Communicating Through Humor

Posted on November 12, 2012 by djmartin

A moose and a deer walk into a bar…” We all like a good laugh – who doesn’t? – But why is that the case? This is because laughing releases endorphins; it not only literally feels good to laugh, it’s also very healing. Humor as related to health was immortalized in the Patch Adams movie about a real-life doctor, who used humor to aid the healing process. Endorphins are very powerful internal chemicals that not only make us feel good, but consequently ‘make’ us like the people who cause endorphins to be released. We like people who make us laugh.

Males who are courting females know this at some level and try to make females laugh, thereby making themselves more attractive. “He makes me laugh” is a reason largely cited in good relationships. Males relating to other males regarding humor try to ‘one up’ each other to see who can be the funniest, i.e. be the most attractive to females.

Self-depreciating humor is a great channel to use instead of put-down humor, which comes at the expense of another person, culture, or affinity group. While put-down humor can be funny to some who are in a rival affinity group, it can be very offensive to others, showing a harsh and judgmental attitude that is the opposite of funny to many. “That’s not funny.” This statement is used when somebody is not taking the situation seriously enough, or when the person is personally offended.

Self-depreciating humor, on the other hand, is only “mean” to ourselves and really shows that we are human and able to laugh at our foibles. Self-depreciating humor shouldn’t take the position of making fun at our personal traits, which can hurt self-esteem (when you tell yourself something enough, you start to believe it) and self-image (when you say a self-putdown enough, listeners may try to correct you but unconsciously start to believe it). Rather, self-depreciating humor should be more about your behavior that may have gone awry unintentionally and can be viewed as humorous as a result.

“Tell me a joke” children will ask while they are learning to understand the nuances of language. While this language learning process takes place, different ages find different things funny. “Why did the chicken cross the street? To get the other side!” was such a logical answer that I didn’t see the humor in it when I was in second grade. However, “Why did the lawyer cross the street? Because he was tied to a chicken!” struck me as hilarious as an adult, due to the illogic of the premise and to the ridiculous visual picture it creates. Another person who is not so logical or literal may not find any humor in it at all.

Children laugh several hundred times a day, with pure delight in an expression of their emotions. Adults have been trained to restrain their emotions to the point that we laugh only a couple of times a day, and some days not at all. We lose the healing aspect of humor when we fill our days instead with worry, anxiety and overtax our systems with stress. It can get to the point where it is hard to actually have a good deep therapeutic belly laugh. Laughing to the point of tears – it really does a body good.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: We all want to be liked (see prior blog post on 9/27/12) and humor can contribute greatly to likability. Attractiveness also contributes to likability, as we want to hang around with attractive people. It comes full circle when being humorous causes you to be more attractive. However using the right humor is important, as caustic, X-rated, and toilet humor may be funny only for their shock value. Self-depreciating humor as described above is endearing, while play-on-words humor is appealing to those with a strong auditory leaning. Re-training yourself to laugh at least several times a day will not just make you a healthy person, but your positive attitude will make you more enjoyable to be around.

QUESTION: Heard a good joke lately? Ever thought about WHY you thought it was so funny?

What Won the Election? Likability Emerges as the Real Winner

Posted on November 9, 2012 by djmartin

Now that the election was over and the winner is declared let’s analyze what was the biggest factor after all the rhetoric, all the negative ads, all the verbal posturing, that really made a difference. I go back to my previous post (see 11/1/12) where communication skills determined the winner correctly. It really is largely about visual impression portrayed and likability.

Romney and Obama were neck and neck on height (standing tall and looking presidential), on blink rate (acting presidential with composure) but likability won out in the end as Obama is just more likable to more people than Romney is. Obama won the popular vote, granted it was a slim margin, but still he won. While it may be simplistic to say that the popular vote is simply a popularity contest, there is no doubt that likability factors in when unconsciously swaying the undecided.

We have to like people in order to trust them, and we really want to trust our leaders. Without trust we are lost and without likability there is little trust. We may like somebody that we don’t necessarily trust, but there’s nobody that we trust that we don’t like. Likability is really the foundation of all relationships on a very deep level, even on relationships with national candidates, who most will never personally meet.

