• 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!

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.

• 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!

My brother is a math whiz, has a strong logical mind, and once said, “I use the language of logic and math to communicate what I see in the visual-spatial realm.” Of course I was intrigued and had an intuitive sense of what he was describing but it’s so far from my personal experience that I was also baffled.

Working with management teams in businesses and organizations, I’ve often encountered people in finance who remind me of my brother, and recently I heard a description of processing in the logical and visual-spatial realms that was especially illuminating and intriguing. While talking about his role and confusion about communicating effectively with others in the organization, the CFO said, “I think in spread sheets, only they’re three dimensional. I can picture the numbers but more importantly see how they connect to the different areas of the organization, how they all relate to each other.” This was a bit of a show stopper for the team members.

What was he really saying? He understands the bigger picture around the finances of the organization because he can visualize how everything relates through money. He sees these numerical relationships in three dimensions.

Because no one else in the room does that, the CFO needs to find a way to communicate his ideas about finances in a way the others can understand. How to do that became a collaborative, trial and error process, and this in itself—discussing what everyone needed to achieve understanding—became a team-building activity.

Collaboration around the Communication Styles Framework is by its nature non-threatening. The conversation that evolved for this team was as important as the solutions they discovered because the discovery process taught them about each other within a problem-solving paradigm that they can replicate in other situations. This type of problem-solving most often results in durable and transferable solutions, so when another complex situation arises that requires good communication, they can draw on this experience to guide them to success.

• 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!

Robin has a small landscape design firm with three employees. Barry, the oldest of the three has ten years experience, is very talented, and wants to buy the business from Robin, who is getting close to retirement. The other two employees are younger and in the novice phase of their careers.

Robin respects Barry, seeing him as hard working, sincere, and ambitious without being driven. Although Robin also genuinely likes Barry, he’s never been able to establish the kind of rapport he’d like. He wishes the two of them could have very open, heart to heart type discussions, but his attempts at getting closer leave him feeling awkward and out of synch.

Through the communication styles lens, Robin is an external, spontaneous processor (thinking out loud). He is genuinely friendly and enjoys talking with others. He uses his hands a lot for self-expression and often refers to images and feelings in a poetic style.

Contrasting that, Barry is more of an internal processor, needing to think through his feelings and ideas (intrapersonal) to formulate thoughts and positions before meaningful engagement with others. He makes lists throughout the day, quantifies times and tasks naturally, and has a very reasoned (logical) approach to his life and communication.

Observing their processing/communication patterns, it became apparent that Robin was trying to engage spontaneously with Barry, popping into his office and quickly running something by him for an opinion or just to share information or find out how Barry was doing. Barry’s reserved responses frustrated Robin, and at times he felt rebuffed and hurt.

Robin tried to confront this pattern head on by asking Barry if something was wrong between them. Barry seemed confused and rattled by Robin’s question, which caused more awkwardness . . . and of course, Robin then began drawing varied conclusions: Barry is having problems at home with his “controlling” wife, Barry doesn’t trust or respect Robin, Barry is withdrawn and depressed, etc.

It’s hard not to draw psychological conclusions based on the above observations, yet there is another way of approaching the communication patterns Robin observed. My first suggestion was based on the assumption that Barry is stronger intrapersonally and Robin stronger interpersonally.  Therefore if Robin pops into Barry’s office, he should request a mutually satisfactory time for them to talk and let Barry know what the agenda is, so Barry can have an opportunity to think about it ahead of time. My second suggestion was for Robin to organize his visual-spatial pictures in a logical format (list, task flow, etc.) so Barry, with his logical approach, could quickly understand them.

These two adjustments had immediate positive results. Although Robin likes the idea of being spontaneous and free wheeling in his conversation, it doesn’t work for Barry. Giving Barry time to prepare and creating some order around the discussion allows both of them to be more open and communicative. The structure frees them to connect better emotionally and have some spontaneous conversation, as well.

Thinking about and accounting for style differences first, offers a straightforward opportunity for problem-solving before delving into the potential psychological and emotional roadblocks. The sequence matters.

• 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!

I’m very aware of time. What time it is, how long something will take, the number of days before an event. I look at my appointment book several times a day, making, changing, and remembering when I have appointments and mapping out the time-flow. I’m also the kind of person who gets ready and shows up very early for appointments and events. I began doing this as a child. Keeping accurate time playing a musical instrument, however, has always been challenging, and although I’ve done a lot of organized singing as an adult, my timing skills with music remain weak.

My time estimation skills are also weak. I frequently err in determining how long an activity will take. Left on my own, I will calculate three activities taking a total of two hours, when in reality they take five or six hours. Likewise, I can overestimate: planning several hours for something that takes barely one. So, I’ve learned to ask others for feedback as part of my planning efforts.

My interpersonal timing skills, however, are strong. I innately sense what to say when, which fosters clearer communication and greater understanding.  I’m not talking about the art of making good conversation. I mean the way of listening and feeling the rhythm of the conversation, knowing when to ask a question and when to be silent, naturally modulating my voice and creating an emotionally safe environment. The timing involved in each of these “activities” comes naturally, although having over 30,000 hours of office counseling “practice” helps.

