[This article was written with the permission and in consultation with the below-mentioned phone-coaching client.]
Once again, through the wonder of the Internet, I've had a chance to connect with a bright, insightful and articulate individual. Our email interaction began when Barbara, (a fictional name), discovered one of my writings, and we now periodically exchange ideas. Married and in her 40s, Barbara is a government employee, an HR professional for a mid-sized, Mid-Atlantic city. She’s been an in-house consultant to the police department for a number of years. Recently, Barbara has applied for a management position in the department. However, her application is hardly a slam-dunk. Assigned to the police department, as an HR employee she’s seen as an outsider, and also viewed as a “worker bee,” not necessarily management material. (As a government employee, Barbara has not been a full-time manager, though in her consulting position she has been involved in management activities such as recruiting and performance review.)
In light of the job application uncertainty, Barbara inquired about a phone coaching session with the “Stress Doc.” Having had a number of successful coaching experiences, I was delighted to get started. The voice-to-voice encounter only confirmed and further elucidated my impression gleaned from the written word. Clearly, this was a very competent and “likes to get things done” woman who nonetheless had some issues with performance anxiety. (Barbara believes she has a good relationship with the Police Chief. She herself did not mention gender bias as a cause for job interview concern, though, in light of the specific department and the ultimate group interview gauntlet, one cannot entirely dismiss the possibility.)
Another factor noted in her self-questioning was a double-edged relationship with a father who had a somewhat perfectionist personality. While Barbara’s father was a model for high-achievement striving, perhaps another consequence was the oft-hovering voice, “Prove yourself!” And sometimes, such a voice (or, at least, our internalized version) is never fully satisfied, resulting in a seemingly Greek God-like mythological drama. With strained (mental) muscles and perspiring brow, you quietly curse the huge, precarious boulder, pushing and exhorting it up the mountain…alas, never quite reaching the summit. Unable to defy the forces of gravity (nor the angry gods), the boulder invariably reverses course, and rumbles down to the base. Still, not one to give up easily, once again you screw up the courage for the daunting – if not Sisyphean – task ahead.
Actually, Barbara successfully jumped a number of preliminary hoops in the interview process, which crawled on for several months. Finally, notification arrived that she had earned a ticket to the group interview arena. And again Barbara emailed for another coaching session.
Birds of a Feather – Freeze, Fly High and Finally Learn to Focus
Barbara quickly revealed a mature and rational side: “No matter what happens with the interview, I’m glad I went through the process.” She learned much from the experience, including strengths and vulnerabilities of key decision-makers in the department, and articulated heretofore insufficiently recognized facets and talents. She felt more visible. Still, the odds were not necessarily in her favor; Barbara believed there typically is a preference for an “outside” candidate. This reminded me of the old saw about a “consultant”: “Someone who’s an expert from somewhere else.”
At the same time, angst was apparent with the plan for her husband to videotape an interview rehearsal. Something in my gut and memory bank said this was overkill. I agreed with the idea of practice trials and feedback from her husband. My concern about the videotape was having Barbara become so self-conscious about her appearance, gestures and other nonverbals, so caught up in a memorized script, that her quite evident knowledge and experience, her personal-professional stories, would not naturally flow.
To make sure I wasn’t simply projecting, I shared with Barbara my “stage fright” experience taping my first health segment for Cox Cable, New Orleans in the ‘80s. Totally self-preoccupied, I spoke in thirty second bursts and then my brain would freeze. This scenario was repeated several times before I mercifully completed the segment. Just as I was ready to flee the scene, one of the cameramen suggested we review the tape. He cut off my face-saving protest with, “Don’t worry, we’ll be able to use this for our blooper special.”
“Thanks, pal.” Actually, through the magic of TV editing the final product was only half bad. (As we left the production truck, I’ll never forget the producer’s closing words: “I don’t expect perfection…just improvement each week.” Along with a silent sigh of relief, she also got my attention.) And my health segment continued for two seasons. Still, I didn’t want Barbara to unnecessarily put herself in such a self-conscious space.
Becoming a Wise, Not Just a Wily Coyote
Another performance stress association came to mind: this time, helping a trial attorney harness his anxiety when presenting before a jury. While still winning many of his court cases, he was becoming increasingly self-conscious and self-doubting. (He too had a perfectionist father, though his could be rather critical.) I recalled how this attorney (let’s call him John), would try to hide his angst with a bold opening argument. This approach proved a dysfunctional ploy; within a minute, being an “impostor” was the overriding self-perception. The image I shared was of the cartoon characters Roadrunner and Wily Coyote. The Coyote is chasing Roadrunner to the edge of a cliff. The roadrunner leaps off and the “Not So Wily One” does the same. And for a few seconds, Old Wily is pumping furiously with bravado, still expecting to capture his nemesis when, suddenly, he looks down. Now, big trouble panic races across the Coyote’s face…as he crashes down to earth.
I had to help this attorney learn to start with more moderate and realistic expectations, to be more genuine, that is, to help him understand that some performance anxiety is actually necessary for productive focus and heightened performance. Revealing some start-up anxiety is not unnatural, unmanly or self-defeating. Even Olympic ice skaters don’t lead with a triple axel. One warms-up with easier moves and then “slowly but surely” builds momentum.
I recalled how John said to me, with too much intensity in his voice, “Mark if I can just do what we’ve discussed, I know I’ll do well.” I immediately confronted John’s rigid and perfectionist tone, and reaffirmed that I just wanted him to gradually, to more gently apply some of the tools and techniques. He didn’t have to hammer out mastery all at once. And, in fact, John eventually reported doing much better in the courtroom. His exact words: “If I don’t get anything else out of this therapy, it will have been worth it!”
