Description
Management Study on Layer-Based Troubleshooting: Effective Communication with Applications in Management:- Communication (from Latin commūnicāre, meaning "to share"[1]) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior. It is the meaningful exchange of information between two or a group of person.
Management Study on Layer-Based Troubleshooting: Effective Communication with Applications in Management
ABSTRACT In the following paper, we propose a new theory of human communication that adds context and value to the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model of communication. We distinguish and define a family of communication concepts, following the logical implications of the application of the unifying principle of biology: evolution. This leads us to the concept of meta-evolution, or the literal evolution of ideas, and leads us to our definition of human communication: the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture. This meta-evolutionary theory includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' (encoding/decoding) that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model. We elaborate on each of the filters (technology, tradition, and personality) in later sections of the paper. First, we examine the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilize Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Finally, we utilize the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. Following this discussion, we turn to practical applications. First, we propose recommendations for using this theory to achieve effective communication, including a layer-based approach to communication troubleshooting. The paper concludes with a case study of the role of the personality filter in project management. Keywords: Communication Approaches; Troubleshooting communication problems; Motivation of human communication; Communication filters; Geert Hofstede; Shannon-Weaver Communication Model; SEMDR Communication Model; DiSC Assessment; Myers-Briggs; Effective Communication; Meta-evolution; Layer-Based Model of Communication
Table 1: Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 The Root Term "Communication" 2.2 Human Communication as Distinguished from Communication Among Living Things 2.3 Human Communication as Defined by the Cultural Survival Instinct 2.4 A Model of Communication 2.5 The Technology Filter 2.6 The Tradition Filter 2.7 The Personality Filter 2.8 Effective Communication 3.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPLICATION 3.1 Scenario 3.2 Management by Walking Around 3.3 Personality Assessment 3.4 Case Study - Team 7 Personality Assessments 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES
1.0.0 INTRODUCTION "We should beware of seeking or, worse, of finding a single, rigid, exclusive definition [of communication]" -Frank E. Dance [1] According to Aristotle, "humans are animals possessing the word" [7]. This implies that for human beings, questions concerning communication are literally existential--fundamental questions of existence. Humans' extensive efforts to define and discuss communication come as no surprise. Dance, whose quote follows the heading of this introduction, wrote an influential paper in 1970 analyzing the best of 95 definitions of the term 'communication' [1]. Although he executed a broad search, the paper did not approach an exhaustive collection of definitions, and Dance finally concluded: "the concept of communication . . . is overburdened" [1]. As a way forward, Dance recommends "the creation of a family of concepts" that allow useful definitions of communication within more specific contexts [1]. In the following paper, we will follow Dance's suggestion and illustrate a progression from the general concept of communication to a new theory of human communication based on the fundamental biological principle of evolution. This metaevolutionary theory includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' or lenses that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model. The paper concludes with applications and praxis in management communication. 2.0.0 DISCUSSION 2.1.0 The Root Term 'Communication' We will loosely define communication as the transference of information and knowledge of any sort. Shannon-Weaver's SEMDR model is arguably the fundamental paradigm of general communication. Their model is depicted in Figure 1: Sender--------------------- the originator of a message Encoder------------------- the means by which the message is packaged Medium or Message---- the idea or information Decoder------------------- the process used by the receiver to unpack/interpret the message Receiver------------------- the recipient of the sender's message These features can be depicted thus: S>E>M>D>R
Figure 1: SEMDR model of communication [6]
At a basic level, this model analyzes the process of communication as the attempt to transfer some knowledge between two parties. Critically, this model recognizes the necessary components of encoding and decoding. By identifying these components, this model indicates that a message must be transferred from one party to another via some method or symbol. Additionally, by showing encoding and decoding as separate processes, the model reveals that the method or symbol chosen to transfer the message (the encoding) must be mutually understood by both parties for the message to be successfully understood (decoded) by the receiver. A basic example is as follows: Tom attempts to communicate that a ball is yellow by saying in English to Jane, "This ball is yellow." Tom (the sender) encodes his message (this ball is yellow) as an audible utterance in English. If Jane (the receiver) can hear, understands English, and grasps which ball "this ball" is, she will most likely successfully decode Tom's message and understand it. Notice that by identifying the acts of encoding and decoding, we are able to identify points of potential failure in
the communication, such as Jane not being able to hear, Jane not understanding English, or the symbol "this" not being clear enough for Jane to understand which ball "this ball" is. 2.2.0 Communication Among Living Things as Distinguished from Human Communication Having established the fundamental concept of communication, we turn to communication among living things. Communication among living things adds an additional layer of complexity to the mechanical view of communication modeled by Shannon and Weaver. Living things have constraints and motivating factors that alter both the communication process and the communication context. Specifically, we note the fundamental motivating factor of living things: to keep living. The field of biology—the study of living things—supports this view. Solomon, Berg, and Martin state: "the concept of evolution is the cornerstone of biology" [11]. Evolution theory positions survival and reproduction as the essential goals of all living things, and further implies that creatures develop adaptations—e.g., communication abilities—to further this goal [11]. In other words, communication among living things is motivated at a fundamental level by the survival instinct. This enables a new analysis of communication among living things, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Stages in the evolution of communication
STAGES CHANGES METHOD Human Culture (Meta-personal; Cultural Reality) Idea Evolution Meta-personal (Meta-Evolution) (Cultural) Communication Social Culture (Interpersonal; Social Reality) Idea Sharing Interpersonal (Social) Communication Individual Culture (Intrapersonal; Individual Reality) Idea Creation Intrapersonal Communication (Thought) Context (Sub-personal; Objective Reality)
MOTIVE Cultural Survival Instinct
Social Survival Instinct
Individual (Animal/Darwinian) Survival Instinct
As seen in Table 2, ideas arise originally from context, or objective reality. Individuals develop ideas through thought as motivated by the individual survival instinct (i.e., the thinker survives). As seen in many species, however, social living arrangement can further improve individual survival by reaping advantages such as resource sharing, specialization, and turn-taking. Idea sharing through social communication is key to establishing this desirable living arrangement. All social animals share ideas—hunting wolves share ideas about where to find or how to catch prey, for instance. This improves individual survival, and for this reason, animals in such a society develop or possess a social survival instinct. The social survival instinct is like the individual survival instinct: the individual survival instinct is a fundamental motivation to preserve the individual, and the social survival instinct is a fundamental motivation to preserve the society (the group sharing ideas). Not only does the sharing of ideas create a rudimentary (social) society, but it also creates a rudimentary (social) culture —a culture that is the body of shared ideas. To summarize: social animals create a society by sharing ideas through social communication; and the body of shared ideas is a rudimentary culture. The existence of this society improves the survival of each individual, and so each individual develops an instinct to preserve the society (the social survival instinct). Intriguingly, although most social animals will develop a social survival instinct, they fail to develop a cultural survival instinct. In other words, social animals will attempt to preserve and develop their society —their group—but they make no attempt to promote or develop their group's set of shared ideas. The culture of an animal society dies with that society. Animal societies make no attempt, for instance, to teach their culture to other societies or preserve their culture over time. The cultural survival instinct is the fundamental difference between humans and social animals, just as the social survival instinct is the fundamental difference between social animals and other living things. We posit that for this reason, human communication is distinct and complex. The practical distinction can be observed in Table 2: social (animal) cultures are created through idea sharing, whereas human cultures are created through idea evolution. The terminology used here is instructive. In human culture, ideas are preserved (survive) based on their fitness for use. Ideas are improved (adapt) to become more useful, and in the end the best ideas survive and become mainstream. Human ideas are literally evolving with no connection to genetic material, and for this reason, we call this concept meta-evolution, or higher-level evolution. The connection from idea evolution to the cultural survival instinct is simple. Culture is the shared body of ideas. Human culture, unlike animal culture, evolves (because the ideas that make it up evolve). The continual evolution of human culture enables a list of survival benefits to individuals that make up that culture (human society) that is an order of magnitude at least greater than the survival benefits accrued to individuals that make up a social culture (animal society). The objective observation that human culture leads to improved individual survival is an elementary test with clear results. Whereas in animal society the existence of a culture is a technicality, in human society the culture actively works for the improvement of individual survival. Thus, a cultural survival instinct develops. The implications of the cultural survival instinct are somewhat startling. At its core, the concept implies that individual survival is linked to cultural survival. This makes clear sense in light of history, noting that when a culture is overthrown by another culture, the shift is often accompanied by the massive loss of individual lives within the overthrown culture. 2.3.0 Human Communication as Defined by the Cultural Survival Instinct While the difference between communication in living things and social animals is clear —thought versus social communication—the difference between communication in social animals and humans is less clear. If social animals practice
social communication, humans practice cultural communication. Just as social communication is the means to creating an animal society, cultural (human) communication is the means to creating a human culture. Cultural, or human, communication is the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture. First, human communication, as in Shannon and Weaver's model of general communication, is a process as opposed to an action. Communication is continual and complex. Second, human communication involves the interaction of individuals. Again, this does not diverge from Shannon and Weaver's model. Third, the process of human communication is purposeful. Human communication serves to increase the survivability of the culture(s) of the society(s) to which the individual participants belong—the cultural survival instinct at work (and thus, cultural communication). To simplify, human communication develops culture by attempting to share and improve on ideas. As a point of clarification, we define human communication as a productive process, however individual acts may be said to be human communicative acts whether they are successful or not in increasing the survivability of the individual's society's culture. As in evolution, the process of human communication requires both successful and unsuccessful attempts in order to discover improvements. 2.4.0 A Model of Human Communication Human culture arguably contains two types of ideas. One type of idea operates on scientific principles and achieves objectively productive ends. Another type of idea is more difficult to claim as objectively productive —these are the ideas we typically associate with culture, and often vary from culture to culture (e.g., etiquette, holidays). We refer to the first type as technologyand the second type as tradition. This dichotomy of ideas composing human culture is non-trivial. Technology is a growing body of shared practical knowledge; whereas traditions appear to be eccentricities arising from a specific society's unique experience of acquiring its technology, as see in Table 3.
