Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication in Action - Term Paper Example

Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication In Action Human beings communicate their thoughts and feelings to one another in verbal and non-verbal ways. Verbal communication, or speaking out to another person is often accompanied by non-verbal language which includes facial expressions, gestures, posture, body language and tone of voice. Sometimes, such non-verbal expressions say more than the verbalizations of a person. The way one communicates and receives information matters much in the quality of relationships he or she has with others. Effective communication takes practice and hard work especially for those who are not skilled in interpersonal relations. Several factors need to be considered when communicating: age, gender, relationship to the person, nature of the communication exchange, temperament and personality and even culture. Personal Communication In personal relationships, communication plays a bigger role in maintaining harmony and peace. Research on marriage and close relationships points to varying communication patterns shared by couples. “One salient pattern of communication in the marital interaction literature is the demand–withdraw pattern, in which one member (the demander) criticizes, nags, and makes demands of the other, while the partner (the withdrawer) avoids confrontation, withdraws, and becomes silent.” (Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins & Christensen, 2007, p.218) The demand-withdraw pattern is usually associated with relationship dissatisfaction, power differences, differences in desire for closeness and independence, femininity–masculinity, gender roles, and division of labor (Eldridge & Christensen, 2002). Although both genders may play both roles of demander and withdrawer, research on this topic consistently demonstrates that women are more often in the demanding role and men more often in the withdrawing role. This may be explained by the finding that the person who wants to initiate changes in the relationship mostly imposes the demands and usually, it is the woman who is more open to change (Kluwer, Heesink, & Van de Vliert, 2000; Margolin, Talovic, & Weinstein, 1983). Hence, she must rely on her partner’s compliance to induce change, must engage in behaviors to elicit change from the partner, and therefore may complain, demand, and pressure. Conversely, the man who has the burden of making change may find the woman’s demanding behavior as aversive and may resort to withdrawal and avoidance to reduce conflict and avoid change. The more change is desired, and the greater is the difference between partners in desiring change, the higher is the likelihood of demand–withdraw. In more distressed marriages, the desire for change is naturally higher, raising the probability of demanding and thus withdrawing behavior. If verbal language must be delivered clearly for it to be understood, it is much more difficult with non-verbal language. With verbal language, most of the time, it is thought out first before a person releases it. However, with non-verbal language, it naturally comes out even without thinking. Hence, the non-verbal communication can sometimes betray what a person says when his actions are not compatible with his words. Usually, this is where miscommunication happens. Parr, Boyle & Tejanda (2008) conducted a study on couples who have communication problems. Assumption of meaning is usually the root of the problem. Non-verbal cues, being powerful forms of communication are most often misinterpreted. Couples may disregard content of actual message verbalized and magnify non-verbal cues transmitted. Couples who have developed communication patterns with each other that are unhelpful, often mistakenly assume the intent of the message from the sender and the effect of the message on the recipient are the same (Weeks & Treat, 2001). This means that the recipient of the message assumes that whatever reaction he or she gets from the partner’s message is what the partner wanted him or her to feel. Times when reactions are negative are when conflicts ensue and therefore, it creates an atmosphere of mistrust and tension in the relationship (Gottman, 1999). Parr, Boyle & Tejanda (2008) tried to eliminate the influence of non-verbal language in the study with special communication exercises and asked the couples to merely focus on the verbal communication. There was a lot of difference observed, as confusing signals were taken out. It is inevitable to associate flirtatious behavior in inter-gender interactions. Abrahams (1994) defined flirtatious communications as “messages and behaviors perceived by a recipient as purposefully attempting to gain his or her attention and stimulate his or her interest in the sender, while simultaneously being perceived as intentionally revealing an affiliative desire” (p. 283). If the issue of flirtation in communication patterns were considered, Koeppel, Montagne-Miller, O’Hair and Cody (1993) found that men and women differed in their perceptions of flirtatiousness. Men’s perception of flirtatious and seductive behavior is strongly related to who initiated the interaction, while for women attribute flirtation to nonverbal displays. Luscombe (2008) enumerate some flirtatious non-verbal cues as follows: 1. OPEN BODY POSITION This come-and-get-me stance suggests the man is neither about to flee nor fight. 2. RAISED EYEBROWS Upon first seeing a potential mate, both men and women often briefly raise their eyebrows. 3. HEAD CANT Women frequently tilt their head to one side, exposing their neck, and sometimes flick their hair at the same time. 4. SUSTAINED EYE CONTACT Men and women both hold the gaze of someone they are interested in for longer than feels quite comfortable. 5. LEANING FORWARD Both genders tend to lean in toward people theyre attracted to. Sometimes theyll unconsciously point to them too, even if theyre across the room. 6. LEADING QUESTIONS A man will often ask a woman questions that allow her to show off her most attractive features. 7. SIDEWAYS GLANCES Often followed by a glance away or down and a shy smile, these coy looks are a classic flirting behavior for both sexes. Some people find it easier to communicate when they use gestures. Those with limited vocabulary, those who temporarily forget a certain word, and those who are learning new things and are relating them to more familiar knowledge may resort to using hand gestures. Singer, Radinsky, and Goldman (2008) studied sixth graders learning about more challenging Science lessons. The students tried to explain the lesson with a lot of hand gestures to more clearly express movement they have observed in the experiment. These gestures were referred to as an iconic or representational gesture (McNeill, 1992). Representational gestures express conceptual information (Crowder, 1996). Iconic imagery is used to express information about things (McNeill, 1992). Spatial phenomena and events that are difficult to conceptualize are shared with gestures bearing close resemblance to the image described. With the sixth grade students observed by Singer, Radinsky, and Goldman (2008), the representational gestures were made while they actively constructed knowledge about an abstract scientific phenomenon. They were successful in communicating their ideas despite their lack of scientific vocabulary (Crowder & Newman, 1993) Intercultural Communication In an intercultural setting where people from different countries inevitably get together for different purposes, inter-cultural practices