Multicommunicating across
the Pacific
Not long ago,
Doug Stuart was
skeptical that communica- tion technology would be anywhere as good as a meeting with everyone
in the same
room. “If you
had asked me that
four years ago
I would have
rolled my eyes
and said it is never going
to work,” says the chief information officer at IBM New
Zealand.
Today, technology quality, together
with the ability
to multicommunicate during meetings, has dramatically
improved the communication experience of virtual meetings. “I’m
looking at my screen and
seeing their pre- sentations and hearing their
voices,” Stuart said while he remotely attended
a meeting of IBM colleagues in the United States
from his workplace in Wellington. “You have the
ability to raise
your hand, send
real-time text messag- ing to the chair
of the meeting . . . and blogs are active
during these sessions as well.”53
than they assume,54 but
the volume of information transmitted simultaneously through two digital communication channels is sometimes
greater than through one high media richness channel.
2.
Communication proficiency. Earlier in this chapter
we explained that
communi- cation effectiveness is partially determined by the sender’s
ability and motivation
with the communication channel. People with
higher proficiency can
“push” more information through
the channel, thereby
increasing the channel’s information flow. Experienced
smartphone users, for instance, can
whip through messages in a flash, whereas new users struggle to type notes and organize
incoming messages.
In contrast, there
is less variation in the ability
to communicate through
casual conversation and other
natural channels because
most of us develop good
levels of proficiency throughout life and possibly through hardwired
evolutionary development.55
3.
Social presence
effects. Channels with high media
richness tend to have more
social presence.56 However, high
social presence also
sensitizes both parties
to their relative status
and self-presentation, which
can distort or divert attention away from the message.57 Face-to-face communication
has very high media richness, yet its high
social presence can disrupt the efficient flow of information
through that medium.
During a personal
meeting with the company’s CEO, for example, you might concentrate more on your image
to the CEO than on what the CEO
is saying to you. In other words,
the benefits of channels with
high media richness may be offset by more social presence distractions,
whereas lean media have much less social presence
to distract or distort the transmitted information.
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS AND PERSUASION
Some communication channels are more effective than others for persuasion, that is, changing another person’s beliefs and attitudes. Studies support the long-held view that spoken communication, particularly face-to-face interaction, is more persuasive than emails, websites, and other forms of written communication. There are three main reasons for this persuasive effect.58 First, spoken communication is typically accompanied by nonverbal communication. People are persuaded more when they receive both emotional and logical messages, and the combination of spoken with nonverbal communication
provides this dual punch. A lengthy pause, raised voice tone, and (in face-to-face interac- tion) animated hand gestures can amplify the emotional tone of the message, thereby signaling the vitality of the issue.
A second reason why conversations are more persuasive is that spoken
communica- tion offers the sender high-quality, immediate feedback about
whether the receiver
un- derstands and accepts
the message (i.e.,
is being persuaded). This feedback allows
the sender to adjust
the content and emotional tone
of the message more quickly
than with written communication. A third reason
is that people
are persuaded more under condi- tions of high social
presence than low social presence. Listeners have higher motivation to
pay attention and consider
the sender’s ideas in face-to-face conversations (high social presence). In contrast, persuasive communication through a website, email,
and other low social presence channels
are less effective due to the higher degree
of anonymity and psychological distance from the persuader.
Although spoken communication tends to be more persuasive, written communi- cation can also persuade others to some extent. Written messages have the advantage of presenting more technical detail than can occur through conversation. This factual information is valuable when the issue is important to the receiver. Also, people ex- perience a moderate degree of social presence in written communication with friends and coworkers, so written messages can be persuasive when sent and received with close associates.
