The other day, a student of my classes was arguing that part of his generation considered attempts at “effective” communication, forms of manipulation. What ensued, was a conversation on how to differentiate both concepts.

At first, my reaction was ambivalent. I was appreciating the young people’s aversion for manipulation, I also felt both notions had to be clearly defined and placed where they belong.

For example, everyone can sense attempts at manipulation when confronted with ubiquitous and, I must admit, superbly crafted advertising messages on all media. Even more so, in the US, it has been estimated that spending on advertising for children had increased five-fold in the last ten years until 2007; and in the same year, a well known fast food chain had topped the European list of kids’ advertisers.   In another realm, trainings exist aiming at ” developing communication skills for people management “  or  ” getting what you need from anyone including colleagues “.

What do these strategies have in common ? and how do they differ from the “positive” intention of authentic communication ?  The purpose of advertising is to sell products and services, and most often in mature economies, by creating a need for consumption, either in promising happiness, exaggerating performances, generating anxiety, or idealizing people and symbols. Whether we look at communication in advertising or to gain people’s cooperation almost in spite of themselves, what appears clear is the real intention behind the effort.

The eventual amalgam of communication and manipulation is therefore pertinent, however what separates both notions in scope and long term implications remains the intention to respect or not, another person’s feelings and his/her integrity.

 

Authentic verbal communication between two individuals or facing an audience, establishes a genuine link, a connection imbued with respect, and empathy that can clearly be felt by all present. It has a purpose to share not charm, inform not misinform. Even in enrolling, the intention is to show possibilities, to be grasped now, or, when the time is right, free from pressure.

However, establishing control over others, means also establishing control over oneself, lowering the other’s as well as one’s own self-esteem, risking distrust and isolation in the long run. A high price to pay in exchange for moments of power.

 

The application of authentic and respectful communication means surrendering control, the freedom simply, to be the way we are, in total abandon. It fosters the strengthening of one’s own confidence and the audience’s too : what some call, charisma, a form of subtle and contagious empowerment, the distinct opposite of subservience. Is this why, the experience of these feelings even for a moment, leaves a lasting impression.

I have seen these very qualities shining around some rare individuals, and in their company, speaking is almost superfluous, we sense what is meant, words are transcended, the sensation is unique. Can we find any better example of authentic communication ? Shall we develop this way of relating instead ?

Back to Top