Essentials of business communication8th Canadian EditionMa

Essentials of business communication
8th Canadian Edition
Mary Ellen Guffey/Dana Loewy/
Richard Almonte
Chapter 10
Communicating in Person
Copyright © 2016 by Nelson Education Ltd.
2
Learning Objectives
1. Explain why employers appreciate professional and ethical
behaviour and good business etiquette.
2. Demonstrate effective face-to-face workplace
communication, including using your voice as a communicatio n
tool.

3. Explain how to promote positive workplace relations through
conversation.
4. Review techniques for offering constructive criticism on the
job, responding professionally to workplace criticism, and
resolving workplace conflicts.
5. Identify ways to polish professional phone skills.
6. Understand techniques for making the best use of voice mail.
7. Plan and participate in productive business and professional
meetings.
The Importance of Professionalism, Business Etiquette, and
Ethical Behaviour
Defining Professional Behaviour
Civility (respect)
Polish (nonverbal etiquette)
Business and dining Etiquette (attire and politeness)
Social intelligence (interaction)
Soft skills (interpersonal habits)
See p. 309, Figure 10.1 for The Six Dimensions of Professional
Behaviour
Ask students to define professional behaviour (write answers on

board).
Ask students to define ethics and integrity (write answers on
board).
4
The Importance of Professionalis m, Business Etiquette, and
Ethical Behaviour
Knowing What Employers Want
Requirements from Employment Ads
Proven team skills to help deliver on-time, on-budget results
Strong verbal and written communication skills as well as
excellent presentation skills
Excellent interpersonal, organizational, and teamwork skills
Interpersonal and team skills plus well-developed
communication skills
Good people skills and superior teamwork abilities
Employers are looking for soft skills and professionalism.
5
Successful Face-to-Face Workplace Communication
Using Your Voice as a Communication Tool
Pronunciation (saying words clearly)
Tone (identifies your mood)
Pitch (highness or lowness of voice)
Volume and Rate (loudness and speed)
Emphasis (offers implications)

6
Promoting Positive Workplace Relations Through Conversation
Use correct names and titles.
Choose appropriate topics (avoid potentially offending
someone).
Avoid negative remarks.
Listen to learn.
Give sincere and specific praise.
7
Offering Constructive Criticism at Work
Mentally outline your conversation.
Generally, use face-to-face communication.
Focus on improvement.
Offer to help.
Be specific.
Avoid broad generalizations.

8
Offering Constructive Criticism at Work
Discuss the behaviour, not the person.
Use the word we rather than you.
Encourage two-way communication.
Avoid anger, sarcasm, and a raised voice.
Keep it private.
9
Responding Professionally to Workplace Criticism
Listen without interrupting.
Determine the speaker’s intent.
Acknowledge what you are hearing.
Paraphrase what was said.
It is important to remember, both in the classroom and in the
workplace, that constructive criticism is meant to help you
improve your performance. Entry-level employees very often
have to develop a thick skin to be able to turn constructive
criticism into a source of motivation. When employers, and

even professors, criticize, it is important to remember that they
do not want you to take their comments personally.
10
Responding Professionally to Workplace Criticism
Ask for more information if necessary.
Agree if the comments are accurate.
Disagree respectfully and constructively if you feel the
comments are unfair.
Look for a middle position.
11
Resolving Workplace Conflicts
Common conflict response patterns
Avoidance/withdrawal (helpful only when the issue is trivial)
Accommodation/smoothing (giving in)
Compromise
Competition/forcing
Collaboration/problem solving (involved parties have common
goals)

12
Resolving Workplace Conflicts
Six-Step Procedure for Dealing With Conflict
1. Listen.
2. Understand the other point of view.
3. Show a concern for the relationship.
4. Look for common ground.
5. Invent new problem-solving options.
6. Reach an agreement based on what’s fair.
13
Telephone, Smartphone, and Voice Mail Etiquette
Making Productive Phone Calls
Plan a mini-agenda (list important points).
Use a three-point introduction (name the person you are calling,
identify yourself and your affiliation, and give a brief
explanation of your reason for calling).
14

