Amazon.com Widgets

When communication is ineffective, is it always the communicator's fault?

  • More responsibility lies with the communicator

    Using the word 'Always' will make most premises fail. But if this said 'usually' then , as the originator of the communication it is the communicators responsibility to make the effort to communicate effectively. If communication fails the originator was too lazy. This often leads to extra work in the long run.

  • The communicator must be the influencer

    If you are communicating a message, it is not the fault of the listener should the message be misundewrstood or not receiuved.

    As a communicator, it is your job to effectively mold the enviornment, the message, and its delivery to the audience it's intended for. It is easy to say...

    "They didn't listen because they were on their phones"

    Maybe the problem is your message couldn't get them off of their phone. Maybe it was the fact that you didn't make them feel like what you were saying is important.

    If there is a message to communicate, we (the communicator) must ensure that we have created a setting that encourages and enables the user to care about what we're saying.

    We can blame other people, that's the easy part. The hard part is looking inside yourself after each failed communication. To earnestly find the fault in your message, fix it, and possibly return. But always learn from this process.

    Just my humble opinion, of course. I try to find ways that I can influence my situation and circumstances. That starts with change in myself 100% of the time.

  • No, perception plays a role.

    When communication fails, the first thing we usually do is put the blame on the communicator and call him "ineffective". People fail to realize that listening and perception are an equal part of successful communication. We tend to have selective hearing. We hear only certain words out of a sentence. We may also misunderstand what the communicator is telling us because no two people think alike.

  • No, I don't think it is always the communicators fault when communication is ineffective.

    Overall communication is a two way street both parties need to be involved in actively trying to communicate with each other, if one party is not interested in what the other side has to say then communication can break down at no fault of the communicator, so I think there are many factors to look at when communication breaks down.

  • No: When Communication is Ineffective, it is Not Always the Communicator's Fault

    Some people lack the attention span, interest, emotional awareness, or intelligence needed to understand the message presented by a communicator. While it may be possible for the communicator to tailor a message that is interesting or understandable to most people, the communicator must also retain a degree of faithfulness to their message, which means it is not their responsibility to sacrifice time, tone, or content if it means being able to communicate something rather than nothing. It is in the communicator's best interest to effectively communicate, but such a task is not always possible.

  • Listeners have a big role too.

    When communication is ineffective, it is not always the communicator's fault. This is because communication takes at least two people. The person meant to receive the information is also responsible for being receptive and actually taking into consideration what is being said to them. If we put all the fault on the speaker, then listeners would never be at fault for anythng.

  • No, communication isn't always a failure because of the communicator.

    I do not think that everytime a communication is ineffective it is the fault of the communicator. I think that there are a lot of factors that come into play when a communication fails. A communicator can only do so much. There are always variable that are present when a communication fails.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.