We buy products from salespeople that we like, even when we may rationally know that another product is the better choice. Still we take the lesser product because we like the person selling it and rationalize our choice as to why the lesser qualities of the product are an OK tradeoff, rendering the decision as acceptable. We ‘buy’ the rhetoric that a politician is ‘selling’ because we really like him better.

After the election, the media pundits were talking about how this close election reflects a deeply divided country along party lines. They claim that the voters pushed one party out of office in favor of the other party in local elections. That is simply not true. The average voter does not go to the election polls with the thought of pushing one candidate out of office primarily due to their political affiliation. The common man casts his vote based on individual likability of each candidate.

Certainly some people vote strictly along party lines, especially if they don’t know either candidate running in a local election and they see two unknown names; the easy choice then becomes party affiliation. But many voters think independently and vote for who they like regardless of which political party the candidate professes to represent. And when both candidates are unknown, many times the voter will simply not vote for either.

The candidates representing political parties don’t always act the way they ‘should’ – they don’t always vote along party lines. They think about the issue at hand and do the right thing, letting their conscience not their politics guide their vote. Likewise the average voter is changing and voting more based on what they know about the candidate’s previous behavior – i.e. who they like – instead of strictly due to the party the candidate belongs to.

The media makes a bigger deal of things than needs to be. With their round-the-clock coverage stating a “bitterly divided country” they do more harm than good, making more of the situation than is necessarily real. The media can escalate a situation and by so doing structures public opinion about the intensity of a story; it must be important because “everyone is talking about it” – with ‘everyone’ of their own creation.

How much more helpful would it be for the country if the media would instead focus on language that repairs the aftermath of the close election rather than accentuating our differences, and using language like “bitterly”. How many really “bitter” Americans are there, compared to the many? Most people are just going about their daily lives without true bitterness towards one man who didn’t personally cause their current circumstances.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: While it may be overly simplistic to say that likability was wholly responsible for the election results over political stands and behaviors, note how much a person’s stands (agreeing with yours or not) and behavior contributes to their likability in a person’s estimation. Is it truly a stretch to say that likability was the major contributing factor? Certainly you may vote for someone who you don’t necessarily like, either along party lines or because you agree with their stand on an issue that is important to you, but that is the minority. The larger pool of undecided voters used the unconscious likability factor at the polls on Tuesday, and Mitt Romney, the more unlikable candidate, loss both the popular and the Electoral College vote.

Feel strongly about this topic? Comment below!

Communication Faux Pas – Pardon My Language (Errors)

Posted on November 7, 2012 by djmartin

Kids today simply can’t spell. They do so much text messaging and shortcut writing on their phones (their primary means of communication) that many graduate from high school and even college without a grasp of basic grammar. And spelling, when it is required, is heavily dependent on spell check programs. The problem with spell check is that you need a basic idea of how the word is spelled in the first place to get the program to work. We are raising a handicapped generation who are missing a key part of communication.

How well spoken you are, the length and breadth of your vocabulary communicates volumes about your intelligence, your education, your background. Every time you open your mouth to speak, the words that you choose to use are an open audio record of your accomplishment and credibility. Choose your words wisely because they can be a great help or can do you great harm.

I was listening to a fairly credible speaker give a presentation. Behind her was an easel with a large pad of paper. When she turned to write a list, she made a noticeable (in my mind) but unacknowledged spelling error. Upon seeing that, and then realizing that she did not even recognize that it was an error made me instantly lose credibility in what she was saying and for her as a speaker. My mind immediately shut down to the rest of the presentation and I, perhaps unfairly, dropped her intelligence down several notches in my estimation. This happens all the time; consciously or unconsciously the error costs the person erring in lost credibility.

I received an email the other day from an intelligent accountant I have known for a number of years. It read in part: “The board will meet on Wednesday, the 7th (instead of Monday) in order to accomdate our… We’ll meet at UNE Bleweyy [misspelled] Hall from 5:00 until 6;15 when…” and I counted 3 errors – 2 typos and 1 punctuation error, the last a missed shift key resulting in a “;” instead of a “:”. So what do I think? Well, I know she knows better and I know she’s not stupid, so I chalk it up to going too fast, being sloppy and a healthy dose of “good enough, I really don’t care”. While unfortunate, it’s certainly not a deal breaker. But definitely her branding (the emotion people feel when they think of you is your personal brand) is bruised by this at some level. And if it is repeated, as it likely will be, it will continue to slide.

