4
Challenges in Communication
We are all in a desert. No one understands anyone else.
Gustave Flaubert
4.1. Interpersonal communication: a subtle tool
Electronic communications are used in various ways, in the private sphere as well as in professional environments. However, besides form and technology, the challenge is communication between individuals.
Communication also plays a fundamental role in the world of work. With the change from a manufacturing industry economy to a service industry economy and then to a knowledge economy, professional and managerial activities are centered more and more on communication. In a modern work environment, communication generally occurs in electronic form (e-mail, instant messaging, cellphones, telephones, broadband mobile devices, etc.) [KAR 04]. According to Karsenty and Lacoste, “the change in work generates intensification in professional communications”, essentially because of the need to coordinate activities of the different partners involved.
Furthermore, it’s the role given to language that is changing. Once believed to be descriptive, language has become active. When we speak to someone, we do not just wish to say something, but also do something, and in particular to change the other person’s perspective and, if possible, their objectives [KAR 93], and thus to push them to act in accordance with our own discourse. The role of language has become more complex and mastering language to sustain its interlocutors’ perceptions and actions is an increasingly crucial factor in success and is more and more difficult to obtain.
The world, and more particularly the world of work, has entered the Information Age. Day to day activities, personal as much as professional, are based on interpersonal interactions and relationships. These depend on the quality of language and communication. This requires new aptitudes in mastering languages, in all its forms, verbal and non-verbal, whatever the medium may be. This also requires appropriate management of interpersonal communications, not only for sharing information, but for ensuring good communication between one another whether the other is present or absent at the moment when we express ourselves.
In this era, where communication rules, individuals and organizations face the most complex, albeit the most trivial challenge in all of communication: misunderstanding.
In 1872, Gustave Flaubert wrote to an unknown friend: “We are all in a desert. No one understands anyone else”. Yet the feeling of solitude and inevitable incomprehension is no longer the prerogative of lonely romantic writers and artists despairing in the search for a kindred spirit. Rather than being an exception, misunderstanding in communication is the rule according to Laurent Karsenty, ergonomist and psychologist [KAR 08].
4.2. Misunderstanding in communication
Claire Humphrey-Jones [HUM 86] defines misunderstanding as “the failure of an attempt of communication which occurs because what the speaker wants to express differs from what the listener believes has been expressed”. This is very irritating in the current world of work, which is more and more centered on communication, all the more so because incomprehension is often unconscious: we do not notice it and believe that we have understood what has been expressed but the misunderstanding is there, whether whole or partial.
Very often, neither the speaker nor the listener, the editor nor the reader, the sender nor the recipient, notice the misunderstanding. It often comes to light much later.
In professional situations, in which a message sender expects one or more actions from a message recipient, the latter can act unpredictably and carry out actions that the sender did not intend to. It is, therefore, clear that businesses should become aware of misunderstandings and take care to avoid them as much as they can, as the problem of misunderstandings can be very costly. In November 2006, Airbus announced a new delay in delivering its new pilot product: the A380 airliner. According to a service provider cited by the Usine nouvelle [USI 06], problems in the electrical wiring were due to “differences in the tools, working methods and culture between the four partner countries” involved in the project.
4.2.1. Sources of misunderstanding
Studies on the ergonomics of professional communications have identified three main sources of misunderstanding [FAL 89]:
- – the absence of an operating communication channel;
- – the absence of a common vocabulary;
- – an exclusive information context.
4.2.2. The absence of an operating communication channel
Modern communications, and in particular e-mail, are transmitted via telecommunications networks, such as business networks, the Internet, more traditional telephone network, or even electrical networks. If the communication network does not function correctly, and the service quality is too low, it can happen that messages (audio, textual, image or video) are altered during transmission. In this case, symbols (mainly digital, long series “0” or “1”) are not transmitted correctly and the message syntax will not be preserved. In other words, the message will be changed so much during transmission that it will be illegible to its recipient.
