A521.8.4.RB - Making Contact

I was heavily involved in sports throughout my childhood and even into my early thirties.  I was essentially forced to make friends because my parents believed it was healthy to be outside playing with the neighborhood kids.  I either made friends or would be left playing in my yard by myself and that did not seem like a very entertaining option.  I believe these activities combined with my personality helped me become comfortable interacting with strangers.  I was shy at a very young age, but as my participation in sports increased, so did my ability to relate to new people.  I learned there was no reason to be afraid to talk to people.  McKay, Davis, and Fanning (2009) discusses how the fear of strangers comes from “outmoded nineteenth-century social restrictions and your own self-depreciating internal monologue” (p. 205).  Although I was not aware of the aforementioned social restrictions, I did experience a mild stint of self-depreciation.  Then I realized I cannot change how people think.  My personality has always been extremely laid back and genuine about respecting others.  However, I cannot change how they feel about themselves.  Maybe they are self-conscious or have low self-esteem.  It is their problem if they take issue with how I look, how I talk, or what I believe.  

I have a knack for being able to “fit in” anywhere.  I never felt comfortable limiting myself to a certain social group.  For example, in grade school, I hung out with the jocks and the nerds despite them having a distinct social separation from each other. I did not care.  I enjoyed hanging around people I felt were interesting and could care less about social status or labels.  Meeting someone new has always been fun because everyone has something unique to share.  It’s merely an opportunity to begin getting to know someone who interests me, I am curious but not worried about what will happen, and I never want anything from them; just offering time and interest (McKay, et al., 2009, p. 207).

Talking to people, including strangers, is something that I believe comes easier to me than the average person.  This is not because I feel I possess some special gift, but because I am an exceptional listener.  Genuinely caring about what someone tells me makes listening easy.  I want to listen and I want to provide feedback when necessary.  Having an outward rather than inward focus when first making contact with someone aides in creating a natural conversation.  McKay et al. (2009) suggest a basic rule to making contact is to “give what you would like to receive, which means that the attention, interest, respect, and liking that you want must also be something you offer to others” (p. 209).  I have had many people tell me very personal things despite barely knowing each other because I simply listened.

McKay, et al. (2009) mentions there are only three things required to make good conversation: “ask questions, listen actively, and disclose a little about yourself” (p. 213).  These requirements describe what comes naturally to me in any conversation.  I say they come naturally to me because I do not have to myself to think about applying them.  Whether meeting someone for the first time or an old friend, I engage in these requirements every day.  The most important lesson I learned from this assignment is the reminder how vital it is to stay true to myself.  I do not need to alter what I believe or change anything about who I am to gain acceptance.  As a matter of fact, “when you talk about your hopes, fears, preferences and beliefs, you become a unique individual rather than a cardboard character” (McKay et al., 2009, p. 216).  I want people to know the real me and not be concerned with how “revealing differences will undermine potential closeness” (McKay et al, 2009, p. 216).

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

A521.7.4.RB - Secret Structure

Nancy Duarte in her TedX Talk: The Secret Structure of Great Talks (Links to an external site.)describes a few different structures/outlines. She also describes techniques used by Steven Jobs and Martin Luther King, Jr.

In your Reflection Blog, discuss the structure and techniques shared and how you might use them.

Nancy Duarte (2011) suggests we have the most powerful tool in the world: ideas.  She believes these ideas can change the world when effectively communicated.  She discusses how the structure of a presentation can be the key in getting the audience to move from one thing to the idea the presenter is trying to communicate.  Duarte used an excellent illustration of comparing the presenter and the audience to Star Wars characters Luke Skywalker and Yoda.  More importantly, she made it clear that the presenter is more like a mentor like Yoda.  She goes even further past the basic characters in a story and delves into the possibility that every successful story has a basic structure.  This examination gives her the idea that if stories have successful structure, then presentations must also.  I can appreciate her analytical mind because I have a similar way of thinking.  Looking for patterns in most anything is something that comes naturally to me and is put to use every day at my job.  Duarte approached presentations in the same manner by looking for successful communication patterns.  She struck pay dirt when she used Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Steve Jobs iPhone launch presentation to discover structure patterns.

Duarte found that the beginning of a presentation must establish the status quo and compare it with a heavy contrast of what could be.  The middle of the presentation continually traverses between those comparisons, moving back and forth between the establish quo and what could be.  Duarte (2011) suggests the end of the presentation should have a call to action and describe the world with a new bliss or a utopia by adopting the new idea.  She used her discovery as an analysis tool and broke down Steve Job’s speech by showing a structure of the beginning (what is), the middle (traversing), and the end (what could be) and by labeling all the different events that took place during the speech.  Duarte found similar structure in Dr. King’s speech, but she also found some unique qualities such as repetition, metaphors, songs, and scriptures.  Another key element of his speech was his ability to know his audience so well that he could pull from their experiences to communicate is idea, or dream in this case.

