The ability to communicate effectively has been called the key enabling skill of life. The Number 1 Skill. And with good reason.
Two-way communication is fundamental to the success of almost every important thing we do in life. In fact, it’s difficult to think of an exception. (And that, of course, is because almost everything important thing we do in life involves other people!)
Think of the various roles we might be called on to play in our personal lives — and the various relationships they involve. A sample might include being a parent, son or daughter, partner, client, patient, customer, committee member, friend, confidante, helper, guardian.
It’s impossible to imagine how we could play any of these roles to the full without being an effective two-way communicator.
Now think of all the work-related roles that are equally dependent on effective two-way communication for their success. How highly would you rate a doctor who didn’t listen well, who couldn’t make herself understood, or who lost her temper? Ditto for lawyer, manager, supervisor, waiter, teacher, engineer, sales executive, builder . . . and on and on.
Finally, think of all the processes that fill our lives, at home and at work, which depend on two-way communication for their success. Here’s just a partial list, in no particular order . . .
Giving and receiving information.
Comforting and being comforted.
Making good decisions.
Giving and receiving encouragement.
Drawing up plans.
Giving and receiving instructions.
Negotiating agreements
Tackling mutual problems.
Resolving conflicts.
Getting to know someone better.
Having someone get to know you better.
Giving and receiving companionship.
Playing devil’s advocate.
Brainstorming.
Giving and receiving feedback.
The list goes on . . .
To put it mildly, all of these activities are communication-intensive,. Communication is a tool of immense power and adaptability. Or to put it another way, conversation is at the very heart of our lives. Clearly, communicating with other people is about as fundamental as it gets.
Communicate well, and a thousand other aspects of life become easier to get
right.
Communicate poorly and life becomes harder; success and satisfaction become more elusive.
The quality of communication in your life and the your quality of your life go hand in hand.
The TalkWorks Guide to the Number 1 Skill is the culmination of many years of research and teaching. It draws heavily on the work of Professor Gerard Egan, with contributions from Andrew Bailey. Some of the ideas in The Guide can also be found in two previous books written by Egan and Bailey: TalkWorks 2 and TalkWorks@Work. Both can be ordered free from this site’s shop.
To summarise, it’s hard to overemphasise the role of effective interpersonal communication in managing day-to-day survival, developing intimacy, becoming productive at work, making sense of both oneself and the world, and, for many, exploring religious or philosophical concerns and aspirations. A lot of the anxiety, frustration, and ‘people problems’ we encounter as we go through life have their roots in poor communication.
By getting better at how we understand and deal with other people, life can improve in many different ways. Even a few relatively small changes in your interpersonal communication style can make a big difference.
Please explore and enjoy The Guide.
In this next section we’ll be looking at what communication is like in the real world. The section is organised into seven topics.
It could be argued that if parents had one ability they could magically impart to their children, they would do very well to wish them the ability to communicate well with their fellow human beings. For in doing so, they would bestow upon them a key ingredient for a happy marriage, deep and lasting friendships, and satisfying work relationships.
So let’s begin our survey of the situation today by looking at a snapshot of the UK’s generation of 4 and 5 year olds.
How are they doing? Not too good is the short answer. Good communication seems more like a forgotten life skill than a fundamental one.
Assume you are a reception teacher in a primary school getting to know your new intake of pupils. If you work in a typical school, you may well discover that as many as half the children have a communication or language problem that’s significant enough to prevent them from beginning their primary education properly. Even allowing for an increase in pupils for whom English is a second language, this is a shocking figure. But this is what studies are showing. According to research carried out by I CAN, one of the UK’s leading charities in the field of speech therapy and language development, up to half the children arriving at primary school today are unable to begin their primary education because their have significantly underdeveloped speaking and listening skills. They are poor at understanding others. They are poor at making themselves understood. They are poor at basic conversational skills, like taking turns and keeping their emotions under control.
There’s no shortage of factors to blame. Too much time in front of a screen (television, computer, or games machine), too little time interacting with other human beings, over-worked parents with too little time for play, over-use of dummies, the death of family mealtimes, the growth of single parents families, limited opportunities for play with other children in the neighbourhood, forward-facing pushchairs, the decline of bedtime reading, the dearth of positive role models in a society hooked on celebrity . . . and so on.
What’s the situation like at the other end of the education system? Are our schools and universities doing any better?
Again, the short answer is no.
Universities say that far too many students are arriving for their first year’s study with underdeveloped verbal communication skills. They are unable to communicate their ideas clearly. Few seem to know how to engage in a cognitively-challenging dialogue — an essential method of study at this level.
Further down the line, companies are complaining about the same deficit. Study after study report that an unacceptably high percentage of college and university graduates has poor all-round communication abilities. This means that they aren’t ‘job-ready’ — much to the annoyance of employers.
With demand outstripping supply, being a good communicator gives you a very strong hand to play in the careers game. In a study carried out by the BT Education Programme, researchers analysed 800 recruitment advertisements, aimed at university and college graduates in September 2005. The analysis showed that most employers rated a good set of interpersonal communication skills more highly than the grade of a degree, or even having a degree at all. (Of course, the best combination is to have both!) Being a good communicator was specifically mentioned in 78% of all ads, way more than any other quality or qualification.
There are some signs of change. In 2003, the government introduced a detailed ‘speaking and listening’ curriculum into the primary school system in the UK. Some teachers have welcomed its introduction, though take-up overall has been relatively slow and patchy, especially since teachers are given little or no training in how to teach the subject. In 2006, after a great deal of consultation, the government announced its intention to place a much greater emphasis on spoken communication within the secondary school system.
Slowly, perhaps, the wheels of change are turning.
Let’s continue our survey of what it’s like ‘out there’ by taking a deeper look into the damage caused to individual lives and whole societies by poor two-way communication.
In human interactions, the following formula is repeated thousands of times every day:
Ineffective communication x poorly-managed emotions x narrow self-interest gives rise to Personal misery + Social disruption + Financial waste
These costs were illustrated dramatically in a study entitled The Cost of Communication Breakdown (1995) led by Janet Walker and sponsored by BT plc. The study details how billions of pounds are wasted every year because of such things as divorce, family breakdown, community disputes, and bungled communication in the workplace. Is Britain worse off than other countries? Hardly. Indeed, if the study had been done in the United States, the results would have been the same.
Failed communication takes its toll in each and every social setting of life - marriage, family, friendship, school, the workplace, the community, religious institutions, government, and the community of nations. Moreover, while the financial costs of failed communication are mind-boggling, how do we put a cost on the psychological and social costs such as loneliness, disrupted marriages, confused children, alienated friends, poor quality of work life, and unresolved community conflicts?
While the costs of failed communication are high, lost-opportunity costs - that which could have been achieved through effective communication - are probably even higher. One of the main points made back in the 1960s by Abraham Maslow, a major advocate for the development of our full human potential, centered around lost-opportunity costs.
Human beings tend to use only a fraction of their potential in living out their lives. Given the large number of missed opportunities in human development, he redefined the term ‘normal’. "What we call `normal' in psychology is really a psychopathology of the average, so dramatic and so widely spread that we don't even notice it ordinarily."
