Can I rely on you? – Trust

I’d like to say that I’d always planned to talk about trust in the week which saw the launch of the general election campaign in the UK …

I’d like to– but I’d be lying! If you look back to the intro to this series, or to the end of last week’s post, you’ll see this week’s was originally going to be under the theme of ‘talents’. That’s part of this topic, but I wanted to broaden the scope.

We all know, don’t we, that trust is a vital part of any personal relationship? I’d go as far as to say that without it, there is no relationship worth the name.

We instinctively trust different things to different people, of course. For instance:

The friends or relatives we choose to call on in a crisis may not be the ones we’d depend upon to keep a confidence; and when we’re looking for someone just to carry through a commitment, we might have to look somewhere else entirely!

That’s all blindingly obvious when we’re talking about personal relationships; but like so many aspects of human communication, it’s easy to lose sight of the importance of trust – in all its forms – in a professional context.

The principles running through what I’m about to say apply across the board, from marketing to delivery and from HR to PR; but for the sake of space, I’ll focus on one main example – teams.

Successful teams have to be based on mutual trust at every level.

That brings us back to this week’s original theme – and to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

In the best teams, members (including managers) can trust one another to help meet every level of need –
From biological/physiological needs, through a healthy working environment
To self-actualisation, by making full use of their particular abilities.

The catalyst is a skill which is too often underestimated, or neglected altogether – listening.

Last week, I said that when it comes to investing in a professional relationship with a whole range of people:

‘… your story is a good place to start’ but
‘Theirs might be a better jumping-off point’.

I was planning to pick that up when we look at memory; but it comes into play here.

Julian Treasure of The Sound Agency calls listening one of the most ‘gracious’ things we can do for another person. David Isay of Storycorps echoes that idea when he talks about ‘honoring someone’ by listening to their story (the American spelling is David’s).

If concepts of ‘honor’ and gracious gifts sound a bit pink and fluffy for your taste, it’s worth remembering that investing some time, attention and energy in developing a better understanding of a team member by listening to their story, is likely to pay dividends in improved productivity, as well as loyalty and trust.

Listening, and trusting that we’ll be listened to, are obviously essential first steps towards problem-solving – which, as we saw a few weeks ago, plays a significant role in professional relationships. The returns are generally even better, though, when we make the investment at the very beginning. That way, we build trust early on – and can often stop issues ever becoming problems.

Gaining trust is hard enough. Holding on to it can be an even bigger challenge in our high-pressure, time-poor working environments. The trouble is, it usually comes down to something which ought to be boringly simple – but isn’t when our time etc is being pulled in all directions.

In a word:

Consistency – meaning what we say, saying what we mean – and delivering on our promises!

Inevitably, that drags us back (quite possibly kicking and screaming!) to all those politicians currently gearing up for 7th May.

If they really want to know how to improve public engagement, so boost voter turnout, the good news is that all they have to do is:

Listen to what we want
Trust us to understand their responses
Promise to take realistic action on the issues we raise and
Carry that promise through.

Did I say ‘all they have to do’ …?!

Actually, I’m not entirely convinced many people would vote for a truly honest candidate. It’s too easy only to like the truth when it matches our view of the world – hence the choice of ‘truths’ offered by different parties. Real trust, of the kind that exists between genuine friends and colleagues, includes telling the truth because that’s what’s needed under the circumstances – and listening to it, even when it isn’t what we want to hear.

The bad news for our would-be MPs is, that level of confidence in each other takes time to build – like the relationships it underpins – and if they haven’t built it already, five weeks isn’t going to be long enough!

Time is at the heart of next week’s theme – memory.

In the meantime, if you have any:

Questions
Comments or
Communication issues to discuss,

come and talk to me! All the details are on the website – and I still wear my old lawyer’s hat when it comes to confidentiality!

‘How can I help you?’ – Value

Two weeks ago, I talked about inclusion. Last week, the theme was negotiation. This week, I’m looking at one of the results of adding those two together – value. This topic also ties back to the last because that was about the importance of asking questions and this is about one of the most important questions we’ll ever ask if we want a professional contact to grow into something more enduring and productive. In fact, this week’s title question is an ideal follow-up to last week’s!

Actually, this week’s title was nearly:

‘How can you help me?’

because that’s often the real starting point; but either way, the fact is that help is at the heart of every professional interaction we ever have.

