Why we discuss rules of professional communication at the training
Professional communication actually starts before the training, with discussion of the program and learning needs analysis.
But why discuss rules of professional communication at the training? Is it even needed?
At different stages of the training, negotiating or revisiting rules of communication is greatly beneficial. For instance, should the training involve presentations by trainees of their ideas, products or prototypes or other discussions, establishing ground rules for communication is essential. It provides an atmosphere of trust and stimulates sharing.
Growth - both professional and personal - requires stepping out of one's comfort zone. For educators, this means exploring new teaching methodologies, making changes to routine behaviours, embracing transformation not just at the level of new tools or activities, but at a deeper level - where shifts in approaches happen it sometimes requires articulation of one’s beliefs and values. Therefore, discussion of emerging practice in the use of tech tools and digital resources can be a complex and non-trivial act of communication.
The challenge of training educators today is magnified by the rapidly changing technological landscape. This evolution affects not only teaching and learning methodologies but also the language and terminology used to describe new paradigms. The fluidity of this landscape and the ambiguity of emerging discourse describing innovative processes make establishing a common ground through agreed-upon communication rules even more critical. Such an agreement can streamline the training process, making it more manageable, smooth, and productive.
The rules of professional communication I've been following for over 20 years of teacher training were learned during the British Council Project aimed at developing competencies of English Teachers from the KINSET - the team of trainers from the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, who led the project. These rules have never let me down.
Rule Number #1
Asking for Clarification/ Looping for Understanding
This rule focuses on using questions for clarification. Initially, I learned it as the ‘Asking for clarification’ rule.
However, I recently came across a very similar technique called "looping for understanding" in the book “Supercommunicators” by Charles Duhigg. You can choose whichever name you prefer for this first rule.
Let’s consider two communicators: Communicator 1 is at the sending end of communication, and Communicator 2 is at the receiving end. It's crucial first to acknowledge that a range of barriers act as obstacles to the transmission of ideas between these two figures.
The process starts in the mind of Communicator 1, where an idea forms. The very first barrier is the challenge of translating this flow of thoughts into words. You've likely experienced the frustration of trying to express a new thought and with your words not conveying your idea as precisely as intended. It feels as though something is lost at this stage of converting the concepts in your mind into speech.
As we've already mentioned, we are dealing with the communication of innovative and emerging concepts, where even the terminology within the professional community is not always consistent or agreed upon.
This is just the very first barrier.
We then encounter numerous barriers of different types, starting from the environment itself - it’s noisy, there are distractions, and Communicator 2 could be tired, absorbed in other thoughts, or feeling a bit lost, especially if they are stepping into the territory of new concepts or practices during this particular part of the training.
When the message arrives at the receiving end, it is unpacked and interpreted by Communicator 2. Therefore, we can’t guarantee that what is heard closely resembles the original idea in the mind of Communicator 1.
So, how can we improve this situation? How can we reduce the loss of the message as it passes through these barriers?
The answer is by asking questions for clarification, such as:
- "Do I understand correctly that this is what you are talking about?"
- "I heard this in your words - is that correct?"
Looping for understanding in Supercommunicators is a very similar (if not the same) technique, however it is used in a different context and with a different aim.
While we are asking questions and looping for understanding at the training to bypass barriers with minimum message loss, Duhigg’s supercommunicators use this type of question to demonstrate that the communicator on the receiving end is actually listening (just nodding your head is not a signal that works). When a person believes that their partner in communication is listening, it creates a feeling of safety and acceptance.
“And the best way to do that is by repeating, in our own words, what we just heard them say - and then asking if we got it right.” ( Charles Duhigg, Supercommunicators)
Charles Duhigg recommends this technique for conversation between people with opposing views, during debates and discussion of complex problems. He writes about it in the chapter ‘Connecting amid conflict’.
The use of this technique during the first 10 minutes of conversation leads to less escalation of the conflict in further discussion. Its effectiveness is proven by studies.
It is good to hear about this kind of effect (in our case, more of a side effect) of a rule you have used for years to organise professional discussion of critical opinions and the articulation of understanding of new emerging practices.
I would like to emphasise that the introduction of looping for understanding in our case is very different from that of the Supercommunicators. We usually discuss the rules for effective professional communication before the first discussion activity at the training, reach a common agreement to follow the rules, and then both sides use it in discussion deliberately. In our case, it isn’t a superpower of a single communicator.