Making Productive Phone Calls
Be cheerful and accurate.
Bring it to a close (thank listener).
Avoid phone tag.
Leave complete voice mail messages.
15
Receiving Phone Calls Professionally
Identify yourself immediately.
Be responsive and helpful.
Be cautious when answering calls for others and take messages
carefully.
Explain what you’re doing when transferring calls in case the
caller gets disconnected.
If you receive a telephone inquiry that you feel could be better
handled by someone in a different position or different
department, tell the caller the person’s name, department, and
extension so that the caller may reach them directly if

disconnected while you transfer the call or if the caller needs to
telephone again.
16
Using Smartphones for Business
Location (use good judgment in placing or accepting cellphone
calls)
Time (avoid answering your phone during an important task)
Volume (maintain conversational tone and volume)
17
Making the Best Use of Voice Mail
Receiving Voice Mail Messages:
Don’t overuse voice mail.
Set the number of rings appropriately.
Prepare a professional, concise, friendly greeting.
Receiving Voice Mail Messages:

Test your message.
Change your message.
Respond to messages promptly.
Plan for vacations and other extended absences.
Leaving Voice Mail Messages:
Be prepared to leave a message.
Leave a concise, thorough message.
Use a professional and courteous tone.
Speak slowly and clearly.
Be careful with confidential information.
Don’t make assumptions.
Becoming a Team Player in Professional Teams
The Importance of Conventional and Virtual Teams in the
Workplace
Businesses are forming teams for the following reasons:
Better decisions
Faster response
Greater buy-in
Less resistance to change
Improved employee morale
Reduced risks

21
Positive and Negative Team Behaviour
Positive team behaviour:
Establish and follow rules.
Offer ideas.
Support other ideas.
Negative team behaviour:
Avoid irrelevant topics.
Don’t disturb others.
22
Positive and Negative Team Behaviours

23
Characteristics of Successful Professional Teams
Small size, diverse makeup
Agreement on purpose
Agreement on procedures
Ability to confront conflict
Characteristics of Successful Professional Teams (Cont’d)
Use of good communication techniques
Ability to collaborate rather than compete
Shared leadership
Acceptance of ethical responsibilities
Conducting Productive and Professional Business Meetings
Deciding Whether the Meeting is Necessary
Call meetings only when necessary and invite key people.
Selecting Participants
Determined by purpose of meeting
Distributing an Agenda
Date and place of meeting
Start time and end time
Brief description of each topic, in order of priority

26
Distributing an Agenda
Proposed allotment of time for each topic
Any pre-meeting preparation expected of participants
Getting the Meeting Started
Goal and length of the meeting
Background of topics or problems
27
Getting the Meeting Started (Cont’d)
Possible solutions and constraints
Tentative agenda
Ground rules to be followed
Moving the Meeting Along
Keep the meeting moving by avoiding issues that sidetrack the
group.
Dealing with Conflict

Encourage members to make a complete case in front of group.
28
Handling Dysfunctional Group Members
Lay down the rules in an opening statement.
Seat potentially dysfunctional members strategically.
Avoid direct eye contact.
Assign dysfunctional members specific tasks.
29
Handling Dysfunctional Group Members
Ask members to speak in a specific order.
Interrupt monopolizers.
Encourage non-talkers.
Give praise and encouragement.

30
Ending With a Plan
End meeting with a summary and review of action items.
Following up Actively
Call or e-mail participants to remind of duties.
31
Summary
Use professionalism to your advantage.
Use your voice as a communication tool; use correct names and
titles; choose appropriate topics, and avoid negative remarks;
listen to learn.
Learn to give and take constructive criticism.
Learn to make and leave productive phone calls.
Plan and participate in meetings.

32
INTRODUCTION
Public Anthropology’s Community Action Website Project
helps to provide students with key skills they need to be
successful in their future careers: critical thinking, effective
communication, and active citizenship. The Project encourages
(1) critical thinking regarding a social issue of concern, (2) a
sharing of ideas among students with different perspectives, and
(3) improved writing skills.
THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL CHALLENGE:
FACILATING CIVIL CONVERSATIONS
REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE
Given the frequent polarization between “us” and “them” in
many countries, the anthropological effort to communicate
across differences is more vital today than ever. Rather than
trying to obliterate differences, anthropology, at its best, allows
communities to flourish – not because everyone in the
community thinks of behaves alike, but because they appreciate
their differences with one another and have learned to work
together on projects of shared interest despite their differences.
(For additional information on civil conversations, readers
might refer to this link.)
Students are challenged to apply this anthropological skill to
the heated disputes today surrounding climate change. This
involves:
1. CONDUCTING FIELDWORK: Just as you might do if you
were an anthropologist studying a group half a world away
living a different way of life, this project encourages you to
understand the perspectives of those who disagree with you
about climate change.

