I’ve been following Alisa Bowman’s blog, www.projecthappilyeverafter.com, for several months. A couple who came to see me at a very low point in their marriage told me about the site. Between our first and second sessions, they “googled” their problem and Project Happily Ever After appeared in the search. After exploring the site, their comment to me went something like this: “She’s writing about exactly what we’re going through.”

The advice and discussion at Project Happily Ever After gave this couple renewed hope and more resources.

Alisa and I have had some correspondence during the past few months. She reviewed my book, asked me to weigh in on the topic of stonewalling in relationships for a blog post, and wrote about the value of the communication styles framework—giving an excellent summary, as well as discussing the impact it’s had on her relational world (posted this past week: 7/23/10).

There is so much self-help information available on the web, as we all know. Finding practical and useful resources isn’t always easy. However, Alisa writes about real and relevant issues in an honest, straightforward way. She’s not afraid to talk about the hard stuff, doing so with good information, humility and a sense of humor.

Alisa is also writing a book, Project Happily Ever After, which will be published in December. Look for it—it promises to be helpful, interesting, and inspiring.

Two people in the news this past week were fired from their jobs for being honest—and human. One was a journalist, the other a Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Both were honest and open in their public comments with good intentions and clear purpose.

The journalist was a twenty year CNN veteran. She made a tweet (as in Twitter) about the death of a founding member of Hezbollah. The tweet expressed a sense of loss, which CNN saw as compromising the journalist’s objectivity. How could she have credibility if she expressed her private feelings publicly?

Two things are wrong here. The first is that the medium only allows 140 characters, so a complete understanding of what she meant is unlikely. The second is CNN didn’t bother to find out before firing her. That’s just wrong. She, of course, explained herself. Her comment was not a vote of confidence for Hezbollah, it was made out of respect for someone who had advanced the cause for women’s rights in the Middle East. That’s all.

The Department of Ag official (black) was talking honestly about her struggles with race as a young women and how she handled a situation with a man (white) who exhibited racism. His whiteness influenced her decision. She told this story in a context that was not promoting racism but doing the opposite. She appeared to have been forced to resign. Fortunately, the Department of Agriculture learned the whole story, apologized, and re-offered her the job. It shouldn’t have been necessary.

I understand the difficulty for CNN and the Ag Department in terms of public perception. They must be scrupulous with the public trust, so certain behaviors must not be allowed—discrimination and bias among them. Yet, we’ve become so jumpy about every utterance, without considering context, intention, and real impact (not imaged impact). It puts everyone on edge, trying to be politically correct all the time or you will lose your job and credibility.

It takes time and effort to understand one another. We must accept this reality, which means giving the benefit of the doubt by asking thoughtful questions until we have an absolute understanding of what was meant. That is a basic human courtesy and a basic and necessary communication skill. We must practice this in both our personal and public lives or risk continuing a climate of paranoia that fosters extreme political correctness—neither of which serves us well on any front or forum.

I listened to part of Weekend Edition this past Sunday on NPR and heard the letters-to-the-editor segment. Some of the letters referenced a story last weekend about PTSD in military personnel. The letters criticized someone interviewed who used the term, “former veterans.”

On one hand, the term “former veterans” can be somewhat amusing, a slip of the tongue, perhaps. On the other hand apparently it can be construed as a slam against veterans. This was the point of view expressed in the letters to the editor. The writers attributed negative motivation to the interviewee—that to refer to veterans with PTSD as “former” is to negate their status as veterans. I’m not kidding, and I was surprised that NPR chose to read those letters.

I heard the interview in question but do not remember hearing the words “former veterans,” although I do not question the other listeners’ memories. I do, however, question their attribution of motivation. I believe the interviewee made a harmless linguistic error. This person was being interviewed, on the spot if you will. We all make linguistic errors speaking extemporaneously. It is inevitable. To be judged because of these errors is unfair.

There are those with high linguistic sensitivity who go too far in criticizing other’s use of language, especially when the intention really is clear. From the interview, it was clear that the interviewee was not down on soldiers with PTSD. We easily got the gist of what was meant, so to be held hostage for a simple speaking error is unjust.

