optimized-results.com

 

 Conscious Communication: July 2008: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

They Can Make Us Crazy

They say “opposites attract.”  It seems that opposites also annoy, frustrate, and confuse.  That part may not be very useful or enjoyable to us, so it’s in our best interests to look at this a little differently.  First of all, let’s be honest here: getting annoyed is only one of an infinite number of ways we can react.  This is where choice and freedom live; that fleeting moment where we either mindlessly react according to old scripts and habits, or consciously interrupt the knee-jerk, and drive our own lives.  Freedom is more about opening doors, than closing them, and questions are very much like opening doors, so questions are where we find our path.
 
Let’s re-examine that moment of interaction where we got annoyed, frustrated or confused.  Somebody does or says something that hits us so “off” that we are “struck” by it.  We’re on that precipice of how we’re going to deal with it.  This is the moment we either react or catch ourselves.  This is a moment of magic.  What if this person’s way of being in the world, that is so different from ours, offered us tools, resources or perspectives that would serve and benefit us?  What if they’re able to do things that we aren’t able to do (yet)?  What if they have ideas we’ve never thought of?  What if, instead of getting them to see things our way, we took the opportunity to learn from them?
 
Okay, these are rhetorical questions.  They are, however the questions we must train ourselves to ask, if we are to grow and evolve.  Being with people who process the world the same way we do is pretty uncommon.  This is where the conflicts seem to arise.  We seem to think that sharing values is the whole game, when it’s not.  We can “feel the same way about things,” then witness a car crash, and have different accounts of what happened.  Then we typically figure the other person is wrong or crazy, and start trying to “make them see it our way.”  There’s the rub.  When our processing styles collide is exactly when we need to stay in a questioning state, rather than a reactive one.
 
By holding on to that questioning state, we’re metaphorically floating in the “realm of possibilities.”  Until we’ve collapsed them down, we have options.  The willingness to not have to have answers takes a lot of juice out of having to be “right” as well.  They’re very closely related.  Once we jettison the illusion that being “right” somehow protects us and keeps us safe and whole (when you really think about this consciously, it’s obviously silly and flawed) we are freed from the constraints and habits that illusion puts on us.  Dr. Timothy Leary once said that his favorite three words were, “I don’t know,” because every time he said them, he ended up learning something. 
 
In reality, the assertion of being “right” only serves a further illusion of safety.  It separates and detaches us, placing us on a pretend throne.  (“You can’t hurt me because I’m up here, away from you.  I’m right.  You’re not.  You’re down there, away from me.”)  This probably made sense when we were three years old.
 
Let’s get back to that original concept around opposites attracting (before “being right” enters and causes conflict.)  There are plenty of reasons for this, and borrowing from the physical world around us we have examples such as magnetism and bio-diversity.  Shuffling diverse genetics is a wonderful engine for driving growth and evolution.  Homogeneous input is like genetic inbreeding, cumulative errors without checks and balances are the negative results.   Many corollaries hold true when taking this concept from genetics to social development. [For those of you familiar with Integral Theory, this is merely concurrent development in Internal-Singular (biological) and Internal-Plural (cultural) Quadrants.]  Generally, there are areas of preferred uniformity, (breathing the same stuff to live for example) and then there are exciting divergent experiments that propel evolution (democracy, non-violent protests, Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthal, etc.)
 
So here we are with Oscar Madison and Felix Unger, Mutt & Jeff, Jack Spratt and his wife.  We have plenty of examples of being drawn to our opposites, but what factors are we looking at when we decide that they are opposites, and why is it a problem?  And if it’s a problem, what’s the solution?
 

The Solution is in the Bigger Picture
Even when everything else seems in agreement, that pesky processing style shows up with enormous differences: head, heart, intuition, fast, slow, internal, external, assertive, compliant, withdrawing, visual, kinesthetic, and so on.  Each person is experiencing such a different world.  This is where our greatest opportunities live.  Rather than narcissistically assuming our way is The Way, we can look at our opposites as having an important perspective that we’re missing.  We can look at them as having access to tools we’ve missed.  We can see them as having solved problems we’ve never solved.  In short, we can offer one another vast insights, resources, tools, and strategies.  First we let go of the delusion that our way is The Way, and then we get to grow and learn.  How cool is that?!

The more impatient you get with someone, the more likely they can teach you about patience.  The more activity-oriented someone is, the more likely they can teach you to take action, and the more you can teach them about Being.  When someone is so detail-oriented, they make you want to scream, the more they can teach you about crossing your t’s and dotting your i’s, and the more you can teach them to have fun and relax.  The more someone seems too concerned with connection, the more they can teach you about your own detachment, and the more you can teach them about objectivity.  The pushier someone is, the more they can teach you about your own lack of assertiveness, and the more you can teach them about letting people be who they are without judgment. 

Turning the conflict into curiosity and an opportunity to learn and grow is wildly successful in both business and personal relationships.  Everybody wins.  Rather than backing off to compromise (where both sides feel diminished; having to give something up) we discover larger, more inclusive Truths that nourish and support us.  Enlightened Self Interest; seeking growth and evolution for yourself, bears extremely sweet fruit, including by the way, one of the most powerful tools of movement on Earth: compassion

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 Tough to Know the Players Without a Scorecard

Last September, we addressed the concept of Internal Prejudice, and how we unconsciously (or consciously) look down our nose at our own natural processing styles  (how we take in and sort the world around us).  This concept is too big for a single article, and there are plenty of light switches to flick on, so this time we’re going to look a little deeper, to sort out the useful from the unproductive, and the relevant from the habitual.  First up is identifying some parts.

