Year-End Thoughts

One year ends and another begins. See ya, 2017, and pull up a chair, 2018. On a multitude of personal and professional layers I have a number of thoughts when it comes to the past 12 months.  In our my own limited corner of the world, 2017 was largely positive. This blog, for instance, was recognized as being one of the top 30 on communication on the entire Internet. That's pretty cool. I started "Why Communication Matters" in 2008. Just a few days ago, I put forward entry number 1,000. I feel proud of both milestones even though to this day I still do not know how many people other than me actually read this thing.

Stepping outside my own "space," particularly as it applies to communication, I am not all that sure 2017 was all that good. At the very least, it sure seemed like a great deal of work, not unlike pushing a heavy object up a steep hillside. Lots of folks struggled to be heard, in large part I suspect out of frustration. In a more perfect world, people would be encouraged to speak out. These days, however, they seemed to be criticized and verbally attacked for it. As a result, my sense is people responded by either pulling back or raising their voices. Too much of that escalation seemed to be in the form of personal attacks and cries for censorship.

One would be hard-pressed, for example, to identify a time in our nation's history when the free press has been under such heavy and constant attack by the government. And, to be fair, much of the press is not pulling many punches when it comes to its commentary on the government. Yet here we are: the general public - perhaps ironically - holds both the media and the government in low esteem. My take-away from such a state is that we as individuals along with various entities such as the media and government should not so much pull-back from critiquing everything and everyone we wish. Rather, we all need to do it in a more respectful, even-handed way.     

Our Motivating Elements

Persons of science long ago determined that genetically-speaking all people everywhere are approximately 99 percent alike. Whether we reside in Lima, Peru, Busan, South Korea, or Butte, Montana, have blue eyes or brown, long hair or no hair, are tall or short, are thin or fat, shy or extraverted, or are able to ride a tricycle or not, all of us are a great deal more alike than not. We have more in-common within our interior frames than not to the point that from a genetic standpoint, it is almost as if we are all the same person. The difference among us, then, is found in what I would our exterior selves.

It is here where we separate ourselves from our neighbors, co-workers, second-cousins, fellow voters, fellow church-goers, etc. I use the term "separate ourselves" because by all outward appearances so many of us go out of our way everyday to establish our individuality. "I am my own person and I want everyone to know it," we seem to be saying via a multitude of behavior patterns, including how we dress, express ourselves, behave toward others, and, in-general, communicate. However, what strikes me as the ultimate in irony is that despite these superficial exterior extremities, at the end of the day we still come across as being more alike than not.

Despite ourselves, we remain as close-as-close-can-be being practically the same person. I conclude this because despite what may appear to be contradictory actions, everything we do is driven by basically the same set of motivating elements: gaining acceptance, trying to feel good about ourselves, trying to survive and/or be safe, and possessing the same fundamental needs, including sleep, food and water. How does all this relate to us as communicating beings? In a nutshell, it reinforces the notion that those communication strategies that most successfully work on and with pretty much all of us are the ones that speak to the motivating elements that we share.      


 

Christmas Songs

Don't look now but Christmas is just around the corner. Actually, it is closer than that. As I write this, it is tomorrow. (Last-minute shopping, anyone?) As usual, there are a multitude of things that still need to be taken care of. Wrapping, cooking, reaching out to others, including family, and, yes, I confess, last-minute shopping. While it is all in the spirit of good cheer, it cannot be denied that not all of the chores, obligations, etc. are as fun as some of the Christmas songs would have you believe. For instance, I do not see all that many people "greeting smile after smile" or acting as if this is "the most wonderful time of the year" even if they believe it.

As is the case every time of the year, a wide variety of holiday songs dominate the air waves  and do so even here in our own house. One thing that never ceases to strike me is how many feelings those songs touch upon. Silliness, reverence, melancholy, joy, loss, reflection, love, kindness, compassion, and even nostalgia are certainly among the ones that pass through me almost like a parade down main street. In fact, I do not find it all that unusual that I experience some of those feelings at the same time. In their own special way, Christmas songs, perhaps, touch on the human spirit as profoundly as any other category of music.

Each year, of course, a new wave of Christmas songs are added to the already impressive catalogue that began hundreds and hundreds ago. They add fuel to our holiday moods as well as mirror those thoughts that define our own life-experiences, biases, and perspectives, particularly as we navigate the Christmas season. I like to think they bring out the best of what we think and feel even as we stand in long lines a the check-out counter, contend with holiday traffic and, in my case, struggle with the wrapping of presents. Overall, Christmas songs communicate a strong message. For everyone, I hope it is one that is positive.
        

Generating Attention

I just concluded a 13-hour plane ride from Incheon, South Korea, to Washington, D.C. Overall, it was a smooth flight - some movies, eating, a little reading and snoozing. Obviously, not everyone who flies experiences a journey as long as that one. But whether the commercial flight circles the planet or is a quick hop from one city to another, all passengers are subject to the inevitable flight safety presentation. It used to be given "live," but nowadays a video accompanied by a "live" demonstration of such things as the proper way to secure a seat belt to noting where the emergency exists on the plane are is shown to all passengers. The whole thing takes less than five minutes.  

I usually fly 5-6 times per year. More and more I am observing how little passengers pay attention to what, by any standard, is an important sharing of information. What to do in case of an emergency while thousands of feet in the air can literally be a matter of life and death. Yet while the video plays and the airline steward helps put forth this information, passengers fiddle with their coats, talk with each other, discipline their children - most anything but pay attention to that which is being communicated for their own benefit. Why is this? Why don't passengers give these presentations the attention they deserve?

As I have not any done any specific research on this, I can only guess as what they reasons are. I do not, however, believe it has anything to do with the lack of quality of the video or "live" demonstration. My guess is it because people do not actually believe anything bad such as an emergency landing will happen. Abstractly, they recognize that while such an occurrence is possible, the likelihood is very small. As a result, the video-demonstration is largely ignored. This is a communication problem. What can airlines do to overcome this? Whatever the solution, their presentation needs to generate a greater sense of urgency and relevance among their audience.     

      

Missing Half

Way back around 400 BC, Plato discussed how people pine for another that complements them. He referred to this in "The Symposium" as one searching for their missing half. (I thank author Sam Kean for this summary.) All these many years later, I do not think this has changed one bit. When he observed this, Plato was referring to fulfillment in the area of romance. While that certainly applies today, I think this search is easily applicable in other areas of life.  For instance, we see it in partnerships, alliances that last the duration of a specific circumstance such as a problem or a political campaign, or in communication.

In conversation one strives to be understood and gain acceptance. They offer an opinion in the hope others will be receptive to it and, better yet, agree with it. Such an act, even in such a commonplace occurrence, the search for completion is prevalent. There are few things that give any of us greater satisfaction than seeing those around nod their heads in agreement as we speak and share our thoughts. It reinforces our sense of worth, gives us a sense of validation, and, more to the point, completes an attempt to piece together two fundamental parts: outreach and acceptance. This represents one finding a missing half.

Politicians find that missing half when people vote for them. Business men and women find that missing half when folks buy their products. And children find that missing half when they seek a hug from Mom or Dad and get it. In all our conversations about communication, the central theme is quests to locate one's missing half. When we succeed, we strive to build on it. When we do not, the challenge falls to either look elsewhere or identify different strategies. As I write this, I am hungry. Soon I hope to find my missing half in the refrigerator. When it comes to an area just as basic - communication - the search is no less ongoing and important.

Disagreement

Here is one thing I do not like: when people disagree with me. I feel like what I say makes sense, is logical and reasonable, and comes from sound judgement. (I can just see any one who knows me who is reading this is laughing out loud right now.) What is there to disagree with? Nevertheless, people do disagree with me at times. People do not share my perspective on things a good deal of the time. I do not like that. Interestingly, I do not mind disagreeing with others for all the reasons I stated earlier. I just do not like it when folks disagree with me. Why is that? Am I the only one feels this way? I do not think so. (I assume no one disagrees with that.)

