Beyond Words – Integrating DISCAsiaPlus with Communication

Transactional Model of Communication

Communication within teams or between individuals is never a one-way street. It’s a dynamic, transactional process where individuals continuously send, receive, and interpret signals. Even the most seasoned communicators encounter misunderstandings at times, which underscores the inherent complexity of communication. Each participant brings their own interpretations, biases, and emotional responses to the conversation, making communication a highly personal and intricate process. In understanding this, we can look to the Transactional Model of Communication to explain how these interactions unfold, as well as to DISCAsiaPlus personality profiling to enhance how each person uniquely communicates.

The transactional model emphasizes that communication is an ongoing, two-way process, where both the sender and receiver are active participants. Consider two people in a professional context: a sender and a receiver. The sender encodes his message into words, gestures, and expressions (symbols), aiming for clarity. Meanwhile, the receiver decodes these signals based on his own perceptions, knowledge, and biases. Feedback loops form as both parties decode, interpret, and respond in real-time. Effective communication occurs when both parties share meaning, though this process can easily become complicated due to various types of “noise” in the transactional model.

In the transactional model, “noise” refers to anything that disrupts or distorts the message between sender and receiver. It can manifest in several forms. External Noise: Physical disturbances, such as background conversations or environmental sounds. Semantic Noise: wrong choice of words, or use of jargons. Psychological Noise: This type of noise involves internal barriers within the sender or receiver, such as preconceived notions, emotional states, or biases. For example, if a person lacks self-awareness of her own communication needs or relational awareness by failing to account for the receiver’s needs, expectations and preferences, they might unknowingly communicate in ways that alienate others or fail to address relational dynamics.

Consider this scenario: Shannon, a marketing manager, is meeting with a client, Shaun, to discuss her proposed campaign plan. As sender, Shannon presents her strategy using technical terms like “SEO” and “SEM,” assuming Shaun has a basic understanding of digital marketing. Shaun, however, is unfamiliar with these terms, resulting in semantic noise that prevents him from fully comprehending her proposal. Shannon’s lack of relational awareness becomes evident as she fails to gauge Shaun’s reactions and adjust her language accordingly. Moreover, Shannon’s lack of self-awareness contributes to her presenting an overly conceptual view without addressing Shaun’s need for specific details.

Halfway through the conversation, Shaun begins to show visible signs of disengagement, offering minimal feedback and displaying scepticism and anxiety. At this point, psychological noise surfaces: Shaun’s doubts about Shannon’s competence prompt him to second-guess her proposals. He perceives her approach as overly pushy and feels that his concerns have been inadequately addressed, further straining their interaction. This, in turn, intensifies his negative feelings about the discussion, leading him to view the entire meeting with pessimism. Shaun’s shift in perception highlights how psychological noise can develop and evolve due to a lack of relational awareness within the transactional model of communication.

Realizing that she is losing her audience, Shannon pauses and asks for feedback. Shaun expresses his concerns, stating that he feels her presentation lacks concrete details. Shannon’s request for feedback is a pivotal moment within the transactional model; it allows her to recalibrate her approach based on Shaun’s input, thus reducing semantic and psychological noise. She rephrases her strategy in simpler language and presents specific metrics and expected outcomes, effectively bridging the gap in their communication.

Integrating DISC Profiling for Improved Communication

In professional settings, understanding each other’s communication style and preferences can enhance transactional exchanges, and this is where DISCAsiaPlus profiling becomes invaluable. DISC, a personality assessment tool that categorizes individuals based on four dimensions—Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S), Compliance (C) and Emotional Response (ER)—can provide insights into how different personalities interpret and deliver messages. Applying DISC to the case study, suppose Shannon had known Shaun’s DISC profile which is high in Compliance (C) with equally high level of Emotional Response (ER) beforehand:

Shannon could anticipate his need for precise data and structure plus his need for reassurance that the plan will achieve the outcomes. Acknowledging this preference, she would likely adopt a more detail-oriented approach, presenting her strategy with supporting data, thus increasing his confidence in her and minimizing potential semantic and psychological noise.

By incorporating DISCAsiaPlus profiling into this model, individuals gain a valuable framework to understand their own communication preferences as well as those of others. DISCAsiaPlus enhances self-awareness and relational awareness, helping communicators pre-emptively address potential sources of noise and tailor their approach to the recipient’s needs. For practitioners and professionals, this combination of the transactional model with DISCAsiaPlus profiling provides a pathway to clearer, more effective communication, fostering collaboration and trust in team settings and client interactions.

In short, the transactional model reminds us that communication is a shared, evolving process. With the insights of DISCAsiaPlus, professionals can navigate noise more adeptly, making adjustments that enhance mutual understanding and minimize misinterpretations—ultimately elevating the quality of every interaction. Below is an example of a high “DI” with a low “ER” profile.