Principles of Communication

DeVito (2012) claims that the Principles of Communication have numerous practical implications for our communication effectiveness. Studies suggest we are estimated to communicate and interact for up to 75% of everyday. However, all this time communicating doesn’t necessarily mean we are always communicating effectively, seen through events such as divorce, broken family relationships and friendships and dissatisfied employees and employers (Tubbs, S., 2010). Tubbs (2010, pg. 25) states “most generally communication is effective when the stimulus as it was initiated and intended by the sender, or source, corresponds closely to the stimulus as it is perceived and responded to by the receiver.” DeVito (2012) acknowledges seven principles of communication; of which I will apply three to a situation of miscommunication between my employer and I, and in doing so demonstrate how an understanding of these communication principles could have enhanced our communication effectiveness.

The situation to be examined is: Working as a part time employee, I emailed in sick. My boss appeared understanding and replied, “Don’t worry, feel better soon. We’ll have some work for you on Friday, so if you are up to it, come in then.” I replied, “Ok, sounds good.” I was still sick on Friday, didn’t go to work, and didn’t email to say I wouldn’t be in as I had assumed from the earlier email, my boss would know I was still sick if I didn’t turn up. He emailed me around lunchtime, annoyed at me for not letting him know I wouldn’t be in, as he had assumed from my “Ok, sounds good” response that I was saying I should be fine on Friday and so was expecting me. We both had assumed different meanings from our communication and that had created uncertainty between us leading to miscommunication. According to C.R Berger and J. J. Bradac (1982, cited in Beebee, Beebee & Redmond, 2008, pg. 18) “one of the purposes of communication, according to communication theorists, is to reduce our uncertainty.” Understanding just three of the principles, communication is a package of signals, communication is transactional, and communication is ambiguous, could have helped to reduce uncertainty, avoiding miscommunication.

Communication is a package of signals. Both verbal and non-verbal communication happen in groups, and the decoding of the ‘group’ of signals enable the receiver to generate meaning from the sender (Barnett & O’Rouke, 2011). DeVito (2012) suggests that for the most effective communication, verbal and non-verbal communication should be used together as they strengthen the message of the sender. Interactional theory, described by Barnett and O’Rouke (2011), looks at how the communication has happened. The process of this theory involves a sender, a message and a receiver. The sender “encodes” a message and uses a distribution channel (talking, phone, email) to send the message to the receiver who “decodes” it. It is only successful or effective, if the receiver understands the message as the sender intended. It is obvious that, with reference to my situation, a major misunderstanding occurred. By using email we were missing a ‘chunk’ or ‘part of the group’ of signals (being non-verbal communication e.g. tone, facial expressions). We needed to be more specific with our verbal communication to compensate for the missing group of signals. For example, my employer could have said “I have work on Friday, so if you are well, let me know and we can organize a time for you to come in”, or I could have said “Ok, sounds good. I will let you know by Thursday night whether I will be in on Friday.” In doing so, we both would have had a clear understanding of what was required of us, meaning that the messages were interpreted by the receiver as the sender planned.

