Irrational ideas in professional communication

The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 17-18-01642 «Development of a communicative model of the verbal process in the context of a crisis of the language model», at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

The communicative model of the natural verbal process is based on shifting the focus of research from language and its units to communicative actions, which are responsible for meaning-making. This research focus involves identifying and examining typical communicative situations and their components. One such situation is communication in a professional environment. This paper examines ways of conceptualizing professional communication. Communication is understood as a multi-level and multi-stage process, including conscious and unconscious, verbal and non-verbal, rational and irrational components. We limited our examination of the irrational aspects of professional communication to a group of cognitive distortions that can be expressed as irrational ideas. Such distortions concern the subject's self-concept, ideas about the interlocutor, as well as ideas about the communicative situation as a whole and the subject of communication. A thesis has been advanced regarding the possibility of examining such distortions not only at the level of the individual's psychology, but also at the level of the group subject and the system of relationships that connect members of the group. This approach has heuristic potential for developing a theory of organizational psycholinguistics.

Keywords: professional communication, work team, professional image of the world, irrational ideas, cognitive distortions

Ju. Zhuravleva

IRRATIONAL IDEAS IN PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

The communicative model of the natural verbal process is based on shifting the research focus from the language and its units to the communicative actions, which are assigned the function of meaning formation. This focus of the study involves the allocation and consideration of typical communicative situations and their components. One of these situations is communication in professional environment. The paper deals with conceptualization ways of professional communication. Communication is understood as a multilevel and multistage process that includes conscious and unconscious, verbal and non-verbal, rational and irrational components. We have limited the consideration of irrational aspects of professional communication to a group of cognitive distortions that can be expressed in the form of irrational ideas. Such distortions relate to the subject's ideas about itself, ideas about the interlocutor, as well as ideas about the communicative situation in general and the subject of communication. We put thesis about the possibility to consider such distortions not only at the level of psychology of the subject, but also at the level of the group subject and the system of relations connecting the team members with each other. This approach has heuristic potential for the theory of organizational psycholinguistics.
Keywords: professional communication, labor collective, professional world image, irrational ideas, cognitive distortions

1. Professional communication: ways of conceptualization

The communicative model of the natural verbal process currently being developed is based on shifting the focus of research from language and its units to communicative actions (or semiotic behaviors), which are assigned the function of meaning-making [2]. This research focus involves identifying and examining typical communicative situations and their components. One such situation is communication in a professional environment.

In the Russian psychology of communication, developed by A.A. Leontiev and his followers, communication is viewed as a process aimed at organizing the joint activities of communicating individuals; communication as such is understood as a special type of activity. This interpretation of communication is based on the fundamental premise that people's attitudes toward nature (and, consequently, toward the subject of joint activity) are inextricably linked with their attitudes toward each other [5]. Accordingly, two groups of tasks solved by the subject during communication are conventionally distinguished. First, these are tasks aimed at organizing communication, and second, these are tasks aimed at organizing activity.

If communication serves to organize joint activities, then professional communication is logically viewed as a process aimed at organizing joint professional activities—for example, the activities of a work collective or professional group. The specific nature of joint professional activities is associated with the relative stability of their goals and motives, the stability of professional technologies, the reliance of communication on specific precedent texts, and the presence of professional terminology used in the speech actions of the participants in the activity [6]. Communication between participants in joint professional activities presupposes a commonality of consciousness, i.e., the presence of a professional image of the world, the bearers of which they are the bearers [6].

However, this understanding of professional communication requires a number of clarifications.

Firstly, a work collective may consist of representatives of a wide variety of professions united by the common activities of the organization in which they work. Such a team, for example, might be an office or institute staffed by economists, accountants, engineers, programmers, designers, cleaners, security guards, and so on. Since they are generally engaged in joint work activities, their communication with each other can be considered professional. Most likely, the members of such a team do not share a common professional worldview. However, as representatives of the same organization, they should reflect its structure, their rights and responsibilities within it, have some understanding of the status and activities of their colleagues, and so on. In other words, they should bear a more or less clearly defined image of the organization. Therefore, communication between such employees, related to the performance of their professional duties, can be considered professional. This approach to defining professional communication can be appropriately called organizational.

Secondly, professional communication can also be understood as communication between members of the same profession. This is, for example, the communication between colleagues in psychology, philology, and law—that is, those who share a common professional worldview. This approach to interpreting professional communication can be called psycholinguistic (due to its emphasis on the professional worldview) or socio-psychological (due to its emphasis on the social group).

