• 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!

“It drives me crazy when you tell me nothing is going on, when I can tell from your voice that something is going on!” Jeri exclaimed.

“Why won’t you believe me?” Brad pleaded, “I told you, nothing’s going on!”

And so it goes. We’ve probably all been involved in a conversation of this sort at one time or another. Brad said something to Jeri and the way it sounded was incongruent with the words he used. She thinks he’s upset because she heard “upset” in his voice, which in a sense was there.

As we teased apart the emotions and details of the conversation, what we discovered was interesting and helpful. Although Brad was not upset about the issue they were discussing, he was frustrated by how the process of the discussion was evolving. This happens frequently in conversations with couples. Brad is linguistically sensitive and logical in how his thoughts progress. For him there is a distinct difference between upset and frustration, and he was adamant in telling Jeri that it was the process that was troublesome to him, not the issue.

Jeri is very auditory sensitive. She hears the subtleties in voice quality and the emotion carried by those qualities. She listens very carefully and tunes into others by how the communication sounds. So for Brad to say he’s not upset when she clearly hears him being upset drives her crazy.

This is a good example of how differences in communication style strengths can cause friction and conflict in relationships. Brad processes a conversation with linguistic and logical strengths dominant. Jeri processes primarily in the auditory and interpersonal realms. They rely on their strengths to guide them in understanding, as we all do. Yet they focus through different elements (communication components), which creates a disconnect.

Simply being aware that these differences exist, knowing how you and your partner process information and recognizing and accepting the differences while separating the process from the content in a conversation  will help minimize conflict and support an opportunity for better understanding.

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

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!

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!

We all talk to ourselves quite a lot, sometimes out loud but mostly internally. In fact we spend more time talking internally than externally. This is a complicated matter in the relationship we have with ourselves, and it’s worth paying careful attention to the way we do this. Here’s an example of someone we’ll call Will trying to understand his reactions, thoughts, and feelings about jealousy as it involves his girlfriend, June.

Will was struggling with feelings of jealousy. The word jealousy generally has negative connotations, so it’s hard to admit to jealousy. It can seem small minded and implies a lack of trust. Will was especially troubled by his thoughts and feelings because his girlfriend, June, hadn’t done anything that would warrant not trusting her. So, Will was talking to himself about how foolish he is and how his feelings are all messed up. He was trying to be logical.

June is naturally friendly with both men and women, genuinely interested in people and socializing. She is pleasant and funny, and others like meeting and talking with her. When Will and June are together at gatherings, Will appreciates her engaging manner and likes how others respond so warmly and positively to her.

When they weren’t together, however, and Will was alone, it was different. Then, he visualized other men being drawn to June, flirting and trying to win her over. He pictured these scenes in detail, allowing them to be embellished in his mind’s eye. And that was the real problem: because he has a strong visual-spatial world, these images of June were in great detail, like a moving picture, energized by Will’s emotions.

After exploring his history in relationships, attachments in childhood, and general feelings of security in relationships with other partners, it seemed clear Will was dealing with very ordinary feelings of jealousy—he was not possessive or obsessive, and his self-esteem was solid. So, we focused on how he communicated with himself. While he pictured these disturbing scenes, he used negative words toward himself (“Why are you doing this? You’re being stupid!”), which caused his mind to move at a frenetic pace. No kidding it was counterproductive and making him very unhappy. How could it not? In fact, his imagination was running away from him. The pictures were controlling his feelings and thoughts.

Once Will acknowledged that he was producing these negative communications (both images and words), he understood that replacing them positively made sense. At the first sign of the negative, he began telling himself that he really loves and enjoys being with June, which is why he was afraid of losing her. He also pictured a positive scene of the two of them having a pleasant time together.

The third thing Will did was to recognize how physically agitated he would get with the negative thoughts and feelings, moving around frenetically and really working himself up, with both images and words. By slowing down the pace of his activity, however, he was able to manage his reactions better, clarify his thoughts, and more easily focus (picture) on the reality of his relationship with June.