Laughing at the “Birds of Worry”
In a follow-up email, Barbara indicated that the Roadrunner story and an old Chinese aphorism, also shared on the phone, had been particularly helpful. The aphorism goes as follows: “That the birds of worry fly above your head, this you cannot help. That they build nests in your hair, this you can do something about!” (I recall the pithy saying evoking hearty laughter. Perhaps Barbara was already anticipating the sage observation of psychiatrist, Ernst Kris: What was once feared and is now mastered is laughed at. And as the Stress Doc inverted: What was once feared and is now laughed at is no longer a master!)
Apparently, Barbara’s (nest-free) interview performance reflected her talents and experience, along with the meaningful practice and emotional integration. Perhaps she was also feedback-fortified with a quick boost of focus and confidence. While waiting for the final verdict, she had already received some informal positive feedback from members of the interview committee. (I’ll keep you posted on her job search journey.)
Hopefully, this article will help you get a better handle on anxiety and on applying tools for enhancing self-perception and presentation no matter the performance arena. Feel free to email or call if you’d like more info on a voice-to-voice/coaching perspective. Best wishes and good adventures for the New Year. And, of course…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Summary
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. Attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum; many people seem to talk faster and louder, often blurting out the first thing that comes up. This is called “shooting from the lip,” a hasty if not hostile mode of messaging only outdone in dysfuntionality by shooting from the finger tips, that is, sending an angry text or email. Whatever the medium, too often the messaging process reflects the convoluted internal command: Ready…Fire…Aim!
After noting the aforementioned communicational barriers, “Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus,” are outlined. These tips are the ingredients of “head and heart” communication that:
a) information that is effective and efficient as well as emotionally engaging, b) overcomes interactive barriers to understanding and c) helps build consensual bridges. The “Top Ten” introduces “Four ‘C’s of Civilized Communication” (clarity, concision, calm and conviction). The “Four Civilizing C”s provides a platform for the “Seven ‘C’s of Conscious ‘Cognitive-Communication’” (or clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing).
These concepts are aligned with a tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not. More specifically, a sketch of a model has been presented for taking “Kaleidoscopic AIM” through “An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. One obvious example: attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum. However, I’m also noticing overdrive speech patterns, especially for the generations who have grown up with the Internet and Social Media (that is, Internet Natives in contrast to us older Generational Slugs, actually, Internet Immigrants, according to Nick Bolton technology blogger for the New York Times and author of I Live in the Future & Here’s How It Works, 2010). People just seem to talk faster, (also louder), as if they are racing to get their words in (or heard) before the other party’s ever restless radar is distracted elsewhere or simply tunes out. (Or perhaps it’s just my hearing that’s slowing as, in my sixth decade, I more consciously ebb and flow between moving smartly and purposefully as per my foundational New York/East Coast mode and mentally meandering “out of the creative closet” and into my “American in Cajun Paris,” “N’Awlins/Big Easy” mode.)
In addition to the speech rate, I’m also aware of multi-generational hyper-tendencies – individuals frequently blurting out the first thing that comes up. I was going to say “comes to mind,” but I think certain cerebral circuits are being bypassed: people are simply “shooting from the lip.” More and more, especially when engaged in intense discussion or disagreement, my sense is that people are reflexively following their own silent and internal convoluted command: Ready…Fire…Aim! There’s too much electronic, scattershot, “shoot first, ask questions later” messaging. Once feeling provoked or disrespected, you’re gunning for or putting down perceived antagonists or competitors; inflating one’s self-importance at another’s expense may or not be premeditated. For example, while you expect some testiness (and testosterone) in a Presidential Primary Debate, Mitt Romney’s “$10,000 bet/challenge” in reaction to Rick Perry’s repeated criticism, instantly becomes a “shoot from the lip” classic.
Four “C”-ing Communication
In general, communication short on forethought, flexibility and focus is communication not concerned with the other person’s (or ironically sometimes your own) content and context; it is an exchange not attuned to fears and frustrations, as well as needs, hopes and dreams. In the heat of civilized interpersonal battle, being “ready” and having a thoughtful “aim” before firing – speaking clearly, concisely, calmly when possible, and with conviction is vital. Let’s call this being a “Four ‘C’-ing Civilized Communicator.” And for extra credit, I’ll add a fifth “C” – an ability to employ a wise over a smart “comic” touch, that is, a capacity for emotionally aware and empathic “healing humor.”
And while it’s not always possible to be calm when confronted or challenged, one can be psychologically or passionately responsive instead of reactive. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)? “I disagree” meets our “Four ‘C’” criteria: clear, concise, mostly calm and said with conviction. “You’re wrong” shifts the focus from addressing the issue to attacking the individual in a manner that is aggressive, condescending and dismissive. See my article, “Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence: Message and Mantra for Transforming Reaction into Response.”) A pattern of impulsive, random or overkill “firing” tends to elicit defensive reactivity, “getting even,” or just plain shutdown. Especially when the purpose and goal of your message exchange involve motivation-, trust- and relation-building, you don’t want to dumb down or numb out, to silence, intimidate or inflame.
From Lips to Tips
Unless, of course, the communication strategy for avoiding “shooting from the lips” is shooting from the tips, that is, the finger tips, by sending a text or email. Clearly, this is a dangerous option as anger – self-righteous or otherwise – can so easily insinuate itself into and contaminate your message. (Okay, I concede the point; you can more safely give an antagonist the finger.) Remember, an electronic message is devoid of face-to-face nonverbal cues; a reader can’t see your body language or readily detect a “just kidding” tone. And emoticons don’t count as contextual information in a heated, sensitive or ego-driven exchange. Whatever the medium, the use or equivalent of “just kidding” after jabbing the other party can easily confound if not contaminate the communication process. Your words may now be a “mixed message” with dubious results, unless patterns of humor and trust have been clearly established.
