or is he just overloaded? We have no idea. But we can be sure that this has something to do with the communication.

A glance at the textbooks

Inter-personal communication is dealt with in every well put-together training on technical writing, of course. Lasswell, Morris, Bühler, Cohn, Watzlawick, Schulz von Thun:  a bunch of names that we associate with various theories, models or techniques of communication. To repeat them all here would go beyond the scope of this article. Those who need a concise refresher would be well advised to consult Walter Simon [1] or Doris Ternes [2].

Most of you might recall quite well Schulz von Thun [3] with the four aspects of a message. Anyone can relate easily to his analysis of interpersonal communication in day-to-day life. Verbal communication between two people consists not only of the content related or objective aspect, but also contains a relationship aspect, through which an astonishing amount is communicated. Besides the content of the information, the sender also sends out a kind of appeal, a certain self-disclosure and a piece of relational information: Figure 1.

Fig. 1: The four sides of a message according to Schulz von Thun

How much of this happens consciously or unconsciously is not known. What is important, though, is that the recipient also ‘listens in” to these four channels. If we now focus on this perspective, we can also talk of a four-ear model. Now, very often, the recipient perceives the information in one or more channels in a manner that is entirely different from what the sender intended. Now this need not necessarily lead to a conflict. It is possible to talk past each other for hours on end, quite comfortably, without reaching out for the hatchet at the same time. This communication is definitely not efficient, and that is precisely what we are concerned with in the professional exchange of information.

Not stated, yet communicated

Important aspects of the appeal, revelation and relational information are communicated non-verbally. We perceive these within fractions of a second, and they set the tone of the conversation. We engage in nonverbal communication through our body, with external attributes such as clothing, jewellery or hairstyle and with paralinguistic elements such as the tone of voice, modulation, speed with which a person speaks and pauses, loudness, cadence, laughter, sighs and similar sounds. In addition to these, physical proximity /distance as well as body contact influence the conversational setting. Where body language is concerned, too, we have a rich set of tools such as posture and body tension, the way we move, that is, dynamic, hurried or lethargic movements. Added to this are the gestures, mime “facial expressions”, and gaze, and the ability to make eye contact.

We cannot turn off non-verbal communication: it is bound inextricably with our body. Paul Watzlawick formulated this in his first axiom “You cannot not communicate” [4]. A lot of this happens in an unconscious manner, but this does not mean that the individual elements cannot be changed. But of course, we should not let the vast number of interpretations of the various aspects of body language intimidate us.

All theory is complex

Another phenomenon that makes our communication so complex: according to the attribution theory, we strive to explain the things we experience. We search for reasons [5]. And here, the relationship with the discussion partner and one’s self-image play a role. Here is an example from everyday life: Your boss criticizes the work produced by your team. There are various ways in which you can explain the reasons for the criticism. Here is a small collection: 1. The criticism is unjustified, the boss is just having a bad day. 2. You can tell where the criticism is coming from, but you do not think the aspect that has been criticized is relevant. 3. You look for the reason or fault within yourself or 4. You look for the faults just as automatically among the others. The search for an explanation can engage you to varying extents. In any case, it can also influence your further conduct.

Most relationships at work are long-term. Colleagues and bosses, and even service providers do not change every day. But why is it that we communicate better, or more efficiently, with some people than with others? You may have got a fair idea of how complex interpersonal communication is. Every individual adds to the complexity, and lastly, even the physical environment in which the conversation takes place influences the communication and its success. Thus, it is not surprising that there is no patent recipe in answer. But there are ways in which certain things can be improved.

What can we do?

Let us start quietly with a big step: an admission. The knowledge that investing in a better culture of communication and discussion pays off over long term. For, it creates a better atmosphere at work, increases motivation and thus makes it possible to work in a profitable, more efficient manner. It is hardly possible to cite key figures and indices for this; the benefits are certainly not to be viewed solely from the monetary perspective.

Another big step is necessary: the willingness and the will to change. This is not all that easy, but it is indispensable. Anyone who wants to change the culture of conversation should also be ready to change one’s own behavior. This will to change should also be adequately enduring, because the colleagues may just end up smiling in tired fashion at the “psycho-rubbish” and not participate right away.