Table 3: Idea analysis
Idea Type: Technology Tradition
Arises from: Logic Happenstance
Influenced by: Context
Thus, a culture can be viewed as the combination of its body of practical knowledge (technology) combined with its traditions, which include all non-practical knowledge. Examples of technology include nuclear fission and hybrid gasoline-electric motors. Examples of traditions include the wearing of tuxedos at weddings and feasting on the third Thursday of each November. Technology and traditions have many non-trivial implications for human communication when viewed within the context of human communication as a process. Each shapes the effectiveness a human communication between two individuals. We offer Figure 2 as a model of human communication based on the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model introduced earlier in this paper, placing the human communication process within the framing elements of context and culture, and offering further analysis of the components of encoding and decoding in human communication. (Note: we offer a simplified version of this model in the discussion of effective communication).
Figure 2: Human communication model
As seen in Figure 2, individual ideas are informed by context. The "individual ideas" to be expressed in our model are analogous to the sender/receiver in the SEMDR model (see Figure 1). They represent the original concepts that an individual intends to share. We analyze the encoding/decoding process as containing three component 'filters': personality, tradition, and technology. We will elaborate on each of these filters in later sections of this paper. First, we examine the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilize Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Finally, we utilize the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. After passing through the three filters of the encoding process, the encoded message is broadcast within interpersonal space by a communicative act, at which point the message must be decoded by the receiver, with his or her own set of filters. Our model of human communication, as seen in Figure 2, flows in both directions as the two individuals reach a common understanding and ideas become shared. As ideas become shared within society, those ideas, whether new technology or new tradition, become part of the culture and thereby contribute to the creation of an enduring culture. Within the model, feedback occurs in several places. As culture evolves, it influences the tradition and technology filters used while creating shared ideas, which in turn allow culture to evolve. Feedback also occurs between communicators to create shared ideas. Finally, individuals affect (create feedback with) their context (objective reality) through action. Indirect feedback occurs between the individual communicators and culture, as culture is constantly influencing the feedback loop between communicators in the creation of shared ideas. Thus, as communicators internalize shared ideas, communicators also internalize cultural concepts. Individual communicators only indirectly affect culture, because an individual cannot create culture. An individual's ideas can affect culture, but only when shared with other members of the individual's society. Another important indirect feedback relationship is between culture and context. Only individuals can affect context, the objective reality. Culture itself cannot act in a physical way, so it affects the objective reality (context) through the actions of individuals, who are indirectly affected by culture. By contrast, context has in many ways a much stronger influence on culture, although still indirect. All ideas originate through observation of context, and culture is simply a continuously refined group of ideas. Thus, culture is largely defined by context. Context, however, is objective reality. It can only be shaped by culture if individuals actively work to change it. This certainly occurs, but context is by no means defined by culture. There are a few revealing facts about this model. First, everything occurs by the action or communication of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals. Culture is the collection of ideas shared among individuals. Only individuals have the power to act. Second, the only independent input to the system is context. While ideas can be shared and generated between
individuals, these ideas must ultimately originate from context. Thus, context is a relatively passive, yet overridingly important, feature of the model. 2.5.0 The Technology Filter Throughout history, the technological filter evolved as human cultures changed and developed. Many scientists believe that early human cultures relied heavily on sign language for communication. Early historical cultures through recent years relied primarily on audible languages. This represents a technological shift from sign language to audible language, and would have greatly influenced the content and character of communication. In recent history, developing communication technologies had major effects on world events and cultures. In the United States, the invention of the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet have each had profound consequences for the experience of communication in the culture of the United States. Here, the technological communication filter acts in an intuitively obvious way, and includes choice of medium in an age where technology presents a host of choices (e.g., face to face, videoconference, audio conference, instant message, text/SMS message, email, or postal service letter). The technological communication feature also encompasses the technological context of a culture, i.e., what is or is not feasibly possible within that culture at the present time. For instance, the phrase, "I will send that information to you immediately" takes on an entirely different meaning today than it would have fifty years ago, due to the technological filter. Today, "I will send that information to you immediately," might literally mean "you will also receive it immediately." With the technological filter of fifty years ago, "I will send you that information immediately," might mean anywhere from a few minutes plus transit time to a period of days or weeks. 2.6.0 The Tradition Filter Tradition is a powerful filter in the process of human communication, as it is both culturally-determined and often internalized by communicators. To further analyze the concept of tradition, the elements of tradition that are internalized can be separated from the elements of tradition that are not internalized. We refer to the internalized aspects of tradition as values and the non- internalized aspects as mores, as illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Analysis of tradition
Idea Type: Internalized by Individual? Influenced by: Values Mores Yes Culture No
To further examine this filter, we reference the work of Geert Hofstede. Hofstede analyzed national culture, which continues to be a worthwhile subject of study in today's global business environment [11]. In his seminal analysis of management, Thriving on Chaos, Peters devotes an entire chapter to lambasting the refusal of US businessmen to learn about other cultures so they can do good business in other counties [8]. We note that Hofstede's work can be applied to subcultures as well. Hofstede defines four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures [2]. This information is discussed in more detail in Wayman's 2011 paper, Cultural Hermeneutics: A Message in Focus [12]. (In this analysis we leave out his fifth dimension of long-term orientation, as it is the least applicable.) These describe both internalized and non-internalized elements, and so affect both values and mores. As such, they are powerful, and not always consciously understood, influences on communication. The four dimensions are: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, and Masculinity vs. Femininity.
