Author: Christina Bowser

The blank stare said it all. She had no idea what I was talking about or simply did not care.

I cannot remember which alternative was more exasperating. It did not really matter because I was just plain frustrated. How could my point not have gotten across?

The year was 1993 and I was a young branch manager working at the most successful and respected bank in New Orleans. Just after graduating with my MBA, I completed a yearlong Branch Manager training program, designed to thoroughly hone my financial and technical skills. During that year I was dispatched from one department to the next to ensure that I would be successful as a branch manager.

Soon after becoming a manager, I realized the program designers must have inadvertently overlooked a critical assignment. They forgot to direct me to the department where they teach you how to get people to listen to you. I was fairly sure it somehow had to fall under the Marketing department. The folks there kept emphasizing how important it was to communicate a consistent message. They had a lot of insightful focus group data and colorful charts to make a very convincing case to back up their point.

I was frustrated. I was paying the price for this glaring omission on a daily basis. I had the skills to succeed as a good “banker,” but not as an effective manager. Few of my employees and some of my customers just did not get my “message.” The worst part was I could not identify the problem. There were times I would communicate with one person and it worked beautifully. We talked almost effortlessly; the individual understood me and I accomplished my goals. Then, with the very next person, I would communicate exactly the same way, but the results were dismal. I was broadcasting with an FM station and he was listening through an AM receiver. All he heard was annoying static!

What was worse, whenever this happened, I became frustrated and my communication skills seemed to become even less effective! In essence, I was playing the same song, only louder. “Are you listening to me??!!” I wondered.

Since 1993, I have learned that many people frequently share my experiences and more than likely, everyone has encountered the same situations. Clearly, effective communication does not just happen. It takes effort and skills. It turns out that what works as our own ideal communication style, most likely will not work for another person. In fact, the odds are against it! Our communication preferences, such as how much detail we want to know, at what pace we tend to communicate, how much time should be spent on additional ‘small talk,” and many other factors will vary significantly from one person to next. If we are not aware of how to “read” the other person and do not know how to appropriately adjust our communication style, we should not expect that our message will be received as we intended.

Once we accept this, we can take steps to solve the problem. It is also important to remember that when we do get frustrated with our poor communication results, we are likely to fall into what I call the “too-effect” trap. We become too much of, well, “us”. Whatever adjectives can be used to describe you, simply add the word “too” in front of them. If you are demanding, competitive, and direct, when you get frustrated you are very likely to be too-demanding, too- competitive, and too-direct. I think you can envision the outcome on your communication effectiveness. Not a pretty picture, is it?

So, what can you do to become a more effective communicator? I have good news for you. It is a simple, four-step approach.

First, learn what the different communication styles and preferences are. There are good models on the market, most of which are based on the four-quadrant model originally developed by Karl Jung. They help you understand how people are different, not better or worse.

Second, gain a very clear self-awareness about your own style and communication tendencies. Make sure you have an honest assessment of who you actually are and how you communicate. It is not who you think you need to be. Often, who you are and who you think you need to be are not the same and as a result, you do not fully understand your hard-wired communication tendencies and how best to adjust them.

Third, learn to identify the styles of others. When you interact with others, pay attention to what the person talks about, how she says it (for example, type of words such as “I” vs. “we” and type of questions like “what?” and “why?”), her body language, and tonality. By using a tool such as the four-quadrant model as a guide, you will discover it will become easy to identify the styles of others.

Finally, once you know what your natural communication style is and you have identified the style of the other person (and hence, his communication preferences), you can make conscious, informed decisions about how to best modify your communication style. At times, this may require you to make an effort to provide more information than you would prefer. Sometimes you may need to slow down your presentation or you may need to maintain more direct eye contact than you normally tend to use. You may need to speak up or get to the bottom line more quickly.

The payoff for learning this four-step approach is remarkable. How many highly successful people have you met who are not effective communicators? This four-step approach will make you more successful and it will make life easier for you and those around you. When you are aware of how you need to modify your communication style, an amazing thing quickly happens. Suddenly, others listen to you!

Recently I worked with a consulting firm that utilizes the information we provide to help their clients with strategy implementation.

This particular client company had a common problem that we often see in countless and varied organizations. There are no companies that seem to be immune to it. Managers are cloning themselves. They were hiring people that closely mirrored who they are – people that seemed to have “that certain something.” They were bringing in people who made the hiring managers say, “You know, there was really something about that guy that made me feel very comfortable. He would fit very well in our team.”

I can still vividly remember the conversation I had with one manager eight years ago. He told me, with a lot of enthusiasm and conviction, “I know exactly what I need to do. I need to clone myself. Then all of my worries will be gone!” He was a manager of approximately 45 account executives at a financial services organization. While his group was doing modestly well, no one attributed any of the credit for success to him. It was a classic case of “doing well despite oneself.”

