COMMUNICATION

Quality communication depends more on the quality of the receivers than on the quality of the sender.

Most communication is spontaneous. The advantage of spontaneous communication is that it can be adjusted in real time to real time considerations. The disadvantage of spontaneous communication is that it cannot be prepared in advance.

Even when a communication is prepared in advance, most effort is spent on improving the quality of the message that is sent. This may be time well spent if the content and methodology of the message improve as a result of the preparation. Improvement of the content of the message may involve focusing the message so that it contains precisely what is intended. Improvement of the methodology of the communication may involve adjusting the complexity of the language up or down to better match the skills and temperaments of the receivers.

In general, very little consideration is given to the quality of the receivers. We all receive many communications every day, and we all are very selective concerning the ones we attend to and the ones we tune out. No matter how high quality a message may be when it leaves the sender, it will be ineffective if the intended receivers tune it out. In my opinion, most communications that fail do so, not because of the quality of what is sent, but because of the quality of what is received.

What can we do to improve the quality of what is received? There are three broad strategies, and each of our communications can be improved by using one, two or all three of them:

1. We can choose to communicate with receivers who have a higher probability of tuning in.
2. We can modify what we send so that it is of greater interest to the receivers.
3. We can modify the receivers’ motivation to tune in.

The first strategy is most effective when there are key people who are motivated to receive the communication from the sender and who are motivated and capable of passing on the communication to others who need to receive it. These key people may be managers whose positions lie between the sender and other receivers. Alternatively, they may be key employees who are at the same level within the organizational hierarchy as other receivers but who are listened to due to their seniority or personality.

The second strategy can be accomplished in two ways. First, we can add extraneous but interesting aspects to what we say to get the receivers’ attention prior to sending the message. Telling a good joke at the beginning of the message is one way to do this. Second, we can modify how we send the message so that the content is inherently more interesting or easier to assimilate. Using visual aids to complement the presentation is an example of this approach.

The third strategy is the most difficult to implement but has the greatest potential for short- and long-term impact on the receivers. The content of a message is rarely the most important issue to communicate. The rationale for the content is almost always more important. For example, explaining what needs to be done to implement a new system may be the content of a communication. This type of communication involves the need to do extra work and is rarely welcomed by the receivers. Worse still, the information may be technical and boring. Sending the content of this communication without first explaining the rationale of this communication is almost guaranteed to be met with a high degree of “tune out” by the receivers and an even higher degree of passive-aggressive delays and excuses during the implementation period. Explaining why the new system is needed and highlighting the extra resources that management has allocated to ease the transition is much more likely to get the receivers’ attention so that the content can be communicated effectively.

Preparing an important communication always should focus on getting the attention of the receivers first and improving the content and methodology of the communication second.

CREATIVITY

The Almighty created the universe out of nothing. He then created man in His own image and instructed man to emulate his Creator.I cannot create something from nothing, but I can make something better. When I make something better, I become a creator and emulate my Creator.

Creativity is almost always defined in a manner that is too narrow. Surely great artists are capable of creating art that is unique and exceptionally pleasing to the senses. When an artist creates a painting, a symphony, or another magnificent work, he is expressing his creativity in a way that is out of reach for the vast majority of us.

This type of exceptional creativity is only one form of creativity. Any time I improve something no matter how slightly, I have created something: an improvement. The Almighty put us here to make these improvements. In the Almighty’s grand plan, no improvement in the creation, no matter how grand it appears to us, is more than a very small step in the right direction. Conversely, no matter how small an improvement we make in the creation, each step takes us closer to fulfillment of the Almighty’s grand plan.

The Almighty gave each of us, in our own way, the ability to improve the creation one small step at a time. The number of small steps that have been taken in the past and that will be taken in the future to fulfill the Almighty’s grand plan are beyond my understanding. Nevertheless, each small step I take makes me more like the Almighty, and brings me closer to Him.

EQUALITY

Equality is not about possessions, achievements or potential. It is about personal value, and each human being is priceless.

