Not Talking

When one discusses communication and communicating, the focus almost always is how more effectively one can impart information or a message to another. Should I lower my voice? What kind of visuals should I use? Should I be standing when I speak? How might I respond if the audience disagrees with me? Such questions all speak to particular strategies one should follow. Rarely, it seems, do we brainstorm about effective ways to better understand what is being communicated. After all, communicating, for many, represents an action. To communicate is to initiate an effort to either elicit a response or impart information.

One particularly effective way to communicate - if done well - is to not speak. Silence as a communication tool is highly underrated. I myself have been on the receiving end of it and can vouch that it works extremely well in triggering some type of action by me. For instance, at times my wife and I disagree. And every so often she no longer wants to "talk about it." More often than I care to admit, that elicits a desire in me to do just that, particularly if I feel more needs to be said. The result of that is I end up making the disagreement more intense, thus losing whatever credibility I might have.

On the flip side of that, at times people can be guilty of speaking or saying too much. This is known as verbal-overkill. Talking too much sometimes can make it difficult for persons on the receiving end of a conversation to process what is being said. Thus, it is harder for them to give a proper answer or response. Not talking helps take care of that potential problem. Not talking, in fact, can often by a conversation's best friend. One person speaks and the other listens. Talk-pause-respond. Talk-pause-respond. And so it goes. Effective communication happens when participants are able to make thoughtful contributions. Not talking helps with that.