Laura walked up to Carrie and began talking about something as if they had been interrupted a few minutes earlier and were simply continuing the conversation. In fact, it was the first time they had seen each other at work that day, so Carrie had no idea what Laura was referring to.

This pattern is familiar to Carrie because it happens frequently, and when it does she always says, “Wait, Laura, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.”  Laura, too, is frustrated by this pattern and says, “You know . . . the project we were working on last week.” Of course it doesn’t take them long to get on the same page, but the pattern annoys and frustrates them both.

In situations like this it is common to attribute some kind of negative motivation to the other person. Given this pattern, Laura believes that Carrie wants to feel important by controlling the conversation; and Carrie sees Laura as presumptuous and sloppy in her communication.

Fortunately, Laura and Carrie began to see this pattern differently through the communication styles lens as we fleshed out their core processing strengths during a team-building project in the workplace. Here’s what happened:

Laura discovered how her core processing strengths—interpersonal, visual-spatial, and kinesthetic—combined to drive her unique communication style.  Specifically, Laura needs a lot of interaction with others to help formulate her thoughts and feelings. Therefore she frequently seeks engagement with others and because she thinks so strongly in pictures she spends a lot of time connected to her internal visual-spatial world, which, of course, is invisible to others and hard to describe in words. Because she is also kinesthetically strong, her direct experience and feelings are very important in how she processes information.

When Laura was describing her core processing strengths and how she sees them manifesting in her communication style, Carrie had an ah-ha moment and with good humor said, “Oh, now I get it!”  “Get what?” Laura asked.

Carrie found a kind, yet straightforward way to talk about her observation that Laura often starts talking about something in a way that feels like it’s coming out of the blue. Laura immediately chuckled and made a comment about how she could tell that Carrie was often annoyed with her. From there Laura articulated how she has constant conversations in her head and strongly pictures the interaction, her feelings and ideas, so when she sees someone (Carrie in this situation), she assumes a level of involvement externally that has been going on internally.

This type of conversation happens frequently during communication styles programs, and often with good humor. When what is really occurring gets illuminated, a natural problem-solving and relationship repair discussion ensues.  That happened naturally with Laura and Carrie. They decided that when Carrie can’t tell what Laura is referring to she (Carrie) will ask Laura what she’s picturing. With this simple solution, they can now quickly and efficiently manage conversations, where formerly they would have felt frustrated and irritated, even when they managed the content of the conversation to a workable conclusion.

Judy got promoted at the radio station where she works. Because she learns quickly, has a good work ethic and has good rapport with her co-workers the promotion seemed natural. Virtually everyone thought it was a good move. Judy, of course, felt a little in over her head but was confident that she could learn to be a good manager.

After about six weeks in her new position, Judy became concerned because some people in her department had begun to be standoffish and others outright avoided her. Then she thought she overheard the word micromanaging in a conversation. She was sure they were talking about her, and she was right. They were. She confirmed that by talking with a friend in her old department whom she trusted to tell her the truth. Her friend had heard Judy described as micromanaging.

Judy was hurt by this feedback and after she reflected on her first six weeks believed it was true. It was so unlike her she decided to talk with the HR director for help learning how to delegate. The HR director, Jim, was confused: It was hard for him, too, to believe that Judy was a micromanager, but since she was new to the position, he remained open minded.

Jim began making some informal observations, trying to get a feel for the situation. He also decided to meet regularly with Judy to offer support and guidance on how to delegate responsibility. Although they both enjoyed the talks, the situation was not improving. So, Jim decided to reflect on the problem through the communication styles lens. At their next talk, he asked Judy to refresh his memory regarding her core processing strengths. Judy reminded him that she is high kinesthetic, a hands-on learner. In other words she needs direct experience to learn. She is also strongly interpersonal, so the direct engagement with others is important to her in processing information.

As Judy spoke, Jim had an insight that he immediately shared with her: Because Judy is in a new position, she might be trying to learn about the department by experiencing everything she can first hand. Before he could finish his statement, Judy’s whole body relaxed and she began shaking her head affirmatively. “Yes, she said, “that’s it!”