“All men are created equal,” is a patently false statement. All men are not born into families that pass on possessions of equal value. All men do not achieve equal achievements. All men do not even have equal potential. When you think about it, there are innumerable ways in which men are not born equal. Nevertheless, the truth contained in the statement, “All men are created equal,” is of enormous consequence.

Equality in its quintessential meaning is not about the possessions I inherited. Nor is it about the possessions that I accumulated. It is not about who my ancestors were. Nor is it about what I achieved. It is not even about my potential for achievement.

Equality in its quintessential meaning is about personal value. Juries and judges may be asked to assign a monetary value to a lost or damaged life in personal injury trials, but this is about lost earnings or pain and suffering, not about personal value. A person has no monetary value not because she is worthless but because she is priceless.

We may refer to extremely valuable objects as priceless, but in reality a well-publicized auction can establish a value for any object. In reality, only human beings are priceless. Is one priceless human being more valuable than another priceless human being? No. All human beings are created equal.

MUD

I don’t like getting down into the mud. I like pulling others out of it.

A “friend” of mine once commented to me that I seemed to enjoy getting down into the mud. Obviously, he did not mean this as a compliment. More obviously, he was not much of a friend. Nevertheless, I am indebted to him for motivating me to understand one of the ways I seem to be different than many other people.

In a way, what he said is true. At each stage of my life, I seem to have spent more time getting my hands dirty figuratively and literally than other people who were in professional and management positions similar to the various positions I have held. In fact, I seem to have enjoyed and even sought at least some of these messy experiences.

His comment resonated with a similar comment made to me by my religious mentor. While discussing strategy regarding a very confrontational community issue in which I was a lead protagonist, he counseled me to be more circumspect. “You don’t need to look for ways to get slapped in the face,” he noted with real concern. I thought about that comment for a long time. It too had the ring of truth. I seemed to attract personal attacks more than others, and he seemed to be justifiably concerned for my personal welfare even as we strategized ways to attain a goal very important to our religious community.

No, I do not enjoy getting into the mud. I do enjoy pulling others out of the mud. No, I do not like being slapped in the face. I am willing to take a slap in the face now to avoid a much bigger and more dangerous attack later on. I am even willing to seek a slap in the face now to prevent a more vulnerable person from being slapped in the face now or in the future.

BUT

I wish the word “but” had never been invented. At times it is useful. Too often, however, it undermines the message that preceded it.

The word “but” limits the statement that it follows. If I praise someone, for example, and follow the praise with a “but,” I have limited the praise. Praise should never be limited. If I provide negative feedback to someone and follow the negative feedback with a “but,” I have limited the negative feedback. At first glance, this seems reasonable. No one likes to provide negative feedback, and certainly no one likes to receive it. Limiting negative feedback sounds like a good thing. It isn’t.

The only justifiable reason to provide someone with negative feedback is to get him to recognize that he can perform better. Limiting the negative feedback undermines the message. When I provide negative feedback, I want the person on the receiving end to know clearly and unequivocally what he did that was less than optimal. Limiting the negative feedback with a “but” complicates the message and frequently is taken (or mistaken) to mean that the behavior was not so negative or not completely negative.

Instead of muddying the message with a “but,” add to the message with an “and.” “What you did was less than optimal. This is what I want you to do in the future. AND I still recognize how well you do other aspects of your job.” Specifying something positive is always helpful here. “And” adds to the message. It does not modify it, undermine it or muddy it. No “buts” about it.

HUMILITY

The Almighty did not intend humility to be an excuse.

Humility is another one of those seemingly desirable traits that has the potential for great damage. To the extent that humility motivates me to balance my concern with myself with my concern for others, it is a very positive trait. To the extent that it makes me feel inadequate to strive for greatness, it is very negative.

