Argyle’s communication cycle for successful conversations

What is argyle’s communication cycle?

Argyle’s communication cycle is a framework for thinking about how people share and interpret messages. Its central lesson is simple: sending a message does not prove that someone has understood it. Effective communication involves checking meaning and adjusting your approach in response to feedback.

The version commonly taught in communication and care courses has six stages: an idea occurs, the message is coded, sent, received, decoded and understood. Feedback then helps people check their understanding and continue the exchange.

For a manager, tutor or colleague, the practical value is not memorising six labels. It is noticing where a conversation has gone off track and deciding what to do next.

How does the six-stage cycle relate to argyle’s work?

Michael Argyle was a social psychologist whose work explored social interaction, non-verbal communication and interpersonal skills. His broader social skills model, associated with work alongside Adam Kendon, treats interaction as skilled performance: people pursue goals, perceive others’ responses and adjust their behaviour using feedback.

That is more substantial than a simple message travelling from sender to receiver. It includes the ability to notice what is happening, interpret it and choose an appropriate response.

The familiar six-stage communication cycle is best treated as a teaching simplification associated with Argyle, rather than a complete account of his theory. The six labels used here are not presented as a quotation from his original writing. Teaching resources vary, with some placing aims at the beginning or making feedback the final stage.

This distinction matters when applying the model. Real conversations do not proceed through six tidy boxes once. Both people send and receive signals, sometimes simultaneously, and their goals or interpretations can change during the exchange.

The six stages of the communication cycle

1. An idea occurs

You have something you want to communicate: a question, request, concern or piece of information.

Before speaking, clarify your purpose. Do you want someone to understand a process, contribute an opinion or agree a next step? “Discuss the assessment” is vague. “Explain which evidence is missing and agree when it will be submitted” gives the conversation a useful focus.

A clear purpose should guide you, not prevent the other person from raising something important.

2. The message is coded

Coding, also called encoding, means turning your idea into words, signs, images or other signals.

Choose language the other person can use. A new apprentice may not recognise an abbreviation that experienced colleagues use every day. Replace “complete the usual documentation” with the name of the document and what needs recording.

Tone and delivery also influence meaning. A helpful offer can sound like criticism if it is rushed or delivered impatiently.

3. The message is sent

You communicate through a channel, such as speech, email, a video call or a written instruction.

Choose the channel around the task and the person’s needs. A sensitive performance discussion may benefit from a private conversation. Detailed instructions may also need an accessible written version that someone can revisit.

There is no universally best channel. Consider urgency, privacy, accessibility and whether a record is needed.

4. The message is received

The other person encounters the message, but that does not mean they have taken in every part of it.

Noise, interruptions, an unreliable connection or an inaccessible document can prevent reception. Someone may also be trying to listen while dealing with an urgent task.

Check the conditions before explaining something important: “Is now a good time, or would ten minutes after the handover work better?”

5. The message is decoded

The receiver interprets the message using their knowledge, expectations and experience.

This is where apparently clear words can acquire different meanings. “Send it by the end of the week” might mean Friday lunchtime to one person and Sunday evening to another.

Decoding is not mind-reading. If something is ambiguous, ask rather than assuming you know what the speaker intended.

6. The message is understood

In the teaching version of the cycle, the final stage is understanding. In practice, shared understanding is something to check, not an automatic result of the earlier stages.

Invite the other person to explain the next step in their own words: “So I can check I explained that clearly, what will you do first?” This is more informative than asking, “Do you understand?”

Their answer becomes a new message. You receive it, interpret it and respond, creating the feedback loop that makes communication a cycle.

A worked conversation: clarifying an apprentice’s assessment evidence

The following illustrative conversation takes place at an FE college. A tutor, Priya, is meeting an apprentice, Lewis, whose portfolio needs additional evidence before an assessment decision can be made.

Priya’s aim is to explain the gap and agree a realistic next step. Lewis believes he has already completed the work, so simply repeating the instruction is unlikely to help.

The initial message exposes a misunderstanding

Priya: “Your portfolio needs more evidence of planning. Could you update it before our next review?”

Lewis: “Yes. I’ll upload the photographs from the job.”

Priya has sent a message and Lewis has responded. However, his response reveals that they mean different things by “evidence of planning”. If Priya accepts his “yes” as proof of understanding, the problem will remain.

Feedback changes the explanation

Priya: “The photographs will show the finished work. What I still need is evidence of how you decided what to do before starting. Let’s look at the assessment requirement together.”

Lewis: “I thought the finished job showed that I’d planned it.”

Priya: “I can see why you thought that. For this requirement, we also need to see your planning decisions. Do you have a job sheet or notes showing the materials and order of work?”

