Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Verbal Communication

The basis of communication is the interaction between people.  Verbal communication is one way for people to communicate face-to-face.  Some of the key components of verbal communication are sound, words, speaking, and language. 
At birth, most people have vocal cords, which produce sounds.  As a child grows it learns how to form these sounds into words.  Some words may be imitative of natural sounds, but others may come from expressions of emotion, such as laughter or crying.  Words alone have no meaning.  Only people can put meaning into words.  As meaning is assigned to words, language develops, which leads to the development of speaking.
The actual origin of language is subject to considerable speculation.  Some theorists believe it is an outgrowth of group activities such as working together or dancing.  Others believe that language developed from basic sounds and gestures.
Over 3,000 languages and major dialects are spoken in the world today.  The development of languages reflects class, gender, profession, age group, and other social factors.  The huge variety of languages usually creates difficulties between different languages, but even within a single language there can be many problems in understanding.
Through speaking we try to eliminate this misunderstanding, but sometimes this is a very hard thing to do.  Just as we assume that our messages are clearly received, so we assume that because something is important to us, it is important to others.  As time has proven this is not at all true.  Many problems can arise is speaking and the only way to solve these problems is through experience.
Speaking can be looked at in two major areas: interpersonal and public speaking.  Since the majority of speaking is an interpersonal process, to communicate effectively we must not simply clean up our language, but learn to relate to people.
In interpersonal speaking, etiquette is very important.  To be an effective communicator one must speak in a manner that is not offending to the receiver.  Etiquette also plays an important role in an area that has developed in most all business settings: hierarchical communication.   In business today, hierarchical communication is of utmost importance to all members involved.
The other major area of speaking is public speaking.  From the origin of time, it has been obvious that some people are just better public speakers than others.  Because of this, today a good speaker can earn a living by speaking to people in a public setting.  Some of the major areas of public speaking are speaking to persuade, speaking to inform, and speaking to inspire or motivate.
To learn more about verbal communication in the previously mentioned areas, just follow these links:


Non-Verbal Commuication Modes

 What is non-verbal communication?
    Definition  “nonverbal communication involves those nonverbal stimuli in a communication setting that are generated by both the source [speaker] and his or her use of the environment and that have potential message value for the source or receiver [listener].   Basically it is sending and receiving messages in a variety of ways without the use of verbal codes (words).  It is both intentional and unintentional.  Most speakers / listeners are not conscious of this.   It includes — but is not limited to:
    • touch
    • glance
    • eye contact (gaze)
    • volume
    • vocal nuance
    • proximity
    • gestures
    • facial expression ? pause (silence)
    • intonation
    • dress
    • posture
    • smell
    • word choice and syntax
    • sounds (paralanguage)
    Broadly speaking, there are two basic categories of non-verbal language: 
            nonverbal messages produced by the body; 
            nonverbal messages produced by the broad setting (time, space, silence)
Why is non-verbal communication important?
    Basically, it is one of the key aspects of communication (and especially important in a high-context culture).  It has multiple functions: 
     
    • Used to repeat the verbal message (e.g. point in a direction while stating directions.
    • Often used to accent a verbal message. (e.g. verbal tone indicates the actual meaning of the specific words).
    • Often complement the verbal message but also may contradict.  E.g.: a nod reinforces a positive message (among Americans); a “wink” may contradict a stated positive message.
    • Regulate interactions (non-verbal cues covey when the other person should speak or not speak).
    • May substitute for the verbal message (especially if it is blocked by noise, interruption, etc) — i.e. gestures (finger to lips to indicate need for quiet), facial expressions (i.e. a nod instead of a yes).
    Note the implications of the proverb: “Actions speak louder than words.”  In essence, this underscores the importance of non-verbal communication.  Non-verbal communication is especially significant in intercultural situations. Probably non-verbal differences account for typical difficulties in communicating.
Cultural Differences in Non-verbal Communication
  1. General Appearance and Dress
  2. All cultures are concerned for how they look and make judgements based on looks and dress.  Americans, for instance, appear almost obsessed with dress and personal attractiveness.  Consider differing cultural standards on what is attractive in dress and on what constitutes modesty. Note ways dress is used as a sign of status?
  1. Body Movement
  2. We send information on attitude toward person (facing or leaning towards another), emotional statue (tapping fingers, jiggling coins), and desire to control the environment (moving towards or away from a person).
    More than 700,000 possible motions we can make — so impossible to categorize them all!  But just need to be aware the body movement and position is a key ingredient in sending messages. 
  3. Posture
  4. Consider the following actions and note cultural differences:
    • Bowing (not done, criticized, or affected in US; shows rank in Japan)
    • Slouching (rude in most Northern European areas)
    • Hands in pocket (disrespectful in Turkey)
    • Sitting with legs crossed (offensive in Ghana, Turkey)
    • Showing soles of feet. (Offensive in Thailand, Saudi Arabia)
    • Even in US, there is a gender difference on acceptable posture?
  5. Gestures
  6. Impossible to catalog them all.  But need to recognize: 1) incredible possibility and variety and 2) that an acceptable in one’s own culture may be offensive in another.  In addition, amount of gesturing varies from culture to culture.  Some cultures are animated; other restrained.  Restrained cultures often feel animated cultures lack manners and overall restraint.  Animated cultures often feel restrained cultures lack emotion or interest.
    Even simple things like using hands to point and count differ.
    Pointing : US with index finger; Germany with little finger; Japanese with entire hand (in fact most Asians consider pointing with index finger to be rude)
    Counting:  Thumb = 1 in Germany, 5 in Japan, middle finger for 1 in Indonesia.  
  7. Facial Expressions
  8. While some say that facial expressions are identical, meaning attached to them differs.  Majority opinion is that these do have similar meanings world-wide with respect to smiling, crying, or showing anger, sorrow, or disgust.  However, the intensity varies from culture to culture.  Note the following:
    • Many Asian cultures suppress facial expression as much as possible.
    • Many Mediterranean (Latino / Arabic) cultures exaggerate grief or sadness while most American men hide grief or sorrow.
    • Some see “animated” expressions as a sign of a lack of control.
    • Too much smiling is viewed in as a sign of shallowness.
    • Women smile more than men.
    •  
  9. Eye Contact and Gaze
  10. In USA, eye contact indicates: degree of attention or interest, influences attitude change or persuasion, regulates interaction, communicates emotion, defines power and status, and has a central role in managing impressions of others.
    • Western cultures — see direct eye to eye contact as positive (advise children to look a person in the eyes).  But within USA, African-Americans use more eye contact when talking and less when listening with reverse true for Anglo Americans.  This is a possible cause for some sense of unease between races in US.  A prolonged gaze is often seen as a sign of sexual interest.
    • Arabic cultures make prolonged eye-contact. — believe it shows interest and helps them understand truthfulness of the other person.  (A person who doesn’t reciprocate is seen as untrustworthy)
    • Japan, Africa, Latin American, Caribbean — avoid eye contact to show respect.
    •  
  11. Touch
  12. Question: Why do we touch, where do we touch, and what meanings do we assign when someone else touches us?
      Illustration: An African-American male goes into a convenience store recently taken over by new Korean immigrants.  He gives a $20 bill for his purchase to Mrs Cho who is cashier and waits for his change.  He is upset when his change is put down on the counter in front of him.
      What is the problem?  Traditional Korean (and many other Asian countries) don’t touch strangers., especially between members of the opposite sex.   But the African-American sees this as another example of discrimination (not touching him because he is black).

