Making the Connection: Strategies to Build Effective Personal Relationships (Collection) (32 page)

Watch Out
for overwhelming people. You might be perceived as being someone who needs all the attention, especially when you do not use effective listening skills. Understand that people express comfort in different ways, and that it is not your job to energize the world. Be sure to ask people their thoughts and ideas, not just give yours.

Section 4: Options or Plans?

Options

If you checked (a), you realize there are several ways to accomplish something, and you have the opportunity to change your mind as you go. You enjoy responding spontaneously, and feel overly restrained when your plans become too rigid. You are often the person who suggests trying out new things.

Watch Out
for starting things that you don’t finish. Because you respond spontaneously, you might find it difficult to focus on issues long enough to complete them. When you fail to complete things, including the commitments that you make, others might lose trust in your ability to follow through.

Plans

If you checked (b), you understand that results require the development of plans, and you are always thinking two or three steps ahead. You are usually well prepared, and become somewhat frustrated when others don’t develop or follow plans. After you have put a structure in place for anything, you are more confident and relaxed.

Watch Out
for being too rigid and stressing out when changes occur. In your desire to put a plan in place for everything, you might miss out on experiencing the beauty or magic of the moment. It’s helpful to be prepared, but not if it causes you to miss out on what you were planning for all along because you were too busy thinking about the next step.

There are many aspects of becoming self-aware. Awareness of our own communication styles and tendencies will help us to understand how we tick. As a result, we can maximize our positive aspects, while also managing the “watch outs”—which can occasionally get a little ugly! Personal credibility is about being authentic and real—but also about having enough self-awareness to understand that your tendencies and preferences might be different from others with whom you are interacting. Individuals who possess strong personal credibility begin by understanding themselves so that they can then better understand and interact with others.

Chapter Eight. Step #5: Choose to Value Others—the Good, and Yes, Even the Bad and the Ugly!

In the last chapter, we discussed
how self-awareness of personal style and preferences of communication impacts personal credibility. When we are able to take an
objective
view of our own communication tendencies and styles, we can assess how our style might work well with some people, and probably not so well with others.

There is a natural connection between self-awareness and increasing our awareness, and sensitivity to, others’ tendencies and styles.

Individuals who possess strong personal credibility tend to assess others from a more objective perspective because they are more objective about their own strengths and style issues. When we are objective, we avoid thinking of others in terms of “good” or “bad” or “right” or “wrong.” Instead, we think in terms of our styles of communication—both in how we are similar or different from those around us.

Ideas or Evidence?

If you recall, “John” was definitely a big-picture thinker. He had great
ideas
and incredible creative energy. He could think of various possible solutions to problems and challenges and enjoyed any opportunity to present and discuss his thoughts and ideas. John worked with several other leaders whose styles differed. Some tended to be suspicious of any idea that did not have factual evidence and proof to support it. “David” was one of those other leaders who wanted to see the
evidence
(facts and data) to support any idea. David and John had frequent clashes. Their disagreements became somewhat predictable whenever John presented recommendations for the organization’s consideration. John said, “I think this could be a great strategy...” and David quickly responded, “Don’t take our time with great ideas unless you have some facts to support it, John.” John’s usual response was to be critical of David’s resistance to change, and then David would criticize John’s willingness to waste time and organizational resources. The clash often turned into a war of words, with nothing accomplished except increasingly damaged relationships.

David and John were both part of the organization’s pilot executive development program. One part of this program focused on raising awareness of various communication styles and how these styles can either create conflict or incredible value, depending upon how people handled their differing styles. Another senior leader in attendance, “Mary Ann,” approached both John and David individually. She asked each, “Do you think it’s possible that your style differences could be causing the conflicts between you?” Both spent some time thinking about it, and later, each initiated follow-up conversations with Mary Ann. Both David and John came to the realization that the major cause for their conflict was indeed differences in style. Mary Ann was exactly right. But what could solve the issue? Neither could change the person that he was—nor did he have any desire to do so. Eventually, Mary Ann volunteered to “facilitate” a conversation between David and John. She brought them together and asked the following questions of each:

• How could each of you benefit from communicating more effectively?

• What could the other person say or do differently that could help this to occur?

• What could you say or do differently that might help?

