Concept of communication. Definition of communication

from lat. communicatio - message, connection) - interaction between two or more people, consisting in the exchange of information (synonym - communication). The ability to communicate determines the normal development of a mature personality; the pathology of communication abilities inevitably leads to personality pathology and vice versa.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

COMMUNICATION

lat. communicatio - message, transmission) is a semantic and ideally meaningful aspect of social interaction. Actions consciously oriented towards their semantic perception are called communicative. The main function of society is to achieve social community while preserving the individuality of each of its elements. The structure of the simplest communication includes at least: 1) two participants-communicants, endowed with consciousness and mastering the norms of a certain semiotic system, for example, language; 2) the situation (or situations) that they seek to comprehend and understand; 3) texts that express the meaning of the situation in the language or elements of a given semiotic system; 4) motives and goals that make texts directional, i.e. what motivates subjects to turn to each other; 5) the process of material transmission of texts. Thus, texts, actions to construct them and, conversely, actions to reconstruct their content and meaning, as well as the thinking and understanding associated with this, constitute the content of K. Based on the type of relationships between participants, interpersonal, public, and mass K. are distinguished. Based on the type of used Semiotic means can be distinguished: speech, paralinguistic (gesture, facial expressions, melody), material-sign (in particular, artistic) K.

Until the beginning of the 20th century. Philosophical interest in philosophy was limited, on the one hand, to research in the field of the origin of social norms, morality, law and the state (social contract theory), and, on the other hand, to the available means of organizing philosophical philosophy itself (the problem of dialogue). Modern philosophical interest in communication is determined by the shift that was produced by the general change in the place and role of communication and communication technologies in various social spheres, and by the intensive development of communication means (“explosion of communication”). The processes of technologization and automation of activity have made it possible to shift the “center of gravity” in social systems from production processes to management processes, in which the main load falls precisely on the organization of business. On the other hand, these processes increasingly free a person from activity, expanding the area of ​​free time, which a person spends in “clubs”, i.e. structures of free communication, where the main process is also communication about values, ideals and norms.

The theme of communication, intersubjectivity and dialogue becomes one of the main ones in the philosophy of the 20th century. The theoretical factor that largely determined the face modern research K., there was a turn of philosophical and scientific reflection towards the reality of language. Research on linguistic and sign structures that has developed since the beginning of the 20th century. in the works of philosophers and logicians (B. Russell, L. Wittgenstein, and others), linguists (F. Saussure, and others), and semioticians (C. Morris, and others) radically changed the understanding of mathematics and approaches to its study and organization. So, for example, Wittgenstein begins to consider K. as a complex language games, having their own semantic-pragmatic rules and their own fundamental limitations. If earlier language was relied upon simply as a means of communication, now communication itself is immersed in the structures of language and becomes the space in which certain linguistic forms unfold. This turn opened up horizons for an artificially technical attitude to the organization of communication. Due to the construction of linguistic and sign-semiotic means that had become widespread, communication began to become artificial, acquiring various organized forms (mass communication, dialogue “man - machine,” etc. ). Another factor determining the significance of the theme of philosophy was criticism and a radical rethinking of the foundations of philosophy itself, unfolding throughout the 20th century. In the search for new grounds, it is category “K.” and “dialogue” are beginning to be considered by philosophers as one of the basic and central ones.

When analyzing and describing speech, it is necessary to distinguish between: 1) speech in the broad sense - as one of the foundations of human life and diverse forms of speech and language activity, which do not necessarily imply the presence of a content-semantic plan. (These are some pastime structures and psychological games in the sense of their reconstruction by E. Bern -). 2) Information exchange in technologically organized systems - in this form, communication is studied by futurologists. 3) Mental communication as an intellectual process that has a consistent ideal content plan and is associated with certain situations of social action. 4) Existential K. as an act of discovering the Self in the Other. As such, K. is the basis of the existential relationship between people (as the relationship between I and You) and the decisive process for human self-determination in the world in which a person gains an understanding of his existence and its foundations. For K. Jaspers, communication becomes the goal and task of philosophy, and the measure of communicativeness becomes a criterion for evaluating and choosing a particular philosophical system. K. finds himself at the center of social theory. Thus, J. Habermas, developing his theory of communicative action, considers communication as a basic social process. He refers to communication as the everyday practice of private life worlds and posits the processes of communicative rationalization of life worlds as structuring the public. It is the development of communicative practices and communicative rationalization, and not relations of production, that, from Habermas’s point of view, lie at the basis of modern civil society. A special direction of K.'s research was set in SMD (system-mental-activity) methodology. Here K. is considered as a process and structure in mental activity, i.e. in inextricable connection with the activity context and intellectual processes - thinking, understanding, reflection. This feature of the content of the concept "K." in SMD methodology it is emphasized by the specially introduced neologism “mental communication”. Mental communication is believed to connect the ideal reality of thinking with real situations of social action and sets, on the one hand, the boundaries and meaningfulness of mental idealizations, and, on the other hand, the boundaries and meaningfulness of the implementation of mental constructs in social organization and action.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Communication is the process of exchanging information, sending information from the point of transmission of departure to the point of reception without changing the sequence or structure of the content. The concept of communication includes:

Means of communication of any objects of the material or spiritual world;

Communication, transfer of information from person to person;

Communication and information exchange in society.