Tips for Communication

Whether writing or speaking, consider your objectives. What do you want your listeners or readers to remember or do? To achieve an objective, you need to be able to articulate it.
• Consider your audience. How receptive will it be? If you anticipate positive reception of your message, you can be more direct.
• Consider your credibility in relation to your audience. Also, consider the organizational environment. Is it thick or flat, centralized or decentralized? Each will have communication implications.
• How can you motivate others? Benefits are always your best bet. And if you can establish common ground, especially at the opening of a message, you can often make your audience 
more receptive.

• Think carefully about channel choice, about the advantages and disadvantages of your choice, and the preferred channels of your audience.
• If you want to have a permanent record or need to convey complex information, use a channel that involves writing. If your message is sensitive, email may not be the best choice; the immediacy of face-to-face communication can be preferable, especially when you would prefer not to have a written record.
Adapted from research on communication strategy by Mary Munter of the Tuck School at Dartmouth and Jane Thomas of the University of Michigan
Communication in a business organization 
provides the critical link 
between core functions.

Why Good Communication Is Good Business

Why is communication important to business? 
Couldn’t we just produce graduates skilled at 
crunching numbers?

Good communication matters because business 
organizations are made up of people. As Robert Kent, former 
dean of Harvard Business School has said, “In business, 
communication is everything.”

Research spanning several decades has consistently ranked communication skills as crucial for managers. Typically, managers spend 75 to 80 percent of their time engaged in some form of written or oral communication. Although often termed a “soft” skill, communication in a business organization provides the critical link between core functions. Let’s examine three reasons why good communication is important to individuals and their organizations.

Reason 1. Ineffective communication is very expensive

The National Commission on Writing estimates that American businesses spend $3.1 billion annually just training people to write. The Commission surveyed 120 human resource directors in companies affiliated with the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers from U.S. corporations.
According to the report of the National Commission on Writing:
  • People who cannot write and communicate clearly will not be hired, and if already working, are unlikely to last long enough to be considered for promotion.
  • Eighty percent or more of the companies in the services and the finance, insurance and real estate sectors—the corporations with greatest employment growth potential—assess writing during hiring.
  • Two-thirds of salaried employees in large American companies have some writing responsibility.
  • More than 40 percent of responding firms offer or require training for salaried employees with writing deficiencies.In a New York Times article about the Commission’s findings, Bob Kerrey, president of New School University in New York and chair of the National Commission on Writing, put it this way: “Writing is both a ‘marker’ of high-skill, high-wage, professional work and a ‘gatekeeper’ with clear equity implications. People unable to express themselves clearly in writing limit their opportunities for professional, salaried employment.” The ability to communicate was rated as the most important factor in making a manager “promotable” by subscribers to Harvard Business Review.

Reason 2. The changing environment and increasing complexity of the 21st century workplace make communication even more important.

Flatter organizations, a more diverse employee base and greater use of teams have all made communication essential to organizational success. Flatter organizations mean managers must communicate with many people over whom they may have no formal control. Even with their own employees, the days when a manager can just order people around are finished. The autocratic management model of past generations is increasingly being replaced by participatory management in which communication is the key to build trust, promote understanding and empower and motivate others.
Because the domestic workforce is growing more diverse, an organization can no longer assume its employee constituencies are homogeneous. Employees reflect differences in age, ethnic heritage, race, physical abilities, gender and sexual orientation. Diversity is not just a matter of social responsibility; it is also an economic issue. Companies are realizing the advantage of making full use of the creativity, talents, experiences and perspectives of a diverse employee base.
Teams are the modus operandi in the 21st century workplace. In a recent survey of Fortune 1000 companies, 83 percent reported that their firms use teams; teams are all about communication. The collaboration that allows organizations to capitalize on the creative potential of a diverse workforce depends on communication.

