Building on Descartes

This particular entry comes on the birthday of Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and mathematician, Descartes was born in 1596 and died in 1650. Perhaps his most famous quote was, "I think; therefore I am." Such a straightforward pronouncement speaks to what Descartes believed to be the one act that people cannot fake: thinking thoughts. What ruminates around in all of our heads establishes us not just as living entities but distinguishes us as the individuals we are. We think thoughts that are unique because they come from us. Many of us may like cherry pie, but the initial declaration that each of us make in that regard is ours and ours alone.

I recognize the logic of Descartes' statement. No question thoughts contribute to our uniqueness in a world in which people, regardless of their backgrounds and characteristics, share much in common. Speaking of Descartes on his special day, I got to thinking about building on his famous quote, yet applying it to communication. Specifically, think about the following statement: "I speak; therefore I communicate." Does that, too, hit the bulls-eye of logic much in the way that Descartes' famous quote does?  My answer to this question depends upon how one defines communication. For instance, does the making of virtually any sound constitute communication?

I lean toward viewing communication in a broad sense in that an exchange with another is required before true communication has occurred. I do not believe that sitting alone in a house and talking out loud constitutes communication. One needs a response before it can be said communication has transpired. Having ourselves as an audience does not fit my definition of communication. I view communication as a social act. As a result, trying to equate my earlier statement with what Descartes stated hundreds of years ago does not work. Hopefully, however, it gives more clarity to communication as an act of self-expression and outreach.

Moving Toward the Big Reward

So many of the more than eleven-hundred blog entries I have made since 2008 have focused on the concept of effective communication or communicating effectively. The essence of that revolves around the notion of two people interacting in a manner in which they establish a mutual understanding in a manner that is respectful and leaves each side open to further dialog. The challenge is found in devising and then embracing the best ways to achieve this under virtually any circumstance regardless of whether we are talking two people or two larger entities or even a combination of both.

Achieving such an end requires that we think beyond our personal goal simply imparting whatever message it is we wish to impart. Effective communicating goes beyond this. It calls for entities to also recognize and then strive toward achieving an understanding of whatever it is the other person or side is trying to communicate. In other words, effective communication involves both putting forth a coherent and even impactful message as well as actively listening to the public or publics with which one is attempting to connect. I recognized that doing both, to many and at times, is akin to juggling several plates while talking on the telephone at the same time. 

But doing both is doable, particularly if one recognizes the value of such effort and then enthusiastically strives to achieve it. Nearly one hundred years in 1922, the French novelist Marcel Proust captured such an attitude far better than I: "The only true voyage of discovery, the only fountain of Eternal Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to behold the universe through the eyes of another." We have our perspectives and others have theirs. The more we can do to set the two side by side and decide upon ways to build-on whatever commonalities that exist and continue communicating, then the better is the reward for communicating effectively.

Lessons from Jonathan

There is something to be said for hanging around a long time. If you have odd quirks, people tend to be more accepting because that's "just the sway he/she is." Being accepted and not seen as a deterrent or threat is not a bad thing by any means. In fact, if one sticks around long enough, they can even become beloved. Take Jonathan for example. Jonathan is a Seychelles giant tortoise who was born in 1832. He currently resides on St. Helena, a remote island situated in the South Atlantic and is, without question, the oldest living creature on the planet. Yes, he is now blind and moves around slowly even by tortoise standards. All that aside, he is beloved and, not surprisingly, a big tourist attraction.

I cannot imagine being 187 years of age. Sadly, as much as I might want to, I realize the odds are quite strong that I never will. Yet Jonathan knows what is it like though because he is a big turtle, the odds are just as great that he will never share his perspective with the rest of us. That is too bad, of course, since I am sure he would some very interesting things to say. For instance, has he noticed any perceptible improvement in how well we communicate not in terms of our technological advances but more in the basic one-on-one, two people having a conversation dynamic?

I suspect we won't know the secret of Jonathan's long life until he eventually does die and an autopsy is performed on him. At that point, doctors may learn if his organs were any different - better - than those of other tortoises. Maybe. If I had to guess, I would say one reason for Jonathan's longevity is the fact, as a turtle, he rarely is in a hurry. Not only does he move at a slow pace, but I bet how he communicates with his peers is slow and deliberate, too. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for us humans who seem to be in such a hurry so much of the time. Perhaps when we talk we with each other we might want to do as Jonathan does. Not only might we live longer, but maybe we might be communicate more effectively as well.

"Live Ammunition"

There are many weapons in today's world. Big ones. Little ones. Ones that are sophisticated and others that are quite simple in terms of construction and execution. Regardless of the power of each, however, all can do harm. One of the most powerful of weapons that has been in existence since the first human uttered the first sound is the word. Not only do words matter, but they also have much impact. We all know the famous children's rhyme: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names shall never hurt me." The fact is this is simply not true. Words can do great harm and set in motion negative behavior in folks that continue for a long time.

