Name five barriers which attributed to the miscommunication?
According to the Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary, barrier is explained as ‘something that exist between one thing or person and another and keeps them separate’.[1] Therefore, communication barriers can be defined as any hurdles, external or internal forces, that distort the intended message from a sender where the intended meaning is not shared or understood similarly by the receiver.
As portrayed in the case study, the group managed to list down five barriers that attributed to the miscommunication in the company.
a) Perception
Perception is a person’s view of reality and since no two people have the same experiences and training, therefore, both will see things differently resulting different interpretations of the same situation.
Both John and his boss, Mr Philip Ang, have perceived the intended message differently thus leading to a different understanding on the actual message sent.
i) John
He has perceived the reply from his boss as a positive comment. He felt that he has done very well and has positively met the boss expectations. Having the thought of himself as an excellent worker and giving no problem for his boss and after 12 years of working independently most of the time, he perceived that he had a good chance of getting a promotion soon. His perception was derived from the words and phrases his boss used, such as ‘okay ’, ‘happy’ and ‘no problem’. He perceived these words as a positive connotation to his career development. His perception was strengthened by the fact that the boss ‘leaves him very much on his own’.
ii) Mr Philip Ang, The Boss Himself
As for Mr Philip Ang, he perceived John’s silence as a positive reaction to his reply. The fact that John has stayed in the company for 12 years and has been left alone in doing his job without any complain, has given Mr Ang the impression that John was happy and contented at his current position. With this impression pictured in his mind, he has answered John’s question in an affirmative such as ‘okay’, ‘happy’, ‘don’t see any problems’ as to ensure John of his validity in the company.
Basically, both of them perceived the messages totally reversible. John wrongly perceived the reply given by the boss. Definitely, Mr Ang was happy with John since he was an experience and independent worker and has not created any problems for the company. Most probably, Mr Ang intended to tell John that he was an above average worker through his use of words but was not an excellent worker. He may not have met the company criteria for a promotion but his validity in the company was still needed. But sadly, John perceived the response as an assurance of a promotion thereby going around and ‘casually mentioned the conversation he had with Mr Ang’s secretary, Elaine’.
b) Inferences
An inference is an assumption made by the receiver of a message due to vague or incomplete transmissions that requires the receiver to fill in the hidden meanings by observing the situation and drawing assumption about it.
Both John and his colleagues especially, Elaine, have made an assumption regarding John’s promotion which have also contributed to the process of miscommunication.
i) John
Upon receiving the response from his boss and through the way his boss treated him, John immediately made an assumption by filling in the hidden messages rather than confirming his assumption with his boss. He was ‘glad to hear this’, continued to work independently ‘without referring much to Mr Ang’ and ‘casually mentioned the conversation he had with Mr Ang’s secretary, Elaine’.
He was assuming that he would be promoted soon. His assumption was further strengthened when he overheard his name being mentioned as one of those listed for promotion with the ‘confirmation’ from the boss secretary, Elaine, through one of the rumours or ‘grapevine’ during coffee-break. Following this incident, he was rest assured and very confident that his assumption was correct and was ‘delighted to hear this’ and ‘quickly called all his colleagues ……… to lunch, announcing his promotion’. His happiness was later turned into despair due to his wrong assumption and he sent his ‘letter of resignation that same afternoon’.
ii) Colleagues
His boss secretary, Elaine, had made the same assumption that John was going to be promoted when John mentioned to her regarding the conversation he had with Mr Ang and how ‘pleased’ he was with John’s performance. She also went to the extent of spreading her assumption to the other colleagues which was later became rumours in the company where her name was mentioned by James. His other colleagues, hearing the rumours also made assumption that John was going to be promoted soon, since the message was ‘ according to Elaine’ who was John’s boss secretary.
c) Evaluating The Source
Message can also be distorted by the way the receiver interprets or evaluates it by considering who the is the sender.
John evaluated the source of the message from two main people, Mr Ang and Elaine.
i) John - Mr Ang
Being his boss and getting those message ‘straight from the horses mouth’, John immediately evaluated that his promotion was ‘just around the corner’. Thus, he evaluated the words used by his boss such as ‘okay’, ‘happy’, ‘no problem’ and ‘left him on his own’ as a good sign of his forthcoming promotion and was ‘glad to hear this’.
ii) John - Elaine
Elaine, being a secretary to Mr Ang, was normally seen as an important person who always has a direct communication with the boss and always having a first time information regarding company matters especially, pertaining to appraisal and promotion. Therefore, when John overheard the rumours among his colleagues with Elaine name being mentioned, he immediately evaluated that his promotion was confirmed and felt ‘delighted’ and ‘quickly called all his colleagues ……… to lunch, announcing his promotion’ without having a second thoughts in questioning the truth of the rumours.