Have you ever been in a situation when you had a hard time finding the right words to tell someone politely that they were dead wrong? I am pretty comfortable doing it now. Eight years ago I was not so comfortable. I remember saying to myself, “Clone you! Why do you think I am here?”

Since that moment, I have heard the same idea countless times. Actually, on the surface it makes a lot of sense. If I am successful as a manager, or at the very least think I am, why not duplicate myself and multiply the success? (By the way, I have not met many managers who said they were not good managers – have you? I think there must be a few of them out there. At least the employees sometimes claim they are out there.) This plan sounds logical, simple and straightforward. Why not go for it?

And many do. They bring people into their team who, in essence, are mirror images. They act and think just like the boss. Conflicts will happen less often, everyone will get along and life is smooth sailing.

Unfortunately, it is not all smooth sailing. Although a team with similar style employees tends to increase its strengths, the group will also amplify its weaknesses. What’s worse is that they are usually completely oblivious to the latter. No one wants to face this fact. And the ones that do realize it often find it to be a lot more comfortable to be quiet. Who wants to rock the proverbial boat and to tell the boss they are doing it wrong?

The same happens in people’s personal lives. However, it seems that we are more aware of it then. We are more mindful of when we are more alike. We can recognize the amplification of strengths and weaknesses that takes place. For example, take a couple of analytical people. They usually are aware that they have a hard time making decisions quickly and can even poke fun at themselves.

But at work, it is different. The problem is ignored and no humor is found in the situation. What often compounds the problem is that certain kinds of careers, jobs and even organizations tend to attract similar styles of employees. For example, the engineering field attracts more analytical styles while sales careers often pull in more people-oriented styles. Combine this with a manager who replicates him/herself and you end up with a team of clones.

“Markku, what is the best behavioral style for a leader (or manager, salesperson, etc.)?” This is a question I get asked frequently – almost every day. My honest answer always is: “It depends on what you need. Do you know what you need?”

Because the truth is that there is no one best behavioral style.

There really is not, although I, at times, think mine is pretty good. Then I take another candid look.

However, there is a common denominator with all successful people. They know who they are and they are honest with themselves. They are not afraid to look into the mirror and face the truth about their strengths, weaknesses and challenges. What’s more, they capitalize on their strengths, and they recruit to their weakness. They actually surround themselves with people who are different from their own style.  Why would anyone want to do this? Aren’t they inviting disagreements, conflicts and misery?

Maybe. But what they are also doing is recruiting additional strengths, different viewpoints, and diverse talents to their team.

Please understand, I am not advocating that every team should be equally balanced with the different behavioral styles. That is rarely the best case. However, the most effective teams closely match the behavioral requirements that the mission of the team dictate. When the behavioral styles are closely aligned with the behavioral requirements, the team succeeds.

In sports everyone seems to understand this concept clearly. Many of us have our favorite players. We have our favorite quarterback, pitcher, or center. But, let me ask you this. Would you want your favorite sports team to be clones of that one player? Of course not! Your team would never have a chance to succeed, even though someone could clone a team of your superstar.

Next time you see a manager clone trying to clone him/herself, you may want to ask the same question. Do you really want to clone yourself or do you want to succeed?

After talking on the phone with Debbie for a few minutes, I was certain she had to be a very analytical “C-style” individual.

Her deliberate, steady pace of speech and her highly detailed questions were clear giveaways. This was my first conversation with Debbie. She is a corporate trainer at one of our client companies. Debbie was preparing for the “train-the-trainer” session that we were going to conduct in two weeks for Debbie and six of her colleagues.

She had many questions about our assessment reports. “Why does the arrow go to this direction?” “What does this graph mean?” She asked one question after another. All of them were focused on getting more specific and detailed information about the interpretation of the assessments results.

Two weeks later it was very clear Debbie was the only one of the trainers with such an analytical style.

In fact, the rest of the trainers were all animated and talkative “I-styles”. They had never even given a thought to look at the reports before the session. In terms of her behavioral style, Debbie was very different from the rest of the group.

During every break Debbie came and asked more questions. This time the questions were different.

“Should I be concerned that my style is so different from the others’ styles?” she asked with a concerned look on her face. She also pointed to specific statements in her report that were all about her various development areas.

None of her questions were about her strengths.

I have seen this happen many times. Often times, we are focused on the things that are negative about ourselves. We end overlooking all of our positive qualities. The same regularly happens when we achieve a deeper self-awareness of who we really are. We frequently focus on the “bad news” and ignore the rest.

“Yeah, yeah, I do notice the missed details as it states here, BUT I am really worried about this statement: ‘Needs lots of information to support decisions’. That could be a problem.” Debbie continued to focus exclusively on her development areas.

