"Communication" is often listed as a vital skill for managers. Yet, the subject can be quite mysterious.
One of the best books I have read on communication is by Hugh Mackay. The book was originally called Why Don't People Listen? and later called, The Good Listener.
The context Mackay uses to set the importance of the subject is that humans are a herd animal. We belong in communities and we thrive on relationships. We have a need to communicate.
So, as humans we place emphasis on the quality of relationships and we pay attention to the life in our herds: our families, our community groups, our work groups and our clients.
There would be general agreement that we don't communicate well enough with each other. We often run into communication breakdowns. The common complaints about relationships are:
- we are not taken seriously enough
- other people don't pay enough attention to what we say, and
- we are not understood.
One of Hugh Mackay's key propositions is that in the communication relationship, the speaker has as much of the challenge as the listener.
To solve some of the puzzles, and in Hugh Mackay's question about "why don't people listen", we need to know that people:
- only pay attention to things that directly affect them
- only pay attention to things relevant to them
- and even when they do listen, they will be listening to everything in their own way
People are not blank slates. People come to the relationship, and to the communication, with a bag of attitudes, prejudices, experience and feelings.
The person you are talking to is active, not passive, even when they are listening. No wonder, that unless we make the relevance of our message obvious, people won't really hear it.
Communication is also part of the whole relationship we have with the other party. We don't just inject the communication as a transaction.
It might be attractive to think of communication as an injection. We might just want people to automatically understand what we are saying. We might want people to resolve conflicts by accepting our point of view. But communication is not that simple.
Oscar Wild, upon being asked by a friend how the opening night of his new play went, apparently replied: "the play was a success, the audience a failure".
You see, people always make up their own meanings for the things we say to them. Misunderstandings arise from:
- the messages we send to each other
- the ideas in our minds which we are trying to express (the intended meaning)
- ideas in the minds of our listeners which they draw upon to make sense of what we say to them (the interpreted meaning)
Take for example a political speech.
Say John Howard/Tony Blair/George Bush makes a speech on terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and his preparedness to engage in war. We all hear the same words. Do we take away the same message? Do we all listen with the same outcome? Clearly, no!
Meaning is not in the language. Meaning is in the minds of people and their interpretation they attach to the language.
Communication is like an empty cup. When I talk to you, you have to put the meaning into what I say, and then we have to check whether our two meanings are common. Are we on the same wavelength?
Take for instance a work situation where a team member is having a distracting effect on the operation of the team. The manager wants to let the person know they are limiting the effectiveness of the team. What dimensions come onto play for the manager to communicate clearly their meaning? Yes, there will be dimensions like:
- the two people have an existing relationship. They have worked together for some time.
- The manager appointed the person to their role, so they have the manager's support.
- The manager knows the person and their personality.
- Its going to be easy to miss each other's meaning. The manager will need to be clear.
- The manager needs to make it relevant.
- The manager needs to make the communication timely.
Hugh Mackay reports on a study from the University of Washington where researchers were testing some of the ways in which our recollection of events can be distorted by expectations created within us. People were shown a number of different films of traffic accidents and were then asked to answer questions about each accident. Those who were asked the question, "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" gave higher estimates of the cars' speed than those who were asked the same question, only with the word "smashed" replaced by words like "collided", "bumped", "contacted" or "hit". The experimenters reported that estimates of the speed of cars involved in the accidents were almost 10 miles per hour higher when the question used the word "smashed" rather than "contacted".
Even though participants in the experiment had seen the film themselves, the way in which they were subsequently invited to describe it affected the description they gave. Meaning was affected by expectations.
This question of the meaning we create is very important. We create this meaning from our world, and from our experience and our memories.
Hugh Mackay uses the metaphor of a cage. We construct a personal cage around ourselves. The "bars" of the cage is what life has taught us. Our knowledge, our beliefs, our culture, our way of coping with the world. It's our storehouse of meaning, from which we make sense of what people say to us.
The cage is also our filter of interpretation. We look at the world through our cage.
