Archive for the “Communication” Category

The view of communication as information transfer was furthered by the application of Claude Shannon’s “Mathematical Theory of Communication,” as posited in his 1948 paper of the same name.

In his paper, Shannon posited the reproduction of messages as an engineering problem and looked at the process of communication in terms of accurately conveying the symbols of communication through technological sources, such as the telegraph. The main issue at stake for Shannon was the proper encoding of information, which he felt would allow for a time savings by encoding the message sequences into proper signal sequences that eliminated some of the redundancy found in language, and which, in turn, would lead to better encryption forms.

Shannon’s one-way communication model helped to set off the academic field of modern communication theory and research by providing an understanding of the main components to communication: source, message, channel, receiver.

The ability of a theory from one academic discipline to provide intellectual points of leverage for investigation in another discipline shouldn’t be discounted. Applying theories in new ways enhances our ability to think more broadly about the worls. However, not carefully exploring new paradigms can intellectually trap us in unfounded assumptions.

That said, the No. 1 reason Shannon’s theory shouldn’t have been applied to human communication rests in its origins. Shannon’s major goal was to determine how an information source could be described mathematically to ensure proper information encoding to save time and protect the message. It was not to influence or cause someone to take some action.

Shannon’s theory grew from the desire to prevent effective communication, by introducing noise to the message, making the encrypted message more secure. Thus noise was a positive aspect of his information theory. The more noise, the more secure the encrypted message.

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the transmission model is based on the work of John Locke. It also has ties to the transport model from the 19^th century when writing (communication) had to be transported from writer to reader in some physical form like books, letters, newspapers (Chandler, 1994, para. 15). Applying the transmission model to modern communication is problematic because it focuses on the transmission of information and not of meaning.

First, the transmission model fixes the roles of sender and receiver – with the sender having the primary role and the receiver a secondary, passive role – in a linear, one-way model that relies on the receiver to absorb information (Chandler, 1994, para. 22). But, a linear communication model can’t accurately explain or account for proper communication in a multi-vocal world consisting of multiple societies, languages and belief systems.

We also have the processing of information – in this case in terms of absorption, as if through the skin – of content or information in the form of words and a not their meaning. But we don’t just absorb information. Rather we frame the information we receive based on many factors – our gender, age, social class and education in a nonlinear world- and on the relationships we have with the “senders.” So, there’s no possible way any one message could have just one fixed meaning for all “recipients.”

Likewise, a third issue revolves around the purpose of language, which is to express ourselves to one another through recognizable symbols. Given that the 500 most common words have more than 13,000 different meanings, language is a tricky and elusive thing. Thus we can’t assume that two people will use or understand the same language we use in the same way. And we can’t take an Orwellian approach and create our own Newspeak to purge the shades of gray and redundancy in our language.

This leads to a fourth issue with the transmission model: the model equates content with meaning even though the intended and generated meanings might diverge. But books, letters and such only contain words; meaning is constructed when a listener or reader makes sense of those letters and words. So inserting a meaning into a message isn’t easily done.

Finally, the transmission model doesn’t account for context. Context is often based on our perception, and perception is not single-sided. We see things in their completeness – like a complete table, and not just its top – in the context of our kitchen.

Before we can discuss the true nature and definition of noise, and how to combat it, a short review of some contributing theories is called for.

First is to define communication, another term that academics and practitioners alike have many different definitions for communication. Some say it’s the accurate transmission of information (Hutton & Mulhern, 2002). Some define it as the passing of information or the exchange of ideas. Others believe it’s the process by which a sender and a receiver establish a commonness in their thoughts (Belch & Belch, 1998). Any way you slice it, most will agree the definitions all suggest a transfer of information, and not meaning, between parties.

Regardless of how you define communication, its origins lie mostly in the transmission model of communication, in which:

• A sender encodes a message and sends it through a communication channel, which might be affected by noise, interference or distraction.
• The intended recipient gets and decodes the message and may or may not provide feedback upon its receipt.

The transmission model of communication was developed by John Locke in the 1690s. Yes, it was written more than 400 years ago and communication as information transfer is still a leading communication theory. Locke believed the “end of Discourse and Language” was to convey thoughts and ideas to one another; to “excite ideas in the hearer as they exist in the speaker” (Locke, 1996).

Much of the shift in thinking about communication – from a means of sharing to a means of conveying messages – took hold following the Industrial Revolution as the modern organization came into existence. With the Industrial Revolution, society moved from an agricultural economy to one of mass production, mass distribution and mass promotion (or communication).

No longer did individuals relate with others on a one-on-one basis. Rather, they began relating to the large, impersonal organizations providing jobs, goods and services. In this way, communication took on a one-way, single-sided aspect.

Communicators grapple with noise in their message every day. We spend years honing our communication skills – everything from improving our writing to developing creative, cutting edge designs – to eliminate as much noise as possible and get our messages read. But we often feel we’re working in vain when our messages, carefully crafted for simplicity and clarity, are completely misunderstood because of noise.

