“Are you okay?” We all have asked this question many times to many people in our lives. Usually the answer is “I’m okay,” even when the person isn’t really okay. It is meant to reassure us on the one hand and on the other hand to stop the conversation from getting into too much depth.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge not being okay? Perhaps it shows weakness, an inability to cope with life. After all, we must take responsibility for our lives. No one else can. Perhaps it means we are a failure. Everyone else seems okay, so what’s wrong with me?

I imagine times past when life was more communal, when communities were smaller and families were in close proximity—perhaps, even in the same home. People must have noticed when you were not okay. Maybe everyone noticed and it was a matter-of-fact observation. Bob’s wife just had a new baby, that’s three little ones, he looks tired and discouraged. I’ll get some guys together this weekend to help him out.

Nowadays, who notices? We are in our individual homes, often far away from families, coping with our individual lives. We do not have the automatic community for support and understanding. If we are in need we must find a way to acknowledge the need and ask for help. But do we know how?

So often in my counseling practice I hear, “Everyone else seems to be coping just fine. What’s wrong with me?” As if having a difficult time isn’t a normal occurrence and shouldn’t be acknowledged. There is no loss of dignity and no shame struggling within ourselves and with life in general. It is no secret that the biggest struggle we have is with ourselves. No one is immune.

Because we live insular lives with our most immediate family, we must learn how to acknowledge our human struggles openly with extended family and friends. Not indiscriminately, of course, but with those we know will be there for us. We must not be afraid to do this. The circumstances of our lives can get overwhelming, requiring us to seek out others, asking for their support and help. It is part of taking responsibility for ourselves. In fact, it is irresponsible to do otherwise. We owe it to each other.

Communication tip: “I’d really like to talk with you because I’m going through a hard time.”

As a young child, my grandfather would often greet me with outstretched arms—a welcoming and warm expression of his love and acceptance. But before giving me a hug, his hands would cradle my jaw, one hand on each side, firmly holding my head. Then I would collapse into his legs where he would envelope me and say in his Armenian accent, “How is the Bob?”

I have done the same with my grandchildren. Yet, I wonder at what age this will feel uncomfortable to them. When will they outgrow this type of physical contact and feel too mature to accept it? I lament that we ever outgrow this kind of affection, for I still feel the impulse with my closest loved ones—my wife, our children, brothers, nephews, nieces, and in-laws.

In the Armenian American community where I grew up, cradling the face was common among people of all ages. Cultural differences in expressing affection don’t easily translate, just like many words can’t literally be translated. What does it mean to have this kind of physical contact?

It expresses the nature of the relationship, the bond of family (whether by blood or choice), and undying affection. We are one. We are inseparable by geography. We touch the faces of those who are emotionally and spiritually closest to us. This behavior is about utter devotion. It is not like a hug or grasping the shoulders of a friend. It is more intimate than a kiss on the cheek. It reaches us in a deeper place.

Touch is powerful—more powerful than we often imagine. I still remember a time in college when I was touched on the arm by a faculty member during my internship at the university counseling center. One day, I was standing in the hallway looking out a window near his office, as he was hustling by. In that moment, as he stepped into his office, he put his hand on my upper arm, squeezed gently, and said, “How you doing?” I can still feel the sensation on my arm and the feeling inside me forty years later. He touched a place in me, communicating something kinesthetically that moved me.

Touch is not an auxiliary form of communication meant to enhance words. It is primary and can result in immediate changes in how we think and behave. Couples who touch more tend to have higher relationship satisfaction. Children receive touch as the first form of communication in their lives. Yet the amount of touch we receive as we grow older diminishes, often dramatically.

Touching is a complicated matter in our current culture. So often we are afraid to touch one another, yet it is natural; and I hope the grandchildren will continue to accept the old country legacy of cradling the face. Perhaps as I grow older they will indulge me and continue to intuitively/kinesthetically understand my love and devotion without embarrassment.