Maybe we develop this pattern of behavior in school. The bright red markings on our test papers focus only on the things that we got wrong. All of our correct answers are completely ignored.

“Why are you so worried about these statements?” I asked Debbie. “I know you are successful and it is obvious that your colleagues have sincere respect for you. The only time they are quiet is when you speak,” I observed aloud.

“I’m not sure. I guess I want to be more like the rest of the group,” she responded.

This is very natural response. Overlooking our strengths becomes an even bigger issue when we feel we are somehow different from others. Peer pressure is not reserved for teens only. It never ends and it takes on many different forms.

“Debbie, may I take a guess how your own training sessions unfold?”

“OK”, replied Debbie.

“When you are training new material for the first time, you do not sleep very well the night before. You are worried about many things: if you know ALL of the material, if you will be able to know and remember what to say and be able to answer all of the questions. You are quite nervous.”

“The next day, at the end of the session, you are completely worn out. After all of the participants have left the room, you begin to anxiously read the course evaluations. You notice a few things you could have done better. You feel a little disappointed. But, if you really think about it Debbie, they are actually very good evaluations. There are many comments about how clearly and logically you presented the content. How well you answered the questions. How you clearly mastered the material.”

“Yes, that is true,” Debbie said hesitantly and nodded.

“It is all because of your strengths, Debbie. Others here today struggle with all of that! Be happy that you possess these wonderful qualities.”

Debbie seemed somewhat relieved.

I promise you that many people would love to have the strengths that you have. Many times I have talked to people who were completely ignoring their valuable strengths while another person, in the very same room, was lamenting how he lacked the very same behavioral trait.

“I need to learn to focus less on the details,” one person comments.

“Oh, how I wish I could focus more on the details. I make so many careless mistakes that cost me so much money and time,” says another, only 15 feet away.

Certainly, it is important to work on our development areas. Successful people do this consistently. However, successful people also use their existing strengths to the fullest.

Do not take your strengths for granted. Use them, capitalize on them and become even more successful. It is always more fun to use your strengths than just to work on your development areas!

Many people find it surprising that no one owns “DISC”.  

It is a theory that was originally developed in 1928 by William Moulton Marston.  The DISC-model is in public domain and there are a few companies that have created their proprietary DISC assessments.

This blog covers these main points:

• “Work role” vs. “hard-wired” DISC-style
• Identifying the true starting point for performance development
• Can you trust the results?
• Off-the-shelf vs. customizable assessments
• Generating assessment results in multiple formats

One of the main reasons that DISC assessments and DISC profiles are so widely used around the world is that they are easy to understand and implement because they identify only four behavioral styles (DISC). Simply put, participants learn it and apply it comfortably.

However, many people justifiably believe that the DISC tools lack the depth they need for many of their applications. In particular, they often mention that the challenge with many DISC assessments is that they measure what the respondent thinks he/she needs to be in their current work role.  In other words, these DISC profiles focus on the conscious behavior style – how a person perceives he/she needs to adjust behavior in the present environment. Consequently, the results vary over time making it impossible to determine what the person’s style actually is and how to best develop it.

As a result, when a person completes the DISC questionnaire again, the results are often different and participants make comments such as “I used to be a IS-style but now I am a DI-style.” Obviously, this makes it impossible to identify a true starting point for improvement.

What makes the Extended DISC different is its ability to measure at a deeper unconscious level – minimizing the impact of the environment.

In practice this means that the results show who the individual actually is and not what the person thinks he/she needs or wants to be in the existing environment. As a result, Extended DISC identifies the true strengths and developmental areas to allow for true performance improvement. Moreover, Extended DISC is able to measure both the unconscious and conscious styles, giving it a powerful range of measurement.

Many assessment tools generate a report even if a respondent just randomly or blindly selects answers. As you can imagine, the validity of the results is questionable at best. Extended DISC does not generate a report when the validity of the results is very low. Rather than providing information that can be inaccurate and that could be misused and misinterpreted, Extended DISC lets user know the respondent should complete the questionnaire again.

Also, with Extended DISC you are not forced to select from a few off-the-shelf reports.  Rather, it allows you to:

• Customize the reports for content, length, pictures, colors, logos, page order, etc. to provide the most relevant and user-friendly reports for your participants.
• Provide assessments that are specific to roles (examples: Executives, Managers, Salespeople, Customer service representatives, Team Members, Students, Athletes, etc.).
• Create Pair, Team, Department, Division and even Organizational Assessments without having to ask employees to complete another questionnaire.

Finally, once a person completes the questionnaire, the results can be provided in any format at no additional cost and without having to ask employees to spend their valuable time completing DISC questionnaires again.