The modern models of communication define communication process as systematic steps taken within a companioning process for an efficient and successful communication whereas companion processes accounts for collaborative, supportive, empowered, and attentive listening. For efficient or successful communication, both the communication and companioning processes must demonstrate comprehensive and practical skills of communication to increase competence and supportive environment for individuals’ interaction (Light and McNaughto, 2014). However, the communication and companioning processes must remain at a state of equilibrium between the chosen companions to avoid a shift of communication process that may end to premature exist of a communication process. Thus, the sensitivity of the companioning and communication process through the stages of receiving, sending, and managing interactions have to be efficiently controlled to avoid intense feelings and emotions that cause potentials risks to the entire companioning and communication process (Wood, 2015).
Critical and creative evaluation of personal involvement with the companion of choice through the companioning and communication process in role-play situations demonstrated a high satisfying experience of engagement and learning. From the receiver of the information approach, the companion being a health professional and psychological consultant showed a greater awareness the rich dynamics of exchange communication processes between the sender and the receiver of information (Maguire and Pitceathly, 2012). Assessment of the companion from observational and interpretational procedures demonstrated a greater insight of personal world, experiences and responses of presenting information as no potential discrepancies were picked from the partner. Throughout evaluation of the receiving or listening skills of the companion demonstrated that the companion of choice had sufficient listening skills evidenced by the physical appearance, forms of expression, body language, and tone of voice (Wood, 2015).
For instance, during sharing of modern youths’ lifestyles and health, the beliefs, and assumptions based on religious and cultural difference did not affect the perception and behavior of the companion through the processes of communication (Wood, 2015). However, it was learned that prior sharing of the discussion topic with the companion improved the listening skills as most of the information and potential questions and answers are programmed before the actual engagement. For the active engagement of the companion through the communication process, facing the companion and maintaining the eye contact, relaxed, attentive, and gave the companion a chance to picture the information that was communicated (Light and McNaughto, 2014). Although the companion raised the eyebrows, nod the head, and used spoken words such as ‘right,’ termed as encouragers in the communication process, it was identified that imposing potential solutions to the companion is a discourager to the receiver of information.
The assessment and reflection of the receiver and the sender’s feeling during the communication process demonstrated that the receiver and the sender of information share a common world when the receiver serves as a mirror of reflecting the sender’s feelings of a give situation. Practically, while sharing information about the youths and sex challenges the receiver or companion the recognized, interpreted, and reflected the personal situation as a youth facilitating a rapport and exploiting more concern (Knapp and Caughlin, 2014). The context, non-verbal cues, personifying experience, questioning, and statements made by the companion or receiver of the information to reflect the feeling or seek clarification deepened the relationship and listening skills through the communication process.
Similarly, the content reflection was identified throughout the communication process engagement evidenced by the companion accurately perceiving the sent and received information. Notably, reflection and paraphrasing of content abilities were identified from the companion (receiver) by the use of the terms ‘it sounds like’ although personal knowledge about the use of content reflecting and paraphrasing was considered as a discourager to good listening skills rather than ‘encouragers (Light and McNaughto, 2014)’. Consequently, the learning of content, personification, and paraphrasing of information during communication and companioning process gave an excellent challenge to initiate in practicing empathetic reflection of content and feelings to better personal listening skills. Despite the companion of choice possessing excellent listening skills, distracters, faking attention, misunderstanding, and information judgment emerged as the leading obstacles to our engagement and companioning processes (Wood, 2015).
The comparative and comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the sending information or sending skills retrieved and reflected from the companioning and communication process through personal engagement drew both implicit and explicit concerns. From a 1st perceptual position approach, an efficient 1st perceptual position was achieved throughout the disclosure and companioning process by created suitable and supportive environment that facilitated the entire sending information process. The scene and the surrounding of the companioning process were well-organized and comfortable ways from internal and external distracters providing the 1st position experience (Knapp and Caughlin, 2014). However, it was noted that excessive employment of the 1st perceptual position in the companioning and communication process of our engagement some important undesirable outcome such as shifting perceptions between assertive, submissive, and aggressive behavior.
Consequently, the perceptual shift between non-assertive and assertive interchangeably emerged as a significant obstacle for deciding whether it was appropriate and capable of sending or disclosing information. The sending information processes throughout the companion engagement adopted assertive behavior rather than being submissive or aggressive demonstrating fairness and respective in sending information (Wood, 2015). From the power of words evaluation used in transmitting information processes, the choice of words was accurately and appropriately chosen to avoid strong connotation that could trigger or change the words and meaning used to send information. For example, in some scenarios, the companion chose polite words to dominate and win the sending information processes, but it was not considered as being a form of aggressive behavior (Light and McNaughto, 2014). Critically, the power of the words chosen to send information during the companioning method was found to reinforce the intended messages and statements to a more accurate, unloaded and responsible sending of information.
Reflecting on the use of non-verbal words in sending information during the companioning and communication processes with the companion demonstrated that sometimes the context and choice of words used in the role play affects or alter the manner in which the messages used in sending the information are constructed. From an analytical approach, it was found that assertive, direct words are easy to construct compared to aggressive messages that can be constructed to dominate and win the content engagement (Wood, 2015). Notably, the senders’ non-verbal messages were found to be assertive especially where the companion picked the role of the information receiver providing additional opportunities of constructing and sending content and message during the companioning and communication process.
