Communication Theory

Introduction

Communication is the key tool of social work. Whilst social workers might use a variety of tools to assess, plan, implement and review their work, what they do more than any other single activity is communicate: to talk and listen, to read and to write. A social worker who is not a skilled communicator is unlikely to be effective.

On more than one occasion I have heard people say that communication is a skill, not a theory. I think this is flawed for reasons I will return to at the end of this page. At this point, all that is necessary to say is that the development of skill in any area is greatly aided by an understanding of the theories that underpin those skills.

Idea in A Nutshell

Communication involves sending and receiving messages. The interpretation of these messages is a complex and multi-layered process.

The Idea in Summary

Language is essential to communication. It is, therefore, important that social workers have ways of understanding how language works. This understanding alone is insufficient as there is also a more general process of communication that goes beyond the words we choose in order to give a message.

When we intend to give a message we must code that message in some way, usually through a mixture of words, voice and body language. The meaning of these messages is not as clear cut as we might think. Whilst it is true that social workers must make sense of the words and actions of service users, they must also not forget that service users are doing exactly the same to the words and actions of the social worker.

The Idea in More Depth

I will focus on three models on this page that can be used to analyse and improve our communication. The first is a propositional model of language. The second is an embedded model of communication. The third is a cyclical model of communication.

The Propositional Model of Language

Language does many different things. One of the key features of language is that it is the main way in which we let other people know what we think and how we understand the world. Spoken language is often propositional in that we make statements about what we believe is true. Language breaks up the world into manageable and meaningful chunks. Think about the following three statements, each making a statement.

‘I can see a manufactured object from my office window’

‘I can see a building from my office window’

‘I can see the restaurant from my window’

Each of these three statements is true (at least when I wrote them), but each gives a more detailed picture of what I can see from my office window. You might ask why this is important, but it is important because different words carry very different meanings, that convey very different propositions.

Consider these two statements which sound very similar.

‘It’s up to you’

‘It’s down to you’

On one level these two statements convey a similar proposition – that you have a choice – but they are significantly different in their detailed proposition.

‘It’s up to you’ means that you have the freedom to choose, and the speaker is not concerned with the outcomes. ‘It’s down to you’ means that you are responsible for the consequences of your choice.

When social workers interview service users their aim is to understand the service users’ experience as fully as possible. This means listening extremely carefully to the word choice and to the word order and being aware that words rarely convey all the details necessary to make sense of the service user’s experience.

The following exercise can help illustrate that.

Thought experiment

Think of an important event in your life, one that has great personal significance for you. Put yourself back into that event, see what you saw at the time, hear what you heard at the time, feel what you felt at the time. Remember how your body felt; remember the images, thoughts and memories that were in your head at the time.

Now briefly describe that event in a few sentences. Capture the key points in as few words as possible.

How well did those sentences sum up the experience?

The fact is that for much of our most important experiences words cannot even begin to capture the experience. Even when we do find ways to express our experiences we often use short-cuts and shortened forms of wording that cut out much of the detail.

Part of the art or skill of communication is to put back that missing detail, however that is hard to do unless we understand that the detail is missing and actively seek to ask questions and communicate in ways that put that detail back. This can be represented in the following diagram.

Model showing the limits of verbal language

Limits of Language

Quite often when people talk they use words and phrases that make their propositions very unclear, or else reveal a particular way of experiencing the world which might be logically inconsistent. Here are two examples.

People scare me.
I have to finish this assignment.

In the first example there is only one word whose meaning is clear: ‘me’. With the other two words we don’t know who the ‘people’ are and we don’t know what they are doing that the person feels scared about. The more we listen for these unclear propositions the better we can ask for clarity.

a) Who is it that is scaring you?

b) What are they doing that scares you?

In the second example there is another detail missing, and most likely a distorted view of reality. This could lead to a conversation like this.

Service User (SU): I have to finish this assignment.

Social Worker (SW): What will happen if you don’t?

SU: I will fail my course.

SW: So if you fail this one assignment you will fail the course?

SU: Yes, well I will if I fail the re-sit.

SW: So if you don’t finish this assignment you will have to pass the re-sit to stay on your course?

Whilst this might sound like nit-picking it is very important. Words really matter. They reveal people’s views of reality, and these views have profound effects on behaviour. Again, consider these three uses of a single word ‘accident’.