People also tend to use only a fraction of their interpersonal communication capacity. Even worse, many people often use communication against themselves. That is, the way they communicate with others often lessens rather than improves the overall quality of their relationships. When it comes to quality of communication, many people have low standards. The criterion seems to be ‘good enough’ communication, not communication that is demanding and creative.
If the world is short on effective communication, it’s long on misunderstanding. Richard Heyman, in his book, Why Didn't You Say That in the First Place? claims that misunderstanding is the norm, rather than an aberration, in conversational life. If this is the case, conversational partners have their work cut out for them.
Forewarned is forearmed, they say. Perhaps the military connotations of this adage are not appropriate for conversations, but its spirit is. Maybe the homely proverb, "A stitch in time saves nine," is a better one. There are many enemies of effective conversation. We will run across a number of them as we explore what makes conversations productive and satisfying. One enemy is the frequency of misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with deception or ill will. It's just one of those unfortunate facts of life. Let's take a look at an example.
Francine tells Hugh that she won't be able to go to the hen night for their mutual friend, Deborah, because her new boss is sending her on an important work assignment out of town. She regrets not being able to go, but that's just the way things are.
After saying to himself, "Oh, no! She's not going," Hugh listens to her somewhat distractedly. Later in the week, Hugh talks to Carl. Carl belongs to the same group of friends. During the conversation Hugh mentions that Francine has found "a way out of" going to the hen night, "or something like that." Since he didn't listen to Francine very well in the first place and began making unwarranted assumptions, what he says to Carl is off course. Carl later talks to Deborah, mentions his surprise that Francine is not coming, and wonders out loud about her ‘attitude’. Misunderstanding from beginning to end.
When people talk with one another, which is the norm — full mutual understanding or a fair amount of misunderstanding? Unfortunately, studies show the latter to be the case. The players in the drama revolving around Francine's ‘attitude’ are not evil people, but they have allowed themselves to become both victims and perpetrators of misunderstanding.
One of the reasons for misunderstanding is the imprecision of language. Words and phrases can mean many things. Context often gives meaning to words. Therefore, if, as Heyman says, conversational partners don't share the same context, they can easily talk at cross-purposes. Furthermore, people differ in many ways - age, sex, education, economic class, lifestyle, experience, and so forth. These differences contribute to misunderstanding. Context is not shared.
Aaron and his grandfather Jake talk easily about their passion, football. Their discussions are both informative and entertaining. They share a context. However, when their conversations touch on such issues as marriage and the world of work, they are often at odds. Aaron has been brought up in a much more freewheeling society than his grandfather. They don't share the same context. Misunderstanding seems to be the norm.
Some writers have come up with a framework that explains at least some kinds of misunderstanding in conversations. Chris Argyris has written extensively on the ‘defensive routines’ that limit learning and contaminate relationships. He calls one learning-limiting process the ‘ladder of inference’. Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard, in their book Dialogue discuss how this ‘ladder’ leads, not only to misunderstanding, but to somewhat stupid behaviour.
‘Ladder’ is not the best metaphor to use. After all, ladders are useful and they connote some kind of ascent. Rather, let's call this communication-corrupting process, ‘The slippery slope into the mire of misunderstanding’.
Let's see an example of the slippery slope. The case below centers around a reunion of the Baxter family at the family homestead. Harry Baxter and his wife, Lisa, have lived in the same house for forty years. They have four grown children; Mike, Martin, Sandra, and Douglas. All but Doug, the youngest, are married and have children. The steps in the ‘Ladder of Inference’ go something like this:
Experience some incident. Doug, in a new job and the only sibling who lives out of the neighbourhood, calls his parents and says that he just can't get to the reunion. In conversations with the three other children, the Baxters mention that Doug is very sorry that he won't be there.
Give your own personal spin to what you observe. Some of Doug's siblings think that not coming is totally unacceptable. Sandra, in talking with her husband, says that Doug is the ‘mysterious’ one and that he doesn't want to come to the reunion. The spin begins.
Pollute the air with assumptions. Martin, talking with his wife, suggests that Doug doesn't want to come to the reunion because of his single lifestyle. "He's fancy free and can't be bothered with the rest of us." Assumption-making at its worst.
Draw unwarranted conclusions. Sandra notes that, "Doug has something to hide. He doesn't want us to know about his private life because he knows we wouldn't approve."
Base your actions on the mess you've created. Sandra calls Doug and angrily tells him how he is "letting the family down." Martin decides to "scratch Doug off his list."
Mike, on the other hand, avoids the ‘slippery slope’. He is sorry that Doug won't be there. He calls Doug and tells him so and they chat about how demanding Doug's new job is. Doug wants to go, but the date chosen has become impossible because his new boss put him on a key project that will take him out of town. During the family reunion Mike asks the others, "Why all the fuss about Doug?" and he tries to set the record straight.
It’s true what the telecommunications companies tell us — it’s easier and cheaper to get in touch with people than ever before. But do we communicate better as a result?
Over the past 15 years, there has been an immense explosion in the quantity of communication in the world. E-mails and text messages have done far more than replace letters and memos. They have multiplied the number of words exchanged between people by a huge factor. But, as we’ve seen, it seems to have done little to improve the quality of communication. In fact, it may even have had the opposite effect.
After all is said and done, what communication technology does is put people in contact with each other. Then we have to talk to get things done. If we don’t know how to communicate well, even the most sophisticated communications technology goes for nought. Technology provides channels for communication and it amplifies what we say but does nothing to influence the effectiveness of communication.
It’s become common to see people at adjacent desks exchanging e-mails rather than talking to each other. This cannot be good news. In a Harvard Business Review article (January-February, 1999), Edward Hallowell talks about the problems that happen when you substitute electronic for face-to-face communication at work.
First of all, while misunderstanding in face-to-face communication is common, electronic technology often tends to make it worse rather than better. Writer, Andrea Petersen has pointed out that "while e-mail has made it easier - not to mention cheaper - to maintain long-distance romances, many couples are finding this new medium can wreak its own peculiar havoc."
Second, many people in work settings claim that they tend to be buried by electronic messages, and this increases their stress.
Over-reliance on voice-mail and e-mail can rob person-to-person communication of its business-enhancing humanity. When this happens . . .
". . . oversensitivity, self-doubt, and even boorishness and abrasive curtness can be observed in the best of people. Productive employees will begin to feel lousy and that, in turn, will lead them to underperform, or to think of looking elsewhere for work. The irony is that this kind of alienation in the workplace derives not from the lack of communication but from a surplus of the wrong kind."
Channels such as voice-mail and e-mail are one-way systems. While this is fine in many situations, many others call for some form of dialogue. Although phones present a channel for dialogue, it’s not dialogue in the fullest sense of the term.
Hallowell calls the full face-to-face conversation ‘the human moment at work’. These moments, he says require people's physical presence and their emotional and intellectual attention.
"To make the human moment work, you have to set aside what you're doing, put down the memo you were reading, disengage from your laptop, abandon your daydream, and focus on the person you're with. Usually when you do that, the other person will feel the energy and respond in kind. Together, you quickly create a force field of exceptional power."
