Your Mouth is Moving, But What Are You Saying?

Our communication is comprised of much more than the words we speak – and our nonverbal cues often give us away if we are being inconsistent with what’s coming out of our mouth. We think of Albert Mehrabian’s 55/38/7 rule (55 percent nonverbal, 38 percent vocal, seven percent verbal) for nonverbal communication. However, it has since been critiqued and challenged based on the nature of the study (and the specific scenarios it was measuring: when the nonverbal channel and the verbal channel are incongruent). Thus, his research is indeed useful when incongruency is at play (e.g., a grimacing face doesn’t equate to the “I’m fine” vocalization).

This helpful insight aside, what about all the other scenarios we witness each – and every – day? The big presentation, the influential leader, the flustered colleague on the other end of the phone, the <insert one of the many other scenarios here>? It’s no surprise our verbal and nonverbal communication play a big role. Rather than focusing on the minute detail of how much influence each communication bucket has, let’s focus on actionable insights for communicating what you set out to communicate. That’s the bottom line, right?

Set your intent.
Is your intent to educate, to motivate, or to influence? Depending upon what you’re aiming to achieve, you need to adjust both your verbal and nonverbal communication practices. (Ah, yes, this comes back to expectations. Let’s not have individuals leave the room guessing.)

Decide how you want to be perceived.
Let’s say I’m aiming to influence (my intent). I need acceptance on new policies being implemented and I want buy-in, as well as understanding, from my audience. I’m also an executive at the company.

Do I:

• Read my PowerPoint (or notes), slide by slide, and ask if there are questions at the end (think Mr. Roboto)?

or

• Do I set the expectations for the meeting, maintain my agenda (also in front of attendees), and simply use the PowerPoint, or notes, as a reference?

Which will make you think I actually believe what I’m saying, and am bought into the information being shared? Simple.

(Having a trusted colleague or confidant to run things by – i.e., your presentation – will help you not miss these important communicative measures.)

Consider all levels.
To whom are you speaking? What language are you using? Speak to – not above – your audience. We call this “inflated vocabulary.” Does your language get your point across clearly, or does it confuse your audience further? I’m not saying dumb-down your messaging, but make it easy-to-remember and use language that causes understanding, not confusion. (Yes, as a leader/senior executive, you need to be knowledgeable and intelligent, but it’s typically the manager’s job to teach and train people – why non-executive managers are so important!! Thus, know what you’re talking about, but speak in a manner that allows each and every person to take away your message with profound impact.)

Consider multiple learning forms.
Some of us our visual learners – others are auditory, others reading/writing, and yet others, kinesthetic. If your intent is to influence, should you not want to influence each and every person in the room? Here are some guidelines for varying styles that can be incorporated into any presentation – especially those you find particularly important.

Visual Learners: Prefer to see information and need to visualize relationship between ideas. [Provide charts and graphics – show relationships between various points.]

Auditory Learners: Prefer to hear information rather than reading it, or seeing it displayed. [Give listeners a chance to repeat your points back to you – or someone else. You can do this through asking questions and calling on the audience for answers.]

Reading/Writing Learners: Learn best when reading and writing – interacting with text is more powerful for them than hearing or seeing images.
[Provide quizzes or allow them to write down what they learned. An easy way to do this: provide handouts.]

Kinesthetic Learners: Hands-on, experiential learners. They learn best by doing.
[Role playing – if the environment allows it and/or facilitate a way for them to write down what you’re saying.]

Next week I’ll discuss multiple ways you can leverage your body language to support your presence – the presence you want to exude – particularly in our digital age.

What's the Difference? Leadership + Management

This week I was asked to explain the difference between leadership and management, and this is a fair question. Often, I use “leadership” and “management’ as interchangeable terms. Yet, there have been ample disagreements about the definition of each over the years, and the innate variance the terms hold. Thus, it seems helpful to reveal some key differences, and explain why the pairing of the two is most helpful to achieve our interpersonal, team, and corporate goals.

I should note, first and foremost, we are not comparing apples to apples here. Leadership is a notion, practice, term, ideology, etc., that has many spins, approaches, and theoretical concepts. In fact, “There are almost as many definitions of Leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” (Stogdill, 1974)

To further make this point, let’s take just two definitions of Leadership (from a lengthy list):

• Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46)
• Leadership is “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization…” (House et al., 1999, p. 184)

OK, back to our core premise: what is the difference between leadership and management?

Managers are concerned with doing things right. Their primary goal is to be efficient, and to make their teams efficient. Conversely, leaders are concerned with doing the right things. In this context, the “right things” means “to be effective” i.e., effectiveness.

Does this mean there’s no crossover? Of course not. But understanding the core can help us be conscience about the rhetorical nuances. (And their undeniable synergy, regardless of the mutual exclusivity.) It may be useful for you to know if your company places more importance on management or leadership. Further, you may want to understand if, as a manager, you will also be awarded credit for leading, not just managing.

While the core of these terms differs, this does not mean a single person cannot possess the skills to be both a manager and a leader.  Great minds have differentiated between the two – from core processes to intended outcomes. But rather than picking apart what each isn’t, let me give you some distinct differences for your own comprehension.