It is clear that if business or Internet networks do not function correctly, the message received may be skewed or may contain illegible characters or symbols and so the message may be made impossible to understand. Nevertheless, in the context of this work we will assume that networks are working and viable.
4.2.3. The absence of a common vocabulary
It is more common, however, for the recipient not to understand the semantics, the meaning of the message. According to Karsenty, this is the case in the majority of communications (at least in part). For example, everyone is in agreement in thinking, with Milton Bennett, that intercultural communication is a source of incomprehension [BEN 98], in particular when cultural differences involve using different languages. Some words or expressions can have different meanings depending on the culture or the language in which they are used, and can be a source of incomprehension for those encountering them (regional words or slang, for example).
Different communication styles, depending on culture, can also create difficulties [HOU 03] such as differences in domains or competence levels [ENQ 98]. When the competencies of two people engaged in a conversation are substantially different they cannot share a common vocabulary. This is often the case, for example, when a patient is talking to a doctor or specialist, who may use jargon that the patient does not understand. This can also happen in conversations between different departments in a business, when some experts use language that is not immediately accessible to experts from other departments (for example: research and development within marketing, engineering, compatibility, etc.)
Identifying a common vocabulary is thus a prerequisite for good quality communication.
4.2.4. Exclusive information context
The third cause identified by Laurent Karsenty is where interlocutors do not share the same information context. This is referred to as exclusive information context. This happens, for example, when interlocutors work in different functional units, or at distinct levels of responsibility, or simply when they do not have access to the same sources of information.
This can happen when some individuals retain information, when managerial policy links access to certain information to an individual’s position in the hierarchy or their role, or when the business’s culture creates silos between different functional units (production and marketing, administration and design, etc.). A typical example occurs when one or more communicating participants do not have access to sensitive information that the business considers confidential and which it does not wish to share beyond a limited number of people [PEY 02, SPR 86].
Identifying a common information context is, therefore, also a prerequisite for good quality communication.
4.2.5. Situations involving incomprehension
In addition to causes of incomprehension, Karsenty [KAR 08] identifies a number of situations that facilitate incomprehension, such as:
- – distance communication;
- – asynchronous communication;
- – communication between individuals whose domains and competence levels differ;
- – man–machine communication.
4.2.6. Distance communication
This includes cases in which interlocutors do not have the same visual perception of the physical environment. There are numerous examples of online assistance (hotlines) where a technician tries to help a client who is stuck. We find this type of situation in remote medicine, in distance learning, in remote working, or when organizations are spread over distant sites and use e-mail rather than videoconferencing. The level of incomprehension can also increase with other factors, such as pressure on decision-makers (such as in remote medicine in emergencies) or when interlocutors do not know each other personally.
4.2.7. Asynchronous communication
Asynchronous communication reduces direct interactions that enable the level of mutual comprehension to be controlled in real time. In a conversation, when all interlocutors are present, or synchronous communication such as a telephone call, anyone who thinks they have not understood something can immediately ask for clarification, additional information or any other element enabling them to check if they have understood or not. This is not possible in an asynchronous communication.
4.2.8. Heterogeneous competence domains or levels
Comprehension between interlocutors from heterogeneous competence domains or levels can become difficult. First of all, some interlocutors can have difficulty expressing themselves and finding vocabulary pertinent to the person they are speaking to. The lack of fluidity caused by this constant search for the right word, one which is acceptable to the other, can make discourse difficult to understand. This is the case when a specialist, used to using specific jargons that are entirely comprehensible to their peers, has to address an ill-informed audience.
4.2.9. Man–machine communication
Man–machine communication, such as computer-assisted electronic communications, add a level of complexity to conversation. In the case of e-mail, the message sender should not only ensure that the language used in the message is comprehensible to its recipient, but should also master the tool itself and ensure that the message is composed correctly according to the technical characteristics of the messaging system used. This could seem banal to many people when we talk about e-mail, but many messaging systems are not well-suited to escape causing some worry for users.
