Effective Communication Processes and Their Barriers - Essay Example

Of Effective Communication Processes and its Barriers in Rio Ferdinand’s Case First Last of Table of Contents Introduction and Literature Review……………………………………………………………3 Communication Process………………………………………………………………………..4 Message/Information……………………………………………………………………………6 Successful Communication…………………………………………………………………….7 Of Barriers………………………………………………………………………………………..9 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...12 References……………………………………………………………………………………..14 Introduction and Literature Review According to Duimering and Safayeni (1998), the language as a means for communication and the events connected to the message of the communication act are related to one another in relation to “many-to-many.” Synonymous to the theory of correspondence, the field study conducted by these scholars suggests that the structure-oriented language and the “multifeatured” events are mutually grounded for many and varied interpreters. Nevertheless, Roebuck, Brock, and Moodie (2004) argue that virtual simulation greatly facilitates the understanding and quirks inherent in the communication process. They note that simulation and virtual interaction largely address the “communication challenges.” On the other hand, the research study performed by Salend, Duhaney, and Montgomery (2002) emphasizes the importance and impact of cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the persons involved in and/or during the communication process. In contrast to Salend et al. (2002), the study and findings of Meirovich, Galante, and Kanat-Maymon (2006) reveal that perception of the sender towards the receiver, and vice-versa, affects the act of communication. Here, the literary review -- concerning the nature, and ways of studying the peculiar character, of communication process -- is essentially premised on the vitality of correct communication act within the organization/group in particular and the society in general. On the other hand of the scale, Manchester United (MU) defender Rio Ferdinand “forgot” to participate in the random and routine drug test activity slated on 23rd of September, 2003. The British football star was moving house at the time of drug testing. As a result, the Football Association (FA) made a drastic decision to leave out Ferdinand from the England squad bound to Turkey for the 2004 European Championship. The FA’s verdict is grounded on the misconduct of the football athlete: not showing up in the scheduled drug testing. On the other hand, the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) and the MU team deciphered the FA’s decision as an insinuation that Ferdinand is guilty of being a drug dependent. By and large, the football star’s “forgot” reasoning and the eventual verdict reached by the FA spawned a massive controversy both for Ferdinand in particular and the British football game in general. Ferdinand’s case is a battle essentially dealing with communication processes and the barriers inherent in an ineffective communication. This essay examines the elements and varieties of communication process in connection to Ferdinand’s story. Also, this essay reviews the information that the senders have attempted to encode, and eventually channeled, the message. Moreover, this paper tackles the barriers present in the mode of transmission and the content itself of the information encoded by the senders. Finally, this essay recommends a method of communicative process for successful communication to take place. Communication processes There are several communication processes clearly apparent in Rio Ferdinand’s story. And the most obvious elements present in the communication process are the encoder or sender, message or information, decoder or receiver, and channel or transmitter. According to Heath and Bryant (2000), these elements of communication are not in themselves communication per se but rather parts and parcels of communication process. The interaction or relationship between or among the elements of communication essentially defines the communication process. There are two major models for communication processes, namely, linear or transmission-reception and communication interaction models. The linear model is, as the word suggests, linear in which the process of communication transpires “in a linear time sequence” (Heath & Bryant, 2000). And interaction model is a series of communicative events that usually occurs between the encoder and the decoder “over time and space” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 83). Using the interaction model, the absence of MU defender Rio Ferdinand to partake in the routine drug testing on the 23rd of September creates a strong message to the receiver/decoder (i.e., the FA). The channel or transmitter used here is the utter absence of the physical body within the place and time prescribed for the drug testing activity. Communication channel is not only the technology available in a given spatial and temporal setting but also in “every way people experience reality” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 80). This implies that sight, hearing, and other human senses are examples of a transmitter used in a specific communication activity. In Great Britain, drug testing is strictly observed by the Football Association. In fact, the Football Association of Wales publicly declares that they are “not soft on drugs” (Blanche, 2004). There are, as a consequence, grave penalties for football players failing to abide in such rules and regulation. For the encoders part, on the other hand, Ferdinand failed to undergo to the random drug test on said date and time because he has