Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Interactions & Exchanges

Twenty-five years ago (1993) several organizations in the philanthropy business, including the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Association of Healthcare Philanthropy, Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, and the Giving Institute, banded together to create what they called a donor bill of rights. Basically, this document was designed to identify a clear set of guidelines to help ensure that those in the business of fundraising operated in an open manner and that those folks wishing to make donations were doing so in an environment in which their best interests were protected. 

The donor bill of rights consists of ten key points. Among them are: all gifts will be used for what they were intended; donors will receive the proper amount of recognition and acknowledgement; all donors will be treated in a professional manner; and that all donations will be received and handled legally. This document is worthy because it addresses a sensitive subject - money - and attempts to ensure that the passing of it from one party to another is done so in a proper, transparent, and respectful manner. As the donation of money represents an interaction, it is important that it be given as much protection as possible.

This particular "bill" is not all that different than the code of ethics that was devised and is updated periodically by the Public Relations Society of America. Obviously, what the PRSA devised pertains to the act of communication. The interaction of two individuals or two parties can often be as sensitive as is the giving of money by an individual to another or by an individual to an organization of some sort. One parallel here is that interactions or exchanges are not taken lightly by key elements of society. Not only do we value money but many of us also place an equal premium on communicating. This is how it should be.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Relationship-Based

No matter the professional field, when it comes to sustained success and sustaining one's position or status, a primary factor is how well one gets along with others. Relationships. That as much as anything is what generates the support and respect any of us need to advance. You might ask, "What about competency?" No question that is a key component. After all, one must be at least half-way decent at what they do in order to advance at the job or within an organization. Having said that, however, I personally have seen persons advance even though they are not particularly good at what they do.

Those folks move ahead because of who they know and because what abilities they do possess meet the needs of their organizational superiors. Their success is relationship-based. This also applies to those who are talented and well-connected. They, too, move upward based on their relationship with others. People either like them, respect them or both. Their success is also relationship-based only in a slightly different way. Looking at these two types of workers, what are the elements of communication they need to follow in order to gain and sustain the goodwill or support of those with whom they work?

Interestingly, the two need to follow the same play book: be respectful, treat those with whom they work and to whom they report as a high priority, and do not be shy about making known one's successes or achievements. Modesty may be an appealing quality, but it can be a liability if one wishes to advance. Personally, I admire those who do not blow their own horns. But I also recognize those who do tout themselves tend to be the ones who get the nod when promotion opportunities come along. Bottom-line: to some degree we must all be our own public relations manager. We all exist in relationship worlds.


Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Not Talking

When one discusses communication and communicating, the focus almost always is how more effectively one can impart information or a message to another. Should I lower my voice? What kind of visuals should I use? Should I be standing when I speak? How might I respond if the audience disagrees with me? Such questions all speak to particular strategies one should follow. Rarely, it seems, do we brainstorm about effective ways to better understand what is being communicated. After all, communicating, for many, represents an action. To communicate is to initiate an effort to either elicit a response or impart information.

One particularly effective way to communicate - if done well - is to not speak. Silence as a communication tool is highly underrated. I myself have been on the receiving end of it and can vouch that it works extremely well in triggering some type of action by me. For instance, at times my wife and I disagree. And every so often she no longer wants to "talk about it." More often than I care to admit, that elicits a desire in me to do just that, particularly if I feel more needs to be said. The result of that is I end up making the disagreement more intense, thus losing whatever credibility I might have.

On the flip side of that, at times people can be guilty of speaking or saying too much. This is known as verbal-overkill. Talking too much sometimes can make it difficult for persons on the receiving end of a conversation to process what is being said. Thus, it is harder for them to give a proper answer or response. Not talking helps take care of that potential problem. Not talking, in fact, can often by a conversation's best friend. One person speaks and the other listens. Talk-pause-respond. Talk-pause-respond. And so it goes. Effective communication happens when participants are able to make thoughtful contributions. Not talking helps with that.        




Friday, January 19, 2018

Not For Neatniks

One big reason why communication is so fascinating is because it is not one thing. There is not just one way to communicate. To cite some broad categories: body language, written words, expression, verbal sounds, movement, and even silence. Within each of these one finds numerous sub-categories and variations. Collectively, this adds to communication's many complexities. As if that weren't enough, there is also the matter of difference within each sub-category. A sub-category of body language, for instance, might be slouching. Differences within that sub-category would be found in how much and even how often a person slouches.