Reason 3. The world’s economy is becoming increasingly global.

By the end of the 20th century, 80 percent of U.S. products were competing in international markets. The direct investment of foreign-based companies grew from $9 trillion in 1966 to more than $300 trillion in 2002. Many products we assume are American, such as Purina Dog Chow and KitKat candy bars, are made overseas. Brands we may think are international, Grey Poupon mustard, Michelin tires and Evian water, are made in the United States.For managers, having international experience is rapidly moving from “desirable” to “essential.” A study by the Columbia University School of Business reported that successful executives must have multi-environment and multinational experience to become CEOs in the 21st century. The ability to compete in the global economy is the single greatest challenge facing business today. Organizations will want to negotiate, buy and sell overseas, consider joint ventures, market and adapt products for an international market and improve their expatriates’ success rate. All of this involves communication.
Products have failed overseas sometimes simply because a name may take on unanticipated meanings in translation: the Olympic copier Roto in Chile (roto in Spanish means ‘broken’); the Chevy Nova in Puerto Rico (no va means ‘doesn’t go’); the Randan in Japan (randan means ‘idiot’); Parker Pen’s Jotter pen (‘jockstrap’ in some Latin American markets). This type of mishap is not an American monopoly: A successful European chocolate and fruit product was introduced into the U.S. with the unfortunate name “Zit.”
Naming a product is communication at its simplest level. The overall implications of intercultural communication for global business are enormous. Take the case of EuroDisney, later renamed Disneyland Paris. For the year 1993, the theme park lost approximately US $1 billion. Losses were still at US $1 million a day in 1994-95. There were many reasons for this, including a recession in Europe, but intercultural insensitivity was also a very important factor. No attention was paid to the European context or to cultural differences in management practice, labor relations, or even such simple matters as preferred dining hours or availability of alcohol and tobacco. EuroDisney signals the danger for business practitioners immersed in financial forecasting, market studies and management models when they overlook how culture affects behavior. Few things are more important to conducting business on a global scale than skill in intercultural communication

Interpersonal Communication Skills

Conceptual Model

Communication is a two-way process in which people transmit (send) and receive;
  • ideas
  • information
  • opinions or
  • emotions.
These must be interpreted and reacted on, normally through feedback before the communication process is completed. In the world of business, the aim should be to develop communication patterns, between individuals and groups, that are;
  • meaningful
  • direct
  • open, and
  • honest.
A manager conveys information and instructions through communication, either written or verbal. It is therefore a vital link between the manager and his or her team and effective communication is the key to good management. Yet, in reality, it is a very poor link.
We have quoted Drucker above on this issue. If you still have any doubts, just consider the results (Warner (1981)) of two surveys on this subject. According to the first survey, we are all being constantly bombarded with messages, and of around 2000 a day, we will only remember some 65 - hardly a good average.
The other and completely independent survey confirms this very low rate of retention, but goes a step further in looking at the retention for the various means of communication:
  • Reading 10% retention
  • Hearing 20% retention
  • Seeing 30% retention
  • Hearing and seeing 50% retention
This study provides a very useful clue to effective communication, and confirms that audio-visual techniques are much better than just audio or visual. Also that writing / reading messages is the least effective way to communicate. There are broadly four components of any communication:
  • communicator;
  • medium;
  • message; and
  • recipient.
But we tend to focus attention on only one of the four, the message. The other three components are usually ignored and this leads to a complete breakdown in communications. In the case of international business communications there are additional factors such as language barriers and cultural differences. These can further complicate the picture by distorting the message

Plain talking

A neglected skill? It must be! Since there is even a book (referenced in PDF) by a well-known author on the subject. Just read his 'Plain Talk'. This is a book on plain talk. It tells you how to speak and write so that people understand what you mean.
So, obviously we need to be taught how to talk plain language. Much of the work in business organizations is in teams, say a project team or task force.
Typically, the members of such a team may have backgrounds in accounting, engineering, legal, production and computing. A project team comprising five such professionals are known to behave like five different firms, each concerned with their own world . For example:
  • Accountant - presents the analysis in jargon
  • Engineer - uses every technical phrase learnt at school
  • Lawyer - speaks in Latin
In effect, all at different wavelengths. If the project manager talks in plain words to the team - "anyone who cannot use words understood by a high school student would be kicked off the team". This is bound to have immediate effect and everyone will start talking in plain language.
Words can indeed mean different things to different people. There is, or was, a sign in the Pentagon in Washington that proclaims:
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Humpty Dumpty explaining his philosophy of life to Alice, says:
"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
Are we all living in "wonderland"? Those gentlemen at the Pentagon seemed to think so, if the sign above is any indication of their thinking.

Listening

Why all this fuss about listening? Surely, after all that we have said so far on communications, this question ought not to be asked, but we are sure it should be asked, because nobody really listens! It is a vital communication skill, yet it is always being taken for granted that people actually listen and understand.
A survey based on interviews and questionnaire among 400 project engineering personnel proved that nearly 80 per cent of a managers time is spent in face-to-face interpersonal interaction with co-worker. It was found that although the substance of the oral message was important, the style and credibility were the key to the impact of the message on the receiver - a point which we have made earlier in this sub-section.
In another survey, more than three hundred members of the academy of Certified Administrative Managers were asked: "What abilities or competencies do you consider to be the 20 per cent that yields the 80 per cent results?" This 20:80 rule has its origin in the well-known Pareto law, sometimes expressed in the statement, vital few versus trivial many.
The survey led to a consensus amongst twenty critical managerial skills, of which four were rated by the participants as 'super critical', seven as 'highly critical' and nine as 'critical'. The four super-critical activities were found to be, in descending order of importance:
  • active listening;
  • giving clear effective instructions;
  • accepting your share of responsibility;
  • identifying the real problem.
Isn't that interesting? All the four super-critical activities relate to communication and of these listening is considered to be the most important.
Listening is big business these days. There are several full-time consultants, and seminar leaders who are occupied entirely, day in, day out, with this one subject.
There is also the International Listening Association, with members from several countries, which aims to promote effective listening through exchange of information, methods, experience and materials and pursuing research on the subject.