and communication styles may reflect variations in beliefs, interpretations or communication of the main culture. An example is the Asian culture. There are some values upheld which may be “typically Asian”, such as honor and integrity. Within Asian countries, some interpretations differ. To illustrate, in one country, being able to look straight into the eye of another person when speaking, means that the person is sincere while in another country it denotes defiance and disrespect especially if the gaze is directed to a person of higher authority. Another example is the known gesture of nodding one’s head is taken to mean as “yes” while shaking the head means “no”. However, with Indian people, the reverse is true. These nuances need to be carefully taken in consideration in a multicultural environment. Communication in the Work Environment In the workplace, good communication is key in accomplishing tasks in pursuit of organizational goals. Dialogue is defined as “a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions and certainties that compose everyday experience.” (Isaacs, n.d.). In the organizational setting, dialogues are used to have a “meeting of minds”, extracting what each member believes and coming up with an agreed decision that takes into account those beliefs, Members think together, analyzing causes and effects, and end up understanding a shared meaning. Usually, they reach greater heights in idea-storming that as individuals, they could not have thought of. This is contrasted with the construct of consensus building wherein people “seek some rational means to limit options and focus on the ones that are logically acceptable to most people.” (Isaacs, n.d.). Usually, the final consensus is reached if only to end the discussion, and that is what the group can “live with for now”. There is no guarantee that whatever factor initially leading some members to disagree will just vanish after the consensus has been made. It is likely that some members walk away in resignation but not in total satisfaction. Richmond & McCroskey (2005) define organizational communication as “the process by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds of other individuals by means of verbal or nonverbal messages in the context of a formal organization.” Communication serves various purposes, and with each purpose, comes a different style of communicating. “Much of the informative communication in organizations is conducted in a written format. This way, a whole group of employees can be informed with one message and at one time. This is an effective method to disseminate information quickly. On the other hand, managers may decide to call a meeting once each week (or month) which is primarily of an informative nature.” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2005). The adage “Actions speak louder than words” rings true in a variety of situations. In the workplace, people manifest explicit verbal communication and implicit, non-verbal communication (Lee, 2008). Explicit verbal communication takes the form of direct reprimands or written memos to delinquent workers. Implicit, non-verbal communication is more action-oriented. An example is a boss deliberately showing a delinquent worker that he is taking over the tasks formerly assigned to the worker. The boss may not say anything, but the message comes across very clear to the worker that his inefficiency is noted by the boss. In times of conflict, the impact of implicit, nonverbal communication and explicit, verbal communication (that is, the written norm) is never equal. The more visible and stark the image, the more effective the message is delivered and received. Lee (2008) gives the example of a Fortune 500 chief executive choosing to lunch spontaneously in the cafeteria with employees he has never met. He approaches them and asks for their perspective on street-level obstacles to strategic execution. A little while later, he begins to take notes on the back of an old envelope. His action of lunching with ground-level employees communicates the message that he values ideas of his people no matter what position they have in the company. His non-verbal language goes way beyond body language, facial expression and vocal intonation. To sum up, verbal and nonverbal interactions play a part in the effective exchange of ideas. LeFebvre (2008) advises that when speaking, one must also be aware of body language and tone and inflection of voice. She notes that different ideas may be conveyed by simply emphasizing different parts of the statement. Being an active listener helps one understand the message being relayed to him. As the listener, one should hold his response until the speaker is done, and keenly observe nonverbal cues expressed. It must always be remembered that communication is a give and take process. One must learn to wait his turn to be the speaker and the listener. References Abrahams, M.F. (1994) Perceiving Flirtatious Communication: An Exploration of the Perceptual Dimensions Underlying Judgments of Flirtatiousness, The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 31, No. 4, 283-292 Crowder, E. M. (1996). Gestures at work in sense-making science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 173–208. Crowder, E. M., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gestures and language in children’s science explanations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 1, 339–374. Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand–withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 289–322). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Eldridge, K.A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D.C. & Christensen, A. (2007) Demand–Withdraw Communication In Severely Distressed, Moderately Distressed, And Nondistressed Couples: Rigidity And Polarity During Relationship And Personal Problem Discussions, Journal of Family Psychology 2007, Vol. 21, No. 2, 218–226 Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Isaacs, W.,(n.d.) Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). The division of labor in close relationships: An asymmetrical conflict issue. Personal Relationships, 7, 263–282. Koeppel, L.B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M.J. (1993) Friendly? Flirting? Wrong?”In P.J. Kalbfieisch (ed.) Interpersonal Communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13-32) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lee , T.J. (2008) Actions speak loudly, Communication World , July-August 2008 LeFebvre, K.B. (2008) Strengthen Your Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Oncology Nursing Society CONNECT September 2008 Luscombe, B. (2008) Why We Flirt. Time, Vol. 171, Issue 4 Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). Areas of Change Questionnaire: A practical approach to marital assessment, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 920–931. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parr, P., Boyle, R.A. & Tejada, L. (2008) I Said, You Said: A Communication Exercise for Couples, Contemporary Family Therapy 30:167–173 Richmond, V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. (2005) Organizational communication for survival: making work,work. Retrieved January 31, 2010 from http://www.ilstu.edu/~llipper/com329/mccroskey_chapter.pdf Singer, M., Radinsky, J. and Goldman, S.R. (2008) The Role of Gesture in Meaning Construction, Discourse Processes, 45:365–386 Weeks, G. R., & Treat, S. R. (2001). Couples in treatment: Techniques and approaches for effective practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner- Routledge. Read More