لخّصلي

the meaning of an event is ‘given’, as opposed to ‘negotiated’ between the participants
(Craig, 1999). Other critics have suggested that it does not take account of business realities – it suggests one sender and one receiver, whereas most business communication
involves ‘multiple senders and multiple receivers’ (Waller and Polonsky, 1998).
One response to these criticisms is to create a more complex model (as Waller and
Polonsky do). Another response is to complement the process model with a more transactional account of communication (Mohan et al., 1997). We take this latter approach as the
process model does offer a useful starting point. It is not sufficient, though; we also need
to emphasize the social and cultural background and look at how meaning is developed and
negotiated through interaction – we need to interpret the meanings.
INTERPRETING THE MEANINGS
In order to fully understand how people communicate, we need to understand not just the
immediate background but the much broader social context and history of their relationship. Not only do we have to examine how people come to agree on what is happening, but
we also have to look at how they feel about events. The following two examples illustrate
some of this complexity.
The case of the confused trainees
A colleague of ours was invited to run residential training events for managers in a large
manufacturing organization. He came back from the first of these looking very dispirited,
and complained that he could not understand the reactions from the group of managers,
who were supposed to be very committed to personal development. There seemed to be
at least three different reactions from different sub-groups:
■ Some managers looked really interested and spent the weekend frantically scribbling
notes.
■ Some managers seemed over-anxious and did not seem to be concentrating on the
events.
■ Some managers seemed to see the event as a ‘bit of a holiday’.
We suggested he questioned the managers more closely about why they had come. When
he did this, he found that none of the managers had been explicitly told why they had been
nominated for the training – their ‘commitment’ was a senior management assumption. As
a result, they had tried to devise a meaning based upon their own experience, which then
coloured their reactions to the event.
The first group of managers thought it must be some kind of test which might influence
their next promotion or regrading – they were doing all they could to impress the trainer.
They were convinced the trainer would be reporting back on their progress. The second
group were worried that this training might indicate some problem with their performance
and were mentally checking what they had done over the past six months to work out where
or how they had failed; their minds were not on the training at all. The third group saw
the event as a reward for good beha