I went to the pub and drank five pints of beer. I then crashed my car on the way home. It was an accident.
I was changing the radio station on my car radio when I crashed the car. It was an accident.
I was driving along the road when I hit a patch of spilt diesel, skidded and crashed the car. It was an accident.

In each case would you accept the word accident? This is complicated because one of the key tasks in social work is to help people take responsibility for their actions, and yet so often we use language to avoid responsibility. Look at the following dialogue and see if you can notice the denial of responsibility.

What happened to that course you were going to take?

Oh, it didn’t happen.

This can also happen with positive events, where sometimes it is easy to show in our language that we do not always take full responsibility for our actions even in a positive context.

You gave me an A+!

No, you gave me an A+ piece of work and I told you what it was.

It might help to reflect on why we are much more likely to say ‘I have got an A’ rather than ‘I wrote an A,’ and yet no one just ‘gets’ an A, they work for it.

This also plays a vital role in interviewing. Words have been shown to have powerful impacts on what people remember. In one experiment people were shown a video recording of a car accident. Afterwards, the subjects were asked a question that they could answer yes, no or unsure. The question was asked in two forms.

Did you see a broken headlight on the car before the accident?
Did you see the broken headlight on the car before the accident?

Just that one small word change changed people’s reactions. With the first question a substantial number of people said they were unsure. This was because they had two options: either a) the car had a broken headlight which they saw or missed; or b) the car did not have a broken headlight. In the second form of wording they had only one choice: either they saw the broken headlight or they missed it. This resulted in a reduction of the number of people who reported that they were unsure.

Without a detailed understanding of how language works this kind of mistake is simply too easy to make. Excellent listening skills require an understanding of communication theory.

Embedded Model of Communication

The second model to understand communication is simple, yet powerful. This model suggests that when we use language we filter it through a series of biases. Firstly we have the personal, egocentric bias. When I hear a word being used I assume that the speaker has the same understanding of that word as me. But this is a dangerous assumption. Consider the following sentence.

I feel upset.

When I use this phrase I am most likely to mean something like ‘I feel sad’ or possibly even ‘I feel guilty’. They are the two words that I most closely associate with the concept ‘upset’. However for many people upset has a very different meaning, it means something like ‘I am angry.’ If this difference is not acknowledged miscommunication is very difficult to tackle.

This ego-centric level of language bias sits inside a wider bias: and ethnocentric bias. In this context, I am using ‘ethno’ in a very specific way. Here the word ‘ethno’ means the people you identify with, the people who share your understandings, your culture, your background.

Within social work, some words have specific meanings: beds, accommodation, residence, parental responsibility and so on. When social workers talk to social workers this is usually fine, but when social workers talk to service users an insensitivity to the differences in language can lead to serious problems.

Finally, there is a socio-centric bias. Within a given society some things are taken for granted, treated as normal. I remember in my teens going out with a girl whose mother was Spanish. I would sometimes think the family were arguing, but then everyone would be laughing. It took me time to realise that raised voices and arm gestures had a very different meaning in their Spanish society and culture to what I was used to. The therapist Insoo Kim Berg tells a story of first working with families in the USA having moved from Korea. She was deeply puzzled when families talked about ‘grounding’ their children. At first, this was an ego-centric difference between ‘grounding’ and ‘grinding’, but it then revealed a deeper socio-centric bias. In American (and UK) culture grounding, preventing a child from leaving the family home, is a normal form of discipline. In Korean culture, this practice seems bizarre, ‘but isn’t that where the child wants to be?’ In Korean culture, the sanction for misbehaviour is to exclude the child from the family home, send them to a relative or neighbour until they have reflected on their behaviour. A similar situation can arise with parenting behaviours, where what is considered normal or healthy can vary greatly from culture to culture, but without social workers knowing which practices are genuinely harmful and which are simply different ways of achieving the same result.

These embedded biases can be shown visually.

Embedded Bias

The Cyclical Model of Communication

When people communicate they communicate for a reason, it is an intentional act. In order to understand any act of communication the question must be asked, what are the participants trying to do? When someone stops and asks for directions they are trying to establish the route to a destination. When someone orders food at a restaurant they are trying to get a meal they will enjoy. When someone talks to a friend about a wonderful holiday they have they are trying to share their thoughts and feelings about that holiday. This understanding of the intentional nature of communication is a fundamental aspect of Communication Theory.

Understanding any communication begins with focusing on what people are trying to achieve through their communication. Social workers are usually trying to understand a person’s situation or trying to help them generate possible solutions to their problems. These intentions will fundamentally affect the way we behave in our communication.