Many religions seem to encourage their adherents to self-flagellate emotionally if not behaviorally. Self-flagellation may be a great way to draw attention to myself as being among the most humble of the Almighty’s servants. It may also be a great way for a sexual deviant to feed his deviant fantasies. It is unlikely to indicate true humility. Worse, it is unlikely to motivate a person to do good. If I am so involved in beating myself down, how will I have the energy and motivation to raise others up?

PAST

The past is important only to the extent that we let it guide us in the present.

So many people are stuck in the past. They obsess about all their past mistakes, and hash over all the things they could have done. “If only …” seems to be a magical phrase that berates and consoles them simultaneously.

“If only” does not mean anything in the real world. Nor should it mean anything. The past is gone and good riddance. “What can I accomplish in the future?” is a question worth mulling over. “If only” is a very poor substitute for future goals. A person who spends more than a little time on “if only” does so because he has given up on his future.

Everyone has a future. Life is precious even if it will last only a few moments. A man on his deathbed has the ability to change the entire significance of his life by reconciling with the people he loves, forgiving the Almighty for life’s hardships, and accepting himself as a human being with human frailties. How much more can we each accomplish while we are still able to live life with both feet on the ground?

World history is important because it teaches society how to avoid major societal problems that have marred the past. Personal history is similarly important. We can learn from it, but this is only significant if it modifies how we choose to live now and plan to live in the future.

I try to never look back except to take a quick peek to make sure that I am on the right path into the future.

RELIGION

A white shirt is not an indication of clean hands.
Religion is not about looking good. It is about being good.
Religion does not make bad people good. It makes good people better.

Jacob was the final of the three patriarchs of the Children of Israel. Traditionally, he is considered the paradigm of ethical behavior. His name in ancient Hebrew, however, means trickster. Jacob’s protagonist through much of his adult life was Laban. Traditionally, Laban is considered the paradigm of deceitful behavior. His name in ancient Hebrew, however, means white which is normally associated with purity. Is this merely a biblical oddity? I do not think so. Appearances and reality frequently do not coincide. What appears to be pure may not be and vice versa.

Most people judge others based upon brief, superficial observations. Frequently, people do not take the time to adjust their proverbial first impressions. People like Laban take advantage of this by dressing and acting in a way that communicates, at least superficially, their goodness. Laban, no doubt, dressed in the ancient local equivalent of a beautiful Italian suit with a crisp white shirt and a beautiful silk tie. People who knew him superficially saw him as a successful and honest businessman. All of his statements as quoted in Genesis supported the purity of his intentions and actions. Below the surface, he was a man very different than he appeared to be.

Jacob, in contrast, always seemed to be involved in conflict with others. People who knew him only superficially saw a man who could not stay out of trouble. He fought with his older brother, Esau, his father-in-law, Laban, with the people of Shechem, with the world. He seemed to be a troublemaker. People who knew Jacob, who took the time to look beyond the superficial and below the surface, knew him to be a peace-loving man who was dedicated to the highest level of integrity.

Religion throughout the ages has stressed conformity to standards of behavior. Conformity to standards of behavior frequently leads to adoption of the values upon which these standards are based. This assumption is supported by the empirically supported psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance.” This theory, in part, postulates that external behavior has a significant influence on internal beliefs. Sometimes people do what they believe is right. More frequently, people believe that what they do is right. By motivating people to conform to behavioral standards, religion attempts to have a positive influence on beliefs, which in turn should lead to more positive behavior.

We must not confuse, however, the behaviors that we observe with the totality of a person’s behaviors. Some people act publicly in a manner that conforms to religious standards because they want others to see them as good people. Public religious behavior is not always a good indication of private behavior.

This is not an indictment of religion. It is recognition of human frailties. Nor does this observation support the lack of need for religion. Secular humanism can be abused at least as much as any other religion by evil people who want to appear to be good as they exploit others. The ultimate example of this was the vast amount of exploitation, particularly of women, that accompanied the free love movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

This is an indictment of making decisions based on superficial observations. It is also an indictment of evil people who use looking good as a tool to cover up doing bad.