English is a composite language, since America developed as a melting pot. Our language has roots in many other languages, which makes it full of odd spellings, variations on spelling the same word (grey and gray, potato and potatoe, etc) and many rules with many more exceptions to the rules. It’s a hard language to learn for a non-native due to the many idioms and variety of nuances that give the spoken word multiple meanings. Tone is critical to meaning. And when words are written instead of spoken, tone is still there, only the tone, not always accurately, is inferred by the reader.

Our language is not only a major channel of communication, it structures our thinking. We can only think in concepts that our language gives us. How can it be otherwise, to think of thoughts that we can’t structure without the words to express them? A wise teacher once told me that the primary reason to learn another language fluently is not necessarily to use it, but to have it as a tool to step into, to view our language from another vantage point. Without another way to view our language, we can’t see what we’re missing. We are limited in our thought processes by our native language – we need to move outside our language to expand our thinking.

My grandmother-in-law was bi-lingual. She would often not have the English word to express herself accurately and would then revert to her native tongue to get her point across. English is limited, lacking much that other languages have words to convey. Language lessons anyone?

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: Words help us to digest information. Words can take away and give power. Words structure our very thinking – as the only tool we have to make our thoughts into memorable pictures and sounds. Without our language, without a good working vocabulary we are indeed limited.

Aftermath of Sandy – Disasters Bring Out the Best and the Worse in People

Posted on November 5, 2012 by djmartin

We have just experienced a huge natural disaster on the scale greater than any seen certainly in my lifetime, in the broad reach and physical devastation created in the wake of this mega storm. As the days go by and the stories of what happened are told there are many tragedies, but also many heroic and wonderful stories. In times of trouble most people show their best nature, especially when the trauma hits close to home.

But as recovery time drags on as it inevitably will with large disasters on the scale of Sandy, some people turn to their darker nature and take advantage of a bad situation for their own monetary gain. They start thinking of “what’s in it for me” and how in the large-scale confusion they can find a way to cheat the system.

This was proven in the aftermath of Katrina as many bad people took advantage of that devastation by scamming the government, looting the unprotected, and price gouging the desperate. My son lives in New York City and is seeing much of the storm damage firsthand. He has been helping when he can and has requested that his Christmas gifts this year be a donation to help those in need. Of course I am moved by the kindness of his request, and will comply but with a caution for those people with dark thoughts who will take advantage of the goodness of others, especially when that goodness is in the form of cash. It is rather unfortunate that my thoughts go so quickly in that direction, as we are living in a very skeptical society.

We have deemed it unwise to take everything at face value and are called naïve when bad things happen to good people. So, I have to wonder, what is it about disasters that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others? This is actually easily explained with the selfish/selfless dichotomy inside each of us (see blog post on 10/09/12). We are selfish by nature in order to survive, which gives us our competitiveness – as Darwin noted, it’s simply survival of the fittest.

Cheating actually does pay, unfortunately, but too much cheating unhinges the social balance that keeps the non-cheaters (the majority) happy with maintaining the rules of the system. So cheaters must be caught and punished in order for society to survive. The problem with a large disaster is that the catching of the cheaters is temporarily disabled or inefficient due to the magnitude of scale. When cheaters see that the odds of getting away with it are in their favor, those that are inclined take full advantage of the golden opportunity. And so much of stealing is really about opportunity. Many otherwise non-cheaters will cheat when the opportunity is too easy to pass up. While they are admittedly at fault, yet there is still a piece in our nature that drives selfishness, which is what cheating is all about; it’s taking more than your fair share.

The goodness that is also brought out during times of disaster is the other side of the selfish/selfless coin. We love other people in general because we need them; it’s really hard to get by without relying on the help of others. Some loners do manage to live off the grid, completely isolated, and enjoy their self-sufficiency. But 99.9% of us need other people and the fruits of their labor to survive. And so we cooperate, we help others when they are in need, we enjoy their company and feel their pain because we are such social creatures.

So the question becomes: are human beings by nature basically good or basically bad? Do we only avoid doing bad things because we fear getting caught and being punished? While that may be true for many regarding committing crimes, it doesn’t speak to our goodness, our going out of our way to help another for no other reason than to gain that good feeling that comes from helping others. Studies have shown that we are indeed basically good. Our bodies release feel-good hormones that perpetuates good behavior. Being altruistic really does make a person physiologically feel good.