Intentions by themselves can do nothing, therefore social workers need to have ways to turn their good intentions into effective actions. When it comes to communication they need to somehow code their intentions into language. They need to find the right words to say what it is they need to say in order to achieve what they want to achieve. This coding lets them combine words, tone of voice and body language to effectively fulfil their intention.

It is important to recognise that coding may be both conscious and unconscious. A large amount of our non-verbal coding occurs without any conscious awareness. However, awareness of issues such as eye contact and non-verbal mirroring can greatly improve the effectiveness of social workers’ communication.

Verbal coding, selecting the right words to convey the intended message, is perhaps best described as being sub-conscious rather than unconscious, in that people usually say what it occurs to them to say without careful analysis. However quite often there is a degree of choice in coding verbal language. Social workers must choose their words carefully to find the words that are most effective in any given situation.

However, once a social worker has said what they planned to say the other person must receive it. They must hear the words, be aware of the tone of voice and see the facial expressions and other body language. If the message is not seen or heard then no effective communication takes place and the process stops.Whilst this coding is being planned it does no good at all. A wonderfully crafted sentence left unsaid makes no difference. Social workers need to produce the communication they have coded. Their words, voice, faces and bodies must be brought into play so that they turn the message they have coded into language and produce this so the other person can receive it.

Once the other person has heard the social workers words and tone of voice and seen their body language they must decode them to decide what the social worker meant. This process of deciding what the speaker meant, what their intentions were, will then let the listener decide how they will respond. The listener will have their own intentions which they will need to code and produce. And so the cycle of communication continues.

Overview of the Cyclical Model of Communication

What this diagram shows is that communication is a cycle where intentions are repeatedly encoded, produced, received, and decoded so that new intentions can be formed and encoded. This process is non-linear in that not only do messages pass backward and forward between the participants in the communication, but this all happens at the same time. While one person is speaking the person may still be trying to decode what they have said a moment or two earlier. While one person is speaking the listener may be simultaneously coding a non-verbal message with the intention to show that they are listening while the speaker is speaking.

A further factor that must be taken into account when understanding the communication process is the concept of ‘Noise.’ Noise here is used to refer to all the factors in a communication that tend to disrupt the process of mutual understanding.

Noise might be a noisy environment that makes it hard for one person to hear the words the other person is saying. In a more subtle way an inability to see someone’s mouth may make it harder to interpret what they are saying. This is because lip-reading is an important part of differentiating certain sounds, even for people without a hearing impairment. Distractions, such as a television on in the background, also create noise that stops us from fully attending to all that the other person is saying. In this model noise is not simply sounds, it is anything that interferes with the smooth transmission, reception and decoding of messages.

External Noise in Communication

Not all noise is external. Anxiety, tiredness or pain can all act as internal noise. Sometimes people can be so busy thinking about their own thoughts and feelings that they fail to pay full attention to the other person. Thoughts like “I’m making a mess of this” or “They must think I’m an idiot” will stop people from being able to communicate as effectively as they might. This too is noise. Although self-awareness, a recognition of how we are feeling moment-by-moment, can be an important part of empathic communication, when people focus too strongly on these this creates noise that stops people truly hearing others.

Sometimes intentions themselves may become noise. When someone is so busy trying to get their point across that they shut themselves off from listening to the other person’s point of view. They may focus so much on rehearsing what they are going to say next that they are no longer with the person in the moment-by-moment experience of communicating.

Sometimes social workers need to pay attention to their fleeting thoughts and feelings. Sometimes they need to carefully plan how they are going to respond. But when these factors stop them from listening to the other person they have become noise.

Internal Noise in Communication

The Theory in Social Work Practice

The models covered in this book rely upon social workers’ ability to communicate well. Despite this few people can articulate a clear understanding of how communication works. That is why communication theory is so helpful for effective social work practice.

It is essential that in any encounter with a service users a social worker knows what their intentions are. This applies at both the overall intention of the situation and the moment-by-moment intentions.

At the widest level social workers intend to communicate respect. Social workers intend that service-users are left feeling that they have been listened to and valued by the social worker.

At a mid-range level social workers will have specific intentions at different stages of the social work process. At the beginning the primary intention is to build a relationship. In the assessment phase the intention is to develop a clear sense of how the service user sees their situation and to establish what resources and strengths the service user has. In the planning phase the intention is to develop a shared understanding about what needs to happen for the goals to be met. In the implementation stage the intention is likely to be to encourage the service user to take various actions in order to implement the plan. In the evaluation stage the intention is to discover what the service user thinks has changed and what factors have led to that change.

