Speaking of natural behavioral styles, the Washington Business Journal had an article about this very topic … why are more HR executives not at the executive table?

There are a variety of reasons; however one of the top set is because of the communication style of HR Executives. They are more ‘people people’ than CEO’s, who like to hear the end result first.

They [HR] want to find compromises and make everyone happy, a skill that is great in managing employees but not always the best in the competitive environment that often exists in a company’s upper ranks. Some get discouraged by the confrontational nature of the C-level table and give in to their desire to keep others happy rather than further their department’s stature. .. Many HR executives don’t know how to assemble and argue a solid case to demonstrate the value of their expenses. They need to be more forceful in demonstrating how those expenses generate returns…Although a good employee, [the former HR manager] was a tactical manager, doing the same things the same way they had always been done. After the period of rapid growth, there were too many people going in too many directions, with too many competing agendas. Straightening things out required a new, more strategic voice.

Generally speaking, C-level executives are more of the direct type … decisive, efficient, demanding.  When you communicate with them, there are two things you need to remember:

1. Talk in bullet points and
2. Tell them the result or the outcome first.

If they want more information, they will ask for it.  By doing this, you will gain their respect, which is a much higher compliment to them than if they said they liked you.

The author of this article is alluding to HR being a person that likes to engage with others …  people oriented, having fun, wanting to connect to others, not necessarily liking confrontation.

When executives see HR professionals back down in an effort to keep the peace, they feel that HR doesn’t have the sharp teeth to fight for change.

Depending on where they are in the behavioral arc, they may be more adapting than wanting to be in control. Or they may fluctuate between those two.

Being cognizant of how others communicate, and want to be communicated with, and taking the appropriate action, is a step in building high performance teams and increasing productivity.

A person’s perception is their reality … it isn’t what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

How often do you make a decision based on an assumption?  You “paint with a broad stroke” instead of taking the time to investigate with an open mind?

If you were the recipient of an unfair decision, how would you feel?  Too often we are immersed in our own world and not realizing that the “others” we are dealing with have thoughts, feelings and motivations just like we do.

My membership for a particular organization was due to expire.  I thanked them for their friendly reminder email, telling them I was not sure of the exact date that my membership would be up.  Their response was:

Our records show that a hard copy of a letter was sent to you on January 5, 2010  to inform you that you were to expire in 90 days.  It was never returned to us.

This immediately threw me back to my grade school days when I, in vain, tried to explain to the nuns why I could not understand the chapters in the textbook well enough to complete the homework assignment.  You know, the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach that tells you indeed you are going to fail and to fail miserably, and getting chastised in front of the entire class.  Afterwards, the class would tease me mercilessly ….

Fast forward to today … if I read between the lines, did they [also] call me a liar?  Are they telling me that I did indeed receive their hardcopy letter?  Much like the nun telling me that I didn’t even try to understand the importance of some minor battle in the Civil War.

This is a great example of how email messages can be misconstrued, taken out of context and begin feelings of irritation and resentment.

Rationally I don’t believe the writer intended for her words to come across as harsh as they did.   I felt her index finger jab my chest.  I felt my defenses rise — I felt my credibility and my reputation being attacked.  My caveman brain wanted to take over and fight for my own self-esteem.  Luckily I took a deep breath and my rational mind took over.

It wasn’t what she wrote, it was what I thought I read.

BC&A reports that the “Top Ten Threats Cited in EMS ASRA [NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System] Reports:

Mission Preparation/Operational Pressure                    93%

Excessive Workload                                                      84%

Communication Difficulties                                            75%

. . .

Distractions                                                                  28%

Pilot                                                                              17%

Assume that EMS personnel are trained and are accustomed to working under stress.  75% of the time they consider communication difficulties a threat?  What does that mean for the rest of us that do not generally work under stress …. our stress experiences has peaks and valleys.

How many times in a typical day do we ‘visit’ the fight/flight/freeze arena?  And how long do we remain that prisoner?   When we sense that our unconscious reactions will overtake our conscious actions, we need to focus on the outcome we want, not escaping from the current situation.

How difficult is it for us to communicate clearly the first time?  And what are our consequences if we don’t.  And how do we know if our meaning and intention are clearly stated?  We can take cues from the other person/people, we can restate our communications several times in several different ways, we can ask them to repeat [not regurgitate] what you said … and you can ask for feedback.

It’s not what you said … it’s what they think they heard.

NBAA Schedulers & Dispatchers Conference, San Antonio, TX

Winning the respect of chief pilots, directors of maintenance and others in your organization is crucial to your success, and possibly the success of your flight department – but your expertise only gets you so far! Using your personal power and influence, along with adapting your behavior patterns, can make you the “go to” person in your department. This session will cover techniques to recognize and anticipate communication patterns from others; you will practice persuading and negotiating with a structured checklist. You will develop skills to stop defensive attitudes and words, and heighten your awareness of signals that others send you. This session will enhance and develop your natural and learned skills.

Communication is difficult enough without having to think through and explain absolutely everything we say.  In certain professions, however, vague communications can be disastrous or even deadly.  The solutions to many of our mistakes, or our friction, is quite simple — if you are unsure, ask questions and verify your information.

I ran across this recently in an aviation forum .. the names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty!