Actually, you can outsmart yourself with excessive verbal flourishes or fireworks, if you will, whether on page or stage. There is so much smoke and mirrors wordplay (especially if you are enchanted by your own colorful ideas and imagery) that key points or the core message may be lost in too elaborate or self-indulgent word artistry or argument. (The Stress Doc pleads guilty as charged, and intends to mend some of his ways. More pithy patter, anyone?)
And finally, the other problem when a person chronically deals with conflict electronically is that you’re being a wimp. Rather than walking ten feet to speak directly to a colleague, I’ve heard stories of employees shooting e-missiles, I mean emails, at one another through their adjacent office walls. It’s why I say the “e” in email stands for escape! (Hey, this punch-line not only elicits predictable laughter but often generates out loud cheering from an audience.) Here’s my “Wimp to Warrior Conflict Engagement Scale”: Text-Email-Phone-(depending on the image of that Skype call, I’m not sure this is a major evolutionary step for problem-solving-kind) and, finally, Face-to-Face.
Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus
Summarizing the above, in today’s HSD times, for “head and heart” communication, a) to be truly informational as well as emotionally effective and efficient, and for the communication, b) to overcome interactive barriers to understanding and c) to help build consensual bridges, the messaging process must be:
1. clear and concise,
2. respectful and real,
3. responsible and responsive; (email stressdoc@aol.com for the article, “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating”),
4. open and timely, that is, candid and courageous communication needs to occur in close proximity of the conflict triggering event, and
5. at some point, especially when dealing with emotional conflict, the exchange needs to be at least voice-to-voice, though face to face is preferable. (And sometimes you will need a third party or mediator when egos are too injured or inflated and battle-lines are intractable.)
The exchange also needs to:
6. slow down enough to move less at the speed of light and more at the pace and “ebb and flow” rhythm of sound,
7. reverberate through mutual venting, curious and patient questioning-listening and responsive problem-solving feedback; such collaborative back and forth, a) loosens rigid or fixed positions, b) helps adversaries negotiate some ”starting point” or “common ground understanding” that c) acknowledges if not begins to engage the essential needs, frustrations, hopes and goals of all parties and, finally, d) helps individuals to be meaningfully seen and heard (i.e., to feel like “origins” who impact their environment, not simply being “pawns” pushed around by their environment), enabling participants to e) accept some personal loss of expectation and/or control for the greater good, goal or gain,
8. encourage “cultural diversity,” that is, the understanding and valuing of diversity in the realms of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, age, etc., even bringing together the division’s or organization’s silo-impaired; strangers, competitors or antagonists over time better appreciate varying viewpoints and the potential for interconnectivity (or at least affirm that “difference and disagreement do not necessarily equate with disapproval and disloyalty”),
9. stimulate “hands on” engagement resulting in tangible “getting on the same page” goals and action plans thereby yielding genuine “buy-in,” while
10. accepting the reality that issues often remain unresolved, perhaps needing to be addressed at another critical communicational juncture.
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Surely there’s need for conceptual tools that will strengthen a capacity for thinking-listening-questioning-responding-motivating. I envision a model to help people become more Four ‘C’-ing thinkers and communicators – as was cited earlier, possessing clarity, concision, calm and conviction. And as a bonus, this model will highlight the importance of:
a) employing the comedic tactically, tactfully and empathically; remember, “People are more open to a serious message gift-wrapped with humor”,
b) developing and drawing on your own inner complexity to better understand – make more tangible and comprehensible – the complexity of the outer world, and
c) motivating if not inspiring the people with whom you are engaged by speaking both to people’s real and ideal self-image as well as transforming a sense of threat, loss, and crisis into time-conscious challenge and opportunity; also helping others laugh at their flaws and foibles while touching people’s desire for imaginatively and effectively designing a balanced-integrated-animated “work-love-play” life path; and, finally, enabling others to impact or simplify (without dumbing down) their world's outer complexity.
Naturally, a critical component of inner and outer complexity involves viewing people and situations, experiences and events in context, that is, not as isolated phenomenon but in historical-psychological-relational-social-cultural perspective. (So we might have to speak of the “Seven ‘C’s of “Conscious Cognition-Communication”: clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing.
I especially envision a model-tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not.
Actually, I have been designing a matrix model based on the interaction of “Individual – Physical, Mental-Emotional – Sources of Cognitive-Communication,” for example, Muscle-Mind-Mood, and a Yin-Yang, “Human Being-Human Doing,” or Flexible-Focused Energy-Consciousness. This interplay between sources and energy-essences is depicted as follows:
Muscle (Body) + Flexible or Focused
Mind (Psyche) + Flexible or Focused
Mood (Heart) + Flexible or Focused
And “Muscle, Mind and Mood” are linked to one of three fundamental components of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”: Muscle is linked to “Action,” Mind to “Intention,” and Mood to “Meaning.”
The interaction yields six possible matrix pieces or outcomes:
Muscle Focused and Muscle Flexible = two primary “Action” states
Mind Focused and Mind Flexible = two primary “Intention” states
Mood Focused and Mood Flexible = two primary “Meaning” states
The model components, Action, Intention and Meaning (AIM), are the interchangeable building blocks of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness,” reflecting the interaction of “Mind-Mood-Muscle” and “Focused and Flexible.” Arranging the letters “A-I-M” in different sequences (akin to a very mini DNA code) provides six combinatory states or styles that result from the interaction of “Cognitive-Communication Sources” (“Muscle-Mind-Mood”) and “Yang-Yin Energy-Consciousness” (“Focused and Flexible”). For example, “Action” followed by “Intention” and then “Meaning” yields “Provocative,” while the outcome for “Action” followed by “Meaning” and “Intention” converts to “Playful.” The “Six Cognitive-Communication Consciousness States” are:
AIM = (Action-Intention-Meaning) or “Provocative
AMI = (Action-Meaning-Intention) or “Playful”
IAM = (Intention-Action-Meaning) or “Purposeful”
IMA = (Intention-Meaning-Action) or “Prospective”
MAI = (Meaning-Action-Intention) or “Passionate”
MIA = (Meaning-Intention-Action) or “Philosophical”
I’m calling the conceptual model:
“An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”
[Email stressdoc@aol.com for the AIM Matrix.]
