Communication Analysis Of Two Communication Incidents In Ter

Communication analysis of two communication incidents in terms of the communication process

Communication is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, vital for conveying ideas, emotions, and information. Effective communication requires clarity, understanding, and feedback, while ineffective communication can lead to misunderstandings, frustration, and conflict. Analyzing communication incidents through the lens of established communication theories helps in understanding the underlying barriers and facilitators that influence communication outcomes. This essay critically examines two communication incidents—one frustrating and one successful—by applying communication process models and theories, such as those proposed by Eunson and others, to identify the factors that contributed to the different outcomes.

Paper For Above instruction

The first incident I encountered involved a miscommunication with a colleagues’ project deadline, which led to significant frustration. The incident unfolded during a team meeting where I was assigned a task with a vague deadline. The sender, in this case, the project manager, attempted to communicate the deadline through an ambiguous message sent via email, which I interpreted differently. According to Eunson’s model, the message encoding was flawed due to unclear language and lack of specificity, which created a barrier at the decoding stage. The channel used—email—was not ideal for urgent or nuanced information, resulting in a delay in acknowledgment and response. Furthermore, I attempted to seek clarification through follow-up emails, but the absence of immediate feedback exacerbated misunderstandings. The lack of opportunity for real-time feedback hindered correction, leading to further confusion and frustration.

This incident exemplifies several communication barriers, including ambiguous encoding, inappropriate channel choice, and insufficient feedback opportunities, aligning with Eunson’s communication model. The sender’s failure to encode the message clearly, combined with the use of a non-verbal channel (email), contributed to misinterpretation. Additionally, the absence of immediate feedback prevented the sender from realizing the recipient’s confusion, creating a breakdown in the communication process. Strategies attempted to overcome these barriers included following up via email and requesting clarification; however, these measures were insufficient due to the medium's limitations. The incident highlights the importance of choosing appropriate channels and providing clear, unambiguous messages to ensure effective communication, especially when conveying time-sensitive information.

Conversely, a positive communication incident occurred when I coordinated with a team member on a project presentation. We scheduled a video call, which allowed for real-time interaction, and both of us prepared agendas beforehand. During the call, we used active listening, paraphrasing, and clarifying questions, which enhanced mutual understanding. This aligns with Eunson’s emphasis on feedback and multimodal communication, facilitating adjustments and clarifications dynamically. Our use of non-verbal cues, such as nodding and maintaining eye contact, reinforced understanding and trust, reducing potential barriers. Moreover, the immediate feedback provided during the conversation enabled us to clarify points on the spot, resulting in a seamless exchange of ideas and a shared sense of progress.

The success of this communication can be attributed to several factors: timely and appropriate channel selection (video call), active engagement, clear articulation, and reciprocal feedback. The real-time nature of the communication allowed for immediate correction of misunderstandings, minimizing barriers and fostering collaboration. Applied theories such as the Shannon-Weaver communication model highlight that effective feedback mechanisms and appropriate channels are crucial, as seen in this incident's positive outcome. This interaction demonstrates how awareness of communication dynamics and proactive strategies can lead to successful exchange and mutual understanding.

In comparing these two incidents, it becomes evident that the key differences lie in the clarity of message encoding, channel choice, and opportunities for feedback. The frustrating incident was characterized by ambiguous messaging, inappropriate channels, and limited feedback, all of which contributed to miscommunication. In contrast, the successful communication was marked by deliberate channel selection, active engagement, and dynamic feedback, facilitating mutual understanding. These observations underscore the importance of considering the communication context, including the medium, the message, and the participants’ engagement, to promote effective communication (Eunson, 2017; Adler & Elmhorst, 2018; DeVito, 2019).

References

• Eunson, B. (2017). Communicating in the 21st Century. Wiley.
• Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2018). Communication at Work. McGraw-Hill Education.
• DeVito, J. A. (2019). The Interpersonal Communication Book. Pearson.
• Wood, J. T. (2015). Communication Mosaics: An Introduction to the Field of Communication. Wadsworth.
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press.
• Styhre, A. (2018). Communication barriers in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 55(2), 163-184.
• Crenshaw, T. (2010). Feedback and face-to-face communication. Harvard Business Review, 88(4), 19-21.
• Hargie, O. (2016). Skilled Interpersonal Communication. Routledge.
• Jo, J., & Åsberg, C. (2020). Non-verbal cues and trust building in digital communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1), 22-39.
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.