The two approaches to conceptualizing professional communication presented here, as we see, are based on the characteristics of the team or group whose members are engaged in joint professional activity. However, members of a work collective (organization) or professional group can be simultaneously engaged in both professional and other activities, and, accordingly, communicate with each other on both professional and other matters. Based on this, two more approaches to defining professional communication can be proposed: narrow and broad. Professional communication in the narrow sense is communication between people engaged in joint professional activity related to its organization (i.e., communication regarding this activity itself). Professional communication in the broad sense is any communication between people currently engaged in professional activity.

The above can be presented in the form of a table (Table 1).

Table 1

Forms of professional communication

Activities/Communicating personalities	Work collective (organization)	Social group (representatives of the same profession)
Professional activity	Communication between team members regarding professional activities	Communication between representatives of the profession regarding professional activities
Activities not related to the profession	Communication between team members on issues not related to professional activities	Communication between representatives of a profession on matters not related to the profession

It should be understood that, in reality, the communication options discussed are almost never strictly separated from one another. For example, it's difficult to draw a strict line between employee communication at work regarding the organization of a celebratory corporate event and employee communication at a celebratory event regarding current work tasks. However we define professional communication, we must understand that we are dealing with a scientific abstraction, an ideal model, the development of which is necessary for solving certain scientific problems. The paradox is that, even when striving to describe the natural communication process (as it occurs "in reality"), the researcher creates a model that inevitably turns out to be an abstract representation of the object being studied (reality).

There are also a number of situations that do not fall into the categories described above. Communication between a doctor and a patient, or between a psychologist or lawyer and their client, is certainly professional. However, in such cases, only one participant in the communication (the doctor, lawyer, or psychologist) represents the bearer of a professional worldview, i.e., a system of skills, ideas, and knowledge relevant to a given communication situation. In this regard, we can distinguish between intragroup, intergroup, and supragroup professional communication: the first refers to communication within a professional group, the second to communication between representatives of different professions, and the third to the address of a representative of a professional group to a general non-professional audience [3].

2. Irrational in communication

As noted above, during communication, the participant solves problems aimed not only at organizing the activity but also at organizing the communication itself. These problems involve attracting and holding the interlocutor's attention, as well as orienting themselves within the interlocutor and the interlocutor within themselves. Such problems are solved by the participant under hypothetical, ideal communication conditions. In reality, things are somewhat more complex. For example, the participant organizing the communication does not always know what they want from themselves or the interlocutor. Only through communication and already organized joint activities do we often begin to understand what we truly need, what our needs are, whether we want to do what we are doing, whether we want to communicate with this person or not, and so on. Sometimes we only learn about our own qualities, intentions, or ideas from another person. Therefore, it is crucial to supplement the list of tasks solved by the participant during communication with the task of orienting themselves within themselves.

As we can see, even at the level of organizing communication, not all actions of the subject can be rational and conscious. Does a student understand why they are attracting the lecturer's attention with frequent questions? Does a manager understand their own motivation when granting privileges or showing attention to a particular employee? More often than not, the true motives of our actions, including those aimed at organizing communication with others, are hidden from us.

But even at the level of organizing joint activities, many of the communicant's actions also remain irrational. It's hard to find a work collective that doesn't harbor competition, hidden and overt conflicts, intrigue, gossip, and discrepancies (sometimes quite significant) between what's declared and what's actually done, as well as between what's said to some team members and carefully concealed from others. If the organization of activities were always based solely on rational ideas and a common motive, there wouldn't be situations where one team member eagerly reaches for the clouds, another retreats, and a third dives into the water.

It should be noted that contrasting the rational with the irrational in communication is not the same as contrasting conscious forms of communication with the unconscious. Communication is a complex, multi-level, multi-stage process that utilizes verbal and non-verbal means of influencing the interlocutor. Even if we consider only the verbal component of this process, it can be characterized by both rational (argumentation) and irrational components. Conversely, irrational persuasion can be based either on faulty argumentation or on deliberate argumentative tricks. Furthermore, the category of irrationality encompasses, in principle, any forms and means of communication that remain outside the realm of rational argumentation. These include various forms of persuasion, suggestion, coercion, manipulation, and the like, all associated with a complex impact on a person's consciousness, emotions, and behavior. It is important to emphasize that for both the subject and the object of influence, such a process is always only partially transparent: not everything in this process is accessible to the consciousness of its participants [4].

