• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

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.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

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!).

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

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.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

“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.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

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.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

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.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

Gerard and Lucy were arguing about what happened in an argument they had the previous day. Lucy recalled the sequence of events and the words Gerard used to express his anger. Gerard became indignant and accused her of not telling the truth. “I was sitting in the chair the whole time and you just said that I was huffing and puffing all around the room. That’s just not true.”  “Are you calling me a liar?” Lucy retorted.

The conversation—or rather argument—continued with Gerard insisting that he sat in the chair the whole time and Lucy saying that part of the time he angrily moved about the room. How could their memories be so different?  Was one of them really not telling the truth but afraid to admit it out of embarrassment?

I’ve been party to many conversations in counseling and consulting work that deal with high conflict. Very rarely does someone not tell the truth to save face. Most all the time both people tell the truth…or what they experienced as best they can express it at the time.

I realize that may sound like legalese or politically or socially correct rhetoric, but it is the most accurate way I can explain the reality of the situation. Here’s why: As information comes into our brain, it is deconstructed. Fragments of the experience record in different areas. When memory is recalled, the fragments reconstruct and may not “come back” in the way the experience actually happened, and therefore might be different for each individual. This makes for very sober going as we try to establish “what really happened”—especially when two people, both hurt and confused, try to figure out what happened and maintain their sanity.

In high conflict situations, our stress hormones are elevated, which alters our thinking and feeling so we experience the situation in a somewhat altered state. Does that mean we are out of touch with reality? Not at all. What it does mean is that each of us will experience the same situation differently, and sometimes very differently. The conflict Lucy and Gerard experienced recorded in different ways in each brain. Over time as memory consolidates (which can take some years) those memories, as they recall them, can and will change.

So, what can they do? Lucy and Gerard must accept that they experienced what happened differently and not get hung up on who is right. Acknowledging how hard it was on both of them can set the stage for emotional healing and potentially some problem-solving. Talking and listening under these circumstances is difficult. If they can both clarify what they would like the other to understand, the repair process can begin. Achieving understanding does not require agreement, but it does require mutual respect.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

Gary injured his back working in the yard, which resulted in a long and difficult bout of sciatica, bad enough that he used a cane when walking.  Sitting, standing, and lying down were all difficult to different degrees for reasons he could not figure out. He was also under a lot of personal stress.  His elderly father was in and out of the hospital; each time Gary wondered if his father would live. And it was a busy time of year at the accounting firm where he worked.

Talking about his troubles wasn’t difficult for Gary: At this point he’d talk to anyone who’d listen. He felt scared and isolated in the pain he was experiencing. In counseling he wondered if what was happening was some kind of wake-up call. Were the forces in his life converging to give him a message about something deeper and important about how he was living his life?

As we explored current and past struggles, Gary was articulate and had given a great deal of thought to his history, strengths and challenges, important relationships, and concluded that he tried a little too hard to please others—he was a little too selfless, to his own detriment. Although his dad needed him, Gary was burning himself out and not sharing enough of the responsibility with his sisters. He didn’t want them to be burdened, knowing how much they were grieving about their father, and was usually too quick to say, “Oh, I can do that.”

Recognizing that Gary is strong interpersonally and kinesthetically, I asked him if there was a feeling or image that captured what he was experiencing in his pain and struggle. He closed his eyes and described what he called “a World War II guy who got shot up pretty badly.” The figure (him) was in a wheelchair and wrapped in white bandages from head to toe with only his right eye showing to the world. The image was less important to him than the feeling it conveyed about his experience being in the situation he was in.

As we continued to explore Gary’s struggles, we did it in the context of the bandaged figure. It guided his exploration and let him know when he was on the right track. For example, when he was talking about not burdening his sisters, the bandages stayed in place and were unchanged. When he focused on setting more appropriate boundaries for himself, however, there were fewer bandages and they were looser; he felt more present and connected in his life.

By connecting to this representation of himself, Gary was guided by something deeper and more trustworthy than just his words. He could fool himself, that is, talk himself into believing he was doing the right thing; but he couldn’t fool his inner kinesthetic experience.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

Britta was frustrated with Craig because he worries about a lot of things most of the time, according to Britta. According to Craig he doesn’t worry a lot of the time, a statement that flabbergasted Britta. “Just ask anyone who knows you,” she exclaimed, “ten-to-one they’ll say you are a worrier!” “Sure, I worry sometimes,” Craig replied, “but not ‘a lot of the time.’” Britta looked at me for help.