We are like animals in a zoo. The bars of the cage are part of what they see. We see the world through our lens, through our experiences
We can also strengthen our cage. People with strong beliefs have their beliefs strengthened by what they see happening around them. We tend to look at the world in a way that reinforces those conclusions. From children to adulthood we are having our cage shaped.
There are two parts to effective communication. The first is the role of the speaker, and then second is the art of listening.
First, let's talk about the speaker, probably the most critical part. If people don't listen, it's probably due to the insensitivity, or lack of thought, on the part of the speaker. To put a framework around effective communication, Hugh Mackay writes that there are three Rs of communication:
Reinforcement
Communication comes easily when a message already supports what the other person believes.
The curious thing about reinforcement is that when people's attitudes are attacked full-on, they are likely to defend those attitudes and in the process reinforce them.
Take for instance the Iraqi war. Within the first few days when war was foreshadowed, most of us would have formed an opinion. After that, any communication reinforced the view we now had.
Strong belief systems are particularly important for our industry. Specialists and professionals have strong cages, or strong belief systems. Engineers, scientists, architects, lawyers, accountants, doctors, and HR professionals.
We need to be aware, that most messages have a reinforcing effect, whether that effect is intended or not.
For example, there was a graduate called Chris. Chris really wanted to change roles. She was getting pretty tired of the same routine and knew that for her career she really need to get experience with upstream water in addition to the three years she had of downstream water. Chris was sending messages to her manager that were not being picked up. On one occasion she said, "At some stage I will be looking for change of role to broaden my experience".
Soon after, an opportunity in upstream water came up and the manager thinks of Chris. The manager then discarded Chris because he thought, "Chris mentioned that she is not yet ready". What Chris said, was "at some stage" she would be interested. What did Chris mean and what meaning did the manager take? It depends on the manager's cage. The manager's cage is also constructed around utilisation. Soon after this interaction, Chris resigned and left to join another company to get the experience she wanted. Truly I think the manager did not pick up the seriousness of the message Chris was meaning to give. The manager was listening in the manager's terms and according to the manager's issues, and not according to Chris's perspective of the situation.
There are road signs that say, "Slow vehicles use left lane". Of course, not many drivers consider themselves "slow drivers". The more effective signs now more often in use are "keep left unless overtaking".
When people appear not to listen, the likely explanation is that although they hear what we say, they are interpreting it in their own way.
The cage defines the framework within which we communicate with another person. If we do not use the listener's cage as a reference point for our message, we are unlikely to be listened to.
Relevance
The second "R" is relevance. We need to explore the cage of our listeners. What are they thinking about? What is relevant to them?
Take as an example a job interview. For most of you in the room, it's probably a long time since you have been on the applicant side of the job interview. So, your cages are rusty. There's a trap in a job interview. Let's say the candidate is extremely well qualified to do the job and would do a fine job. However, let's say that the candidate chooses to talk about things which are not relevant to the interviewing manager. The manager finishes the interview thinking the person will not be a good hire. The manager didn't think about the topics and didn't steer the conversation enough. The manager rejects the person on impressions formed without doing justice to the person and what they could really offer.
Why will people listen? When it's relevant:
- they will be attentive if the message is about them
- they will listen when there are implications for them
- they will be involved when it relates to their circumstances
So, people pay most attention to messages which are relevant to their own circumstances and point of view.
Talk to me about my own concerns and you will have my attention. And make sure you tell me if your message is about me, my concerns, my dreams and my problems.
Relationship
The third "R" is relationship.
How will we know what is relevant? How do we get inside the other person's cage? If we have a relationship with them.
In the early stages of communication we put more emphasis on building relationships:
- we try out messages
- we see what strikes a chord
- we take a few risks, we look for reactions
- we read early responses carefully
- we ask the other person to nominate their preferences
Effective communication is about being on common ground with the other person.
Communication evolves. It is rarely a one-off event. It is part of a relationship.
For us to be open to the idea of communication with another person, we must feel as though our cages are safe. That we can trust the other person to respect the integrity of our view. That we secure in our interaction.
Listeners generally interpret messages in ways which make the listener feel comfortable and secure.
