I’ve had something like 10+ books published and had a long career as a trainer and management consultant, and I’d say that, at the core of all my books lies the issue of communication. I’d also say that almost all the training and consulting I’ve done has had to do, at least in part with communication.

That’s one reason why it drives me crazy when people who otherwise act and speak like they have expertise and understanding put forth broad generalizations as prescriptions for how others should communicate. I understand why they do it. It’s because, in almost every case, they have been indoctrinated into the field of interpersonal communication within a humanistic model of communication is more idealogical than real. It’s simple. That ideology  says, “Always play nice, take nice to everyone”. Extensions of this involve prescriptions like:

• don’t be negative
• don’t be critical
• don’t raise your voice
• don’t use harsh words
• don’t interrupt

If you don’t think about that much, it sounds great. If a person is always or often negative, critical, raises his or her voice, uses harsh words, interrupts, they simply aren’t likely to be heard, appreciated, or given much credibility.

However, you can’t go from that to NEVER use those means of communicating, and neither can anyone validly say that there is NEVER situations where one or more of those methods is appropriate, or even the preferred choice.

You can’t make generalizations like that because, simply put, what works (however you want to define that, and that’s up to the people communicating) depends on:

• the two speakers
• the subject, context, relationship, culture

It’s also not surprising that the admonishments to “speak nice” and the generalizations reflect primarily a white, middle class culture. So not only are generalizations of this sort false, but the marginalize the way sub-cultures speak to each other.

It’s simple to burst the generalizations about communication. Is it never approriate to yell? (I called people who claim that position ignorant). Well, it IS appropriate to yell at a child to get his attention so he won’t run into the street. Is it never appropriate to accuse? Well, golly, I’ll tell you that I’m very probably going to yell “THIEF” at the top of my lungs if some guy knocks me down and grabs my wallet. And, of course, I”m not going to whisper if I discover there’s a fire next door, am I?

That’s all it take to disprove these generalizations, and excuse me if I use the word “ignorant” to describe faulty, inaccurate statements that promulgate ways to communicate that are not only wrong, but possible destructive.

I’ve used some extreme examples above, but I can make the same points in less extreme ways. Although I always suggest that one deal with verbal aggression with least possible force (I’m a teacher of defusing hostile behavior thru the use of verbal self-defense techniques), there are times when one has to escalate out of the nice range.

There are individuals who, in fact, will not respond positively, unless you give them a verbal shot upside the head. As I say though, it’s high risk high gain, but it’s certainly something one doesn’t want to rule out.

So, for those of you who take the advice of trainers and communication experts, here’s a tip. I someone tells you how to communicate and tells you what you should always do and never do, run, because that person is wrong.

And for those of you out there teaching people this crap, please consider the consequences if someone you’ve taught tries to follow your inaccurate generalizations in the real world and fails. If you want to preach an ideology, go to a church. If you want to teach people how to communicate, leave the humanistic propaganda out of it.

Postscript Homework: Ok. Put aside your biases. In what situations do you want a critical thinker in your organization? When might it be a good thing? What situations would you be concerned about? Leave a comment.