Another example would be language. Hundreds of languages are spoken in the world and all of them have formal rules as to which people in a formal and properly-correct manner. At the same time, each language possesses a slang or informal way to speak. People tend to go back and forth between the two depending upon the setting or context in which they are speaking. This adds to the complexity that is communication. Further, it points to the notion that one cannot necessarily fit communication in one box. The result is communication often is a bit messy. It is not for Neatniks. To communicate is to allow a certain level of imbalance and messiness into one's life.

Generally, people understand this. As it is something we all do every moment of our days, my own sense is the reality of communication's irregularities are seen as an element of life itself. It goes beyond liking or disliking. People simply accept it. We go with the flow of one moment hearing a person speak in eloquent ways and then minutes later swear like a sailor. It is people being inconsistent on a regular basis. It is people existing within the framework of communication's variety of playing fields. Not for neatniks indeed. The best communicators include those able to navigate those fields or layers.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Good News

While bad news is never fun to hear, all of us expect it from time to time because life would not be life without at least an occasional down or bump in the road. Negativity, after all, is as much apart of life as its counterpart: "positivity." While it goes without saying that all of us prefer having as much as good news in our lives as possible. it is understood that too much of that can give one a false sense of security or unrealistic portrait of the world. At the same time, too much negative news can almost by numbing and instill within our psyche a deep sense of depression. In other words, too much negative information or news can make it difficult for folks to function as well as they might otherwise.

Too much negativity can also have a noticeable impact on how one communicates, particular if one is constantly on the receiving end of criticism or complaints. Such a scenario discourages meaningful interaction. It can also trigger ill-feeling or resentment if one believes they are constantly out of favor with those around them. This is why, if one has to criticize another, they should try to frame their comments in the context of some sort of positive perspective. Let's be honest: all of us are sensitive creatures who need a pat on the back even when we deserve a slap on the wrist. When it comes to communicating, "pats" can help make one more receptive to "slaps."

With all this in-mind, I thought it might be fun to conclude this particular entry with a randomly-selected list of "good news" headlines that have appeared recently in the media: "2017 was a Record Year for Organ Donors;" "Boston Police Officer Drives Stranded Family Home to Maine;" "Hundreds Welcome 3rd Grader Back to School After Right With Cancer;" "Texas Teens Collect Car Loads of Donations for Women's Center;" "Syrian Boy Seen Gazing into a Gym Now Has a Lifetime Membership;" and "After 73 Years, Dog Tag Returned to Battle of Bulge Survivor."


Friday, January 12, 2018

Bad Moods and Communication

Ever been around someone who is grumpy or in a bad mood? I have and it is not fun. They are often irritable, quick to criticize, rude and just plain unpleasant. But here is one more thing persons in bad moods are, at least according to a recent study: effective communicators. Back in 2010, "Emotion" magazine published a study in which pessimism was found to have its benefits. Specifically, persons in a foul mood were found to have a more effective communication style than those feeling more upbeat or optimistic. On the surface, this is a surprise as I automatically assumed optimists were the effective communicators. But upon further reflection, such a finding makes sense.

Persons in a bad mood may be quick to criticize but they seem to have little difficulty getting their point of view across. Their path is straight-forward and direct. When talking, they rarely have time for niceties or introducing other perspectives into their messages. Upbeat folks sure do, however. Those on the receiving end of a negative person's message seem to rarely misunderstand what is being said to them. But on the other hand, upbeat persons generally are more indirect in what they try to say. In other words, they are less direct and therefore more prone to be misunderstood. Thus, perhaps being optimistic may not always be all that it is cracked upp to be.

So, should we all start taking grumpy pills or getting up on the wrong side of the bed? Heck no. Being pleasant is a lot better than being unpleasant. What we can do is learn from those who are in a bad mood - at least when it comes to communication. Focus on putting forth clear and precise messages. Keep what is said simple and less complex. Be respectful but maintain a loyalty to the message being communicated. Apparently, this is not much of a challenge to folks in a bad mood. There is no reason optimists can not do the same. Plus, all of us much prefer connecting with persons who are upbeat.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Fighting for Happiness

Who doesn't want to be happy? As part of that broad topic, in past entries I have talked about the importance of happiness and the role communication can and does play in helping all of achieve such a desired state of mind. When communication that is carried out in a respectful, honest and straightforward manner, then a state of contentment or comfort among the participants is never far behind. In my experience, this is even the case when the topic or subject of communication is found to be disagreeable by one or all of the participants. People can disagree and still not have to stray from the "happiness circle." Such is the magic of effective communication.