More attentiveness

And now we can continue with the small steps: such as training our perception. The key word here is “attentiveness”. It does not mean that one has to be extremely circumspect in dealing with one’s fellow human beings, but paying more attention to oneself and to one’s partner in conversation. This is something that can be learnt, ideally, in “easy” conversation situations. Try to be aware of what is being communicated besides the actual content and how your own frame of mind is influenced by it. Just leave it at being aware, without trying to analyze it, and keep your impressions to yourself. Do refrain from greeting your colleague the first thing in the morning with “But you look so tired,” because this will not enhance the effect of the training, and will just make you and your efforts unpopular with the colleagues instead.

Be attentive especially when you begin to interpret your own impressions. How is it that you have arrived at a certain finding? Is an alternative interpretation conceivable? If a colleague looks sleepy at a discussion on a Monday morning, you could be annoyed because you assume that he has gone overboard with enjoying his weekend. After all, you have seen how he behaves at numerous celebrations hosted by the company. And so it never occurs to you in the first place that he might have missed the night’s sleep because he might be going through personal problems.

The aim of the training is to toggle consciously between external (what I perceive about the Other) and inner perception (what I perceive about myself). This “technique of toggling” is useful particularly when complex situations in discussions, such as meetings or team sessions, are threatening to run aground.

The better you have known your partner in conversation already, the more familiar you are with his non-verbal expressions, which means that you can immediately catch even small changes. The voice is a veritable treasure house here. It is a means of discerning very finely what frame of mind the speaker is in. Just like the face and the nature of eye contact. You will surely have come across partners in conversation who maintain only minimal and brief eye contact. What effect does this have on you? Does it unsettle you or does it rather tend to make you impatient? In any case, you will be influenced one way or other by the conduct of your conversation counterpart, and you could even end up transferring this unpleasant feeling to the person as a whole and assume a negative, rejecting attitude. In the process, the content aspect of the information could well be left suffering.

Let us now turn to a pragmatic approach, which, despite its complexity, provides us with a few tips on how we can improve our interpersonal communication: namely, the 6-step model [6] – Figure 2.



Fig. 2: The 6-step model of conducting a conversation


1. Thinking is not saying
Have you ever experienced a situation where you have given a lot of thought to when and how you would like to communicate something to a colleague, and then not done it at all: whatever the reason? Yet, you could swear vehemently “we have discussed that, I did tell you.” And if you recognize it now, you might find that you spend a lot of effort reflecting deeply, but tend to be very reserved in giving them verbal expression. Perhaps it may be that you have too many things to handle at the moment and are overloaded. Very often, we stumble against this initial hurdle, because we take something for granted and forget to mention it, and we assume that it is just as evident to the counterpart. One indicator of this stumbling block is the statement “But you never mentioned it in so many words.”

2. Saying is not listening
Your partner in conversation has apparently not been listening. At least, that is the impression you get. This could be simply due to obvious reason: unclear diction, use of a dialect, hearing impairment or background noises. But it could also be that we may have sent across a message in such a way that the counterpart does not get to hear it at all. For instance, because he is less sensitive to a certain channel of communication, as explained in the previous section. Or because he fails to understand our kind of humor. But it could also be due to organizational reasons, where a colleague may not have been present at all in a meeting, while all the others naturally assume that he had been there and should be informed. Thus, physical presence is a technical pre-requisite here. This could also happen if conversation partners are present only physically, but absent mentally. The complete flow of information is involved here: have all the relevant persons been informed really? This question can be transferred effortlessly to other forms of communication: for instance, was the e-mail distribution list complete?

3. Listening is not understanding
“Clear, of course”: sometimes were say this all too quickly. We make it clear that no further information is necessary, wrongly assuming that we have understood what we have heard. Perhaps, because we think we have understood what we have heard at that instant, but have not comprehended it really. But this is something which we find out only later, but by then the information is lost in most cases. This phenomenon occurs, for instance, when someone is being instructed and signalizes in a hurry that he has “understood” – due to prestige issues. This could be, for instance, because he is not very open to being instructed by a younger, inexperienced colleague or in some cases, by a woman.