Viewpoints are such personal things. We put forth an opinion on most any topic and view what we have just said as being undeniably right. It represents a piece of who we are. Regardless if the topic is climate change, whether two pieces of clothing match or which painting is nicer, the perspective we put forth comes from a lifetime of thought and experience. Even if we do not have the facts at our disposal to support our view, we have little doubt what we say and think is anything less than spot-on. Yet when another either offers a different point of view or takes exception to our notion, it does not feel good.

This kind of scenario points to a real challenge of communication: offering a personal opinion in a dispassionate way. By that I mean sharing a personal view while being comfortable with the reality that when others do not see things the way we do, it is not a comment on us as a person. They are simply not agreeing with our perspective or conclusion about a particular matter. Accepting that reality may seem easy enough, but the fact is it can be pretty tough to do so. After all, look at how often people argue. Being objective while being subjective is one of the biggest hurdles we all face when it comes to communicating.

Empty Spaces

There is a special joy that comes with spending time with someone when the conversation is easy and flows smoothly and without any awkwardness. Even if the topics covered are serious or even difficult, if the exchange is, in a sense free-flowing, then it brings a deep sense of satisfaction to the parties involved. What contributes to that is both parties are actively engaged in both having a good idea what it is they want to say but also when it comes to listening. They are connecting to the point of working in tandem, building off each other to ensure their exchange is successful. It is effective communication.

As we know, however, not all exchanges go that well. People get together and their conversation goes in stops and starts. Even folks who know and like each other experience such a dynamic. Myself, for example, have experienced this family members that I have known forever as well as friends and colleagues I genuinely care about. No one, I believe, is immune from such a scenario. Given that, the questions revolve around why does this occur? what does one do about it? and can such a thing be avoided? After all, when it comes to conversation, none of all find empty spaces all that comfortable. They are, we believe, to be avoided.

Here is my take regarding such a communication bump-in-the-road: These moments occur because at times - perhaps more than we care to admit - do not always have anything to say. After an initial information exchange, we have exhausted what we have to share and want to know from the other. There is nothing wrong with that. The awkwardness revolves around both parties trying to force their interaction. My sense is short exchanges are fine. I would much rather be part of a brief but meaningful exchange then one that extends beyond either party's comfort level. It is a matter of all of accepting the notion that a brief encounter can be just as satisfying as an extended one. The key is in the substance of the encounter rather than the length.

Acting On Purpose

Communication is a physical act. Purposeful communication is an act of design. Walking across a room represents one form of communicating. So does sneezing or even smiling. Every moment of our days we communicate. What we communicate, however, is not always a certainty. People hear or see us and immediately draw some sort of conclusion.or make an initial judgement. If I laugh at a joke someone in the office tells, do I really believe the joke was funny? Maybe but not necessarily. No matter the answer, the interpretation of my act may not be accurate. Living in South Korea these days, I am exposed to a lot of Korean food. I eat some of it but do I like it?

Where public relations comes into play is when a person adds purpose to their act of communication. I may be laughing at that office joke but my intent is to let those around me know I am only being polite or sarcastic. I do not think that joke is funny. If the others accurately understand my insincerity, then I have communicated accurately. On a much broader scale, if I am the top executive of an international auto company and want everyone in the world to want one of my models, then it is vital that I do well at communicating the purpose of my communication because lots of money is riding on it.    

To add another layer to the act of communicating, the best kind of public relations occurs when one does more than simply put across their message in a way that people understand. To return to my earlier scenario, just because the people around me know I do not really believe that joke was funny does not make a public relations practitioner extraordinaire. To be even considered for such an accolade, I need to devise a way to establish mutual understanding between how all of us are reacting to the joke. This is where purposeful communication or public relations slides over into partnership or two-way empathy between the sender and receiver of a message.

Big Picture Thinking

One of the more fascinating figures from the past was a man named Alexander Von Humboldt. While he may not be a household name these days in the same way, say, Sir Issac Newton is, he should be. It was Von Humboldt, for instance, who was among the first to raise the possibility that Africa and South America were once joined. As he made this observation back in the nineteenth century, it demonstrated an amazing ability to look at a situation from a distance and put forth a new and different perspective. I call that big-picture thinking to which I have always had a soft spot in my heart.

Von Humboldt, in his inprecidented field work of studying nature throughout the world, also introduced the notion that there exists a link between science and culture. To some, in today's world, that view may not seem like much of a stretch, but it was then. (Actually, even today, there are those who disagree with that possible linkage.) I highlight Von Humboldt here because his approach to life's array of variables is one I wish were more prevalent nowadays. I particularly see it missing in the field of communication. I refer not just to the study of this social science but to the actual practice of it.

Why do some folks with one set of political opinions refuse to recognize view points of others in other area such as science or sociology, to cite one example? Is a political perspective really all-encompassing? Why do hard-line conservatives refuse to recognize the reality of man's contribution to global warming? Why do hard-line liberals fail to be open to differing attitudes toward healthcare or gun legislation? It seems folks get caught up in one philosophy that they allow it to dominate their attitude toward other areas of life. The result is closed-minded thinking that gets in the way of open dialog.  One answer is the kind of big picture thinking demonstrated by Von Humboldt.

Stings

There are lots of things in this world of ours that sting: bees, wasps, numerous sea creatures - to name a few. When that happens it hurts. In some cases, stings can even do major harm. But in all the animal kingdom - and I am including those of us who walk upright, are required to pay taxes, eat pizza and download music off the Internet - none has a bigger sting than people. We are both the smartest living creatures on the planet as well as the ones with the greatest capacity to inflict major harm with our stings. If that power was not enough, there are even times when we sting simply for the fun of it.

There is much chatter in the news these days about an attempt to sting by President Trump who, at a recent White House event, tossed a barb at U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren by calling her "Pocahontas." (Warren has been involved in a semi-controversy in recent months revolving have her allegedly claiming she is partially Native American.) Trump has used this nickname on her for nearly a year now, but what was new this time is that he did it at a ceremony honoring Native Americans. The point of this entry is not to criticize Trump, but to put a spotlight on the harm inserting a "sting" into an effort to communicate can do.

Taking a digs at another person is easy for any of us, especially when it involves someone we either do not like or respect or who has threatened us in some way. It is a very human thing to do. But that does not in any way excuse such action. Taking verbal pot shots at another may hurt the target's feelings or generate laughter, but even more so it erodes the credibility of the originator of those stings. They are less for it even if getting in a good "dig" gives them some sense of power. As communicators, we need to do all we can to keep our tendency to insult others to a minimum. Fair criticism is fine. But unfair and low-road communicating is not.         

Communication As Astrophysics

As usual, Shakespeare said it best. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," he wrote in "Hamlet." This quote, to me, can easily be applied to communication. Specifically, it speaks to the fact that there are so many different ways to communicate and that people, either through necessity, creativity or perhaps a bit of both, do both. Just because one way I choose to communicate is via this blog, for instance, does not mean I do not reach out to others in ways far different that this one method. This, of course, is true of everyone.

So, you may wonder, what are these many ways other than by sending a message or receiving one? Those two categories pretty much cover it all. Don't they? Yes, but what they do not do is speak to the specific methods or ways people utilize. Sure, I can rattle off some such as through facial expression, silence, laughing, telegram, music and handshakes. But to even try to come up with a definitive list would be fruitless. I refer back to Shakespeare quote as to the reason why. This reality makes the act of communication are the more daunting and complex. It also points to the notion that being good at it is not as easy as it sounds.

One reason for that is my sense that there are news ways to communicate that are introduced every day. Some five-year-old may be telling their parents right now that they are hungry in a way I or any one ever dreamed of. Or a deaf person may be telling their partner they wish to go for a walk in a totally unique way. Much like the universe itself, communication is ever-expanding. Yes, we send and receive, but to think that covers it all is short-sighted. In this way, communication as a field is not unlike astrophysics. That science is, one might say, universal. The field of communication is, too, just like the act itself.