Reception staff ask callers or visitors:

‘How can I help you?’

At interviews, we ask candidates:

‘What do you think you can bring to the company?’ (in other words: ’How can you help us?’).

Marketing is about identifying and solving the customer’s problem.

Pr involves us asking journalists etc for their help in spreading our messages.

Wherever we look, across every area of operations, someone needs help from somebody else. When there’s a one-off, one-way match, we make a connection. When the roles of ‘helper’ and ‘helpee’ are switched back and forth over time, the result is a relationship founded on equality – which is central to the common ground on which the healthiest, most productive relationships are built. (No, I’m not sure ‘helpee’ is a word – but it serves our current purpose, doesn’t it?!).

I’ll be honest with you: I’ve never been completely convinced that ‘a picture paints a thousand words’
– but after putting this post together, I’m a believer!

My ideas quite often start as mental images, which I then translate into words. This one proved a trickier translation than I was expecting. If I could have just drawn you the picture in my head, with a few explanatory notes, I could have saved us both some time – and myself a lot of effort! Unfortunately, my drawing isn’t up to the job – so here goes with my best effort at a description!

Imagine, if you will, the classic ‘circles of intimacy’ diagram – five concentric rings:

• The smallest represents our five to ten most intimate relationships
• Around that, a slightly larger circle contains another twelve to fifteen people we’re close to but less intimate with
• In the next largest circle are approximately another twenty-five individuals we’re in regular contact with
• Beyond that are an additional hundred people, or thereabouts, who we feel personally connected to, although we keep in touch less regularly and
• At the outer edge of the largest circle are those we identify with because we share a group membership, although we won’t know them all personally –such as people who speak our language.

This graphic representation of our social relationships (which includes professional connections) often ties each level of the hierarchy to frequency of contact – which roughly translates into how much:

• Time
• Attention and
• Energy

we spend on the people within them.

That makes sense as far as it goes. Those three interdependent resources are vital to every relationship worth the name – and they’re all finite. We have to budget carefully, so (in theory at least) we allocate the biggest share to the most important people in our lives; but I’d argue that where we invest our resources is only a secondary cause of someone’s position in our circles; an effect of the primary cause.

The fundamental reason why one person sits in the centre and another is lucky to make it within the outer rim comes down to need – specifically, the type of need we have, which they’re able to fill.

In the first of this series, I mentioned Maslow’s Hierarchy. That isn’t usually shown as a set of circles, but while the numbers involved might be different and the boundaries may not match perfectly every time, it can be mapped on to the ‘circles of intimacy’.

Now imagine that:

• The ‘intimate’ centre circle represents the few people who can help meet our biological needs – including food and procreation. Our immediate family (partner and kids, if we have them) would be in the same position in both versions of the diagram;
• Next, there are those who help with our survival needs – shelter etc. Whether we have employers or employees, they should be in here, along with clients/customers – because they all help us earn the money that pays for our day to day survival. In theory, they also fit into this circle in terms of their share of our resources – although in practice, some of us see more of the boss, or the staff, than the people we live with, don’t we?!;
• Next come the people who give us a sense of belonging. In each case, the larger circle includes the smaller – so this is all of the above, plus friends outside work;
• The next largest circle includes anyone else (not in any of the smaller circles) who we’re able to help because that feeds our self-esteem.
• Finally, in the outermost circle, we can place the individuals, personally known to us or not, who help us reach our full potential – including those who help to spread positive messages about us.

If I haven’t made your head spin, there are three key points to pull out of all those imaginary circles:

1 As I’ve said, time, attention and energy are vital to every relationship

2 Provided nothing disrupts the natural process, the more of those resources we share with another person, the closer we become and

3 To find The best route to a bigger share of someone else’s resources – the path to their inner circles – we just need to look behind the question:

‘How can I help you?‘

An investment of time etc in identifying the answer generally yields healthy and consistent returns. For example:

Astute PR people find out what a journalist needs and how they can supply it –
• feeding the journalist’s ability to realise their own potential and
• increasing the chances of the favour being returned in the form of coverage;

Switched-on marketers involve customers in helping to plan campaigns –
 fostering a sense of belonging
• making the customer feel good about themselves and so
• maximising the chances of fulfilling the potential of the individual relationship and the campaign as a whole; and

Smart managers engage their teams in planning their own way forward and even the way forward for the organisation – helping them
• secure their practical survival
• feel safe in their position within the group
• build their self-esteem
• fulfill their own potential and so
• benefit the organisation by increasing their commitment.

