• 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!

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.

• 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!

Alisa is a team leader at a marketing firm. Her team has six members working on a project for one of their bigger accounts. Alisa is conscious of giving praise (when it’s deserved) and holding everyone to high standards. She stays connected with team members through regular staff meetings and pushes herself to make one-on-one contact as much as she can, given her busy schedule. She is also respectful, listens well, has an overall positive attitude, and gives clear directions.

Alisa organizes projects primarily in the visual-spatial realm, i.e. she pictures all of the pieces of the project and how they relate to each other. She “carries” the whole picture in her mind’s eye, adjusting the parts as she gathers new information. This, of course, is invisible to others around her but gets communicated in her descriptions as she speaks.

Months ago, she realized that her descriptions didn’t connect well with one of her team members, Jeremy—that communicating the whole picture and the relationships between the parts wasn’t very effective. When she did this, Jeremy asked a lot of questions and required a lot of clarification, though Alisa believed she had been very clear. Frequently they didn’t communicate well at all.

Because of this disconnect, Alisa changed her tactics and started conversations by asking Jeremy questions, hoping to discover what information/resources he needed and where he was in the process of completing his work. This worked better but was still cumbersome and confusing.

Then during one exchange, when Jeremy made a passing reference to his logical approach to a project, Alisa got the missing piece: Jeremy’s processing style is strongly logical/sequential and he doesn’t see the overall picture she describes in her own strongly based visual-spatial orientation. It has no order for him so he doesn’t recognize the relationships between the parts. His reasoned and linear orientation produces a different set of relationships: specific steps, or goals, that he works through sequentially.

Now, Alisa and Jeremy collaborate differently. Jeremy shows Alisa (on paper) his timeline and how he sees the project progressing. Alisa uses that to show Jeremy (more concretely) how that connects to the bigger picture and she has learned to give sequential directions to Jeremy in a linear format (step 1, step 2, etc.).

Discovering and then working directly with each other’s processing strengths cuts down on frustration and conflict, as well as gives a pathway to successful collaboration.

• 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!

What’s the big picture look like, Jonas?

Words, Luanne—what words do we need here?

What do you know about our customer, Jeff, in terms of what really matters to them?

How can we line up the pieces to this to make it hang together, Will?”

Are there some symbols that pop to mind, Sarah?

Jon, what values are we really talking about?

These are natural questions that evolve when the members of a project team understand each other’s individual processing/communication styles. The questions tap into the strengths of each one, taking into account a range of skills in different domains. Words, images, numbers, feelings, client relationship, the big picture, the structure—these “languages” come together as this team develops a project for their customer.

Let’s go through them one by one to look at the details.

Jonas sees the big picture because he is visually-spatially strong and literally looks at situations from an aerial view, seeing the relationships between the different parts of the project.

Luanne is linguistically strong so she conceptualizes in words. Her explanations and descriptions are naturally clear and precise.

Jeff is interpersonally driven, tuned into human relationships. He intuitively understands the feelings, motivations, and goals of others. His understanding of the customer is rooted in the emotional connections he develops.

Will’s logical sense automatically lines up processes coherently and efficiently. He understands the sequence of events and has a good grasp of the numbers and how they relate to the flow of the project from beginning to end.

Sarah has a strong kinesthetic, visual-spatial orientation. She usually “gets” the symbolic nature of communication and frequently connects a symbol that draws together the important elements in a project.

Finally, because Jon is introspective (intrapersonal), he understands the deeper values inherent in a situation. He uses his inner experience as a means of connecting to others and gleaning the purpose behind what is occurring.

By recognizing and respecting individual strengths and drawing on those resources, the team gives natural validation to one another and the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. This activates a higher level of creativity and synergy that results in the team being more productive and having, yes, more fun.

• 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!

Joshua owns and runs a small business with fifteen employees. He enjoys managing and takes pride in his ability to work with others. Delegating, in particular, is important to his philosophy of running the business. He wants others to take initiative, responsibility, and feel empowered on the job. So, he tries to be clear about his expectations but also encourages employees to take some risks and not be afraid to make mistakes.

Recently, he received feedback from his second in command, Beth. During the conversation, Joshua praised Beth for something she had recently accomplished. In a casual way, she commented about how nice it was to receive praise from him. To which, Joshua replied, “But I often give praise to you and everyone else here.” Beth’s reply took him aback, “Well, you’re very kind and open with people, but you rarely give praise.” This exchange was not at all contentious. It was very thoughtful and gentle.

When Joshua spoke with me about it, he was pensive and rather sober. After talking with Beth that day he began carefully observing his behavior at work and concluded that, indeed, he gave very little direct praise. This fact troubled him and he was beginning to correct what he considered a flaw in his management style.