• • • •
2.6.1 Power Distance Hofstede's first dimension is Power Distance (PD), which describes how people in society interact with those in higher or lower positions of wealth, prestige, and power [2]. Two forces compete in this realm. The first encourages consistency by extending the privileges of those with rank in one area to other areas [2]. For example, this force describes how prestigious sports stars become rich [2]. The other encourages equality by offsetting rank in one area against rank in other areas, as in the disregard of wealth in some religions, or by adhering to a Universalistic legal system in which all people are held as equal [2]. In practice, the idea is that people interact in different ways with people at different power levels, and cultures tend to follow certain patterns in this regard. For instance, Latin American and Asian cultures are seen as having high power distance (PD), whereas Western European and USA cultures are seen as having low PD. The attributes of cultures with high and low PD are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Power distance [2]
High Power Distance Hierarchies are existential: superiors are superior persons Children socialized to obedience More centralization of government Less question of authority
Low Power Distance Hierarchies are convenient Children socialized to independence Government based on representation More question of authority
2.6.2 Uncertainty Avoidance Hofstede's second dimension is Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), which expresses a culture's comfort level with change and risk [2]. The consequences of such a cultural stance have great implications for a culture's view of technology and tradition. The attributes of cultures with high and low UA are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Uncertainty avoidance [2]
High Uncertainty Avoidance More resistant to change Push for status quo Company loyalty considered virtuous Less ambition Will not admit dissatisfaction with an employer Has trouble trusting - even with family Fear of failure Task-oriented
Low Uncertainty Avoidance More accepting of change Support Innovation Company loyalty not a virtue More ambition Will admit dissatisfaction with an employer More trusting of people Hope for success More relationship-oriented
2.6.3 Individualism versus collectivism To a great extent, the Individualism versus Collectivism balance defines how individuals within a given society view themselves and their relationship with society [2]. Those from individualistic societies tend to define their identities primarily as individuals, whereas those from collectivistic societies tend to define their identities primarily as a member of their society. The attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Individualism versus collectivism [2]
Individualism Pleasure, affection, hedonism Individual financial security "Modern" or "postmodern" society "I" consciousness Calculated involvement with a company Qualification for a job based on previous task performance Identity separate from gender & religion More confrontational Education is learning how to learn
Collectivism Duty, prestige Financial security from/for clan (group) "Traditional" society "We" consciousness Moral involvement with a company Qualification for a job based on years in school Identity tied strongly to gender & religion Desire for harmony Education is learning how to do
2.6.4 Masculinity versus femininity The duality of male assertiveness versus female nurturance is widely confirmed by numerous fields [2]. The fundamental cultural assumptions and consciously observed rules of gender implications are important elements of the tradition filter in human communication. Masculine and feminine cultural attributes are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Masculinity versus femininity [2]
Masculinity Aggression is encouraged in a child's play Preference in higher pay in employment Chastity for brides but not for grooms Father decides on family size
Femininity Aggression in a child's play is not acceptable Preference in working fewer hours Equal expectations for bride and groom Mother decides on family size
2.7.0 The Personality Filter The personality filter is the most internalized filter, and as a result its effects are quite pervasive in shaping (filtering) the ideas passing through it. Due to the fact that personality is often an internalized, 'invisible' force in communication, we find the use of a typing system helpful in systematically considering the effects of personality on communication. The Myers-Briggs personality type assessment was a result of Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs' idea to apply C. G. Jung's psychological type research to the question of predicting, explaining, and categorizing the actions of different people. Myers and Briggs developed a typing method based on four binary parameters resulting in 16 possible personality types, as demonstrated in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Myers-Briggs' personality indicators [5]
Source of Energy
Extraversion "E" The need to talk things through. Keywords: Outgoing * Talkative * Sociable Introversion "I" The need to think things through. Keywords: Shy * Reserved * Reflective
Receiving Information
Intuition "N" Can see the big picture and future possibilities. Keywords: Brainstorming * Big Picture * Theory Sensing "S" Trusts the establishment and the tried and true. Keywords: Facts * Details * Data Collection
Making Decisions
Feeling "F" Considers others before making decisions. Keywords: Compassionate * Personal * Warm Thinking "T" Uses the logical choice. Keywords: Rational * Black and White
Personal Life
Perceiving "P" Enjoy surprises and changing plans. Keywords: Go with the flow * Unscheduled * Flexible Judging "J" Loves routine and to-do lists. Keywords Scheduled * Structured * Organized
Although there are some inherent assumptions and limitations in the use of 16 personality types to categorize a population of more than 7 billion, as we will show, these have been utilized productively in increasing communication effectiveness. These personality types are one way to understand personality's influence on the way we think and communicate. By analyzing the personality filter through the use of these personality types, communicators are enabled to better understand themselves and the unique way they send and interpret messages. 2.8.0 Effective Communication The human communication theory presented thus far has important and productive implications for the practical: namely, effective communication. To illustrate these implications further, we present in Figure 3 a simplified version of the human communication model given earlier (see Figure 2) that focuses on the elements of practical communication.
Figure 3: Simplified human communication model
2.8.1 Initial Troubleshooting Observations The first thing that the model in Figure 3 reveals is a focus on building a shared understanding of an idea between two communicators; this mutual understanding is the goal of communication. Identifying this goal allows the communicator to increase effectiveness by knowing what he or she needs to focus on to be successful.
The second thing that the model reveals is that between two communicators lie no fewer than six layers of encoding and decoding: the first participant's personality, traditions, and technology, plus the second participant's personality, traditions, and technology. The important takeaway from this observation is that participants in communication should maintain understanding and goodwill with each other during the communication process. With six layers of potential misunderstanding, there is no sense in getting upset—this will undermine the troubleshooting process and reduce the effectiveness of communication (remembering that the goal is mutual understanding, not one-upmanship). These two principles, applied, will improve communication effectiveness immeasurably. What follows is a brief suggestion for the 'troubleshooting' process mentioned. 2.8.2 Technology Filter Troubleshooting In trouble-shooting communication failures, we recommend beginning at the communication filters closest to the message itself, as communication participants are more consciously aware of them. Thus, we begin at technology. Failures in the technology filter amount to simple misunderstandings. In these situations, careful explanation and logic may resolve any apparent conflicts. Examples of these include: Inability to convey emotions critical to the message (e.g., sarcasm) within a medium that does not support video, or even audio. Differing levels of understanding of a subject matter (e.g., "Oh! I thought a widget was a round peg, not a square peg"). Deeper differences verging on tradition filter matter, such as the inability of educated people from different professions to communicate effectively with one another due to pervasively different levels of knowledge about a wide variety of issues.
• • •
2.8.3 Tradition Filter Troubleshooting with Mores The second filter (tradition) is often partially internalized by communicators. The portions of the tradition filter that have been internalized are a person's values, and the portions that have not been internalized are a person's cultural or a sub-cultural mores. As used in this context, mores are what are typically referred to as 'traditions,' and may include things like knowing and caring that the 25th of December is Christmas, or knowing that in Japan it is uncouth to store one's chopsticks sticking up out of one's rice. It is worth noting explicitly that when both communicators share a culture, communication problems due to the mores portion of the tradition filter are less likely: the message is encoded and decoded using the same cultural assumptions and thought- processes. As a result, mutual understanding (the goal of communication) is easier to reach. Communication problems resulting from different mores are almost as easy to fix as those resulting from technology filter problems. These communication problems are harder than technology filter problems, however, because they tend to elicit emotional responses. The trick is to make these emotional responses explicit; by directly addressing the difference in understanding, and explaining the issue, the solution becomes rapidly evident. 2.8.4 Tradition Filter Troubleshooting with Values Communication problems resulting from values are potentially the most difficult of all communication problems to solve. Personality filter problems are deeper, but people tend to grow up learning to cope with different personalities because they are so fundamental to human communication. By contrast, communicators tend to have little experience solving communication problems resulting from differing value (tradition) filters. While children grow up learning that siblings and friends have different personalities than they do, their parents often deliberately surround them with others with like values. As a result, people simply have little awareness of, and little experience solving, communications problems resulting from differing values. At the same time, these may be the most important communication problems to solve: religious disagreements—including religious wars—are an excellent example of value (tradition) filter communication failures. The best solution to value (tradition) filter communication problems is to identify and contain: the fact that values are internalized means that they are difficult (practically impossible) to change. If two people wish to effectively communicate across value differences, the best course of action is for each to respect the other's right to their own values, and either: 1) seek to reach common understandings of ideas that do not introduce value conflict, or 2) explicitly (as a means of reassurance) restrict the exchange to reaching mutual understandings of ideas that do not purport to be representative of the communicators' values. When solving tradition filter problems, including mores and values, Hofstede's four dimensions present a useful framework for understanding differences across cultures or subcultures. By using these dimensions, participants can explicitly examine differences in values, so they can better understand their communication difficulties. The tradition filter is often a blind spot —an area of communication that participants do not consciously think about—so having a framework to know where to look for differences, and supply words to talk about them, is invaluable. 2.8.5 Personality Filter Troubleshooting The final filter is the personality filter. This filter is entirely internalized, and some argue instilled from birth. Luckily, most people are socialized from a young age to adapt to differences in this filter when communicating. On the other hand, this filter is so pervasive (defining communicators' identities), that conflicts due to personality filters are inevitable. Unfortunately, conflicts that occur despite communicators' early socialization are difficult to remedy because the communicators' tools to deal with the problem have often been exhausted in the process of reaching a conflict. For this reason, an analytical approach is recommended. The use of an analytical personality type classification system such as DiSC (described below) or the Myers-Briggs is highly recommended. By breaking down personality into dimensions, the differences between two people's communication styles as influenced by their personality filters can be identified. From the differences that are identified, the participants can often determine the sources of conflict. Once the sources of conflict have been identified, then the communicators can rationally determine solutions. 2.8.6 Troubleshooting Conclusion In conclusion, by keeping the goal of communication in mind (mutual understanding) and maintaining goodwill and understanding, the effectiveness of communication can be greatly improved. Additionally, remaining communication conflicts can often be resolved or mitigated through an analytical trouble-shooting process that enables communicators to identify the source or sources of conflict or misunderstanding.