Communication Barriers (Noise)
In spite of the best intentions of sender and receiver to communicate, several barriers (called “noise” earlier in Exhibit 9.1) inhibit the effective exchange of information. As author George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “The greatest problem with communica- tion is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” One barrier is that both sender and receiver have imperfect perceptual processes. As receivers, we don’t listen as well as senders assume, and our needs and expectations influence what signals get noticed and ignored. We aren’t any better as senders, either. Some studies suggest that we have difficulty stepping out of our own perspectives and stepping into the perspec- tives of others, so we overestimate how well other people understand the message we are communicating.59
Language issues can be huge sources of communication noise because
sender and receiver might not have the same co- debook. They might not speak the same language, or might have different meanings
for particular words
and phrases. The English language (among others)
also has built-in ambiguities that cause misunderstandings. Consider the phrase “Can
you close the door?” You might assume the sender is asking whether shutting the door is permitted. However, the question
might be asking whether
you are physically able to shut the
door or whether the door is designed such
that it can be shut.
In fact, this
question might not be a question at all; the person
could be politely telling you to shut the door.60
The ambiguity of language isn’t always dysfunctional noise.61 Corporate leaders sometimes purposively use obscure language to reflect the ambiguity of the topic or to avoid un- wanted emotional responses produced by more specific words. They might use metaphors to represent an abstract vision of the company’s future, or use obtuse phrases such as “rightsizing” and “restructuring” to obscure the underlying
communicators also use more abstract words and symbols when addressing diverse or distant (not well known to the speaker) audiences, because abstraction increases the like- lihood that the message is understood across a broader range of listeners.
Jargon—specialized words and phrases for specific occupations or groups—is usually
designed to improve
communication efficiency. However, it is a source of communica-
tion noise when transmitted to people who do not possess the jargon codebook.
Fur- thermore, people who use jargon excessively put themselves in an unflattering light. For example,
Twitter cofounder and CEO Jack Dorsey recently
fell into the jargon trap when attempting to gently
tell hundreds of Twitter employees that they would
be laid off. His email to all staff
began: “We are moving
forward with a restructuring of our
workforce.” After stating that “we plan to part ways with up to 336 people,” he closed
with: “We do so with a more purpose-built team, which we’ll
continue to build
strength into over time,
as we are now enabled
to reinvest in our most
impactful priorities.” Dorsey’s attempt
to soften the blow with corporate speak
didn’t have the desired effect, even
if employees did figure out what he meant.62
information load—the
amount of information to be processed
per unit of time. Informa- tion overload creates noise in the
communication system because information gets over-
looked or misinterpreted when people can’t
process it fast enough. The result is poorer-quality decisions as well
as higher stress.66
Information overload problems can be minimized by increasing our
information- processing capacity, reducing
the job’s information load, or through
a combination of both.
Studies suggest
that employees often increase
their information-processing capacity by temporarily reading faster, scanning through documents more
efficiently, and remov- ing distractions that
slow information-processing speed. Time management
also increases information-processing capacity. When information overload
is temporary, employees can increase
their information-processing capacity by working
longer hours. Information load can be reduced by buffering, omitting,
and summarizing. Buffering involves having incoming
communication filtered, usually by an assistant. Omitting occurs when we decide
to overlook messages, such as using
software rules to redirect
emails from distribution lists to folders that we rarely
look at. Summarizing involves digesting a condensed version of the complete communication, such as reading
an executive summary
rather than the full report.
Cross-Cultural
and Gender Communication
Increasing globalization and cultural diversity have created
more cross-cultural com- munication
issues.67 Voice
intonation is one form of cross-cultural communication
barrier. How loudly, deeply, and quickly people speak varies across cultures, and these voice intonations
send secondary messages that have different
meanings in different societies.
Language is an obvious cross-cultural communication challenge. Words are easily misunderstood in verbal communication, either because the receiver has a limited
vo- cabulary or the sender’s accent
distorts the usual
sound of some words. In one cross- cultural seminar, for example,
participants at German electronics company
Siemens were reminded that a French
coworker might call an event
a “catastrophe” as a casual exaggeration, whereas
someone in Germany
usually interprets this word literally as an earth-shaking event.
