Sunday, 20 of May of 2012

Archives from month » February, 2012

Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

An acknowledgement is usually a short utterance, statement, phrase, question or gesture. It lets the other person know we are listening, paying attention and interested while remaining non-judgmental. It avoids a conversation from being a monologue especially when the other person is doing most of the talking. Indirectly, it can direct conversations by emphasizing points of interest.

Some examples of acknowledgements include:

  • Single words such as “Yes/No,” “Sure,” “Certainly,” “Amazing!” “Gee!” and “Yeah!”
  • Short phrases or sentences such as “I see,” “I agree,” “That’s amazing,” “I understand,” and “That’s interesting.”
  • Short questions such as “Really?” “Why not?” “Are you joking?”
  • Utterances in the form of sounds such as “Hmm,” “Uh-huh,” exclamation tone in voice, and laughs or chuckles
  • Gestures such as nodding of head, raised or squinting eyebrows, smile or other looks expressing our mood, making direct eye contact on a specific point, moving or leaning forward, and looking at a nearby document that is being referenced

From a relational perspective, acknowledgements convey the feeling that you are:

  • Engaged in the interaction
  • Listening and digesting
  • Perceiving value
  • Complimenting the other person

The effect of the acknowledgement is to:

  • Encourage further comments
  • Lower barriers and increase trust
  • Subtly move the other person to topics you find of interest

Acknowledgements effectively build relationships when integrated with other techniques.  They encourage a more casual, interactive, directed and friendly conversation. By demonstrating that you’re acknowledging what others say; you convey that you’re listening too.

 

Other posts in this series:

 


Culture, Relationships Trump Vision, Strategy, Process

Businesses spend much money on developing their visions, strategies and processes; however, they spend relatively little on culture, which trumps all of the others. Megan McArdle discusses her observations of General Motors and others in “Why Companies Fail,” appearing in the March 2012 issue of The Atlantic.

When we talk about vision, strategy and process, they are very much head concepts as opposed to heart ones. For example, they don’t concern themselves much with the relationships that employees have between one another or even the relationships that the management team has with employees. The simplest relational techniques are rarely connected to these heady concepts when, in fact, it’s relationships that drive the cohesion and morale of any organization.

Unless we touch our employees on their emotional foundation, vision, strategy and process will fall far short of their intended success. This perspective transforms leadership into more of an emotional function from a rational one.  This perspective also helps us understand why common business tools such as incentives and processes can retard our efforts to build relationships and effect change.

Using a farming analogy, it doesn’t matter what vision, strategy and processes we use; if the soil isn’t good, we will struggle. In business, the soil is the relationship between the management team and employees. It forms the foundation of a company’s culture. If that team can’t develop effect relationships or isn’t motivated to even use simple relationship building techniques, then how can we expect it to implement great visions, strategies and processes?

 

Related post: Great Strategy? Don’t Neglect Culture

 


Real-time Personality Assessment: Freedom-Order Duality

The Freedom-Order duality expresses a dimension of our personality involved in interpreting how we balance freedom and order. It can help us – in real time – understand, appreciate and predict better the reactions of others to such things as processes, decision-making, management, customer service, change and organization.

However, all of this is arbitrary, subjective, meaning different people are comfortable with different levels of freedom and order. To some freedom is chaos because it seems anyone can do whatever he wants. To others order is slavery because there is someone or a rule telling her what to do. Therefore, since there are no absolute states for either, you can be the benchmark as the figure shows. This allows you to assess whether people are more freedom-oriented or order-oriented than you are by the feelings and thoughts they trigger in you.

 

Freedom-Order Duality

 

For instance, more freedom-oriented people might make you feel they are:

  • “Wild cards”
  • Unpredictable
  • Emotional
  • Spontaneous
  • Dynamic
  • Unfocused
  • Disorganized
  • Unprepared
  • Winging it
  • Scattered
  • Undirected
  • Flashy

You might also notice they tend to use words such as these:

  • Flexible
  • Tolerance
  • Independent
  • Different
  • Adaptable
  • Unlimited
  • Dynamic
  • Customize
  • Diverse
  • Free hand
  • Openness
  • Deviate

By contrast, more order-oriented people might make you feel they are:

  • Structured
  • Uptight
  • Controlling
  • Domineering
  • Inflexible
  • Unimaginative
  • Micromanaging
  • Analytical
  • Narrow-minded
  • Detailed
  • “By the book”
  • Rule fanatics

Similarly, you might find them using words such as:

  • Structure
  • Process
  • System
  • Arrange
  • Classify
  • Control
  • Accountable
  • Quantify
  • Collate
  • Distribute
  • Manage
  • Discipline

In our daily business lives, this means adding process and procedures to those who are more freedom-oriented than we are might stir anxious feelings about becoming nothing more than an automaton. Conversely, more flexibility and options to more order-oriented people might trigger anxious feelings about what is the right thing to do.

