MODELS IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

MODELS IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Communication aims at creating a common ground of understanding between the two
parties that are engaging in the process of exchanging information. The principal concern is
therefore how to achieve uniformity of understanding between the two or more persons who are
in communication exchange (Floyd, 2011), especially since understanding captures a multitude
of aspects and works in a multi-dimensional and complex environment. While uniformity of
understanding is virtually impossible (Floyd, 2011), the communication model should take into
account any such measures that would make it possible for the highest possible level of
understanding to occur. To this end, communication exchange should be tailored to reflect this
reality. Elanco is a a division of Eli Lilly and Company, an innovation-driven pharmaceutical
corporation. Elanco is concerned with the development of products and services that enhance
animal health, performance and wellness. Established in 1954, and headquartered in Greenfield,
Indiana, the company boasts a wide-ranging assortment of nearly 300 brands from therapeutics,
parasiticides, surgical, antimicrobials, vaccines and food safety products (Elanco, 2015). The
company also has over 7,000 employees in 70 countries spread over 16 manufacturing and 14
research sites (Elanco, 2015). The selection of a communication model that is applied to an
exchange is directly tied to the understanding that is derived in the course of the communication
process. As such, the model selected should help move the communication exchange towards a
common ground of understanding.
Two communication exchanges by Elanco are analyzed for how successful they are at
passing their message across. In the first instance, the message that is sent through the monthly
newsletter from the CEO of the company informing the staff about a restructuring program that
is upcoming. The message is sent via email and is aimed at maintaining the calm of staff and

Communication Models 3
keeping them informed during the process. In this instance, the transmission communication
model is used. In this sense, the emphasis is on the fidelity of the communication (Wendland,
2013, pg. 52). As such, the primary aim of this exchange is how to take the thoughts, ideas and
meanings that are in the mind of the CEO and transmit them to his intended audience (Elia,
2004, pg. 1438). The second communication exchange involves a marketing session at a mid-
year conference, and is an open session encouraging feedback from each member of the team.
The aim of the second exchange is highlighting of the marketing strategy for the company in the
next quarter. Since the session is open, the communication process is not as linear as it was in the
previous exchange (Ramstad, 2002, pg. 121). More thought goes into the communication process
and allowances are made for the differences in the parties engaging in the communication
(Wedland, 2013, pg.61). In effect, the communication exchange in the second instance is more
successful than it was in the previous instance.
The message that is received in the first instance is not what was intended since the
newsletter fails to account for the differences in the intended audience and the context of the
communication. Human communication is not merely about transmitting of a message, which is
what the newsletter reduces the exchange to. Any meaningful exchange should make allowances
for the relationships between the people engaged in the communication process (Grossberg,
Wartella and Whitney, 2005). By failing to account for this, the newsletter transmits its intended
message while in effect sending another unintended message to the recipients as well. Even
though the communication was from the top management level, it fails to account for the
difference in power between the CEO and his audience. Further, being long and impersonal, it
implies that its intended purpose is the communication of the facts surrounding the restructuring,
but without regard for the views, and in effect the welfare, of the workers. The second

Communication Models 4
communication exchange articulates clear and specific goals that are to be achieved by the end of
the quarter, while providing information on the tools the marketing department will make
available to the sales team to realize these targets. Through the use of an open exchange, the
sales team will find greater appreciation for the message as open exchange gives room for the
team’s contributions and feedback that could potentially improve the quality of the
communication.
The sources of noise and interference in the communication exchange in the first instance
arises from the adoption of an impersonal communication method. Noise tends to obscure or
obliterate some part of the message in the communication exchange and is not entirely limited to
the channel that is used. Therefore, the failure by the CEO to use a medium that was more
personal or demonstrated a higher level of empathy results in the audience feeling stressed as a
result of the exchange and could potentially result in miscommunication (Norfolk, Birdi, &
Walsh, 2007, pg. 695). The lack of a clear avenue for giving feedback or interrogating the
communication exchange also implies that any communication gaps will not be addressed
(Grossberg, Wartella and Whitney, 2005). In the second instance, noise and interference arises
from the interruptions by some members of the team while their counterparts are expressing their
views. Similarly, an additional source of interference arises from the lack of knowledge by some
members of the team on how to apply the provided tool that is the database report. Since the
communication exchange provided for an avenue for collecting feedback and acting on it, the
sources of noise and interference were addressed efficiently and effectively. Interruptions were
eliminated by advancing the procedure that anyone with a contribution raises their hand, while
the marketing team went over how to use the tool with members of the sales team.