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace esource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. Attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum; many people seem to talk faster and louder, often blurting out the first thing that comes up. This is called “shooting from the lip,” a hasty if not hostile mode of messaging only outdone in dysfuntionality by shooting from the finger tips, that is, sending an angry text or email. Whatever the medium, too often the messaging process reflects the convoluted internal command: Ready…Fire…Aim!
After noting the aforementioned communicational barriers, “Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus,” are outlined. These tips are the ingredients of “head and heart” communication that:
a) information that is effective and efficient as well as emotionally engaging, b) overcomes interactive barriers to understanding and c) helps build consensual bridges. The “Top Ten” introduces “Four ‘C’s of Civilized Communication” (clarity, concision, calm and conviction). The “Four Civilizing C”s provides a platform for the “Seven ‘C’s of Conscious ‘Cognitive-Communication’” (or clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing).
These concepts are aligned with a tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not. More specifically, a sketch of a model has been presented for taking “Kaleidoscopic AIM” through “An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. One obvious example: attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum. However, I’m also noticing overdrive speech patterns, especially for the generations who have grown up with the Internet and Social Media (that is, Internet Natives in contrast to us older Generational Slugs, actually, Internet Immigrants, according to Nick Bolton technology blogger for the New York Times and author of I Live in the Future & Here’s How It Works, 2010). People just seem to talk faster, (also louder), as if they are racing to get their words in (or heard) before the other party’s ever restless radar is distracted elsewhere or simply tunes out. (Or perhaps it’s just my hearing that’s slowing as, in my sixth decade, I more consciously ebb and flow between moving smartly and purposefully as per my foundational New York/East Coast mode and mentally meandering “out of the creative closet” and into my “American in Cajun Paris,” “N’Awlins/Big Easy” mode.)
In addition to the speech rate, I’m also aware of multi-generational hyper-tendencies – individuals frequently blurting out the first thing that comes up. I was going to say “comes to mind,” but I think certain cerebral circuits are being bypassed: people are simply “shooting from the lip.” More and more, especially when engaged in intense discussion or disagreement, my sense is that people are reflexively following their own silent and internal convoluted command: Ready…Fire…Aim! There’s too much electronic, scattershot, “shoot first, ask questions later” messaging. Once feeling provoked or disrespected, you’re gunning for or putting down perceived antagonists or competitors; inflating one’s self-importance at another’s expense may or not be premeditated. For example, while you expect some testiness (and testosterone) in a Presidential Primary Debate, Mitt Romney’s “$10,000 bet/challenge” in reaction to Rick Perry’s repeated criticism, instantly becomes a “shoot from the lip” classic.
Four “C”-ing Communication
In general, communication short on forethought, flexibility and focus is communication not concerned with the other person’s (or ironically sometimes your own) content and context; it is an exchange not attuned to fears and frustrations, as well as needs, hopes and dreams. In the heat of civilized interpersonal battle, being “ready” and having a thoughtful “aim” before firing – speaking clearly, concisely, calmly when possible, and with conviction is vital. Let’s call this being a “Four ‘C’-ing Civilized Communicator.” And for extra credit, I’ll add a fifth “C” – an ability to employ a wise over a smart “comic” touch, that is, a capacity for emotionally aware and empathic “healing humor.”
And while it’s not always possible to be calm when confronted or challenged, one can be psychologically or passionately responsive instead of reactive. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)? “I disagree” meets our “Four ‘C’” criteria: clear, concise, mostly calm and said with conviction. “You’re wrong” shifts the focus from addressing the issue to attacking the individual in a manner that is aggressive, condescending and dismissive. See my article, “Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence: Message and Mantra for Transforming Reaction into Response.”) A pattern of impulsive, random or overkill “firing” tends to elicit defensive reactivity, “getting even,” or just plain shutdown. Especially when the purpose and goal of your message exchange involve motivation-, trust- and relation-building, you don’t want to dumb down or numb out, to silence, intimidate or inflame.
From Lips to Tips
Unless, of course, the communication strategy for avoiding “shooting from the lips” is shooting from the tips, that is, the finger tips, by sending a text or email. Clearly, this is a dangerous option as anger – self-righteous or otherwise – can so easily insinuate itself into and contaminate your message. (Okay, I concede the point; you can more safely give an antagonist the finger.) Remember, an electronic message is devoid of face-to-face nonverbal cues; a reader can’t see your body language or readily detect a “just kidding” tone. And emoticons don’t count as contextual information in a heated, sensitive or ego-driven exchange. Whatever the medium, the use or equivalent of “just kidding” after jabbing the other party can easily confound if not contaminate the communication process. Your words may now be a “mixed message” with dubious results, unless patterns of humor and trust have been clearly established.
Actually, you can outsmart yourself with excessive verbal flourishes or fireworks, if you will, whether on page or stage. There is so much smoke and mirrors wordplay (especially if you are enchanted by your own colorful ideas and imagery) that key points or the core message may be lost in too elaborate or self-indulgent word artistry or argument. (The Stress Doc pleads guilty as charged, and intends to mend some of his ways. More pithy patter, anyone?)
