> Communication depends upon the RECEIVER, not the SENDER.
> If I don't comprehend, don't translate, don't filter your words and
> ideas so as to "mirror" what you have said or presented, we simply
> don't (and won't) communicate until I am able (or willing) to do
I acknowledge you point of view on the necessity of the receiver being
open and willing to work to understand what the sender says.
My view is the two are tightly coupled, highly interdependent (Thompson,
67). There is also the intention and ability of the sender that is
equally important. If I, as the sender, have a message I want to you, the
receiver, to hear, I have to be flexible in how I send the message. If
the only mechanism I use to send is French, and I won't use any other, and
you don't know french, your ability to hear the message is reduced, and
will most likely not understand the message.
On the other hand, if you the receiver, are reluctant or unwilling to hear
a message (the essence of my points about conflict) then the task(result)
of getting the message transmitted falls on the sender. I can tell when
someone doesn't want to hear my point of view. They use a range of
defensive strategies (Senge) from redirection, distraction, digression, to
reprisal, to retribution, to inverting the "pressure" back on the sender,
all designed such that the reciever doesn't have to acknowledge my point
of view. They may hear it, but using these strategies gives them the
option to not acknowledge they heard it.
When someone doesn't want to hear my point of view, I believe it is
critical to the sucess of what we are working on, I, the sender need to
use all the tricks and tools I know of to get the message sent. My
intention to have a message heard is equally important to the reciever's
willingness to receive a message.
email@example.com (Scott R. Cypher)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>