A friend told me something very interesting. She said, "I have noticed that during a conference Americans and Japanese behave very differently . If an American does not understand anything, he blames the communication skills of the message-giver. If a Japanese is under stress he blames himself, placing the burden of understanding on the message-receiver . Objectively speaking, who has the burden of understanding — the message-giver or the message-receiver ?
In the Western world, currently dominated by Greek mythology, where individuals are constantly suspicious of authority, the burden of understanding falls on the authority that seeks to govern. However, in the Eastern part of the world, dominated by Confucian mythology, where everyone respects authority, who has the Mandate of Heaven or legitimate power, the burden of understanding falls on the people who are being governed.
This divide is evident in communication techniques taught in training programs of modern management. The first being keep it short and simple, for people's attention span is low as is their capacity to comprehend . Another technique is repetition: "Say what you have to say, say it, and say what you have said." This we are told will get the message across. Here the burden is always on the speaker. Hence the obsession with over-clarifying and over-communicating .
We see this in the long documents and numerous posters that repeatedly seek to explain values and behaviours that the company endorses. There is anxiety that communication has not been clear or comprehensive enough. The message-giver has to constantly bring himself down to the level of the message-receiver.
This is influenced by the shift from the Imperial British system of communication to the more egalitarian American system of communication . It is not uncommon in many Indian family owned companies for owners to not bother with clear communication. Often innuendoes and signals are used to get messages across. For example: the person who is being repeatedly called for a meeting becomes the authority or the favoured one of the moment, irrespective of his designation.
It is assumed that the people who understand the leader get the message. Those who don't get the message don't matter in the scheme of things. On a more manipulative note, if the directive does not work, the leader simply gets a chance of escape. This puts great pressure on professionals who are not trained to deal with family businesses in B-schools.
In the Western world, currently dominated by Greek mythology, where individuals are constantly suspicious of authority, the burden of understanding falls on the authority that seeks to govern. However, in the Eastern part of the world, dominated by Confucian mythology, where everyone respects authority, who has the Mandate of Heaven or legitimate power, the burden of understanding falls on the people who are being governed.
This divide is evident in communication techniques taught in training programs of modern management. The first being keep it short and simple, for people's attention span is low as is their capacity to comprehend . Another technique is repetition: "Say what you have to say, say it, and say what you have said." This we are told will get the message across. Here the burden is always on the speaker. Hence the obsession with over-clarifying and over-communicating .
We see this in the long documents and numerous posters that repeatedly seek to explain values and behaviours that the company endorses. There is anxiety that communication has not been clear or comprehensive enough. The message-giver has to constantly bring himself down to the level of the message-receiver.
This is influenced by the shift from the Imperial British system of communication to the more egalitarian American system of communication . It is not uncommon in many Indian family owned companies for owners to not bother with clear communication. Often innuendoes and signals are used to get messages across. For example: the person who is being repeatedly called for a meeting becomes the authority or the favoured one of the moment, irrespective of his designation.
It is assumed that the people who understand the leader get the message. Those who don't get the message don't matter in the scheme of things. On a more manipulative note, if the directive does not work, the leader simply gets a chance of escape. This puts great pressure on professionals who are not trained to deal with family businesses in B-schools.
Such practices are frowned in modern management as it is unclear, inefficient and adds to the burden of anxiety amongst employees. They are qualified as feudal, befitting an oriental despot. In other words, the criticism is rooted in Western prejudices about the East.
Though many business families in India tilt Eastwards, traditional Indian methods of communication actually stands between the East and the West. Who bears the burden of understanding is a function of context. It depends on who has more to lose: the message-giver or message-receiver ? This is demonstrated in the following story from the Upanishads.
A young boy called Satyakama wanted to understand the 'brahman' from his teacher, Gautama. So his teacher gave him some cows and told him to take them out to the pastures and to return only after the number of cows had doubled. While the cows grazed, Satyakama had nothing to do. He kept observing the world around him. As he watched the bull, the sun, the fire, the swan, and the fowl, his mind was filled with insight. When he returned his thanked his guru for revealing to him the 'brahman' .
In modern understanding of communication , the guru had done nothing to facilitate understanding. But in the traditional understanding of communication, the guru had created an ecosystem based on the desire and capability of Satyakama. Thus the message-giver understands the best way to communicate to the message receiver. Sometimes it may be instructive and directive, sometimes it may be full of innuendoes and symbols, depending on what the message-receiver can handle.
Here, the guru is not obliged to transmit the message but does so in order to improve his own understanding of human nature. Here, the student is not obliged to listen to the guru but does, because he wants knowledge. The teacher is merely a facilitator.
The message receiver thanks the message-giver for facilitating his understanding of the subject. The message-giver thanks the message-receiver for enabling him to better understand human desire and capability, hence his communication skills. Both win. There is no authority or rules. It is cyclical, not linear. This is what the guru-shishya parampara was actually about.
Source: Devdutt Pattanaik in The Economic Times
http://m.economictimes.com/features/corporate-dossier/management-mythos-should-the-burden-of-understanding-be-on-the-message-giver-or-receiver/articleshow/36461815.cms
No comments:
Post a Comment