Barriers to Effective Communication

The nature of language and the way it is used often lead to misunderstandings. An example might be a maintenance instructor telling a student to time the magnetos. A student new to the maintenance field might think a stopwatch or clock would be necessary to do the requested task. Instruction would be necessary for the student to understand that the procedure has nothing to do with the usual concept of time. This is an example of a lack of common experience, one of four barriers to effective communication.

Lack of Common Experience

Lack of common experience between instructor and student is probably the greatest single barrier to effective communication. Many people seem to believe that words transport meanings from speaker to listener in the same way that a truck carries bricks from one location to another. Words, however, rarely carry precisely the same meaning from the mind of the instructor to the mind of the student. In fact, words, in themselves, do not transfer meanings at all. Whether spoken or written, they are merely stimuli used to arouse a response in the student. The student's past experience with the words and the things to which they refer determines how the student responds to what the instructor says. A communicator's words cannot communicate the desired meaning to another person unless the listener or reader has had some experience with the objects or concepts to which these words refer. Since it is the students' experience that forms vocabulary, it is also essential that instructors speak the same language as the students. If the instructor's terminology is necessary to convey the idea, some time needs to be spent making certain the students understand that terminology. The English language abounds in words that mean different things to different people. To a farmer, the word tractor means the machine that pulls the implements to cultivate the soil;

to a trucker, it is the vehicle used to pull a semitrailer; in aviation, a tractor propeller is the opposite of a pusher propeller. Each technical field has its own vocabulary. Technical words might mean some- thing entirely different to a person outside that field, or perhaps, mean nothing at all. In order for communication to be effective, the students' understanding of the meaning of the words needs to be the same as the instructor's understanding.

Confusion Between the Symbol and the Symbolized Object

Languages abound with words that mean different things to different people. Confusion between the symbol and the symbolized object results when a word is confused with what it is meant to represent. Although it is obvious that words and the connotations they carry can be different, people sometimes fail to make the distinction. An aviation maintenance technician (AMT) might be introduced as a mechanic. To many people, the term mechanic conjures up images of a person laboring over an automobile. Being referred to as an aircraft mechanic might be an improvement in some people's minds, but neither really portrays the training and skill of the trained AMT. Words and symbols do not always represent the same thing to every person. To communicate effectively, speakers and writers should be aware of these differences. Words and symbols can then be carefully chosen to represent exactly what the speaker or writer intends.

Overuse of Abstractions
Abstractions are words that are general rather than specific. Concrete words or terms refer to objects that people can relate directly to their experiences. They specify an idea that can be perceived or a thing that can be visualized. Abstract words, on the other hand, stand for ideas that cannot be directly experienced, things that do not call forth mental images in the minds of the students. The word aircraft is an abstract word. It does not call to mind a specific aircraft in the imaginations of various students. One student may visualize an airplane, another student might visualize a helicopter, and still another student might visualize an airship. Although the word airplane is more specific, various students might envision anything from a Boeing 777 to a Piper Cub.

Another example of abstractions would be if an instructor referred to aircraft engines. Some students might think of jet engines, while others would think of reciprocating engines. Even reciprocating engine is too abstract since it could be a radial engine, an inline engine, a Vtype engine, or an opposed type engine. Use of the technical language of engines, as in Lycoming IO-360, would narrow the engine type, but would only be understood by students who have learned the terminology particular to aircraft engines. Abstractions should be avoided in most cases, but there are times when abstractions are necessary and useful. Aerodynamics is applicable to all aircraft and is an example of an abstraction that can lead to understanding aircraft flight characteristics. The danger of abstractions is that they will not evoke the same specific items of experience in the minds of the students that the instructor intends. When such terms are used, they should be linked with specific experiences through examples and illustrations. For instance, when an approach to landing is going badly, telling a student to take appropriate measures might not result in the desired action. It would be better to tell the student to conduct a go-around since this is an action that has the same meaning to both student and instructor. When maintenance students are being taught to torque the bolts on an engine, it would be better to tell them to torque the bolts in accordance with the maintenance manual for that engine rather than simply to torque the bolts to the proper values. Whenever possible, the level of abstraction should be reduced by using concrete, specific terms. This better defines and gains control of images produced in the minds of the students.