From this insight, everything fell into place and Judy decided to meet with her staff to have a frank discussion. She told them how it was her intention to learn everything she could about the department as a first step, and because she is a hands-on learner she had been involving herself directly in all aspects of the operation. She said she knew she had inadvertently stepped on other’s toes and suspected she had communicated a lack of confidence in their abilities.

Her openness was met with relief and an opportunity for department staff to acknowledge their frustration and confusion. Judy assured them that it was not her style or intention to micromanage, and that she would welcome their feedback and help as she was trying to learn her new job.

The Communication Styles Framework often gives us a pathway to problem-solving. Frequently when I’m feeling stuck and puzzled, I remind myself to focus on the situation through the CS lens. It often frees up my thinking and gives me a fresh perspective, as it did for Jim (and Judy!).

One of Adam’s unique talents is knowing when someone doesn’t quite “have it right.” In other words, when he hears someone talking about something he can tell if they have all the correct information. Of course this isn’t fool proof but more often than not, in his work as a project manager, he is on the mark with this instinct.

While he was on the phone the other day with a client, I overheard him pick up on one of these situations. He said to Sam, “I think I know what you’re getting at and I believe there’s a little more to it. So, let me follow up with Sandra to clarify a few things and I’ll get right back to you this afternoon

He looked over at me and said, “I could tell that Sam misunderstood or misinterpreted something from a phone meeting that took place yesterday. I wasn’t at the meeting but something just doesn’t feel right.”  So he called Sandra, asked a few questions, and discovered that there was information that Sam did not have.

Then Adam called Sam, as he said he would, and found a way to give an update that accounted for all the (missing) information, thereby keeping the project on course. He commented to me about how often this happens, where there is some small misunderstanding/misinterpretation that gets acted on and then needs to be corrected. A lot of his project management time is devoted to correcting and preventing these mistakes. Because of his unique talent, he aims to prevent rather than have to correct.

I was intrigued by the process and asked Adam how he knew there was missing information. After some reflection and attempts to articulate what he does in these situations, he basically said, “I don’t know how I know. I just know.”

So I put on my processing styles hat and asked more specific questions: Is it something you hear in the voice of the other person or is it that something isn’t logical in the presentation? “Probably a little bit of both,” he said. He reflected further, “Because I place so much emphasis on relationships, I really try to get to know all of these people I work with, which allows me to hear and feel when something is dissonant. It’s through this connection [interpersonal] that I have with the other person that something happens when they’re talking that tells me they don’t have it right. I guess you could say that I just know them well enough to know.”

Having Adam on that team results in fewer mistakes and a smoother flow to a project. He continuously tends to the relationships, which gives him access to information that others don’t have. It’s through the ease and trust in the relationship that “stuff” is inadvertently revealed. Adam picks the stuff up and acts on it as needed to keep everything running smoothly. As is true with any of our unique processing talents, they often go unnoticed because they are so natural and matter of fact in how they are employed.

Jacob has a neurological disorder that makes sustained attention difficult for him. He often leaves a conversation that is obviously not finished, which can be disconcerting and confusing to others. His roommate, Bill, has tried to give Jacob verbal clues and direction to keep him better focused, but this didn’t always work. Although Bill understands what’s going on, it’s frustrating for him. At times, he feels like Jacob’s parent, or worse it seems to him that Jacob is self-centered and uncaring, which Bill knows is not the case.

Words are important and we rely on them to achieve meaning and structure to our experience. Words, however, are only one form of structure to help give us direction. When Bill, Jacob, and I talked about the problems they were experiencing in their communication patterns, we decided to take a different approach to structure.

Rather than Bill only giving Jacob verbal cues, we decided to add practical visual, kinesthetic, and logical cues. For example, when they need to talk about something important, they sit at the kitchen table in designated chairs.  Prior to sitting, they put a blue table cloth (only used for this purpose) on the table, construct an agenda attached to a clip board, and make tea. They use the same routine each time they have these talks.