Communication is a socially determined process of transmitting and perceiving information both in interpersonal and mass communication through various channels using various verbal and non-verbal communication means. Thus, communication, which is the subject of study of communication theory, is a phenomenon that determines the progress of society and manifests itself in all its spheres.

The main goal of communication theory is to explore the mechanisms through which information and information flows are distributed in society, between individuals, groups, states, nations, cultures and continents.

Subjects can be social institutions, individuals, social groups, social movements, international communities, geographically designated regions, states.

Social communications– a process of interaction when the parties involved in it are either an individual or an organization or group; ways of communication between people that allow them to create, transmit and receive a variety of information.

Communication goals serve certain needs - and primarily survival, cooperation with other people, personal needs, maintaining relationships between people, the desire for power over people, uniting organizations into one whole, receiving and communicating information, understanding the world and our place in it and etc.

One of the important factors of the social context that influences communications is the communication situation. Communication situation- this is a set of circumstances, position and environment in which the communicative process takes place. Communication situations are divided into individual and mass.

Mass communication situations are realized in the process of influence of a social group on the nature of behavior and actions of the individual. Particular attention is paid to small groups, which are characterized by small size, relative stability, informality of relationships and direct contact between group members.

Types of communication by composition of communicants

Intrapersonal, when a person dialogues with himself, formulating his internal dialogue. Sometimes intrapersonal communication is defined as autocommunication.

Autocommunication- a form of communication that is closed on one subject, acting as both the creator and the recipient of the message; it accompanies any human activity in the form of internal speech, but can also occur in a specific form (monologue, diary, notes not intended for others). Autocommunication is important in shaping the inner world of an individual. Such communication plays a fundamental role in the process of artistic creativity and perception of art; in this case, the subject can be not only an individual, but also a social group.

Interpersonal communication, in which, as a rule, two communicators participate (but there are options for an observer, a participant observer and an outsider, communication against the background of witnesses present in an audience, theater, cafe, etc.).

Group communication, communication within a group, between groups, in a situation - individual-group, it is natural that in the varieties of group communication there are different goals in large and small groups.

Mass communication occurs when the message is received or used by a large number of people who differ in their interests and group communicative experience.

COMMUNICATION: DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT, TYPES OF COMMUNICATION AND ITS BARRIERS

Annotation. The article discusses the genesis of the concept of communication, as well as modern domestic theories that describe this phenomenon. In addition, types of communications are given, such as cognitive, persuasive and expressive. Various types of barriers to communication are also described, with practical examples relating to ethnocultural differences in the business environment.

Keywords: communication, communication theories, business communication, types of communication, communication barriers.

COMMUNICATION: DEFINITION, TYPES OF COMMUNICATION AND BARRIERS OF COMMUNICATION

Abstract: In this article the author considers the genesis of a concept of communication, and also the modern domestic theories describing this phenomenon of communication. Besides, the author tells us about types of communications, such as informative, convincing and expressional types. Also the author tell us about different types of barriers in communication with the practical examples concerning ethnocultural distinctions in a business sphere.

Keywords: communication, theories of communication, business communication, types of communication, communication barriers.

Communication in its first Greek form (koinonia) and Latin translation (communio) meant participation in some kind of joint endeavor, but mainly and to the greatest extent - in some kind of political union, as A. Toynbee writes. The word communication meant communication, living together and, one might say, from ancient times expressed the very essence of the concept of society. Forming their idea of ​​society, ancient thinkers turned to it, constructing an ideal “commune” and taking a small colony emerging in a new place as a historical prototype. In the 20th century new concepts arise: “communication (exactly how scientific concept)», « speech communication", "communicative action", "communicative behavior", "communicative revolution", etc., drawing their original meaning from behavior studies and psychologically interpreted practice.

In the theory of communication, developed in the 1950-1960s. In line with post-behaviourism, the concept of communication is gradually being “psychologized”, and it is increasingly beginning to be viewed as an interpersonal process. Anthropologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists made significant contributions to the development of this area. In their works, communication is primarily an interaction, influenced by each of its participants. Communication is not only the reception and transmission of information, but the creation of a certain community, a certain degree of mutual understanding between participants, which presupposes the need for feedback, mutual overlap of spheres of personal experience, and features of generating meaning in communicative interaction. As one of the modern theorists Robert Craig notes, the departments of intercultural communication that were actively emerging during this period were still strongly influenced by representatives psychological sciences and behaviorism, and some time passes before interpersonal communication is self-defined as a separate discipline from psychology.