Interference
Barriers to effective communication are usually under the direct control of the instructor. However, interference is made up of factors that are outside the direct control of the

instructor: physiological, environmental, and psychological interference. To communicate effectively, the instructor should consider the effects of these factors. Psychological interference is any biological problem that may inhibit symbol reception, such as hearing loss, injury or physical illness. These, and other physiological factors, can inhibit communication because the student is not comfortable. The instructor must adapt the presentation to allow the student to feel better about the situation and be more receptive to new ideas. Adaptation could be as simple as putting off a lesson until the student is over an illness. Another accommodation could be the use of a seat cushion to allow a student to sit properly in the airplane. Environmental interference is caused by external physical conditions. One example of this is the noise level found in many light aircraft. Noise not only impairs the communication process, but also can result in long- term damage to hearing. One solution to this problem is the use of headphones and an intercom system. If an intercom system is not available, a good solution is the use of earplugs. It has been shown that in addition to protecting hearing, use of earplugs actually clarifies speaker output. Psychological interference is a product of how the instructor and student feel at the time the communication process is occurring. If either instructor or student is not committed to the communication process, communication is impaired. Fear of the situation or mistrust between the instructor and student could severely inhibit the flow of information.

(1) Lack of clarity of message - don't tell them what lies behind the change and don't sell the problem before you try to sell the solution. Use jargon, plenty of it and take a long time telling them. Oh and to really make this one stick, don't tell them how it's going to be different after the change - just keep telling them how its all about the values, mission and vision. (2) Absence of emotional resonance in your message - the emotional tone and delivery of your message should clearly indicate that you as senior management haven't given a second thought to the real impact this is going to have on them. Don't tell what they're going to lose or have to let go of. And to reinforce that point make very clear by your tone that you don't care and that that dimension never crossed your mind. This will certainly help build large barriers to effective communication! (3) In-accurate targeting - make sure you don't reach the right people with the right message at the right time. Most importantly, never address the "what's in it for me" question, and totally disregard the psychological and emotional transitions they will have to go through in adjusting to your change. (4) Poor timing schedule - why waste valuable senior management time keeping your people fully in the picture? Keep them in the dark and keep them guessing. (5) No genuine feedback process - two-way communication is something you can pay lip service to. Sure go through the motions, but rest easy in the comfortable complacency of your senior management certainty that knows best. ["...that's what we're paid for isn't it? After all there's no reason for this to cause barriers to effective communication, is there?"]

Interpersonal Barrier The employee and the employer should share a unique relationship wherein both of them are able to understand and relate to one another in every possible way. However, when an employer or an employee is unable to understand non-verbal communication such as expressions, body language, gestures, eye contact, etc., and when either of them lacks trust and belief in the other, it becomes very difficult for both of them to communicate and put across things in the right spirit. There can also be a lack of motivation, a lack of co-operation, a fear of punishment and poor relations from the employees side. All these perceived threats also serve as a barrier for effective conversation. Channel Barrier If the means of the conversation selected is wrong or the length of the conversation is too long, the communication might get interrupted. Conflicts among employees can also lead to poor communication. Lack of interest in the conversation on part of the employees can also lead to a break in the flow of the conversation. Criticism The management can give out feedback and judgments on the performance of the employee till it is healthy and ethical. But, a criticism that is meant to put down the morale of a person is something that can disturb the smoothness of the employee-employer relationship. Praising Surprising but true, praising can also act as a barrier for effective communication. Too much of appreciation can make employees dependant on these words of praise to want to concentrate on their work and stay focused. If they dont receive any words of appraisal in the future, they will lack interest and concentration in work.