4.2.10. E-mail: the accumulation of obstacles to comprehension
We can see that e-mail combines many factors that encourage misunderstanding. In terms of sources of misunderstanding, apart from the technical problems linked to networks that we have put to one side, e-mail is often exposed to exclusive information contexts. In terms of instances of misunderstanding, e-mail and electronic communications in general accumulate at least three of the characteristics identified below: distance, synchronicity and man–machine communication.
E-mail and electronic communications, therefore, present an elevated risk of misunderstanding. It, therefore, falls to writers to be particularly careful of the quality of their messages, or the choice their of communication channel. We should constantly ask: is e-mail the most appropriate communication channel? Would it be better to make a phone call instead, or even to make a short visit to the potential recipient’s office?
The writer should also pay attention to their messages’ semantic quality, and should amend their language, grammar, and terminology as well as the message’s logical structure which should besides take account of the culture, and therefore, the language, social, and professional context, of the nature of the recipients.
Poor grammar is not trivial. It is a source of ambiguity and so of confusion, and error. Using vague terms, or on the contrary jargons that are too precise or pedantic, are also source of misunderstanding.
And there are two sides to the coin. So, it falls to the receiver to show tolerance to the writer and to make all possible efforts to understand the message received, and to read it with a positive attitude in this respect. And above all, not to forget, when they get ready to reply, that they are now writers in their turn.
These shared efforts will not only facilitate understanding but also pave the way for mutual respect.
4.3. From misunderstanding to a lack of respect
In effect, mutual understanding is a step towards mutual respect, just as dialogue is the first source of understanding. By providing a landscape that promotes misunderstanding, electronic communications can constitute a liability for good, quality dialogue, and impair the establishment of a climate of confidence and mutual respect.
Who has not witnessed comical situations in which several individuals sitting at the same table do not speak a word to each other while they fiddle with their smartphones or make telephone calls to a distant interlocutor? While this is no problem for some, how respected do people, who are still only interested in those actually present, feel at that time and place?
Users of electronic communication tools should be particularly careful in order to ensure that messages are comprehensible, that they are well-understood and not misinterpreted. Moreover, recipients of electronic messages should in their turn read the messages received properly and check that they are correctly understood (that is, they have understood what the sender wants to express).
Generally, what happens is the opposite: writers believe that their messages are more positive than they are in reality and than their recipients perceive them to be, whereas recipients interpret the messages received more negatively than they are in reality and more negatively than the sender intended.
Rogers and Kinget [ROG 66] believe that the best attitude to adopt in order to establish a good communication climate is empathetic communication, a situation in which each interlocutor makes every effort possible to ensure that they understand the other correctly, and that the messages received are interpreted as positively as possible. However, it is good idea to note that this attitude is not necessarily prevalent in the world of work.
The American academics, Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler [SPR 86], also note that e-mail gives no correct indication of the interlocutors’ social context (for example, a supervisor’s e-mails are not differentiated a priori from those of their colleagues).
Indeed, in the anonymity of our workplaces, when we are less aware of our audiences, we tend to be more egocentric, to be less caring towards others (the recipients), to be more confident and to feel less connected to social norms. It has thus been noted that employees are less respectful to their supervisors when they contact them by e-mail [LEA 91].
4.4. A challenge for digital managers: communicating with the absent other
One of the most sensitive elements to manage, in electronic communications in general and e-mail in particular, is the absence of the interlocutor being addressed.
To the misunderstanding and lack of respect that can result from using electronic communications, can be added the other challenges for “digital” managers, such as the drop in communications within the business as well as the drop in their quality, slow decision-making processes or even the exacerbation of differences between connected communities.
4.4.1. A lower volume of communication
Modern, digital and connected organizations should adapt to this new paradigm shift. They should review their methods of coordination and cooperation not only because they operate on multiple sites and places but also because when they have a single site they generate an increasing number of “absent” employees, only linked by electronic communication systems.
