One of the many insights that will help you to use your influence to change your world is blending. Today we’ll go more into how to blend with need-style.
The Key is Behavior, Not Personality
In a previous post about recognizing communication needs here, I promised to share a model for quickly hearing what a person needs in their interactions with you. It is not based on personality types. It is based on behavior, and because behavior changes, you are required to keep paying attention in order to notice those changes.
There are four styles in particular that reflect four communication needs. You can blend with these styles in order to speak to these four needs.
To recognize a person’s need-style, you’ve got to notice what they talk about and how directly they talk about it.
Task focus. Sometimes, people talk more about what they’re doing. That means they are focused on a task, whether the task is discussing an idea, making a decision, resolving a dispute or achieving an objective. We’ll call that a “task focus”.
People focus. Sometimes, people talk more about the people around them, or their feelings in a given situation. We’ll call that a “people focus”.
A person focused more on a task than on people may pay more attention to the end result of the task than the details they encounter along the way. Or, they may pay more attention to the details of the task than to the end result. You can notice this in the way they talk. A person focused more on people than on a task may express more interest in the opinions and feelings of others, or in their own opinions and feelings.
4 Communication Needs
1) Need for Action: When a person is focused on the end result of an interaction or an idea, he has a communication need for action. She needs you to speak directly and actively. She needs to hear movement in a direction in the way you talk.
2.) Need for Accuracy: When a person is focused on the details of an interaction or an idea, she has a communication need for accuracy. She needs to hear that you are paying attention to the details in the way you talk.
3.) Need for Approval: when a person is focused more on what others think and say than on her own thoughts and feelings, she has a need for approval. She needs to hear that you also have a concern for the thoughts and feelings of others in the way you talk.
4.) Need for Appreciation. When a person is focused more on her own thoughts and feelings than the thoughts and feelings of others, she has a need for appreciation. She needs to hear that you appreciate her in the way you talk.
These needs, action, accuracy, approval and appreciation, get communicated through the style or structure by which a person speaks. And there are indicators (when you notice them) that allow you to speak to the need.
On Monday, we will talk about how you can speak to the need.
Be well,
Dr. Rick
Related posts:
1. Mastering the Art of Persuasion: Recognizing Communication Needs
2. The Art of Persuasion: Improving Your Communications with Useful Assumptions
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Speak to the need — well put! What a beutiful way to add precision (and accuracy) to empathic listening. It’s one thing to feel heard, it’s another to feel your communication needs have been met.
At work, to be effective, we get trained in people’s preference patterns:
1) “red” – extrovert / task (action)
2) “yellow” – extrovert / people
3) “blue” – introvert / task (data)
4) “green” – introvert / people
Based on what I know about people patterns, the map would then be:
1) Need for Action (red)
2) Need for Accuracy (blue)
3) Need for approval (yellow? not sure)
4) Need for appreciation (green)
What’s interesting too is how there’s NLP meta-programs that map to 3 and 4.
- External or Internal Frame of Reference
- Sorting By Self or Sorting by Others
To summarize my approach at work, I use “rapport before influence”, empathic listening, and enough sensory acuity to adjust based on whether I’m tending towards or away from my communication goal (if I’m not just shooing the breeze
… oh, and I try to use more solution-focused questions to lead over just tell.
Thanks for the comment.
With your indulgence, I have a few responses to what you’ve written here. First, and this includes a bit of catharsis every time I say it, I HATE PERSONALITY PROFILING! I just do. I’ve been working in the corporate environs for many many years (that means more than just a mere ‘many’) and the poor peons there suffer the insults, slings and arrows of outrageousness in all kinds of training for pigeonholing and boxing each other in and out. So to be clear and precise, my approach is behavior based rather than personality based, in that it is based on the useful assumption that a person’s needs (and thus, style of communicating) change depending on the context (time of day, location, who they are interacting with, what they want or don’t want, etc.) Sometimes more extroverted, sometimes more introverted. Sometimes more direct, sometimes more indirect. I’m not sure what I can do with the color coding (wouldn’t want to see red when I’m listening, or feel blue for that matter), perhaps because as a frequent flyer I hear way too much about the security color code, and it does nothing to invoke a sense of security!