The Need to Adjust

One of the fun debates to have is over who was the best hitter of all time in baseball. One reason it is fun - at least to me - is that a person can make a good argument for a number of players. But no matter who deserves that accolade, without question one player who deserves strong consideration is Ted Williams. His lifetime batting average was over .340, he hit over 500 home runs in his career, and he remains the last player to average over .400 in one season. Williams did all this despite the fact over four years of his prime playing years were lost when he was drafted into the military for both World War 11 and the Korean conflict.

Williams was such a strong hitter that other teams initiated what came to be called "the Williams shift" to make it harder for him to get a hit. A left-handed batter, Williams had difficulty hitting to the opposite field. Consequently, almost all of his focus was hitting the ball hard and invariably to the right side of the field. The shift constituted players shifting over to that side of the field because they knew Williams was not going to try and hit the ball anywhere else. As good as he was, Williams was stubborn. As a matter of pride, he refused to adjust to this changing circumstance. Later, looking back on his career, Williams estimated his failure to adjust took 20 points off his lifetime batting average.

One of the key elements to effective communication is being able to do what Williams did not. As great as he was, Williams could have been greater had he been able or willing to adjust. Circumstances for all of us change almost on a daily basis. We have to talk loud or soft. The person we are with is distracted so we have to connect in a way that regains their attention. What we trying to say is not understandable so we have to figure out a way to re-state our message. Examples of how and why we need to adjust in our communication efforts abound. Yes, Williams did well. But think how much better he could have been. What about us as communicators?

Not Natural

Communication is natural. Effective communication is not. Hearing is natural. Listening is not. So, given that, where does that leaves any of us when it comes to maintaining ties with others? Isn't establishing a two-way connection with another supposed to be what we do? The simple answer, of course, is "yes." Humans are social creatures that are driven each day to connect with others. We need the touch, sound, feedback of others to help provide us with helpful information, affirmation, and even some sort of pleasure. Communication at its basic, including hearing, help do that but only to a certain degree.

To get more, that is, to gain a deeper sense of gratification requires a deeper level of out-reach. Yes, we can express our feelings to another, but without some sort of response, then where does that expression leave us? More to the point, where does it leave us when it comes to establishing a connection with another? The answer to that question is "not far." Such a one-way exchange is unfulfilling to both the sender of a message and the receiver of it. To improve upon that or, at least, avoid it is where the hard work comes in. This means doing more than simply putting forth a message that another can hear.

To communicate effectively requires taking the time and conducting the research to properly craft a message that another does more than hear. The proper work results in a message that is understood, engaging and trusted. It is a message that triggers a genuine response. And when that response occurs, active listening comes into play so the originator of the message can and does truly appreciate how well received what they put forth was. Such a basic exchange is not nearly as easy as it may appear. It requires commitment and commitment requires - say it with me - hard work.let us be honest, doing the unnatural is never all that easy.

Earthquake!

No doubt this sounds like the lead-in to a bad joke. In my defense, it is true. I was sitting in a meeting at work the other day when the earth moved. Our building rocked back and forth for a few seconds. Fortunately, the movement was gentle and lasted only a few seconds. No damage was done and, generally, people carried on with the rest of their day without any other disruptions. Some folks, I learned, were not even aware of what just happened. Still, it turns out, the earthquake registered 5.5 on the Richter Scale. Where I am currently located is in a growing community called Songdo, located just outside of Incheon in South Korea.

The people with whom I was meeting noticed what was going on right away. Our conversation came to an abrupt halt as we looked around us and then moved out into the hallway to check on others and to see what we might be able to find out as to what had happened. When the unexpected or unanticipated occurs, information is vital. What happened yesterday served as a perfect example. People want to know. More importantly, people need to know. In our case, the tremors were slight and brief, so those affected did not need much coaxing to carry on with their normal activities. At the same time, they were able to do so with confidence because they were provided information in a timely manner.

When life suddenly takes a sharp turn, people can easily be knocked off-balance. Depending upon the intensity or gravity of the change, not everyone reacts all that well. Panic and even violence can even ensue. What minimizes the chances of that happening is information put forth in a timely and easily-comprehensible way. Communicating with sensitivity and clarity is the key. Ideally, professional communicators on-hand play that role. But others can, too. Figuratively and even literally, earthquakes occur every day in our lives. Effective communication is the best way to cope.    

Lots of Communicating

Saturday afternoon at the local shopping mall. Thousands of people mingling about. Toddlers. Teenagers. Senior citizens. Young and middle age adults. Yakking. Juggling coats and purses and bags. Lost in conversation. Laughing. Quietly walking. Each navigating long lines. Each snaking their way through and around onrushing strangers. Some in a hurry. Some not. On the surface such a scene appears to be chaos in pure form. Where is the order? What is to prevent this scene from erupting into some kind horrible mess? The answer, of course, is the people. Even more to the point, their non-stop communicating is what keeps such a swirling mass from bursting at the seams.

A closer look at this scene reveals continuous verbal and non-verbal communication. One person in a rush suddenly slows down to let an elderly couple pass. No one tells him to. It is not necessary. Two persons arrive at the same time at a check out line. They both smile and then one takes a step back to let the other in-line first. A toddler drops their stuffed animal. A woman leaves the side of her companion and retrieves the toy for that baby. And so it all goes. All day and pretty much every day. People communicating with each other despite the fact they are strangers and at the mall to carry out their own agendas.

We live in a time of much turmoil and verbal head-butting. So many public figures function in a ways that represent the opposite of mutual respect and cooperation. In the meantime, thousands and, yes, millions of average, everyday folks live their lives in harmony with others despite the many differences that distinguish them. Such a piece of reality is a wonder. Even more so, it is worth noting. Such harmony demonstrates what all of us are capable of. The magic of that scene at the mall is that despite the mass of people, there is very little actual conflict. The people are acting respectful, polite, and of good will. In a word, they are communicating.

Conference Calls

Over the past few days I have had the opportunity to participate in over a dozen conference calls. (I am co-chairing search committees for several positions we are trying to fill at work. The majority of our interviewees live and work in other countries.) Overall, it has been a frustrating experience. Before expanding on this, I must acknowledge the technology that allows multiple search committee members to interview candidates who, in some cases, are literally on the other side of the world. The fact we are able to do this is and forever will be remarkable. This entry is not about the technology itself.

The actual interacting between folks on each side of the line is less than satisfying. More than once one of the interviewers would ask a question and have it met with silence. Did the candidate actually hear what was said? More silence. "Can you hear me?" the questioner asked. More silence. Finally, the candidate's voice could be heard as they began responding to what was asked. Why the delay? What's going on? I do not pretend to know the technology behind conference calls. Still, even now it is difficult to attribute the delays to the nature of the technology behind these calls or the fact the candidates were simply trying to think about how to respond to what was asked of them.

Then there was the matter of the persons on each side of the line talking over each other. One common result of delays in conversation is that inevitably one of the participants will speak out in order to fill in the silence. In the case of the conference calls, another common occurrence was the questioner would begin repeating his or her question only to have the candidate begin answering it while the questioner is still talking. Delays. Interruptions. Interruptions. Delays. They never stopped. Rarely would these communication barriers be such a problem in an in-person exchange or even an interaction via Skype.  

Franz Reichelt

Franz Reichelt was so certain he was right. In early1912, this tailor and part-time inventor had created a parachute that he was convinced could be used by airplane plots in case they needed to jump from their flying machines if trouble occurred. No question about it, this was a very good idea on the part of Reichelt. He was so sure of his invention that early on the morning of February 4, Reichelt climbed atop the Eiffel Tower to demonstrate this sure-thing. A crowd gathered along with several film crews. Wearing both his invention and a great deal of conviction, Reichelt jumped off the Eiffel Tower.

Sadly but not surprisingly, Reichelt was dead within seconds. In fact, his leap can now even be viewed on You Tube. (He has since become known as "The Flying Tailor.") So, besides dieing, what happened? What went wrong? The answer can be summarized in one word: "research." This brave soul did not do enough of it. Blinded by the rightness of his vision, he looked at what he had created and saw what he wanted to see rather than what was actually there. Reichelt saw a viable parachute that would save pilots from sure death. In truth, what was there was an oversized coat that, in retrospect, looked silly.

