Arbitrary Benchmarks

One of the fascinating aspects of communication is that it is ongoing. Throughout it's duration, things can go well or not. People can be in-sync or have mixed signals. They can be operating in complete harmony or at cross-purposes. Unlike a sporting event where after a designated period of time - nine innings or four quarters, for example - a score can  be tabulated and a determination can be made as to who won or lost, how well communication has been carried out communication has no true point of demarcation. It has no true beginning or end for the simple reason none of us ever stop communicating.  


It, as much as anything, is a genuine process. We do it with a great deliberation. We do it without thinking at all. We do it with others in mind. We do it just because it makes us feel good. With all that, it remains an act that never does not happen. With such a universal presence, how, then, can one determine whether effective communication has occurred? One answer to that is perhaps is found in why all of us set arbitrary benchmarks in each of our days. For instance, we have a conversation with a co-worker. It is from the point that interaction begins to when it ends on which we base our assessment of how well we communicated. We compose a press release and distribute it to the local media. From the point we began writing that release to when it is determined whether the media is going to act on that release is the point of that act of communication.


At the end of the day, we need those benchmarks. Otherwise, communication, much like our ever-expanding universe, would be very hard to really grasp intellectually or even emotionally. We need boundaries even if they vary from one act of communication to another or if our rationale for establishing them seems inconsistent. Those boundaries provide us with a greater sense of control as well as needed points of reference from which we can decide what changes, if any, we wish to make in how we interact with others.