By literally setting the table with the same items (visual and kinesthetic reminders) and creating an agenda (logical) where they can check off items, they create patterns and structures to give Jacob multiple clues to help anchor his attention. Oh, and it is Jacob’s job to cross off items on the clip board as the conversation progresses, so he knows where they are in the process of discussion. This also gives him something tangible to do.

This type of structure has helped Jacob and Bill have extended conversations that are more satisfying to both of them. It does not fully compensate for Jacob’s attention difficulties, but it does give them both more structure and opportunity to collaborate on the process and content of their conversations, which helps them feel more connected.

The Communication Styles Framework illuminates how you process information and, therefore, interact with others. The seven processing dimensions (or components, as they are called) combine differently for each individual to form a unique communication style. All seven are active ingredients in each individual, but two or three are most easily identified (Core Processing Strengths).

Other communication styles paradigms are based on personality, roles, and/or gender. These approaches look more broadly at factors that influence specific behaviors, for example, being passive, assertive, steadfast, or compliant. Introversion and extroversion are, perhaps, the most common traits.

While it is useful to be aware of these roles and personality factors, they are general and so don’t offer specific information about the underlying drivers of our communication. The CS Framework, however, does identify those underlying drivers and offers specific tools to help insure successful communication.

Here’s a personal example: I am of an introvert, yet my core processing strength is the Interpersonal Component, which combines with my auditory and kinesthetic processing strengths. This means that I seek engagement with others (thinking out loud) and rely strongly on how the message sounds and feels. Others hearing this description may have a hard time making sense of it. It’s my unique understanding of how I go about processing information, expressing myself, and listening to others. Because there are as many communication styles as there are individuals, stereotyping or pigeonholing is futile.

Although the CS Framework is based on individual strengths, it also helps us understand how our strengths can get us into trouble.  Overemphasizing a strength without recognizing that others may not have the same strength has the potential for derailing communication.  For me that might take the form of expecting too much engagement from others because I have such a strong interpersonal component to my communication style.

Finally, it’s also a good idea to challenge yourself by focusing on a less developed component (for me that would be either the logical or visual-spatial) to see what you notice.  This will broaden your self understanding and encourage you to be more aware of how others experience communication, both expressively and receptively.

Epiphanies, those moments of absolute clarity where we experience knowing viscerally, capture our attention like nothing else. Yet in the moment the feeling can almost seem unreal or surreal—“Is this really happening?” we ask ourselves rhetorically. These moments are few and far between and we wonder how it just happened. Of course there is no answer to that question because a variety of experiences converge over time that contribute to the new found awareness. We savor these moments, yet on the heels of this new awareness we ask, “Now what?”

Are we supposed to do something new?

Is everything immediately “fixed” in our lives?

Are we forever changed?

The answer to the first question is no. Nothing new is required because whatever you’ve been doing to get to this point is exactly what you need to continue doing. The difference is that now you are more keenly aware. You are better informed about yourself and have a deeper connection to your own experience. These phrases can sound slippery but to the person experiencing the epiphany they have clarity and meaning.

The answer to question two is also no. Everything is not immediately fixed. With the new awareness, however, comes more freedom of choice, the opportunity to be more grounded and flexible in making decisions about your own behavior. In a sense this means being in better control of yourself—experiencing your feelings more clearly and making decisions with more available options. Of course, those options were always there, you realize, but somehow you could not avail yourself of them. Now you can.

The answer to question three is yes, but here there is a paradox.  Although an internal shift has occurred and you feel different in some way, you actually are more yourself, or perhaps another way to say it is that you are more connected to yourself. In that connection you are changed but are still more or less the same. As I said, a paradox.

Change is always tricky. When we experience growth in ourselves we feel more at home, and that seems like not changing. Yet as we grow, of course we change, not into a different person, but the person we know on a deeper level. It is the epiphany that opens the doorway to that deeper level and knowing.

