Communication

lc

CONTENTS

The age of communication

In simple terms, what does it
mean?
The discussion is an encounter
Does the end justify the means?

 Copyright by GEKA-Management Verlags AG, Glarus

These training instructions are printed as manuscript. They, or parts
thereof, may not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired
out or otherwise circulated. All rights reserved, including the right of
translation into foreign languages.
010107

The age of communication

When talking about communication today, in the age of communication, do we not think in most cases of technique?
Expressions like fax, laptop, e-mail and internet are so common that we
no longer consider where they come from.
But do we also take into account that there is a human being at the beginning and at the end of the information chain?
People process information, interpret the results, lead discussions and
have conversations.
When things are not the way they should be when projects are stuck
or products not available in time the cause is probably insufficient,
missing or misinterpreted information. Why is it so important to be
aware of this fact?
One of the most important preconditions for successful communication is the ability to understand oneself and others at all times.
The ability to process information about people gives us the possibility to understand the other people fully and to communicate clearly.

Communication is
agreement by means of
understanding!

But how do I understand my partner and how do I make myself understood?

Which information channels exist and to what extent do I use them
consciously or subconsciously?
How important is verbal and nonverbal information and how do deliberate reactions look?
Why does my discussion partner now react so aggressively when he
didnt do so before in similar situations?
If you understand communication not as a one-way street, like, for example
Im talking you are listening
I suggest you answer
My speech is the cause your answer the effect
but as two-way traffic, like, for example
Both suggest and defer to suggestions
Both are talking and listen mutually
Mutual understanding is as important as the agreement

I would pay more for the ability

to handle people properly
than for any other ability under
the sun.
J. D. Rockefeller Snr.

then we have the chance, in the future, to improve our results where human relations are concerned through more effective communication
inside and outside the company.

In simple terms, what does it mean?

There are two sides to

everything (at least)

A novice, who had just entered the monastery, asked the abbot: Is it
permitted to smoke during prayers?The abbot was rather surprised at
this question and naturally answered: Of course not, its strictly forbidden. That evening, the novice went to the chapel for prayers with
the other monks. What do you think he saw? There was an old monk
deep in prayer, smoking his pipe. The novice was beside himself. He
could hardly wait for the end of prayers to accost the old monk:Brother, how is it that you smoke during prayers? The abbot has definitely
prohibited it. Did you ask him? Well, yes, of course. How
strange, retorted the old monk, I also asked him, and he gave me permission. Quite indignant about this injustice, the novice was about to
run to the abbot, but the old monk held him back. Tell me, what exactly was the question you asked the abbot? I asked him whether I
might smoke during prayers. Oh, I see. I asked him whether I might
pray while smoking.
What can we learn from this story?
I can say a thing in two ways; to make a good impression or to make a
bad impression.
And indeed there are not just two ways, but many different ways of saying something. Have you ever considered in how many ways we can
give somebody else new ideas, new impressions? We can speak in a
loud or a soft voice, we can speak slowly or quickly. We can converse,
contend, ask questions.We can flatter, intimidate, menace, request, beg.
We can give examples, mention rumours, awaken hopes etc.
We can paint the devil on the wall, build castles in the air

There are limitless ways of

expressing something in
simple terms.

There are countless paths to a particular goal; there are innumerable

ways of broaching a subject. The important thing is to choose the right
approach, so that we talk like the old monk and not like the novice.
One can converse in such a way that, however long the interview continues, the other is negative and antagonistic. Or, on the other hand, a
really friendly and warm relationship can develop from the conversation.
Somewhere between these two extremes lies the happy medium, the
proper way to discuss and to deal with customers, managers and colleagues.

What is our goal?

This gives rise to the first question we have to ask ourselves: What do
we want to achieve in the discussion, what is our objective? For instance, would we wish to draw ourselves and a customer closer together or to increase the distance between us? Put visually, the question
looks like this:

my visions

their visions

Should the two associates come closer to one another or move farther
apart? Do we want to move to the left or to the right? Are we ready to
risk an argument with our partners? But

We are certainly not

interested in having
arguments with our
partners!

if they dont think we are doing our best, or if things dont turn out
the way they expected;
if they dont understand that everything takes time;
if they think they can work off their bad temper on us;
if they imagine we are dependent on them;
then we have to make them understand that they are on the wrong
track fully aware of the risk that they will not be pleased to hear this.
In fact, we can be certain that they will not thank us for the information
and that they are even less likely to pat us on the back or embrace us
on account of it.
This is indeed the problem! There is absolutely no sense in blatantly
agreeing with our partners in all circumstances, whether justified or
not. There is no sense in sacrificing the interests of our own firm to curry favour with the customers.Taking the customers side in order to win
their sympathy is neither sensible nor will it, in the long run, gain respect. How can customers really trust business associates who are so
ready to give up their own point of view? But if the situation is reversed, there is just as little sense in stubbornly thrusting the fact that
we are right under the customers nose, so that they resent our wellmeaning correction. Skilful negotiation technique, of course, lies between these two extremes.

