This week, I learned much about not only the concepts of effective listening and nonverbal skills, but even more importantly, my own relationship and abilities in regards to these concepts. The focus of this week's blog post will be on how I assessed my own strengths and weaknesses in these areas.
One fact of importance I learned from the text is that, "the first skill necessary for interactive listening is the ability to diagnose your own listening behavior" (O'Hair, Friedrich, & Dixon, p. 102). With this taken to heart, I was led to take the Personal Listening Profile, also made available by the authors of the text. This is a brief survey which when taken, provides the participant with a basic yet useful understanding of how well they effectively listen. Listening effectively, I also learned, is instrumental in so much that makes one successful in life, whether it's academically, professionally, personally, or developmentally. I went into the test expecting to score fairly averagely, but perhaps slightly above, as I consider myself a quiet, thoughtful, and open-minded person overall. The test provides a scale that goes from twenty-seven at the most competent all the way down to negative sixteen, the least competent. My score, much to my surprise and chagrin, was a negative three! This set off some alarms and caused me to do a more thorough reassessment of my self-perception of my listening skills.
After doing this reassessment, I found that I do have some areas in need of improvement. One area that I will put every effort into improving is my tendency to impatiently insert my own thoughts and opinions on a subject brought up by another speaker, without allowing them to finish their own thoughts and musings. In fact, I know that my wife has chastised me multiple times for this, yet I haven't yet made much proactive improvement in the area of active and patient listening. This will be a primary focus of my Improvement Plan, and I will start implementing my own mental checks while I am listening to others speak as to whether or not it would be beneficial or not to interject. Probably more often than not, it is not.
O'Hair, D., Friedrich, G., & Dixon, L. (2011). Strategic communication in business and the professions (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Week 2: Diversity and Positive Cultural Conflict
The topic of discussion this week is Diversity in Business and the Professions. I learned much from the text and the discussion boards. I first wish to discuss the concept of high-context and low-context cultures. It was determined through a study and discourse of the subject the essential difference between the two. The following is a brief explanation of the concept.
High-context cultures, as the name implies, are very much reliant on the context of the conversation rather than the direct and literal meaning of the words spoken. More important than the literal meaning of the words are gestures, implications, relationships, formalities, and non-verbal cues. Collective achievement is prized more highly than individual achievement.
On the other side, low-context cultures rely more on the literal and factual meaning of the words, and less so on what they or the speaker implies. Individuality, identity, and personal achievement are more highly prized. Low-context cultures are also more procedural and rule-driven.
I was very much intrigued this week by the concept encountered in the textbook that cultural conflict can be positive and indeed is necessary to be both diverse and successful in an organization. My primary takeaway on this interesting topic was a tool to be used anytime conflict arises as a result of cultural differences: the Cultural Communication Conflict Triangle.
The three points of this triangle represent (1) cultural self-knowledge, (2) knowledge about the context, and (3) discourse from the conflict (O'Hair, Friedrich, & Dixon p.86). To summarize, conflict can actually be made positive by first examining one's own cultural assumptions, then examining the context in which the conflict is taking place, and finally by examining the topics of conversation and the actual meanings of each party both overtly expressed and implied. By applying this model when conflicts arise, the experience can serve to allow for differences to co-exist and improve communications even when the parties have very different styles and viewpoints.
O'Hair, D., Friedrich, G. & Dixon, L. (2011). Strategic communication in business and the professions (7th ed., p. 86). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
High-context cultures, as the name implies, are very much reliant on the context of the conversation rather than the direct and literal meaning of the words spoken. More important than the literal meaning of the words are gestures, implications, relationships, formalities, and non-verbal cues. Collective achievement is prized more highly than individual achievement.
On the other side, low-context cultures rely more on the literal and factual meaning of the words, and less so on what they or the speaker implies. Individuality, identity, and personal achievement are more highly prized. Low-context cultures are also more procedural and rule-driven.
I was very much intrigued this week by the concept encountered in the textbook that cultural conflict can be positive and indeed is necessary to be both diverse and successful in an organization. My primary takeaway on this interesting topic was a tool to be used anytime conflict arises as a result of cultural differences: the Cultural Communication Conflict Triangle.
The three points of this triangle represent (1) cultural self-knowledge, (2) knowledge about the context, and (3) discourse from the conflict (O'Hair, Friedrich, & Dixon p.86). To summarize, conflict can actually be made positive by first examining one's own cultural assumptions, then examining the context in which the conflict is taking place, and finally by examining the topics of conversation and the actual meanings of each party both overtly expressed and implied. By applying this model when conflicts arise, the experience can serve to allow for differences to co-exist and improve communications even when the parties have very different styles and viewpoints.
O'Hair, D., Friedrich, G. & Dixon, L. (2011). Strategic communication in business and the professions (7th ed., p. 86). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Week 1: Effective Organizational Communication
This is the first post of a blog/journal on the topic of Effective Organizational Communication, which will also be the topic of this Week One post. The intent of the post this week is to provide an overview of my own personal learning on the subject, primarily from a combination of the text and the peer discussions which take place in response to specific Discussion Board prompts.
The main prompt this week asked how effective communications can help an organization to succeed, and conversely, how ineffective communications can cause an organization to fail. I concluded that ineffective communication can break down trust, cooperation, and synergistic achievement of goals and missions. Effective communication, on the other hand, boosts the efficacy of an organization by fostering a culture of shared knowledge and understanding, teamwork, and unity. It also provides the "greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts" power that make outstanding achievement possible.
I learned reasons why communication can fail, including inadequate information, information overload, poor-quality information, poor timing, lack of follow-up, problems with channels, incompetent communication, ineffective goal setting, communication anxiety, and cultural barriers (more on this in Week Two). Most importantly, I learned strategies for overcoming these failures - specifically the Model of Strategic Communication, comprised of four elements: Situational Knowledge, Goal Setting, Communication Competence, and Anxiety Management.
Next week, we will take a look at Diversity in Business and strategies for how to leverage diversity for success.
The main prompt this week asked how effective communications can help an organization to succeed, and conversely, how ineffective communications can cause an organization to fail. I concluded that ineffective communication can break down trust, cooperation, and synergistic achievement of goals and missions. Effective communication, on the other hand, boosts the efficacy of an organization by fostering a culture of shared knowledge and understanding, teamwork, and unity. It also provides the "greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts" power that make outstanding achievement possible.
I learned reasons why communication can fail, including inadequate information, information overload, poor-quality information, poor timing, lack of follow-up, problems with channels, incompetent communication, ineffective goal setting, communication anxiety, and cultural barriers (more on this in Week Two). Most importantly, I learned strategies for overcoming these failures - specifically the Model of Strategic Communication, comprised of four elements: Situational Knowledge, Goal Setting, Communication Competence, and Anxiety Management.
Next week, we will take a look at Diversity in Business and strategies for how to leverage diversity for success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)