Due to his quick evaluation of the source, this made him to have emotional blocks which distorted his understanding in the actual message being conveyed by his boss. He was self - assured that he has evaluated correctly and thus, he would immediately encompassed himself in an emotional blocks of happiness, gladness, delighted and reacted confidently to the response by continuing to work independently ‘without referring much to Mr Ang’. It also has made him failed in evaluating correctly the rumours that he had overheard regarding his promotion. He failed to evaluate the message properly because he was emotionally driven with high aspiration of getting a promotion and his mental was block from questioning the actual intended meaning of the messages eventhough they came from the main source.
d) Number of Links
This occurs when the message is passed through many people resulting in distortion of the message from its originality.
Initially, John was actually mentioning to Elaine regarding the replied he got from Mr Ang on his work perfomance without going that ‘extra mile’ in telling her about his forthcoming promotion. But the original message from John got distorted as it passed through the staffs in the company due to the number of links. By the time the message reached James, it could have been distorted with John’s promotion included in the conversation. The distortion was so great that even Elaine’s name was mentioned as a referral to John’s promotion which acted as a ‘confirmation’ especially to John.
e) Absence of Feedbox
The absence of feedback prevents the receiver from clarifying his doubts and getting the sender’s intended message.
The absence of feedbox was much to be seen in this case study presented to us. The failure of feedbox can be noticed in 3 situations such as:
i) John - boss and colleagues
There were minimal interactions between John and his boss. This could be seen in the 12 years he spent in the company and most of the time his boss left him on his own. It was also a one-way communication since most of the time it was John who approached his boss and asked about his performance rather than vice – versa. This could be seen through the phrase, ‘whenever John ask Mr Ang’, denoting the one-way communication between John and his boss. It was definitely an unhealthy relationship between a surbodinate and his boss, which contributed to the absence of feedback.
John also failed to clarify the intended message of his boss on hearing the reply from him but instead accepted literally the words that his boss uttered and interpreted those words to his own understanding.
The absence of feedback between John and his colleagues regarding the rumours of his promotion has also led his resignation. Instead of questioning the truth of the rumours with his colleagues especially Elaine, his boss secretary, he took the message to his advantage, without the slightest doubt. This absence of feedback or lacking in communication between John and his other department colleagues maybe due to the minimal lateral interactions that the staffs in the different department had in the company.
ii) Boss - John
As a boss to John, we do believe that he has the responsibility to do and talk more with John rather than ‘leaves John very much on his own’. Definitely, he has not done much in his role as a boss where communication was part of his major responsibility. His passive action and response to John question was really ‘uncalled for’ in his position as a boss. As a person on the top level, he should be more in a position to facilitate feedbox and sharing information’s with John rather than vice – versa. He should be prepared to tell John the truth of his position in the company with regards to the company promotional criteria rather than being general and vague in his response.
His ‘can’t be bothered attitude’ has really created a strong communication barrier between him and John leading to poor interactions and absence of feedbox.
iii) Colleagues - John
Rumours or ‘grapevine’ has always been accepted as a normal behaviour among staffs in an organization. Most of the time, rumours seems to be an accepted form of an ‘accurate information’ especially among the lower level staffs. Due to this, it has led to a lot of misleading conclusion among staffs. In this situation, John’s colleagues failed to clarify with him on the truth of his promotion eventhough they were having coffee break together. Even Elaine, his boss secretary, failed to give John her feedback during the conversations they had with each other and ironically, she became the initial spark of the rumours.
Therefore, this absence of feedback in the company has caused a major problem to John personally and if this problem continues, the organization may also get affected sooner or later.
Conclusion
The group members have agreed that the five barriers stated above are the main contributors to the miscommunication in the company, which finally led John resignation from his job of twelve years.
These emotional blocks was clearly presented in the text through his reactions and feelings upon getting the reply from his boss and when he overheard his name and the name of his boss’s secretary being mentioned through the grapevine. Whenever he felt that his hope was convinced, and and ‘quickly called all his colleagues ……… to lunch, announcing his promotion’. His immediate resignation ‘that same afternoon’ was also due to the fact that he was emotionally embarrassed and thus, it has not given himself a chance to discuss the matter with his boss and to explain the embarrassment to his colleague.
John interpreted the messages he received only through the words and phrases that confirmed to his perception and assumption of getting a promotion. The words that were used by his boss such as ‘okay’, ‘happy’ and ‘no problem’ has made him felt good and hopeful. They gave him the assurances that his chance of getting a promotion was definite. This was again repeated in the grapevine incident where he overhead his name and the name of his boss secretary, Elaine, being mentioned by his colleagues, thus, assuring him of his promotion. This selective listening method that he chose has prevented him from questioning his boss on his intended meaning of the reply and also failed him to ask his colleagues on the truth of the rumours.
Next - Breaking Barrier
[1] Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary / A.S Hornby / 6th Edition / Oxford University Press 2000 / Pg 81
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
