Leadership Coach * Cultural Consultant * Speaker
Thank you for visiting our website. In early July, we will move to our new site with a new name with rich content to develop your leadership.
If you would like information about our new leadership site, please write to us on the contact page or call us at 206-374-7446. Thank you
Edree Allen-Agbro
Behavioral science“technologists” have been using such concepts as encoding, decoding, transmitting and “noise” to explain human communication for several decades. This model may be familiar to you. It views communication as a linear act. It states that communication begins with an intention, encoded into a message by a sender, decoded by the receiver. What the receiver decodes produces a result–a reaction or response.
This model is useful in understanding how easy it is for humans to miscommunicate. Humans communicate primarily through words and non-verbal actions. The entire process is filled with filters of perception, interpretation and reactions based on memories. Not to mention individual and cultural differences in meanings surrounding the words—as well as entirely different language systems.
This linear model has it’s limitations. We will explore other models in future posts. However, it can very useful for technology engineers, developers, testers and managers to better understand how easy and common it is to misunderstand each other. It is also a useful tool for self-awareness and self-leadership.
Application Exercise:
Think of a recent communication (f2f or electronic) where you misunderstood someone or they didn’t “get” what you were attempting to convey. Think about what your intentions were—what you meant to encode into your communication. Now, remember what results you got. Here are three steps that may help you have a better result next time:
1. Imagine what filters (personality, culture, values belief systems, history) may have influence them to “hear” something different than you meant.
2. Even better, with a genuine curiosity, non- defensively asked them what they thought you meant by what you said/wrote. (Yes, some call this paraphrasing.)
You may be amazed how often we humans leave a conversation as if each person was in a different conversation. I’m interested in your thoughts and experience with the exercise.
Today I attended a great early morning training entitled True Lies: Five Ways to Get Real About Landing Large Accounts. It focused on getting rid of the myths about small companies doing business with large companies.
The four panelists and moderator reminded us to be willing to develop relationships in a long-term process; find out why the customer is buying and what they truly need; and to be willing to negotiate through conversation. The expert details of their rich content made these familiar ideas come alive and I was completely in learner mode. Yet, I was brought briefly into “expert” mode when the moderator called on me for a “sound byte” about how negotiation is traditionally thought of in this country.
“As a battle,” I replied. “That’s the code.”
Jeanette Nyden, one of the three panelists and a lawyer who helps business people make better deals at the bargaining table, echoed my sentiments by re-emphasizing the importance of building relationships—which is the opposite of declaring war on each other.
Right now on my bookshelf, I have a copy of Guerrilla Marketing for Consultants. There is a lot of good stuff in there. Ironically, much of it is about building relationships and trust. My point is that mixed metaphors confuse our brains and our behavior. I have personally felt the sting of “relationship” marketing that felt like I was a “target.”
Please share your thoughts and experiences on this one.
If you are in the greater Seattle area, check out the True Lies Full Day Conference on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at the World Trade Center, Seattle. It will be co-presented by J. Nyden and Company, Tsuluwerks and Performa Business Development.
A while back, a company brought me in to facilitate a dialogue. They were very concerned about a conflict that had been brewing literally for several years. It finally reached a peak and could no longer be ignored. It was not going to go away. It was only getting worse.
So I worked with the sponsor and the committee to clarify the issue, the needs and the goals. My strategy for guiding clients through conflict to cooperation combines self-reflection (the waking up element), skills development as well as the actual conversation(s).
I met separately with each group. The students on one hand and the staff and faculty on the other. During the periods of self-reflection, it became clear to the students that although they were said they wanted dialogue, deep down inside they wanted to win—to “nail” the faculty and staff by blaming them and showing them how “wrong” they were.
The faculty and staff also had a chance to privately uncover their own “deeply hidden agendas.” They realized that one of the reasons they had put off the conversation for so long was because they were afraid they would be “attacked” by the students. They were afraid of being labeled and ostracized as prejudiced and bad.
Both sides were asking for dialogue. Both sides had been preparing for verbal war. They realized they needed true dialogue. What they were initially planning for, unconsciously, was a fierce debate.
Co-Authored by Edree Allen-Agbro. Learn More…
My Network Profiles