Texas Wing - Civil Air Patrol
[ Documents ] Navigate Site
Editorial - Effective Communications, 1 September 2010
DRIPPING SPRINGS, Texas – The average person defines “communication” as the act of transferring and/or sharing information on a desired subject. But there is a lot more to it. Although definition aptly describes an example of targeted communication, it fails to consider the broader picture.
In practice, communication is the total meaning (expressed, acted, derived or implied) of what is being shared or transferred, warts and all. Just as music is composed of notes and accompanying harmonic sounds, so is communication. At its heart there is the message, of course, but it is most often accompanied by gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, possible double meanings, intended or accidental irony or even sarcasm, and many other components that can add layers of meaning. In most cases, close friends take the message at face value, but those who are not so intimate may not be so kind. Therefore, there are times when the accompanying components can cast such a shadow that the message becomes obscured and fails to come across.
The problem is that the total communication depends on how the sender expresses and the receiver interprets the message. Let's say that a person tells another one to do a task of some sort, and this might be appropriate when there is a leader/follower or supervisor/employee relationship between them. Yet, how the telling is accomplished will color the social transaction with other attributes.
The trouble starts when some of the added elements are objectionable or uncomplimentary. Let’s say that you’re at your office, see flames coming out of a room, and yell, rudely and impolitely, “Fire!” This is a case in which expediency rates way above politeness, as the message must be clear and direct. Nearly always, those hearing it will interpret it as a life-saving attempt on the part of the “temporarily rude” shouter – who is likely to be praised.
On the other hand, in a normal Civil Air Patrol environment with no emergency at hand, let us say that a cadet fails to address a senior member as “Sir” or “Ma’am” not once but repeatedly during the same conversation. Furthermore, when the senior member points this out, the cadet fails to act appropriately. It is only after pointed prompting that the “Sir” or “Ma’am” is offered, perhaps only once, and often reluctantly.
Did communication take place in the example just above? Of course it did. Failure to communicate is, in itself, a communication. The senior member, who had appropriately addressed the cadet as “Cadet Rogers” (not the real name), adhered to the core value of respect, while the cadet failed to reciprocate. The senior member perceived the cadet’s communication as discourteous, even bordering on insolent. The cadet seemed to believe that it was all right not to use “Sir” or “Ma’am.” Be that as it may, the cadet was bound by CAP custom and protocol to address the senior member appropriately, as a matter of personal and institutional courtesy.
Body language (though during a phone conversation this is restricted to sounds), can contribute much. Gesture, tone of voice, choice of words, and facial expression all matter. How an e-mail is worded and presented on the screen matters too. These tend to color our communications, adding shades of meaning, usually unintended. In fact, it is entirely possible for a cadet to address a senior member as “Sir” or “Ma’am” and still be disrespectful in other ways.
Human nature adds complexity to the problem. Since human beings are emotional creatures, they tend to react adversely when they perceive an affront (real or imaginary). In most cases, adults are better at controlling their emotions, but not always.
Humanity, after having spent millions of years in a state of near-savage development, dependent on instant and accurate reaction to perceived dangers as a matter of immediate survival, have spent an equally long time becoming sensitive to communication cues. The roar of a saber-tooth tiger meant immediate and life-threatening danger, the loss of trust from other members of the tribe meant possible death by isolation, the use of lies denigrated the other person’s intelligence and introduced doubt about the liar’s reliability as a partner for survival, and so on, piling on shades of meaning as we scaled our way up towards civilization. As humanity developed a social order – creating villages, cities and states –, the way in which people relate to each other became increasingly important, and social needs gave these cues increased importance.
We still live with these feelings, often called “gut reactions” or “subconscious reflexes,” interpreted for us by our “primitive brain,” the cerebellum. Our civilized brain, under stress, is easily overcome by the cerebellum (literally, little brain), a far smaller, ancestral structure that connects the civilized brain to the central nervous system. The cerebellum's interpretation of what’s happening can cause instantaneous and at times less than optimal reactions. (Politicians who learn how to control it, at least outwardly, are usually more successful than those who don't.)
To show how “total communication" works, let’s take a basic message and see how we might convey it, either by itself or with some additions. Let’s use, “Get the radio.”
1. Get the radio! = (Shouted) In the case of a dire emergency, especially when a life is at risk and there is no time to waste, this might be appropriate, even if a cadet were to yell it to a senior member.
2. Please get the radio. (Conversational) This would be appropriate, but a shade rude if a senior member said it to a cadet, unless there has been an on-going conversation about it between the two. It would probably be rude if a cadet said it to a senior member, under normal circumstances.
3. Get the radio! Now! (Shouted) Unless there’s a real emergency, not a good way to phrase it.
4. Get the radio! Now! (Whispered) If operational and in enemy territory, this is a commonplace in the battlefield. In a CAP environment, it could have an underlying sinister or threatening quality to it.
5. Get the radio! Now! (Conversational, smiling) A mixed message that can easily lead to trouble. Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.
6. Get the radio… (Sung) Humor is quite dangerous. One man’s joke could easily be another man’s insult.
7. Get the radio, Cadet Rogers. (Conversational) Polite enough, but obviously the radio rates higher than Cadet Rogers, so the latter might not be too happy about it.
8. Cadet Rogers, get the radio. (Conversational) Better because it catches Cadet Rogers’ attention, and also places Cadet Rogers above the radio. But a bit dry.
9. Cadet Rogers, get the radio, please.
(Conversational) A shade better, but the please at the end dangles
as an afterthought.
Cadet Rogers, could you please get the radio? (Conversational) Best
we can do, polite and considerate. (But it could be inadvertently
ironic, as in “Please pass the jelly!” of
Polaner TV ads of yore.)
Enough of that, but the above shows how shades of meaning can be injected into a simple statement. In practice, when people object to a statement, most of the time, the added layers of complexity introduced by shades of meaning are usually at fault.
Communications, then, are not so plain, and often require much good will. In fact, communicating is – and always has been – a cooperative process. To really communicate, both parties need to practice active listening and participative speaking. The speaker needs to keep alert for danger signals, and address any misunderstanding at once. And the listener needs to assume that the speaker is making a best effort, with no ulterior motives. Once anger is introduced into this transaction, everyone loses.
Ultimately, CAP members need to practice traditional customs and courtesies at all times. Should an apology be needed on this count, the sooner it is offered the better.
Maj. Arthur E. Woodgate, CAP