other important concern. The football star responds to his receiver-judges that he was moving house (message), thereby forgot to attend the routine test. Ferdinand’s reasoning implies that he did not categorically neglect his responsibility to partake in the drug test, but rather non-consciously forgets the schedule for his drug testing. The following month of the same year, Manchester United held a press conference informing the public that their star-player Ferdinand has been left out from the England squad. At this point in time, the elements of communication dramatically alter; the sender now is Manchester United and its receiver is the British audience. Here, the transmitter or channel is more visible via media, both print and non-print. On the other side of the scale, using the transmission-reception or linear model greatly requires the isolation or separation of the varied and many “series of events.” For instance, the time when Ferdinand “forgot” to take the drug test should be isolated to the time when Manchester United publicly announced his exclusion for the 2004 UEFA European Football Championship. The linear model seems to be the dominant communication process model heavily employed in Ferdinand’s case. There appears to be a lack of spontaneous and sensible interaction between participants or actors in the process of encoding and decoding their messages. For instance, the decision (information) reached by the FA (encoder) fails to consider the reasoning of Ferdinand. Isolated in their decision-making, the Football Association brazenly discredits the Manchester United player’s “forgot” excuse. Here, the linearity of the communication event heavily lies in the narrow perception taken by the FA -- that is to say, encoder (i.e., Ferdinand) → message (i.e., failure to take the drug test) → transmitter (i.e., his not showing up on time) → decoder (i.e., FA). Message/Information Generally, there are two senders or encoders quite apparent in the communication processes dealing with the star’s football career: Rio Ferdinand himself and the Manchester United. By definition, senders can either be an individual person or a group of people (Heath & Bryant, 2000). For Ferdinand’s stance, his message was simply to inform the concerned body (i.e., FA) that he is not guilty of using prohibited drugs merely to boost his athletic abilities. The September 23 incident was not intentional but rather a matter of not remembering due to priority concern. Moving house is very important for Ferdinand considering that it involves family matters. And the football star is innocent of taking drugs for the fact that his September 25 drug result was affirmatively negative. For the Manchester United, on the other hand, the message was simply to register their disagreement to the premature decision made by the Football Association on Ferdinand’s case. The FA’s discretion appears to be unfair and unjustifiable since they have already reached a verdict without hearing first the defendant’s side. Their evidence was merely the fact that Ferdinand did not take the random, routine drug test on September 23. Such evidence is weak for it does not directly implicate the defendant’s guilt of taking drugs. Moreover, the information openly expressed by the Manchester United greatly leads to other more relevant message -- that is, reconsideration of Ferdinand’s role for the England squad. Successful communication Whether or not the sender/encoder was successful in communicating the message to the receiver/decoder will ultimately depend on the relevance of the information’s intention and outcome after transmission. For a communication to succeed, the encoded message ought to be decoded as perceived or conceptualized by the encoder. Unfortunately, Ferdinand was excluded in the England squad slated for the 2004 football tournament as a direct result when the sender informally sent the message to his intended receiver. Originally, the Manchester United defender encodes his information with the intention to persuade the FA that he deserves to be named among the England squad athletes. Regardless of its soundness, the message transmitted by Rio Ferdinand to the body-receiver was very clear. Based from the interaction model -- Heath and Bryant (2000) define interaction as the communication process in which the communicators influence one another -- Ferdinand failed to influence or persuade his receiver in his act of communicating. Via the media transmission, on the other hand, the Manchester United transmitted its sentiment over the unjust verdict reached by the FA. Applying the linear model, the communication act made by the Manchester United was generally successful. Upon transmission, the information that the said team encoded created a positive impact for the British society in particular and the world in general. Acquired through media coverage, ordinary Britons become involved in the heated debate over Rio Ferdinand’s case. Without question, public relation especially during crisis communication is “critically important” (Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005). With the public censorship, the Football Association felt a certain rate of pressure to resolve the matter fairly. Thus, Manchester United gained a positive outcome when it registered its discontent by means of press conference. Needless to say, the benefits of “face-to-face contact” are crucial for people to come to full agreement (Meyer, 2002). Undoubtedly, there is a need to challenge the information “presented in massive quantities” (Winkler, 2001). Following the interaction model, one might interrogate the “real” intention or purpose why the Manchester United held a press conference