Add new comment | SPJIMR

Add new comment

Thank you, ma’am, for elucidating a simple looking yet critical issue that most of us tend to not realise while communicating. The argument states that by communicating the intention/ underlying logic and by asking for genuine feedback, the gap between the speaker’s intentions and the perceived impact on the listeners end can be significantly minimised or eliminated altogether. This is based on the premise that doing so will make the listener understand the speaker’s suggestions better as well as help the speaker gauge the perception of his statement by the people/organisation. While these suggestions are definitely helpful and necessary, these alone are not sufficient to ensure a richer effective conversation. In addition, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, communicating one’s intention/underlying logic does not necessarily make the listener more receptive, especially when the statement is indeed intended to be a criticism of the other person. Also, one must look at the plausibility of the listener not being completely honest/genuine with respect to the feedback he/she provides to the speaker. And finally, the success of these measures would ultimately depend on the speaker’s ability to derive constructive insights from the feedback for future communications. The first issue to be addressed is whether communicating the intention alone is sufficient to make the listener more receptive. While one could argue that communicating the rationale behind something increases the likelihood of synergy between the two people, the success of this measure heavily depends on the listeners ability to take criticism in his/her stride. For example, if someone has natural tendency to be defensive about one’s actions, he/she will always demonstrate an inherent resistance towards incoming suggestions which in turn might end up increasing the existing intention-impact gap. To consider this, an initial answer first is sometimes necessary w.r.t the other person’s nature is sometimes important to determine the best way to handle a particular conversation. This argument also relies on the idea that people are almost always honest while providing the feedback. This is not the case, especially in situations where the feedback is being provided for a person in superior position. The uncertainty of how the other person might react to the feedback will almost always discourage people from putting forward their true feelings. Finally, one must understand that not everybody interprets the feedback in a constructive manner. There is always a possibility of an intention-impact gap with respect to the feedback itself which in turn defeats the entire rationale behind the feedback itself. For example, if the person ends up perceiving the feedback in a manner different from the intended meaning, it would actually end up increasing the gap rather than decreasing it. In conclusion, while at first it may seem that the two suggestions provided by the author indeed ensure a richer, effective communication, the success of these measures ultimately depends on the attitude, patience and maturity levels of the stakeholders involved. Furthermore, the factors determining the success of any conversation are subjective and vary across different situations. At the beginning of any conversation, all these things must be considered to determine the best approach to any conversation.

SPJIMR
Bhavan's Campus
Munshi Nagar | Dadabhai Road,
Andheri West | Mumbai - 400 058, India
Tel:+91-22-2623-0396/ 2401
      +91-22-2623-7454
Fax:+91-22-26237042
 

Delhi Centre
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Campus, 3rd Floor
Gate No. 4, Copernicus Lane
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001
Tel: 8130545577, 011-23006871, ext-871 

Locate SPJIMR