Will initiated these three steps regularly, at the first sign of negative jealous rumblings. He wasn’t trying to convince himself of something that wasn’t true, ignoring signs and signals of boundary problems or infidelity. He knew what he was saying to himself was the “real” truth, which is why the practice was ultimately effective: his jealous thoughts dissipated and he could relax in the security of the strong mutual feelings he and June had for each other.

It is common for all of us to get into trouble around our strengths. Will’s strong visualization ability became a liability as he pictured things that really weren’t true but felt so real in his imagination. This is common for those with a strong visual-spatial component to their communication style. Will was talking to himself in pictures that were hurting him. By paying attention to this process, he was better able to find a more accurate way to communicate the truth in his internal world.

• 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!

“Look at it this way…,” or “There are other possibilities…,” or “Look at it from the other side…” Those with a strong logical component to their communication style often play the devil’s advocate. This technique helps them analyze a situation, discover the truth, and solve problems. Their intentions are good and their willingness to help is clear, which demonstrates empathy. However, these are not always apparent to the other party in an intimate relationship and the devil’s advocate technique usually backfires, resulting in an emotional disconnect. Here’s an example:

Jesse: I can’t believe what Joanne said to me at work about our client. She might as well have called me incompetent.

Luke: What exactly did she say?

Jesse: She said the client wondered what I had been working on since our meeting last week.

Luke: Well, maybe she wanted to give you a heads up about the client before your meeting tomorrow.

Jesse: Why are you taking her side?

Luke: I’m not taking her side. I’m just suggesting another possibility.

Jesse: Because you think I’ve been goofing off, too?

Luke: No, I don’t, I just . . .

Jesse is upset about what Joanne said to her at work. When Luke heard what was said, he tried to show Jesse that there are other interpretations for Joanne’s comment: She might have been trying to be helpful—the opposite of what Jesse believed. Luke is a very logical person and needs to analyze situations and enumerate options. He often plays devil’s advocate as a way to more fully explore problems and likes to make an argument in favor of something he doesn’t necessarily believe, as a way to discover new meaning.

The word argument is interesting. An argument between two people implies a heated conflict. To make an argument in favor of something, however, is to fully express the reasons supporting a side of an issue—not in a contentiously, adversarial manner. In the exchange, Luke’s attempt at making an argument gave rise to conflict because Jesse didn’t perceive his intent and believed him to be arguing, not supporting or understanding her distress. Luke didn’t adequately communicate his concern for Jesse’s distress, so being devil’s advocate wasn’t especially effective.

When a loved one is in distress, offering emotional validation and showing direct concern for his or her distress is the first order of business. Without that being clear, any ideas offered run the risk of sounding like criticism. Again, those with a strong logical component enjoy making the argument, playing devil’s advocate, and offering alternative ideas. The intentions are usually good but not easily seen by someone in distress, unless a supportive, emotional connection occurs first.

• 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!

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

Here’s a workplace story to illustrate the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my study of learning styles, I came across the whole to part and part to whole concept. As with all learning style paradigms, this has a strong connection to communication styles, and it particularly intrigued me because I could immediately identify with it.

I am a whole-to-part learner: I need to understand the overarching concept before getting the details. Moving in the opposite direction (receiving the details first), leaves me confused and feeling adrift. Those who are part-to-whole learners need to take in the parts that lead to the whole concept they are learning. Being presented with a whole concept first leaves them overwhelmed because the concept seems arbitrary.

I often want to know what a movie or book is all about before encountering it. I don’t mind hearing how it ends . . . in fact, I want to know the ending so I have an organizing concept and will often read the last part of a book first. The unfolding process is essential for those moving from part to whole and provides much enjoyment. Knowing the punch line from the start spoils the fun.

