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

ONE OF THE burning regrets in my life is that I do not speak fluent Venusian. The nuances of the language have eluded me despite my best efforts, and I am slowly beginning to accept that I will never fully comprehend it.

I have also realised the average Venusian has little knowledge of the language of Mars – for the length of this intro, let’s take John Gray’s sweeping generalisation founded on the gender differences hypothesis without the mandatory sack of salt – and absorbs a lot less of her partner’s communication than is ideal.

Which can be a recipe for disaster in competitive ballroom.

The extreme interdependency in dancesport – after marriage, it is the highest form of contact sport, I believe – produces a different kind of team dynamics, requiring a more sensitive and demanding communicative chemistry. My own research into this – mostly by way of proactive eavesdropping on the practice floor – stresses the need for better verbal and non-verbal interaction, particularly during the extended practice sessions most competitive couples tend to put in. Just count the number of times you have seen malevolent stares and rolling eyes on the floor this week, and heard “You are dragging me!”, “What are you trying to do?” and “You are too high!”, and you begin to get the picture.

Fortunately, ‘good’ partnerships manage to work through this somehow. The high levels of intrinsic motivation – the degree to which a participant’s engagement in the sport is driven by his/her inherent interest in it – and task orientation – the pleasure s/he derives from acquiring the ability to perform the activity in question effectively – that most successful athletes seem to have arguably help them tide over it, and partners evolve their own ways of negotiating the situation.

That is great. But counterproductive athlete-athlete communication – and I use it as an umbrella term to include non- and mis-communication as well – is still limiting. At best, it is a frustrating irritant; at worst, a major drag on the performance resources of the partnership.

Again, as many scholars would agree, so long as there is continuing communication, there is bound to be miscommunication; perfect communication is as much a rarity as the perfect dance (and that, as we know, happens only on Strictly). Still, there is plenty dancers can do to bridge the communication gap and encourage better performance.

Which brings us to this column. The idea is to present some broad thoughts that competitive dancers might find useful. This comes very early in a research project that sports psychologist Amanda Wilding and I are engaged in at the Bournemouth University, into a need gap we have identified – surprising how little academic attention dancesport has received despite its popularity – and is in no way exhaustive, but, hopefully, it is a beginning, some food for thought…

Recognise the centrality of communication

Communication is the glue that holds together a partnership (for that matter, any group, big or small), yet it is not something we consciously focus on or work at improving. An excellent piece of indicative evidence is the space most sports texts fail to dedicate to this crucial aspect. By and large, sports psychologists and coaches write about concepts supported by communication (motivation, goal-setting, leadership, teambuilding, that sort of thing), relegating communication itself to the backyard, a small section tucked away somewhere deep inside.

In the practical sphere, elite athletes seem to comprehend the significance of communication. But this comprehension, I get the feeling, is rather peripheral, leading to not much concrete action on it. Most dancers reflect on the positives and negatives of a training session, but how many actually analyse his/her communication and think, “Shucks, I shouldn’t have put it that way when I fed back on that running weave. Next time I will phrase it differently!”

A more awakened recognition of the centrality of communication is needed if dancers are to proactively work on improving it. Think of communication the same way you think of maintaining a strong ‘centre’ while dancing. Imagine letting your core muscles go as you begin your routine. Will you survive? Not. Soon everything collapses – your frame, your posture, your connection, your footwork. Communication serves the same central purpose in a partnership, and needs to be recognised – and worked on – as much.

Expect to misunderstand – and be misunderstood

Also known as ‘Be prepared to clarify – and listen to clarification’. Osmo Wiio, a Finnish communications scholar, has an interesting take on this, which can be summarised thus: if communication can fail, it will. Now that may be an overtly pessimistic view – Wiio has come up with the equivalent of Murphy’s law for communications, a set of seven-plus statements, every single one as discouraging as its fellows (read a commentary on it here) – but it is telling on the issues we face in our interpersonal interactions.

Fact is, communication is never simple. The thought we ‘encode’ (formulate our message into words) and ‘transmit’ (speak or write or telephone or email that message) to the listener is rarely received and ‘decoded’ (reconstructed into a message from the words received) the way we meant it to be.

There is too much ‘noise’ – anything that distracts, interferes – going on as we encode, as we transmit, as we decode (articulation or language issues, bias and preconceptions, personality, attention span, whether your boss yelled at you that day; besides of course ‘external’ interferences such as someone calling for your attention, your partner’s verbal or non-verbal cues, bad ‘turn-taking’, loud music, etc, etc), too many variables to wrestle with. Proof? Just think of the times you hear “No, that’s not what I meant!” or “You are twisting my words!” as you go about your business.

So, in essence, expect to be misunderstood – and be prepared to remedy that misunderstanding, to rearticulate your message in a different way. Equally important, expect to misunderstand. Be aware of the danger, and – this is crucial – cultivate the patience to hear the partner out when s/he says the magic words (or the equivalent thereof), “Let me clarify that…” Take it at face value, then reanalyse, modify your own earlier response. Not much purpose will be served if you stick to your guns and go, “No, that’s not what you just said!”

Continue reading this article: Message from Mars 2

Image: Kind courtesy clipart.com