and expressed its disagreement. One could say that the communication presented by the Manchester United was a failure if and only if one of its intentions, assuming there are many and subtle intentions, is to reconsider or revert Ferdinand’s verdict. Despite public attention, the Football Association remains firm to its standpoint. In this respect, the Manchester United did not succeed in persuading or influencing the FA. Of barriers The greatest barrier apparent in the communication process for Ferdinand’s narrative is the barrier in which the two parties failed to meet in a formal dialogue. Isolated from discussions, the involved parties merely throw their individual arguments to the public media. The Football Association, for one thing, did not initiate and practice a form of dialogue in order to inquire or interrogate Ferdinand’s stance. The FA merely jumps into a hasty conclusion that the star player is guilty of something. As a consequence, the right of the Manchester United defender is breached; Ferdinand’s voice is not heard by his judge-receiver. The inhibition of free expression leads to a “sense of forfeiture and helplessness” (Young, 1998). An example of linear communication, this silencing or inhibition of expression shuts the door of one of the involved parties, thereby rendering an ineffective communication process. Undoubtedly, hard-truth evidences are necessary to prove that the person is guilty of charges thrown against him or her. In the absence of these evidences, the accuser or judge cannot legitimately convict an innocent defendant from a crime he or she did not commit. Moreover, the person’s defense should be heard by the honorable body. And in the case of Rio Ferdinand, the defendant was unjustly sentenced to an eight-month suspension from playing professional football game (McDonnell, 2004; Stone, 2004). The unjustifiable transgression is the lack of a dialogue whereby Ferdinand can freely express his mind. Furthermore, the Football Association failed to rationally satisfy the query of the rest of the England team, including the Professional Footballers’ Association or PFA. MU and PFA argued that the public announcement of Ferdinand’s exclusion to the England squad showed, among other things, that the star player’s confidentiality has been compromised. It also showed that Ferdinand is guilty of something without apparent evidences or trial procedure accorded to him. From the first place, the announcement should have not been made public. At the end, public announcement concerning Ferdinand’s verdict adds up to an ineffective communication. The premature decision via media pronouncement can be considered as a noise to the communication process. Noise is defined as the factor in which predictability -- the sender’s ability to predict the successful decoding of the message by the receiver -- is greatly reduced (Heath & Bryant, 2000). It could be surmised that the FA’s main aim in formulating its decision objectively complies with the duties inherent in the organization. The Football Association probably has no intention whatsoever to implicate Ferdinand as a drug dependent. Perhaps the verdict that the FA reached was the result of an independent investigation, which finds Ferdinand guilty of misconduct. Indeed, the FA does not explicitly charge the Manchester United defender as a drug user but rather as a football player who failed to abide the rules and regulation. Thus, confidentiality within the dialogue ought to be observed. Recommendations Successful communication requires a series of dialogue between two involved parties. And the communication interaction model systematically provides a good example for a successful communication process. Prior to reaching a consensus, the two parties involved ought to create and interact within a “series of events.” They must learn to give and take, so to speak, or utilized the coordination process to achieve “consensus results” (Jun, Chaoying, Jie, & Gang, 2008). As part of the interaction, the art of listening is crucial in the two-party conversation (Weiner, 2008). Dialogue ultimately provides a model for a “social justice-oriented approach” (Nagda et al., 1999). After the incident, for instance, Rio Ferdinand openly expressed his argument to the FA for not attending the drug testing. The encoder informally transmitted his message to the decoder before the latter would misinterpret it as an expression of not following the prescribed rules of the game. This is a clear attempt, on the part of Ferdinand as the encoder, to willingly submit himself to the queries of the distinguished body concerning the September 23 incident. The star player (first party) voluntarily discloses himself to his judges (second party) for an appeal to reason. This is one essential step for an open dialogue to positively occur. Things would have been different if only the FA has been more sensitive to the issue -- that is, if it first listened to the defendants argument prior to reaching a conclusion or decision. Efforts to explore the “context and respondent types” could have altered the scenario (Lewis, 2006). On the other hand, Ferdinand’s reason did not convince his autonomous judges for his innocence to the charge of misconduct. Failure to submit to the routine drug testing is failure in itself to follow the rudimentary rules governing a professional athlete. Ferdinand should have provided good reasoning and solid evidences in defending his innocence. It is a wonder if he truly “forgot” to attend and partake in the September 23 drug test activity. How can professional athletes such as Rio Ferdinand “forget” his routine drug testing (emphasis on the word “routine”); and if indeed