A521.8.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Making Contact

Making Contact

I am very uncomfortable striking up a conversation with someone new and I cannot “work a room” with ease.  This is something I have worked on and been frustrated with for as long as I can remember.  When I meet anyone new, I am awkward at best.  I cannot find the right words, stumble over the wrong words, and generally do not make a good impression.  At least that is the way it feels.  The second meeting is easier.  McKay, Davis, & Fanning (2009) refer to this as fear of strangers and note that it comes from only two sources.  Since I was not around in the nineteenth century, it must come from my own self-depreciating internal monologue (p. 205). 

I really do not know how I became this way, but I always have been.  I could argue that I am not afraid of strangers, but that would be splitting hairs.  I am not afraid of the person; I am afraid of what they can do.  No one likes to be rejected or judged negatively.  In that first meeting, strangers have the power to do just that.  I know that it is irrational on several levels.  During the first meeting I have the same power, I know rejection is survivable, judgement is a reality--everybody does it, and the other person is probably going through the same process that I am.  It makes little sense, but the reaction seems automatic and out of my control.  It is a moment of self-consciousness and perhaps doubt.  It passes in time, but while it is happening it is difficult to focus on anything else. 

McKay, et al., (2009) believe that coping with or conquering the fear of strangers is possible.  The techniques they recommend are: analyze what you say to yourself, reframe your approach behavior, reframe rejection, deal with the emotional blow when rejected, and plan to get rejected (p. 206-209).  These are all simple techniques or exercises that will not hurt to try and they could actually help.  Reframing approach behavior consists of getting rid of unrealistic expectations and recognize the meeting as an opportunity to have a conversation with someone new.  Reframing rejection means that if and when you are rejected, look at all the possible reasons for it and do not default to “they hate my guts.”  A few exercises can help you to avoid negative internal monologue after being rejected.  Under the technique ‘plan to get rejected’ the authors recommend approaching someone for the sole purpose of being rejected.   I cannot agree with that method.  Practicing on someone seems to cross the line.  While it may not be as significant, I believe rejecting someone is also uncomfortable.  I would not want to do that to anyone on purpose.

The focus on this lesson is obviously on making contact with a potential partner.  But the information within the lesson can be universally applied.  I got a number of take away ideas that will help me in my future encounters with strangers.  As the lesson moves in on ‘making contact’ and ‘the art of conversation’ the information and suggestions are absolutely spot on.  I especially liked the art of conversation.  We do not do it nearly enough anymore.  I believe the digital age is threatening to make conversation a lost art.  One-line, grammatically incorrect statements with misspelled words, no punctuation, and smiley faces are the preferred way to communicate nowadays.  The danger is it is too easy.  It requires no effort or immediate response.  There is no emotion or interaction involved.  It is isolated and impersonal.  It is everything a conversation is not.  Okay, now where was I…

I have had first-meeting anxiety or fear of strangers all my life.  I do not avoid people because of it.  I introduce myself despite it.  I have been uncomfortable meeting people all over the world which is exponentially better than the alternative.  I would prefer to meet people without experiencing the anxiety but, in truth, anxiety is a small price to pay for having met the people I have met.  While I was studying this lesson, one thing kept coming to my mind…can I incorporate this lesson and still be myself?  I believe the answer for me is yes I can.  You have to be yourself when you meet new people because that is who you want them to meet.  It is important, change, grow, and evolve-but always be yourself.

I will continue to try different techniques to reduce the anxiety, but after dealing with it for so many years, I am content with it being part of who I am.  I may not be the smoothest talker out there, but I am still talking.

~Pete

Reference:

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: The communication skills book. Oakland, CA. New Harbinger Publications Inc.

A521.7.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Secret Structure

The Secret Structure of Great Talks

Nancy Duarte believes that we all have the ability to change the world.  A great idea combined with communicating it the right way gives us the power to change the world.  In an attempt to determine the pattern of all good talks, she began a study using Dr. King’s “I have a dream” and Steve Jobs’ 2007 IPhone launch presentation.  After two years, she identified a structure that holds true between not only the two speeches she was studying, but for every great talk including the Gettysburg Address.  She calls it ‘what is and what could be’ (Duarte, 2012).

