This is a common question I ask during my trainings or talks: When does the process of communication ends? And when does the process of communication starts?
Most people are intelligent enough to know that questions framed this way usually means that the answer is NOT when you stop speaking and when you start speaking respectively. So I will not insult your intelligence by implying that that is the baseline answer. ;)
What I will do is to take the speaking phase to initiate the discussion on where the starting and ending points are. I will not discuss the speaking phase so as to focus on the entirety of the communication process. As with all questions of this nature, the answer really depends on why you are asking the question but the awareness of the entire process better positions you to identify if any part of your communication could be improved to transmit the concepts you intended to transmit to your audience.
Also, I am using speaking as a proxy for all forms of communications, which include electronic means as well as human communication: words, tone of voice, body language and otherwise. A nod to a colleague across a crowded meeting table as a signal to initiate a pre-planned action is also a single self-contained communication for the purpose of this article.
This is one of a two part article on communication. When Communication Starts is here.
When communication ends
Let's project the process forward from the moment you are speaking and you you decide what else you need to do to enhance your communication:
Acknowledging - The other person acknowledges that they has received your communication. In the digital age, you get a return receipt, a blue tick or something similar. In the Stone Age of our youth, rapt attention and nodding is often the body language signifying acknowledgement. Still, that is all it is - an acknowledgement that the other person has received your communication and nothing more: not that they agree or even that they have understood. So, beware that nod as it often misinterpreted. Which is why I always look for facial and body language cues as I speak. As someone commented on my other article about when communication start - its when you start paying attention. Common question to people I coach: Were you listening to me when you were talking?
Understanding - The other person understands what you communicated. In the digital age, this is often a reply 'Noted', but if you are are not sure, just follow up. Ensuring understanding, especially the intention of the communication, requires the communication of the context. In that sense, what is communicated is often supplemented if not supplanted by when, where, by whom and how it is communicated. You can say that these are the metadata of your communication, which sometimes provides more information than the content of the communication itself. For instance, a request for budget details would elicit different levels of details whether it was made during an annual budgeting cycle or as part of project initiation.
Confirming - The other person responds with their understanding of what you communicated and you, in turn, will have to confirm that what they understood is really what you intended. The responsibility for confirming, as with all phases of the communication you initiated, lies with you. Many people skips this confirming phase on the assumption that their communication is clear. This often overstates our communication capability, which is often very poor, myself included. It may be clear to us because we know the context, intention and content of the communication. It is easy, and indeed very common, for the other person to start with a slightly different context in mind and end up on a totally different understanding. A graphic example is when I have to edit articles months after I first wrote them like what I am doing now: the intervening months have moved me away from the original context and mind view when I first wrote the article and I sometimes find what I originally wrote to be baffling on re-reading it.
Agreeing - The other person agrees to do what you propose (if the communication is an instruction) or your analysis of the situation (if the communication is a piece of information). One pitfall here is where there are many parts to communication (eg., several instructions or several pieces of information) and the other person signify agreement: very often, the agreement refers to only the most salient part but did they agree to every part? Sometimes, both communicator and recipient may not even have the same salient point in mind. So, multi-part communication is best handled by enumerating (necessary if speaking) or bulleting the separate parts so that the other person can respond to each part individually.
Executing - The other person carry out the action agreed (if the communication is an instruction) or internalise your analysis into their own analysis of the situation (if the communication is a piece of information). Agreeing to action without taking action is evidence that the communication did not get through enough into a commitment for action - was it only lip service or was your communication inadequately robust to compete against views from other sources. I once told an election candidate who rued his loss by lamenting that the villagers did assure him of their votes, "I am not so much interested in what they said to you when you visited the village, I am more interested in what they said to others after you left." So, a follow-up to your communication may be required to confirm they truly agree to your communication or merely said they did.
Modifying - The other person modify your communication to suit the situation at hand. For this, you need to communicate the intention behind your proposed action. Sometimes, we, especially those us rather more task-focussed, communicate only the bare minimum for instructions on what needs to be done with no indication whatsoever of the reason why they wanted it done. We assume that the other person already knows or do not need to know. As a result, the other person end up with no ownership over the action - essentially laying the brick instead of building the cathedral. When a problem is encountered, they are neither equipped nor inclined to figure out a workaround to fulfil an objective that they were neither sold nor elucidated.
Achieving - In a way, action is not a discrete on-off response but rather, it reflects a continuous spectrum of how much other person agree with your communication. Ultimately, we all dream of communicating once and everything is resolved without any further input from us (wow, wouldn't this be great when we make customer complaints?). In this case, the other person not only works around issues so as to achieve your objectives but will open up new lines of actions so as to achieve something that is no longer just your objective but theirs as well. To do that, we not only need to communicate the objectives well but also sell the objectives until they are as much the other person's if not more. Essentially, something got done not because we wanted it but because they wanted it. And that is a whole communication process in itself. Just note that letting someone else to also own the objectives could mean there will be many other persons out there working possibly independently on the same thing and it becomes incumbent on you to be the hub of coordination - but if that is your intention and they are all aligned, why not?
Note: Most textbooks on communication stops at No 4. This should adequately deal with the 'what' of the communication but the phases following deal with ensuring the reason behind the communication is achieved - the 'why'. You may not need to follow through with every single phase above, particularly anything after No 4 but consider them all if it fits into your objective.
So, take a look at why your communication was not effective - did you stop too early?
Comments