We all have run into people at both work and play that we just don’t seem to get. Not only do we not hit it off with them, we honestly have a hard time understanding the point they are making. It can be very frustrating interacting with someone when it seems like we are miles apart in the understanding department.
9 comments:
Good communication is the key to a successful relation, be it personal or professional. Personal relations thrive on good communication because that is how people realize other peoples expectations, strengths etc. In a corporate scenario, however, communication becomes especially important because now the only reason why people are coming together is to create a new piece of work, something that will utilize the creative energy of everyone involved. And this process of brain storming wont quite be successful until everyone contributes in a way that is useful and respectful to everyone else present.
There are different ways in which people can communicate in a corporate scenario. For some, just talking to the people involved in a respectful fashion, in a way where a healthy discussion can take place, works well. For such people, all they need is certainty that the other people would be as interested and involved as the person itself.
Which ever people choose, communication in a corporate environment is very important.
Another way people can communicate is through visualization. Visual presentations often help people to give shape and form to an abstract idea that exists in their minds in a way where everyone else can conceptualize the concerned person's ideas.
I don’t really think you can simplify people into these categories as well as this article suggests. I think I’m all of these types of communicators in different contexts, and I also think of what Apodaca is describing as more of mentalities than communication styles. While I probably default to mostly functional, there are contexts when I am all of these types, and I suspect the same is true for everyone. That being said, the suggestions of how to work with certain communication styles do seem good, while somewhat obvious (if you are talking to someone who tends to find the data really important, bring the data). In general all the advice really boils down to, “try to talk to people about the aspects of what is happening that are important to them.” If they really care about details, explain the details. If they don’t want to know more than the current situation, explain it in simplified terms. I’m not convinced this really needs to be about communication styles as much as paying attention to what individual people tend to care about and presenting that information to them.
I agree that people can't actually usually be broken down into these categories, but knowing what the categories are and knowing how to interact with people who do seem to match them is super helpful. It can even extend beyond those who fit the mold. As Julian said, sometimes people fit into all of these categories depending on their mood or situation. Being able to recognize when someone is in any one of these mindsets can be super beneficial for conflict resolution and avoiding a potential conflict by presenting information in the most helpful fashion for that person at that time. An interesting thing about management is how much of it is manipulating people for the greater good. After all, tailoring my approach to someone to get the reaction I want from them is textbook manipulation, but it would be what they hire me to do. It can seem underhanded, but in the end it is crucial for a healthy workplace.
I have seen so many different ways to describe a similar idea, many schools of thought break down communication styles into 4 or 5 categories and each one calls the same idea something different. I have seen these same 4 concepts multiple times in articles or a management class, and each developer calls them something different. Whenever you start to breakdown personalities it is also not hard lines where each person nicely fits into a box, people tend to have a preference but can be more than one style. What I think is most helpful about this article is the direct strategies that are outlined with how to best communicate with each type. But, a big part of communication is listening, so even though it can be helpful to have tools on how to communicate with a certain style, listening and asking someone how they want to see data, or format a report is the most direct way.
I do appreciate all the attempts to categorize people’s communication styles. Some of them are useful and effective, some of them not really, but it reminds me that people may communicate in many different styles than I am and allows me to be more considerate of others. But no matter what I think it comes down to being aware of my communicating preferences and also those of people that I work with. At work I tend to be more focused on the functional and analytical communicator. Rather than chitchatting and exploring emotions, it’s easier and more intuitive for me to go for the action items. In a non-work setting I’m more open to exploring emotions but to be honest, not too much. So every time I run a meeting or sit down to talk with people I remind myself that people may need more time and space to think through options and maybe explore involved emotions a bit to reach the conclusion. It may not feel natural for me but it is to some people.
It is nice to see the communication styles broken down into different categories and the ways to work with all of them. I do appreciate the effort but I think most people are a mix of all dependent on the environment they are in and the type of conversation that is being had. It is nice to have these down for when dealing with people when they present with the different styles. It is a good tool to have in your back pocket. It is also a good evaluation tool to see what communication style one applies to different situations. Personally, I find myself being a functional communicator across the board and a mix of some other style depending on where I find myself. I like knowing the details of everything because for me to get the whole picture I have to understand everything and I get frustrated when the I don’t know or understand the details. I would also suggest that not making assumptions about the way people communicate is a great way to go into any relationship. Asking how and what they prefer when it comes to communication is a great way to figure out what style they belong to or use.
Communication is a hard skill. We tend to communicate in ways that are easy for us to understand. But like in general management relationships, I believe the silver rule applies to communication as well. We should learn to communicate not how we want to be communicated with, or how it is easy for us to understand, but how the other person wants to be communicated with. This article is very helpful, because even when it only lists four communication types, you can at least start thinking on how to switch, and how personalities relate to the communication methods. As managers we have to be able to switch communication methods, just to make communication easier with the rest of the team members. To identify the preferred communication method is a skill that can only be developed with exposure. There is not a simple equation. One of the ways that I target this is by simply asking, “how do you prefer I give you the information?”
I certainly have been in both situations the article describes. The synergy you get with someone you naturally communicate and relate to well, and the pulling teeth feeling of having to work with someone who "we just don’t seem to get." These types of people make it difficult to like and understand "the point they are making, which in turn can make it "very frustrating [when] interacting with someone." All of that said, I have not heard of these communication styles specifically. I'd say personally I'm a mix of all 4, with a higher percentage of functional, analytical, and intuitive in my work life. "Jumping right into something and “winging it” makes a functional communicator very uncomfortable," and I very much identify with that. I very much dislike it when someone has not taken the effort and care to come up with a plan, and thinks that they can simply skate by from winging it. I do also identify with the analytical side of communication, and responded well to the articles descriptions which is the following: "An analytical communicator likes direct conversation and does not do well with ambiguity or shades of gray. They tend to be good at making fair, fact based decisions without the emotional baggage attached to it. They sometimes come off as cold and emotionless." I do like the suggestions for tips to communicate with each style--it isn't just one suggestion, which is helpful because not just one solution will work the same for everyone.
I have seen many articles about working with different communication styles in the workplace, but this article is by far the most concise, direct, and, in my opinion, the most useful I have read. I have definitely worked with each of these people and it really does help to alter your communication style in order to convey the most information in the most efficient way possible. I think it is so important to recognize that not everyone learns new information or processes information in the same way, and simply changing simple phrasing and including or excluding details can make all the difference when trying to get someone to understand something. I also really appreciated that the author gave multiple approaches for each style, not one cut and dry method to deal with each type of communicator. I think people are usually a mix of a few of these styles, and the author has made it easy to mix and match tactics to find which one best suits your collaborators.
Post a Comment