Those are just three of the many illustrations I could have given you.

There are some implicit assumptions about power and status attached to the role of ‘helper’ and ‘helpee’.

Asking for help – even admitting we need it – can be seen as a weakness; a concession of power to whoever can meet our need. If nothing else, the helper can usually decide whether or not to help and they normally get to set the terms (if someone’s doing me a favour, I’m in no position to dictate how, where or when it’s done, am I?!). So if one person is always giving and the other is always receiving, the balance of power will be unequal, which strains dynamics and stunts growth.

If you’ find yourself caught in that cycle, in a particular interaction, or more generally, the trick to breaking it is to flip your usual opening question, whether that’s:

‘How can you help me?’ or
‘How can I help you?’

The second is usually the safest starting point – but if you always start from there and it doesn’t always work for you, it’s worth remembering that sometimes, you can support someone else by letting them support you. By showing you value somebody’s assistance, you might actually be giving them the validation they need to boost their self-esteem and reach their full potential! It’s a thought to ponder next time you’re struggling with something and don’t want to shout:

‘HELP!’

It’s all about exchange – which is next week’s theme. On that subject, if you have any:

• Questions
• Comments or
• Feedback

come and talk to me! All the contact details are on the website.

Everyone in Holland’s got a gift for languages, right …?

The seventh ‘Conversation with the Invisible Woman’ is the final one on the theme:

‘Mind the Gaps!’

The last three shows have been about situations in which we find ourselves divided by a common language. This time, My guest and I look at more obvious communication barriers – created by working in a language which isn’t our own.

He’s business coach and speaker, Hugo Heij – and he has plenty of firsthand experience on this subject. Born and raised in Holland, he’s worked in Sweden and, for the last six years, the UK – well, Essex – which was still part of the UK last time I looked (although perhaps we ought to start pushing for independence? As you’ll hear in the second section, we already have our own lingua franca …).

The title of the first section and this post is the assumption a lot of Brits make about Dutch people. So many speak such good English, it’s easy to believe they’re all born with an innate gift for foreign languages; but Hugo blows that particular stereotype to bits on the show.

The advantage Dutch kids have over their British counterparts is that languages are a key part of the curriculum. In a section of our chat which I couldn’t fit into the programme, hugo explained how it works:

At secondary school, everyone starts studying three languages – generally:

• English
• German and
• French.

They’re allowed to drop one after the first year and another after the second – but the one language they have to persevere with is English.

That still doesn’t mean every Dutch school-leaver emerges as a confident English-speaker – as Hugo’s story of his first job illustrates!

During his time in Sweden, though, English was the common language within his multi-national team. The only people they struggled to understand, apparently, were the Brits!

As I said a couple of weeks ago, English is fast becoming the international language of business – if it isn’t already. According to Mark Pagel, a form of English is likely to become the dominant world language over time.

Personally, I’ve only ever lived and worked in an English-speaking environment, although I was really interested in foreign languages as a kid. My Dad spoke fluent – but definitely not schoolboy – German, which he learnt as a POW (an effort which kept him alive on at least one occasion we know of). When I had the chance to study it at school, I grabbed it with both hands; but when I was forced to drop it at O-level, in favour of French, I rebelled. I spent the obligatory minimum half an hour in the French mock exam, before walking out. All I left behind on my paper were two badly constructed sentences about ‘le weekend’.

These days, my German is rusty – but I love polishing it up again when I get the chance; and I have a smattering of Spanish … oh yes, and the remains of six weeks of studying Latin over thirty years ago …

As an Englishwoman, that makes me almost multi-lingual, doesn’t it?!

Yes, I know – that’s another stereotype, which hides the fact that some Brits really do get to grips with other languages.

What I have, though, really isn’t enough to do anything useful with.

Students of linguistics who follow the ‘formalist’ tradition talk about ‘language in society’ – keeping the two separate. ‘Functionalists’ prefer to think about ‘language and society’ – an acknowledgement that language and culture are inextricably linked – language performs social functions.

As an English-speaker, I can make myself understood almost anywhere in the world – without RAISING MY VOICE and – SPEA-KING VE-RY SLOW-LEEEE!!! I can communicate and share information quite happily.