Similarly, KPMG staff from the United Kingdom
sometimes re- ferred to another person’s suggestions as “interesting.” They had to clarify
to their German
colleagues that
“interesting” might not
be complimenting the
idea.68
Communication includes silence,
but its use and meaning
vary from one culture to another.69 One study estimated that silence and pauses represented 30 percent of conversation time between Japanese
doctors and patients, compared to only 8 percent of
the time between American doctors and patients. Why is there more silence in Japanese conversations? One reason is that interpersonal harmony
and saving face
are more important
in Japanese culture,
and silence is a way of disagreeing without
upset- ting that harmony
or offending the other person.70 In addition, silence
symbolizes re- spect and indicates that the listener is thoughtfully contemplating what has just been
said.71 Empathy is very important in Japan, and this shared
understanding is demon- strated without
using words. In contrast, most people in the United States and many other cultures view silence
as a lack of communication and often interpret long breaks
as a sign of disagreement.
Conversational overlaps also send different messages in different cultures. Japanese people usually stop talking when they are interrupted, whereas talking over the other person’s speech is more common in Brazil, France, and some other countries. The difference in communication behavior is, again, due to interpretations. Talking while someone is speaking to you is considered quite rude in Japan, whereas Brazilians and French are more likely to interpret this as the person’s interest and involvement in the conversation.
Politely Waiting
for Some Silence
Miho Aizu has attended many
meetings where participants
communicated in English.
Until recently, the manager at Accenture in Japan thought
she communicated well in
those sessions. But in a recent training
program con- ducted by the professional services firm, Aizu
learned that Japanese cultural
norms held back her involvement in cross-cultural business conversations. One such problem was that she tends
to be too polite in waiting for others to finish talking. “I was told I needed to jump into discussions
rather than wait until everyone
had said what
they wanted to say,” says Aizu. Managers
from North America,
South America, the Middle
East, and most of Europe
seldom al- low silence
to occur, so Aizu
and other Japanese
partici- pants are often
left out of the conversation.
Aizu also realized
that her involvement is held back by the
Japanese tendency to be overly
self-conscious about imperfect language skills. “During
the team discussions, there were
many things I wanted to say, but I felt I had to brush up my
English language and presentation skills,” Aizu admits. In contrast, Accenture managers from
many other non-English countries speak up in spite of their bro- ken
English.
In Japan, speaking
well and waiting
for others to finish are
signs of respect
and cultural refinement. But in meet- ings with managers across
most other cultures, this lack of communication sends a different
message. “There are many people who come to me and say they
don’t know what Japanese
people are thinking,” says
Accenture Japan president
Chikamoto Hodo. “Our people [at Accenture]
are
© Dave and Les Jacobs/Blend Images/Getty
Images RF
more talkative than most Japanese, but they still
have a dif- ficult time communicating with foreigners.”
Accenture wants to develop leaders who can com- municate effectively across its global
operations, so it has developed special programs that
coach its manag- ers to engage in better conversations with colleagues
and clients across
cultures. While Accenture participants learn about
Japanese communication practices, Aizu
and other Accenture
staff in Japan are coached
to be- come more active
communicators. “After
various training programs, I am more able to say what I need to say, with-
out worrying too much about the exact words,” says Satoshi Tanaka,
senior manager of human resources at Accenture Japan.72
NONVERBAL DIFFERENCES ACROSS CULTURES
Nonverbal communication represents another potential
area for misunderstanding across cultures. Many nonconscious or involuntary nonverbal cues (such as smiling) have the same meaning around the world, but
deliberate gestures often have different
interpreta- tions. For example, most
of us shake our head from side
to side to say “No,”
but a varia- tion of head shaking means
“I understand” to many people
in India. Filipinos raise their eyebrows
to give an affirmative answer,
yet Arabs interpret this
expression (along with clicking one’s tongue)
as a negative response. Most Americans are taught to maintain
eye contact with the speaker to show interest
and respect, whereas
some North American native groups learn at an early age to show respect
by looking down when an older or more
senior person is talking to them.73
GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION
Men and women have similar communication practices, but
there are subtle distinctions that can occasionally lead to misunderstanding and conflict (see
Exhibit 9.7).74 One dis- tinction is that men
are more likely
than women to view conversations as negotiations of relative status and power. They assert their power by directly giving
advice to others (e.g., “You should
do the following”) and using
combative language. There is also evi-
dence that men dominate the talk time
in conversations with
women, as well
as interrupt more and adjust their speaking style less than do women.
