Correct Understanding Involves Both Senders And Receivers
Message senders and receivers are dependent on each other for accurate understanding
Over the past few weeks, we have talked about perceptions, filters, and other important communication topics, all of which are necessary background for today’s topic: Complete Communication. For purposes of our discussion, we will define complete communication as when the sender and receiver of a message both understand the message as it was intended by the sender. It sounds simple, and most of us assume we accomplish this all the time, but in reality that assumption is often incorrect.
As a simple example, yesterday morning my wife, daughter and I were talking about going out for breakfast. When they mentioned that they were not hungry I said something like “Then maybe we can go to lunch instead?” to which they replied “Let’s see.” I took that as a “Maybe”, fixed myself breakfast, and in my mind made no mental note about going to lunch. Remember, this is my version. Around 1:00 PM I found them standing by the door wondering why I wasn’t ready to go to lunch! When I acted confused , they said “You said that you wanted to go to lunch. We’re ready!” What I took as a maybe from our earlier conversation they took as a commitment to go to lunch. That is their version. We were all in the same conversation yet came away with different messages.
The intent of the complete communication process is to minimize the likelihood of message misunderstanding. I was first exposed to it in the mid-1980s during a communication seminar and it likely existed before then. The seminar exercise went something like this:
Two people would sit in chairs facing each other.
The message sender would talk for one minute about whatever they chose related to the topic the trainer gave.
The other person’s “job” was to focus on the sender and listen with the intent of understanding.
At the end of the first minute, the receiver would take one minute to relay to the sender what they understood from their listening.
After the second minute of feedback, the sender would confirm the receiver’s understanding, or comment on where their understanding was incorrect.
After completing the exercise, each pair would report back to the group about their experience.
What sounds simple, to accurately understand a message, was actually difficult to do. The first time I participated in this exercise, we were mostly surprised about how often our understanding was not accurate compared to what the sender was trying to get across. How could that be? The conditions were perfect. No distractions. Two people within a few feet of each other. Both speaking the same language and with the ability to clearly understand the words that the other was saying. And yet, the receiver’s understanding was often not what was intended. When the group finally accepted that this had happened, there was a sort of silent “wow” that permeated the room. Talk about a perception shift!
The Complete Communication Model
Graphic by Ed Paulson from “Getting Through”
Graphic by Ed Paulson from “Getting Through”
My beginning communication classes include a similar exercise and the results are fairly consistent. Here we are 40 years later with lots of collective knowledge about advanced communication technologies, and we still can’t sit a few feet from each other and completely understand each other. How the heck can we expect complete communication (and understanding) to happen over text, email or video conference?
When we debrief after the exercise, we find a few common reasons for the misunderstanding. 1) The receiver’s attention would start to wander, and they would lose their focus. 2) The receiver’s mind would get triggered by something the sender said, and from that point forward they would have a difficult time controlling themselves from jumping in and replying to the sender. Basically, they stopped listening. (Remember: They were instructed to only listen and not respond in any way. That is surprisingly difficult and will be the subject of a later post.) 3) Quite often the receivers would say something like, “I thought when you said ‘this’ you were actually talking about ‘that’ which would be similar, but different. From the moment of the receiver’s misunderstanding, all subsequent information would be tainted from the incorrect context created from the earlier misunderstanding. (Filters.) The net results would be a misunderstanding combined with a misplaced confidence that we had actually correctly understood the message first time. The assumption: How could we not have understood? We were both sitting right here and I heard every word! Do you see the danger here?
QUESTION: Care to share about a recent time when something like my breakfast example happened to you? Click LEAVE A COMMENT below.
The complete communication model is designed to uncover misunderstandings such that both sender and receiver understand a message the same way. In a business environment, the sender likely wants something from the receiver which is why they are communicating in the first place. (Recall that business communication is about results from an earlier post.) It would make sense for the sender to develop a message that, when properly understood by the audience, motivates them to go along with the request. If that initial message is misunderstood, then it jeopardizes the likelihood of the sender receiving what is desired. Again, full understanding does not mean that receivers will agree or cooperate, but it does ensure that they understand what the sender intended them to understand, and in the way intended.
We complicated humans can learn from technology on this one. Think about your last Bluetooth telephone interaction while in your car. It is the complete communication model in action. You tell the telephone app to “Call John Doe.” The app asks “Do you want to call John Doe?” You say “Yes” and you think the complete communication process is done. Right? Not necessarily. What if your phone has two numbers for John Doe? Which should it dial? So it asks “Do you want me to dial the mobile or office number for John Doe?” You say, “Office” and your app replies “Calling John Doe office number.” Notice that without these confirmation and feedback steps, your app might have dialed the wrong number, or even the wrong person.
A word of caution is warranted here related to when to use the complete communication process. Think about how boring a conversation would be if every thought needed complete confirmation. No fun for sure. So, developing a sense of when to use the model is a good idea. I like to use the process to confirm important points from a given communication. For something like meeting a friend for dinner, it could be something simple like “So we are meeting at Excalibur in the Loop on Wabash at 7PM today. Correct?” If the other person says “Yes” then there really isn’t much else you can do. If they don’t agree, then now is a good time find out about the mismatch so neither one of you winds up alone because of something simple like a misunderstanding about the time and place.
I also use the method to confirm major points, such as summarizing key conclusions from a meeting. “It sounds like we agree that our side will do XXX by DDD date, and your side will do YYY by DDD date. Does that sound correct?” Again, if there is a misunderstanding then this is a great time to find out so that nobody is disappointed later on. And, if they agree, then something important has happened. You have an agreement between stakeholders, and everyone has confirmed, which was likely the intent of the meeting in the first place. (Side Note: I will then put the agreement in writing and email it to the other stakeholders, asking for written confirmation, so that everyone has a common record. This protects everyone. As a boss of mine used to say, “People have convenient memories” and we almost always remember something in a way that confirms what we believed was true. (Remember “confirmation bias” from a prior post?)
Key takeaways from this week’s post:
Don’t assume that those listening to you understood your message as you intended.
Communication filters are always at work and not considering them is a mistake.
Feedback is critical to ensuring that your message was understood as you intended.
You audience appreciates your confirmation that what they understood is actually what you intended.
Just because they now accurately understand you does not mean that they will agree. But now you can continue the conversation with a common understanding which will likely make it more productive.
I hope you found this week’s topic useful. If so, click SUBSCRIBE so you will be notified as soon as the next post is released, and invite a friend to join us. Remember, the subscription is free!
Feel free to SHARE THIS POST WITH OTHERS who would benefit from becoming a better communicator.
For more about this and other communication topics take a look at my recently published book “GETTING THROUGH: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO BEING UNDERSTOOD” (ISBN: 9798987950807) available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other retailers.
You have my deep appreciation if you share the newsletter with a friend or colleague who would benefit from becoming a better communicator. Simply click the SHARE BIZDOCTOR’S GAZEBO button.
I am honored that you stopped by and promise to make each post as valuable as possible. Be well until next time …
DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA FOR A FUTURE POST?
If you have an idea for a future post please enter it into the comments section or email it to me at author@edpaulson.com. Make sure the enter “Newsletter reader topic recommendation” in the subject line to ensure your message does not get spammed.
Copyright © 2023 by Ed Paulson. All Rights Reserved.