1.4 Forms of Communication

Interpersonal Communication

The most basic form of communication is interpersonal communication, or the exchange of information between one individual to another or a small, intimate group (like family). The key component that separates interpersonal communication from other forms is the preconceived relationship between individuals who exchange messages. In other words, whenever two people engage in communication, there is some sort of relationship that already exists. These relationships may be defined as parent/child, spouse/partner, sister/brother, manager/subordinate, coworker/coworker, teacher/student, and so on.

But what if you engage in conversation with a complete stranger on the street? The degree to which you know a person does not indicate whether or not there is a relationship. In this case, it’s a stranger-to-stranger relationship, something that happens on a daily basis, especially in business settings. Door-to-door sales associates know almost nothing about the person who answers the door prior to starting a conversation, but they do have a preconceived relationship with that person, seeing them as a possible client. The person who answers the door likely sees any sales associate as an uncomfortable or annoying distraction. The same can be said of the recipient of a cold call from a telemarketer. The ability for individuals to communicate with each other is enhanced or deeply affected by familiarity, for good or bad. This is especially true for romantic partners whose relationships are almost entirely dependent on their ability to communicate effectively.

An association between two people is known as a dyad, which can be described in terms of familiarity, length of association, and social hierarchy. In dyadic communication, there is a sort of rhythm or cadence to the way individuals pass along information, where complex encoding, decoding, interpretation, and feedback are barely recognizable by the participants as if they are on some sort of autopilot. A good example of dyadic communication is a person who shares details of her weekend with her closest friend, expecting to hear similar details from the friend. When the friend responds in kind as if almost automatically, the relationship continues as expected. These relationships are often assumed to be based on equality but may not be, such as being close friends with your boss or staying in an abusive relationship.

Psychologists and sociologists have presented several theories and models that highlight various influences on interpersonal communication that include context, environment, culture, developmental maturity, language, and symbolism. While we will not expound on the particular details of these theories in this course, such influences will serve as the groundwork for Topic 4, when we will apply interpersonal communications skills.

Organizational (Group) Communication

In the most practical sense, organizational communication (or group communication) refers to the exchange of information within a defined combination of people that functions as a whole rather than as separate individuals. Such groups can be defined as organizations, teams, divisions, businesses, religious affiliations, political parties, homeowner associations, families, and so on. Information sharing may flow through formal means, such as an internal memo from leaders, or informal means, such as company gossip. These groups are not constrained by size, scope, or geography, but they all have one common element: a shared purpose.

For some groups, the shared purpose is obvious. If you were to ask any member of any football team what their goal is, most would say, “To win a championship.” Perhaps not too ironic, football players who do not express such a shared goal usually represent teams that fail to win. For other groups, the shared purpose may not be as obvious, but if that group or team effectively communicates the shared objectives to the group, they are perhaps more likely to succeed.

Like the dyadic relationship between individuals, the ease and automation by which information can be disseminated among members is key to success. As groups expand and diversify, this ability to share information can become more complicated. For example, imagine a major corporation, Company A, merges with a smaller company, Company B. Company A may have a fluid and familiar method of sharing important data, but Company B might operate under a different communications method, such as in-person meetings rather than webcasts or mass emails, which are prevalent in Company A. This isn’t to suggest that a coherent group dynamic is unattainable in large groups, but the larger the group becomes, there will likely be a greater challenge to develop a successful communications plan.

One of the fundamental elements of a successful group is the ability to develop, define, and communicate a shared purpose (some call it a “mission statement” or “strategic objective”). Group leaders may dictate such objectives, collaborate with the group, or refer to outside resources for research data. Whatever the defined purpose may be, embedding that purpose into the culture of the group happens by way of effective communication. Once the senders (leadership) communicate this purpose to the receivers (group members), more detailed operational data can be shared within specialized groups.

Going back to the football team metaphor, you’d imagine that every team member knows the shared purpose (winning). In order to make this happen, coaches must develop specific strategies for winning, be it through a strong defense or an offense that features running or passing the ball based on the situational strengths or weaknesses of the opponent. The playbook is a specialized communications plan by which every team member is assigned a specific duty that is directly tied to the shared purpose. After every play, the team huddles to go over the next play, to encourage specific team members, or to alter plans depending on the circumstances. Once the team lines up to hike the ball, a team leader reads the situation and barks out coded messages, some that feature specific team members but also include the entire group.

The takeaway from this example is that group success often depends on successful group communication. The same principles can be applied to volunteer organizations, businesses, and religious groups. In all these defined assemblies of individuals, dysfunction becomes prevalent whenever communication fails. Many business employees complain about “silos” within their organizations that do not share important data with the larger group and work separate from the shared purpose. Others may experience malaise of being treated like more of a number than an individual whenever they see mass emails that are not relevant to their jobs. The same can be said of members who leave religious affiliations, feeling disenfranchised by the messages they receive relevant to their role within the group.