As we discussed this issue in more detail, we gained a deeper understanding of what was really occurring. Joshua is naturally supportive of others. Empathy is one of his strong suits. He also notices what others are doing and comments constructively about the specifics. But the new insight that emerged for him was this: When he is pleased with what someone has accomplished, he talks with them about it in a particular manner, his I’m very pleased manner. If, however, he was not pleased, he would have a different demeanor. Of course this is true for all of us. But for Joshua, when he was in his I’m very pleased demeanor, he assumed he was giving praise when he literally wasn’t, not directly. Beth told him that his detailed critiques were helpful but without a direct expression of praise, others were not always sure how he felt about their performance.

Stating the obvious, something I often advocate, is important at work and at home. It’s too easy to assume others have the same understanding as we do when it seems so obvious to us. Making the effort to state praise directly and clearly is well worth the effort.

• 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!

Getting a phone call used to be a pretty big deal—and if it was long distance, that was a really big deal. On a long distance call in the 50s and 60s, you found out what you needed to know in a hurry and got off the phone. It was expensive. Local calling was inexpensive but still not something used for idle chit chat, although increasingly that did become the case.

If you got a call or a letter or the rare telegram, you were sure to reply. To do otherwise, would be rude. Even with the advent of answering machines, a message required a response at your earliest convenience. These were the unspoken rules of the communication highway.

Today it is different. A call or email does not necessarily require a response, nor does a message on your Facebook wall. So how do you know when to reply or when not to reply? Young people seem comfortable with whatever the unspoken protocol is. Older people (like me) are not sure; we reply to everything. Younger folks think we’re quaint.

To answer or not: I find it confusing. If you don’t get a response, how do you know if your message was received? Well, if it’s an email, you can request a receipt, which apparently even in business isn’t done often. I’ve never seen anyone request it with a personal email and understand it’s considered aggressive or obsessive. Since I don’t want to be perceived as either, I don’t request one.

The volume of calls, emails, and text messages many people receive is likely a contributing factor. Some receive hundreds daily—I’ve heard of thousands but find it difficult to believe. It’s a little like conceptualizing two trillion dollars.

I suspect most people operate with a triage mentality: Is it a message that absolutely requires a response? How important is it that I respond before next week? What will the impact be if I do not acknowledge receipt of the message? The decision made in an intuitive nanosecond.

In the business world these days it’s increasingly rare for someone to have support staff regardless of how high or low they are on the corporate ladder. The laptop and cell phone provide personal secretarial services, so there is no buffer or organizer or helper to return calls or type notes and letters. It’s all on the shoulders of the individual, which causes enormous stress in the workplace. Workers spend longer hours outside the traditional workday just to keep up.

Kids are enormously distracted by the volume of text messages, emails and other contact possibilities—checking and rechecking to see if there is any new message. Along with video games and television, communication devices provide more avenues for addictions . . . or at best just constant distractions.

I’m left being confused about what it means when someone doesn’t reply to a message I’ve sent. How soon do I follow-up? Do I follow up at all?  Maybe I should just chill and see what happens. When it comes to communication, however, because it’s my “thing,” I naturally take it seriously. So, I’ll just keep wondering and working hard to respond to every communication that comes my way—except junk mail, of course.

• 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!

Barry has fifteen years experience in public accounting. He takes pride in his work and likes new challenges. Henry, Barry’s boss, likes to stay connected to his team. He asks questions about how things are going, frequently asks for updates, and is genuinely curious about others. He’ll pop by other’s offices or stop a team member in the hallway to get information about pretty much everything.

Early on in their working relationship, Barry appreciated Henry’s friendliness and attentiveness. In the last few years, however, something has changed and now Barry is easily annoyed by Henry’s questions. Barry feels he’s being micromanaged, that he is being robbed of his sense of agency.  Barry likes being given responsibility, figuring out how to organize and accomplish tasks, setting goals, and being independent.

Henry sees himself as a collaborator, involved with team members to help problem-solve, support, and share responsibility. He also feels a responsibility to the organization to have his finger on the pulse, knowing what’s going on in every area of his department.

Recently, Henry became aware of the mounting tension with Barry when Barry spoke sharply about Henry not trusting him. Henry was taken aback because he absolutely trusts Barry. When he tried to follow-up later that day, Barry let loose a barrage of strong feelings about being micromanaged, not trusted, and feeling that Henry didn’t respect the quality of his work. This rift resulted in Henry seeking guidance to open the lines of communication between the two of them.

During conversations with both (both were feeling hurt and saddened by the situation they found themselves in), we began exploring their working styles, which are directly related to their core processing styles and reflected in their individual communication styles. So what does this mean?