My comments about the potentially-damaging power of the word were triggered by observations made several years ago by Josh Earnest, who served as the principle spokesperson for former President Obama. In his remarks, Earnest equated words with "live ammunition." He said words should be used with care as they carry weight and in certain context are not unlike wielding a gun with live bullets. Guns can injure and even kill. Used without regard for the possible reactions of those on the receiving end of them, words can create deep wounds that last a lifetime.

In the case of Earnest, his job was very visible and far-reaching. Regarding most of the rest of us, however, our words usually only go as far as the person with whom we are speaking. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should be any less responsible in our use of them. Any parent knows this all too well when it comes to speaking to their child. The same holds true for a husband or wife in conversations they have. Words can injure, cause tears, wound a person's sense of self, or even cause them to do hard to themselves or someone else. Words should not be taken lightly even during times of light-heartedness. They must be treated with care and used with a deep sense of responsibility.    

Less Than Perfect

Often, I feel as if I am never more articulate than when I am driving in my car - alone - and making some sort of point about a subject on which I feel strongly. I do not stammer, fumble over my words, and everything I say is on-point and coherent. How come I am not that smooth when I am attempting to speak on the same subject in front of others? As best I can determine, it boils down to my being self-conscious about not sounding as thoughtful as I wish. I do not want to come across as being less than I like to think I am. Ironically, in my quest to sound thoughtful, I end up falling short of my goal because of my inner-fear of falling short. 

Is this a struggle that others share? Very likely. Communicating is one of the few actions we take where our egos and/or self esteem are very much on the line. The moment we open our mouths we are center stage. Those around us, even for a moment, turn their attention toward us. They await our words and - this is the tough part - within seconds pass judgment as to whether they believe we know what we are talking about, are making sense or are even worth passing attention to. If you are thinking that is pretty harsh, then you are absolutely right. I, for one, very much dislike subjecting myself to that kind of scrutiny.

Never mind that that instant judgment may be unfair or inaccurate. A great many of us on some level make instant assessments just as a great many of us on some level are not totally comfortable being in the position of  being assessed or judged so quickly. So, what can we do it about it? On the one hand, we can strive to be better listeners and not be so quick to give a person who is speaking a thumbs-up or thumps-down. On the speaking side, perhaps one way to proceed is to give ourselves permission to be less than perfect with the knowledge that no one is when it comes to communicating. If we have something to say, then by all means say it - but try giving it some thought first.

Star Trek Managers

There are so many of us who have enjoyed Star Trek - both on television and in the movies - over the years. The fact the franchise remains alive and well says much about its ongoing popularity. Perhaps as a shout-out to Star Trek, in a recent issue of New York Magazine, all the Star Trek captains who have served at the helm of the Enterprise over the years were ranked on the basis of their managerial abilities. Of those 11 captains, which one would be the best boss to work for and why? Philipps Georgine of Star Trek Discovery was listed as the worst boss while Kathryn Janeway of Star Trek Voyager was  listed as the best.

So, you may ask, was so terrible about Captain Georgine? She was viewed as caring next-to-nothing about her crew, nor did she have any interest in their views on various decisions she was making as the ship's chief executive. For her, being in-charge was most important even if it meant deceiving those around her and even, at times, killing someone. She practiced what one might describe as a closed communication style. On the other hand, Captain Janeway was seen as caring very much for the welfare of crew members. She was described as being a solid listener and praised for giving those underway opportunities to have input into her decisions. Janeway's style of communicating was more open ad inclusive.    

Arguably the two most popular Star Trek captains - James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard - were praised for how they inspired loyalty among their workers. Picard, however, was felt to be a tad too aloof while Kirk was criticized as being too unpredictable and not all that concerned with following rules or guidelines established by his commanders. One interesting aspect of the analysis of each captain was how well each kept lines of communication open between themselves and their crew members. It reinforced the idea that communication is a vital ingredient when it comes to relationships and leadership.

Rules

There was an item in the news the other day about a woman at a zoo in Arizona who had the idea of taking a selfie-portrait of herself with one of the animals there. In this case, it was a jaguar. So, ignoring the signs warning patrons not to cross the barrier designed to keep a safe distance between them and the animals in their cages, she stepped over the barrier. With her back to the animal, all the while leaning toward it so as her better frame herself and it, the woman happily began to snap away. What could go wrong? In an instant, the jaguar reached through the bars and clawed the woman's shoulder. Fortunately, that was the worst of her injuries.

Talking to reporters, one of the zoo's keepers explained this incident is a perfect example of why the zoo has the rules it has regarding warning its patrons not to get close to the any of the wild animals that are being held there in captivity. (As an aside, I am happy to share that the zoo is not euthanizing the animal because it believes the animal was not at fault.) This incident also illustrates why rules are important when it comes to any encounters. Rules establish boundaries and set guidelines as to dos and don'ts that persons should respect and follow if they want their encounters to go well or, at least, civilly.  

