What Makes An Effective Communicator?

The idea that we can define when effective communication is being conducted in the ‘right’ way, and when it is having ‘positive’ effects. Basically, this is the case when the communicator has taken into account the communication factors, particularly the needs of the receiver of the communication, and the principle of how that form of communication must be used. Since the concept of effectiveness take in factors within the process, such as distinguishing the significance of who is the receiver of a piece of communication and what their needs are, then it makes sense to indoctrinate these terms as a kind of checklist.

A good communication never forms a piece of communication without using such a check, such terms of reference (Canary, D. J. , & Spitzberg, B. H. 1990). In the context of leadership, to communicate means to share with or convey to others one’s thoughts and information so as to obtain a desired response. ‘You make an audience say “How well he speaks! ”’ said Demosthenes, the utmost orator in Athenian history, to a political rival.

‘I make them say, “Let us march against Philip of Macedon! ”’ The main responsibility for good communication lies with the leader.

In The Art off War, written in China by Hsun Tzu in about 500 BC and therefore the world’s oldest book on the subject, the Chinese sage emphasized the significance of clarity in giving orders. ‘If the words of command are not clear and discrete, if orders are not comprehensively understood, the general is to blame.

‘ It is not too hard to define effective communicators. First, they know what the aim is. What are the effects or actions that must result from this communication? Secondly, they understand the feelings and information already present in the minds of their hearers or readers.

Thirdly, they put over what they have to say obviously, simply and vividly, using the most appropriate means of communication — personal conversation, telephone, presentation, report or letter. In the context of human enterprise, leaders should both impart and receive a great deal of information daily. They require to be skilled both in putting across information with the necessary precision and conciseness, and in listening to what others have to report. People need information from their leader or leaders on where the enterprise is going.

How is the common task to be achieved? What is the plan? What information is there about the opposing forces, such as competitors, who lie in wait along the way to avert us from achieving our goal? However, if information flows out from the centre to the fringe in organizations, so information constantly comes back from the side-line to the centre. The work of interpreting and digesting this data is partially an intellectual one, but it is also partly a matter of communication. Does the leader actually listen to those who know what is happening operationally?

‘I hear what you say,’ is listening on a low level. A good listener is not essentially the one who makes the most feedback-type physical response, such as head-nodding or grunts of comprehension. A leader who is a good listener asks questions to explain the information and to test its validity. Primarily, such a leader is genuinely open to the possibility of a change of view or adding to his or her store of information as a consequence of the act of listening. Moreover, Persuasion is very necessary for public speaking. Persuasion, by contrast, is an intensely civilizing influence.

It says that disparities between people can be resolved through rational arguments, emotional appeals, and faith placed in the speaker’s credibility. Persuasion provides us with a positive mechanism for advancing our claims and trying to change institutions. It offers a way for disgruntled and disenfranchised people to influence society. Persuasion gives a mechanism for everybody—from kids trading Pokemon cards to Wall Street brokers selling stocks to advance in life and attain their goals. Persuasion is not always pretty. It can be mean, voluble, and ugly.

Persuasion, as Winston Churchill might say, is the worst way to wield influence—except for all the others. (Were there no persuasion, George W. Bush and Al Gore would not have settled their dispute about the 2000 election vote in the courtroom, but on the battlefield. ) Persuasion is not equivalent to truth. As Aristotle recognized, persuasive communications are intended to influence, not uncover universal truths (Cooper & Nothstine, 1998). In fact, persuaders sometimes hide truth, misinform, or lie outright in the service of their aims or clients.

The field of ethics is concerned with determining when it is ethically appropriate to deviate from truth and while such deviations are ethically indefensible. Persuasion researchers do not pretend to know the answers to these questions. Instead, like everybody else, we do the best we can, seeking guidance from philosophers, wise people, and theologians. Persuasion assumes devoid of question that people have free choice— that they can do other than what the persuader suggests. This has a significant consequence. It means that people are responsible for the decisions they make in response to persuasive messages.

Naturally, people can’t foresee every possible result of choices that they make. They cannot be held accountable for outcomes that could not rationally have been foreseen. But one of the essential aspects of life is choice—necessarily based on incomplete, and sometimes imprecise, information. Persuaders also make choices. They should decide how best to appeal to audiences. They necessarily should choose between ethical and unethical modes of persuasion. Persuaders who advance their claims in moral ways deserve our respect. Those who employ unethical persuasion ploys should be held responsible for their choices.