Barry visualizes tasks, breaking them down into subtasks that move around in his mind’s eye as he begins organizing the project. It is difficult for him to verbalize this process because it is fluid. Trying to share it (initially) is disruptive. Also he is strongly intrapersonal, so he needs to do a lot of internal sifting through his experience to wrap his arms around the project.  His sense of ownership and responsibility for his work are fundamental to his working and organizational style.

Henry has a strong need to stay connected with others as a way of managing.  Weaving in and out of each other’s work spaces feels natural to him. It’s how he stays current with new information, so he can plug it into his strongly logical framework. Each new piece of information affects everything. Because he both wants and needs to stay current, he constantly gathers new data, which allows him to anticipate problems and be available for problem solving.

From the descriptions of how Henry and Barry work, think, and communicate it’s easy to see the points of friction and how the tension had grown. This type of misunderstanding of styles often leads to both parties developing beliefs about the other person’s motivation. Barry believed that Henry didn’t trust the quality of his work and therefore didn’t respect him.  Henry believed that Barry was trying to undermine his authority in the organization and just plain didn’t like him anymore.

Once we deconstructed their styles, it became increasingly clear that both were attributing incorrect motivation to the other. They were both relieved by this discovery and began building bridges to better account for each other’s needs. Finding ways to keep the lines of communication open, so they could give consistent feedback was essential to continue the successful working relationship they’d had.

• 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!

When communication breaks down, you must try to fix it; but when things go badly, it is very difficult to go back and risk the same breakdown. If you revisit the problem at hand, you must be prepared to do something different. Too often, the revisiting is done by restating what you already said, which will likely result in the other party restating what they already said. Then, it’s strike two.

Revisiting requires a different approach and must start by getting in a calmer emotional state. This can take time. If you don’t take the time to do this, you won’t be able to sort out your thoughts and feelings thoroughly enough. When we are in a heightened emotional state, our stress hormones supercharge our emotions, which often interfere with cognition. Calming is the first order of business for both parties involved. Before beginning again, make sure the other person is also prepared to follow up on the discussion, which might mean a longer wait than you’d like.

Next, it is best to talk about what just happened to you. It’s the “to you” part that is essential. You have to understand what you went through in the earlier conversation: what you were trying to accomplish, what you felt, what you regret about your own behavior, and what you ended up believing about the other person. This is particularly tricky because you must let the other person know you are giving them the benefit of the doubt (for now).

How do you do this? Here’s an example: “John, I’ve been trying to understand what was really important to me in the discussion about our household budget. I know I got really upset and said things that were out of line. I regret that and want to apologize for calling you ignorant and selfish.” Be careful here; we’re not agreeing with John’s point of view or implying that he did everything correctly. It’s just not helpful to characterize or criticize, even if the other may have done something wrong. To continue with our example: “I really want to discuss our finances in a collaborative way so that we’re both in this together [this states intention]. Let me tell you what happened to me in the conversation, and then I’d also like to know what happened for you . . .”

When you tell the other person what you went through in the difficult conversation, you are telling a story, your story. It’s about you, and you have to make that clear; you are not the keeper of truth in the objective sense. You are only the keeper of your own truth and can only tell the other what happened to you. In telling your story, you will also be informing the other person about what you came to believe as a result of the poor interaction between you. In this example, it might be something like this: “So, John, when you were trying to explain the organization of the budget, I felt belittled, as though [benefit of the doubt] you thought I was stupid and don’t understand the structure of budgeting. That’s why I got so angry and called you names.”

Clearly, John has to be patient and understand that you are telling your story and that he, too, will have a chance to tell you what he went through. It is not a time for John to defend himself because he is not being attacked. He is being told what you believed because of the poor interaction. Until you can clarify your reality (story) so the other person knows why things broke down, you can’t get back to the content. When you understand the good intentions of the other and what each of you went through the last time, you have a much better opportunity to have a successful exchange.

Finally, it is a mistake to think you can have a thorough discussion about something of substance quickly and easily. Regardless of your ability to use good communication skills, it always takes more time than you think. If there is a communication breakdown and you have the ability to revisit the topic successfully, that’s a great outcome. I often say to couples, “So what if you have to revisit an important topic twenty-five times, each time getting it a little better, and you ultimately have a good outcome and repair the hurts along the way?” I call that success.

Revisiting Summary

1. Take a time-out and calm yourself.
2. Find out if the other person is prepared to continue the discussion in a different frame of mind and emotion. It takes as long as it takes.
3. State your intent. Say, for example, “That didn’t go very well. I’d like to find a way for us each to better understand what’s important.”
4. Express regrets. For example, “I wish I hadn’t said . . .”
5. Tell your stories. For example, “This is what I went through . . .,” and highlight your beliefs. Give the other person time and space without interruption. This is not a fact-based discussion. It is meant to let you know what the other experienced so you can improve the interaction as you get back to the content.
6. Return to the content with more patience and understanding in a give-and-take discussion.