a. Can you understand why they disagree with you? Can you
find common ground with those who hold different views than
you?
2. UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURAL CONTEXTS THAT
SHAPE PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR: The data on opinion formation
(see below) suggest that people’s opinions are often formed
within groups, not by themselves as individuals. It is not
necessarily a rational process.
a. Try to understand why people, in a group possessing different
views than you regarding climate change, hold the views they
do? To what degree do these views reflect certain group
values?
3. A CONTINUING ANTHROPOLOGICAL TRADITION
STRESSES HUMAN CONFLICT CAN OFTEN BE SOFTENED
BY APPRECIATING THE CONTEXTS THAT SHAPE
DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES:
a. Frame your paper as a letter to a set of people who disagree
with you on climate change in a way that will, hopefully, draw
them toward a shared understanding on certain issues that will
allow you to collectively work together on a shared project
regarding climate change.
b. It is critical to recognize that your letter cannot simply be a
rational, intellectual argument defending your own position. As
the background readings make clear, you need to consider the
other group’s perspectives emotionally as well as intellectually
in framing your letter.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. READ the background material below.
2. TAKE A POSITION on climate change. Which one is up to
you.
3. SELECT A GROUP'S POSITION THAT SIGNIFICANTLY
DISAGREES WITH YOURS
4. WRITE A 400-800-WORD LETTER to people in this group:
a. At the top of your letter list two specific ways the peopl e you
are addressing differ from your own position on climate

change.
b. In writing your letter, ask yourself:
i. How might you frame your letter to draw those who differ
from you on climate change to move toward a position that you
both might share?
ii. Might you find a common goal to collaborate on in respect to
climate change?
5. YOUR LETTER WILL BE GRADED ON THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:
(For More Specific Details See the Bottom of the Page)
a. How specific has the author been in listing at least two ways
that the people she or he is addressing differ from the author’s
own view on climate change? Are the differences real and
substantial?
b.The clarity of the author’s letter: Is it simple and easily
understood.
c. Does the author convey her or his message in an emotional as
well as rational way – such as through telling a brief personal
story or through a few anecdotes – that would likely hold the
attention of the those who disagree with the author. Does the
author make use of some of the ideas in the background
readings that discuss how to talk effectively with people who
disagree with you?
d. Critically, how effective does the author’s letter seem? Do
you think it will draw people with whom the author disagrees
with on the topic to find common ground with the author so
that the author and those that disagree with her or him can
collectively work together on a climate change project that
benefits the broader community?
BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The following background readings are to help you develop (a)
your own position and (2) how you will frame your letter to
draw people, who disagree with you, into finding common
ground to address an issue related to climate change.
Varying Views on Climate Change:

Everyone agrees there have been significant changes in climate
over the past several thousand years – from the last major ice
age that ran from roughly 26,000 to 13,000 years ago to the
excessively cold years of 1650, 1770, and 1850. Everyone also
agrees there have been recent changes in global weather
patterns – especially increased temperatures. Reflecting on the
2018 summer’s global heat wave, the Economist writes:
“Heatwaves bring problems, especially in the developing world.
Crops are ravaged, food spoils and workers become less
productive. Studies have linked rising temperatures to violent
crime and civil strife. And heat can kill on its own. In 2003
more than 70,000 Europeans may have died as a direct result of
an infernal summer.” (https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2018/07/28/heat-is-causing-problems-across-the-
world)
Where people disagree, sometimes heatedly, is on three issues:
1. Is human behavior and especially industrialization a key
factor (or the key factor) in the rise in temperature over the past
century?
2. While the ability to predict specific weather conditions in
specific parts of the globe remains uncertain, do we have
enough data to take concrete steps that will likely lessen a
further increase in global temperatures?
3. Should we take such steps, even if they are expensive, even if
we are uncertain, if they might address the problem?
The Problem is this:
Ever wonder why [people hold to certain opinions] in the face
of . . . evidence to the contrary? New findings from researchers
at UC Berkeley suggest that feedback, rather than hard
evidence, boosts people’s sense of certainty when learning new
things or trying to tell right from wrong.
Developmental psychologists have found that people’s beliefs
are more likely to be reinforced by the positive or negative
reactions they receive in response to an opinion, task or
interaction, than by logic, reasoning and scientific data.
Their findings, published today in the online issue of the