The next stage in the development of communication theory is associated with the consideration of communication as a social process. The sociality of communication was initially conceptualized based on

UDC 316.6 P.V. Yakupov

© Yakupov P.V., 2016

communicative practice. The attention of researchers was attracted not only by its interactive, but also by its transactive nature, which consists in the fact that any subject of communication is the sender and recipient of the message not sequentially, but simultaneously, and that any communication process includes, in addition to the present, certainly the past, and is also projected to the future. The process of communication is continuous and endless, and the very boundaries of “communication” are not always possible to determine. Nevertheless, even today the concepts listed above remain relatively new, insufficiently articulated either in the philosophical, scientific, or general semantic dimension. In the social sciences, this area of ​​knowledge is called Communication or Communication Studies (communication theory). Next, we move on to an analysis of various domestic theories of communication. A.P. Panfilova defines communication as a specific exchange of information, the process of transmitting emotional intellectual content. In his work “Business Communication in professional activity» A.P. Panfilova argues that communication in modern conditions is the basis of the life of every company, organization, enterprise. Management experts claim that 63% of English, 73% of American, 85% of Japanese managers highlight successful communication as the main condition for success in achieving the effectiveness of their organizations, and the managers themselves are willing to spend from 50% to 90% of their time on it.

Thanks to the communication process, information is collected, analyzed and systematized both within an enterprise or firm and outside it, and the necessary level of interaction with business partners, competing firms, consumers, suppliers, financiers, and clients is ensured. G. M. Andreeva, for example, defines communication as one of the three sides of the communication process. The communication itself by G.M. Andreeva characterizes communication through three interconnected aspects: as communication, or the process of transmitting information, as interaction, or the interaction of subjects, communication with each other, and as perception, or communication as perception.

Delving deeper into the concept of communication, she defines it as the process of exchanging information. However, G. M. Andreeva points out that such an approach to defining communication cannot be considered methodologically correct, for the reason that communication itself cannot be reduced only to the process of transmitting information. The author argues that with this approach, basically only one direction of information flow is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (the introduction of the concept of “feedback” does not change the essence of the matter). In addition, it should be noted that in the process of communication, information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed by recipients.

Another author, A. Ya. Kibanov, defines communication as “a multifaceted process of developing contacts between people, generated by the needs of joint life activities.” He also argues that the communicative side of communication involves the exchange of information related to the specific behavior of the interlocutors. The significance of information plays a special role for each participant in communication, provided that it is not only accepted, but also understandable and meaningful. Communicative communication as a result of information exchange is possible when the participants in communication have unified system coding. As a result of non-compliance with the above-mentioned nuances, communication barriers (communication barriers) arise, which cause misunderstandings between interlocutors and, as a consequence, can create preconditions for their conflict behavior. Communication barriers will be discussed in more detail later in the article.

M.Yu. Kovalenko offers the following description of the communication process. He states that “communication as a process is an exchange of semantic information between people, in which a message or signal in the form of signs or symbols arranged in a certain way is transmitted purposefully, accepted in accordance with certain rules, independently

depending on whether this process leads to the expected result.” The author identifies several basic elements of the communication process: sender (source, communicator); message; channel; recipient of information) Schematically, communication can be represented as an intersubjective process (8-8), or a “subject-subject relationship.” But in this case we assume that some kind of response will be received in response to the information sent. G.M. Andreeva as well as A.A. Leontiev defines communication not as a process of one-way transmission of information, but as a process of exchange of information between subjects of communication.

Yu.V. Taratukhina defines communication as a specific act of information exchange, the process of transmitting emotional and intellectual content. In her opinion, from the point of view of social psychology, communication is the process of transferring information from sender to recipient. In other words, the author, like the authors of other theories, focuses on the information component of the communication process.

Thus, having analyzed the main theories devoted to the definition of communication, we move on to the definition of effective communication. To conduct effective communication during goal-oriented activities, certain communication and communication skills are required. The general model of communication is the transmission of a message from a sender to a recipient. The main elements of the communication model are: participants: sender and recipient; message; communication channel, i.e. means of transmitting information; means of communication; the target audience of communication, which represents both local and more general goals and interests of the participants.

To build effective communication, it is necessary to take into account all types of communication that may be involved in general process communication. So, M.Yu. Kovalenko distinguishes cognitive communication from the types of business communication, the main goal of which is to expand the partner’s information fund and convey the necessary information. This is one of the main directions of the communication process, where we try to find out some information that interests us. The expected result from this type of communication is usually the development new information and its application in practical activities. Conditions for organizing cognitive communication: taking into account the cognitive capabilities of specific business partners, their individual attitudes towards obtaining new information and intellectual capabilities for its processing, understanding and perception. Communicative forms of cognitive communication are a report, a message, a seminar, a conversation, a report. In other words, these are all basic forms of communication, the process of which is aimed specifically at transmitting information.