Irrational ideas in professional communication

Because the concept of the irrational in communication encompasses so many different situations, we will limit our consideration to just one group of phenomena. We will focus on cognitive distortions, which manifest primarily at the level of communication organization and can be expressed as irrational ideas (judgments). Such distortions or errors are usually not recognized by the communicant and may concern self-perceptions, perceptions of the interlocutor (colleague, partner), as well as perceptions of the communicative situation as a whole and the subject of communication. We borrow the term "cognitive distortions" (or "cognitive errors") from modern cognitive psychotherapy [1]. Let us consider typical cognitive distortions that may arise in a subject of professional communication.

1) Dichotomous (or polarized) thinking. This type of thinking is also called maximalist. People often think and act according to the "all or nothing" principle, viewing events in extreme terms ("black or white"). Either everything is great, or everything is terrible. (Examples: "It was all a waste of time"; "I'll never succeed"; "It's now or never"). Incidentally, the saying "If the barn burns down, so must the house" also reflects the dichotomous thinking principle of many people. In the professional sphere, this cognitive distortion often manifests itself in dividing team members into "us" and "them," evaluating an idea as the only correct one or, conversely, as unworthy of attention, etc. Dichotomous thinking can be associated with the worship of authority, the idealization of some colleagues and the devaluation of others, the taking on of excessive obligations by an employee, etc.

2) Overgeneralization. General conclusions about a situation, life, or people are drawn based on a single incident or fact. For example, if someone is rejected for a job at their first and only interview, they might, in frustration, declare, "I'll never succeed, I'll never be able to get a job." It goes without saying that the person creates a picture of the future and a mindset with such thoughts, as well as the behavioral strategies that shape and trigger such thoughts. Typical examples of this error in professional communication include ascribing a negative attitude or even aggressive intentions to a colleague after a lukewarm review, an inattentive listener to a presentation, etc. In such situations, overgeneralization can be accompanied by causal attribution error: "He left the room during my presentation because he envies me and devalues my work.".

3) Mental filter. A person focuses on certain aspects of life, certain thoughts and attitudes, often negative, and ignores others. For example, they constantly notice signs of poor treatment from colleagues. By focusing on this attitude, a person follows it even when reality clearly contradicts it.

4) Devaluing the positive. This is the tendency to constantly downplay one's achievements and merits, to seek out negative aspects, to devalue the present, to believe that everything was better in the past, and so on. For example: "This should have been done earlier, but now the opportunity has already passed." This cognitive distortion can be associated with the subject's rigidity and is usually combined with the cognitive error we described above as a mental filter. The most typical examples of such cognitive errors in professional communication are a boss's devaluation of subordinates' suggestions and the rejection of new solutions and opportunities in favor of "proven," albeit less effective, approaches.

5) Attribution errors ("mind reading"). This is a person's conviction that, without explanation from others, they know perfectly well what others are thinking, feeling, and why they act the way they do. In social psychology, this phenomenon is called causal attribution (attributing certain causes to another person's behavior). Often, people wind themselves up with such unsubstantiated attributions, and then stubbornly suffer from them for a long time, not realizing that in reality everything is quite different. The fundamental attribution error is that a person tends to explain their own successes by internal dispositions, and the successes of others by external ones. Conversely, a person explains their failures by external circumstances, and the failures of others by their internal qualities [7]. Accordingly, this error leads a person to misorientate both themselves and their interlocutor, and complicates the organization of communication.

6) Catastrophizing. A person constantly anticipates and/or imagines impending disaster, and is prone to choosing the worst-case scenario. Their vocabulary often includes words and evaluative statements such as "nightmare," "catastrophe," "horror," "this is the end," and so on. A person's tendency toward this cognitive error can have a significant impact on their professional performance and interactions with colleagues. Expecting the worst-case scenario has the most detrimental impact on competitive activities that require risk, the investment of large resources, deadlines, etc.

7) Exaggeration with emotional reactions. A cognitive distortion similar to the catastrophizing error described above. This is the tendency to constantly fear something and overthink it with "what if?" questions: "I'll take on this project. But what if I fail?".

8) Exaggeration/Minimization. A person exaggerates the severity of any problem or downplays the significance of something important. In either case, this is an incorrect assessment of events or situations, work or life tasks, or various problems, overestimating or underestimating them.

9) Labeling. This is a person's tendency to use labels and to evaluate events, situations, or other people using clichés. It may be related to a tendency to "economize thinking" when faced with an abundance or complexity of information, or a lack of internal resources to process it.