Studies have also shown that when you throw money at an altruistic situation, the built-in altruism decreases and the money takes preference. The research study concerned building a nuclear waste plant nearby which was acceptable until money was offered, which then felt like putting a price tag on health, which then became unacceptable. This can help to explain why people volunteer freely when there is great need, but to pay someone to do the same job is a wholly different matter.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: Human beings are by nature good not bad (with the exception of psychopaths). But humans are also predetermined to be selfish, which doesn’t override their basic goodness, but does make some people bad when the opportunity presents itself. So we should let our goodness shine through and lend a hand when needed. But we should also act with caution and be cognizant of those cheaters among us who are looking to take more than they are entitled to have.

Forget Polling Voters! – Read the Communication ‘Tells’ for the Winner of the Presidential Election

Posted on November 2, 2012 by djmartin

We live in a media age; media image is critical to political success. The influence of media on the presidential election started with JFK and Nixon; we know that media won the election for JFK, regardless of his being an Irish Catholic. JFK knew how to play to the camera, as did Reagan, a former actor. When Geraldine Ferraro lost her bid to be the first female VP, part of her image problem was due in large part to her lack of understanding of how to portray herself on camera. When asked a question in her VP debate, she often looked down while thinking (a kinesthetic, she was mulling the question over, i.e. talking to herself) which caused the viewing audience to believe she was less than forthcoming; she wouldn’t ‘look them in the eye’. How unfortunate that she didn’t understand the power of media image in the election results back in ‘84.Now we have Obama and Romney. While pondering who won each debate can be debated itself for hours without resolution, what is undisputed is the importance of not only the image conveyed in the debates, but also of the other media coverage throughout the campaigning. Today it’s a whole process of impression management, with cameras that will keep rolling right up to Nov 6th. But for now, barring any last minute blowups, here are 4 exceptionally good (but not ironclad) indicators of the election results, from the world of communication skills.

The handshake – all politicians like to be on the left side when being photographed shaking hands because they have the top hand position, which is the power position. Obama’s handshake tends to be angled so his hand is on top when he wants to show his dominance. In the picture above, from the first debate where he was positioned behind the right podium, he has to come into the handshake from the right side; you can see his left hand coming up as he approaches the obligatory opening debate handshake with Romney. This visible left hand secures the outside (top) hand position to the camera; with Obama, the left hand often rises to clasp the other man’s forearm, showing the security of Obama’s power position, especially when photographed shaking hands.

Height – the taller candidate just about always wins every election. Standing tall with good posture speaks to good bearing and strong confidence. We like our candidates to be tall and as regal as they can be, without royalty in this country. So who is taller, Romney or Obama? I believe Romney is taller by an inch (hair?), but it’s extremely hard to tell and they come across as virtually the same height. So this one is a draw.

Blink rate – yes, some people actually take the time to measure how many times a minute each candidate blinks. This isn’t so farfetched as blinking is a stress indicator. The candidate with the lower blink rate is more composed and therefore appears more presidential. Throughout recent history, when blink rate could be actually counted and documented, the candidate who blinked the most during the debates lost the election. The counters say that during the first election Obama blinked more, but not enough to be meaningful. Other counters say that Obama blinks several times in quick succession followed by long periods of no blinking, which throws the counts off, giving Romney the higher blink rate in the first debate. As for the second debate, my impression was that Romney had a higher blink rate but I didn’t actually count. However Obama is known for his composure, which blink rate is measuring. Bottom line on this indicator: who appears more presidential? The incumbent, who has the job already, usually wins on acting presidential.

Likability – this one is actually huge since we do want to like our elected president. Obama when he was first elected was very likable and Romney from the beginning is rather unlikable. Romney comes across as aloof and distant, although he certainly is trying to warm up his image. But Romney’s pat insincere smile that he maintain during the second debate more often came across as smug, not as likable. Obama’s likability has dropped of late, but he still has the first four years in his pocket and first impressions are hard to beat without major missteps. His approval rating may go up or down depending on the issue at hand but his basic likability is still intact. We may not like his actions but we do not dislike the man himself. Romney has still not proven likable, and again first impressions are hard to overcome. Since it’s an uphill battle for Romney to become likable, this point goes to Obama. Plus Obama has an ace – Michelle, who is just about the most likable woman in America today. Romney’s wife is fairly innocuous.