Men engage in more
“report talk,” in which the primary function of the conversation is impersonal and efficient information exchange. Women also
do report talk,
particularly when conversing with men, but
conversations among women
have a higher incidence of relationship building through
“rapport talk.”75 Women use more tentative speech patterns, including modifiers (“It might be a good idea . . .”), disclaimers (“I’m not certain,
but . . .”), and
tag questions (“This works, doesn’t it?).
They also make more use of indirect requests
(“Do you think you should
. . .”), apologize more often, and seek advice
from others more quickly than
do men. These
gender differences are modest, however, mainly because
men also
use these speech patterns
to some extent. Research does clearly
indicate that women are
more sensitive than men to nonverbal cues in face-to-face meetings.Together,
these conditions can create communication conflicts. Women who describe problems get
frus- trated that men offer advice rather
than rapport, whereas
men become frustrated because they can’t
understand why women
don’t appreciate their advice.
Improving Interpersonal Communication
Effective interpersonal communication depends on the sender’s
ability to get the mes- sage across and the receiver’s performance as an active listener. In this section,
we out- line
these two essential features of effective interpersonal communication.
GETTING
YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS
This chapter
began with the statement that effective communication occurs when the other person receives and understands
the message. This is more difficult to accomplish than
most people believe.
To get your
message across to the other
person, you first
need to empathize with
the receiver, such
as being sensitive to words that
may be ambiguous or trigger the wrong
emotional response. Second,
be sure that you repeat
the message, such as by rephrasing the key points a couple of times. Third,
your message competes with other messages and noise, so find a time when the receiver
is less likely
to be dis- tracted by these other
matters. Finally,
if you are
communicating bad news or criticism,
focus on the problem,
not the person.
ACTIVE
LISTENING
General Electric Company (GE) recently
revised its famous leadership development
program to become more aligned with the cultural diversity of its employees
and emerging leaders.
One discovery in past programs was that U.S. managers
were good at talking,
but didn’t always give the same priority to active listening. GE “now majors people on listening,” says Susan Peters,
GE’s chief learning officer. “It’s something we have to really work on, to equal the playing field between our American leaders and our non-American leaders.”76
GE and other companies are increasingly recognizing that effective leadership in- cludes active listening. Active listening is a process
of mindfully sensing
the sender’s signals, evaluating them
accurately, and responding appropriately. These three compo- nents of
listening—sensing, evaluating, and responding—reflect the listener’s side of the communication model
described at the beginning of this chapter.
Listeners receive the sender’s signals, decode them as
intended, and provide appropriate and timely
feedback to the sender (see Exhibit
9.8). Active listeners constantly cycle through
sensing, evalu- ating, and responding during
the conversation and engage in various activities to improve these
processes.77
•
Sensing. Sensing is the process
of receiving signals
from the sender
and paying attention to them. Active
listeners improve sensing
in three ways. First,
they post- pone evaluation by not
forming an opinion
until the speaker
has finished. Second, they avoid interrupting
the speaker’s conversation. Third, they remain motivated to listen to the speaker.
•
Evaluating. This component of listening includes
understanding the message meaning, evaluating the
message, and remembering the message. To improve their evaluation of the conversation, active listeners
empathize with the speaker— they try to understand and be sensitive to the speaker’s feelings, thoughts, and situation. Evaluation also improves by organizing the speaker’s ideas
during the communication episode.