For any serious undertaking to succeed, then thorough research is a necessary component. Such a truism very much applies to communication. Every day public figures seek to communicate with multiple constituents. Those that fail do so because they rely upon little else but their own gusto. Those with the best chance of succeeding do so as a result of pain-staking research on their topic and intended audience. This also applies to individuals hoping to connect with each other. Having an effective voice rarely happens without practice and homework. Any successful professional communicator will vouch for that.

Second Paragraphs

Second paragraphs are tough. Take no prisoners kind of tough. Here is an example. A person looks at a headline regarding the provocative behavior of North Korea and says something to the effect, "That country's leaders are terrible. They need to be stopped."  To the unbiased observer, such a strong comment could be viewed as a "good opener," more to the point of this entry: a good first paragraph. Such a forceful comment certainly captures the attention of those on the receiving end of it. The listener leans toward the sender of that statement with rising expectations that a notable opener will be followed by am equally notable second paragraph.

More often than we care to admit, however, the listener is doomed to be disappointed. In conversations, many of us have great "openers." But what we follow with is often a reiteration of what we just said in our "first paragraph." Going back to the North Korea example, "Yeah, the people should rise up and throw those guys out." Or "We need to send over our best jets and blow them out of the water."  That is fine. But how are such comments different from what was just said? Obviously, they are not.

Second paragraphs are designed to advance a conversation. Consequently, they require thought that enables one to support, justify and/or defend their first paragraph. Without that vital second paragraph, the first paragraph loses much of its power. It becomes an empty opinion - something everyone has. A good second paragraph helps create memorable acts of communication rather than ones that are fleeting and disposable. While these thoughts are my mine, I want to give credit to Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman of The New York Times for inspiring them. One of his recent columns touched on the ongoing challenge of second paragraphs. While he mentioned them in relation to President Trump, I believe such observation relates to all of us.        

Reciprocity Principle

"I scratch your back, then you scratch mine." How many times have we heard that expression or even used it ourselves? Countless, I'm sure. This is the essence of what social psychologists view as the reciprocity principle. People tend to give back what they have received from others. If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you. This principle represents the foundation of spoken and unspoken understandings between people that provides parameters in which they behave toward each other. Without such a belief, people behave in ways which only suit. They have no predisposition to treat others in a particular way, nor do they concern themselves with how others behave toward them.

This principle often is seen in how people communicate with each other. If a person talks respectably to another, then usually they themselves are treated respectably in return. A breakdown occurs if one behaves outside that conventional norm without the blessing or support of others. Without mutual buy-in, there is a lack of balance in any interaction. For instance, two people are talking when suddenly one gets angry and begins screaming at the other. The one being screamed at tries to calm the one who is upset. The two, at this point, are not communicating in any balanced or reciprocal way.

Communication works best when reciprocity is at-play. This, it should be acknowledged, does not guarantee successful interaction. But it sure makes the chances of success or the achievement of mutual understanding and respect greater. Each of us enter into any kind of exchange with certain expectations that how we communicate will be matched in-kind. Such an expectation, though understandable, is fragile unless both parties agree that they will communicate with each other in a certain way. Without such an agreement, then an interaction lacks order and is more open to chaos and breakdowns. Reciprocity is the key.

Battle Royal

There is a very graphic scene in Ralph's Ellison's classic "Invisible Man" in which multiple African American men are brought together by well-to-do southern White men and forced to fight until there is only one left standing. At that point, that person is given some sort of cash prize along with the cheers of the fight's witnesses for putting on an enjoyable show. It is a disturbing scene made all the more so by Ellison's wonderful prose. (By the way, reading this book - published 65 years ago - is much like being in the presence of greatness. The clarity of Ellison's story and the strength of the theme remain current.)   

This battle royal is not unlike what many of us witness on the array of interview talk shows in which guests of opposing views along with the host often end up talking over each other in an attempt to be the last person standing or, in their own minds, "win the day" by out talking the others. More often than not, it is a hollow victory. The times I have watched such a scene occur has not only left me unenlightened, it has also turned me off turned me off by all of the guests even if it is folks with whom I normally agree. They have done a disservice to themselves and, just as importantly, to the topic itself.

Effective communication is not about "winning." Instead, it is about properly putting forth one's thoughts or perspective in a respectful manner that enables the person on the receiving end to communicate likewise. Such a description may seem simplistic but the fact is we as a society seem to be seeing a lot less of it than ever. Effective communication is about civil discourse and not about out-arguing or talking-over others. Debating speaks more to the concept of winning. Effective communication is far more about "doing" or the act of interaction. I, for one, long for the day when we see far more of than we do verbal battle royals. 

Humanity

Let us cut to the chase. We all come from a mother and a father. We all laugh and sing and cry and bleed and get hurt feelings and reach out to others when we can. We have hopes and fears and strengths and weaknesses. We can be mean and selfless all in the same day. We enjoy the company of others yet do not shy away from alone-time when it appears. We have skills and talent yet appear silly depending what it is we are doing. We know a lot, yet know less a lot more. The list of qualities and characteristics and traits that define us is practically never-ending. Yet when asked to describe ourselves, our usual response is just a few words.

So, what does all this mean? What is the grand total when all all these variables are added up? The answer, as I see it, is we are complex creatures. We may appear to be simple and God knows do all we can to view each other in the most simplistic terms. Yet the truth is we are multi-layered and deserve never to be described in a broad-brush way. We are too intelligent and dumb for such categorizing. Our complexity runs far too deep for that. Given that, is it any wonder that communicating effectively with each other rarely goes smoothly? Is it any wonder that communication within humanity is, at best, uneven?

Things that do come easily are so easy and even tempting to discard. After all, who wants to work hard on anything all the time? Yet that is the challenge of communication. If it is to be done well, then it requires hard work, non-stop tenacity and much patience. This is why communication is so exhausting. It is unrelenting. But who better to meet the challenge then all of us who comprise humanity? We owe it to ourselves to never turn away from the challenge of communicating well because doing that hurts no one but ourselves. For the sake of humanity, we need to step up to the challenge ever day.

The Ability to Change

Nearly 250 years ago Thomas Paine - that great rabble rouser - put forth the notion that people have it within them to change the world. They can, he said, make change. Reverse course. Alter what is to what can or should be. At the time, Paine was trying to stir up the American colonists to rebel against England. (Spoiler alert: he succeeded.) His words remain timeless. People, individually and collectively, have the power to adjust, take different paths, or even stop one course of action and replace it with another. Yes, we are creatures of habit - I sure am - but that mainly is by choice. We can different choices to follow different habits.

On a more intimate level, Paine's words apply to each of us in terms of how we communicate. There are those, for instance, who do not listen all that well. They prefer putting forth their thoughts or ideas and not making much of an effort to hear what others might say. For no doubt multiple reasons, they communicate in a one-sided way because such a style is easy and works for them. But even those who are not inclined to listen to others, experience feelings of dissatisfaction that their interactions with others are not always as fulfilling as they might like. Even these folks have the ability to change. 

Not all interactions or exchanges go smoothly. Consensus or even mutual understanding is not always achieved. This is something that we all experience from time to time. But some men and women find themselves in non-satisfying interactions more often than they prefer. This is no way to live. Ideally, the majority of our exchanges should be successful. Each of has the intellect and internal energy to make that a regular part of our reality. So, if miscommunication seems to be too much of a part of one's daily life, then take heart and draw inspiration from the sentiments of Thomas Paine. The ability to initiate change is very much part of our DNA.

How Can I Be Better?

It is a question one is not asked very often. At least in my experience, rarely have I had another adult ask my view on how they might improve as a worker. Many of us, I believe, might ponder such a question to ourselves, silently in our own heads. But to come forward and out loud ask for direct feedback on such a personal level is not common. I mention this because it happened to me just a few days ago. Someone whom I supervise at work is leaving soon. She asked if she could talk with me and - pow! - came right out and asked moments after we sat down. Yes, I was surprised but also impressed.