Similarly, analyzing the congruence existence between non-verbal and verbal messages based on the context of the words used and sent during the non-verbal and verbal processes of communication demonstrated a clear and compelling approach to sending information. It can be acknowledged that a clear and effective sending congruence of non-verbal and verbal information reinforced the assertive delivered messages without undermining the feeling, expressions and the motions of the messages (Grönroos, 2000). Besides, it was learned during the sending information that sending congruent messages to improve the relationship between the send and the receiver of the information enhancing the communication easiness evidenced by positive expression of feelings, emotions, and reactions.
From behavioral approach of sending information, it was noted that personal choice of behavior between the send and the receiver has potential consequences in communication processes. Under certain conditions or situations, the sent messages would tend to take a specific situational approach for it to be congruent and effective for a particular message sent. Reflectively, there were situations during the companioning processes that demand situational aggressiveness by the companion to dominate and win situations while other situations employed situational assertiveness to provide the best outcome (Knapp and Caughlin, 2014). However, it was noted that the choice of behavior during the role-play or companioning process is always tied to consequences and must be chosen efficiently and responsibly for successful companioning or communication process. In a nutshell, the content, context, and process interaction play a significant role in sending information particularly during construction and delivery of assertive messages (Light and McNaughto, 2014). Evidently, it’s acknowledged that escalation skills of assertive message construction and delivery were broadly used during the companioning process of sending information to produce a constructive outcome of sending information (achieving the sender’s goals).
A systematic analysis and reflection of interaction management during the companioning and communication processed demonstrate constructive and unconstructive role played by the sender and the receiver of the information at the independent level and conjoined levels (Light and McNaughto, 2014). The interaction management strategies used during the companioning process linked the receiver and the sender of information playing a crucial role in managing destructive emotions and feelings that were likely to interfere with the communication or companioning processes. Reflectively, a model of strategic communication that involved management of the sender and receiver of information’ mind to manage emotions and feels during communication processes such as anger and stress.
At an individual’s level, the interaction management involved understanding personal feelings, using visualizing skills, application of coping self-talk, being realistic about communication goals and rules, and analyzing and reflecting about personal feelings and emotions management (Knapp and Caughlin, 2014). Reflectively, it can be acknowledged that use of coping self-talk and remaining realistic on goals and rules of the initiated communication process gave a chance to calm down and predict the outcome or consequences of the actions made during the communication process. In contrast, analyzing, understanding, and reflecting on feeling were mainly used by the companion to manage interactions during communication processes (Grönroos, 2000).
The management of interactions at sender and receiver level was also achieved by managing with actions encouraging two-way feedback, managing stresses, monitoring tempers, use of assertions, and handling aggressive sending and receiving information (Grönroos, 2000). At personal level, the management of interactions during the companioning process by action involved an application of assertive position to control expressions and feelings that could interfere with interaction process. Comparatively, it was noted that my companion applied mostly problem-solving skills at personal to assertively and rationally engage and confront the received message rather than avoiding it. In some of the situations, the companion assumed the sender and receiver role’s to participate in two-way feedback and ‘encourager’ to reflect on content, context, and process of the entire communication process (Light and McNaughto, 2014). In some scenario, the companion only applied information sending and receiving skills to remain cooperative as I played the interaction managing role.
From a two-way feedback evaluation of interaction management, handling emotions, balancing between receiving and sending information, and balancing between information contributions were used as a useful tool during the companioning process to efficiently and accurately manage interactions. Besides, the negotiation approach was used as a suitable assertive tool for managing interaction during companioning and communication processes (Light and McNaughto, 2014). The negotiation strategy applied assertive discussions based on feelings and thoughts related to the subject and a particular situation with aims of attempting to reach a common ground. Reflectively, the use of negotiation skills in a companioning process to achieve a common ground provided opportunities for balanced agreement on the content, context, and process of a particular situation (Grönroos, 2000). Thus, the application of negotiation skills in the companioning process effectively managed interactions by providing a bridge between the information receiver and sender.
Further analysis of managing interaction in the companioning process demonstrated the use of problem-solving strategies and mediation for efficiently and accurately managing the interaction process (Grönroos, 2000). The application of the problem-solving model in managing interactions during the companioning process involved identifying, defining, and analyzing the subject problem to finding potential solutions that could best meet the sender and the receiver needs of the information (Knapp and Caughlin, 2014). For instance, while addressing the issues of resolving early sex and marriages among the youths, the companion tried to identify, define, and analyze the context and content of early sex and marriages problem and finding the potential solutions of addressing the issue. Consequently, the problem-solving model facilitated dialogue and teamwork between the sender and receiver of the information thereby efficiently managing interactions.
The receiving and sending information during the companioning and communication process are sophisticated subject that can only be understood through collective bargains. The sensitivity of the companioning and communication process through the stages of receiving, sending, and managing interactions have to be effectively controlled to avoid intense feelings or emotions that cause potentials risks to interference of the entire companioning process.
- Grönroos, C. (2000). Creating a relationship dialogue: communication, interaction and value. The marketing review, 1(1), 5-14.
- Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal communication & human relationships. Pearson Higher Ed.
- Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication?.
- Maguire, P., & Pitceathly, C. (2012). Key communication skills and how to acquire them. Bmj, 325(7366), 697-700.
- West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Understanding interpersonal communication: Making choices in changing times. Cengage Learning.
- Wood, J. T. (2015). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Nelson Education.
latest uploaded samples!