Communication in the Organization-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Communication in your Choosen Organisation. Answer: Introduction The communication event is taking place in a classroom where two participants are trying to construct an object. The instructions to the communication process are that the participants should be seated back to back. Only one participant is allowed to use verbal communication in describing the procedure, while the other participant tries to construct the object from the information provided and not allowed to use any form of verbal communication. As this happens, the rest of the students are observing the different communication techniques being employed by the participants. This paper will focus on the theories of communication and show how they were applied in that event to enhance the communication process Theories and concepts of communication observed in the event As the two participants were exchanging messages in limited communication forms, there was an observation of kinesics, where body movement was used to communicate. The participant with the instructions often tried to describe and illustrate the instructions to the other participants using body movement. Such as waving of hands and clapping. On the other hand, the participant with limited verbal communication would be seen making facial expressions depending on the clarity of the instructions. Eye movement, as well as eye contact, was another way that participants would communicate thus relaying their emotions. Moreover, during the event, communication emblems came in handy in passing messages across the participants. With the use of kinesics, the communication seemed lively. This shows that body movement plays a key role during communication whether verbal or non-verbal. Another thing that was observed during the communication in the event is that there was a lot of paralanguage being used. The participant reading the instructions would occasionally vary his tone to show emphasis on specific actions. The tonal variation would occasionally be coupled with body movements, eye contact, and hand movements. The other participant would then heed the message and respond by nodding the head or maintain eye contact when listening or in cases where the instructions were not clear. At times, the participant receiving the instructions would waive the hand to get the attention of the other participant (Golding and Murdock, 2014).The use of paralanguage at this event shows how effective it is in including it in a communication process as it helps to show emphasis on specific areas of the communication. Paralanguage can be very useful while giving a speech where one person talks while the audience listen. During the construction of the object, the participant would mostly giveincomprehensive instructions, which he also did not understand. However, as the construction progressed, the two participants would look at the available parts of the object and use their judgment to determine which piece would be used next or would fit the object. The way in which the two participants related with what they had around them to determine what would be the next step was is referred as aesthetics (McGraw-Hill, 2017). At the event, the participants would only determine the next step once they had encountered it and figure it out by relating what was around them. The skilled usage of aesthetics depends on how the individual is exposed to the world as well as the point of view of the individual. For instance, suppose the participant constructing the object had been exposed in the field of civil engineering, the construction of the object would be easier as he would be able to create the object virtuall y in his mind from the small number of instruction he could understand and figure out the rest of the steps. Another thing that was observed as the participant constructed the object is the occasional conflict of ideas. The conflict of ideas mainly came from the various point of views from each of the participant. The conflict would mostly be seen when the instructions failed to be clear, and the participant constructing the object had to decide which piece to use next. In other instances, the participant constructing the object would be steps ahead by using his judgment to figure out the next step; however, he was in most cases doing it wrong. The act of using oneself judgment to figure out the next step is referred to as internal attribution, which depends on the individuals experience and how he views the world. In such a case, it is an internal attribution (McLuhan and McLuhan, 2011). However, on the same case, the participant would respond to the cheers from the observing students and respond to them which in most cases helped to guide him when he was doing it wrong. This is referred a s external attribution Finally, despite external attribution contributing to the construction process, at times the cheers from the observing students would interfere with the communication process between the two participants. This interference from the surrounding is referred as noises (Cobley and Schulz, 2013). In this particular event, the kind of noises that had effect on the communication is known as physical noises. The noises did not just affect the communication at event, but also affected the construction of the object since the participant constructing the object was forced to listen to the observing students, as the participant reading the instructions was not loud enough. The noises depict how our normal communication process is occasionally distracted by noise leading to delivery of skewed messages. Conclusion Communication process takes place in different forms. However, the form of communication taken by the sender of the message will heavily rely on the kind of message to be sent as well as the type of audience the message should engage. The theories of communication are some of the tools that help us understand the communication process as well as provide platforms where one can relate a particular communication situation. However, these theories at times prove to be weak when applied individually, therefore using a combination of theories will help achieve the intended communication results. Just like in the event, where communication was taking place under limited circumstances, applying the theories mentioned above contributed to the communication of the two participants while constructing the object. References Berger, C. (2011). Communication theories and other curios.Communication Monographs, 58(1), pp.101-113. Cobley, P. and Schulz, P. (2013).Theories and models of communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (2014). Theories of Communication and Theories of Society.Communication Research, 5(3), pp.339-356. Littlejohn, S., Foss, K. and Oetzel, J. (2013).Theories of Human Communication. Mattelart, A., Mattelart, M., Taponier, S. and Cohen, J. (2014).Theories of communication. London: Sage. McGraw-Hill (2017).Defining Communication Theories. [online] Mhhe.com. Available at: https://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/westturner/student_resources/theories.htm [Accessed 4 Aug. 2017]. McLuhan, E. and McLuhan, M. (2011).Theories of communication. New York: Peter Lang. Werry, C. (2015). Rhetoric and reflexivity in cognitive theories of language.Language Communication, 25(4), pp.377-397.