journal Open Mind, shed new light on how people handle
information that challenges their worldview, and how certain
learning habits can limit one’s intellectual horizons.
(http://news.berkeley.edu/2018/09/04/certaintystudy/)
PLEASE NOTE: The following material will provide you with
the information you need to write your letter. You need not
investigate the various links, footnotes, and references provided
unless you are interested in learning more about particular
points raised. You may, if you wish, consult other sources as
well.
It is very important to not get "lost" in the data. Be sure to write
your letter in a well-organized manner that will clearly make
the points you wish to make to draw those who disagree with
you toward common ground so that you can collectively address
one or more issues together regarding climate change.
SELECTED READINGS:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-
knows/what-is-climate-change-k4.html
Is Earth's Climate Changing? Earth's climate is always changing
. . . Earth's temperature has gone up about one-degree
Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. This may not seem like much.
But small changes in Earth's temperature can have big effects.
Some effects are already happening. Warming of Earth's climate
has caused some snow and ice to melt. The warming also has
caused oceans to rise. And it has changed the timing of when
certain plants grow.
What Is Causing Earth's Climate to Change? Many things can
cause climate to change all on its own. Earth's distance from the
sun can change. The sun can send out more or less energy.
Oceans can change. When a volcano erupts, it can change our
climate.
Most scientists say that humans can change climate too. People
drive cars. People heat and cool their houses. People cook food.
All those things take energy. One way we get energy is by
burning coal, oil and gas. Burning these things puts gases into

the air. The gases cause the air to heat up. This can change the
climate of a place. It also can change Earth's climate.
The Limitations of Climate Models by Fabio Bergamin:
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-limitations-climate.html
How accurate is the latest generation of climate models?
Climate physicist Reto Knutti from ETH Zurich has compared
them with old models and draws a . . . conclusion: while climate
modelling has made substantial progress in recent years, we
also need to be aware of its limitations . . .
One would assume that the longer scientists concentrate on the
climate, the more accurate the results of the model calculations
should become and hence the projections of the individual
models should converge. According to Knutti, however, this
assumption might well be true in the long run, but not in the
short term. After all, the more complex a model becomes, the
more processes are factored into it and, unfortunately, the
greater the uncertainty becomes in the short term . . .
The problem with the new, short-term projections: the shorter
the timescale, the smaller the influence of the manmade trend
and the greater that of variable weather phenomena. Especially
in the mid-latitudes we live in, the weather phenomena vary
greatly and the climate change caused by humans is obscured by
them. Therefore, as the researchers write in their study, it is
difficult to make short and medium-term climate predictions,
however good the models are.
Background of The Issue (Procon.Org)
https://climatechange.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID
=006525
Temperatures on earth have increased approximately 1.8°F since
the early 20th century. [1] Over this time period, atmospheric
levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4) have notably increased. [2][3] Both sides in the
debate surrounding global climate change agree on these points.
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse
gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning
fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and

increasingly severe climate changes including global warming,
loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more
droughts. They contend that immediate international action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire
climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions
are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that
the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend
that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from
natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun's heat and
ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global
climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty
climate models, and misleading science . . .
The Heartland Institute argued against human-caused global
warming in its 2013 NIPCC report which said that global
warming since 1860 is the result of natural "cycles driven by
ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations." [4]. . .
According to a 2014 Pew Research Center poll, 40% of the US
public believes global warming is caused by human activity,
35% believe that there is no solid evidence that global warming
is occurring at all, and 18% believe global warming is occurring
due to natural causes. [5] A Gallup poll taken in 2013 found
that 78% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans believe that
global warming is caused primarily by human activity - a 39
percentage point gap. [6]According to a 2015 survey by the
Yale Project on Climate Change Communications, 63% of
Americans believe global warming is happening, and 48%
believe that human activity is primarily.
[InCanada, the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) “found
that while most Canadians believe climate change is real, their
faith in the ability of science to shine a light on the issue is not
uniform across the population. Only 28 per cent of those polled
said the evidence for human-caused climate change is
conclusive, with another 33 per cent describing the evidence as
"solid." But from there the numbers start to slide — with 27 per
cent saying there is some evidence, but it's not conclusive. The