As a society, isn’t it strange that we invest billions in communications technology but almost nothing in the human ‘software’ that makes it work?
Perhaps it’s time to introduce a new skill to the curriculum. It could be called Choosing The Right Channel. The idea is for young people to learn which is the appropriate means to use — e-mail, face-to-face dialogue, presentation, texting or telephone — depending on circumstances.
At the pinnacle is dialogue. This is human communication at its most effective and efficient.
Think of its advantages. It’s live and two way. It enables people to transmit and receive the full range of verbal and nonverbal signals, from subtle nuances in tone of voice to facial expressions and gestures.
Every other form of interpersonal communication is a degraded version of dialogue. Something is missing. With telephone conversations you lose visual contact and thus miss a lot of nonverbal material. With presentations, the communication is one way, although the presenter does have a wide range of verbal and nonverbal devices (like slides) to play with.
With all written forms of communication, words are much easier to misinterpret - and the communication can only ever be one way. On the other hand, e-mails have the great advantage of being able to be sent anytime, without requiring the receiver to be ‘in’.
In the 21st century, being smart about communication must surely include knowing which channel is best for the job,
Let’s finish with a brief story, which illustrates the pure efficiency of dialogue. A colleague of ours bought some software a couple of years ago and was alarmed to discover that it was only supported by e-mail. There was no telephone helpline. The discovery of a bug led to an exchange of six lengthy e-mails over a period of eight weeks. The problem persisted. Writing each e-mail was a lengthy and energy-draining procedure, since trying to describe computer problems is hard work. Then, suddenly, the company introduced a telephone help line. (About time!) Our colleague sorted out the problem in a single three-minute conversation. The dialogue enabled two minds to focus on the same problem at the same time. Something e-mailing can never do.
Think of all the conversations you have in a typical day.
They might involve people you know well, like friends and members of your family, or colleagues you see every day at work. Or they could be with people you hardly know at all, like the principal of your children's school, or the customer-service representative dealing with your complaint, or the police officer investigating a traffic accident.
Some of these conversations go well. They're enjoyable and lead to a satisfactory conclusion. In short, they work. Others, however, go wrong. Some go round in circles, or finish in a bad tempered argument. Others die before they get going properly.
Pause for a moment and take stock of your own experiences. What’s the balance like in your life in general? Do you have enough of the ‘good’ variety?
Now, narrow the question down. Think of a specific person, someone important to you at home or at work. How many of your conversations together qualify as good?
Think what a difference it would make to your life if you could reduce the number of poor conversations to a minimum and replace them with satisfying and effective dialogues.
That’s what’s on offer if you take the lessons of The TalkWorks Guide to heart.
This section introduces you to the basics of the TalkWorks interpersonal communication model that’s at the core of The Guide. It’s organised into five topics.
Perhaps you are one of the lucky ones — a great ‘natural-born’ communicator, an exemplar of all that’s best in human communication.
People like this do exist, but they are a rare breed. (It helps enormously to grow up surrounded by exceptionally good role models.) This is not the lot of most human beings. Most of us have to consciously learn how to become good communicators. Ideally, we would have learned at an early age. But if that didn't happen, then the time to start is now. It’s never too early, or too late, to make the most of our potential.
While the secrets of effective communication can be found in the exemplars we meet, they are often difficult to identify in any detailed, systematic way. We just ‘know’ that Mary is particularly clear and interesting to listen to. Equally, we just ‘know’ that Mary is a great listener and questioner. Exactly what is it that Mary ‘does’ that makes her stand out as a communicator? What particular ‘values’ drive her conversational behaviour? Such things are difficult to see without help.
The purpose of The Guide, then, is to systematically uncover both the skills of interpersonal communication and the wisdom needed to use them at the service of satisfying relationships.
If you ask people from a diversity of backgrounds to describe the ingredients of a ‘great conversation’, the same points emerge again and again. (We know because we’ve done it.)
At heart, it seems that we all have very similar views about what constitutes a good conversation. It includes qualities such as:
Both people get the chance to have their say. It’s properly two-way.
There's a willingness on both sides to be open to each other’s points of view.
Even if the subject is sensitive, the important things still get said because the conversation is carried out in an atmosphere of trust.
People behave respectfully towards each other.
The conversation is worthwhile. It makes a difference. Something useful happens as a result.
We call conversations with these characteristics ‘dialogue’. The Guide aims to help you understand and adopt the key principles and practices of dialogue — not so you can become the ‘perfect communicator’ but so you can improve the overall quality of your conversations, and in so, doing improve the overall quality your own life, and of those around you.
The TalkWorks model of communication recognises that we play three quite different roles at various times in our conversations.
Think for a moment about what goes on in a conversation.
For example, imagine you’re having a conversation with John, a neighbour and friend of yours. You’re talking about how to best help Denise — another neighbour — who you both think is in danger of being threatened by her ex-husband.
Let’s look at three passages from the conversation.
In the first passage, you tell John what you think should be done about the problem. In your opinion, the right thing to do is to get the police involved without delay. You explain your reasoning — it’s better to be safe than sorry.
In the second passage, John tells you how he sees the situation. He has a different view to you. He believes that the first step should be to talk to Denise. He explains his thinking — in his experience, without some evidence of a crime, the police are unlikely to get involved.
In the third passage, John tells you about a disturbing experience he had with the local police a few years ago. In the middle of his story, you suddenly remember that you’ve mislaid your mobile phone, and you start to wonder where it could possibly be. This thinking drowns out John’s voice. After a few moments, you return to the conversation and realise that you are lost. So you say to John, “Sorry, can you repeat what you just said? Completely my fault. I was thinking about something else. I’m back with you now!”
Because you want to sort out your phone problem and are finding it hard to concentrate on the issue about Denise, you decide to bring the conversation to a close and talk about it in more detail later on.
Those three passages illustrate the three roles that we play — and switch between —in all our conversations. The question is, what kind of a job do we do in each role?
In the first passage, you are in the Explainer/Teller role. This is the role you are in whenever you have a point of view to share, a story to tell, a proposal to make, a feeling to describe, an idea to explain. In the Explainer/Teller role, your aim is simple — you want to be understood. To maximise the chances of this happening, you need to engage the other person’s attention and be easy to follow. What you require of the other person is for him, or her, to listen hard to what you’re saying, and to take your main points on board for consideration.
In the second passage, you are in the Understander role. Your job is to understand clearly and accurately John’s main points. This may well involve asking questions to expand or check your understanding. This is the role you should be in when the other person is doing the Explainer/Teller job. There’s no point in one person talking if the other person isn’t listening.
In the third passage, you are in the role of Conversation Manager. You are in this role whenever you say, or do, things that are intended to help a conversation function properly and produce a worthwhile outcome. Other things you might do in the Conversation Manager role include; setting the ‘agenda’ for a conversation, checking to make sure you’re giving the other person sufficient opportunity to talk, monitoring and managing your emotions as they ebb and flow during the conversation.
In the case of your conversation with John about Denise, your first intervention in the Conversation Manager role was aimed at ‘repairing’ a mistake you’d made — failing to pay attention. Your second intervention in the role was to bring the conversation to a close.
For a conversation to work well, especially when dealing with sensitive or particularly important matters, you need to be skilled and wise in each of the three roles.
Not surprisingly, since the roles are very different, the set of skills and strategies associated with each role are very different.
For example, a key Explainer/Teller skill is being able to engage people’s attention.
A key Understander skill is checking to see if your understanding is correct.
A key Conversation Manager skill is choosing the right time and setting for a conversation to take place, so as to maximise its chances of success.
TalkWorks recognises a total of 25 key skills, or positive habits, spread between the three key roles, that’s between eight and ten distinct skills or positive habits per role.
The point is simple. Follow these principles and your conversations will work better.
A common reaction to a skills-based approach to more effective conversations, is this: Conversations don't look or sound like this! Fair enough. But the same thing could be said of learning a lot of different skills. Learning skills is always awkward in the beginning. Remember the first time you tried to ride a bicycle or use a computer? The beginner skier, going through the required agonies on the novices' slope, might well say: “Skiing doesn't look like this in the movies!” Of course not.
Focusing on individual conversational skills has its problems. Those who like the big picture might wince when they see that conversation is being divided up into little bits. For others this is comforting. They have misgivings about an ambitious goal like "getting better at communication" and would approach the process step by step. If you are exploring your interpersonal communication style for the first time, many of the bits might seem a somewhat choppy. Things smooth out as the skills are integrated into day-to-day conversations. The competent communicator ultimately delivers each skill in the right way at the right moment - and does so as second nature.
One way to set about improving your communication behaviour is to commit to the following oath.
I refuse to be a victim of poor communication.
I will do everything I can to make sure that I am understood clearly by the other person. I see this as my personal responsibility.
I will do everything to ensure that I listen with an open mind and build an accurate understanding of what the other person wishes to communicate. I see this as my responsibility.
I will do everything I can to ensure that the conversation is conducted in the spirit of dialogue. This, too, is my responsibility.
Taking this degree of responsibility for the effectiveness of our communication is not common. Instinctively, we tend to blame the other person when communication goes wrong.
“It’s Jane’s fault for not understanding me.” “It’s Des’s fault for not being clear with me.” This is life seen from the victim perspective. Nobody benefits from it.
There is another way. And that’s to take responsibility for what happens during your conversations.
Suppose you tell a friend about a difficult decision facing you at home. After explaining the problem you're having, you ask your friend what he might do in a similar situation. As you listen to his response, you realise that your friend really hasn’t understood you at all.
Who was responsible for the misunderstanding? You, or your friend? Well, even though mistakes might have been made on both sides, you have to take prime responsibility. It’s your job in the Explainer/Teller role, not only to share your ideas clearly but also, certainly in important matters, to make sure that they have been accurately understood. The responsible communicator, after realising that he’s not been understood, tries to explain things again, this time perhaps from a different angle.
Let’s take another situation. You have asked your colleague to explain how to use a new piece of software. She spends 10 minutes running through the basics and then leaves you to try it on your own. You discover that you still don’t understand how it works. Whose fault is this? Yours or your colleagues? Again, you have to take prime responsibility. When you are in the Understander role, the only person who knows if something is clear or not, is you . . . so the responsibility must be yours.
The same principle applies to the Conversation Manager role. Imagine you are talking with a tradesman, who has botched a job in your house. You want him to understand how disappointed you are in his shoddy workmanship. You find his cocky attitude difficult to stomach. After a few minutes, you completely lose your temper and the builder walks away. Who’s to blame for you losing your temper? You or the builder? Well, since it’s impossible to control other people’s emotions, but quite possible to control one’s own, the responsibility must be yours.
The bottom line is — if you want to make things better, take personal responsibility for the quality of your conversations.
The system expounded by the TalkWorks Guide is not just about skills. Rather, it presents an interrelated package of communication skills and practices, integrated around the give-and-take of dialogue and permeated with the values, attitudes, and wisdom that make for better relationships. It includes social wisdom and, at least, an implicit understanding of the ‘shadow side’ of communication. As such, it’s an interpersonal communication system. Mastering the system as a whole is the road to interpersonal communication competence.
A critic might say, "There are so many things to worry about in life. Improving communication is not a top priority. I'm not sure that people need to get better at it, or that it would make a difference if they were to do so. Most people are good enough at it. If people thought that this kind of systematic approach to interpersonal communication were important, they'd do something about it. But most people don't do much about it at all. So, from a practical perspective, it doesn't seem to be that important."
Getting better at any of the ‘forgotten’ life skills is, admittedly, not a conscious priority. Just because people don't talk directly about good or poor communication does not mean that it does not concern them. When asked, most people say that they would like to become better communicators. They have some idea that poor communication limits their options.
Poor communication costs each of us, personally, more than we realise. Just because people don't reflect on the costs does not mean that they are not real. Those who do think about the cost associated with poor communication have a feeling that the costs are significant. Everyday language is filled with phrases such as, "I just don’t ‘get’ her,” or, "I don't know how to get through to her."
People also know, at least vaguely, that better communication can increase their options in some way. They know that it can enhance interpersonal relationships. In the end, however, better communication is not an end in itself. The goal is better communication for a better life.
The case for better interpersonal communication should not be either overstated or understated.
Effective communication is not a magic potion that will solve all human problems. Economic, political, social, and psychological forces can contribute to either human misery or human happiness. Increasing interpersonal communication effectiveness will not sweep all misery away. On the other hand, effective communication needs to be recognised for what it is — the key enabling skill of life. The Number 1 Skill.
In this section we take a tour around the topic of dialogue.
Since dialogue is central to the TalkWorks approach, it’s important to understand what it is. The perspective taken here is that our best conversations have as much dialogue in them as possible.
Let's take a look at a snippet of dialogue and explore its characteristics. In the following conversation, Claude and his wife Kelly, a couple in their early sixties, are talking about retirement. They both work. They have four married children and a few grandchildren. They have been looking at the financial realities of retirement. We catch them in the middle of their conversation.
Claude: "Well, if we work a few more years, our financial picture will look a lot brighter. We're not doing that badly now, but we'll be in a much better position if we work a few years longer."
Kelly: "Right. That should give us a decent nest-egg. And the security that goes with it."
Claude: "That's the idea."
Kelly: "Hmm. Something strikes me. We've been talking as if it’s all about money. But we could take a different approach. Let's spend some time talking about the kind of lifestyle we'd like to have from the time we retire to when we finally shuffle off."
Claude: "You mean, draw a picture of what we'd like to be doing? Travel possibilities. All that sort of stuff . . . Also, given what you just said, it might make sense to define what we mean by security. We use the word all the time, but whose definition are we using? Financial planners? Or our own?"
The two of them go on to do a little ‘blue sky’ thinking of what they would like retirement to look like. They pool a range of possibilities. Both of them immediately accept some; they debate others, and finally come up with a realistic package they can both accept.
Claude: "Well, that was great. Really worth doing. But I wonder whether you're thinking what I'm thinking? The picture we've painted, the lifestyle we want to have - I think we can afford to live like that, right now."
Kelly: "Well . . . yes. I think you're right. We'd have to do the figures in more detail, but I think you're right. How exciting!”