That aside, my response revolved around communication. Specifically, it pertained to the mindset of how we approach interactions with other. Do we connect with another for the purpose of getting out of that what we can or do we try to communicate in a way that serves the interaction or exchange itself? Remember: serving the interaction does not mean not trying to obtain information we seek or passing along an opinion, for instance, we wish to share. Without question we have these needs. The challenge comes in seeking to achieve those needs without running rough-shod over the needs or feelings of others.

The worker with whom I talked already does a commendable job of putting her needs in the context of the greater good. Like me, she falls under the umbrella of the organization itself and is charged with striving to ensure its goals are met successfully. I urged her to continue to be mindful of this as she moves on with the next phase of her life. Whether it is a company where we might be employed or a relationship we wish to preserve, I believe we all fall under a "greater good" in all aspects of our lives. That is what we need to serve and no way can we do it more effectively than by communicating effectively and with regard to other's.

What's in it for Me?

Here is something that I have always found to be a bit of a puzzle: On the one hand, people are viewed largely as creatures that are motivated by self interest. "What's in it for me?" seems to be a mantra that drives pretty much all of us. How will taking a certain action bring the most benefit or reward to me? Often times, I confess that those questions pop into my head whenever a request of me is made or I am called upon to make a choice. I challenge any one to claim they do not at least consider similar questions under similar circumstances. As I "see" no hands being raised, I will assume this is a commonality we all share.

Despite that, acting within one's self interest is depicted as being a negative characteristic. Never mind that that is the case for everyone. When one confirms they are taking an action that serves their interest, then the general public views them unfavorably. Why is this the case?  I raise this question with the full understanding that altruistic behavior is viewed by the general public as a positive quality to have. At the same time, it is not necessarily behavior practiced by others as part of an innate characteristic. Further, acting within one's self-interest is what all of us do as part of our routine.

I raise all this as a way of identifying an interesting communication challenge faced by professional communicators charged with promoting a public figure of some kind. The communicator seeks to present their client in a positive light, yet the client is no doubt taking action or making decisions based on elevating their own status on some level. Why not promote that reality? Why not send out a press release saying a particular celebrity donated thousands of dollars to fight cancer, for instance, simply because it made them feel good? Instead, the release avoids such a hard truth and instead suggests the donation was driven only by a desire to help others.

Answer the Question!

In boxing, there are several kinds of punches. One of the most fun and colorful is the roundhouse. Here, the boxer pulls back his fist as far as he or she can and then with as much speed and force as possible let's loose with the punch for is hoped to be devastating consequences. Spectators love watching the roundhouse as it is easy to spot and really looks as if it is going to be "lights out" for the person on the receiving end of it. Unfortunately, because roundhouse punches are easy to detect, they usually are not all that successful as trained boxers can easily counter them with some type of evasive action.

Interestingly, one punch that is less spectacular yet usually far more effective is the straight right or left. Here, the boxer thrusts his or her fist at their opponent's face with direct power. The opponent has far less time to react to this punch. I mention all this to note how often in interview situations, the direct answer - much like the straight punch - is often the one with the most impact and power. "Why should we hire you for this position?" the interviewer might ask. "Because I am well organized, work well with others, and have strong computer skills," is one straightforward answer that will make any inquisitor take note.

Such a response is so much better than, "I have spent many years in this field and really enjoy working in an office setting." While that may be somewhat relevant, it sure does not much power. Particularly those who are seeking information, people prefer being communicated with directly. They want their questions answered in a straight forward manner. In boxing, the roundhouse is usually most effective when it follows a straight punch. In interview situations, the same is true. Detailed explanations are often most memorable when they follow a direct answer. Such a one-two sequence helps make for effective communication.

Giving Directions

A funny thing happened to me on the way to work the other day: a stranger stopped and asked me for directions. Why is this "funny?" The answer is because I am an American living and working in South Korea and the person asking me for directions was a Korean. While I do not think for a moment that just because a person born in a country should know where everything in that country is located, I was amused that, in this case, a person born in Korean would turn to a person like me who by all appearances was not born here. Not surprisingly, yet to my regret, I was not able to give this person any meaningful assistance.

Still, this points to a larger communication challenge: effectively providing guidance to a person unfamiliar with where they are on how to go from one location to another. "Drive for about a half mile, turn left at the third light and you're there." What is more straight-forward than that? Often times, however, the direction is not that easy. If a person is truly lost, then advising them on how best to reach their destination in a way that is fairly simple, understandable and above all accurate is not all that easy. It is akin to trying to communicate in a language with which you are unfamiliar. This is because you are trying to share information in a way that is clear to the listener. What you are saying is not about you.

More often than not, when asked for directions, I first try to assess what the person doing the asking knows or does not know about the area. If we both share at least a bit knowledge about the area, then that gives us a starting point from which to communicate. Lacking that makes our communication exchange more difficult but not necessarily destined to fail. Either way, assuming I can, in fact, help the person who is lost, I try to do two things: give them the needed information in bite sizes based on specific landmarks; and give them a sense of how close they will be to their destination at each landmark. People, I figure, need that assurance. I know I sure do.

Tips From Cicero

In his time - and even now - Cicero was considered by his peers and much of the general public as a master of public discourse. When it came to oratory, Cicero was viewed as having few equals. As written by author Anthony Everitt, this statesman, lawyer and politician - back in the times of Ancient Rome - was was seen as being as eloquent as he was logical, as persuasive as he was compelling. In short, Cicero was perhaps among the first of mankind's great communicators. Given that, what was his secret? What tips did he have to help the rest of us who try to be at least adequate in the realm of public speaking?

The good news is Cicero actually did share some public speaking guides that even today, over 2,000 years after his death, are worth noting. Here are a few: speakers should try to vary and modulate their voice, deploying the "full scale of tones;" a speaker should control him or her self in terms of how they move their body; a speaker should keep pacing to a minimum; a speaker should control their eyes for "as the face is the image of the soul the eyes are its translators;" and a speaker should express grief or hilarity depending upon that about which they are talking. These and others tips are taken from Cicero's various books on oratory and compiled by author Everitt in his biography of Cicero.

For myself, I have always believed when it comes to public speaking, one should true to themself in the sense they must converse I ways in which they feel most comfortable. For instance, if one prefers to move back and forth on a stage rather than standing behind a podium, then that is what they should do. Cicero disagrees with that. While communication often revolves around an individual or personal style, I concede that much of that ancient statesman's perspectives remain worth noting. All of us should assess the best and try to apply their wisdom to our own styles. One could do much worse than following Cicero's suggestions.

War of Words

I have been around the block now for nearly seven decades and I confess to remembering a single time when a war of words has had a truly satisfying ending. Before going any further, let me qualify that statement by saying I am referring to those times when two individuals - sometimes family members, friends, strangers or even public or private figures - verbally clash. One tosses a zinger at the other. The other responds in-kind only with a bit more punch. Before you can say, "War of the Roses," the initial party drops a slightly bigger put-down. The other, of course, sends another verbal blast across the bough. And so it goes. Oh, and did I mention that while this is going on, each person is getting redder and redder behind the ears?

Rarely in such scenarios does one party ever take a step back and say, "Boy, that was a good put-down. There's no way I can respond to that. I surrender." Almost always, no matter how insensitive, illogical or vulgar the comment might be, the party that is most offended - at this point it is likely both of them - fires back. Even if one or both "warriors" throw up their hands and walk away, this battle never really ends. Hard feelings remain. Hurt feelings never quite get pushed under the rug. Whatever relationship the two might have had before the clash, it is now different. Slightly ajar. A return to what it was before the joust, at the very least, will take awhile.

Presently, the leaders of the United States and North Korea are involved in such a war. Not surprisingly, it is continuing to escalate. Words like "destroy," "war," and "bomb" are now a regular part of their exchange. A big concern is that this verbal war may turn into one of a different and more harmful kind. The two may run out of verbal slaps and decide to pursue a slap of another kind. Unless these men reign themselves in, their communication efforts may go horribly wrong for themselves and the people they represent.