last 11 per cent claimed there is little to no evidence to suggest
human-caused climate change is real. Asked "If the earth is
warming, do you believe that cause is mostly . . .?," 70 per cent
of those surveyed chose "human activity and industrial activity
such as burning fossil fuels" — while the remaining 30 per cent
chose "natural patterns in the Earth's environment." [7] ]
Pro Position
https://climatechange.procon.org/
Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is
primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010
Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers
publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity
is primarily responsible for global climate change. The study
also found that the expertise of researchers unconvinced of
human-caused climate change is "substantially below" that of
researchers who agree that human activity is primarily
responsible for climate change. [8] The 2013 Cook review of
11,944 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found that only
78 studies (0.7%) explicitly rejected the position that humans
are responsible for global warming. [9] A separate review of
13,950 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found only 24
that rejected human-caused global warming. [5] A survey by
German Scientists Bray and Von Storch found that 83.5% of
climate scientists believe human activity is causing "most of
recent" global climate change. [10] A separate survey in 2011
also found that 84% of earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic, and
hydrological scientists surveyed said that human-induced global
warming is occurring. [11]
Con Position
https://climatechange.procon.org/
More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity
is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010
Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000
scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who
disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global
climate change. [12] The Cook review [13] of 11,944 peer-

reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated
position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of
the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to
climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated "that
humans are the primary cause of recent global warming." [14] A
2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists
challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for
climate change and instead believe that climate change is
caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment
(37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not
enough information to say (5%). [15] In 2014 a group of 15
scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a
"masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and
called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change
"NOT true." [16]
UNDERSTANDING THE REASONS WHY
PEOPLE HOLD THE OPINIONS THEY
DO ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SELECTED READINGS:
Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change by Dan Kahan
https://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-
climate-change-1.11166
Positions on climate change have come to signify the kind of
person one is. People whose beliefs are at odds with those of the
people with whom they share their basic cultural commitments
risk being labelled as weird and obnoxious in the eyes of those
on whom they depend for social and financial support. So, if the
cost of having a view of climate change that does not conform
with the scientific consensus is zero, and the cost of having a
view that is at odds with members of one’s cultural community
can be high, what is a rational person to do? In that situation, it
is perfectly sensible for individuals to be guided by modes of
reasoning that connect their beliefs to ones that predominate in
their group . . .
People acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others

who share their values and whom they therefore trust and
understand. Usually, this strategy works just fine. We live in a
science communication environment richly stocked with
accessible, consequential facts. As a result, groups with
different values routinely converge on the best evidence for,
say, the value of adding fluoride to water, or the harmlessness
of mobile-phone radiation. The trouble starts when this
communication environment fills up with toxic partisan
meanings — ones that effectively announce that ‘if you are one
of us, believe this? otherwise, we’ll know you are one of them’.
In that situation, ordinary individuals’ lives will go better if
their perceptions of societal risk conform with those of their
group.
Communicating Climate Change: Focus on the Framing, Not
Just the Facts by Rose Hendricks
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/communicating-
climate-change-focus-framing-not-just-facts
Kahan’s work shows that just because someone has scientific
knowledge, he or she won’t necessarily hold science supported
beliefs about controversial topics like global warming, private
gun possession or fracking.
Instead, beliefs are shaped by the social groups people consider
themselves to be a part of. We’re all simultaneously members of
many social groups – based, for example, on political or
religious affiliation, occupation or sexuality. If people are
confronted with scientific evidence that seems to attack their
group’s values, they’re likely to become defensive. They may
consider the evidence they’ve encountered to be flawed and
strengthen their conviction in their prior beliefs. . . .
A growing body of research suggests that instead of bombarding
people with piles of evidence, science communicators can focus
more on how they present it. The problem isn’t that people
haven’t been given enough facts. It’s that they haven’t been
given facts in the right ways.
One framing technique Kahan encourages is disentangling facts
from people’s identities. . . [Talk] about things that are

