{"id":309,"date":"2011-11-03T23:19:45","date_gmt":"2011-11-03T23:19:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bizexteam.com\/?p=309"},"modified":"2023-07-04T16:21:08","modified_gmt":"2023-07-04T16:21:08","slug":"tools-for-effective-communication-third-tool","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bizexteam.com\/index.php\/2011\/11\/03\/tools-for-effective-communication-third-tool\/","title":{"rendered":"Tools for Effective Communication: Third Tool"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tools for Effective Communication: Third tool: Understanding Styles. <\/span><\/h2>\n

So far, we have discussed two tools designed to help you approach an important communication: setting a goal for the outcome and planning the communication before jumping into it. Perhaps most of us intuitively feel that the best communications seem easy and natural.\u00a0 They happen almost automatically and so we don\u2019t really think about what makes them work so easily. And yet, should we choose to take the time to evaluate why they work, they are \u201ceasy\u201d for a specific reason or several reasons. If you have easy communication with another, it adds little value to \u201cover-think it.\u201d\u00a0 If it is working, then there is frankly little reason to mess with it.\u00a0 The series of postings on Tools for Communication are designed to help you evaluate the sources for communication challenges and to provide tools and approaches to help when communication with another seems more challenging.<\/p>\n

The third communication tool is understanding the style of the person which whom you are communicating.\u00a0 Several of our postings will be closely related to this overarching topic.\u00a0 Today\u2019s focus will be on the style with which the listener prefers to approach problems. Other posts will discuss even more deep-rooted style issues.\u00a0 Fundamental to the next several postings in the underlying understanding that easy communication invariably happens as a result of being in \u201ccongruence\u201d with the other person or persons involve. Congruence is a derivative of the term \u201ccongruent,\u201d which the dictionary defines as \u201cbeing in agreement or harmony,\u201d or \u201cbeing identical in form.\u201d When I suggest that we should strive for congruence in our important or challenging communications, I am not saying that we should simply mimic what we hear from the other person, nor am I suggesting that we should parrot them, dress exactly like them, or scratch when they scratch.\u00a0 What I am saying, however, is that even when one communicates in the same language \u2013 in our current case, English \u2013 communication unavoidably involves a series of word and metaphor choices and styles and approaches.<\/p>\n

Each of us has deeply engrained preferences for word and metaphor choice, pace of communication, accompanying body language, non-verbal supplements to our communication (much more will be said about this in a later posting). Likewise, it is now well established that each of us has the hard-wired propensity connect with the other and on a very unconscious level to share similar responses to similar stimulus.\u00a0 In fact recent research has revealed that many of the higher primates possess specialized neurons within their brains \u2013 mirror neurons \u2013 that react in response to connection with another individual.\u00a0 It has been shown for example, that when one monkey sees another eating a nice piece of juicy fruit, the same parts of the brain react in the observing monkey as in the monkey actually eating the fruit. Thus, the physical reaction and brain areas stimulated are similar in each monkey.\u00a0 While researchers have not yet isolated and identified mirror neurons in humans, deductively we see similar responses.\u00a0 Think about it.\u00a0 How often do you feel compelled to yawn when someone else yawns, as just one example?<\/p>\n

As we drill down into this topic, lets start for today\u2019s posting with looking at problem solving or decision-making styles.\u00a0 Have you ever prepared what you thought was an excellent report or presentation and presented it to someone seemed \u201cunderwhelmed\u201d by the work, even though the topic was important and a decision was required? If not, count yourself lucky! If so, read on!<\/p>\n

While individuals are far too complex to be easily categorized in boxes and labels, there are many instruments out there that purport to do just that?\u00a0 What is the utility of labeling someone?\u00a0 What good does it do to know that someone is of a certain Meyer-Briggs \u201ctype\u201d or a certain DiSC\u00ae <\/sup>type? For the average person, these tools as diagnostic instruments are of little value. Yet, as a non-diagnostic indicator of a person\u2019s communication preferences they can be very useful.<\/p>\n

For example, most people have some single or combined preference around approaching communications and making a decision or accomplishing a goal.\u00a0 Regardless of the specific instrument used and its specific labels, people do <\/em>have their preferences in the way they approach discussions. Let\u2019s look at some of them. Several instruments tend to categorize people generally along the lines of the following four groupings: People who are decisive and want to jump quickly to the solution, sometimes called \u201cdrivers.\u201d\u00a0 Others love to explore the future as it could be <\/strong><\/em>and to reach solutions in light of a new approach or creative new solution.\u00a0 We\u2019ll call these people \u201ccreators\u201d for our purposes. Others hold their relationship with others as the single most important aspect of their interactions with them.\u00a0 These individuals need to \u201cknow\u201d and trust the other individual.\u00a0 They need to feel like they are connected first with the other person before<\/em> moving forward to work with them and to approach a problem. \u00a0For our purposes we will call these people \u201cempaths.\u201d\u00a0 Finally, some individuals place greater importance on the system and its \u201crules,\u201d rather than on individual decision-making or creativity, regardless of the level of \u201cconnection\u201d with the other. I call these people \u201csystemizers.\u201d They like to work with predictability, rules, and bounded variables. Naturally, these lines can be blurred and people are far too complex to fit neatly into a single category every time.<\/p>\n

Further, people often gravitate to certain work and professions, which align with their styles.\u00a0 Invariably, a room full of CEOs will have a high representation of \u201cdrivers\u201d and \u201ccreators\u201d\u00a0 \u2014 people who can envision creative solutions and are not afraid to make the call to implement them.\u00a0 A room full of accountants may have high representation of systemizers.\u00a0 After all, while we value creative solutions to address new problems, we rarely<\/em> value \u201ccreative accounting!\u201d Counselors and customer service representatives will often have the predominate characteristics of an \u201cempath.\u201d\u00a0 People whose jobs task them with often \u201cthinking out of the box\u201d or designing new features, products, or solutions have strong \u201ccreator\u201d traits. The \u201ccreator\u201d trait is often highly represented in jobs such as system designers, architects, futurists, and applied research.<\/p>\n

You may ask, \u201cSo what does this me? How do I know about me, let alone the other person that you seek to influence?\u00a0 The answer is that it is actually not that difficult to make educated guesses and to test them as you work with the other person.\u00a0 Here are a few questions you can ask yourself and use to evaluate the other person:<\/p>\n