At a moment-by-moment level the social worker may be seeking something as simple as keeping the service user talking or giving the message that the social worker is taking them seriously, to something as complex as helping a service user express chaotic and conflicting thoughts and feelings in a coherent way.

One of the most common ways in which social workers fail is by being unclear in their intentions. If service users are confused about what a social worker wants or needs (what their intentions are) this is likely to undermine the relationship. Clarity of intentions is vital for good communication.

Intentions are also important in that at times social workers may have poor intentions. If a social worker is simply seeking to get a service user out of the door as quickly as possible they are likely to engage in poor communication. When teams are overworked the main intention may become to close cases as quickly as possible. This may become more important than goals such as ensuring the safety of service users. It is important to link Communication Theory back to both the Social Work Process and the Practice Pyramid to keep the intentions both clear and ethical.

Coding and production are the next steps in the process of communication. This moves from the why and what (why am I communicating, what do I want to communicate?) to the how (how will I communicate?) Most people readily identify with a situation where a thought sounded perfectly good in their head but what came out of their mouth was quite different. Choosing the right words, and being able to deliver these words in an effective manner is not an easy task.

Coding language is far more complex than most people realise. Consider the following two questions, both intended to uncover the service user’s thoughts about their behaviour.

Why did you do that?

Why do you think you did that?

Superficially these appear to be asking for the same information. However experienced and effective communicators will understand intuitively that these two questions are likely to get very different responses.

The first coding is likely to get a justification or an excuse. It might even get an aggressive response. This is because when coded this way a ‘why’ question is likely to be seen as an accusation. The second coding is far more likely to be successful in eliciting the service user’s understanding of the situation. This is because it invites the service user to reflect on their thought processes rather than to justify their behaviour.

It is important to understand that if the intentions are clear and based on sound values, service users will usually be forgiving of mistakes in coding. Despite this it is important that social workers accept that it is their duty to be as understandable as possible; it is not the service user’s job to be able to read their mind.

In a similar way production of communication is vital. If a social worker mumbles or puts their hand over their mouth they will make it harder for the service user to understand them. In social work settings it is important to speak clearly and ensure service users can see the lips movements. This is because the shape of the lips is important in determining certain speech sounds even for people without a hearing impairment.

Once a social worker has said whatever they said, using the tone of voice and the body language they have used the service user must see and/or hear this communication for it to be effective. Once they have received the communication they will decode what the social worker meant and construe a meaning for this. Depending on how they decode it and what meaning they give to it they will then choose how to respond. Once a service user has responded the social worker must also receive, decode and construe the service user’s intentions and meanings.

In receiving service users’ communication social workers must employ good observation skills. Social workers must hear the words service users use, the tone of voice they use, and the body language. This means that social workers must look at service users; they must pay attention to visual cues. They must listen carefully to the speed, volume and intonation of the words used; they must pay attention to the auditory cues. Social workers must also take service users’ words seriously.

When communicating effectively a social worker will seek to pay attention to the congruence of the words, tone and body language. If all three match it is generally easier for a social worker to decode the content and the emotional tone of the communication. Where there is a mismatch, for example a service user who says, “I’m fine”, but sighs and looks down, then a social worker must notice and respond to this incongruence.

This is where the process of decoding and construing are so vital to effective social work practice. When words and the non-verbal elements of communication are incongruent a social worker must seek clarification. This can be done very simply. In the example given in the previous paragraph a social worker can simply say something like, “You don’t sound fine.” This allows the service user to become more open about their feelings.

Decoding and construing are much more complex than most people realise. Most people simply assume that they know what other people’s words mean. There are two equal and opposite dangers in this point in the communication cycle. The first is to ignore the non-verbals and focus exclusively on the words. A worker may simply think “They said they were fine, so they must be fine,” even though the non-verbal communication made it quite apparent that the person was far from fine.

The second danger is to read complex meanings into the service user’s words without checking. So a service user might say something like “I’m feeling really down today.” A social worker might take their understanding of ‘down’ and impose this on the service user’s words, for example thinking that the service user is depressed and suicidal when the service user simply meant that they were a little less happy than normal.

