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.