If we are secure, then even messages that might otherwise be unwelcome may be "taken on board".
For example, in our communication with staff, we have relationship. If that relationship is secure and robust for both parties, then we are able to freely communicate. If the person has a secure relationship with the manager, they will be receptive to feedback from the manager. One day you are at a meeting with a client and a staff member is with you. During the meeting, the staff member says something inappropriate. You come out of the meeting and want to give the person some helpful feedback.
If you and the person feel secure with each other, then you will find this fairly easy. Your words will reflect your comfort. Perhaps you will be start with: "Dale, there was one part of the meeting there I thought you could have handled better." You will be able to have an open discussion. In the cage (the mind) of the employee, they will be thinking: "gee, this is helpful coaching that I will learn from. Yes, I should have done that better".
If you don't have a secure relationship with the person, then you will (or should be) more careful. Because the person will be thinking: here we go again. "Being picked-on by my manager".
Insecurity is the great enemy of communication.
We need to build security into relationships. One useful strategy is to aim to keep each relationship alive. To regard each encounter as a stepping stone to the next encounter. If we do this, we will make it easier to communicate again when next we meet.
So, communication has two aims. First, the specific communication this time, and second, to keep the channel between us more open, more comfortable and more secure.
Let's say an employee comes to you with an idea. In their cage, they obviously feel good about the idea, otherwise they would not come to you with it. Let's say you think the idea is pretty silly. What do you do? You are not just dealing with this idea, you are affecting the relationship and the openness of the following communication with this person. If you react negatively, arrogantly and dismissively, then that will impact your future contact with that person.
You need to keep the communication flame burning. The great blockers to communication are argument, intimidation, insensitivity, or indifference. They erode the other person's confidence and reduce their sense of security, making it harder to communicate next time. People will avoid you, because they are avoiding the communication.
How do people feel after an interaction with us? Do they feel enthused for the next interaction?
Take care of the impact you have on people around you with your interactions with them. Keep the flame burning, the communication gates open.
People who feel insecure in a relationship are unlikely to be good listeners.
Being sensitive and responsive to other people's cages does not mean we have to agree with them. It means respecting their identity.
So, why don't people listen? It's got a large amount to do with the speaker. Are you considering the other person, their experiences, their cage and the meaning they attach to you and your words?
Listening
So, we have covered the role of the speaker. The other side of the coin is the listener.
There is a difference between listening and merely hearing.
Hearing is physical. It's a process and is passive.
Listening is active, its alert and its focussed. It's involved. Listening is an act of commitment. You would have heard of the difference between involvement and commitment. In the making of a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is involved, the pig is committed.
Listening is a commitment and should look as though it's a commitment. A good listener is alert, attentive, with eye contact.
Listening involves courage. It often takes courage to seriously entertain the ideas of the other person. When we really listen, we risk having to change our minds in response to what we hear. It may challenge our own cage. We make ourselves vulnerable. When we really listen, we risk finding that we are wrong. We move outside the comfort of our cage.
To truly listen is to give a great gift to the other person. You are saying, "I am prepared to put my own interests on hold, I am putting you first, and I am going to entertain your ideas".
That's listening.
Here's a barometer. If you are not feeling suspense when interacting with people, if you don't feel vulnerable, then you are probably not committing to listening to other people. You should be evaluating your own cage, and suspend judgement.
In effect, what we need to do is try the other person's coat on. Don't jump to a conclusion that the coat won't fit. Go and try it on. Only upon trying it on, can we accept or reject what is being said, and whether we incorporate it into our own set of opinions.
Generosity
Listening properly is an act of generosity. It is a gift of taking the other person seriously. Of being understood. Genuinely entertaining their ideas means joining with the other person on the task of concentrating on their point of view, their opinions, and their attitudes.
In effect, you are saying: "I can think about myself and my point of view at any time, just for now I am going to think about you and your views".
It is a key management skill to demonstrate to your staff that you are taking them seriously, you treat them as a person to be taken seriously with thoughts worth expressing.