Negotiating

This is the title of a set of three articles (referenced in the PDF). The kernel of the advice given is summed up thus:
Good preparation and a proper technique can make sitting down at the negotiating table a pleasant experience from which both parties gain what they want.
This is the so-called 'win-win' rather than a 'win-lose' situation, making negotiation a cooperative effort rather than a competitive process. If and when one of the parties is convinced that there is nothing further to gain, the negotiation process will come to an end.
Another recent book on the subject starts (referenced in the PDF) with what one might think is a most obvious statement:
"Your real world is a giant negotiating table and like it or not, you are a participant."
Life is full of negotiations indeed and managers are constantly involved in these in the course of their normal work. Their success, in fact, depends on how they handle their daily negotiations with their teams, their peers and their top management and a host of other agencies. They could order their team mates around, but the surest way to accomplish their tasks would be to negotiate with them and gently persuade them onwards to their goal. They should be able to negotiate for what they want and on this they should be quite clear. To quote Henry Ford I:
"If you think you can or you cant you're always right."
For negotiation to succeed a manager must first find out what the other side wants and then show them the way that they can get it, whilst they (the manager) are still getting what they want. This is the most satisfactory solution, the 'win-win' equation as noted earlier. It is not always possible, but it is also the only equation acceptable to both parties.
So nothing short of that will really do. In negotiating with people of other nationalities, the manager must take into account the cultural differences between them and also their significant national traits. But above all it will be the personal element that is most important. This applies not only at the top but also at the detailed working level, between the members of the team and their counterparts. It was Sir John Buckley, chairman of the Davy Corporation, who after a round of discussions and negotiations in China remarked:
'... in this business where lots of money is being spent - the customer likes to look the top man in the eye from time to time to say you are going to stand by me, aren't you?'
This kind of feeling cannot be conveyed by telephone or letter. On the subject of contractual negotiations, Sir John also mentioned that Chinese prefer simple and brief contracts. They seem to say that there's nothing in the world you can't get into three pages. If we did not trust you, we would not do business with you.
This is in sharp contrast to the American and European practice of elaborate contracts covering just about everything under the sun, including all eventualities. Sir John implied candidly that, after all, in this field most business is done between consenting adults in private!
Let us conclude this section by two tips (referenced in the PDF) on negotiation. Firstly, never forget the power of your attitude, since nothing gives a person so much advantage over another as to remain cool and unruffled under all circumstances. Secondly, never judge the actions and motives of others since it is impossible to look into someone's heart or mind.


There are many books dealing exclusively with the subject of listening and the message running through all of them is simply this: listening is vital yet much neglected. It is a skill that can and must be acquired. They all seek to point the way to perfection, each author having his or her own 'golden rules'. Many of them, of course, are much the same in principle, only expressed in different words. We give you, for your use, the ten rules from a book (referenced) published by the American Management Association:
  • Look at the speaker.
  • Question the speaker to get clarification.
  • Show concern about the speakers feelings.
  • Repeat occasionally to confirm.
  • Don't rush the speaker.
  • Have poise and emotional control.
  • Respond with a nod, a smile or a frown.
  • Pay close attention.
  • Don't interrupt.
  • Keep on the subject till the speaker finishes his or her thoughts.
Let us conclude by saying that listening is a gift and a skill that can be learnt and must be learnt and to learn it will not cost you a great deal of money - yet it is priceless to the person to whom you are listening, and the skill is absolutely essential for you, as manager and as individual, both in your professional and your personal life, to be truly effective.

Business communications in the twenty-first century

We were told in a book (Haigh, Gerbner & Byrne (1981)) by this title that the potential of the new communications technology is far-reaching and poses the valid question as to how we can integrate these advances into our lives. Our experience shows that technological progress does not always lead to human progress.
The new tools of communication have as much power to alienate people as to bring them together. In fact the former would result from the 'Don't commute- communicate' prediction (Clarke (1978)). There will be no more of the 'huddling' or the 'manage by walking around'.

Conclusions

Hear with your ears, listen with your mind
Communications are vital in management; in fact, they are the essence of management. We have shown that our communications skills are poor, and the poorest of these is listening. Managers spend a great deal, over half, of their time listening, or at least hearing, and yet they have never had any formal training in this discipline.
Any wonder, then, that the listening efficiency is very low-of the order of 25 per cent. Negotiation is also what management is about, so we discuss this in order to achieve the 'win-win' situation. Some of the recent works on 'huddling' and 'manage by walking around' have been found to be most effective in business situations.
A complete revolution in communication technology has and is still under way, but while it is making a most useful contribution, there is an urgent need to stay with the 'basics' of human nature vis-a-vis communications.