4. Understanding is not agreeing
When you discuss a topic with colleagues and employees and signalize mutual understanding, it does not in any way mean that everyone agrees with you or will follow your suggestion. Nodding in consent can be deceptive, if it leaves the speaker thinking that his listeners agree with him, along with all the consequences.
One example: In a team meeting, two variants of how a certain work process is to be executed were discussed. You spoke clearly in favor of Variant A, giving good justifications. Variant B, in your opinion, is beset with certain disadvantages, but these are viewed differently by the individual colleagues in terms of their seriousness. These colleagues however indicate that they understand your arguments, but are not convinced all the same that Variant A is the only viable option, and remain votaries of Variant B. Now, if it is important for you to push through your suggestion, do not stop at just asking if everyone has understood it but also ask if everyone agrees to it and would be prepared to alter his or her individual style of working. A typical signal of stumbling against this hurdle is the statement “But we agreed that …”

5. Agreeing is not executing
You strive hard to make yourself comprehensible, your counterpart listens attentively, even signalizing that he agrees with your suggestion, and then continues to act according to his own ideas. “How could this happen?”, you ask in disgust.
Here again we shall look at an example to help us out. A working group has saved all the project data according to a certain system on the server. A colleague complies only partly with this system, but continues to leave the latest data on his own computer. You explain to him that he should abide by the agreed system, like all the others, and which he is fully acquainted with. After a few days, you wonder about some new folders on the server, which confuses you. It turns out that these are folders created by the colleague in question, because he does not agree with the existing system of organization and has extended it as he thinks fit.
Situations where the fifth and sixth hurdles play a role area always associated with a desirable change. We all know how difficult it is to change behavior that has been ingrained in us over a long time. That is why it is necessary to ensure through subsequent checks and reminders to ensure that what was agreed upon is actually being implemented.

6. Executing is not retaining
Depending on how fundamental a change that you have embarked upon jointly is, it can turn out to be really difficult to abide by this change. People revert all too easily to their habitual routines. If you wish to ensure that the changes that have been effected with great effort are also retained in an enduring manner, you should agree at an early stage that everyone will ensure that the change is not reversed, and how they are to do it. This could be through regular reflection and active exchange of experience, or, to put it simply: Talk to each other!
No time for all this? Of course not. Of course, you also do not have the time to clean up your servers regularly and to learn how to use new software every now and then, but you still do it, because you know that it helps in making work easier over the long run.
After a few months, let us go back to being flies on the wall in this company of ours. Ms. Schneider-Kroll once again needs some details for the documentation. Now that she has engaged several times in discussion with her colleague from the Engineering department on cooperation and the nature of communication, she has become more attentive to the concerns of her colleagues. She knows that a telephone call could disturb Mr. Müller and since her request is still not very urgent, she opts for another channel: She writes him an e-mail, listing all the information that is still missing, suggests a date by which this should be provided, and requests Mr. Müller politely to confirm. This of course seems less personal, but is one of the agreements that both departments made, to ensure that they work more efficiently and with greater mutual satisfaction over the long run.

Literature relevant to the article

1. Simon, W. (2006): GABALs großer Methodenkoffer/Grundlagen der Kommunikation. GABAL, Offenbach
2. Ternes, D. (2008): Kommunikation – eine Schlüsselqualifikation. Jungfermann, Paderborn.
3. Schulz von Thun, F. (1981): Miteinander reden: Störungen und Klärungen. Rowohlt, Reinbek.
4. Watzlawick, P.; Beavin, J.H.; Jackson, D. D. (2007): Menschliche Kommunikation, Formen Störungen Paradoxien. Huber, Bern.
5. Gehm, T. (2006): Kommunikation im Beruf. BELTZ, Weinheim und Basel.
6. Scharlau, C. (2005): Karrierefaktor Gesprächstechniken. Rudolf Haufe, Freiburg i. Br.