I like your add about NLP metaframes, internal/external or self/other referential index, and we could certainly add to that add a whole host of other frames here. How about time frame? For example, do you hear a past/present/future orientation. Or are their needs implicit or explicit. Or…well, at any rate, what I like about listening for Need-Style is the elegance of it. Anyone can do it, and it’s darned simple and effective when you notice the cue and respond to it.
Lastly, the solution focused questions represent, to me at least, a different point in the timeline of interaction. First, I want to listen to understand, not to influence what I hear but to hear what is already available. Once you have such information, then the leading with solution focused questions becomes a useful approach.
BTW, some workplace you’re in! You get lots of training, not sure if it’s on your own initiative or company organized. Want more? I have an upcoming teleseminar series you might enjoy. And feel free to mention my name to your company, because I’m available!
be well
Rick
I hate personality profiling too. I do like lenses for understanding behavior.
I do see some people fall into a couple of traps when they use lenses:
1. Thinking that people are their behavior (red, yellow, blue, green are just behaviors being demonstrated)
2. Becoming blind to behavior
The anti-pattern is exactly what you point out — to pigeon hole people or box them in or out.
I think the most effective use of the lenses is understanding how they might explain what’s not immediately obvious to us, or to help us make sense of what conflicts with our expectations, and perhaps see things in a new light (New vantage points, new perspectives.) From a practical standpoing, knowing how to effectively deal with a behavior makes a big difference. For example, whether I knew that my one director was acting “blue” or had a “need for accuracy,” I got way more effective results when I stopped my one-liner mails with him and gave him info ad-nauseum. Interestingly, with my manager I need to do the one-liner mails and then follow up live. (Whereas the other director prefers written communication.) ONe of the best things I did was figure out the “driver’s guide” for more effective communication within my working groups.
I am a fan of situational and contextual analysis — including life cycles. For example, in situational leadership, I think it’s important to know whether somebody needs more coaching or more motivation. Coaching somebody to do something they don’t want to do, isn’t very effective.
I agree on first listening to understand (as well as listening until the other person *feels* understood.) There’s always a 3rd alternative (the sum of solutions.) The key in solution-focused questions isn’t to actually lead someobody down your path — it’s to help them get unstuck (in fact, I use it on myself daily.) It goes like this — “If you could solve that, what might it be like?” … or “If you were more resourceful, what other solutions might you think of?” … basically, it’s language to help uncork possibilities (since somewhere along the way it’s easy to fall into the mode of rationalizing why we can’t do this or how we don’t know how to do that.) My favorite solution focused question is — “How can we move forward?”
I agree — I like Needs-Style too. Simple and effective always wins in terms of adoption/usage. I’m not sure how to articulate this particular point, but I value the distinction between the “producer” and the “consumer.” For example, I think somebody like your or I can appreciate the myriad of lenses and make sense of the vast array of people pattern principles and patterns, as “producers,”but for “consumers” we just need quick, useful points that stick. That’s why I think your lens of human understanding is effective. I can whiteboard it for my mentees and they get it. For the ones that want the details, I elaborate and map it to the jungian or the color wheels or whatever else they are interested in. At the end of the day, I tell them to measure by results and effectiveness for their context/situation.
One thing that has surprised me though, is that having a richer lens for analyzing strengths (http://thebookshare.blogspot.com/2008/02/finding-your-key-strengths.html) helps me better understand why teams have conflict. The strengths actually are a lens for values. For example, you can imagine what happens when you pair an intellection with somebody how has the achiever strength. Combining this strengths lens with the lens of human understanding along with the NLP meta-programs is powerful stuff. I don’t take my mentees through all of it at once, but I do use it to help them understand themselves (know thyself) … but as alwys … test assumptions and verify results.
Our group has had some amazing training, but we’re also in extreme scenarios. For example, each project I need to pitch a business case, asemble a new team, build a new network, get stakeholders on board and set out an an expedition to hopefully change the world (well, at least for software.) It’s high stress, high caliber, and people are the key ingredient (although it’s extreme knowledge work.) It’s a ton of influence w/out authority and cross-group collaboration and a lot of crucial conversations. I’ll definitely mention your name to one of the guys that used to lead our training efforts. Unfortunately, my group doesn’t seem as focused on training for the past couple years, but I’m trying to change that. I think in today’s world your either trained or you’re untrained, and to be untrained is a disadvantage.
BTW — how and where did you learn what you know? I don’t think these insights come easy. Maybe the better question is, how do you continue to grow and learn? (i.e. what are your key sources of insight?)