3.0.0 MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION THEORY 3.1.0 Scenario The authors of this paper were engaged as a management team for 6 other teams composed of 23 other students (the ICS 602 Wednesday section) engaged in projects for the Human Factors Institute (HFI) at the Center for Information and Communication Sciences (CICS) at Ball State University (BSU). 3.2.0 Management by Walking Around The management team made itself available to the 6 other teams for assistance with any questions about their particular projects. Each team chose one of its members to stay in touch with the management team via weekly e-mails containing their progress or questions. The management team also practiced Tom Peters' method of "Management by Walking Around," (MBWA) discussing projects with colleagues in passing [9]. This system worked well because it engendered a sense of openness and approachability between teams and management, and selected an optimal medium avoiding technology-filter communication impediments. According to Ramsey, "There is no better quality of communication than in person. You have the benefit of body language, touch, tone, eye contact, plus a ton of other nonverbal cues that make communication complete" [10]. 3.3.0 Personality Assessment Ramsey recommends that businesses use personality tests to determine if a person will work well with certain other individuals. "This tool gives us a quick look at the personality style of the person. We want to see if their style fits with the job, how their style will fit with the team they will join, and how they will interact with the style of their immediate leader. ? It reveals with fairly good accuracy a person's tendencies" [10]. The DiSC assessment Ramsey prefers uses four simple descriptors [10]: Dominance - always asking "when" task-oriented, keep things moving, overlook details, quick, insensitive, quick decisions (10% of the public are the D-quadrant personality), Influence - always asking "who?" expressive, persuasive, impulsive, people-oriented, fun, outgoing (25%), quick decisions Steadiness - loyal, stable, hate conflict, love people, team player, understanding, amiable, slow decisions (40%), Compliance - Details, analytical, factual, rule-abiding, highly competent, slow decisions, integrity, industrious, impersonal, good accountants (25%)
• • • •
According to Ramsey: "Your organization needs some of every personality or you will have serious problems. My three closest leaders and I fall in each of the four quadrants respectively, which ensures that when we make group decisions they are generally wise. If we were all one type or another, we would miss all kinds of elements" [10]. We looked at Myers-Briggs because we had data for this personality assessment. The management team relied mostly on our knowledge of colleagues' interests and experience in organizing teams. For example, we put M.R. on the Health and Wellness Portal project because she has a Master's in Kinesiology. During the project, however, personalities emerged and played a role in team successes. The 16 personality types were examined in accordance with their application to each of the seven teams in ICS 602, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Personality Types of the ICS 602 Wednesday Section
Below, in Table 11, is a map to the eight criteria in the Myers-Briggs assessment from HumanMetrics.com. Antoinette Hubbard adds business-relevant descriptions of each type:
Table 11: Myers-Briggs criteria map with Hubbard's business-relevant descriptions [4] [3]
Extraversion/Introversion Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines the source and direction of energy Extroverts (75% of population) are verbal Post-Its in expression for a person. The extrovert has a source brainstorming sessions. They think out loud. and direction of energy expression mainly in the Introverts get their energy from being alone. external world while the introvert has a source of Hubbard suggests writing meeting ideas on actual energy mainly in the internal world. [3] Post-It notes so introverts don't get left behind. [4]
Sensing/iNtuitive Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines the method of information perception by a Sensing - Precise, step-by-step, just the facts, person. Sensing means that a person believes mainly concrete, specific facts, information information he or she receives directly from the iNtuitive - Pretty language, metaphors, 'writer-ly', external world. Intuition means that a person flowery language [4] believes mainly information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world. [3]
Thinking/Feeling Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines how the person processes information. Thinking - 50% of population; logic, sequence, Thinking means that a person makes a decision "words of affirmation are not their thing." mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, Feeling - very relational, give and appreciate words he or she makes a decision based on emotion. [3] of affirmation [4]
Judging/Perceiving Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description Defines how a person implements the information Judging - settle things, ready/fire/aim, need closure, he or she has processed. Judging means that a can be pushy person organizes all his life events and acts strictly Perceiving - Do like the pressure of a deadline, according to his plans. Perceiving means that he or adaptable, postponable [4] she is inclined to improvise and seek alternatives. [3]
3.4.0 Case Study—Team 7 Personality Assessments Team 7 (the Axis Project) stood out as being comprised entirely of extroverts. As the only judging type, C.V. (an ESFJ) helped the group develop a plan and stay organized. Perceiving types are a minority in the Center for Information and Communication Sciences, even outside of ICS 602 section 2. On Team 7, however, they were the laid-back majority. Motivated by her teammates' lack of urgency, C.V. sprang into action, immediately plotting their course and drawing up timelines, setting deadlines, and assigning tasks. Her outgoing and creative teammates responded well. C.V. wrote: I think we did work very well together. We had fun at group meetings and were always laughing and having a good time together. When given work to be done, everyone completed that work. ? My team members were very good about getting the work done when I asked them, but not as good at initiating work themselves. ? I definitely think personality was a big part of our group. Without sense of humor and easygoingness ... I think this semester would have been a lot more stressful. [C. V., personal communication, December 4, 2011] The adaptable perceiving types on C.V.'s team were open to her strong leadership and do indeed seem easygoing. E.O. (ESFP) wrote: It was easy to agree on group decisions. ... I would consider C.V. our clear group leader and she kept us on track. ... I think personality was important because we seemed to all work well together and there was no group conflict. [E.O., personal communication, December 5, 2011] Personality types alone are not predictors of success, but their influence in human communication and relationships is key. 4.0.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the preceding paper, we proposed a new theory of human communication that adds context and value to the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model of communication. Beginning with the root concept of communication, we distinguished communication among living things from human communication, noting the origin of the social survival instinct, the cultural survival instinct, and metaevolution (idea evolution). We defined human communication as the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture, and examined implications of this definition, including a new model of human communication.
This new model of human communication includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' (technology, tradition, and personality) that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon- Weaver SEMDR model. We examined the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilized Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Last, we utilized the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. Finally, we looked at practical applications of the new model. We proposed recommendations for using this theory to achieve effective communication, including a layer-based approach to communication troubleshooting. Finally, we concluded with a case study of the role of the personality filter in project management. We recommend this model of communication as a valuable analytical tool, especially for effective communication. When the society and culture as used in the model can be understood as an organization and its subculture, then the model takes on special meaning for organizational communication and management that deserve further consideration. We also note the need for experimental verification of this model. Although the model has been developed logically and with extensive observation of communication barriers in mind, continued use —especially controlled and quantified use—will undoubtedly provide great value to the development of the model. 5.0.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Portions of this work are based on the efforts of Matthew Lievertz, Molly Morris, Jacob Roth, and Richard Wayman from ICS 602: Human Communication at the Center for Information and Communication Sciences, Ball State University. We acknowledge the students in the class, and Dr. Jay Gillette, professor, for their support and knowledge value-added for our research. REFERENCES
[1] Frank E. Dance, "The 'Concept' of Communication", Journal of Communication, Wiley, Online, pp. 201-210, June 1970. [2] Geert Hofstede, Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2 nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001. [3] Antoinette Hubbard, "Myers-Briggs and Project Management", Ball State University, Muncie, IN. Lecture. September 8, 2011. [4] HumanMetrics.com, "HumanMetrics Jung Typology Test", Retrieved fromhttp://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jungtype.htm, 2011. [5] KnowYourType.com, "Personality Testing for Groups & Individuals", Retrieved fromhttp://www.knowyourtype.com/8_preferences.html, 2011. [6] Steven W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., Waveland, Long Grove, IL, 2011. [7] John D. Peters, Speaking Into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. U. Chicago P., New York, NY, 1999. [8] Thomas Peters, Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1987. [9] Thomas Peters and Robert H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence, 2006 ed. HarperCollins, New York, NY, 1982. [10] Dave Ramsey, Entreleadership: 20 Years of Practical Business Wisdom from the Trenches, Howard Books, New York, NY, 2011. [11] Eldra P. Solomon, Linda R. Berg, and Diana W. Martin, Biology, 7th ed, Brooks/Cole-Thompson, Belmont, CA, 2006. [12] Richard H. Wayman, Cultural Hermeneutics: A Message in Focus, Unpublished Manuscript, Ball State University Muncie, IN, 2011.
doc_622043752.docx
Management Study on Layer-Based Troubleshooting: Effective Communication with Applications in Management:- Communication (from Latin commūnicāre, meaning "to share"[1]) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior. It is the meaningful exchange of information between two or a group of person.
