THIS BIT IS OBVIOUS: the quality of communication depends to a large extent on the ability of the communicators involved. Essentially, on their clarity of thought, information processing and analytical capabilities, strength of articulation, listening skills, respect for communication cues such as turn-taking, etc. We all know people who are a ‘pleasure to talk to’ and people we struggle to hold a half-decent conversation with – also, those we think of as ‘difficult’, ‘argumentative’, ‘confrontational’.

Whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’ communication takes place depends to a large extent, thus, on the participants. And their awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses as communicators, their self-reflexiveness about their verbal and non-verbal contributions, is a fundamental step in facilitating better interaction.

The relation is also kind of cyclical: productive communication produces a supportive climate where meaningful and problem-orientated exchanges can take place, and sets the stage for more of the same. Ditto, negative communication. It encourages a defensive climate, leading to more of counterproductive communication and conflict.

Tips for the athlete? Five actionable points stand out.

One, try to be more aware of your ‘communicative self’.  Analyse own weaknesses, strengths. Ask others. And ask your partner. When does s/he ‘get’ you? When not? A self-awareness of this sort will serve as a ‘mind the gap’ in difficult situations.

Two, think before you speak. What you are about to say, is that significant enough to communicate? Is it actionable? That is, will it serve a positive purpose? Remember, you do not have to voice every thought, every feeling you have on the floor. ‘Information overload’ is tough on your partner, so pick and choose sensibly. You don’t want to be the boy/girl who cried ‘wolf’. You want to be listened to seriously every time you speak.

Three, think how you will speak. What we need to remind ourselves here is that communication occurs at the ‘content’ (the factual information, the ‘what’ of the message) and ‘relationship’ (the emotional info, the ‘how’ of the message) levels. The latter links to the delivery of the former; it is the dressing, the presentation, and can distract from – and corrupt – the real substance of the message. So right, that feather step was terrible. But perhaps you can get that point across without quite saying, “You are rushing me through, you dunderhead! You are not giving me time to lower.” Conventional wisdom advocates us to avoid the finger-pointing ‘you’ in such situations (I would modify that and say, reserve the ‘you statements’ for special occasions, but even there take the bite out of it with a smile, a softer tone). Bring in the ‘I’, instead. Rather than assign blame for what went wrong, describe the problem. Say what you felt, what could be done differently. “I feel quite rushed there and need more time to lower” is a lot less damaging than the first version.

Four, reserve definitive statements for definitive occasions (this is in a way an amplification of the point above, mind). The danger here is that cut-and-dry statements often ascribe blame and come across as quite aggressive. “That didn’t work because you were in the wrong position” constrains productive communication. For one, it is most likely to put your partner on the defensive, which is never a good start. Also, you may be setting yourself up for a knock down. There is a good chance your analysis is only partially correct, or even incorrect; there could easily be factors you have overlooked (perhaps your partner was in the wrong position because you had overturned – whatever). So hold your horses, repeat the figure a few times before you arrive at a conclusion. And even then, leave yourself elbow room – else, if challenged, you risk loss of face (and the consequential negative emotional responses, which could end with a ‘lash out’ to regain ‘face’).

Five, listen. Honestly listen. To be a good communicator, you need to be a good listener. Theorists call it active listening, which they differentiate from superficial (where you tune out as soon as you think you have enough information to decipher the speaker’s meaning) and arrogant listening (simply put, where you listen for pauses so you can say what you want to say). Active listening is about dedicating your attention – as complete of it as possible – to the speaker, to the factual and emotional substance of the message. It goes beyond allowing the speaker to finish his/her say (which is always a good start, mind). It is about proactively setting up what I would call a listening ground, creating a communicative space for your partner to fill (verbal silence could be a good tool; there can only be so much space for ‘talk’ on the floor, so if you keep a steady stream of statements, you would have little to listen to), aiding the transmission of the message (‘minimal encouragers’ such as ‘Mmm’, ‘Okay’, nods, eye contact), questioning to clarify (“So you would like me to angle it a bit more?”), and verbal (‘Let’s try that then’) or non-verbal responses (dancing out the change your partner requested, for instance) that will make the listener feel listened to. Not an easy skill, but it could save your partnership a lot of trouble.

Continuing reading this article: Why we should mind the non-verbals

Read part 1 of this article

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.

Image: kind courtesy www.paulabecker.com