Use of language is important and we should be careful (without walking on eggshells) about what we say and how we say it. Those who are strong linguistically generally have a better command of language and take great care in the use of words. As I’ve noted in the chapter on the linguistic component in Do You Know What I Mean?(2009), however, one of the potential problems arising from this strength is being overly aggressive with others about their use of language. Doing this can be harmful to relationships and usually causes disruption to true understanding. Surely this is not the intended goal, but is often the net effect.

For those who are linguistically sensitive, it is best to focus on the gist of the communication first, then decide if giving feedback on the use of language will be welcomed and/or helpful. Sometimes inaccurate use of language obscures the true meaning. In that case, again, ask a thoughtful question to make sure you understand what the other person means. That, of course, is the point of communicating—achieving understanding.

What child hasn’t been scolded for calling someone names? They are admonished: That’s not nice. . . . We don’t call others names. . . . Tell him you’re sorry for calling him names. We use these and other familiar phrases to try to teach our children how to behave properly and respectfully in a civil society. Calling others names is character attack. To say, “You are an idiot,” classifies the other, is not specific about your objections/concerns, and invites defensiveness. In short, it is bad communication practice.

Most of us are careful not to do this in the workplace or with friends and acquaintances. We behave with a level of respect and courtesy that is intuitively obvious. We preserve the relationship by finding a respectful way to address problems and concerns (most of the time!).

But at home it is often a different story. Many of us assume we can “let down” at home, be “ourselves” with loved ones, with the result that we say whatever comes to mind. We justify it with a telling it like it is mentality or the moral obligation to be honest. Unfortunately, for many, familiarity lowers their standards—it in fact, does breed contempt.

In many cases, because we know the other so well, we assume we know their intentions. Logically, if we know their intentions and believe their intentions are bad, then we are justified in calling them the names they “deserve.”

From a communication standpoint it is always good practice to make sure you have verified the intentions and motivations of the other. “I know her well enough to know what she means,” isn’t good enough. You better ask her—with sincerity. “What you said really offended and hurt me. Was that your intention?” or “I don’t know where you’re coming from.”

“Oh, we are more informal. We don’t talk that way,” you say. Well that’s likely true, but there are many ways to ask for clarification. The Basic and Necessary Communication Skills section of my book, Do You Know What I Mean? offers several different ways to approach this.

As I write this I confess to having a scolding tone. Truth to tell, I am upset about this issue. I hear too many parents and kids and couples calling each other names without being aware of it. I see how desensitized they become and the gradual erosion of good will in family relationships because of it.

I hear on television, radio, and movies the smart-mouth one liners with a laugh track encouraging poor communication—words that are not about achieving understanding but are meant to get the upper hand. Good communication is not about winning, it’s about being effective in achieving understanding, which creates trust and closeness.

“Look at it this way…,” or “There are other possibilities…,” or “Look at it from the other side…” Those with a strong logical component to their communication style often play the devil’s advocate. This technique helps them analyze a situation, discover the truth, and solve problems. Their intentions are good and their willingness to help is clear, which demonstrates empathy. However, these are not always apparent to the other party in an intimate relationship and the devil’s advocate technique usually backfires, resulting in an emotional disconnect. Here’s an example:

Jesse: I can’t believe what Joanne said to me at work about our client. She might as well have called me incompetent.

Luke: What exactly did she say?

Jesse: She said the client wondered what I had been working on since our meeting last week.

Luke: Well, maybe she wanted to give you a heads up about the client before your meeting tomorrow.

Jesse: Why are you taking her side?

Luke: I’m not taking her side. I’m just suggesting another possibility.

Jesse: Because you think I’ve been goofing off, too?

Luke: No, I don’t, I just . . .

Jesse is upset about what Joanne said to her at work. When Luke heard what was said, he tried to show Jesse that there are other interpretations for Joanne’s comment: She might have been trying to be helpful—the opposite of what Jesse believed. Luke is a very logical person and needs to analyze situations and enumerate options. He often plays devil’s advocate as a way to more fully explore problems and likes to make an argument in favor of something he doesn’t necessarily believe, as a way to discover new meaning.