Next comes persuasive communication. The purpose of persuasive communication is to evoke certain feelings in a business partner and form value orientations and attitudes: to convince of the legitimacy of interaction strategies; make him your like-minded person. The expected result from this type of communication can be attracting a partner to his position, changing the recipient’s personal attitudes, his views, beliefs, and reorienting goals. Conditions for organizing persuasive communication: taking into account the cognitive capabilities of specific business partners, their individual attitudes towards obtaining new information and intellectual capabilities for its processing, understanding and perception. Communicative forms of a persuasive message: call to action speech, press conference, discussion, argument, negotiations, parting words, compliment, conversation, presentation, “ round tables" The most striking example of this type of communication is, for example, various sales techniques. The main task of the sales manager is to convince the buyer that the purchase of the products offered is exactly what the convinced party has always needed.

Next we will look at expressive communication. Its purpose may be attempts to form a psycho-emotional mood in a partner, convey feelings, experiences, and induce the necessary action. The expected result from expressive communication can be a change in the partner’s mood, provoking the necessary feelings (compassion, empathy), involvement in specific actions and actions. Conditions for organizing expressive communication: relying on emotional sphere partner, the use of artistic and aesthetic means of influence on all sensory channels. Communicative forms of expressive messages can include presentations, conversations and meetings, rallies, stories about the situation in the company, about a person, briefings, brainstorming, slogans and appeals. A striking example is, for example, team building training, the main goal of which is to improve emotional communication and increase the emotional mood in the team.

In business communication between partners, very specific communication barriers can arise. The reasons for their appearance are different: the peculiarities of the intellect of the communicator and the recipient, different knowledge of the subject of conversation, different lexicon and thesaurus. In addition, communication barriers may arise due to the lack of a common understanding of the communication situation. Communication barriers can arise due to the psychological characteristics of business partners, for example, excessive openness of one of them, secrecy of the other, or an analytical mind of one, and a more intuitive perception of the other.

Thus, the types of communication barriers are identified.

Logical barrier in business communication. A logical barrier in business communication is understood as a misunderstanding that arises every time partners do not take into account the specific thinking of their communication partner. Barriers include inaccuracies in statements; imperfection of recoding thoughts into words, the presence of semantic gaps and leaps of thought; the presence of a logical contradiction in the thesis.

A stylistic barrier arises when the form of information presentation does not match its content. In other words, during business contacts we must adhere to a certain business style of communication, and not any other.

A phonetic barrier is understood as an obstacle created by the speaker’s speech characteristics. Logical stress allows the partner to hear the thought more accurately, but if it is absent or done incorrectly, the meaning of the speech structure may be perceived inadequately. To prevent such a barrier from arising, speech must be clear, distinct and understandable to the interlocutor. Such a communication barrier may be associated with poor language proficiency among the speakers, or it may be associated with environmental barriers, which will be discussed below.

The semantic barrier is associated with the fact that business partners use the same signs (including words) to designate completely different things. Semantic barriers can arise for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there is a mismatch between thesauruses, i.e. linguistic dictionary language, with complete semantic information, limited in the vocabulary of one of the partners and rich in the other. Secondly, there are professional, social, cultural, psychological, national, religious and other differences. For example, many words in Chinese They do not have an exact analogue in Russian, and translating them without losing their meaning is quite difficult.

V. Shepel identifies six main obvious barriers to communication:

discomfort physical environment, under which the message is perceived;

Inertia of inclusion, i.e. the listener's concerns about other issues;

anticipation of other people's thoughts, stereotyped consciousness, ambition;

language barrier is a significant difference vocabulary, vocabulary of the communicator and recipient;

professional rejection - incompetent intrusion of the communicator into the professional sphere of the recipient;

Rejection of the image of a communicator.

There are so-called environmental barriers. For example, they can be acoustic interference - noise in and outside the room, work noise, etc. Their negative impact only intensifies if the room has poor acoustics and the interlocutor speaks too quietly and unintelligibly. Other environmental barriers include:

Distracting environment - bright sun, or, conversely, the dull color of the walls in the room, landscape, outside the window, in general, any inappropriate environment;

Temperature conditions - too cold or hot in the room;

Weather conditions and environmental conditions - rain, wind, low pressure, poor environmental situation, etc. For example, residents of Beijing are accustomed to working in a much more environmentally unfavorable environment than residents of Moscow, and vice versa. Thus, we must take into account such environmental influences, consider how comfortable our interlocutors are, etc. .

Frolov S.S. identifies several barriers from theories of organizations. The first of them is a perceptual-interpretive barrier, which is determined by the peculiarity of the interlocutor’s perception. Different individuals perceive the same situations differently and highlight different features. They are convinced that their own point of view is the most correct one. The second type of barrier described in organization theory is a dispositional barrier, which is caused by differences in the social, professional and life attitudes of people entering into a communicative exchange. An example would be if a senior manager has any stereotypes in relation to representatives of another ethnic group, due to which the manager may make incorrect assessments in relation to a representative of another ethnic group. Also, Frolov S.S. talks about the status barrier, which becomes possible due to large differences in the organizational status of communication recipients. In other words, it is not easy for a senior manager to understand the needs of a junior manager, and vice versa. Such barriers often arise in organizations with vertical connections. In addition, such a problem in communication may arise due to a misunderstanding of the status of one’s interlocutor, because his status in a foreign company does not mean the same as in a domestic one. However, thanks to the process of globalization, we almost always understand the status of our interlocutor correctly. The semantic barrier arises because the concepts natural language have the property of ambiguity and the presence of a number of semantic shades. Even if both interlocutors speak the language perfectly, they cannot always understand each other correctly.

