Communication Styles - Essay Example

Running Head: Communication Styles Communication Styles Cohort number Submitted Introduction Communication can be roughly defined as the transfer of meaning from one individual to another. The tricky part about this is that the ideas held in one person’s brain and made clear through their actions and speech are not necessarily that the other person receives as a result of these same actions and speech. This general definition also illustrates that the idea of communication is not limited to the words and sounds that humans have developed as a means of expressing their ideas but can also extend to gestures and behaviors. Persons of any race, personality, background or gender utilize an assortment of speech and conversational skills in an attempt to communicate appropriately in a specific situation. However, as communication is studied, it is shown that the means people use to communicate not only differs with the language that they use and the cultural meanings assigned to specific movements, but is also divided between genders. The communication gap continues to close as the gap in true equality for women closes, yet there remains a significant difference between the fundamental communication styles employed by women as compared to men on both a verbal and nonverbal plane. Male Communication Styles Introduction of concept A talkative person is perceived as controlling and domineering. In the workplace, these personality types are viewed as leaders but only if other qualities are present such as intellect and problem solving skills. They are most likely a well-liked and respected individual, if they are a man. The reason may lie in the fact that anyone that uses ‘powerful language’ is thought to be competent, trustworthy and intelligent. A person’s gender does influence their speech patterns whether by forces of nurture or nature. Because strong personality types are commonly associated with males, people expect them to fill an authoritative role such as judge, CEO of a corporation or police officer. It is possible that most males are born with a more aggressive personality but this is significantly augmented by the socialization process, even down to the types and forms of the language used. Parents and others respond favorably toward aggressive behavior demonstrated in boys. The combination of inherited and learned behavioral and personality traits become deeply embedded parts of a communication blueprint that endures throughout a lifetime. Men who behave as expected within the Western culture will be somewhat aggressive and interested in at least one of three specific subjects: sports, business or politics. An effeminate sounding man surprises the listener and serves as a distraction in the communication process. In terms of actual style of communication, men typically display a very short attention span, attempting to maximize time by economizing talk. “In general, men talk to give information or to report” (Sachs, 2001). Conversation customs shared by men generally comprise good-natured confrontational conversational banter. By communicating in this way, “it is more typical for men to expect relationships to be based on independence and competition” (Wood, 2001). Understanding these attributes of the male communication style makes one more aware of them when they take place. Context of experience – seeing the concept at work This is an easy concept to see at work just about anywhere. In particular, sitting in the break room at work, it is easy to watch the interactions of co-workers as they pass through their day. In finding two men preparing their own morning coffees, the conversation is predictably short, concise and focused upon the latest sports events. As Mike enters the room to find George, the two nod their heads at each other rather than actually say anything. While he pours himself a cup of coffee, Mike looks over at George, stirring cream into the cup. George, looking up, immediately asks Mike if he caught the ‘game’ on TV last night. From here, the two men launch into a brief three sentence conversation about the greatest weaknesses of the team that sounds very much like the sports commentators’ comments made last night and then abruptly depart. Response to event in light of concept Observing how these two men interact with each other certainly reinforces the concepts brought forward regarding male communication styles. Rather than exchanging official greetings, the men opt for a primitive nod as the option of least possible effort. It isn’t until one of the men notices a potentially feminine behavior, watering down the sharp taste of coffee with cream, before any words are spoken and these are spoken by the man with the cream. The subject of his words as well as the relatively surface level of the information passed along makes it obvious this man was working to assert his masculinity at a time when it might have been questioned. That George dominated the brief conversation also highlights this point and illustrates how there is a great deal of truth in the concepts unearthed. Female Communication Styles Introduction of concept In comparison to male communication signals, women who are talkative, intelligent and well organized are not necessarily perceived as the sort of asset presented by her male counterpart unless she also possesses stereotypical female qualities such as being able to communicate in a ‘womanly’ fashion and characterized as a nurturing warm-hearted individual. According to Wood (2001), women tend to use powerless language. They are more likely to add qualifications to or question their statements, are hesitant and are overly gracious in their choice of words. Their method of conversing allows for an evenness to the normal banter, a give and take type exchange without the need to have the upper hand in the conversation. Therefore, because of conversational rituals, women seem less of an authoritative figure than males within the office environment. Differences in conversational approaches employed by women can also be different based upon personality traits that can be characteristic of either gender. Women who are in roles such as judge, CEO or police officer often deliberately adopt an authoritative personality within their communication repertoire because it usually makes people uncomfortable and provides the woman with a more authoritative stance. While boys are encouraged to engage in aggressive behavior, including using more aggressive language and straightforward communication styles, girls are told not to display anger and to always provide room for others to move ahead. Women within this society are expected to be wrapped up in emotions, nurturing and submissive. Like men, there are also specific interests they are supposed to pursue, not necessarily as a vocation. These include children, hobbies and shopping. In specific terms of communication styles, women are considered less effective in the business world because they are concerned with discovering the emotions underlying office problems, involving themselves in the details of working things out. “Women … talk to get information and to connect or to gain rapport. They talk about people rather than things” (Sachs, 2001). As a result, women are more attuned to the underlying meaning within a conversation than men. This is primarily because women are born and/or trained to put a greater importance on the inner workings of relationships. “Women more frequently emphasize the similarities between themselves and others, and try to make decisions that make everyone happy” (Wood, 2001). Context of experience – seeing the concept at work Sitting in the same break room, only moments after Mike and George left, two women were observed coming in for their morning dose of caffeine. As opposed to the men, these women walked into the room together, already talking animatedly with each other. Unlike the men, they also noticed me sitting there and took time out of their conversation to greet me and ask if my day was starting well. Through my non-communicative stance, they assumed I wasn’t interested in