Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Two Unstoppable Forces: Light and Emotion

One of the most exciting and prolific active architects in today's world is Renzo Piano. One would be hard-pressed to travel to any major American city - and many others throughout the world - and not find an example of his work. Very impressive indeed. In a recent interview, Piano described light as "the most untouchable, immaterial material of architecture." That got me to thinking: in the field of communication, emotion could be described in similar fashion. The existence of these two unstoppable forces is undeniable. In that sense, they are similar to gravity. For Piano, light is an invisible force that he strives to control or direct in the way he designs his buildings. In communication, emotion is another invisible, yet powerful and unstoppable force that communicators seek to shape, alter, and, ultimately, control.

Piano's efforts regarding light go beyond simply designing windows where one can pull up or down a curtain and keep out or let in its brightness. Rather, the shape of his buildings helps determine the angle of the light and its impact on a structure's exterior and interior. When it comes to emotions, communicators struggle each day to determine effective ways to manipulate the emotions of various publics in ways that motive certain actions and attitudes. Being successful at this is quite a challenge. No one is perfect at it because of the unpredictability of peoples' emotions. They are so vast and sometimes emerge from sources that even the people themselves do not fully understand or totally recognize.

Piano and other architects design a building and the work is met with praise or criticism. Communicators create a public relations or promotional campaign that generates positive visibility or negative responses. Dealing with such powerful forces requires overwhelming respect for their power and the great potential of their impact. As I am not an architect, I can not speak directly to this final point. But in the field of communication, my concern is that at times professional communicators are a bit too cavalier when it comes to attempting to manipulate emotions. In recent times, for instance, what I call "the fear button" has been pushed far too often. Sadly, so many of the results have not been good. Perhaps greater respect for people's emotions as well as their intellect is needed to combat this.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Not So Simple

In numerous past entries I have alluded to how communication, if carried out effectively, can help persons or publics with different points of view achieve consensus. By utilizing communication strategies in which those from the opposing camps identify points on which they do agree and then systematically build on those commonalities to reach an overarching agreement, heated conflict can be reduced and, I believe in many cases, resolved. It is a matter of speaking and listening with respect and openness. Simple. Right? Unfortunately, it is not. "Playing nice" does not always guarantee success.

For instance, take two people of good faith and integrity who genuinely disagree on an issue. They practice good listening skills. They take steps to understand the others' perspective. They keep their disagreement from being personal. Still, they disagree. Each believes they are right and the other person is wrong. The not-so-uncommon reality is that no amount of effective communicating will change or alter what each feels is the truth of their perspective. This is tough because even though the arguing parties may be applauded for communicating with each other in an effective and respect manner, the bottom line is they still have not reached a consensus and may be unwilling to do so.

The punch line here is that effective communication does not guarantee success - however that might be defined - any more than it does guarantee the reaching of a consensus. Sometimes people as well as publics might have to agree to disagree. But what effective communication can do is establish an environment by which parties can connect and disagree in a framework of respect and even harmony. Further, it can help the opposing parties remain in a state of constant state of dialog, which is better than either not talking or one side initiating steps to force their will on the other.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Father's Day 2011

No doubt because I am one, I am partial to Father's Day. While I am the first to admit I have been far from perfect in this role, being a father for more than thirty years continues to be my greatest joy and blessing. So, it is on this day that I salute all who dwell in the world of fatherhood. Particularly, I tip my hat to those Dads who take it seriously and strive to make a positive difference in the lives of their children. You are the log on your child's fire, often times the bar by which the child measures their success. You are the one who tastes the new food the child insists they hate to prove that not only is it edible but it's yummy, too.

In my early years as a father I was often struck by how few expectations there were of me and other new Dads that I knew. When it came to the nitty-gritty of parenting, it was the Moms who were expected to do the heavy lifting: changing diapers, putting the child to bed, getting up in the middle of the night to feed the baby, preparing the food, etc. Moms were seen as the go-to parent. I always viewed that as being an unfair burden that Moms had to carry. After all, they were just as new to this parenting "thing" as were the Dads, yet it was just assumed they knew what to do in every situation or, at the very least, they could handle it. But just as heavy was the burden Dads carried of not having any expectations of them.