Meskon M.H. speaks of this type of communication barrier as a feedback barrier, which implies that ineffective feedback does not provide the sender with enough information about the correctness of the perception of his message. Most often, such communication barriers arise as a result of poorly built vertical connections in the organization and a vague, diffuse corporate culture. The author also points out the existence of a falsification barrier. In the process of communication, information is often transmitted through specific people who perceive the information somewhat freely. The news is not always honest with its listeners, because the news needs to present information in a certain light, from a certain angle. For example, when a subordinate employee communicates information to his superiors, he may present the information too positively in order to be remembered as a “good” employee. In addition, when in contact with representatives of another ethnic

In our culture, we often misinterpret the emotional response of our interlocutor. For example, in American culture it is customary to smile during a business conversation to express your affection to the interlocutor, while in Chinese culture it is customary to express one’s emotions more restrainedly in a business setting.

Based on the results of the article, we can say that most authors understand the communication process not only as the transfer of information, but a process that has an emotional and expressive side, which is also very important to take into account. In the process of communication between recipients, various communication barriers may arise, such as phonetic, logical, stylistic barriers, as well as many others. However, understanding the nature of certain communication barriers, we should try to avoid them during our professional communication with the interlocutor.

Bibliography

1. Andreeva, G. M. Social Psychology: textbook allowance / G. M. Andreeva. - M.: Aspect Press, 2016. -S. 120-145.

2. Kibanov, A. Ya. Ethics of business relations / A. Ya. Kibanov [etc.]. - M.: Bustard, 2013. - 365 p.

3. Kovalenko, M. Yu. Theory of communication / M. Yu. Kovalenko, M. A. Kovalenko. - M.: Yurayt, 2016. - 466 p.

4. Meskon, M. Kh. Fundamentals of management / M. Kh. Meskon [et al.]. - M.: Delo, 2001. - 425 p.

5. Nazarchuk A.V. Niklas Luhmann’s teaching on communication /A. V. Nazarchuk. - M.: Ves Mir, 2012. - P. 2326.

6. Panfilova, A. P. Business communication in professional activities: textbook. allowance / A. P. Panfilova. - St. Petersburg. : Knowledge, 2004. - pp. 12-14.

7. Plato. Laws. - M.: Mysl, 1999. - P. 450.

8. Taratukhina, Yu. V. Business and intercultural communications: textbook. allowance / Yu. V. Taratukhina. - M.: Yurayt, 2016. - 462 p.

9. Toynbee, A. Comprehension of history / A. Toynbee. - M.: Iris-Press, 1991. - P. 360.

10. Frolov, S. S. Sociology of organizations / S. S. Frolov. - M.: Gardariki, 2001. - 384 p.

11. Shepel, V. M. Handbook of a businessman and manager: managerial humanities / V. M. Shepel. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 1992. - 237 p.

12. Craig, R. T. Communication Theory as a Field / R. T. Craig. - Rel.Lib, 1999. - Pp. 34-39.

13. Wood, J. T. Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Ezicounters / J. T. Wood. - Rel. Lib, 2003. - 349 p.

According to research, managers spend 50 to 90% of their time on communications. Communication is essential to the success of organizations. Effective leaders understand the essence of the communication process, have well-developed oral and written communication skills, and understand how the environment affects the exchange of information. Managers obtain the information they need both internally and externally. external environment, and then transform it and distribute it among those who need it.

Communication (from the Latin word “to make common, to connect”) is the process of transferring information from a source to a recipient with the goal of changing his knowledge, attitudes or overt behavior. Effective communication is important for success in management, since the solution of many management problems is based on the direct interaction of people (boss with subordinates, subordinates with each other) within the framework of various events, communication is the best way discussing and resolving issues characterized by uncertainty.

The effectiveness of communication is influenced by factors such as communication skills, attitudes and experience, as well as the mental abilities of the subjects of communication, which form the specifics of their perception of the message and the emotional background.

There are six main variables in the interpersonal communication process: sender/encoder; message; channel; receiver/decoder; perception; Feedback.

The sender is responsible for wording the message in a way that accurately conveys the message to the recipient. The process of translating a thought into a message is called encoding.

Since communication is essentially a process of achieving understanding, it requires concerted effort on both sides to ensure that the meaning of the message is the same for the sender and the recipient. The sender's job is to look for and use communication symbols and skills that will lead to
correct reflection of the message in the mind of the recipient.

A message is made up of verbal and non-verbal symbols that represent the information we want to convey. Every message we send is an attempt to convey a thought to the recipient.

Types of data that, individually or in any combination, can contain messages:

Facts, specific and objective data;

Ideas that are abstract and require proof of their objectivity;

Opinions, concrete or abstract, purporting to be objective or subjective;

Creeds, strongly held opinions, principles that are usually associated with people's awareness of themselves as individuals or the influence on them of everyday behavior;

Emotions, what the sender feels and expresses;

Motivation, transmitted energy that affects the recipient.

