One of the first things a person does before addressing a group is to find out about the audience. For example, what is their educational background, what do they know about the topic, are these experts in the field, etc.? We must also determine what it is that we are hoping to achieve. When we are called into a meeting/one on one/face to face, etc., we do the same. We want to know who the person is, and we tend to do a little digging to learn. Usually what we find out determines our approach, generally. Either that, or we have already had some access to the audience, or we are learning as we go along, so we proceed accordingly. It is like when you have an interview, you “fix” yourself and perform in your role as interviewee in a manner that you “believe” is required of you within context. Whether you are writing or speaking, it is important to understand your audience so you are able to adjust your “language” and tone, so that communication occurs.
The definition of communication that I find the most useful is “Communication is the transference of meaning between intelligences” (the source evades me now). In other words, if a person does not get the meaning you intended, then communication has not occurred. Fundamentally, the main ingredient in the process is for both sender and receiver to “speak” the same “language”. Unfortunately, communication is not as simple as it appears, because we do not always have access to what is required in an interaction to communicate effectively. Plus, people do not only respond to words in the communication process; we also respond to body language, perceptions, misconceptions, personal biases, etc.; some of which are brought into the communication process without our knowledge and/or our ability to understand, which will obviously interfere with meaning transference.
Recently, I was reminded of this when I was asked a question (that I deduced needed a genuine response). Within the context of the question and who I perceived the “audience” to be, I responded in a manner that I believed would have been the most appropriate. As soon as the response fell from my lips and I observed the body language of the message recipient, I realized that my response was not suited for this specific audience, despite it being “clear, coherent, courteous, concise, complete, concrete and correct[1].” From my perspective, the issue was not so much that the 7Cs of communication were present, it was that I did not properly read the “audience” to understand that within that particular context I needed to have simply smiled and nodded and that would have yielded better feedback – one that would have facilitated a better interaction, going forward. Even though, in this case, SOME meaning was transferred within the context of the words that were uttered, they were not taken in the spirit I had intended. Evidently, it would have been prudent for my response to have been received the way I intended, but I would not have known prior that:
- A particular question would have been asked.
- The person would not have taken kindly to my response (albeit honest and clear, etc.).
- The person asking the question had certain biases that would have been triggered by my response.
After that interaction, I found myself ruminating on the communication process and how challenging it is to transfer meaning when we do not have access to those things within our audience that may trigger their negative response to our message, or block their complete understanding, thereby thwarting the meaning. For example, they may have heard and understood the words, but they may have also perceived the message as an insult because of their own personal experiences with something else that has nothing to do with us. Truthfully, it may very well have something to do with our positionality that we do not realize, because we do not have access to the recipient’s private thoughts. In my case, the communication process was incomplete, because my intention was to not only communicate the words, but to also communicate the intention/spirit/posture behind the words. Evidently, this was not achieved.
I operate on the premise that there is always a lesson in everything, regardless of the outcome. Therefore, having introspected and deconstructed that thwarted communication process, I was reminded of the significance of smiling and nodding. Admittedly, this feels like a cop-out, but for those of us who operate with honesty, there are times when it is best to simply “smile and nod.” It doesn’t mean that you are lying; it means that you are not sure of your audience and the best bet is to be safe in your response. The truth is, a person could also misread your “smile and nod” and be offended by it, but at least there would be no words to “use against you” in the future.
As restricting as this is, sometimes life requires us to operate outside of the communication standards we have set for ourselves and simply go along to get along. Maybe this is a part of emotional intelligence that many of us have not yet mastered (but that is for another blog).
The “Just smile and nod” tactic is generally useful when I want to avoid additional/unnecessary interaction, but I will now re-imagine its use when asked a question, and I am uncertain about how my honest response will be received by the audience.
So, I’mmo simply smile and nod to avoid the unintentional foot-in-mouth.
[1] https://www.invensislearning.com/blog/7-rules-of-effective-communication-with-examples/
PARENTING, ADVOCACY AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN 