Personal Understanding and Interpersonal Communication - Literature review Example

Personal Understanding and Interpersonal Communication Interpersonal Communications Problems Name University Module Instructor Submission Date © 2012 INTRODUCTION People found in any co-existence are bound to interact between one another. During this co-existence, they are also bound to communicate in one way or the other. In this instance therefore, communication is taken to mean “the transfer of information from one end to the other through a certain medium” (Ewing et al, 2010). Since communication must involve two parties at the least, it therefore becomes ‘interpersonal’ as is demonstrated by Burgoon and colleagues (2011). Research has additionally illustrated that all forms of communication are interpersonal as most of them involve the exchange of information between people. Moreover, some form of action must be involved on the part of the receiver as observed by Beck (1999). From these grounds therefore, the simplest communication model is found to compose of a source of the information, the channels through which the message is transmitted and the receiver of the message (DeVito, 2009). In most cases the source has to know the response of the receiver, hence creating the need for a feedback mechanism. This interaction also causes the source to act as the receiver. In the context of organisational management as well as our daily operations, it is reported that communication plays a very fundamental role (Beck, 1999). Additionally, Donna (2011) observes that common social problems that afflict people emanate from their failure to undertake effective interpersonal communication. As indicated by Burgoon (2011), many interventions that have been proposed to solve our common ‘social ills’ are all dependent on effective interpersonal communication. It is for this reason that the present essay embarks on identifying and describing a problem that I personally experienced when communicating with difficult people during my induction in one particular organisation. Additionally, the essay attempts to analyse the said problem using relevant interpersonal communications theories, concepts and perspectives. The essay also offers some practical recommendations that could be adopted to resolve the problem. THE PROBLEM Several years back, I worked for a production organization heading the Training and Development department. Being a young management trainee heading a department that was dominated by experienced and seasoned workers was somewhat nerve raking. This did not cow me because I knew the basis of succeeding in life was only through developing positive relationships with people (Cynthia, 2010). In fact, our success, fulfillment and happiness are all dependent on our ability to relate effectively. Based on this premise, I decided to strive in developing a winning team in my department. I had some early training back in school about how important teamwork is in registering success. Working in the same office or being paid by the same organisation alone does not make a team but only the unity of purpose of the members (Kikoski, 1999). The staff in my department totally lacked shared goals and seemed to be extremely divided. From the outset, I decided to develop a winning team and leave a legacy in the department. My efforts started paying off except for a long standing animosity between two members of staff that threatened to tear the department down the middle. From the very beginning, the two members had been at loggerheads even before I joined the organisation. To say the least, each of them had difficult personality traits none of us was prepared to deal with effectively. But since I was the leader, there was no other way out. I very well knew that a successful leader should be capable of understanding different personality types and if possible try to love them. The feuding members in my situation included my deputy and a female junior staffer. Based on the classification of difficult personality traits by Maxwell (cited by Tanner, 1994), my deputy fitted the “Sherman Tank” personality while the junior officer belonged to the “Volcano” personality. The “Sherman Tank” personalities are known to run over everything that is in the way and have a tendency to intimidate others because of their “I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong” attitude (Wood, 2009). The “Volcano” personality on the other hand is an explosive, unpredictable type of a person who tends to be unapproachable (Rifkin, 2001). The anticlimax of my two feuding officers happened at one departmental meeting when my interpersonal communication skills were put to test inadvertently. It all started when members present were making their contributions to the agendas of the day. The junior staffer was contributing when the deputy made a sneering comment about members who did not have constructive ideas should not bore knowledgeable members with their mediocrity. This was in bad taste even to the other members and it irked the “Volcano” so much that she let out a salvo of obnoxious words directed at the deputy and anyone else who attempted to cool her down. Seeing that things were likely to get out of hand, I called the meeting to order and adjourned it for thirty minutes to allow tempers to cool. During the recess, I called the junior officer to have a private talk. To handle Volcanoes, calmness is the key. Tanner (1994) advices that you remove them from the crowd and allow them to vent steam, blowing as hard and as long as necessary all along keeping your cool without interrupting since they won’t be hearing you. Handling Sherman Tanks on the other hand is no easy task, particularly if you are dealing with the likes of my deputy who had a lot of influence in the department. After having my private talk with the junior officer, I reconvened the meeting and immediately reprimanded the deputy in the presence of the other members. I also referred him to the officers’ code of conduct as we resumed our business of the day which ended graciously with a word of prayer from one member. ANALYSING THE PROBLEM The described problem can be examined by use of three interrelated theories identified from literature. Because it has been established that organisations are systems, I’ll use the systems perspective to analyse my experience in the organisation. Thompson (1998) claims that systems theories are used to explain nearly all communication contexts found in small groups as well as in organisational context. The systems perspectives put more focus on the interdependence that develops whenever people interact with each other. According to the systems approaches, communication is what creates and sustains systems that may be as small as a family unit, a work group or an organisation (Rifkin, 2001). Based on this argument, my problem falls within the realm of a system as it involves a group of individuals interrelating within an organisation. The systems theory therefore supposes that individuals alone don’t make or break the system but instead the system as a whole might work together to create more than what might be accomplished by those individuals alone (Wilcox, 2002). This was my major intention when I tried to reconcile the communication breakdown noted within my department. Secondly, politeness theory is found to be instrumental in analysing my identified problem as described above. According to Wood (2009), politeness theory explains why it is important for individuals to try to promote and protect their self-image especially when they are interacting with others work groups or organisations. This is achieved through application of politeness strategies which are considered by Thompson (1998) as the main constructs of interpersonal interactions. In view of this theory, three assumptions exist. First, every individual is assumed to have some dignity that needs to be preserved in the eyes of the others in a social gathering (Wood, 2009). Additionally, it is assumed that all humans are rational animals that are capable of thinking and acting rationally in a communicative situation with others. The final assumption maintains that some behaviours are fundamentally ‘image damaging’ in that an individual will damage the image of a colleague and similarly face the threat of his or her image being damaged in return (Ewing et al, 2010). Considering my problem vis-à-vis these assumptions, it is noticed that there was a great contravention of the ideals forwarded by the politeness theory. Firstly, the nature of the deputy officer went against the first assumption by displaying a negative image of both the junior staffer and of his self. Additionally, his rationality was put to test when he could not resist ridiculing the junior staffer with his sarcastic and unsolicited comment. After humiliating and damaging the image of the junior staff in the eyes of her work mates, the same measure of humiliation was meted out on the deputy when I reprimanded in him the presence of the other members of the department. This in the views of Rifkin (2001) is considered as “corrective face work”. My main intention was to attempt and repair any physical damage that had been caused to the junior staffer by the deputy. The whole of this episode was in fulfillment of the third assumption of the politeness theory as enumerated above. The third theory found to be relevant in my identified and described problem is the social exchange theory forwarded by Thibaut and Kelley in 1959 (cited in Thompson, 1998). According to these two, social exchange theory is a broad approach that is used to explain and predict relationship maintenance in both social and organisational contexts (Donna, 2011). The theory is very clear on when and why individuals should continue and develop some personal relationships while ending others at the same time. It is further explained that the social exchange theory underscores the importance of an individual choosing to maintain the relationships that one will be most satisfied in (Wood, 2009). According to the suggestions of the name of the theory, there must be exchanges of benefits as well as sacrifices between the individuals involved in a relationship. In other words, what rewards does an individual receive from a given relationship and what sacrifices does she or he make in order to get the said rewards? And because human beings are naturally selfish, it is noticed that individuals will only wish to maintain relationships that are more self-serving than those that are beneficial to others. In this aspect therefore, it is advocated that members in a relationship must help one another in order to promote and protect the cohesiveness of their bond. This was the guiding principle that propelled me into taking the kind of action I took under the circumstances surrounding my scenario. I wanted to restore the interpersonal communication lapse that was resident within the department and was seriously threatening to tear the department down the middle. This aspect was further a test of my competence in addressing matters of interpersonal communication in organisational contexts. In view of the foregoing discourse, it has emerged that three most important aspects of my problem are being supported by extant literature accessed during my extensive reading. The fact that individuals collectively make or break systems is true as it is attested by the acrimony that existed between some members of my department. If it were not for my prompt action to resolve the interpersonal communication lapse amongst the said members, the department was destined for collapse (Wilcox, 2002). Similarly, my intervention to bring about unity of purpose amongst members of the department helped me see a strong team bringing up a very pro-active department. Lack of positive politeness as demonstrated by the deputy officer presents a double-edged sword which cuts both ways. The intention of the deputy was to humiliate and loose face of the junior officer. While he achieved this without much ado, it served to damage his own image in the end explained in the text. The message contained here is that we must always have the best intentions for our colleagues as we interact within communication relationships (Ewing et al, 2010). As we choose to maintain relationships and discard others, we should put into consideration benefits verses the sacrifices for both participants in the relationship. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESOLVING THE PROBLEM Since people generally wish to feel that they have been treated fairly as well as being clearly understood regardless of what is being communicated, it is recommended that people in authority develop the ability to listen carefully and respectfully (Ewing et al, 2010). This will be guided by having effective information transmission model where the source and the destination are not overly affected by ‘noise’, which is considered as forms of interference (Donna, 2011). It is also important for any individual to attempt and figure out the feelings that are expected to be excited from the other person in light of something being said about their conditions (Wood, 2009). The deputy should have tried putting himself into the shoes of the junior officer before making the derogatory statement. This shows a lack of human heart attached to one’s interpersonal communication. It also stresses the fact that interpersonal communication is inevitably irreversible no matter how much one would wish to take back what has already been said (Wood, 2009). The effect on the junior officer’s ego forever remained etched onto her heart. Secondly, seeking for further clarification from the speaker by probably asking more relevant questions will dispel the possibility of guesswork. Thompson (1998) highlights the importance of determining and gathering factual or objective information that can help the parties involved in the communication process understand the situation better. My private moment with the junior staffer as mentioned earlier in this essay was significant in helping her change her position about the deputy officer. Additionally, the deputy was also able to change his perspective in life and decided to have a more positive politeness as opposed to his earlier very negative outlook about the junior staffer. This when considered against the findings of extant literature, it is realised that there are multiple ways of resolving a matter once more facts have been gathered concerning the other person (Wilcox, 2002). Finally, gathering of the appropriate information must be done in a very impartial way without being judgmental to avoid biasness. Although I did not strictly follow this provision in my handling of the problem, it makes one to appear a good mediator, one who is open-minded to what is being said. CONCLUSIONS This essay has clearly demonstrated that many reasons do exist as to why people face communication challenges in their relationships. The problem described in this essay is just an example of multiple others found affecting many interpersonal communication relationships in the society and organisations. Three important aspects identified in the problem being addressed have been explained in the context of three theories namely the systems, politeness and social exchange theories. Systems theories hold that individuals will best understand the relationship of people by first studying their interrelated patterns of communication (Donna, 2011). Politeness theory on the other hand is shown to explain and predict strategies that individuals use to maintain their personal images in the face of the public. Social exchange theory on the one hand demonstrates that individuals will initiate and maintain relationships that are more beneficial to themselves with the minimum sacrifices they can afford (Wilcox, 2002). All in all, it is important to remember that interpersonal communication is complicated as well as being contextual (Wood, 2009). This implies that no one form of communication is simple and can never happen in isolation. It has to be interactional and interpersonal as observed by Cynthia (2010) and Burgoon et al (2011). Additionally, Cynthia (2010) indicates that interpersonal communication is inescapable. Just by merely keeping silent does not mean lack of communication. Through the tone of voice, body posture, gesture and facial expression (Wood, 2009) communicate volumes of messages to those around us. Through the same channels, we likewise receive communication from others. REFERENCES Beck, C. (1999). Managerial communication: Bridging theory and practice. Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall. Burgoon, J. K., Waldron, V. R & Berger, C. R. (2011). Mindfulness and Interpersonal Communication. Boston: Pearson. Cynthia, B. T. (2010). Gender Issues: Communication Differences in Interpersonal Relationships. The Ohio State University DeVito, J. A. (2009). The Interpersonal Communication Book (12th ed.) Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Donna, R. B. (2011). Interpersonal Conflict and Effective Communication: “Integrating your inner hopes and reality”. Simmonds Publications, DRB Alternatives Inc. Ewing, R., Lowrie, T. & Higgs, J. (2010). Teaching and Communicating: rethinking professional experiences. Melbourne: Oxford University Press Kikoski, J. F. (1999). Effective communication in the performance appraisal interview: Face-to- face communication for public managers in the culturally diverse workplace. Public Personnel Management, 28, 301-322. Rifkin, J. (2001). The age of access: How the shift from ownership to access if transforming modern life (Extracts). London: Penguin. Tanner, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit and what work gets done. New York: William Morrow. Thompson, K. (1998). The past, present and future of emotional capital: A timeline. Emotional capital: Capturing hearts and minds to create lasting business success. Oxford, UK: Capstone. Wilcox, L. (2002). Guidelines for Interpersonal Communication: Effective Techniques to Improve Interactions. Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University Wood, J. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (8th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Read More