Models of the Communication Process

Shannon's (1948) model of the communication process is, in important ways, the beginning of the modern field. It provided, for the first time, a general model of the communication process that could be treated as the common ground of such diverse disciplines as journalism, rhetoric, linguistics, and speech and hearing sciences. Part of its success is due to its structuralist reduction of communication to a set of basic constituents that not only explain how communication happens, but why communication sometimes fails. Good timing played a role as well. The world was barely thirty years into the age of mass radio, had arguably fought a world war in its wake, and an even more powerful, television, was about to assert itself. It was time to create the field of communication as a unified discipline, and Shannon's model was as good an excuse as any. The model's enduring value is readily evident in introductory textbooks. It remains one of the first things most students learn about communication when they take an introductory communication class. Indeed, it is one of only a handful of theoretical statements about the communication process that can be found in introductory textbooks in both mass communication and interpersonal communication.

Shannon's model, as shown in Figure 1, breaks the process of communication down into eight discrete components:.
  1. An information source. Presumably a person who creates a message.
  2. The message, which is both sent by the information source and received by the destination.
  3. transmitter. For Shannon's immediate purpose a telephone instrument that captures an audio signal, converts it into an electronic signal, and amplifies it for transmission through the telephone network. Transmission is readily generalized within Shannon's information theory to encompass a wide range of transmitters. The simplest transmission system, that associated with face-to-face communication, has at least two layers of transmission. The first, the mouth (sound) and body (gesture), create and modulate a signal. The second layer, which might also be described as a channel, is built of the air (sound) and light (gesture) that enable the transmission of those signals from one person to another. A television broadcast would obviously include many more layers, with the addition of cameras and microphones, editing and filtering systems, a national signal distribution network (often satellite), and a local radio wave broadcast antenna.
  4. The signal, which flows through a channel. There may be multiple parallel signals, as is the case in face-to-face interaction where sound and gesture involve different signal systems that depend on different channels and modes of transmission. There may be multiple serial signals, with sound and/or gesture turned into electronic signals, radio waves, or words and pictures in a book.
  5. A carrier or channel, which is represented by the small unlabeled box in the middle of the model. The most commonly used channels include air, light, electricity, radio waves, paper, and postal systems. Note that there may be multiple channels associated with the multiple layers of transmission, as described above.
  6. Noise, in the form of secondary signals that obscure or confuse the signal carried. Given Shannon's focus on telephone transmission, carriers, and reception, it should not be surprising that noise is restricted to noise that obscures or obliterates some portion of the signal within the channel. This is a fairly restrictive notion of noise, by current standards, and a somewhat misleading one. Today we have at least some media which are so noise free that compressed signals are constructed with an absolutely minimal amount information and little likelihood of signal loss. In the process, Shannon's solution to noise, redundancy, has been largely replaced by a minimally redundant solution: error detection and correction. Today we use noise more as a metaphor for problems associated with effective listening.
  7. receiver. In Shannon's conception, the receiving telephone instrument. In face to face communication a set of ears (sound) and eyes (gesture). In television, several layers of receiver, including an antenna and a television set.
  8. destination. Presumably a person who consumes and processes the message.
Like all models, this is a minimalist abstraction of the reality it attempts to reproduce. The reality of most communication systems is more complex. Most information sources (and destinations) act as both sources and destinations. Transmitters, receivers, channels, signals, and even messages are often layered both serially and in parallel such that there are multiple signals transmitted and received, even when they are converged into a common signal stream and a common channel. Many other elaborations can be readily described.. It remains, however, that Shannon's model is a useful abstraction that identifies the most important components of communication and their general relationship to one another. That value is evident in its similarity to real world pictures of the designs of new communication systems, including Bell's original sketches of the telephone, as seen in Figure 2.
Bell's Sketch of the Telephone
Figure 2: Bell's drawing of the workings of a telephone, from his original sketches (source: Bell Family Papers; Library of Congress; http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mcc/004/0001.jpg)
Bell's sketch visibly contains an information source and destination, transmitters and receivers, a channel, a signal, and an implied message (the information source is talking). What is new, in Shannon's model (aside from the concept of noise, which is only partially reproduced by Bell's batteries), is a formal vocabulary that is now generally used in describing such designs, a vocabulary that sets up both Shannon's mathematical theory of information and a large amount of subsequent communication theory. This correspondence between Bell's sketch and Shannon's model is rarely remarked (see Hopper, 1992 for one instance).
Shannon's model isn't really a model of communication, however. It is, instead, a model of the flow of information through a medium, and an incomplete and biased model that is far more applicable to the system it maps, a telephone or telegraph, than it is to most other media. It suggests, for instance, a "push" model in which sources of information can inflict it on destinations. In the real world of media, destinations are more typically self-selecting "consumers" of information who have the ability to select the messages they are most interested in, turn off messages that don't interest them, focus on one message in preference to other in message rich environments, and can choose to simply not pay attention. Shannon's model depicts transmission from a transmitter to a receiver as the primary activity of a medium. In the real world of media, messages are frequently stored for elongated periods of time and/or modified in some way before they are accessed by the "destination". The model suggests that communication within a medium is frequently direct and unidirectional, but in the real world of media, communication is almost never unidirectional and is often indirect.