#1 - Knowing the answer

"Knowing the answer" means that you think you already know what the speaker wants to say, before she actually finishes saying it. You might then impatiently cut her off or try to complete the sentence for her. Even more disruptive is interrupting her by saying that you disagree with her, but without letting her finish saying what it is that you think you disagree with. That's a common problem when a discussion gets heated, and which causes the discussion to degrade quickly. By interrupting the speaker before letting her finish, you're essentially saying that you don't value what she's saying. Showing respect to the speaker is a crucial element of good listening. The "knowing the answer" barrier also causes the listener to pre-judge what the speaker is saying -- a kind of closed-mindedness. A good listener tries to keep an open, receptive mind. He looks for opportunities to stretch his mind when listening, and to acquire new ideas or insights, rather than reinforcing existing points of view.

#2 - Trying to be helpful
Another significant barrier to good listening is "trying to be helpful". Although trying to be helpful may seem beneficial, it interferes with listening because the listener is thinking about how to solve what he perceives to be the speaker's problem. Consequently, he misses what the speaker is actually saying.

An old Zen proverb says, "When walking, walk. When eating, eat." In other words, give your whole attention to whatever you're doing. It's worth emphasizing that the goal of good listening is simply to listen -- nothing more and nothing less. Interrupting the speaker in order to offer advice disrupts the flow of conversation, and impairs the listener's ability to understand the speaker's experience.

Many people have a "messiah complex" and try to fix or rescue other people as a way of feeling fulfilled. Such people usually get a kick out of being problem-solvers, perhaps because it gives them a sense of importance. However, that behavior can be a huge hurdle to good listening. Trying to be helpful while listening also implies that you've made certain judgments about the speaker. That can raise emotional barriers to communication, as judgments can mean that the listener doesn't have complete understanding or respect for the speaker. In a sense, giving a person your undivided attention while listening is the purest act of love you can offer. Because human beings are such social animals, simply knowing that another person has listened and understood is empowering. Often that's all a person needs in order to solve the problems on his or her own. If you as a listener step in and heroically offer your solution, you're implying that you're more capable of seeing the solution than the speaker is. If the speaker is describing a difficult or long-term problem, and you offer a facile, offthe-cuff solution, you're probably forgetting that he or she may have already considered your instant solution long before.

#3 - Treating discussion as competition

Some people feel that agreeing with the speaker during a heated discussion is a sign of weakness. They feel compelled to challenge every point the speaker makes, even if they inwardly agree. Discussion then becomes a contest, with a score being kept for who wins the most points by arguing. Treating discussion as competition is one of the most serious barriers to good listening. It greatly inhibits the listener from stretching and seeing a different point of view. It can also be frustrating for the speaker.

#4 - Trying to influence or impress

Because good listening depends on listening just for the sake of listening, any ulterior motive will diminish the effectiveness of the listener. Examples of ulterior motives are trying to impress or to influence the speaker. A person who has an agenda other than simply to understand what the speaker is thinking and feeling will not be able to pay complete attention while listening. Psychologists have pointed out that people can understand language about two or three times faster than they can speak. That implies that a listener has a lot of extra mental "bandwidth" for thinking about other things while listening. A good listener knows how to use that spare capacity to think about what the speaker is talking about.

A listener with an ulterior motive, such as to influence or impress the speaker, will probably use the spare capacity to think about his "next move" in the conversation -his rebuttal or what he will say next when the speaker is finished -- instead of focusing on understanding the speaker.

#5 - Reacting to red flag words

Words can provoke a reaction in the listener that wasn't necessarily what the speaker intended. When that happens the listener won't be able to hear or pay full attention to what the speaker is saying. Red flag words or expressions trigger an unexpectedly strong association in the listener's mind, often because of the listener's private beliefs or experiences.

Technology is often seen as the driver of improved communications, but technology, in itself, creates noise and discord as much as it melds minds.
Good listeners have learned how to minimize the distraction caused by red flag words, but a red flag word will make almost any listener momentarily unable to hear with full attention. An important point is that the speaker may not have actually meant the word in the way that the listener understood. However, the listener will be so distracted by the red flag that she will not notice what the speaker actually did mean to say. Red flag words don't always provoke emotional reactions. Sometimes they just cause slight disagreements or misunderstandings. Whenever a listener finds himself disagreeing or reacting, he should be on the lookout for red flag words or expressions.