Management Study on Layer-Based Troubleshooting: Effective Communication with Applications in Management
ABSTRACT In the following paper, we propose a new theory of human communication that adds context and value to the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model of communication. We distinguish and define a family of communication concepts, following the logical implications of the application of the unifying principle of biology: evolution. This leads us to the concept of meta-evolution, or the literal evolution of ideas, and leads us to our definition of human communication: the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture. This meta-evolutionary theory includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' (encoding/decoding) that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model. We elaborate on each of the filters (technology, tradition, and personality) in later sections of the paper. First, we examine the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilize Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Finally, we utilize the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. Following this discussion, we turn to practical applications. First, we propose recommendations for using this theory to achieve effective communication, including a layer-based approach to communication troubleshooting. The paper concludes with a case study of the role of the personality filter in project management. Keywords: Communication Approaches; Troubleshooting communication problems; Motivation of human communication; Communication filters; Geert Hofstede; Shannon-Weaver Communication Model; SEMDR Communication Model; DiSC Assessment; Myers-Briggs; Effective Communication; Meta-evolution; Layer-Based Model of Communication
Table 1: Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 The Root Term "Communication" 2.2 Human Communication as Distinguished from Communication Among Living Things 2.3 Human Communication as Defined by the Cultural Survival Instinct 2.4 A Model of Communication 2.5 The Technology Filter 2.6 The Tradition Filter 2.7 The Personality Filter 2.8 Effective Communication 3.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPLICATION 3.1 Scenario 3.2 Management by Walking Around 3.3 Personality Assessment 3.4 Case Study - Team 7 Personality Assessments 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES
1.0.0 INTRODUCTION "We should beware of seeking or, worse, of finding a single, rigid, exclusive definition [of communication]" -Frank E. Dance [1] According to Aristotle, "humans are animals possessing the word" [7]. This implies that for human beings, questions concerning communication are literally existential--fundamental questions of existence. Humans' extensive efforts to define and discuss communication come as no surprise. Dance, whose quote follows the heading of this introduction, wrote an influential paper in 1970 analyzing the best of 95 definitions of the term 'communication' [1]. Although he executed a broad search, the paper did not approach an exhaustive collection of definitions, and Dance finally concluded: "the concept of communication . . . is overburdened" [1]. As a way forward, Dance recommends "the creation of a family of concepts" that allow useful definitions of communication within more specific contexts [1]. In the following paper, we will follow Dance's suggestion and illustrate a progression from the general concept of communication to a new theory of human communication based on the fundamental biological principle of evolution. This metaevolutionary theory includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' or lenses that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model. The paper concludes with applications and praxis in management communication. 2.0.0 DISCUSSION 2.1.0 The Root Term 'Communication' We will loosely define communication as the transference of information and knowledge of any sort. Shannon-Weaver's SEMDR model is arguably the fundamental paradigm of general communication. Their model is depicted in Figure 1: Sender--------------------- the originator of a message Encoder------------------- the means by which the message is packaged Medium or Message---- the idea or information Decoder------------------- the process used by the receiver to unpack/interpret the message Receiver------------------- the recipient of the sender's message These features can be depicted thus: S>E>M>D>R
Figure 1: SEMDR model of communication [6]
At a basic level, this model analyzes the process of communication as the attempt to transfer some knowledge between two parties. Critically, this model recognizes the necessary components of encoding and decoding. By identifying these components, this model indicates that a message must be transferred from one party to another via some method or symbol. Additionally, by showing encoding and decoding as separate processes, the model reveals that the method or symbol chosen to transfer the message (the encoding) must be mutually understood by both parties for the message to be successfully understood (decoded) by the receiver. A basic example is as follows: Tom attempts to communicate that a ball is yellow by saying in English to Jane, "This ball is yellow." Tom (the sender) encodes his message (this ball is yellow) as an audible utterance in English. If Jane (the receiver) can hear, understands English, and grasps which ball "this ball" is, she will most likely successfully decode Tom's message and understand it. Notice that by identifying the acts of encoding and decoding, we are able to identify points of potential failure in
the communication, such as Jane not being able to hear, Jane not understanding English, or the symbol "this" not being clear enough for Jane to understand which ball "this ball" is. 2.2.0 Communication Among Living Things as Distinguished from Human Communication Having established the fundamental concept of communication, we turn to communication among living things. Communication among living things adds an additional layer of complexity to the mechanical view of communication modeled by Shannon and Weaver. Living things have constraints and motivating factors that alter both the communication process and the communication context. Specifically, we note the fundamental motivating factor of living things: to keep living. The field of biology—the study of living things—supports this view. Solomon, Berg, and Martin state: "the concept of evolution is the cornerstone of biology" [11]. Evolution theory positions survival and reproduction as the essential goals of all living things, and further implies that creatures develop adaptations—e.g., communication abilities—to further this goal [11]. In other words, communication among living things is motivated at a fundamental level by the survival instinct. This enables a new analysis of communication among living things, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Stages in the evolution of communication
STAGES CHANGES METHOD Human Culture (Meta-personal; Cultural Reality) Idea Evolution Meta-personal (Meta-Evolution) (Cultural) Communication Social Culture (Interpersonal; Social Reality) Idea Sharing Interpersonal (Social) Communication Individual Culture (Intrapersonal; Individual Reality) Idea Creation Intrapersonal Communication (Thought) Context (Sub-personal; Objective Reality)
MOTIVE Cultural Survival Instinct
Social Survival Instinct
Individual (Animal/Darwinian) Survival Instinct
As seen in Table 2, ideas arise originally from context, or objective reality. Individuals develop ideas through thought as motivated by the individual survival instinct (i.e., the thinker survives). As seen in many species, however, social living arrangement can further improve individual survival by reaping advantages such as resource sharing, specialization, and turn-taking. Idea sharing through social communication is key to establishing this desirable living arrangement. All social animals share ideas—hunting wolves share ideas about where to find or how to catch prey, for instance. This improves individual survival, and for this reason, animals in such a society develop or possess a social survival instinct. The social survival instinct is like the individual survival instinct: the individual survival instinct is a fundamental motivation to preserve the individual, and the social survival instinct is a fundamental motivation to preserve the society (the group sharing ideas). Not only does the sharing of ideas create a rudimentary (social) society, but it also creates a rudimentary (social) culture —a culture that is the body of shared ideas. To summarize: social animals create a society by sharing ideas through social communication; and the body of shared ideas is a rudimentary culture. The existence of this society improves the survival of each individual, and so each individual develops an instinct to preserve the society (the social survival instinct). Intriguingly, although most social animals will develop a social survival instinct, they fail to develop a cultural survival instinct. In other words, social animals will attempt to preserve and develop their society —their group—but they make no attempt to promote or develop their group's set of shared ideas. The culture of an animal society dies with that society. Animal societies make no attempt, for instance, to teach their culture to other societies or preserve their culture over time. The cultural survival instinct is the fundamental difference between humans and social animals, just as the social survival instinct is the fundamental difference between social animals and other living things. We posit that for this reason, human communication is distinct and complex. The practical distinction can be observed in Table 2: social (animal) cultures are created through idea sharing, whereas human cultures are created through idea evolution. The terminology used here is instructive. In human culture, ideas are preserved (survive) based on their fitness for use. Ideas are improved (adapt) to become more useful, and in the end the best ideas survive and become mainstream. Human ideas are literally evolving with no connection to genetic material, and for this reason, we call this concept meta-evolution, or higher-level evolution. The connection from idea evolution to the cultural survival instinct is simple. Culture is the shared body of ideas. Human culture, unlike animal culture, evolves (because the ideas that make it up evolve). The continual evolution of human culture enables a list of survival benefits to individuals that make up that culture (human society) that is an order of magnitude at least greater than the survival benefits accrued to individuals that make up a social culture (animal society). The objective observation that human culture leads to improved individual survival is an elementary test with clear results. Whereas in animal society the existence of a culture is a technicality, in human society the culture actively works for the improvement of individual survival. Thus, a cultural survival instinct develops. The implications of the cultural survival instinct are somewhat startling. At its core, the concept implies that individual survival is linked to cultural survival. This makes clear sense in light of history, noting that when a culture is overthrown by another culture, the shift is often accompanied by the massive loss of individual lives within the overthrown culture. 2.3.0 Human Communication as Defined by the Cultural Survival Instinct While the difference between communication in living things and social animals is clear —thought versus social communication—the difference between communication in social animals and humans is less clear. If social animals practice
social communication, humans practice cultural communication. Just as social communication is the means to creating an animal society, cultural (human) communication is the means to creating a human culture. Cultural, or human, communication is the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture. First, human communication, as in Shannon and Weaver's model of general communication, is a process as opposed to an action. Communication is continual and complex. Second, human communication involves the interaction of individuals. Again, this does not diverge from Shannon and Weaver's model. Third, the process of human communication is purposeful. Human communication serves to increase the survivability of the culture(s) of the society(s) to which the individual participants belong—the cultural survival instinct at work (and thus, cultural communication). To simplify, human communication develops culture by attempting to share and improve on ideas. As a point of clarification, we define human communication as a productive process, however individual acts may be said to be human communicative acts whether they are successful or not in increasing the survivability of the individual's society's culture. As in evolution, the process of human communication requires both successful and unsuccessful attempts in order to discover improvements. 2.4.0 A Model of Human Communication Human culture arguably contains two types of ideas. One type of idea operates on scientific principles and achieves objectively productive ends. Another type of idea is more difficult to claim as objectively productive —these are the ideas we typically associate with culture, and often vary from culture to culture (e.g., etiquette, holidays). We refer to the first type as technologyand the second type as tradition. This dichotomy of ideas composing human culture is non-trivial. Technology is a growing body of shared practical knowledge; whereas traditions appear to be eccentricities arising from a specific society's unique experience of acquiring its technology, as see in Table 3.