I believe there is much more than structure involved in speeches like “I have a Dream.”  I believe the really memorable speeches are more of a perfect storm.  The topic, the structure, the presenter’s dynamics, the anticipation and emotion of the audience all have a critical role and if any one of them had been different the outcome would have been much different.  I am not discounting what Ms. Duarte proposes at all, structure is important, just not singularly. 

On her way to finding the secret structure, Nancy looked at basic structures for communicating ideas.  She began with Aristotle’s three-part structure. It is the standard that is taught in grade school that works every time.  The three parts are the beginning, middle, and end.  Sometimes the parts are known as introduction, body, and conclusion.  This is the structure I follow because it is what I was taught and it is adaptable.  I would use three-part to describe a concept or explain policy/procedure in the work center.  It is simple, direct, and effective in handling these types of communications.  Most if not all other structures are based on the three-part structure.

Ms. Duarte spoke of Freytag’s five-part structure.  This structure has an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement.  This is the form of most dramatic stories.  What struck her was the shape Freytag used to illustrate the five-part structure.  Nancy began looking for the shape for presentations and ultimately found it in ‘what is and what could be’.   I would describe the shape as that of a direct current pulse signal or a square wave.

First you describe the status quo (what is)  then compare it to your idea to make the situation or problem  better (what could be).  Make ‘what could be’ to be as far from ‘what is’ as possible because people get comfortable in their norms.  They need to be pulled into what could be.  The middle contains iterations of ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’.  This systematically turns the listener away from the status quo and towards your idea.  This is necessary because people are resistant to change.  The ending consists of your idea dramatically described as the new norm or the new bliss.  Is this effective?  Yes, absolutely, when appropriate.  Is it the missing link?  I do not think so.

I mean no disrespect to Ms. Duarte, but if this structure is overused, a leader may appear over dramatic and, in time, become less effective.  In the work center I would use this style to address big, perhaps unpopular change.

~Pete

Reference:

Duarte, N., (2012). The secret structure of great talks. TedxEast (Producer). Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks

A521.6.3.RB_BorutyAlan_High Performance Teams

High Performance Teams

In his discussion on High Performance Teams, Denning (2011) provides a compare contrast look between high-performance teams and communities concluding that high performance teams do resemble communities but the opposite is not true.  Communities rarely meet the criteria of a team. 

High performance teams meet the criteria of a team: (Denning, 2011)

-         Clear, specific objective

-         Appropriate leadership and membership

-         Necessary resources

High performance teams adhere to community elements: (Denning, 2011)

-         They produce things

-         Adapt quickly to change by adjusting their performance in real time

-         Steadily grow stronger with time.  Start working as one synergistic entity

-         individual growth based on mutual concerns for each other

-         work committed

-         If one fail’s ,we all fail mentality

High-performance teams take on an identity, personality and existence of their own.  The members develop an extremely high level of mutual trust, and become unconditionally committed to the team.  Members attend to each other’s development and training needs and ultimately establish an environment of innovation and continuous improvement (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).

I have not been a member of a high performance team.  Reading about the characteristics of these teams and what they morph into sounds almost unbelievable to me.  I have served on many teams through the years.  Most of them were very effective, a few not as much.  In the end the job was completed.  The closest to a high performance team would have been the teams that deployed to Saudi Arabia in the mid 1980’s.  We had a constant presence with 24-hour coverage surveilling Iran/Iraq disagreements.  Maintenance personnel rotated in and out every 30 – 45 days.  The team members were selected so that all of the aircraft systems had qualified technicians.  The team, once assembled, totaled 30 maintainers. 

The team had a clear goal to continue the mission without incident.  Maintenance leadership comes in the form of a production superintendent.  The Pro Super is a senior maintainer normally with extensive airframe experience. The pro Super choreographs all maintenance activities.  For the first few days everyone was figuring things out. Generally speaking if you did not have work, you did not go out to the flight line.  Everyone got along but it was awkward.  After that week everyone was comfortable with the routine and each other and the team did start behaving differently.  Looking back on it, it did have some of the high performance characteristics. Whenever we launched or recovered an aircraft, everyone was on the flight line.  We helped where we could and did whatever was necessary to get the job done.  The flight line was either full of maintainers or shut down.  The same was true of the breakroom.  We absolutely trusted each other and never let each other down.  We gained a sense of pride in our work.  We strove for flawless launches and the fastest time getting an aircraft ready to fly the next mission.  Towards the end of our deployment, the team was like a well-oiled machine.  We were efficient and very effective even under the pressure of a system failure  By the end of our time, we were inseparable, but ready to go home.  Maybe I have been part of a high performance team.  It did not contain all of the traits, but we definitely evolved into something different and better than we were when we arrived.