Once we are sensitive to this, we can better position the change by adapting immediately to what we observe in others. To the freedom-oriented people, we will need to reassure the flexibility of adding their own dimension, and to order-oriented people reassuring clear definitions of their duties will exist. In essence, we personalize our approach and words to by appreciating people and their needs better.

 


Reinvent the Wheel & Prosper!

How many times have you heard, “Don’t reinvent the wheel”? Why is it then that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued over 30,000 wheel patents since 1790? Moreover, as patent attorney, Lawrence Ebert, indicates, they’re approving about three hundred new ones a year. However, even Lawrence doesn’t tell the whole story.

You see, he only quoted figures from Patent Class 295 (Railway Wheels and Axles) and Class 301 (Land Vehicles: Wheels & Axles). He didn’t include wheels from Class D21 (Games, Toys, and Sports Equipment) which includes the following:

  • Subclass 375: Roulette wheels
  • Subclass 175-177: Steering wheels
  • Subclass 204-213: Toy wheels
  • Subclass 458: Pinwheel
  • Subclass 477: Toys with steering wheels
  • Subclass 543: Paddle wheels
  • Subclass 779: Skating wheels for roller skates and skateboards
  • Subclass 667: Fly Wheels
  • Subclass 763: Rollers
  • Subclass 563: Wheels for toy vehicles
  • Subclass 829: Ferris wheel

Furthermore, he didn’t include Class 472 which contains crank wheels such as those powering our bicycles. He also didn’t include pulleys which fall under Class 474 and various kinds of tires (Class 152) and wheels that fit around other wheels (Class D12)

Now, just imagine if no one “reinvented the wheel.” We wouldn’t have all these wonderful wheels not to mention many folks wouldn’t have jobs and businesses. In short, many people wouldn’t be making the money they’re making now. Technological advancement has come because we like to reinvent things, always making them better and more adaptable to a need.

So, when people say, “Don’t reinvent the wheel,” take them up on the challenge and show them how you can make the “wheel” better and more profitable. Don’t let their lack of creativity chain your creativity and innovativeness to the ground.

 


Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur to build relationships.

A pause is usually a short, silent break in an interaction of about ten seconds or less. However, it requires discipline to stay quiet, especially if you’re waiting for an answer or a reaction. Pauses give others thinking time, encourage others to talk and fill silence, and slow down a conversation to temper negative emotions.

We employ pauses by suggesting others take their time, asking for “a moment to think,” looking upward or to the side before responding, and incorporating thinking gestures such as:

  • Connecting finger tips of both hands
  • Hand to the chin
  • A couple fingers over mouth
  • Clasping hands

Some examples of pauses include:

  • Silence before responding
  • Asking, “Do you mind if I think about this a moment?”
  • Allowing the listener time to think after asking a question

From a relational perspective, pauses convey the feeling that you are:

  • Thoughtful, not thinking off the cuff
  • Deliberate in decision making
  • Not reciting some canned response or talk
  • Patient in waiting for a response
  • Not fearful of silence
  • Willing to give others a quiet “space” to think

The effect of the pause is to encourage people to:

  • Open up as they attempt to fill the quietness
  • Cool down from heated remarks (good conflict management technique)
  • Share more because you are giving thought to conversation

As simple as pauses seem, they are effective relationship buildings when integrated with other techniques.  They encourage a more casual and friendly conversation. By demonstrating that you’re thinking about what others say; you convey that you’re listening too.

 

Other posts in this series:

 


YinYang as Problem-solving Methodology

Taijitu

YinYang, as expressed by the Taijitu symbol, has helped me solve many problems. The two major components represent the two major opposing forces in any event. The smaller part of each in the other represents the interplay between the two.