joining their conversation and continued where they’d left off. Their conversation drifted around the problems one of the women was having with a small child who didn’t want to sleep in her own bed. As the women went about the kitchen, neatly preparing their morning solutions, they explored the emotional and psychological reasons why the child might feel this way as well as the physical loneliness of being away from parental protection. As they talked, there seemed to be a smooth, easy rhythm to their speech patterns, as if they were politely taking turns in sharing their ideas and were truly listening to what the other was saying. What was perhaps most striking about this conversation was the way it ended. After receiving a great deal of advice and input from her older friend, the younger woman sighed, commented on how she felt much better now and was only now ready to go to work. Response to event in light of concept As in the example of watching male communication styles, the female communication styles reinforced what was found in the literature. The women were obviously much more talkative with each other and had quickly passed over superficial details of public life and penetrated into the depths of very personal intimate life between a mother and her child. These did not seem to be embarrassing topics for the women to talk about as they discussed them freely in front of me, but they sounded like a couple of psychiatrists discussing a case rather than a couple of secretaries comparing notes on how to raise a family. Finally, the woman’s comment that she was only ready to go to work after having cleared her mind of her parental concerns regarding her daughter highlighted the importance these women placed on their emotions in working to get through the day. Nonverbal Communication Introduction of concept A great deal of how we attribute particular characteristics on others remains rooted in nonverbal communication cues that are relatively commonly understood within a general culture. Professor Jurgen Streeck at the University of Texas at Austin indicates the body is fundamental to our communication process, especially the use of our hands to help denote meaning (Griffith, 2003). However, this is not based on specific interpretations of clearly defined motions, such as hand up, palm forward means ‘stop’. Even when the specific gestures are not given a hard and fast definition applicable across cultures, body movement remains important. As proof that our bodies are integral to our ability to speak, Streeck videotaped several individuals in various settings and uses some of these videotapes as examples of how language is inextricably linked with gesture. Discussing a particular mechanic filmed, Streeck said “He thinks with his body. So when you see him on the phone pushing a car, it’s because pushing a car to him is not an abstract concept. It’s a body reaction. It doesn’t matter if he thinks on the phone or in the presence of others. Our gestures are a background phenomenon” (Griffith, 2003). While there are several gestures that have become widely accepted as being power movements, Streeck’s research emphasizes the individual nature of the gestures used. “It’s not possible to point to a particularly American way of gesturing or even a Texan or female or ethnic way of gesturing. … [Gestures] are your own personal embodied identity, gathered from your own experience. … And they may change over time” (Griffith, 2003). Thus, while understanding nonverbal communication is important in effective communication, the interpretations are not necessarily as precise as we might tend to assume. Context of experience – seeing the concept at work Nonverbal communication underlies both of the above scenarios in which a conversation between men was observed followed by a conversation between women. As the men talked, they seemed to keep a stiff distance between them. Their bodies, as they each stood at the counter, angled away from each other and they stood with their backs almost turned against the other. While they didn’t seem to harbor any particular animosity towards each other, there was an unmistakable definition of territory and exclusion. As each man spoke, he reversed his lean, seeming to lean in as if making a challenge. This was usually in the form of a casual motion in that general direction, but it wasn’t difficult to envision them as sparring partners in the ring. The women, however, had a general tendency to lean inward when they were listening, as if they were actually attempting to grasp as much meaning and understanding from the other person as they could. As they considered their ideas together, they had a tendency to lean their heads in toward each other, as if literally putting their heads together on the problem. The younger woman often used her hands to signify the frustration and helplessness she felt at the small child by throwing them around often while the older woman used her hands as a calming element, repeatedly bringing them down between them as she explained a point. Where I had envisioned the men as sparring partners in the ring, I saw these two women as children engaged in the highly partnered activity of patty-cake. Response to event in light of concept Perhaps it was because I was already analyzing these conversations in terms of the concepts I had discovered about male and female communication styles, but the differences in their nonverbal communication struck me as equally distinctive. The men took up something very reminiscent of fighting stances as they talked with each other, being careful not to meet the eyes too often which might be misinterpreted as a challenge and keeping their hands carefully controlled as they prepared their coffees. This reflects the aggressive behavior boys are socially conditioned to adopt as well as the concise characteristics of their speech. By contrast, the women were much more expressive in their use of body language as they talked to each other. Their hands expressed a great deal of the emotions they were discussing while their collaborative movements as they prepared coffee indicating a sharing of minds as they worked together to try to solve the younger women’s problems sufficiently to get her ready to work. Their nonverbal communication, just like their verbal communication, indicated a more talkative, emotion-filled and more fulfilling communication. Conclusion While it is generally considered that women do not make as effective leaders because of their more passive approach to communication, I am beginning to feel I do not agree. As I studied the differences between common communication styles of men and women, I saw benefits of both styles that are hard to justify ignoring. For example, while the typical male style of communication is effective in brokering deals, gaining instant adherence or accomplishing the transmission of information quickly, the female style of communication would seem to be much more effective in discovering creative solutions to common problems within the workplace and in the marketplace. Rather than expecting women to adopt a ‘masculine’ approach to communication, managers should strive to employ the best strategy for the type of situation being faced regardless of their personal gender. This does not mean a complete rejection of individual personality or an attempt to eradicate all former and now internalized training. Instead, it is the cultivation of an intuitive understanding of the benefits of each form of communication so as to adapt individual surface approach to more appropriately meet the need. An understanding of how these communication styles are delivered and understood provides a general sense of the appropriate times to use them. References Griffith, Vive. “Manual Dexterity.” University of Texas at Austin Journal. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2003. March 10, 2008 Sachs, Marilyn A. (July 6, 2001). “Male/Female Communication Styles.” Ohio State University. Wood, Julia T. (2001). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture. (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Read More