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

Carl is 41 and works as a project manager for a construction company. He’s a hands-on guy who likes his work and likes to play. He surfs, skis, hikes, enjoys good wine and sings in two different groups. His core processing strengths are intrapersonal, kinesthetic, and visual-spatial. Of course he has his own unique incorporation of these attributes forming the foundation of his processing/communication style.

In counseling, Carl was concerned about stress in his life because he was recently diagnosed with an unusual disorder caused by elevated stress hormones. If the stress hormone levels remained consistently high enough, he would sustain permanent damage to one of his bodily organs.

So, we talked about the stressors in his life. He was single, tired of dating, and wanted to settle down. Pressures at work were high because of the recession and shortage of construction projects. Carl’s younger brother had drug abuse problems and was going through a particularly bad time. All of these matters troubled Carl and he worked hard to put them out of his mind.

Carl had always been healthy, worked out regularly, ate and slept well. He had a few close friends, men he went hiking, skiing, and surfing with. Carl was open emotionally, had good communication skills, and shared his hard times with friends. He looked forward to counseling and was motivated to deal with the stresses in his life. He liked trying to figure things out and learn more about himself, but he was also scared because of his troubling medical condition.

Recognizing that Carl had a strong kinesthetic component, I decided to help him focus more on the sensations in his body and less on words and concepts. We did some basic relaxation and imagery exercises to focus and tune into the body. As I was guiding Carl through this process, I asked him to locate the place in his body where he could experience the stress hormones, which he did. Then he practiced calming and intensifying them by moving an imaginary lever on the arm of the chair.  He pulled back on the lever to lower the stress level and pushed it forward to increase the stress.

This was exciting for Carl as he felt more hopeful working with his body than trying to talk his way out of this difficult situation. He practiced each day getting into a relaxed state, tuning into the “area of the stress hormones,” and toning them down. After a couple of weeks of regular practice, Carl was tuning into this process automatically during the day, managing to keep his stress hormones “quieter.” Within a few weeks, his body began to heal and at his next check up with the doctor he was in complete remission.

Working through the kinesthetic/visual-spatial and intrapersonal pathways helped Carl get direct access to a healing process not accessible to words, logic or interpersonal engagement.  The Communication Styles Framework helps us tune into our natural language and illuminates that pathway.

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

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.

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

It’s hard to know how and when to follow-up with someone when there is interpersonal conflict. Sometimes we put it off and sometimes we launch back into the discussion. In both instances we are hoping for something better. If we put it off, we risk the appearance of not caring or thinking of ourselves as a procrastinator. And if we follow-up right away, we can be perceived as aggressive and trying to get the best of the other.

Most of the time when I’ve delayed following up on a difficult discussion, the delay served a positive purpose. I’ve also pushed myself to follow-up sooner than later and often had bad outcomes.

Here’s a story from the communication styles perspective.

I was troubled enough about an interaction with a friend, that I needed to follow-up on the discussion. Should I call right away or wait until I see the friend another time or request a time to get together. Well, my friend is one who needs time for reflection (intrapersonal). My inclination is to talk right now and work it out together (interpersonal). I worried that waiting would communicate lack of caring (interpersonal), but know that my friend sorts things out internally in a very analytical (logical) way. So, I waited until the next time I saw him (a few days later) and brought up the previous interaction without initially expressing my feelings. This gave him an opportunity to give me his analysis (uninterrupted), so I could understand what was important to him. Then we got into an interactive discussion that accounted for both of our points of view and feelings. The timing and sequence of events seemed to work well enough for both of us.

Often when we finally take the action we’ve been waiting to take, there is relief (especially if we achieve a positive outcome), which is what happened in the above situation. Telling myself that I should have initiated the conversation sooner because we had a positive outcome would be a mistake. Just because “it all worked out” doesn’t mean that we should have had our discussion sooner.

Using the communication styles lens helped me make a decision about the best sequence of events to address a sensitive relational problem. The decision to delay the conversation wasn’t about “putting it off.” It was an effort to account for style differences in the hope of having better collaboration and a truer understanding between us. If I had only accounted for my style (interpersonal), I would have launched back into discussion very soon. But when I thought about how my friend needs time to process internally (intrapersonally), the decision to delay the conversation made the most sense.

• 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!

Do You Know What I Mean?—Discovering Your Personal Communication Style was published one year ago. I’ve enjoyed having contact with many new people as a result of publishing this book and gotten a lot of worthwhile, positive feedback—all of which is gratifying.