You’re so right, to be untrained is a disadvantage! What with the pace of change, too many people are prepared for a world that no longer exists and too few for the world in which we live. That dynamic has GOT to change, but it takes a bit of wisdom to recognize the need for change and act on it. GOOD ON YOU!!
How and where did I learn? Bucky Fuller once speculated that we are all born geniuses, and then society de-geniuses us. I’ve been deprogramming the degeniusing for years, and I think I’m making some headway at last!
I think that I can trace everything I’ve learned about communication, persuasion and conflict resolution back to my third year, 1st clinical year, in med school. My interest in natural medicine put me on the leading edge of a paradigm shift about how people function. My medical mentor alerted me to the body/mind connection back in the 70s, gave me books to read, tapes to listen to, and seminars to attend. I gobbled up everything he threw my way, and applied it as fast as I learned it to make the learning stick.
I got trained by Bandler and Grinder themselves along with a number of other luminaries in the fields of my interests (Robert Dilts, Leslie Cameron Bandler,David Gordon, Frank Farrely, etc.)
I did a bunch of personal growth stuff, and then was invited onto the training staff of the Sage Experience, so had the opportunity to facilitate lots of people through their emotional baggage and unresolved issues. Read everything I could on human potential during those years.
Had countless other opportunities to experiment and learn as a result of being in practice and of conducting training at a time when there wasn’t much training to be found.
Got trained by Tom Peters to do his training, which educated me on what business can be.
And I had a 26 year successful business partnership with a close friend, learned a lot about friendship, business and about myself from that experience.
What else? Hmmm. I was a single dad, raising my daughter on my own for several years before remarrying, learned a lot from that experience!!!
And of course I’ve kept reading, listening, training and working with people, in groups and individual clients.
And I’ve had the good fortune to keep meeting and finding interesting people like yourself who have much to share and the desire to do so.
Add to that the research necessary to write in my genre, conducting over a thousand interviews, trying to find novel useful patterns, and the whole pattern adds up to my current state of affairs where as far as I know, I happily know next to nothing, but have developed lots of models that I find useful in getting worthwhile results.
Thanks for asking, I saw my whole adult life flash before my eyes in writing a response. BTW, and FYI, I don’t think I can keep up with the lightning pace of your mind, so here’s a headsup that I’ll likely keep my responses to you a little less verbose than they’ve been up to this point. Or not. We’ll see. But I appreciate your contributions to my blog and trust that others do as well!!!
Hello Dr. K
Im a project manager here in Brazil and my main focus is to bring the best communication on my projects, because we know that this is the most common problem.
I just read your book that you and the other Dr. Rick wrote. I really like your purpose and I can identify most of that stereotypes in my company. I will try to put in action some of your lessions, let’s see what I can get
Found your blog and I was very impressed with the content.
Sorry to comment this without any relation with the post. Just want to congratulate your work and also your idea of writing a blog to give us some of your valuable lessions
Thanks!
Flavio, thank you so much for your positive feedback! I hope you keep reading the blog, and commenting whenever you feel so moved.
You may be interested to know that I’ll soon be offering a five month bi-monthly teleseminar series, called the ‘Communication Tune Up,’ that will include my most recent work on the Insider’s Guide To The Art of Persuasion along with my difficult people material. If you are interested in learning more about the series, I’ll be sending details to my ENEWS subscribers. You can subscribe to the ENEWS through my main website, TheArtofChange.com.
Again, thank you for your comment!
Be well,
Rick
Rick
Your rationale in your response to J.D. really resonated with me….
following your approach, the connection is most likely to happen, and, in so doing, tends to bring out the better side of both the speaker and the listener.
That “process” tends to make the “sweet spot” of mutual benefit emerge… often a better one than the listener could have “influenced” happening…..
Your message was timely for me. Thank you
Thanks, Kare, for your comment! I love that, the ‘sweet spot of mutual benefit.’ Yes, you get it,hearing what’s there …
In fact, for me personally, it’s the absence of making it happen at this point in the communication process that makes it such a pleasure. And being the lazy soul I inherently am, it fulfills my desire to accomplish more with less effort. The things I learn almost always exceed what I might have believed had I spoken too soon.
Keep coming back your comments are always welcome!
be well,
Rick
{ 2 trackbacks }