Archiv der Kategorie: Communication

Communication consists of perception, thought models and communication behavior.

The inherent blur of each message

By using Wingding’s Alt-C 120 you can create eight triangles at the touch of a button that in some cultures standing for selecting and in others deselecting something. You can recognize the ten of the Latins or the symbol of the research department of Alphabet Inc. The view from above onto the pyramid simultaneously shows the sign of the Bulgarian Air Force and is also the genealogical symbol for illegitimate. All right? Most of the time not. Every message is blurred on principle, since the undisclosed context of the involved people is crucial for the interpretation.

Ideally we have three perspectives: the sender, the receiver and the neutral observers of a message. Everyone has its own standpoint concerning a message: rejection, neutrality or consent.

  • Sender
    The senders develop ideas and spread more or less and sometimes not at all digested messages. To what extent the senders are pursuing an intention, only they themselves know – if at all. Some produce statements that are consistent with their intentions. Others formulate messages that are contrary to their other opinions. It can also happen that the explanations mean nothing at all. Only the senders know what they actually mean. From the outside, we can only speculate based on further statements.
  • Receiver
    For the receivers, the message consists not only of what is said or shown, but also of the accompanying signals. They perceive the messages through their senses, e.g. visually, auditory, or kinesthetic – they see what is meant, it sounds good, and feels coherent. Eventually, they determine the content of the message. They connect the content with their experience and knowledge. For some, the contents confirm their conception of the world. Others cannot but contradict the statement. And some people don’t care. Only the recipients know what is going on in their mind. From the outside, we can see how the message works based on the reactions.
  • Observer
    The observers are not the target group of the message. They can pursue neutrally what happens between the sender and the receiver. Even if they think they are neutral, they process their observations with their mental models. Some draw benevolent conclusions and incorporate them into their affirmative view. Others unconsciously do the opposite and with their negative view they provide a critical treatment of the whole. Even the neutral observer distorts, because his disinterest is accordingly reflected in his description of the situation. Only they know what happens in their minds. From the outside, it is impossible to assess what actually happened.

From this point of view, we have to be prepared for the fact that in most cases we are dealing with alternative facts – something that professional fact makers do not want to hear. What do we expect from a message that the sender did not mean, that the recipient gets the wrong way and that the observer reports in a negative way? In this case the message creates nothing but noise in the stream of significant information. It is the act that counts in the end.

Bottom line: The only thing that counts is the inherent blurring of messages. There is no objectively tangible truth, only personal interpretations. Senders, receivers and observers cannot get out of their settings and thus deliberately or unintentionally distort the facts. Though, the cry for objective facts is nothing more than a helpless desire for truth.

Win-win through active listening

A negotiation talk should, for obvious reasons, not be a battle, where one side wins. Once a party is leaving the conversation dissatisfied, the doors for a trustful collaboration are getting smaller. Therefore, any form of unfriendly pressure on the vis-á-vis is counterproductive, because it undermines trust. The personal exchange of positions is the best opportunity to tailor your expectations to the ones of your counterparts. However, this is only possible, if both parties come out of the wood, listen actively and showcase openly their way of looking at things.

Win-win is created by compassionate conversational behavior that is promoted by the following attitudes, among other things.

  • Be with the interlocutor
    The best way to catch someone else’s position is to fully focus on the conversation by following consciously every word. Your own point of view does not require attention, because in advance you have thought your own position through based on assumptions. The propositions of the counterpart are at this point in time the most current hints to its point of view.
  • Leaving space for explanations
    The formulation style determines the time that someone needs to express its viewpoints clearly. Active Listening means that one does not immediately respond to the first utterance with its respond, but waits, until the speaker had enough room to articulate its understanding.
  • Summing-up
    Good conversations live on mutual understanding. To make sure that you get everything, it’s a good idea to repeat each point of the other and additionally to underline that you understood them. The active listener should pay attention to the mimic and body language of the other person while summarizing. As long as no negative signs are recognizable, you can assume that the other person is satisfied with the interpretation of its propositions.
  • Eventually make your points
    Only now you can offer your own arguments. The closer your own point of view is following the explanation of the other, the more visible become the essential differences. Remember: It is not about winning at all costs, but about achieving a mutually satisfying agreement.

Bottom line: The rare opportunity to discuss a topic directly with the counterpart should not be disturbed by combative rhetoric. Both parties should listen actively, so that the conversation fulfills its purpose. This requires to

  • be with the other with your attention,
  • to leave room for the interlocutor to express its views,
  • to repeat the heard and then
  • to answer based on appropriate arguments.

The ideal conversation is a Win-win situation that offers more advantages than disadvantages to both parties. Except: you are at war – which you will not win on the long run.