Ferdinand forgot to take the drug test, he must present his argument with clear and convincing evidences. On the other hand of the scale, successful communication mandates an observance of ethical action. Ethical conduct includes the strict compliance to the formal procedure in tackling and resolving the conflicting situation. The procedures or standards to be followed within the communication interaction “must consider how [involved] individuals will react to those standards” (Bobko & Colella, 1994). The two parties should adhere to certain parliamentary form of procedure in order for them to satisfactorily meet on the same ground; these parties ought to recognize and work “concurrently at the individual and organizational levels” (Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996). Decisions that have been agreed upon in the course of the dialogue should be strictly observed by both parties. In the presence of disagreement, however, the two parties ought to strive to find common ground through a “series of events;” conflict within the two seemingly opposing parties must be resolved (Smith, Smith, Olian, & Sims, 1996). Perhaps it will be difficult to resolve pressing matters when the two entities failed to come to agreement. Nevertheless, it is important that the rights of the two parties -- especially the aggrieved one -- should be highly respected. Conclusion Communication process is a way or process of interacting and/or interconnecting with the different elements of communication such as encoder, message, channel, and decoder. In Rio Ferdinand’s case, the absence of interaction as a model for communicative process makes the communication between the sender and the receiver apparently off-tangent. It appears that the linear approach of communicating to the other party creates a great divide or barrier for the encoder and the decoder. The lack of a “series of events” in the communication process characterized by dialogues renders the two parties vulnerable to misinterpretation or false decoding. The presence of noise, in the form of premature decision and probably public announcement, adds up the heat between contending parties. Nonetheless, the medium or channel used in transmitting the information facilitates the Manchester United (sender) to revise, if not revert, the Football Association’s original verdict: from two years to eight months suspension. By and large, successful communication or dialogues between the MU and the FA can only be attained if both parties deal the conflict in an ethical manner through a “series of events.” References Blanche, P. (2004, July 27). FAW: We’re not soft on drugs. Western Mail, p. 22. Bobko, P., & Colella, A. (1994). Employee reactions to performance standards: A review and research propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47 (1), 1+. Duimering, P. R., & Safayeni, F. (1998). The role of language and formal structure in the construction and maintenance of organizational images. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28 (3), 57+. Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communication challenges: Building theory from qualitative data. The Journal of Business Communication, 42 (2), 112+. Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2000). Human communication theory and research: Concepts, contexts, and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jun, C., Chaoying, H., Jie, J., & Gang, H. (2008). Reconciliation of inconsistent perspectives in collaborative GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 35 (2), 77+. Lewis, L. K. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 70 (1), 23+. McDonnell, D. (2004, August 3). Football: Remember me? Rio Ferdinand forgot a drug test – and ended up wrecking man Uniteds season. his eight-month ban is up in eight weeks - and then, says Sir Alex Ferguson, the defender could become this campaigns most important player. The Mirror, p. 4. Meirovich, G., Galante, I., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2006). Attitudes towards Tqm and the communication process between managers and subordinates. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 11 (1), 74+. Meyer, J. (2002). Strategic communication enhances organizational performance. Human Resource Planning, 25 (2), 7+. Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M. L., Holley, L. C., Harding, S., Balassone, M. L., Moise- Swanson, D., & De Mello, S. (1999). An innovative approach to teaching about diversity and justice in social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 35 (3), 433. Roebuck, D. B., Brock, S. J., & Moodie, D. R. (2004). Using a simulation to explore the challenges of communicating in a virtual team. Business Communication Quarterly, 67 (3), 359+. Salend, S. J., Duhaney, L. M. G., & Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (5), 289+. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., & Sims, H. P. (1996). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. IBAR, 17 (1), 36+. Stone, S. (2004, August 14). Olympics 2004: Greek sprint idols win a stay of execution but dark clouds gather after pair’s drug-test no show. Daily Post, p. 41. Weiner, R. (2008). The seven rules of effective communication. Public Relations Quarterly, 52 (2), 9+. Winkler, D. R. (2001). Limits of language, limits of worlds. Visible Language, 35 (3), 230+. Witherspoon, P. D., & Wohlert, K. L. (1996). An approach to developing communication Strategies for enhancing organizational diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33 (4), 375+. Young, S. L. (1998). Where silenced voices speak out: The hidden power of informal Communication networks. Women and Language, 21 (2), 21. Read More