In the Air Force you are issued the appropriate values for working on aircraft.  Just to mention a few, we followed procedures, reported anomalies, did the work we said we did, documented our actions properly, and never put our self, a coworker, an aircraft, or flight crew in an unsafe condition.  Each and every one of us shared those values and we did not compromise.  The fact that we all came from different backgrounds and had differing values off the flight line simply did not affect work on the flight line.  However, if our issued values faltered or were disregarded, it would have been met with serious consequences and immediate action to correct the situation.  This would include ceasing all flying activities pending investigation.  It would have been a serious offence because lives are at stake.  Having those shared values is what makes collaboration possible in aircraft maintenance.

Work groups, teams, communities, and networks are the primary means in which people work together.  Work groups are how most organizations are structured. For example, I was assigned to the Radar shop with every other Radar technician.  We all did the same job, had the same boss, and the same career path. 

Teams are assembled by an organization to attend to a specific objective, members are selected by the organization and bring specific skills to the team, members share the specific objective and also share the responsibility to get the work done.  When the work is accomplished and the objective is met the team is disbanded (Denning, 2011). 

Communities in the organization is a new term for me.  The concept, however, is not new.  A community is a group of people who share the same interests, practices, and values.  They share information with each other to advance their knowledge on a subject.  They are like-minded people that share knowledge and values.  Networks are similar to communities, but they are different.  The primary differences are a perceived benefit in network membership and in networks there is no commitment to shared values. (Denning, 2011).

I have always preferred to work alone.  I think clearer and more logically.  At least that is what I thought.  I was assigned to a team...again.  It seemed like I had been selected for every detail that came up.  All I wanted was to work on airplanes.  This particular team was to assess and make recommendations for what was kept on bench stock (consumable items).  I did not want to do it and I had an attitude.  What I learned is attitudes are contagious. I complained daily.  I put more importance in finishing the job than I did doing the job right.  As a result, I did not do my best work.  Neither did the rest of the team.  They simply followed my lead.  The other team members were released and I got new team mates.  The second time I got it right. I checked my attitude before work. 

Many years later, I was selected to lead the team that would plan a formal Ball which would be the Keesler AFB celebration of the U.S. Air Force 49^th Birthday.  I had done events like this in the past that did not go well.  So I was not very excited.  We held the first meeting and it went well.  Turnout was good and we accomplished assigning people to all of the different committees.  I asked everyone to give it some thought before volunteering for any of the committees.  I also asked them not to take on the responsibility if they knew of anything coming up that might prevent them from giving the committee their best effort.  Everyone kept their committee.  From that point meetings were well attended, each committee provided updates, asked questions, and sought opinions from other team members.  The banquet went off without a major issue and was fantastic.  The guests were thrilled.  I am not sure why this event was so different.  The only thing I did differently was ask that everyone personally commit themselves and their time to this important event.  Is that what made the difference?  I do not know to be certain, but I am glad the ball was such a success. The next day we all met for lunch.  Then we cleaned up the ballroom. 

~Pete

References:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Whetten, D. A., Cameron, K. S. (2016), Developing management skills (Ninth edition). Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-13-312747-8. (student edition)

A521.5.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Aligning Values

Aligning Values

As I sat down to write this blog post, I read the instruction/prompt and I absolutely drew a blank.  Although I have read Denning’s text and taken the assessment, I just did not know how to answer the question.  So, I stopped trying to write and began to re-read the material again.  I succeeded in confusing myself more.  I settled on the answer, yes organizations have values.  They define the boundaries in which an organization operates.  It takes people and action to bring the values to life.  People must accept the values and commit their work ethic to enforcing organizational values but also produce in a way that generates profit while operating within the confines of the values.  Since most people generally have their own set of values and beliefs since their childhood, the process can become complicated.

When people apply to an organization that has established values, they read the values and make a determination whether the match is compatible with their values.  If so they go to work.  If not they either walk away or accept the differences as something they can live with.  If an organization that is currently operating with valued employees has to start the process of developing values, it can get messy.  I realize this was not the question.  Bear with me.  I am getting there.