The process of translating a message into thought is called decoding, and this is the task of the recipient. How correctly the recipient will perceive the information depends on the following factors:

The recipient's knowledge of the topic of conversation;

The likelihood that the sender's message will be perceived appropriately;

Experience of communication between the sender and the recipient.

The recipient is described by two aspects of behavior: the ability to listen and the ability to provide feedback to the sender.

Perception represents our unique understanding of the essence of things. Perception is an indivisible component of communication from both the sender and the recipient.

In perception, each of us appears as a product of all our unique experiences. Our attitudes towards environment also change our perception of what is conveyed to us during communication.

Feedback is the recipient's reaction to the message.

Feedback can be verbal or non-verbal; written or oral. Feedback provides guidance for the next message we send to the recipient. With feedback we can evaluate the effectiveness of our communication. Therefore, it is very important to master the skill of accurately interpreting feedback.

When there is feedback, the sender and receiver switch communication roles. The initial recipient becomes the sender and goes through all the stages of the information exchange process to transmit its response to the initial sender. Feedback can significantly improve the effectiveness of management information exchange. Two-way exchange of information, although slower, is more accurate and increases confidence in the correct interpretation of messages. Feedback improves the chances of effective information exchange by allowing both parties to eliminate interference.

The following difficulties in transmitting information are identified:

The threshold of the imagination of a person who puts his thoughts into verbal or other form for transmission to another person;

An active language filter that determines the differences between a “thought in the brain” and a “thought expressed”;

A language barrier that affects the volume and content of the message heard by the “receiver”;

Passive filter of imagination and desire, associated with the process of decoding perceived information and giving it meaning;

The volume of memorization, which, depending on the subjective value of information and the characteristics of the “receiver,” retains in his memory a certain image associated with the information.

Output of the tutorial:

Fundamentals of management. Chernyshev M. A., Korotkov E. M., Soldatova I. Yu., prof. I. Yu. Soldatova, Chernysheva M. A., Ed. prof. I. Yu. Soldatova., Soldatova I., Chernyshov M.A. - ed.-comp., Publisher: ITK "Dashkov and K", SCIENCE/INTERPERIODICS MAIK, Nauka-Press 2006

a type of interaction between people that involves information exchange. Communication (carrying in its etymology the Indo-European root “mei” - to change, exchange) should be distinguished from dialogue, since its target cause is the merging of the personalities participating in it, and from communication, since the latter deals primarily with general mechanisms of reproduction social experience and the birth of something new. Meanwhile, issues related to communication have historically been raised and developed within the framework of dialogue and communication.

The classical linear model of a communicative act implies an adequate transfer of information from the addresser to the addressee. In accordance with this model, the addresser encodes some information symbolic means that sign system, which is used in this form K. To assimilate information from the addressee, the reverse procedure for presenting content - decoding - is required. The linear model of communication has at least two significant drawbacks: firstly, it is based on the possibility of directly obtaining information, and secondly, it inevitably substantives the content. This interpretation of K. was opposed by phenomenology (E. Husserl, M. Merleau-Ponty, B. WaldenAels, A. Schütz, Berger, Luckmann, etc.), which developed the ideas of intersubjectivity and the life world. Modern phenomenology emphasizes that traditional dialogics, dating back to Plato, widespread back in the days of Herder and Humboldt in the concept of “message” and permeating our scientific and general scientific everyday life, assumes as a matter of course participation as a whole. But the universal, expressed in the message, necessarily leads to the existence of someone who would speak on its behalf, which entails logocentrism. Thus, the common in the dialogue deprives its opponent of any opportunity to object and forces him ultimately to remain silent. According to B. Waldenfels, E. Husserl made the first attempt to think about intersubjectivity without relying on pre-established communicative reason. In his analysis of phenomenological experience, Husserl proposes to proceed not from shared experience, but from the experience of the Alien, although at the same time he still tries to prove that the Alien is constructed on the basis of the Own. To resolve this issue, phenomenology offers two methodological approach: eidetic and transcendental reduction. In eidetic reduction, the Alien is included in the architectonics of “essential structures”, rising above the Own and the Alien. Alien as Alien remains outside the brackets, therefore, K. with him turns out to be impossible. Transcendental reduction includes reduction into a certain “semantic horizon” extending from the Own to the Alien, which ultimately silences the latter. Waldenfels finds it possible to combine the positions of phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty) and ethnomethodology (Levi-Strauss), and proves that the relationship between the Own and the Other is feasible on the territory of intercultural experience, not mediated by some all-encompassing third, where the Own is constantly trusted by the Other, and the Other - Own. It is necessary to accept the Alien as something to which we respond and inevitably must respond, i.e. as a demand, challenge, urge, call, claim, etc. “Any looking and listening would be a responding looking and listening, any speech or action would be responsive behavior."