What all this proves is that the undecided voter makes the final decision based on a feeling that they get when looking at the candidates in the media. They are swayed positively and negatively by the ideas and positions that each man espouses, which is why they are undecided in the first place. So the unconscious determinants become: acting the part (handshake), looking the part (posture and height), composure (blink rate), and likability. This composite decision is made unconsciously. If you watch the debates with the sound off, you can see who will win over the undecided voters. While ideas are certainly important, the de facto winner is truly the best communicator.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: Not just in elections, but whenever a person is undecided, the unconscious will use hidden communication factors to make the final decision. Knowing this can help you to convince the undecided by your portrayal of confidence

Verbal Communication – Be Careful of the Words You Use

Posted on October 31, 2012 by djmartin

Examples of the powerful effects of using the wrong words are in the headlines almost daily while in the height of political season. Romney says something, which gets him into trouble, recanting with “my words were taken out of context”. Obama says something that paints him in an unfavorable light, much to the horror of his advisors.

Andrew Mitchell, a British cabinet minister, angrily swears at the police for doing their job (they asked him to get off of his bicycle to pass through the gates at Downing Street) and he calls them “plebs”. The swearing was acceptable but using the word “plebs” was not; he was forced to resign from his position days later due to the uproar. Using a pejorative term for the working class by an government representative was simply unacceptable.

A different example in written communication: yesterday I received a fundraising appeal letter that started with, “Ms. Martin [impersonally trying to be personal], thank you for your support [I haven’t given to this cause previously, so this was a play to get reciprocity – if I am thanked in advance I may feel that I now owe them]. You may have already sent a gift [trying to get me to feel guilty if I haven’t given]. If you have, we are truly grateful [not grateful enough to check their records and either: a) send a proper thank you, or b) not waste the postage on this mailing]. If you have not [here comes the zinger], please take a moment to read my note inside [now there was no motivation to open the note, since I know at this point that to do so will subject me to the hard sell].

This 34-word, 4-line paragraph was along the top of the address page, received in a decorative envelope with no return address. The envelope was clearly designed to get me to open it, since it looked like it could have been a card, although the bulk mail stamp and windowed envelope gave it away for the solicitation that it was.

While I don’t fault non-profits for trying to fundraise, the marketing budget might include better advice on what to write in the solicitation to get a favorable response. And in this case, since I didn’t open the note, I can’t advise on what it should have said. I just know that this approach didn’t communicate with me to take the desired action (i.e. to open the note) for all the reasons detailed above. It would have been better to have written nothing at all, in which case I would have opened the note to see who it was from after I opened the mysterious envelope. Instead the wording, the first thing readable, turned me away from taking the desired action.

With written communication comes the additional burden of conveying tone. All words are imbued with tone and different tones suggest a myriad of different meanings. How, then, do you get your desired meaning conveyed with the written word? When tone is not audibly heard, the reader of the written word infers the writer’s tone, accurately or inaccurately, and differently depending on each reader’s personal experience. The importance of word selection, especially to a mass audience as a fundraising appeal is, cannot be stressed enough. Or the appeal becomes a sad waste of the non-profit organization’s funds. ‘Mail to fail’ is a popular euphuism for a reason.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: Words carry immense power – with certain words more heavily charged than others – the proper and improper usage of just words can make and break careers, relationships, future prospects. Carefully selecting word choice, especially in the heat of emotion or at the height of confusion, can make a big difference. And all it takes is a moment of silence – biting your tongue, saying nothing at all – and in those few seconds the lightning fast brain can think things through more carefully and make the best choice of what words to send out of the mouth.

QUESTION: Have you ever said something, regretting your words immediately afterwards?

Hidden Agendas – a Large Barrier to Communication

Posted on October 29, 2012 by djmartin

Here’s a big barrier to communication – not admitting what your (hidden) agenda is, or that you even have one.

We all have agendas, which is simply indicative of the fact that we have a vested interest in the situation (the reason we care to get involved) and we want things to go our way. What we want may be to boost our ego. It may be to help another person. It may be to add value. It may be to be recognized. We all have agendas.