The word argument is interesting. An argument between two people implies a heated conflict. To make an argument in favor of something, however, is to fully express the reasons supporting a side of an issue—not in a contentiously, adversarial manner. In the exchange, Luke’s attempt at making an argument gave rise to conflict because Jesse didn’t perceive his intent and believed him to be arguing, not supporting or understanding her distress. Luke didn’t adequately communicate his concern for Jesse’s distress, so being devil’s advocate wasn’t especially effective.

When a loved one is in distress, offering emotional validation and showing direct concern for his or her distress is the first order of business. Without that being clear, any ideas offered run the risk of sounding like criticism. Again, those with a strong logical component enjoy making the argument, playing devil’s advocate, and offering alternative ideas. The intentions are usually good but not easily seen by someone in distress, unless a supportive, emotional connection occurs first.

Often, we use words like depression, bi-polar, panic attack, generalized anxiety disorder, and more to describe normal reactions kids have to life circumstances. This can be dangerous and gives kids the wrong message about life and our ordinary human experience in response to adversity.

For example, a teenager breaks up with her girl friend and is feeling down and dejected. Saying she is “depressed” would be common. Today, it can mean something else—Depression with a capital “D.” In a situation like this, I’ve found it better to stay away from “terminology” and use ordinary words to describe what the kid is going through, rather then telling them they may “have” depression and implying (or actually telling) that they should be thoroughly evaluated.

The girl in our above example was dumped by her friend. She’s upset, hurt, sad, angry, and feeling really down. She probably should be feeling all of that, as well as being confused and feeling poorly about herself. She is going through the normal progression of experience in a typical human circumstance. She needs love, support, hugs, understanding, encouragement, and time.

I’m not pooh-poohing depression or minimizing the potentially devastating impact of clinical depression. But I am trying to bring balance and common sense to our observations of kids going through a hard time and subsequently our communication with them.

My first mentor, Ralph, was a child psychiatrist. He passed on a piece of wisdom over thirty years ago that I carry with me today. Paraphrasing: if you describe in detail the behavior and emotions of any teenager, they will qualify for a mental health diagnosis—and some pretty heavy duty diagnoses at that! Teenagers have mood swings, black and white thinking, irrationality . . . etc. I don’t mean this disparagingly. During adolescence there are enormous body/mind changes which are very unsteadying. Any of us adults in a difficult situation will exhibit many of these behaviors, as well. Drawing diagnostic conclusions, though, can be dangerous—especially with kids

Also, we’ve gotten more detailed and sophisticated in our terminology about human behavior but often at the exclusion of common sense. For example, I’ve found myself using old-fashioned terms like “nervous exhaustion” or “nervous breakdown,” when they seem more accurate and helpful. Other choices like “psychotic break” or “bi-polar disorder” just don’t fit and aren’t helpful, and we can all identify with being in a “slump” or “down in the dumps.”

Connecting with others in distress by being patient and emotionally supportive is the first order of business. Expressing kindness and understanding are always helpful, even if it doesn’t have an immediate, discernable impact. Knowing someone cares makes a big difference. It’s simple but true. And communicating using simple, descriptive language is always the best medicine.

Ned is a very active seven year old boy—tireless and constantly in motion. His continuous imaginative play is captivating, both to himself and to anyone watching him. Within a minute of seeing a stick and a piece of crumpled up paper, for example, he has combined them with other objects to form a spaceship that he weaves in and out of many worlds.

Often, though, it is difficult to get Ned’s attention because he is so absorbed in play/thought/imagination. If you ask him a question or give him direction, he’ll respond as though he’s heard you but he doesn’t follow through…or so it seems. When his parents try to talk to Ned about listening and following through, he seems distracted and uncomfortable, and the session often accomplishes little except giving all involved a not-so-healthy level of frustration. Mary and Kevin, Ned’s parents, are concerned that his level of absorption will cause big problems for him, especially as he gets older.

Mary especially is tireless in her attempts to engage him and help him focus better. As she explored the communication styles framework, she recognized that Ned has a strong visual-spatial and kinesthetic world. He tends to think in pictures and focuses his attention on creating and experiencing. Therefore, using words to connect with him would likely be ineffective.