The foundation of your communication style is directly related to your inherent abilities—the way you are wired. Yet there is more to it. Relationships influence how we use our style.

Recently I had a question in the Communication Lab, bringing focus to this issue. The questioner indicated that both he and his wife have dominant intrapersonal components. Often, though, he’s the one who appears to have a strong interpersonal component. He brings up issues, wants to talk about them, needs to connect and discuss in a back and forth manner—qualities that might be observed as relating to the interpersonal. Everywhere else in his life, he sees himself much more strongly through the intrapersonal lens. Yet, since both partners are more intrapersonally oriented, the risk of emotional distance increases. He feels this and makes the effort to behave more from the interpersonal perspective.

We don’t often notice these seeming aberrations because they are infrequent and employed intuitively. The above questioner, however, noticed a pattern and made a conscious decision to actively use a less developed component. This type of style shift can be useful. For example, I don’t have much connection to the logical component, yet if I think it will be helpful in a complex discussion, I bring it forward: “Let’s think about the sequence of events and see what conclusions we can draw.” This is akin to looking at something from a different perspective and can better focus the discussion.

With children we frequently demonstrate flexibility in our style and don’t think about it. Kids need us to approach situations from different angles to help them better understand something, so we might use an analogy, a logical construct, explain our own experience to draw out their emotions. We try hard with kids because we understand their limited experience, vulnerability, and confusion. It feels like the right thing to do, so we actively use numerous components in an effort to connect.

With adults, we expect more and generally have less patience than we do with children, and the emotional boundaries are different, as well. We don’t want to communicate in a manner that could be construed as condescending.

Although the communication styles framework helps anchor you in your strengths, it is also helpful to pay attention to less developed areas in your style. Because I am so interpersonally driven, I have to consciously remind myself to take the time to go within, and in some relationships with those who have a strong intrapersonal component, it’s a necessity.

When you stretch beyond your natural comfort zone, you tend to learn something new. Broadening your use of the seven communication components can be very helpful in gathering information, understanding others, and communicating more effectively.

Establishing a right/wrong framework in interpersonal communication is not likely to bring two people closer together. It is my belief that the goal of getting closer is overarching in personal relationships, even if we are not conscious of it in the moment of a heated discussion.

When I explain this to couples in conflict, they look doubtful, as if to say, “So you’re telling me that this person sitting across from me who is scowling and trying to back me into a corner is actually trying to get closer to me?” It can be a hard sell on my part and truthfully, sometimes the other person is trying to get the better of you. In my experience, however, that is not common.

Most all the time when we tease apart a situation, there is a good intention—a desire to solve a problem and feel emotionally closer—and winning seems like the way to get there. Here’s the logic: I know what’s going on here. I’ve figured it out and if you would just listen to me and trust me we could get somewhere. Obviously you haven’t figured it out, so believe what I’m telling you and the situation will get better. I wouldn’t be saying what I’m saying if I didn’t believe it is right and the best way to solve this problem.

Of course both people are saying the same thing to themselves and both are trying hard to convince the other. In Part 1, I suggest that the first person to recognize the right/wrong discussion pattern should openly acknowledge it and simply stop—damage control. Then you can regroup and be more intentional about listening, understanding, and collaborating.

Implied here is a belief that each person has good intentions, something that’s hard to believe when emotions are high in an intense conflict. I do think it’s the right place to begin and the only way to discover for sure if the other person truly has bad intentions. And if that’s the case, the truth of it will be useful in moving forward—one way or another.

Jonah runs a non-profit, community development organization. He is very enthusiastic about his job, likes the people he works with, and is motivated to bring the organization to a higher level. His management team consists of an assistant director, administrative assistant, finance person, research director, outreach director, and development director. They are a congenial group, support each other, and have respect for Jonah.

