Here’s a post from Sue’s writing blog that applies to conversation as well as writing.
In my line of work, eavesdropping is research. That may sound like a lame excuse for (rudely?) listening in on other people’s conversations; however, sometimes, they’re simply too loud to ignore. A research opportunity showed up, this week, as I overheard a chat between some people we’ll call Manny and Franny. . .
Read the rest at Sue’s writing site.
{ 0 comments }
The most common maps of enterprises are hierarchical “organizational charts”. We see them everywhere. We depend on them to illustrate the structural elements of an organization and identify the people working within them. Their underlying organizing principle is top-down granting of authority.
Getting work done in organizations depends on relationships that traverse these artificial boundaries. Collaboration and “cross-functional” teams are a necessary feature of organizational life.
“… understanding how networks work is an essential 21st century literacy.” — Howard Reingold
A critical element of successful communication is knowing your audience. If you need to communicate important information and you’re relying solely on the corporate hierarchy to cascade it from the top, with the attention it deserves, I’d urge you to reconsider. Working with key influencers to craft “viral” messages can have far greater impact. Critical change initiatives need support from critical people. If you can’t identify them you’re flying blind.
If you think your organizational chart represents the relationships that get work done you need to pull your head out the sand (or the chart).
It’s amazing how much attention is paid to the hierarchy documented in the organizational chart. All of us, when asked, will freely admit that the relationships required to get work done are not illustrated by an org chart.
The reality of the modern organization is that it’s a network. It is the sum of social and working relationships that traverse both organizational silos and levels. The “old boys’ club”, the grapevine, even the smoker’s huddle indicate networks that use informal paths of communication to share trust, knowledge and support.
Adopting a network view 
is much more useful when it comes to understanding connections between people in organizations. We’re social and form relationships of commitment and trust we need to achieve both personal and corporate goals. This mesh of personal interaction isn’t revealed by an organizational chart but exists nonetheless.
Working with key or central people within these networks can amplify communication efforts, accelerate change and identify opportunities to promote development. If only we could identify them.
Tools and processes to do just that are readily available – Organizational Network Analysis or ONA. This type of analysis isn’t a new idea. It’s been used since the 1950s. Pioneers and advocates in the field like Valdis Krebs , Rob Cross and Patti Anklam, among others, have a significant body of experience in making invisible organizational links visible. Growing awareness and analysis of network dynamics has been sparked by internet communities like Facebook and LinkedIn. In parallel, Organizational Network Analysis adoption is finding new advocates. And new providers of tools, analytic software and services like Netview and Keyhubs are emerging.
This is an important and useful tool to consider when thinking about how to make your organizational development or communication initiatives work best.
{ 0 comments }
Have you ever tried to win someone over with a clear, fact-based proposal only to have them become even more fixed in their current (in your view, misguided) position?
Earlier I wrote about the resistance to give up ideas being as difficult for us as giving up more tangible things we own.
A useful variation of this notion is examined in an essay called How Facts Backfire. by Joe Keohane in the Boston Globe. A key insight: “In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts.”
The essay looks at the findings of political scientist Brendon Nyhan, who studied the puzzling behaviour of people who become more entrenched in their beliefs when confronted by contradictory facts. Unfortunately, this behaviour is as common in the workplace as it is in the political arena that Nyhan examined. Our default position in the “rational” business world is to make fact-based decisions based on clear evidence. When we propose change based on the facts of a given situation we’re often puzzled when met with “irrational” resistance.
{ 0 comments }
Conversations often result in unexpected actions. Despite our belief that clear communication has happened it becomes clear that participants walked away with very different conclusions – and proceeded to act on them. The issue is typically one of common context – a key component in the It’s Understood communication model. Establishing common context is an important prerequisite to effective communication.
Abbot and Costello provide a classic (and hilarious) example of this type of miscommunication:
It’s important to remind ourselves that no two brains think alike. We need to establish common ground to ensure the content we discuss during our contact results in meaningful connection. Effective conversation requires conscious attention to each of these factors.
{ 0 comments }
Over the past few weeks, I’ve read nearly a dozen books on leadership, communication and change as I prepare to lead two new workshops. My creative process seems to demand that I read up on the subject, just to make sure I haven’t missed some new and breathtaking idea that will render my current knowledge obsolete. Though I discovered nothing that will rearrange life as I know it, I did spot a pattern that seems to lead to success.
A few key behaviours seem to improve our communication as leaders, as change agents and as human beings.
{ 0 comments }
Here’s Part 2 of the condensed version of the arguments supporting giving face-to-face communication more attention. They are extracted from Real Conversation – the most powerful business tool your organization will ever use, my presentation at the recent Ragan Corporate Communications Conference.
Brain scientists speak: “Humans have to talk!”
Developments in neuroscience are showing us that conversation has tangible physical effects on us as human
beings.
In an era where people are paid to think, it’s probably no coincidence that there’s a lot of research examining how our brains work. Using new tools, graduate students everywhere are hooking folks up to functional MRIs to see which parts of their brains light up when they do or think
about various things.
There’s evidence that we’re genetically “hardwired” to communicate face-to-face. Moreover, we actually need the company of other humans. It keeps us
human.
{ 0 comments }
We provide one-on-one support to people looking to make significant positive change in their lives.
More details...
Looking to achieve specific goals with your team? A skilled outsider can spark thoughtful and useful dialogue in groups.
More details...
If you need someone to talk to your audience about effective communication we're here to help. Our unique perspective, rich experience and relevant business content drive engaging and useful presentations.
More details...
Sometimes you need a helping hand from someone who's done it before. Lean on our breadth of organizational, team and communication experience to provide the "bench strength" you need now.
More details...Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
© 2006-2011 - It's Understood Communication – All rights reserved – Privacy Policy
Written permission from It's Understood Communication is required to reuse content in any fashion