One day when Ned and Mary were at the park, they watched as two boys, some distance away, played with a ball. When the ball bounced toward them, Ned picked it up and began bouncing it in a pattern relating to the cracks in the pavement. Mary instructed him to return the ball to the boys. Ned replied, “I am.” He mother retorted, “No, you’re not. Give it back now.” The conversation went back and forth like this, and eventually Ned rolled the ball back to the boys.

Then Mary asked him to go sit in a nearby hammock and picture two scenes: the one that just occurred and another where he simply handed the ball back to the boys. Ned sat dreamily in the hammock for about five minutes and then said, “Oh, I get it. I should have given the ball back right away because they were playing a game with it.” Mary saw this as a breakthrough moment, and it was.

Typically in a follow-up discussion of this sort, Ned would defensively explain that he was giving the ball back because, in fact, he was, but it was in a manner that suited him and was not congruent with anyone else’s reality. This time it was different. As Ned tuned into his imaginative world to reflect, he observed his creative process for returning the ball (which he fully intended to do) and observed the scene from the perspective of the two boys. Once he visualized both pictures, he realized what was most important—the right thing to do in this situation. Tapping into Ned’s natural language in the visual-spatial realm gave him an opportunity to connect to a bigger picture and understand what was important to others.

As Mary and I talked about this, we explored the possibility of helping Ned use an imaginary pause button when she’s trying to get his attention. Because the compelling pictures he constantly visualizes makes it hard for him to focus on input from others, learning to press the pause button might help Ned focus on what Mary is saying. It’s an experiment worth trying. Using the communication styles lens often can help us creatively and specifically solve problems.

I don’t like to promote (directly or indirectly) the stereotypes in the popular culture about how men and women communicate differently. I approach communication style differences based on the individual, not the sex. Because I have addressed this in other posts, I won’t get into it here, except to say that looking at the interpersonal/intrapersonal axis offers a helpful perspective on what typically is seen as sex differences.

My purpose, here, is to explore a common occurrence in counseling men about the expression of feelings. Here’s how the typical conversation goes:

Client: I don’t seem to be in touch with my feelings. When my wife asks me how I feel, I can’t seem to say anything. She can say how she feels anytime you ask her. I guess I never learned how to identify or talk about my feelings when I was a kid. Sometimes I think maybe I don’t have any feelings.

Me: You seem pretty down about this.

Client: Yeah, I really am. I don’t know what to do about it. My wife’s about had it with me. And I guess I don’t blame her.

Me: Do you and your wife talk about stuff very much.

Client: Yeah, pretty much. We talk about work, the kids, whatever’s going on. But when she asks me how I’m feeling, I just seem to shut down. I guess I need to figure out why I do that, right? My wife says lots of men are like this. Is that so?

Me: Well, I’ve talked to many men about this very thing. It can be very confusing. So, what do you go through when your wife expresses her dissatisfaction about all of this?

Client: I get this tightness in my chest and sometimes it feels like my hands are shaking, although they really aren’t. I guess I’m a failure at communication . . . and I don’t want my kids to be hurt by my lack of feelings.

Me: Do you get to spend much time with your kids?

Client: Not as much as I would like to. But I go to most all their events. I help with homework in the evenings, and we do family stuff on the weekends.

Me: Do you tell your kids that you love them and are you physically affectionate with them?

Client: My twelve-year-old boy always seems to be hugging me, and my ten-year-old daughter still sits in my lap, and we always say, “I love you.” Never did that with my dad, though.

Me: Being close with your kids is obviously important to you. You sound sad about your dad.

Client: Yeah, I am. I know he loves me but never heard him say it. Not once.

Me: What are you thinking when you say that?

Client: Well, I’m thinking that it really hurts when he won’t tell me he loves me.

Me: Sure it does.

It’s clear from the conversation that this man has plenty of feelings, is very aware of them, and can more than adequately express them. We need to remember that feelings are not words and words are not feelings. Feelings are experienced in the body. Words are descriptions. They’re just attempts to give abstract expression to our internal sensations. I never asked this man what he was feeling. I asked him to describe his experience, to tell me what he was going through, and I reflected (in words) the obvious feelings he was having.

Too often we get hung up on the belief that if someone can’t respond to the request, “How do you feel about this or that?” they must be out of touch with their feelings. But feelings can be expressed in many ways, and this man, for example, readily expressed how he felt about his family by responding to the affection shown by his children, by helping with homework in the evenings, by participating in regular family activities.

