UNDERSTANDING COMMUNICATION IN ONE-ON-ONE RELATIONSHIP

Everyone has experienced interpersonal conflicts and misunderstandings in both their personal
and professional lives. So pervasive is this phenomenon that it takes up a disproportionately large
amount of space in the literature written for and by managers. Indeed, the expression
"communication problem" is now used so commonly that it is often applied to just about any
difficulty that exists between two people, whether or not a communication problem actually
exists. Not all interpersonal problems or conflicts are communication problems. Two managers
may have difficulty working with each other for many different reasons. They may understand
each other extremely well (and therefore not have a communication problem); however, one may
not act as the other wishes.
"Effective" Communication versus "Good" Communication
The major common concern is with effective communication. And it is a suitable concern for
people in management who are constantly trying to use communication to obtain specific results.
When a communication does obtain the intended outcomes, it can be properly called "effective."
But effective communication requires in most instances "good" communication, which means
that party B has understood a concept that party A wished to convey to B. Good communication
is a prerequisite but does not insure effective communication. In practice it is not easy to separate
the communication process itself from other processes involved in effective communication. But
the communicator should be alert to this distinction.
A Case of Misunderstanding
A misunderstanding had taken place, the roots of which we cannot understand without getting a
better sense of what Steve experienced before and during his dealings with Tom. To begin with,
Steve had no serious intention of moving to another company until after the memo from Tom
arrived. On the contrary, he had been very satisfied with his career in the company. He had
enjoyed his work and had received two promotions within three years.
While Tom saw the transfer as a recognition of Steve's performance, Steve saw it as a sign that
his past performance was not good enough. Steve had reasons on which to base this supposition.
He had accepted his promotions and Tom's praise as clear signs of approval but now wondered if
Tom had been less satisfied than he had seemed. The thought that this might have been the case
angered him, since neither Tom nor his area manager had given him any indication they were
unhappy with his results.
Understanding the Misunderstanding
To diagnose and prevent miscommunications of the type just described, we need some means of
understanding what each person experiences during an exchange and why each person
experiences it differently. A relatively simple but effective way of doing this is to use a
framework that describes experiencing in terms of assumptions, perceptions, and feelings.
Assumptions are defined as the values, attitudes, and beliefs that a person has about how things
"ought" to be in a given situation. The "ought" of these assumptions should be stressed because
typically the assumptions that are at the root of misunderstandings have both an imperatives and
normative dimension to them. They are seldom neutral or value-free in nature.
By perceptions we mean what the person actually sees, hears, or otherwise senses as taking place
in a situation (as compared with what he or she thinks ought to be occurring). Dissonance results
when a person's perceptions are in conflict with his or her assumptions. Feelings are the emotive
and affective responses of a person in reaction to a given situation; they are the emotions that are
triggered by what a person sees taking place.