During the past year I’ve also noticed a pattern to the questions and comments I’ve received, which has helped me become more efficient and focused in giving direction with the communication styles framework. So let me summarize by making a few bullet points:

• Start by focusing on the interpersonal and interpersonal—which one is stronger? Once you develop familiarity with the inter- and intra-, it’s easy to relate to the whole concept.
• Yes, all seven communication components are actively engaged all the time when you are talking with anyone.
• You likely have a few components that dominate your style and are easy to be aware of. The others are more elusive. That’s okay.
• Don’t try too hard to figure out other people’s styles. By focusing more on yourself, you’ll naturally pick up on cues about others.
• The more grounded you are in the CS framework, the more irrelevant the male/female communication stereotypes become.
• Workplace collaboration naturally grows from using the CS framework.

Working with the communication styles framework is actually fun. Noticing individual differences naturally creates more patience and results in better overall communication.

I really enjoy getting questions and comments. Please keep them coming.

• 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 don’t like to promote (directly or indirectly) the stereotypes in the popular culture about how men and women communicate differently. I approach communication style differences based on the individual, not the sex. Because I have addressed this in other posts, I won’t get into it here, except to say that looking at the interpersonal/intrapersonal axis offers a helpful perspective on what typically is seen as sex differences.

My purpose, here, is to explore a common occurrence in counseling men about the expression of feelings. Here’s how the typical conversation goes:

Client: I don’t seem to be in touch with my feelings. When my wife asks me how I feel, I can’t seem to say anything. She can say how she feels anytime you ask her. I guess I never learned how to identify or talk about my feelings when I was a kid. Sometimes I think maybe I don’t have any feelings.

Me: You seem pretty down about this.

Client: Yeah, I really am. I don’t know what to do about it. My wife’s about had it with me. And I guess I don’t blame her.

Me: Do you and your wife talk about stuff very much.

Client: Yeah, pretty much. We talk about work, the kids, whatever’s going on. But when she asks me how I’m feeling, I just seem to shut down. I guess I need to figure out why I do that, right? My wife says lots of men are like this. Is that so?

Me: Well, I’ve talked to many men about this very thing. It can be very confusing. So, what do you go through when your wife expresses her dissatisfaction about all of this?

Client: I get this tightness in my chest and sometimes it feels like my hands are shaking, although they really aren’t. I guess I’m a failure at communication . . . and I don’t want my kids to be hurt by my lack of feelings.

Me: Do you get to spend much time with your kids?

Client: Not as much as I would like to. But I go to most all their events. I help with homework in the evenings, and we do family stuff on the weekends.

Me: Do you tell your kids that you love them and are you physically affectionate with them?

Client: My twelve-year-old boy always seems to be hugging me, and my ten-year-old daughter still sits in my lap, and we always say, “I love you.” Never did that with my dad, though.

Me: Being close with your kids is obviously important to you. You sound sad about your dad.

Client: Yeah, I am. I know he loves me but never heard him say it. Not once.

Me: What are you thinking when you say that?

Client: Well, I’m thinking that it really hurts when he won’t tell me he loves me.

Me: Sure it does.

It’s clear from the conversation that this man has plenty of feelings, is very aware of them, and can more than adequately express them. We need to remember that feelings are not words and words are not feelings. Feelings are experienced in the body. Words are descriptions. They’re just attempts to give abstract expression to our internal sensations. I never asked this man what he was feeling. I asked him to describe his experience, to tell me what he was going through, and I reflected (in words) the obvious feelings he was having.

Too often we get hung up on the belief that if someone can’t respond to the request, “How do you feel about this or that?” they must be out of touch with their feelings. But feelings can be expressed in many ways, and this man, for example, readily expressed how he felt about his family by responding to the affection shown by his children, by helping with homework in the evenings, by participating in regular family activities.

We do, however, sometimes need to have a direct discussion about feelings. When asking someone else about his or her feelings, it may be best to take the communication style approach and tap into the natural language of the individual. Here are some suggestions.

• What are you going through?
• Have you ever been through something like this before?
• What does the situation look like to you?
• What do you think might be going on here?
• Is there some word or phrase that captures the experience?
• Can you describe the sequence of events for what happened to you?

For some people (both men and women) it is hard to respond directly to a question about how they feel. Yet, by approaching the question from other angles corresponding to different communication styles, you have full access to the feelings of the other person. Also, you don’t need to know the specifics of the other person’s communication style to explore the above suggestions. Try one or two and see how it works.

• 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 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.