Communication of Organizations Transactional Analysis

Question: Discuss about the Communication of Organizationsfor Transactional Analysis. Answer: Introduction Communication is the process by which information is relayed from the sender to the receiver and back to the sender in form of a feedback. This is an analysis of a communication event between a salesman in a cloths boutique /shop and the potential buyer. The essay delves into communication theories that were in play during this conversation. It also touches on other aspects of speech and communication such as use signs use of illustrations or displays, feedback between the two parties, noises that may have hindered the process of communication, listening skills of both parties and the use of the paralanguage in this communication event. In the next paragraph we shall look at how these theories and/or concepts of communication were at play in this event. (Ellis, 2003) When we arrived at the store my friend raised his hand to show me a certain short on display that he liked but did not want to buy. This drew the attention of the salesman who was passing nearby and he thought that we wanted assistance which was not the case. My friend clarified to him and he left. This was unintended communication that happened between the two parties. Soon after when my friend had settled on the cloths he was interested he again raised is hand to draw the attention of the same salesman who was arranging some items on the shelves. The salesman nodded and came to where we were. This was use of illustration or kinesics. At this point in time none of the two parties had said a single word but given the buying selling environment it was clear to the salesman that here is potential customer who is interested in buying an item from the store and he needs some assistance. (Kukkonen and Stocchetti, 2012) This communication event mirrored more on transactional model of communication as opposed to transmission model. The two parties were constantly seeking clarification from each other as in both were sender and receiver at the same time rather than just two way communication with sending message and receiving feedback as in the case transmission model. As my friend inquired about certain type shirt which is in fashion the salesman also was busy sharing with him newer fashions while comparing what my friend wanted and what he thought resembles it was. They were all seeking the understanding of each other on aspects such as the size of the shirt, whether it was fully cotton made or synthetic and price range. When my friend could not believe with the prices he would make a facial expression to mean that price was quite high for him but the salesman would gesture back by pointing at the shirt ostensibly to mean but the quality is also good my customer. This was use of paralanguage in this communication event. (Machin, 2014) There were various forms of communication in this event. The vocal communication where both parties used human voice as in the spoken words to communicate and non vocal communications where both parties could point to each other written words on the items under display. There was also use of non verbal communication where both parties could node to each other to mean agreement or wave hand to mean not in agreement. (Berardo, 2014) This communication was also characterized by different type of noises that can be categorized into three forms; semantics and mechanical. The semantic noise in this communication event was a result of the two parties coming from different continents of the world. While my friend is from Asia a country called Afghanistan the salesman was most likely Australian. The pitch and the accent of the conversation of the conversation would at times make both parties seek clarification or use alternative words in order to reach a common understanding. The store was also quite busy with fairly large of customers moving up and down conversing. This was another form of noise in this communication event. Other clients would even interrupt this event to seek quick clarification from the salesman and move on. (Clifford Christians and Kaarle Nordenstreng (eds), Communication Theories in a Multicultural World, 2014) There was no evidence of any form of speaker apprehension in this communication event. Both parties confidently conversed asking questions and seeking clarification from each other. Both used behaviors that demonstrated that they were good listeners by maintaining eye contact and allowing time to each other to speak without interrupting. The event was also characterized by use of emblems that either approved what the other party said or meant not in agreement. There was also use of haptics in this event as the salesman kept on touching my friends shoulder to assure him of either quality of the shirt or that the price range was best value. In conclusion, we therefore realize that the transactional model best captures the scenarios that were at play during this communication event between my friend and the salesman. The model is useful here in that both parties were senders and receivers of the messages as they sought common understanding on the size of the cloth, the quality and uniqueness the materials used and the price range. The event was not just about one party sending the information and receiving feedback from the other rather it was a type of communication where both parties were constantly looking form common ground between the two of them. Both parties could synthesis information in their own sensory world and make responds based on how he understood the massage. The encoding and decoding of the messages or information in this event culminated into the two parities agreeing with each other and us leaving the store with a shirt. References Berardo, C. (2014). Contributions to a Theory of Communication. Transactional Analysis Journal, 44(3), pp.218-225. Clifford Christians and Kaarle Nordenstreng (eds), Communication Theories in a Multicultural World. (2014). European Journal of Communication, 29(5), pp.640-648. Ellis, R. (2003). Communication Skills. Bristol: Intellect. Kukkonen, K. and Stocchetti, M. (2012). Critical Media Analysis. Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Machin, D. (2014). Visual communication. Berlin: De Gruyter.