In modern societies, and so in modern organizations, the dislocation of space and time is very real and communication with “the absent other” has become the rule rather than the exception.
An initial consequence is that traditional face to face, “man-to-man”, communication, where all the interlocutors are present (today we would perhaps say “in person”), are replaced, especially in the workplace, by electronic communications, and in particular e-mail [SAR 98].
Further still, according to Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman, the global volume of all communication forms (including face-to-face communication) decreases with the increase in electronic communications. Thus, collaborators communicate less in person and choose to communicate via communication channels that, as we have seen, increase the risk of misunderstanding.
In particular, we see a drop in greetings and everyday conversations, and therefore a drop in the frequency of communication between colleagues. This drop, unfortunately, has the secondary effect of lowering mutual respect, and it also alters the quality of interpersonal relationships in the workplace.
4.4.2. A drop in communication quality
With the advent of electronic communications, a drop in the quality of interpersonal communication is encouraged. In fact, new forms of communication (e-mail, SMS, chat etc.) are, in essence, textual. These modes of communication are not as rich as interpersonal conversations (discussions, meetings, telephone, etc.), and so are not adapted to handling complex questions (discussions and negotiations) [CAR 97]. Indeed, as professional communications become more and more complex, they rely more and more on electronic communication systems such as the Internet and e-mail.
One of the most obvious deficiencies is the lack of non-verbal signals, which makes it practically impossible to convey emotions [BYR 08]. While some might think that organizations should not pay too much attention to emotions, or that electronic messages should not have emotional content, Byron notes that, voluntarily or not, writers insert emotions in the messages that they send. And these emotions, poorly conveyed by electronic communications, can cause varied reactions in recipients and become a source of conflict.
When the interlocutors in a conversation are present, they use non-verbal language to complete the verbal message. A nod, visual contact, a glance, eye movements, posture, body language and even other elements such as sweating, or indeed scent, make up the elements that complete and enrich the spoken word. It is also true, at least in part, during telephone conversations. The rate of speech, tone of voice, breathing, pauses, etc., can convey emotions and additional information.
This is not possible with textual messages, despite feeble complementary elements such as emoticons, and other well-known elements. This deficiency in the medium can lead to an escalation in conflict [FRI 03] due to the interactive and instantaneous nature of electronic communications, characteristics that traditional means of communication, which were much slower (and gave more space for reflection than for reaction), do not have.
Electronic communications no longer give a good idea of social context. For example, today it is very easy for an employee to contact their business’s CEO, by sending them an electronic message, or by contacting their microblog account (Twitter), or on a dedicated social network (LinkedIn, Facebook). This lowers traditional barriers in business, which once made the upper echelons less accessible and more distant, and conferred a particular status on them, making them both mysterious and powerful [SPR 86].
Furthermore, the distance that separates the sender from the recipient means that when the message is written, the sender is more focused on themselves than attentive to the other at the very moment they are writing the message. And while this attention decreases, the feeling of security associated with anonymity (perceived and relative) increases. The writer’s confidence increases, along with a kind of temerity, and they feel less bound by social and hierarchical norms and constraints [LEA 91]. It can be seen that employees tend to be less formal and less respectful to hierarchical superiors when the communication is electronic than when it is face-to-face.
In the long term, these elements can affect mutual respect as well as the way in which work colleagues – as much employees as employers – treat each other in a professional environment, which is worrying for specialists in professional ethics. Behaving ethically means that one should make an effort to be understood by message recipients, and that the messages received should be approached positively.
This also involves mutual respect, including when the interlocutor is an “absent other”.
4.5. Conclusion
The challenges are manifold, as much from the point of view of individual behaviors as collective ones. Misuse, for the most part caused by the lack of adaptation to new technologies, can then transform harmless communications and messages into an uninterrupted flood of e-mail that is more or less unsolicited, and is fairly and widely disruptive: spam.