Timing and time, related but different—a strength, a weakness. Our human capacities have different dimensions. In one way they can work smoothly, efficiently and effectively.  In another way they can be erratic, out of synch, and cause problems. As I continue to observe and study the details of how we interact with ourselves and others, I am amazed at the nuances of our capacities and how paradoxical they can appear.

• 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!

In my consulting work with parents of young children, I encourage parents to notice what the child notices and then to make a comment. To some degree this is natural. When, for example, there is a loud airplane overhead and the child looks up, it is common for the parent to say, “Oh, there goes an airplane.”

It’s more complex when the parent notices the child’s inner, emotional reaction to an event. Let’s say a stranger in the supermarket reaches down and ruffles the hair of the child and says, “What a cute head of fluffy curls.”  The child looks very sober and ignores the passing stranger.

The parent could say nothing or comment. I think commenting is better, but what should the parent say? The parent could tell the child that the stranger really liked her hair or that the stranger was just trying to be friendly. Neither really validates the child’s experience, however, which is often the most important part of noticing. If the parent says, “I don’t think you liked that lady ruffling your curls,” then the child knows that the parent understands the child’s experience. From there, a discussion might proceed.  Either way, the child is seen by the parent and the emotional experience is validated.

It’s not so different in the workplace with supervisors and supervisees, though I’m not implying that supervisors treat supervisees like children.  With that stipulation, active noticing by team managers is critical to the well-being and productivity of all team members. Active noticing is more than praise for a job well done. It’s about noticing the details: Does the employee have the knowledge they need? How much effort are employees expending; are they overworked? Do they need help from others? Noticing these details and discussing them with the employee strengthens the working relationship.

For example, when an employee works especially hard to meet a deadline and you say, “Joe, I know there’s a lot of pressure to get this done on time and that you’re feeling it. Let’s meet at 2:00 to see if there’s a way to ease the pressure.” Even if it’s obvious to everyone that Joe is working hard, stating the obvious and showing willingness to help makes a difference, even if you and Joe decide that there really isn’t anything else that can lighten his load.

When employees experience your active noticing, their sense of well being and loyalty increase. It makes for happier, more engaged and, therefore, productive employees. A win-win situation and formula for success.

• 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!

Recently I’ve been talking about curiosity as a communication skill—and, perhaps one of the most important communication skills. Why?

Imagine that every time you engage in an important conversation you remain curious. What impact will this have on the other person and the outcome of the discussion? . . . Think about it. . . . Remaining curious requires an open mind, an open heart, and a genuine interest in the other person. If you have that, those you’re conversing with will feel this and most will respond positively, likely resulting in greater openness.

Being curious is more than just being interested in gathering information. It anchors the listener in a posture that communicates good will, which makes being open much easier. The more openness, the deeper a conversation can go, and achieving understanding—the goal of interpersonal communication—is more likely.

In a previous post I referred to research about older couples who had been married (happily) fifty years or more. The aim of the research was to discover the ingredients that contributed to their happiness. These couples all reported remaining curious, realizing that as much as you know about your loved one, you don’t know everything—and you never will. This open-mindedness—curiosity—created a respectful environment where both partners continued learning about each other.

In the “Basic and Necessary Communication Skills” section of my book, Do You Know What I Mean?—Discovering Your Personal Communication Style, I suggest asking “I’d like to understand what’s really important to you. Can you tell me?” when you’re having a difficult conversation. This, when asked with sincerity, creates an opportunity for real listening.

Of course the most important advice for creating harmony in relationships is to listen. Listening well is an important skill. Curiosity is a special part of listening, perhaps a sub-skill. How we classify curiosity is unimportant, though, as long as we practice it and communicate it to others when we are trying to achieve 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!

Derek had a ten-year dance career, and now at age thirty-two it was time for him make a change. Clearly he was in transition and wanted to find a way to include dance in his life in some form. So we explored his interests, ideas and strengths.

When we talked about choreography, I asked him how he creates a dance. I was curious partly because I can’t image doing something like this, considering my difficulty with visual memory and sequence. As Derek described the process, he became a little dreamy-eyed and began moving his head rhythmically from side to side.

First, Derek gets an image of the dance in his mind’s eye, but not a vivid image of specific movements—an image that communicates the mood and tempo of the dance. It’s a little dreamy but forms the foundation of his creative process. With the basic idea in place, he then begins to feel the movements unfold in his body but moves very little. It’s more of a step here or there, some shifting of weight and arm movements. “Nothing that looks like much to an outsider,” Derek explained.

Next he needs to be in the studio with a mirrored wall, so he can actually move and watch himself. This is a tedious process because he experiments a lot, changing and refining specific positions and movements “until it feels and looks right.”

When he completes a sequence he likes, Derek makes notes and sketches notes for future recall. Often he doesn’t need the notes, but it’s what he’s always done and it’s just part of his process. His basic memory kicks in as soon as he begins moving is body. The ability to process kinesthetically is second nature for Derek. As we talked, he also realized how important it is for him to get up and move around when he’s trying to “think something through.” He joked about how he “moves something through.”