 

Organizational values are usually developed by the senior leaders of the organization. Then they are shared with the entire organization.  The top team are best in deciding what values their business embodies.  They have a few choices to make before developing a values statement.  What type of value system does the business practice?  I am hoping that robber baron or hardball strategist are never picked.  The developers must be able to answer questions about the organization or understand the business enough to make the right choices in value development  What type of values do we possess?  Are we using instrumental or ethical values?  They have to be able to distinguish between personal and corporate values.. They must distinguish between operational and espoused values. Instrumental values are generally critical for the well-being of the company while ethical values are more in line .

After the decisions have been made and the values have been developed, there is another decision to make.  Will our new values be shared values?  In a Study.com (n,d,) article I found on line,  shared values is defined as “organizational values that are usually developed by the organization's leadership and then adopted by the other members of the organization. The values are shared and followed by all members of the organization when acting on behalf of the organization. They may also be referred to as core values” (n.p.).  Shared values provide guidance for organizational decision making and serve as an ethical compass for action.

Now that the values have been created, transforming them into something other than words on paper will take leadership commitment and action.  Things like arranging information segments ast commander’s calls, conducting briefings, presenting video of values in action.  It really needs to be a media blitz to allow enough time for these new values to begin influencing behavior.

The components of an ethical community are trust, loyalty, and solidarity.  Using the Air Force as my organization, I believe it is already an ethical community.  It can be witnessed in and shop on any base on a daily basis.  Airmen at every level demonstrate the components of an ethical community.It is not always perfect  but the effort is always there.Tthe three components are demonstrated at every level.

References:

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Study,com. Retrieved from: http://study.com/academy/lesson/shared-values-in-an-organization-definition-lesson-quiz.html  Accessed 2016, September 10

A521.4.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Subtleties of Communication and Hidden Messages

Subtleties of Communication and Hidden Messages

I have enjoyed writing since grade school.  Through writing I learned to appreciate the power of words.  Words can enlighten, inspire and create, but they can also hurt, mislead, or belittle when used according to definition alone.  When you add the human factors of body language, paralanguage, and hidden agendas, words can take on deeper meaning and/or tell a different story altogether. 

Words account for just seven percent of the total message delivered.  The remaining 93 percent is transmitted via paralanguage and body language to include gestures and facial expressions.  Often we are unaware of the non-verbal messages we communicate.  A problem occurs when our non-verbal message contradicts our spoken words.  Our non-verbal message is more believable than the verbal.  In this case the audience receives a message different than the one you thought you delivered (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 2009).  When our non-verbal cues do not match up with their accompanying words or if the non-verbal cues do not align with themselves our message is incongruent.  Incongruence indicates a problem with our message.  It could be a lack of commitment on the subject from the speaker, or personal conflicts with the message.  Either way the message is considered suspect and the speaker’s effectiveness is reduced.  For example, my unit was preparing for a scheduled deployment.  We were gathering the equipment to support the deployment and getting it ready to be put on pallets for shipment.  This is not a complicated process, but it is tedious and can be confusing which is the state we were in when the commander (my boss) arrived.  When he asked the Airman how things were going, he got the panic response of a confused and inexperienced Airman that thought he had messed up the entire operation and truly believed he was in trouble. When I looked at the issue, I knew what happened.  Correcting the problem would cost us a few hours but it was not going to be a problem.  Unfortunately the boss could not 'un-hear' what the Airman told him.  So his direction was for us to start over and reprocess two days’ worth of equipment.  This would have actually put us four days behind and was completely unnecessary.  I tried to explain, but did not want to disagree with my boss publicly so we walked and spoke privately.  Unfortunately, he had convinced himself and there was no changing his mind.  I was unhappy…no, I was angry.  But the decision was made.  Now it was up to me to implement it as if it were my idea.  I spoke to the team and explained why this was the right way to correct the problem and I told them how we would proceed.  I was not able to convince them that I believed what I was telling them and they called me on it.  I was still angry when I talked to them.  I was able to put words together to relay the message, but not my nonverbal cues.  They asked me if I had gotten in trouble with the commander.  What they told me was I was not acting normal.  I did not seem to be myself.  What they saw was incongruence in my message.  I explained everything again. I was not happy to have the team redo work that I knew was good.  But the boss’s way was not wrong, just a little extra work.  I learned that I needed to calm down before I briefed the team.  There was no harm done and the work was completed.   I still did not like that I compromised the message.  Emotions are hard to overcome.