Derivative Models of the Communication Process

One of these shortcomings is addressed in Figure 2's intermediary model of communication (sometimes referred to as the gatekeeper model or two-step flow (Katz, 1957)). This model, which is frequently depicted in introductory texts in mass communication, focuses on the important role that intermediaries often play in the communication process. Mass communication texts frequently specifically associate editors, who decide what stories will fit in a newspaper or news broadcast, with this intermediary or gatekeeper role. There are, however, many intermediary roles (Foulger, 2002a) associated with communication. Many of these intermediaries have the ability to decide what messages others see, the context in which they are seen, and when they see them. They often have the ability, moreover, to change messages or to prevent them from reaching an audience (destination). In extreme variations we refer to such gatekeepers as censors. Under the more normal conditions of mass media, in which publications choose some content in preference to other potential content based on an editorial policy, we refer to them as editors (most mass media), moderators (Internet discussion groups), reviewers (peer-reviewed publications), or aggregators (clipping services), among other titles . Delivery workers (a postal delivery worker, for instance) also act as intermediaries, and have the ability to act as gatekeepers, but are generally restricted from doing so as a matter of ethics and/or law.
Figure 3: An Intermediary Model.
Variations of Figure 3's gatekeeper model are also used in teaching organizational communication, where gatekeepers, in the form of bridges and liaisons, have some ability to shape the organization through their selective sharing of information. These variations are generally more complex in depiction and often take the form of social network diagrams that depict the interaction relationships of dozens of people. They network diagrams often presume, or at least allow, bi-directional arrows such that they are more consistent with the notion that communication is most often bidirectional.
The bidirectionality of communication is commonly addressed in interpersonal communication text with two elaborations of Shannon's model (which is often labeled as the action model of communication): the interactive model and the transactive model. The interactive model, a variant of which is shown in Figure 4, elaborates Shannon's model with the cybernetic concept of feedback (Weiner, 1948, 1986), often (as is the case in Figure 4) without changing any other element of Shannon's model. The key concept associated with this elaboration is that destinations provide feedback on the messages they receive such that the information sources can adapt their messages, in real time. This is an important elaboration, and as generally depicted, a radically oversimplified one. Feedback is a message (or a set of messages). The source of feedback is an information source. The consumer of feedback is a destination. Feedback is transmitted, received, and potentially disruptable via noise sources. None of this is visible in the typical depiction of the interactive model. This doesn't diminish the importance of feedback or the usefulness of elaborating Shannon's model to include it. People really do adapt their messages based on the feedback they receive. It is useful, however, to notice that the interactive model depicts feedback at a much higher level of abstraction than it does messages.
Cybernetic or Feedback Model
Figure 4: An Interactive Model:
This difference in the level of abstraction is addressed in the transactional model of communication, a variant of which is shown in Figure 5. This model acknowledges neither creators nor consumers of messages, preferring to label the people associated with the model as communicators who both create and consume messages. The model presumes additional symmetries as well, with each participant creating messages that are received by the other communicator. This is, in many ways, an excellent model of the face-to-face interactive process which extends readily to any interactive medium that provides users with symmetrical interfaces for creation and consumption of messages, including notes, letters, C.B. Radio, electronic mail, and the radio. It is, however, a distinctly interpersonal model that implies an equality between communicators that often doesn't exist, even in interpersonal contexts. The caller in most telephone conversations has the initial upper hand in setting the direction and tone of a a telephone callr than the receiver of the call (Hopper, 1992).In face-to-face head-complement interactions, the boss (head) has considerably more freedom (in terms of message choice, media choice, ability to frame meaning, ability to set the rules of interaction) and power to allocate message bandwidth than does the employee (complement). The model certainly does not apply in mass media contexts.
Transactional Model of Communication
Figure 5: A Transactional Model:
The "masspersonal" (xxxxx, 199x) media of the Internet through this implied symmetry into even greater relief. Most Internet media grant everyone symmetrical creation and consumption interfaces. Anyone with Internet access can create a web site and participate as an equal partner in e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, computer conferences, collaborative composition sites, blogs, interactive games, MUDs, MOOs, and other media. It remains, however, that users have very different preferences in their message consumption and creation. Some people are very comfortable creating messages for others online. Others prefer to "lurk"; to freely browse the messages of others without adding anything of their own. Adding comments to a computer conference is rarely more difficult than sending an e-mail, but most Internet discussion groups have many more lurkers (consumers of messages that never post) than they have contributors (people who both create and consume messages). Oddly, the lurkers sometimes feel more integrated with the community than the contributors do (Baym, 2000).

A New Model of the Communication Process

Existing models of the communication process don't provide a reasonable basis for understanding such effects. Indeed, there are many things that we routinely teach undergraduates in introductory communication courses that are missing from, or outright inconsistent with, these models. Consider that:
  • we now routinely teach students that "receivers" of messages really "consume" messages. People usually have a rich menu of potential messages to choose from and they select the messages they want to hear in much the same way that diners select entrees from a restaurant menu. We teach students that most "noise" is generated within the listener, that we engage messages through "selective attention", that one of the most important things we can do to improve our communication is to learn how to listen, that mass media audiences have choices, and that we need to be "literate" in our media choices, even in (and perhaps especially in) our choice of television messages. Yet all of these models suggest an "injection model" in which message reception is automatic.
  • we spend a large portion of our introductory courses teaching students about language, including written, verbal, and non-verbal languages, yet language is all but ignored in these models (the use of the term in Figure 5 is not the usual practice in depictions of the transactive model).
  • we spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the importance of perception, attribution, and relationships to our interpretation of messages; of the importance of communication to the perceptions that others have of us, the perceptions we have of ourselves, and the creation and maintenence of the relationships we have with others. These models say nothing about the role of perception and relationshp to the way we interpret messages or our willingness to consume messages from different people.
  • we spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the socially constructed aspects of languages, messages, and media use. Intercultural communication presumes both social construction and the presumption that people schooled in one set of conventions will almost certainly violate the expectations of people schooled in a different set of expectations. Discussions of the effects of media on culture presume that communication within the same medium may be very different in different cultures, but that the effects of the medium on various cultures will be more uniform. Existing general models provide little in the way of a platform from which these effects can be discussed.
  • when we use these models in teaching courses in both interpersonal and mass communication; in teaching students about very different kinds of media. With the exception of the Shannon model, we tend to use these models selectively in describing those media, and without any strong indication of where the medium begins or ends; without any indication of how media interrelate with languages, messages, or the people who create and consume messages.without addressing the ways in which they are . while these media describe, in a generalized way, media,
The ecological model of communication, shown in Figure 6, attempts to provide a platform on which these issues can be explored. It asserts that communication occurs in the intersection of four fundamental constructs: communication between people (creators and consumers) is mediated by messages which are created using language within media; consumed from media and interpreted using language.This model is, in many ways, a more detailed elaboration of Lasswell's (1948) classic outline of the study of communication: "Who ... says what ... in which channel ... to whom ... with what effect". In the ecological model , the "who" are the creators of messages, the "says what" are the messages, the "in which channel" is elaborated into languages (which are the content of channels) and media (which channels are a component of), the "to whom" are the consumers of messages, and the effects are found in various relationships between the primitives, including relationships, perspectives, attributions, interpretations, and the continuing evolution of languages and media.