And finally, the other problem when a person chronically deals with conflict electronically is that you’re being a wimp. Rather than walking ten feet to speak directly to a colleague, I’ve heard stories of employees shooting e-missiles, I mean emails, at one another through their adjacent office walls. It’s why I say the “e” in email stands for escape! (Hey, this punch-line not only elicits predictable laughter but often generates out loud cheering from an audience.) Here’s my “Wimp to Warrior Conflict Engagement Scale”: Text-Email-Phone-(depending on the image of that Skype call, I’m not sure this is a major evolutionary step for problem-solving-kind) and, finally, Face-to-Face.
Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus
Summarizing the above, in today’s HSD times, for “head and heart” communication, a) to be truly informational as well as emotionally effective and efficient, and for the communication, b) to overcome interactive barriers to understanding and c) to help build consensual bridges, the messaging process must be:
1. clear and concise,
2. respectful and real,
3. responsible and responsive; (email stressdoc@aol.com for the article, “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating”),
4. open and timely, that is, candid and courageous communication needs to occur in close proximity of the conflict triggering event, and
5. at some point, especially when dealing with emotional conflict, the exchange needs to be at least voice-to-voice, though face to face is preferable. (And sometimes you will need a third party or mediator when egos are too injured or inflated and battle-lines are intractable.)
The exchange also needs to:
6. slow down enough to move less at the speed of light and more at the pace and “ebb and flow” rhythm of sound,
7. reverberate through mutual venting, curious and patient questioning-listening and responsive problem-solving feedback; such collaborative back and forth, a) loosens rigid or fixed positions, b) helps adversaries negotiate some ”starting point” or “common ground understanding” that c) acknowledges if not begins to engage the essential needs, frustrations, hopes and goals of all parties and, finally, d) helps individuals to be meaningfully seen and heard (i.e., to feel like “origins” who impact their environment, not simply being “pawns” pushed around by their environment), enabling participants to e) accept some personal loss of expectation and/or control for the greater good, goal or gain,
8. encourage “cultural diversity,” that is, the understanding and valuing of diversity in the realms of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, age, etc., even bringing together the division’s or organization’s silo-impaired; strangers, competitors or antagonists over time better appreciate varying viewpoints and the potential for interconnectivity (or at least affirm that “difference and disagreement do not necessarily equate with disapproval and disloyalty”),
9. stimulate “hands on” engagement resulting in tangible “getting on the same page” goals and action plans thereby yielding genuine “buy-in,” while
10. accepting the reality that issues often remain unresolved, perhaps needing to be addressed at another critical communicational juncture.
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Surely there’s need for conceptual tools that will strengthen a capacity for thinking-listening-questioning-responding-motivating. I envision a model to help people become more Four ‘C’-ing thinkers and communicators – as was cited earlier, possessing clarity, concision, calm and conviction. And as a bonus, this model will highlight the importance of:
a) employing the comedic tactically, tactfully and empathically; remember, “People are more open to a serious message gift-wrapped with humor”,
b) developing and drawing on your own inner complexity to better understand – make more tangible and comprehensible – the complexity of the outer world, and
c) motivating if not inspiring the people with whom you are engaged by speaking both to people’s real and ideal self-image as well as transforming a sense of threat, loss, and crisis into time-conscious challenge and opportunity; also helping others laugh at their flaws and foibles while touching people’s desire for imaginatively and effectively designing a balanced-integrated-animated “work-love-play” life path; and, finally, enabling others to impact or simplify (without dumbing down) their world's outer complexity.
Naturally, a critical component of inner and outer complexity involves viewing people and situations, experiences and events in context, that is, not as isolated phenomenon but in historical-psychological-relational-social-cultural perspective. (So we might have to speak of the “Seven ‘C’s of “Conscious Cognition-Communication”: clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing.
I especially envision a model-tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not.
Actually, I have been designing a matrix model based on the interaction of “Individual – Physical, Mental-Emotional – Sources of Cognitive-Communication,” for example, Muscle-Mind-Mood, and a Yin-Yang, “Human Being-Human Doing,” or Flexible-Focused Energy-Consciousness. This interplay between sources and energy-essences is depicted as follows:
Muscle (Body) + Flexible or Focused
Mind (Psyche) + Flexible or Focused
Mood (Heart) + Flexible or Focused
And “Muscle, Mind and Mood” are linked to one of three fundamental components of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”: Muscle is linked to “Action,” Mind to “Intention,” and Mood to “Meaning.”
The interaction yields six possible matrix pieces or outcomes:
Muscle Focused and Muscle Flexible = two primary “Action” states
Mind Focused and Mind Flexible = two primary “Intention” states
Mood Focused and Mood Flexible = two primary “Meaning” states
The model components, Action, Intention and Meaning (AIM), are the interchangeable building blocks of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness,” reflecting the interaction of “Mind-Mood-Muscle” and “Focused and Flexible.” Arranging the letters “A-I-M” in different sequences (akin to a very mini DNA code) provides six combinatory states or styles that result from the interaction of “Cognitive-Communication Sources” (“Muscle-Mind-Mood”) and “Yang-Yin Energy-Consciousness” (“Focused and Flexible”). For example, “Action” followed by “Intention” and then “Meaning” yields “Provocative,” while the outcome for “Action” followed by “Meaning” and “Intention” converts to “Playful.” The “Six Cognitive-Communication Consciousness States” are:
AIM = (Action-Intention-Meaning) or “Provocative
AMI = (Action-Meaning-Intention) or “Playful”
IAM = (Intention-Action-Meaning) or “Purposeful”
IMA = (Intention-Meaning-Action) or “Prospective”
MAI = (Meaning-Action-Intention) or “Passionate”
MIA = (Meaning-Intention-Action) or “Philosophical”
I’m calling the conceptual model:
“An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”
[Email stressdoc@aol.com for the AIM Matrix.]