There is no sense in giving

way all the time!

Constantly pushing our own

viewpoint is equally
unproductive!

The discussion is an encounter

The word discussion may sound a bit antiquated. Perhaps Negotiation technique or Successful negotiation would seem more appropriate as a title for a management training text.
The basic technique of proper negotiation is only one aspect of a wellconducted discussion. Likewise, the discussion itself is only a small part
of what happens if two or more people are sitting facing each other and
talking. There is very much more going on than a mere exchange of
words!
Even well-intentioned words are out of place if I just cannot stand the
other person!
Of what use are words, if empathy with the other person is obstructed
by emotions?
How inadequate words are to express what lovers really feel!
How can words help, when someone is overwhelmed by anxiety?
A discussion is not only an exchange of opinions, but is always an encounter as well.
What you are speaks
so loudly that I do
not hear what you say.
Emerson

We let ourselves be influenced and impressed by words only insofar as

they genuinely reflect the non-verbal situation, i.e. the facts, which do
not need an explicit verbal explanation. Examples of such facts are:
The hierarchical positions held by the parties to a discussion.
Their authority.
What past experiences they have had with one another.
Their prejudices, the image each has of the other before having the
opportunity to get properly acquainted.
I knew what to expect as soon as I saw them.
So it makes a difference to the stance one adopts as a discussion partner whether:
The parent talks to the child or the child to the parent;
the boss to the team member or the team member to the boss;
the salesperson to the customer or the customer to the salesperson.
If managers think that they sold an idea to a team member, they are
often not aware of their position towards the team member. The relative positions of two parties to a discussion decide who sells something to whom and who leads whom. Very often what and how something is said intelligently is pre-ordained within very narrow limits
by the relative positions of the discussion partners.

The most high-powered discussion technique will not lead to the desired result (even, perhaps, may make it impossible) unless the non-verbal position of the discussion partners in relation to each other is taken into account properly and included in what is going on.
This applies, of course, not only to the discussion itself, but also to the
preparation for it. Hence the universal truth:
90% of success is preparation.

90% of success
is preparation.

Does the end justify the means?

Before we go on to deal with preparing for the discussion, we should
decide what is the appropriate style to use.
Wherever one looks, there are always different points of view in politics, in sport, in games, at home and in business.
The choice of the means and methods at our disposal, when we take up
our stand, is correspondingly large.
When heads of state decide,in the interests of their country, they want
to annex a neighbouring country, they often try to eliminate the different points of view in a war.
War:
death and destruction

The price to be paid is known: death and destruction.

When a boxing champion wants to resolve differing views as to who is
really the greatest, he challenges the boxer he sees as No. 2 to a contest
and tries to prove his view is right.

Fight:
victors and vanquished

The result is: victors and vanquished.

When Jack and Jill are bored, they voluntarily choose different viewpoints white or black and they play a game of chess.

Game:
winner and loser

Business discussion:
partners with a decision
reached together

The result is: winner and loser.

And last, but not least, when X and Y are of different opinions as to if
or how business should be conducted, they sit down together for a discussion. If it is a good discussion, it will leave behind neither dead nor
injured, neither victor nor vanquished, neither winner nor loser, but
ultimately partners, who reach a decision together.
The word ultimately is not used here merely by chance. Business people often get satisfaction from using the conversation to exercise their
sporting instincts. They are happy if they feel they had to use all their
skill to obtain the desired result.
Therefore the question is not how far one must go; but how far I want
to go in an actual case, considering
a) the position at the start of the discussion,
b) the goal to be reached.
To a): For instance, am I really, or only apparently, in a stronger or
weaker position than my partners?
Here one should remember that someone who has little to gain or
above all nothing to lose, or the gambler who is ready to stake everything on the turn of a card, is always in the stronger position at the start.
This is, once more, a question of personal ideas.

To b): Also, does the goal I want to reach include maintaining the trust
that the other places in me? Or do I, as a professional con artist, have
to do justice to my image?

I must remember the

reputation I
want to maintain

The answer determines my choice of style:

Slander

Trying to demean my partner (and myself at

the same time).

Blackmail and
threats

Putting my partner under psychological and

physical pressure.

Objective discussion
and evaluation

Allowing my partner a free choice.

Begging and
pleading

Lowering myself and thereby putting my

partner under moral pressure.

Bribery

Corrupting myself and my partner according

to the western moral concept (if both are not
corrupt already).

An incidental remark for sensitive readers: Naturally, we should never

resort to blackmail. But before we start feeling too virtuous, we might
remember that knowing blackmail for what it is hinders very few parents from dealing with their children by this method. Who is not familiar from their own experience (either as aggressor or as victim) with
the demand: If you dont do such-and-such immediately, then !
To prevent any misunderstanding, let it be clearly understood that we
are not giving any advice, just setting out the different style possibilities. They exist, and therefore we should know them in order to recognise them in a conversation!

We should know and recognise

the different possibilities
to communicate!

Which points in this text do I consider to be the most important ones

and what do they mean for me, in practice?

10