I have extracted five principles from YinYang that have helped me. In short, optimal solutions will:

  1. Have opposing forces (i.e. ideas, emotions, things) at work
  2. Not choose one force over the other
  3. Balance and integrate the two forces
  4. Have one force as dominant and the other supportive
  5. Vary by situation

For example, let’s consider the problem of how much to water a plant. Two forces exist, dryness and wetness (#1). If we choose dryness over wetness by never watering the plant, it will die. If we choose wetness over dryness by constantly watering the plant, the plant will die (#2). Thus, we need to integrate the two and find the right balance between watering and drying (#3). In this balance, the plant’s soil will be mainly dry or wet (#4). This balance varies by plant (#5, i.e. cacti versus willows).

In business, we often view these as tradeoffs such as processes versus flexibility, positive versus negative reinforcements, best practices versus differentiation, focus versus situational awareness, change versus resistance, profits versus investments, and glass half-full versus half-empty. However, tradeoffs encourage the temptation to choose one over the other; it’s really about integrating the two (#4).

Many times, it’s difficult to identify the opposing force. So, I ask myself this question:

If I take an obvious solution to the extreme, what would happen?

For example, too much process makes everything bureaucratic. Too much importance on profits retards investments. Once accomplished, we can begin balancing the two to arrive at an optimal solution for the situation at hand.

 


Technique: Power of Names in Emails

People’s names are extremely powerful. Every day, opportunities to use names present themselves, but we don’t seize them. Names in emails, even the shortest ones, allow us to personify them, giving them personality. Just as people find pictures and news articles about people more interesting, the same holds true for emails.

For example, rather than send an email like this:

Can you meet me today at noon?

We can personify it this way:

Joan,

Can you meet me today at noon?

Linda

Thus, a generic email from by anybody to anybody becomes personal. Moreover, rather than use a formal address and closing, we can alter it by writing:

  • Joan, can you meet me today at noon? ~Linda
  • Can you meet me today at noon, Joan? ~Linda
  • Can you, Joan, meet me today at noon? ~Linda

In these examples, we used the person’s name in the beginning, end and middle of the question. We can employ the same strategy longer emails:

I’m thinking about going out for lunch today. Can you meet me today, Joan, if I do? It would be great to see you.

Linda

We can also use their names more than once by combining the techniques above:

Joan,

I’m thinking about going out for lunch today. Can you meet me today, if I do? It would be great to see you.

I want to share a project I’m working. Joan, I really feel you might be able to help. If so, I’d like to introduce you to my manager.

Please let me know,

Linda

People aren’t light switches, so we can’t expect this to work instantaneously. Nevertheless, if we employ regularly and integrate with other techniques, we will accelerate better relationships and responses to requests over the long run.

 


Euphemisms: Preferring Illusions to Reality

Words have power, not only in their definitions but also, more importantly, in their connotations. The article, “Making Murder Respectable,” from the December 17, 2011 edition of The Economist talks about an example of this power, euphemisms: “a mixture of abstraction, metaphor, slang and understatement that offers protection against the offensive, harsh or blunt.” They’re used across cultures.

In other words, euphemisms sugar coat reality and confirm in many cases the powerful scene from the movie A Few Good Men in which Jack Nicholson, playing Colonel Nathan Jessup, tells Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise, “You can’t handle the truth.” As the article concludes, “A culture without euphemism would be more honest, but rougher.”

Often, we desire to believe our illusions because they allow us a convenient excuse to avoid action. For example, knowing a condition is undesirable forces us to address the question: Why don’t we take action to correct (cognitive dissonance)? This is a downside of believing our glass is half full.

Additionally, knowing our preference to live with our illusions, we expose ourselves to manipulation as George Orwell conveyed in his book, 1984. In it, the Ministry of Truth was responsible for fabricating history for public consumption; the Ministry of Love tortured criminals. In 1949 the United States renamed its War Department to the Defense Department. In business, we see the extension of euphemisms in the form of vanilla words, names of food, compensation plans and labels.

However, many times euphemisms permit sensitivities. For example, we say “passed” rather than “dead.” So, perhaps our illusions are reality because the reality is we cannot live without them.

Don’t believe it? See what happens when you strip people of their illusions.