Part of the Process

There are times when even I surprise myself. For instance, when I am home out of public view or in my car out of the public ear, every so often I will let loose with a tirade of vile and offensive jabber that most anyone would find to be insulting. Usually during those moments my outburst is triggered by something or someone that has upset me. My vocal explosion is a way of venting the negative feelings I am having. I purposefully blast away in that manner beyond public scrutiny to avoid offending any one or from making anyone think I am a real, shall we say, jerk. Also, I do not want anything thinking I am something I am not. In heart and mind, I am not how I might sound at those times; nor does the sentiments I express accurately true feelings or beliefs. I express them to release my frustration as part of a process I sometimes use to help formulate thoughts that really do reflect my inner thinking and attitude.

This brings me to a video currently making the rounds on You Tube. It is about ten minutes of MSNBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell having an off camera meltdown over something going on in the control room of his set. Unfortunately for O'Donnell, his tirade was caught on film. To say the least, O'Donnell does not come across very well. (Neither would I or, I suspect, any one caught in the throes of a tantrum or meltdown.) Other public figures have had the same thing happen to them. Bill O'Reilly is one example that comes to mind. Their outbursts were filmed and taped without their knowledge. I concede that watching such things may be fun. At the same time, I caution any of us to judge O'Donnell, O'Reilly and others caught in an unguarded moment too harshly. Like it or not, at times none of us share our feelings in ways that are honorable. I say that not as an excuse, but as a reminder of a reality that is all of us. Every so often we all a need a chance to communicate poorly on our intended way to communicate more properly. It is part of the process.

"Original," Not "Regular"

It seemed an ordinary enough thing to do: order a box of popcorn at the movies. I told the person behind the counter what I wanted and he replied, "What kind?" My response seemed straightforward enough, "Regular." This is where things got complicated. "We don't have that." he said. I looked behind him and could easily see they had plenty of what I wanted. "Yes, you do," I said. I pointed to what I wanted and said, "That." He turned, looked at to what I was pointing and said, "Oh, you want original popcorn." I confess to being a bit taken aback but finally nodded and said, "Yes, I want original."

This innocent little exchange took less than two minutes but in that time a common obstacle to smooth and effective communication was very much on display. The salesperson and I were not familiar with each other's terminology. We knew what we meant but I did not know his meaning nor did he know mine even though we were both talking about the same thing. Our mistake was that neither one of us took the time to learn the other's language. We simply assumed the word we attached to a certain kind of popcorn was universal. As it turned out, the assumption each of us made was wrong.

This is a particular issue when persons from different cultures attempt to communicate without first making any kind of effort to learn the other's language. The result is they often get trapped or sidetracked over otherwise simple blips. The result often ranges from mutual frustration to needlessly wasted time to costly or even failed effort. In my case, I was lucky in that I was finally able to acquire my popcorn and then enjoy my movie in the way I like best. But others are not always so fortunate. Being successful in another culture often requires preparation and accepting the reality that how we might converse is not always how others talk.

Recognition

Recognition - the positive kind - is always welcomed. Who among us does not enjoy a pat on the back? And when it happens in front of others, often times that makes it all the more sweet. I mention this because just recently my blog was named as one of the top 30 blogs on communication on the entire Internet by Feedspot. In fact, to be exact, it was ranked number 7. I am as pleased at this as I was surprised when I learned of this unexpected honor. Thank you, Feedspot. I began doing this blog in 2008 as a simple venue in which I could talk about a subject of extreme importance to me. I had no expectations as to what kind of or how much of an audience I would attract. Even now, I have no idea as to the size of my readership.

Still, I love the fact that the topic of communication remains worthy of such public assessment and interest. It is a vital topic and act that often determines the difference between successful and unsuccessful interaction. Despite that, its level of importance continues not to be as embraced by the general public as well as it should. The reason, in my view, is simple. Any one can do it, so, the reasoning goes, what's the big deal? Big deal indeed. Show me a sucessful marriage and I will show you two people who communicate well. Show me effective interaction between a doctor and a patient and I will show you two successful communicators. And so it goes.

Communication spells the difference between happiness and resentment, inclusion and exclusion, and   engagement and isolation. There is simply too much at stake for us not to take communication seriously as a social science and act between individuals and groups. The fact "Why Communication Matters" is part of that makes me proud. Who knows? Maybe the nearly one thousand entries have even helped make a difference is some one's life. That's a nice thought. Either way, I plan to keep doing what I can in the name of a topic that remains bigger than any of us.

Favor

One of the most difficult communication challenges for any of us is asking a favor of someone. If you ask a friend, it is awkward because you do not want someone you know thinking less of you. Having a need you need another to help you meet is a humbling experience. Most if not all of us do not like appearing any less than at the top of our game, particularly around those we know. The act of asking for a favor of those we know- and vice versa - compromises that perception. Asking a favor of one we do not know or know only slightly is still intimidating as it places us in a somewhat vulnerable position as well.

So, asking a favor is difficult under most any circumstance due to the negative feelings it often triggers. That aside, however, there ihewn other matter: the communication challenge itself. What is the best way to articulate the request? Do you come right out and state your request: "May I borrow your car?" Do you instead begin with an apology: "I'm sorry to bother you or I'm sorry to ask, but may I borrow your car?" Or do you begin with an explanation or lead: "Hi, my car is in the shop, may I borrow yours?" These are all viable ways to state your need but none of them is guaranteed to be successful.

Successfully gaining a favor often involves having a solid understanding of the person you are about to ask. Will they be receptive? Will they give me a hard time about asking? Do they even have what I need? Is this a good time to ask? None of these are necessarily easy questions to seek answers to. Consequently, one should never take asking for a favor granted. Gaining a favor often involves what many have termed "active listening." Know your audience. Anticipate questions you may be asked. Be prepared with pertinent information to support your request. Without question, favor-asking is a tough undertaking. But the good news is effective communication helps raise the chance of success.

Fellow Feeling

I confess to knowing about philosopher Max Scheler other than he exists. Actually, one other thing I know about him is a phrase he coined: fellow feeling. It strikes a chord with me because I believe it very much relates to communication. Such a description pertains to those moments when we feel we have connected with someone else or that we are on the same wave length with another. Does this mean we are in total agreement with that other person? To that, Scheler says, "no." In fact, "fellow feeling," according to its inventor, refers more to a recognition that another person has " a reality equal to our own."

At times, for many of us, that is not easy to do. For instance, we have a perspective on a particular issue and someone else sees that issue in a totally opposite way. In much of today's climate, we would respond to that differing opinion by calling its owner some sort of insulting name and then disregarding him or her as not worth listening to. I confess to being guilty of this. I concede that is not a good thing. Scheler would sit me down and point out the importance of one stepping outside their own ego and being more open to a kind of collective thinking. Does this mean we need give up on our own views and think like everyone else? No way. But what Scheler is suggesting is that we should strive to develop a deeper mutual understanding with others.

That brings me to effective communication. Ideally, as communicators, we must be better listeners and, as a result, gain a better grasp of how others think and feel rather than being quick to condemn on the simple basis another's view does not jive with ours. Is this easy to do? Heck no. Many important things, especially communication when it works, do not always come easily. But once a "fellow feeling" is embraced, then the next stop in the communication journey is mutual understanding.

The "Not-Self"

We are not alone. Nor, from all indications, do we want to be. In fact, it has been suggested, that not being alone is a good thing. By that, I am not referring to the physical act of being without company. Instead, as author Aldous Huxley observed: not being connected with things that are not one's self. More to the point, Huxley wrote, "...a man misses something by not establishing a participative and living relationship with the non-human world of animals and plants, landscapes and stars and seasons. By failing to be, vicariously, the not-self, he fails to be completely himself." In other words, one should actively embrace all that is around him.

Perhaps coincidentally another author of note, Albert Camus, wrote, "At the heart of all beauty lies something inhuman." Taken together, the two are calling for all of us to communicate more effectively with all that is around us. Listen more intently. Observe more closely. What about that would any proponent of comunication oppose? How could focusing on our "not-self" be wrong? At the same time, communicating intensely with all that surrounds us is an intense way to get through the day. Talk about pressure.  Talk about intensity. Hyper-focusing in the manner suggested by Huxley and Camus, I concede, does seem like a bit much. After all, when would you have time for lunch?