Claude: "Right. We can keep on working. We can stop. We can change jobs. We can start a business. We can work part-time. We can make work serve our lifestyle, instead of the other way around."
Kelly: "We can choose the work we want and make it part of retirement . . . Seems odd to call it retirement. It's really just the next stage."
Claude: "But we didn't talk about security. How does the picture we've just painted square with our view of security?"
Kelly: "Actually, I don't think that security means taking into account everything that could possibly go wrong and then coming up with a way to do deal with it. We'd be here forever."
Claude: "Well, let me think about that. And remember, statistically-speaking, you're likely to outlive me. Let's see if we've really built security in."
They go on to discuss security much the same way they addressed other issues. The mindset that prevails on both their parts is this: "I have my opinion, but I'm open to discovering something new."
True dialogue has certain characteristics. Let's review them and see how they are (or are not) illustrated in Claude and Kelly's conversation.
First, there is an element of turn-taking in dialogue. If either you, or your conversational partner, do all the talking, then it’s a monologue. A good working dialogue requires both people to share the air-time available. So, if you realise that you're dominating the conversation, take a break and invite the other person in. The conversation between Claude and Kelly - both the part we've seen and the off-stage part, in which they generated retirement lifestyle possibilities - was filled with turn-taking.
Many conversations fail to work because both people are trying to make their points at the same time. They are not really conversational partners. Rather, they are two people having separate conversations in each other's presence. What we have in that case, is not dialogue, but serial monologues. If you do nothing more than bounce your ideas off me and I do the same, then you and I end up listening to ourselves, not each other.
Second, dialogue involves not just turn-taking but connecting. Perhaps intersecting is a better word. What I say in response to you connects with what you have said. And your responses to me connect with what I have said. We connect. Claude and Kelly's remarks form a kind of chain. There is continuity; their remarks intersect. They are not on parallel tracks. Claude and Kelly are talking with each other, not at each other. Therefore, they don't end up talking past each other. In a word, then, throughout the conversation Claude and Kelly are connected.
Some people take turns in their conversations, but don't connect or intersect very much. Dialogue is a lot more than turn-taking.
Third, in true dialogue, conversational partners influence each other. There is always a degree of give-and-take that adds robustness to the conversation. Dialogue is about influencing conversational partners and being influenced by them. When Kelly and Claude talked about lifestyle possibilities, they were in agreement on some, and had to debate others. Discussion and debate involve give-and-take. Dialogue is not about being spontaneously agreeable. Nor is it about giving in. In true dialogue, conversational partners touch each other in some way. They rub ideas, opinions, and points of view together. Statements such as, "Well, let me think about that," are indications of give-and-take.
This turn-taking, connecting, and intersecting lead to the fourth characteristic — creating something together. Through their interaction, Kelly and Claude create a whole new approach to retirement. It’s not necessarily a question of creating something that astounds the world. Let's say that you and I go out to dinner together and have a ‘good conversation’. What we create might well be a pleasant evening together. In the hustle and bustle of our high-tech lives, we are not with family and friends as much as we would like. So when we are together, we want it to be ‘quality’ time. Few people define what they mean by quality time. One thought is that life-enhancing dialogue is at the heart of quality time. Through dialogue we are creating a better life together.
If, through dialogue, you and I are creating something together, then the outcome of our conversation must have some degree of uncertainty about it. If before the conversation begins, either you or I know the outcome, then we do have a conversation, but it’s not true dialogue. Take a father talking to his son. The son is making a case for a bit more freedom. The father has already decided that his son is not going to get any more. Father and son are in some way interacting, but they are not engaged in a dialogue. The father is not open to being influenced by his son. Through their dialogue, Claude and Kelly blew some of their own preconceptions about retirement out of the water. They co-created something.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, in Truth and Method, talks about the uncertain outcome of true dialogue. According to him, we do not ‘conduct’ a real dialogue. That smacks of engineering. In retrospect, a genuine dialogue is not the one that we wanted to engineer when we began. We ‘join in’ dialogue. We become ‘involved’ in dialogue. In dialogue, the conversation takes its own ‘twists’ and reaches its own conclusions. In dialogue conversational partners do not know in advance what will ‘come out’ of a conversation. True dialogue has a ’spirit of its own’. The co-shared outcome ‘emerges’. In some ways we ‘shape’ the dialogue and in some way it ‘shapes’ us.
In a lighter vein, consider a couple of metaphors that can give us a better feeling for dialogue. Think of dialogue in terms of dancing. Not regimented ‘I-lead-you/you-follow-me’ dancing, but free-form dancing. When you dance, you don't try to score points or ‘win’ in any way. Instead, you work as partners, responding to each other's movements and trying not to tread on each other's toes. The idea is to co-operate, rather than compete, so you both enjoy the experience. The outcome is a good time together.
A good conversation is a shared experience, a duet rather than two solos that happen to coincide. It's more like ‘jamming’ than engineering. Sometimes when jazz players get together, they ‘jam’. One player begins, then another joins in developing, complementing, and adding to the themes. Still other players get in on the act and all of them develop and add to the one another's themes. Conversations work best when they include mutual involvement, with both partners helping each other make the most out of their time together. Note that jamming often includes all four elements of dialogue. The players take turns taking the lead, their music intersects, they influence one another, and they end up creating beautiful music together.
Can every conversation be dialogue? Well, let's take a look. It's clear that when the drill sergeant gives an order to a recruit in boot camp, this has little to do with dialogue. Or when the air traffic controller tells the pilot to ascend instantly because there’s a mountain ahead.
But consider the example of Christine, a manager, giving orders to one of her team members, Eddie. She is doing it nicely, humanely, but still she is telling Eddie what to do in order to make the project a success - bringing it in on time and on budget (or even early and under budget).
If Christine is doing all the talking, then it’s a monologue. Let's say that at the end of a ten minutes Eddie says, "I think I've got it. Thanks for the directions and the helpful hints." And then he takes his leave.
What a wasted opportunity! While giving orders is not usually considered a dialogue, dialogue can be used to make the transmission of orders, or instructions, clearer and more effective. If Eddie and Christine were to have a good dialogue about the project following the principles outlined above, here are some of the good things that might happen:
Eddie will understand his role in the project more clearly.
He will contribute ideas that might make the project more effective.
He is more likely to take greater ownership of the project because he has been able to put his ‘smell’ on it.
He will feel respected and therefore is more likely to give his best.
He and Christine will have maintained, or even improved, their relationship.
Christine will have a better understanding of Eddie's talents and his approach to projects.
In this example, Christine, at least initially, is the holder of the agenda, or at least most of it. On another day it might be Eddie, when he asks to meet with Christine to give a progress report on the project. But no matter who owns the agenda, or whose agenda predominates, just about every conversation will go better if some degree of dialogue is used to pursue the purpose of the conversation. The fluidity and open-ended nature of dialogue allows new things to emerge.
What about casual conversations with no particular purpose except to pass time enjoyably? Let's say that Adrian and Rob are having a drink after a hard day in the office. Rob begins to regale Adrian with jokes. It's really a kind of monologue, a comedy routine, in fact. Adrian is Rob's ‘audience’.