Jonah’s management style is laid back. He wants his team members to exercise their individual autonomy, not be afraid to make decisions, and discuss problems openly with one another. Team members acknowledge that Jonah has a lot of experience and much to offer them. They want to draw on that, hoping Jonah will give more direction and be more readily available for brainstorming when they really need to think out loud.

For a long while, Jonah saw that as coddling and was concerned he would communicate a lack of confidence if he was too involved. He often held back in meetings when team members were looking for direction, wanting them to trust their instincts and not be afraid to make decisions.

Jonah was unaware that his philosophy was having a negative impact. Team members were beginning to see him as aloof, perhaps setting them up for failure, and unwilling to take responsibility as director of the organization.

When I gave this feedback to Jonah, he was not only surprised, but hurt. He had been in jobs where he craved more autonomy and decision making authority, so his staff’s reaction was puzzling. Why would they want to check in with him so frequently? Why wouldn’t they feel empowered by his approach? Did they really want him looking over their shoulders all the time?

As we looked into these questions more thoroughly, Jonah discovered that each team member needed something a little different, depending on experience, age, skill set, and temperament. He needed to be more flexible. His theory of management was fine, except that it was based on his history and philosophy, not the needs of his team.

With a communication style grounded in the intrapersonal, Jonah’s internal processing and autonomy differed from four of his team members, who leaned more toward the interpersonal—needing a higher degree of collaboration and needing to think out loud. Being more flexible and checking in with individuals about their needs and progress became more natural for Jonah. He still encouraged autonomy and supported team members to make decisions (when appropriate) on their own. In fact, as he became more involved, team members became increasingly comfortable making decisions with greater autonomy.

During the Winter Olympics, there was a lot of hype about the US/Canadian hockey rivalry. I heard a news report contrasting how citizens of each country spoke about the upcoming game. The point of the report (which was done with humor) demonstrated how Canadians spoke more respectfully about the opponent, whereas Americans were more likely to engage in “trash talk.” A Canadian, for example, might say they were going to win but would also wish the US team good luck. Most Americans who were interviewed found some way of aggressively expressing US superiority.

This got me thinking about the whole trash talk movement. I remember being a kid, playing in the Midget summer baseball league at age eight in 1958. This was my introduction to organized athletics, and in the first game I ever played, I hit a home run. (Actually, I closed my eyes, swung the bat, and by a miracle hit the ball—but that’s another story.) As I rounded the bases, I did not glare at the pitcher, raise my arms in triumph, or gesture to the crowd of cheering parents. I went quietly to the bench to watch the next batter, while my teammates patted me on the back. We all behaved the same way in triumph. It was about our good fortune, not something to gloat about or hold over the other team. No one told us how to behave this way, but if we didn’t I’m sure our parents and coaches would have sat us down and insisted we behave civilly and humbly in victory or defeat. On television, we saw Ted Williams hit home runs and trot calmly and confidently around the bases.

Then, I remember watching TV shows, athletic events, and movies throughout the 1980s as trash talk was taking hold. Short one-liners meant to get the better of the other person were considered almost an art form. Kids started talking this way to adults on television (complete with laugh track). It was cool and funny, and yes, I laughed along with everyone else. Today, lots of kids talk this way to each other and to adults. This is different in character to good-natured teasing that is part of friendship.

Athletes got into the act, too, both on and off the field or court. This escalated rapidly, along with talk radio. Lots of folks listened just to hear how outrageous it would get. Trash talk, in and of itself, had become an entertainment industry. Of course, entertainment and real life end up mirroring each other, and then we question, which really came first?

Trash talk within a certain zone can be good natured. I remember Magic Johnson discussing his relationship with friend and rival, Isaiah Thomas, back in the 80s. The two of them would go at it on the basketball court, playing hard and talking hard, but off the floor they were as close as brothers. At the time this seemed kind of sweet and charming.