We do, however, sometimes need to have a direct discussion about feelings. When asking someone else about his or her feelings, it may be best to take the communication style approach and tap into the natural language of the individual. Here are some suggestions.

• What are you going through?
• Have you ever been through something like this before?
• What does the situation look like to you?
• What do you think might be going on here?
• Is there some word or phrase that captures the experience?
• Can you describe the sequence of events for what happened to you?

For some people (both men and women) it is hard to respond directly to a question about how they feel. Yet, by approaching the question from other angles corresponding to different communication styles, you have full access to the feelings of the other person. Also, you don’t need to know the specifics of the other person’s communication style to explore the above suggestions. Try one or two and see how it works.

In intimate relationships we come to know the other in great detail—how they think, feel, what they believe, their quirks, preferences, etc. Knowing and being known is important to our sense of well being. The familiarity implies security. The relationships of couples demonstrate this like no other. The special bond of living together and observing and absorbing the world of the other allows a unique opportunity—an opportunity to feel, sense, and anticipate the behavior of your loved one. Couples often take pride in being able to finish each other’s sentences, sense when the coffee cup needs refilling. You can observe the tiredness in the eyes, the sadness in the sound of the voice. Their joy is your joy, too.

I’ve heard many couples in counseling sessions say, “I know you better than you know yourself.” Usually this is not meant literally, though sometimes it is. What is usually meant is, “There are times, I know you better than you know yourself.” There is probably some truth in that statement. Yet it is a statement filled with potential hazards. We can never know another as well as they know themselves, and we must always be humble enough to accept this truth. Although we can know more than anyone else about our loved one, we cannot know more than they themselves know.

Interesting research about very long term marriages, fifty years plus, has shown that there is genuine contentment and happiness. These couples report the importance of continuously learning about the other. In other words, as well as they know each other, there are always new things to understand and learn. To remain open minded and curious is what’s important.

Here’s the five percent rule: You may be right about your partner ninety-five percent of the time but if you don’t reserve the five percent of not knowing, you will harm the relationship. The ninety-five percent gives a false sense of certainty and security. The five percent keeps you humble.

It is better to listen from the position of knowing that you do not know everything and that you are there to better understand your partner. Call it being open-minded, beginner’s mind, or whatever you like. What’s important is communicating your true desire to better know the other, rather than assuming you already know what’s going on and why.

I just finished reading How by Dov Seidman, an inspiring book about creating values driven organizations that promote team work, mutual accountability, and individual leadership. It is possible to do this; Seidman includes lots of great examples of organizations of every size. This is particularly inspiring when put against news—and we’ve all heard it—of a company that relocates because of the “quality of the workforce.”

Often when you hear about a lack of an adequate labor pool, it’s in a relatively metropolitan area, a large diverse city with a large diverse workforce. If the leadership of a relocating company believes the people of the new locale will provide a better workforce, they are likely fooling themselves. It always sounds to me like a geographical cure for a leadership problem or that they don’t want to discuss the “real” reasons.

The words that shoot through my mind when I hear of this are “crisis of leadership” and I’m reminded of Good to Great by Jim Collins. In the book, Collins analyzes the leaders in great companies. These are humble individuals who know the mission and stick to what the organization does best, but do it better and better. They inspire their workforce by sharing the responsibility for the mission, with everyone having a real stake in what they are doing.

Good leaders know how to communicate a vision and share the responsibility for success with employees. They create a feeling of we’re all in this together. Blaming the quality of workforce in a major city for being inadequate is like blaming students for not learning in poorly run schools. You can say that kids have “bad home lives,” so they can’t learn but we have all heard of kids thriving in schools located in the poorest of neighborhoods because the community of teachers and administrators find a way to work successfully with them. The examples of this phenomenon throughout the country are too numerous to refer to it as an anomaly.

This is about leadership and communication—the leader’s ability to communicate a vision and share the leadership with others toward a worthy goal. Leadership and communication are inexorably interwoven, with communication being more than words. Communication includes words and the consistency of actions to back them up. The active demonstration of values along with the consistency of behavior provides the real leadership that will continue to inspire individuals.