Dr. King and Steve Jobs more than likely experience some doubt as to whether or not they could make their idea reality.  Yet, they believed in their idea so passionately that they never gave up.  Everyone can learn from these men and their ideas.  Keeping faith in one’s ideas and structuring a presentation in a similar fashion can surely increase odds in getting an audience to an idea.  I constantly have new ideas.  Sometimes I do not think it is possible for them to come to fruition based on lack of confidence.  Sometimes I believe in an idea so religiously that I will share with anyone willing to listen.  However, knowing the structure and pattern to a successful presentation can only better my chances at making my ideas become reality.  

Duarte, N. (2011).  The Secret Structure of Great Talks.  Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks

A521.6.3.RB - High Performance Teams

According to Denning (2011) high-performance teams are comprised of the following elements:

• High-performance teams actively shape the expectations of those who use their output - and then exceed the resulting expectations.
• High-performance teams rapidly adjust their performance to the shifting needs of the situation.  They innovate on the fly, seizing opportunities and turning setbacks into good fortune.
• High-performance teams grow steadily stronger. Over time, members come to know one another's strengths and weaknesses and become highly skilled in coordinating their activities, anticipating each other's next move, and initiating appropriate responses as those moves are occurring.
• The members of a high-performance team grow individually. Mutual concern for each other's personal growth enables high-performance teams to develop interchangeable skills and hence greater flexibility.
• Fueled by interpersonal commitments, the purposes of high-performance team become nobler, team performance goals more urgent, and team approach more powerful.
• High-performance teams carry out their work with shared passion. The notion that “if one of us fails, we will fail” pervades the team.

I have been part of a handful of teams throughout my career. However, I would only consider one of those teams a high-performing team.  I say this because I can identify with the aforementioned elements through my experiences with this team.  It is possible we may have been considered a large team by average team standards, but compared to other US Air Force squadrons we were very small.  The uniqueness of our mission brought us together and created a shared passion of working together to accomplish this mission.  The team relied heavily on one another because each of us had our own skillset which helped team members feel a sense of purpose.  A sense that each team member was vital to the operation just as a machine needs every part to work perfectly.

Shared values can make a good team great or elevate a great team to a high-performing team.  Teams who lack shared values can work together and complete their tasks, but they will just not reap the rewards of full-fledged collaboration.  Nobody loves to work with others who do not share the same values.  It makes working together uncomfortable, unnatural, and possibly difficult.  However, a high-performance team is created through shared values of collaboration and operational values.  For example, our team lived our organization’s values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do.  Knowing and living these values put everyone on the same page and avoided any confusion concerning our team identity.  Despite a high-pressure environment, we enjoyed working together and continued to perform at a high level for an extended time.  On numerous occasions we had to rapidly adjust our performance to the shifting needs of the situation and innovate on the fly, seizing opportunities and turning setbacks into good fortune.

The four patterns of working together are within a work group, a team, a community and a network.  These patterns are similar in a way they are all comprised of people working together, yet they are different in how they work together.  For example, a work group may receive a team label, yet there are members working independently of each other.  This is not a true team since tasks can be completed successfully without collaboration.  Conversely, a genuine team requires a high degree of collaboration and interaction among members.  A community according to Denning (2011) is “groupings of people who don’t live or work in the same place but who share common interests, practices, and values” (p. 152).  A network is a “collection of people who maintain contact with each other because of a mutually perceived benefit of staying in touch for purposes that may or may not be explicit” (Denning, 2011, p. 152).  

I currently perform in a work group environment.  I initially considered it a team environment until I read the distinctions Denning provided.  Regardless of the correct label, my experience in this work group has been incredible.  I am able to work independently and yet still communicate with the rest of the group.  This communication is essential because we work with each other to come to a consensus on complex and unique problems.  On the other hand, I was part of a work group in my previous organization and it was a completely opposite experience.  Everyone only cared about themselves and were reluctant to help each other out.  These attitudes made working together extremely difficult and counterproductive.  The only thing I think I could have done differently was confront these individuals about not being a team player and how it essentially affected the organization.  Maybe I should not have assumed communicating my perception of their performance would have fallen on deaf ears.  Even better, maybe they would have listened and worked to change for the better of a more collaborative team effort.

         

Denning, S. (2011).  The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business narrative.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A521.5.4.RB - Aligning Values

Based on the readings in the Denning text and the assessment you took in A521.5.1 identify in detail the process of developing and aligning organizational values. Identify the three basic components of an ethical community and discuss how they might be applied in your organization. Are there values that are missing from your organization?

Discuss how you might develop those values and also align them with the values of the individuals in the organization.

Value to an organization is a critical element to being successful.  However, values in an organization is also essential to company success.  So how does an organization incorporate values?  An organization must first identify the types of values it wishes to instill in order to develop and align them.  Denning (2011) states the four types of values at play in an organization today are: values of robber barons, values of hardball strategies, values of pragmatists, and genuinely ethical values (p. 127).  Robber barons are firms whose primary purpose is to “crush the competition by whatever means” (Denning, 2011, p. 127).  According to Denning (2011), “hardball strategists avoid illegality, but in all other respects they pursue a single-minded focus on winning” (p. 128).  Pragmatists are organizations who place a high degree of focus on values and make values “a central part of the organization’s business strategy” (p. 129).  Lastly, there are organizations who are driven explicitly by ethical values as their principal motivating force (Denning, 2011).  Whichever values an organization decides to focus on, it must create a culture that facilitates value development.  Furthermore, it must also ensure all organizational operations align with these values to avoid any confusion or the perception there are double standards.  