The term “Internal tug-of-war” is something people relate to.  Ever try to identify exactly who’s pulling in which direction?  It turns out that there are many players and many sides.  You’re literally getting pulled in all directions.  Each is a perspective, with its own agenda, communication style, survival strategies, and defense mechanisms.  What’s more, beyond the choir of your own perspectives, you have the voices of your parents, teachers, peers, and more, all contributing their perspectives.
 

Invariably, our own natural ways of processing the world around us are different than those of our parents, teachers, et al, and rather than be told, “my, how creative and interesting!”  we are usually told, “No.  You should see it like this, do it like this, be like this.”  That throws it to our very different survival strategies, and some of us identify with rebelling against this indoctrination, while others question and doubt the value of our own perceptions.  So another splintering takes place, and these voices in our heads become that much less connected to a unified sense of self.

This creates an awful lot of communication going on inside of us that isn’t conveying much beyond chaos, confusion, and anxiety.  Thus the most common defense is to detach from, or anesthetize this over-abundance of input.  Unfortunately, this defense works against our best interests.  The input is valuable; we just need to take it in, without the sheer volume scaring us into shutting down.

Our brains take in some information, our emotions take in other information, and our body-sense or intuition takes in still other information (as if in different bandwidths, if you’re familiar with light or sound frequencies).  None of it is superior, anymore than fire is superior to water or air.  The more sides of a story you have - the more dots per inch - the clearer and more accurate the picture.  Any prejudice we feel toward one part of ourselves, denigrating our thoughts, emotions or intuition, is an example of that Internal Prejudice, which doesn’t serve us.  Let yourself recognize this, and set an alarm for yourself.  Awareness is a great first step; change is inevitable.

The Flow

There are natural reasons for us to be drawn or repelled by processing styles.  This doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong.  Our perspectives and worldviews are dynamic; always in a dance of reaction to life.  When you’re totally stressed, you see life differently.  When everything is going wonderfully, and you’re on top of the world – well, the expression itself speaks to that perspective shift.  The world didn’t change, yet the way you take it in changed; including a different way of processing.

If we’re generally more in our feelings, we might get more thinking-oriented in stress or security.  If we’re more thinking-oriented, we could become more emotional.  And of course, if we’re more naturally intuitive, we’ll be pulled toward our brains or heart as life changes.

It’s very important for you to understand that this flow is neither good nor bad, and is nothing to correct or fix.  The flow itself is part of what defines you.  There is however, a very definite sense of the movement being positive or negative.  This is where the potential gremlin lives.

Without a truly conscious decision being made, we are drawn to the processing center where we have our historical experience of security and confidence.  Conversely, we are subconsciously repelled by that processing center we associate with stress.

Guilt by Association

This couldn’t be more natural or normal.  So where’s the catch?  Each way of processing has its own set of filters, problems, and resources.  Crazy as it may seem, there’s a downside to the way we process in confidence, and an upside to the way we process in stress.  Those states are within us for a reason.  They are part of the package, and when we exclude or diminish the value of one or the other, we lose a bigger, more inclusive, informed perspective.

Let’s look at how two different people were affected by this, and how we helped maximize their performance.  Joe is a successful, busy guy.  When he’s under stress, his normally fast, focused way of being seems to hit mush.  He loses direction, priorities, and his “go get ’em” attitude.  Now he’s processing the world more from his gut or body, and he associates that as a negative thing.  When Joe’s feeling confident, his competitiveness melts into a more “focused on others” team orientation, with all kinds of thinking, strategizing, and planning.  What’s also happening is Joe associating his “better self” as a thinker.
 

An underlying prejudice toward thinking and away from what his body is telling him forms.  As with most prejudice, this is due to incomplete information.  Joe’s gut has a lot of important data to bring to the table, but because he associates it with being stressed, he discounts it.  Furthermore, he builds his life around the premise that thinking is the “Holy Grail,” preferable to intuition or even more damaging, his natural processing center: his feelings.

Thus, the domino premises fall into place as well.  “Solutions are found in the brain (not the heart).”  “Life is better when you’re in your head,” and so on.  These premises are self-deception at its finest.  In fact, Joe found his happiness when we re-connected him with the valuable information his heart and intuition had been trying to share.  His brain kept connecting him to things.  Things weren’t satisfying or making him happy.  The information from his heart and intuition connected him to dreams and people.  This is where he found his life; his satisfied, happy, even more successful than before life.

Mary is organized, grounded, and pragmatic.  When she’s under great stress, a wave of emotion can overtake her, leaving her feeling moody and depressed.  When she’s confident, her brain is a wonderland of ideation and planning.  Can you guess how she feels about thinking vs. feeling?  The problem is that it’s not her feelings that are at fault, although they’re getting the blame.  They are suffering guilt by association with stress.  And just like Joe, although her brain is certainly more active when she feels confident, it isn’t her brain that’s the “hero.”  Her feeling side infuses her with a connectedness to art, music, and people.

Conclusion

By learning exactly what our different parts are contributing, we can get out from under the yoke of compulsions and the limitations of internal prejudice.  We can know and accept ourselves for who we really are; celebrating the variety and breadth of our processing styles.  We can use resources we never knew we had, and not waste time pursuing ways of being that won’t ever fit.  We can integrate the varied and diverse perspectives within us, and recognize them in others.  We can make life work for us in a way that nourishes and supports us.  When people speak of “balance,” this is what they want: everything clicking in harmony.  It can be done.  First, you meet each of your perspectives.  Then knowing what they’re each about, you integrate them as your team.   When you’re in command of your team, you’re in the driver seat.  The rewards that follow are infinite.

 

 the Inside Joke's On Us: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Nobody’s Reading Our Mind

I’ve seen quite a few instances of miscommunication and subsequent conflict recently that can be traced back to a common root.  We need to make our implicit communications explicit.  If this sounds familiar, it’s because our subject is definitely in the “back to fundamentals” camp.  There are many reasons we don’t make our communications explicit on a consistent basis, but it’s on us to take the inside joke outside.

There’s an old communication joke around the concept of “If you loved me, you’d read my mind.”  We don’t just do this to people we’re in romantic relationships with by any means.  We assume a great deal of mindreading on a regular basis.  We omit chunks of relevant information, use pronouns without antecedents, (“he told them they could do that then”) and change subjects without segues.  Each of these examples of assumed mindreading is an opportunity for major misunderstandings.

I’ve talked about the Three Strikes of Communication for years, and the implicit/explicit subject is quite driven by these strikes, so with a nod to fundamentals, let’s do a quick review.  Virtually every verbal misunderstanding can be linked to assumptions, projections, and avoidance.  Each of these missteps have numerous origins, yet they work together as a system to prevent us from communicating effectively.  Each part could use some clarification.

1. Assumptions

Assumptions take the place of real and important information. When we don’t have information, we tend to fill in the blanks with assumptions that we make up in our heads. This precludes finding out the information, because we already have an “answer” in place, regardless of how wrong it may be. This is very different from a hunch, because with a hunch or a hypothesis we investigate to see if we’re right.

Assumptions drive implicit versus explicit communication in that we assume the other person has the information inside our head. This shows up as the aforementioned omissions, pronouns, or subject changes; any place you hear yourself saying, “huh?”

2. Projections

We make projections when we don’t know or understand another person’s experience. We put our own experience in the blank space rather than finding out theirs. We take our internal “story,” project it on the other person, internally saying “if it were me saying or doing that, then ___” and pretending this is an accurate statement. The truth is we do similar things for different reasons as often as we do different things for the same reasons.

The way we see the world, or the lens through which we take in and sort information, determines our motivations. It’s highly unlikely another person sees through the same lens that you see through, or experiences what you do in the same circumstances. We miss out on finding out what their experience was, because we filled up the blank space with our own. This is different from empathy or compassion where we try to understand where someone is coming from by “putting ourselves in their place.” That’s a good starting point showing how they “might” be feeling, but we still don’t know. When we take it to the realm of “knowing” their motivation without asking them about it, this is pure projection.

You can overcome this stumbling block by being a little introspective. If you feel as though you know why someone is doing what they’re doing, and you haven’t asked them about it, you’re probably projecting. When someone pauses after being asked out to dinner, do you know why they paused or do you project your own feelings and think “they obviously don’t want to go!” Rather than telling someone what their motivation is (a clear projection on your part), share your own experience with them, and ask what theirs is. This way, you both share each other’s experience, and nobody feels unheard.

3. Avoidance

Avoidance is the collection of ways in which we don’t pursue missing information from the other person. The reasons we use avoidance follow directly with the different lenses through which we view the world.

You could avoid checking in because:

1. you feel that it’s prying or being too personal.

2. you don’t want to hear something negative making you feel separated.

3. you’re too busy to worry about details like that.

4. you figure that you already know.

5. it feels like breaching boundaries to bother the other person.

6. it might get the other person mad at you.

7. you might get criticized, and feel bad.

8. you didn’t really care.

9. you didn’t want to cause conflict.

Overcoming avoidance requires a tiny shift in your thinking. First, remember that in Conscious Communication you’re always solving a problem, and that problem is truly hearing and being heard. No problem is solved by avoiding it. Indeed almost all problems are made worse when they’re avoided. Regardless of the reason for avoidance, you can see that none of the issues we make up in our heads compare to the problems caused by not communicating clearly and explicitly.

On the other side of the interaction, you don’t want to put the other person in the position of assuming they know what’s in your head, or projecting, or not checking in with you. This means you have to be explicit in your part of the conversation. Don’t leave holes to fill.

When a contract is exceptionally explicit, both parties feel more at ease, because they know exactly what is expected of them, and they know there won’t be a misunderstanding down the line. You don’t have to learn how to talk like a lawyer, but if you don’t want ambiguity, being explicit is the key. (Warning: some people use not being explicit on purpose to create ambiguity or loopholes for later).

As usual, a little extra effort in the beginning saves tons of time and energy in the end. With some awareness and attention on your communication, you can take control, and enjoy richer, more productive relationships at home and at work.

 

 Freeing Yourself of Self-Limiting Language: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

  
Either/Or - Limiting Choices

I received a response to last month’s newsletter, that sparked a chain reaction of questions for me, eventually leading to this month’s topic.  (Thanks, Bill!)  Addressing the Conscious Communication Chronicle’s communication-centric “mission statement,” the observation was made that [rather than communication] there was a strong focus on psychology.  The wording of the observation establishes a kind of context or rules of the game by putting communication on one side and psychology on another.  What’s interesting is that knowing what a creative guy this was coming from, it probably wasn’t intended as an either/or form at all.  The wording of the observation more reflected our common cultural slant for simplifying our choices; often to an either/or perspective.

The thing about simplifying our choices this way is that it also limits our choices, and that’s rarely what we want.  Limiting other people’s choices may be helpful on the retail end, (ever wait tables?) but you probably want to have your options as open as possible.  This is one of those unconscious ways we block ourselves, so the slightest awareness around this habit can make a big difference in your sense of emotional and mental “elbow room.”    

  
The old maxim regarding using “yes, and” rather than “yes, but” actually speaks to the heart of this widening of our choices.  We go from the digital, two possible answers of on or off to a more natural, organic spectrum.  How many times have you been frustrated by multiple choice tests that wouldn’t allow you to choose more than one answer, or people who insist on yes or no answers to questions that have much more depth and texture to them?  Is this about communication or is this about our psychology?  Can either really exist without the other?  
  

  
Mortar Between the Stones

Another place I often hear a digital choice being offered, is when people ask if I am a business coach or a life coach.  I usually annoy them by answering “yes.”  In fact, the reason that I so focus on communication, is because it is the very mortar between the stones of everything connecting our lives to each other, the world, and even our own thoughts and feelings.  How often when you think about something, do you do it without any internal dialogue?  How can we share what’s inside (psychology) with who’s outside, without communication?  Whether that communication is using words to convey an internal experience to someone, to give direction, or even to mull something over in your head, those words control the nature of the outcome.

Our words and our psychology are very much like the chicken and the egg.  It is almost impossible to establish a singular origin; they each create each other.  Your self-talk is both the result of your psychology, and a creating element.  The more we try to understand how everything fits together, the more we look at systems and relationships, the more communication becomes a factor.

The Doorway

Just as our way of seeing the world, sorting things out, and processing, creates a kind of language specific to that perspective, listening to that language from others gives you clues to their perspective.  This is another example of the inextricable flow between psychology and communication.  How do you work with a given person?  How do you convey things to them?  Just using our own styles and hoping others will get it isn’t terribly effective, so this “conscious communication” thing becomes very useful.

Let’s take a common element that shows up in our behavior, as well as our language: self-esteem.  People constantly tell you how they feel about themselves (and thus you and others) through their language.  Digging into our self-talk, there are numerous “reasons” our ego gives us for why we can’t, don’t, aren’t ____________ [fill in the blank].

If we follow the ripples of these “reasons,” they take us to different behaviors or ways of being in the world.  “I’m not enough” is actually quite different than “I’m not good enough,” which is again quite different than “there’s something wrong with me.”  Each will manifest in the world as a completely different kind of person, with different perspectives, and speaking these slightly different versions of the same language.  We need to understand this to motivate them, to sell to them, to convey our own thoughts or feelings to them, and to understand them as well. 

We can also use language and our communication to shift our own way of being in the world; to motivate and understand ourselves.  Psychologist Martin Seligman’s work with “Learned Optimism” at Penn State relies heavily on our internal communication.  Our psychology (our mind and behavior) is fluid and changeable.  Just as our perspectives affect our language, our language can have a remarkable impact on our outlook (that chicken or the egg thing.)

“Everybody always does this to me” becomes a recipe for depression, whereas addressing the pervasiveness, [everybody] the permanence, [always] and the personalization, [to me] could completely reverse the affect a circumstance would have on you.  Communication gives us a way in to our own insides, and a way in to others.  As long as we’re going there, it couldn’t hurt to do it consciously.  Doing so gives us far more options and choices.  You might even say it gives us optimized results.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

To Just Reduce May Prove Obtuse
As our lives get increasingly busier and more complicated, simplification has become imperative. We feel the anxiety of time pressures and accomplishment pressures, and constantly look for ways to reduce our workloads. Ironically, there is an element of this drive to simplify that actually blocks our path. The concept is called diminishing returns, and it illustrates the situation we find ourselves in more and more.

The objective itself isn’t a problem, but how we strive for this simplification, and how we achieve it can derail our true goals. First of all, we rarely have a specific plan with guidelines and criteria for what, how, and where we’re going to simplify. It’s usually in reaction to a sense of overload, so we simplify in a reactive way. When we do things in reaction, they’re rarely planned for a best-case scenario. We’re trying to stop something we think/feel has gone too far. We just act, and either put ourselves in deeper water, or put ourselves in a position we’ll have to dig ourselves out of later.

I’m not arguing against simplification; indeed there are effective ways to approach it. Unfortunately, the most common method, is one of the least effective in the long run. It’s called reductionism. Reductionism tries to simplify by removing what is perceived as inessential. The problem is that the perception can be quite inaccurate, and garbage in gives you garbage out. Furthermore, it’s rare to go back and look for what was removed, to add it back in to the equation, and then start over. That flies in the face of speeding things up; the goal of simplifying in the first place.

Reduction in cooking intensifies the flavor of the sauce by removing “extra” liquid, but by rushing or going too far, we can cook off some of the flavors, and reduce the tastiness. Recognize this common result of over-simplification?  Less than accurate information and not so great results?

So although there are areas where reductionism can help in simplifying complex things by explaining them in terms of their parts, I’m going to simplify this article by not pursuing a discussion of reductionism itself. Descartes was coming from a very mechanistic viewpoint when he introduced the concept in 1637. To describe a tree by its internal mechanisms (dissecting the leaves and bark) misses out on the tree’s relationship to its ecosystem, (context) and certainly its aesthetic majesty. Reductionism loses that juice in our communication and relationships.

Baby Birds and Richard Nixon
Another common method of reducing our workload is pre-digestion. By having someone else go through the information first, digest it, and then pass on what they think/feel is important, you get less to go through, but it will get changed in flavor, color, and content. This works great for feeding baby birds, but destroyed Richard Nixon, and endangers anyone in a decision-making role. It goes back to the garbage in, garbage out rule. In an environment where people feel they can only give you “good news,” or tell you what you want to hear, you’re in big trouble.

We can use pre-digestion, as long as we’re sure that whoever receives the information first is giving accurate and unbiased accounts. We’re left trusting the media on a regular basis to tell us what’s going on, and you see how inaccurate, incomplete, and oversimplified those stories are. (Are elections merely competitions, where the only story is who’s winning? Might we want more background information to make an intelligent decision?) Incomplete, inaccurate, or biased information are the pitfalls of using predigested information for simplification.

Distilled Fundamentals
The objective of distillation is to separate the substance (relevant information) from the solvent it’s floating in (the sea of information). Once again, we’re at the mercy of what is perceived as substance. However, this is where we can implement a plan for how we’re going to simplify without losing important aspects of our interactions and communication.
In a very general way, everything in the Universe is connected and relevant. That won’t help us simplify. We need to establish what area we’re concentrating on, and how wide a net we’re willing to cast for this particular situation. How deep can we afford to go? Where are we going to simplify and where are we going to expand? When we address a situation with a simplification plan in effect, we get Optimized Results [couldn’t resist].
 
A simplified system using reductionism classified a client of mine as a “driver,” at his office. The label didn’t say anything other than how people perceived his behavior, and it put him in a box for people to avoid. We chose instead to look at why he felt the need to “drive,” which is an example of distilling down to fundamentals.

We really want to know if someone can do the job well. Their behavior is only relevant when it’s hurting their performance or the team, and giving it a label didn’t help anything. We need to ask some questions. What makes them act this way? Can they see getting the job done another way? Would they like to try? When we distill down to the fundamentals of how person A can best do job B, we simplify without reducing the problem to non-useful labels.

Furthermore, when we looked at why he was behaving as a “driver,” we uncovered more relevant issues of trust and anxiety, that once addressed and solved, transformed his behavior entirely and permanently.
 
Wouldn’t shifting an ongoing or chronic series of problems with a single solution be a positive and powerful way to simplify? This is where Re-Engineering really helps coaching. You won’t waste time clipping dandelions when we can take out a single root. Simplification maintaining substance.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

There’s an old expression that masters of illusion love to use: “perception is reality.”  Actually, in the cold light of day we find that perception is not reality.  Unless confronted by conscious awareness, perception is what we react to, as if it was reality.  Perception is a kind of story, made up of filtered memories, projections, assumptions, and most importantly interpretations of stimuli.  We can perceive what is not present, or not perceive what is present.  We see what we expect to see, don’t see what is “off our radar,” and emphasize or minimize in accordance with our beliefs and upbringing.  What causes trouble is simply that perception gets promoted to “Truth,” and we fall into the trap of defending it as such.

It’s almost too cliché to bring up the ubiquitous car accident witnessed by five people, each of whom sees a different accident, except that it’s a reality we need to accept.  Our ability to perceive is not objective, as if through a camera lens.  The interpretive aspect of our perceptions makes them very subjective. Where your grandmother might perceive you driving too fast, you might perceive her as driving too slowly.

In addition, we can only perceive a piece of any situation, so we tend to fill in the blanks with assumptions, and then promote the whole story to a truth.  Somebody swerves, and we think they’re driving crazy.  Especially when we didn’t see the puppy run into the road in front of them.  Something is not invalidated just because it’s outside of our perception.  And yet, when we rise to defend this “truth,” it doesn’t occur to us that we’re actually defending an interpretation.  This is the context that our words live within.

This interpretation is the result of our perspective during the perception.  Depending upon where you sit, you will see some things that somebody else might not, and vice versa.  Perspective has an enormous impact on perception.  Knowing that we can change our perspective, it follows that the perception will change along with it. Thus, perception is far from a fixed truth; perceptions are constantly in change and flux.

A Moving Target

Along with perceiving visual information, perception enters our communication on a regular basis.  We are after all conveying our interpretation of events, feelings, or thoughts.  The words we choose, the imagery we choose, and certainly the metaphors that make sense to us, are all dependent on our perception, which is in turn dependent on our changing perspectives.  The process of jury selection is based on lawyers looking for people who will hear the same words and see the same evidence, and yet will share the lawyers’ interpretations.

Were we infallible tape recorders, we’d have far fewer arguments, but we’re not.  We remember what we think we heard, and think we saw. There’s also a little bit of a “Fudge Factor” in how we fill in blanks and gaps, as our memories tamper with objective truth.  The other person’s words can create a story more in-line with our own interpretations, changing all-important context and without checking in, we assume we understand what they meant.

A great example of this would be where someone’s perspective is rooted in a lack of faith in themselves or others.  This perspective tends to have an expectation of being disappointed or rejected.  When that expectation is in place, the listener tends to hear rejection where there is none. The speaker having no idea that this is happening finds the listener’s upset reaction to be illogical or irrational, and either dismisses it, or argues; either way fanning flames that are not helping clarify the communication.

Another common example is where we project our own negative feelings about ourselves on the other person, thinking or feeling that they have this negative opinion about us.  That shapes how we hear what they are saying, and certainly not in an accurate way.  We make their words fit our interpretation; twisting, omitting or adding entire phrases to change the intended meaning, and make us “right.”

You’ve probably heard jokes about the exchange that goes, “you look really great today.”  “So what you’re really saying is I look terrible the rest of the time?!”  Unfortunately this is all too common.  The receiver’s self doubts obliterate the intended compliment.

Pattern Interrupt

All of these situations generally escalate rapidly and get so out of proportion that it’s difficult to rein them in.  I’ve seen business relationships disintegrate and people not speaking to one another when the initial flare-up was avoidable.  The solution is once again that extra time and care that goes into Conscious Communication.

When we truly know ourselves, we can see where our triggers are.   Being told what to do, criticism, self-esteem issues, or any of a number of factors become filters when we’re listening to someone.  When we’re aware of those filters, we can remember the affect they have on us, and catch ourselves before we react.

That’s where the rubber meets the road.  Stopping ourselves when we recognize our filters interpreting someone’s words is powerful juju in communication.  This combined with the always important “check-in” can short-circuit the bomb before the timer even starts ticking.  Once we’re aware of our own context filters, it’s easier to understand others reacting to our words as well.  

 

 Patience and the Big Picture: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Here’s hoping everyone had a fantastic holiday and the new year is glowing with potential and opportunity for you.  Showing some TLC  to a fundamental virtue will make this your best year ever!

 I’ve addressed patience as recently as October’s Slowing Down to Speed Up, and throughout “Kind Ambition,” because it’s a major issue for people; it keeps showing up.  You may have noticed while holiday shopping that “holiday cheer” didn’t include much patience.  People rushing about without thinking about the future or the Big Picture had a profound impact on me personally in December, forcing patience to be a major theme for my coming year, and inspiring this month’s column. 

There is an almost “crazed” and frantic rush in our lives that has little connection to reality.  It becomes blatant on the road, but this same impatience shows up subtly in other important parts of our lives.  Staying with traffic’s exaggerated view for illustration, in the seconds between waiting for oncoming traffic to pass, and getting a right-of-way green arrow, why would anyone choose to bolt in front of oncoming cars?   When the rain makes the freeway itself almost invisible, why would people choose to race each other, as if they’re at the Indy 500? Is it a choice?  What are we doing?  Where’s the fire?  We don’t have a real answer.  All we can do is blurt the vague “I have no time!” that’s being fed into our brains from every direction.  It just isn’t true.  

Choose Thinking  

Choice is about thinking, which is different than reacting to a cultural cattle prod.  Critical thinking tells you that a few seconds here or there on the road is meaningless, unless you’re an emergency services vehicle saving someone’s life.  There are no trophies, no cash prizes, and no reward for beating somebody through a light.  There is really no upside, save the absolutely invented illusion that we’re somehow winning something. 

The three seconds made racing to the stop sign are ridiculous.  There’s no prize money, and you cannot make up the fifteen minutes from leaving the house late (equal to 300 three-second units).  The downside is astounding, but time-scarcity shuts off imagination.  It must be shut off to not think of a puppy or a child potentially in the road. 

Yes, impatience in cars makes a dramatic point, (got your attention?) yet the downsides of impatience riddle the rest of our lives as well.  Impatience does damage to our communication, to our relationships, to the very quality of our lives.  It has no upside.  Nothing is improved by it.

Getting something accomplished in the moment, that will create more work to clean up or repair, is not speedy.  There are more clichés and proverbs around this rushing complex than just about any other issue we face.  “A stitch in time saves nine,”  “Penny-wise and pound-foolish,” “measure twice and cut once,” and the list goes on. 

The only way we can make rushing (as opposed to moving swiftly) make any sense is to ignore the Big Picture, and focus on a tiny piece right in front of us.  We know (when we’re thinking) that trying to “make up” seconds here or there will not improve our lives, our careers, or our relationships.  It can easily do harm, and that makes it what Vegas residents call a “sucker bet.”

Happy Solutions, Boundless Benefits

Going the other direction; the way of patience, offers us countless positive outcomes.  Obviously, safety (physical, emotional, communicative) for all is enhanced on a quantum level.  There is also the very real biochemical difference in the way we feel, when we are pleasant, patient, and kind, versus the way we feel when we are brusque, impatient, and surly.  One of the chapters in “Kind Ambition” dealing with how we treat one another, has an exercise related back to the road:

“Let someone go first at a four-way stop sign, let them get in or out of a parking spot on a busy street, and give them acknowledgement as well: a smile, a nod, or both.   Notice how good you feel at the end of the day.  Notice that your productivity did not suffer one iota.”  I’d bet it increased. 

When we communicate with each other, we rarely allow the other person to finish their sentences.  Our impatience drives us to push the conversation faster, to rush the person speaking, to interrupt, and to assume what they were going to say anyway, so why wait for them to finish?  There is just as much damage being done emotionally, as if we were speeding up to a stop sign, and running over someone’s feelings.  Once again, there is no upside.  By being more patient with one another, and being conscious and economical with our communication, we can get more done well in less time, and wasn’t that the point of rushing in the first place? 

In the midst of our New Year’s Resolutions, we’re bombarded with messages connecting success to being mean, rushing, and grabbing for ourselves.  You may have noticed it is notmaking us feel better or improving the world around us.  Being more patient, compassionate, and looking at the Big Picture will absolutely make us feel better, and will improve the world around us.  It’s an easy choice, when you think about it. 

 

 Choosing a Coach: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The statistics are in, and there’s no debate anymore; top producers and performers in every field use coaches.  The question has moved from “should I work with a coach?” to “what kind of coach should I work with?”  This is a great question, and has as much to do with your own work and processing style as anything else.

First of all, let’s simplify and clarify our terms (always a good idea).  There are four main flavors of coach out in the world: the Expert/Consultant, the Cheerleader/Supporter, the Parent/Babysitter, and the “Evoker.”  Different people are looking for different experiences, and being honest with yourself about this can save you time and money. These labels may be somewhat self-descriptive, but to ensure accuracy, let’s flesh them out a bit.

Expert/Consultant
The Expert/Consultant type coach is someone who has worked in your field for some time, has proven proficiency and success, and can give you advice regarding the specifics of the work that you are doing.  Buffini & Company in the Real Estate world would be a good example of this type of coaching. Interestingly enough, most “Life Coaches” fall into the “Expert” category, and establishing the criteria for their expertise in Life is pretty subjective.  The decision will probably come down to “getting along well” and “having a good feeling” about them.

Cheerleader/Supporter
The Cheerleader/Supporter type coach is pretty much what it sounds like.  Keeping you positive, keeping you focused, and keeping your chin up when things go wrong, are all in the realm of this type of coach.  If you have great organization and resources, but get tripped up by self-doubt, a Cheerleader/Supporter type coach can be very helpful.

Parent/Babysitter
The Parent/Babysitter type coach may be one of the more common styles we see.  The approach begins with a given perspective, usually the Enneagram Three view of life, which entails a linear view, stepwise progression, goals and goal-setting, measurable milestones, achievements, and competition to be “better.”  If the client is also an Enneagram Three, this approach makes perfect sense and fits their processing style.  If not, they must try to mold themselves to this style, and hold to it.  The Coach is then in a position of “Enforcer,” holding the client accountable to the goals and timetables that have been set.  Sometimes just being able to make and keep agreements is a benefit of the work that is accomplished here.

Evoker
The “Evoker” style coach evokes excellence from the client; however that might show itself.  This is most common in sports coaches, and is the most varied in approach as well.  This type of coach must read the client’s strengths and weaknesses, understand their desired outcomes, and create an evolving program that matches these aspects in a way that will help the client to achieve those desired outcomes.  To evoke excellence in this way requires the coach to work with the client to essentially “re-wire” their internal programming, and their physical actions in congruence with a meta plan agreed upon in the beginning of the work.

The actual science behind this is in creating new specific neural pathways.  You already have neural pathways that are like the trampled down underbrush of a well-worn path you’ve traveled your whole life.  When you always think in a certain “chain of events,” the same neurons fire in the same area of your brain, and eventually it takes very little stimulus for that neural exchange to take place.  This is what becomes a “habit.”  This is also what becomes “auto-pilot” behavior, and the kind of thing you realize later that you did, and get mad at yourself.

To change this, you need to create a new pathway, and then spend some time trampling down the same amount of underbrush, so the new path becomes just as easy for the neurons to travel on as the old path.  This is the gist of the Evoker Type “Coaching Practices” in a nutshell.  It is a form of re-training your mind and your feelings, and your body, to respond in a different manner than they have in the past.  When you do exercises that stretch sleeping muscles, (including your brain muscles) those muscles are not only awakened at that time, but they tend to stay awake and contribute on a more regular basis.  For you musicians out there; this is like practicing scales.  Over time, your fingers become far more adept and agile.

When victims of stroke or brain injury lose a portion of their brain, they can re-train another portion of their brain to take over those functions.  With the right training and exercises we can certainly re-train our own brains to react differently to a stimulus that usually makes us “jump thru hoops.” 

Bottom Line
Each type of coach will create a different environment for the client to work within, and it is entirely dependent on the client, their desired outcome, and their processing style, as to which type to choose.  Optimized Results works with the evoker approach, blended with a proprietary system called the Core Perspective Integration, which identifies your internal drivers, and re-wires neural pathways engaging the higher consciousness faculties of each perspective (rather than habitual compulsive responses.)  It sounds way more complicated in this abbreviated description, so please contact me if you’d like to learn more about this process.  The bottom line is simply that it doesn’t “change” you; so much as it works the way Michelangelo described his style: chipping away all the extra marble that obstructs the ideal You from being visible.

Sometimes information hangs out like the air-roots of a philodendron plant, until suddenly life presents the soil to give those roots their rightful place in the plant’s life. I like to call this phenomenon the transition from “information” to “knowledge” or with some experience added to the mix: “wisdom.”

I’d like to thank Gangaji for beautifully wording the lesson, (the “information”) and I know the lag time between her words and my “getting it” would bring that knowing smile of recognition.

We are taught that disillusionment is a sad or “negative” experience. Were we not taught this, the joy and delight inherent in this growth spurt would be obvious. The information: To be disillusioned is to have an illusion collapse, leaving the clarity of awakening and reality.

Some recent experiences with disillusionment gave me the opportunity to really stay with, and process my thoughts and feelings regarding the phenomenon. When I discovered that I had actually gone through the well-documented Five Stages of Death, the meta-lesson of Shiva’s destruction and creation became abundantly clear to me. Illusion must die, for Reality to be born. Let’s make up an example situation of Disillusionment going through these stages, to help take this from the theoretical to the relatable. Again, shortening that information to knowledge transition would be useful, so a “story-line” may help you relate better.

1. Denial
At first, I simply could not believe that it was happening. Someone who I considered a dear friend, who I thought I knew, behaved and spoke in a manner that was alien to everything she had ever presented herself to be. Let’s just say this was the equivalent of a Buddhist monk going on a violent killing spree. The incongruence was too much for my cognitive abilities, and I found myself denying that it was happening. If she was who she had always presented herself to be, this behavior made no sense. The seeds of stage four (depression) were sown in the ground of “how could I have been so off?!” where we question our own ability to see through illusion.

2. Anger
Upon trying to check in and understand what was going on, I was once again verbally attacked, insulted, barraged with mean, unfair projections, and given no indication of the existence of the grace and consciousness that lived apparently only in my illusion. Now I was ticked off. You know this one. The entire relationship flashes before you, and the ease with which they hurt you and tossed you in the trash, conflicts and contradicts everything they ever said or presented themselves to be. You are betrayed and angry; angry at them, and angrier at yourself for being “taken.”

3. Bargaining
To take this down a notch, the next stage involves trying to understand where they’re coming from, why they might do this, why you wanted them to be who they presented themselves to be, and many other forms of bargaining with the Universe, in trying to process the Death of your Illusion. Thus I looked at my once-upon-a-time friend and saw how badly she wanted to be thought of as the person she had presented. I saw how much work and time she put into creating this egoic persona, and that she had convinced herself before anyone else that this was who she was. I tried as hard as I could to make it be “okay,” and figure out what I would need to do on my end. Regardless of the bargaining, I knew in my heart that the Illusion was dead. What I thought was “real” was a collection of stories that I had chosen to accept as “reality.”

4. Depression
When anger is met with powerlessness, and the absoluteness of the death of the illusion is faced, depression becomes the next stage. The loss becomes preeminent in your consciousness. The loss of a friend, the loss of a community, the loss of an ideal, or whatever your own illusion was based upon, the loss doesn’t feel illusory; it hurts. The good news is that this process is almost at its conclusion.

5. Acceptance
Suddenly, one morning I woke up feeling wonderful again. Gangaji’s words about the delightful nature of disillusionment being the awakening of reality weren’t just words anymore. To release the illusion gave me the energy and freedom to pursue reality. Rather than lament the loss of something that was never there, accepting the death of illusion meant accepting the birth of a whole new world of opportunities, feelings, thoughts. If we clutch at straws, we will drown, as they cannot support us. If we release the illusion that they can support us, our hands are free to explore elsewhere.

By going through the Five Stages of Death with my own illusions, I was able to finally grasp the power and freedom that disillusionment offers. Reality is amazing, perfect, astounding, surprising, and filled with learning. Illusions may be great entertainment, (although they can become monotonous) so rather than mourn their passing, we can celebrate our Awakening.

 

 Verbal Accuracy [8:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Verbal Accuracy
Being strongly inspired to address this subject, I suddenly felt a sense of déjà vu. Indeed I had been here before - many times. Chapter 37 of my book, “Kind Ambition” is called, “Say What You Mean – one thing leads to another,” and rings as true today as it did then. So if I may be so bold as to quote myself, let’s look at an easily implemented improvement to our communication. All it requires is a little extra consciousness.

The specificity of words and the ambiguity of words are both the joy and bane of our conversations. Wordplay depends on words having shades of meaning, or multiple meanings, that we can take down a surprise road, whipping our heads around as if we’re on an amusement park ride. Unfortunately, they are also the potential fork in the road when we are trying to talk with each other. With every split, we find ourselves knee deep in conflict before we know what happened.

I’ve seen many interactions that went far too deeply into this kind of conflict, far too quickly. The problem is not the conflict itself (when it’s real conflict, and you can process it, the learning far outweighs the discomfort). The problem is when the conflict is between entities who aren’t even in the room, and the issues are not directly related to what is actually going on in the here and now.

We all have issues that are often highlighted in language as “hot buttons” or “triggers.” These are the words or phrases that hit the PLAY button on your internal tape recorder, and your tape just starts going. You are no longer really part of the process: you’re in auto-pilot. Inevitably, your defensive salvo will hit the other person’s trigger, and their tape recorder will go into auto-pilot as well. Now neither of you are present, neither of you are in dialogue, and you’re reduced to dueling reactions.

Imagine that you are challenged to communicate with someone in a darkened room, not allowed to speak, and the only tool you have is a stick. Most likely outcome? You are each going to be poking each other, not communicating, and probably getting a bit miffed as well.

Say What?
It’s almost a miracle that we communicate as well as we do most of the time, considering how diverse our definitions of words can be. As an exercise, I’ve asked workshop/seminar attendees and even Boards of Directors to think about a dog in their heads. Then we go around the room and describe the dog each of us imagined. Of course we thought of everything from a snarling Rottweiler to a happy Cocker Spaniel. We’re only talking about a three-letter noun. Imagine when we get into abstracts, such as integrity or success?! Awareness around this inevitably improves the communication that follows.

Let’s say I want you to be more open with me about your needs, and say, “you need to be more honest with me.” Honesty is a hot button for you, and you hear, “you’ve been lying to me.” Now you go off into defending that you haven’t been lying, and “how dare I accuse you of something like that!” Now I go into damage control mode because I never meant to call you a liar. We’re off and running on an argument that has nothing to do with the original intent. If I had been more precise with my words about you being “open about your needs” rather than the subtle language shift of absent-mindedly choosing the word “honesty,” we could have actually had a conversation.

Let’s say a customer complains about an order not being what he asked for. The written work order shows that you didn’t make an error, but he definitely didn’t get what he actually needs. If you say you can “correct” the order, you’ve just told the customer that you made a mistake. That will set a precedent which can become a recurring nightmare. You will likely get accused of making mistakes for the rest of this relationship. If you say you can “adjust” the order so that it meets his needs, you’ve just saved face for everyone, and made service points for your flexibility and responsiveness. Do you see how subtle the word choice is, and how enormous the reaction can be?

The Conscious Communication Approach
Think about your most recent verbal conflict with someone. When did you feel your button(s) being pushed? Was it the words? Can you remember exactly where the train went off the track?

Think about the earliest instance you can remember having this same kind of conflict. Who was it with? Can you remember the words? Can you identify and recognize your own “hot buttons” or triggers? Once identified, these triggers will begin to lose their potency, as you see them in a larger context.

Check in with the person with whom you’re having the conflict. Let them know that you are reacting to the word or phrase they used, (not the person) and you need to get more clarification. Did they mean “honest” or “open?” Did they mean “manipulative” or “persuasive?” Did they mean “it’s terrible,” or “I personally didn’t care for it?”

The more you check in and clarify what people really mean, the more you’ll understand where the landmines are buried, and the easier it will be to traverse the conversational landscape without the explosions.