For example, in conversations between individuals, there are a number of rules designed to help ensure such an act of communication goes well. To state a couple of the more basic ones: one should not interrupt the other while they are speaking and one should give the other their full attention. If followed, there is almost no chance the encounter won't be anything less than civil or, better yet, effective. If not, then one or both of the participants may be harmed (though in probably a less dramatic way than that woman at the zoon in Arizona). Many may feel these rules are simple and hardly worth the mention, yet that woman who is now recovering from her scratch wounds may disagree. 

Instant Fix

I have always had mixed feelings about micro ovens. On the one hand, they are great because they carry out their function in quick order. If you need something, such as a cup of coffee or tea or even a baked potato, heated up, then it does that for you in what often feels like instant time. Something is cold and you need it to be warmer, then - presto - the micro oven solves the problem right away. On the other hand, the inventors of the micro ovens have fed into what I view as an unhealthy trend among people: growing impatience. The fact is so many of life's problems or challenges cannot be solved instantly, yet micro ovens subtly feed into the notion that they can.

My beef is not just with micro ovens. Remote controls are just as much to blame. Press a button and our television set is immediately "on." Press another button or two and you are enjoying your favorite show on your favorite channel. Problem solved. Instantly. As I write this, a new super hero movie - Captain Marvel - is opening across the United States. (Yes, I plan to see it.) This character represents another entity that address and fixes problems in rapid time. A villain threatens the entire world and Captain Marvel or Superman or Batman or Wonder Woman or any of their other co-heroes swoop in and solves the problem. Easy-peezy.

Challenges that come with communicating effectively are often not solved quickly. Keeping misunderstandings to a minimum, building trust, and developing peace of mind with another all take time to establish. None happen as quickly as a finger snap. They take time, patience, and research. But thanks to the growing number of instant problem solvers within our world, my concern is our appreciation of the reality that many of life's challenges are best addressed by our "hanging in there" is eroding. While anything giving us an "instant fix" is nice, we should be careful not to confuse that with the real truth that perseverance is a key that we should never abandon.     

The Challenge of Narcissism

Aren't all of us a bit narcissistic? Don't, on some level, we feel everything is really about us? After all, we view life and all that it puts in front of is each day through our own lens. We filter life's challenges through our own perspectives and, ultimately, interact with others to try and make them better understand us, including what we are feeling and why. Given all that, it is a wonder how any meaningful and lasting relationships are formed if each person - all of us - are thinking "me, me, me" all the time. More to the point, what kind of hurdle does this create for the successful implementation of effective communication?

When one is narcissistic, it suggests they view themselves with a level of importance that goes beyond or above others. Further, it suggests an attitude that how one processes all that is said and happens on some level is about them. Putting this along side "effective communication," one can easily see a conflict just waiting to happen. Effective communicating occurs when one is able to relate with another by empathizing with that other person's perspective, including their feelings and histories. But how capable is one with narcissistic tendencies able to do this, particularly since narcissism or self-absorption are counter to empathetic behavior?

Assuming we all want to be effective communicators, then it is vital that we recognize that narcissism is part of our make-up. It is part of our internal "furniture" that must be dealt with if we are to genuinely connect with another. Another example of this would be anger. That, too, is part of who we are. It, too, is something we strive to not let get in the way of our interactions with others. Being empathetic takes practice. While it, too, is part of our basic make-up, it is a trait that needs to be enhanced or strengthened if we are to be truly effective communicators. The greater our empathetic abilities, the greater our abilities to frame messages to which others can relate.   

Supervising Versus Leading

An interesting question was raised in The New York Times the other day: "Can a lousy boss make a good leader?" (I am paraphrasing here.) The question was triggered by reports of a declared presidential candidate who is not viewed with much regard by a number of her staff members. The person, whose name I am purposely omitting, was described as being short-tempered, highly-impatient, insensitive and, at times, even verbally and physically abusive. Ouch. I have to assume that this politician had little if any clue that many of her staff members carried around these feelings about her. Whether that would have caused her not to run for the presidency is probably something none of us will ever know.

Interestingly, this same person's staff appears to enjoy a solid reputation in terms of being viewed as quite efficient and professional in meeting their many responsibilities and serving their boss. How much of this boss' behavior contributes to the efficiency of the staff? Are they as good as they are because she is the kind of boss many seem to think? If she were "nicer," would their performances be as positive as they apparently are? Looking at this from a communication perspective, one begins with identifying those elements that help make for effective communicating. In a nutshell, they include such ingredients as respect, listening, empathy, articulation and mindfulness. Based on how she has been described by staff members, is this boss an effective communicator?

Overall, no. Yes, she certainly seems to get across her messages. But when it comes to effective communicating, the "how" is as important - if not more so - than the "what." Consequently, staff members may be carrying out their duties but they do not seem to be doing so in an atmosphere of appreciation, respect or regard. Given that, how can any one do their work to the fullest of their abilities on a sustained basis? They can't. None of us can. Good leaders, by definition, bring out the best in their followers. In such an environment, my assessment is this candidate as a boss is not leading her employees all that well. How realistic, then, is the possibility that she will be a truly effective leader of our nation?