One point about the reflections of Huxley and Cammus that I do like is a need for us to develop a greater sense of awareness of all that surrounds us. Awareness is the key. Daily, it seems, I see people passing by with their noses buried in their I-phone and not being aware of either me or others that have to step around them. The concept of not-self  is not something with which they are familiar, I would guess. Awareness? What's that? I say, "Look. Listen." It may not be total not-self but it is a step in the right direction.

Continuous Compromise

Does one ever truly get their way? Does one get what they want without some form or act of compromise? I think not. This, I believe, represents the ultimate challenge of communication. We speak. We put forth our logic and perspective in the hope that it will lead to agreement or, at least, compliance. But in putting forth what we think and eve want, do we ever do so without any regard for our audience, surroundings or the understand ability of our message? I see the answer as being "no." Each of our communications is not without some degree of removing even a sliver of what we intend.

This compromise is seen in the form of the wods we use and the manner in which we communicate them. Do we shout? Do we whisper? Do we use humor? Do we appeal to the audience's intellect or emotions? Each choice, though often our own, is a knowing decision to take one course or strategy over another. How can I say what I want to say in a way others will be open to? To answer that question is to compromise. To answer that question represents giving up some of that which we create. We make this choice as we recognize it as a way to a desired end. What is the point, we realize, of communicating if what we put forth is neighbor received well or understand?

All this is compromise. To communicate effectively requires an acknowledgement of another's word choices, level of knowledge, historical and cultural background, and intellectual and emotional state. The conclusion we draw from calculating these variables perfectly illustrates the act of giving up a little to get a lot as is defined by us. Simply put, we do this all the time. Continuous compromise. It is so ingrained within us that we compromise when we communicate without even realizing it. This does apply to professional communicators but to so-called "regular folks" as well.we may communicate what we want, but not without some attempt to do it in a way others want, too.

Different Perceptions

It was the first day of another semester of classes. As usual, there was lots hustle and bustle as students scrambled to formally begin doing what they were signed up to do. This activity included us teachers. I walked into what I thought was my classroom only to see another class had been assigned to what I thought was my room. I immediately went to the nearest administrative office for help on where my class had been reassigned. Within minutes the person I asked for help located the room to where I had been shifted. Almost immediately I was standing in front of my new class. The semester was officially underway.

The next day I happened to run into the person who helped me find my new classroom. I thanked him for his help the day before. I expected a "your welcome" or "no problem," but instead received a blank stare. It turns out he had forgotten about the incident. This happens in communication. One person views the exchange as important while the other places little or no significance in it. One result of this is that the parties put different levels of energy into their encounter. This can and often does affect the effectiveness of the exchange itself. In my case, the encounter worked out just fine but this was an exception.

The question is what do when something like this occurs. If one of the participants an exchange as important, then it behooves them to inform the other of their perspective. Do not assume another person sees things the way you do. Interestingly, such a mistake is not uncommon. We assume people know how we are feeling because it is so clear to us. Often times they do not. For communication to have the best chance of being successful, then all parties must be "on the same page" as to its degree of gravity. This is only achieved when both parties are as clear as possible about what they are thinking and even feeling.

Elephant Talk

Did you know elephants are great walkers? According to author Robert Moor in his best seller "On Trails," they can walk as many as 50 miles per day. Very impressive. In fact, one of the reason elephants in captivity tend to rock back and forth is because of their need to walk. The rocking gives them relief though it can lead to serious infections. The point is all that unreleased energy, if not used wisely, can lead to problems. How many us have lots to say - or think we do - yet find ourselves with a proper outlet to express ourselves? Nevertheless, we burst out with words any way and end up making things worse for ourselves.

I tend to do that during pauses in conversations. The empty space is not always easy to handle. And then there are interactions in which I want to give an opinion though I may not have any facts on which to base them. I call this "elephant talk." There is the need to talk yet little per-thought in which to ensure my desired communication is reasonable. I, for one, need to do a better job of communicating more thoughtfully. If successful, does this mean I or any one with a similar goal will be free of sharing unsubstantiated opinions or saying dumb things? It sure does. Having said that, I realize that is never going to happen becausee it is totally unrealistic.

Nevertheless, much like many unrealistic goals, it is well worth going after. Who would not want a world with more thoughtful conversations? Elephants are great creatures that deserve the right to walk as they were intended. Humans, despite the many cracks in our armor, deserve to be able to communicate in at least to close to a reasonable manner as possible. Doing so requires effort, maturity, and discipline. Think before you speak is a timeworn expression, yet it applies here. We all communicate. It if we do so in a thoughtful manner, then that makes all interactions better. Right? It makes for trying to create a better world.

Staying Relaxed

Maybe you have done this, too. The other day, just for mindless fun, while walking down the street I began walking along the curb and pretended I was tightrope walking thousands of feet in the air. I did great and did not fall once. The reason for this is not because I had or have great balance. Instead, it pertained to the fact I was actually only inches above the ground so there was no real consequences had I stepped off the curb. If I had been thousands of feet above ground, then I would not have attempted any kind of tightrope walk, but if I had, then without question I would fallen to my death within seconds.   

Not surprisingly, during of time of pretend, I was relaxed and felt no pressure over what I was doing. That would have changed instantly if my time of pretend had become real. Often times when we are communicating in a time of "pretend," such as driving alone in our car and giving some sort of imaginary speech to our boss or an audience, we are stress-free because there are no consequences if we say the wrong thing or get tangled up in our words. Of course, if the boss were suddenly before us or if we were standing in front of room of strangers, then our mind set would in all likelihood change dramatically.

The challenge with communication is to feel relaxed regardless of whether we are alone or facing others. I understand that may very well be easier said than done. But the thing to remember is that getting into a more relaxed state is doable even if it is not necessarily easy. How does one do that? One quick answer is to know what it is you want to say. You may not know precisely what words to use, but having a good sense of where it is you want to go with your message is a key element. This involves having the necessary facts you need to support what it is you are trying to communicate. If a message is credible, then people will overlook a less-than-perfect articulation of it.

The Need for Limits

One thing you can say about a white supremacist is that this is a person with a point of view. Not just any point of view, of course, but one that is locked-in, definite, and not apt to be changed very easily. I mention such a person because they have been in the news lately. Their rallies have showcased a steadfast conviction by this group of people that is disturbing not just because of the specific views they hold, but also they are so damn adamant about it. On the other side, of course, is the greater majority of men and women who view life differently. They, too, carry with them a very firm belief that their view is right and that is all there is to it.

When you put the two people together, particularly when it is these different perceptions that is the reason, then it is no wonder much yelling, anger and even violence is the result. What is to be done? Should the two never be allowed to occupy the same space at the same time? When white supremacists hold a rally - as is their right - should those wishing to take issue with them not be allowed to attend? After all, would not keeping these people apart ensure that no violence erupts or that no one is harmed?

Is their a communication solution to the dilemma of how best folks with their particular diametrically-opposed views can co-exist and even vocalize their opposing perceptions without worry of violence? Ideally, of course, the answer is "yes." But reality suggests the opposite answer. Emotions run high during such interaction and can and do lead some to act-out their attitude in ways that result in the physical harm of some. This points to the notion that communication, at times, must be practiced with set boundaries or rules. People cannot always be trusted to communicate respectfully and with a sense of openness.

Not a Straight Line

It is a very easy walk from our living room to the kitchen. No detours. Nothing to have walk around or try to avoid. No hills to climb or valleys with which to contend. Straight shot. At times I ponder if only life were that easy. Is there any one who believes it is? More to the point of this blog, if only communication were that easy. But the reality is it is not. No way. Not even close. Communicating a message or feeling or information is never without obstacles. Further, rarely does it have a clear-cut beginning and/or end.  Two people talk, for example, yet even when the exchange is over there often remains a lingering aftermath for one or both of the parties.

The other day I watched a segment on CNN in which persons from opposing perspectives were interviewed. At one point, the exchange became heated and one of the guests told the other to "shut up!" From a communication perspective, one might say that one person telling the other to stop talking represented a straight line. Yes, it may have been rude, uncalled for, mean and impolite. Nevertheless, one telling the other to "shut up" was about as straight forward as a punch to the jaw.  In the case of what I witnessed on CNN, it was definitely not. Not surprisingly, the other guest erupted with anger and that led to an event more heated more exchange.  