Since speakers are often unaware of the non-verbal cues they transmit, and non-verbal cues are such a large part of the total message, and non-verbal cues are seen as more honest, the speaker has to become consciously aware of and control their non-verbal cues to ensure the message they sends is congruent.

McKay et al. (2009) stresses “awareness of incongruence in your own non-verbal messages can make you a much more effective communicator” (p, 60).  It may not be easy, but it can be done and it will be worth it.  You will learn when you are most likely to display negative non-verbal cues and the associated feelings.  Then you can work on changing your reactions.  Self-assessment is one way to start becoming aware.  Another way would be to have a trusted friend evaluate and help.   You can also record yourself and objectively but critically view the recording.  It would not hurt to have that friend watch with you.  As you become more aware of your own tendencies you can improve your message congruency, the key to non-verbal communication (McKay et al., 2009).

Paralanguage is of the voice, it is not the words but how our voice delivers each word.  There are six elements: pitch, resonance, articulation, tempo, volume, and rhythm.  These elements are incredibility important because they can tell who you are and how you feel.   

Paralanguage is varied during normal conversations to avoid becoming monotone and losing your audience.  A monotone voice sends the message that you are not interested in your message.  All of us  have known this person at some point.  After a minute or two it is almost impossible to listen to anymore.  After another minute, you are sorry you do not have an appointment with the dentist.  I have known a few.  One way to verify if you vary your paralanguage is to seek feedback from a trusted colleague.  McKay, et al., (2009) recommends “recording yourself having a normal conversation.  Wait at least twenty-four hours before listening to the replay, so you can be more objective….As you listen to the recording, consider the following: 1. Does your voice reflect what you want to say?; 2. Is your voice congruent with the words you speak?; 3. Is there something about your voice that you dislike?” (p. 73). Once the questions are answered, practice with the recorder and change your voice and use that friend again.

I believe most people are guilty of using metamessages from time to time especially those of us who have sarcastic tendencies.  The metamessage is the second-level message and communicates the speaker’s attitudes and feelings.  Metamessages are largely from rhythm, pitch, and verbal modifiers. Using the voice to emphasize a word, using inflection or adding a verbal modifier change an innocent statement into an attack.

True metamessages are veiled attacks the speaker is afraid to say directly.  If on the receiving side of a metamessage, you have to make sure it was an attack and then repeat out loud what you think the speaker meant and ask if that is what they really believe and intended.  Not doing these two steps will leave without knowing and the issue will not be resolve (McKay, et al, 2009).  This method will hopefully result in a direct conversation that is productive.

Hidden agendas are something most people do occasionally.  If it becomes habit all the time it is unhealthy and could require professional intervention.  There are eight agendas: “I’m good”, “I’m good (but you’re not)”, “You’re good (but I’m Not)”, “I’m helpless, I suffer”, “I’m blameless”, “I’m fragile”, “I’m tough”, and “I know it all.”

There are two reasons that people use hidden agendas.  The first purpose is to build and protect an existential position in the world.  The agenda becomes an individual strategy for coping with core feelings of inadequacy.  Secondly, agendas promote ulterior motives and needs (McKay, et al., 2009).  When I read through the agendas, I must admit having hidden behind a few of them at times in my life.  I will pay closer attention and listen to myself to understand how often.  I do not believe it is an issue for me but, no one does…

I have witnessed each of these hidden agendas in people I have met over the years.  To read the descriptions in text, you would think that it would be immediately obvious in a person’s behavior.  It is not that easy to spot, but once you do you cannot see anything else. 

McKay, et al., (2009) insists that the agendas are adaptive and serve a purpose, but ultimately your maneuvers isolate you.  In the end, they wall you off from the relief of being know and accepted for who you are” (p. 86).

It is hard enough to communicate effectively on a consistent basis.  It takes commitment and effort to successfully transmit the message you intend to an audience and have that audience receive that message and interpret it as you intended.  But to work so diligently only to have your own body language and vocal qualities betray you during the presentation just seems wrong.  It can be overcome; I suppose I should add it to the list.

Reference:

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2009). Messages: The communication skills book. Oakland, CA. New Harbinger Publications Inc.