I came to appreciate the best parents were the ones who worked together as a team. They shared the challenges of parenting and were living examples of how life is at its best when collaboration and cooperation are the norm. By working together and tackling all the fun and unfun chores of parenting, the Mom and Dad demonstrated to their child the ultimate benefits of effective communication even when those efforts did not always go smoothly or result in success. As the Dad in that mix, there was and is no greater privilege. And the fact after all these years my baby girl still loves me, tells me perhaps I did not do such a bad job after all.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Positivity

Recently, I read an article on positivity in which the work of scholar Marcial Losada regarding interoffice dynamics was referenced. Losada conducted numerous studies on committees and group efforts. Out of his work came what he called "three dimensions" of statements made by workers in their interactions with each other. According to Losada, the statements were: positive or negative; self-focused on other-focused; or based on inquiry (asking questions) or advocacy (defending a point of view.) Depending upon which dimension dominated interactions within committees or groups, the level of effectiveness and positivity of a particular team was largely determined.

Basically, Losada's research suggested that the more team members looked beyond their own individual perspectives the more likely they were able to be collaborative, productive and upbeat. Consequently, these kind of results benefit the overall organization as well as the individual members of a team or group. That proves to be a win-win for everyone. How well members connect - their level of connectivity - is the ultimate difference between groups that flourish and ones that do not. Not so coincidently, Losada's work touches on the best elements of communication: reaching out to others and establishing strategies to help keep that connection viable and strong.

In a group situation the challenge is for members to strike a balance between contributing their own ideas and viewpoints with those who have other perspectives to share. Communication, along with Losada's research, is not a false choice between either being heard or hearing others. Instead, it can and should be both. With a commitment to being active listeners and actively engaging in the dialog that defines group work, members, ideally, will be able to make their team experience both positive and productive.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Choosing the Spotlight

How many of us every so often have looked upon with envy at persons who are celebrities or famous? They seem to be so glamorous, rich and receive little else but adulation wherever they go. They appear to have power and influence, travel to exotic places around the world, and be so removed from the day-to-day, even mundane challenges of life that we and all the rest of us "little people" face and, at times, struggle with. Who wouldn't want to live that kind of life? But one downside of being famous is that when a well-known person makes a mistake, does something dumb or behaves badly, everyone knows it. There is no hiding it. This is what comes from living life in the spotlight.

Communication presents this kind of circumstance as well. As an act of "other" - an attempt to reach beyond one's self and connect with another - then it, too, represents behavior characterized by seeking notice or being recognized by those outside ourselves. When we attempt to communicate with another, then we are voluntarily stepping into a spotlight not all that dissimilar from the one famous folks seem to dwell in. We are, in essence, saying "notice me." We want to be heard, to share or to reach out. We are purposely drawing attention to ourselves. As a result, we are placing ourselves in a position of being scrutinized by others, particularly if how we choose to communicate falls short.

As is the case with famous person, the fundamental act of communication is a leap into the fishbowl. If mistakes are made, if the communication is done poorly, does not succeed or is even carried out with less-than-honest intentions, then others know it. It does not matter how trivial or broad that act of communication might be. This, then, represents the double-edged sword of communication. Obviously, not all of our attempts to communicate are going to be successful; nor is each act going to be executed as well as they should. This is why we need to recognize the act of communication for what it is: a step into the spotlight and voluntarily making ourselves vulnerable to others.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Dimensions of Communication

The act of communicating consists of a number of fairly complex steps that sometimes occur in a matter of seconds. I am not talking about a full-blown public relations campaign where professionals put together a comprehensive outreach effort designed to promote an organization or a particular product. Rather, I am referring to the seemingly simple, day-to-day act of interaction that occurs between two individuals: initiator and recipient. It is one that contains multiple dimensions. I begin with the premise that all communication efforts are reactive. This includes so-called original thoughts or "brain storms" any of us might have. Our ideas or notions are inspired by external forces that include other ideas, information, an event, or a situation.

Any singular or combination of external forces serves as a stimulus that instills within us a message we wish to share or communicate with another. Unfortunately, this seed of a message does not always appear in our head neatly wrapped or packaged. The initiator must develop their own understanding of it before communicating it with others. Once this is done, then a series of decisions are necessary before it is ready to be shared. These include: deciding who to share the message with, deciding how best to share the message, and deciding when to share the message. Once these decisions are made, then what I call the "action"phase of the communication process is launched with the target being another person.

Interestingly, this other person - the recipient - goes through the same internal process as the initiator in deciphering the message that has just been communicated to them. The result, ideally, is an interaction or conversation between the two. Over the years scholars have dissected or examined the act of communicating in a similar fashion. Because it is act in which we all engage every day of our lives, I believe we tend to take it for granted and overlook the complexity of what, on the surface, seems to be a simple conversation. I see it as being similar to eating at a restaurant. The meal is brought to us and we eat it, giving very little thought to what goes on in the kitchen that makes that simple meal possible.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Weight

At some point in everyone's life, weight is an issue. Do we weigh too much? Do we need to put on a few pounds? These are two of the basic questions with which we all grapple. This is certainly true for me. In fact, hardly a day passes when the matter of my weight does not flash across my own internal radar screen. But when it comes to communication, there is a different kind of weight with which we should all be concerned all the time. I am talking about the weight of our words and the messages or signals we send out to others. Make no mistake, what we communicate, particularly with certain audiences, carries much weight; in some cases, more than we realize or even intend.

Words do matter. Sticks and stones may indeed break bones but words and other forms of communication also can have a significant impact: positive and negative. This is why it is important for all of us to pay attention to what we say and how we say it. This does not mean we should necessarily hold back on our thoughts or opinions. Rather, we need to be sensitive to the fact there is more to communicating than simply getting something off our chest. Sure, it may make us feel better, but what about those around us? By definition, communication represents an act of inclusion, an act of bringing others into our sphere. It should not be seen merely as an act of self-indulgence.

Any time any of us communicate, we need to be sensitive to the reality that what we emit is not about us. Our audience, whether it is one person or an entire population, is part of the mix as well. So even if our words are driven by pure emotion, the more we can measure their possible impact on others, the more likely they are to add to the interaction rather than damage or derail. I understanding maintaining this kind of sensitivity to others may make the fundamental act of communicating more challenging, but the pay off makes the extra effort worth it.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Empathy

What makes a good communicator? What ingredients go into creating an individual who connects with others in a manner which paves the way for long term interaction? One part of the answer to these questions is found in the mechanics of communication itself. These include determining how others best like to communicate and then adapting to that style; providing others with an opportunity to respond and communicate their own messages; having a clear sense of what it is you wish to communicate; and establishing a series of measurements to determine the effectiveness of the interaction. These mainstays are part of any successful or effective communication effort and, as a result, should not be discounted.

However, what separates the technically-correct communicator from the one who really shines? If I were writing about baseball, a similar question would be, as a batter, what separated Ted Williams from Willie Miranda? Both knew how to hold a bat and knew what to do with it, but Williams, by far, was the better of the two. How come? What did Williams have that Miranda did not? When it comes to communication, the difference is found in a communicator's mindset. Specifically, I speak of a person's ability to empathize with others. How well can and does a communicator put themselves in the minds and hearts of those with whom they are trying to connect? How well they can see and even feel the perspective of others? How much do they really care what those other perspectives are?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to properly measure how sincerely or deeply one person relates or identifies with another, especially as it pertains to their feelings, hopes and concerns. Regarding communication, perhaps one aspect that makes a person more empathetic than another is that they have deep appreciation of what it is like to communicate unsuccessfully, the frustration, regret and disappointment that it can and often does generate. This awareness could come from their own history of having not communicated well at times and a commitment to helping others not have that same experience. The ability to empathize represents the unknown variable that separates the top-drawer communicators from the others.