• 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!

The Communication Styles Framework illuminates how you process information and, therefore, interact with others. The seven processing dimensions (or components, as they are called) combine differently for each individual to form a unique communication style. All seven are active ingredients in each individual, but two or three are most easily identified (Core Processing Strengths).

Other communication styles paradigms are based on personality, roles, and/or gender. These approaches look more broadly at factors that influence specific behaviors, for example, being passive, assertive, steadfast, or compliant. Introversion and extroversion are, perhaps, the most common traits.

While it is useful to be aware of these roles and personality factors, they are general and so don’t offer specific information about the underlying drivers of our communication. The CS Framework, however, does identify those underlying drivers and offers specific tools to help insure successful communication.

Here’s a personal example: I am of an introvert, yet my core processing strength is the Interpersonal Component, which combines with my auditory and kinesthetic processing strengths. This means that I seek engagement with others (thinking out loud) and rely strongly on how the message sounds and feels. Others hearing this description may have a hard time making sense of it. It’s my unique understanding of how I go about processing information, expressing myself, and listening to others. Because there are as many communication styles as there are individuals, stereotyping or pigeonholing is futile.

Although the CS Framework is based on individual strengths, it also helps us understand how our strengths can get us into trouble.  Overemphasizing a strength without recognizing that others may not have the same strength has the potential for derailing communication.  For me that might take the form of expecting too much engagement from others because I have such a strong interpersonal component to my communication style.

Finally, it’s also a good idea to challenge yourself by focusing on a less developed component (for me that would be either the logical or visual-spatial) to see what you notice.  This will broaden your self understanding and encourage you to be more aware of how others experience communication, both expressively and receptively.

• 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!

I had a conversation with a friend recently about watching professional baseball games. My friend, Lou, said “I can’t stand all the spitting. That’s all I see is constant spitting. Doesn’t that bother you?” My answer was simple, “No.”

When I watch a baseball game, I’m focused on the stance of the batter and how that reflects his concentration and level of anxiety as he anticipates the type of pitch he’ll get from the pitcher. At the same time, I’m intrigued by the thought process and body mechanics of the pitcher as he works with the catcher to establish which pitch he’s going to throw and where he’s going to throw it. Finally, I’m watching how the umpire positions himself to make an accurate call. And all of that tunes me into the emotions of each person, as best as I can connect (interpersonally) to them. I am absorbed by all these factors that communicate a richness I enjoy. The spitting gets very little of my attention.

Although our interests, history, and age influence what we like or don’t like to watch on television, our processing mechanisms and sensitivities also play a role. I’m naturally attuned to the interpersonal and kinesthetic elements, which is reflected in the above description of how I watch a baseball game.

As individauls, our focus is based more on how we process information and the type of natural awareness we possess—how we are wired—and it really is different for each of us.

Lou is very strong kinesthetically but in a much more sensory way. And he is highly intrapersonally attuned. None of this has any bearing on whether or not he enjoys baseball, but it does influence how he experiences the game on TV. He can’t stand the spitting. It physically grosses him out. I see it, but it just doesn’t effect me.

Lou also doesn’t like watching hospital dramas on television. He directly experiences the anxiety of the characters, which is upsetting and emotionally exhausting. I am thoroughly absorbed by the relationships between the characters, trying to anticipate how the relationships will unfold and how they will resolve the conflict they are experiencing.

I could tell Lou that it’s all make-believe and that he shouldn’t get so upset, but that isn’t really very understanding and it wouldn’t work anyway. He knows it’s “only a show.” He could tell me that I’m insensitive and criticize me for watching something so harsh, but that’s not a fair understanding either.

Understanding that we all process information (communication) differently encourages genuine curiosity, where we ask thoughtful, respectful questions and take care not to make assumptions about other peoples 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!

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!

Mark was enthusiastic about using the Communication Styles Framework to approach his marital problems with Martha. Martha, however, was more cautious. He easily identified with the interpersonal component and could see Martha’s intrapersonal strengths, and it seemed clear to him that this difference was causing communication problems in their relationship.