The dialogical nature of communication and its mediation by sociality were already anticipated by M. Bakhtin. According to the latter, any statement is a response, a reaction to any previous one and, in turn, presupposes a speech or non-speech reaction to oneself. He noted that “consciousness is composed and realized in sign material created in the process social communication organized team." Similar considerations were developed by L. S. Vygotsky: "The initial function of speech is communicative. Speech is, first of all, a means of social communication, a means of expression and understanding." Sign material retains its communicative function even in those cases when it is used only as a means for constructing logical constructions. Signs retain communicative potential even when they organize the consciousness of the subject without going beyond it limits and performing an explicative function. Such internal self-organization of consciousness, according to Vygotsky, occurs as a result of the internalization of external sign processes, which, going deep into the subject, take the form of his “inner speech”, which forms the basis of verbal thinking. Together with sign communication, it penetrates into the subject’s consciousness dialogue of other reflective subjects, which contributes to the birth of reflection in him.

The creator of the theory of communicative action, J. Habermas, continued the line of J. Mead and E. Durkheim, whose approaches replaced the paradigm of goal-directed activity, dictated by the context of the philosophy of consciousness, with the paradigm of communicative action. Habermas's concept of “communicative action” opens up access to three interrelated thematic complexes: 1) the concept of communicative rationality, opposing the cognitive-instrumental narrowing of the mind; 2) a two-stage concept of society, which connects the paradigm of the life world and the system; 3) finally, the theory of modernity, which explains today's social pathologies by pointing out that communicatively structured spheres of life are subject to the imperatives of now independent, formally organized systems of action.

Rational, according to Habermas, can be called, first of all, people who have knowledge, and symbolic expressions, linguistic and non-linguistic communicative and non-communicative actions that embody some kind of knowledge. Our knowledge has a propositional structure, that is, certain opinions can be presented in the form of statements. Communicative practice against the backdrop of a particular lifeworld is oriented towards achieving, maintaining and renewing consensus, which rests on the intersubjective recognition of claims that can be criticized. All concepts of action used in social-scientific theories can be reduced to four main ones: 1) the concept of “theological action,” which implies that the actor achieves his goal by choosing means that promise success and applying them properly; 2) the concept of “action regulated by norms”; 3) the concept of “dramatic action”, which correlates with the participants in the interaction, forming an audience for each other, before which they perform; 4) the concepts of communicative action “correlate with the interaction of at least two speaking, capable of action subjects who enter (with the help of verbal or extraverbal means) into interpersonal attitude. Actors strive to achieve an understanding of the action situation in order to coordinate action plans and actions themselves." In this model of action special meaning acquires language. At the same time, Habermas believes it is advisable to use only those analytical theories of meaning that focus on the structure of speech expression, and not on the intentions of the speaker.

According to Habermas, society must be understood both as a system and as a lifeworld. A concept based on such an approach must be a theory of social evolution that takes into account the differences between the rationalization of the lifeworld and the process of increasing complexity of social systems. The life world appears as a horizon within which communicative actors are always found. This horizon is generally limited and modified by structural changes in society.

Habermas notes that the theory of capitalist modernization, realized through the means of the theory of communicative action, is critical of both modern social sciences, and to the social reality that they are called upon to comprehend. The critical attitude towards the reality of developed societies is due to the fact that they do not fully use the learning potential that they have culturally, and also because these societies demonstrate an "uncontrolled increase in complexity." The increasing complexity of the system, acting as a kind of natural force, not only destroys traditional forms of life, but also invades the communicative infrastructure of life worlds that have already undergone significant rationalization. The theory of modernity must certainly take into account the fact that in modern societies the “space of chance” for interactions freed from normative contexts increases. The originality of communicative action becomes a practical truth. At the same time, the imperatives of the subsystems that have become independent penetrate the life world and, through monitoring and bureaucratization, force communicative action to adapt to formally organized spheres of action even when a mechanism for coordinating action through mutual understanding is functionally necessary.

In non-classical philosophy, philosophy is considered in the aspect of progress towards a fundamentally unknown result. According to J. Derrida, the systemic complex of conditions for communication includes writing, which he calls arch-writing. Archwriting is immanent in misunderstanding and distortion; it does not exist to manifest existing ideas. Therefore, K. cannot be completely pure and successful, not distorting the perception of truth, just as there cannot be truth without lies and delusion. Derrida's search is directed to the root sensory foundations of the sign, its texture, its archinatural spontaneous source. The classical definition of a sign through the opposition signified/signifier is the fruit of the centered geometric model of the sign of the era of rationalism, in which the first member of the opposition is always considered as more significant and valuable. Derrida proceeds from the fundamental absence of the signified, transcendental to language, and denies the identity between thinking and being. Writing is an endless interaction of chains, signifiers, traces that replace the missing signified. In this case, the signs certainly do not have a direct and fixed correspondence with the designated objectivity, do not have the status of presence and act independently in the absence of the author’s consciousness. Derrida emphasizes that K. is not addressed to the author’s consciousness as a source of meanings; rather, it generates these meanings in his mind and the author himself is constructed in the process of writing. Writing frees speech from the narrowness of the signal function through the written imprinting of speech in graphics and on the surface, whose essential characteristic is to be infinitely transferable.