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace esource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Communication Tools for Perspective, Patience and Presence: Transforming Reaction into Response through Message and Mantra
Increasingly, research is showing a direct correlation between employee productivity, business profitability, and the degree to which employees feel their employers are concerned about their personal and professional welfare. (See The 2010 AMA Handbook of Leadership.) For example, in the groundbreaking work, First Break All the Rules: What the Greatest Managers Do Differently (Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman) five of the twelve core elements (listed in their order of importance) “needed to attract, focus and keep the most talented employees” involve feedback, recognition and relationship building:
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
Clearly, for bridging the motivational-relationship divide critical factors include the awareness, clarity, empathy, mutuality and timeliness of the interpersonal communication. And honest, open and emotional connection, not just simply passing along information, is especially critical when parties are grappling with psychologically charged issues related to loss, change and uncertainty and/or conflict-laden cultural climates, e.g., employees who have gone through major reorg or RIF (Reduction in Force) and are wondering about if not waiting for the next “frightsizing” axe to fall.
With this in mind, as a writer and speaker, increasingly I provide an audience with concise psychological and communication concepts and tools – from aphorisms and acronyms to pithy poetic pearls – with a verbal (and sometimes visual-theatrical) design that, hopefully, makes them easy to use and hard to forget. In an increasingly “do more with less,” hyperactive-distracted-overextended and over-cluttered mind-field, the ability to create “sententious” messages, messages “full of significance (and style) and expressed tersely” becomes a vital art form.
Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence
For example, try these two communicational techniques to trump a knee-jerk “reaction” with a firm yet flexibly focused “response”:
1. Differentiate Blaming “You” vs. Responsible “I” Messages. “You’re always late,” “What’s your problem?” or “You made us look bad.” “You” messages not only assign blame or are judgmental and often global (e.g., “You never”), but they deny any responsibility on the part of the person making those “acc-you-sations.” (And naturally, a “chronic acc-you-ser” risks becoming a blameaholic!) Actually, even worse, these accusing “You”s often facilitate a transfusion of power: the “acc-you-ser” is increasingly becoming a puppet and is enabling the so-called antagonist to pull all the strings.
So, instead of “You’re making me mad” or “It’s your fault,” how about, “I don’t like what’s going on between us. Here’s what I don’t appreciate (or) this is what has me frustrated, concerned, uncomfortable, etc.” Then specifically, clearly and concisely state your “I”-message concern, e.g., “I prefer being asked or questioned about my reasons for doing XYZ rather than being confronted by assumptions. I need for us to talk about what’s going on!”
The shift from blaming or judging involves: a) asserting one’s own beliefs and perspective and, when necessary, firmly yet respectfully setting limits on the use of “You”-message fault-finding, b) setting boundaries on a party not respecting one’s physical or psychological space, c) evolving a perspective that is less focused on the other person’s “faults” (that is, an intrapersonal position) and more concerned with developing an interpersonal, “How are we together generating this situation and what can we do about it?” problem-solving approach, and d) acknowledging and taking responsibility for one’s actions and feelings by using “I”-messages, including stating likes and dislikes, and concerns and irritations.
Such an emotional-communicational shift means being authentically “self”-centered in contrast to being narcissistically ego-driven. Remember, a healthy “I”-communicator strives for real and respectful, responsible and responsive give and take between the parties. (Email for my article “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating.”) The narcissist invariably sees life through a “black or white” or a “right or wrong” lens, though these may even have rose-colored tinting. This personality inevitably needs to be in a “one-up” or “in control” position. And when the surprisingly sensitive narcissist feels his or her hurt is triggered by an alleged provocateur, then launching the old blamethrower is excusable, if not perfectly justified.
Quickly Bringing the Impact of “You” vs “I” to Life
Of course, a “blameholic” can consciously or not try to disguise weakness or immaturity with a Mr. Bluster mask and manner. Still, the difference between affirming “I” responses and offensively defensive “You” reactions is transparent. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)?
The consistent group facial expressions (and occasional gasps) when an audience member helps me act out this contrasting two-word scenario reveals the verbal and emotional impact. And quick analysis is illuminating: “You’re wrong” no longer is dealing with the specific issue but is actually dismissive of the other individual. In contrast, “I disagree” is predicated on the other’s position or points of argument, that is, the “I”-response is respectfully problem-focused while a “You”-reaction is often judgmental and personality-driven.
Finally, I believe a reactive “You” message tends to be one-sided, driven by “right or wrong” presumptions: “all head” (e.g., a coldly intellectual remark or a rejoinder dripping with scarcasm, e.g., “I’m just sure you could not have done anything else?”) or “all heart” (e.g., a wounded or weepy, “feel sorry for me,” outburst or lament). In contrast, a “responsive” “I”-message combines both “head and heart.” An “I” perspective typically attempts to perceive, understand and integrate multiple perspectives, that is, tries to construct a meaningful assessment of one’s own along with the other’s deeds, needs and intentions. And next is another memorable technique for achieving this integration.
2. Consider a “Reflective and Responsive” Mantra. The standard advice when you’ve “had it up to here” with someone and want to verbally explode or simply lash out is, of course, “Count to ten.” And while I see some merit, for me the cautionary counsel falls a bit short. In the heat of battle, if thrown off guard, I can just imagine myself methodically counting, “1-2-3-4,” then suddenly shifting gears, flying through 5 through 9, and at “10” blurting out, “You bozo!” (Even the Stress Doc is susceptible to that “You”-ruption every once in awhile; though the words of French novelist Andre Gide from his book, The Immoralist, often helps me silently, if not serenely, place people and positions in perspective: One must allow others to be right; it consoles them for not being anything else!)
