Three individuals are in a small room discussing the impacts of disruptive technologies in medical practitioners. They allude that these technologies will make most doctors to move from formal employment to private practice. The free and open interaction among these individuals shows that they are certainly friends, with a mutual respect. Moreover, it is an indication that one of them has higher authority than the rest of the members. This individual explains to the rest the meaning of disruptive technology and it relationship with the current health care system in the US. Nonetheless, the constant interjection, correction of misinterpretation of concepts, and giving of opinions shows that these individuals have an open discussion.
During the conversation, the other two individuals, James and Thomas Snr. Are constantly typing as the lead speaker, John discusses on the doctor’s return to independent practice. The directions given by John on his experience on health care software, flaws in the existing system, and why the current healthcare system should be improved, shows that he is the one in authority. In one instance, he says that the current health care system in the US only benefits 35 million people against a population of 360 million, much to the surprise of his audience. This illustration suggests that he has more knowledge on the current health care system than the other members.
Although there are constant interjections in the communication, the fact that the discussions is being held with a clear objective of developing a health care website, which illustrates purpose, and the presence of a defined authority, shows that this is a formal communication (Maxwell 146). The constant interjections in the communication show that John has purposely allowed them so that individuals can openly share information. Further, the typing of everything that is said by John shows that there is a defined channel of instructions, which is from John to the other members. One of the main weaknesses that is observed are the constant and unnecessary pauses. John, who was the main speaker uses many and unnecessary pauses in his sentences. These pauses make it difficult for the audience to understand what he was saying. Tannen (162) alludes that the use of pauses makes it difficult for the audience to understand what is being communicated. The states, “If you don’t expect such extreme pitch shifts and you hear them, what you hear sounds monotonous.”
The communication among these three individuals is in a manner that there is freedom to respond and as questions. In addition, although John is the one in authority, he is welcoming to different opinions. Moreover, he also uses examples to ensure that his audience clearly understands what he is saying. In the conversation in the hall, there are constant interferences of the communication between John and other members by James. James is constantly giving his opinion. The common interruptions elicited by James are a unique characteristic of men, in which they are more likely to disrupt communications and give their opinion. Fisher clearly describes this character, of men stating their point, “Finally, men are more direct declaring facts or opinions… (Marltz and Broker 170). This excessive interruption makes John to ignore some of James interruptions, which is a common behavior in male conversations. Fisher states that, “Third, they are more likely to ignore comments of the other speaker, that is, to offer no response…” (Marltz and Broker 170).
This communication is certainly a social business. Specifically, the communication itself is on a social issue, the health care system in the US. Moreover, when making a comparison between the current health insurance systems in the country with those in other developing countries, he is able to spur a debate on the current political climate in the country. The talk on politics is centered on the various proposed health care systems; key among the mentioned characters is Bill Sanders, due to his proposed health reforms.
Still on health, John raises an interesting topic on the cost of health care in the US. He places a proper and sound argument when he illustrates the huge levels of wastage in the health care system. John states,”…full cost about three hundred and seventy thousand dollars to replace ten doctors. She worked for me, made about a hundred and ten thousand and replaced twenty doctors …” In particular, this argument shows a case of wastage of public funds, which is a social concern. Given that health care is an important social issue in the US, the concerns raised in this recording are important since they affects all individuals in the country irrespective of their social status, race, religion, gender, or caste.
The conversation is held in a class setting. Three individuals listen to the main speaker as he talks on the current health care system in US.
John: He is the lead speaker and the one in authority.
James:  Audience
Thomas Snr: Audience
Unnamed (Introducer of the individuals who are making the website): Audience
Ends (social business)
The main agenda of the talk is discuss on issues that affect the country’s health care system and the website that they are developing will resolve these issues.
Act sequence (The order of talk)

  • Introducer mentions the name of individuals who are at the meeting
  • The person in charge of the meeting start it by stating the purpose of the meeting
  • Member in the meeting sit and type various issues that are mentioned by individual in-charge of the meeting.
  • Individuals take a small break

Key (ton of the event)

  • Having an open discussion
  • There is a clear direction of authority.
  • There is an open discussion

Instrumentality (medium of communication)

  • Informal communication
  • Occasional use of curse words and phrases


  • Long conversation, with the main speaker giving examples and in-depth detail on the topic
  • Occasional interjections from the audience as they seek clarification on various issues


  • Formal communication, which has clear center of authority and objective

Time: 6:08-8:42
John: Afford, allow, enable doctors to return to independent practice in the best of the phhy:::y in the best interest of the doctor patient relationship.
James: Doctors will enable (-)
John: mmmhh (…)
James: =disrupted technology in specialized services.
James: Empower doctors to return to independent practice. [typing by James] (13)
John: Patients get healthier (-) or to restore the doctor patient relationship, or (-) what we should note on (-) The big issue is Sure, Greenlay all the pioneer companies that do control hospitals in the big systems their technologies sucks because it wasn’t designed by doctors and business consultan::ts. It was designed by non-clinical doctors in the ministries.
James: Yeah
John: That’s a lot to say (-) but (-) and I think that we said some place elsewhere on the website we certainly need to say that,
James: we do say that.
John: = Cause it’s true, we gonna piss a lot of people off, but life is tough. America economy may crash if this doesn’t get reversed. It’s a hundred and four dollars because of to many add men people created to many jobs and too many things that doctors don’t need, and they are thirty percent less productive.
John: We don’t need have to talk about the technologies in services (-) its more about
(5 )
John: = You know doctors now can afford return, to return to independent practice.
James: So will afford doctors, empower doctors, my English would say afford doctors
John: doctors can afford to return to independent practice and-and-and deliver more cost effective care. Its gonna lower the cost of care because (-)
=I had a recruiter who worked for me for fifteen years then she took a job working for a bigger hospital system. They paid her a hundred and forty thousand dollar an year, gave her a fifty thousand dollar car, flew around the country two hundred dollar hotel rooms, full cost about three hundred and seventy thousand dollars to replace ten doctors. She worked for me, made about a hundred and ten thousand and replaced twenty doctors. YOU SEE MY POINT?
Works Cited
Marltz D. and Broker, R. Male and Female Misconceptions. A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential Readings, edited by Monaghan, L., Goodman, J. and Robinson, J., John Wiley and Sons, 2012, 167-185.
Maxwell, J. Everyone Communicates, Few Connect: What the Most Effective People Do Differently. New York, NY: Thomas Nelson. (2010). Print.
Tannen, Deborah. “Conversation Signals and Devices.” A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential Readings, edited by Monaghan, L., Goodman, J. and Robinson, J., John Wiley and Sons, 2012, 157-162.