A few years ago I started a new job (very brief tenure there) and had 2 colleagues at the same managerial level that I needed to work closely with. One of them I knew, not well, but knew from a previous group affiliation. The other I was meeting for the first time.

My first day on the job as the new corporate communication trainer, I sent an email to both of them stating how glad I was to be there and since there was a lot of work to do in a short period of time, I hoped that we could eliminate the hidden agendas and ego issues and get right to work.

The colleague that I knew came in to my office and not only said, “I have no idea what you’re talking about with ‘hidden agendas’ “ but also that she thought my note got everything off on the wrong foot. No hidden agenda, you say – really! – some people can be so blind to themselves.

Of course I wanted to slap her right there for her arrogance, but refrained. Could she have been so naive to actually believe that people don’t have hidden agendas? Or was she just plain stupid to openly admit that she knew so little about people and how they operate?

I didn’t stay in that job very long – to communicate effectively you need some building blocks to work with, i.e. people at least wanting to help themselves and recognizing the barriers to communication when they are pointed out.

Hidden agendas are, by definition, not readily obvious. But they exist in practically every interaction for 2 reasons – 1) our basic selfishness (read more on blog post dated 10/10/12) – we want to get something specific from the interaction – sometimes to help someone else and sometimes for ourselves not always consciously registered – but is a motive nonetheless and 2) the unconscious protects the conscious – the unknown world is dangerous and the ever present survival instinct rules behavior.

If a person is unknown or the situation with someone known is somehow different, we want to know the details to base our behavior on the new world order. So our agenda becomes to figure out how newness or the change impacts us (always operating from What’s in it for me? – see blog post dated 10/12/12).

If it’s a new person, the agenda is still WIIFM, but also perhaps including the selfish twist of showing power (i.e. a new boss), showing confidence (where really it’s lacking), boosting one’s ego (showing off, positive stroking) etc. There are many hidden agendas, unfortunately many are also hidden from the person who is “unaware” (which I will be kind and label my previous colleague as, versus “stupid” which the annoyed part of me would label her as). All of these hidden and sometimes purposeful agendas hurt good communication. [Purposeful agendas are a wholly different matter for another discussion.]

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: Knowing and acknowledging that agendas exist, hidden or otherwise, is a good step in developing strong communication skills. Once recognized, how you go about reconciling conflicting agendas so both sides are happy is one of the hallmarks of a good communicator.

QUESTION: Can you recall a time when a hidden agenda hurt the communication experience, resulting in an unsatisfactory outcome?

Communicating Through Your Handshake – 10 Types and What They Say About the Person

Posted on October 26, 2012 by djmartin

The innocent handshake tells so much about a person – if only you know what to look for. I have shaken thousands of hands over the course of being in the business world for several decades. Like you, I’ve encountered a variety of handshakes styles that various people use. Some have been more comfortable than others and all have been revealing of the person’s character to some extent, regarding our upcoming interaction.

So what do you look for? Since this is a fairly beefy topic (there are at least two dozen distinctly different handshakes) I will only touch on the highlights here of what different types of handshakes can communicate about the person, when meeting them for the first time

Cold, clammy, sweaty handshakes are obvious signs that the person is very anxious or nervous. The sympathetic nervous system causes these physiological responses as the brain is processing whether to flee or fight. If you encounter this handshake it would be most charitable to try to put this person at ease.

A handshake that starts out vertical and ends up twisted with his hand on top is a real power-play. If you are attentive and noticed this happening you might not want to trust this person‘s integrity in the upcoming interaction completely.

When the person does a double hander, you would best be wary in dealings with him. This is the politician’s handshake in that it indicates false sincerity, trying for a tighter intimacy than is warranted on the first meeting. On the left-hand is covering the shaking right hands it is the most sincere, although still premature in the relationship. When the left hand is placed on the forearm or the shoulder – watch out! – he may be trying to get something out of you.

How about that soft or limp handshake? While the person may potentially have a physical issue like arthritis or work in a hand-sensitive profession (i.e. a surgeon), barring that the soft handshake indicates insincerity. And the limp handshake, the “dead fish”, communicates low self-esteem. This last one is a career breaker as it shows a lack of commitment, nervous uncertainty, a reserved personality that is not people focused. This weak and subservient handshake is very common among prison inmates.

As a female, my hand has been abused by the “bone crusher” on more than one occasion, a male who exerts so much pressure that it hurts. This person may be overly enthusiastic but it is more likely an intimidation tactic. In the upcoming dealing with the bone crusher you need to present yourself with strength.

Then there’s the brush off; the quick grasp then fast release handshake that connotes arrogance. This person feels that they are in charge and their agenda is more important over yours. Handle this best by hearing what they have to say before discussing your ideas.

Have you experienced your hand being pulled into the person during the handshake? If so, then you have experienced a manipulator, a person who wants to dominate and lead the other person. In dealing with this person looked to establish common ground so they can feel in control of the situation, while moving towards your objective. But be careful about ending up someplace you didn’t want to be.

The opposite of the puller is the pusher who shakes your hand while his arm is fully extended so you can’t get close. This person needs his space so be sure to give him the space requirement that he needs, physically and emotionally, during the upcoming meeting.

Ever been pinched by the lobster claw (thumb and forefinger pinch the palm while shaking hands)? Building relationships is a challenge for this person who fears a deep connection. Allow him to open up to you in his own pace and become comfortable with you to gain full acceptance.

Lastly is the domed handshake, when the person cups their palm to avoid palm-to-palm contact. This one is a bit hard to notice as it can feel rather normal, but the proper firm handshake is web-to-web and palm-to-palm. When you notice a cupped handshake the person is hiding something, perhaps shyness or maybe something more. You would be wise to always check for missing information with this person.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: A handshake communicates volumes about the person. Don’t miss this good source of information by not knowing what to look for and how to interpret it when shaking hands. Much of this operates subconsciously, so the knowledgeable person can have a real communication advantage.

QUESTION: How’s your handshake? What is it communicating about YOU?

Not Communicating Clearly, When You Think That You Are

Posted on October 24, 2012 by djmartin

My daughter’s great Aunt recently died and left her an heirloom Rolex which she decided to have it retrofitted with a bracelet replacing the strap. While home visiting, she took it to a local east coast jeweler, who custom designs their own jewelry, assuming that they would be well-equipped to create what she had in her head, to her satisfaction. After dropping the watch off in person she promptly flew back to her home 3,000 miles away, relying on e-mail for the necessary approvals. Perhaps you can guess what happened next.

After giving two signoffs during the creation progress, the watch with the new look was ready in two months, and shipped out to her as completed. Well, of course, she was furious, hated the work, and couldn’t understand how they could get it so wrong? So where exactly was the miscommunication over the two-month period, and how could this situation have been avoided, or rather how could it have ended more happily?

First, you should know yourself quite well and therefore know what you’re like, especially when the stakes are high (this particular watch meant a lot to her). She should have known that she would be extremely particular especially about this piece of work (or maybe she knows that she’s extremely particular about everything) and should have stressed that with the jeweler, or at least mentioned the fact. If you have a lot of skin in the game or just have extremely high standards, it’s only fair to let the other side know, so there are no surprises. Instead we often don’t give fair warning and the other side is left wondering where the resulting fury is coming from. Poor communication error number one.

Second, what’s the real issue at stake? Is it getting your money’s worth from the high price paid? Is it getting your way on the creation based on a design that is only in your head? Is it about honoring a dear deceased relative properly? Or is it something else entirely? Once the real issue is determined, then steps can be taken towards avoiding or at least softening a potential conflict.

In the case of my daughter, the money was not the issue, and she feels no guilt about the relationship with her late Aunt – the issue is really about getting the design she wanted. If she had realized that when she first went into the store, that this was the critical point, she would have perhaps made a strong effort to ensure understanding and clarity around her unique vision of what she wanted. Lacking that full understanding the end product was far different in her mind than what she thought she had expressed that she wanted. Poor communication error number two.

There is an onus, certainly on the business person’s side, to understand the customer’s wishes – especially with custom work that the customer designs. When the resulting product is far off the mark, the standards have clearly not been set, labor and design time are both wasted, which is just bad business. Communication is a two-way street; if the customer does not clearly express what she wants and the service provider assumes without really knowing, a very dangerous stage is set for trouble. Poor communication error number three.

