Comunicare in modo efficace

What does "Communicate" mean?

Etymologically: derived from "common" which means to make common, to transmit. "Common," in turn, is a learned word from the Latin commune(m), literally 'who carries out his duty (munus) together with (cum) others' (Dizionario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana, Zanichelli)

 

Definition 1: We are in the presence of a communication process every time a behavior of a person or animal imposes itself on the attention of another person or animal. (Paul Watzlawick – Palo Alto)

 

Definition 2: An observable interactive exchange between two or more participants, endowed with a certain level of awareness and mutual intentionality, capable of sharing a specific meaning based on symbolic and conventional systems of signification and signaling according to the reference culture. (Luigi Anolli)

 

The two definitions, both valid, highlight two different aspects: the first, that the concept of communication has a much broader meaning than we often think, going beyond the specific moment in which one is speaking or listening.

The second, instead, already implies the concept of communication effectiveness, highlighting the number of aspects involved. In particular, it emphasizes the importance of awareness and intentionality, points out what should be the purpose of any communication (to share a specific meaning), and introduces the fundamental importance of a shared code.

 

In light of this information,

What does it mean to communicate effectively?

It means creating the conditions so that two people can clearly understand each other's content. This does not necessarily mean that the two people must agree but, "simply," that they have mutually understood each other.

 

How to communicate effectively?

As with all practical skills, you cannot learn to communicate effectively by reading a book, let alone an article. It is necessary to practice, try, experiment: to put it "into practice," indeed.

However, practice based on a solid theoretical foundation will be more productive and efficient.

So, let's look at some fundamental theoretical references (read: the foundations on which to base the entire building) and the practical implications connected to them.

 

The axioms of communication

These are the only axiomatic data (therefore, from their point of view, not debatable) that, according to the school of the Mental Research Institute of Palo Alto (founded by Don Jackson, and of which Paul Watzlawick was a part), can be found in interpersonal communication. Let's see them:

 1.   One cannot not communicate.

  a.   That is: there is no "non-behavior"; whatever I do, or do not do, say, or do not say, has the value of a message.

  b.   It follows that: the effectiveness of communication is not exclusively linked to my rhetorical ability or expressive skill nor to my listening ability. Instead, it extends to the behavior I maintain in any context where someone can observe me, whether I am aware of it or not (see the first definition above). In summary: the effectiveness of communication goes beyond the moment of intentional communicative exchange between me and my interlocutor. A prospect could be strongly influenced by a photo of me they saw on Facebook, a colleague could change their esteem for me because of something they saw me do when I thought I wasn't being watched, etc...

 2.   Every communication has a content aspect and a relationship aspect, such that the second qualifies the first.

  a.   That is: there is the information I want to convey (the "what") and there is the choice of how to communicate it (the "how") which sets the relationship between me and the other. This second component gives meaning to the first: the same content, depending on the relationship, changes meaning, sometimes even diametrically. Think, in this sense, of irony and sarcasm: we can say to someone "great job" meaning exactly the opposite, by changing the way we pronounce that "great job."

  b.   It follows that: often we prepare for a dialogue, a speech, a public speaking event by focusing a lot on the content. In reality, we should prepare with equal care on the mode of expression of that content.

 3.   The nature of a relationship depends on the punctuation of the communication sequences between the communicators.

  a.   That is: a sequence of communicative events is interpreted differently by the two communicators depending on the punctuation attributed to the sequence itself. In particular, we humans tend to read our behavior as a consequence of the other's behavior; given this, in a conflict situation, two people can both claim, in perfect good faith, that it was the other who started the conflict dynamic.

  b.   It follows that: crystallized communications are formed, which revolve around themselves continuously. For effective communication, it becomes necessary to get personally involved and open up to metacommunication: that is, to talk about the relationship rather than the content of the exchanges between the two communicators. When I stop asking a colleague for an opinion because "I already know what they'll answer," when I give up relying on a collaborator because "it's better if I do it myself, I already know I'll have to review everything," I am within the dynamic described by the third axiom.

 4.   Human beings communicate both with the digital mode and with the analog mode.

  a.   That is: verbal language, which uses a unique code that regulates it, uses the digital mode. Non-verbal language, instead, based on a link between gesture and content, relies on the analog mode. If, as we saw in the second axiom, every communication has a content aspect and a relationship aspect, the first will be transmitted essentially with a digital mode and the second through an analog mode.

  b.   It follows that: since non-verbal language is based on analogies and, except for some exceptions, not based on unique rules, it is highly interpretable, with a high risk of misunderstanding. Since this component sets the relationship and qualifies the content, the result is that an inadequate communication mode will also affect the content of the communication itself. For effective communication, therefore, a strong coherence between content and relationship becomes fundamental and, equally fundamental, when coherence is lacking, to open a metacommunication about the relationship itself. Otherwise, the consequence will be a relapse into the dynamics described in the second axiom.

 5.   All communication exchanges are complementary or symmetrical, depending on whether they are based on difference or equality.

  a.   That is: in a communication, the two interlocutors can have equal roles or, instead, be in different positions, of superiority and inferiority.

  b.   It follows that: the ability to read and understand the dynamics of roles in a communicative moment, beyond hierarchical roles, is a valuable resource for effective communication. For example, the ability of a collaborator to fully take responsibility when dealing with a topic on which they are more competent, even in front of their boss (and, at the same time, the ability of the boss to recognize the collaborator's greater competence on a certain topic, without this undermining their hierarchically superior role).

 

A Zen story

Nan-In, a Japanese master, received the visit of a university professor who had come to see him for information and explanations about Zen. Nan-In served tea. He filled his guest's cup and then continued pouring. The professor watched the tea overflow, then could no longer contain himself:

"It's full! No more will go in!"

"You are like that cup," replied Nan-In. "You are full of your own opinions and conjectures: how can I explain Zen to you if you do not first empty your cup?" (Senzaki N., 101 Zen Stories, Adelphi)

One of the fundamental rules for effective communication is, as well metaphorically expressed in the story above, "knowing how to make space within oneself." Metaphorically speaking, listening to your interlocutor with an open mind, making the effort to set aside your own opinion while the other is speaking. What Edmund Husserl calls epoché, that is, the bracketing of prejudice.

This does not mean, of course, having to passively accept the other person's opinion; it simply means welcoming it, at the moment it is proposed to us, as it is and then, but only then, rereading it also within our own system of thought. Otherwise, the risk is that, just as tea does not enter an already full cup, what we are told is only heard but not listened to, thus preventing real communication.

 

A concluding note

A 1967 study is often cited according to which body language (non-verbal) would influence the interlocutor by 55%, the voice (paraverbal) by 38%, while the content (verbal) only by 7%.

...but is it really true?

Let's see what the author of the study says about it:

"Please note that this and other equations regarding the importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with the communication of feelings and attitudes (e.g., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their own feelings and attitudes, these equations are not applicable." Albert Mehrabian

So, without quoting numbers and percentages, we simply refer to the second and fourth axioms of communication to highlight that non-verbal language (relationship component, how I say things) is more important than verbal language (content component, what I actually say). Moreover, this, of course, does not mean that the content part is not important: a formally impeccable communication but devoid of content would be a pure exercise in style, certainly useless in a professional context.