Promoting a Shared Goal

There are so many ways that people are "funny." I do no mean in the "ha-ha" sense, but rather in the odd or peculiar way. For instance, it has long been established that we humans are social creatures. We need regular interaction with others for reasons ranging from validation and security to companionship and information. Therefore, given that need, it would seem a safe assumption that working or collaborating with others is something we do well. Of course, it goes without saying that that is not the case. Mankind has a far too well documented history of interactions gone wrong. This not only applies to large populations but individual co-mingling as well.

Author Robert M. Sapolsky in his wonderful best seller "Behave: the Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" (2017) notes that not even getting to know each other well guarantees people will get along more effectively. Instead, he wrote, interactions work best when there is a shared goal within a group. A shared goal creates a stronger "combined us" that serves as a kind of unifying element for members of a group. It decreases preconceptions and prejudices and provides group members with a point with which to rally around. Based on Sapolsky's research, studies have shown that the benefits of a shared goal remain in-tact despite group differences in race, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity.

As this applies to communication, it seems critical that whatever a group's goal might be, it must be communicated properly and effectively to all members. The members need to know what the goal is, need to understand it, need to recognize how it applies to them, and ways in which it might be achieved. None of these, mind you, are small things. Effective and well-planned communication can address these matters. Further, it can not only bring together folks but also keep them in the same room and operating from the same play book.

"Me and Them"

Here's an old joke: There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two groups and those who do not. While I will concede that may not be the greatest knee-slapper ever, within that statement there is what I view as a profound observation, particularly as it applies to communication. In most every encounter or interaction between folks, people bring their own perspective. We all have our own points of view regardless of whether the topic is "safe" such as last night's ball game or something more touchy like religion or politics. As a result, with most every exchange there is the potential for conflict.

People see things differently and therefore are apt to disagree. Consequently, as each encounter brings with it a genuine chance of conflict, it is not surprising that much of the time we view life as a kind of "me and them" dynamic. "I have my perspective," we tend to think, "and therefore must be prepared to defend it at any given moment." Therefore, such an attitude, regardless of how logical or even justified it might be, does suggest the existence of underlying tension that hovers above, under and all around most any kind of conversation. Further, it is my contention that such tension, regardless of its level of intensity, shapes our approach to others as well as the tone of exchange between "me and them."

Differences, by definition, serve as the seed of conflict. Our challenge is found not just in how well we deal with that conflict, but in how well we actually recognize or acknowledge it. Given that, I can easily understand a person's choice to talk at the person with whom they are with so as to drive home their point of view or opinion. Such a choice, by one or both parties, makes effective communicating more difficult and perhaps less satisfying. To deal with this, one important key is to acknowledge the existence of possible conflict. Doing that, I believe, adds an important layer of openness in which all parties can more easily pursue connecting with others.    



            

Unhelpful Hints

Communicating effectively is tough enough without outsiders constantly stepping in and telling you how you should be doing it better. It reminds of life as a new parents. Establishing your own rhythm with your new born is both challenging and wonderful. Leave it to others to muck up such an exhilarating time with one piece of unsolicited advice after another. I say "thanks but no thanks." Just because folks are parents themselves does not necessarily make them expert enough to begin telling new-parents how to do their job. One great thing about being a new parent is discovering new dimensions of life with your child. But I digress.

I concede that one purpose of this blog is to offer unsolicited guidance as to how to communicate more effectively. While I agree my so-called advice may be unsolicited, another goal of mine here is to instill in others a deeper appreciation of communicating well. Attempting to do this, however, I must acknowledge that not everything I say may be helpful. For instance, do people really need to be reminded how important it is to listen to others? Do people really need to be told two primary purposes of public relations are to persuade and to establish relationships? Perhaps not. Perhaps people already know all that.

Still, there is the reality that all of us need to be reminded of ways to communicate more effectively, particularly when so much miscommunication seems to swirl around us. This brings me back to "Unhelpful Hints." Here are a couple worth ignoring: people should not talk over others; people should not ignore the priorities or interests of others; people should not concern themselves with ways to sustain strong ties with others.  This kind of list, you might notice, is easily just as long as one of what people should do. To better reconcile this, perhaps we should all at least agree that communicating well is in the best interest of us all and that tolerating unhelpful or unwanted advice is  one of those things we will simply have to do.