Thus, it was with great interest that I read a article in the September, 2017, issue of "The Atlantic" magazine regarding the negative impact of smartphones. According to the author, Jean Twenge, these technological wonders seem to be doing a great deal of harm to boys and girls born between 1995 and 2012 - or what the author calls iGen. More and more, those people are becoming addicted to smartphones to the point it is eroding their desire to personally interact or hang-out with friends. Why? Because they are drawn to this electronic device that seems to be replacing their need to interact in-person with their peers. In other words, they are choosing screen time over face-time.

Studies suggest the smartphone has "radically changed every aspect of teenagers' lives, from the nature of social interactions to their mental health," the author writes. Taken together, the impact is detracting from any meaningful level of happiness that, ideally, teens should be feeling. The challenge, then, for those of us who are older is to help educate those of that generation as well as the ones that are behind them that as fun as smartphones and other technological devices are, they are not designed to replace the basics of life itself: connecting with others and building relationships. In that sense, old-school remains better than new-school.   




Sunday, January 7, 2018

Thank You, Queen Atossa

There used to be an catch-phrase on television that was pretty popular for awhile. "Keep those cards and letters coming in!" Alas, a letter as a form of communication is one thing we rarely see these days. People simply do not put "pen to paper" much any more. In all fairness, as a result of our great advancements in technology, there is little need to write a letter. Why attempt a letter, when you can easily and quickly knockout a text message or email? Still, I, for one, miss going to the mailbox and finding someone had taken the time to write me a letter. In a weird way, I miss no longer taking the time to write a three or four-page communique to a friend or family member as well.

According to Brid McGrath, a professor of history and humanities at Trinity College in Ireland, the whole letter-writing business was started by Queen Atossa around 500 B.C. Apparently, she had the notion that a good way to remain connected to folks who lived long-distances away was through written correspondence. Her brainstorm, as we know, triggered nearly several thousand years of written exchanges between folks, companies, organizations, etc. Now, as a form of communication, that act seems to have run its course. Rarely is it done any more. And there are absolutely no signs it will be making a comeback.

Perhaps what I miss most about letter writing is that it was an effective form of communication, more credible than texts messages or emails. By the nature of the act itself, letter writing required a time commitment and concentrated thought. When writing a letter, one had to focus on what they were saying in order to ensure they would be understood. Plus, as part of that, writers had to make sure their penmanship was adequate enough so the person to whom the letter was meant could read the note. By comparison, emails seem almost too easy. I guess I had better wrap-up this entry as I need to send a few emails to some folks. Still, than you Queen Atossa.

   

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

What is Best for Me?

With a new year now underway, I am struck by the many articles being written that focus on the our nation's 2016 presidential election. Commentators and experts are still putting forth theories as to why the election turned out the way it did. This, of course, serves as a springboard for them to speculate on the next presidential election and what candidates will need to do to appeal to various blocks of voters. My intent with this entry is not to add to all the pontificating. (You are welcome.) However, I will say that when it comes to voting, at the end of the day, people do so based on what they feel is in their best interest.

We do what we believe serves our own needs. What would make me the most safe? What would make me the happiest? What would make my life less stressful? What would give me the most emotional, physical or intellectual satisfaction?  How folks answer those and perhaps other fundamental questions very often determines how they are going to vote. This is not to say we do not factor in others when it comes to our choices. Without question, we do. But what we glean from those considerations is filtered through what we believe best serves us. What, we ask when we complete our internal processing, is best for me?     

What steps we take when we vote are not all that different from the ones we take when it comes to communicating. How best can I put forth my thoughts? How best can I share my feelings? What is the most effective way I can pass along the information I have? These and other fundamental questions are not all that different from the ones we review when deciding how to vote for a candidate. How we communicate is driven by our self-interest. Having said that, does this mean how we vote is always wise? Heck, no. Is how we communicate always effective or successful? No way. Given that, perhaps we should consider not putting so much weight on our self-interest, particularly when it comes to actions that affect others.