The guest who did the telling had hoped to get the other to stop talking so he could make his comments uninterrupted. The opposite happened. He created a ton of obstacles that were not there before, thus pretty much eliminating any hope he had of communicating his message. Among other things, one mistake of his was thinking by circumventing any semblance of respect he would ensure a straight line for himself. Especially with that kind of thinking, it never will. People have feelings. People want to be heard, respected and have the opportunity to have impact or make a difference. Those needs ensure that communicating will never be a straight line. What happened on CNN highlighted that big-time.   

What is a Communicator?

I have been writing this blog since 2008. Within the next several months I will have reached the 1,000 milestone in terms of specific number of blog entries. In keeping with the title of the blog, the obvious focus of each entry has been communication. In fact, from my perspective, the only more fundamental topic one could blog about would be "breathing." I mention all this as lately I have been wrestling with the question: "What is a communicator?" On the surface, that seems like such a simple question because the obvious answer is points to all of us. Each of us communicates every moment of every one of our days. In addition to breath, it is what we do.   

Beneath the surface, the answer to that question is more complex. While we all communicate all the time, there remains the issue of how well we communicate. In delving into such a question, such matters as to the effectiveness of our messages, how well we create an environment of two-way communication, and the thought that goes into each of our communiques comes into play. As a result, a communicator is a person who imparts a message in a manner which is understandable, opens a door for ongoing exchanges, and, in essence, rides on the wings of thought that includes research on the topic, the audience to which it is intended, and the manner in which the message is put forth.

My ongong concern is thgat while all of us in the literal sense are communicators, the reality is that few are really communicateors in the sense in which I mean it. Consequently, each day all of us are subject to noise and, in fact, many of us contribute to that noise. Little effective communication occurs. Is that scenareio getting any better? What can be done to ensure there are more effective communicators in the world? Producincg solutions to these questions is tough because it requires time and requires folks to commmit to performing an act largely viewed as being self-serving. Being an effectdive communicator requires a willingness to step outside of one's who perspective.   
     

Fascinating People

We all know or at least know of people who we find to be fascinating. They captivate us; dominate our attention. These special folks are, in a word, alluring. The question, then, is what separates the men and women that we find fascinating from the ones we do not? How are they different? For instance, I am sure it is safe to assume that most, if not all, people who know me do not find me to be all that fascinating. (This, in all fairness, is not to say they do not find me likeable or nice. My guess is they do.) But why don't or wouldn't I fall under their list of fascinating people? I confess that would be very pleasing. Who among us would not enjoy having others find us fascinating?   

My guess is what separates those who we consider to be fascinating from those we do not revolves around how they communicate. In this context, I am talking about an ongoing degree of fascination as opposed to be a strong level of curiosity that lasts only a few moments or is situational. For instance, if Sasquatch walked into the room right now I am sure I would find him to be fascinating. But seeing him day in and day out would, I suspect, become tiresome after awhile. After all, what would we have to talk about? It is not as if we have all that much in common.

Fascination revolves around communication. Specifically, it turns on the way a person speaks, words they use, phrases they string together. What they say illustrates how their mind works. That, more than any physical attributes or abnormalities they might possess, is ultimately what holds our attention. How exactly they articulate their thoughts or reveal their thinking kindles the fire of fascinating within others. So, to those of us wishing to be a source of fascination to others, then we need to raise the bar on how well we communicate. Doing that calls into play the many characteristics that help define good or effective communication: listening well, knowing one's audience, and being thoughtful. Alas, being fascinating requires as much effort as most anything else.  

Lone Wolves

I admit that the thought of being a long wolf is very appealing. Being my "own man" where I roam the world, doing whatever I want to do, going wherever I want, and moving at my own pace has a romantic flare that is hard to match. Movies, of course, perpetuate that fantasy all the time. Certainly in me and, no doubt, countless others that theme has ongoing appeal. Interestingly, that lone wolf portrait is the opposite of reality. The fact is not only do we all need others, but we actually desire interaction. When it comes to people, a day without contact or some sort of feedback from others is definitely a day without sunshine.

No where is this better or firmly exhibited than when it comes to communication. The whole point of communicating is to elicit some sort of validation and/or acknowledgement from others. Feedback, after all, confirms our existence. It also supports our fundamental desire to count; make a difference; have impact. We speak and we look for those around us to respond. Whatever their response might be, it gives us the information we seek to determine if we what we are saying or doing accurately reflects what we want. Without some sort of response, then being validated as a person is nearly impossible to achieve - at least to the level of satisfaction most of us seek.      

In my own mind, being a lone wolf is great so long as I am able to touch base with others on a regular basis. My daughter lives in Brooklyn and several times per year I visit her. I enjoy driving as it gives me a chance to have some "me time." However, unless I am to sprinkle that time to myself with periodic phone calls to others via blue tooth, then it is not nearly as enjoyable or, for that matter, meaningful. Lone wolf indeed. The better my conversations with others during that time are, the better I am able to enjoy my time alone. Ironically, communication, then, helps me believe I am being a lone wolf. Funny how that works.     

The Case of Scaramucci

Professional communicators walk a fine line; particularly those who are visible to the public. Carrying out the wishes of their client, their job is to interact with the public, specifically the media, and pass along those messages the client wishes shared with others. The challenge these communicators face is that while standing in front of an array of cameras and reporters who are writing down most everything they say, they should not get in-front of or ahead of the message. In other words, it is the message rather than the messenger that is most important. Should that be switched - for whatever reason - then the communicator's effectiveness is compromised and the impact of the message itself is diminished. 

This leads me to the recent and very spectacular case of Anthony Scaramucci, who served as President Trump's director of communication for ten days. From the very first time he stepped in front of the press in his new role, Scaramucci presented himself as being bigger than whatever he was trying to convey on behalf of his client. Why? Perhaps it was his ego, colorful personality or rush of suddenly being in a very powerful and nationally prominent position. I will leave it to others to dissect what motivated his public behavior. Whatever the reason or reasons, as a media spokesperson, Scaramucci was a liability right from the get-go.

The decision to remove him from his position was a good one simply because the more he spoke the more harm he did his client - The President. I recognize that Scaramucci and his defenders might argue that he was treated unfairly or not given enough time to settle into his new role. While this may be true, it does not change the reality that his ability to be effective - his credibility - was gone. When that happens, rarely is there ever a turn-around. Scaramucci had become the story rather than his messages. I predict and hope his case will be examined in public relations classes everywhere. It is a very good case study.    

     

What But Also How

It was a fun scene in one of the early James Bond movies: two baddies are standing before the chief baddie, who is calmly sitting behind his desk stroking his white cat. The two underlings are nervous yet doing their best not to show it. After all, they are with "the boss" and are eager to show they know what they are doing, have everything under control, etc. It is clear the big boss  has his concerns and is deciding which one of the two employees he should trust. Finally, he makes his decision by pushing a button under his desk. The floor underneath one of the employees opens up and that unfortunate soul falls into a pool of hungry sharks. So much for his Christmas bonus.

Leading by fear is certainly one way to guide others. I have worked in that kind of environment as have many others. It is not fun and, ironically, does not bring out the best in employees. Instead of trying to be creative or show initiative, workers tend to do only what is expected of them for fear of being punished if what they attempt does not go completely well. Further, leading by fear compromises any sense of team spirit among workers because they are much too busy looking out for themselves. Their own survival is what is most important rather than the greater good of the organization itself.

A more effective to lead revolves around providing workers with greater moral support. The better able the boss is able to communicate support for and confidence in those who he or she oversees, the more likely the workers are able to be the best they can be or at least try to be. I have worked in that kind of environment, too, and it is the opposite of functioning in a fear-driven atmosphere. This revolves around the kind of message that is communicated by the of person in-charge. More than the specific message itself, organizations are also successful based on how the boss communicates. That means no more pool of sharks.