Increasingly, however, we hear very hard-edged words being spoken by rivals in entertainment and politics, which doesn’t seem sweet or charming. We hear kids standing around in public places saying awful things in loud voices with no sensitivity to families with young children who happen to be walking by. We hear appalling characterizations of colleagues from our government leaders. And we see a football player make a tackle in an ordinary game, jump to his feet, strut around, continue to taunt his opponent, while the crowd cheers for more. Where are his parents? Why don’t they sit him down and talk to him about how better to behave?

There are almost daily references in the news about the lack of civility, cooperation, and respect among our government leaders. One striking exception is the President. He consistently displays good manners, good communication skills, and generosity. He values relationships and remains courteous. I know he loves basketball, too, and likely does a little trash talk, but probably with a smile.

The trend to deliver a zinging one-liner at the expense of another person needs to stop. It may be clever, but it is divisive and encourages in-kind behavior. That may be entertaining on the screen, but in real life it is hurtful and rude. It models behavior that teaches bad habits to our children. I’d be proud of my son for responding like the Canadian citizens did prior to the hockey game at the Winter Olympics—showing respect, looking forward to a spirited contest, and remembering that it is just a game.

Each day, I receive news updates on issues relating to communication. Without fail there is at least one article that refers to the differences between females and males. The articles and blogs are written by people from all walks of life, lay people and professionals of many disciplines. Although I’ve found value in what has become common, accepted knowledge about how men and women operate, I’m also getting increasingly irritated.

Like many I’ve tended to accept the stereotypes. Yes, men seem to go into problem solving mode immediately and women seem to first listen and connect to the emotional content of the communication. Those who experience these patterns consistently in their lives end up being the enthusiastic spokespersons. The others remain uncertain and quiet. But how true is all this?

Recently, I gave a talk on communication to a local college class of sixteen students: ten females, six males. Halfway through the talk I passed out my Communication Component Inventory, which they filled out. I asked how many identified more with the interpersonal or intrapersonal component—the interpersonal being more allied with the “female” style, and the intrapersonal with the “male.” Oops, there I go stereotyping.

Of the ten women, six identified with the interpersonal, four with the intrapersonal. Of the six men, four identified with the intrapersonal and two with the interpersonal. This is hardly science but it is typical of the breakdown when I take this survey in workshops and training sessions. Enough men and women fit in each category that it behooves us not to generalize.

Back to my irritability . . . I’m troubled by the stereotypes promoted by the men-are-like-this and women-are-like-that movement. There is some comfort in it but it leaves no room for individual differences. Remember, we are more alike as human beings than we are different. Recognizing the ways in which men and women are different is important but pigeonholing is dangerous.

My wife and I are different from the stereotypes—perhaps another reason for my irritability—and there are a lot of people who just don’t fit the way men and women are supposed to be. From the communication styles perspective we all have a mixture of the interpersonal and intrapersonal elements. We all think out loud and think on the inside; the proportion of each is dictated less by gender and more by other constitutional and cultural factors.

The range of human communication behavior extends beyond gender differences and includes the same elements for both women and men. How those elements arrange depends on so many factors it is impossible to account for them all. What is important, though, is that we develop communication skills that allow us to be effective with one another in listening and understanding.

When we take care not to stereotype male and female communication, it automatically puts more responsibility on us as individuals. In our human relationships we must be accountable to ourselves and each other and recognize what we can do to foster better communication. It is the path forward to changing the world one conversation at a time.

Without fail, I am asked to comment on internet communication—whether it’s during a workshop, book talk, or other speaking venue. Because I am not tech savvy, I’ve been cautious about my entry points into the world of cyber communication, and like many I can sound old-fashioned, as in “What’s wrong with talking to someone face to face or picking up the phone and calling.” I don’t intend here to offer a comprehensive evaluation of internet communication, but I will tell you my personal experience and share stories that can help give perspective to this complex topic.

