The question “Is the glass half full or half empty?” often is used to trigger discussion about measuring progress or loss in some matter worth talking about. Those conversations don't always accomplish much of anything, because the real, underlying question is: “What is the glass half full or half empty OF?” What exactly are we measuring?

Apply this thinking to our examination of communication in projects (See today's blog post at JimMillikenProject.blogspot.com). Do you consider communication to be good when a high volume of information is being issued by one, both or all of the parties to a communication transaction?

President Ronald Reagan was called “The Great Communicator” because of his skill in persuading mass audiences. Here it was the attractive vocal values and manner of delivery that were considered effective communication, and not necessarily the amount or meaning of the information in the messages.

A different school of thought is that listening is the primary skill of good communicators. Good listening can convince the speaker that the receiver is paying attention and is showing respect. That encourages the speaker to return the favor, and be more open to agreeing to what the listener wants.

For project managers, the more meaningful understandings of communication emphasize the quality of any exchange rather than the quantity of words invested in it.

When you're talking quality, there's no simple measure such as the number of words or items, or the volume of information. Quality requires that the moving parts of the process be clearly identified, and that the contribution of each be specified and tracked.

In personal communication, Albert Mehrabian's famous study, “Silent Messages,” tells us that meaning of words and vocal values such as volume, expression, etc. can be trumped by body language. More than half the effective outcome of the conversations Mehrabian studied was determined by how the participants read each other's behavior.

Think about it. While a person is talking, we're evaluating clues – often unconsciously – that cause us to draw conclusions about the meaning and about the very person, not infrequently in contradiction of the person's purpose and intent. We may detect insincerity and not be sure why.

How vital this is for a project manager! You're busy as can be, heavily dependent upon all kinds of people, positioned as the responsible party for all kinds of expectations that rarely are very controllable by you.

As a communicator, the project manager must be able to articulate effectively, understand clearly and accurately, respond in the right way to the real messages.

So, about our surly, silent teammate. Is he/she communicating? You bet, and very well. The person is making super clear to everyone a strongly-held intention NOT to engage, not to cooperate.

What to do about such situations is a rich prospect for further examination. For today's purpose, suffice it to say that you have here a lousy teammate engaged in a very effective pattern of communication.