I suggested we stick to specifics as a first order of business and see if there was a recent incident that would help us better understand what each of them really meant. Britta brought up their youngest son as a topic for discussion.  We all agreed that a certain type of parental worry about our children is natural. Aaron, their son, is a very sensitive kid and has frequent emotional meltdowns. Britta went on to say that she felt frustrated because when Craig was talking about Aaron the day before, he was worrying, afraid of how Aaron will turn out as an adult. “There’s nothing we can do to fix this,” Britta said. “I wasn’t saying that either of us could or should fix this,” Craig replied. “And besides,” he continued, “I wasn’t worrying about Aaron.”

This brought an exclamation of incredulity from Britta. “You weren’t worrying?” she said in a somewhat sarcastic tone. “No, I wasn’t,” Craig said, calmly and matter-of-factly. We all paused at that, and because I know that Craig is word sensitive (linguistic) I asked him to define the difference between worry and concern. Being the wordsmith that he is, Craig easily did.

Worry, he said, is about feeling anxious about something unpleasant, whereas concern has an element of worry, but also compassion. This difference mattered a lot to Craig because he is so linguistically oriented, using words carefully to guide his thoughts, feelings, and communication.  To Britta these two words are relatively interchangeable. She did know, however, that this difference in their processing styles has accounted for conflict before, so she became more relaxed.

When Craig is concerned, he doesn’t obsess or feel burdened, but when he worries he feels burdened and looks for relief. By clarifying the meanings of the words, Britta could see that Craig wasn’t looking for help so he could feel better. He was expressing concern, not worry, about Aaron. The distinction helped Britta relax and it resulted in a broader discussion about clarifying terms and focusing on what each person needs from a conversation. For example, Britta can ask if there is some way she can be of help when she hears worry or concern from Craig. It’s a relatively small adjustment to the pattern of their conversations but the positive impact can be large.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

As often happens when teaching the Communication Styles Framework, someone will spontaneously say, “Oh, I just realized something I’d never thought of before.” This happened recently during a workshop with a management group.

The discussion centered on how differently we organize our workspaces, which was actually a side discussion that began when one member expressed frustration from having a messy desk. A coworker remarked that she has a messy desk, too, but “I know where everything is and can easily put my hands on whatever I’m looking for.” Someone else chimed in that she can usually picture right where she puts things.

I commented that my visual memory is poor, so I have shelves or a counter to spread out on, eliminating piles. If something is in a pile, I won’t remember it’s there. With shelves or a counter, I need to scan each item to remember I have it.

The most interesting comment, however, came from Lucien (not his real name, of course). “I remember where I put something by feeling where I put it.” As he said this he mimed with his arms moving in different directions, placing papers in different locations in space. “It’s kind of a muscle memory,” he continued. “I can’t see where I put it, but I know where it is because I remember the actual movement of putting it there.” There was a quiet pause as we all absorbed this new information.

In my usual articulate manner when something like this occurs, I said, “Wow, that’s so cool” . . . Seriously, I probably did say something like that because I’d never heard that from anyone and I hear many unusual comments in similar group meetings around the framework. Paying attention to these seemingly quirky observations is important. They are clues to our processing modalities and, therefore, our communication styles.

Lucien is strongly kinesthetic and a doer. He learns by gaining knowledge through direct experience and can seem impulsive, thoughtless, or foolish.  Now that his coworkers better understand his processing style, they are less likely to judge him and more likely to find constructive ways to interact with him when he does dive right into something.

Our discussion that day led directly into recounting a past experience (with good humor) when Lucien did something that seemed impulsive and ended up being embarrassing but was really part of his need to gain knowledge from direct experience. As the group revisited the incident and put it in a different (more accurate) context, they automatically began talking about how they all could have handled it differently. Recognizing Lucien’s need for direct experience also led to discussing how creative he is and how well he thinks on his feet. His taking direct action and adapting as needed afterward certainly suits him well—and usually benefits the whole management team.

By identifying Lucien’s strengths and how those strengths can also get him into trouble, this team engaged in a discussion that brought them greater understanding about themselves and each other. Without making judgments, they put past observations in a new context, which allows them to better support one another, problem-solve more creatively, and collaborate more productively.