Actually, to be less reactive, all you need is some of those well-developed multi-tasking skills to transform the old saw into a new aphorism. (As an aside, while the younger generation is particularly adept at multi-tasking, I suspect folks of any age who primarily hyper-speed through life may have some initial difficulty being personally reflective and psychosocially attentive.) Anyway…my poetic mantra: Count to ten and check within. That is, while you are counting (and centering yourself or trying to calm) down, ask one or more of these questions, which may also slow the countdown: “What am I feeling right now?” Am I attributing all my hurt or anger to “the other”; am I about to vent with a blaming “You”? Is it possible that some of my outrage reveals that my own “hot button” or emotional baggage issues have been pushed, triggered or stirred? Am I confronting my” Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure?”
Here’s an example of a self-inventory process, though, admittedly, one several years in the making. A heated exchange followed by quiet discussion enabled my partner to finally realize that my behavior was not equivalent to the immature actions of her ex; my actions were not really firing up her emotional cauldron. It was her own low boiling point, worn down by an erosive and divisive marriage, helping to trigger her impatience and anger with her present partner. (Though, of course, I certainly bring some of my own stuff to our intimate interaction.) The real “hot button” was her self-regret, shame and rage for not being strong enough to leave sooner a mostly dysfunctional “thirty year” relationship. And when this “separation/being on my own” fear constricted her options, there were some irreparable consequences for the children, the adults, and the family as a whole. However, having the courage to face your sadness and remorse softens the anger and rage that otherwise turns inward and/or gets acted out onto others. And this deeper awareness should help our interaction be less defensive and reactive.
After completing this rapid internal audit, if still confused or frustrated while in the heat of battle, then build upon the mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without! Alas, my poetic addition may be a tad ambiguous. So let’s clarify some possible interpretations of check without:
a) check outside yourself; ask the other to clarify his or her message, e.g., “I’m not clear about what I’m hearing”;
b) check or set limits on a hostile communicator, e.g., “I don’t mind feedback, even critical feedback, but hostility and condescension are not acceptable! Let’s try again,”
c) check in with an open mind, that is, without bias, making every effort to consciously suspend your assumptions and prejudgments; e.g., “I must admit I’m not neutral in this matter, but I will attempt to listen with an open and objective mind.”
If issues remain troubling upon “checking within and without,” remember, you may momentarily retreat yet still be palpably real and paradoxically present. You may check out to check in: “I’m way angry right now, and don’t want to put my foot in my mouth (or your butt). I’m not running out; I’m taking a time out. I want to think about this, and I will get back to you first thing in the morning. From my perspective, we are not finished.” Clearly, strategic-reflective retreating is not giving up but stepping back in order to cool down, lick wounds, reevaluate, perhaps talk with a “stress buddy,” integrate head and heart, gain new perspective and strategy, and then responsibly reengage. (Of course, there are times, especially in the instance of child abuse, when an aggressor-predator-enabler has clearly earned “You”-focused confrontation, condemnation and, if warranted, incarceration. For example, see Penn State’s and Syracuse University’s potential criminal scandals and cover-ups.)
Hopefully, you now have two new, quick application tools for bridging the communication divide and for helping all parties…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
Clearly, for bridging the motivational-relationship divide critical factors include the awareness, clarity, empathy, mutuality and timeliness of the interpersonal communication. And honest, open and emotional connection, not just simply passing along information, is especially critical when parties are grappling with psychologically charged issues related to loss, change and uncertainty and/or conflict-laden cultural climates, e.g., employees who have gone through major reorg or RIF (Reduction in Force) and are wondering about if not waiting for the next “frightsizing” axe to fall.
With this in mind, as a writer and speaker, increasingly I provide an audience with concise psychological and communication concepts and tools – from aphorisms and acronyms to pithy poetic pearls – with a verbal (and sometimes visual-theatrical) design that, hopefully, makes them easy to use and hard to forget. In an increasingly “do more with less,” hyperactive-distracted-overextended and over-cluttered mind-field, the ability to create “sententious” messages, messages “full of significance (and style) and expressed tersely” becomes a vital art form.
Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence
For example, try these two communicational techniques to trump a knee-jerk “reaction” with a firm yet flexibly focused “response”:
1. Differentiate Blaming “You” vs. Responsible “I” Messages. “You’re always late,” “What’s your problem?” or “You made us look bad.” “You” messages not only assign blame or are judgmental and often global (e.g., “You never”), but they deny any responsibility on the part of the person making those “acc-you-sations.” (And naturally, a “chronic acc-you-ser” risks becoming a blameaholic!) Actually, even worse, these accusing “You”s often facilitate a transfusion of power: the “acc-you-ser” is increasingly becoming a puppet and is enabling the so-called antagonist to pull all the strings.
So, instead of “You’re making me mad” or “It’s your fault,” how about, “I don’t like what’s going on between us. Here’s what I don’t appreciate (or) this is what has me frustrated, concerned, uncomfortable, etc.” Then specifically, clearly and concisely state your “I”-message concern, e.g., “I prefer being asked or questioned about my reasons for doing XYZ rather than being confronted by assumptions. I need for us to talk about what’s going on!”
The shift from blaming or judging involves: a) asserting one’s own beliefs and perspective and, when necessary, firmly yet respectfully setting limits on the use of “You”-message fault-finding, b) setting boundaries on a party not respecting one’s physical or psychological space, c) evolving a perspective that is less focused on the other person’s “faults” (that is, an intrapersonal position) and more concerned with developing an interpersonal, “How are we together generating this situation and what can we do about it?” problem-solving approach, and d) acknowledging and taking responsibility for one’s actions and feelings by using “I”-messages, including stating likes and dislikes, and concerns and irritations.
Such an emotional-communicational shift means being authentically “self”-centered in contrast to being narcissistically ego-driven. Remember, a healthy “I”-communicator strives for real and respectful, responsible and responsive give and take between the parties. (Email for my article “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating.”) The narcissist invariably sees life through a “black or white” or a “right or wrong” lens, though these may even have rose-colored tinting. This personality inevitably needs to be in a “one-up” or “in control” position. And when the surprisingly sensitive narcissist feels his or her hurt is triggered by an alleged provocateur, then launching the old blamethrower is excusable, if not perfectly justified.
Quickly Bringing the Impact of “You” vs “I” to Life
Of course, a “blameholic” can consciously or not try to disguise weakness or immaturity with a Mr. Bluster mask and manner. Still, the difference between affirming “I” responses and offensively defensive “You” reactions is transparent. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)?
The consistent group facial expressions (and occasional gasps) when an audience member helps me act out this contrasting two-word scenario reveals the verbal and emotional impact. And quick analysis is illuminating: “You’re wrong” no longer is dealing with the specific issue but is actually dismissive of the other individual. In contrast, “I disagree” is predicated on the other’s position or points of argument, that is, the “I”-response is respectfully problem-focused while a “You”-reaction is often judgmental and personality-driven.
Finally, I believe a reactive “You” message tends to be one-sided, driven by “right or wrong” presumptions: “all head” (e.g., a coldly intellectual remark or a rejoinder dripping with scarcasm, e.g., “I’m just sure you could not have done anything else?”) or “all heart” (e.g., a wounded or weepy, “feel sorry for me,” outburst or lament). In contrast, a “responsive” “I”-message combines both “head and heart.” An “I” perspective typically attempts to perceive, understand and integrate multiple perspectives, that is, tries to construct a meaningful assessment of one’s own along with the other’s deeds, needs and intentions. And next is another memorable technique for achieving this integration.
2. Consider a “Reflective and Responsive” Mantra. The standard advice when you’ve “had it up to here” with someone and want to verbally explode or simply lash out is, of course, “Count to ten.” And while I see some merit, for me the cautionary counsel falls a bit short. In the heat of battle, if thrown off guard, I can just imagine myself methodically counting, “1-2-3-4,” then suddenly shifting gears, flying through 5 through 9, and at “10” blurting out, “You bozo!” (Even the Stress Doc is susceptible to that “You”-ruption every once in awhile; though the words of French novelist Andre Gide from his book, The Immoralist, often helps me silently, if not serenely, place people and positions in perspective: One must allow others to be right; it consoles them for not being anything else!)
Actually, to be less reactive, all you need is some of those well-developed multi-tasking skills to transform the old saw into a new aphorism. (As an aside, while the younger generation is particularly adept at multi-tasking, I suspect folks of any age who primarily hyper-speed through life may have some initial difficulty being personally reflective and psychosocially attentive.) Anyway…my poetic mantra: Count to ten and check within. That is, while you are counting (and centering yourself or trying to calm) down, ask one or more of these questions, which may also slow the countdown: “What am I feeling right now?” Am I attributing all my hurt or anger to “the other”; am I about to vent with a blaming “You”? Is it possible that some of my outrage reveals that my own “hot button” or emotional baggage issues have been pushed, triggered or stirred? Am I confronting my” Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure?”
Here’s an example of a self-inventory process, though, admittedly, one several years in the making. A heated exchange followed by quiet discussion enabled my partner to finally realize that my behavior was not equivalent to the immature actions of her ex; my actions were not really firing up her emotional cauldron. It was her own low boiling point, worn down by an erosive and divisive marriage, helping to trigger her impatience and anger with her present partner. (Though, of course, I certainly bring some of my own stuff to our intimate interaction.) The real “hot button” was her self-regret, shame and rage for not being strong enough to leave sooner a mostly dysfunctional “thirty year” relationship. And when this “separation/being on my own” fear constricted her options, there were some irreparable consequences for the children, the adults, and the family as a whole. However, having the courage to face your sadness and remorse softens the anger and rage that otherwise turns inward and/or gets acted out onto others. And this deeper awareness should help our interaction be less defensive and reactive.
After completing this rapid internal audit, if still confused or frustrated while in the heat of battle, then build upon the mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without! Alas, my poetic addition may be a tad ambiguous. So let’s clarify some possible interpretations of check without:
a) check outside yourself; ask the other to clarify his or her message, e.g., “I’m not clear about what I’m hearing”;
b) check or set limits on a hostile communicator, e.g., “I don’t mind feedback, even critical feedback, but hostility and condescension are not acceptable! Let’s try again,”
c) check in with an open mind, that is, without bias, making every effort to consciously suspend your assumptions and prejudgments; e.g., “I must admit I’m not neutral in this matter, but I will attempt to listen with an open and objective mind.”
If issues remain troubling upon “checking within and without,” remember, you may momentarily retreat yet still be palpably real and paradoxically present. You may check out to check in: “I’m way angry right now, and don’t want to put my foot in my mouth (or your butt). I’m not running out; I’m taking a time out. I want to think about this, and I will get back to you first thing in the morning. From my perspective, we are not finished.” Clearly, strategic-reflective retreating is not giving up but stepping back in order to cool down, lick wounds, reevaluate, perhaps talk with a “stress buddy,” integrate head and heart, gain new perspective and strategy, and then responsibly reengage. (Of course, there are times, especially in the instance of child abuse, when an aggressor-predator-enabler has clearly earned “You”-focused confrontation, condemnation and, if warranted, incarceration. For example, see Penn State’s and Syracuse University’s potential criminal scandals and cover-ups.)
Hopefully, you now have two new, quick application tools for bridging the communication divide and for helping all parties…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)