In the spirit of simplicity, I liken management and leadership to one of my runs in Central Park. Leadership is the long game – that is what’s going to get me home. My intended path, my pre-determined endurance, or the element-appropriate workout gear.  Management is what I do to test my agility, make sure my ankles don’t turn on rocks, and ensure I’ve taken the steps to prevent a muscle strain.

If my analogy didn’t do it for you…

Leaders influence relationships. There’s a defined line between leaders and followers – leaders are followed joyfully. Leaders seek change, and intentions are often very clear. Leaders are often charismatic, insightful, motivational, well-spoken, and practice truthfulness.

Managers tend to identify as authority figures and it's not uncommon to associate subordinates with managers. Management is correlated with a defined goal: team members are responsible for the selling of goods or services. Metrics are recorded and KPIs are crafted. Managers and their teams are also very closely correlated. It is rare to see a manager who has very little working knowledge of the task for which their subordinate is responsible. The idea of management is to provide a connected link, resource, and subject matter expert to the subordinate. 

Point is this: they're different, but I'd argue you need both (and that they work best in tandem). Why do you think a manager may be more effective with leadership traits, or vice versa? Understanding this for ourselves, and for the environments in which we work, will only lead to self-realization and further contentment among those we serve. 

Your Options for Handling Conflict

You're now well-versed on the four major types of work conflict. Now let's discuss your options for handling them. 

1.) Do nothing.

What this isn't: It's not storming away or acting disgruntled. This isn't an excuse to act poorly. This is simply an option to keep the discontentment to yourself, rather than raising the issue.

At times, a colleague may have been very stern in their delivery of a statement -- the point was clear. It may be worth asking yourself if the topic is worth pushing, even if you disagree. Do you expect a different answer?

Red light: If these issues are recurring, you may begin to resent the other party. You don’t want to react or behave poorly. This is why actively choosing to do nothing is an option in handling conflict. When it goes beyond tolerable, a different approach may be
necessary. This is not a pass to be passive aggressive.

When should you use the "do nothing" philosophy? 

• You don’t have the energy or time to invest in having a conversation
• You suspect the other person is unwilling to have a constructive conversation

2.) Address indirectly.

This can be tricky. Addressing a conflict through superiors can be seen as passive. However, it can be just the thing to do in certain scenarios. An interesting cultural note here: in Western cultures, you may be perceived as weak or passive. Conversely, in many Asian cultures, a direct confrontation is unacceptable. Thus, you must understand your environment. Sometimes speaking in metaphors may educate a person about an issue, but you run the risk of this person missing the point.

When do you use this "indirectly" tactic?

• When it's unacceptable to engage in confrontation (i.e., cultural variance)
• You think the other party would not react negatively to receiving feedback from a third party

3.) Address directly.

A direct confrontation is when you speak to the other person (in the moment, or later in
time). Personally, I find I am best at addressing conflict later in time but indeed choose the "address directly" option. Knowing your tendency is incredibly useful when you're figuring out how to address conflict. Does your team deal with conflict similarly? Or, perhaps they are avoiders? This knowledge provides us insight into one another's preference, as well as providing insight into ourselves. If you are always an "address directly" type, do you have a reputation for being combative? The answer is likely yes, unless you're taking the appropriate steps to manage your behavior well.

In brief, to address directly, you explain your side of the conflict, listen to the other side, and then ideally reach a resolution. The key is to manage appropriately (we'll get to that). 

When to use address directly:

• When there's lingering resentment 
• You’ve tried doing nothing but the problem persists

The primary reason I prefer this method is because it can help relationships evolve into better ones. It also affords the opportunity to understand each party (including yourself), better.

4.) Exit the relationship. 

Is departing the relationship extreme? Perhaps. But at times, it's necessary.

The exiting option is often the last resort, but is relatively painless when the exit is in dealing with third-party vendors or unhelpful external groups. I’m reminded of a favorite saying: "don’t go away mad, just go away." This isn't about tearing down the person who you are exiting, it's about separating yourself for your own health. Only you can control your actions in this situation, and by doing so in a delicate but intentional manner, you are setting your boundary and being fair in the process.

On the other hand, this can be painful if you're contemplating leaving your place of employment due to continued conflict. You may need to consider leaving the job entirely or changing departments. If you've hit this point, ask yourself if you've attempted the three steps above. If you have, and there's no resolve or change, the clean break may be your best option. Note: You may be the one perceived as difficult. Sometimes that's an acceptable risk to take.

When do you use this option? 

• You’ve tried the other approaches (maybe even repeatedly)
• You can easily find a new job

While choosing how to handle a conflict may seem like a challenge, realize that others - your team, your colleagues, etc., may also be contemplating how they want to manage conflict – and you may be the recipient! (If you are on the receiving side, and they do NOT know how to handle this well, thus you have a screaming emotional human verbally attacking you, what do you do? Shoot me a note - I have some quick and calming tricks!)

Now, what are your options for managing a conflict? You have multiple and they are completely palatable (even if you never want to envision yourself facilitating this type of conversation). If you're interested in further education and coaching, you know how to reach me.