Table 3: Idea analysis
Idea Type: Technology Tradition
Arises from: Logic Happenstance
Influenced by: Context
Thus, a culture can be viewed as the combination of its body of practical knowledge (technology) combined with its traditions, which include all non-practical knowledge. Examples of technology include nuclear fission and hybrid gasoline-electric motors. Examples of traditions include the wearing of tuxedos at weddings and feasting on the third Thursday of each November. Technology and traditions have many non-trivial implications for human communication when viewed within the context of human communication as a process. Each shapes the effectiveness a human communication between two individuals. We offer Figure 2 as a model of human communication based on the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model introduced earlier in this paper, placing the human communication process within the framing elements of context and culture, and offering further analysis of the components of encoding and decoding in human communication. (Note: we offer a simplified version of this model in the discussion of effective communication).
Figure 2: Human communication model
As seen in Figure 2, individual ideas are informed by context. The "individual ideas" to be expressed in our model are analogous to the sender/receiver in the SEMDR model (see Figure 1). They represent the original concepts that an individual intends to share. We analyze the encoding/decoding process as containing three component 'filters': personality, tradition, and technology. We will elaborate on each of these filters in later sections of this paper. First, we examine the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilize Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Finally, we utilize the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. After passing through the three filters of the encoding process, the encoded message is broadcast within interpersonal space by a communicative act, at which point the message must be decoded by the receiver, with his or her own set of filters. Our model of human communication, as seen in Figure 2, flows in both directions as the two individuals reach a common understanding and ideas become shared. As ideas become shared within society, those ideas, whether new technology or new tradition, become part of the culture and thereby contribute to the creation of an enduring culture. Within the model, feedback occurs in several places. As culture evolves, it influences the tradition and technology filters used while creating shared ideas, which in turn allow culture to evolve. Feedback also occurs between communicators to create shared ideas. Finally, individuals affect (create feedback with) their context (objective reality) through action. Indirect feedback occurs between the individual communicators and culture, as culture is constantly influencing the feedback loop between communicators in the creation of shared ideas. Thus, as communicators internalize shared ideas, communicators also internalize cultural concepts. Individual communicators only indirectly affect culture, because an individual cannot create culture. An individual's ideas can affect culture, but only when shared with other members of the individual's society. Another important indirect feedback relationship is between culture and context. Only individuals can affect context, the objective reality. Culture itself cannot act in a physical way, so it affects the objective reality (context) through the actions of individuals, who are indirectly affected by culture. By contrast, context has in many ways a much stronger influence on culture, although still indirect. All ideas originate through observation of context, and culture is simply a continuously refined group of ideas. Thus, culture is largely defined by context. Context, however, is objective reality. It can only be shaped by culture if individuals actively work to change it. This certainly occurs, but context is by no means defined by culture. There are a few revealing facts about this model. First, everything occurs by the action or communication of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals. Culture is the collection of ideas shared among individuals. Only individuals have the power to act. Second, the only independent input to the system is context. While ideas can be shared and generated between
individuals, these ideas must ultimately originate from context. Thus, context is a relatively passive, yet overridingly important, feature of the model. 2.5.0 The Technology Filter Throughout history, the technological filter evolved as human cultures changed and developed. Many scientists believe that early human cultures relied heavily on sign language for communication. Early historical cultures through recent years relied primarily on audible languages. This represents a technological shift from sign language to audible language, and would have greatly influenced the content and character of communication. In recent history, developing communication technologies had major effects on world events and cultures. In the United States, the invention of the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet have each had profound consequences for the experience of communication in the culture of the United States. Here, the technological communication filter acts in an intuitively obvious way, and includes choice of medium in an age where technology presents a host of choices (e.g., face to face, videoconference, audio conference, instant message, text/SMS message, email, or postal service letter). The technological communication feature also encompasses the technological context of a culture, i.e., what is or is not feasibly possible within that culture at the present time. For instance, the phrase, "I will send that information to you immediately" takes on an entirely different meaning today than it would have fifty years ago, due to the technological filter. Today, "I will send that information to you immediately," might literally mean "you will also receive it immediately." With the technological filter of fifty years ago, "I will send you that information immediately," might mean anywhere from a few minutes plus transit time to a period of days or weeks. 2.6.0 The Tradition Filter Tradition is a powerful filter in the process of human communication, as it is both culturally-determined and often internalized by communicators. To further analyze the concept of tradition, the elements of tradition that are internalized can be separated from the elements of tradition that are not internalized. We refer to the internalized aspects of tradition as values and the non- internalized aspects as mores, as illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Analysis of tradition
Idea Type: Internalized by Individual? Influenced by: Values Mores Yes Culture No
To further examine this filter, we reference the work of Geert Hofstede. Hofstede analyzed national culture, which continues to be a worthwhile subject of study in today's global business environment [11]. In his seminal analysis of management, Thriving on Chaos, Peters devotes an entire chapter to lambasting the refusal of US businessmen to learn about other cultures so they can do good business in other counties [8]. We note that Hofstede's work can be applied to subcultures as well. Hofstede defines four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures [2]. This information is discussed in more detail in Wayman's 2011 paper, Cultural Hermeneutics: A Message in Focus [12]. (In this analysis we leave out his fifth dimension of long-term orientation, as it is the least applicable.) These describe both internalized and non-internalized elements, and so affect both values and mores. As such, they are powerful, and not always consciously understood, influences on communication. The four dimensions are: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, and Masculinity vs. Femininity.
