Filtering refers to the way that a sender manipulates information so that it will be seen more favorably by the receiver. For example, when a manager tells his boss what he feels that boss wants to hear, he is filtering information. Does filtering happen much in organizations? Sure it does. As information is passed up to senior executives, it has to be condensed and synthesized by subordinates so upper management doesn’t become overloaded with information. Those doing the condensing filter communications through their own personal interests and perceptions of what’s important.

The extent of filtering tends to be the function of the organization’s culture and number of vertical levels in the organization. More vertical levels in an organization mean more opportunities for filtering. As organizations become less dependent on strict hierarchical arrangements and instead use more collaborative, cooperative work arrangements, information filtering may become less of a problem. In addition, the ever-increasing use of e-mail to communicate in organizations reduces filtering because communication is more direct as intermediaries are bypassed. Finally, the organizational culture encourages or discourages filtering by the type of behavior it rewards. The more that organizational rewards emphasize style and appearance, the more managers will be motivated to filter communications in their favor.

The second barrier is selective perception. We’ve mentioned selective perception before in this book. We discuss it again here because the receivers in the communication process selectively see and hear based on their needs, motivations, experience, background, and other personal characteristics. Receivers also project their interests and expectations into communications as they decode them. The employment interviewer who expects a female job applicant to put her family ahead of her career is likely to see that tendency in female applicants, regardless of whether the applicants would do so or not. As we said in Chapter 11, we don’t see reality; rather, we interpret what we see and call it reality.

Individuals have a finite capacity for processing data. For instance, consider an international sales representative who returns home to find that she has more than 600 e-mails waiting for her. It’s not possible to fully read and respond to each one of those messages without facing information overload. Today’s typical executive frequently complains of information overload.16 The demands of keeping up with e-mail, phone calls, faxes, meetings, and professional reading create an onslaught of data that is nearly impossible to process and assimilate. What happens when you have more information than you can sort out and use? You’re likely to select out, ignore, pass over, or forget information. Or you may put off further processing until the overload situation is over. In any case, the result is lost information and less effective communication.

How a sender or receiver feels when a message is sent or received influences how he or she interprets it. You’ll often interpret the same message differently, depending on whether you’re happy or distressed or angry. And extreme emotions are most likely to hinder effective communications. In such instances, we often disregard our rational and objective thinking processes and substitute emotional judgments. It’s best to avoid sending or reacting to a message when you’re upset or emotional because you’re not likely to be thinking clearly.

Understanding how emotions can affect communication becomes even more important as more people communicate with abbreviations or slang (txt-speak or txt lingo, such as TTYL, SLAP, SMAM, BTW, LOL, etc.) or even with emojis, tiny drawings of facial expressions or objects used in text messages, emails, and on social media, and emoticons, representations of facial expressions created by various combinations of keyboard characters. Interpreting the content of a message when it’s just words can be difficult enough, but throw in abbreviations, tiny drawings, or keyboard combinations and you can begin to see why it’s easy to misinterpret what is being communicated. For instance, lawyers are increasingly finding that emojis and emoticons can lead to contention in legal disputes. It’s hard to establish the meaning of a drawing, such as an “unamused face,” especially in a legal situation.17 And even when used in regular workplace communication, these types of communication choices can lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

Words mean different things to different people. “The meanings of words are not in the words; they are in us.”18 Age, education, and cultural background are three of the more obvious variables that influence the language a person uses and the definitions he or she applies to words. Columnist George F. Will and rapper Iggy Azalea both speak English. But the language each one uses is vastly different from how the other speaks.

In an organization, employees usually come from diverse backgrounds and, therefore, have different patterns of speech. Additionally, the grouping of employees into departments creates specialists who develop their own jargon or technical language.20 The problem with jargon is that those who aren’t familiar with the jargon are clueless as to what is being communicated.

In large organizations, members are also frequently widely dispersed geographically—even operating in different countries—and individuals in each locale will use terms and phrases that are unique to their area.22 And the existence of vertical levels can also cause language problems. The language of senior executives, for instance, can be mystifying to regular employees not familiar with management jargon. Keep in mind that while we may speak the same language, our use of that language is far from uniform. Senders tend to assume that the words and phrases they use mean the same to the receiver as they do to them. This assumption, of course, is incorrect and creates communication barriers. Knowing how each of us modifies the language would help minimize those barriers.

Effective communication between the sexes is important in all organizations if they are to meet organizational goals. But how can we manage the various differences in communication styles? To keep gender differences from becoming persistent barriers to effective communication, individuals must strive for acceptance, understanding, and a commitment to communicate adaptively with each other. Both men and women need to acknowledge differences are present in communication styles, that one style isn’t better than the other, and that it takes real effort to talk successfully with each other.23

A $14-an-hour employee running Marriott International Inc.’s social media accounts used an official company account to like a post on Twitter from a Tibetan separatist group. The group had applauded the company for listing Tibet as a country rather than part of China. That tweet got the employee in hot water and eventually fired.24 As this example shows, not only can communication differences arise from the different languages that individuals use to communicate, but also from the national culture and global politics of which they’re a part.25 For example, let’s compare countries that place a high value on individualism (such as the United States) with countries where the emphasis is on collectivism (such as Japan).26

In the United States, communication patterns tend to be oriented to the individual and clearly spelled out. Managers in the United States rely heavily on memoranda, announcements, position papers, and other formal forms of communication to state their positions on issues. Supervisors here may hoard information in an attempt to make themselves look good (filtering) and as a way of persuading their employees to accept decisions and plans. And for their own protection, lower-level employees also engage in this practice.

In collectivist countries, such as Japan, there’s more interaction for its own sake and a more informal manner of interpersonal contact. The Japanese manager, in contrast to the U.S. manager, engages in extensive verbal consultation with employees over an issue first and draws up a formal document later to outline the agreement that was made. The Japanese value decisions by consensus, and open communication is an inherent part of the work setting. Also, face-to-face communication is encouraged.27

Cultural differences can affect the way a manager chooses to communicate.28 And these differences undoubtedly can be a barrier to effective communication if not recognized and taken into consideration.