Communicating: building an understanding that allows joint action

Communicating begins before the message is formulated. What has been anticipated must be reinvested in the relationship, the coordination and the decision. The changes perceived, the level of constraint, the weaknesses of the framework and the availability of the people involved shape what can be said, how it can be said and the moment when the exchange becomes possible. Regulation also prepares this stage: as pressure rises, preserving enough stability keeps urgency, emotion or immediate interpretation from determining the communication on their own. Communication then turns a reading of the situation into information that is useful for action.

In a tense or uncertain situation, communicating aims first at making what matters perceptible. Information has to be prioritised, what is observed distinguished from what is interpreted, and the intention pursued made clear. Communication thus helps reduce uncertainty, but it loses its function when it simplifies to the point of setting aside whatever resists the expected message. Here it extends the work of regulation: faced with the narrowing of attention, it puts back into circulation the elements needed to understand, decide and act with greater rightness.

Reducing uncertainty also means accepting that part of the necessary information is held by the other person. Active listening does not consist in waiting for one’s turn to speak, nor in artificially establishing a calm relationship. It makes it possible to gather what the other perceives, understands or is trying to protect, and then to test the soundness of one’s own reading. Listening requires suspending immediate interpretation long enough to let an objection or a piece of information emerge that the initial anticipation had not taken in. This quality of listening supports negotiation and influence: influencing with rightness is not imposing a representation, but understanding the conditions under which a direction can become intelligible, acceptable and compatible with the framework of the action.

Communication engages the verbal, paraverbal and non-verbal dimensions at once. Words carry content; rhythm, intensity, posture and presence tell how it is to be understood. When these dimensions diverge, the recipient has to arbitrate between several meanings, sometimes at the very moment when their capacity to analyse is weakened. Communication suited to urgent situations therefore seeks sufficient coherence between the intention, the wording and the way it is carried. It can borrow from Non-Violent Communication the distinction between observation and interpretation, the attention paid to what is at stake for each party and the clarity of the request, without mechanically reproducing a protocol incompatible with the constraints of the situation.

At team level, passing on information guarantees neither shared understanding nor coordinated action. Members of the collective may hear the same words while giving them different priorities or implications. Communicating then consists in building a sufficiently shared representation of the situation, of the objective pursued, of the applicable framework and of the contribution expected from each person. This representation does not require uniformity of viewpoints. It must make differences in reading visible and workable, so that the team does not confuse apparent agreement, real understanding and effective commitment.

Still at team level, communication ensures continuity between the understanding of the situation, the directions chosen and their implementation. An effective loop does not end when the information has been issued. It makes it possible to check that it has been understood, to identify gaps with the conditions on the ground, and then to feed back the effects produced. This circulation limits conflicts of interpretation and supports a coordination that rests neither on assumed agreement nor on surface compliance. It also maintains a shared understanding of the objectives pursued without erasing the constraints or contradictions that appear in the course of the action.

All communication transforms the situation it seeks to clarify. It changes perceptions, positions and the possibilities available. Observing these effects provides new information: communication then becomes a sensor of how the situation is evolving. What it reveals may confirm the initial anticipation, qualify it or make it obsolete. The information gathered thus reopens the work of anticipation, may call for fresh regulation and leads to adjusting the communication itself. The quality of this loop depends on the capacity not to confuse the message sent with the result actually produced.

Communicating ultimately aims to create the conditions for concerted and coordinated action. For the individual, this requires preserving listening, intention and expression that remain sufficiently coherent under constraint. For the team, it requires building a shareable representation that allows contributions to be articulated. At both levels, the loops of communication connect the understanding of the situation, the directions chosen and the effects of their implementation. This articulation between the individual and the team is what gives communication its operational reach. In ARCA, communicating does not close what has been anticipated and regulated: the information produced by the exchange feeds back into the reading of the situation and prepares an action whose rightness can be observed, discussed and reassessed.