Communication is transactional. Watzlawick 1977, 1978; Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967, (cited in DeVito, 2012) defined this principle as having four parts; communication is always changing, elements of communication are reliant on other elements, communication relies on a person’s interpretation (meaning and effect), and each person participating in communication is both a sender and a receiver. Verderber, K., Verderber, R. & Berryman-Fink, C. (2007, pg. 10) state that “because interpersonal communication is a transaction, both parties get something, even if there are differences in what each person gets or how much information, feedback, or need fulfillment each person gets.” This statement can help to understand the miscommunication between my employer and I, as we both took different information from the email conversation. Communication, us, and the environment around us is always shifting (DeVito, 2012); I was sick and tired during the email conversation (so I was changing) and therefore did not interpret his message as I may have done if I was feeling healthy. Because no element can exist in isolation, if one element changes, so may another. In my case, because I (the source/receiver) had changed due to my illness, so did my message and feedback. It led to a change in the way the message was sent (I had a throat infection, so I emailed rather than called), and without hearing how bad I was, my employer assumed that I should be okay to work on Friday. Most importantly, the way I interpreted the message was influenced by my culture, past experiences and emotions. When my employer said, “Don’t worry about it”, I felt relieved and felt there was no pressure on me to return until I was better. My past experiences affected my interpretation of “Only come if you’re up to it”. Having previously heard statements like “only run if your leg is up to it”; if my leg wasn’t up to it, I didn’t run. Possibly my employer had different experiences with employees who show up even when sick, or he doesn’t like people taking sick leave meant he interpreted my “Ok sounds good” as I would be there. As the communication was via email, it’s readily apparent that both of us were senders and receivers. The meaning-centered theory (Barnett & O’Rourke, 2011) that could have helped in enhancing the effectiveness of our communication focuses on the consequences of the communication process. Two people may not take the same meaning from a message, due to different factors such as personality types, culture, how you were raised and personal experiences. When we do not take the same meaning from a message, we do not completely understand what one another is trying to say. Meaning-centered theory therefore emphasises the need for participants in communication to be explicit. For example, my boss needed to tell me to let him know so I knew that’s what was expected.

Communication is ambiguous means that because all messages have more than one meaning, different people can take different meanings from the same message (DeVito, 2012). Communicating ideas needs to be as clear and accurate as possible so that the receiver will understand what is being said. This doesn’t always happen leading to ambiguity, confusion and miscommunication. DeVito (2012, pg. 17) suggests that reduce uncertainty “you may qualify what you’re saying, give an example, or ask, “Do you know what I mean?” With reference to my situation, “only come in if you feel up to it” was interpreted differently. I assumed it meant I didn’t have to let him know I wasn’t coming in if still ill, but my employer obviously believed differently. In order to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty, he could have said, “Only come in if you’re up to it but let me know either way.” My response “ok sounds good” also contained uncertainty. I believed I was communicating my message as “Ok I will come in if I feel better”, but my employer interpreted it as, “Ok, she will be in on Friday as the work sounds good.” For clarity, I could have said, “Ok if I’m better, I will come in. I’ll let you know.” Understanding meaning-centered theory, as described above, may have improved the communication effectiveness, as I would have understood that as different people we might take different meanings from the messages. Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B. & Procter II, R.F. (2004), say that often we look back on situations where miscommunication or confusion has occurred and wish that we had communicated differently for example, being clearer with explanations, or apologizing to someone. Specifically, in my situation, if we both could have been clearer with our explanations, we would have understood each other’s messages accurately. The attribution theory (Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K., 2004) holds that confusion can be reduced by lessening the ambiguity. To do so, it helps to know what the person you are communicating with is like. My employer is the leader of a company who has work that needs doing and needs to find people to do it. Had I understood the attribution theory, I would have known that I should have to let him know so he can organize someone to do the work.

In conclusion, in looking at communication theories and applying the three principles of communication; communication is a package of signals, communication is transactional, and communication is ambiguous, to a specific situation can allow for the identification of possible causes of the miscommunication that existed in that situation, and how an understanding of these principles could have lead to a more effective communication process. Understanding these principles of communication will be of benefit to me in future interactions and allow me to have more successful communication experiences.

Reference List:

1. DeVito, J. A. (2012). Human Communication: The basic course. USA: Pearson Education

2. Tubbs, S. L. (2010). Human Communication: Principles and Context. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill

3. Beebee, S. A., & Beebee, S. J. (2008). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to others. USA: Pearson Education

4. Barnett, S. &O’Rouke, S. (2011). Communication: Organisation and Innovation. Malaysia: Pearson Education

5. Verderber, K., Verderber, R. & Berryman-Fink, C. (2007). Interpersonal Communication Principles.

Received from https://autonline.aut.ac.nz

6. Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B. & Procter II, R. F. (2004). Interpersonal process.

Received from https://autonline.aut.ac.nz

7. Littlejohn, S. W. & Foss, K. A., (2008). Theories of Human Communication. USA: Thomson Wadsworth