Communication noise has been defined as “anything that interferes with” the message being received as intended, and it is deeply rooted in the transmission model of communication: a sender sends a message and a receiver receives it. It arose from the application of Claude Shannon’s A Mathematical Theory of Information, which he developed in the 1940s to enhance the encryption of military messages. For Shannon, noise was a positive because it meant a message couldn’t be read easily.

Since then, Shannon’s theory and the idea of noise have been applied to many different human communication disciplines, including marketing and advertising. But the definition for noise is largely insufficient, is opposite of the meaning Shannon had placed on it, and reflects the problematic assumptions inherent in the transmission model of communication: that human communication is nothing more than a sender encoding his ideas into words or pictures and a receiver interpreting them.

As a graduate student, noise became of particular interest to me. I found that my general observations of family and friends showed very different and inconsistent reactions to messages, particularly television ads. This led me to take a look at the idea of noise and to build my master’s thesis around the subject.

I’ll share my thoughts and findings from my thesis work in future posts. because, if we ever are going to combat noise in our communication programs, I feel we need to rethink the definition of noise.

Differences in the way Millennials and other generations communicate and receive information are not the only differences companies will need to address in a very short time.

In a podcast, Barbara Keats, associate professor of management at the W.P. Carey School of Business, discusses the Millennials’ belief systems.

Keats said that, given their propensity for “frequent validation, quick rewards and permission to shape the rules to fit their lives,” academics and employers “are wondering if millennials have determined that cutting corners and cheating is an acceptable way of getting ahead” and “taking it to a new level.”

Given some recent examples of fraud and plagiarism in the U.S. – the 45 students dismissed from the University of Virginia for cheating in 2002 and allegations that three sections of Kaavya Viswanathan’s novel bore similiarites to one written by Sophie Kinsella – should give companies pause.

It also should cause companies to strengthen their ethics policies. And if they don’t yet have one, companies must begin establishing ethics policies or rules of behavior. Many professional organizations have codes of ethics in place to ensure their members abide by a level of integrity that protects the association and the profession. In the same way, companies can protect themselves and their other employees from the actions of one bad apple.

The 80 million Baby Boomers are approaching one of life’s major milestones – retirement. And many companies are preparing for the brain drain that will cause. Ready to step in are the 46 million or so Gen Xers.

But there’s a new generation on the horizon – affectionately called the Millennials. Born between 1982 and 2000, they are 76 million strong and now are beginning to graduate from college and flood the job market.

Millennials have been described as tech savvy. In a 2007 book by Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa, a survey 7,705 U.S. college students showed:

97% own a computer

76% use instant messaging

15% of IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week

34% use Web sites as their primary source of news

28% own a blog and 44% read blogs

49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing

75% have a Facebook account

Given the generational differences between the Baby Boomers and the Millennials – and don’t forget the Gen Xers – employers will be challenged to integrate these generations into their workplaces as the old and new worlds collide. So what will that mean for communicating to them?

Likely it will mean increasing message multiplicity by combining more traditional methods – company newsletters, e-mails, and memos – with more modern methods, like blogs, RSS feeds and text messages to their cell phones. It also might mean developing ways to personalize each and every message to a Millennial recipient.

This would mean implementing technologies to gather data on their own employees’ habits and usage to create individual user profiles. With their propensity for sharing details about themselves through things like Facebook, MySpace, and receiving banking updates on their cell phones, one might assume this to be an acceptable endeavor on the part of companies. However, these are waters that haven’t yet been thoroughly tested.

There is a continuum along which organizational changes can be planned. On one end are top-down approaches with planning done by small groups behind closed doors. The organization implements what it is told to implement. At the other end is including as many employees as possible in designing pieces of the new organization, and then tasking those same people with implementing the changes they designed. The former is exclusive, the latter is inclusive.

This company took a more inclusive route as it mirrored their culture. Directors and senior managers designed their organizations, level by level, and were then responsible for implementing the design. This choice was intended to take advantage of line managers’ more intimate knowledge of their areas and people, while at the same time building their buy-in to the change process.

The approach’s down side was employees feeling it was taking too long. Impatience led to paralysis.

The team had underestimated and under-communicated the impacts. At the same time management was dealing with business issues (their day jobs) and counseling their teams through the unsettling period of change (which encroached on their daily job performance), they had an additional burden of intensive reorganizational work upon them (a night job).

In short, the team miscalculated the burden on line management. By being inclusive, they passed a burden on to people ill-prepared to accept the challenge.

On the flip side, a more exclusive approach would have taken just as long, and perhaps longer. (All the kinks associated with any reorganization still needed to get worked out.) But, since employees would have had less visibility to the process and less day-to-day involvement with the work, it may have felt shorter.

In the end, the team concluded, “in the future we must carefully weigh the pros and cons of a range of approaches, choose the one that suits us best, build a fully fleshed-out plan, and then aggressively and continually communicate the methodology and its benefits to all employees.”

In other words, there is no correct answer – but whatever choice you make, set people’s expectations accordingly.

It is fairly predicatable: change teams have challenges developing role clarity. What are the organization leader’s responsibilities? How do leadership responsibilties differ from the management level responsibilties? What is the communicator’s role? What should the communicator expect from leadership?

Here’s a quick review of those roles and their related responsibilities:  http://tinyurl.com/5ov3s5