Mark explained that he thinks out loud a lot, saying everything (and anything!) on his mind, which he believed confused and overwhelmed her.  She agreed that this was often hard for her. Then he said that Martha thinks things through internally before offering her deeper thoughts and feelings,and how it’s hard for him to be patient through this process. Sounds pretty classical inter/intra.

At the end of Mark’s description, Martha said, “I don’t think this is why we don’t get along. We have a lot of issues and differences.” Mark didn’t know how to respond and I thought it was a good time for me to comment on Martha’s concern.

The CS Framework doesn’t relegate emotional dynamics to a place of lesser importance. Nor does it inhibit analytical understanding of our interpersonal/emotional lives. In fact it creates an emotionally safe structure, validates individual strengths, and recognizes how the communication process itself can get in the way of true understanding. With too much friction driven by style differences, almost everything feels like a problem. Once you attend to the communication styles problems, however, the core issues sift out with greater clarity.

How does this apply to Martha and Mark? When Martha realized that Mark wasn’t trying to dominate because he talked a lot, she became more trusting. And when Mark understood that he was taking up too much of the air space, he left more room for Martha to participate. Mark also recognized that Martha wasn’t withholding but genuinely needed more time to think things through, which made him less irritable and critical. These communication styles differences accounted for a significant proportion of the tension between them. By structuring their interaction to better account for these differences, they established a process better suited to discuss meaningful issues. With practice they incorporated the CS Framework and discussed issues of trust, respect, intimacy and goals for their future. They also learned how to disagree and compromise.

Learning how to develop effective communication patterns in intimate relationships is no small matter. It takes awareness and consistent effort with the right tools. The CS Framework offers those tools and an opportunity to better understand yourself and your partner, which inevitably leads
to fuller, deeper discussion.

• 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!

Introverts and extroverts, it seems obvious which camp you are in by simple observation. Do you walk into a social situation and seek out others for conversation, enjoying the back and forth of friendly discussion? Or do you enter the room more cautiously, perhaps having a conversation with one or two others after some feelings of awkwardness? Let’s be careful not to stereotype, remembering that many of us exhibit qualities of both depending on the situation. Still, there is some basic truth that each of us belong more in one camp than the other, but how important is this?

One of the most common questions I get regarding the Communication Styles Framework is this: If you are an introvert does that mean you have a stronger intrapersonal component to your communication style, and if you are an extravert are you more interpersonally oriented? Of course, this is a logical question and one that I pondered during the early years when fleshing out the details of the CS Framework. However, the simple answer came to me because of my own style and behavior. In most social situations, I am very cautious and feel awkward (internally). I don’t know how transparent this is, but clearly I will take the “emotional temperature” of the room and eventually gravitate to one person for an in-depth conversation. This might be construed as shyness or being reserved or being socially awkward.

Without a doubt, I am highly interpersonally oriented. To anyone who knows me this is obvious. I think out loud with others a lot. I get energy from externally clarifying my thoughts and feelings, as well as naturally tuning into the other person. Seeking engagement in this manner is the hallmark of the interpersonal nature.

Those with an intrapersonal nature seek inward clarity first, wanting and needing to understand feelings, thoughts, motivations, and goals based in their experience before meaningful engagement. Socially, one can be comfortable as an extrovert, while their intrapersonal nature stays tucked in. So, although they may seem to be more interpersonally driven, they are not. They simply enjoy the social give and take and are comfortable in group situations. Conversely, one who is more cautious in social situations can have a very strong interpersonal nature, which (because they are socially reserved) might be surprising if they are only observed in group situations.

Finally, one can be an introvert and have a strong intrapersonal nature or be an extrovert and have a strong interpersonal nature. In other words, the interpersonal, intrapersonal, introversion, and extroversion factors can configure in any combination.

Remember, the CS Framework is rooted in processing styles—how we absorb information and how we express ourselves in the human relational world. You can be an introvert or extrovert and have a strong interpersonal or intrapersonal component to your personal communication style. The details really are important and, of course as always, we must be careful about stereotyping.