Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In terms of delivery, hurtful communication packaged in the form of giving unsolicited advice may be seen as more supportive than the same information in the form of giving orders. [8] Factors such as whether the hurtful communication was intentional and the frequency of occurrence has an impact on the meaning of the event. [2]
The communication scholar Timothy Coombs defines crisis as "the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization's performance and generate negative outcomes" [4] and crisis communication as "the collection, processing, and dissemination of information required ...
Robert Half International We all communicate a multitude of messages in a variety of ways at work. While what you say is important, your nonverbal actions are, too. The following are five common ...
For example, it has been argued that people who engage in positive self-talk are usually better at problem-solving and communicating with others, including listening skills. Negative intrapersonal communication, on the other hand, is linked to insecurities and low self-esteem and may lead to negative interactions with others.
It is an instance where either the speaker is unable to provide the proper and adequate information to the hearer or the hearer misperceived and couldn't recognise the communication from the speaker. The cases of miscommunication vary depending on the situation and persons included in it, but often result in confusion and frustration.
Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to a relationship's breakdown to the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous one, leading to total breakdown of communication. [1]
Workplace deviance may be viewed as a form of negative reciprocity. "A negative reciprocity orientation is the tendency for an individual to return negative treatment for negative treatment". [3] In other words, the maxim "an eye for an eye" is a concept that some employees strongly feel is a suitable approach to their problem.
The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned and unaware of the potential impact of their words. [6] A number of scholars and social commentators have criticized the concept of microaggression for its lack of a scientific basis, over-reliance on subjective evidence, and promotion of psychological fragility. [7]