Communication Models 5

Some cultural issues were definitely at play during the exchange process. Like
understanding, culture is a complex concept that affects the creation of a uniformity in
understanding. Typically, the more structures the cultural environment in which the
communication exchange occurs, the more likely it is for the communication to be accurate
(Covarrubias, 2002). Elanco’s workforce has over 7000 people drawn from over 70 countries,
which implies a stark difference in the culture and perceptions of the employees. In the first
instance, the communication exchange deals with a sensitive issue, the restructuring of the
company. Different people will deal with this piece of information differently, yet no attempts
are made to address this. The use of a single newsletter to address the upcoming restructuring
program fails to account for any cultural differences within its target audience. Here, yet again,
the newsletter fails since it applies the transmission model where the cultural model would have
been more appropriate. In the second instance, some cultural issues are at play as well, most
notably identified through the failure to account for alternative delivery channels for the training.
Different personalities in the team point to a difference in the preferred way of receiving the
communication. Some members of the team might prefer one-on-one training or may be too
scared to ask questions for fear of ridicule by their peers, no matter how well meaning the
questions are or how useful to the discourse. The communication exchange should have taken
this into account.
The communication process in both instances suffered a break down. In the case of the
CEO newsletter, the breakdown was because the employees felt there was a lack of empathy in
the communication method that the company preferred. The failure by the company to take into
consideration the feelings of its employees is implied by the impersonal touch to the
communication process. Moreover, the linearity of the communication model means that the

Communication Models 6
flow of information is in a single direction making it almost impossible to judge the effectiveness
of the communication (Elia, 2004, pg. 1479). Further, since the CEO is viewed as the instigator
of the restructuring push in the organization, the choice of a channel that does not allow for the
addressing of staff concern propagates the impression that the company is uninterested in the
welfare of its employees. The fact that the CEO will be largely unaffected by the restructuring
program, and he or she chooses a method of communication that involves no contact with the
employees also adds to the perception that he or she lacks empathy for the workers (Eadie,
2009). Similarly, in the second instance there were some issues with the communication. In this
specific case, accommodations were made to ensure that the workers could interrogate or seek
clarification on the message, and thus a communication breakdown is prevented.
The communication exchange could be improved if some changes were done to the
model that is used. In the case of the CEO newsletter, the communication exchange could be
improved by integrating feedback as a way through which the employees could ask questions
and get appropriate answers from management. The open communication that a feedback
mechanism would allow for will ensure there is less room for misinterpretation of the content of
the communication. Further, any employee concerns could be addressed as they arise preventing
any cases of a communication breakdown. Similarly, the communication channel that is
preferred in this instance could be changed to one that is more personal, possibly involving the
management addressing the employees directly. In this way, the staff will feel the management
empathizes with their situation and will be more receptive in the communication exchange. In
the instance of the open conference, the application of emotional intelligence by the marketing
department will ensure that the message is delivered appropriately to all members of the sales
team. Additional considerations could involve the recognition that some members of the Sales

Communication Models 7
team are bound to be shy, hence allowing some time for individual queries by all members will
ensure that all employees make a contribution. In this way, no member of the audience with
meaningful contributions to the exchange will be left out.
In conclusion, the communication model applied to any information exchange has far
reaching implications on the establishment of a common ground for understanding, and therefore
on how effective the communication is. Consequently, the model that a sender opts for in a
communication exchange should ensure that the message is passed along accurately, and is
understood in the same general way regardless of differences in the individual members who
make up the team. To this end, the communication model should incorporate provisions on how
to communicate the message accurately and address the cultural differences between the
recipients of the communication. A cultural model would help to tailor the message to the
different members of the team while a transmission message will ensure fidelity of the message.
In all, an appropriate communication model will ensure the message is absorbed by the target
audience as intended and the flow of information between the respective parties is meaningful.

Communication Models 8

References

Covarrubias, P. (2002). Culture, communication, and cooperation. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Eadie, W. (2009). 21st century communication. Los Angeles: Sage.
Elanco, (2015). Elanco.com. [online] Elanco.com. Available at:
https://www.elanco.com/about/default.aspx [Accessed 29 Dec. 2015].
Elia, N., 2004. When Bode meets Shannon: Control-oriented feedback communication schemes.
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 49(9), pp.1477-1488.
Floyd, K. (2011). Interpersonal communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grossberg, L., Wartella, E. and Whitney, D. (2005). Mediamaking. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Narula, U. (2006). Handbook of communication. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors,
p.34.
Norfolk, T., Birdi, K. and Walsh, D., 2007. The role of empathy in establishing rapport in the
consultation: a new model. Medical education, 41(7), pp.690-697.
Ramstad, T.A., 2002. Shannon mappings for robust communication. Telektronikk, 98(1), pp.114-
128.
Wendland, M., 2013. Controversy over the status of the communication transmission models.
Dialogue and Universalism, (1), pp.51-63.