For those who are strongly kinesthetic, I often advise them to experiment with different kinds of movement to discover how they can best use it for managing stress, thinking, communicating, and creating. And for those not so kinesthetically inclined, it’s also good to experiment with movement. Brain research shows that much of the body (yes, including the brain) needs/requires movement for efficient and healthy functioning.

• 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!

Mentoring comes up in my thoughts and conversation frequently these days. Of course at my age and stage of career that’s part of what happens: I have over thirty-five years of accumulated experience and knowledge and enjoy passing along what I’ve distilled. My past writing on this subject was about how hard it is to develop mentoring relationships in the workplace because of the rapid turnover of personnel, the culture gap between generations, and how older folks need to work longer and are protective of their jobs and know how (now called “intellectual capital”).

Recently, I’ve observed another obstacle to developing mentoring relationships: our easy access to information. An increasing percentage of the workforce has grown up in the information age and automatically uses technology to find instant answers to questions and resources on topics of interest. In so many ways this is marvelous. Do a topic search for “organizational skills for teachers,” for example, and see what happens. No, you don’t need to because you know you will get page after page of references that will eventually lead you to solid and helpful information.

How is this different from walking down the hall to Master Teacher Beth and discussing your organizational challenges with her? “But why would I do that,” you might ask, “when I can get the benefit of dozens of Beths by going to the internet?” It’s a good question and my answer is why not do both, although to do the latter might make you appear vulnerable (you think), admitting that you are uncertain just when you’re trying to prove yourself and demonstrate competence and mastery.

So what is it that you can get from Beth that you can’t get from the internet?  You may get more information from the internet than you will from Beth, but you won’t get the relationship. And part of what’s important is the relationship. Someone who might care about you, look out for you, take you aside and challenge you when you need it, offer a piece of advice at the right time, and share the process with you. . . .

What process? you ask. That’s a difficult question to answer because there is no one process, but some process does exist when one applies information. The specific process for each of us varies, at least some, and we each need to discover how to mesh our own internal process with the external structure in our work. In other words, we need to accommodate the body of knowledge inherent in the discipline of the work with our individual/personal way of working. Good mentors understand this and can offer guidance at the right time because they recognize the complexity of process and that timing is everything—and that’s where the relationship comes in. Receiving information from an impersonal stranger—and as good as the information gotten via the internet may be, it’s still impersonal—may not be helpful. A mentor, however, understands the specific concept of the workplace process, and as he or she gets to know the mentee can offer guidance, personal experience, wisdom, and other resources. The mentor has been there and can put into context all the pieces—the required information, the level of development of the mentee, and the desired goal—while accounting for the mentee’s own discovery process.

Mentoring is both art and science. It combines the tools of the trade with experience, while developing a meaningful and useful relationship. Mentors, of course, must guard against the desire to create a clone (immortality?), thereby not recognizing the uniqueness of the mentee. Mentoring must always be about the mentee and what’s needed in his or her development.  The value of thoughtfully offering guidance, which results in the growth of another person and contributing to the greater good are reward enough.

• 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!

Justin worked hard to stay connected to his team. He interacted daily with each of the six members whether he needed to or not. It was just his way—make pleasant conversation to keep things friendly, ask personal questions about member’s kids or vacations, and keep up to the minute on project details. No one doubted Justin’s motives. They knew his heart was in the right place, that he wanted everyone to get along and cared about doing everything well. But . . . they all found him annoying, and it was beginning to erode the overall positive working environment.

The owner of the small marketing agency where Justin works began to notice the tension and tried to find out what was going on. The team’s quality of work was good; that wasn’t the issue. She discovered, however, that there were no weak links in the team and everyone basically liked their roles and what they did, so she concluded that it was a personality conflict between Justin and his team and recommended communication training to help them learn how to discuss these personality conflicts.

When we illuminated the communication styles differences of team members, some things were immediately clear. Justin’s way of continuously interacting reflected his strong interpersonal nature, naturally causing friction with the four members who were more intrapersonally oriented. Just identifying that difference cut down on some of the conflict.

More interestingly though, Justin also discovered that his strong visual-spatial orientation manifested in a way he had not recognized before. “My mind pictures spirals,” he said. “There are spirals  connecting to spirals, and I pick up data from other people and attach it to one or more spirals that I naturally visualize. It’s how I think and organize my mind—and of course no one else realizes what I’m doing because it’s invisible.”

Following up with the team, we made other important discoveries. Two team members have strong logical components to their processing/communication styles and organize information in sequence on a timeline. One of them said, “You mean everyone doesn’t do that?”—a serious and rhetorical question.

What happened next was actually great fun and energizing for the team. Justin placed a large sheet of paper in the middle of the table and sketched his internal spirals, attaching words and symbols signifying the data he had gathered from a recent project. Another team member drew a time line and organized his data along the line. Others participated by making various markings to connect information from the spirals and the timeline.

The spontaneous and creative solution that emerged for this once-struggling team was natural and exciting—and not at all a conflict of personalities.  Recognizing exactly how our strongest communication style components manifest often creates pathways to group problem-solving and team
building.