#6 - Believing in language
One of the trickiest barriers is "believing in language" -- a misplaced trust in the precision of words. Language is a guessing game. Speaker and listener use language to predict what each other is thinking. Meaning must always be actively negotiated. It's a fallacy to think that a word's dictionary definition can be transmitted directly through using the word. An example of that fallacy is revealed in the statement, "I said it perfectly clearly, so why didn't you understand?". Of course, the naive assumption here is that words that are clear to one person are clear to another, as if the words themselves contained absolute meaning. Words have a unique effect in the mind of each person, because each person's experience is unique. Those differences can be small, but the overall effect of the differences can become large enough to cause misunderstanding.

A worse problem is that words work by pointing at experiences shared by speaker and listener. If the listener hasn't had the experience that the speaker is using the word to point at, then the word points at nothing. Worse still, the listener may quietly substitute a different experience to match the word.

#7 - Mixing up the forest and the trees

A common saying refers to an inability "to see the forest for the trees". Sometimes people pay such close attention to detail, that they miss the overall meaning or context of a situation. Some speakers are what we will call "trees" people. They prefer concrete, detailed explanations. They might explain a complex situation just by naming or describing its characteristics in no particular order. Other speakers are "forest" people. When they have to explain complex situations, they prefer to begin by giving a sweeping, abstract, bird's-eye view. Good explanations usually involve both types, with the big-picture "forest" view providing context and overall meaning, and the specific "trees" view providing illuminating examples. When trying to communicate complex information, the speaker needs to accurately shift between forest and trees in order to show how the details fit into the big picture. However, speakers often forget to use "turn indicators" to signal that they are shifting from one to another, which can cause confusion or misunderstanding for the listener. Each style is prone to weaknesses in communication. For example, "trees" people often have trouble telling their listener which of the details are more important and how those details fit into the overall context. They can also fail to tell their listener that they are making a transition from one thought to another -- a problem that quickly shows up in their writing, as well. "Forest" people, on the other hand, often baffle their listeners with obscure abstractions. They tend to prefer using concepts, but sometimes those concepts are so removed from the world of the senses that their listeners get lost. "Trees" people commonly accuse "forest" people of going off on tangents or speaking in unwarranted generalities. "Forest" people commonly feel that "trees" people are too narrow and literal.

#8 - Over-splitting or over-lumping
Speakers have different styles of organizing thoughts when explaining complex situations. Some speakers, "splitters", tend to pay more attention to how things are

different. Other speakers, "lumpers", tend to look for how things are alike. Perhaps this is a matter of temperament. If the speaker and listener are on opposite sides of the splitter-lumper spectrum, the different mental styles can cause confusion or lack of understanding. A listener who is an over-splitter can inadvertently signal that he disagrees with the speaker over everything, even if he actually agrees with most of what the speaker says and only disagrees with a nuance or point of emphasis. That can cause "noise" and interfere with the flow of conversation. Likewise, a listener who is an over-lumper can let crucial differences of opinion go unchallenged, which can lead to a serious misunderstanding later. The speaker will mistakenly assume that the listener has understood and agreed. It's important to achieve a good balance between splitting (critical thinking) and lumping (metaphorical thinking). Even more important is for the listener to recognize when the speaker is splitting and when she is lumping.

Nonverbal Communication Barriers

1. Flashing or rolling eyes 2. Quick or slow movements 3. Arms crossed, legs crossed 4. Gestures made with exasperation 5. Slouching, hunching over 6. Poor personal care 7. Doodling 8. Staring at people or avoiding eye contact 9. Excessive fidgeting with materials

All of these examples of barriers thwart communication, mutual understanding, respect, problem solving, and identifying solutions that will meet everyone's needs. They put a serious strain on relationships that ultimately need to be collaborative in order to most effectively meet the needs of our children. Use of these "communication errors" results in increased emotional distancing between the parties, escalation in the intensity of the conflict and a negative environment for everyone involved.