There is an old adage that the meaning of your communications is the response that it receives. It’s part of neuro-linguistic programming.

This comes across to some as a weird hippy-yippy-dippy tautology that probably has nothing at its root. But it does have something. It suggests that we are all responsible for the communication that we generate, and that the only way we can judge the effectiveness of this communication is to examine the response that we receive.

If the response is positive then we can safely assume that at the very least we did not offend. We may not have had the intended effect that we were looking for, but at least the door is open for us to try again to explain our meaning.

If the response is negative, as it was here and here, then we have to ask ourselves if we are the source of the negativity. Did the meaning that we intended actually get communicated. Or did the recipient hear something else entirely?

The childish response is to blame the victim and suggest that if they didn’t get it then it’s probably because they are, take your pick; not-too-bright, a bit-bleedin’-deaf, or a total flake.

But an adult understands that the recipient in the communications model (sender-channel-receiver) is as important as the sender. Our communications have to be presented in a way that allows them to be understood. Anyone with small children or dogs gets this immediately.

In the case of the financial services provider getting the hump because I was not happy to receive his call, you clearly have someone who does not get this, or more likely, is choosing to ignore it. The hope for the caller is that 1 call in a 100 will actually result in a meeting. Out of 5 meetings, 1 will result in sale. In this scenario pissing off 99 people by phoning them constantly is just the cost of doing business.

You definitely need a hard neck to do this job, and I don’t envy anyone in the unfortunate position to have no other choice, but when you call back to complain about the rudeness of the recipient of your unwarranted call you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance.

But that’s an issue for another day …