Message from Mars 3
This is the third and final part of an article on athlete-athlete communication in dancesport. Read from the beginning, or read the previous part.
IN THE EARLY 1950s, an American anthropologist named Ray Birdwhistell became seriously fascinated with the scene in a middleclass English pub in London. After studying recordings of the exchanges there long and hard, he came to an interesting conclusion:
Sixty-five per cent of the meaning in a human interaction is communicated nonverbally – by way of body motion (head position, posture, etc), facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice (pitch, inflection, that sort of thing), and paralanguage (the ‘ahem’, ‘aah’, ‘hmmm’ and the like that fill our everyday conversation).
Birdwhistell was convinced body movements form a communication system identical to verbal language (he called it kinesics, deliberately analogous to linguistics), which could be read as ‘phrases’, similar to spoken words and sentences. Albert Mehrabian, who followed a similar line of research, came to another dramatic conclusion more than a decade later: 93 per cent of the attitudinal message – the emotional or ‘relationship-level’ substance, as opposed to the factual or ‘content-level’ info (see Message from Mars 2 for an expansion) – is transmitted by nonverbal channels.
While scholars since have questioned the generalisability of the studies, and the findings themselves have been widely misrepresented (the Mehrabian formulation is often cited to overzealously claim 93 per cent of the total meaning is communicated nonverbally, for instance), this much can be said with some certainty: nonverbal channels contribute much to what meaning we gather from another’s communication.
Simply put, nonverbal signals determine to a significant extent how the receiver hears your message – positively or negatively, as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Trouble is, humans are more tuned in to decode negative cues. For instance, a negative inflection will make a disproportionately stronger impact on the receiver than the verbal content. So the dancer who feeds back “You are rushing me” – which, on its own, is not bad – is likely to do more damage if s/he delivers that in the wrong tone of voice. And if the accompanying body language – facial expression, posture etc – is also negative, well, the couple certainly has another issue.
What if the verbal content is positive, but the nonverbal cues are not? In such cases, there is evidence that the nonverbal channels will triumph; the receiver is more likely to derive a negative meaning (particularly if the accompanying facial expression, the most potent of nonverbal channels, supports such a communication). Your verbal message, hence, could be something as positive as “That was better!” But if delivered with discrepant nonverbal signals (furrowed brow, set lips, any other cue that contributes to an ‘unhappy’ expression), your partner is unlikely to be thrilled. On the other hand, try it with an ‘in sync’ cue (a smile, vocal warmth). It would add to the positive verbal content and you just could make someone’s day.
Nonverbal communication, thus, can be seen to contextualise the verbal message in many cases. They accentuate, temper, even contradict the content, allowing the receiver to arrive at a ‘suitable’ judgement of meaning. Effective athlete-athlete communication calls for a respectful awareness of these channels. A good communicator chooses his/her words carefully; sufficient care needs to be taken with nonverbal cues as well for constructive communication.
Maintaining ‘integrity of purpose’
At times it is a good idea to step back and ask ourselves this: why did I just say/do what I just said/did?
Keep in mind on such occasions there is more to interpersonal communication than the obvious purpose of disclosing and gaining information. Psychologist William Schutz saw communication as serving three fundamental human needs: inclusion (to establish an identity with the other involved, a standing), affection (to build a relationship, to be liked), and control (to prove one’s ability, exercise leadership). My impression is that most partners see their talk as nothing but information exchange, directly aimed at improving their performance.
But it is rarely that. Underlying that is a human need – and it is here that some soul-searching could come in useful. Was your message really aimed at educating the partnership (“Shaping away before that step-hop could help me follow better”)? Was it an instruction, an attribution of blame – something aimed at gaining control (“Take your head away from my space!”/”We are off-balance because your head weight is in the wrong place!”)? Perhaps it is a form of defensive aggression, an attempt to protect yourself from a possible critique by getting in a word first (interpretable as falling into the identity categorisation, an attempt to negotiate a standing)? Or a stress-relieving tactic, just venting your frustration?
This goes for nonverbal communication as well. Every facial expression, every gesticulation can be taken to be a subconscious – in some cases, conscious – negotiation of identity, an attempt at control, a quest for affection, perhaps a mix thereof.
An understanding of our real communication motives, thus, is important. Reflecting on why we say/do what we say/do allows us to strive for what we could call ‘integrity of purpose’ (the assumption is that most dancers’ actions are aimed at improving performance), protecting us to some extent from the ‘dishonest’ motives our very human needs push us into.
Widen coach-athletes communication
It is common in dancesport for couples to have more than one trainer. This poses an interesting question regarding the constitution of their competitive team: who all does it include?
The couple? The couple and their main trainer? The couple and all their trainers?
What impact does the absence of a dedicated trainer (even the one who a couple considers their main trainer often teaches their competitors as well), and the utilisation of shared trainers, have on a partnership – specifically on their communication demands?
I am sticking my neck out here, but my hypothesis is that given the situation, most couples ‘close ranks’, containing the team membership to own selves, perhaps with a limited provision for the main trainer.
While this is eminently pragmatic, it could also lead to a constrained communication situation. The feeling the trainer is ‘shared’ – and consequently not-so-much part of the team – provides for a less-than-wholesome communication from the athletes. This is compounded by the trainer’s knowledge that the couple concerned also has other trainers, including rival coaches. The multiple personalities involved in the training process arguably produce a more complex situation, which requires better communication – but as the athletes are likely to see only themselves as the team, there is a good chance they share less with the ‘outsider’ (trainer).
Perhaps a conscious effort need to be made by the athletes to involve the trainers – particularly the main trainer – more, to ‘talk over’ issues so they are better positioned to contribute. As involvement spurs interest, this could pay strategic dividends.
Strive for motivational communication
The link between motivation and performance is well-established in sports psychology, but very often the contribution of communication to that equation is ill-addressed. Think of the times you have seen your partner dejected at training — could you have said something that might have helped?
This is another area that competitive couples could – should, I would argue – take a more awakened interest in. Dancesport creates a unique situation, where motivational sources are limited (no dedicated coach or manager, for instance, and no other team members to step in) — which places the onus of keeping each other’s spirit alive squarely on the dancers themselves.
Easier said than done, but a basic exercise would be to avoid communication that is demotivating. Not always possible, but being conscious your partner is considerably dependent on your feedback – as there are no baskets to sink or goals to score, an important measure of performance is how it ‘felt’ to you – for his/her optimism is a good start. Though you might have the best intentions at heart, communication that stresses continually on what is not working can be demotivating, and your partner could well get locked in the ‘there’s-no-pleasing-this-person-so-why-bother’ zone.
The trick could be to ensure there is enough positive feedback – stuff that is motivational – as well, so that some kind of balance is achieved. A simple exercise: for every problem you want to bring to your partner’s attention, think of two things that have gone well. And – this is important – deliver the ‘good’ news in a way that will make your partner believe it, with ‘in sync’ nonverbal cues. That will certainly make a difference. 
For the project ‘Communication in Dancesport’, we are looking to interview/share ideas with dancesport athletes, trainers and enthusiasts. If you would like to be involved, please leave a note. More contact details here.