I heard in a talk sometime back that the Sanskrit word for communication is “Samvaad”. When broken up it would mean something like this: “Sam – together, Vaad – talk”. Please excuse me on not being entirely accurate in the etymology, but the intent I’d like to convey is that communication is a process that needs to be done “together”. It involves two or more people. It is not a one person process. For this sake of simplicity, I’ve used communications between two persons in this article to illustrate my thoughts.
Communication between two people is complete only when one conveys and the other understands. While there is a great stress laid on the role of the person who has to convey (whom I’ll call the “transmitter” in this article), the process is incomplete without the involvement of the person to whom something is being conveyed (I’ll call this person the “receiver”). The goal of communications is achieved when both the transmitter and the receiver understand the “object of communication” in the same way.
I’ve tried to follow this formula when it comes to achieving effective communication:
- Transmitter transmits
- Receiver questions
- Transmitter answers
- Transmitter questions
- Receiver answers
- Receiver re-transmits
In the above formula, there is a back and forth exchange of thoughts, ideas and words. To put it in other words the message is passed on, questioned and clarified, verified and then re-transmitted. As one can see, half the steps are to be taken by the transmitter and the other half by the receiver.
The receiver must ask questions in order to ensure that any possible understanding gaps are closed. This involves thought from the receiver on the object of communications. Questions cannot be generated without thought being applied to the object. This is an active role which a receiver must play to ensure effective communications.
The ability to reply to the transmitter’s questions is a test of the accuracy of the receiver’s understanding. Random questions from the transmitter can ensure more thought goes in from the receiver’s side. The necessity to articulate requires the receiver to consolidate his or her thoughts and understanding of the object of communication in an organized and meaningful manner.
A retransmission helps clear all doubts. In a normal conversation, the receiver would not remember the transmitter’s words by heart. The receiver would use his or her own words to express thoughts framed in his or her mind. The transmitter can then judge from the relevance of the articulation of the receiver, the accuracy of understanding.
Now, this seems fine in theory but even before one can ask me, I ask myself – “Is it practical and implementable?” Any such technique is generally not to be implemented as something to be strictly adhered to by the letter. It can be implemented in spirit, not in sequence (at all times). It would be funny if two people were to sequence their conversation in the above manner. What would work is an awareness of both the persons involved, of these steps. They could see if the major aspects of the communication are put through these steps. The formula is more for awareness rather than a sequential checklist.
Subhash Iyer 