• • • •
2.6.1 Power Distance Hofstede's first dimension is Power Distance (PD), which describes how people in society interact with those in higher or lower positions of wealth, prestige, and power [2]. Two forces compete in this realm. The first encourages consistency by extending the privileges of those with rank in one area to other areas [2]. For example, this force describes how prestigious sports stars become rich [2]. The other encourages equality by offsetting rank in one area against rank in other areas, as in the disregard of wealth in some religions, or by adhering to a Universalistic legal system in which all people are held as equal [2]. In practice, the idea is that people interact in different ways with people at different power levels, and cultures tend to follow certain patterns in this regard. For instance, Latin American and Asian cultures are seen as having high power distance (PD), whereas Western European and USA cultures are seen as having low PD. The attributes of cultures with high and low PD are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Power distance [2]
High Power Distance Hierarchies are existential: superiors are superior persons Children socialized to obedience More centralization of government Less question of authority
Low Power Distance Hierarchies are convenient Children socialized to independence Government based on representation More question of authority
2.6.2 Uncertainty Avoidance Hofstede's second dimension is Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), which expresses a culture's comfort level with change and risk [2]. The consequences of such a cultural stance have great implications for a culture's view of technology and tradition. The attributes of cultures with high and low UA are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Uncertainty avoidance [2]
High Uncertainty Avoidance More resistant to change Push for status quo Company loyalty considered virtuous Less ambition Will not admit dissatisfaction with an employer Has trouble trusting - even with family Fear of failure Task-oriented
Low Uncertainty Avoidance More accepting of change Support Innovation Company loyalty not a virtue More ambition Will admit dissatisfaction with an employer More trusting of people Hope for success More relationship-oriented
2.6.3 Individualism versus collectivism To a great extent, the Individualism versus Collectivism balance defines how individuals within a given society view themselves and their relationship with society [2]. Those from individualistic societies tend to define their identities primarily as individuals, whereas those from collectivistic societies tend to define their identities primarily as a member of their society. The attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Individualism versus collectivism [2]
Individualism Pleasure, affection, hedonism Individual financial security "Modern" or "postmodern" society "I" consciousness Calculated involvement with a company Qualification for a job based on previous task performance Identity separate from gender & religion More confrontational Education is learning how to learn
Collectivism Duty, prestige Financial security from/for clan (group) "Traditional" society "We" consciousness Moral involvement with a company Qualification for a job based on years in school Identity tied strongly to gender & religion Desire for harmony Education is learning how to do
2.6.4 Masculinity versus femininity The duality of male assertiveness versus female nurturance is widely confirmed by numerous fields [2]. The fundamental cultural assumptions and consciously observed rules of gender implications are important elements of the tradition filter in human communication. Masculine and feminine cultural attributes are non-comprehensively summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Masculinity versus femininity [2]
Masculinity Aggression is encouraged in a child's play Preference in higher pay in employment Chastity for brides but not for grooms Father decides on family size
Femininity Aggression in a child's play is not acceptable Preference in working fewer hours Equal expectations for bride and groom Mother decides on family size
2.7.0 The Personality Filter The personality filter is the most internalized filter, and as a result its effects are quite pervasive in shaping (filtering) the ideas passing through it. Due to the fact that personality is often an internalized, 'invisible' force in communication, we find the use of a typing system helpful in systematically considering the effects of personality on communication. The Myers-Briggs personality type assessment was a result of Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs' idea to apply C. G. Jung's psychological type research to the question of predicting, explaining, and categorizing the actions of different people. Myers and Briggs developed a typing method based on four binary parameters resulting in 16 possible personality types, as demonstrated in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Myers-Briggs' personality indicators [5]
Source of Energy
Extraversion "E" The need to talk things through. Keywords: Outgoing * Talkative * Sociable Introversion "I" The need to think things through. Keywords: Shy * Reserved * Reflective
Receiving Information
Intuition "N" Can see the big picture and future possibilities. Keywords: Brainstorming * Big Picture * Theory Sensing "S" Trusts the establishment and the tried and true. Keywords: Facts * Details * Data Collection
Making Decisions
Feeling "F" Considers others before making decisions. Keywords: Compassionate * Personal * Warm Thinking "T" Uses the logical choice. Keywords: Rational * Black and White
Personal Life
Perceiving "P" Enjoy surprises and changing plans. Keywords: Go with the flow * Unscheduled * Flexible Judging "J" Loves routine and to-do lists. Keywords Scheduled * Structured * Organized
Although there are some inherent assumptions and limitations in the use of 16 personality types to categorize a population of more than 7 billion, as we will show, these have been utilized productively in increasing communication effectiveness. These personality types are one way to understand personality's influence on the way we think and communicate. By analyzing the personality filter through the use of these personality types, communicators are enabled to better understand themselves and the unique way they send and interpret messages. 2.8.0 Effective Communication The human communication theory presented thus far has important and productive implications for the practical: namely, effective communication. To illustrate these implications further, we present in Figure 3 a simplified version of the human communication model given earlier (see Figure 2) that focuses on the elements of practical communication.
Figure 3: Simplified human communication model
2.8.1 Initial Troubleshooting Observations The first thing that the model in Figure 3 reveals is a focus on building a shared understanding of an idea between two communicators; this mutual understanding is the goal of communication. Identifying this goal allows the communicator to increase effectiveness by knowing what he or she needs to focus on to be successful.
The second thing that the model reveals is that between two communicators lie no fewer than six layers of encoding and decoding: the first participant's personality, traditions, and technology, plus the second participant's personality, traditions, and technology. The important takeaway from this observation is that participants in communication should maintain understanding and goodwill with each other during the communication process. With six layers of potential misunderstanding, there is no sense in getting upset—this will undermine the troubleshooting process and reduce the effectiveness of communication (remembering that the goal is mutual understanding, not one-upmanship). These two principles, applied, will improve communication effectiveness immeasurably. What follows is a brief suggestion for the 'troubleshooting' process mentioned. 2.8.2 Technology Filter Troubleshooting In trouble-shooting communication failures, we recommend beginning at the communication filters closest to the message itself, as communication participants are more consciously aware of them. Thus, we begin at technology. Failures in the technology filter amount to simple misunderstandings. In these situations, careful explanation and logic may resolve any apparent conflicts. Examples of these include: Inability to convey emotions critical to the message (e.g., sarcasm) within a medium that does not support video, or even audio. Differing levels of understanding of a subject matter (e.g., "Oh! I thought a widget was a round peg, not a square peg"). Deeper differences verging on tradition filter matter, such as the inability of educated people from different professions to communicate effectively with one another due to pervasively different levels of knowledge about a wide variety of issues.
• • •
2.8.3 Tradition Filter Troubleshooting with Mores The second filter (tradition) is often partially internalized by communicators. The portions of the tradition filter that have been internalized are a person's values, and the portions that have not been internalized are a person's cultural or a sub-cultural mores. As used in this context, mores are what are typically referred to as 'traditions,' and may include things like knowing and caring that the 25th of December is Christmas, or knowing that in Japan it is uncouth to store one's chopsticks sticking up out of one's rice. It is worth noting explicitly that when both communicators share a culture, communication problems due to the mores portion of the tradition filter are less likely: the message is encoded and decoded using the same cultural assumptions and thought- processes. As a result, mutual understanding (the goal of communication) is easier to reach. Communication problems resulting from different mores are almost as easy to fix as those resulting from technology filter problems. These communication problems are harder than technology filter problems, however, because they tend to elicit emotional responses. The trick is to make these emotional responses explicit; by directly addressing the difference in understanding, and explaining the issue, the solution becomes rapidly evident. 2.8.4 Tradition Filter Troubleshooting with Values Communication problems resulting from values are potentially the most difficult of all communication problems to solve. Personality filter problems are deeper, but people tend to grow up learning to cope with different personalities because they are so fundamental to human communication. By contrast, communicators tend to have little experience solving communication problems resulting from differing value (tradition) filters. While children grow up learning that siblings and friends have different personalities than they do, their parents often deliberately surround them with others with like values. As a result, people simply have little awareness of, and little experience solving, communications problems resulting from differing values. At the same time, these may be the most important communication problems to solve: religious disagreements—including religious wars—are an excellent example of value (tradition) filter communication failures. The best solution to value (tradition) filter communication problems is to identify and contain: the fact that values are internalized means that they are difficult (practically impossible) to change. If two people wish to effectively communicate across value differences, the best course of action is for each to respect the other's right to their own values, and either: 1) seek to reach common understandings of ideas that do not introduce value conflict, or 2) explicitly (as a means of reassurance) restrict the exchange to reaching mutual understandings of ideas that do not purport to be representative of the communicators' values. When solving tradition filter problems, including mores and values, Hofstede's four dimensions present a useful framework for understanding differences across cultures or subcultures. By using these dimensions, participants can explicitly examine differences in values, so they can better understand their communication difficulties. The tradition filter is often a blind spot —an area of communication that participants do not consciously think about—so having a framework to know where to look for differences, and supply words to talk about them, is invaluable. 2.8.5 Personality Filter Troubleshooting The final filter is the personality filter. This filter is entirely internalized, and some argue instilled from birth. Luckily, most people are socialized from a young age to adapt to differences in this filter when communicating. On the other hand, this filter is so pervasive (defining communicators' identities), that conflicts due to personality filters are inevitable. Unfortunately, conflicts that occur despite communicators' early socialization are difficult to remedy because the communicators' tools to deal with the problem have often been exhausted in the process of reaching a conflict. For this reason, an analytical approach is recommended. The use of an analytical personality type classification system such as DiSC (described below) or the Myers-Briggs is highly recommended. By breaking down personality into dimensions, the differences between two people's communication styles as influenced by their personality filters can be identified. From the differences that are identified, the participants can often determine the sources of conflict. Once the sources of conflict have been identified, then the communicators can rationally determine solutions. 2.8.6 Troubleshooting Conclusion In conclusion, by keeping the goal of communication in mind (mutual understanding) and maintaining goodwill and understanding, the effectiveness of communication can be greatly improved. Additionally, remaining communication conflicts can often be resolved or mitigated through an analytical trouble-shooting process that enables communicators to identify the source or sources of conflict or misunderstanding.