If this is the way both of them like it, all is well. But what if Adrian does not want to be an audience? What if he wants to unload some of his feelings about what took place in the office that day? Then some kind of dialogue might be more useful. Not a deep problem-solving session, but a chance to unload. Ideally, Rob will search for some kind of clue as to how Adrian might want to relax before launching into his comedy routine. Ideally, Adrian will give some indication of what would be relaxing for him.
Is dialogue everything? That's not the point. Most conversations would go better with a bit of dialogue. This book discusses skills. And they are important. But true dialogues are as just as much a product of our humanity. True dialogue is a collaborative activity and one that reflects the uncertainties of being human.
Conversations deal with everything under the sun. There is no end to the content of conversations. Nevertheless, throughout The Guide, four common kinds of ‘explaining/telling’ are used to illustrate the skills and wisdom of dialogue. In this section we identify these key ‘modes’ and also discuss small talk and conversations that combine different modes.
A story is a narrative of some kind or another. For instance, Ian describes to his wife what his day at work was like.
He says, "You won't believe this, but Sam launched off into one of his tirades again. But this time Susan, his boss, happened to be talking to someone in one of those little cubicles. She heard the whole thing. She came around to his desk and told him that she would see him in her office immediately. He was still in there when I left."
Telling stories includes such things as giving presentations, using examples, giving explanations, and the like.
We tell stories for all sorts of reasons. One is to pass the time by telling hopefully entertaining stories. Humankind has a rich history of storytelling. But this kind of storytelling usually involves a storyteller and an audience. In this Guide, the emphasis is on stories that support dialogue. We use stories to give focus to explanations, to help get our messages across, to add spice to a point of view, and to bring proposals to life.
When we talk about the kind of job, or spouse, or life, we would like to have, we are telling ‘future’ stories. Stories help us communicate more fully, clearly, and forcefully. For instance, Alice, in a visit to her doctor, describes her internal pains, relates the story of what she has eaten and drunk over the past two days, and gives a couple of examples of the stress she has been under for the past two weeks. This helps her doctor with the diagnosis. Becoming a competent storyteller can add value to all of your conversations.
A message delivers a decision that has some implication for yourself, for others, or for both yourself and others. Messages include such things as giving commands and providing instructions.
For instance, Dennis is talking with a group of friends at the end of the work day. He says, "I'm too tired to go out to dinner tonight. I'm going home to watch the game on television."
Messages have implications. Dennis's message has implications for himself and for his friends from work. They will have to do without him this evening.
People in authority often deliver messages to those who come under the influence of their authority - bosses to team members, parents to children, teachers to students, police to teenagers, government officials to citizens, and so forth.
For instance, Lucy says to her teenage son in an exasperated tone of voice, "No, you can't go to the party. You know the rules. First homework. Then play. You should have thought about this earlier."
Messages can be tricky. Often enough, how they are delivered greatly influences the impact they have. Sometimes people rebel against the messages we deliver because of the way in which we deliver them. If you were Lucy's son, how might you react to her message?
Your point of view is your perception of someone, your opinion on some issue, your view of some situation, well, your thoughts on almost anything.
For instance, Jess's spouse, Silvia, says to him, "I know you like John, but he's too pushy for my tastes. No matter where he is, he seems to take over."
Obviously Jess might have a quite different point of view. Once he understands Silvia's point of view, he might want to share his own.
You may be entrenched in your point of view or hold it only tentatively and be open to change. When communicating your point of view to others, it helps to be clear and to give some indication of how deeply you feel about it.
Let's say someone says to you, "I never know what you really think about the curriculum and disciplinary changes that have taken place at school."
Either you have not expressed a point of view at all or you have and it's vague.
You reply, "Well I think that some of the changes are overdue, while others are suspect. For instance, I think they're giving the students too much freedom. But I'm willing to take a wait-and-see approach."
Not a bad beginning. Now there are lots of things that you and your friend can explore. Such as the things you do like about the changes. Or what you mean by ‘too much freedom’. Or the reasons for your tentative ‘wait-and-see’ approach.
‘Making a case’ moves beyond merely sharing a point of view. When you share a point of view, you are not asking others to act on it, at least not directly. You might be pleased if they were to do so, but that's not what sharing points of view is about. When you make a case, however, you want to influence others. You want them to act in some way on what you say.
Tina and Trevor are talking about next summer's vacation. Tina is making a case for going to an island with nice beaches. Trevor makes a case for going to the mountains. Edgar, their teenage son, makes a case for his staying home and working (and also being with his friends with a bit more freedom than usual). Making a case includes such things as offering proposals, indicating preferences, making suggestions, and giving advice.
These days many people in authority prefer to make a case rather than just tell people what to do. This is part of their personal philosophy or the institutional culture. Often, they feel that they can't get away with just giving orders. People subject to authority, such as children, students, and team members, are more and more permitted, or even urged, to makes cases in areas of life that affect them and their interests.
Peers are a different story. Since you can't just order your peers around, making a case with them often becomes an essential part of interpersonal communication. Simon and Louise are married. They're both doctors. Simon makes a case for working in Liverpool since there's an excellent research centre in his specialty there and his main interest lies in research. Louise specialises in general practice. Although she can do that in Liverpool, most of her family members are in the London. She muses on making a case for taking a position at a similar research centre in London.
Small talk plays an important part in establishing and maintaining relationships. Through small talk we pass time pleasantly. Small talk need not be a waste of time. It acts as a kind of lubricant in our relationships. Indeed, some people rightly complain that they are not good at small talk. They instinctively realise that they lack the ability to make initial contact with others. Or they don't know how to use small talk to set the climate needed to address more substantive or sensitive issues.
Small talk includes gossip. In a Harvard Business Review article (July-August,1998), Nigel Nicholson discusses the purpose of gossip in stone-age society. Survivors in that society, he maintains, were those "savvy enough to anticipate power shifts and swiftly adjust for them, as well as those who could manipulate them". Gossip was part of their social wisdom. By gossiping, they got important bits of information before others did. Nicholson claims that we are still ‘hard-wired’ for gossip.
Another, but related, way of looking at gossip/small talk is to realise that one of its main functions is ‘reputation management’. When John tells his colleague about a compliment paid to him by the company’s MD, he is aiming to enhance his own status. When Anne tells her sister how their neighbour starts drinking after lunch most days, she is diminishing his reputation, for whatever reason.
Whether you buy such evolutionary psychology or not is beside the point. Gossip is in no danger of going out of style. It’s a pastime probably impossible to root out of social intercourse. Some gossip is benign, some deplorable. Of course, it’s no longer a question of survival. Many people do fine without it. But who knows? In the workplace and in the corridors of government it might still contribute to ‘survival’.
Actual conversations are often a mixture of these different modes of discourse. For instance, Liz, a university lecturer, during the course of a conversation with Sibyl, a first-year student, tells the story of two different students' approach to their first year and the outcomes of each approach, explains a couple of the study rules (message), shares her point of view on developing relationships with fellow students, and makes a case for joining at least one student club. The conversation begins and ends with some small talk.