The most effective ways to deal with both these dangers is to seek specific clarification of key words used and to address incongruity with openness and honesty. The Meta-Model, which comes from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a useful tool for doing the first of these. Regular use of the skills of reflecting, paraphrasing and summarising whilst in communication will help keep the understanding of service users as clear as possible.

This model of communication also helps social workers understand why it is important to deal with noise, both external and internal. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a service user to turn down or turn off a TV or a music system, as long as the social worker explains that this is so they (the social worker) can listen more effectively to the service user. Although this may seem uncomfortable or oppressive, it is far better to do this than to fail to hear important things the service user had to say.

Internal noise is harder to deal with. Stress, anxiety, fear of making a mistake and many other things can and will affect a social workers ability to fully attend to what a service user is saying. In general it is best to accept that these feelings are a normal part of the complex task of communicating with people in vulnerable situations, and move on. It is important not to ignore this noise completely, as often the fleeting thoughts and feelings give important clues as to how to respond and they are an important part of developing rapport with service users.

Communication theory helps to both explain why communication works and also to explain why it often goes wrong. As long as the social worker takes responsibility to communicate as effectively and ethically as possible, this model can be a useful tool.

What It’s Not

There are many popular psychology books that focus on non-verbal communication. Many of these create the impression that using subliminal cues it is possible to work out what someone ‘really means’. This model certainly does not do that. The best way to determine what someone really means is to ask them questions and let the meanings emerge through the discussion.

By itself communication theory is not sufficient to let social workers know exactly what someone means. The model must be used with the skills of active listening and effective questioning. It is only when the theory is used with appropriate technical skill and relevant beliefs and values that it will be helpful to social work practice.

Theory Checklist

Is the worker clear about what they are trying to achieve?

Does the worker think clearly and creatively about how to communicate?

Does the worker take time to clarify what service users mean by what they say?

Is the end result a shared meaning that emerges through negotiation?

Unless you can say ‘yes’ to all these questions you are not using Communication theory, regardless of what other techniques and approaches you use.

Critique of the Theory

Communication theory is a model rather than a scientifically tested theory. This means that it is a useful way of thinking about communication rather than a definitive statement of the way communication works. As with any model it necessarily takes what is a complex and multi-faceted process and reduces it to something comprehensible. This simplification process inevitably distorts the reality of communication. This does not make the model invalid. It provides a starting point for developing greater awareness of how communication works and how to improve your communication.

On a number of occasions I have heard people criticise the idea of ‘communication theory’ on the grounds that communication is a skill, not a theory. This argument suggests that what is important in social work is not a robust understanding of how communication works, but the ability to apply practical skills like listening and questioning in order to get the job done. There are two main reasons why I reject this idea and favour a view that says that having models for analysing communication, in other words theories, is important.

Firstly, the above argument makes a false distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘skill’. All skills are underpinned by a body of theory. Developing from mere competence in something to excellence in that thing often involves moving from unconscious performance of the thing to a conscious awareness of how you perform the thing. Running is a skill, but excellent runners learn about the theory of things like breathing patterns and cadences in order to be better runners. In the same way social workers who wish to move from competent communicators to excellent ones need to understand the theories that underpin their communication.

Secondly, I have seen the results of theory-less communication. Misunderstanding and miscommunication are not occasional failures in the communication process, they are an inherent part of it. This means that when communication breaks down, as it does frequently, social workers who lack at least a minimal understanding of communication theory are left with three reactions. They either become confused and frustrated, with no idea of what went wrong; or they become angry at the service user for failing to listen or communicate clearly; or they become guilty, feeling that they have failed and are not a good social worker. All three of these reactions can be avoided if the social worker has a range of tools for analysing how communication works, why it goes wrong, and how to improve it, and that is what communication theory provides.

Finally, the idea that communication is only a skill, and not a set of skills and a theories, is undermined by the various graduate programmes and academic journals in the subject. Communication studies and communication theory are clearly recognised in the academic world as legitimate topics for theoretical study. As a result of this there is a strong argument that communication theory is a valid and important area of theory to cover in social work.

As presented here the model does not take into account the wider cultural and social context. This means that the model must be used alongside models of anti-discriminatory practice and person-centred theory in order to be fully compatible with social work values.

Reflections

How has this chapter changed the way you think about your communication?
What has struck you most in this chapter?
How can you improve your communication, based on what you’ve read in this chapter?
What are the most important things a social worker needs to be aware of in order to communicate clearly and effectively?

Social Work Theories and Models

Mapping an uncertain territory