• What are you going to do to make that happen?

The end result of this conversation was amazing. In this neutral, objective environment, both David and John became much more aware of his own tendencies. Each was able to give specific ideas about what could be done to improve the situation from his perspective. Most important, each decided to value the other person. Each made commitments to attempt to “flex” his style for better communications to occur. And both did it.

Both John and David made agreements to consider the other’s style going forward. John, the
ideas
person, made adjustments to his style in the following way:

• He “labeled” his discussion topics more. If he wanted the group to brainstorm ideas, he told them that. If he was presenting various options that could be considered in the future, he told them that. If he was presenting one idea that he wanted to get a decision made about, he made that clear. This allowed David and the others to hear John out in the appropriate context—without jumping to conclusions and stopping the development of ideas.

• He summarized his ideas first. No long, drawn-out discussion of any idea occurred without John’s first laying out his ideas in a very brief form.

• When he was making a recommendation for the group’s approval, he gathered more data to support his ideas and recommendations and only recommended those ideas that were supported with facts and data.

• He prioritized his recommendations based on which would have the most positive, organizational impact.

• He learned to present all the positives and possible downsides to an idea—and he informed people in advance that he was prepared to do that.

David, the
evidence
person, also made some adjustments to his style and preferences:

• He suspended judgment until he had fully heard John’s ideas.

• He learned to brainstorm—to participate in a process of getting all the ideas to surface before attempting to narrow them down and look for evidence to support them.

• Instead of attacking the person or the issue, he simply asked the question, “Do you have any evidence or data to support
this idea?” When he felt that evidence was lacking, he learned to ask, “When are you going to develop this data?”

• He also adjusted his own style when he presented to others. He learned to tell people what to expect—to “label” his own presentations as well. He often said, “I have the final recommendations. I have the details to support all of these recommendations. I’ll present the major recommendations first, and then feel free to ask me about any data that I’ve gathered that will support each recommendation.” This reflected a big change for David as well. He had frequently presented every detail up front, boring half his audience—mostly because he assumed everyone wanted that level of data and support for ideas, just as he did. When he became more aware of differences, he used this to help him not only with John, but with his presentations and discussions with the entire leadership team. Many were very relieved!

The choice to “value others” in the preceding example occurred when each person considered how having better communications could benefit both parties. They were both fortunate to have the benefit of Mary Ann, who was able to objectively assess their conflict and take the initiative to discuss it with them. The focus was then able to move away from who was right or who was wrong—and moved toward working more effectively together.

It can be very difficult to value others. Some “others” are downright difficult people! A few are nasty, mean-spirited, and truly seem to enjoy hurting or harming others. But most are just people—with different styles of communication. When we choose first to value that person, we open the door to problem solving and a productive relationship success.

With successful relationships, respect occurs. Respect, given and received, creates personal credibility.

What about you?
Are you struggling in a relationship that might be based upon a difference in styles? Is it possible that one of those differences is in this area of
ideas or evidence
? You? can allow Mary Ann’s questions for John and David to help you as well. Think through this relationship, consider your own personal preference and the other individual’s likely preference, and then respond to these questions:

• How could each of you benefit from communicating more effectively?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

• What could the other person say or do differently that could help this to occur?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

• What could you say or do differently that might help?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

• What are you going to do to make that happen?

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

You have likely had experiences when it is difficult to value someone else. Ask yourself: Is it the
person
that I struggle with finding the value with, or is it the difference in style that is getting in the way? To improve interactions with others, it is helpful to think of how our styles might be similar or vastly different from theirs. The following sections contain some hints on how to consider altering your style slightly in some areas to have improved communications with others. When you improve the communication process, the chances for increased personal credibility are much stronger!

Direct or Diplomatic?

When dealing with someone who is very
direct
, try flexing your own style so that you do the following:

• Make your point clearly and directly.

• Avoid too much rationalizing or justifying—simply state your thoughts with a degree of confidence and authority.

• Most important, don’t assume this person is being harsh or rude. That is rarely the intent of a direct style. Instead, try to remember that this person is merely speaking in the most efficient manner he or she can. Avoid personalizing and stick with the facts.

When dealing with someone whose communication style is less direct and more
diplomatic,
consider the following: