Theme 7: Effective Communication and Presentation Skillslogotri.hypermart.net/.../theme-7-communication.pdf · Theme 7: Effective Communication and Presentation Skills . ... Effective

Advanced Training Course on Moderation/Facilitation Skills 2-6 December 2002, Lalitpur, Nepal

-101-

Theme 7: Effective Communication

and Presentation Skills


-101-

Effective Communication and Presentation Skills

Barriers and Gateways to Communication By Carl R. Rogers and Roethlisberger It may seem curious that someone like me, a psychotherapist, should be interested in problems of communication. But, in fact.. the whole task of psychotherapy is to deal with a failure in communication. In emotionally maladjusted people, communication within themselves has broken down, and as a result, their communication with others has been damaged. To put it another way, their unconscious, repressed, or denied desires have created distortions in the way they communicate with others. Thus they suffer both within themselves and in their interpersonal relationships. The goal of psychotherapy is to help an individual achieve, through a special relationship with a therapist, good communication within himself or herself. Once this is achieved, that person can communicate more freely and effectively with others. So we may say that psychotherapy is good communication within and between people. We can turn that statement around and it will still be true. Good communication, or free communication, within or between people is always therapeutic. Through my experience in counseling and psychotherapy, I've found that there is one main obstacle to communication: people's tendency to evaluate. Fortunately, I've also discovered that if people can learn to listen with understanding, they can mitigate their evaluative impulses and greatly improve their communication with others. July-August 1952 Reprinted with commentary November - December 1991

Barrier: The Tendency to Evaluate We all have a natural urge to judge, evaluate, and approve (or disapprove) another person's statement. Suppose someone, commenting on what I've just stated, says, "I didn't like what that man said." How will you respond? Almost invariably your reply will be either approval or disapproval of the attitude expressed, Either you respond, "I didn't either; I thought it was terrible," or else you say, "Oh, I thought it was really good," In other words, your first reaction is to evaluate it from your point of view,


-102-

Or suppose I say with some feeling, "I think the Democrats are showing a lot of good sound sense these days." What is your first reaction? Most likely, it will be evaluative. You will find yourself agreeing or disagreeing, perhaps making some judgment about me such as, "He must be a liberal" or "He seems solid in his thinking," Although making evaluations is common in almost all conversation, this reaction is heightened in situations where feelings and emotions are deeply involved. So the stronger the feelings, the less likely it is that there will be a mutual element in the communication. There will be just two ideas, two feelings, or two judgments missing each other in psychological space. If you've ever been a bystander at a heated discussion - one in which you were not emotionally involved, you've probably gone away thinking, "Well they actually weren't talking about the same thing." And because it was heated, you were probably right. Each person was making a judgment, an evaluation, from a personal frame reference. There was nothing that could be called communication in any real sense. And this Impulse to evaluate any emotionally meaningful statement from our own viewpoint is what blocks interpersonal communication.

Gateway: Listening with Understanding We can achieve real communication and avoid this evaluative tendency when we listen with understanding. This means seeing the expressed idea and attitude from the other person's point of view, sensing how it feels to the person, achieving his or her frame of reference about the subject being discussed. This may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. In fact, it is an extremely potent approach in psychotherapy. It is the most effective way we've found to alter a person's basic personality structure and to improve the person's relationships and communications with others. If I can listen to what a person can tell me and really understand how she hates her father or hates the company or hates conservatives, or if I can catch the essence of her fear of insanity or fear of nuclear bombs, I will be better able to help her alter those hatreds and fears and establish realistic and harmonious relationships with the people and situations that roused such emotions. We know from research that such empathic understanding-understanding with a person, not about her-is so effective that it can bring about significant changes in personality. If you think that you listen well and have never seen such results, ' your listening probably has not been of the type I am describing. Here's one way to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your spouse, friend, or small group of friends, stop the discussion for a moment and suggest this rule: "Before each person speaks up, he or she must


-103-

first restate the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately and to that speaker's satisfaction." You see what this would mean. Before presenting your own point of view, you would first have to achieve the other speaker's frame of reference. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But if you try it, you will find it one of the most difficult things you have ever attempted to do. And even when you have been able to do it, your comments will have to be drastically revised. But you will also find that the emotion is dissipating, the differences are reduced and those that remain are rational and understandable. Can you imagine what this kind of approach could accomplish in larger arenas? What would happen to a labor-management dispute if labor, without necessarily conceding agreement, could accurately state management's point of view in a way that management could accept; and if management, without approving labor's stand, could state labor's case so that labor agreed it was accurate? It would mean that real communication was established and that some reasonable solution almost surely would be reached. So why is this "listening" approach not more widely used? There are several reasons. Lack of Courage. Listening with understanding means taking a very real risk. If you really understand another person in this way, if you are willing to enter his private world and see the way life appears to him, without any attempt to make evaluative judgments, you run the risk of being changed yourself. You might see things his way; you might find that he has influenced your attitudes or your personality. Most of us are afraid to take that risk. So instead we cannot listen; we find ourselves compelled to evaluate because listening seems too dangerous. Heightened Emotions. In heated discussions, emotions are strongest, so it is especially hard to achieve the frame of reference of another person or group. Yet it is precisely then that good listening is required if communication is to be established. One solution is to use a third party, who is able to lay aside her own feelings and evaluations, to listen with understanding to each person or group and then clarify the views and attitudes each holds. This has been effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. When the parties to a dispute realize they are being understood, that someone sees how the situation seems to them, the statements grow less exaggerated and less defensive, and it is no longer necessary to maintain the attitude, "1 am 100% right, and you are 100% wrong."


-104-

The influence of such an understanding catalyst in the group permits the members to come closer to seeing the objective truth of the situation. This leads to improved communication, to greater acceptance of each other, and to attitudes that are more positive and more problem solving in nature. There is a decrease in defensiveness, in exaggerated statements, in evaluative and critical behavior. Mutual communication is established, and some type of agreement becomes much more possible. Too Large a Group. Thus far, psychotherapists have been able to observe only small, face-to-face groups that are working to resolve religious, racial, or industrial tensions-or the personal tensions that are present in many therapy groups. What about trying to achieve understanding between larger groups that are geographically remote, for example, or between face-to-face groups that are speaking not for themselves but simply as representatives of others? Frankly, we do not know the answer. Based on our limited knowledge, however, there are some steps that even large groups can take to increase the amount of listening with and decrease the amount of evaluation about. To be imaginative for a moment, suppose that a therapeutically oriented international group went to each of two countries involved in a dispute and said, "We want to achieve a genuine understanding of your views and, even more important, of your attitudes and feelings toward X country. We will summarize and resummarize these views and feelings if necessary, until you agree that our description represents the situation as it seems to you." If they then widely distributed descriptions of these two views, might not the effect be very great? It would not guarantee the type of understanding I have been describing, but it would make it much more possible. We can understand the feelings of people who hate us much more readily when their attitudes are accurately described to us by a neutral third party than we can when they are shaking their fists at us. Communication through a moderator who listens non evaluatively and with understanding has proven effective, even when feelings run high. This procedure can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready. It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, provided the person can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the parties. The moderator can deal with the insincerities, the defensive exaggerations, the lies, and the "false fronts" that characterize almost every failure in communication. These defensive distortions drop away with astonishing speed as people find that the person's intention is to understand, not to judge. And when one party begins to drop its defenses, the other usually responds in kind, and together they begin to uncover the facts of a situation.


