>Fact is, I don't disagree that communication is a complex set of
>interactions. The only thing I will say again, is that the complex set
>of interactions IS DEPENDENT UPON the receiver. otherwise one might as
>well be talking to a tree. If the receiver doesn't speak >the same
>language, doesn't feel inclined to listen, doesn't grasp the concept,
>doesn't choose to participate, then there is no >communicating at all,
>just emissions from the sender.
If I may go out in a limb here... (sorry I couldn't resist) I believe it
is the sender's responsibility to understand the language of the tree. If
I believe my message is important, I will find a way to communicate it to
ensure the listener will want to hear it. I look for what is in it for
them and I impart that to the listener.
While I believe both "the listener is responsible" and " the sender is
responsible" are linear views, communication (when successful -
unsuccessful is a waste of time) is continuous and circular. Both parties
rely on the other to continue the interaction and both must take
responsibility for communication success. Those two linear statements
sound to me like someone looking for someone else to blame. IMO, it's
better to look at poor communication and ask "why" a whole bunch of times.
Resist the tempta tion to ask "why" until you find a "who". Trust me,
just firing or skirting around the "who" will not improve communication.
When you start asking good questions, listening to the answers and taking
action, communication will improve. If it feels like you're talking to a
tree, perhaps you need to learn to speak "tree", once you are fluent in
tree, I suggest you express your ex pectations to the tree for it's part
in the communication. Other approaches, again IMO, are excuses. You know
what they say about excuses...
~~CJ
--"Carol Johnson" <carol_johnson@weains.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>