•
Responding. This third component of listening involves providing
feedback to the sender, which motivates and directs the speaker’s communication. Active listen- ers accomplish this by maintaining sufficient eye contact
and sending back
chan- nel signals
(e.g., “I see”),
both of which
show interest. They
also respond by clarifying
the message—rephrasing the speaker’s ideas
at appropriate breaks (“So you’re saying that . . . ?”).
Communication throughout the Hierarchy
So far, we have looked at micro-level issues
in the communication process, namely, sending and receiving information between two employees or
the informal exchanges of information across several
people. But in this era where knowledge
is competitive advan- tage,
corporate leaders also need to maintain an open flow of communication up, down, and across
the entire organization. In this section, we discuss three
organization-wide communication
strategies: workspace design, Internet-based communication, and direct communication with top management.
WORKSPACE
DESIGN
To improve information sharing
and create a more sociable work environment, Intel
has torn down the cubicle walls
at its microchip design center
near Portland, Oregon.
“We realized that we were inefficient and not as collaborative as we would have liked,” ac- knowledges Neil Tunmore, Intel’s
director of corporate services. The refurbished build- ing includes
more shared space where employees set up temporary work areas.
There are also more meeting rooms
where employees can collaborate in private.78
Intel and many other companies are improving communication by redesigning the workspace and employee territorial practices in that space.79 The location and design of
hallways, offices, cubicles, and communal areas (cafeterias, elevators) all shape to whom we speak as well as the frequency
of that communication. Although these open-space arrangements increase the amount of face-to-face communication, they also potentially produce
more noise, distractions, and loss of privacy.80 “There were a lot of distractions, and it was hard to stay focused,” complained one GlaxoSmithKline employee soon after moving to the company’s open-space work
center in Raleigh, North Carolina.81 Others claim that open workspaces have minimal noise problems because employees tend to speak more softly and white noise technology blocks
out most voices. Still, the challenge is to increase
social interaction without
raising noise and distraction levels.
Another workspace strategy
is to cloister employees into team spaces,
but also en- courage sufficient interaction with people from other teams.
Pixar Animation Studios constructed its campus in Emeryville, California, with these principles in mind. The building encourages communication among
team members. At the same
time, the cam- pus encourages happenstance
interactions with people on other teams. Pixar executives call this the “bathroom effect” because team
members must leave their
isolated pods to fetch their mail, have lunch, or visit the restroom.82
INTERNET-BASED ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
For decades, employees received official company news through hard copy newsletters and magazines. Some firms still use these communication devices, but most have sup- plemented or replaced them completely with web-based sources of information. The
DIRECT
COMMUNICATION WITH TOP MANAGEMENT
According to various
surveys, effective organizational communication includes regular interaction directly
between senior executives and employees further
down the hierarchy.
One form
of direct communication is through town
hall meetings, where
executives brief a
large gathering of staff on the company’s current strategy and results. Although
the communication is mostly
from executives to employees, town hall meetings
are more personal and credible than
video or written
channels. Also, these
events usually provide some opportunity for employees to ask questions. Another strategy is for senior
execu- tives to hold roundtable forums with a small representation of employees, mainly
to hear their opinions on various issues.
A less formal approach to direct communication is management by walking around (MBWA). Coined by people
at Hewlett-Packard four decades ago, this is essentially the practice in which senior executives get out of their
offices and casually chat with
employ- ees on a daily
or regular basis.84 Some
executives, such
as Jet.com cofounder and CEO Marc Lore,
don’t even have an office or a desk;
they move around to different
workspaces, which makes MBWA a natural
part of their daily activity.
These direct communication strategies potentially minimize
filtering because executives listen
directly to employees. They also help executives acquire
a deeper meaning
and quicker understanding of internal