-105-

Gradually, mutual communication grows. It leads to a situation in which I see how the problem appears to you as well as to me, and you see how it appears to me as well as to you. Thus accurately and realistically defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack; or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably accepted as such. When we think about the many barriers to personal communication, particularly those due to differences in background, experience, and motivation, it seems extraordinary that any two people can ever understand each other. The potential for problems seems especially heightened in the context of a boss-subordinate relationship. How is Communication possible when people do not see and assume the same things or share the same values? On this question, there are two schools of thought. One school assumes that communication between A and B has failed when B does not accept what A has to say as being factual true, or valid; and that the goal of communication is to get B to agree with A's opinions, ideas, facts, or information. The other school of thought is quite different. It assumes that communication has failed when B does not feel free to express his feelings to A because B fears they will not be accepted by A. Communication is facilitated when A or B or both are willing to express and accept differences. To illustrate, suppose Bill, an employee, is in his boss's office. The boss says, "I think, Bill, that this is the best way to do your job." And to that, Bill says, "Oh yeah?" According to the first school of thought, this reply would be a sign of poor communication. Bill does not understand the best way of doing his work. To improve communication, therefore, it is up to the boss to explain to Bill why the boss's, not Bill's, way is the best. From the second school's point of view, Bill's reply is a sign of neither good nor bad communication; it is indeterminate. But the boss can take the opportunity to find out what Bill means. Let us assume that this is what she chooses to do. So this boss tries to get Bill to talk more about his job. We'll call the boss representing the first school of thought "Smith" and the boss subscribing to the second school Jones." Given identical situations, each behaves differently. Smith chooses to explain; Jones chooses to listen. In my experience, Jones's response works better than Smith's, because Jones is making a more proper evaluation of what is taking place between her and Bill than Smith is.


-106-

“Oh Yeah?" Smith assumes that he understands what Bill means when Bill says, "Oh yeah?" so there is no need to find out. Smith is sure that Bill does not understand why this is the best way to do his job, so Smith has to tell him. In this process, let us assume Smith is logical lucid, and clear. He presents his facts and evidence well. But, alas, Bill remains unconvinced. What does Smith do? Operating under the assumption that what is taking place between him and Bill is something essentially logical Smith can draw only one of two conclusions: either (1) he has not been clear enough or (2) Bill is too stupid to understand. So he has to either "spell out” his case in words of fewer and fewer syllables or give up. Smith is reluctant to give up, so he continues to explain. What happens? The more Smith cannot get Bill to understand him, the more frustrated and emotional Smith becomes and the more Smith's ability to reason logically is diminished. Since Smith sees himself as a reasonable, logical chap, this is a difficult thing for him to accept. It is much easier to perceive Bill as uncooperative or stupid. This perception will affect what Smith says and does. Under these pressures, Smith evaluates Bill more and more in terms of his own values and tends to treat Bill's as unimportant, essentially denying Bill's uniqueness and difference. He treats Bill as if he had little capacity for self-direction. Let us be clear. Smith does not see that he is doing these things. When he is feverishly scratching hieroglyphics on the back of an envelope, trying to explain to Bill why this is the best way to do his job, Smith is trying to be helpful. He is a man of goodwill, and he wants to set Bill straight. This is the way Smith sees himself and his behavior. But it is for this very reason that Bill's "Oh yeah?” is getting under Smith's skin. "How dumb can a guy be?” is Smith's attitude, and unfortunately Bill will hear that more than Smith's good intentions. Bill will feel misunderstood. He will not see Smith as a man of goodwill trying to be helpful. Rather he will perceive him as a threat to his self-esteem and personal integrity. Against this threat Bill will feel the need to defend himself at all cost. Not being so logically articulate as Smith, Bill expresses this need by saying, again, “Oh yeah?” Let us leave this sad scene between Smith and Bill, which I fear is going to end with Bill either leaving in a huff or being kicked out of Smith's office. Let us turn for a moment to Jones and see how she is interacting with Bill. Jones, remember, does not assume that she knows what Bill means when he says, “Oh yeah?” so she has to find out. Moreover, she assumes that when Bill


-107-

said this, he had not exhausted his vocabulary or his feelings. Bill may mean not just one thing but several different things. So Jones decides to listen. In this process, Jones is not under any illusion that what will happen will be a purely logical exchange. Rather she is assuming that what happens will be primarily an interaction of feelings. Therefore, she cannot ignore Bill's feelings, the effect of Bill's feelings on her, or the effect of her feelings on Bill. In other words, she cannot ignore her relationship to Bill; she cannot assume that it will make no difference to what Bill will hear or accept. Therefore, Jones will be paying strict attention to all of the things Smith has ignored. She will be addressing herself to Bill's feelings, her own feelings, and the interaction between them. Jones will therefore realize that she has ruffled Bill's feelings with her comment, "I think, Bill, this is the best way to do your job." So instead of trying to get Bill to understand her, she decides to try to understand Bill. She does this by encouraging Bill to speak. Instead of telling Bill how he should feel or think, she asks Bill such questions as, "Is this what you feel?" "Is this what you see?" "Is this what you assume?" Instead of ignoring Bill's evaluations as irrelevant, not valid, inconsequential, or false, she tries to understand Bill's reality as he feels it, perceives it, and assumes it to be. As Bill begins to open up, Jones's curiosity is piqued by this process. "Bill isn't so dumb; he's quite an interesting guy" becomes Jones's attitude. And that is what Bill hears. Therefore Bill feels understood and accepted as a person. He becomes less defensive. He is in a better frame of mind to explore and reexamine his perceptions, feelings, and assumptions. Bill feels free to express his differences. In this process, he sees Jones as a source of help and feels that Jones respects his capacity for self-direction. These positive feelings toward Jones make Bill more inclined to say, "Well, Jones, I don't quite agree with you that this is the best way to do my job, but I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll try to do it that way for a few days, and then I'll tell you what I think." I grant that my two orientations do not work in practice quite so neatly as I have worked them out on paper. There are many other ways in which Bill could have responded to Smith in the first place. He might even have said, "OK, boss, I agree that your way of doing my job is better." But Smith still would not have known how Bill felt when he made this statement or whether Bill was actually going to do his job differently. Likewise, Bill could have responded to Jones differently. In spite of Jones's attitude, Bill might still have been reluctant to express himself freely to his boss. Nevertheless, these examples give me something concrete to point to in making the following generalizations:


-108-

1. Smith represents a very common pattern of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding does not arise because Smith is not clear enough in expressing himself. Rather, Smith misevaluates what takes place when two people are talking together.

2. Smith's misunderstanding of the process of personal communication is

based on common assumptions: (a) that what is taking place is something logical; (b) that words mean something in and of themselves, apart from the people speaking them; and (c) that the purpose of the interaction is to get Bill to see things from Smith's point of view.

3. These assumptions set off a chain reaction of perceptions and negative

feelings, which blocks communication. By ignoring Bill's feelings and rationalizing his own, Smith ignores his relationship to Bill as an important determinant of their communication. As a result, Bill hears Smith's attitude more clearly than the logical content of Smith's words. Bill feels that his uniqueness is being denied. Since his personal integrity is at stake, he becomes defensive and belligerent. And this frustrates Smith. He perceives Bill as stupid, so he says and does things that make Bill still more defensive.

4. Jones makes a different set of assumptions: (a) that what is taking place

between her and Bill is an interaction of sentiments; (b) that Bill-not his words in themselves-means something; and (c) that the object of the interaction is to give Bill a chance to express himself.

5. Because of these assumptions, there is a psychological chain reaction of

reinforcing feelings and perceptions that eases communication between Bill and Jones. When Jones addresses Bill's feelings and perceptions from Bill's point of view, Bill feels understood and accepted as a person; he feels free to express his differences. Bill sees Jones as a source of help; Jones sees Bill as an interesting person. Bill, in turn, becomes more cooperative.

If I have identified correctly these very common patterns of personal communication, then we can infer some interesting hypotheses: Jones's method works better than Smith's not because of any magic but because Jones has a better map of the process of personal communication. Jones's method, however, is not merely an intellectual exercise. It depends on Jones's capacity and willingness to see and accept points of view that are different from her own and to practice this orientation in a face-to-face relationship. This is an emotional and intellectual achievement. It depends in part on Jones's awareness of herself in part on the practice of a skill.


-109-

Although universities try to get students to appreciate, at least intellectually, points of view different from their own, little is done to help them learn to apply this intellectual appreciation to simple, face- to-face relationships. Students are trained to be logical and clear-but no one helps them learn to listen skillfully. As a result, our educated world contains too many Smiths and too few Joneses. The biggest block between two people is their inability to listen to each other intelligently, understandingly, and skillfully. This deficiency in the modern world is widespread and appalling. We need to make greater efforts to educate people in effective communication-which means, essentially, teaching people how to listen.

Retrospective Commentary By John J. Gabarro

Reading "Barriers and Gateways" today, it is hard to understand the stir the article created when it was first published. But in 1952, Rogers' and Roethlisberger's ideas about the importance of listening were indeed radical. Not only did they stake out new territory that was anathema to the gray flannel ethicnamely, the idea that people's feelings mattered. But they also challenged the sanctity of hierarchical relationships by suggesting that managers take their subordinates' thoughts and feelings seriously. Today, however, these insights are so basic as to be obvious, which shows how much impact their ideas have had and how far management communication has come. Or has it? Contemporary managers do have a better grasp of how important listening is to good communication. Nonetheless, most still have a hard time putting this lesson into practice. One reason could be their own sophistication: simple lessons can be easily forgotten. Another reason, however, could be that this lesson is not so simple after all that what the authors told us 40 years ago is more difficult to do than it appears and is really only half the story. The benefit of revisiting R&R, then, is both to remind ourselves of still-relevant, indeed powerful. insights and to find, from the vantage point of 40 years later, what R&R may have overlooked. What speaks loudest to business today are three insights that in fact transcend institutional and social boundaries: they are the communication barriers and gateways that, as the authors show, can occur between two nations as well as between two individuals. These insights have endured because they are basic truths about human interaction. The greatest barrier to effective communication is the tendency to evaluate what another person is saying and therefore to misunderstand or to not really "hear." The Bill and Smith scenario, which vividly illustrates this process, rings


-110-

true today because such communication breakdowns still happen routinely. In fact, in today's arguably more complex business environment, they may be more likely to happen. Greater work force diversity, for example, can complicate communication, as a common language of shared assumptions and experiences becomes harder to establish. Indeed, if in 1952 Roethlisberger thought it "extraordinary" that any two people could communicate, given their "differences in background, experience, and motivation," he would surely have thought it a miracle today. Checking the natural tendency to judge yields a better understanding of the person with whom you are communicating. Of course, greater diversity also makes disciplined listening all the more important-because the potential for misunderstanding is greater. This gateway, then, is more vital than ever. By suspending assumptions and judgments, a manager can get to the heart of an employee's feelings, a better signpost to what the employee is saying than his or her words alone. A better understanding of the other person's point of view in turn helps you communicate better. Effective communication is equal parts listening and expression; the clarity of one depends on the clarity of another. A manager with a clearer picture of whom he's talking to is able to express himself more accurately… These insights have been the impetus behind a number of progressive practices-corporate efforts to empower employees, for example. When a manager shows a willingness to listen to an employee, she is more likely to engender trust and thus honesty. And by encouraging the employee to talk straight, without fear of reprisal, she boosts his self-confidence because he sees that the organization values his input. What's more, the manager stays tapped into a vital information source-the front lines Or consider the technique of "active listening," developed in the 1970s and still widely used in many management- and sales training programs. A salesperson applying active listening, for example, reacts non-judgmentally to what a prospect is saying, rephrasing it to make sure he truly understands the customer's point of view. The benefits are twofold. First, this process minimizes the likelihood that the salesperson is laying his biases on the customer's needs. Second, the prospect feels listened to and understood. Ultimately, though, R&R may have had too much faith in non evaluative listening. Researchers doing work in this field, and, for that matter, managers trying to apply these lessons, now realize how overly optimistic the authors were. First, a fundamental but unarticulated premise is that understanding equals resolution, but this is not the case. While understanding can improve


-111-

the negotiation process as various research, from Richard Walton's work in labor relations to Roger Fisher's in international negotiations, has shown it cannot by itself resolve conflict. Second, the process of establishing trust is not as one-dimensional as R&R imply. Jones would probably not be able to secure Bill's trust merely by showing a commitment to non evaluative listening. Bill will assess many other aspects of Jones's behavior and character in deciding whether to talk openly with her: her motives, her discretion, the consistency of her behavior. even her managerial competence. Only if this assessment is positive will Bill respond candidly to Jones's overtures. Thus, as a rule, a minimum baseline of confidence is needed to evoke the kind of trust that honest communication requires. This is especially true where there is a power imbalance, which tends to foster greater initial distrust. (This dynamic works both ways: an employee may distrust her manager for fear of reprisal; but a manager may distrust his employee for fear that she'll say only what he wants to hear.) Finally, managers today come up against a few more communication barriers than R&R envisioned. One is the pressure of time. Listening carefully takes time, and managers have little of that to spare. In today's business culture especially, with its emphasis on speed (overnight mail, faster computers, time-based competition), already pressed managers may give short shrift to the slower art of one-on-one communication. Another barrier in this era of mergers, acquisitions, and delayering is insecurity and the fear that it breeds. When downsizing and layoffs loom, both the Bills and the Joneses of this world have good reason for not opening up, especially when people believe that their true feelings or beliefs may get them fired. Even so, these limitations don't entirely explain why, some 40 years later. a salesperson can win over clients with active listening but a manager fails to have the slightest idea what makes his employees tick. This is because managers face still another. more significant, barrier, one I call the managerial paradox: while it is crucial that managers be able to listen non judgmentally (to understand other points of view and get valid information), the essence of management is to do just the opposite to make judgments. Managers are called on daily to evaluate product lines, markets, numbers, and, of course, people. And in turn, they are evaluated on how well they do this. The danger, then, is that this bias for judging will subvert a manager's inclination to listen carefully and, in doing so, sabotage his or her ability to make accurate business and people judgments. Managers may be tempted to resolve this paradox as an either/or. And for good reason: rarely in their training have the two mind-sets been reconciled. Business schools, for the most part, still reinforce evaluative listening; they

teach students to defend their own positions while scoring points against others'. And those behavioral experts who do focus on non evaluative listening tend to focus almost exclusively on the importance of empathy. But if one thing has made itself clear in the past 40 years, it is that managers must have the capacity to do both. They must recognize that to make judgments, you must suspend judgment.

The Use of 1. Essential

Good queBrief, simRelated tArrangedDistribute

2. Uses ‘General''What do ‘Direct’ qis your feA useful t (a) To

qure'WJoor

(b) Ime.gWh

Orc
Extract from: THE ARTICULATE EXECUTIVE: hestrating Effective Communication. (A Harvard
Business Review Book, 1994) P. 31 - 43


-112-

Questions

s of Good Questioning stions should be: ply worded and easily understandable. o one point only. in a logical order. d evenly among the group (avoid a fixed order).

questions are those addressed to the group as a whole, e.g. you as supervisors regard as your first responsibility?’

uestions are those addressed to a specific individual, e.g. 'What eling on this point, Mr Jones?' echnique is:

turn a general question into a direct question, i.e., put the estion to the group as a whole, pause to allow all members to flect, and then appeal to a specific individual for an answer: hat do you consider is the right action to take in this case. ..Mr nes?' mediately to follow a general question with a direct question, . 'What do you consider is the right action to take in this case? at are your views, Mr Jones?'

Extract from : A.I.S Debenham, A Training Officer’s Guide to Discussion Leading

(Bacie, London, 1981) P. 22 - 24


-113-

The following is a list of some of the more important uses to which general or direct questions may be put: USE GENERAL DIRECT EXAMPLE

1. To provoke thought and discussion

!

'In your experience, what are some of the reasons why instructions are not clearly understood?'

2.To get different expressions of opinion and feelings

! 'It is sometimes said that the job of developing men is a supervisor's first responsibility what are your views on this statement?'

3. To secure a complete analysis

! ..'What are all the essential factors in an efficient instruction?'

4. To bring out points of similarity

! 'What are the points of similarity, do you think, between your own respon- sibilities and those of your assistants?

5. To promote individual thinking

! 'What would you say, Mr Jones, is one reason why instructions are not clearly understood?'

6. To get a member to declare himself with a specific answer

!

'What does the word "discipline" imply to you, Mr Jones?'

7. To draw on a members special experience

! 'On this.point may we have the benefit of your experience, Mr Jones?'

8. To break the ice for shy members

! 'What are your feelings on this point, Mr Jones?'

9. To curb irrelevant talk or aside conversations

!

10. To wake up a sleepy member

!

(Make take any appropriate form of direct question)


-114-

TYPE OF QUESTION

CHARACTER- ISTICS

EXAMPLE USE IN DISCUSSION LEADING

OPEN Thought – provoking and hence capable of a wide variety of answer. Usually prefixed by Where? Who? Why? When? What? How?

‘Where do you think a supervisor's Of great value in and hence capable first responsibility lies?’ ‘Who should be responsible for taking action in this case?’ ‘Why is it important to summarize frequently ?’ ‘What are the advantages of good communications ?’ ‘How would you proceed in a case like this?’ (see also Appendix B)

Of great value in provoking thought discussion and encouraging participation by members. An effective means of controlling the discussion and arriving at an analysis or summary

IMPERATIVE Question is not directly interrogatory but couched in the form of a request, capable of various answer

‘(Please) summarize your views.’ ‘Analyse the situation.’ ‘Outline the sequence.’ ‘Describe your probable reactions.’ ‘Explain the differences.’

Of some value, Best followed up by an open question. Mainly used in direct questioning of specific individuals.

IRHETORICAL Questioner does not expect group to answer. Group knows questioner will answer himself or that no answer is required.

‘Under the circumstances, what could I do but tell the truth?’

Of no value, Does not provoke thought or further discussion.

LEADING Answer is implied in the question and hence is a foregone conclusion – ‘yes’ or ‘no’

‘Such a theory is quite untenable, isn’t it?’

Of no value, Does not provoke thought or further discussion.


-115-

Johari Window: Towards Open Communication To facilitate the development of an effective team, one crucial requirement is an environment of trust and openness that encourages giving and receiving feedback. The trainer should encourage free exchange of ideas and help to ensure that the communication channels are open. He has to guard against the danger of imposing his values and hampering "growth. He has to skillfully assist the group to develop and learn. Team building places emphasis on an environment that encourages openness, trust and feedback. The Johari Window concept as shown in Figure 9 provides the rationale and direction for team building activities.

Figure 9: The Johari Window model The Johari Window model, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham, focuses on the importance of the individual giving and receiving feedback within a group. The process helps participants "to see ourselves as others see us". Feedback enables individuals to know how others perceive them, how their verbal and non-verbal communication is affecting other members of the group. It encourages receiving feedback on how their actions affect others (by receiving feedback) and provides them the opportunity to share with others how their actions are affecting them (by giving feedback). The Johari Window model has been described as a communication window through which you give and receive information about yourself and others.

GROUP Self disclosure or Gives Feedback

Things They Know Things They Don’t Know

SELF Solicits Feedback

Things I Know Things I don’t know

ARENA

FACADE

BLIND SPOT

UNKNOWN

Unconscious


-116-

There are four panes in the model : a. The Arena is the pane representing "things I know about myself" and

"thin~they (others in the group) know" about me. The information is shared by all.

b. Blind spot refers to information that I do not know about myself but the

others know. Reducing the blind spot would then involve the individual soliciting or asking for feedback from others in the group.

c. The Facade is the pane where things are known to the individual but

which the group does not know. The information is kept away from them. Reducing it would mean a willingness to take the risk to share individual feelings, perceptions and opinions with others.

d. The Unknown contains things neither the individual nor the group

knows, it may represent latent potentialities or early childhood memories.

Team Building seeks to develop an environment where there is soliciting of feedback that can reduce the blind spot and where there is giving of feedback thus reducing the facade. The end result is a bigger arena, as illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10 : Team Building encourages feedback The primary focus in team building is to prepare individuals to be willing to give and receive feedback voluntarily. This attitude once cultivated will be carried through during the rest of the training programme and in the work environment. The greater the trust among its members the wider the arena of the members of the group, and the greater the exchange of information. Team building activities are selected to encourage the giving and receiving of feedback which will assist members of the group to get to know more about themselves and about each other. The establishment of an open, trusting

A B

F U

A B

F U


-117-

relationship will then assist them to deal with learning and work situations more effectively. It cannot be denied that a person's ability to engage in effective communication will help him to be an effective member of the team. Jack Gibb proposes that one way to understand communication is to view it as a people process rather than a language process. If communication is to improve, then changes must be made in interpersonal relationships. One major change that needs to be made is to reduce the degree of defensiveness. "Defensive behaviour, is behaviour which occurs when an individual perceives threat or anticipates threat in the group.. .Besides talking about the topic, he thinks about how he appears to others, how he may be seen more favourably, how he may win, dominate, impress or escape punishment, and or how he may avoid or mitigate a perceived or an anticipated attack. " The problem is that, such inner feelings and outward acts trigger defensive posture in others and engenders defensive listening. It is not easy to give feedback in a way that does not hurt another person or not be perceived as a threat by him. It requires developing sensitivity to the needs of other members of the group, understanding them and being able to see things from their perspective. The acceptance of oneself and others is a prerequisite for effective teamwork. THOMAS GEORGE INTAN, MALAYSIA 1997


-118-

Tips on Talking Taken from : TIPS ON TALKING (Bacie, London, 1974) P. 3 - 12 When you are asked to give a talk, it can be a bit worrying and time-wasting if you are not used to doing this sort of thing. Here are some suggestions to help you.

HOW TO START THINK about these points:

1. What type of AUDIENCE are you going to talk to?

2. What is the PURPOSE of your talk?

3. What SUBJECT MATTER do you want to include?

4. How will you PRESENT it?


-119-

Preparation 1. The Audience:

Have your audience in mind. (a) What is their general attitude likely to be - interested,

indifferent, friendly, skeptical?

(b) How much will they know already? If your talk is one of a series, what have the other speakers said?

(c) How fast can they take things in? Are they well used to listening

to talks or will they find it rather a strain? These considerations may affect your purpose and determine your choice of subject matter. 2. The Purpose:

IS IT (a) To give background? (so long as they get the general picture it will do) (b) To give detailed information? (they must remember certain things) (c) To put forward a new point of view? (they must be influenced and interested) (d) To teach a particular skill? (they must know the drill from A to Z) (e) To outline a proposed course of action? (they must be clear about what is required of them)

Interested Indifferent Friendly Skeptical


-120-

What you are aiming at will affect both the SUBJECT MATTER of your talk and HOW you present it. It will also determine the TITLE of your talk if this has not been given to you. But if someone else has chosen it, the title will affect both your purpose and your choice of subject matter. Be Clear About Your Purpose! 3. Subject Matter: Collecting

Where? From Your own experience. Listening and talking to others. Reading. How? By Jotting down ideas on separate slips of paper Listing under headings. Making a complete list of points which can be sorted out later.

But DO write down all your ideas.

Now you can set about-

Arranging Sort out your ideas into groups.

Decide which groups will form your introduction, main arguments and conclusions

Have to throw out much of your material


-121-

Later on you will almost certainly have to throw out much of your material because of lack of time. So it is a good idea to mark your points with priorities, i.e. they MUST get this point; it would be USEFUL but not absolutely essential to get this one; and this point can EASILY BE DISCARDED without much loss. So far you have thought about 1. AUDIENCE 2. PURPOSE 3. SUBJECT MATTER Now you can think about how to present it. The Shape of the talk Most talks have: 1. An INTRODUCTION 2. The main THEME 3. A SUMMARY and conclusions 1. In your INTRODUCTION you should try to get the audience interested.

You may prefer to start with a bang to shake them up a bit, or with some aspect that is particularly interesting.


-122-

Here are some ways of arousing and maintaining interest: (a) Make the most of interesting aspects of the subject. (b) Show that the subject is important for them personally. (c) Arouse curiosity by interesting and varied methods of presentation. (d) Give a real life practical flavour. (e) Show your own enthusiasm and interest. 2. The stages in the development of the main THEME should be clear in your

own mind. Then you can make sure that your audience will be able to follow each step and remember it. Good talks often register because sensible use is made of suitable examples, analogies, illustrations and other aids.

If your talk is to be worthwhile it must be remembered. There is no point in covering so much that the audience do not know what it is all about afterwards. This means you must be ready to present your arguments so that the important points are remembered. This is where your system of priorities (MUST know, SHOULD know, COULD know) is important, and the use of instructional aids should be considered. 3. In the SUMMARY do not be afraid of repeating what you have said

earlier. It is less boring if you do not use exactly the same words, but you do want your conclusions to be quite clear. Re-state your main points briefly.

Final check (a) Is the shape of the whole talk evident? There should be a clear pattern or skeleton. (b) Will it be all right for time? If you are not used to estimating this, put down the minutes needed for

each section and add them up. Is the allotment of time for different sections in balance?


-123-

Try it on someone (c) Try it out on someone who will tell you about the parts they did not get;

or use a tape recorder and try it on yourself. (d) Many speakers find that it helps, when they have the final plan, to write

out in full the first and last paragraphs. A well prepared beginning and end can be the means of assuring your confidence throughout.

Hints on presentation You are well on the way to giving a good talk if you have prepared thoroughly. THOROUGH PREPARATION means that you: 1. Have considered your audience. 2. Have determined your purpose. 3. Know your subject and how you are going to present it in the talk. 4. Have decided how you will tackle it and planned and mastered any aids

you want. 5. THE RESULT IS CONFIDENCE There will probably always be some nervousness if you are not used to talking in public. Remember that you probably would not give a good talk if you did not feel a bit nervous. Thorough preparation helps you to be at ease and so have a friendly attitude. Here are some hints to make things run smoothly. They are about: ARRANGEMENTS DELIVERY AIDS TIMING QUESTIONS About arrangements Get there in plenty of time. Get to know your chairman, if you have one. Brief him about any special things you want done. Have a look at the layout of the roomwhere are you going to put your notes if you require them?

Advanced Training2-6 De

Don't rely on this time for a last look through your notes somebody is sure to want to talk to you about something. Have your last check before you get there. See that any aids you require are in position and in working order. Try to estimate the mood of the audience. About delivery First impressions are important. Don't apologise for yourself or your subject. Speak clearly and audibly don't put on a special voice, but do speak naturally. Speak to all the audience not to one corner. Put due expression into what you say and use gestures if they help. Don't be afraid to pause or repeat yourself. If you want to read something, hold the book or paper low and speak over it to the group. Try not to speak too much to a blackboard or chart that you are using. Stand to one side, use a pointer. If you need a complicated diagram why not duplicate it first? Mannerisms Your audience can easily become more interested in you than in what you are saying. Do not encourage this by mannerisms like these:

Prowling to and fro like a caged panther. Adopting and maintaining awkward postures. Juggling with chalk. Jingling coins. Fiddling with notes.

Be yourself and don't try to put on an act. Anchor yourself and move with a deliberate purpose. Show your enthusiasm your topic may be old to you but it is fresh to the audience.
Anchor yourself
Course on Moderation/Facilitation Skills cember 2002, Lalitpur, Nepal

-124-


-125-

If you are ENTHUSIASTIC and KNOW YOUR STUFF the audience will put up with a lot but try to keep irritating mannerisms to a minimum. About Aids * Try to have a number of varied approaches in your talk. If you do nothing but talk you attack through only one sense. Here are some other ways: * Blackboard * Blanket Board * Models * Samples * Prepared Charts * Pictures * Projection Aids * Sound Recordings You should use an aid if it does the job BETTER THAN YOU CAN DO IT IN ANY OTHER WAY. Aids can become HINDRANCES unless you have mastered them. This means PLANNING THEIR USE AND PRACTISING with them. So, if you are using a blackboard, plan the LAYOUT and practise writing and drawing beforehand. Aids will not always make your point, but they will help to confirm it.

About Timing Give the audience time to take in what you are doing. A little done well is better than much done badly. Hammer home your main points. Hammer home your main points


-126-

If you are showing something complicated give the audience time to see it as a whole before you rush into the details. Use pauses to let them catch up, or stop occasionally to summarise so that they know where they are. When you say" ...and finally. ..", mean what you say. Be punctual: this applies both at the START and the FINISH. More often than not you are wasting your time as well as theirs if you run over the time at the end. Questions Leave time for questions at the end. As you become more experienced you may be happy to have questions as you go along. In both cases BEWARE OF THE RED HERRING. Deal with it firmly but politely. Sometimes you can "spot" the questions you are likely to be asked, but if you do not know the answer to a question don't try to wriggle. Perhaps someone in the audience may be able to help if not promise to look it up and DO SO.

The Last Word Nobody expects you to appear suddenly as a gifted speaker, but people are entitled to expect to be able to follow what you say and not be put off by many faults that can easily be cured, but can be cured only by

YOU Most people are too polite to tell you about your faults after you have given a lecture, but YOU can easily spot them if you think about talks you have given. Remember the acid test is NOT what you said but the effect of it upon your

AUDIENCE Did you achieve your PURPOSE?


-127-

QUESTIONING SKILLS Taken from:Charles Buening II, Comunicating On the Job : A practical Guide for Supervisers (Addison – Wesley Publishing Company, Philippines, 1974) P. 2 – 9, 13 - 23 The following pages will describe and illustrate a most important aspect of any one- to-one communication: asking questions. As a supervisor, you will find: 1. There are many occasions when asking questions in order to gather

information is the primary reason for contact with your employees; inquiring why an em ployee was late for work, investigating product irregularities, or studying work habits are just a few examples.

2. You are called upon to evaluate and make decisions on the basis of this

information. ("Do I take action on this complaint?" "Was it his fault?" "Why was he late and is it a valid reason?" "What should I say or what should I do about this?").

To make the best decisions and in turn to take the best action, it is essential to have i. the best possible information with which to work. Asking questions-skillfully-will help you accomplish this. What questions you ask and how you ask them may determine whether: • You create or avoid potential conflict. • You get all possible facts or just sketchy information. • You turn off an employee or establish mutual trust. We'll be looking at a variety of questioning techniques and their applications. Among these are: • .Direct questions. • Open questions. • Clarifying questions.

Direct Questions Definition Direct questions are designed to require a specific answer. They narrow the range of possible answers and focus on a particular point in discussion. Questions which can be answered with a yes or no, a single word, or a simple phrase fall into the direct question category.


-128-

Purpose/Uses • To gather specific information. • To give the other person a clear idea of what you want to know from

him. • To help eliminate misunderstanding of what answer is required. • To guide the discussion toward a specific problem. Examples • "Do you have time to talk now?" • "When is your next deadline date?" • "Did you complete the project?" • "What's your new address and phone number?" Direct questions, although applicable to many situations, must be used with caution. There are three main problems associated with overusing or misusing direct questions. 1. They can be seen as threatening.

• What is your reason for being late?" The employee may see a red flag. ("Whoa! Wait a minute! You don't understand the situation.") ,

• "Where did your tool disappear to?" • "What did I tell you to do about that?" ("Huh, what are you

referring to?") 2. They can arouse defensiveness, and when people are defensive,

communication becomes difficult. Thus the effect of increasing defensiveness is usually a less productive discussion.

3. They can actually result in getting less information. Using too many

direct questions may make you sound like a prosecuting attorney or a police sergeant interrogating a suspect. You often end up asking more and more questions and getting less and less information; in addition, your relationship can become weakened.

Therefore, although direct questions may supply you with the desired information and be very effective in a nonthreatening or nonincriminating situation, you must exercise discretion and decide whether a different type of question might be more effective.


-129-

Open Questions Definition Open questions are those questions which do not require a specific answer to a particular point in discussion. As the word "open" implies, these questions allow a wider range of answers which often require several sentences or a longer explanation. Many questions which ask for an opinion, an explanation of events or procedures, or the reasoning behind a particular decision fall into the category of open questions. To make it a little easier to identify the difference between a direct question and an open question, we've made a few comparisons for you. These may seem to be a contrast between black and white very polarized. Actually this has been done to help you understand the difference. You'll find that there are many gray areas between the two poles, especially when a question is taken out of context or said in a particular tone of voice. (You know what your tone of voice can do to the message that comes across, don't you?).

DIRECT QUESTION OPEN QUESTION 1. Requires a specific answer. 1. Allows for a wide range of answers 2. Can often be answered with a few words

of a yes of no answer 2. Often is answered with several sentences

or longer explanation. 3. An example: Questions asking for specific

data 3. Examples: Questions asking for an

opinion, explanation or events or procedures, reasoning behind a decisions, and so on.

4. Can be potentially threatening in particular situations

4. Less threatening in tense situations

5. Tends to limit the response of the employee

5. Enables the person to give you un-anticipated information

Purposes/Uses • To give the employee more control of the conversation. • To get information without creating defensiveness. • To allow the employee to express a personal point of view. • To leave room for the conversation to branch (and possibly reveal hidden

facts/reasons/causes pertinent to your information gathering). • To help you find out what your employee sees as important in this

situation. • To gather additional information. • To refrain from revealing any information or beliefs you may be

tentatively holding.


-130-

Examples • "How do you see this situation?" • "What do you feel are the contributing factors?" • "Could you tell me what happened on the production line?" ."Why do you

feel that way?" • "What's your view of how the accident happened?"

Let's look at some situations where a direct question (as opposed to an open question) may be more threatening, more incriminating, or result in increased defensiveness. The idea is this: If you can get the same information while maintaining good relations by asking a different type of question, why not do so?

DIRECT QUESTION OPEN QUESTION 1. What did you do with the special order

from TBZ Corp.? 1. “Did anything unusual happen this week

that might have caused that TBZ order to be misplaced?

2. “Did you return the tools to the crib? 2. “Were there any unusual incidents that might help us determine what happened to those tools?

3. “What made you swear at that customer?” 3. I have a report here that states you swore at a customer. I really don’t have any other information. Could you fill me in on what happened on that sales call?”

4. “Were you out Tuesday when the supervisor called?”

4. “The supervisor reports he was unable to reach you on Tuesday. Did he call at an odd time?”

As you can see, there are many occasions when a more open type of question can foster a better relationship and help gather information in a less threatening manner. Using more open questions can help you be seen as the kind of supervisor who is: 1. A more objective thinker. 2. Fair 3. More open-minded. 4. Inclined to listen to all points of view. 5. Interested in and concerned about the feelings and attitudes of the

employees. 6. Not inclined to prematurely evaluate situations.


-131-

As a supervisor, you can help yourself by asking the following self-critical questions before approaching an employee: 1. Is the situation potentially threatening? 2. Can my question be taken as prematurely accusing? 3. How would I react to the question I'm planning to ask? 4. Is there another, less direct way of accomplishing my goals? 5. I know what may have happened to him lately that I should consider? 6.Am I phrasing my comment toward the problem or toward the person?

Clarifying Questions Definition A clarifying question asks for more information or a more complete explanation of what has just been said. It's often used when the listener finds a statement unclear or the previous answer incomplete. Questions which ask for examples or a second explanation of the same point fall into the category of clarifying questions. Purposes/Uses • To promote full information. • To help prevent misunderstandings. • To clarify points which have been made. • To ensure that the meaning of the words expressed is understood. • To show interest in the other person's comments. Examples • "I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this; could we review it once

more?" • "You say it always happens; do you mean every time or ..,?" • "I think I understand your point; could you give me a couple of

examples?" By asking a clarifying type of question you greatly increase the chance that the reply will be complete and that you will understand your employee's point of view. Shortcomings in this area are often at the base of miscommunications between supervisors and employees. Occasionally some employees will not give complete information so they can test you and make you out to be a "bad guy" afterwards to justify their position. Much of the literature points to a need for supervisors to gather more complete and detailed information before making decisions. Since your actions,


-132-

evaluations, and decisions are based on what information you have, why not get as much as possible? Several comments from employees interviewed in designing this program serve to illustrate: • Supervisors should find out everything that happened on the job or about

a particular problem before criticizing." • "Don't take complaints as representing the whole picture; take a look at

all the factors first." Too often we operate under the following faulty assumptions: • We think we completely understand what is said by the other person.

.We believe that what is said represents all the information available. • We believe people can and will say everything they want to the first

time we ask a question. • We assume that what is said is always identical to what is meant. If you make the above assumptions when meeting with employees, you will often end up in a state of miscommunication, or with less than complete understanding of the real information. An easy experiment will prove the point. The next time you are talking with someone try this: After the person expresses a point of view, ask the clarifying question: 'I'm not sure I completely understand your point; could you say a little more about it?" You will often find that you don't have all the information-or that what you originally heard wasn't as clear as you thought it had been. The use of clarifying questions will help eliminate those faulty assumptions and bring about more effective communication. ACTIVE LISTENING SKILLS The next section will discuss what is often referred to as active listening. As the word "active" implies, the listening process in effective communication involves much more than just passively hearing the words spoken. It requires that you employ various techniques to aid the communication process. The following techniques will be described and illustrated: • Restatement/paraphrasing • Summarizing • Responding to nonverbal cues • Responding to feelings


-133-

RESTATEMENT OR PARAPHRASING Definition Restatement or paraphrasing is saying back to the other person in your own words what you have just understood him to say in his last comments or statements. It is used by the listener to check his understanding of what has just been said. Purposes/Uses • To check your understanding of what is being said by the other person.

("Did she really mean. ..?") • To ensure that your point being understood by the other person. • To help eliminate any unintended meanings which the speaker is

unaware of communicating. ("Did I say that? I didn't mean it that way!") • To demonstrate your interest in what the other person is saying. • To help eliminate the "he-doesn't-understand" syndrome. No one likes to

feel he is not being understood (even if he' wrong). • To let the employee think about what he's said. • To encourage the speaker to explain more fully what he is saying. Examples • "You're saying, then, that you feel your seal isn't too tight and that the

length is adequate?" • "As you see it, then, the customers were already upset?" • You feel that you aren't getting much cooperation from your coworkers?"

."Are you saying that every day you start work short of supplies?" • "I'm wondering what you understood me to mean. Could you tell me

what you heard my point was?" (This is a reverse technique. You may find it useful to structure questions so that the other person restates or paraphrases what you have just said. Again, this is to check for understanding.

In each example, you are attempting to state in your own words the meaning of the message you are getting from the other person's words. You are also attaching an implicit "is this correct?" with your restatement. This allows the speaker to hear what messages he is communicating and offers him the chance to clear up any misunderstanding or miscommunication. By checking out our intended messages and received communications, greater understanding and clearer communication is ensured. Restatement or paraphrasing in no way implies agreement with the other person's view; it does imply that each of you is understanding what the other is saying. As you noticed, you can use restatement/paraphrasing both to clarify


-134-

what you are hearing and to ensure that the other person is hearing what you intended. A good way to think about the usefulness of restatement or paraphrasing is to ask yourself the following questions: • "If I don't really understand what the other person means by his words,

what are the chances that I'll say or do things that make sense to him?" • "If what I do or say doesn't make sense to the other person, what is likely

to be the result of our communication?" In businesses where the accuracy of information is critical, restatement is used to avoid misunderstanding (for example, restating phone numbers, charge plate numbers, times and places for appointments and meetings). Is your job any less critical? SUMMARIZING Definition Summarizing is saying back to the other person (1) the key points which have been made, and/or (2) the major events that have taken place up till that time in the conversation. It may be used at the beginning of a conversation to reflect on previous meetings and determine a starting point, or it may be used during the course of a discussion to re- cap all the key factors or points discussed so far. Note: Summarizing is a variation of paraphrasing/restatement. It differs in that it encompasses all key points that have taken place; it is not limited only to what has just been said. Purposes/uses • To show that you understand what's being said. • To highlight what has already been covered, and help eliminate

"rehashing." .To keep you aware of what is important. • To aid in moving into new areas of discussion or looking at solutions. • To help establish a starting point in a meeting where the issues have

been discussed at an earlier time. Example: "In our last meeting we established that. ..I discussed the possibility of ...and decided that. .."

Examples • "Let's stop for a minute and check the key points in our discussion: You're

saying. ..I'm saying. .." • "So far we've established that you were home Tuesday, that to your

knowledge the supervisor never called, and that you know your phone


-135-

was working because you received a call from your mother that morning."

• "In essence, then, you've said. .." • "So far you've told me that. .." It is often the experience of feeling misunderstood which causes people to say things over and over. (This can apply to supervisors as well as to employees.) Showing your understanding by summarizing (or paraphrasing/restating) the other person's points can often eliminate the continued discussion or points which have already been made. Failure to acknowledge the other person's points lies at the heart of many unproductive discussions. When people feel misunderstood (not necessarily disagreed with) they usually become frustrated and angry. The result is often a less productive discussion or even an argument. RESPONDING TO NONVERBAL CUES Nonverbal cues are the body and facial movements people make in response to various kinds of things people say and do around them. Each one of us while speaking or listening transmits a variety of signals to the other person via body language. As a supervisor you will be in both positions, that of listener and that of speaker. 1. As listeners we are often unaware of the messages we are sending. The

negative aspects of these messages are dealt with in a later section of this booklet.

2. As speakers we have the dual role of speaker and observer. We are in a

position to observe and to understand the impact of our words by watching for nonverbal cues as to how our messages are being received by the other person. We are .in a position to clarify the meaning of these cues by appropriately responding to them.

Definition Responding to nonverbal cues is another "showing understanding" technique that involves the following activities: 1. Observing the cue. 2. Responding to the cue by either

a) making a comment or asking a question to clarify its meaning, or b) seeing it and saying nothing.


-136-

Purposes/Uses • To clarify the possible meaning of the reaction. • To ensure that a person's reactions and his words convey the same

message. . • To help the other person understand how he is reacting to what is being

said. • To encourage a more open level of communication. • To uncover possible hidden problems or confusion. Two Kinds of Nonverbal Cues Our definition stated that two things could be done after a nonverbal cue is observed. You can either respond by asking/commenting to clarify the meaning of the nonverbal cue, or you can "see it and say nothing." This is because there are two main categories of cues and we deal with each category differently. Easy-to-understand cues are the more obvious kind, which are easy to sense. Such types of cues can be observed and described to the other person for him to comment about. Difficult-to-understand cues are less obvious cues, which you should observe but not describe to the other person. You may think they have some meaning, but you would "feel funny" about asking the other person about them. They may also be cues that you judge have no meaning worth exploring. It is important to be aware of both types; they can give you insight into how your words are being received. Let's look at the two types of cues more closely: I. Easy-to-Understand Cues

CHARACTERISTICS • Obvious. • Easy to sense. • Usually related to what has been said or done. • Indicative of an emotional state, such as anger or confusion.

EXAMPLES • A frown in response to a statement (confusion, disagreement). • Folded arms and sitting back after a comment (anger,

withdrawal). • Smirk on face (disagreement, withdrawal). • Facial expressions of confusion, distrust, anger.


-137-

• Rapid hand movements, shifting in chair (nervous, concerned, anxious).

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO

Very often by making general statements describing the message you seem to be getting, or by making a statement which identifies these movements and asks for some help in interpreting their meaning, you can improve communication. If you sense these cues, it will often be helpful for you to respond by doing the following: • Observe them. • Identify the emotion and examine your last comments for their

possible impact • Say quietly to the other person what you have observed and what

your interpret these gestures to mean, using a tentative statement (what your guess is).

• Ask the other person to clarify the meaning or lack of meaning of what you have observed.

The following discussions represent how to go about responding to easy-to-understand nonverbal cues: EXAMPLE 1: Supervisor: "Let's see now. We've covered quite a few points. Are you

clear on how to complete the new production procedures?" Employee: "Yes." (But he has a look of confusion on his face.) Supervisor: "I know you said 'yes,' but you seemed to have a puzzled

look on your face-are there perhaps a few questions still on your mind that we should review?"

EXAMPLE 2: Supervisor: "Well, I'll try to follow up and see if we can't get some

cooperation from production service and get those parts a little earlier."

Employee: "Uh-huh." (With a smile indicating possible disbelief that anything will happen.)

Supervisor: "By the look on your face, I'd guess you don't feel too confident that we'll get any improvement?"


-138-

In general, all the easy-to-understand cues can be identified and a guess at their meaning mentioned to the employee. (This does not mean that you should respond this way to all the cues.) Responding to a nonverbal cue will very often bring up new information for it lets your employee know that you are sensitive to his reactions. It can thus help you to maintain a more open channel of communication. You'll note that the word "guess" is emphasized quite often. It is very important that your observations are phrased as tentative observations to be checked out. If you try to make firm statements about what another person's gestures mean, you are likely to run into a great deal of resistance. Often people are not aware of these signals and helping to clarify the meaning for them can aid them in becoming more aware of their actual reactions. Letting them do this is important since it is their reaction, not yours II. Difficult-to-Understand Cues

CHARACTERISTICS • More obscure, difficult to interpret. • Difficult to say anything useful about. • Too awkward to describe to the employee. (Although you are

aware of them, you don't know what, if anything, you should do about them.)

• Not easily identified as being a reaction to any of your comments or to the immediate situation.

EXAMPLES • Sitting far back in chair. • Frequent crossing and uncrossing of legs. • Looking down at the floor. • Failure to look you in the eye.

Since it would be very difficult to interpret these kinds of cues accurately, your best approach is to observe them without comment. You may get a more direct cue as your discussion continues. If not, it is wiser to avoid playing the role of an amateur psychologist. Your own common sense will tell you when you should say something. It is important to mention one thing here. This program is trying to develop your awareness by breaking interpersonal communications down into their basic parts. By doing this, we hope you will be able to identify them more quickly and make an effective response. This may explain some of the points that appear "not so important," such as how to respond to a vague nonverbal cue-say nothing.


-139-

We're following a "by-doing-what" emphasis for the simple as well as the more complex skills. RESPONDING TO FEELINGS Definition Responding to feelings is another "showing understanding" technique. It involves these activities: 1. Observing the reaction which indicates that feelings are present.

2. Responding to the other person by telling him what you have observed

and what you interpret your observations to mean, using a tentative phrase (what your guess is).

Purposes/Uses • To encourage a more open level of communication. • To demonstrate your understanding of how the other person feels. • To increase the probability of obtaining more complete information. .To

help vent emotions, so that they have less influence on discussing problems.

• To promote more rational discussions. Example: Employee: "My boyfriend wants me to move back home and, well, I

don't know." Supervisor: "I guess you're feeling pretty confused. " Employee: "I just wanted to tell you that you may be getting a letter

from a customer about me. We just had a terrible scene; I tried to please him but he was very nasty."

Supervisor: "You seem to be pretty upset." Responding to feelings inspires better communication through the expression of understanding. Since we are not in the therapy business, we stick to some pretty simple guidelines concerning responding to feelings.


-140-

What Does "Responding to Feelings" Mean? What Should I Do? As the definition indicates, responding to feelings means to observe the person, identify and name the feelings which seem to be occurring, and describe them to the person with a tentative phrase. The words "tentative phrase" are very important. Since you are making a guess, it is best to say what you think is the feeling with a qualification implying that you aren't quite sure. No one likes to have someone else tell him how he is feeling. It must be a description of what reaction you seem to be observing; the person will let you know if you are on target. What Kinds of Feelings Should I Respond to? As a general rule, only those you can't miss. We are not presuming to "psych out" people's emotions-that's a job for a trained psychologist. We are simply trying to be more understanding and build effective interpersonal relationships. People have feelings; showing your awareness of this is often quite useful in promoting better communication. Your good judgment will tell you when it makes sense to identify and show understanding of feelings. Listen for the Total Message Usually the message a person tries to get across will have two parts-the content of the message and the feeling or attitude underlying the content. There is a difference between responding to the content of the message and to its associated feelings: EXAMPLE: Employee: "If I have to start production short of supplies, I'm really

going to raise hell." Supervisor: (Responding to problem) "What did they short you this

time?" Supervisor: (Responding to feelings) "You are really angry, aren't you?" Why Should I Respond to Feelings? In the same way that showing understanding of someone else's ideas aids communication, so does letting a person know you are aware of his feelings. It promotes a more open and personal relationship.

A second and perhaps more important reason is that very often you can't do much rational discussing of problems or ideas until at least some of the emotional feelings have been aired. Since genuine problem solving occurs as a rational activity, not much thinking will be accomplished until you can come from the emotional reaction level to a more rational level. Therefore your best approach is to respond to the feelings. This will encourage the discussion to become more rational and thus more productive at an earlier point in its development. ' One other comment: Don't expect much more than a "small explosion" when you respond to a feeling. All you want is an expression of the emotions inside. You aren't going to deal with the feelings in any great depth. It is likely, however, that as your discussion progresses, it will become more productive if you continue to apply your communication skills. By letting a little time go by in the discussion, remaining silent a little longer, and asking a few clarifying questions, you'll have a greater chance of resolving things more effectively. It takes a lot of self-discipline, patience, and skill to handle these situations; but then, that's what you are being paid for, isn't it? (Did you notice the last direct question? You'll review this type later in the program, too.) Compiled by: Ms. Lee Meng Foon INTAN

Selected Readings 1. Barriers and Gateways to Communication

(Carl Rogers and Roethlisberger) 2. The Use of Questions.

Extract from Dedenhem, A Training Officer’s Guide to Discussion Leading

3. Johari Window : Towards Open Communication (Thomas George )

4. Tips on Talking (BACIE : British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education )

5. Questioning Skills Extract from Charles Buening, Communicating on the Job : a practical guide for supervisors


-141-

Documents

Theme 7: Effective Communication and Presentation Skillslogotri.hypermart.net/.../theme-7-communication.pdf · Theme 7: Effective Communication and Presentation Skills . ... Effective