At the same time, writing opens up access to communication with the Other, because this approach to writing allows one to discover in it marginal meanings that were previously suppressed. This opens up additional channels in K. with the past.

K., according to J. Deleuze, occurs at the level of events and outside of forced causation. In this case, there is rather a concatenation of non-causal correspondences, forming a system of echoes, repetitions and resonances, a system of signs. Events are not concepts, and the inconsistency attributed to them (inherent in concepts) is the result of their incompatibility. The first theorist of illogical incompatibilities, Deleuze believes, was Leibniz, for what he called compossible and incompossible cannot be reduced only to identical and contradictory. Compossibility does not even presuppose the presence of predicates in the individual subject or monad. Events are primary in relation to predicates. Two events are compossible if the series formed around the singularities (see "Singularity") of these events propagate in all directions from one to the other; and are incompossible if the series diverge in the vicinity of the singularities that define them. Convergence and divergence are entirely primordial relations, covering a rich area of ​​illogical compatibility and incompatibility. Leibniz uses the rule of incompossibility to exclude one event from another. But this is unfair when we consider pure events and the ideal game, where divergence and disjunction are asserted as such. We are talking about an operation according to which two things or two determinations are affirmed due to their difference. Here there is a certain positive distance between different elements, which binds them together precisely by virtue of difference (just as differences with the enemy do not deny me, but affirm me, allowing me to be collected before him). Now incompossibility is a means of K. In this case, the disjunction does not turn into a simple conjunction. Deleuze names three different types of synthesis: connective synthesis (if..., then), which accompanies the construction of a single series; conjunctive synthesis(s) - a method of constructing convergent series; and disjunctive synthesis (or), distributing divergent series. Disjunction truly becomes a synthesis when the divergence and decentering given by the disjunction become objects of affirmation as such. Instead of excluding some predicates of a thing for the sake of the identity of its concept, each thing opens up to meet infinite predicates through which it passes, losing its center - that is, its self-identity as a concept or Self. The exclusion of predicates is replaced by the K. of events. Deleuze proposes to distinguish between two ways of losing personal identity, two ways of developing contradiction. In the depths, opposites communicate precisely on the basis of infinite identity, while the identity of each of them is violated and disintegrates. On the surface, where only infinite events are located, each of them communicates with the other due to the positive nature of their distance and the affirmative nature of disjunction. Everything happens through the resonance of incommensurabilities - point of view with point of view; shifting perspectives; differentiation of differences - and not through the identity of opposites.

This understanding of the “machine” of K., oriented towards the creation of something new from outside, is opposed by the concept of coordination of practices by the habitus of P. Bourdieu. It implies a strictly limiting generative ability, the limits of which are set by historical and social conditions that cut off the creation of an unpredictable new one. The theory of practice puts forward the thesis, firstly, that objects of knowledge are not passively reflected, but are constructed, and, secondly, the principles of such construction are a system of structured and structuring predispositions or habitus, which is built in practice and is always focused on practical functions . The environment associated with a certain class of conditions of existence produces habituses, that is, systems of other acquired predispositions that act as principles that generate and organize practices and ideas that are objectively adapted to achieve certain results, but do not imply a conscious focus on these results. Developing Leibnizian logic mutual influence events, Bourdieu understands habitus as an immanent law that is a prerequisite not only for the coordination of practices, but also for coordination practices. Amendments and regulations, which are consciously introduced by the agents themselves, presuppose ownership of a common code. Attempts to mobilize a collective, according to practice theory, cannot succeed without a minimum match between the habitus of the mobilizing agents (prophets, leaders, etc.) and the predispositions of those who recognize themselves in their practices or speeches, and, above all, without group formation arising as a result of a spontaneous correspondence of predispositions. It is necessary to take into account the objective correspondence established between predispositions that are coordinated objectively, since they are ordered by more or less identical objective necessities. To determine the relationship between group habitus and individual habitus (which is inseparable from the individual organism and is socially determined and recognized by them, legal status, etc.), Bourdieu proposes to consider group habitus (which is an individual habitus insofar as it expresses or reflects a class or group ) a subjective, but not individual system of internalized structures, general patterns of perception, concepts and actions, which are the prerequisites for any objectification and awareness, and the objective coordination of practices and a general worldview could be based on the absolute impersonality and interchangeability of individual practices and beliefs.

The differences between individual habituses lie in the uniqueness of their social trajectories, which correspond to a series of chronologically ordered determinants that are mutually irreducible to each other. The habitus, which at each moment of time structures new experience in accordance with the structures created by past experience, modified by new experience within the limits set by their selective ability, introduces a unique integration of experience statistically common to representatives of one class (group), namely, integration controlled earlier experience. Early experience is of particular importance because the habitus tends to be constant and is protected from change by the selection of new information, the denial of information that could call into question already accumulated information if it is presented by chance or under duress, but especially by the avoidance of such information.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