important to [your audience], such as fishing, flooding, farming,
faith and the future. These issues that matter to the people with
whom he’s communicating become an entry into discussing
global warming . . .
Climate change messages can also be framed by focusing on
different time periods. Social psychologists Matthew Baldwin
and Joris Lammers asked people to read either a past-focused
climate change message (like “Looking back to our nation’s
past… there was less traffic on the road”) or a similar future-
focused message (“Looking forward to our nation’s future…
there is increasing traffic on the road”).
Researchers found that self-identified conservatives, who tend
to resist climate change messages more than liberals, agreed
that we should change how we interact with the planet more
after reading the past-focused passage. Liberals, on the other
hand, reported liking the future-focused frame better, but the
frames had no influence on their environmental attitudes.
And the frames didn’t have to be words. Conservatives also
shifted their beliefs to be more pro-environmental after seeing
past-focused images (satellite images that progressed from the
past to today) more than after seeing future-focused ones
(satellite images that progressed from today into the future).
Liberals showed no differences in their attitudes after seeing the
two frames.
Many climate change messages focus on the potential future
consequences of not addressing climate change now. This
research on time-framing suggests that such a forward-looking
message may in fact be unproductive for those who already tend
to resist the idea.
There’s no one-size-fits-all frame for motivating people to care
about climate change. Communicators need to know their
audience and anticipate their reactions to different messages.
Embracing And Resisting Climate Identities In The Australian
Press: Sceptics, Scientists And Politics by Rusi Jaspal, Brigitte
Nerlich, and Kitty van Vuuren
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036071/

In this battle to disseminate their respective social
representations to the wider public and political spheres, the
two social groups – mainstream climate scientists and climate
sceptics – exploit two social representations: science as
uncertain, unsettled and alarmist, on one hand, and science
being based on an emerging consensus as well as caution, on the
other. Sceptics employ conferences as tools to distribute such
representations, while mainstream scientists write or refer to
books that expose the industrial funding of such conferences
and the sceptics who attend them . . .
On both sides of the debate, there are clear rhetorical attempts
to delegitimize outgroups and to legitimize the ingroup, with a
view to resisting the outgroup’s social representations and
enhancing the credibility of one’s own. A principal means of
doing so among climate sceptics is to anchor climate science to
uncertainty, politics, fraud and greed, while an emerging
delegitimization strategy among mainstream climate scientists
constitutes the anchoring of scepticism to denial.
Establishing Common Ground: Finding Better Ways to
Communicate About Climate Disruption by Anthony Barnosky
et al.
https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/
The key message of this [essay] is that solving the climate
problem will require motivating social and behavioral changes
through effective communication . . . Despite the efforts of
many journalists, scientists, educators, and politicians to convey
the science behind and urgency of climate dis¬ruption, about a
third of Americans still deny that climate is changing or that
humans cause it, and nearly 60% feel that climate change is not
a problem serious enough to affect them . . . We suggest . . .
targeting specific audiences with appropriately framed
information . . . To this end, we recognize [four] general
communication strategies that will be useful.
• Establish Common Ground. For effective communication to
take place, there has to be common ground, even when there are
differences of opinions. Pay attention to differences in context,

including cultural context, and pay attention to what others have
to say, even when there is little overt agreement. Effectively
connecting to another person requires working toward a
common understanding, even if there is not full alignment in the
end [17].
• Keep the Message Simple. Use concrete language when
discussing issues around climate disruption. People are more
likely to attend to and trust findings that are reported in a clear,
accessible manner [18]. One good way to make a message
simple is to rely on metaphor. Metaphors are useful for
conveying scientific information because they provide a way to
structure complex information in terms of more basic, everyday
knowledge and experience [19, 20]. Images, such as graphs, are
also useful alongside messages, especially when they appear
with meaningful captions . . .
• Tell a Story. Effective literature and commercial media
involve telling stories. Presenting information within a narrative
structure engages audiences, and provides a structure for linking
information, people, actions, and consequences. It also provides
a larger frame through which to tell others about the message.
[For an elaboration of this point, see the article "How we can
use the 'science of stories' to produce persausive scientific
stories?" https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v3y2017i1d10.105
7_s41599-017-0047-7.html ]
• De-politicize climate messages. With a heavy political frame,
especially when there is negative information or risk of loss,
people tend to polarize—it is their default. This is where
framing can be especially helpful. Getting the message right and
acknowledging human behavior may help curtail political
polarization [21], for example, by framing such as: “You may
think that believing climate change is a problem amounts to
admitting the need for government oversight, but some of the
most attractive policies are entirely market-based, depending on
price signals to find the least-cost solutions.”
FOOTNOTES:
1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