Recently National Public Radio had a story about a father and son (approximately age 13) who had typical communication patterns, especially with after-school conversation. “How was school today?” “Oh, fine.” End of conversation. The father, of course, tried to be more creative in his approach but with the same results. The boy would go to his room and get on the computer, and his dad (who worked at home) did the same.

Then one day, one of them sent an instant message (IM) to the other asking a simple question . . . and from that developed a pattern of communication. Each day, they would have a quiet ride home from school, go to their respective rooms, and begin an IM session—catching up on the day, getting organized for the evening and the next day, and sharing pleasantries. It became a ritual both looked forward to.

Some might grumble about this and insist that they find a way to talk face to face after school, but if you’ve ever had a thirteen-year-old boy and tried to have regular after-school discussions . . . well you know where I’m going with that comment. I was moved by this account. The connection, warmth, and continuity the father and son experienced were precious.

Here’s another story that came my way recently. A young couple who were struggling with their relationship began instant messaging after having a squabble earlier in the day. Frequently, I counsel people to be very cautious handling emotionally sensitive issues over the internet. I’ve seen too many examples of how badly this can go. In this situation, however, it was very effective because both people intuitively respected the limitations of the medium. Specifically, they recognized the need to define terms carefully, to not make any assumptions, and to keep it short. Also, they were not distracted by seeing each other’s reaction, which in this case helped them focus on the intended message. In short, they were able to communicate more effectively, which continued in their face-to-face follow-up.

The internet is a tool with many uses for communication. It is not inherently good or bad—it depends on the individuals involved and how they use it. Except for an occasional e-mail, for many it doesn’t work at all; for others it might be useful in certain situations. Remember, it is a choice and you are free to decide whether or not you wish to participate in any venue.

All of my nephews and nieces have Facebook pages and post pictures and announce events in their lives, both big and small. I can interact with them in this medium and maintain some continuity that I would not otherwise have. It is friendly, warm, mostly superficial, and it feels good. They all live at a great distance, so I have more contact with them now than I have for many years. Simply, we enjoy the connection.

I also have occasional e-mail correspondence with people who live at a distance and who I will likely never see in my lifetime. They are old friends who find it easy to write an e-mail letter once in a while. Mostly the messages are newsy, but sometimes there is something important to say to someone who has known you from childhood.

There’s no doubt that many people spend too much time on the internet in very superficial and unhealthy ways. That is unfortunate, but it has nothing inherently to do with e-mail, Facebook, or IM. It has to do with misusing the tools, not knowing how to develop other means of communication, or struggling with how to conduct relationships. Those are bigger problems.

I am very concerned that the average kid spends 7.5 hours daily using some kind of electronic device—that is up from 5.5 hours five years ago. It’s a very modern and difficult problem that I think is unhealthy and frequently work with parents to help them establish more balance in their kid’s lives. This lack of balance is also evident in the lives of many adults.

The telephone, radio, television, video game, internet, cell phone, MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook at one time have all been accused of undermining human contact and hurting family relationships. Each has its up and down sides, and of course excess use is unhealthy. These devices and formats are not going away and new ones will come along at a rapid clip. Rather than demonizing them, discover how to use the tools in a balanced and healthy way. They all have the potential to benefit connection and communication. Over the years, many have chosen not to have a telephone, television or computer.  Similarly, just because the modern communication structures exist, they are not requirements in your relational world.  There is nothing wrong with being old fashioned or simply deciding what works or doesn’t work for you.

Ellen is a project manager in a small software development firm. She is well organized and enjoys working with people. She has enough of a technical background to connect with her team and excels in her management skills. Her boss, Jeri, is an idea person, very creative and tireless. Dedicated to the company and the mission, she is the heart of the organization.