What I can’t do so easily, with someone who is most fluent in a language I don’t speak, , is have the kind of conversation that builds understanding – of them and the society they live in.

Even making an effort to understand someone else’s first language – whether it’s their:

• communication style
• professional terminology
• physical speech –

or anything else – gives us a real advantage when it comes to truly understanding them. It’s a prime example of looking at life from their perspective.

In the next section of the show:

‘What happens when the second language comes first’

Hugo talks about how he came to think in English.

I’ll come back to that here next time. In the meantime, as always, if you have any:

Questions
Comments or
Feedback

Come and talk to me! All the details are on the website.

How can we make ourselves understood?

In the final section of the latest show, Dr Ann Moir of Brain Sex Matters leaves us with some practical tips, to help us reap the benefits of closing the communication-style gap.

So what are they?

Well, as with any kind of distance, the first benefit of bridging it is better understanding – moving from seeing the broad features of a ’type’ to focusing in on the finer detail of an individual.

Within that fine detail, we’ll probably see weaknesses, but we’ll also see strengths – sometimes hiding behind the weaknesses! It’s always worth remembering that a frailty in one situation can be an essential quality in another.

The strongest, most productive teams are, of course, made up of people with a range of communication styles. A group who are all goal-focused would compete ruthlessly with one another – and quite possibly kill a project – if not each other! – in the process! On the other hand, a bunch of relationship-focused individuals would have a great time getting to know one another and talking about what they wanted to do, but might never actually do very much to make it happen!

Get the right blend of styles from across the spectrum, though, and the whole will be so much stronger than the sum of its parts.

For instance, research has shown links between the number of women on a team and the team’s overall capacity for creative problem-solving. Now, it would be stupidly simplistic to suggest that all women, or even all ‘feminine communicators’ are creative; but it is true that those of us who look at issues more intuitively and expansively are more likely to see past the usual questions:

• Who?
• What?
• When?
• Where?
• Why? And
• How?

and ask:

• Why not? And
• What if …?

Those last two questions are the keys which open up a problem. They let us link the unlinkable – and think the unthinkable –the foundations of creative thought.

My next guest on the show, Chris Arnheim, flagged up another piece of research illustrating this point.

It comes from Randall Kiser’s book:

‘Beyond Right and Wrong: The Power of Effective Decision Making for Attorneys and
Clients’.

and deals with ‘plaintiff decision error’ rates in the US legal system. In plain English, these are situations where someone would have received more compensation if they’d settled out of court than they were actually awarded when they took the case to trial.

Out of 5600 cases, between 2002 and 2007, there was an error rate of 60%; but within that, the rate was much lower – 46% – where the legal team included both men and women.

It seems likely that this was at least partly due to better decisions about which cases really needed to go to court.

When I was in practice, my focus was always on achieving the best possible out-of-court settlement, so avoiding the costs – in terms of time, money and stress – of a trial; but successful negotiation, like any successful relationship, needs time and attention. Two reasons cited for the difference in the stats are:

• Overconfidence of all-male teams and
• Overwork –

neither of which creates an environment where time and attention are top priorities!

Looking at this from the opposite perspective, as a relationship-driven ‘mad creative’ (my words), I know only too well the value of having at least one systematic, goal-driven person on my team. Without them, I probably wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you now – I’d still be talking to someone else about ‘this great idea for a series …’!

So you reductive processors need us expansive creatives and vice versa; but we both need more than that. We need to understand, not only our own perspective on communication, but each other’s.

Establishing that understanding starts, as does any change we want to make, with awareness – of our differences, our similarities, where they’re likely to come from – and our huge individual capacity to change. Perhaps the most powerful message I took from making this programme was:

‘Biology isn’t destiny’.

Even if we can’t become really fluent in each other’s languages, we can develop a working knowledge, which will let us save time, money and other resources by building more effective teams.

I’ve already mentioned my next guest, Solicitor, Chris Arnheim. In our show:

‘What’s that in English?’

released on 9th July, Chris and I talk about another kind of language barrier which can spring up between people who think they’re speaking the same native tongue – jargon. Chris is a lawyer with years of commercial experience and he has some interesting and revealing things to say about:

• What jargon is for
• The issues it can create and
• How we can deal with them.

In the meantime, as ever, if you have any questions, feedback etc, please, get in touch. All the details are on the website.