"Global Climate Change
Indicators" https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-
references/faq/indicators.php
2. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, "Trends in
Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide" https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.ht
ml
3. Bobby Magill, "Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger
Warming'" http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-methane-
emissions-certain-to-trigger-warming-17374
4. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
(NIPCC), "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical
Science" http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
5. Pew Research Center, "Section 7: Global Warming,
Environment and Energy" http://www.people-
press.org/2014/06/26/section-7-global-warming-environment-
and-energy/
6. Lydia Saad, "Republican Skepticism Toward Global Warming
Eases" https://news.gallup.com/poll/161714/republican-
skepticism-global-warming-eases.aspx
7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-abacus-carbon-tax-
1.4603824
8. William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and
Stephen H. Schneider, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 6,
2010 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
9. John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark
Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter
Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce, "Quantifying the Consensus on
Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,"
Environmental Research
Letters http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-
9326/8/2/024024
10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 10. D. Bray and H. von Storch,
"A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning
Climate Science and Climate

Change" https://ncse.com/files/pub/polls/2010--
Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Scien
ce_&_Climate_Change_.pdf
11. Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, "The Structure
of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," International Journal
of Public Opinion, Oct.
2011 https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-
abstract/24/1/93/659088
12. Climate Depot, "More than 1000 International Scientists
Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,"
www.cfact.org, Dec. 8,
2010 http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.p
df
13. John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark
Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter
Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce, "Quantifying the Consensus on
Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,"
Environmental Research Letters, May 15,
2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-
9326/8/2/024024
14. Popular Technology, "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers
Supporting Skeptic Arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism,"
populartechnology.net, Feb. 12,
2014 http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-
reviewed-papers-supporting.html
15. Linda Stalker Prokopy, Lois Wright Morton, J. Gordon
Arbuckle Jr., Amber Saylor Mase, and Adam K. Wilke,
"Agricultural Stakeholder Views on Climate Change:
Implications for Conducting Research and Outreach," Journal of
the American Meteorological Society, Feb.
2015 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-
00172.1
16. 15 Scientists "Scientists Respond to the Obama
Administration's National Climate Assessment– 2014,"
www.scribd.com , May 15,
2014 https://www.scribd.com/doc/224538945/NCA-Rebuttal

17. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language In: Cambridge
University Press.
18. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite
vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with
using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive
Psychology 20(2): 139–156,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
19. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative
Thought, Language, and Understanding In: New York:
Cambridge University Press.
20. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live
by In: Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
21. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in
public engagement In: Kahlor, L. and Stout, P. eds.
Understanding science: New agendas in science
communication. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 40–67
YOUR PAPER WILL BE GRADED ON THE STANDARDS
BELOW:
(FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND EXAMPLES OF LETTERS
SEE THE LINK ON THE MAIN PAGE LABELED EXAMPLES
OF LETTERS)
a. How specific has the author been in listing at least two ways
that the people she or he is addressing differ from the author’s
own view on climate change? Are the differences real and
substantial?
b. The clarity of the author’s letter: Is it simple and easily
understood.
c. Does the author convey her or his message in an emotional as
well as rational way – such as through telling a brief personal
story or through a few anecdotes – that would likely hold the
attention of the those who disagree with the author. Does the
author make use of some of the ideas in the background
readings that discuss how to talk effectively with people who
disagree with you?
d. Critically, how effective does the author’s letter seem? Do

you think it will draw people with whom the author disagrees
with on the topic to find common ground with the author so
that the author and those that disagree with her or him can
collectively work together on a climate change project that
benefits the broader community?

Essentials of business communication8th Canadian EditionMa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Essentials of business communication8th Canadian EditionMa

Similar to Essentials of business communication8th Canadian EditionMa (20)

More from BetseyCalderon89

More from BetseyCalderon89 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Essentials of business communication8th Canadian EditionMa