26.10.2014 Views

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The fourth and final type of informational error is nominalization, which consists of<br />

making a noun from a word generally considered to be another part of speech. For<br />

example, a participant could say, “I believe the group process is going well.” “Process”<br />

does not refer to a concrete, measurable object.<br />

Erroneous Limitations<br />

An individual who generally focuses on only one aspect of any experience formulates a<br />

limited model of the world, which, in turn, keeps him or her from making free and open<br />

choices. People can limit their world views in three ways: by using universal qualifiers,<br />

by assuming the impossibility of certain situations, and by presuming the inevitability of<br />

other conditions.<br />

Universal qualifiers are words such as “always,” “never,” “all,” “every,” and<br />

“nobody,” which imply that the statements to which they pertain are categorically true.<br />

It is unlikely, however, that any expressed idea is without exceptions. Thus, when a<br />

group member says, “Everybody in a group participates,” one may legitimately question<br />

the validity of this comment by asking, “Is that true for every group to which you have<br />

ever belonged?” Such a response may help the group member to recognize the fallacy in<br />

the original statement.<br />

Assuming impossibility limits one’s own ability to bring about change. This is<br />

indicated by the use of words and phrases such as “can’t,” “impossible,” “must not,” and<br />

“unable to.” For example, a group member might say, “I can’t communicate clearly with<br />

John.” This narrowing of the range of what may or may not happen might be followed<br />

appropriately with the response “You haven’t yet found a way to communicate clearly<br />

with John.” A more direct confrontation is exemplified in the statement “You may not<br />

want to communicate clearly with John.”<br />

Presuming inevitability is the opposite of assuming impossibility. The key words<br />

and phrases that indicate this form of narrowing process are “have to,” “necessary,”<br />

“must,” “no choice,” and “forced to.” The group member who says, “I disagree with the<br />

other members so strongly that I have no choice but to resign from the group” might be<br />

corrected with this response: “You choose to have no choices. You could work with the<br />

other members to resolve the conflict; you could present your viewpoint to the group as<br />

a legitimate alternative for group action; or you could simply accept your difference of<br />

opinion as normal and healthy in a group situation. Actually, you have a lot of choices<br />

that you’ve decided not to consider.”<br />

Errors in Logic<br />

These types of errors are characterized by sentences that establish illogical relationships<br />

and thus lead to ineffective communication. The four specific types are faulty cause and<br />

effect, mind reading, unlimited generalization, and unwarranted assumptions.<br />

In this context faulty cause-and-effect statements are the result of the speaker’s<br />

belief that one person’s behavior can be the direct physical cause of another person’s<br />

emotional or internal change. A group member who says, “You bother me” might be<br />

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 97

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!