Promoting That "One Thing"

In the business world, there is a phrase called "core competence" that some scholars refer to when discussing a particular company. For instance, what is the core competence of, say, Apple, Monsanto or General Motors? What is that one-thing or aspect of each entity that separates it from its competitors? Is there one thing that it does better consistently than any one else?  I confess to not being all that knowledgeable in a specific way about those or the great majority of other businesses or corporations that currently dominate the international landscape. However, I can say with authority that all successful or profitable companies have that "one thing." Otherwise, they would not be enjoying any kind of sustained or meaningful financial success.

My goal with this entry is to not delve into the specifics of any company's specialty. Rather, it is view that "one thing" from a communication perspective. More to the point, how does a company communicate that specialty both to the public and to its internal membership? I find this to be an interesting challenge. On the one hand, it would seem any entity wants to be viewed as being highly proficient in all areas of its existence. On the other, suppose it does, in fact, do one thing above all others extremely well. Should it not be as open about that as possible? Should it not go out of its way to promote that one area?

Promoting one particular aspect of an entire entity is a tricky dance step. Coca Cola is extremely successful and has been for many years. In large part, this is because the company does a superb job of promoting the taste of its product. But what about such aspects as the distribution of this product? How it is manufactured? How well its employees are treated? All this is to say, is there a danger or downside to, say, a company's internal morale if it appears to be promoting the work or efforts of one set of its workers over another? A company's communication experts needs to be sensitive to this possible problem.

The Element of Luck

I begin with an interesting question. A young 28-year-old man named Tsutomu Yamaguchi was living in Hiroshima, Japan, at the time the United States dropped an atomic bomb on that city in 1945 to expedite the end of the second world war. He survived. Wisely, he decided to flee the city to go somewhere safe. Where did he go? Nagasaki. A few days later the U.S. dropped its second atomic bomb on - you guessed it - Nagasaki.  Yamaguchi somehow survived that, too. He ended up living another 65 years until his passing in 2010. So, was young Yamaguchi lucky? Or would we consider him to be a very unlucky chap?

Personally, I think you could argue this one either way. Whatever the answer, I suspect he is the only individual in history who can make the claim of having survived two nuclear explosions. One cannot help but be impressed. Perhaps not to the extent of Yamaguchi, but his story got me to wondering how much luck is there involved in successful or effective communication. By "luck" I means aspects of an act by which we have no control. In this case, we are talking about an act representing an attempt to generate mutual understanding and respectful exchange. For example, how "lucky" is, say, a retail store that advertises a sale that results in people actually going to their store to make some cost-savings purchases?

Obviously, the store has no control over anyone's actions. Perhaps a family saw the ad but was committed to going out of town to attend a wedding. Consequently, they had to pass on the sale. Bad luck for the store. On the flip side, perhaps the family had no plans so decided to check-out the sale. Good luck for the store. The point is no matter how much we plan out our acts of communication, there is always an element of risk or the unknown at-play. Simply put, we cannot control everything. What we can do in our planning or research is play the odds, try to influence by making what we share as listener-friendly as possible.

"Word-in Edgewise"

Trying to be heard - never mind be understood or even agreed with - can be so exhausting. It makes me think about the old expression "word-in edgewise." This revolves around being involved in a conversation with another or perhaps several others. Not only is everyone actively engaged in the conversation, but they are talking over each other just to get their points across. Ironically, with everyone talking at once, the result is no one is really being heard. You are aware of all this, of course, and recognize that if you are going to make an impact with the others, then you are either going to have add your voice to the mix or raise your voice to a higher volume.  At that point, maybe - just maybe - you will finally be heard.

So, in you go. Your voice is now part of the bubbling-over noise. What happens next? When does this scene end? How does it end? Does anyone really remember what has been said? Do people walk away and honestly believe, "Hey, that was good."? I tend to doubt it. When I was younger I rarely hesitated to jump into that pile of verbal chaos. At some point, I thought, the strength of my comments will cause others to stop talking and focus entirely on what I am saying. (I am now trying to think if that ever actually happened. Off-hand, I think not.) Nowadays when conversing with others and everyone begins talking at-once, my tendency is to stop talking. Doing that is less exhausting. Plus, I reason, if anyone really cares what I think, then they will ask.

We all want to be heard, but for that to happen the audience needs to be in a listening mood. They have to be "up" for hearing what others say. On the various news talk shows that we see on cable and the various network channels, it is a rare day when the guests come prepared to listen. They are there to talk, be heard, talk some more, and finally, talk even more. Their unwillingness or, at best, reluctance, to listen sabotages any chance of genuine communication. The guests are not there to listen. Rather, their focus is getting a word-in edgewise. How nice for them. How unfortunate for the audience and the topic under discussion.     