On her part, Sibyl might tell a story about what she hated in secondary school, share her convictions about her own personal autonomy (message), share her point of view on joining clubs, and make a case for more flexibility on the part of the college, regarding the assignment of both rooms and room-mates. Of course, she, too, engages in some small talk at the beginning and the end of the conversation.
Consider a movie scene that has been played over and over again. The Chief Detective is talking with one of his best detectives, a person who annoys some and pleases others because of his non-traditional and somewhat flip style. The Chief says that the detective is wasting his time pursuing a line of inquiry, that he's closing the case and giving the detective a new assignment. During the conversation the detective tells a well-known story of a miscarriage of justice related to the premature closing of a case, sends a message about his losing interest in a department that is so rigid, shares his belief that behind the Chief's rough exterior, beats a ‘heart of gold’ and then makes a case for a week's more time to pursue the investigation. And that’s all covered in a single scene of dialogue.
Stories, messages, points of view, and cases are not necessarily set in concrete. Through dialogue, initial stories can be clarified, initial messages can be reworked, initial points of view can be strengthened or modified, and initial cases can be accepted, challenged, or changed. Remember the ‘uncertainty’ element of dialogue. In true dialogue, the exact outcome is not known by either party, at the beginning. The outcome ‘emerges’.
Everyone has a communication style — a characteristic mix of behaviours that typifies how they approach interpersonal communication. In this section, we look at what constitutes a communication style and encourage you to ask yourself — what’s my style?
Picture a group of people, all of whom have the skills and wisdom outlined in this Guide.
Will they be a bunch of clones? Hardly.
They will differ widely along many different dimensions. They will have different personalities, different views of the world, different jobs, different approaches to life, and so forth. You get the picture.
They will also have different interpersonal communication styles, that is, they will use the skills and wisdom of effective conversation differently.
Most people have mixed styles. Some of the things they do add value to conversations. Other things they do stand in the way of effective communication. Take George. He has both Explainer/Teller and Understander skills, but for whatever reason he tends to specialise in the Understander role. This is his style.
Styles, like many other things in life, can have both an ‘up’ side and a ‘down’ side. For George, the downside is found in remarks made by those who interact with him a lot. They say that George is a bit ‘passive’, that he is a ‘nice person’ but not very interesting, and that he seldom ‘speaks his mind’. The upside is found in a different set of remarks: "George is a good listener," or, "George is more than a listener. When I have a problem I like to talk it out with him." "George is one of the few people who takes time to understand me."
Your attitudes and values are not a separate package from your communication style. They permeate your style. They give it character and colour – for better or for worse.
You have an overall style, one, which is most characteristic of you. This can be called ‘theme’. However, since this style may vary from setting to setting, there are ‘variations’. ‘Theme and variations’, then is one way of looking at your style. Here are some examples:
You may be an excellent listener as a parent but not so good at listening when dealing with your colleagues at work.
You might talk easily about yourself to your buddies over a beer, but find it difficult to be open with your wife.
You might find yourself quite assertive with your friends over coffee, but much more contained when talking about household matters with your husband.
But even in these variations, the theme of your overall style persists. If you are not a ‘good listener’, period, then this deficit will probably appear in all the variations of your style. All that follows should be seen in terms of both ‘themes’, and ‘variations’.
The best way to find out about your own communication style is to take the Talk Test. This free web-based resource enables you to conduct a survey among a selection of friends, family and work colleagues to find out what they think about you as a communicator.
How effectively do you manage your conversations? For example, how much effort do you put into making sure your conversations are two-way? This is an important dimension of style.
"Eric hogs conversations. It's hard to get a word in edgewise. Even when I do manage to barge in, he doesn't listen. I tend to avoid him."
"Jimmy and I like to ‘mix it up’ when we talk. We both have strong opinions, but, strange to say, we both get a good hearing. At least, I think so."
How well do you promote mutual respect? The level of respect that you characteristically show others in conversations is another important aspect of your Conversation Manager style.
"Rula sometimes makes fun of the things I say. She's rather good-natured about it, but it still hurts or at least it's annoying. She also has a problem keeping secrets, so I'm often wary of being too open with her."
"Alan is good at ‘tough love’. He's gentle with me when I'm having a bad time. But he doesn't let me get away with things either. When I'm being whiny and self-centred, he picks me up on it."
To what degree do you recognise and honour the conversational rights of others? How assertive are you in promoting your own rights? Both are identifiable aspects of your Conversation Manager style.
"Kaitlin tends to barge straight in and start a conversation without considering whether it's a good time for me to talk. When this happens, I feel under terrible pressure because I don't want to be rude. But because I've got other things on my mind, I find it hard to pay attention to her."
"Ruby is very considerate. For instance, when she calls, she makes sure I'm free to talk. If I don't feel like talking, she doesn't mind. I've learned to return the favour. Not just to her, but to everyone I call."
How well do you exercise emotional control? Exercising emotional control, together with the willingness to express feelings and emotions appropriately in conversations, is an important part of your Conversation Manager style.
"Jude is a nice guy, but very touchy. It's so easy to offend him. You have to tiptoe around. I like him, but I don't always feel comfortable around him. I have to watch what I say too much."
"Vernon has a kind of calmness about him. I find it very easy to talk to him. Don't get me wrong. He has some strong ideas and he's certainly no pushover. He's got a broad range. He laughs. He's serious. At times he's on edge. But he doesn't push himself in your face."
How enthusiastically do you promote win-win conversations? How easily do you slip into a competitive approach?
"Donnie plays a lot of games with his friends. He's always needling. He never lets things get out of hand, but he goes up to the edge. ‘Edge’ is a good word. I'm ‘on edge’ with him. I know that in lots of different ways he's going to let me know that he's better than I am."
"Conversations with Nick are nearly always worthwhile. They get somewhere useful. They’re productive — for both of us.”
Inevitably, your Conversation Manager style is conditioned by your social competence, including your ability to ‘read’ the dynamics of social situations, your ability to respond creatively to a communication opportunity once you have assessed its social dynamics, and the integrity and courage you display in communicating in difficult situations.
“Christine always seems to be putting her foot in it. She just doesn’t seem to notice what’s going on around her, and as a result, conversations with her often have an uncomfortable atmosphere, a sense of impending doom.”
“Peter’s brilliant at saying the things that need to be said, but which most people are frightened to bring up. Sometimes, it backfires, but usually Peter’s courage pays off in the form of exhilarating conversations.”
What are you like as a communicator when in the Explainer/Teller role? Here are the kinds of things people say when they’re asked to describe the Explainer/Teller styles of their friends, associates, and acquaintances.
As you read these descriptions, ask yourself what people might say about you.
"John tends to ramble when he's explaining things, and I find myself switching off after a few minutes."
"Caroline finds it easy to speak her mind, so I usually know where I stand with her. She tells me how she feels about things, but she does so in a nice way. This makes it easy for me to know how to relate to her."
"Tony loves to chat about little things. He's good at small talk. But the moment we have to sort out a problem between us, he hems and haws or, even worse, flies off the handle. I'm almost afraid to get into a serious discussion with him."
"Richard is a good manager. I come away from discussions with him with a very clear idea of what I have to accomplish. He doesn't shove things down your throat. There is always room for negotiation. Mind you, he tells you what's negotiable and what's not."
