1.2 An Examination

As we’ve outlined, interpersonal communication can be defined as information sharing between people. But examined more closely, it’s a far more robust connection directly and indirectly affecting the ways senders and receivers interact, influence, and shape reality, outcomes, mindsets, and feelings. By its very nature, interpersonal communication is not, and cannot be, an isolated act. Simply by sharing space and being aware of another’s physical presence, people communicate, however subtly or unintentionally. If a colleague suddenly sprinted by your cubicle, or someone looked in your direction when a certain topic was mentioned, messages would be transmitted to you even if you weren’t the intended receiver or if the message itself were subliminal. Both of these would be examples of nonverbal communication, but remember that interpersonal communication includes verbal and written communication too. In this course, we’ll view all three through the context of organizations.

Methods and Strategies

To get started, let’s review the two methods by which verbal, nonverbal, and written communication can be delivered.

In this scenario, you’ve no chance to protest or to boast having completed the project because a response of any kind wasn’t invited. It’s a classic workplace example of one-way communication—when a sender transmits information without any expectation of discussion or feedback. While it has the advantage of being faster and easier for the sender—in the example, your boss never stopped walking—one-way communication means potentially critical information, words of affirmation, or feedback of any kind can’t be returned. How does the following example differ?

In this scenario, your boss invites a response. Two-way communication like this involves the exchange of information between people. Engaging in two-way communication means the sender is receptive to feedback should the receiver be willing and able to provide it. Although a dialogue creates an opportunity for rapport building, innovation, collaboration, and learning, it also invites a litany of subliminal emotional responses that could produce unforeseen, possibly negative, outcomes. We’ll discuss these in more detail in later topics.

To limit unwanted feedback, many people choose to avoid two-way or any form of communication for that matter, a tactic we will define as withdrawal strategy. It is one of six strategies employed to exchange information interpersonally since silence, after all, is a message in itself. Let’s look at the five other strategies here, examining them through an organizational lens and paying particular attention to how communication strategy and its result may immediately and dramatically affect not only the individuals directly involved but also the entire organization.

Synonymous with one-way communication, a controlling strategy is common among dictatorial business and organizational leaders. Operating from a place of superiority, a controlling sender directs, often through manipulation, the actions of those beneath him or her. This power play reinforces company hierarchies and establishes divisions of labor. While assigning jobs to the three employees in our example may save time, none is invited to collaborate or provide feedback.

Tone alone strikes a sharp contrast between this and our previous example. The egalitarian strategy demonstrated here is a two-way, inclusive strategy with a built-in feedback system. Best for fostering understanding and innovation, it would not be an effective strategy for navigating disciplinary actions.

Diplomacy can take practice, especially when emotions are involved. In this example, Yuto must exercise the structural strategy to maintain professionalism despite his overwhelming personal feelings. Used to complement an egalitarian approach, structural communication can be an orderly way to build relationships and support collaboration. Structural communication is often seen written into organizations’ mission and values statements, rhetoric, and benefits packages.

The dynamic strategy is used when a sender employs a powerful, motivational style to move receivers to act. In the example above, a keynote speaker inspires the majority of her audience members but leaves one audience member frustrated by confusion. In this way, a dynamic strategy is only as effective as its primed and educated audience.

The relinquishing strategy, as demonstrated here, is a straightforward delegation of power or responsibility. As long as the receiver is equipped and motivated to accept that responsibility, this can be an effective collaborative strategy.

Motivations

So, what motivates a sender to choose a particular communication method or strategy? Four theories offer four possible answers.

Social Penetration Theory (SPT) suggests communicating based on a desire, need, or curiosity to get closer to others. “Getting in on a deal,” “on the inside track,” or “into a relationship” are all phrases that refer to a determined or even unconscious pursuit to belong. This could play out in any number of ways within organizations, but, usually, one person does the bulk of the sharing to drive connection. The following four terms define a familiar pattern of communication for those seeking intimacy:

Critics of this theory argue it’s too simplistic; that in order to build and secure a relationship, one must communicate unselfish interests and intentions as well. Regardless, relationships born from selfish intentions blossom all the time in organizations, whether to achieve personal or professional advancement.

Predicted Outcome Value Theory is a selfish strategy; it is the theory of communicating with an intention to further one’s own potential. It’s a narrower version of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which suggests one communicates not to seek information for knowledge but to ascertain the value of a connection with the receiver. While Uncertainty Reduction is achieved through initial conversations only, Predicted Outcome Value is attained through multiple exchanges as long as an initial exchange indicates promise. Communication will wane, however, if or when perceived value diminishes. Let’s see how they play out in the workplace:

This example demonstrates the potential power of first impressions. Pablo initiated communication to eliminate uncertainties about a new colleague. Yet, his initial satisfaction waned with repeated interactions. In this hypothetical scenario, we don’t know Pablo’s reasons for becoming dissatisfied, but we may assume he determined that deepening a relationship with his colleague would not prove advantageous.

Social Exchange Theory suggests engaging in communication based on a cost-benefit analysis. The motivation here is less personal and more about the exchange of goods and services to change or restructure one’s relational circumstance or standing. Relative equity exists when participants strike a balance. Consider the following example:

In this scenario, Annika, an accountant, weighs her options: manage a heavy client load on her own or share the burden. It may seem like a no-brainer, but an intern can rarely work independently. Much of the time Annika may save by off-loading some of her work will be spent guiding her helper instead. She decides to engage, with the presumption that once the intern is trained, he’ll become a loyal, self-sufficient assistant.

The Fallout

The workplace is a small place, and failed, strained, or experimental relationships, however distant or well-intended, can challenge far more than an individual’s productivity, innovation, motivation, morale, and longevity. Interpersonal communication can affect an entire client team, staff, or corporation. As such, participants in any interaction must accept responsibility for their role in it by exercising professional choices and behaviors for the betterment of the whole. In upcoming topics, we’ll address particular strategies to facilitate professional choices when we examine the roles of written and verbal communication within an organization and how their thoughtful execution can lead to more robust cooperation and productivity.