About Communication: Form vs. Content
Systems thinking is extremely valuable for large teams, especially when it comes to organizing the work of specialists from different professions. Systems thinking is realized between people; it is meant to help them reach agreements with one another[1]. So, let’s focus on communication.
In any communication, information is both transmitted and received. In this exchange, we can distinguish between the form of delivery and the content being conveyed. Each person can notice for themselves which aspect they respond to more. To illustrate the idea of “form versus content,” let’s assume that an average person pays 80% of their attention to form and only 20% to content[2].
A focused person can shift this ratio by concentrating on the content. For example, by understanding from which role the other person is speaking. A focused person manages their attention, consciously concentrating on the concepts and theories their conversation partner is using. For a layperson, attention is guided by intuition, which means they primarily evaluate communication through a “fight-or-flight” response. They may take offense at the form, without delving into the content—which could actually improve their life for the better.
If the brain is not trained to extract content, then the natural mode is activated—paying more attention to the psychological and emotional aspect. Form is processed more quickly and requires less effort. Indirectly, one can judge the content by the form. Still, it is important to see the essence behind the form and to understand the content, even under the most unfavorable conditions for receiving it. This is a specific type of role-based mastery that must be developed. Ordinary people, if they are lucky, acquire it with age. But it is better to be aware of it and try to develop it systematically.
Students may complain about a teacher who delivers information in a boring and uninteresting way. We’re not excusing the teacher, but still, what should the student do? After all, it is the student who needs the knowledge. They will have to develop their role-based mastery: take control of their natural mode (when attention is focused on form) and strive to engage with the content. Sometimes, this even means pushing through a desperate urge to give up. It’s better to follow the principle: “Nothing personal, just a role interest.”
You can train your role-based mastery through practice, but it is also necessary to understand the theory of roles, focus (attention management), ontology, and logic (being aware of the subject area with its concepts and terms). Start applying this technique of separating form and content in your communication.
Let’s look at a few examples that highlight the importance of content in the communication process:
- In communication, it is important to follow the principles of grounding. Grounding means connecting to the physical world. In the process of communication, you are conveying some description of the world (of systems), so you need to ground your descriptions. This increases your chances of being understood. It is important to tie abstract concepts and descriptions to specific situations in the physical world. If abstract concepts are mentioned, you can ask for examples of situations to which these concepts apply. This helps avoid confusion and ensures clearer understanding. You can find examples of grounding in the modeling exercises.
- Every person looks at a system (has a certain interest) or models a specific situation based on their own worldview. Even if a person is not aware of it, they still rely on some theory (which they have studied) or on everyday understanding (folk wisdom, memes, experience, or upbringing). To reach an agreement with them, pay attention to their ontology (the concepts they use)[3], but also make sure to create an appropriate form of communication. In addition, ontological thinking will help you avoid confusing types, which are assigned to all words. For example, the type of the words “Paris,” “London,” and “Beijing” is “city,” so the phrase “I visited Paris, London, and China” sounds odd. That’s because it uses different types of words—specifically, the type “city” and the type “country.” In systems thinking, it is also important not to confuse types, for example, “systems” and “processes,” such as calling the process of cleaning a room a system, or saying that “a manager plays the role of an engineer”[4].
- Corporate culture is built on values, mission, behavioral norms, traditions, and theories that are accepted within these organizations. But at the core of any culture is language, and this language reflects the practices and knowledge adopted by the entire team. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the concepts you personally use and those used by your company’s employees. To develop systems thinking, you must first master the systems language. Learn to speak it fluently, use it in communication, and incorporate it into your corporate culture.
- When we talk about a course, we pay attention to the form in which the content is delivered. We can discuss this form separately and in detail. For example, a course can be presented as a textbook or as an online course in text or video format. Notice that we haven’t said anything yet about the course content. It could be about management, marketing, or freestyle swimming. Keep in mind that the content of any course is a particular discipline (theory) or several related disciplines. For example, in systems thinking courses[5], the discipline “systems thinking” is not taught as a standalone subject; instead, several disciplines from the intellect stack are studied at once. From all the disciplines in the intellect stack, concepts and principles are selected that make it possible to describe and develop techniques (approaches) for dividing the world into different systems and subsystems (identifying systems and subsystems).
This applies not only to the team, but to all stakeholders. ↩︎
These figures are approximate. ↩︎
For this reason, it is recommended to take the “Rational Work” course before “Systems Thinking.” ↩︎
You can say that John Doe, who is a manager, also sometimes plays the role of an engineer. In systems thinking, it is important not to confuse types; otherwise, it will be impossible to conduct modeling and communication in a large team. ↩︎
In this context, when you hear the words “systems thinking,” it is quite possible that someone means they are taking a course of the same name. However, most likely, it refers to thinking using the concept of “system” and other concepts from the intellect stack. ↩︎