The three basic components of a genuinely ethical community are trust, loyalty, and solidarity (Denning, 2011).  Trust is the general expectation among members that they will behave ethically towards each other.  Loyalty is not breaching each other’s trust and fulfilling the duties by accepting trust.  Solidarity is taking other member’s interests into consideration before one’s own personal interests.  Trust is demonstrated throughout my organization on a daily basis.  There is no position in my organization that can operate independently.  Therefore, trust is required upward and downward to successfully accomplish our business practices.  My organization is structured by many departments who have different responsibilities.  Therefore, each department is like a team working together and must maintain a high degree of loyalty to each other.  A team can fall apart if one person breaks trust and loyalty.  Some organizations choose to make decisions without hearing its members opinions or input. Solidarity is applied in my organization by making many decisions together as a team as opposed to one person making them.  My organization prefers to discuss matters that will affect an entire group and find a consensus among team members.    

I took the workplace values assessment which revealed my five most important values I wish to have in my organization.  These include in no particular order of importance:  opportunity between work life and family life, stability and security, clear advancement tracks/opportunities for advancement, autonomy/independence/freedom, and integrity and truth.  All of these values are demonstrated throughout my organization with the exception of one; clear advancement tracks/opportunities for advancement.  The lack of advancement opportunities and succession planning in my organization is incredibly frustrating.  This could be remedied simply by instituting a program specifically focusing on career opportunities and career development.  This plan will add value to the organization while simultaneously increase employee loyalty and continuity since employees will not want to leave the organization.    

Denning, S. (2011). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A521.4.3.RB - Subtleties of Communication and Hidden Messages

As a young boy, my mother would tell me what time I needed to be home every evening when I went out to play with my friends.  I remember sometimes racing home on my bike because I knew I was late.  I would turn the street corner and be pedaling as fast as I could hoping that somehow she would not notice.  I was rarely that fortunate.  It was more common to see her standing in front of my house with her arms crossed as I pulled in the driveway.  The angry expression on her face becoming clearer as I approached.  She did not have to say a word because her body language spoke volumes. McKay, Davis, and Fanning (2009) suggests “understanding our body language is essential because over 50 percent of a message’s impact comes from body movements” (p. 59).  

I interviewed for a position in my organization about six months ago.  I felt I did very well on the interview; providing some great responses and really selling myself.  I also made a conscious effort to be aware of my body language (sit up straight, both feet on the floor, look at the interviewers I as speak).  I wanted my body language to be congruent to what I was telling them.  McKay et al. (2009) state that “the key to nonverbal communication is congruence” and “awareness of incongruence in your own nonverbal messages can make you a much more effective communicator” (p. 60).  Despite my efforts, I did not get the job.  However, I asked for feedback so I could better prepare myself for future interviews.  I only received a response from one of three interviewers, but I nearly fell off my chair when I read it.  Below is an excerpt from one area of the many questions.

Interviewer:  “For two of the questions, after the question was asked, you said, “I love these.” You then rolled your eyes and shook your head. You gave the impression that we were wasting your time with the questions”.  

My response:  “I feel awful that I came across that way because in no way did I feel you were wasting my time.  The unconscious eye roll must have been my frustration showing through because I thought the questions were difficult.  My “I love these” response was sarcasm directed at how much I really dislike those questions.  I’m glad you mentioned that because I need to practice better self-control and know my sarcasm may be misinterpreted”.  

Lesson learned.  An interview is not the place to assume people know me well enough to understand my lighthearted sarcasm.  Going forward, I must concentrate on sending congruent verbal and nonverbal messages.  My verbal language and body language must be consistent with each other.  

Sometimes my wife calls me and asks “Where are you?”  It used to be like nails on a chalkboard every time she would ask that question.  I would feel like a child responding to his mother and become defensive.  This reaction of course, led to some sort of, let’s just say tiff or minor disagreement.  McKay et al. (2009) discuss paralanguage and the elements involved.  Paralanguage is the verbal component of speech and the element applicable to my case is pitch.  The pitch of my wife’s question would sound like “Where are you?”; where’s pitch being emphasized.  I perceived the question as accusatory or as a metamessage.  The metamessage is the second level of meaning to a statement or question.  It often communicates the speaker’s attitudes and feelings.  McKay et al. (2009) suggest that “on the surface, a statement may seem reasonable and straightforward, but underneath, the metamessage communicates blame and hostility” (p. 75).   However, my wife consistently insisted that was never the case.  I learned to change my reaction when I hear her ask that question.  In turn, I provide her an answer and we simply move forward with the conversation; avoiding an argument.  

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P.  (2009).  Messages the communication skills book.

Oakland, CA:  New Harbinger Publications, Inc.