Morning Session – Table IX

TABLE IX

Facilitators:

James Drogan, Senior Lecturer in Global Business and Transportation, Director of Online Programs, SUNY Maritime College
Joseph Ugoretz, Director of Technology and Learning, Macaulay Honors College, CUNY

Participants:

Natasha Yespimenko
Ryan Swihart
Stephen Smith
Erin Martineau
Cenk Parkin
James Hoff

Questions:

2) How does listening factor into effective communication? What does it mean to listen effectively? How might effective listening be fostered or taught in both academic and business settings?
3) Are correctness and adherence to formal conventions always required for communication to be successful? Do incorrect grammar, punctuation, non-standard pronunciation (as in accents of various sorts), or deviation from formal conventions necessarily lead to miscommunication?

The Discussion:

The discussion of table 9 was captured in the following three photographs.

Figure 1: Chart 1

The roundtable discussion started at 10:15 am and about 11:20, after substantial, free flowing conversation the thinking of the table began to coalesce. This is intended to be depicted by Figure 1 Chart 1.

We reached a conclusion that the two questions were closely related, but that different weights (in the sense of guiding critical thinking) were assigned to the questions (the notation on “perceived value”) depending upon the channel (F(channel)) of interest.

The experience of the investigator in the recognition of communications issues plays a major role in the assignment of the weight. A tyro and a pro will see the channel differently, perhaps very differently.

The experience has two sources. First is a base level of knowledge and skill that comes from training. The second is that experience that evolves out of (mostly) mistake. The mistakes should also provide a basis for adjusting the training.

Mistakes arise from the incorrect or inappropriate application of existing levels of knowledge, skills, and experienced. This represents a learning activity which needs to be dealt with in a formal manner. For example, the armed services conduct formal after action reviews comprising three questions:

1. What worked?
2. Where did we get stuck?
3. What would we do differently next time?

The area of Figure 1 Chart 1 enclosed in a dashed line represents what table 9 decided to focus on in the afternoon roundtable meeting. That is, presuming that the experienced investigator (e.g., Writing Fellow) is indeed of value, how is one trained?*

Figure 2: Chart 2

Figure 2 Chart 2 sums up the general approach to training. It has its basis in the notion of sense, interpret, decide, act, and learn (SIDAL).**

Figure 3: SIDAL

It may be useful to think of Figure 1 Chart 1 as comprising two SIDAL loops – training and application – joined by a learning process.

To the right side of Figure 2 Chart 2 are desirable characteristics of the learning environment. The left side highlights the feedback from the learning process.

Figure 4: Chart 3

Figure 4 Chart 3 was the last chart of the day and elaborates on how the training might be done. The essence of this is captured in the upper right corner.

The idea here is that the learning community is made up of consultants and experts on the one hand, and the students on the other.

Each group listens to a conversation (or any other sort of communication) and makes an interpretation.

There is then a comparison between the two interpretations. Out of this comes learning of new skills and knowledge.

The large circle describes the environment in which the learning takes place.

A Return to the Questions

A. How does listening factor into effective communication? What does it mean to listen effectively? How might effective listening be fostered or taught in both academic and business settings?

B. Are correctness and adherence to formal conventions always required for communication to be successful? Do incorrect grammar, punctuation, non-standard pronunciation (as in accents of various sorts), or deviation from formal conventions necessarily lead to miscommunication?

The questions triggered our discussions on how to address the issue of improving communications skills. However, we did not directly address all the questions.
We suspect that was because we got caught up in an interesting subtheme predicated on the convergence of the two questions that had been assigned table 9.

The two questions need to be addressed. We’ll leave that to the Miscommunications blog.

A Return to the Conference Theme

We’re not comfortable that we directly tackled the conference theme – miscommunication. We rather think we took, almost instinctively, the positive side of the issue – that which can be done to improve communications.

This was not a valueless discussion, but it does mean we left some critical ground uncovered.

Summary

The conference continues to improve on an annual basis. The importance of the issues addressed, the content and its quality, the growing number of attendees, are all testament to this.

Of particular note this year is the establishment of the Miscommunications blog by the Institute. This provides a venue for continuing the discussions from the conference.

* Drogan Note: There are three critical issues associated with this sentence that were not discussed; 1.) The value of the experienced investigator, 2.) The motivation of those to be trained, and 3.) The post-training support. We need to be cautious in our assumptions of the answers to these questions. What works in CIC may not work elsewhere.

** See Stephan H. Haeckel and Adrian J. Slywotzky, Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, 1999) 0-875-84874-5 for more on sense, interpret, decide, and act.