Finally, with the epiphany comes responsibility—the responsibility to follow through on our new awareness and understanding. The epiphany doesn’t fix everything, as I’ve said, but it does increase our choices and we must continue to make good choices for ourselves. This isn’t easy. In fact it may be just as hard as before the epiphany, but now we can make decisions with greater inner resources to draw on.

“It drives me crazy when you tell me nothing is going on, when I can tell from your voice that something is going on!” Jeri exclaimed.

“Why won’t you believe me?” Brad pleaded, “I told you, nothing’s going on!”

And so it goes. We’ve probably all been involved in a conversation of this sort at one time or another. Brad said something to Jeri and the way it sounded was incongruent with the words he used. She thinks he’s upset because she heard “upset” in his voice, which in a sense was there.

As we teased apart the emotions and details of the conversation, what we discovered was interesting and helpful. Although Brad was not upset about the issue they were discussing, he was frustrated by how the process of the discussion was evolving. This happens frequently in conversations with couples. Brad is linguistically sensitive and logical in how his thoughts progress. For him there is a distinct difference between upset and frustration, and he was adamant in telling Jeri that it was the process that was troublesome to him, not the issue.

Jeri is very auditory sensitive. She hears the subtleties in voice quality and the emotion carried by those qualities. She listens very carefully and tunes into others by how the communication sounds. So for Brad to say he’s not upset when she clearly hears him being upset drives her crazy.

This is a good example of how differences in communication style strengths can cause friction and conflict in relationships. Brad processes a conversation with linguistic and logical strengths dominant. Jeri processes primarily in the auditory and interpersonal realms. They rely on their strengths to guide them in understanding, as we all do. Yet they focus through different elements (communication components), which creates a disconnect.

Simply being aware that these differences exist, knowing how you and your partner process information and recognizing and accepting the differences while separating the process from the content in a conversation  will help minimize conflict and support an opportunity for better understanding.

Carl is 41 and works as a project manager for a construction company. He’s a hands-on guy who likes his work and likes to play. He surfs, skis, hikes, enjoys good wine and sings in two different groups. His core processing strengths are intrapersonal, kinesthetic, and visual-spatial. Of course he has his own unique incorporation of these attributes forming the foundation of his processing/communication style.

In counseling, Carl was concerned about stress in his life because he was recently diagnosed with an unusual disorder caused by elevated stress hormones. If the stress hormone levels remained consistently high enough, he would sustain permanent damage to one of his bodily organs.

So, we talked about the stressors in his life. He was single, tired of dating, and wanted to settle down. Pressures at work were high because of the recession and shortage of construction projects. Carl’s younger brother had drug abuse problems and was going through a particularly bad time. All of these matters troubled Carl and he worked hard to put them out of his mind.

Carl had always been healthy, worked out regularly, ate and slept well. He had a few close friends, men he went hiking, skiing, and surfing with. Carl was open emotionally, had good communication skills, and shared his hard times with friends. He looked forward to counseling and was motivated to deal with the stresses in his life. He liked trying to figure things out and learn more about himself, but he was also scared because of his troubling medical condition.

Recognizing that Carl had a strong kinesthetic component, I decided to help him focus more on the sensations in his body and less on words and concepts. We did some basic relaxation and imagery exercises to focus and tune into the body. As I was guiding Carl through this process, I asked him to locate the place in his body where he could experience the stress hormones, which he did. Then he practiced calming and intensifying them by moving an imaginary lever on the arm of the chair.  He pulled back on the lever to lower the stress level and pushed it forward to increase the stress.

This was exciting for Carl as he felt more hopeful working with his body than trying to talk his way out of this difficult situation. He practiced each day getting into a relaxed state, tuning into the “area of the stress hormones,” and toning them down. After a couple of weeks of regular practice, Carl was tuning into this process automatically during the day, managing to keep his stress hormones “quieter.” Within a few weeks, his body began to heal and at his next check up with the doctor he was in complete remission.

Working through the kinesthetic/visual-spatial and intrapersonal pathways helped Carl get direct access to a healing process not accessible to words, logic or interpersonal engagement.  The Communication Styles Framework helps us tune into our natural language and illuminates that pathway.