A pilot left the airport in Class B airspace with radar following.  He requested 12,500′.  He was cleared to climb to 4500′ and stay on his course.  He complied and continued over the airport.  ATC tells him “to resume own navigation”.  So he turns to his orignally stated direction and climbs to 12,500′.  WRONG!  ATC promptly and angrily questioned the pilot’s actions.  The pilot responded that he was doing what ATC told him to do. Or what he thought he heard ATC tell him.

He was in violation for “an unauthorized climb through Class B airspace.”

In your opinion, was the pilot mistaken?  Was the pilot to blame, or ATC?

It seems “resume own navigation” is the set of ambiguous words here.  Does ‘navigation’ include both vertical and horizontal?  And are both the pilots and ATC using the same definition?  Would restating the approved navigation by ATC have taken too long?

“Resume own navigation” sounds like the pilot is to continue with his intended, pre-stated path.  That’s what is sounds like to me.

It wasn’t what ATC said, it’s what the pilot thought he heard.

NASA Ames Research Center reported that 70% of all ASRS reports were because of communication errors, and expectation error was the highest single cause.  Expectation error ranks amont the top human factor errors.

When squelching or another communication breakup occurs, the pilot completes the command with what he/she thinks the thought should be.  In nearly 70% of cases, the direction dealt with altitude.  Although there were no fatalities, there were serious repercussions.

How does this relate to your work environment?  How many times do you “fill in the blanks” when your attention turns elsewhere?  Your brain can only focus on one attention point at a time … only one!  In addition it pieces together slices of today’s reality to correlate it to a situation you have encountered in your past.

So when you are talking with a colleague, team member or direct report and your blackberry chimes that you have new emails or a new phone call, do you automatically and unconsciously tune the other person out?  And what important words are you missing when you do?

It’s not what they said, it’s what you think you heard.

Captainitis, the phenomenon that occurs when subordinates do not speak up to “the person in charge”, can rear its ugly head in many ways.

In February 1980, a United Airlines career second officer [based on his lower than desired level of pilot proficiency], became the first officer!  The captain, a friendly grandfather-type figure, did not challenge the decision when the first officer announced that he and the second officer would be changing positions. 

Even though the cockpit recordings contained inferences of uncomfortableness, encouragement and helpful cues, the captain did not acknowledge the tension these officers were feeling.  Unfortunately, this story ends with a crash and no survivors.

Both officers wanted to please the captain.  The original second officer [who became the first officer] wanted to please his ’superior’, and did not communicate his uneasiness in becoming the first officer.  The captain wanted to please his first and second officers, and to build the confidence in the second officer. 

Back in those days, CRM – crew resource management – was not prevalent and though of very highly.  Senior Captains considered CRM – essentially a form of team building – for sissies and psycho-babble.  They could not understand why they had to be ‘part of the team’ and how that would promote safety.

CRM back then is very much like EI – Emotional Intelligence – today.  What benefits will come from understanding our own emotional triggers, and understanding what other people are experiencing?  Not just physically – sweaty palms, squirming – but linking these actions to what they are emotionally experiencing.    Empathy and compassion may be the two most difficult emotions for leaders to show. 

What would have happened if the second officer spoke up with his true feelings? If the captain would have spoken up and stopped the officers from swapping?

It wan’t what the officers said, it’s what the others thought they heard.

I’ve been doing research on the aviation accident that happened in Tenerife in the Canary Islands, Spain in 1977. This is an absolutely fascinating study in looking at how each element contributed to the fiery crash.

A chain of events is a sequence of events that, occurring consecutively, caused an accident. Had only one or two of these events happened, the accident may not have happened.

It all began with a bomb explosion in the Las Palmas terminal, diverting all flights to Tenerife. The KLM captain opted to let his passengers off the aircraft. Heavy fog rolled in. When it rolled back out, briefly, passengers were not quick to reboard.

From a communications perspective, the dialogue between the air traffic controllers, the KLM pilot, and the Pan Am pilot is a comedy of errors. When people from two aircraft talk on the radio at the same time, squelching occurs. This happened at a critical time when Pam Am stated they were still taxiing down the runway.

We will never know exactly what was rolling through the Captain’s mind … possibly expiring crew duty times, possibly the monies the airline would have to spend if the flight stayed overnight, perhaps “we’ve come this far we need to complete the task” …. was it loss avoidance or a tightly-held commitment?

As in all our lives, it isn’t what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

I was re-reading an article in a prior edition of Business & Commercial Aviation, entitled Cockpit Cacophony.  It states that

“The noisy cockpit environment certainly doesn’t help the communication of important information.  A review of 250 NASA ASRS …. business jet flight crews found that fully 2/3 involved communication errors as a root cause and of those a quarter involved read-back errors and an equal number involved expectation errors … High noise levels can impair concentration and cause fatigue and insomnia. “

We know how important read-back is …. very much like summarizing a discussion.  Can the noisy cockpit environment be compared to the noisy work environment?  Do phone ringing, other people talking, emails dinging and music playing equate to a noisy work environment?  Does your preoccupation add to the ‘noise’?

We know that the brain cannot multi-task …. your mind can focus on only one attention-needing activity at a time.  We can walk and talk …. only if we don’t have to watch our step.  If so, then our minds will focus on the rough terrain and not be able to maintain a sane train of thought.  If your mind is sifting through the background noise, it is not able to concentrate on the words that are being directed towards you.

How about the expectation errors?  How many times have you begun listening to someone and were sure you knew what they were going to say, so you complete their sentence?  Or you expect something to happen so you disregard the signs contradicting your expectation?

It’s not what they said, it’s what you think you heard.