Lastly, not having adequate checkpoints in place throughout the process is also poor business. When someone is knowingly 3000 miles away with their approval, does e-mail pictures and text message descriptions really do a decent job? The communication channel must be appropriate for the situation. Any business that is in the business of design, fit, and personal taste must know that using electronic communication solely is not going to be adequate. They should have discussed additional alternatives prior to taking the job, which they did not do. Poor communication error number four.

At this point the business is redoing the entire piece, which is costing them money and lost labor and time, with no guarantee or even a feeling of certainty that she will like the resulting second attempt. It is a foolhardy lesson to be learned, which is uncertain that they will learn it as the miscommunications continue. I am watching the whole thing from afar and shaking my head in dismay.

COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY: While healthy communication is two-sided, you can only control your one side and hope that the other side is aware, without fully knowing if this is true, especially when the other side is a stranger. So if you want a satisfactory outcome it would be wise to think in advance of what you want and how you’re going to get it. When you mentally break down the transaction into the process that it will take to get from A (nothing) to B (a lovely bracelet watch) and the things to consider all along the way, you have a much better chance of clearly communicating your wishes.

QUESTION: What experience have you had when you thought you had communicated your thoughts clearly but then realized that you hadn’t? Was it a delivery issue, in that you weren’t clear in how you asked – or was it an assumption issue, where you assumed they had knowledge that they didn’t have?

Communicating Through Your Picture

Posted on October 22, 2012 by djmartin

Every piece of marketing should have your picture attached, for people to know that you’re a real person, plus your friendly face makes it easier to relate to you. This includes your picture on your business card, your website, your brochure, your Facebook account, your LinkedIn account, your blog, your newsletter, etc. Believing in this good advice I proceeded to put my smiling face in all my online marketing, only to be told by three different individuals that my picture “doesn’t look like me”!

Well of course I listen when I hear the same comment more than once, but I have to wonder how anyone would think that a picture of me that isn’t dated doesn’t look like me. In questioning further I realize that what they were trying to tell me is that the picture I posted doesn’t represent me well; it doesn’t capture my essence.

So what does a picture communicate about the person? More importantly what do you want it to communicate about you? When you sit before a professional photographer do you tell him what characteristics you want the resulting picture to portray? More than just a professional image, a good photographer can capture the essence of the trait that you want to come across, if you give it some forethought and tell him exactly what you want captured. The photographer is not a mind reader.

A therapist or counselor would want their picture to communicate compassion and caring. A financial advisor or accountant would want a picture that communicates credibility and trustworthiness. An attorney would want their headshot picture to convey intelligence and fairness.

Different professions should request that different traits be captured; even the same subject may request different characteristics depending on the purpose of the portrait. Instead too often we sit in front of the camera, paste on a social smile and receive back an accurate, perhaps attractive, professional but impassive headshot. This serviceable picture is okay, but not ideal for what it could be.

Another reason that we don’t always have our best picture showing is because the studio is an artificial environment and many people are camera shy; they don’t like having their picture taken. A camera is brutally honest and captures all of our imperfections, which we know are there, but would rather not be reminded of. Yet there they are in living color which we see with a much more critical eye than others use.

We forget that the only way we can physically see ourselves is in a mirror which is a reverse view of what everyone else sees. Naturally after seeing ourselves in reverse image thousands of times, that image is the one that we prefer (familiarity breeds likability); we are unfamiliar and don’t like as much the real view of our face.

You may be thinking that the frontal view and the reflected view are the same thing, but of course they’re not. We are just not that perfectly symmetrical (the people with the most symmetrical faces we consider to be the most attractive – they always take a good picture). We all have a good side of our face and a bad side. You can find your good side by holding a mirror up to half of your face in front of another mirror so the same side is reflected back in the small mirror, creating a whole face with the same half of your face. Then do the same thing with the other side. For most people their good side is their right side and their bad side is their left side. This is because in general we tend to hold most of our negative emotions on the left (private, hidden) side and our positive emotions on our right (public,confident) side. Here’s Mona Lisa with the technique described above:

Composite right side: pleasant, blank Composite left side: worried, fearful, even a bit sinister?COMMUNICATION TAKEAWAY:
1) Know what trait(s) you want conveyed when you have your photograph taken by a professional photographer, especially for business marketing purposes.
2) If you are looking to read another’s feelings, study the left side of their face (viewer’s right) with your left eye.

For further discussion or question on this interesting topic, leave a comment below.