Communication is defined as the “transfer of meaning” (Eunson, 2006:2). The message to be conveyed, the urgency of the message, the effect on the receiver etc determine the “preference” of the channel of communication. This essay shall argue that this is the most important criteria, in channel determination. Right
Hence, for effective communication the important things to be considered may be the message and effect (Lasswell’s model, 1948, as cited in Eunson, 2006:7). The latter i. e. the ‘effect’ of the message on the receiver, depends on which mode of communication is “preferred” over which and will make the difference between communicating effectively and ordinarily. Especially, if the communication is meant for a limited audience, like the staff of one particular department of an office, or to a few sales- staff with inconsistent performance etc.
For example, in a Human Resource Department in an office, with a HR Manager, and five assistants, communication is possible with his staff through direct face-to-face communication, or through memos, or e-mail notifications etc. The smart manager will choose the medium, depending on the importance of the message and the impact it should effect. He may convey routine ‘Monthly Target’ notices by pasting them on the Department Bulletin board, and further sending a copy of the message to each staff through the e-mail as a follow up.
But, he may ‘prefer’ to send the individual’s ‘Performance Assessment Report’ through individual e-mail and then a one-to-one review. This ‘preference’ is exercised to enhance effective communication. The richness of media (Daft and Lengel, 1986) effected by direct face-to-face communication is ‘preferred’ to the e-mail channel, which is less effective than the chosen one. Conclusion Making the right “preference” in the choice of media to communicate is vital to being effective. Since effectiveness is the key element in any communication, it is clear that
Bibliography Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel, (1986) “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Sci. , 32, 5, 554–571. Can also be view at website <http://www. istheory. yorku. ca/mediarichnesstheory. htm> Eunson, Baden, (2006). “Communication Today,” in Communicating in the 21st Century, 1, pp. 2-18. Tutorial Response 2 Introduction The deluge of technology has been incapable of preventing “Miscommunication”. This essay will briefly explain the term and analyze two problems of ‘context’ resulting in miscommunication, and suggest a strategy to overcome the ‘noise’ factor.
Context, Noise and Miscommunication The ‘Context’ of the communication is concerned with the following issues 1) Power and Status Relationships 2) Cultural factors 3) Interpersonal Relationships 4) Time (Eunson, 006:16). Communication derives its meaning from the context, under which it takes place. The basic tenet of communication is, to send as well as receive and is said to occur, only when understanding is achieved. This fails, when there is non-cooperation between one or more of the parties and results in miscommunication.
This can be deduced as the ‘noise’ in the Sender-Message-Receiver (SMR) and the Shannon-Weaver model of communication (1999, as cited in Eunson 2006:8) because it ignores the importance of context, i. e. situational, social, cultural, etc. ‘Context’ can be interpreted differently, by the receiver, according to 1) the cultural differences, 2) status differences between the former and the receiver and the sender. For example, using gestures and direct eye-contact is a vital part of Western conversation; however, in the Native American cultures, looking directly into the eyes of elders is disrespectful, and gestures are hardly used.
Miscommunication may occur when a young American salesman tries to convince an elderly Native American of his product, due to differing cultural contexts. An example of problems arising from the power status differences: A $100 rise in salary for performance, may impact positively on a low-level employee in the factory; while the Manager of the Production is apt to be disgruntled by the same amount. The Quinn, Hildebrandt, Rogers, & Thompson, (1991) (cited in Eunson 2006:16) model helps effectively weed out the noise factor, by strategically and judiciously preferring the channel of communication.
For example, to solve problem #1 of mistrust arising from contextual cultural differences, modification of the sales strategy, by adopting a combination of informational communication and relational-communication may help. This will 1) provide the facts to the receiver, 2) win his trust; a sale may effect. And in proble #2, it is possible to build on the existing on trust level of the manager by a) improving relational communication, b) stimulating challenge by using transformational communication, to explain that money is not the only end-goal in life. Conlcusion
The study of various types of communication can help in strategic solutions to problems. Bibliography Eunson, Baden, (2006). “Communication Today,” Communicating in the 21st Century. , 1, pp. 2-18. Grice, H. P. , (1975), “Logic and Conversation”, in P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds. , Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, pp. 41-58 Quinn, R. E. , Hildebrandt, H. W. , Rogers, P. S. , & Thompson, M. P. (1991). “A competing values framework for analyzing presentational communication in management contexts”. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 213-232.