How does all of this relate to communication styles? Here’s an illustration: Julia is a very active, hands-on sixteen-year-old. She loves sports, doesn’t like to read, has a strong work ethic, is good with people, and is distractible. Because of the distractibility, her parents and teachers are always trying to get her attention, which they do by explaining things step by step. This seems logical—and it is—but it doesn’t work with Julia because she is a whole-to-part learner. She needs the punch line first and not work toward it.

Saying, for example, “Julia, this is probably the biggest event of the year for your mother, so we really need your help” gets her attention. Giving her a specific task to do (“Julia, we’d like you to tidy up the patio and then pick up some stuff in town.”) doesn’t. This approach is specific and incremental, which can help some who are easily distracted, but for a whole-to-part person like Julia, the requests seem random. Getting Julia’s attention by giving her the bottom line—the larger concept—first is more effective. She needs to know what this is all about before she can get connected to it.

The whole-to-part and part-to-whole axis is another tool for achieving effective communication that I’ve shared with many parents, couples, and business leaders who have found it useful. As always, though, it is best to understand how it works for you before applying it to others in your relational world.

• 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!

Sam’s wife, Beth, made a simple statement, or so she thought. “Let’s put in a walk-in shower.” Sam was immediately sour on the idea. He grimaced and said it wasn’t a good idea. This upset Beth and she responded strongly. “Why are you always so negative when I make a suggestion?” Sam quickly responded, “Because it’s just one more thing I have to deal with.” “But why can’t we just talk about it?” Beth replied.

Sam and Beth were both exasperated by the conversation and withdrew. Later that day, they were able to agree that the pattern of this discussion was all too familiar and needed to change. So bringing it to their next counseling session seemed like the safest and most hopeful route to take.

Beth was the plaintiff. “I just want to bring things up that we can discuss together reasonably and rationally.” Sam got in a dig, “You mean that you want me to agree to what you want to do!” “That’s not fair,” Beth replied. “Well, you’re not the one who will be doing the work,” Sam said.

Sam is a hands-on guy who can build or fix just about anything. He’s also someone who needs a lot of time to clarify thoughts and feelings. Beth, on the other hand, thrives on interpersonal engagement and also has strong visual skills. She has stronger verbal skills than Sam, as well.

I asked Sam what prompted his initial reaction to Beth bringing up the walk-in shower. He told us that when Beth brings up something like the shower, he doesn’t just see the shower, he sees (visual-spatial) the whole house. He instantaneously sees the plumbing and electrical systems, as well as the structural elements of the building. Not only that, but he pictures each and every other part of the house which needs care, attention and fixing.

Beth was, indeed, taken aback. She said, “Sam, why are you thinking about all of those things when I just brought up the shower?” She was genuinely puzzled. Beth continued, “Why do you put yourself through all that?” Then Sam said what we’ve all said at one time or another, “I’m not trying to do it, it’s just how I am!”

Sam doesn’t have any choice about the complex images that come into his mind, but he does have a choice about how he responds and what meaning he gives it. Working with his natural communication style helped him (and Beth) understand that Sam really does see the whole picture immediately, and, at times, that is overwhelming. Learning to identify the feeling part—being overwhelmed—was key for him in managing his reactions better. He learned to tell Beth when he felt overwhelmed. For her part, Beth recognized that Sam sees everything at once, so she can ask him to describe the picture, giving her a better idea of what’s going on.

In addition, Sam discovered that although he’s seeing everything at once, he can engage Beth in talking about priorities (logical) and they can make decisions together. He also realized that he wasn’t giving Beth enough space to think out loud (interpersonal) and share her enthusiasm. Being so quick to react because he was feeling overwhelmed, he squashed any opportunity for her to dream out loud.

When communication gets hijacked by our emotional reactions, it hurts the relationship. Sam and Beth each felt invisible to the other. The result was beliefs that hurt: I’m not loved, cared about, or valued. None of this was true, but it felt that way when the emotional reactions overshadowed the truth. By accounting better for their stylistic differences, they developed communication structures that gave them a real opportunity for connection, collaboration, and understanding. This, of course, strengthened their relationship.