In today’s world of cell phones, texting, and ‘tweeting’, we have a vast array of communications methods at our fingertips. Yet with all these modern tools, “crossed signals” still occur. If you have ever experienced “gaps” in communication, you know they can cause frustration, inefficiency, and negative impacts. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “The problem with communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.”
The fact is, whenever you have two different people with varied perspectives exchanging ideas, a “gap” in communication can occur. It seems just as prevalent in face-to-face communication as it is through electronic means. Sometimes the meaning is misinterpreted, and other times it simply doesn’t get there. So, how do we “bridge the gap?” Well, first we should recognize just how fragile and imperfect the interpersonal communication process can be. Then we need to concentrate on the communication “triangle” and approach each interaction as a partnership. Let’s look at how this relates specifically to a common communication interaction — a face-to-face conversation between two people.
The Communications ‘Triangle’
This ‘triangle’ in communication is comprised of how a message is “sent”, what is “meant” (the intent of the message), and how it is “received”. This “Sent – Meant – Received” triangle is the heart of all communication interactions. When the triangle is complete and the message arrives as it was intended — with the meaning intact – both parties share a common understanding of what was conveyed. Success! Between the point where the message is sent and the message is received, however, many factors can inhibit what was “meant” from being successfully interpreted.
Inhibiting Factors
The most obvious factors include the ability to “get” the message, and the interpretations of the meanings of the words being used. For example, if the person you are speaking with or sending messages to has difficulty actually “receiving” the information, or the words include terminology they do not understand, the potential to complete the triangle is diminished. Background noise, distractions, and the use of jargon can all contribute to the problem. And with abbreviations and symbols used in electronic methods, the risk of misinterpretation is magnified.
Some subtle factors that can create a gap are the built-in assumptions and “filters” each of us has that affect our interpretation. In many cases, these hidden inhibitors are the greatest threats to completing the triangle because we may not be aware they exist. These might include strong feelings on the topic, interest level or past experience. So, the challenge when we “send” communications is HUGE because we must monitor not only IF the message is being received, but also HOW it is being interpreted in order to assess if the triangle is being completed. One way to do this is to simply ask for feedback during the interaction.
The Receiver Can Help
It is often assumed that the person speaking or sending the message has most, if not all, of the responsibility to ensure that communication is successful. This way of thinking can be hazardous to effective communication because, in reality, the “listener” or ‘receiver’ also owns a large part of the interaction. As a receiver, it is important to let the sender know if we are not completely clear on the content or intent of the message. An example of this would be to ask them to define a particular word when its meaning is in question. In addition, the receiver can help the speaker by encouraging the conversation and acknowledging that the message was received as intended. This can be accomplished by merely nodding in agreement (in face to face situations) or paraphrasing what you “received” in an electronic exchange. In a lengthy exchange it can be very helpful to summarize the result of the communication to make sure both parties leave the interaction with clarity and congruence.
Communications Partnership
One important step is for the sender to make the receiver aware – right up front – that they want the communication to be clear and to invite clarifying questions. The receiver can then feel more comfortable seeking clarity as needed. Through a partnership of the sender (verifying the “if” and “how” of message delivery) and the receiver (participating in the confirmation), a communication “bridge” can be built. This bridge can close most of the gaps inherent in communication interactions and help enable deeper understanding of the information. When both people agree to partner toward a goal, successful results are much more likely.
Summary
Interpersonal communication is fragile, but a little extra effort can help it succeed. We can take steps to head off “crossed signals” by acknowledging the weak spots and closing those gaps. Whether your next communication interaction is with a customer, a friend or a co-worker, face to face or electronic, remember how easily a gap can occur. Focus on the “triangle” and approach the experience as a partnership. You’ll be building a bridge so that both sides can reach understanding.