Lewis: “My supervisor has the job sheet. I didn’t write a separate plan.”

Priya has now learnt something useful. The issue is not necessarily unwillingness or a lack of planning. Lewis may have relevant evidence but has not understood what to select.

They check the practical constraints

Priya: “Let’s check whether that job sheet, alongside an explanation of your own decisions, meets the evidence requirements. Can you get permission to share it, with any confidential details removed?”

Lewis: “Probably, but my supervisor is away until Thursday.”

Priya: “Then let’s agree a deadline that allows for that. Could you ask on Thursday and send me an update by 3 pm on Friday, even if you’re still waiting?”

Lewis: “Yes, I can do that.”

The conversation now addresses access and timing, not just wording. Priya also avoids promising that a document will be sufficient before checking the actual assessment requirements.

They confirm the shared understanding

Priya: “Just so I know I’ve explained it clearly, talk me through your next steps.”

Lewis: “I’ll ask my supervisor on Thursday whether I can share the job sheet. I’ll explain which planning decisions were mine. I’ll update you by 3 pm on Friday, even if I haven’t got the sheet yet.”

Priya: “Exactly. I’ll put that in a short message, along with the requirement we looked at.”

The improvement came from listening to Lewis’s interpretation, clarifying the evidence gap and agreeing a workable action. The written follow-up supports the conversation rather than replacing it.

A second example: making a workplace handover clearer

At a UK distribution centre, an outgoing shift supervisor tells a colleague: “Bay three is sorted.”

The colleague takes this to mean that loading can begin. The supervisor meant only that an obstruction had been removed; an equipment check was still outstanding.

A clearer handover would state the status and restriction explicitly: “The obstruction at bay three has been removed, but the equipment check is still outstanding. Do not restart loading until the authorised person has confirmed it is safe under our procedure.”

The incoming supervisor can then confirm the outstanding action and who is responsible for it. The relevant information should also appear in the required handover record.

This illustrates why “message received” is not enough, particularly when consequences are serious. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on safety-critical communications addresses communication in contexts such as shift handover. A conversational model supports, but never replaces, local safety procedures.

How to apply the cycle in everyday work

You do not need to announce each stage during a conversation. Use the framework as a brief preparation and reflection tool.

• Before: Identify the purpose, check what the person already knows and choose an appropriate setting or channel.
• During: Explain one manageable point at a time, leave space for questions and listen for differences in interpretation.
• At the close: Agree who will do what, by when, and how any problems will be raised.
• Afterwards: Record important decisions where necessary and follow up on unresolved questions.

For complex instructions, ask the person to describe or demonstrate the next step without making it feel like a test. The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality explains this approach in its teach-back guidance. That guidance is written for healthcare, so applying the principle to workplace learning requires judgement. The useful idea is to check the quality of your explanation rather than blame someone for not understanding.

Accessibility belongs throughout the process. Ask what helps rather than guessing. This might include captions, written information in advance, a quieter space or additional processing time. For disabled workers, suitable changes may also fall within an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Limitations and common misunderstandings

Understanding is not agreement. Someone can accurately understand a request and still disagree with it, lack the resources to carry it out or question whether it is appropriate. More explanation will not necessarily resolve that problem.

Feedback is influenced by power. An apprentice or new employee may say “yes” because challenging a tutor or manager feels risky. Make questions welcome and respond constructively when someone identifies a problem.

Body language is not a reliable code for hidden feelings. Looking away, remaining quiet or folding arms can have many explanations. Culture, disability, neurodivergence and individual preferences all matter. Treat non-verbal signals as prompts to check in, not proof of dishonesty or disengagement.

Not every breakdown is an individual skills issue. Excessive workload, contradictory instructions, inaccessible systems and unclear responsibilities require organisational action. A communication diagram cannot fix those conditions by itself.

Finally, the six-stage cycle is a useful organising framework, not a guarantee of success or a complete explanation of human interaction. Its value lies in the questions it encourages you to ask.

Your next step

In your next important conversation, choose one improvement: make the request more specific, remove a barrier to listening or check the other person’s interpretation before finishing.

The essential habit is to move from “I told them” to “We checked what this means and what happens next.” That is how a simple communication cycle becomes useful practice.

Sources and further reading

• Argyle and Kendon, The experimental analysis of social performance. Foundational academic reading on the broader social skills approach. It should not be treated as verification that the six-stage wording above is an original quotation.
• Health and Safety Executive: Safety-critical communications. Guidance on communication where misunderstanding can affect safety, including handovers.
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Use the teach-back method. Healthcare guidance on checking understanding and improving explanations.
• GOV.UK: Reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities or health conditions. An overview of employers’ responsibilities and examples of adjustments.