At first glance, Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter by Liz Wiseman and Greg Mckeown, seems straightforward and common sense. It’s one of those books that makes you say, “Yeah, I knew that.”  Although it is common sense, the value is in how it gets under your skin and the subtleties begin to work on you.

The book is well backed with research but its content is accessible with interesting stories to illustrate the concepts. The authors show how multiplier leadership allows talent to flourish and brings out the best in everyone, not just the leader. In fact the leader knows how to ask the right questions at the right time and believes in the power of the collective to produce excellent results. It’s not about trying to make everyone feel good about themselves by simply being kind and gentle. It is about rigor, understanding the capability of others, sharing responsibility, establishing trust, and insisting on excellent results . . . with the results belonging to everyone.

The research demonstrates how more productive this model is than the diminisher model, where the leader believes he/she knows best and therefore directs everyone else. The diminisher model, though perhaps having good intentions, limits initiative and the power of the collective, while gobbling up resources. Workers tend not to produce their best work because they fear not getting the “right” answer. With the diminisher model, the results belong to the leader.

Although the examples the authors use are mostly taken from the business world, the concept can be applied virtually anywhere: parenting, teaching, counseling, etc., where believing in others, establishing trust, asking the right questions, knowing when and how to encourage and give direction, along with having high standards are essential for growth and development.

I’m watching myself more carefully these days, observing my own potentially multiplier and diminisher behaviors . . . and honestly, it is making me a little self conscious but my awareness is growing. Because the goal is not about intentions but about impact, it’s not easy to tell if your actions truly do encourage the best in others. But it’s an important consideration: Is what I’m doing or saying likely to bring out the best in others?

Geraldine gets annoyed with Joseph because he narrates what he’s doing or about to do. For example, if he says, “I’m going to the kitchen and get some crackers,” Geraldine might respond, “Why do you need to tell me that? Are you looking for permission or do you think it’s of interest to me?” “Oh, I don’t know,” he says. . . . They’ve had this conversation many times and Joseph feels like he’s doing something wrong, but he’s always done this. So why does he announce what’s he’s doing?

Joseph and I explored this question, and he wondered if there was some deeper psychological issue: Did one of his parents do this when he was growing up? Did he need permission because he is so lacking in confidence?  Is he so self-centered that he believes people are interested in his every move? You can probably see where this is going. None of these hypotheses had any merit.

Finally Joseph said, “I do it for myself. I’m not really talking to anyone else.  There’s something about hearing that organizes me.” “What do you mean by ‘organizes’?” I asked. Joseph then went on to describe how hearing the story is grounding and keeps him focused. He is a musician and song writer. He hears and feels the rhythm and melody in words. His experiences become organized by telling and hearing the story, something that can be hard for others to understand.

When Joseph shared his insight with Geraldine she understood better, and because she knows Joseph so well it made sense to her. But that doesn’t mean she isn’t annoyed when he announces what he’s doing. The difference now is that she doesn’t load it with inaccurate meaning as she once had. And now Joseph is more aware of it, so he can sometimes curtail it and often uses humor by rapping his actions or singing á la opera.

Using the communications styles lens to better understand our behavior and that of others doesn’t mean all troubled feelings disappear into happiness. This understanding, however, does help to unload the inaccurate, psychological meaning we’ve given behaviors, putting them in a context that allows us to interact with others more flexibly and with greater compassion.

There’s a tag to Joseph’s story. . . . While coming to understand the reasons for his narratives, he realized Geraldine’s routine of inefficiently wending her way through a parking lot to find a parking space, a behavior that drives him nuts, was routed in her not-so-strong visual-spatial skill. Joseph can size up the visual field in an instant, easily knowing how to navigate it but  Geraldine cannot. The visual field is hard for her to immediately make sense of. Understanding this has helped Joseph relax and realize that it’s not important that it takes Geraldine longer to find a parking place. Whatever meaning he had given this behavior in the past evaporated and we had a good chuckle over it.