In Part Two, we saw that one aspect of taking responsibility for effective communication was the realization that most people – in not focusing on understanding what you or I meant to say – will simply interpret our words based on their own belief systems. And, that despite this, it’s still up to us to be sure the correct message gets across. I quoted a mentor who told me, “Burg, when the shooter misses the target, it’s not the target’s fault.”
True. However, reader and good friend Heather O’Sullivan brings up an excellent point when she asks:
“I am big on taking responsibility, but we cannot
control the mindset of the listener, can we?”
Heather is absolutely right. It is also their responsibility to listen with an eye (well, I guess that would be an ear) 🙂 toward understanding. Yet, they often won’t. However, before leaving it at that, let’s see what more we can do. I suggest that, if we want to put the odds that we’ll be correctly understood ever more in our favor, then we need to go even a step further.
One very effective idea is to, tactfully and kindly, clarify intent (lest coming across as either patronizing or overbearing – neither of which results in better comprehension). 🙂 This can be accomplished by asking a question or two that ensures he or she understood your words as you intended them.
Depending upon the situation, this is not always easy, convenient or realistic. So, when it comes right down to it, we do the best we can within the context provided. Do this consistently and you’ll “hit the target” much more often than otherwise.
And, summing up Heather’s terrific point, when it comes right down to it, we still cannot control what they are going to consciously or unconsciously choose to hear. As another of my early mentors, Bill Gove used to say, “you are responsible to people – not for people.
But, there is one more part of this equation which is just important as what we have been discussing over the last few days. And we’ll look at that in the next article.
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Here is a thought: If we are “listening” to the person with whom we are communicating, and we think with what they are saying to us, in response to what we say, then we will “always” know if we are getting thru, and, we will know if the individual even “wants” the information we are trying to communicate. Most of our problem is in the “listening” part, we are so concerned with what we have to say (our ego at work) that we fail to “hear” what is being said to us.
Bob,
Great thoughts, and thanks Heather as well.
Of course so much of the application of these concepts depends on the situation. Obviously, if it is a casual conversation, it will be different then if you are making a presentation with a prospective client, and different still if you are trying to communicate with one of your children (that might be worth a book – not a blog, haha).
In the context of making a presentation, I would go so far as to say – you are responsible for the other person. By that I mean, if we are not engaging the listener(s) throughout, then we don’t deserve for them to listen to us, much less understand what we are trying to get across. When training consultants at a former company, I did a session on this topic, and it was not surprising their responses. The leading consultants of the company, were all very positive that they would be better as a result, and those who were struggling to gain clients, asked every self-absolving question they could think of, so they would not have to own this personally.
As you mentioned, asking questions is a great way to measure a listener’s understanding of what you are saying, but that is not the best way. I have not been to many church services where there is a back and forth conversation – have you? The best mechanism I have found it to be prepared and passionate about the subject you are sharing. The great Zig Ziglar once said, “People listen to logic but act on emotion.” Apply that to presenting. Being prepared and passionate is an absolute – you must be!
I will leave with one last thought – when making a presentation with an individual, be so committed to their understanding of your subject that you are willing to stop and not go forward if they are not participating!
Sorry – a little long,
Steve
I agree with asking questions and clarifying that both parties are on the same page. It makes it a conversation versus just a presentation and I believe that a presentation should be a conversation. In the scope of taking responsibility, when someone has heard with different ears resulting in a negative opinion, feeling, mindset -where do you suggest you go from there. Many different options cross my mind – and I’m sure the situation may be a factor.
Thanks as always for sharing your wisdom Bob!
The distinction that comes up here (and in one of the previous post’s comments) between presentations and conversations is an interesting one.
I think that, aside from the structural point that a presenter addresses a group, few of whom will have an opportunity to participate actively, every presentation should be a conversation, also. This is so, because, in order to successfully communicate a thought, you must make an effort to “know your audience”. This “knowing ” includes an appreciation for the need to understand how the communication is received. The very act of bringing this awareness to consciousness should suffice to make you audience more attentive – whether its an audience of 1 or 100 – and by expressing this awareness, you and your audience will find a way to let you know if you have been understood or not.
By taking responsibility for my own communication being received as I meant it by “listening” for reactions and responses, I help create a space for those I present to, to make use of it.
Thanks Bob! Great clarity and insight!
I recently spoke at a women’s event. The day after a woman came up to me after hearing me speak a second time and said that she had not agreed with me the day before, but that she had a whole new respect for me after the second time. Curious, I asked what she did not agree with. She thought that I had said that women should only look out for themselves and she believed that they should take care of others. I was honestly baffled by her interpretation! I had asked the question (of course) because I truly wanted to know, so that I could do better. What I MEANT and actually said was that all too often we live our lives based on “what somebody else decided”. Based on someone else’s definition what a good mom is, a good wife, etc”. I had gone on to say “you decide! YOU create the life that you want! I immediately took the mental note that I need to clarify and change that portion of my talk. It certainly wasn’t ‘her fault’. I could have thought “what an idiot”, etc. But who would that serve? The whole point of my talk is to deliver what I believe to be a powerful and important message. Whether it’s one person or ten who don’t ‘get it’, I have failed in my intention, and in order to succeed, I must be willing to ‘hear’ that feedback and change my approach. Your insight in this post will help!
What I heard you say here (grin:), was that by being clear in our intention up front, we have a better chance of being understood as we hope to be. Also, by asking questions after, we can (at least) know whether we got through the way that we intended. Both great points! I sometimes find myself trying to make the clarification after the fact (which only works if you KNOW that you were misunderstood). I will work on setting up the intention on the front end more:)
thanks:)