3.0.0 MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION THEORY 3.1.0 Scenario The authors of this paper were engaged as a management team for 6 other teams composed of 23 other students (the ICS 602 Wednesday section) engaged in projects for the Human Factors Institute (HFI) at the Center for Information and Communication Sciences (CICS) at Ball State University (BSU). 3.2.0 Management by Walking Around The management team made itself available to the 6 other teams for assistance with any questions about their particular projects. Each team chose one of its members to stay in touch with the management team via weekly e-mails containing their progress or questions. The management team also practiced Tom Peters' method of "Management by Walking Around," (MBWA) discussing projects with colleagues in passing [9]. This system worked well because it engendered a sense of openness and approachability between teams and management, and selected an optimal medium avoiding technology-filter communication impediments. According to Ramsey, "There is no better quality of communication than in person. You have the benefit of body language, touch, tone, eye contact, plus a ton of other nonverbal cues that make communication complete" [10]. 3.3.0 Personality Assessment Ramsey recommends that businesses use personality tests to determine if a person will work well with certain other individuals. "This tool gives us a quick look at the personality style of the person. We want to see if their style fits with the job, how their style will fit with the team they will join, and how they will interact with the style of their immediate leader. ? It reveals with fairly good accuracy a person's tendencies" [10]. The DiSC assessment Ramsey prefers uses four simple descriptors [10]: Dominance - always asking "when" task-oriented, keep things moving, overlook details, quick, insensitive, quick decisions (10% of the public are the D-quadrant personality), Influence - always asking "who?" expressive, persuasive, impulsive, people-oriented, fun, outgoing (25%), quick decisions Steadiness - loyal, stable, hate conflict, love people, team player, understanding, amiable, slow decisions (40%), Compliance - Details, analytical, factual, rule-abiding, highly competent, slow decisions, integrity, industrious, impersonal, good accountants (25%)
• • • •
According to Ramsey: "Your organization needs some of every personality or you will have serious problems. My three closest leaders and I fall in each of the four quadrants respectively, which ensures that when we make group decisions they are generally wise. If we were all one type or another, we would miss all kinds of elements" [10]. We looked at Myers-Briggs because we had data for this personality assessment. The management team relied mostly on our knowledge of colleagues' interests and experience in organizing teams. For example, we put M.R. on the Health and Wellness Portal project because she has a Master's in Kinesiology. During the project, however, personalities emerged and played a role in team successes. The 16 personality types were examined in accordance with their application to each of the seven teams in ICS 602, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Personality Types of the ICS 602 Wednesday Section
Below, in Table 11, is a map to the eight criteria in the Myers-Briggs assessment from HumanMetrics.com. Antoinette Hubbard adds business-relevant descriptions of each type:
Table 11: Myers-Briggs criteria map with Hubbard's business-relevant descriptions [4] [3]
Extraversion/Introversion Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines the source and direction of energy Extroverts (75% of population) are verbal Post-Its in expression for a person. The extrovert has a source brainstorming sessions. They think out loud. and direction of energy expression mainly in the Introverts get their energy from being alone. external world while the introvert has a source of Hubbard suggests writing meeting ideas on actual energy mainly in the internal world. [3] Post-It notes so introverts don't get left behind. [4]
Sensing/iNtuitive Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines the method of information perception by a Sensing - Precise, step-by-step, just the facts, person. Sensing means that a person believes mainly concrete, specific facts, information information he or she receives directly from the iNtuitive - Pretty language, metaphors, 'writer-ly', external world. Intuition means that a person flowery language [4] believes mainly information he or she receives from the internal or imaginative world. [3]
Thinking/Feeling Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description: Defines how the person processes information. Thinking - 50% of population; logic, sequence, Thinking means that a person makes a decision "words of affirmation are not their thing." mainly through logic. Feeling means that, as a rule, Feeling - very relational, give and appreciate words he or she makes a decision based on emotion. [3] of affirmation [4]
Judging/Perceiving Attribute Description: Hubbard's Description Defines how a person implements the information Judging - settle things, ready/fire/aim, need closure, he or she has processed. Judging means that a can be pushy person organizes all his life events and acts strictly Perceiving - Do like the pressure of a deadline, according to his plans. Perceiving means that he or adaptable, postponable [4] she is inclined to improvise and seek alternatives. [3]
3.4.0 Case Study—Team 7 Personality Assessments Team 7 (the Axis Project) stood out as being comprised entirely of extroverts. As the only judging type, C.V. (an ESFJ) helped the group develop a plan and stay organized. Perceiving types are a minority in the Center for Information and Communication Sciences, even outside of ICS 602 section 2. On Team 7, however, they were the laid-back majority. Motivated by her teammates' lack of urgency, C.V. sprang into action, immediately plotting their course and drawing up timelines, setting deadlines, and assigning tasks. Her outgoing and creative teammates responded well. C.V. wrote: I think we did work very well together. We had fun at group meetings and were always laughing and having a good time together. When given work to be done, everyone completed that work. ? My team members were very good about getting the work done when I asked them, but not as good at initiating work themselves. ? I definitely think personality was a big part of our group. Without sense of humor and easygoingness ... I think this semester would have been a lot more stressful. [C. V., personal communication, December 4, 2011] The adaptable perceiving types on C.V.'s team were open to her strong leadership and do indeed seem easygoing. E.O. (ESFP) wrote: It was easy to agree on group decisions. ... I would consider C.V. our clear group leader and she kept us on track. ... I think personality was important because we seemed to all work well together and there was no group conflict. [E.O., personal communication, December 5, 2011] Personality types alone are not predictors of success, but their influence in human communication and relationships is key. 4.0.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the preceding paper, we proposed a new theory of human communication that adds context and value to the Shannon-Weaver SEMDR model of communication. Beginning with the root concept of communication, we distinguished communication among living things from human communication, noting the origin of the social survival instinct, the cultural survival instinct, and metaevolution (idea evolution). We defined human communication as the process by which individuals interact in a society to create an enduring culture, and examined implications of this definition, including a new model of human communication.
This new model of human communication includes both the contextual framework for human communication and a layered series of communication 'filters' (technology, tradition, and personality) that add value to the generalized logic of the Shannon- Weaver SEMDR model. We examined the technology filter, which consists of both content knowledge and medium used. Next, we utilized Geert Hofstede's four fundamental differentiating dimensions of cultures to examine the tradition filter, which describes the impact of an individual's culture's traditions on the expression of an idea. Last, we utilized the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator to examine the personality filter, which describes the impact of an individual's personality on his or her expression of an idea. Finally, we looked at practical applications of the new model. We proposed recommendations for using this theory to achieve effective communication, including a layer-based approach to communication troubleshooting. Finally, we concluded with a case study of the role of the personality filter in project management. We recommend this model of communication as a valuable analytical tool, especially for effective communication. When the society and culture as used in the model can be understood as an organization and its subculture, then the model takes on special meaning for organizational communication and management that deserve further consideration. We also note the need for experimental verification of this model. Although the model has been developed logically and with extensive observation of communication barriers in mind, continued use —especially controlled and quantified use—will undoubtedly provide great value to the development of the model. 5.0.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Portions of this work are based on the efforts of Matthew Lievertz, Molly Morris, Jacob Roth, and Richard Wayman from ICS 602: Human Communication at the Center for Information and Communication Sciences, Ball State University. We acknowledge the students in the class, and Dr. Jay Gillette, professor, for their support and knowledge value-added for our research. REFERENCES
[1] Frank E. Dance, "The 'Concept' of Communication", Journal of Communication, Wiley, Online, pp. 201-210, June 1970. [2] Geert Hofstede, Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2 nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001. [3] Antoinette Hubbard, "Myers-Briggs and Project Management", Ball State University, Muncie, IN. Lecture. September 8, 2011. [4] HumanMetrics.com, "HumanMetrics Jung Typology Test", Retrieved fromhttp://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jungtype.htm, 2011. [5] KnowYourType.com, "Personality Testing for Groups & Individuals", Retrieved fromhttp://www.knowyourtype.com/8_preferences.html, 2011. [6] Steven W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., Waveland, Long Grove, IL, 2011. [7] John D. Peters, Speaking Into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. U. Chicago P., New York, NY, 1999. [8] Thomas Peters, Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1987. [9] Thomas Peters and Robert H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence, 2006 ed. HarperCollins, New York, NY, 1982. [10] Dave Ramsey, Entreleadership: 20 Years of Practical Business Wisdom from the Trenches, Howard Books, New York, NY, 2011. [11] Eldra P. Solomon, Linda R. Berg, and Diana W. Martin, Biology, 7th ed, Brooks/Cole-Thompson, Belmont, CA, 2006. [12] Richard H. Wayman, Cultural Hermeneutics: A Message in Focus, Unpublished Manuscript, Ball State University Muncie, IN, 2011.
doc_622043752.docx