The Noises Preventing Communication

[NOTE: This is the second part of a discussion on "Components of Communication." Please read the previous post for context]

Imagine. You’re at a concert of your favorite heavy metal, head-banging rock band. (It’s a stretch for me, since my tastes run more toward what is now considered “oldies.”) The auditorium is filled with thousands of other rabid fans as well. The band is doing their final number, riffing on their biggest hit. The lead singer is screeching what resembles a musical note. The guitarist is off in his own world, slapping the strings like a angry man, while the drummer is banging with abandon. The keyboard player is sweeping up and down the scales in a manner that would cause my piano teacher a stroke. Of course, the multitudes of fans are loving it…and their emotions are demonstrated with screaming, shouting, clapping and stomping.

At just that moment, your cell phone rings. Do you take the call? Probably not…because all the noise in the room would prevent any real communication with the caller.

When most people think about noise, that’s the image. It’s audible interference and it hinders real dialogue--something like trying to carry on a conversation in a crowded restaurant.

But in the “Principles” and Processes of Communication, noise can be more than audio. Consider this:

Earlier this year, I went to a local theater to see the new “Star Trek” movie. (Yes, I’m a geek and a Trekkie for many years.) Throughout the first 15 minutes of the movie, a young man two rows in front of me would repeatedly turn his phone on, I assume to check or send messages. Each time he did, the light of the phone’s screen would pull my attention from the movie to where he was seated. I finally had to get up and ask him to stop. His activity and the light on his phone was “noise” that kept me from concentrating on the movie. (And at the prices of movie tickets these days, I was not going to sit quietly in my seat.)

Noise is not just what we hear; it’s not limited to audible background sounds like motorcycles on the street, the crying baby in the theater or the volume of the TV. Noise can be any kind of distraction that keeps the listener from listening to the intended message.

* Visual noise. It’s difficult to listen to someone when there’s lipstick on her teeth or to focus on the speaker’s message when his fly is open. In the same way, a page that has too much text, too many pictures, etc. can be visual noise preventing communication. (I compare it to the difference in Facebook, which can be visually noisy and the new Facebook Lite, which is much easier because of what was left out.)

* Internal noise. The person to whom I’m speaking could have lots of other issues going on—internal conflicts, personal concerns, mental distractions. Those could prevent them from “hearing” my message. This would extend to personal issues like race, gender, weight, sexual orientation, etc., and many companies have learned (the hard way) that flippant messages can offend in these areas.

* Sender noise. As the person talking, I certainly don’t want to be the source of “noise,” doing something that would distract from communicating with them. If I talk too loud, I might get their attention but probably won’t communicate. When I speak really, really fast, I might give the impression I’m trying to hide something. (Like those “disclaimer” messages at the end of some car commercials. The announcer talks so fast that I can’t understand, but what I perceive is that there’s things they don’t want me to know…so they say it really fast.) If I talk too slow or too soft, I encourage my listener to tune me out.

Another noise factor is body language—those messages we send with our bodies, whether intentional or not—such as facial expressions, gestures and the way we approach the listener. In Western culture, for example, getting too close to people’s face while talking is considered intrusive. If I constantly point at them with the index finger, I may send a different message from what I intend. If I frown while talking, I say much more than the words I use, unless I am discussing my latest stomach distress.

I go back to our original premise: communication is more than just one person speaking and another person hearing. Much can get in the way of understanding, which is one of the primary goals. Knowing some of the obstacles can improve not only our message, but our methods.

“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.”
--Anthony Robbins, Business Leader

Components of Communications

George Bernard Shaw said “The problem with communication...is the illusion that it has been accomplished.”

Those who study the practice of communication have developed many principles that give us great insight into the methodology of effective communication. Let’s look at some of them in hopes of improving our processes and the results/outcomes.

Note: For the sake of this discussion, I’m mostly using the spoken form of communication, but the principles would apply for any method, spoken or written/printed.

* It’s not all about me!

It was the American philosopher Henry David Thoreau who said, “It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak and another to hear.”

Communication begins when I (what experts call the “Sender”) have something to put into a form so another person (aka., the “Receiver”) can hear and understand me. I must now determine the best method (or “Channel”) to get my message to them. Not every method works for every message, every situation or every person.

Examples: If I speak German and you don’t, then talking might not be our best communication channel. If I send you an e-mail, but you don’t have a computer (or an Internet connection), we have not communicated. If I’m in New York City and you are in Tampa, a chalkboard wouldn’t be our best method.

But beyond those extreme examples, it’s possible to speak the same language and still not communicate. I may be talking about a “plane” (i.e., airplane) to a carpenter, who is thinking of a tool used to smooth out wood. A clairvoyant can talk me about being on another plain, and I would be still be visualizing the mode of air transportation while the clairvoyant is talking about an alternate reality. By sound alone, the words are the same, but the meanings are vastly different. (We call them “homonyms,” which is not songs sung at a gay church, but words that sound alike but have different meanings.)

* Do I need a Decoder Ring?

The way I communicate is called encoding and those who hear will decode what I say, based on their own understanding of the words, the language, and lots of other factors (as we saw above). Many people try to impress others with their vocabulary or a commanding grasp of technical jargon. If the goal, however, is to communicate rather than impress, we must learn to choose our words carefully. We will want to use words hearers will understand and relate to their situations. As a PR professional, I work with those who do media interviews and one the key points I make is to use words that viewers can understand.

* Hearing is not Listening; Listening is not Understanding

But it’s not just about me talking/speaking. Other people must “decode” (i.e., interpret, translate) my message, using a wide variety of criteria, including their understanding of my chosen language and their concept of what my words mean and their sense of decorum. That’s why it’s so important to use words appropriate to the subject, person and situation. BTW, communication specialists point to this as the concept of commonality.

Example: Expletives may have a place in some circumstances and with some folks, but they can quickly shut down further communication in the wrong situation or with a person whose view on the use of profanity is different. For example, if you are talking to my mother—a woman from the old south, with a mentality of a Southern Lady—and you use course language, she will deem you as crude and crass. She will be polite, but be assured, she is not listening to you. The lesson: if you plan to interject these “colorful metaphors” into conversation, make sure you know the predisposition of the one who’s listening.

The listener will also use my tone of voice, my volume and the speed of my talking to try and understand what I mean. In addition, most people translate using personal, cultural and internalized factors, such as their personality, their own prejudices, mood, etc.

Part of the challenge of good communication is finding the right vehicle to communicate the message to the targeted audience. It’s matching channel with the audience. If we want to get a new directive to our employees, an e-mail might be the easiest channel, but is it the best way? For many years, the accepted means of reaching potential clients has been advertising, but that’s casting a broad net. Is there a better way to reach a specific audience?

Next, we’ll look at some obstacles of good communications.

And they might not be what you expect!