Jeri and Ellen recognize their different strengths and styles and genuinely respect one another. The team, however, began complaining to Ellen that Jeri was driving them crazy. Jeri frequently interrupted tasks by floating ideas, asking seemingly random questions, and suggesting alternative ways of doing things. Individual team members felt put on the spot and often didn’t know how to respond. Was Jeri looking for them to give an opinion or make a decision? And where did Ellen fit into this? The general perception was that Jeri was indecisive, was not so subtlety undermining Ellen’s authority, and perhaps didn’t respect her. Ellen, too, was getting frustrated with Jeri.

As morale dropped, Ellen suggested to Jeri that some team building and communication training might be necessary. Although Jeri was reluctant, she deferred to Ellen’s judgment. Jeri hadn’t consciously experienced the negative morale but knew that Ellen was sensitive to others and was likely correct in her assessment.

What we discovered in the team workshop was that Jeri didn’t understand the effect she was having on the team. What had been the disruptive and random discussions she had initiated with team members were constructive to her. They had helped clarify her thinking and provided an important link for her with individuals on the team. She liked the one-on-one, thinking-out-loud conversations that connected her with the people she worked with. Jeri is naturally collaborative but hadn’t recognized her impact as an authority figure.

The team members hadn’t seen Jeri’s talk as brainstorming. The function of her discussion wasn’t clear, let alone the focus. Because Jeri is Ellen’s boss, the lines of authority were confused for the team, and individuals often wondered if they were getting different “orders” than those Ellen had given them.

From understanding the communication styles and purposes, we saw a need for a new group working structure to accommodate and support the differences. Jeri and Ellen began meeting daily, first thing, instead of weekly as they had been. These daily meetings were short and allowed Jeri to think out loud with Ellen about product development and to elicit from Ellen who on the team could help her with any specifics she needed. During the meeting, they could also address other work-flow processes and management or policy issues.

Clarifying impact, roles, and specific communication structures eased tension in the team. Jeri and Ellen worked together more closely, drawing on their strengths and establishing clearer boundaries for themselves and the team as they collaborated on decisions.

Many of us take pride in expressing ourselves clearly and precisely to achieve effective communication. Of course this is a worthy pursuit . . . but oh, if it were only that easy. The communication equation has two sides and if the communication is not received accurately, then it is not effective. “That’s not my fault,” says the speaker. “I was specific and clear.” End of discussion? Not yet.

Here’s a workplace story to illustrate the point.

Jack owns a small home construction and remodeling business. He started the business on his own with one helper at his side. After fifteen years the business has grown to employ twelve people. Jack is well organized, reliable, takes pride in his craftsmanship, and is very businesslike in his dealings with customers and subcontractors. People like working with him because they know where they stand.

As the business grew, Jack stepped back from doing the hands on work to strictly managing the projects and the business. Although he missed swinging a hammer, he loved managing the organization and projects. He has good organizational skills. As he became less involved with working alongside his crews, however, problems began to emerge.

This was Jack’s complaint. “I take a lot of time daily to plan and organize the next day’s work. I make detailed lists of tasks and time frames. Each morning I gather the crew and go over each task in detail to anticipate potential problems. I’m specific, clear, and precise, but when I check back later in the day, I find several things done in ways that are unacceptable. It’s as if no one listened or deliberately ignored my instructions. I’m beginning to wonder if there is some kind of passive-aggressive thing going on.”

Before getting into big words like “passive-aggressive,” I suggested we approach the situation from a communication standpoint. Jack is very linguistically, logically oriented. He speaks clearly and is precise, and well organized. However, he was dealing with a crew, most of whom are hands-on (kinesthetic) and visually-spatially oriented.

So we developed a different strategy for the morning meetings. Rather than lists (linguistic, logical), Jack made diagrams (visual-spatial) with captions and arrows. Instead of standing in one place to give instructions, he walked through the house with the crew, to show (kinesthetic) them via demonstration whenever possible what he wanted done.

By accounting for others’ styles, Jack had better communication with his crew, cut down significantly on mistakes, and improved his working relationships. The passive-aggressive hypothesis evaporated as Jack became more flexible and recognized the other half of the communication equation.