Figure 6: A Ecological Model of the Communication Process

A number of relationships are described in this model:
  1. Messages are created and consumed using language
  2. Language occurs within the context of media
  3. Messages are constructed and consumed within the context of media
  4. The roles of consumer and creator are reflexive. People become creators when they reply or supply feedback to other people. Creators become consumers when they make use of feedback to adapt their messages to message consumers. People learn how to create messages through the act of consuming other peoples messages.
  5. The roles of consumer and creator are introspective. Creators of messages create messages within the context of their perspectives of and relationships with anticipated consumers of messages. Creators optimize their messages to their target audiences. Consumers of messages interpret those messages within the context of their perspectives of, and relationships with, creators of messages. Consumers make attributions of meaning based on their opinion of the message creator. People form these perspectives and relationships as a function of their communication.
  6. The messages creators of messages construct are necessarily imperfect representations of the meaning they imagine. Messages are created within the expressive limitations of the medium selected and the meaning representation space provided by the language used. The message created is almost always a partial and imperfect representation of what the creator would like to say.
  7. A consumers interpretation of a messages necessarily attributes meaning imperfectly. Consumers intepret messages within the limits of the languages used and the media those languages are used in. A consumers interpretation of a message may be very different than what the creator of a message imagined.
  8. People learn language by through the experience of encountering language being used within media. The languages they learn will almost always be the languages when communicating with people who already know and use those languages. That communication always occurs within a medium that enables those languages.
  9. People learn media by using media. The media they learn will necessarilly be the media used by the people they communicate with.
  10. People invent and evolve languages. While some behavior expressions (a baby's cry) occur naturally and some aspects of language structure may mirror the ways in which the brain structures ideas, language does not occur naturally. People invent new language when there is no language that they can be socialized into. People evolve language when they need to communicate ideas that existing language is not sufficient to.
  11. People invent and evolve media While some of the modalities and channels associated with communication are naturally occurring, the media we use to communicate are not.
A medium of communication is, in short, the product of a set of complex interactions between its primary consituents: messages, people (acting as creators of messages, consumers of messages, and in other roles), languages, and media. Three of these consituents are themselves complex systems and the subject of entire fields of study, including psychology, sociology, anthropology (all three of which study people), linguistics (language), media ecology (media), and communication (messages, language, and media). Even messages can be regarded as complex entities, but its complexities can be described entirely within the scope of languages, media, and the people who use them. This ecological model of communication is, in its most fundamental reading, a compact theory of messages and the systems that enable them. Messages are the central feature of the model and the most fundamental product of the interaction of people, language, and media. But there are other products of the model that build up from that base of messages, including (in a rough ordering to increased complexity) observation, learning, interpretation, socialization, attribution, perspectives, and relationships.

Discussion: Positioning the study of media in the field of communication

It is in this layering of interdependent social construction that this model picks up its name. Our communication is not produced within any single system, but in the intersection of several interrelated systems, each of which is self-standing necessarily described by dedicated theories, but each of which is both the product of the others and, in its own limited way, an instance of the other. The medium is, as McLuhan famously observed, a message that is inherent to every message that is created in or consumed from a medium. The medium is, to the extent that we can select among media, also a language such that the message of the medium is not only inherent to a message, but often an element of its composition. In what may be the most extreme view enabled by the processing of messages within media, the medium may also be a person and consumes messages, recreates them, and makes the modified messages available for further consumption. A medium is really none of these things. It is fundamentally a system that enables the construction of messages using a set of languages such that they can be consumed. But a medium is also both all of these things and the product of their interaction. People learn, create, and evolve media as a vehicle for enabling the creation and consumption of messages.
The same might be said of each of the constituents of this model. People can be, and often are, the medium (insofar as they act as messengers), the language (insofar as different people can be selected as messengers), or the message (one's choice of messenger can be profoundly meaningful). Fundamentally a person is none of these things, but they can be used as any of these things and are the product of their experience of all of these things. Our experience of messages, languages, media, and through them, other people, is fundamental in shaping who we become and how we think of ourselves and others. We invent ourselves, and others work diligently to shape that invention, through our consumption of messages, the languages we master, and the media we use.
Language can be, and often are, the message (that is inherent to every message constructed with it), the medium (but only trivially), the person (both at the level of the "language instinct" that is inherent to people (following Pinker, xxxxx) and a socialized semiotic overlay on personal experience), and even "the language" (insofar as we have a choice of what language we use in constructing a given message). Fundamentally a language is none of these things, but it can be used as any of these things and is the product of our use of media to construct messages. We use language, within media, to construct messages, such as definitions and dictionaries) that construct language. We invent and evolve language as a product of our communication.
As for messages, they reiterate all of these constituents. Every message is a partial and incomplete precis of the language that it is constructed with, the medium it is created in and consumed from, and the person who created it. Every message we consume allows us to learn a little more about the language that we interpret with, the medium we create and consume messages in, and the person who created the message. Every message we create is an opportunity to change and extend the language we use, evolve the media we use, and influence the perspective that consumers of our messages have of us. Yet fundamentally, a message is simply a message, an attempt to communicate something we imagine such that another person can correctly intepret the message and thus imagine the same thing.
This welter of intersecting McLuhanesque/Burkean metaphors and interdependencies provides a second source of the models name. This model seeks, more than anything, to position language and media as the intermediate building blocks on which communication is built. The position of language as a building block of messages and and communication is well understood. Over a century of study in semantics, semiotics, and linguistics have produced systematic theories of message and language production which are well understood and generally accepted. The study of language is routinely incorporated into virtually all programs in the field of communication, including journalism, rhetoric and speech, film, theater, broadcast media, language arts, speech and hearing sciences telecommunications, and other variants, including departments of "language and social interaction". The positioning of the study of media within the field of communication is considerably more tenuous. Many departments, including most of those named in this paragraph, focus almost entirely on only one or two media, effectively assuming the medium such that the focus of study can be constrained to the art of message production and interpretation, with a heavy focus on the languages of the medium and little real introspection about what it means to use that medium in preference to another or the generalized ways in which all media are invented, learned, evolved, socialized, selected or used meaningfully.
Such is, however, the primary subject matter of the newly emerging discipline of media ecology, and this model can be seen as an attempt to position media ecology relative to language and messages as a building block of our communication. This model was created specifically to support theories of media and position them relative to the process of communication. It is hoped that the reader finds value in that positioning.

