Department of English and Cultural Studies
CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Central Campus
2131346 Sukhjeet Kaur
Dr. Kishore Selva Babu
18 January 2023
Executive Summary
The case study studies Barlund’s Transactional Model, which emphasizes on the role of cues in effective communication, through a case study on a PR Firm. It analyzes how material and environmental cues facilitate communication between a leader and the team.
Introduction
Dean Barlund’s Transactional Model of Communication was proposed in 1970. It is a multi-layered feedback system, where feedback is important from the end of the sender and the receiver.
This feedback is often facilitated by the exchange of cues- private, public, and behavioral. Public cues are environmental and man-made, private cues are dependent on how the person perceives them, and behavioral cues are directed in both verbal and nonverbal manners.
Background
‘Stardust’ is a reputed PR firm, located in Mumbai. It has been known for representing more than 60 Indian celebrities. The firm provides these celebrities with PR consultancy and assigns an agent to them who basically manages and protects the social image of the celebrity. These agents conduct intensive research about their celebrities, their past achievements and losses in both personal and professional prospects, potential competitors and obstacles, and new solutions to enhance the celebrities reputation in society.
Stardust was started by Mr. Narayan Roy in 1980, who is still spearheading the agency, as the Chairman. Mr. Roy, a socially reputed man, has always provided the best for the ones he represents; actors under his representation have never been a part of any page 3 controversy. Recently, Mr. Roy’s daughters- Sania and Manyata, joined his company and he wants to put them on an assignment before they become executives at his firm. The assignment is to onboard 4 new joinees, train them, and assign them to various actors, within a span of 7 days. Upon being asked as to why he wishes to put both his daughters on this assignment, Mr. Roy says that both of them are very different individuals; Manyata is more conventional in providing solutions, and runs a tight ship. Sania is more free thinking, and creative. He said that he wants to test how their individual personalities are going to affect the management of the firm, the team being a smaller sample for them.
After two rounds of interviews, both Sania and Manyata have onboarded 4 new employees. Now, Mr. Roy has assigned them a prospective list of actors each, whom their respective teams will represent.
On the first day of training, Sania chooses 4 new actors from her list, because she feels there will not be more to their history, and her team will be able to represent them. She gives her team a generic briefing about the norms and responsibilities of the firm, and asks them to do a thorough research on the actors and report to her after 7 days. However, she assumes that the joinees will also sign the contract with the actors within this time period, and she does not mention it to them.
Manyata, on the other hand, choses to go with four old actors whom the firm has represented since long. She shares a very similar discussion with her team, explains their responsibilities, and highlights possible hurdles they might encounter. She fixes intermediate deadlines before the final deadline, and gives them shorter assignments based on certain common criteria for research such as personal conflicts, family history, career achievements and conflicts, personality etc. She asks them to compile all their assignments and asks them to pin it on their board. She plans constant meetings for doubt clarification and feedback, and builds a good rapport with her team. She also asks the team members to give her an update on their work daily, over WhatsApp, which she further mails to Mr. Roy. In this manner, Manyata’s team completes all their research and has renewed their contracts with the actors by the fifth day itself.
Mr. Roy, who has not received any update from Sania’s team, conducts a surprise inspection on the sixth day, upon which he finds out that the team has neither conducted a thorough research on their actors nor communicated with them regarding their contract to represent them. Upon questioning the team, he finds out that they were never told about the research criteria and the contracts. He is quite disappointed with Sania for the irregularities in executing her assignment.
Parties Involved
Mr. Narayan Roy, Chairman of Stardust
Ms. Sania, Mr. Roy’s Daughter,
Ms. Manyata, Mr. Roy’s Daughter
Analysis
The case study brings out the contrast between two individual communication models. Communication is important to express oneself. It also satisfies one's needs. One should have effective communication for advancement in the career. In your personal life, effective communication skills can smooth your way and your relationships with others by helping you to understand others, and to be understood.
In this case, the characters who can be analyzed are Mr. Roy and his two daughters. This case study was adapted by Barlund’s Transactional Model of Communication which is a model that discusses both internal and external cues of communication. Barnlund's model uses arrows going from the communicators to the different types of cues. They represent how each person only gives attention to certain cues by decoding them while they encode and produce behavioral cues in response. Barnlund developed both an intrapersonal and interpersonal model.
This picture represents the model Barlund suggested. In this model, there is an established relationship between the different kinds of communication cues.
Discussion
Even in this particular case of Mr. Roy and his daughters, there was the use of public cues and interpersonal behavioral cues. The character Manyata paid attention to detail in her research. She had opted to choose old clients who were trustworthy and who could give effective results keeping in mind the time span she had. She also followed the rule of always following up with the clients and members of the team. Without following up there will be no motivation to work and catching up on work is very difficult. Hence, her way of communication had given better results, and success rates were high.
On the other hand, Sania, the other character had done everything wrong. She had no communication with her team members, and she chose to go for unreliable new clients.
References
Wikipedia contributors. (2023, January 29). Barnlund’s model of communication. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnlund's_model_of_communication