Think of a child. Intuitively the child knows and is hurt when an adult fails to listen in an attentive, non-judgemental, patient way. When a child is pushed-off, they feel rejected as a person.
And so do we. The manager who is a poor listener is saying to their staff: "I don't regard you seriously enough to attend closely to what you are saying".
Patience
We need to listen with patience. Impatience is:
- people answering questions before the question is fully asked
- responding before the person has finished making the point
- leaping into a conversation
We need to hear people out. We need to discuss with them what they are saying. We need patience to let them make the point before we make our judgments. We need to operate in the other's frame of reference, at least for the time being.
I am going to concentrate on what you are saying until I am sure I have grasped it and tried it out. Then and only then can I respond.
Some things get in the way of our true listening.
Trigger words
Trigger words are a trap to communication. "Trigger" words are words that evoke such a strong emotional reaction that we are likely to lose the thread of what is being said and retreat into our own thoughts. Everyone has their own trigger words.
Listen to this list of words, and assess your reaction:
Weapons of mass destruction
Immigration
Border protection
Writeoffs
Head office
Merit pay
They are words that set off an emotional trigger and a chain reaction in your own mind. It tries your patience as a listener. If the person talking to you happens to use a trigger word (without even realising it), you have to fight your natural urge to release yourself in your response. You watch for when you are communicating an idea with someone, and from their reaction you say to yourself, "whoa, where did that reaction come from?" You probably hit a nerve, or a trigger word.
A few years ago when we were designing the remuneration system the concept of "merit pay" was a lightning rod for emotions. That's not a right or wrong thing, just that people had strong views either way. Strong views based on their prior experience.
There's a basic issue that happens with communication. We have the mental capacity to think at a faster rate than most people will speak to us. I might talk at 125 words per minute. You can think at around 500 words per minute. So, you are thinking at 3-4 things at once, with a range of things competing for attention with what we hear.
There is a big pay back for people who are good listeners.
People are more likely to listen to us if we also listen to them.
If we explore their cage, then they might explore ours. Also, once we get access to their cage, we find it easier to understand them. We are more likely to communicate effectively.
Our reward for listening is that over time, we find when we speak, others listen. Because the messages created out of an understanding of another's cage are bound to be more sensitive to that person and will be harder for that person to ignore.
Once you begin to listen, you will be amazed at what you learn.
There are a few tricks of the trade of good listeners:
- They receive the message before they react to it. They suspend judgement. They allow comprehension to occur first. They seek understanding. You need to be like a sports umpire. Don't blow the whistle too early, and suspend judgement until you are sure the player really takes the mark, is offside, or really scores the goal.
- They resist the distraction of trigger words. They treat messages as thought they fit our cage.
- They ask themselves, what can I do about this? They seek to find relevance, and make the message more interesting by thinking about "what they can do with this"? "What are the possibilities here?"
- They work hard at listening. They practice it.
- They pay attention to making the listening act more complex, which keeps their mind on the job. They observe all the messages. They fill their minds with listening. They focus on the speaker's intentions – what are the feelings and ideas behind what is being said.
- They try to empathise with the speaker. They try to feel what the speaker feels. They match the energy level of the other person. They are prepared to give themselves to the journey.
- They reflect what they have heard. They prove that listening has taken place. They reflect the main themes, not simply restate. They might say: "let me see if I have that straight...?" Or, "how did you feel at that point?" They test understanding through their inquiries. Good listeners reflect meaning and feeling.
So, let's recap.
I have shared with you some concepts to help understand the dynamics of communication, so as to assist you in reflecting on the subject and for you to assist others in becoming more effective at communicating.
As speakers, how do we get people to listen? To make messages relevant, we need to understand a person's cage. We become more aware of the other person's frame of reference and the meaning they might attach to our words. We make the relationship secure so that communication can take place.
As the listener, we pay attention, we suspend judgement, and we are generous in respecting their views and feelings.
And "hey presto", as good listeners, we also are listened to.
As managers who communicate well, we become more effective in our roles. We become better people to work for. We become more energising to people who feel more valued and respected, and we also gain from their ideas and their preparedness to communicate with us.