Conclusion: Theoretical and Pedogogical Value

Models are a fundamental building block of theory. They are also a fundamental tool of instruction. Shannon's information theory model, Weiner's Cybernetic model, and Katz' two step flow each allowed allowed scholars decompose the process of communication into discrete structural elements. Each provides the basis for considerable bodies of communication theory and research. Each model also provides teachers with a powerful pedagogical tool for teaching students to understand that communication is a complex process in which many things can, and frequently do, go wrong; for teaching students the ways in which they can perfect different skills at different points in the communication process to become more effective communicators. But while Shannon's model has proved effective across the primary divides in the field of communication, the other models Katz' and Weiner's models have not. Indeed, they in many ways exemplify that divide and the differences in what is taught in courses oriented to interpersonal communication and mass communication.
Weiner's cybernetic model accentuates the interactive structure of communication. Katz' model accentuates its production structure. Students of interpersonal communication are taught, through the use of the interactive/cybernetic and transactive models that attending to the feedback of their audience is an important part of being an effective communicator. Students of mass communication are taught, through the intermediary/gatekeeper/two-step flow model, that controlled production processes are an important part of being an effective communicator. The difference is a small one and there is no denying that both attention to feedback and attention to detail are critical skills of effective communicators, but mass media programs focus heavily on the minutiae of production, interpersonal programs focus heavily on the munitiae of attention to feedback. Despite the fact that both teach both message production the languages used in message production, and the details of the small range of media that each typically covers, they discuss different media, to some extent different languages, and different approaches to message production. These differences, far more than more obvious differences like audience size or technology, are the divides that seperate the study of interpersonal communication from mass communication.
The ecological model of communication presented here cannot, by itself, remediate such differences, but it does reconsitute and extend these models in ways that make it useful, both pedogogically and theoretically, across the normal disciplinary boundaries of the field of communication. The author has made good use of the model in teaching a variety of courses within several communication disciplines, including on interpersonal communication, mass media criticism, organizational communication, communication ethics, communication in relationships and communities, and new communication technologies. In introductory Interpersonal Communication classes the model has shown considerable value in outlining and tying together such diverse topics as the social construction of the self, verbal and non-verbal languages, listening, relationship formation and development, miscommunication, perception, attribution, and the ways in which communication changes in different interpersonal media. In an Organizational Communication class the model has proved value in tying comtemporary Organizational models, including network analysis models, satisficing, and Weick's model to key organizational skills like effective presentation, listening, and matching the medium to the goal and the stakeholder. In a communication ethics class it has proved valuable in elaborating the range of participants in media who have ethical responsibilities and the scope of their responsibilities. In a mass media criticism class it has proved useful in showing how different critical methods relate to the process of communication and to each other. In each course the model has proved valuable, not only in giving students tools with which they can decompose communication, but which they can organize the course materials into a cohesive whole.
While the model was originally composed for pedagogical purposes, the primary value for the author has been theoretical. The field of communication encompasses a wide range of very different and often unintegrated theories and methods. Context-based gaps in the field like the one between mass media and interpersonal communication have been equated to those of "two sovereign nations," with "different purposes, different boundaries", "different methods", and "different theoretical orientations" (Berger and Chaffee, 1988), causing at least some to doubt that the field can ever be united by a common theory of communication (Craig, 1999). xxxxx The author repeatedly finds these gaps and boundaries problematic
It may be be that complex model of the communication process that bridges the theoretical orientations of interpersonal, organizational, and mass media perspectives can help to bridge this gap and provide something more than the kind of metamodel that Craig calls for. Defining media directly into the process of communication may help to provide the kind of substrate that would satisfy Cappella's (1991) suggestion we can "remake the field by altering the organizational format", replacing contexts with processes that operate within the scope of media. This perspective does exactly that. The result does not integrate all of communication theory, but it may provide a useful starting point on which a more integrated communication theory can be built. The construction of such theory is the author's primary objective in forwarding this model for your comment and, hopefully, your response.