10) Personalization. This is a person's tendency to attribute external events to themselves without any evidence. For example, a change in work schedule is seen as an attempt by colleagues or a boss to make life difficult for the employee, the failure of a team project is the employee's personal fault, a colleague's bad mood is a manifestation of resentment towards the employee, and so on. A person prone to the personalization fallacy also constantly compares themselves to others and may suffer from evaluative bias.

The list of cognitive distortions can be long. We have examined typical variants that can manifest themselves in professional communication and professional activity. Although the tendency toward such distortions is a psychological characteristic of the communicant, largely hidden from their conscious reflection, we can also consider these distortions at an extra- or supra-subjective level—as a characteristic of the collective (the collective subject) or even as a characteristic of the system of relationships linking the participants of the collective. This approach to cognitive distortions is not typical for cognitive psychologists, but, in our opinion, it possesses heuristic potential for constructing a theory of organizational psycholinguistics. According to this approach, the source of irrational ideas in professional communication is not so much the psychological qualities of the participants of the collective or professional group, but rather the characteristics of the system of relationships between people involved in professional activity. "Cognitive distortions," according to this approach, should be identified not at the level of individual psychology, but at the systemic level. Describing such "cognitive distortions" is a task for further research.

Conclusion

This article examines ways of conceptualizing professional communication and the place of irrational components in it. Communication is understood as a multi-level and multi-stage process, including conscious and unconscious, verbal and non-verbal, rational and irrational components. Given that the concept of the irrational in communication encompasses too many different situations, we limited our consideration to only one group of phenomena—cognitive distortions, which manifest primarily at the level of communication organization and can be expressed as irrational ideas (judgments). Such distortions concern the subject's self-concept, perceptions of the interlocutor (colleague, partner), as well as perceptions of the communicative situation as a whole and the subject of communication. It is proposed that such distortions can be considered not only at the level of the individual's psychology but also at the level of the group subject and the system of relationships that bind the participants of the group together.

 

Literature

1. Beck J. Cognitive therapy: a complete guide. Moscow: OOO I.D. Williams, 2016. – 400 p.
2. Development of a communicative model of the verbal process in the context of a crisis of the language model: project, meaning formation, communication // Questions of Psycholinguistics, 2 (32), 2017. Pp. 50–61.
3. Zhuravlev I.V. Mythological aspects of professional communication // Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic. scientific journal / ed.-in-chief S.V. Myskin. - Issue. No. 1 (1). - M .: OOO "Agency of social and humanitarian technologies", 2018. Pp. 54-71.
4. Zhuravlev I.V., Zhuravleva Yu.V. Towards the construction of a communicative model of the speech process: methodological problems // Questions of psycholinguistics. 2017. No. 3 (33). P. 48-61.
5. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. Moscow: Smysl, 2008. – 368 p.
6. Tarasov E.F. Towards the construction of a theory of organizational psycholinguistics // Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic. scientific journal / ed.-in-chief S.V. Myskin. - Issue. No. 1 (1). - M .: OOO "Agency of Social and Humanitarian Technologies", 2018. Pp. 11-20.

Darley JM, Cooper J. (Eds.). Attribution and social interaction. Washington: APA Press, 1998.

 

References

1. Beck J. Cognitive therapy: basics and beyond. Moscow: OOO ID Williams, 2016, 400 pages.
2. «Development of the communicative model of verbal process in the conditions of the crisis of the language model»: project, sense-production, communication // Questions of psycholinguistics. 2017, no. 2(32), pp. 50-61.
3. Zhuravlev IV Mythological aspects of professional communication // Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic. scientific journal / chief editor SV Myskin. – Issue. No. 1 (1). – M.: OOO «Agentstvo socio-humanitarnykh texnologij», 2018. P. 54-71.
4. Zhuravlev IV, Zhuravleva Yu.V. Building a communicative model of verbal process: methodological problems // Questions of psycholinguistics. 2017. No. 3 (33). P. 48-61.
5. Leont`ev AA Psihologiya obshheniya [Psychology of communication]. M.: Smy`sl, 2008. – 368 s.
6. Tarasov EF K stroeniyu teorii organizacionnoj psixolinguistics [To the construction of a theory of organizational psycholinguistics] // Organizacionnaya psixolinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic. scientific journal / gl. ed. SV Myskin. – Vyb. №1 (1). – M.: OOO «Agentstvo socio-humanitarnykh texnologij», 2018. pp. 11-20.

Darley JM, Cooper J. (Eds.). Attribution and social interaction. Washington: APA Press, 1998.