Whatever the group may be or what brings the group together, internal and organizational communications strategies function as the “glue” that keeps groups together and determines group outcomes, regardless of circumstance. Strategies for effective group communication will be covered in Topic 7.

Mass Communication

Unlike interpersonal or organizational communication, mass communication is the public dissemination of information from a single (or narrowly defined) source that is not specifically tied to any shared relationships between individuals who receive the messages. The receivers of mass communication may be defined in terms of local, regional, or global boundaries.

Mass communication can be categorized into two parts of the same concept. One part is defined in relation to the technological medium of delivery (paper, airwaves, internet, recordings, billboards, etc.) and the other in terms of the content itself (music, film, news, stories, etc.). For example, radio is a medium of mass communication, but it delivers a variety of content, including music, news, opinion, and sports.

Like other forms of information sharing, mass communication shares many elements of linear communication models, including creating a message, transmitting that message, and assuming that receivers (the audience) are able to process and understand the messages. New developments in technology have challenged the top-down assumption of mass communication, as audiences have increased their ability to share direct feedback with the senders, and the senders are able to immediately gather audience behavior data from the audience through live analytics. Though it was once considered a one-way pipeline of information, mass communication has rapidly evolved into a two-way flow of information. The best example of this change in mass communication is the advent of social media, which allows audiences to immediately express their reactions. Senders no longer have to wait for consumer or market research to gauge the feelings of receivers.

Market measurement has changed seemingly overnight in other ways, as mass communication providers have implemented audience tracking in real time, using online tools to provide instant feedback as to what is working and what is not. This sort of tracking used to require several days or weeks of manual data gathering. Until the dawn of the 21st century, radio and television entities used rating systems that depended on telephone surveys, journals, and other cumbersome methods that required a lot of time-consuming data analysis. TV and radio providers still use quarterly ratings books to position themselves for commercial sales, but they already know if their content is a hit or miss by the time these books are published.

Speaking of publishing, the audience for printed media changed even more rapidly over the past 20 years, and its decline can be easily measured by falling subscriptions since 2000.

Broadcast TV, radio, and print media still have audiences, but they are slowly and steadily shrinking as the key demographic group of 18-to-35-year-old people becomes less familiar with these traditional formats, consuming almost all their information through online and mobile sources. Many broadcast and print providers have been able to adapt their brands to the digital market but have encountered limits to new business models that require gaining more profits through commercial advertising sales. Audience “shrinking” may be a little misleading—the term would only be accurate when considering traditional formats in a vacuum. In truth, media consumer audiences have grown rapidly in general, but they have become more segmented due to having more choices, so they are therefore less monolithic.

For example, the film industry, another so-called traditional form of mass media, has experienced a similar decline as newspapers over the past 40 years, if you were to consider only the percentage of the population sitting in movie theaters (see the figure below).

By looking at the above graph, you might think that the film industry is failing spectacularly, but the truth is quite the opposite. The film industry is still rather profitable as it adapts to audience behavior that is linked to new technology. As you consider the 28 percent decline in per capita theater attendance since 2002 in the graphic, it’s also important to recognize the availability of content and the ability of audiences to replicate (or perhaps surpass) the quality of the theater experience at home since 2002. High-definition video and audio, home theater systems, and streaming content have all played roles in declining theater attendance, along with increases in ticket price. The film industry also leans heavily on blockbuster films to bolster profits, as was the case in 2018 when only 10 of the 242 films released accounted for more than 30 percent of all profits. Audiences may visit theaters less, but they are selectively consuming this form of entertainment through more than one channel. This movement within the film marketplace has not only maintained profits but has also allowed film providers to market specific content to specific demographic groups.

The news industry is another important player in transitioning from traditional media channels to digital delivery. News used to find dominance in print media, found similar success in broadcast formats, and has adapted (and continues to adapt) to digital business models. But “news” as a concept has changed as well. Mirroring other mass communication content providers, the news industry has found profit in catering to segmented online markets. In some cases, these traditional news sources have adapted to business models that include subscriptions, albeit with pared-down staff and much less profit. While most online or mobile news sources offer seemingly objective news information (such as historical events, natural disasters, crime), many have turned a majority of their content to programs showcasing pundits that favor one side of the political spectrum over the other, while continuing to claim news provider status. This sort of programming serves two purposes: first, to engage viewers based on their ideological preferences, and second, to keep their interest long enough to sell advertising. Many of these news programs serve as a negative form of entertainment, an ideological “bloodbath” of sorts, much like gladiator fights in ancient Rome.

This practice of using news channels to set one side against the other is nothing new. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, newspapers often took sides on a variety of issues, including politics, war, and economics, using sensational attacks or embellishment to increase circulation.

Social media is the newest player in the mass media scene, serving not only as a means by which individuals can connect and share messages with each other (a form of interpersonal communication) but also as a channel for mass dissemination of information (organizations also use private social media to keep groups informed and mobilized). This nuanced form of mass communication is distinct since many information gatekeepers depend on the audience itself to parse the information for them.