What are you like in the Explainer/Teller role? What are the themes of your Explainer/Teller style? How do you vary these themes in different situations? How would you like to be seen by others?
Your Understander style consists of the characteristic ways you listen to, and communicate understanding to, other people when they are in the Explainer/Teller role. Your style centres round the way you use, or fail to use, the Understander skills outlined in The Guide.
Here are some samples of the things people might say about their friends as Understanders:
"Mary's easy to talk to because she always seems interested in what I'm saying. We just seem to connect most of the time."
"Kate doesn't give me enough space. She's always so impatient. In the end, I don't even bother to try and get my point across. She's nothing like Val, who listens very well and then asks me intelligent questions. I never feel pushed, challenged sometimes, but not pushed. I love talking with her."
"Errol always appears to listen, but I'm not sure if he's really taking in what I say. He rarely says anything back to me that shows he understands the point I'm making. It can be like talking to a brick wall."
"When Marcus asks questions, it's obvious that he has been listening to what I have been saying. They're thoughtful questions. He builds on the things I say. We work really well together."
"Reggie can be difficult to talk to because he's not very open-minded. No matter what I say, I get the impression he's already made up his mind. And he gives advice at the drop of a hat. On the other hand, I don't think Isaac has ever given me advice. How can I put it? . . . We solve problems together."
Again, your Understander style may have a theme and a number of variations. You come across differently in different situations. At home you take pains to understand the concerns of your spouse and children. At work, however, you have more of an edge and this can cause problems in your role as a manager.
Of course, your wider style is made up of your characteristic ways of communicating in all three roles. It also relates to your ability to move into and out of each of these roles according to the demands of any given conversation.
For instance, Larry stays almost exclusively in the Understander role when he is with other people. One of his friends, Deborah, has this to say about his style:
"Larry is a very good listener. He's a great person to talk to when you are trying to sort out a problem. His sincerity comes through just about every word and gesture. But he shares practically nothing about himself. Sometimes I feel he's my sounding board or even my counsellor, instead of my friend."
How willing are you to keep an open mind as the conversation progresses?
“No matter what I say to her, it’s like talking to a brick wall. She’s just not interested in changing her mind.”
“She has strong views of her own, but she’s always willing to consider an alternative point of view.”
On the other hand, Celine, although skilled in both roles, prefers to be in the Explainer/Teller role most of the time. She tells excellent stories; she gets her point of view across clearly and forcefully; she delivers messages quite well. Christopher has this to say about Celine's communication style:
"I must say that she's very interesting. She knows so much about so many different topics. It’s also clear that she knows who she is and where she's going. And she certainly can be very persuasive. I enjoy being with her, but not too often and not for too long. She's just too much. Or too intense."
Another of Celine's friends has a view with more of an edge to it:
"Celine doesn't so much talk with you as preach at you. She doesn't have points of view. She has The Truth. When she talks, it seems that she's not looking for any kind of response. I find myself getting irritated and wanting to interrupt her all the time."
Contrast Larry and Celine with Michael, who not only has the skills of both Explainer/Teller and Understander but also knows how to mix them well. This is the impact he has on Robert:
"I enjoy being with Michael. I've never said this to him, but he brings out the best in me. There is so much give-and-take in our conversations. And there is such variety, too. We can just mess around. We can be serious. We can talk about his problems or mine. We can even talk about how we relate to each other. Sometimes I wonder what kind of communicator I am, but when I'm with Michael, it all seems so easy."
You might find parts of yourself in some of these descriptions. One way to improve your communication reputation is to note what it is about other people's communication style that strikes you as negative. And then ask yourself the question: "Do I sometimes behave like that?" Also note what it is about other people that strikes you as positive and helpful. Then ask yourself: "To what degree am I like that? What would I have to do to develop that kind of upbeat style?"
Your overall style, together with its variations, gives the complete picture of you as a communicator. Minor variations are not usually an issue. However, if your communication style changes radically from setting to setting, you may well ask yourself: "What's going on here? Who am I? Why does my style differ so much from person to person?"
Of course, your full style shows up, not in the pages of a book, but in practice, what you actually do in day-to-day conversational settings.
Your style, as experienced by others, gives rise to your communication reputation. Because of variations in your style, there will also be variations in your reputation. Cliff thinks that you are a great story Explainer/Teller, while Mimi finds your stories tedious.
Your reputation is conditioned by other people’s perceptions of your communication behaviour. Everyone has his or her own particular reputation as a communicator - in terms of both themes and variations - built up over the years.
Do you know what your reputation is? It may be exactly what you think it is or it may be different. You may think of yourself as someone who gets his or her points across clearly, for example, when in reality other people find you difficult to understand. You may think you listen well, while others think they don't get a good hearing from you.
Your reputation is very important because it can significantly influence the way other people relate to you. For instance, if you have a reputation for criticising too readily, people may be reluctant to ask for your help. After all, who likes being told off when all they want to do is share a problem? On the other hand, if people think of you as someone who is interested in understanding their points of view, they'll be far more willing to be open with you.
Does everyone play by the rules outlined in The Guide? And, if they don't, are they bad people? "No" to both questions. In the real world there are an infinite number of styles. Some groups and some individual communicators play by their own rules. They have a style of their own. If you are not used to their rules, you can be easily put off.
Po Bronson provides an example of this in a brief article on how some professionals in Silicon Valley talk to each other, (Wall Street Journal). Many of the computer-age professionals and specialists he met seemed, at first glance, to attack people who had new or different ideas. They seemed to be totally unaccepting, their behaviour was contrary to most of the stuff written here. A friend of Bronson’s even complained about the treatment he had received at their hands. Their style, Bronson says, is in reality, ‘interrogative’.
Bronson gives a different slant to the Silicon Valley style. "Their interrogation style was just how people talk out there. People love Socratic interplay, improving ideas through active conflict. Arguing is fun. Arguing is the whetstone that sharpens the high-tech brain. Playing devil's advocate and trying to talk someone out of his idea is a role-playing form of friendship. Interrogating my friend was their way of showing keen interest."
Of course, these people did not make any effort to clue in Bronson's friend on the rules. Then again, he was on their turf.
Some people just seem to like their conversations to be more ‘rough and tumble’. Perhaps you are not yet ready for that kind of friendship. Perhaps you are. If there is nothing malicious in the ‘rough-and-tumble’ communicator, then why not? Other people prefer the other extreme. Let's put it a different way. Just as there are many different social cultures, so are there many different communication cultures. The assumption here is this: Most of what's written in this book can be - even needs to be - adapted to these different cultures.
Anyway, need we say that none of us is perfect as a communicator? Most of us are good at some of the skills, not as good at others. We also vary in terms of consistency. We have good days and bad. The package outlined in The Guide is an ideal. All of us can become better. All of us can become more consistent. If we want to.
In the end, you have choices. You can choose to be skilled or mediocre. You can choose to use the skills you have, or let them lie fallow. Within limits, you can choose the style you want. Changing styles can be a lot of work. So, if you decide to try, know why you're doing it. After all is said and done, your communication style needs to be you, not an imitation.