Modelling the Communication Process
Interpersonal communication typically involves much more than the simple transmission of information. Pay close attention to the next person who asks you what time it is. You will often be able to tell how they are feeling, and about why they need to know if they are in a hurry, perhaps, or if they are anxious or nervous, or bored with waiting. In other words, their question has a purpose and a meaning. Although it is not always stated directly, we can often infer that meaning from the context and from their behavior. The same considerations apply to your response. Your reply suggests, at least, a willingness to be helpful, may imply friendship, and may also indicate that you share the same concern as the person asking the question (We are going to be late; When does the film start?). However, your reply can also indicate frustration and annoyance: Five minutes since the last time you asked me! Communication thus involves the transmission of both information and meaning.
This process of exchange is illustrated in figure 7.1, which illustrates the main components of interpersonal communication. This model is based on the work of Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949), who were concerned with signal processing in electronic systems, rather than with organizational communication.
Figure 7.1
At the heart of this model, we have a transmitter sending a message through an appropriate channel to a receiver. We will consider the range of change communication channels later. It is helpful to think of the way in which the transmitter phrases and expresses the message as a coding process. The success of communication depends on the accuracy of the receivers decoding; did the receiver understand the language used, and also tone and implications of the message. Feedback is therefore critical, to check understanding. Communication often fails where transmitters and receivers have different frames of reference and do not share experience and understanding, even if they share a common language. We make judgements which may or may not be accurate about the honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and credibility of others, and decode their messages and act on them accordingly. When communicating details of a major change initiative, therefore, it cannot be assumed that all of the recipients of the message will have the same understanding as each other, and as the transmitter.
Perceptual filters also play a role here, particularly affecting our decoding. This can involve, for example, a readiness or predisposition to hear, or not to hear, particular kinds of information. Preoccupations that are diverting our attention can also filter information. Past experience affects the way in which we see things today, and can influence what we transmit and how, and what we receive. In an organizational setting, people may have time to reflect, or they may be under time pressure, or experience communication overload, which again means that some content may be filtered out.
The physical, social, and cultural context in which change communication takes place is also significant. In organizations where staff are widely dispersed across a number of locations, the ability to share and compare views is more difficult than when everyone is in one place. The logistics of communicating with a large number of dispersed staff can be complex and costly. The casual remark by a colleague across a caf table (We could all be laid off by the end of the year) could be dismissed with a laugh. The same remark made by a manager in a formal planning meeting could be a source of alarm. If an organizations culture emphasizes openness and transparency, staff may become suspicious if communication is less informative than expected. However, staff may also become suspicious if management (without a good explanation) suddenly start to share large amounts of information openly in a culture that has in the past been less transparent.
Context is particularly important when considering change communication, as this can influence how receivers will decode a message. One aspect of an organizations context that is critical in this respect is past history. Change communication is more likely to be welcome in an organization with a track record of successful changes than in one where past changes have been seen as ineffective or damaging. Current circumstances are also a key feature of the communication context. Is change a positive response to business growth and development, or a defensive approach to problems that will lead to budget and staffing cuts? If staff feel that they have been misled by management in the past concerning the goals and consequences of change, that perception is likely to have an influence on the decoding of further communication concerning change proposals.
When designing a communication strategy, it is therefore important to assess how aspects of the context could affect the coding and decoding of the message, and to design the message content and channels accordingly. Terry Nelson and Helen Coxhead (1997) highlight three particular problems to consider when designing change communications:
Message Overload: More new information is provided more quickly than recipients can process.
Message Distortion: Intentional or unintentional misinterpretation when transmitting or receiving the message.
Message Ambiguity: As noted earlier, ambiguity allows different interpretations, but this should not exceed recipients ability to tolerate ambiguity (which can be reduced by anxiety).
These problems can be avoided by adapting a common language with regard to the change, and where top management consistently model the desired behaviors. Enhancing employee involvement and self-esteem, and using specialist staff to monitor the change process, can also help to reduce communication errors.
Anything that interferes with a communication signal is called noise by electronics experts, and this applies to interpersonal and organizational communication, too. This does not just refer to the sound of the equipment, or other people talking. Noise includes coding and decoding problems and errors, perceptual filters, and any other distractions that damage the integrity of the communication channel, including issues arising from the context. Relationships can introduce noise, affecting the style and content of conversation (formal or informal) and what we are prepared to share. Status differences can introduce noise; we do not reveal to the boss what we discuss with colleagues. Motives, emotions, and health can also constitute noise; coding and decoding are affected by anxiety, pressure, stress, and also by levels of enthusiasm and excitement. This last point is particularly significant, as change communication itself can, of course, generate anxiety and stress, or stimulate excitement.