  

"Teamwork Phobia"

According to the student newspaper at the university in South Korea at which I currently work, apparently there is a virus among students going around that is threatening one of the fundamental purposes of the institution's core mission. The name being given this "bug" is "teamwork phobia." It refers to an apparent and growing unwillingness among students to participate in group projects.This is how it works: teachers divide the students into groups but rather than work together to fulfill their group's assignment, the students, as explained in the newspaper, "divide the work and get it done. That is all." There seems to be no group meetings where progress reports are given or problems are shared.

One student, who declined to be identified, explained that it is "a pain to do something together with people of all different characteristics...…...It is not teamwork any more." Never mind that the university encourages student collaboration as it believes working together makes for stronger scholarship and helps prepare its graduates for careers in the professional world. I understand students' logic. Working without having to contend with input, including questions and even criticism of others, can be frustrating and cumbersome. In many ways, working solo is much easier. Still, the university has a strong point when it points out that much of working in an office setting, for example, involves collaborating with others.

In no way do I believe the university should back away from giving group assignments to its students. Young scholars should be taught the value and reality of tackling a challenge or assignment with others. Further, as part of this education, they should become familiar with steps needed to take to help ensure their group experience is positive rather than negative. I suggest three: be clear in identifying the specific role each group will play; make sure everyone clearly understands the group's overall goal or mission; and, above all, communicate, communicate, communicate. Members should keep each other well-informed of any questions, problems and/or successes they are having in their efforts. Adhering to these three points will help ensure greater cohesion and chances for success.

Elements of Leadership

The subject of leadership has been on my mind lately. This concept, as described by authors Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson in their 2009 text on this topic is a "fundamental element of the human condition." Anywhere there are people, there is some aspect of leadership being exhibited. Good or bad, slight or over-the-top, we see it in virtually any interaction between folks. One person sways another or attempts to. People gather and perhaps without even realizing it begin deferring to one or another. That person to whom others defer or who becomes the one others look to for guidance or information, is the leader - even if their role as leader is for just a brief period of time.

What ingredients go into making one person a leader over others in most any given situation? "Why that guy?" many of us may ask. There are multiple reasons, of course, that include a person's expertise, the amount of resources they may have at their disposal, a particular attitude of apathy of those around him or her, or, we cannot forget, contacts they may have that others do not. However many reasons there might be, one key one revolves around how well they communicate. Are they articulate, knowledgeable, and engaging? Are they empathetic to others? A good listener? How transparent are they? Are they credible?

Depending upon one's answer to those questions and ones like them, it is these answers that help determine whether a person is embraced as a leader. If they are, then they are thrust into a position of being able to make difference in the lives of others. It must be noted that some people with all those qualities simply may not want to be in a leadership role. Just because they might be the smartest or most articulate,  they simply may not want to be the one at the microphone or behind the big desk.  This, however, does not mean others do not view them as being leaders. Possessing and utilizing effective communication skills can raise most anyone's profile and reputation.

  

Random Thoughts

Lately I see the world divided into two kinds of people. On the one hand there are those who spend idle moments enjoying the quiet by gazing at the world around them and taking-in what they see and hear. On the other, there are those folks who use idle time by fiddling with their cell phones, either reding or re-reading messages or sending out messages to any one they can think of. While sometimes I am part of the latter, on my better days I prefer being part of the former group. Life has enough hustle-bustle in it as it is. Why not embrace idle moments when they come along rather than muck them up with making unnecessary use of a cell phone. We do not need to be on it as much as we are.

Here's another thought. According to author Steven Pinker in his fine book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature" (2011), mankind is fighting far fewer wars than ever in our history. In fact, this has been a notable trend for well-over a half century. That, of course, is a good thing. While I accept Pinker's analysis as being true, I wonder if we as individuals are arguing any less as well? Are we experiencing fewer disagreements? My sense is we are not. While I have not seen any statistics on this - assuming any actually exist - I cannot help but speculate that individually seem to be at-issue at a high rate that does not seem to be experiencing any noticeable decline.

Finally, I would like to give a shout-out to the field of conflict analysis and resolution. It is a field of study that focuses on the act of dealing with and reaching a settlement on disputes. Such conflicts can be among individuals, communities or even nations. Conflict anaylsis and resolution revolves around the kind of elements that make for effective communication: mutual respect, research, active listening, willingness to compromise, and clear-cut messaging. It is encouraging that this academic area is growing in popularity.